It just shows that the science is wrong, and shouldn't be trusted...

obmana will take care of this

oops, that should say:

obmana will take care of this

A few observations.

- Global temperatures have been flat for 8-10 years, after being up substantially the decade previously.
- Recent ocean measurement work as reported on NPR show ocean temps. over last 5-6 years to be flat to slightly down
- 98% of Antarctica has cooled over the last decades and has built up ice pack -- 2% has warmed (in the Antarctic Peninsula). I will leave it to the reader to guess where Al Gore sent his cameras
- In August 2007, or about a half year ago, sea ice extent around Antarctica was the largest ever recorded (since measured by satellites in 1979). So, within the last 6-8 months, Antarctica had record sea ice buildup.

Given this backdrop, it is astounding that one could interpret the collapse of an ice sheet that happened faster than one scientist predicted as "accelerating global warming." I can't think of any mechanism where the behavior of an ice shelf would be a more sensitive measure of the pace of global temperature change than would be the direct measurement of air and sea temperatures themselves.

There are two ways to interpret this ice sheet collapse that are far more "reality-based"

One, the collapse is a result of the fairly well-known and relatively isolated local/regional warming in the Antarctic Peninsula (where I believe this shelf is located). In other words, it signals a local phenomenon rather than a global one, or

Two, the scientist who originally predicted the date of the ice shelf collapse made an incorrect prediction. There is no particular loss of face in this - after all, such events are part of cycles that last long enough that, in many cases, we have not been able to observe even one entire cycle with modern tools. It would be the height of hubris to say that we understand and forecast these decadal and even longer cycles and events well enough to declare that deviation from forecast must represent a change in nature rather than our own poor understanding.

- Global temperatures have been flat for 8-10 years, after being up substantially the decade previously.

This is utterly false. Anyone can look at the data and see how wrong this is.

Even if the claim weren't false, once temperatures exceed a certain point, ice will continue melting until an equilibrium is reached. This can take time, hence previous warming has a great deal of inertia that will keep affecting us for many years.

Coyote, you dingbat, the increase in sea ice around Antarctica is because the glaciers are melting and spilling icebergs into the ocean.

Science has proven that the biggest iceburg in history was the one that hit the Titanic. Only an inconceivabley large burg could do in such a high class ship.

I find it hard to believe the Antarctic ice sheet is melting when most of the continent never gets warmer than -30 degrees C even in the middle of the very short one month summer. Steve that looks like Hanson's weather station based temperature chart from the NOAA. After seeing pictures of quite a few of the weather stations around the US and the visiting a few near me in Canada I think I would use another measurement system. Just my two cents.

Scientists at the University of Bergen in Norway have determined that 14 percent of arctic ice melted between 1978 and 1998. At that rate, the scientists predict that by the end of this century, the ice pack will disappear each summer. As a result, the Northwest Passage will become a more attractive commercial shipping lane, eliminating 5,000 miles for a trip from Japan to northern Europe. It would also provide a shorter, more direct route between Alaskan oil operations and refineries on the east coast

The European Space Agency said new satellite images show ice at its lowest level since such images were first taken in 1978, exposing unexplored resources, and allowing vessels to shave thousands of miles from Europe to Asia by bypassing the Panama Canal. The seasonal ebb and flow of ice levels has already opened a slim summer window for ships.

Leif Toudal Pedersen, of the Danish National Space Center, said that Arctic ice has shrunk to some 1 million square miles. The previous low was 1.5 million square miles, in 2005.

Yet anonymous will run directly to a doctor for medicine when they get sick or need cancer treatment because, you know, science doesnt work, neither does that plasma TV, or sattelits, why didnt you know that nuclear weapons dont work and are a hoax?

And we're doing zip about global warming.
Of course it's like a snowball-- once it starts to melt it goes faster and faster.

Maybe there will be a "Draft Gore" movement, but I doubt he'd want the job.

And we're doing zip about global warming.
Of course it's like a snowball-- once it starts to melt it goes faster and faster.

Maybe there will be a "Draft Gore" movement, but I doubt he'd want the job.

Jet I seem to remember that the Northwest passage was open in the 1940's also in 1906 and probably a few times before then that we don't know about. So whats so special about it this time?

Jet I seem to remember that the Northwest passage was open in the 1940's also in 1906 and probably a few times before then that we don't know about. So whats so special about it this time? -Matt

Who said northwest passage?
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/09/070917-northwest-passage.html

washingtonmonthly, a local maxima in global warming snark.

Jet I seem to remember that the Northwest passage was open in the 1940's also in 1906 and probably a few times before then that we don't know about. So whats so special about it this time?

The 1903-1906 route would work pretty well if you wanted to carry the IKEA furniture in 70 foot boats, have the crews spend 90% of their time piddling around on the ice, and have the Netsilik people distress the particle board furniture with a healthy dose of seal blubber and frost heave.

In 1940 it only took 28 months so I'm not sure if there would have been enough time for the natives to add value to the furniture.

Its becoming fully navigable whereas it wasnt before Matt. Thats the difference. IE commercial shipping.

Cool, new trolls.

(Almost) all the long-term trends, whether it's the northern hemisphere spring CO2 uptick, or the day of first melt past benchmark, or tree composition on a mountain, or a arctic ice, or melting permafrost, or amount of Greenland exposed, point to warming. There are contrary anecdotes, some of them even factual, but data beats anecdotes for something like this. So yes, trolls, I am completely ignoring your anecdotes. It's a big variable system, you need to look for trends, not local blips -- and it helps if you get your facts straight, too.

It was first obvious to me that we probably had a problem back with the first report of the early spring CO2 uptick. I think that was fifteen years ago, I read it in Science News. This is "data" averaged by airflow across the Pacific Ocean, past Hawaii, not vulnerable to some "urban island" effect. The reason to believe that it is caused by human CO2 emissions, even based on that slim piece of data, is because it is the obvious effect, and there are no other obvious causes for that effect. CO2 (like quite a few others gasses) is a greenhouse gas, and you would expect a warming trend. You can tally up the other possible causes and check for them, it's bigger. Water vapor is a bigger GHG, but we're not making huge changes there (and water vapor is mobile, moving in and out of the atmosphere, while CO2 moves much more slowly).

The other two pieces of oh-shit data out there (from my point of view) was the summer when we had three extremely strong hurricanes -- Katrina, Rita, and Wilma. If you look at the "top six Atlantic storms" category, you get a new one every couple of years. Three in one year is damn unusual, and what makes storms strong (quality, not quantity) is hot water (NOBODY argues this point). This is not quite data, but three cat 5 storms in one summer is a much more alarming anecdote than most.

