They do state that it shrank 14% in one year. It can't shrink at that rate for 250 years and be anything other than an icecube today.
Paul | 04.04.07 - 2:54 pm | #

Ergo, it hasn't been shrinking at that rate until recently.
Pavel Chichikov | Homepage | 04.04.07 - 2:59 pm | #

There's carbon forcing at work, including but not exclusively Chinese coal-fired power plants going up at the rate of one per week (sic).

You don't understand what you just read in that CBC piece.

We're talking about the ice cap of a planet, not your home freezer. The recent rate of melting - without replenishment - is astonishing.

Could you possibly educate yourself instead of relying on cracker-barrel logic?
Pavel Chichikov | Homepage | 04.04.07 - 3:04 pm | #

This change could open up shipping lanes and also allow more exploration of natural resources in the Artic Ocean region.
dpt | 04.04.07 - 3:14 pm | #

On the other hand, most of Antarctica is becoming colder and the ice shelf is growing. Everyone concentrates on the western shelf of that continent where one chunk is breaking off (part of a 300 + year process I understand)while the rest of that continent, the size of the USA at least, is experiencing a different cycle. There are too many contradictory pieces of evidence to reach a solid conclusion on the extent and the cause(s) of a warming. In the Middle Ages western Europe was much warmer than now and agriculture, population and the economy flourished. That was followed by a mini "ice age" and a decline in prosperity.
Arnold | 04.04.07 - 3:19 pm | #

In modern times to question the dogma that human activity causes Global Warming one gets the same negative reaction one might have gotten 75 years ago if one questioned the existence of The Almighty. The reaction is similar if you deny the existence of Alien life on other planets.

(Of course those of us who are True Red Dwarf Fans know there are no Aliens)
BenYachov(Jim Scott 4th) | 04.04.07 - 3:34 pm | #

Mark, As you well know, the Chinese did not burn wood prior to 250 years ago.
sdben5 | 04.04.07 - 3:39 pm | #

When I was in Alaska - in Denali to be soecific - I stood in the middle of a very wide valley in which I could see for many miles in either direction. The valley was carved out by a glacier. The Glacier has been gone for hundreds of years. Global warming? Not a chance.

face it ... the climate of this planet is not stable. It is not now and never has been. We are not seeing anything unusual or man made.

The earth does not usually have polar ice caps ... their presence indicates that we are in a cold period that is ending. In other words, it is getting warmer. Duh!

CO2 levels always rise when the temperature of the planet rises ... as a lagging indicator, not a leading indicator. It is the result not the cause.

Global warming is a political power play.

Consensus is not science - it is the opposite of science.
quasimodo | 04.04.07 - 3:42 pm | #

These arguments (above) are answered often and at length in the literature. They're talking points, not even hypotheses.

"When I was in Alaska - in Denali to be soecific - I stood in the middle of a very wide valley in which I could see for many miles in either direction. The valley was carved out by a glacier. The Glacier has been gone for hundreds of years. Global warming? Not a chance."

Try that out on an atmospheric physicist or chemist from NASA or NOAA.
Pavel Chichikov | Homepage | 04.04.07 - 3:50 pm | #

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/ameri.../6496429.stm? ls

Glaciers?
Pavel Chichikov | Homepage | 04.04.07 - 4:28 pm | #

*sigh*

Pavel, don't you know that the atmospheric chemist from NASA cares only about his funding and he is merely articulating the position that the big government bureaucrats want him to in order to take more of your money?

Any schmo can see that climate fluctuates from year to year.
Michael | 04.04.07 - 4:31 pm | #

"Pavel, don't you know that the atmospheric chemist from NASA cares only about his funding and he is merely articulating the position that the big government bureaucrats want him to in order to take more of your money?"

I've actually interviewed an atmospheric chemist from NASA, and an atmospheric physicist, for an Idaho weekly newspaper.

Have you done anything similar?

"Any schmo can see that climate fluctuates from year to year."

