Larson B Ice Shelf In Antarctica To Disintegrate Within 5 Years

BarbaraHudson writes: A new study (abstract) from NASA scientists predicts an Antarctic ice shelf half the size of Rhode Island will disintegrate around 2020. The shelf has existed for roughly 10,000 years. "Ice shelves are the gatekeepers for glaciers flowing from Antarctica toward the ocean. Without them, glacial ice enters the ocean faster and accelerates the pace of global sea level rise." At its thickest point, the ice shelf remnant is a half kilometer tall, and spans approximately 1,600 square kilometers. "The glaciers' thicknesses and flow speeds changed only slightly in the first couple of years following the 2002 collapse, leading researchers to assume they remained stable. The new study revealed, however, that Leppard and Flask glaciers have thinned by 65-72 feet (20-22 meters) and accelerated considerably in the intervening years. The fastest-moving part of Flask Glacier had accelerated 36 percent by 2012 to a flow speed of 2,300 feet (700 meters) a year."

Comments

Half the size of Rhode Island?

[Anonymous Coward]

Ironically, Rhode Island will need this mass, because half the state will be under water.

Re:Half the size of Rhode Island?

[Spy Handler]

Rhode Island is supposed to be an island. The rising sea levels are only helping it to achieve its natural state!

Re:Half the size of Rhode Island?

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

That joke is so old it dates back to when Harry Shearer was the voice of Monty Burns.

Re:Half the size of Rhode Island?

[tsqr]

Rhode Island is supposed to be an island. The rising sea levels are only helping it to achieve its natural state!

Probably not enough rise to make that happen.

Although it is believed that the melting of floating ice shelves will not raise sea levels, technically, there is a small effect because sea water is ~2.6% more dense than fresh water combined with the fact that ice shelves are overwhelmingly "fresh" (having virtually no salinity); this causes the volume of the sea water needed to displace a floating ice shelf to be slightly less than the volume of the fresh water contained in the floating ice. Therefore, when a mass of floating ice melts, sea levels will increase; however, this effect is small enough that if all extant sea ice and floating ice shelves were to melt, the corresponding sea level rise is estimated to be ~4 cm.

However, if and when these ice shelves melt sufficiently, they no longer impede glacier flow off the continent, so that glacier flow would accelerate. This new source of ice volume would flow down from above sea level, thus resulting in its total mass contributing to sea rise.

Re:Half the size of Rhode Island?

[Anonymous Coward]

sorry the Ross Ice Shelf will have zero (0) impact on sea level as it is floating ice.

Re:Half the size of Rhode Island?

[Citizen of Earth]

I calculate that half of Rhode Island is equal to 4162 Libraries of Congress, by floor space.

Re:Fight!

[Anonymous Coward]

Quick, we need everyone to pile on for why this proves catastrophe is imminent and favored policy changes must be passed. Then the other half can pile in and explain why this means nothing and the next ice age is still coming...

Actually that's only two thirds of the choir, the remaining third are the right wing free market fundamentalists who think climate change is a hoax and even if it isn't it just represents a fresh influx of profitable business opportunities.

Melting is normal

[Anonymous Coward]

The last 12,000 years has been an interglacial period. Melting is normal. It is better than freezing.

Re:Melting is normal

[kenaaker]

Except, of course that we're well past the average mid-point of an interglacial period and the climate should be headed for another period of glaciation. And given the current climate trends, the next period of glaciation seems to be moving into the future.

Re:Melting is normal

[Anonymous Coward]

And given the current climate trends, the next period of glaciation seems to be moving into the future.

That's a good thing, right?

Re:Melting is normal

[kenaaker]

"Should" means "if this interglacial period were repeating the cycle of previous interglacial periods, the world should be cooling down".

I would classify avoiding having glacial ice sheets covering large tracts of the northern hemisphere as a good thing, yes. As in almost everything, moderation is best.

Re:Melting is normal

[Anonymous Coward]

That depends. Not freezing is good. Drowning and desertification, not so much. The trick is to hit the happy medium that is all human civilization has ever known.

Re:Melting is normal

[cbiltcliffe]

Interglacial temperatures don't follow a standard deviation normal curve type graph. They spike up very quickly after the ice age ends, drop back down, and generally fluctuate a significant amount without any human input at all. At the beginning of the current interglacial, the global temperature spiked up by at least 4 degrees in just a few hundred years. That's a massively faster increase than the current warming trend that everybody seems to be so worried about. It's also cooler now than it was during that spike, but the alarmists never seem to publicize that fact.

Re:Melting is normal

[MrL0G1C]

And what about the acidification of the ocean, should we just continue releasing CO2 and kill all ocean life?

Re:Melting is normal

[tbannist]

Interglacial temperatures don't follow a standard deviation normal curve type graph.

Correct.

They spike up very quickly after the ice age ends, drop back down, and generally fluctuate a significant amount without any human input at all.

Not according to any the historical temperature graphs that I've seen. The temperature rises rapidly at the end of the ice age and then levels off an eventually begins to fall again.

At the beginning of the current interglacial, the global temperature spiked up by at least 4 degrees in just a few hundred years.

Seems plausible. It's often noted that the difference between a mile of ice in Northern United states and today is about 4 degrees.

That's a massively faster increase than the current warming trend that everybody seems to be so worried about.

Only if by "massively faster" you actually mean "about the same". The worst case scenario is about 3.5 degrees by the year 2100. The expected rise is between 2 and 6 degrees by 2400. So human warming is maybe a little more, maybe a little less than the end of the last glacial period.

It's also cooler now than it was during that spike, but the alarmists never seem to publicize that fact.

There was a paper published by Easterbrook, I think, that made that claim, but he goofed on the "present" date. He thought the last temperature in his data series went up to 2010, when it was actually 1855 (the last entry was 95 years before the "geological" present which is 1950). So while the end of the last glacial period was warmer than 1855, when you adjust for his misunderstanding of current temperatures (ie, you don't use 1855 as your benchmark for 21st century temperatures), you find that the end of the glacial period is actually somewhat lower than present day temperatures.

Re:Melting is normal

[cbiltcliffe]

They spike up very quickly after the ice age ends, drop back down, and generally fluctuate a significant amount without any human input at all.

Not according to any the historical temperature graphs that I've seen. The temperature rises rapidly at the end of the ice age and then levels off an eventually begins to fall again.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene#/media/File:Holocene_Temperature_Variations.png
The graph in the page you linked to shows temperature doing exactly what I claimed it does.

Re:Melting is normal

[a_n_d_e_r_s]

"They spike up very quickly after the ice age ends, drop back down, and generally fluctuate a significant amount without any human input at all.

Not according to any the historical temperature graphs [wikipedia.org] that I've seen. The temperature rises rapidly at the end of the ice age and then levels off an eventually begins to fall again.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H... [wikipedia.org]
The graph in the page you linked to shows temperature doing exactly what I claimed it does."

Acually it does not. The spikes you talk about are changes of about 0.3 degrees Celsius during hundred of years. Check the diagram more closely and you will also see that. The last "downspike" is what's called the little ice age and is still just about a dip which is about half a degree during a couple of hundred of years.

Never before in history has the temperature changed with more then 1 degree over 100 years. Even the during the sharp raise in the beginning in the diagram was that the case.

Natural variation in temperature are very slow and does not change as fast as today. The variations in temperature we see today are unprecedented for the last 10 000 years. Thats why scientist are saying its AGW. We, humankind has caused it.

Re:Melting is normal

[BCGlorfindel]

"They spike up very quickly after the ice age ends, drop back down, and generally fluctuate a significant amount without any human input at all.

Not according to any the historical temperature graphs [wikipedia.org] that I've seen. The temperature rises rapidly at the end of the ice age and then levels off an eventually begins to fall again.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H... [wikipedia.org]
The graph in the page you linked to shows temperature doing exactly what I claimed it does."

Acually it does not. The spikes you talk about are changes of about 0.3 degrees Celsius during hundred of years. Check the diagram more closely and you will also see that. The last "downspike" is what's called the little ice age and is still just about a dip which is about half a degree during a couple of hundred of years.

Never before in history has the temperature changed with more then 1 degree over 100 years. Even the during the sharp raise in the beginning in the diagram was that the case.

Natural variation in temperature are very slow and does not change as fast as today. The variations in temperature we see today are unprecedented for the last 10 000 years. Thats why scientist are saying its AGW. We, humankind has caused it.

You'd think so wouldn't you. Do yourself a favor and go on google scholar and lookup the proxy reconstructions of temperature of the last 10k or even 2k years. The big names you'll want to check for papers by are Mann et al, Moberg et al and Esper et al. Look at the reconstructed temperatures and try to find anyone that has reconstructed temperatures after the year 1900. I can't find a single one yet that includes those years from out of their proxy data, and I've been looking for awhile. I even dug enough to find Mann had included some of his raw proxy data, and the proxy data does extend past 1900. Interesting thing is the raw proxy data looks like pseudo random noise, most importantly that there is nothing distinctive happening in the raw data after the year 1900.

You know what does get graphed though? The proxy reconstructions up till the year 1900 are graphed, and then the instrumental record is graphed from the year 1900 onwards. As you have observed, it makes for a very, very scary and compelling looking graph. Starting after the year 1900 the trend radically changes, so much you would almost wonder if there was a methodology change starting at that point on the graph... Then you realize it's not just human emissions that started roughly then, but the methodology cut over. And Mann has been selling that straight faced to people for over a decade now.

Don't take my word for any of this though. As I urged from the start, go to google scholar and read the actual work from Mann and his peers doing the reconstructions and check it out for yourself. If you find proxy reconstructed results past the year 1900 please point me to them as I'm still looking myself,

Re:Melting is normal

[tbannist]

You know what does get graphed though? The proxy reconstructions up till the year 1900 are graphed, and then the instrumental record is graphed from the year 1900 onwards. As you have observed, it makes for a very, very scary and compelling looking graph. Starting after the year 1900 the trend radically changes, so much you would almost wonder if there was a methodology change starting at that point on the graph... Then you realize it's not just human emissions that started roughly then, but the methodology cut over. And Mann has been selling that straight faced to people for over a decade now.

We don't need to use proxies to estimate the termperatures when we have actual temperature records. It seems like you're trying to make something sinister out of using the best available data.

In addition to the availability of actual direct measurements since the 1900s, which greatly reduces the value of more recent proxy values, there are also some problems with getting recent data from some of the proxies. For instance, there is the divergence problem in dendroclimatology which seems to show that pollution (or other factors) may be inhibiting tree growth since the industrial revolution. I imagine there's probably some difficulty with ice cores as well, since it may be difficult to get recent temperature measurements from glaciers that are shrinking.

Of course, there are actually people studying these problems and even the quality of the calibration period which is used to match instrumental records to proxy values, you might want to try searching with the "proxy calibration" keyword, or reading up on the divergence problem in dendroclimatology.

Re:Melting is normal

[BCGlorfindel]

We don't need to use proxies to estimate the termperatures when we have actual temperature records. It seems like you're trying to make something sinister out of using the best available data.

You kind of do need to if you want to make claims like the one made by the GP that I was responding to. Specifically saying:Never before in history has the temperature changed with more then 1 degree over 100 years.
According to the proxy data that shows that historic stability, the temperature hasn't changed by that much since 1900 either. That is a very important observation to make as it shows the claim is lacking in substance.