In addition, I've recently seen (reference not handy) predictions of much faster arctic ice cap melting, based on modelling that includes its thickness (and perhaps its age; apparently young ice is saltier and melts faster) and data confirming the thickness predictions. If you combine that with conservative IPCC projections that DO NOT INCLUDE ice sheet melting and this faster ice cap melting, then you start to wonder what we'll see in the next round of predictions. Less ice cap means a lot more heat delivered to arctic water in the summer, because ice is white, and water isn't.

Of course, the warming from loss of white ice might not occur, we haven't actually observed it yet -- but at this point, get real, pigs would sooner fly. Dark stuff absorbs light and gets warms, white stuff reflects light and stays cool. If the ice goes, that's a big warming input, not included in the current "reputable" models.

Look, with God in control, ice can melt, and big chunks of it can break off, without there even being any increase of temperatures.

All your science, and your rules...

You damned heathens just don't get it, do you?

*sarcasm*

Matt wrote: Jet I seem to remember that the Northwest passage was open in the 1940's also in 1906 and probably a few times before then that we don't know about. So whats so special about it this time?

By the way, Matt, this is a story about Antarctica- not the Northwest passage! I guess you didn't bother to even click on the link. *frowns*

And in case anyone thinks he has a point anyway--Then what about that ice they reported that was melting in the Arctic the other day that said was part of the oldest ice that never melts? That isn't part of some seasonal or regular warming.

Then there is this, from the article:

Scientists said that while they were not
concerned about a rise in sea level from the latest event, it was a sign of worsening global warming. . . Such occurrences are "more indicative of a tipping point or trigger in the climate system," said Sarah B. Das, a scientist at the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution in Massachusetts. . ."These are things that are not re-forming," Das said. "So once they're gone, they're gone."

So who am I going to trust: scientists, or "Matt," some troll from the Washington Monthly threads?

re:
coyote: "Global temperatures have been flat for 8-10 years, after being up substantially the decade previously."

Steve Reuland: "This is utterly false."

Really? Well, it is true that temperatures are rising in the northern hemisphere. I expect they will continue to rise for, ohhh, the next few months. Then I expect that warming trend will reverse. Curious thing about trends - they usually are cyclical, and exist on multiple time-frames. Here's a better chart of a longer-term cycle:
http://www.seed.slb.com/en/scictr/watch/climate_change/images/global_temp2.jpg
The present day is at the far right of the chart. What do we see? First of all, there’s quite a bit of fluctuation. There are long periods of time when the average global temperature was as much as 9 C degrees (16 F degrees) colder than now. These were ice ages.

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23411799-7583,00.html

Marohasy: "No, actually, there has been cooling, if you take 1998 as your point of reference. If you take 2002 as your point of reference, then temperatures have plateaued. This is certainly not what you'd expect if carbon dioxide is driving temperature because carbon dioxide levels have been increasing but temperatures have actually been coming down over the last 10 years."

"Is this a matter of any controversy?"

Marohasy: "Actually, no. The head of the IPCC has actually acknowledged it. He talks about the apparent plateau in temperatures so far this century. So he recognizes that in this century, over the past eight years, temperatures have plateaued ... This is not what you'd expect, as I said, because if carbon dioxide is driving temperature then you'd expect that, given carbon dioxide levels have been continuing to increase, temperatures should be going up ... So (it's) very unexpected, not something that's being discussed. It should be being discussed, though, because it's very significant."

"Can you tell us about NASA's Aqua satellite, because I understand some of the data we're now getting is quite important in our understanding of how climate works?"

Marohasy: "That's right. The NASA Aqua satellite was launched in 2002 and it enabled the collection of data, not just on temperature but also on cloud formation and water vapor. What all the climate models suggest is that, when you've got warming from additional carbon dioxide, this will result in increased water vapour, so you're going to get a positive feedback. That's what the models have been indicating. What this great data from the NASA Aqua satellite is actually showing is just the opposite, that with a little bit of warming, weather processes are compensating, so they're actually limiting the greenhouse effect and you're getting a negative rather than a positive feedback."

No doubt there are negative feedback cycles, but what is the gain on that negative feedback? Any gain less than infinite, and you will see some changes in the output correlated with changes in the input. The fact that we HAVE observed ice cap melting, ice sheet melting, earlier greening, deciduous trees moving to higher elevations, etc, suggests that the gain is not so large that we won't see effects.

Merely saying "there's negative feedback, everything will be ok" makes me wonder who's money is talking. A SCIENTIST would also talk about the gain, and the "frequency response" and "phase shift". In actual electronic circuits, which are considerably simpler than the climate, these are important things to know -- negative feedback with phase shift can lead to creepy oscillations, which could be even worse than simple gradual warming. Not saying "will", but "could", so if you find the concept of negative feedback soothing, then ignorance is bliss.

The "global temps are flat" gag is insidious and deliberately so. It depends upon taking 1998 as an endpoint. 1998 was an outrageously powerful El Nino year. Since 1998, we've had 8 years all warmer than the the years immediately before 1998.

These are the facts. CO2 traps LW radiation and radiates it back. This action increases as atmospheric concentration of CO2 increases. There has been no decline of CO2. As a result, every day a little more energy than before stays in our atmosphere.

No scientist has ever claimed that temps were going to increase year by year. The climate system is complex and a huge component of that is the system of ocean currents -- from one ocean to the next, from the equator to the poles and back, and among the varying vertical layers of the oceans. There are powerful forces there that can change temps on earth and that can swamp the year-to-year increase of temps due to greenhouse gases. But as long as those concentrations of GHGs keep increasing, a little more energy will keep being added to our atmospheric and oceanic energy budgets. Like compound interest.

Isn't there something that's seven times the size of manhattan that we could use to describe this?

dr2chase: When I look at long-term chart like the one cited above, I conclude that we should be damn glad we live during the relatively brief periods between the ice ages, which are far more detrimental to mankind, and which in the longer term, we are heading to again. If mankind's brief buildup of CO2 near the end of the age of fossil fuels manages to stave off the next ice age by a few hundred extra years, all the better.

http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Image:Phanerozoic_Climate_Change_Rev_png
http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Image:Holocene_Temperature_Variations_Rev_png

10 years from now this debate may finally be settled to the satisfaction of all but the most ardent true believers. Image their surprise as the world doesn't keep heating up as expected. But they'll probably still support limiting CO2 emissions for its own sake.

