California Drownin'
The denial machine regularly recycles phony findings that climate change won’t be all that bad, or is all a big mistake. Meanwhile in the real world, the scientific implications of global warming just keep getting worse.
The latest is a paper published in the prestigious journal Science showing that melting ice caps in Antarctica will unevenly flood the planet – leading to much higher sea level rise in heavily populated areas of the northern hemisphere than previously believed.
According to these latest figures, Washington, New York and California could see the ocean rise by more than 21 feet - up to 25% higher than previously projected. Southern Florida could disappear entirely beneath the waves.
For years researchers assumed that the world’s oceans would behave like a bathtub in a warming world – any additional water from melting ice would spread evenly around the globe. Not true according to the researchers at Oregon State University, and the reasons illustrate the enormous forces being unleashed by our continued addiction to fossil fuels.
So colossal is the Antarctic ice mass that it exerts a powerful gravitational pull on surrounding waters, raising local sea levels. As this melting mass pours into the ocean, this effect will dissipate, redistributing waters elsewhere in the world.
“When an ice sheet melts, sea level does not change uniformly,” says Jerry Mitrovica, a geophysicist at the University of Toronto. “You get this whopping amplification of sea-level rise in North America.”
Scientists had also not considered what would happen to the underlying landmass when the incredible weight of Antarctic ice is released in a warming world. Researchers now believe that the Antarctic bedrock that currently sits under the ice sheet will slowly rebound upwards, pushing huge amounts of water out into the ocean.
Lastly, the melting of the West Antarctic ice sheet will cause the Earth's rotation axis to shift, moving water northward.
"The net effect of all of these processes is that if the West Antarctic ice sheet collapses, the rise in sea levels around many coastal regions will be as much as 25 per cent more than expected," said Mitrovica.
Don’t sell your waterfront just yet. These changes will take a long time but this research illustrates just how little we know about the dangerous and complex consequences of playing with the thermostat of the planet.
You can also check out this video of the researchers discussing their frightening findings. As an amusing aside, you can usually tell real scientists from store-bought variety because they dress worse, have less media training and look like they are appearing in a home movie. All of that is to their credit because they are rather preoccupied with unraveling the secrets of creation instead of prepping for spin session on Fox News.
As for the denial machine, expect them to ignore this research - and every other emerging scientific finding about climate change.
As a well-funded PR campaign rather than an honest intellectual exercise, such political theatre remains blissfully isolated from the real world. Expect more gooblygook about sunspots.
This month we're giving away FREE copies Nobel Laureate Dr. Andrew Weaver's new book Keeping Our Cool: Canada in a Warming World.
Go here to find out more details about DeSmogBlog's monthly book give-away.
nice article
That is pretty scary. We need a global warming strategy that is better integrated with markets so that it can work on a larger scale. Mark C. Henderson just proposed that in a book (see , http://wavesofthefuture.net/). Grants and one-time funding initiatives have their limits. We need something that will involve markets and is not based additonal funding. Details are available at this website: http://wavesofthefuture.net.
Tags: global warming solutions, green taxation strategies
Scary only if you buy the AWG theory.
Solar activity & the climate's state closley correlate over the long term and the sun is unuasually inactive right now.
Reduce pollution...ya of course.
Greenhouse gases endangering our planet...pretty far fetched
Davido stop repeating these worthless lies.
Go and check what the science says. You are a typical denier when your only contribution is repeating lies.
Long term...and it IS well documented.
A trace gas? WTF
If you have valid informatiion (i.e. peer reviewed paper) then produce it. Otherwise you are just repeating lies.
Recent examples of the solar effect are readily evident in sunspot vs temp in the Maunder & Dalton minimums. Many online sources for that.
and then....from a reputable juornal....buy your warm clothes.
