Posted on 01/30/2006 4:02:45 PM PST by NormsRevenge
"Antartic"
"Sorry that's Antarctic."
And right you are (I hope you aint the one that reminded the teacher about the homework assignment :-)
Incidentally , it scores pretty high on the Googlebonics scale - 17/1 vs antarctic.
What's a nice beachfront lot cost there?
That can't end well.
These environmentalists are a modern day version of the Millerites. If disaster does not strike today, then perhaps we left something out of the calculations and it will be tomorrow.
This article is so full of weasel words that it's meaningless.
I thought the liberals told us this had already started. You'd think these idiots would at least try and get on the same page.
250,000...now.
I'm counting on it. And hope it accelerates!
In just a few years the great lakes region could be the new Miami! ;)
(actually, today was really warm!)
I get a kick out of these "scientists" who clainm that the polar ice caps meting will increase the ocean water levels.
At least as far as the north pole is concerned this is bunk. Go get a glass of water, throw a few ice cubes in it and measure where the water level is. Come back in a while after the ice has melted and notice that the water is still at the same level!
It's called displacement.
The south pole is another matter since there is land under the ice but the surrounding ice sheets will have no effect on the ocean levels.
Glad to see your analogy with the plate tectonics arguments 30/40 years ago. It's often seemed to me that the present state of climate change science is not unlike the state of the science on that subject then - the evidence was inconclusive on either side of the argument, so it was possible for respectable and reputable scientists to hold starkly contradictory views. Given that analogy, I come to a rather different conclusion than you on climate change - it seems to me that, as then, the available evidence is incconclusive, and that there are reasonably high probabilities of widely divergent outcomes. The only wise reponse to this, it seems to me, is to keep an open mind and await further evidence on either side.
As you know, the plate tectonics argument was in the end resolved very rapidly by a small number of crucial discoveries, such as the spreading of the mid-Atlantic ocean floor. Whether there could ever be such a conclusive clincher for the climate change debate is difficult to foresee at the moment, but who knows...
Incidentally on your point 3 about sea ice - the report of the Exeter conference (which, incidentally. was hosted by the British Met Office, one of the world's oldest and most reputable scientific bodies concerned with meteorlogy and climate) made it quite clear that they were talking about the freshwater ice in the Greenland and Antarctic ice caps, not the sea ice. As usual, it's sloppy media reporting which has confused this.
The wackos can't keep their stories straight. And they think we're too dumb to figure that out.
30 years ago, the wackos were freaking out about the "coming ice age."
They're amusing, aren't they?
Most modeling is so bad that they cannot predict past climate. It's the old "Junk in, Junk out."
Allegra could win an obscene amount of money in the Texas Lotto this century.
Global Warming Bombshell
A prime piece of evidence linking human activity to climate change turns out to be an artifact of poor mathematics.
By Richard Muller
http://www.technologyreview.com/articles/04/10/wo_muller101504.asp
Canadian scientists Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick have uncovered a fundamental mathematical flaw in the computer program that was used to produce the hockey stick.
I suspect that our views have much in common. I believe that the climate shows a warming trend. I saw it clearly 25 years ago in the glacial evidence along the Front Range of the Rockies and on Baffin Island. Others reported it elsewhere. The geologic evidence of the Pleistocene and Holocene show many such climatic events. I agree that what we don't know is the outcome. Global Cooling was all the fashion in the seventies at NCAR when they first fired up their climate models on their new CRAY. That notion fell away for a time, but is now back with a twist in the discussion over ocean current reversals where warming will melt the ice, turn off the Gulf Stream and bring an end to the interglacial.
So, what's it gonna be? Warming, cooling? Only the Shadow knows, and only good science will reveal the Shadow's secret.
The same can be said for the cause. Claiming our industrial society to be at fault will get you a grant 9 times out of 10, but it ain't necessarily so.
BTW, not much data on the Greenland and Antartic glaciers to make many trend conclusions. Guys go up to Greenland in the summer, make some measurements, find the instruments they left last summer and go home - pretty thin gruel. They do come to the right conclusion though, they need another grant to gather more data. As for Antartica, that requires really serious research and not many are up for that.
Consensus says that this is an interesting lecture on the topic of diluted science and it's use in political gaming.
http://www.crichton-official.com/speeches/speeches_quote04.html
great article. Saved for future use. Stephen Schneider was one of my professors, his great climate model said we were headed for nuclear winter, until he decided that it said we were in the midst of global warming. His early model ignored the oceans - he was an atmospheric scientist.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.