It's not news, Michael.
Pavel Chichikov | Homepage | 04.04.07 - 4:50 pm | #

I'll take hard Green anti-warming activists more seriously when they say that they are willing to bite the bullet and build more nuke plants like those robber-baron capitalists the Swedes (47% of electricity from nukes) and the French (78%).
Ed the Roman | 04.04.07 - 5:40 pm | #

I always get a kick out of Michael's *sigh*'s. If they don't prove how much smarter he is than the rest of us, I don't know if we can ever get it through our thick skulls.
cricket | Homepage | 04.04.07 - 6:30 pm | #

This stuff is scary and depressing. For the sake of His sorrowful Passion, have mercy on us and on the whole world.

It is a real danger, one that the more we hear about the less we really know. Perhaps we need to be looking less at newspapers and more at nature itself. And another part of the danger is that it could indeed invite a totalitarian response.

Furthermore, panic and hysteria are never appropriate responses, especially to a real threat.
current lector | 04.04.07 - 6:33 pm | #

"I'll take hard Green anti-warming activists more seriously when they say that they are willing to bite the bullet and build more nuke plants like those robber-baron capitalists the Swedes (47% of electricity from nukes) and the French (78%)."

Ed, pro-civil-nuclear-power environmentalists exist, notably James Lovelock. But he's also a lot more pessimistic than just about any other scientist engaged in this debate.
Pavel Chichikov | Homepage | 04.04.07 - 6:49 pm | #

If you think the environmentalists gloom and doom (verbs), you should read Lovelock. His views seem to have little or no support among his colleagues. They're a lot more moderate and cautious.

That doesn't mean he's wrong.
Pavel Chichikov | Homepage | 04.04.07 - 6:53 pm | #

" This stuff is scary and depressing. For the sake of His sorrowful Passion, have mercy on us and on the whole world."

Amen.
Pavel Chichikov | Homepage | 04.04.07 - 6:55 pm | #

The peer reviewed science on global warming is overwhelming- a 2004 survey in 'Science'showed that of the 928 peer-reviewed papers on the subject, none disagreed with the consensus position.
On the other hand the balance in the media has been split almost 50-50 between the scientific evidence and the sceptical case. That is the way the media works, and it may be suitable for debatable political issues, it is very unbalanced before such overwhelming scientific opinion. Unfortunately this glaring imbalance seems to go unnoticed and unremarked.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has just made its fourth report's Summary for Policymakers. It makes the point that there is no longer a debate among scientists about human-caused global warming: the debate is about what to do about it.
Why do so many americans have such doubts about a science in which they have been the pioneers. As a consequence the USA is seen as the most dangerous polluter, not only from the enormous relative amount of pollution it produces, but also from the refusal of so many of its citizens to see the need to change consumption habits. Stewards of creation? God help creation.
The Church too is lagging behind in its response to the crisis. That is more surprising...
John Prangley | 04.04.07 - 6:55 pm | #

"The Church too is lagging behind in its response to the crisis. That is more surprising..."

It's catching up, John. A google search will show some recent statements. But Vatican City doesn't add much to global carbon loading.
Pavel Chichikov | Homepage | 04.04.07 - 6:59 pm | #

Why would the Church get involved in this debate? Will driving an SUV become a sin?
Anonymous | 04.04.07 - 7:22 pm | #

" Why would the Church get involved in this debate? Will driving an SUV become a sin?"

Yeah, your penance is to cross Detroit on the hottest day of the summer on a unicycle.

No, all the Church can do is warn and exhort. It has emphasized the harm that may come to less developed countries which are exposed to the effects of global climate change.
Pavel Chichikov | Homepage | 04.04.07 - 7:58 pm | #

http://www.breitbart.com/article...cle=1&catnum=- 1

Ed, if you're reading this an addition to the discussion re global warming on Mars, above.

Also, in previous discussions I neglected to refer to the greater eccentricity of the Martian orbit.
Pavel Chichikov | Homepage | 04.04.07 - 8:03 pm | #

Wouldn't greater harm come to those countries that rely heavily upon technology? I live in southern Louisiana and my life was turned upside down for a while after Katrina/Rita simply because so much of my day to day existence relies upon electricity and my parish (that's what we've got instead of counties) was without it for 6 weeks. I would think that a place not so reliant upon technological advances would do rather well in adapting to any (alleged) effects of climate change.
adolfo.rodriguez | 04.04.07 - 8:21 pm | #

"The peer reviewed science on global warming is overwhelming- a 2004 survey in 'Science'showed that of the 928 peer-reviewed papers on the subject, none disagreed with the consensus position."

sounds like one of Mao's or Stalin's elections. He would always win with 100% of the vote.