C. de Jager, S. Duhau: Forecasting the parameters of sunspot cycle 24 and beyond.
Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics, vol. 71 (2009), 239 – 245
Abstract. Solar variability is controlled by the internal dynamo which is a nonlinear system. We develop a physical-statistical method for forecasting solar activity that takes into account the non-linear character of the solar dynamo. The method is based on the generally accepted mechanisms of the dynamo and on recently found systematic properties of the long-term solar variability. The amplitude modulation of the Schwabe cycle in the dynamo’s magnetic field components can be decomposed in an invariant transition level and three types of oscillations around it. The regularities that we observe in the behaviour of these oscillations during the last millennium enable us to forecast solar activity. We find that the system is presently undergoing a transition from the recent Grand Maximum to another regime. This transition started in 2000 and it is expected to end around the maximum of cycle 24, foreseen for 2014, with a maximum sunspot number Rmax = 68 ± 17. At that time a period of lower solar activity will start. That period will be one of regular oscillations, as occurred between 1730 and 1923. The first of these oscillations may even turn out to be as strongly negative as around 1810, in which case a short Grand Minimum similar to the Dalton one might develop. This moderate to low-activity episode is expected to last for at least one Gleissberg cycle (60 - 100 years).
Do you believe in astrology as well? Here are some real science data, from sources that actually measure solar irradiance, not make it up from sun spot numbers.
http://preview.tinyurl.com/ouhvb
Not very convincing, solar irraidiance is only one component of the sun's energy.
I'm happy to sit back, watch the news and wait for the term denier to switch sides.
Ignore the science and regurgitate denier lies, misinformation and obfuscation. What other components of solar energy are you referring to? Incoming solar energy is well documented and does not correspond to the nonsense that you are talking about.
Whoever you are, you should be ashamed of yourself (perhaps that is why you remain anonymous) for contributing to the inaction, which most likely, will be very bad for the earth and the people living on it.
Wow...touched a nerve did I?
Solar wind, which is at the lowest levels ever recorded and fields of magnetism, which are also below all previous measurments.
We obviously disagree....time will be the teller.
You just spread lies and distortions. That is why you are a denier.
And just what do the solar wind and solar magnestism have to do with global temperatures?
Cool temps during dalton & maunder minumums, warmer temps during the recent solar max and the current malaize of the sun....
Which one of these is a lie?
Good grief, no intelligent person is saying that the sun does not have an effect. It is the size which is important. We are talking of between 0.1 and 0.2 degrees C between solar minimum and solar maximum. This is swamped by the increase in temperature over the past 100 years. Besides, it is cyclical over a 11 year period so does nothing for the extended baseline of gloabal temperature rise. Good grief even a junior high school kid knows all about cycles and sine waves.
Those who insist that "it's the sun" are in complete denial of actual science.
Go away, you are doing a disservice by your constant disregard for real science.
They are strong indicators of solar activity and do influence climate.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_variation
You distribute your rubbish and anti-science drivel all over the internet. How can you claim to be a scientist when you treat good science in a such a negative way and you are obvioulsy so completely ignorant of climate science?
define solar activity.
Do you mean radiant intensity, sunspots, flares, magnetic fields or all of the above?
as always Davido, your science is garbage and the other sides "science" correct. Sit back and relax...the jig is up on Michael Mann and his "science". they needed warming in the antartic and presto...warming...something about not using actual temps but some kind of model bs. i guess the science in the hockey stick was valid as well..
Hi everyone, just wanted to remind you all of our comment policy: http://www.desmogblog.com/comment-policy
If you want to make claims on the science it's helpful to provide links. If you're just going to say things like the "the jig is up on Michael Mann" or call people names, you'll be deleted. This type of baseless back and forth gets us nowehere.
the only links I find on this sites responses are from the deniers side. interesting you would comment on my response asking for such. name calling etc? "this clown", "idiot" and "lier" prompted nary a response from you...as far as Michael Mann.. Energy and Environment vol. 14. #6. 2003....Climate Audit "dirty Harry 4" Steve McIntyre (2/02/09). Looking at patterns I am sure you will bash Steve for his work and call him names but I am only trying to interject some thought from people who look over articles and question things....like scientists are supposed to do. sincerely, richard u. mascera jr.
mascereye said: "the only links I find on this sites responses are from the deniers side", That is complete nonsense. One of the traits of a denier is not to give references for the rubbish they post. If they do give cites, it is usually to non-scientific sources such as "Energy and Environment" or "climatefraudit".