In addition to the availability of actual direct measurements since the 1900s, which greatly reduces the value of more recent proxy values, there are also some problems with getting recent data from some of the proxies. For instance, there is the divergence problem in dendroclimatology which seems to show that pollution (or other factors) may be inhibiting tree growth since the industrial revolution. I imagine there's probably some difficulty with ice cores as well, since it may be difficult to get recent temperature measurements from glaciers that are shrinking.

Yes, Mann's paper from 2007 notes the same problem you mention. The calibration phase has a consistent problem with early calibration late verification. If you calibrate to the instrumental record from 1900-1950 and then verify the resulting proxy data from 1950 onwards you get observed evidence for a systematic bias in the underestimation of recent warming. Mann's words, not mine. The proxy data isn't registering the recent warming that we see in the instrumental record. I suppose that's no reason not to continue assuming that the same proxy data would have picked up similar warming in the past in your opinion. I'm less convinced. If you look closer at Mann's paper, he also observes the EIV methodology is least susceptible to the bias, and is thus the best method, again in Mann's opinion, not mine. If you check the reconstruction graphs though the EIV goes higher than the 1850-2006 average in 600AD, 1000AD and 1400AD. Mann doesn't graph the EIV from 1900 onwards, but in the calibration problem discussion he shows some portions of it, and it sits no higher than the 1000AD records for EIV from 1950 through 2000. It's all there in Mann's paper and please correct me if I'm in any way misrepresenting things. I've been trying to follow and understand this correctly for a long time now.

Of course, there are actually people studying these problems and even the quality of the calibration period which is used to match instrumental records to proxy values, you might want to try searching with the "proxy calibration" keyword, or reading up on the divergence problem in dendroclimatology.

As I noted above, I've done searches on that and come up with the observations above. The literature basically agrees that the proxy data, for reasons unknown, has a systematic bias in the underestimation of recent warming.

Forgive me for pointing that out when people make the claim that the historic record shows the last century is an anomaly. The instrumental record is anomalous compared to the proxy data. Attributing that entirely to climate change and not the fact those are entirely different data sets and methodologies is dishonest in the extreme. There's a reason the scientists writing the papers have a lot of caveats on the results regarding this, dropping those to make a blanket statement to scare folks is misrepresenting the facts.

And, in an update from 2020

[Anonymous Coward]

A new study (abstract) from NASA scientists predicts an Antarctic ice shelf half the size of Rhode Island will disintegrate around 2025.

Good, now we can drill for oil in the Antarctic

[Virtucon]

Are you reading this Shell, Exxon and Chevron?

Ignoramus!

[Anonymous Coward]

Contradict ? Reading comprehension not so much ?

One talk about land ice and the link talk about (the same) OCEAN ice study

from YOUR link "...and the continent's sea ice has set new records for the past three winters. At the same time, Antarctica's ice sheet (the glacial ice on land) is melting and retreating"

Good thing climate change isn't real!

[sirwired]

Gee, it's a good thing Anthropogenic Global Warming is just a Big Leftist Conspiracy, or imagine how bad things would be!

How much evidence is required before denialist clowns will be convinced that Global Warming is a thing, and it is almost certainly Our Fault? It's kind of amusing that the same people that will shovel 100's of $B and sacrifice thousands of lives to counter theoretical threats posed by countries all over the world somehow require absolute irrefutable "I must personally get burnt before I'll ever admit fire exists" proof when it comes to climate change?

Re:Good thing climate change isn't real!

[Anonymous Coward]

How much evidence is required before denialist clowns will be convinced that Global Warming is a thing, and it is almost certainly Our Fault?

I am sorry but your assumption is invalid: that denialists are actually looking at the evidence. Denailists are watching the clowns on Fox News and listening to clowns on Talk Radio who tell them that the snow storm they just experienced is all the proof they need that Global Warming is a hoax. They consider Scientific American to be a liberal rag and scientists to be liberal elitists and therefore; to be ignored. No, I am not making that up. I was paraphrasing my Rush and Hannity listening neighbor.

Re:Good thing climate change isn't real!

[Anonymous Coward]

As a professional stats guy, let me just say that "correlation doesn't imply causation" is important to keep in mind for any scientist. However, it's also the laziest, most transparent tool used by idiots on the internet to discard any facts or information that they find inconvenient for their cause. Correlation doesn't NECESSARILY imply causation, but when you have strong reasons to expect a causal relationship based on first principles, and when correlations back that up, that is decent evidence that your hypothesis is correct. Correlations are what underpin about 99% of our scientific understanding of the world, and when you chuck them aside as evidence so glibly, you show only that you are biased and completely ignorant of the scientific process.

Re:Good thing climate change isn't real!

[Whorhay]

Honestly it doesn't matter to me if this is being caused by use Humans or not. The real question is should we attempt to do something to slow down or stop the global warming? If the answer is yes, then we need to start working on that and a prime place to start is the factors that we can control, such as CO2 emissions. Playing the blame game at this point is a waste of time and effort.

Re:Good thing climate change isn't real!

[zapadnik]

My understanding is that we are in an Interglacial Period and we would expect things to warm naturally. At the current rate of melt (159 GT/year) Antarctica will take around a quarter of a million years to melt down (given its ice mass of approx 26400000 GT). From the historical perspective this seems to be a particualrly SLOW rate of natural melting.

Over the past few millenia we've seen the Roman Warm Period, Medieval Warm Period, and Little Ice Age. We are now recovering from the Little Ice Age which is why temperatures have been steadily increasing since the end of the 18th Century. Many AGW proponents (eg. Michael Mann) don't seem to want to know about the Little Ice Age nor that we would expect to see warming from natural climatic variability after it ended, exactly as we do see.

As far as I can tell these are all NATURAL processes. The AGW global warming skeptics are not denying that the world is warming, because it clearly has been since the Little Ice Age. All they are saying is that human CO2 emission is not the PRIMARY cause. This makes sense once one understands that CO2 has a diminishing non-linear effect on longwave radiation re-emission. The 'Greenhouse Effect' is essential for life, but most of the effect of CO2 occurs below 100 ppm and the effect starts dropping off after that. Note that below 150 ppm plants (and thus, complex life) cannot survive. As CO2 increases there is a positive effect on plant growth - and when the World was at 5000 ppm (we're around 400 ppm today) not only did life exist, it thrived.

But even if AGW were true, how would giving politicians complete power to regulate every aspect of your life, and to take all the income from your hard work and redistribute as they saw fit have any impact on the climate on a global scale? it just doesn't make sense if you think about it for more than a millisecond.

How much evidence is required before denialist clowns will be convinced that Global Warming is a thing, and it is almost certainly Our Fault?

No time at all, all you have to do is provide the scientific evidence for this. At the moment the AGW proponents have to talk about "consensus" because the actual observational data does not support the AGW hypothesis at all. In fact, the true 'deniers' are the AGW proponents, who refuse to accept that the data does not support their hypothesis and a new hypothesis must be generated - in accordance with the Scientific Method.

Big Leftist Conspiracy,

Does it not seem strange that the satellite data (which is not 'adjusted' to match the theory like the increasingly estimate surface coverage data is) does not support AGW and yet the media narrative is relentless that AGW is 'settled science'. The problem is not whether AGW is true or not (on evidence, the theory seems set to be falsified at this stage), but that the media has a narrative which refuses objective reporting of the counter-evidence. This should trouble everyone who seeks to perform honest science. There is also the problem that all the predictions are based on computer models whose prior predictions have utterly failed to match observations

For those interested in the physics from a guy who literally wrote the (advanced, graduate-level) textbook on atmospheric dynamics you may wish to see Dr Murray Salby's explanation of where the climate models are wrong (warning: you need reasonably advanced mathematics/physics to follow the lecture - so only fellow science Jedi need watch):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [67 mins]

Based on the observational evidence and the historical record, it seems the only sane position to take at this moment is skepticism of the AGW theory. No one is denying the scientific effect of atmospheric CO2, or that the Earth is warming - what is under debate is the balance between natural climatic variation and human CO2 emission (vs the massive CO2 emission from the microbial biosphere, for example) and debate about the limits of predictive accuracy of computer models of a very complex and chaotic system.

Re:Good thing climate change isn't real!

[Anonymous Coward]

THANK YOU! This is the real issue. However, I am not sure about the controlling the CO2 emissions part. First, we don't know if that will work. I think we need an overall plan B. Where are we going to plant the next generation of crops, and how are we going to adjust society to the changing tides? If cutting CO2 emissions doesn't work, we need a plan B. If it does, we still need a plan B eventually. Obviously, these are not mutually exclusive though.

Re:Good thing climate change isn't real!

[FlyHelicopters]

Honestly it doesn't matter to me if this is being caused by use Humans or not. The real question is should we attempt to do something to slow down or stop the global warming?

If it is caused by humans, it seems to me that we should do something about it.

If it isn't, I'd be really cautious before trying to engineer the planet.

It goes through cycles, it has many times. We might make the problem worse by trying to control something that we don't understand nearly as well as we might think we do.

Re:Good thing climate change isn't real!

[FlyHelicopters]

As a professional stats guy, let me just say that "correlation doesn't imply causation" is important to keep in mind for any scientist. However, it's also the laziest, most transparent tool used by idiots on the internet to discard any facts or information that they find inconvenient for their cause. Correlation doesn't NECESSARILY imply causation, but when you have strong reasons to expect a causal relationship based on first principles, and when correlations back that up, that is decent evidence that your hypothesis is correct. Correlations are what underpin about 99% of our scientific understanding of the world, and when you chuck them aside as evidence so glibly, you show only that you are biased and completely ignorant of the scientific process.

All fair points, I would say that is a reasonable reply.

My concern is that the "the world is ending" people are just as nuts as the "CO2 isn't a problem, drill baby drill" people...

It reminds me of talking to people about politics, "your guy" can do no wrong" and "their guy" is evil incarnate. People who say things like "Republicons" and "Dumbocrats" really add nothing useful to the conversation. So it is true with global warming/climate change. When it became about money and politices, a lot of truth went out the door.

Truth, and reality, are often in the middle.

Re:Good thing climate change isn't real!

[Anonymous Coward]

NPR points out things like the last ten summers have included 9 of the hottest summer-long average temperatures on record. I've yet to hear them make ridiculous claims about individual heat waves. You see, NPR knows the difference between climate and weather, unlike Faux News.

Re:Good thing climate change isn't real!

[Will_Malverson]

I will bet you 500USD right now that on May 15, 2020, this ice shelf will still exist and will have shrunk by not more than 606 square miles. (50% of the area of Rhode Island)

Re:Good thing climate change isn't real!

[BarbaraHudson]

As land ice melts, it dilutes the sea water on the surface (it's lighter, so it floats on top). So, a thinner but larger area of sea ice (which melts rather than accumulating over the years) is exactly what you would expect if the polar ice was melting - and we're seeing this at both the north and south poles.

Re:Good thing climate change isn't real!

[cbiltcliffe]

Gee, it's a good thing Anthropogenic Global Warming is just a Big Leftist Conspiracy, or imagine how bad things would be!

How much evidence is required before denialist clowns will be convinced that Global Warming is a thing, and it is almost certainly Our Fault?

See, this is why global warming is a religion, rather than science. If you don't agree with the entire GW dogmatic scripture, and you question anything at all, then you're straw manned as denying everything at all, being anti-science, etc.etc.etc.