Did that "consensus" mean that everyone wanted him to be ruler?
Ken | Homepage | 04.04.07 - 8:49 pm | #

" Wouldn't greater harm come to those countries that rely heavily upon technology."

Those countries have the wealth to adapt. The Netherlands can and has built monumental sea barriers. Bangladeshis can either drown or emigrate.
Pavel Chichikov | Homepage | 04.04.07 - 9:02 pm | #

"sounds like one of Mao's or Stalin's elections. He would always win with 100% of the vote."

Yes, you can do that by murdering your opponents. When Michael Crichton and Bjorn Lomborg are killed by a cabal of NASA scientists and Harvard professors I'll see the relevance.

You can also get consensus by being right. For instance, the universal acceptance that the earth revolves around the sun, gravity...not that global warming is in that category. But it's closer than that than your utterly moronic comparison.
Katherine | 04.04.07 - 11:42 pm | #

Mark Twain once said that history doesn't repeat itself, but it does rhyme. It may be that it's about to rhyme on a grand scale. Educate yourselves. In today's world the task is to separate the wheat from the chaff, the signal from the noise. Whether or not global warming is man-made is a side issue. Change is coming. What will *you* do about it? Personally I place my faith in God and I ride my bicycle a lot more than I used to.

Hey! How did I get on this soapbox?! Ach!
Paul | 04.04.07 - 11:46 pm | #

do you know why there's consensus? because those who disagree are shouted down and lose funding. they aren't allowed to practice science.

do you think that a psychologist trying to earn tenure would get that if they said that homosexuality weren't ingrained, or that spanking weren't detrimental to children, or things of that nature, that are "common knowledge" to the academy? it's the same principle.

in science, when you have 100% consensus about something which isn't proven AS A LAW OF SCIENCE, then you can be rest assured that there is something fishy going on.

unless you are blinded by ideology, then i guess "the debate is over" and there is no possible way they could be wrong or misinterpreting the data...or completely making up the data.

http://www.technologyreview.com/...m/Energy/13830/

but tell me, in 20 years, when millions are impoverished by the "necessary means" to curb global warming, but nothing actually happens, is Al Gore going to be brought before the Senate to explain himself? to face criminal charges for the lives he destroyed? will anyone be held accountable for the hysteria if global warming doesn't happen?

or will it be like Rachel Carson, who made all of her "proven" claims, and then was wrong, at the cost of millions of lives in the developing world?

who will be responsible for that, or will it just be another pet project swept under the rug quietly when it doesn't turn out quite like you think it would?
Ken | Homepage | 04.05.07 - 2:00 am | #

Anonymous asked if driving an SUV would be a sin. If the consensus is right then the answer is yes. And the Bishop of Londin has declared it so. The same Bishop who has foresworn flying.
As to the abuse of the consensus, I would only point out that it is not just those who have been funded to look at the problem who are saying that it is an urgent crisis that we are in the middle of. A tower of Babel is the home of these sceptics.
Not all scientists either are mere money grubbers. Csan we not expect integrity to dwell among them too?
John Prangley | 04.05.07 - 5:49 am | #

It's easy to forswear flying in Britain; they still have meaningful passenger rail, and as has been often said, in America, 200 years is a long time. In Europe, 200 miles is a long distance.
Ed the Roman | 04.05.07 - 9:11 am | #

I am an “ex” scientist. I have over 100 publications in the field of materials science and physics. Many of these publications are in peer reviewed journals such as The Journal of the American Ceramic Society, Materials Research Society Journal and Journal of Applied Physics. I have sat on committees that review papers for these journals. I have worked at the following national laboratories: NIST, Oak Ridge (site X) and Brookhaven National Laboratory. I have spent 10 years living off of federally funded research. I have written winning proposals for government funding in the 10’s of millions of dollars. In short, I am very well aware of the process of getting and keeping funding and getting papers published in peer reviewed publications.

I have seen papers (perfectly good, well researched) papers rejected for publication for the following reasons:
1. The paper went against prevailing theory on a topic.
2. The paper was submitted by a company that was a competitor for government funding.
3. The paper was submitted by a government agency that was a competitor of the reviewer’s agency.
4. The author of the paper was disliked by one of the reviewers.