Anyone who is so anxious for new policies & taxes here in the U.S. supposedly intended to reduce CO2 emissions should consider that the Chinese will keep laughing all the way to the bank as more industries keep heading to Asia. Anyone who thinks the Chinese will be bullied into limiting their CO2 emissions is dreaming (though they may pay lip-service to it to placate the bigger fools).

re: The "global temps are flat" gag is insidious and deliberately so. It depends upon taking 1998 as an endpoint. 1998 was an outrageously powerful El Nino year. Since 1998, we've had 8 years all warmer than the the years immediately before 1998.

Wrong. Read the excerpt again:

"No, actually, there has been cooling, if you take 1998 as your point of reference.

If you take 2002 as your point of reference, then temperatures have plateaued.

The head of the IPCC has actually acknowledged it."

The scientists who did the work showing that the other side of Antarctica getting colder also blame global warming for it. They wrote an article in the Washington Post a few months ago castigating conservatives who dispute global warming by citing their work. Unfortunately I don't remember their names.

But Glen Beck told me that global warming was nothing more than liberal fascism...

re: These are the facts. CO2 traps LW radiation and radiates it back. This action increases as atmospheric concentration of CO2 increases. There has been no decline of CO2. As a result, every day a little more energy than before stays in our atmosphere.

No scientist has ever claimed that temps were going to increase year by year. The climate system is complex...

But not all the facts. Like the fact that CO2 is a minor component of the total greenhouse gas effect in the atmosphere. In absolute terms, water vapor is by far the largest. And it is a complex system, one about which it is an understatement to say that observations are far more certain than predictions. Sort of like the stock market.

So, how many years of flat or declining global temperatures would it take for true believers in unstoppable, catastrophic man-made global warming to relinquish their fervent grip on this belief?

My guess is, they'll take it to their graves. Just like the another group of fools who will still be waiting to rapture out.

Swan wrote:
So who am I going to trust: scientists, or "Matt," some troll from the Washington Monthly threads?

But... but... according to what I've read from some very-serious-if-fact-challenged-folk, climate scientists are engaged in a vast conspiracy to scam grant money from the government so that they can maintain their extravagant lifestyles at the expense of taxpayers. Oh, and those scientists and researchers who work for corporations with a vested interest in the status quo are completely trustworthy because they're not funded by the government.

I think that's how the argument goes. It kinda sounds like the ravings of an Oxycontin-addled brain to me.

Really an overpopulation problem of the US, which puts out most greenhouse gases. If the exhaust pipe were called an exhaust anus, we would be drowning in our shit.

Global warming is just another problem with exploding the population from legal and illegal immigration.

Elvis, you've left the building.

I'm well aware of the ice ages -- I live a short walk from the intersection of Agassiz and Moraine (pretty cool, that) and have taken the time to show my kids evidence of ice sheets (elongated hills, glacier polish on the leading edges of some of those hills). You can also see this in Yosemite, it's pretty cool.

There was an article, a year or so ago, I think Scientific American, suggesting that the GHG boost that forestalled the next ice age came a thousand or so years ago, and even that was human generated (these are not solid recollections). I am totally onboard with not having another ice age -- however, that does not mean that melting the ice caps and boosting sea levels by a meter or 10 is also a good idea. A corollary of the "did it 2000 years ago" hypothesis is that it doesn't take that much CO2 to do it, in the same way that we need some sodium in our daily diet, but a lot gives us kidney problems, and a whole lot kills us (to make an analogy another complex system with negative feedback loops). And, under certain circumstances, yes, we even tinker with our sodium intake (less with high BP, more with tummy bugs) -- but we never, ever, take the "more is better, plenty=enough" approach that you seem to be advocating for CO2. We are producing quite a lot right now, and we are observing some expected effects.

When new trolls pop up with elaborate explanations and ready-made positions you can't help but think they are netvocates. They tend to be better prepared than the usual mental slaves.

So, how many years of flat or declining global temperatures would it take for true believers in unstoppable, catastrophic man-made global warming to relinquish their fervent grip on this belief?

I'd guess not nearly as long as it would take a dipshit global warning denier - whose main objection to the science is new taxes - to look at the myriad trends from melting glaciers to species realignment and acknowledge the plain truth of a warming planet.

My guess is, they'll take it to their graves. Just like the another group of fools who will still be waiting to rapture out.

Or the one's who thought Saddam had WMD's, or that Iraq would be a cakewalk, or that there was plenty of equity in the housing market to handle a precipitous decline in values.

Like those fools?

Commenters "coyote" and "Elvis" are regurgitating denialist bunk. I highly recommend the website www.realclimate.org, which is run by climate scientists. There you will find the pseudo-scientific crap that coyote and Elvis are peddling thoroughly debunked and discredited.

Global warming deniers can be broadly categorized into two groups, which overlap somewhat: the first group is bought-and-paid-for shills for the fossil fuel corporations, and the second group is cranks. There is a miniscule number of scientists in both groups -- few of whom are actually climate scientists.

The shills are paid to keep the public confused and ignorant about anthropogenic global warming. Fred Singer is a prominent member of that group.

The genuine cranks have somehow convinced themselves that they, and they alone, despite their often comical ignorance of basic science, have found the OBVIOUS AND SIMPLE PROOF that anthropogenic global warming is not happening, or is not even possible, and that the hundreds and hundreds of climate scientists all around the world, who have studied this issue for decades, as well as every major scientific body in the world, who know that anthropogenic climate change is happening now -- that all of these scientists are WRONG, that they have somehow completely missed the OBVIOUS AND SIMPLE PROOF that the cranks alone have found. Some cranks believe that the world's scientists haven't missed this OBVIOUS AND SIMPLE PROOF but are engaged in a vast Liberal Conspiracy to scare the public and thereby create a world government that will confiscate everyone's guns ... or something.

A sub-group of the cranks consists of folks like coyote and Elvis, who get their climate science from Rush Limbaugh, and post long-refuted, scripted talking points on public blogs.

...

...

fu*k.

If it hasn't been stressed before, here is the significance of this story. There are two kinds of "ice" in Antarctica. One is annual sea ice made up of frozen sea water. The other is made up of fresh water (compacted snow) from glaciers extending out into the ocean. Think "Ross Ice Shelf." Every year the annual sea ice melts and a small portion of the permanent ice shelf breaks off and eventually melts.

In this case, the annual sea ice melted far earlier than normal, exposing the permanent ice shelf to continuous wave action of warmer than normal water for a far longer time.

The freezing temp of fresh water is 32 F and 0 C. Sea water in Antarctica freezes at about 28.5 F.

Well, folks, remember you saw it here first.
Elvis is in fact alive, and has gone into Comedy.

Elvis, I gotta hand it to you. You had me going for a few minutes - until I started checking your sources.