There's the position that you hold, where "AGW IS REAL!!! WE'RE CAUSING EVERY BIT OF IT AND WE'RE ALL GOING TO DIIIIIIIIIEEE!!1!1!!"
Then there's the position you claim everyone who disagrees with you holds, where "AGW ISN'T HAPPENING! THERE IS NO WARMING! CLIMATE DOESN'T CHANGE AT ALL! YOU'RE ALL LIAAAARRRSSS!!!!11!!11"

Your statement makes it quite clear that you think no other position exists. Regardless of your black and white view, there is a whole scale of opinions in between your two extremes.
How about: "Yes, the earth is warming slightly. We're probably causing a little bit of it, but there have been continual climate fluctuations for millions of years, without any human cause, so it's entirely likely that this is at least somewhat natural, as well. As a natural process, it will reverse itself with time, just like it has every other time in the past."
Or maybe: "Yes, the earth has warmed marginally over the past 50 years. It seems to have paused at the moment, though, so maybe it's going to start cooling by itself within the next couple of decades, so maybe we're not causing it at all."
Or even: "Well, there is a bit of warming, but it's not anywhere near as quick as it was at the end of the ice age. We're probably causing most of it, but we're looking at a temperature that's still lower than it was 10,000 years ago, so we're certainly not at a point of no return yet, regardless of what the extremists are shouting."

Regardless of you being an extremist loon, that doesn't mean that everyone who questions you is an extremist loon in the opposite direction.

Re:Good thing climate change isn't real!

[Citizen of Earth]

The real question is how many millions of people should we kill with energy poverty?

Re:Good thing climate change isn't real!

[doug141]

It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it! -Upton Sinclair

There's just too many people making money on fossil fuels.

Re:Good thing climate change isn't real!

[dywolf]

Oh i dont know....

Maybe because of the shelfs extreme long stability resulting from the relative climate stability of hte past tens of thousands of years, such stability in fact that if only natural processes were at work the planet would be slightly cooling at the moment? Just an educated guess.

Fuck off troll.

Re:Good thing climate change isn't real!

[dywolf]

that's an awful long post.
too bad its all bullshit.
such a waste of time and effort.

-no one is asking to give politicians "unlimited power to regulate every aspect of your life"
-lots of people, far smarter than you, have already investigated, tested, and evaluated all the various natural process candidates.
-no one is saying we need to get below 100ppm CO2
-you ask for scientific evidence, when there are already tens of thousands of scientific reports and papers and findings already published.
-actually all of the observations DO support the theory. in fact they are the basis of it.
-actually all of the satellite data DOES support it.
-funny you mention the "adjustments". all the adjustments made actually lower the amount of apparent warming. it's not adjusted to match the theory, its adjusted to account for changes in instruments over the years, or location, or other factors. yeah, that's right. without the adjustments, the apparent amount of warming would be 20% higher.. this may be a shock to you, but a thermometer int he sun will read a higher temperature than one in the shade just a few inches away. so that way all the data is on the same baseline.
-nope, the models havent failed.

seriously, just fuck off.
your tropes are so tired and out of date, its getting boring repeatedly rebutting them every day.

you are the equivalent of a drunk in a bar questioning Einstein. Or more accurately, several thousand Einsteins.
(and seriously, who modded that bullshit insightful?)

Re:Good thing climate change isn't real!

[dywolf]

so what do your models say?
how do you explain the sharply rising CO2 levels compared to the historical rate of increase?
the increasing temperatures?

oh thats right.
you cant.
cause you dont have anything but bullshit, since all the actual science is over here.

call it religion all you want, but until you get some science and basic facts on your side, there's only one of us subscribing to a religion based on faith instead of observational and testable facts. and it aint us.

Re:Good thing climate change isn't real!

[Anonymous Coward]

My understanding is that we are in an Interglacial Period and we would expect things to warm naturally.

Hi, geologist here.

Your understanding is wrong. Or at least you misinterpret it.

We are indeed in an interglacial period, but were at the end of one before we fucked it all up. The warming period you expect happened 20-14 thousand years ago, and stabilized to what was the current climate between 10 and 6 thousand years ago. Indeed the stability of the climate over the last 10k years is widely credited with providing the right conditions for the development of agriculture and thus civilization. Those days are now done, what comes next is uncharted territory.

But the relevant laws of chemistry and physics are indisputable, known since Fourier's time in the early 1800s, and immune to PR and politics. The fine details of second order and tertiary feedback effects will only ever tweak the result, those won't and can't overcome the basic fundamental gross effect dictated by physics.

Re:Good thing climate change isn't real!

[dywolf]

because something made it melt when it otherwise would likely last another 10000 years.
that something is warmer temperatures.

Re:Good thing climate change isn't real!

[tbannist]

Truth, and reality, are often in the middle.

Not really. Most often one side or the other in an argument is actually correct. I'd say it's actually fairly unusual for both sides to be equally wrong.

Re:Good thing climate change isn't real!

[tbannist]

How about: "Yes, the earth is warming slightly. We're probably causing a little bit of it, but there have been continual climate fluctuations for millions of years, without any human cause, so it's entirely likely that this is at least somewhat natural, as well. As a natural process, it will reverse itself with time, just like it has every other time in the past."
Or maybe: "Yes, the earth has warmed marginally over the past 50 years. It seems to have paused at the moment, though, so maybe it's going to start cooling by itself within the next couple of decades, so maybe we're not causing it at all."
Or even: "Well, there is a bit of warming, but it's not anywhere near as quick as it was at the end of the ice age. We're probably causing most of it, but we're looking at a temperature that's still lower than it was 10,000 years ago, so we're certainly not at a point of no return yet, regardless of what the extremists are shouting."

All of those statements include verifiable facts, and when those facts are checked they do not support the opinions expressed. So none of them are tenable positions for rational people to hold.

Temperatures would be declining without human activity, so we are entirely responsible for the increases. The temperature 10,000 years ago was lower than today's temperatures. There's no no known mechanism for why temperatures would cool off. We know that we're adding a greenhouse gas to the atmosphere in massive quantities. Logic says if you turn up the heat, it will get warmer, not colder.

Re:Good thing climate change isn't real!

[cbiltcliffe]

You're wasting your breath. To an AGWer, "historical" starts at about 1750. Nothing before that exists. No amount of pointing out that what we're seeing now is a repeat of innumerable previous changes will do anything, because they can't see back that far.

Re:Good thing climate change isn't real!

[rtb61]

Gees, take it easy, you make it sound like they are denying man made climate change without reason or that they don't actually accept the reality of it. The main reason for global climate change denial, is so that existing corporations that generate profits with the polluting side affect of global man made climate change, can continue to generate profits doing so for as long as possible. The second reason and now becoming the major reason for the denial of man made global climate change is the offloading of underwater front properties all around the globe, trillions of dollars worth of properties, which are to be package up and dumped as retirement fund investments.

See, not clowns at all, just really sick psychopathic arse holes who should be detained in correctional services institutions rather than running corporations and governments, treason should be the logical offence as they are conspiring globally with multi-national corporations.

Re:Good thing climate change isn't real!

[Anonymous Coward]

And a shit-ton making money on government grants.

Re:Good thing climate change isn't real!

[pitchpipe]

you are the equivalent of a drunk in a bar questioning Einstein.

I think this is the single best quote I have ever heard regarding climate change "skeptics". Thanks for that.

Re:Good thing climate change isn't real!

[GiordyS]

From what I've read the adjustments add to the apparent warming. Not going to disagree with the rationale for the adjustments, just saying that you are wrong on this detail. I would love for you to prove me wrong here but everything I've seen on the issue points to the opposite, and I still find it hard to believe.

Also, the satellite data shows no significant warming for the last 18 years or so. That's just a plain fact.

You say the models haven't failed. Could we have another 15 of no significant warming and still strongly believe in global warming model predictions? 50 more years? At what point can we say that the climate models have effectively failed?

There are skeptics who are far smarter than you as well by the way. By your logic your opinion on the matter is just as worthless. You are the equivalent to a drunk in a bar defending Einstein. You probably know even less about Einstein than the guy who is questioning Him and you are just a dumb drunk too.

Re:Good thing climate change isn't real!

[GiordyS]

... the relevant laws of chemistry and physics are indisputable...

But most of the predicted warming does not come directly from CO2. It comes from climate sensitivity estimates.

Re:Good thing climate change isn't real!

[GiordyS]

The IPCC says that anthropogenic warming was responsible for at least half of the warming since 1950. How does that translate to "temperatures would be declining" if not for human activity?

Most of the predicted temperature increase is due to climate sensitivity, not CO2 directly.

Re:Good thing climate change isn't real!

[itzly]

If it isn't, I'd be really cautious before trying to engineer the planet.

Depends on what that means. If it means reducing CO2 output to the same level it was a few decades ago, the risks are minimal.

Re:Good thing climate change isn't real!

[itzly]

No amount of pointing out that what we're seeing now is a repeat of innumerable previous changes

Please explain what is causing the changes we're seeing now. Magic ?

Re:Good thing climate change isn't real!

[blindseer]

I will believe man made global warming is a crisis when the powers that be start acting like it. A few examples:

- Secretary Clinton is *proud* of how many miles she traveled in an airplane to far off nations. She couldn't make a phone call?
- POTUS and family vacation in Hawaii at least once a year, a long way to go to play in the ocean.
- Congress would not approve nuclear powered ships due to costs, built oil fired ships instead. That's not how someone would act if they actually believed that global warming is the greatest threat to our nation.

My Ford truck is the problem when these people fly their dog across the country in a 747. Right?

Re:Good thing climate change isn't real!

[dunkelfalke]

What part of "The shelf has existed for roughly 10,000 years" is so difficult to understand?

Re:Good thing climate change isn't real!

[FlyHelicopters]

Depends on what that means. If it means reducing CO2 output to the same level it was a few decades ago, the risks are minimal.

That seams like a reasonable statement... I don't know if it is true or not, I don't know if the increase in CO2 is really our doing, or if there is another cause...

---

But lets say for a second that it is our fault, that it would be best if we reduced CO2 to what it was a few decades ago.

What is the chance of that actually happening?

I've looked at the charts, the numbers, and the world. I would submit that the chance is approaching 0%. It just isn't going to happen.

This isn't an academic debate about what we "should" do, rather it is an acceptance of what we "will" do, as a species. You just aren't going to get the type of cuts that would be required to actually stop the rise of CO2. You'd start WWIII trying...

My hope is that our leaders are wise enough to understand that...

All we can do at this point is prepare for the changes that are coming and try and spread those changes out over as long a period of time as possible.

Re:Good thing climate change isn't real!

[itzly]

That seams like a reasonable statement... I don't know if it is true or not, I don't know if the increase in CO2 is really our doing, or if there is another cause...

The total amount of CO2 in the atmosphere can be calculated, and we also have data on fossil fuels we're burning. If you do the math, it shows that the CO2 produced by fossil fuel burning is about twice the increase in the atmosphere. The other half is taken up by plants and the ocean. So, yes, it is our doing.

Also, if the cause were something like increased volcanic activity, you'd see sudden spikes in the graph at times of large eruptions, instead of a gradual increase (the yearly wave is due to seasonal influence on vegetation, which is mostly in the northern hemisphere).

In addition, we see that O2 levels are decreasing in a way that's consistent with burning carbon, and the carbon isotope ratio tells us its old carbon.

Re:Good thing climate change isn't real!

[FlyHelicopters]

That all sounds quite reasonable...

I did some searching and came across this:

http://oilprice.com/The-Enviro...

And it makes a very compelling argument...

