Increased snowfall and global warming causing present conditions in Antarctica ?

The UNEP is not sounding that dogmatic about this situation.

"There are far fewer observations of sea-ice thickness for the Antarctic than for the Arctic because of the lack of submarine measurements. It is therefore not possible to detect any trends in Antarctic sea-ice thickness over recent decades. The reasons for the very different trends in Arctic and Antarctic sea-ice extent over recent decades are not known at present and resolving this important question is a high research priority. Researchers are examining changes in the atmospheric circulation of the two polar regions as well as changes in ocean circulation." June 2007.

http://maps.grida.no/go/graphic/regional-changes-in-arctic-and-antarctic-sea-ice

Precisely.

This is how it works: when ice melts, it's incontrovertible evidence of "global warming". When ice thickens, "further research is required".

Oh, I get it: global warming isn't just about it being too hot, it's also about it being too cold. Wonderfully postmodern; must be some sort of Hegelian dialectic fumbling around in there someplace.

Anyway, now that Al Gore has another shiny prize for the display case in his overwatted Tennessee ecopod, his Hollywood friends must really be putting pressure on him to do the obvious and make a sequel: how about "Another Inconvenient Truth: It's F---ing Freezing Down Here?"

Ever notice how lefties are so adept at selectively choosing the "facts" they want to believe to fit their view of the world.

Lefty dogma:

Socialism is good, ignoring Cuba, USSR, China, North Korea etc.

Gun Control works, ignoring England, Washington DC, Hitler, Castro, Lenin, Mugabe, etc.

Global warming is caused by CO2, ignoring historical data regarding natural cycles, past CO2 data, and so on.

They really are amazing and I'm surprised some enterprising psychologist hasn't done a doctoral paper on their selective ocular dysfunction. (turning a blind eye to that which they choose to ignore)

FACT: It is human nature to resist change.
FACT: It is the planet's nature to go right along with it.

So much for the yadda yadda on climate change.

On another somewhat related topic ...

I have observed one area where humans usually are willing to accept change and eventually get on board and push it along. That is the change brought about when the capitalist system is introduced to a society plagued with the yoke of socialism or despotism (they go hand in hand actually).

Aside from the climate change circus/industry.

I just head a great interview on the Roy Green Show (corus radio network) about the fact that world poverty and illiteracy has been diminishing at an alarming rate (if you are a socialist) and a wonderfully inspiring rate if you are a free capitalist.

Check out Stephen Moore's book on the subject ...
HERE

At this time it is a far important message than the inconsequential truth of climate change.

Another Inconvenient Truth ... to go hand-in-hand with the record Southern Hemisphere sea ice growth.

Ulus for Zulus, anyone?

(South African)Cold snap brings 54 new records

http://www.news24.com/News24/South_Africa/News/0,,2-7-1442_2117319,00.html

The increased snowfall might apply to the height of the antarcti Ice Sheet....but it doesnt apply to the polar sea ice. Thats all about temperature, of the air and the sea and the direction of winds.

So small problem when the sea ice cover gets bigger.....in contrast to the theory of GW.

We have had record minima atr the north after a pretty average or above average maxima.

The main point is things arent as clear and certain as some would have us believe.

"Posted by: Kate at October 14, 2007 4:01 PM"

This is how it works: when ice melts, it's incontrovertible evidence of "global warming". When ice thickens, "further research is required".

Kate you shouldn't be putting your ignorance out there on display like that. Here is how it really works: A changing climate melts or expands multi year ice. Seasonal ice will give you a measure of local weather, and is not an indicator of climate..
http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/lookingatearth/antarctic_snowmelt.html

20 years of data, that's almost as good as...well...local trends of the climate.

One question, alby.

Name me a time in the earth's history climate has NOT changed.

Local effect ? So why does the media wail and fear-monger on every T-storm, record high, a melting ice cube ??

Because fear, man-bad sells papers. Bad news bears.

But when the weather/climate doesn't play fair ... Oh well, the easily duped will swallow the local-effect claim.

Who made that famous quip ? There is one born every minute .....

Mammoth bones in the Arctic?? Impossible! The earth has never been warmer than it is today, don't you know.

albloss

go to this site

http://www.smh.com.au/news/environment/gore-gets-a-cold-shoulder/2007/10/13/1191696238792.html

and read and larn

The sun will start cooling off in 15 years, then this global warming stuff will go away. My concern is the pollution of water, not the air.

Albatros,

Can you not make point without first insulting your host?

You are a boor and a twit.