This is how the funding process works:
1. You determine what the latest ‘hot’ topic is (global warming, ceramic superconductivity, stealth technology).
2. You write your proposal to fund the work you’ve been doing for years in your area but you slant it towards the hot topic.
3. You almost “prove” that the above hot topic is effected in a way that is positive toward your research.
4. You write a follow-on proposal where you state that the really big break-through will occur in the next funding cycle.
5. Oh, and you try to partner with entities that always get government funding.

It works like this: You study frogs in the Black Hills of South Dakota. Nobody wants to fund the study of frogs. Why would they? So in the early 80’s you write your proposal to study the effect of the hole in the ozone layer on the frogs. The mid 80’s your try to figure out how to write a proposal on frogs and missile defense but give up. In the 90’s you write proposals on how frog pee can help certain forms of cancer. You partner with NIH on this because they are getting lots of funding, being the ‘hot’ agency. You both know that the results are useless from the get go but you do it anyway. In the late 90’s you write proposals on how frogs from South Dakota can be used to detect nerve gas as part of the Global War on Terrorism. You routinely reject papers to the Journal of Herpetology that claim that five lined skinks can detect nerve gas by their tails falling off. In the 2000’s you are awarded grants to study the decline of frog populations in the Black Hills due to global warming, despite the fact the frogs were there through the last dozen ice ages and that they’ve survived eight periods since the last ice age where the temperature was much warmer than now. You know that the frog population is declining because the government is leasing the land to cattle ranchers and the cows are crapping in the water but you don’t really care because you’re now just a few years away from retirement and you don’t want to work at Burger King.
John J. Simmins | 04.05.07 - 10:16 am | #

I wouldn't mind shrinking 14% this year. Global warming hasn't done a thing for me, d**it!
whimsy | 04.05.07 - 10:17 am | #

“This stuff is scary and depressing. For the sake of His sorrowful Passion, have mercy on us and on the whole world.”

“Furthermore, panic and hysteria are never appropriate responses, especially to a real threat.”

Some do find it scary and while others having been bemoaning the “end of the world” (Malthus, etc.) for a long long time. Heck, some like Paul Erhlich make a nice career out of promoting a “sky is falling” message.

I think it is important to keep the science of all it in perspective. Climates have changed, mountains have formed and eroded, glaciers have come and gone, sea levels have risen and fallen, shore lines have been altered, and species have gone extinct—sometimes very suddenly and dramatically--long before man set foot on earth and long before the invention of the internal combustion engine.

Nature adapts to changes (evolution, natural selection), and man can adapt too. Noted in a comment above is how the Netherlands have built dikes and levees to manage its environment, with some of those structures built well before the time of automobiles and electricity.

Despite the hype of Al Gore and friends and some in the media, the world is not 10-15 years away from a tipping point…whatever that is suppose to mean.

And if they believed that, how come they are not proposing radical changes in our economy? If the tipping point is pending, then the Kyoto accords are as useful as a wet tissue.
dpt | 04.05.07 - 10:27 am | #

I've actually interviewed an atmospheric chemist from NASA, and an atmospheric physicist, for an Idaho weekly newspaper.

Oh yeah? Well I've read a couple blog articles and watch "Weather on the 1s" every morning. Sometimes I watch it twice. All you have are "experts". Self-appointed experts if you ask me. And what kind of field is "atmospheric chemistry" anyway? Sounds like someone couldn't handle real chemistry and took the easy way out...

Have you done anything similar?

Um. I have a Ph.D. in a (completely un)related field of science (biophysics) so I think I know a thing or two about evolu- wait, I mean global warming. Sh*t, what are we talking about again?

I always get a kick out of Michael's *sigh*'s. If they don't prove how much smarter he is than the rest of us, I don't know if we can ever get it through our thick skulls.