Then you read the comments below...

"Not so simple!!! C14 spiked with atmospheric atomic testing conducted since 1945 and has been declining since the atmospheric test ban. This effect is dominating any decline observed in C14.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F...

Sorry to burst your carbon bubble."

---

What is a layperson to believe? The person who wrote the linked article makes his living off global warming, so he is biased, but that doesn't mean he is wrong automatically.

Re:Good thing climate change isn't real!

[Alsee]

My first hit for "Global warming"+"times faster" yields this link: As the Earth moved out of ice ages over the past million years, the global temperature rose a total of 4 to 7 degrees Celsius over about 5,000 years. In the past century alone, the temperature has climbed 0.7 degrees Celsius, roughly ten times faster than the average rate of ice-age-recovery warming.

All the opinions you mentioned are, at best, poorly informed.

-

Re:Good thing climate change isn't real!

[Alsee]

I'll see your http://www.tempdatareview.org/ link and raise you a http://www.davidicke.com/forum... link.

-

Re:Good thing climate change isn't real!

[Ferretman]

A good way to start trying to convince people would be to stop insulting them because they disagree with you.

The term "denialist clowns" doesn't particularly make me want to take anything you say too awful serious. I might even toss back that you're an AGW cultist and then we're just calling each other names rather than listening to each other.

Just a thought.

Ferret

Re:Good thing climate change isn't real!

[Ferretman]

> Not really. Most often one side or the other in an argument is actually correct.

I find this to rarely be the case.

Ferret

Re:Good thing climate change isn't real!

[Ferretman]

As Odin is my witness I swear we'll have a burst of "Atlanta is hot; proof of global warming at last" style headlines again this summer.

Alarmists like to continually claim "weather != climate" but seem to forget that readily enough once some city sets a heat record.

Ferret

Re:Good thing climate change isn't real!

[Ferretman]

Really? I submit you're not listening very closely then.

Last summer there was a raft of "will the heat in Texas finally convince the deniers?" kinds of stories on NPR. I know because I have to ilsten to it coming down my canyon every morning (can't pick up AM in the canyon) and some mornings that was literally all they talked about.

Fox on the other hand did a great job of presening the whole story. That's probably what Alarmists don't like.

Ferret

Re:Good thing climate change isn't real!

[Ferretman]

Well said sir. Captured it perfectly.

Ferret

Re:Good thing climate change isn't real!

[Ferretman]

That's not what the pesky evidence says:

http://news.discovery.com/eart...

Now you know better.

Ferret

Re:Good thing climate change isn't real!

[Ferretman]

DING DING DING!

Got it in one.

Ferret

Re:Good thing climate change isn't real!

[Ferretman]

They'll ignore it and make up "revised models", just like they ignored their previous predictions of an ice-free Arctic (the earliest I found was for the year 2000).

You can't argue with a Doomsday Cultist, and that's in effect what AGW has become....just another Doomsday Cult. No amount of fact, no failure of the world to melt will convince them.

Which really is too bad because I support much of what they want to do....move away from fossil based fuels as much as possible, diversify out our energy sources with solar and wind and tidal energy and nuclear, do some farming and livestock raising smarter/better, plant more trees. But they wrap it up in this redistributionist "end capitalism now" nonsense that just renders the rest of their message unhearable.

Ferret

Re:Good thing climate change isn't real!

[GiordyS]

"Climate scientists are so much smarter than me I believe everything they tell me."

It would be fun to game that system.

(Of course your post ignores climate scientists who disagree with the "consensus", but there you go.)

Re:Good thing climate change isn't real!

[GiordyS]

I've heard that line about thinner ice often. People are so quick to agree with any explanation that fits their beliefs no matter how weak.Yet these same people will argue against a plain fact (like the lack of significant heating for the last 15 years or so) until they are blue in the face. It is fascinating.

Re:Good thing climate change isn't real!

[GiordyS]

The "change" could have occurred 100 years ago and the earth may still be heating up as a result of that change. If you put a pot of ice water on a warm element (with a constant temperature) what do you think is causing the water to slowly heat up? Magic?

There is a lot of evidence the earth is warming naturally. Consensus climate science acknowledges this fact. What do you think caused the warming prior to 1950? Magic?

(Anthropogenic CO2 output was too low to have had much of an effect prior to 1950 in case you didn't know.)

Re:Good thing climate change isn't real!

[Will_Malverson]

Yeah, I thought so.

Re:Good thing climate change isn't real!

[dave420]

You were failed by your educators and your society if you think it's appropriate to gauge the accuracy of scientific principles by looking at politicians' habits. Seriously. And you proudly posted that online as if it's nothing to be embarrassed of... Bizarre.

Re:Good thing climate change isn't real!

[cavebison]

> My understanding is [...] As far as I can tell [...]

Kudos for being honest that those parts are just your opinion / your understand. So I skipped those bits, as I doubt you're qualified to reliably inform me on the topic.

> No one is denying the scientific effect of atmospheric CO2, or that the Earth is warming - what is under debate is the balance between natural climatic variation and human CO2 emission

So you concede the reality and importance of climate change, and that CO2 in the atmosphere is one of the major contributors, yet somehow want to debate "cause". This implies your only difficulty is with the idea that human activity has been the major contributor to CO2 in the atmosphere, right? Well, that's easily fixed, allow me to direct you to the simple answer:

https://www.skepticalscience.c...

TL;DR: Yes natural CO2 is emitted, but it also *naturally absorbed*. It is a cycle, called the "Carbon Cycle". The problem is this: *Human emissions create an IMBALANCE between what is emitted what is absorbed*. Get it now? It's not about "how much is sent UP by us vs nature", it's about how we send up an EXCESS that cannot be absorbed back into the cycle.

> what is under debate is the balance between natural climatic variation and human CO2 emission

As you can see, no; it is not under debate. Like most in your camp, it is only under debate in your own mind, probably because you have only heard the rhetoric from other sources and not really understood the issues at all. Someone probably said to you "this is crap because nature sends up FAR more CO2 than humans do!" and that's all you heard. But it's a false, deceptive, pathetic argument, meant to mislead in order to allow companies to keep polluting. As such, it is also an immoral argument and those pedalling it should feel ashamed for contributing to ignorance and quite possibly future misery.

Re:Good thing climate change isn't real!

[cavebison]

> what is under debate is the balance between natural climatic variation and human CO2 emission

http://www.newscientist.com/ar...

"About 40% of the extra CO2 entering the atmosphere due to human activity is being absorbed by natural carbon sinks, mostly by the oceans. The rest is boosting levels of CO2 in the atmosphere."

Here again you can see that we are contributing more than what the natural Carbon Cycle can absorb, which is the problem. The issue is NOT how much CO2 humans produce vs how much nature produces. The issue is that our added emissions tip the scale and the Carbon Cycle cannot compensate any longer. I hope you can re-think your position to understand the distinction between this and what you are saying.

Re:Good thing climate change isn't real!

[Stuarticus]

How many people are we currently killing with poverty? Are they going to be worse off if we put a solar panel on their roof?

Re:Good thing climate change isn't real!

[tbannist]

Here's a chart of human versus natural factors influencing global warming over the past 50-65 years taken from various studies of the effects. The sum of the natural factors is negative, meaning that if we had a second earth with no humans on it, it would cool while ours warmed.

Re:Good thing climate change isn't real!

[zapadnik]

You don't seem to understand the science being debated at all. Everyone agrees on the Carbon Cycle and that there is a lag before the biosphere can soak up all the CO2 that humans produce (eventually plants will grow enough to soak most of it up, but the rate we produce it is faster than plants can grow to keep up - since the system will settle in a equilibrium in the long-term).

What is debated is whether increasing CO2 has an increasing effect on temperature : in the lab CO2 has a diminishing non-linear effect. Below 100 ppm CO2 has the most effect and is essential for life in the sense that it stops the planet from freezing. No one debate this. But as you add more and more CO2 it has less and less effect on changing the temperature, at least under lab conditions.

Furthermore, there are far greater effects than CO2. The effect of water vapor is not well modelled and could have a much greater effect than CO2.

If you want to understand some of the actual science by a guy who literally wrote the text on this stuff, then I suggest you follow the mathematical explanation in the following video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Once you are up to speed with the parts of the subject that are being debated then we can talk. At the moment you are attacking a strawman because you don't understand the points of contentious science. Thanks for taking the time to try and explain, but we already understand your points and have moved beyond that - we understand the Carbon Cycle, we have more advanced understanding of the scientific processes and the limitations of computer models and are debating those things (especially when the computer models do not match reality as shown by the satellite observations).

Re:Good thing climate change isn't real!

[riverat1]

Carbon 14 is not the isotope in the atmosphere that shows the increase is from burning fossil fuels. It's the ratio of Carbon 12 to Carbon 13 that does that. Both C12 & C13 are stable isotopes of carbon. In fossil fuels there is more C12 relative to C13 compared to the atmosphere because being lighter C12 is preferred by photosynthesis. The ratio of C12 to C13 in the atmosphere has been increasing which supports the idea that the increase in CO2 is due to burning fossil fuels. Also the level of oxygen in the atmosphere has been dropping at a rate consistent with the uptake of oxygen due to the burning of fossil fuels.

Re:Good thing climate change isn't real!

[FlyHelicopters]

Carbon 14 is not the isotope in the atmosphere that shows the increase is from burning fossil fuels. It's the ratio of Carbon 12 to Carbon 13 that does that. Both C12 & C13 are stable isotopes of carbon. In fossil fuels there is more C12 relative to C13 compared to the atmosphere because being lighter C12 is preferred by photosynthesis. The ratio of C12 to C13 in the atmosphere has been increasing which supports the idea that the increase in CO2 is due to burning fossil fuels. Also the level of oxygen in the atmosphere has been dropping at a rate consistent with the uptake of oxygen due to the burning of fossil fuels.

You might well be right... I'm not enough of an expert to really know...

That being said, the average lay person hears both sides and shrugs their shoulders, and goes back to their day-to-day concerns...

The catch is, one side of the AGW debate wants their money, the other does not. Who do you think will win given that situation?

The amount of money that would have to be spent to make a difference in CO2 levels FAR exceeds what the average Joe and Jane Consumer will accept.

So the debate is mostly academic, it won't happen, instead we'll find out over the next 50 years what 1,000 PPB CO2 does...

Re:Good thing climate change isn't real!

[GiordyS]

SkS is a really, really bad site. Regardless, it appears they disagree with the IPCC. The latest IPCC report (which represents the consensus view) says that anthropogenic CO2 was responsible for at least half of the warming since 1950.

Do you support the consensus view or not?

Re:Good thing climate change isn't real!

[riverat1]

You could probably say that both sides want your money, just in different ways. But if you're concern about money colors your attitude about the science you're doing it backwards. You can't change the scientific reality and if scientists are even in the ballpark about the effects the reality of anthropogenic global warming is going to cost you a whole lot more than doing something to avoid it.

As far as the cost to the average person it's maybe slightly more than they would spend on old existing technology but most of it would be money that's going to be spent anyway in building new power plants or maintenance of existing ones or fuel costs. The increment in spending isn't that great and things like solar and wind don't have ongoing fuel costs.

BTW, that should be "1000 PPM CO2". With business as usual we won't hit 1000 ppm this century but could well do it before 2200.

Re:Good thing climate change isn't real!

[riverat1]

My understanding is that we are in an Interglacial Period and we would expect things to warm naturally.