Alby:
The southern cap has been getting thicker for several years now. There is not much 'global' in this supposedly global warming.

RicardoVerde at October 14, 2007 10:12 PM
Reference?

set you free at October 14, 2007 8:12 PM

"One question, alby.

Name me a time in the earth's history climate has NOT changed."

Never.

Now you name me one time in history when it's changed this quickly that hasn't been linked to a sudden release of greenhouse gases driving the warmth.

GYM at October 14, 2007 9:04 PM

You want me to "read and larn" what? That Dr. Gray is in denial? That much of his life’s work has been for naught?
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/04/gray-on-agw/
Though Gore is deserving of his Nobel for spreading the warning of climate change, he is hardly a source of god climate information. To listen to Gore on this subject is scratching a very thin slice of climate science.

More CO2 is a good thing.
Greenhouse Gas Might Green Up The Desert; Weizmann Institute Study Suggests That Rising Carbon Dioxide Levels Might Cause Forests To Spread Into Dry Environments
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2003/05/030509084556.htm

Alby, you shouldn't put your reading comprehension limitations out there on display like that.

Albatros,

Try not to move your lips when reading the following ...
http://www.global-warming-and-the-climate.com/global-warming-climate-change.htm

Posted by: alan at October 14, 2007 10:31 PM
Ah yes, greening the desert. But then again it probably won't. With all this extra CO2, where does the additional nitrogen and phosphorous come from? What about the forests and grasslands today that will be the deserts of tomorrow?

Care to stick your neck out a bit further and back that up Kate? Of course you never do, right?

Hey b_C, I've got a site too.

www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/2007/sep/hazards.html

Albatross, when you're more certain than the scientists on whom you base your certainty, well, then you've crossed into faith.

In recent years, the IPCC has made the following revisions:

1) revoked a "peer-reviewed" graph that purported to show a hockey stick-like rise in temperatures. That was a after a businessman in his spare time found the data was fraudulent.

2) reduced its estimate of the human impact on global warming by 25%

3) reduced its estimate for rising temperatures by a third

4) reduced its estimate for rising oceans by 25%

This comes on top of a failure of the climate modelers' computer programs to accurately predict temperatures in all the years when they could be actually measured, and the puzzling absence of a rise in global air temperatures.

Do you see how fluid and ambiguous this stuff is? Personally, I was much more predisposed to global warming before the zealots jumped on the bandwagon. I recognize demagoguery when I see it and prefer to let the data provide a more convincing case.

GW -bring it on baby....I git ta grow grapefriuts and palm trees,to thems that usedta rip me off,too bad so sad.mite sell em water since the glaciers are meltin too ,sounds like win ,win

chip
The hockey stick is as valid today as it ever was. The deniers don’t like it, but it’s still in the AR4. So some of the figures have been updated but that's what further studies do, they advance the understanding of the problem. Even though sea level won't rise as fast as first thought, they are still rising. Temperatures are still rising but how warm it will get, nobody knows. Global warming is happening and we can't stop the damage that has already been done. We can however limit further damage.

Kate at October 14, 2007 10:32 PM
Well Kate that has been long enough to consider that to be an official drive by smear.
Good night, coward.

Alba is just flailing and resorting to name calling because he/she's watching the foundations of her religion come apart at the seams.

Flail away alba, I enjoy watching you come here and desperately try to convert the masses,

and fail miserably.

Google "global warming a hoax" and you'll get 1.78 million hits. That number is growing by the day.

Alba's got her work cut out for her.

@alan (Oct. 14th, 10:31 PM):

Your link touched upon something I myself was wondering about. If AGW is so 'real', then why haven't there been any environmental groups buying up tracts of land just above the tree line for a huge tree-planting project? It gibes with other enviro groups buying up land in the rainforest to preserve it, and it would be a "good initiative" by enviro standards.

Just imagine how the greenie crowds would thrill to hear about ABC Group, a non-profit, buying up tracts of just-above-tree-line land in Canada for the purpose of planting carbon-sink trees "when" the tree line moves up to those tracts, so as to reduce the CO2 level in the atmosphere. Such a group could get approval from the provincial land ministries quickly, as they do have the political clout. Also, the greenie part of the media would love the idea. Al Gore might even visit.

I wonder why no such initiative like that has been started up. It's akin to a prospector hanging around Bay Street bars saying "there's gold in them thar properties and they ain't hardly staked," while not going up and staking claims in that same area.