Dr. Marohasy, as it turns out, is a BIOLOGIST, from "Australia's Leading Free Market Think Tank" (self-described from their website header).
http://www.ipa.org.au/
Perusing a few articles in the The Australian suggests a "conservative" bent. In Wikipedia, it says the editor considers the paper "centre-right"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Australian

I hope, Elvis, you'll forgive my skepticism.

I should probably point out that the chart you provided offers both a very short timeframe, and a very long one.
Geologically, it's a couple blinks of an eye.
If however, we're most concerned with, say, human civilization, then 95% of it is superfluous. Unless you're going to try arguing "Remain calm! All is well!" and point at that particular long-term data to support your claim that you don't have to take any responsibility for the effects your actions will have on future generations.
How do you feel about incarcerating the mothers of crack babies?

So, how many years of flat or declining global temperatures would it take for true believers in unstoppable, catastrophic man-made global warming to relinquish their fervent grip on this belief?

I dunno - what's the atmospheric concentration of CO2 doing in the meantime? Water vapor? Oh, how about methane? What's the permafrost doing?(funny word, that - "perma" - sounds ... durable) What would the impact of those things be if the planet was heading into a warming period instead of a cooling one?

Lemme ask you a question, Elvis.
Are you sufficiently confident that anthropogenic climate change is NOT a serious problem for human civilization that you're willing to commit all your relatives and heirs to living within 10 feet of mean high tide, in perpetuity? Would you furthermore strive to convince other denialists to make similar commitments?

Hmmm?

Do the trolls actuallythink that one of a bunch of climate scientists will straighten up from his computer and say "Dudes! We forgot about the ice ages!" aand they'll all slap their heads and groan?

THere is a common human tendency, woefully exacerbated by right wing reinforcement, to believe that nobody is smarter than you. But, just as most of these basement dwellers have never met a black person, they've also never met a working climate scientist. Hint: they're very smart. They've been working at this for decades, and engaged in highly rigorous discussions about this.

But they assume that they're cartoon sitcom scientists, Ashton Kutcher in a lab coat. Hint: they're not.

But of course they're here bellowing at us, not the people, if they were honest, they should be arguing with. It's easier, of course: they KNOW they're smarter than us here.

There is no longer any time to waste on arguing with ideologically-driven, ignorant cranks about whether anthropogenic global warming and consequent climate change is "real" or not, nor about the scale of the threat that it presents, nor about the "cost-effectiveness" of mitigation, nor about the urgency of action.

The only real scientific debate at this point is about whether or not it is already too late for the fastest possible phase-out of fossil fuels to prevent catastrophic warming and climate change. There is abundant evidence that current, anthropogenically-increased, levels of atmospheric CO2 (as well as other greenhouse gases, primarily methane, and black soot) are already causing dangerous warming, and because of the long lifetime of CO2 in the atmosphere, there is going to be additional warming no matter what we do. We may have already set in motion irreversible, self-reinforcing, accelerating warming and climate change.

The consequences of unmitigated warming -- which are already visible now -- will be horrific and may well bring catastrophe upon human civilization within the lifetimes of people now living: loss of fresh water supplies for billions of people; rising sea levels and increased storm activity rendering major coastal population centers including most of the world's major cities uninhabitable; killer heat waves; floods; mega-droughts that will devastate the world's most productive agricultural regions; mass extinctions; acidification of the ocean leading to a widespread die-off of marine life including the collapse of fisheries which provide essential protein for hundreds of millions of people; mass die-off of the world's remaining forests; pandemics of tropical disease migrating into warming temperate zones. And some humans -- some nations -- will respond to dislocation and deprivation with violence.

Plague, pestilence, famine, war, destruction and death is what awaits from unmitigated anthropogenic global warming -- on a scale that can hardly be imagined.

It's time to ignore the shills and the cranks and get busy with a world-wide crash program to completely phase out all fossil fuels as quickly as possible. The most conservative projections say that we have only a few years in which to halt and reverse the currently accelerating CO2 emissions from the burning of fossil fuels, and perhaps a couple of decades in which to reduce them to near-zero. And we may not even have that long before catastrophic climate change will be locked in and irreversible.

Luke: Isn't there something that's seven times the size of manhattan that we could use to describe this?

Salt Lake City, 159,936 square miles.

Wow, after posting I began reading the comments.
Coyote is a troll and/or an apologist for the oil industry. MFB and Matt do not have a clue. Compare the size of all of what we call Antarctica with a map, same scale, of North America. Then you begin to understand the immensity of Antactica. Add in that a significant part of Antarctica is two miles above sea level. Folks, that is one-hell-of-a-lot-of-ice.

The Office of Polar Programs of the National Science Foundation has a lot of good info.
Here is a link http://www.nsf.gov/dir/index.jsp?org=OPP

It's time to ignore the shills and the cranks and get busy with a world-wide crash program to completely phase out all fossil fuels as quickly as possible. The most conservative projections say that we have only a few years in which to halt and reverse the currently accelerating CO2 emissions from the burning of fossil fuels, and perhaps a couple of decades in which to reduce them to near-zero. And we may not even have that long before catastrophic climate change will be locked in and irreversible.

SA, not to be critical, but I think you should mention a few other things:
Sea levels are projected to rise 4 inches by mid-century just from thermal expansion. That is, without any additional water being added by melting glaciers and ice sheets, or from thousands of square miles of ice sliding off land into the oceans(Greenland, Antarctica).

Even if the world reduced net CO2 emissions to zero, today, current warming trends are predicted to continue for at least the next 50 years.

So it's kinda like I should maybe stop smoking cigarettes, today. I may still get emphysema, and lung cancer, but it'll be less likely than if I keep smoking, and possibly more treatable. Gotta say - individuals like Elvis and Luther don't make it any easier.

Trex: yeah, you're just like those fools, but on a different topic. You are true believer. You're entitled to believe it's purely a logical and scientific belief. But in the end, you're just as gullible as those who bought the WMD lie, or those
who are enthralled by Rush Limbaugh. I always find it amusing how those who consider themselves "skeptical" are just as gullible as those they condemn, just susceptible to a different line of B.S. But you're entitled to your faith, however wacky it is. Hint: the evidence you're still clinging to is crumbling under your feet, just like that antarctic ice you'd like us to believe you're worried about.

Kenga: Buy a new home near the ocean? That's what Al Gore did. In 2005, as his movie premiered. At the peak of the housing bubble, in one of the most (pardon my pun) "over-heated" real estate markets in the country. Smart guy at predicting the near future that Al Gore.

Nice job trying to shoot the messenger from Australia. It goes well with the speed with which the "troll" slur was whipped out.

But can you refute the claims made in that article?