The warmth of the current interglacial period hit a peak 6,000-8,000 years ago and has been declining ever since (until recently). The decline in temperatures is what you'd expect to see given the current state of the cycles of the various components of Milankovitch Cycles. Something has overridden the Milankovitch Cycles.

Re:Good thing climate change isn't real!

[FlyHelicopters]

You could probably say that both sides want your money, just in different ways. But if you're concern about money colors your attitude about the science you're doing it backwards. You can't change the scientific reality and if scientists are even in the ballpark about the effects the reality of anthropogenic global warming is going to cost you a whole lot more than doing something to avoid it.

That is a reasonable statement, I suspect there is some truth to it (the money part).

Regarding the issue of science... I actually am concerned... I'm not convinced, but I'm not an expert so perhaps the problem is all the screaming on both sides.

I will agree that if they are right, we're screwed, and if they are wrong, then we'll end up with a cleaner environment, to a point... So it makes reasonable and logical sense to make efforts to cut back on CO2 and other pollution.

However, that leads into my next point...

As far as the cost to the average person it's maybe slightly more than they would spend on old existing technology but most of it would be money that's going to be spent anyway in building new power plants or maintenance of existing ones or fuel costs. The increment in spending isn't that great and things like solar and wind don't have ongoing fuel costs.

That might be true... or it might not... many people have views and opinions on that one...

I will say, base on the charts that I've seen and the numbers I've looked at, the changes required to do anything major to the CO2 levels would be massive and widespread...

It is really easy to say "well, if we all just cut back 20%, that would help". Yea, I guess it would, but it wouldn't lower CO2, it would just slow the rise. As we cut back, other people who were not previously emitting CO2 will start.

That is the core of the problem. Even if we roll out new technologies world-wide that are 50% "cleaner" than what we have now, it won't really solve the problem because there are 3 billion people in the world today who don't currently emit much CO2, but will start doing so this century.

And telling them, "sorry, you were late to the party, no good stuff for you" is simply not going to cut it.

In short? I think we may be screwed...

Re:Good thing climate change isn't real!

[tbannist]

SkS is a really, really bad site.

Actually, it's quite good. They provide clear, well written and referenced explanations based on actual scientific research. However, I can see why some people might consider that "bad".

Regardless, it appears they disagree with the IPCC. The latest IPCC report (which represents the consensus view) says that anthropogenic CO2 was responsible for at least half of the warming since 1950.

Speaking mathematically, 100% is more than 50% so there's no actual disagreement between what SkS wrote and what you claim the IPCC says.

I went looking for what you claimed and didn't find it, not that I tried very hard because, well, it's not like you bothered to provide a reference for your claims... However, what I did find supports what I wrote:

Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic GHG concentrations

and

During the past 50 years, the sum of solar and volcanic forcings would likely have produced cooling.

Do you support the consensus view or not?

Are you trying to be an ass? The answer to both questions appears to be "yes".

I think I should further expand on these points, because you seem like a pedantic twit who will most likely focus on the fact that the IPCC report only says "most" of the warming is due to GHG concentrations increased by human activity. You should already know that GHG concentrations are not the only anthropogenic drivers of global warming, there are other anthropogenic contributions including land use changes and albedo changes due to air pollution, among others. The IPCC has attributing most of the warming to a single anthropogenic climate forcing, which does not, in any way, preclude the sum total of all anthropogenic factors from exceeding the actual observed warming, particularly when combined with the observation that the two most important natural factors would likely have contributed to cooling over the same period.

So, the real question is do you actually have anything to support your argument other than reading comprehension failures and a bad attitude?

Re:Good thing climate change isn't real!

[riverat1]

I wouldn't say the RWP, MWP or LIA overrode Milankovitch Cycles but were the noise of natural variability on top of them. It's unlikely that the RWP or MWP were warmer than it is now and the increase in temperature leading into them was much slower than the current warming rate.

No one (with any sense) is talking about de-industrializing the West. Instead of spending money on building new fossil fuel power plants we spend it on renewable energy. They may cost a little more to build but they don't have ongoing fuel costs like FF energy. Solar PV is already inexpensive enough and continuing to get cheaper that at least one coal plant has been cancelled because they didn't think they could compete with PV once it was completed. I get called an alarmist but people saying responding to anthropogenic global warming will destroy economies and plunge millions into poverty are also alarmists.

The supposed pause in warming in undetectable when you rigorously analyze it statistically as Grant Foster, a professional statistician, did here. The warming has continued pretty much as expected and temperatures are still within the uncertainty range of IPCC projections.

I think there is plenty of existing evidence to take action right now. If we wait until it's slap you in the face obvious the damages will cost us a lot more than doing something about it.

Re:Good thing climate change isn't real!

[GiordyS]

You are reading the 2007 "summary for policy makers" (I'm sure you'll be surprised to discover that the summaries are often at odds with the reports themselves).

Here's a link to the latest report (pdf): https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assess...

It is extremely likely that more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperature from 1951 to 2010 was caused by the anthropogenic increase in GHG concentrations and other anthropogenic forcings together"

I put that last bit in bold so you can see they are indeed talking about "the sum total of all anthropogenic factors".

It's clear you've never read the consensus report (couldn't even find it!) yet you have the gall to say I'm an ass? Why can't we just have a normal conversation about this?

Most of the predicted heating comes from climate sensitivity estimates, not CO2 directly. And the climate sensitivity estimates keep getting lower. Example: http://link.springer.com/artic...

So do the impacts from aerosols. Example: http://journals.ametsoc.org/do...

In other words, the latest research suggests even less warming than what the "muted" IPCC report predicts.

Actually, it's [skepticalscience.com] quite good. They provide clear, well written and referenced explanations based on actual scientific research.

Obviously you have not done your research here either, although I can understand why a person might think that at first glance. They were behind that "97% agree" study that was quoted by Obama. Unfortunately it a was really really bad study. I like to think that even people who disagree will call out really really bad science when they see it, but apparently not. Integrity of science be damned.

Here is one of many scathing indictments of their "work": http://www.joseduarte.com/blog...

Re:Good thing climate change isn't real!

[tbannist]

You are reading the 2007 "summary for policy makers" (I'm sure you'll be surprised to discover that the summaries are often at odds with the reports themselves).

Given you demonstrated inability to read an understand entire paragraphs, I sincerely doubt that the summaries are at odds with the reports as often as you believe them to be. I find it more likely that are motivated to see disagreements where there are none.

Here's a link to the latest report (pdf): https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assess...

It is extremely likely that more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperature from 1951 to 2010 was caused by the anthropogenic increase in GHG concentrations and other anthropogenic forcings together"

I put that last bit in bold so you can see they are indeed talking about "the sum total of all anthropogenic factors".

Did you finish reading the paragraph? Apparently not. The next line says:

The best estimate of the human-induced contribution to warming is similar to the observed warming over this period (Figure SPM.3).

Then did you look at the graph? Apparently not. The graph shows total anthropogenic warming as higher than observed warming.

It's clear you've never read the consensus report (couldn't even find it!) yet you have the gall to say I'm an ass?

What else should I call someone who takes a single sentence out of context and tries to use it to prove the exact opposite of what his source says? You are categorically, 100% wrong. The source you chose to support your argument explicitly and in plain english says that I am right and you are wrong. Then they put a graph next to it to reinforce that fact, and somehow you manage to miss both? You're wasting my time, jackass.

Why can't we just have a normal conversation about this?

Because you choose to act like an ass? Your only source explicitly says you're wrong, so why are you wasting my time?

Most of the predicted heating comes from climate sensitivity estimates, not CO2 directly. And the climate sensitivity estimates keep getting lower. Example: http://link.springer.com/artic...

Here's a tip: If you want to provide evidence of a trend, you need more than 1 data point.

So do the impacts from aerosols. Example: http://journals.ametsoc.org/do...

Same here, this is a claim of a different trend with exactly one data point.

In other words, the latest research suggests even less warming than what the "muted" IPCC report predicts.

Personally, I wouldn't use a blog post that speculates about what a not-yet-released report might say as evidence for my case.

Obviously you have not done your research here either, although I can understand why a person might think that at first glance. They were behind that "97% agree" study that was quoted by Obama. Unfortunately it a was really really bad study. I like to think that even people who disagree will call out really really bad science when they see it, but apparently not. Integrity of science be damned.

The problem is that people like you who apparently wouldn't know science if it bit them on the ass, keep claiming that good science is bad and bad science is good, then you accuse anyone who disagrees with you of having no integrity...

Here is one of many scathing indictments of their "work":

Re:Good thing climate change isn't real!

[GiordyS]

I find it amusing that you are still capable of defending Sks after the travesty they produced. Much of the content on their blog is the same - but at least it's not masquerading as a scientific study!

Here's what IPCC reviewer Richard Tol had to say on the paper: http://richardtol.blogspot.ca/...

The IPCC report is not MY source. It's YOUR source. Indeed it should be your primary source since you align yourself with the consensus. I'm just informing you of what YOUR source says. Evidently you prefer extreme advocacy blogs like Sks. (I'm what they call a 'luke-warmer'.)

I do agree that there seems to be some ambiguity in the report. Why did they say that "It is extremely likely that more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperature from 1951 to 2010 was caused by the anthropogenic increase in GHG concentrations and other anthropogenic forcings together", but then say their "best estimate" is similar to the observed warming? "More than half" means somewhere between 50% - 100%. Why did they phrase it that way if that's not what they meant? Why didn't they say "at least 90% of the warming"?

I tend to take things at face value, so when they say "more than half of the observed increase" I'm going to assume that's what they mean, especially since it's the statement they were willing to quantify @ 95%-100% probability.

You are free to assume they mean something other than what they say.

Speaking of their "best estimate", lets take a look at how their many "estimates" are holding up against observation:

http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp...

The 'blog' post I referred you to was actually an article from the Wall St Journal reposted on the author's personal site (the first part of IPCC report was released btw). I couldn't find the original article at first but here it is. Here's a video with the author, based on IPCC scenarios: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

As to your comment about "single data points", you wanted sources so I provided some as examples. And now I am criticized for that too? Really? There is more if a person would care to look, but it is clear you are unaware of what your own "side" even says, apparently preferring extreme advocacy sites like Sks to the IPCC, so I doubt you are willing to listen to differing views anyway.

I am going to hammer this final point: most of the predicted warming is due to climate sensitivity estimates, and NOT due to the warming radiated directly by CO2. These estimates are unproven, vary widely and are highly uncertain. The IPCC claims that climate sensitivity produces up to an additional 3.5 degrees of warming per additional degree of warming from CO2. I find that absurd. And if climate sensitivity is indeed lower as is suggested by recent research, then there is no global warming catastrophe.

Re:Good thing climate change isn't real!

[tbannist]

I find it amusing that you are still capable of defending Sks after the travesty they produced. Much of the content on their blog is the same - but at least it's not masquerading as a scientific study!

This is nothing more than vapid posturing. You don't like the site because it's regularly used to prove how wrong you are.

I do agree that there seems to be some ambiguity in the report.

The is absolutely no ambiguity in the report you complete and utter moron. It's right there in black and white. You just choose to ignore the words in front of your face because you are a god-damned idiot.

Re:Good thing climate change isn't real!

[GiordyS]

"More than half the warming" since 1950 is their official, quantified position. You are ignoring the words right there in front of your face.

Sks is one of the worst sites out there, as evidenced by their study which one researcher characterizes as fraudulent. There's more evidence of course but I don't expect you to go looking for it. Confirmation bias at work.