Again, as many people here have already asked, would someone please provide precise proof of the fact that (in order):
1) The earth is warming /climate changing
2) the warming/change is predominatly caused by man
3) the full extent of this warming/change will be what, precisely (e.g. x degrees, water levels, desertification, etc)??
4) the overall effect of this warming/change is BAD (for man, for earth, etc)
5) man's effects can be realistically stopped and/or then reversed by man.

I will state now that 1) should be considered an axiom, of course the climate is changing - always has and always will. So I'll give you this one free...as we knew this before all the noise about AGW started.

For the final step 5, please note that I, or any rationale person, will not accept a solution that involves going back to the stone age (economically, technologically, socially, etc). Hence, the word realistically applies.

Now, you will notice one thing about the order above: each next step (from 1 to 5) is an order of magnitude more difficult to do.

We have barely been able to get a grip on how our climate works for step 1).

Step 2 is in heated debate with no clear winner (scientifically, although the politcal pundits can't seem to keep quiet). We won't have a scientifically known answer, with good certainty, for at least several more years.

So unless you are omniscient, would you please stop the BS that we can state that 4) is BAD and then jump straight to step 5. We have much, much more work to do and anyone jumpin the gun now is clearly doing so for Political/personal reasons.

Chip: Do you have a reference for your statements 3 & 4?

Daniel M Ryan: That is probably a good question, although it could be argued that the tree line would expand on its own anyway. Here is my question to you. If people are so certain that temperatures are falling since 1998 and that we are seeing the world enter a cooling phase - why do people not bet on it? Brian has been keeping track of who is willing to bet and who is not over here. http://backseatdriving.blogspot.com/2005/05/betting-on-global-warming.html

Regards,
John

Even though sea level won't rise as fast as first thought, they are still rising.

There are no measurements showing the sea level rising. None. It's all computer modeling.

Google Dr. Nils-Axel Mörner.

Seeing they've been taking the measurements for less than 30 years and they're pretty much statistically the same, I can't see how you can make much of them.
Plus there were no mammoths in Antarctuca. But why let science and research get in the way of your bias?

Seeing they've been taking the measurements for less than 30 years and they're pretty much statistically the same, I can't see how you can make much of them.
Plus there were no mammoths in Antarctuca. But why let science and research get in the way of your bias?

Uncle David stands in the prow of Gaia's Ark while pkggkrg into the wind.
His goateed face is saline-soaked; his specs are caked with salty tears. His heart is broken. Again. The Golden Ham Actor award goes to Suzuki; Best in the Melodrama category.
...-

Canada not listening to leading environmentalist
{...]

Goateed, soft-spoken and avuncular, Suzuki ..."

""We've already been here before, and that's the thing that breaks my heart,"

""When the ice sheets drop, you're going to get massive rises in sea levels." ...-
http://www.canada.com/topics/news/national/story.html?id=fde448ed-dc2a-4d70-801a-2c5f64739a23&k=63704

There are no measurements showing the sea level rising. None. It's all computer modeling.

Except of course for the tide level measurements. Oh, and of course the satellite measurements. But apart from these, none. Oh, unless you count the measured temperature rise in the ocean and then calculate the thermal expansion.

As always, links available upon request!

reagrds,
John

biff at October 15, 2007 1:02 AM
You should learn how Google does it's searches. Try it with the asterisks and when you are done that search just global warming, you'll get 87 million hits.

Googled as of 09:00 this morning
global warming a hoax 1,780,000 hits
global warming hoax 1,770,000 hits
global warming 95,100,000 hits
"global warming a hoax" (with asterisks) 40,400 hits
"global warming hoax" (with asterisks) 106,000 hits
Just searching the word hoax 14,100,000 hits

Are you getting the idea biff?

Frenchie77: An interesting set of questions. However I have a couple of comments.

First, what do you require as proof? I know that in the past some people have required proof in the mathematical sense and such does not exist for the sciences.

In response to your number 2, let me ask you, do you accept that anthropogenic sources are responsible for all the recent CO2 increase? Also, do you accept that adding CO2 will cause warming?

So, lets start here and see where we go.

Regards,
John

@John Cross (7:02 AM):

Will that fellow pay up? Does he put money in an escrowed account with an independent trustee bound in writing to fork over the money to the "winner," as specifically defined by the terms of the bet, once a bet is made? If so, then of course the same obligation would be on the head of the person on the other side of the bet.

(Didn't Paul Ehlrich welch on his first bet with Julian Simon?)

Albatross

To say the hockey stick has been "updated" is a generous assessment. Even the lead scientist for the graph has admitted the mathematical models he used tend to produce hockey stick-like scenarios even if the data is changed.