As for the charts, those above are of 12,000 years, and 540 million years, and you claim that's "Geologically, it's a couple blinks of an eye."
but you're worried to death about what some scientists would like you to believe will happen in 10 years or a 100 years?

You're like an ant worried that if the springtime warming trend continues all year, he'll be roasted by November.

FWIW, here's 65 million years:
http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Image:65_Myr_Climate_Change_png
Is that geologically significant enough for you?

I say again, are you hung up on CO2, or global warming? How many years of flat or declining global temperatures would it take for true believers in unstoppable, catastrophic man-made global warming to relinquish their fervent grip on this belief, and admit they were wrong?

I assert that no matter how cold it gets over the next decade or two, you will never admit you were wrong.You will continue to contend that any cooling over the next few years is just a short-term fluctuation, and "just wait" eventually you'll be right.

Just like those who still pretend now that Iraq had a viable WMD program in 2003. Or those who will still be waiting to rapture out decades from now.

Like the fact that CO2 is a minor component of the total greenhouse gas effect in the atmosphere.

Your rhetoric betrays you. "Minor" is a value judgment. Yes, water vapor is a large effect, but it's effect is virtually constant. It hasn't changed the way greenhouse gas concentrations have changed. The biggest change in the atmosphere is in the concentration of GHGs.

So, how many years of flat or declining global temperatures would it take for true believers in unstoppable, catastrophic man-made global warming to relinquish their fervent grip on this belief?

Your question assumes too much, a la "Have you quot beating your wife." Temps haven't declined. The running 5 year mean of temps continues to rise. Also, your "unstoppable" is a straw man. Whoever said it was? Hopefully, the increase in temps won't be calamitous, but there's a very strong possibility that it will be. We went to war with Iraq on the 1% doctrine. (And the evidence for that was fluffed.) There's a far greater chance for climate-led catastrophe. And the evidence is solid.

And, remove the beam from your eye, chum. Your rhetoric is the one here that's "fervent".

re:
The only real scientific debate at this point is about whether or not it is already too late for the fastest possible phase-out of fossil fuels to prevent catastrophic warming and climate change. There is abundant evidence that current, anthropogenically-increased, levels of atmospheric CO2 (as well as other greenhouse gases, primarily methane, and black soot) are already causing dangerous warming, and because of the long lifetime of CO2 in the atmosphere, there is going to be additional warming no matter what we do. We may have already set in motion irreversible, self-reinforcing, accelerating warming and climate change.

The consequences of unmitigated warming -- which are already visible now -- will be horrific and may well bring catastrophe upon human civilization within the lifetimes of people now living: loss of fresh water supplies for billions of people; rising sea levels and increased storm activity rendering major coastal population centers including most of the world's major cities uninhabitable; killer heat waves; floods; mega-droughts that will devastate the world's most productive agricultural regions; mass extinctions; acidification of the ocean leading to a widespread die-off of marine life including the collapse of fisheries which provide essential protein for hundreds of millions of people; mass die-off of the world's remaining forests; pandemics of tropical disease migrating into warming temperate zones. And some humans -- some nations -- will respond to dislocation and deprivation with violence.

Regardless of how preposterous your statement is, you probably take yourself very seriously.
I know Al Gore pretends to do that (when he's not buying condos near the ocean), because his fans just love it. It makes him seem so credible (to them).

So, since you first must save yourself (and others like you) for the good of humanity, you'll be moving to high ground in Canada, right? And having lots of children too, for the betterment of humanity, which only you, and others like you can save after most of the unenlightened people have killed each other off during the global catastrophe that you have imagined?

Elvis, you are an ignorant, dumbass crank, and you are deliberately wasting people's time with bullshit. I don't waste time arguing with assholes like you.

Let's see, on one hand we have an overwhelming majority of climatologists, and on the other...some dude named Elvis. Now scientists have been wrong before, but I doubt to the degree where such a majority supported a theory, as with global warming research. And Elvis is dead, he tried to take a crap and had a heart attack.

Who should I believe?

OK, fine, I took out the "unstoppable"

How many years of flat or declining global temperatures would it take for true believers in catastrophic man-made global warming to relinquish their fervent grip on this belief, and admit they were wrong?

And "minor" is not a value judgment. It's an overstatement. You want the exact percentage of the total? "Very small" or "nearly insignificant" are more like it. But you won't like that, either.

Natural variations in the far more "major" component, water vapor, can, and do, easily offset big changes in very small components.

And keep in mind, that all this "geologically" short-term worry about warming over the next decade or century is playing out against a longer-term cyclical cooling trend toward the next ice age.

To those who think scientists would have to be Ashton Kucher in lab coats to not know this, the answer is, most of them do know it.

re: "you are an ignorant, dumbass crank, and you are deliberately wasting people's time with bullshit. I don't waste time arguing with assholes like you."

Matter of fact, now that your true colors are showing, humanity doesn't need more people who so quickly resort to profanity and ad hominem attacks. But thanks for giving me an example of how far out some of your ilk are.

To the guy who lost his brain, as far as the "overwhelming majority of climatologists" - try to find your brain, and do the due diligence as to how many of those who are with the latest IPCC reports actually ARE climatologists. You'll find that the number is nowhere nearly as large as you apparently think.

Natural variations in the far more "major" component, water vapor, can, and do, easily offset big changes in very small components.

Except when they don't. You've got to demonstrate that there's been some increase or decrease in water vapor. There hasn't been. And it's been looked for. You're peddling an out-of-date theory whose out of dateness hasn't filtered through to the cranks. One of the problems with it is that if there were such a mechanism then there wouldn't have been other widespread climate changes. Like the Ice Ages. After all, water vapor would increase or decrease and flatten out that extreme, too. Unless you're arguing against the other extreme climate changes, you're going to have to come up with some other vector. And you've still got to come up with something that will dampen the inexorable increase in energy due to GHGs.

And you ought to be aware that the amount of energy trapped by GHGs isn't due to mass, like a heavy sweater, or something.

humanity doesn't need more people who so quickly resort to profanity and ad hominem attacks. But thanks for giving me an example of how far out some of your ilk are.

He didn't make an ad hominem argument: he insulted you. You made an ad hominem argument when you brought up Al Gore.

Take a hint from your own words.

Elvis wrote: "humanity doesn't need more people who so quickly resort to profanity and ad hominem attacks."

Jeffrey Davis wrote: "He didn't make an ad hominem argument: he insulted you."

Actually my comment was neither an ad hominem nor an insult.

"Ignorant, dumbass crank wasting people's time with bullshit" is just an accurate description of "Elvis".

He's just regurgitating the standard, scripted denialist drivel: a mix of lies, conspiracy theories, fallacious arguments, and shocking ignorance of fundamental science, all held together with an arrogant delusion that he is smarter than all the world's climate scientists put together, driven by an ideological delusion that climate change science is some kind of left-wing conspiracy to destroy capitalism.