"God-damned idiot"? Weren't you saying something about "smear attempts" and "ad hominems", and how those are "dick moves"? And I used to think right-wingers were inconsistent hypocrites...

Re:Good thing climate change isn't real!

[tbannist]

"More than half the warming" since 1950 is their official, quantified position. You are ignoring the words right there in front of your face.

Read it again:

The evidence for human influence on the climate system has grown since the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (AR4). It is extremely likely that more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperature from 1951 to 2010 was caused by the anthropogenic increase in GHG concentrations and other anthropogenic forcings together. The best estimate of the human-induced contribution to warming is similar to the observed warming over this period (Figure SPM.3).

The words "Extremely likely" qualify that there is a between 90% to 100% certainty that the statement is accurate, and as you should be aware, 100% is more than half. You are merely pretending that there is a different meaning because you don't want to acknowledge that you are incredibly and spectacularly wrong and that you are embarrassing yourself in public.

"God-damned idiot"? Weren't you saying something about "smear attempts" and "ad hominems", and how those are "dick moves"? And I used to think right-wingers were inconsistent hypocrites...

That's not an ad hominem or a smear attempt, it's an insult, because you are a ridiculously stubborn moron. I can only imagine how much trouble you have typing due to the puddles forming on your keyboard. How anybody conclude that you are anything but an idiot? When you are presented with clear evidence of your error, you choose to pretend the words don't mean what they mean, instead of admitting that you made a mistake. Frankly, I'm giving you more respect that you deserve.

Re:Good thing climate change isn't real!

[GiordyS]

Lol. Your interpretation is baffling. If I say it is "extremely likely" that you will get more than half your money back, would you interpret that to mean you are likely to get 100% of your money back? Or that you are likely to get at least 50% of your money back?

Since when does "more than half" equal 100% ??!

You spend the second half of your post justifying your name calling. It's not a dick move when you do it, right? Most people have double standards so you are not alone. Obviously you have nothing better to do. Unfortunately all too typical and boring.

Re:Good thing climate change isn't real!

[tbannist]

Lol. Your interpretation is baffling. If I say it is "extremely likely" that you will get more than half your money back, would you interpret that to mean you are likely to get 100% of your money back? Or that you are likely to get at least 50% of your money back?

If your lawyer tells you that is "exetrmely likely" that you get more than half your money back, and that his best estimate is that you'll get all of it. Do you then conclude that you'll only get half?

Your problem is you are applying informal English assumptions to a formal document, and then using that to try to discount the very next sentence in the same paragraph.

Re:Good thing climate change isn't real!

[GiordyS]

Your problem is that "more than half" is the formal part. They could have said "more than three-quarters" but they didn't. Why not? In that light their "best estimate" doesn't mean all that much, especially if the vast majority of past estimates were over-estimates.

Re:Good thing climate change isn't real!

[tbannist]

Unfortunately, Dr. Spencer has a history of getting these graphs wrong.

Additionally, it should be noted that Dr. Spencer is a signatory to An Evangelical Declaration on Global Warming, which states that "Earth and its ecosystems – created by God's intelligent design and infinite power and sustained by His faithful providence – are robust, resilient, self-regulating, and self-correcting". His use as an expert on climate matters is significantly diminished by that public declaration that "god will fix it for us". If his signing of that declaration is sincere, he is no longer performing scientific research.

Re:Good thing climate change isn't real!

[GiordyS]

Didn't you criticize me earlier for "smear attempts" and "ad hominems", saying it was a "dick move"?

Here's another graph by Spencer that includes surface temps.

And the following:

The period covered in the SS graph is a decade shorter than that covered by the Spencer-Christy graph and looks suspiciously like cherry-picking. By starting their graph in 1990, SS can use the Mt. Pinatubo-induced cold period of 1992-93 to tilt the trend to be more positive. The Spencer-Christy graph begins at the start of the satellite record — 1979 — providing a longer and more representative period.

More importantly, SS uses global surface temperature datasets, which do not accurately represent heat content in the bulk atmosphere. In contrast, Spencer and Christy use temperature data from the tropical troposphere — the place where the models project the strongest, least ambiguous, greenhouse warming signal.

from: http://www.globalwarming.org/2...

Re:Good thing climate change isn't real!

[tbannist]

Didn't you criticize me earlier for "smear attempts" and "ad hominems", saying it was a "dick move"?

Indeed, I did. But an "ad hominem" is not always a dick move, and not always falacious. It is acceptable to offer valid, topical criticism of a person's character or skills when it is material to the argument and the person has been offered as an authority. In other words, when you offer Dr. Spencer as a scientific expert, you make his credentials as a scientist fair game for criticism. So, in this case, offering evidence that Spencer may be a poor scientist is not only acceptable, it is generally expected as a rebuttal. You, on the other hand, wrote "SkS is a really, really bad site." That's not valid or topical criticism, and therefore is actually a fallacious ad hominem. So because you failed to provide valid criticism, it is in fact a "dick move". Eventually, you provided some weak criticism of a highly acclaimed paper by some of the people at SkS as justification for this evaluation, but even if I accepted that the criticism were in good faith, which I do not, it would barely be relevant.

Frankly, you seem to have a problem with understanding context and circumstances.

Additionally, I linked to three non-SkS sites that detail gross errors in the construction of that graph or the similar graph it was originally based off of, and your response is an article that mistakenly criticizes an SkS article that criticizes Spencer for errors made in a completely different forum, and claims their response to a different event contains cherry-picked data because it does not start in the same year as a graph which they make no reference to. Frankly, the article you cited appears to be written by someone who takes very little care in his writing or his reasoning. For example, it really looks like couldn't even be bothered to read the title of the article he's criticizing because the title clearly says they are debunking mistakes that Spencer made in a public appearance. One can only assume the author is grossly incompetent or grossly negligent. Of course, none that really matters, because I didn't link to that article on Skeptical Science in the first, so his invalid criticism actually has nothing to do with any of the valid criticism I provided that explains how Dr. Spencer has (intentionally or not) manipulated the data in that graph to make his position look better, and in the process produced a very misleading graph.

And according to the article you linked, if you really believe it, you should believe that the new graph that you linked contains cherry picked data (and is therefore invalid) since it also does not begin in 1979, but expecting any sort of consistency from you is clearly expecting too much.

Re:liars!

[thaylin]

Where does it mention the Larson B ice shelf in either of those? You do realize that it does not make up the entirety of the antarctic right?

The issue isn't worth fighting over

[popo]

One must note that the ice sheet has **ONLY** existed for 10,000 years.

It's very important to stress this point, as those who do not understand geologic time are at risk of thinking that 10,000 years is a long time.

It's a nanosecond on the geologic clock.

This is a very young icesheet. It's loss is noteworthy, but does not have significance when viewed on macro timeframes.

Re:The issue isn't worth fighting over

[Anonymous Coward]

The fact that this isn't an issue on geologic scales isn't what's concerning people. We're worried about whether or not this is something that will be a problem for the current and foreseeable human generations.

Re:The issue isn't worth fighting over

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorry, but this is one of the most idiotic comments ever. Yes, this ice shelf has been stable/in equilibrium for 10,000 years, which admittedly, is drop in the bucket of our full Earth history. But those measly 10,000 years include the entire time period during which modern humans shed their hunter-gatherer past, developed farming and became more sedentary, organized higher-level civilizations and social constructs, etc. Yeah, the Holocene has been relatively stable climate-wise, and indeed, it's relatively stability has been indicated as one of the factors that permitted many of the technological and social innovations mentioned above. So now that the climate system is showing signs of instability, and going out of kilter, that doesn't worry you???

Re:The issue isn't worth fighting over

[garyisabusyguy]

On geologic timescales, we have not existed for very long so...

By that standard our civilization, much less our species, seems trifling

Thanks I can relax now

Re:The issue isn't worth fighting over

[BlackPignouf]

Exactly. Our civilization is also "a nanosecond on the geologic clock."

Re:The issue isn't worth fighting over

[Anonymous Coward]

That's easy. Anyone who says the science is "settled" doesn't understand science so they're not a scientist. Someone who wants to discus what science understands at this point in time will bring out evidence to support their theory. And a lot of theories have mountains of evidence supporting them. Keep in mind too, pointing out that there is absolutely zero evidence to refute the theory at this point in time is not the same as saying it's "settled". It just means that if you want to discredit the current working theory, you're going to have to bring some evidence of your own. And until that evidence is brought forth, the theory will remain in place. But the fact that there is allowance for the new evidence to alter or refute the current working theory absolutely means that it's not "settled", whether the masses understand that or not.

Re:The issue isn't worth fighting over

[Livius]

It's a nanosecond on the geologic clock.

So is the existence of the human species. Some nanoseconds count.

Re:The issue isn't worth fighting over

[dywolf]

geological timescales when talking about the loss of an ice shelf and the reason for it is an irrelevant misdirection.

Re:The issue isn't worth fighting over

[Applehu Akbar]

Ten thousand years ago was at the end of the last ice age (whose interglacial may still be warming up). What was that ice sheet doing then?

Re:The issue isn't worth fighting over

[dryeo]

Being a glacier sitting on land rather then an ice sheet floating on water.

Re:The issue isn't worth fighting over

[itzly]

There are no volcanoes under the Larsen B ice shelf.

Re:The issue isn't worth fighting over

[RockDoctor]

Further to Itzly's reply, nor are there any volcanoes anywhere near the Larson B ice shelf. There are probably sub-glacial volcanoes in the hinterland of some of the more southerly ice fields and sheets of West Antarctica, but from the absence of ash bands in the surrounding ice cores, they're pretty marginal on the activity front.

Oh, BTW, we know from studies of Icelandic volcanoes that even quite minor sub-glacial eruptions tend to produce substantial amounts of ash because of the violent emission of steam from interactions between lava and ice.

Your hypothesis is superficially reasonable but is destroyed utterly by the facts of the situation.

Re:The issue isn't worth fighting over

[Stuarticus]

Some of us are aiming high though, not just looking at the reports for the next quarter and assuming everything will be fine.

Re:Fight!

[FlyHelicopters]

Quick, we need everyone to pile on for why this proves catastrophe is imminent and favored policy changes must be passed. Then the other half can pile in and explain why this means nothing and the next ice age is still coming...

Why can't we have a middle ground?

How about we set reasonable targets to improve our overall energy efficiency, without being so drastic that we hurt people in the process?

Of course, the whole world has to do it, just one nation won't be enough...

Re:Slashdot

[bobbied]

Fun fact: Alarm is a completely rational response to alarming events, regardless of frequency.

Except that in this case the "Alarm" being raised is due to the output of some computer simulations that are trying to predict the future.... Simulations I might add which have been wildly wrong in the past, but they claim to have fixed now. Of course none of this "alarm" has anything to do with political and financial power either....

Riiight...

So in this case, the RATIONAL thing to do is to be a bit skeptical of all the alarmist rhetoric about things where there obviously is a potential for political and financial gains by the people making the claims.

Only two choices?

[OrangeTide]

I'm of the third position, that we could have fixed this 50 years ago. But now it's too late and we're all screwed. Time to stock up on supplied for the apocalypse and ride this thing out.

Re:Only two choices?

[Anonymous Coward]

When 300 million Americans head for the hills and you're living in the hills, how do you plan to deal with that?

Re:Only two choices?