John

They are from the IPCC's own assessment done this year. Section 5.
http://www.ipcc.ch/pub/sarsum1.htm

Sea level rising is a fraud.
http://www.larouchepub.com/eiw/public/2007/2007_20-29/2007-25/pdf/33-37_725.pdf

Daniel M. Ryan: I do not know the details but he has engaged in 1 bet with a skeptic so I would guess that the structure was in place. I also know of one bet that fell through because the skeptic wanted Brian to cover all the costs of setting up the accound and for the trustee.

In terms of the Ehrlich wager, he paid up in full based on the terms of the wager. The actual dollar cost was about $575.

Regards,
John

Except of course for the tide level measurements. Oh, and of course the satellite measurements. But apart from these, none. Oh, unless you count the measured temperature rise in the ocean and then calculate the thermal expansion.

http://www.freemarketnews.com/Analysis/178/8057/landfair.asp?wid=178&nid=8057

"Claim That Sea Level Is Rising Is A Total Fraud"
Wednesday, June 27, 2007

So says Dr. Nils-Axel Mörner!

Dr. Nils-Axel Mörner is the head of the Paleogeophysics and Geodynamics department at Stockholm University in Sweden. He is past president (1999-2003) of the INQUA Commission on Sea Level Changes and Coastal Evolution, and leader of the Maldives Sea Level Project. Dr. Mörner has been studying the sea level and its effects on coastal areas for some 35 years.

From 1850 to 1930-40 the sea level was rising, and that rise had a rate of 1.1 millimeter per year.

That ended in 1940, and there had been no rise until 1970

Since then there is no trend! Isn't that interesting and look at how much CO2 has spewed into the atmosphere. How about that IPCC report?

I have been the expert reviewer for the IPCC, both in 2000 and last year. The first time I read it, I was exceptionally surprised. First of all, it had 22 authors, but none of them— none—were sea-level specialists.

Dr. Nils-Axel Mörner says there are all sorts of problems with the methodology in the IPCC report and repeats "rising levels from 1850 to 1940" and since 1970 absolutely no trend. Sea levels are stable!

http://www.iceagenow.com/Rising_Sea_Level_Claim_a_Total_Fraud.htm

Excerpt;

So, for example, those people in the IPCC choose Hong Kong, which has six tide gauges, and they choose the record of one, which gives 2.3 mm per year rise of sea level. Every geologist knows that that is a subsiding area. It's the compaction of sediment; it is the only record which you shouldn't use.

... Not even ignorance could be responsible for a thing like that. ...So tide gauges, you have to treat very, very carefully. Now, back to satellite altimetry. From 1992 to 2002, [the graph of the sea level] was a straight line, variability along a straight line, but absolutely no trend whatsoever. We could see those spikes: a very rapid rise, but then in half a year, they fall back again. But absolutely no trend, and to have a sea-level rise, you need a trend.

Then, in 2003, the same data set, which in [the IPCC's] publications, in their website, was a straight line—suddenly it changed, and showed a very strong line of uplift, 2.3 mm per year, the same as from the tide gauge. And that didn't look so nice. It looked as though they had recorded something; but they hadn't recorded anything. It was the original one which they had suddenly twisted up, because they entered a "correction factor," which they took from the tide gauge. So it was not a measured thing, but a figure introduced from outside. I accused them of this at the Academy of Sciences in Moscow —I said you have introduced factors from outside; it's not a measurement. It looks like it is measured from the satellite, but you don't say what really happened. And they answered, that we had to do it, because otherwise we would not have gotten any trend!

Albatros,

A better idea ....

Compare the real world:

http://www.confluence.org/

with the constructs on which you've premised your religion:

http://gallery.surfacestations.org/main.php
(Click Random Image)

or

http://www.norcalblogs.com/watts/weather_stations/

Then ... do remind me why I should be alarmed about "global" anything.

John Cross: ...
First, what do you require as proof? I know that in the past some people have required proof in the mathematical sense and such does not exist for the sciences.

In response to your number 2, let me ask you, do you accept that anthropogenic sources are responsible for all the recent CO2 increase? Also, do you accept that adding CO2 will cause warming? ...

Proof, for 2), start by generating a complete list of all cause/effects that impact on the climate (you can stop once you are >95% certain that you got them all).

Once you have that, start grouping them into :
1) solely man-made factors,
2) Combined Man and natural factors, and
3) solely natual factors

Then start isolating them and conducting appropriate observations to determine existing cause/effect relationships (as it's not really feasible to do trial/error experiments on the earth and computer models are not appropriate for this task, thus we are left with observations of past events, itself an error prone exercise).