He's an asshole, no more and no less. He has nothing of value to offer, and there is nothing of value to be gained from engaging his bullshit.

Steve Reuland -

Are you a just a pure political hack or do you just don't know how to read a graph. You're data shows just what coyote said. The temperatures appear to be flat for the last decade or so. Please learn how to read a graph.

You're data shows just what coyote said. The temperatures appear to be flat for the last decade or so. Please learn how to read a graph.

Flat? In what universe? The red line indicates the 5 year running mean and it keeps rising. The 5 year running mean is the point of that graph. Now, that graph's a little out of date, and might even end before 2005, but 2005 temps were even higher than in 1998. 2007 declined a bit, but not enough to flatten the running mean.

Ahh, Elvis, interesting you bring up the IPCC. Isn't that the organization that had this to say, "An increasing body of observations gives a collective picture of a warming world and other changes in the climate system... There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities."

In 2007, the IPCC claimed that humans were "very likely" the cause of global warming (for the record, Elvis, "very likely" assumes a 90% or greater probability).

Human-caused global warming theory is supported by the scientific acadademies of each of the G8 nations, as well as the African Science Academies, US National Research Council, American Meteorological Society, the Royal Meteorological Society, the World Meteorological Org, American Geophysical Union, American Institute of Physics, American Astronomical Society, American Physical Society, Federal Climate Change Science Program, Nat'l Ctr for Atmospheric Research, the American Assoc for the Advancement of Science, the list goes on and on.

Oh, I forgot one more, Elvis. NASA.

Sounds like the majority of IPCC members refute what you have to say. Elvis has left the building.

One more thing, Elvis, regarding my statement regarding an overwhelming majority? I can support that belief. First of all, as I stated above, the IPCC has stated with near certainty that humans are responsible for global warming. Scientific historian summarized a study of scientific lit on warming, and stated that 75% of the literature either explicitly or implicitly supported the consensus view.

The Bray/von Storch study in 2003 of climatologists views, 72% supported the IPCC conclusions (which, contrary to your belief, endorses anthropogenic causes of warming. 80% rejected the statement that warming was uncertain enough that "there (was) no need for immediate policy decisions".

I've given you supporting literature for my claim. What says you? And misstating what the IPCC claims won't fly.

Everyone -

Anybody care that the location of the Wilkins Ice Shelf is among a "hot bed" of active volcanoes and tectonic restlessness?

So why is this event associated AGW except to be overall alarmist in nature?

"re: "you are an ignorant, dumbass crank, and you are deliberately wasting people's time with bullshit. I don't waste time arguing with assholes like you."

Matter of fact, now that your true colors are showing, humanity doesn't need more people who so quickly resort to profanity and ad hominem attacks. But thanks for giving me an example of how far out some of your ilk are."

Just because it's an ad hominem doesn't mean your not a moron.

"you're"

Anybody care that the location of the Wilkins Ice Shelf is among a "hot bed" of active volcanoes and tectonic restlessness?

So why is this event associated AGW except to be overall alarmist in nature?

A bank's associated with deposits and withdrawals. Using your logic, a bank could never be robbed.

Trex: yeah, you're just like those fools, but on a different topic. You are true believer. You're entitled to believe it's purely a logical and scientific belief. But in the end, you're just as gullible as those who bought the WMD lie, or those who are enthralled by Rush Limbaugh.

Uh, no, I'm nothing like those people because I arrived at my conclusions regarding the outcome of Iraq and the housing market far in advance using rational analysis and observational skills. They got it wrong, I did not.

Likewise I've spent a lot of time in the wilderness over many years and I've seen the dramatic changes in flora, fauna, hydrology, climate, you name it. The science just validates the changes I've seen, and lets me know that this is not just a local phenomenon but a worldwide one.

And both the scientific evidence and natural phenomena overwhelmingly point to warming.

Your question of "how many years world it take?" is quite simply idiotic in the face of all the warming caused catastrophes we now face around the world, only a few of which have been referenced on this thread. It's something akin to asking "How many people have to survive the Black Death before you'll agree it's not a problem anymore and we can all start adopting rats again?"

Please do stay on the thread and get your ass kicked by all the excellent rebuttal here; it's a great opportunity to expose the fraudulent claims and poor logic commonly posited by climate change deniers like yourself. And we didn't even have to squeeze it out of you that it's really all about fear of taxes!

Also, I see that John Hansen has emerged from the 16th century to tell someone they're stupid.

If only irony were a viable power source.

Elvis, I know the guy who rusn the Burger King in Kalamazoo where you work. Shouldn't you be handling the lunch rush?

Everybody -- take a deep breath and settle down.

Elvis is either:

a) Yet another ignorant wingnut crank, in which case it's futile to argue facts with him; or

b) In the employ of fossil-fuels merchants, in which case it's futile to argue the facts with him; or

c) Simply insane, in which case it's futile to argue the facts with him.

There are no other possible explanations for his bizarre behavior.

Let him carry his afflictions to a watery grave. He's earned repose.

Jeffrey Davis - I am a Ph.D. physicist who is now a computer scientist. What I objected to was Steve Reuland's weird assertion that this graph clearly disproved coyote's statements.

I have had to referee papers where people make ridiculous assertions about the endpoints of a graph. You can not trust a running average at its endpoint. Anyone who has done any analysis should know this.

The years 1998 - 2005? on the graph are just not clear what they indicate. It could be a flattening - it could be a down turn - it could be just a slow down in the growth rate and then a quick increase.

The one thing the data do not do is clearly disprove the statement -

"Global temperatures have been flat for 8-10 years, after being up substantially the decade previously."

There may be other data out there that can clearly refute coyote's statements, but this graph is not it.

Only people who insist on seeing what they want to see in order to substantiate their beliefs take this data as conclusive.

Either come up with links to better data or tone down the rhetoric and name calling.

John Hansen (relative of James, perhaps?) - I want to remind everyone that when you have random fluctuation imposed on an upward trend, there are still going to be ups and downs (or ups and flats, at least.) You don't get to claim suspicion of trend when those fluctuations go against the trend. I mean, just think of the stock market, or even temperature as the earth's angle relative to the sun changes during the seasons! Sure, entire global average temperature is not like local variation - however, cloud cover changes around, ocean currents and their loading shift, etc.