Ooh, I see that is what you cite. If you want to be taken seriously then do some reading up on the science and stay away from the denier sites. There is an old saying "birds of a feather flock together". Whoever wrote that must have been thinking of AGW deniers. There are literally tens of thousands of genuine and well written papers in the peer reviewed scientific literature but deniers always go to denier sites for their science. I think that tells us all what their motives are.
There is so much science to choose from that SUPPORTS AGW, YOU REALLY HAVE TO BE VERY SELECTIVE INDEED TO CONCLUDE that the general body of science DISAGREES with AGW AND you have to IGNORE the HUGE MOUNTAIN of science that SUPPORTS AGW.
With the amount of twaddle emanating from denialists of various flavours, it is pointless arguing the toss with each and every idiot, who will promptly disappear only to reappear under a different name. The denialists never argue objective science, they cherrypick or lie & etc. As soon as they realise they've lost they shut up and start to troll on some blog elsewhere.
It is easy to find any amount of peer reviewed science on any subject - Google Scholar is a good place to start, but one has to be able to tell between science and garbage.
Energy and Environment is not an ISI peer reviewed journal, therefore articles published in it are not science and are de facto untrustworthy. They are to be ignored. When they have a respected P/R process, their articles will be treated as science and taken seriously.
Climate Fraudit is a source of lies, spin and disinformation. The day they start being objective about the science, is the day that those with an objective interest will trust their analyses.
There are numerous independent proxy palaoeclimate reconstructions that are broadly similar to Mann, Bradley and Hughes 1998. That alone should be sufficient for the non-scientist to show that MBH98's groundbreaking work was pretty sound. However, like all science, advances are made; there can be little doubt that much has been learned about palaoeclimate reconstructions and that the quality and reliability of such reconstructions has improved since and it is likely that reconstructions will continue to improve.
I refer you to figure 6.10, page 467 of "Palaeoclimate" from the IPCC. For analysis, see the text.
http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4WG1_Print_Ch06.pdf
IPCC WG1 AR4 Report
http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/wg1-report.html
i think he was name calling again! the ipcc is peer reviewed? objective science. according to algore's very large graph, temps went up and then co2 went up. i know, now its sensitivity, forcing and blah blah. then there was this hockey stick thing (that u say is still in play? and btw...was that peer reviewed in Science.?) where is the antartic warming? (except in the new Steig, Mann (peer reviewed?) paper which even Kevin Trem. said looked pretty sketchy).objective science. where is the hotspot? Where is that signature? Why dont the models show the constant global temp for over a decade? fellas- go back and look up maurice strong....see where this all evolved from. see what his objectives are..btw...you guys won, we are now a collective society and your fearless leader will nail it down...google will now monitor our energy use...complete government control and we will be mindless like the europeans in a very short time so dont fret over all the denier stuff..we are the last stand for freedom and its almost all gone...the scary thing to me is that most of you understand this and are still for it . peace
And no-one was there to pick them up?
You are acting like a spoiled infant. You really don't have a clue how stupid you are showing your self to be. You are either a completely dishonest denier troll or some one who is so out of touch with scientific reality that they shouldn't even be taking part in an adult discussion group.
Everything you have posted has been documented over and over again to be lies, disinformation and obfuscation put out by the deniers to protect their own arrogant and selfish ends. Why are you supporting these riduculous ideals? You should know better if you have even had only a mediocre education.
All of your references in this post suggest to me that you haven't read anything very recent, or very reliable. If you have read anything, you clearly don't understand it -- the remark about models not showing the levelling off during the past few years is very revealing. Invoking Maurice Strong is just plain bizarre. The paranoia re: creeping socialism is also a tipp-off.