Then start combining them to determine existing combined cause/effect relationships.

then..., well, we aren't at 95% certainty yet.

That doesn't mean that you can't continue but it does mean that you must admit that the error bars are getting rather large...

Not that the science isn't interesting or worthwhile, but - as I said how can you justify jumping to solutions at this stage??

I don't accept anything as truth in science. The strength of the scientific approach lies in proper review and questioning of theories.

The question is: are we following that approach?

@John Cross (11:01 AM):

Thanks for the info. Here's some for you: arranging such a bet through an escrow account with an independent trustee in charge of it makes it an enforcible contact - against the trustee, who has to disburse the funds according to the signed contract (which can be written so that it is not a bet in form.)

That's how you talk with strangers in the moneyed world. Nuthin' compared to the hoops that a listed corporation has to go through to secure investors' funds through a private placement.

One more thing, John: if "one bet... fell through because the skeptic wanted Brian to cover all the costs of setting up the [account] and for the trustee", then Brian was the one who turned down that bet. Whether it be for sound reasons or not, that's the way that one went.

You mean Gore didn't do all that ?? And still got paid a Hundred Million $$$ and counting !!??

Did Suzuki also not have all his 'fruit flies' in a row ??

It is so pathetic that the alarmists did not perform the most basic of scientific/statistical operations before yelling fire in the movie theatre.

Some lawyers will become very, very rich in the near future.

climate change. uncontrolable, inevitable. temp goes up, temp goes down.

pissinginthetent. water. absolutly right.

Antiarctica is getting colder how dose AL GORE and the wackos for GREENPEACE explian this after if its called GLOBAL WARMINcome the penguins and arctic terns are finding it more colder? MAYBE BECUASE AL GORE ISNT FLYING OVER THERE AND BLABBERING HIS MOUTH BECUASE ARCTIC TERNS AND PENGUINS DONT CARE TO HEAR HIM

this is albys profile

http://ca.profiles.yahoo.com/albatros39a

as a 40 something student I think it about time he started paying his way.

if you follow the links and go here
theres no ice on hudson bay I guess according to Al Gore the polar bears must all be dead.

Anyone who disagrees with me is in the pockets of big oil.

cal2
http://ca.profiles.yahoo.com/albatros39a
That explains it, it was the acid he ate at Woodstock when he was 9 years old.

Daniel M. Ryan: then Brian was the one who turned down that bet. Whether it be for sound reasons or not, that's the way that one went.

We don't know enough about the details to say this. If Brian says, I will be willing to bet but we split the costs, then it was the other who turns it down.

regards,
John

ol hoss & alan: I note that all the references that doubt sea level rise point to one man, Nils-Axel Morner and they are all news interviews without supporting data. So I would first encourage Dr. Morner to publish his work so other scientists can evaluate his findings.

However to clarify a couple of points that he raised:

1) He is not currently listed as associated with Stockholm University as a Department head or anything.

2) He is not correct when he claims that the IPCC section on sea-level change does not have experts.

3) He seems to contradict himself when in the article about satellites he says “but absolutely no trend whatsoever.” A couple of years before he seemed sure that the rise was about 1 mm/year and this would continue into the future.
http://web.archive.org/web/20030129072703/http://www.pog.su.se/sea/07_research_topics/rt5.htm

4) While this is not related to his work on sea level rise, I will note that he has an interest in dowsing http://www.randi.org/hotline/1998/0012.html . That by itself means nothing, but I found the scientific test he uses amusing.

So, while I would not rule his views out, taken by themselves without supporting evidence, they are not very strong.

Regards,
John

I note that all the references that doubt sea level rise point to one man, Nils-Axel Morner and they are all news interviews without supporting data. So I would first encourage Dr. Morner to publish his work so other scientists can evaluate his findings.

However to clarify a couple of points that he raised:

1) He is not currently listed as associated with Stockholm University as a Department head or anything.

2) His is not correct when he claims that the IPCC section on sea-level change does not have experts.

3) He seems to contradict himself when in the article about satellites he says “but absolutely no trend whatsoever.” A couple of years before he seemed sure that the rise was about 1 mm/year and this would continue into the future.

4) While this is not related to his work on sea level rise, I will note that he has an. That by itself means nothing, but I found the scientific test he uses amusing.

So, while I would not rule his views out, taken by themselves without supporting evidence, they
are not very strong.

As always, links available upon request.