*sigh*

It is not my exasperated exhalations that prove how much smarter I am, cricket. It's my arrogant tone and occasional use of big words that prove that. The sighs are merely a punctuation. That you cannot recognize something so blindingly obvious simply underscores how truly beneath me and my totally kickass Ph.D. you really are...
Michael | 04.05.07 - 10:37 am | #

Pavel,

By the way, I'm sorry if you didn't realize my first post was utter sarcasm. I think your arguments here are invaluable and you should keep them up. I admittedly know very little about the actual science behind the issue (as little as I suspect nearly everyone who has an opinion on the matter does) and people who don't know tend to form opinions based on preconceived political notions. Which, of course, is bad for science. So keep pushing, particularly against people who spout of ridiculous nonsense...
Michael | 04.05.07 - 10:44 am | #

"Pavel, don't you know that the atmospheric chemist from NASA cares only about his funding and he is merely articulating the position that the big government bureaucrats want him to in order to take more of your money?"

Yep, considering some of the other posts here I missed the sarcasm.

The two guys I spoke with at NASA were involved in a joint NASA-Swedish project to measure stratospheric ozone depletion in the high Arctic. Since tropospheric warming appears to corolate with stratospheric cooling, and that in turn results in increased ozone depletion in the stratosphere, they're interested in global climate change.

I'm not a scientist, but the spectacle of an entire planet undergoing climate change is fascinating, considering that it's one we happen to be living on.

And yes, it is scary, if you think about it. No one, neither skeptic nor proponent, can tell you what's going to happen next, only that changes are underway.

The response of big businesses that are directly concerned, such as the great insurers and re-insurers, and the reaction of nations that can afford to react, such as the Netherlands, should impress even hard-headed pragmatists. To make this an ideological issue is a big mistake.

I've heard a lot of cynical comments about the opportunism of climatologists, but as far as I know not even well known skeptics, like Dr. Lindzen, have ever accused their colleagues of fraud.
Pavel Chichikov | Homepage | 04.05.07 - 11:17 am | #

Yep, considering some of the other posts here I missed the sarcasm.

I totally thought I was being over the top and now I realize that that's not the case...

To make this an ideological issue is a big mistake.

I second that. There does not have to be a liberal/socialist/big government/authoritarian response. But there is going to need to be a response. If people don't like what Al Gore says we need to do to address the problem, the solution is to address the problem differently, not deny that the problem exists. Otherwise, when the realization does hit the skeptics, the only plans in place will be his.


I've heard a lot of cynical comments about the opportunism of climatologists, but as far as I know not even well known skeptics, like Dr. Lindzen, have ever accused their colleagues of fraud.

This bothers me the most. What John Simmins says above (re: article rejection) is very true. We must never forget that there is a very human element to science, which has all the competition and jealousy you see in any community, especially ones with big egos. But I have never heard of good research being essentially blacklisted from publication. It usually gets published somewhere. But it isn't the lack of any real opposition in the vanity journals that demonstrates the consensus; it is the lack of any real opposition anywhere. That ascends to the level of conspiracy.

Another place to look for dissent is at conferences, where very few (if any) abstracts are rejected. It can often serve as a record of what ideas are being shot down by consensus science.

Scientists do not have as much of a chilling effect on dissenters as the cynics would have us believe and I have seen no real evidence that that is what is going on here.
Michael | 04.05.07 - 12:08 pm | #

The response of big businesses that are directly concerned, such as the great insurers and re-insurers, and the reaction of nations that can afford to react, such as the Netherlands, should impress even hard-headed pragmatists. To make this an ideological issue is a big mistake.

As these comments demonstrate, most global warming conversations go nowhere because they focus on whether global warming is happening. For the sake of argument, I'll concede that Global Warmingis real and manmade. Now what? Someone needs to demonstrate that the cost of stopping climate change is less than its ill effects.

Pavel warns that people who live near waterways can't get flood insurance, but that's not really true. I personally will provide flood insurance to anyone who wants it. All you have to do is cut me a check for 10% of the value of your home, and I'll be happen to ensure you for a year. Insurance is always available if you're willing to pay enough for it.

But that's not what the global warming crowd wants. They ask people in non-coastal areas to subsidize beachfront property by making lifestyle changes. I'm not sure why I should have to install a CFL lightbulb that gives off a ugly-colored light so that Ted Kennedy can afford to pay State Farm to cover his compound, but that's what we're being asked - forced, soon enough - to do.