Ian, don't waste your time getting in a lather or engaging this guy. He's another Rob & he'll never get it. Calling him a liar misses the mark, because he really believes whet he's saying -- that's what's so sad.
the co2 preceded the warming? so, the signature IS present? so, the antartic is warming? so, the hockey stick wasn't bogus? and we are not creeping to socialism, we are here. and why was my last post not allowed? maybe calling out ian wasn't taken the right way...you guys dont intimidate me and your m.o. is the same everywhere. just answer if the co2 came first or last and was it not shown in "the movie" that way on purpose or just b/c algore has no clue? enough with the "i don't understand crap" and just answer the questions...if u don't have an acceptable answer from your "side" just say you don't know...and I don't know one person your referring to in your snide comments about who I must be or am writing for......
It is impossible to comprehend what you are trying to say. It probably is not worth interpreting it anyway since it appears to be nonsense.
Why are all you deniers so proud of your illiteracy and ignorance of science? Do you wear your clown suit only when you are at the computer or do you wear it all the time?
And as for your ignorance about CO2 and temperature the difference between CO2 being a forcing and feedback is explained in most early papers about CO2 and the green house effect.
See here for example:
http://tinyurl.com/aabno6
try responding without the childish adjectives. if we could only meet in person...so in looking at your little chart it basically says that because you can't figure out what may cause the increase in temps the only thing that makes sense is co2 because that has increased as well...brilliant. oh wait...there is this orbital thing that must at least start the warming because there is a lag, but then , of course, co2 starts a positive feedback. wow...genius', all of you..i'm not so sure why its so hard for you to figure out my questions? is there a signature in the atmosphere? a hot spot as they say? go to your little handbook and see if steig and mann have figured out how to make one appear. was mann's hockey stick peer reviewed before it was published in Science? was it debunked? not hard questions...if i need to simplify them let me know and i'll see if there is another handbook i can lead you to.
"we will be mindless like the europeans "
"we are the last stand for freedom "
Hmm. One of those.
a sock puppit for Gary. Any takers?
I thought that attitude was familiar.
Check the comments.
http://www.desmogblog.com/its-not-easy-being-green-land
Science on both sides is new and speculative....however, wearing two shirts or one shirt you're going to notice when the amount of heat your receiving declines. Waiting & watching seems more prudent than knee-jerk reaction at this point..no?
What part of TOTAL Solar Irradiance don't you understand?
And we are at a solar minimum after a long period of declining solar output combined with an increasing temperature anomaly.
Of course solar output has an effect, but it's just one of many factors involved. Increasing night-time temperatures would tend to confirm the GHG connection as does the cooling stratosphere. These also would tend to contradict the solar theory.
Convinced? No of course you aren't, you go and believe your fairy stories / pseudoscience!
Hmmm, most data (many sources) Ive seen presented actually doesn't support the fact of ongoing warming. In fact several data present the fact that there has been no glogal warming since about 2002 and a cooling trend is happening.
These are decades long trends.... quite frankly everybody is bewildered at this point and it's informative to watch the gyrations of public opinion.
Which is true?
a) All Scientists are dishonest lying idiots involved in a global conspiracy, for which no evidence exists.
or
b) There is a documented disinformation campaign funded by fossil-fuel companies and big energy using industry to deceive the public and protect their profits. Based upon the successful tobacco industry disinformation of 'sound science'. Their aim has been to undermine the public's understanding of science by providing scientifically ludicrous but persuasive pseudo-science often witten by one or more paid scientists to give it a scientific gloss. 'Doubt is their product'.
*********************************
You can start with an objective source.
Try the metoffice
http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcrut3/
"In fact several data present the fact that there has been no glogal warming since about 2002 and a cooling trend is happening."
Nice trick, and that's all it is--a trick, since 5-6 years is no where near long enough for any trend in climate to emerge from short term trends in weather.
Why is it that some people expect day-to-day, year-to-year and even decade-to-decade natural variation to simply vanish while there is a long-term warming trend caused by steadily rising CO2?
It boggles the mind.