Frenchie77: I note that you did not answer my questions. In which case, I will take the easy way out and say that what you want has been done by the IPCC. If you have a problem with their analysis, then let me know.

Regards,
John

Chip: That explains it. I didn't think the IPCC AR4 (the 2007 report) said that and sure enough your link is to the IPCC 1995 SAR report.

Regards,
John

First, what do you require as proof? I know that in the past some people have required proof in the mathematical sense and such does not exist for the sciences.

LOL Mathematical proof does not exist for the sciences?????? WTF?

How does one prove a scientific theory in your world John? Consensus? (absolute or 50%+1?) When everyone finishes singing Kumbaya at the same time and in the same key? When the theory invokes a warm and fuzzy feeling?

You've just destroyed what little credibility you may have had as someone "interested in the science". You obviously don't know what science is.

PS John: civility is not a substitute for honest debate.

Pd: One can never prove a scientific theory (only disprove them). One can develop a hypothesis and then support it with observation. One can then go on to say that "all of the data we have supports this idea", but all it takes is one observation or fact that doesn't fit to throw the theory out the window.

That is not the same as a mathematical proof, for example an inductive proof. In an inductive proof, a hypothesis can be shown for a base case then shown to be true for values of n and n+1. It can thus be concluded that the statement is true for all values.

Regards,
John

PS, I agree that civility is not a substitute for honest debate, but do you feel that exchanging insults is more productive?

John Cross:
I see you don't like Dr. Morner, and that's okay with me. But can you address the data and trends in data? There really is no trend is there? It really doesn't matter whether he had a different take a few years ago or not, based on the satellite data, do you see a trend?

Note, my first response to alan and ol hoss was held up in the moderation queue so I submitted a second without the links which made it through. Thanks Kate for releasing my first, the second is no longer relevant.

John

I would submit the first isn't relevant either.

John

Sorry, I grabbed the wrong link. Those revisions lower were indeed for the report in the 90s.

For the IPCC's report in 2007, some of the revisions were in fact even more significant than in the previous report. For sea level, it's prediction has been halved. From the Telegraph:

"The IPCC has been forced to halve its predictions for sea-level rise by 2100, one of the key threats from climate change. It says improved data have reduced the upper estimate from 34 in to 17 in."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/
main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/12/10/nclimate10.xml

This reinforces my initial point that the data is far too fluid to gain any certainty on this issue.

RicardoVerde: based on the satellite data, do you see a trend?

Yes!

Regards,
John

cal2:

When I looked at alby's profile, I was so shocked you could have knocked me over with a feather.

When alby's hero Karl Marx, a do-nothing bum according to a biograhical account I saw on TV just last week, wrote Das Kapital, he sought out his hero to which he could dedicate his book.

Of course, that was history's first science fiction spinmeister, Charles Darwin, whose logic claimed we were all evloved from rocks.

In 1866, Marx wrote to Frederick Engles that origin of Species contained the basis in natural history for their political and economic system for an atheist world.

Notice how alby's noble mission statement is to piss of the relgious.

Earlier, in 1861, Marx wrote to Engles: “Darwin's book is very importan and serves me as a basis in natural selection for the class struggle in history."

At Marx's funeral, Egels said that as Darwin had discovered the law of organic evolution in natural history, so Marx had discovered the law of evolution in human history.

Without getting into how species to species transformation has never been scientifically proven, the political theory espoused by Marx has also been thoroughly disproven.

It would be enough to piss off alby, if alby had any courage to debate this issue based on pure scientific fact.

If science were indeed settled on the naming of the atom (which translated from the Greek means smallest indivisible particley) and no further debate was allowed, we would not have the joy of discovering neutrons, protons and electrons.

Long life pure science.

May the perverted form of political science fuelled by science fiction, such as the deceptions and exaggerations performed by Algore, die the death it deserves.

Chip: I am not sure where the Telegraph got its number, but they seem to be quoting from the B2 scenario but comparing it to the A1F from the TAR. This is very much an apples and oranges comparison.

It is true that the A1F has been lowered between the TAR and AR4, but this is mostly due to a different way of estimating sea level rise. In the TAR they included ice dynamics uncertainty in the rate but now they calculate it separately.

Regards,
John.

John Cross: You write: 'I note that you did not answer my questions. In which case, I will take the easy way out and say that what you want has been done by the IPCC. If you have a problem with their analysis, then let me know.'

You asked for: a) what proof would be required and b) and a question that assumes the CO2 has been proven as a definitive sole factor.