The most important thing is the basic IR absorption lines in CO2. They do have a complex relationship with those of water vapor, but more CO2 should mean a trend of rising temperature, in interaction of course with other effects. When you have a proper theoretical basis for predicting a change, then it isn't just a matter of scrutinizing fluctuations for trends anyway. The change can be presumed the most likely default outcome pending sufficient evidence (which most observers think we already have.) That's what I want to see acknowledged by climate change skeptics.

tyrannogenius

James Hansen, your argument bites itself in the caboose. You say you cannot use a running average at the endpoint, but the argument that the temps are flat for the last 8 years DEPENDS upon using that kind of analysis.

Simply by eyeballing the graph's yearly averages at the end, you can see a whole cluster of years above or almost at the previous high of 1998 (when there was a strong El Nino.) The graph marks following the drop off from the El Nino are strongly above the drop off following the El Nino. What definition of "flat" includes positive moves like that?

If global warming is a hoax then why are all the big oil companies and the countries they own engaging in an arctic undersea land-grab to claim all the fossil fuels there?

You know, those fields that won't be available until the ice melts? I mean if the ice doesn't melt then they are all simply fools, right?

So while big oil pays shills to dispute global warming it is also working to extract the last drops of oil made available by global warming.

Neil B.

Yes the data are random. My only point goes back to Steve Reuland's comment. He made a claim that coyote's data was false and the data he showed proved it to be false. I, as a scientist have to say to Steve, no your data show no such thing.

You say:

The change can be presumed the most likely default outcome pending sufficient evidence (which most observers think we already have.)

So this is the way we do science now? Given such an immature science as climatology where the models ignore many factors, we are just going to presume an answer just because it fits our hypothesis?

James Hansen,

This is none of my business but I am curious as to why a Ph.D. physicist would change to computer science.

Oh, and I loved you in "Slapshot!"

The feeling of pessimism in the country is due to a overwhelmingly liberal press which irrespective of the true statistics seeks to downgrade the economic news when a Republican is in office

Posted by: John Hansen on April 28, 2006 at 12:03 PM | PERMALINK

Bwan ha ha ha ha!

Yes, clearly you are the genius we should be listening to when it comes to predictive matters and complex systems.

I also liked the time when you quibbled over Kevin's rounding up of the monthly casualty figure in Iraq and complained about him producing casualties out of thin air - and were so ideologically dense you could not detect the trend that caused those numbers to more than treble for months and months to come.

So this is the way we do science now? Given such an immature science as climatology where the models ignore many factors, we are just going to presume an answer just because it fits our hypothesis?

Well, no. Nor is science done rhetorically.

The "greenhouse effect" has been noted since the 1890s. The amount of energy involved has been calculated using the physics involved. Scientists noted that the energy was sufficient to produce (and here it get spooky) the amount of heating that had been observed so far. So, scientists have set out trying to see if that was a coincidence and if they were missing some other factors involved so that they could project how things might fare further down the road. They've discovered minor things. Dismissed others. The most reliable theory: as long as CO2 and CH4 concentrations go up there will be a small steady increase in oceanic and atmospheric temps, topping out between 1.8-4.5F (from memory) over temps prior to the Industrial Revolution.

That's how Science gets done.

The dreadful thing is that there's around 5% chance that temps will exceed the 4.5F. Recent events suggest that the feedbacks due to warming have been underestimated.

BTW - I don't know why any of you started calling me James Hansen as we probably have very different opinions on antroprogenic global warming.

Tripp - as to why I switched from Physics to Comp Science.

I thought long and hard before I made my career move. There are many reasons but some are:

1. I was more committed to staying in the Los Angeles area (friends and family ) than to continuing in Physics.
2. I much prefer working for a private corporation then writing grant proposals for funding.
3. The money.

Any more questions?

John Hansen,

Sorry to state your name as "James Hansen." I apologize for my mistake.

But I really am curious as to why a Ph.D. Physicist would switch to computer science.

Jeffrey Davis - just curious, are you a scientist or not?

"The feeling of pessimism in the country is due to a overwhelmingly liberal..."

Sounds like someone is still bitter about being turned down for those grant proposals.

BTW - I don't know why any of you started calling me James Hansen as we probably have very different opinions on antroprogenic global warming.

And very different methods of coming to those opinions. On the one hand, we have Dr. James Hansen, who conducted inumerable hours of research and posted his findings to ssubject them to peer review.

On the other hand, we have Dr. John Hansen, who has conducted zero studies on climate change, or at least has not published any to subject them to peer review, and was so obviously inept at physics that he switched to computer science.

I know which Dr. I'm going with.

Thumb -

One thing I don't understand. is why anyone would deny that the mainstream press is liberal?

Oh, and Dr. John Hansen, in case you couldn't figure it out, that last post was me.

on -

You make a startling conclusion. -because I switched to computer science, I must be inept at physics -

Curious, why do you think this?

Don't you mean - because I am a conservative and disagree with you, you must denigrate my abilities in anyway you see fit. After all its so obvious ( to you ) that liberal ideas are correct. At least I take the time to read other opinions. I read both conservative and liberal blogs. I read people who are skeptics of GW ( who in your world view probably must be an oil company shills ), and people who think anthroprogenic GW is a great danger.

I actually read papers by scientists like James Hansen to try to digest the science behind global warming. I remain skeptical about the climatologists ability to predict the future of the climate. Real scientists are allowed to be skeptical about models which try to predict something so difficult.

But what I do not have time for is the people who make predictions like " we will have severe water shortages in 2080 due to global warming" or such. People who predict drastic side effects due to GW that are 72 years off are just using scare tactics to push some agenda.

Jeffrey Davis

There's a 5% chance the temperature will exceed 4.5 centigrade, not 4.5 fahrenheit?

A big difference.

The key being the known, but unquantified, positive feedback effects (declining albedo from melting sea ice, methane release from permafrost, etc.).

The other key being human action: depends on what level of ppm CO2 we allow the world to get to. Currently 383ppm and recently accelerated to rise to 3ppm pa from 2ppm pa.

450ppm we warm up 2 degrees C +/- 1.5 degrees.

550 the confidence interval is much larger.

John Hansen wrote: "But what I do not have time for is the people who make predictions like 'we will have severe water shortages in 2080 due to global warming' or such."

You are right on that one. It will be more like 2030.

One thing I don't understand. is why anyone would deny that the mainstream press is liberal?

One thing I don't understand is why anyone would deny that the mainstream press, primarily owned by fortune 100 companies tied directly to defense, gas and oil interests, and proud Republican activists (Murdock, Scaffie, et al), all catering to their fortune 500 customers (advertisers), would lean in any direction other than their own partisan interests.

No wonder why you flamed out in the academic world and found your solace in the private sector. While one is the search for truth wherever it leads, the other is the pursuit of an outcome, whatever evidentiary gymnastics it requires.

