The point of the one I suggested had to do with the fact that once the ice melts it becomes part of a larger mass of water, much of which is much warmer than the water in the Arctic. This water would take up a larger volume because of being much warmer.
Consensus has always been a viable standard. When someone bucks the consensus because he has good research behind him then he can create a new consensus. So far the deniers of AGW (Anthropogenic Global Warming) do not have that good research or the facts behind them. That includes Crichton. I haven't been able to bring myself to read anything by him since the drivel that is "State of Fear" came out.
Of course Michaels, the author of the TCS story is the kind of person that would deny global warming if he was standing next to a sun bather on a beach on Antarctica in 90 degree weather 10 years from now.
And you're just going to take the word of one site that for it? That's irrational, especially considering that it is not a site contributed to in any meaningful way by climatologists. Bright geeks would not only do more research than you've done but take the source into account. They would also learn something about the scientific method and why the overwhelming majority of climatologists do believe in global warming strongly influence by human activities. There are disagreements about the details, most certainly. But to use those to claim that it doesn't exist or that it might be warming but that our many activities don't influence it has no more credibility than those who use disagreements among biologists concerning the exact mechanisms of evolution to dispute its existence.
By the way, you do realize that this web site you're so proud of is run by the guy who just was caught out for minimizing risks from tobacco on this site and on Fox News even as he was taking money from the tobacco companies?
Hmmmm. Let's see, a major amount of ice melts from Antarctica. Freed from this weight, the continent rises (maybe). Wouldn't that displace more water, thus causing water levels to rise in other places like the ones people live in?
As far as water vapor is concerned see this article at RealClimate.
The world surviving is not the same thing as our society surviving. It is not the same thing as our species surviving. Whenever I see posts like the one I'm responding to I wonder if they realize that the extremes that they refer to were mostly before our species existed and that some of the ones that have occurred since we evolved almost wiped our ancestors out.
Sorry, but this is not accurate in our system of oceans and currents even if your point about displacement of the mass of ice floating on water is accepted as being completely accurate.
Take two cubic meters of water. Split it exactly in half and place each half in a nice clear container. Heat one up by almost any amount. The one being heated will take up more area. I'm not going to take the time right now to research the exact amount but it's a simple fact. This is where part of the rise in sea levels comes from. The water is simply warmer. Warmer water takes up a greater volume.
The pattern you're referring to does not go back millions of years. It goes as far back as what we previously had evidence for which was as far back as the previous 3 ice ages. The study of the new ice core addresses this. It goes back far enough to catch another ice age, which broke the previously assumed pattern. The fourth ice age that the core showed lasted 30,000 years. Who's to say that that isn't the pattern? Or there could be an even longer one that we simply haven't found the evidence for.
The problem with his claims is that the facts he cites are not indicative of an overall trend. The increase in energy in the system from global warming can easily produce oddball effects such as warm air displacing cold air in unexpected ways. Notice I say displacing, not destroying.
If you're really interested in what people who know what they're talking about on this issue have to say do the research. One place already mentioned by other posters is http://www.realclimate.org/ and another is http://www.begbroke.ox.ac.uk/begbroke/Display/page /Climate.Basics.html which is the Oxford University site Climate Basics. RealClimate includes information on pretty much every objection that some of the people here have posted. They also explain a lot of the misinformation that's out there and also take suggestions on subjects to post about. It's definitely interesting to see here how many technically knowledgable people aren't really scientifically literate.
If you're going to make a claim, provide a source. What is your source for the claim that we produce only 0.27% of greenhouse gases. Frankly, the use of the phrase "so-called greenhouse gases" doesn't do a lot for your credibility.
Slashdot Mirror
The point of the one I suggested had to do with the fact that once the ice melts it becomes part of a larger mass of water, much of which is much warmer than the water in the Arctic. This water would take up a larger volume because of being much warmer.
Consensus has always been a viable standard. When someone bucks the consensus because he has good research behind him then he can create a new consensus. So far the deniers of AGW (Anthropogenic Global Warming) do not have that good research or the facts behind them. That includes Crichton. I haven't been able to bring myself to read anything by him since the drivel that is "State of Fear" came out.
Of course Michaels, the author of the TCS story is the kind of person that would deny global warming if he was standing next to a sun bather on a beach on Antarctica in 90 degree weather 10 years from now.
And you're just going to take the word of one site that for it? That's irrational, especially considering that it is not a site contributed to in any meaningful way by climatologists. Bright geeks would not only do more research than you've done but take the source into account. They would also learn something about the scientific method and why the overwhelming majority of climatologists do believe in global warming strongly influence by human activities. There are disagreements about the details, most certainly. But to use those to claim that it doesn't exist or that it might be warming but that our many activities don't influence it has no more credibility than those who use disagreements among biologists concerning the exact mechanisms of evolution to dispute its existence.
By the way, you do realize that this web site you're so proud of is run by the guy who just was caught out for minimizing risks from tobacco on this site and on Fox News even as he was taking money from the tobacco companies?
Hmmmm. Let's see, a major amount of ice melts from Antarctica. Freed from this weight, the continent rises (maybe). Wouldn't that displace more water, thus causing water levels to rise in other places like the ones people live in? As far as water vapor is concerned see this article at RealClimate.
The world surviving is not the same thing as our society surviving. It is not the same thing as our species surviving. Whenever I see posts like the one I'm responding to I wonder if they realize that the extremes that they refer to were mostly before our species existed and that some of the ones that have occurred since we evolved almost wiped our ancestors out.
Sorry, but this is not accurate in our system of oceans and currents even if your point about displacement of the mass of ice floating on water is accepted as being completely accurate.
Take two cubic meters of water. Split it exactly in half and place each half in a nice clear container. Heat one up by almost any amount. The one being heated will take up more area. I'm not going to take the time right now to research the exact amount but it's a simple fact. This is where part of the rise in sea levels comes from. The water is simply warmer. Warmer water takes up a greater volume.
The pattern you're referring to does not go back millions of years. It goes as far back as what we previously had evidence for which was as far back as the previous 3 ice ages. The study of the new ice core addresses this. It goes back far enough to catch another ice age, which broke the previously assumed pattern. The fourth ice age that the core showed lasted 30,000 years. Who's to say that that isn't the pattern? Or there could be an even longer one that we simply haven't found the evidence for.
The problem with his claims is that the facts he cites are not indicative of an overall trend. The increase in energy in the system from global warming can easily produce oddball effects such as warm air displacing cold air in unexpected ways. Notice I say displacing, not destroying.
If you're really interested in what people who know what they're talking about on this issue have to say do the research. One place already mentioned by other posters is http://www.realclimate.org/ and another is http://www.begbroke.ox.ac.uk/begbroke/Display/page /Climate.Basics.html which is the Oxford University site Climate Basics. RealClimate includes information on pretty much every objection that some of the people here have posted. They also explain a lot of the misinformation that's out there and also take suggestions on subjects to post about. It's definitely interesting to see here how many technically knowledgable people aren't really scientifically literate.
If you're going to make a claim, provide a source. What is your source for the claim that we produce only 0.27% of greenhouse gases. Frankly, the use of the phrase "so-called greenhouse gases" doesn't do a lot for your credibility.