I responded with the initial process that should be followed, for the overall step 2. Yes, there is more - and it is all based on being able to identify, isolate, observe, and then predict/test behaviour of various factors/variables, etc.

From your second question, you (as so many others) have jumped steps and gone straight to assuming man-made CO2 is causing climate change and that this change is bad.

That assumption is premature, why have you made it?

Unfortunately, Taking the easy way it out is all too familiar in this tragedy of science.

If, I repeat, IF AGW proponents truly want to convince us skeptics that the AGW science is accurate, conclusions valid, and solutions appropriate then you must, beyond the shadow of a doubt, show us that. Proponents must accept and explain discrepancies according to the same scientific method. You cannot just call the credibility of skeptics into questions while ignoring the holes in the theory. The theory must be nearly perfect, considering the ramifications it as for society.

Has this really been done by the IPCC, as you state? If it has, then please explain why we (incl IPCC) are still trying to gather more information, from current/new sources/factors all the time.

Why are increasing amounts of money still being spent on finding new ways to monitor the environment, what is the point? Analogy: would you keep funding doctors at 100% or more to cure cancer once the research showed you the cure? Would it not seem more practical to reduce cancer research funding to a level appropriate to just maintaining a watch, say for mutations?

You have either reduced your errors to an acceptable level (on which you make valid conclusions) or you have not, so where are we? If the IPCC climate scientists have done such a good job, should we not be finding new work for most of them to do and leave a few to keep a simple watch? I mean, the few remaining scientists should just be able to plug the monitoring data into the near-perfect theory and all should be in acceptable limits, right?

Nothing new to discover about climate change, right? Where have I heard similar before?

Question: is there such a thing as consensus in science regarding "thermal expansion" of the Oceans? Based on the theory of melting continental ice (including 90% of the ice on Antarctica), the sea level should be falling according to my humble judgment. This great arcticle just confirms what I've always suspected. There IS however a consensus on MOST of the temperature increase of the second half of the 20th century being "human induced", which makes it a rise of > 0.2C. So how much money is being wasted to prevent another 0.1C rise in temperature??? How many people will die because of lack of priority of food production, clean water, sanitary issues, malaria protection??? Now the carbon traders and oil companies and - the Middle East! - enjoy the fruits of the hype. Please Gore, become President, be busy with real politics and stop driving the oil prize up and up!!!

Markus: You state: Based on the theory of melting continental ice (including 90% of the ice on Antarctica), the sea level should be falling according to my humble judgment

I don't follow this statement. Could you clarify it?

Thanks,
John

Frenchie77: You state:

From your second question, you (as so many others) have jumped steps and gone straight to assuming man-made CO2 is causing climate change and that this change is bad.

That assumption is premature, why have you made it?

First, you are correct and I should have phrased my question better. You did lay out what you would consider proof and I appreciate that. What I was referring to in my previous post was your lack of response to my question about CO2.

I will note that (opposed to what you assert) I have not made any assumption but have stated the science as it stands. There is no question that we are responsible for the current in crease of CO2 and there is no question that adding more CO2 will cause warming.

I will also note that I did not say it was the sole cause as you state and I did not say anything in regards to it being either good or bad. So, in this regards I would say that you have made some premature assumptions about my comments.

My point was in trying to establish where there is a common base to build from.

Regards,
John

John

Whether they include ice dynamics uncertainty or the kitchen sink in the rate is beside the point. The point is that the IPCC is regularly changing (usually lowering) by significant margins their estimates of their global warming targets. So going all the way back to my initial point at the start of this thread, the science is clearly extremely fluid on this subject. But instead we're deluged with demogoguery, and that worries me more than a sea level rise that by the IPCC's current estimates would be basically the same as we've experienced in the last century.

"If, I repeat, IF AGW proponents truly want to convince us skeptics that the AGW science is accurate, conclusions valid, and solutions appropriate then you must, beyond the shadow of a doubt, show us that. Proponents must accept and explain discrepancies according to the same scientific method. You cannot just call the credibility of skeptics into questions while ignoring the holes in the theory. The theory must be nearly perfect, considering the ramifications it as for society." Frenchie77 @ 5:49 AM

EXACTLY !!

They can't defend their position ----- see UK court's Gore-take-down on at least nine counts of fraud.

So what is up with the alarmists ??

Simple. Similiar to the ole' rope-a-dope tactic.

Job one is to protect their jobs/pensions. (many are at middle age and with a resume like that have no hope of gainful employment)

Sooo, deflect, muddy the water, delay, put off procrastinating for awhile.