There is no empirical evidence to support that claim. Recent work has shown that there are long periods of warming and cooling e.g the PDO which has a period of 30 years, the Klyashtorin-Lyubushin cycle which has a period of 66 year. and the Pacific Ocean Oscillation which has a period of 60 years. There are a number of similar cycles in the Atlantic Ocean. It turns out most of these have been in a warm phase since ca the mid 1970's. Most of these have shifted into a cool phase starting in ca 2000. The climate is starting to cool down and it going really cold for the next 60-70 years.
There has been no sunspots for almost year. When the sunspots go away, the earth cools down. It is quite possible the earth is entering into another Little Ice Age, but we won't know this for sure until about 2100.
Harold Pierce said: "What warming trend?.......most of these shifted into a cool phase starting in ca 2000."
That is utter rubbish and you should know that. The global temperature trend 2000 to 2008 is 0.2 degrees C per decade. Plot the GISS data and do a simple linear regression, shouldn't be too hard for you since you claim to have a PhD (by the way did you get it in a packet of Nutty Crisps?).
People like you who should know better but are willing to tell lies are the worst kind of denier troll. You even use the logical fallacy of argument from authority to try and convince peope that you are telling the truth when in fact you are promulgating viscous lies.
Yet Fred doesn't let that stop him from pushing the untested and unsupported "natural cycle" hypothesis as "fact" at every opportunity.
davido wirites: "A trace gas? WTF"
David, if you did only a modicum of research in reputable science sources you'd learn that all greenhouse gases combined, including water vapour, constitute less than 0.5% of the atmosphere, yet that 0.5% is responsible for making Earth's average surface temperature 33C/59F warmer than it would be if those greenhouse gases were not present. (Look up Earth's black-body temperature, the temperature Earth should radiate at based on how much sunlight it receives)
That's +15C/59F instead of -18C/0F--not bad for a few trace gases, eh?
That's because 99.5% of the atmosphere is completely transparent to light energy and doesn't even enter into the equation, at least not until we start taking about turning that light energy into kinetic energy through molecular collision between excited greenhouse gas molecules and the nitrogen, oxygen and argon molecules that make up that 99.5%.
You'd also learn that while there is more water vapour in the atmosphere than there is CO2, there's not nearly as much more as you probably think there is--only a little over ten times as much, in fact, or around 0.4% water vapour vs 0.038% CO2. Moreover, that water vapour is not evenly distributed as most of it is concentrated close to Earth's surface, and even then it varies widely, ranging from as high as 4% in a tropical rain forest to 1% or less over a large dry desert or over the polar ice caps where it is cold, and thus the air can hold less water vapour before it condenses out. (Look up relative and absolute humidity.) Water vapour concentration also falls very rapidly as you go up in elevation for the same reason, with almost none remaining by the time you reach the upper troposphere, let alone reach the stratosphere. Yet CO2 remains well-mixed at 0.038% right into the stratosphere since it does not condense out at ambient atmospheric temperature on Earth, so in much of the atmosphere there is actually more CO2 than there is water vapour.
In fact, CO2 plays an important role in determining how much water vapour there is in the atmosphere. CO2 provides roughly 20% of the greenhouse effect, but if somehow you were to remove all of it, much more than 20% of greenhouse effect would also vanish. That's because the warming that CO2 adds allows the atmosphere to hold more water vapour. Remove CO2's warming and a substantial amount of water vapour would also condense and precipitate out. And as it did, the warming that water vapour provided would also disappear, and so on in a feedback loop until very little water vapour remained in the atmosphere at all.
But don't take my word for it, look this stuff up. And remember what you learn the next time you are tempted to dismiss CO2 as a mere trace gas, or the next time you read or hear someone using this "trace gas" argument. Then set them straight.
Jim
Thanks for your considered and rational reply.
No doubt the greenhouse effect has reasonable theoretical basis, that's kind of intuative.
When your camping in subzero weather (like 0 Kelvin) you notice when someone takes a log off the fire.
The greenhouse effect is not only theoretical, it is proven, it can be detected and measured!