[FlyHelicopters]

When 300 million Americans head for the hills and you're living in the hills, how do you plan to deal with that?

When the oceans rise 6 inches, you won't have 300 million Americans headed for the hills. Even if you did, America is big and the open spaces are vast...

Re:Only two choices?

[Applehu Akbar]

And besides, in this state we almost have prenatal carry.

Re:Only two choices?

[dryeo]

You're arming fetuses? Or you're carrying around pregnant women?

Re:Only two choices?

[Applehu Akbar]

It will be Arizona's alternative to religious laws as a way of preventing abortions.

Re:Slashdot

[hey!]

that in this case the "Alarm" being raised is due to the output of some computer simulations that are trying to predict the future....

No, the alarm is triggered by events on the ground. The models are just responding to those.

Re:Fight!

[oh_my_080980980]

Actually the article clearly explains what will happen. No piling on is necessary, unless you didn't bother to RTFA.

Re:Welcome to a changing world

[oh_my_080980980]

Not this kind of change.

Re:Fight!

[ArmoredDragon]

On what precedent do you base that?

I recall NASA predicting complete loss of arctic sea ice by 2013, and the navy predicting the same in 2016.

The first didn't happen, not even close, and the second doesn't seem likely to happen.

It's like listening to the news about the doomsday clock; it just gets old after a while, and I don't give a damn what supposed bright minds are behind it.

Re:Fight!

[Anonymous Coward]

Why can't we have a middle ground?

How about we set reasonable targets to improve our overall energy efficiency, without being so drastic that we hurt people in the process?

Of course, the whole world has to do it, just one nation won't be enough...

Let me check.

The well-known CAFE standards? Phased-in. Light-bulb ban? Not an immediate ban, but also phased in. CFC ban? Also phased in. HVAC standards? Phased-in. Vacuum cleaner standards? Phased in. Need I go on?

CAFE? In Europe, it's the NEDC. Japan, Australia, they have something. Even Brazil and China.

The Light bulbs? Also done internationally.

CFC was Montreal Protocol. For a reason. It was world-wide.

HVAC? EPBD is one example.

Vacuum Cleaners? European Ecodesign. Which covers other products.

So basically, you're asking for the middle ground we apparently already have for some reason.

The thing is, the opposition is still opposed to even those changes. Note this isn't a case of "Maybe we should go a bit slower" but rather "Do nothing at all because if we do anything, the sky will fall on our heads" approach. Whereas the "Everybody must go back to living in huts and caves" gets very little support among the masses.

5 years

[judoguy]

If everything DOESN'T go to hell in 5 years, will the AGW people shut the fuck up? No, I didn't think so.

Re:5 years

[phantomfive]

Scientists predict the arctic ocean will be ice free by2012. Or maybe by 2015. Or by the year 2000. Hard to say, really.

Re:5 years

[MrL0G1C]

Scientists predict the arctic ocean will be ice free by2012. Or maybe by 2015. Or by the year 2000. Hard to say, really.

File:Arctic-death-spiral.png

Not hard to say at all, it's clear where that spiral is heading. Zero Ice at the north pole.

Re:5 years

[dywolf]

he'll ignore your post because he's paid to not pay attention to factual statements.

Re:5 years

[dywolf]

only on the topic of global warming is the stereotypically abysmal quality of science reporting of major media ignored and their statements treated like the absolute Gospel of what every scientist involved has ever believed, ever.

here's a clue: news reporters != scientists
so just cause they say it, doesnt mean the scientific community is saying it.

Re:5 years

[phantomfive]

You obviously didn't read anything I linked to. It wasn't the 'major media' saying anything, it was scientists saying things.

Here's a clue: just because one scientific paper says something, doesn't mean the scientific community is saying it.

Re:5 years

[dave420]

You missed all the qualifying words off those quotes, which is twisting what they were actually claiming. I know you want to make a point, but is lying the best way to do it? Are we supposed to respect what you're saying if it's demonstrable nonsense?

Re:5 years

[dave420]

It was some scientists saying stuff similar to what you claimed they did, but with qualifying statements like "might", "could", etc. You constantly misrepresenting that is making you look desperate, ill-informed, ignorant, or some toxic mix of all three.

Half the size of Rhode Island?

[wonkey_monkey]

Isn't there anywhere that's half the size of Rhode Island that this ice shelf could be compared to?

Welcome to civilization

[Anonymous Coward]

Except you're wrong: On the timescales of human civilization, climate is virtually static. Civilization is pretty solidly predicated on world temperature and climatic patterns being what they are, and the oceans being the height they are (ports and coastal cities having been a Thing since the beginning of civilization). The collapse of more than one civilization can be attributed to shifts in climatic patterns over centuries, and we are now driving measurable, substantial changes on scales not comparable to the age of civilizations, but a single human lifetime and soon even mere decades.

Knowing this fact, perhaps we shouldn't knowingly and deliberately be doing a frantic tango on some of Earth's primary climate control levers. And even if we *have been*, now that we realize it's a really bad thing we should *stop doing it*.

Re:Welcome to civilization

[hey!]

Except you're wrong: On the timescales of human civilization, climate is virtually static

Quite wrong. Gradual climate change has been extinguishing civilizations since the Dilmun were driven out of Bahrain. That's the point.

As long we're taking the long term perspective, sure climate change happens all the time. So population displacements, economic crises, civilization collapses -- we should all regard them as a natural feature of human society. That doesn't mean you want to be around when that happens.

Forest fires are natural. That doesn't mean you should play with matches when you're camping in Yosemite during a drought.

Re:Welcome to civilization

[cbiltcliffe]

Except you're wrong: On the timescales of human civilization, climate is virtually static.

Bullshit. Human civilization has been through significant temperature changes with the Roman and Medieval Warm Periods, and the Little Ice Age. Both these Warm Periods were at least as warm as we are now, and a lot of analyses show them to be even warmer. Even the pro-AGW Wikipedia articles on these two periods claim an ocean surface temperature as much as a degree warmer than today. The Little Ice Age is part of a pattern of 1-2 degree cooler periods that happen every 1500 years. Of course, warming from all the previous ones was entirely natural, but warming from the LIA, despite being basically the same as the warming from the previous cool periods, is marketed as AGW by the alarmists.

Re:Fight!

[BCGlorfindel]

Actually the article clearly explains what will happen. No piling on is necessary, unless you didn't bother to RTFA.

The CBC article does poorly actually, but if you meant the linked actual journal article then you are correct. In either case you missed my sarcasm, apparently with a good number of mods keeping you company.

Re:Welcome to a changing world

[Tablizer]

Earth is not a stable static thing. It changes. All the time.

One could say the same about the Titanic:

"We are going into the water. Change is goo.d.d.d...bloop...bloop..guggle..."

Re:Fight!

[garyisabusyguy]

It is really more a case of, "Do nothing because our profit margins are set for the current situation and we do not want to incur any additional costs by recognizing risks that upset our current plan".

It formed during the Holocene?

[Quinn_Inuit]

Please forgive me for hijacking this thread with a question related to the Larson B Ice Shelf rather than global warming, but I was hoping someone could shed some light on how this ice shelf formed during the current interglacial. I would've thought more or less all of the major ice shelves and glaciers around the world were relics of the Pleistocene, but it sounds like this formed during the hottest part of the Holocene (with the possible exception of today).

Re:It formed during the Holocene?

[HiThere]

Saying that it formed during the current interglacial is misleading. This is an ice shelf, and ice shelves are the result of glaciers moving into the ocean and not breaking off. So it probably formed because the glaciers started moving a bit more rapidly, and it also probably had ice at the oceanwards side that broke off and melted, and which may well have been older.

FWIW, glaciers are always moving, but as the start to melt their motion speeds up. For a glacier to grow it needs to be accumulating new ice faster than it looses it through moving into an area where the ice is removed faster than its formed. This was said in a sort of general way, because some glaciers live high in the mountains, and when they descend they drop chunks of ice down hill. In the case of an ice shelf, the glaciers are pushing out onto the ocean and floating, so the weight of the terminus is suspended. This "ice shelf" creates back pressure that tends to hold the glacier in place, but the glacier is also pressing the ice shelf to move further out to sea, where it becomes unstable.

Re:It formed during the Holocene?

[Quinn_Inuit]

That explanation makes sense, thank you. So was there probably a different kind of ice formation there during the Pleistocene, or did the lower sea levels mean that the parent glacier of this ice shelf either didn't reach the ocean or had a very different-looking ice shelf attached?

Re:It formed during the Holocene?

[HiThere]

Sorry, I can give general explanations about how ice shelves work, but I don't know the specifics of Larson B. But clearly different sea levels would mean that the ice shelves would form in different places. As to what name they would have ...

As an aside a lot of the argument among paleontologists, and others of the ilk, is about names rather than about facts. E.g. there often isn't enough solid information available to say whether two fossils are of different species...so people guess. Some people like to split spieces on small basis, others like to clump, and there often isn't a good reason to decide between the two. Similarly, what difference in locations would justify giving an ice shelf at two different times, and slightly different location, a different name? The ice wouldn't be the same, because the ice on an ice shelf is continually, if usually slowly, moving out to sea. But people like to draw boundaries.

Re:Fight!

[cbiltcliffe]

Are you really criticizing that scientists failed to accurately predict the demise of a 10,000 year old structure to a better precision than ~10 years? You're really that cynical over a change of like 0.1%? If I predicted that apple stock would double in a 2 year span, and in fact it only went up 99.9%, would you really not listen to my next stock prediction?

The age of the structure is irrelevant to the precision of when it will disappear. If they say it will disappear in 5 years, but it really takes 15, it's not inaccurate by .1% because the structure is 10,000 years old. It's inaccurate by 300%, because their 5 year prediction took 15 years to come true. Considering how many of these "sky is falling" predictions have been made over the past few decades, virtually none of which are even close to accurate when the end date of the prediction comes along, I'd say being cynical is quite appropriate.

Re:Climate scientists doomsdays never occur

[Falconhell]

Another denialist half wit. You morons are fiddling while the world burns.

when it melts...

[argStyopa]

...maybe we'll see more of that petrified wood from Antarctica.

You know, from when it wasn't snow and ice? (Yet somehow the world didn't end?)

Re:when it melts...

[Anguirel]

...maybe we'll see more of that petrified wood from Antarctica.

You know, from when it wasn't snow and ice? (Yet somehow the world didn't end?)

The world doesn't need to end for it to be the end of the world.

Re:when it melts...

[argStyopa]

Considering that we humans came after the previously-mentioned span when the Antarctic was covered in jungle, maybe you want to think that comment through?

For the slow: it's ridiculous to assert that such climactic changes will result in "a dead rock" when, ipso facto, they didn't.

Re:Fight!

[lgw]

Are you trying to apply the scientific method to climate change predictions? Which oil company do you work for? Something something Fox News argle bargle!

Re:Fight!

[BarbaraHudson]

And during that time we've had 5 extinction periods. The ghosts of the dinosaurs are saying "Do you feel lucky, punk?"

Re:Fight!

[FlyHelicopters]

The well-known CAFE standards? Phased-in. Light-bulb ban? Not an immediate ban, but also phased in. CFC ban? Also phased in. HVAC standards? Phased-in. Vacuum cleaner standards? Phased in. Need I go on?

I don't have a problem with any of that... The issue is that the extremist AGW people want to triple all of it and do it tomorrow at any cost...

Or at least that is how it comes across sometimes...