Many have said, and it is becoming true lately, that as the alarmists' science is destroyed, the fanatics will fall back on the religious "good for mankind' argument.

Good for mankind ?? Ya, right ----- good for Gore and Suzuki's pocket.

"There is no question that we are responsible for the current in crease of CO2 and there is no question that adding more CO2 will cause warming." JC

This is exactly how scammers and hoaxers operate. They do not tell the whole story.

Mankind has added CO2 to the atmosphere -- yes. No one I know of is denying that.

BUT, we are likely only a small part of the increase. CO2 levels have been much, much higher in the past. With no apparent harmful effects to Gaia. CO2 levels FOLLOW temps.

In fact warmer periods (Medieval Warm Period) were a hell of a lot nicer than colder periods. (Little Ice Age) Especially for friggin' freezin' Canuckland !! (Ever try living under a mile of ice !!??)

Additional increases of CO2 will cause very little more warming ---- that has been proven time and time and time again.

Diminissiong returns, CO2 is a minor GH gas, n' all that.

Prediction: Al Gore will be hauled up on 9 counts of fraud in a multi-million suit.

Tip: Do not be caught in a guilty-by-association charge :)

Chip: You say "Whether they include ice dynamics uncertainty or the kitchen sink in the rate is beside the point"

I disagree with that. It is very important how they calculate this or else we are comparing apples to oranges. You can disagree with the IPCC for changing the way it calculates, but to compare accurately it must be included.

Regards,
John

One gets the impression that John C simply wants the last word.

John Cross:
The link to the U. of Colorado site was very interesting. I was under the impression that there was a long term creep up in sea levels (continuation since the ice age?), but there was no rapid increase in the time scale of the recent warming (1975-present). The graph in your link shows a rapid increase of 3.2 mm per year. That is quite a change from the tidal gauges which showed a more steady 1.5-2.0 mm per year prior to 1979/80 depending on which set of gauges you prefer to use.

But is it really a change? The problem I see with the data is one of the same problems I see with most data posted by both ‘believers’ and ‘deniers’. The data is somewhat cherry picked, probably unintentional, but cherry picked nonetheless. What I would prefer to see is a plot of the trend of the tidal gauges prior to the advent of satellites and a continuation of the trend alongside the satellite data. What they present is the satellite data and how they calibrated it. Nice stuff, but not apples to apples. If the tidal gauges still register a 1.5-2.0 mm trend during the same period then where is the AGW contribution?

Looking at the nice color map, it appears to me what the satellites are measuring is a large gravitational anomaly in the western Pacific. It is a large area of rapidly subducting crust. It would seem to me that the sea level would rise in response. That would be a rise, but not due to AGW. Bad news in any regards if you live in Palau.

Lets say the 3.2 mm rise is correct, due to AGW, and observable at shore (it would have to be observable to be an item of concern). Levels will rise a little more than an inch in 10 years and less than a foot in a hundred years. What would you do differently than if it increased at half that rate without AGW? (please excuse the long post)

Ricardo: Thanks for the interesting response - I appreciate long posts that contain interesting and well expressed ideas.

First, I am not very familar with the satellite methodology so I can not address your comments about errors. In regards to comparison with tide records, there is a graphic in the AR4 - Figure 5.13 - which shows the comparison. According to that, the teo seem to agree well, although I note that they left out error bars on the satellite record. I think they should have included them!From what I have read, I believe the error bars should be +/- 5 mm /year, but I am not sure of that. They have also shown the tidal and satellite readings on an monthly basis for a single location (Kwajalein) in Figure 5.18.

I will note that there are problems with the tidal record as well since the land is not static but rises and sinks. How much is not a trivial question as this paper shows. In addition, the tidal record does not have global coverage as the satellite record does.

Whether it is a concern or not is a fair question and you have an excellent point that I have not thought of before "(it would have to be observable to be an item of concern). " A large increase in the open ocean would not be a concern (as long as it stayed there).

The rise of 3 mm/ year is not all that large as you point out, but it is expected to continue to increase from both melt and thermal expansion. This is how the IPCC comes up with their increase of 59 cm. (I will note that I have re-read the section and the predictions are for the mid 2090's, i.e. about 90 years from now. I am not sure why they did this but it does also help to account for the reduction in the predicted rise from the TAR). Also, getting back to my discussion with Chip, this number ignores what is being called the ice dynamics uncertainty. This refers to possible instability of the ice sheets in the future and there is some interesting recent research on it.

Regards,
John

PS Ward, I am happy to leave the last word to you if you wish, but I thought RicardoVerde's post was too interesting to ignore.