People who predict drastic side effects due to GW that are 72 years off are just using scare tactics to push some agenda.

No, they are analyzing trends and making long-term predictions based on those trends. This happens all the time in the natural sciences. Apparently in your world science is king, KING! - until you disagree with its conclusions.

And we already have water shortages you boob! 4 million people in Atlanta were months away from running out of water last year. The Western states, Sydney, Africa, South America Asia, - hell, Southern Europe is grappling with insufficient water, record shortages, and dwindling supplies. Don't you read the news?!?

SecularAnimist is correct, serious shortages are on the way sooner rather than later.

John Hanson, no I don't "presume an answer just because it fits our hypothesis." It is the likely outcome given known physical interactions, somewhat like saying that if you dump vinegar into a lake it will likely make it more acidic. Well, maybe something else will counteract that, but when you have a good theoretical basis (not a mere hypothesis) *and* suggestive, even if not "slam dunk" evidence, then it is the likely outcome. And it is also risk analysis, meaning that we need to do something even if maybe even odds etc. of significant temperature change.

BTW, most of the steps we should take to reduce CO2 emissions are good policy anyway (conserve limited resources, save money, reduce dependence on dangerous foreign regions, increase energy options to reduce singular choke points, etc. The only thing I'd concede to "skeptics" is that sure, it's OK to weigh the effects of radical policies against the possible risk of the alternatives.

No wonder why you flamed out in the academic world

A man makes a career move because he wants to stay in a particular location and that is defined as a flame-out?

Thumb - Why do you assume you understand things that you know nothing about? Obviously you do not know why I left physics. You don't know me. Therefore obviously in this area you are making up a reason that fits your world view.

This casts doubts on how well researched your other opinions are. Although, I admit, that it is possible in this case only you are behaving like an ignoramus.

Your right.

Most of the "...steps we should take to reduce CO2 emissions are good policy anyway..." Take me for instance. I drive a civic hybrid, I recycle whenever I can, I do a lot of personal things which are pro-environment just because it is good practice.

However, many of the steps proposed by advocates of GW read more like over-regulation and economy killers. I don't say this because I am a powerful corporate big wig, its just because I realize that a thriving economy creates more good than a depressed one.

Additionally, funding that is currently going to support useless scientific studies that are only funded because disreputable scientists find ways to bend their study to sound like its GW related, can be used to do something more useful.

A healthy skepticism over GW will keep us from making bad mistakes with our limited resources.

Sorry,

The last post was by me as a response to Neil B. Not by Neil B. My bad.

Thumb - Why do you assume you understand things that you know nothing about? Obviously you do not know why I left physics. You don't know me. Therefore obviously in this area you are making up a reason that fits your world view.

Well you sure busted me. Yep, making things up out of thin air that I know nothing about. Oh, wait...

Posted by: John Hansen on March 26, 2008 at 5:01 PM: "There are many reasons but some are:
2. I much prefer working for a private corporation then writing grant proposals for funding.
3. The money."

Although, I admit, that it is possible in this case only you are behaving like an ignoramus.

"We don't see things as they are; We see things as we are." - Anais Nin

a thriving economy creates more good than a depressed one

Provided, of course, that external costs are properly factored in. Otherwise, the thriving economy might pollute without bound. Lacking things like regulations and/or SO2 markets and/or GHG taxes, it all gets managed, if at all, through that highly efficient process known as "litigation".

Supposing, hypothetically speaking, of course, that global warming is not only real, but turns out a hair worse faster than current projections. Ships get to travel across the arctic in the summer, free money for them -- but my neighbors, some in lowish area, get sewage backing up in their basements. No free money for them, no. Pray tell, how are they compensated for their loss? Whom do they sue? Or, perhaps, whom does their insurance company sue?

And if you answer is, "but that won't happen", ask yourself if you're prepared to prove it in court. There's a substantially better chance than zero that it will happen. The insurance companies are responding. Hurricane coverage in Florida has already gone through the roof; the insurance companies, motivated more by cold cash than by whatever pills Limbaugh is popping today, looked at Katrina, Rita, and Wilma, looked at the preceding years (lots of good-sized storms hitting Florida -- warming water turns tropical storms into hurricanes) and jacked up their rates. So now, TODAY, who do all the homeowners in Florida sue for their higher rates?

Pleading ignorance is not going to help. The IPCC report is very conservative:

The projections do not include uncertainties in climate-carbon cycle feedbacks nor the full effects of changes in ice sheet flow, therefore the upper values of the ranges are not to be considered upper bounds for sea level rise. They include a contribution from increased Greenland and Antarctic ice flow at the rates observed for 1993-2003, but this could increase or decrease in the future.

(Y'all trolls do read this stuff, right?)

14 years ago, when I bought the house that I am in now, I not only checked to see if it was in a flood plain, I also checked to see if it was above the melted-Greenland line. Probably ten years ago, I recall talking to a friend who worked in climate science, and he remarked that many of the big companies publicly casting doubt on the science, were paying big bucks for the results of the science.

I think that we've got a lot of industries in this country that are in the same position that the tobacco companies were in the 1960s -- working as hard as possible to create plausible deniability, in hopes of not getting wiped out in court.

John Hansen, I'm just curious as a technical matter - since the Name block usually either picks up from previous use, or you have to type something in, how did you pick up my handle? Some really weird response to clicking on my name? Maybe just a banal brain fart of thinking it was for the person being addressed, heh? I wonder how many of those litter the blogosphere. (BTW, you can really use my decoded email address.)

PS: I am curious, since you agree that most of the changes in response to GW would be good anyway, which ones aren't and why?

1) James v John -- misread and thought it was a joke nom de net.

2) Not a scientist

3) 4.5 F or C? Neither. Faulty memory. IPCC top end is 4C. We're currently (IIRC) at 1.1C which makes it look like we're just going to blow past the low end of 1.8C.

Marohasy, sophomoric twit quoted upthread by someone who didn't know why it was crap:

"Actually, no. The head of the IPCC has actually acknowledged it. He talks about the apparent plateau in temperatures so far this century. So he recognizes that in this century, over the past eight years, temperatures have plateaued ... This is not what you'd expect, as I said, because if carbon dioxide is driving temperature then you'd expect that, given carbon dioxide levels have been continuing to increase, temperatures should be going up ... So (it's) very unexpected, not something that's being discussed. It should be being discussed, though, because it's very significant."

No. Like I said, with fluctuations imposed upon a trend it is perfectly expected to have flat periods (that would have been downturns if no upward trend!) Good lord, just plot e.g. y = ax + RND(x) for cryin' out loud! Do it, and look at the graph! Well, that theoretical point was wrong, but it