I've read comments on Slashdot in the past from people saying that any car that doesn't get 50 MPG should be illegal, or that we should make trucks get the same MPG as light small cars (which simply isn't realistic).

HVAC is currently at 13 SEER and has been there for awhile. The price difference between 13 and 16 is pretty small, perhaps it is time for an increase in that one. Of course, part of the challenge isn't just new installs, it is the 20 year old units still running and getting about 7 SEER, those are the ones so badly in need of replacement.

Re:Per minute...

[cbiltcliffe]

That's because your math sucks.

2300 feet/year / 365.25 days/year
= just less than 6.3 feet/day
Divide by 24 hours/day = just over 3 inches/hour.
Divide that by 60 minutes/hour, and you get about 0.05 inches/minute.

Re:Welcome to a changing world

[cbiltcliffe]

Really? What's different about this change? The fact that we're using direct temperature measurements for the last 145 years, rather than less accurate lower resolution proxies like ice cores, so we can more clearly see year to year changes in the time since 1870? Is that the difference you mean?

Re:Slashdot

[Press2ToContinue]

mod parent up, the alarmists are winning

Re:Fight!

[bryanbrunton]

and how many of those were caused by man?

Who gives a shit if the giant asteroid that caused an extinction event wasn't caused by man?

Preventing man from causing another extinction event is what we give a shit about.

Re:Fight!

[dryeo]

While I'm sure there are nut cases who have no idea of the reality that things just can't change that fast without huge hardship, there is also the old negotiation tactics, ask for 50MPG for all cars and maybe get 30MPG, then ask for 60 and maybe get 35. This has been working, car mileage has improved quite a bit in recent years.
Unluckily due to the nature of CO2 and its emitters, we're not going to get much more then a slowdown in the release of CO2, we're just too dependent on fossil fuels so really we should be planning on changes, many of which won't be for the better, at least short term.

Re:Fight!

[ArmoredDragon]

You forgot GMO, vaccines cause autism, and electromagnetic allergies.

Re:Per minute...

[cbiltcliffe]

What's your point? Considering all of my calculations were approximate, some rounded high and some low, they'll balance out reasonably well.
Regardless, GGP calculated an amount of travel per hour, and tried to pass it off as a per minute travel, making it seem much worse than it is. Whether it was an accident, or a "WE'RE ALL GOING TO DIIIIIEEE!!!1111" alarmist statement, I have no idea, but it was flat out wrong. My calculations are much more accurate, regardless of my approximations.

Re:Fight!

[NatasRevol]

You 'recall' a lot of bullshit. Unsourced bullshit.

But, BTW, the arctic sea ice is decreasing by about 12% per decade.

http://www.wunderground.com/cl...

Nothing to worry about, right? Not even close to worrying?

Re:Fight!

[kenwd0elq]

I've got five dollars that says it won't.

Not because I have any particular expertise in ice or in Antarctica; my degree is in physics, not climatology - but because NONE of these quasi-apocalyptic predictions are true, or have ever come true. Not when predicted, and not after. We were supposed to have been swarmed by a billion starving climate refugees by now. It didn't happen. The Arctic Ocean was supposed to be ice free, and the snows of Kilimanjaro were supposed to all have melted by now. Didn't happen. The snows of the Himalayas were supposed to be melting, and gone completely by 2035; not happening. Not one single climate prediction has come true, and I don't think this one will, either.

Re:liars!

[tfranzese]

It helps to read more than the article title.

Science Deniers, cry out

[MrKaos]

la la la la I CAN'T HEAR YOU la la la la

bet

[CauseBy]

I'd be interested in a small wager on the outcome of this prediction. Without knowing much about it, I'll bet that it comes true in slightly more than five years, say seven years. Anyone want to bet a small sum that it doesn't come true? A small sum to me is, oh, between five and two hundred dollars.

Re:Fight!

[itzly]

I don't have a problem with any of that... The issue is that the extremist AGW people want to triple all of it and do it tomorrow at any cost...

Looking at the graph of the CO2, http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/c... I don't see any signs of slowing down thanks to the changes we've already implemented. Clearly, it's not enough.

Re:Fight!

[FlyHelicopters]

Looking at the graph of the CO2, http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/c... I don't see any signs of slowing down thanks to the changes we've already implemented. Clearly, it's not enough.

I actually agree with you, the changes won't really alter the outcome.

I've come to the conclusion that the increase is irreversible, at least within our lifetimes. All we can do is slow the increase and make long term plans for it.

---

The changes required around the world to actually stop, then reverse, the increase, simply aren't going to happen. One could argue and debate all day long about if they "should" or not, but in reality, it simply isn't in the cards.

Americans can cut all we like, right now Americans produce more than 10 times more CO2 per person than people in India. But given the huge number of people there, it wouldn't take much of an increase to swamp anything we do. We could cut our CO2 to nothing, and they could increase by just 20% and the total CO2 output would be higher than it is today.

The interglacial was cooling.

[Anonymous Coward]

That's right, for 8000 years the interglacial WAS COOLING. Until, really, the last 100 years. Then it DRASTICALLY reversed.

Yes, theoretically, it could have warmed instead, but to do so it would have required to be different from every other interglacial, but there's nothing logically or mathematically stopping it from happening. For example, some fuckwittted species could release massive amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere and make it warm. That would do it.

Of course, the same fuckwits would blame it on nature, because they know they're blameless for everything. It's always nature's fault, god's fault, satan's fault, the fault of the liberals, the fault of goverment, the fault of the left, the fault of the hippies, the fault of the nimby's, the fault of ANYONE ELSE BUT THEM.

And if that doesn't seem to work, it's not happening at all.

I'll tell you what I don't do

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't decide that the science must be wrong.

Gravity's pull on objects is settled science. Things really do fall down when you let them go. I do not therefore go and think that there's no such thing as gravity.

CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Settled science.

CO2 increases are from humans. Settled science.

Most or more than all (it would normally be continuing the cooling trend if not for us) of the recent warming is settled science.

How much, precisely? Not settled.

None or less than none? Settled. Both are bollocks.

Is it the Sun? Settled science. It's us. The sun is cooling

Is it cosmic rays? Not settled, 100%, but nearly so: every test so far shows no.

Gravity? Settled.

What causes gravity? Still debating, not settled.

Re:Fight!

[itzly]

the snows of Kilimanjaro were supposed to all have melted by now

Are you referring to this:
http://www.independent.co.uk/e... ?

Which says: "If current climatological conditions are sustained, the ice fields atop Kilimanjaro and on its flanks will likely disappear within several decades,". That study was done in 2002, and at that time, about 80% of the ice pack was already gone, and the remainder was still shrinking. There's still a few years left until the prediction, and even if it misses it by a few years, that's not what's important here.

Re:Fight!

[ilguido]

Oh rly?

Arctic Sea Ice Gone in Summer Within Five Years? (National Geographic - 2007)

after reviewing his own new data, NASA climate scientist Jay Zwally said: "At this rate, the Arctic Ocean could be nearly ice-free at the end of summer by 2012, much faster than previous predictions."

US Navy predicts summer ice free Arctic by 2016 (The Guardian)

US Department of Energy-backed research project led by a US Navy scientist predicts that the Arctic could lose its summer sea ice cover as early as 2016 - 84 years ahead of conventional model projections.

Re:Fight!

[ilguido]

It is quite important since it is not going to happen: Mount Kilimanjaro glaciers nowhere near extinction

Alarmed by the Prof. Thompson study, way back in 2006, Tanzania President Jakaya Kikwete imposed a total ban on tree harvesting in Kilimanjaro region in a move aimed to halt catastrophic environmental degradation, including melting of ice on Mount Kilimanjaro.

As a result of the measures, the forest cover on the mount Kilimanjaro is slowly, but surely becoming thick.

Experts say the forests on Kilimanjaro's lower slopes absorb moisture from the cloud hovering near the peak, and in turn nourish flora and fauna below

Re:Fight!

[itzly]

"If current climatological conditions are sustained"

Obviously, if you change the current conditions, because some people are alarming you of the consequences, you can change the outcome.

Re:Fight!

[Eunuchswear]

OP:

I recall NASA predicting complete loss of arctic sea ice by 2013, and the navy predicting the same in 2016.

You:

after reviewing his own new data, NASA climate scientist Jay Zwally said: "At this rate, the Arctic Ocean could be nearly ice-free at the end of summer by 2012, much faster than previous predictions."

US Department of Energy-backed research project led by a US Navy scientist predicts that the Arctic could lose its summer sea ice cover as early as 2016 - 84 years ahead of conventional model projections.

Are you unable to see the difference?

One NASA climate scientist said "the Arctic Ocean could be nearly ice-free at the end of summer by 2012", not "NASA predicted complete loss of arctic sea ice by 2013".

As it happened we hit the lowest sea ice extent since 1979 in September 2012.

A US Navy scientist predicted that "the Arctic could lose its summer sea ice cover as early as 2016", not "the Navy predicted complete loss of arctic sea ice by 2016".

As it happens we're currently only just inside 2 std deviations of the average, looking much like 2014 and 2013.

Anyway, to see what's happening go here http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/charctic-interactive-sea-ice-graph/.

Re:Fight!

[itzly]

If you read that link a bit closer, you see it was not a prediction. This is what they really said:

"Given the estimated trend and the volume estimate for October–November of 2007 at less than 9,000 km3, one can project that at this rate it would take only 9 more years or until 2016 ± 3 years to reach a nearly ice-free Arctic Ocean in summer. Regardless of high uncertainty associated with such an estimate, it does provide a lower bound of the time range for projections of seasonal sea ice cover"

Re:Fight!

[ULTROS]

I do work for oil companies. One thing is certain, no matter what I say you will still use oil based products for the rest of your life. BAAAAM!

Re:Fight!

[ilguido]

OP:

I recall NASA predicting complete loss of arctic sea ice by 2013, and the navy predicting the same in 2016.

You:

after reviewing his own new data, NASA climate scientist Jay Zwally said: "At this rate, the Arctic Ocean could be nearly ice-free at the end of summer by 2012, much faster than previous predictions."

Are you unable to see the difference?

One NASA climate scientist said "the Arctic Ocean could be nearly ice-free at the end of summer by 2012", not "NASA predicted complete loss of arctic sea ice by 2013".

No, I'm not, because, according to your point of view, even in this case is not NASA, but five random NASA guys (mainly from the Radar dept.) saying that "[Larsen B] will likely disintegrate completely in the next few years" and that "Larsen B will eventually break it apart completely, probably around the year 2020", so OP is right: NASA guys were wrong before, so NASA guys could be wrong again.

And by the way, that one NASA climate scientist is NASA's Chief Cryosphere Scientist.

Stopping the slide

[Keith Henson]

There is a simple and relatively cheap way to stop the ice from sliding off into the ocean. It's well understood and has been used in large numbers for 40 years.

I refer to the Trans-Alaska Pipeline supports. There is a picture here of one of the thermal diodes that keep the permafrost frozen under the line. They are dirt simple, a pipe with a few gallons of ammonia or propane.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C...

Far as I know, nobody has yet studied what it would cost or how to pay for it, but enough of them would freeze the glaciers to bedrock.

MMGW

[brunnegd]

Wow! It is a good thing global warming is a hoax. :):)

But... but... but...

[kainewynd2]

I have this snowball and it was cold this winter... You mean my senator's are actually uninformed/greedy bigots? @.o

Re:Fight!

[ULTROS]

Well I am just a lead service man.