But artificially boosting the GH effect primarily with CO2, but also with other gases derived from various human activities is not considered a good idea by those who have studied the science.
has much more than a reasonable theoretical basis, David, it has a solid experimental basis. It was first demonstrated by laboratory experiment 150 years ago, and can quite easily be demonstrated in any high school science lab today:
http://www.espere.net/Unitedkingdom/water/uk_watexpgreenhouse.htm
I'll assume your campfire is an analogue for the sun. Of course changes in solar insolation will affect Earth's energy budget, and therefore its climate, whether it is due to an actual change in solar radiance or a change in Earth's orbit and axial tilt. No one would argue otherwise, or that it can and has at times completely overwhelmed and driven greenhouse warming, or at least no one should. Certainly no scientist would.
That the sun is currently just past the minimum of the sun spot cycle, and remains unusually quiet (taking a log, or at least a stick, off your fire), can't but have a temporary cooling effect, especially as it comes on the tail of a La Nina (that breeze on your back as you sit around your camp fire).
The question is has there been sufficient change in solar output to fully account for the observed warming of the past 100 years without also including the increase CO2? And the answer is no:
Phenomenological solar contribution to the 1900–2000 global surface warming
Scafetta & West - Geophysical Research Letters, 2006
http://www.fel.duke.edu/~scafetta/pdf/2005GL025539.pdf
If you object so much to peoples' honest description about your behaviour and intelligence then you know what to do about it. Stop behaving like a spoiled child and go and read for yourself what honest scientists have to say.
Most of what you say here is not worthy of a response. You haven't a clue what you are talking about. A good example is your question "was mann's hockey stick peer reviewed before it was published in Science"? This just shows that you do not know what you are talking about. Mann's paper was not published in Science but in Nature (Mann, Bradley and Hughes, "Global-scale temperature patterns and climate forcing over the past six centuries", Nature, v392, 779-787, 1998).
And what "little chart" are you referring to? If you had opened the link I gave you, you would have seen that it was to a list of several places where the difference between CO2 being a feed-back and a forcing are explained in rather simple terms. Did you not read them or, simple as they were, they were too intellectually challenging for you?
All of your other questions are not worthy of a response since the answers are easliy found if you would only take the trouble to read some science based sources. Did you ask them merely to add to the smog which this site is dedicated to remove? If so, I think that you should be banned for your dishonest behaviour.
ok you caught me...it was in Nature....the point is, was it peer reviewed? i'll reply like u do....so you idiotic moron do u think that the important point was what magazine it was in or if it was peer reviewed, you intellectual midget.Was it peer reviewed or not? the chart i was referring to was the handbook made for all the stupid people who can't think for themselves so you have to look it up in your guide for stupid people on how to answer the questions from deniers that you really don't have good answers for.how old are you anyway? the name calling is so childish and it must mean that you can't answer the questions i pose because you are either an idiot or are hiding from the truth. wow, that was really hard for me to get down to that level. try and keep it civil moron and i'll stick around for some more "discussion"
I think you've seen more than enough of mascerey's abusive, off-topic and obnoxious behaviour to conclude that he has no intention of following your comment policy.
Time to put him out of his misery.
is not insulting. I only describe your behaviour on this blog. If you continue to behave in an infantile, insulting and stupid fashion I will call you on it every time. I don't like your dishonesty either.
If you don't like being described in that fashion then you know what to do about it i.e. start behaving in an adult and civilized manner.
I agree with Jim, this troll has outstayed his welcome. Time to get back to your fillings mascereye.
WAS THE HOCKEY STICK ARTICLE PEER REVIEWED?
Behave in a civilized manner and you may get a response.
The answer should be obvious to anyone who has any interest in science at all. Of course deniers will always distort the truth.
Global-scale temperature patterns and climate forcing over the past six centuries
Mann, Bradley and Hughes, Nature 1998; Cited 798 times
The better question is how many of those cites were in peer-reviewed papers.
Verses how many for this paper:
Corrections to the Mann et. al. (1998) Proxy Data Base and Northern Hemispheric Average Temperature Series
McIntyre, McKitrick, Energy & Environment, 2003; Cited by 76 times
Be sure to get back to us when you've looked them all up, sweetie.