Of course, many of our cities are located along waterways, and global warming may flood them. If Al Gore is right (which he's not, but whatever), it's already happened in New Orleans. It's not obvious to me, however, why we need to stick to the anachronistic practice of locating our cities near bodies of water. Las Vegas isn't in danger of flooding. Denver isn't in danger of flooding. Sacramento isn't in danger of flooding. Why our most important stock exchange needs to be located a few blocks from the ocean in Manhattan is beyond me. If global warming is really going to wipe out Manhattan, then it would be unquestionably cheaper to move a small distance north or west than it would be to stay put and lose everything to a flood. There's plenty of cheap land near Utica. And yet the price of real estate in New York, Tokyo, and other waterfront cities is still astronomical. Does Al Gore know something that the market doesn't?
K the C | 04.05.07 - 12:13 pm | #

"Pavel warns that people who live near waterways can't get flood insurance, but that's not really true. I personally will provide flood insurance to anyone who wants it. All you have to do is cut me a check for 10% of the value of your home, and I'll be happen to ensure you for a year. Insurance is always available if you're willing to pay enough for it."

Our home insurance agent said the same thing: You can always obtain insurance if you pay enough. But his company isn't offering it in certain risk locations. There is state offered insurance too, but that is bare bones.
Pavel Chichikov | Homepage | 04.05.07 - 12:46 pm | #

"As these comments demonstrate, most global warming conversations go nowhere because they focus on whether global warming is happening. For the sake of argument, I'll concede that Global Warmingis real and manmade. Now what? Someone needs to demonstrate that the cost of stopping climate change is less than its ill effects."

If it were only a matter of cash, walls and roof I'd listen to that. But there could be a lot more at stake, not least global political instability and worse, and great loss of life.

Given we do nothing effective, that's the optimistic prospect. If you listen to Lovelock, we're already toast(this is a process not a one-time event), and we need to cut our losses in a big way.

But as I said, he's out there by himself. Still, that doesn't prove him wrong. Skepticism works toward both ends of the spectrum.
Pavel Chichikov | Homepage | 04.05.07 - 12:53 pm | #

It's my arrogant tone and occasional use of big words...

You're probably correct, Michael. I usually stop reading at the *sigh*.
cricket | Homepage | 04.05.07 - 12:59 pm | #

But that's not what the global warming crowd wants. They ask people in non-coastal areas to subsidize beachfront property by making lifestyle changes.

Ah yes, because all those people who live in coastal areas have beachfront property. Do you know who also leaves near the water besides weathly Democrats? Poor people. Lots and lots of poor people.

But that's beside the point. This is not about making sacrifices so that others can continue to live in luxury. There will always be leeches on society and that attitude gets us nowhere. We have to look beyond Al Gore and Ted Kennedy.

K of C, I want you to listen to yourself. Christ asks us to make sacrifices all the time. I just recently replaced all the bulbs in my house to the CFL ones; not only do they save me money so that I have a little more to put in the collection basket each week, but you know what? I got used to the "funny" light. Seriously. It's not like we're being forced to all be one-car households (although I'm pretty sure if push came to shove, through good scheduling a majority of households could "make it work").

Additionally, do you know how many people live near the water? A lot. And do you know how long and how much money it would cost to transplant that many people, rich and poor alike? It is not a luxury to live near a coast; it happens to be the way that the country evolved.
Michael | 04.05.07 - 4:18 pm | #

Michael:

The question isn't whether the cost of relocation would be high. It surely would be substantial, and every cost is substantial when you're the one bearing it. The question is whether it would be more expensive than the alternatives. But the Global Warming crowd doesn't even bother to run the numbers.

We know that the wealthy always suffer less from weather events than the poor. When it's hot, the rich run their air conditioners, and the poor sweat. There are two solutions here:
(1) Change the weather
(2) Make more people rich.
We've been doing #2 since the dawn of time. #1, not so much. And the proposed means of doing #1 work directly against #2.

Christ asks us to make sacrifices all the time.

Way to enlist Our Lord for your environmental ideology. And some people try to tell me that environmentalism isn't a religion!

It's not like we're being forced to all be one-car households

Not yet, at least.
K the C | 04.05.07 - 4:44 pm | #

This thread is sort of sociologically fascinating. Basically, this seems to be driven NOT by economic gain and NOT by evidence or knowledge or shared moral/religious conviction but sheer animus against environmentalists, liberals, and scientists. Decide whose team you're on, then decide the facts.
Katherine | 04.05.07 - 8:31 pm | #