Scare of the century - (Global warming!)

National Review ^ | June 5, 2006 | Jason Lee Steorts

[razorback-bert]

While looking at a pair of bald eagles in a nest, I listen to the guide explain that bald eagles are extinct on Catalina Island.

[knews_hound]

bttt

[Razz Barry]

Time wants you to be very worried about this: “By some estimates, the entire Greenland ice sheet would be enough to raise global sea levels 23 ft., swallowing up large parts of coastal Florida and most of Bangladesh. The Antarctic holds enough ice to raise sea levels more than 215 ft.” Farewell, Dhaka, we shall miss thee.

Florida, before the melting of the glaciers, was twice the size it is now. When the glaciers started melting global warming was blamed on mammoth methane (no, not Rosie O'Donnell. They were big elephant looking things but did not practice same sex you know what.) anyway, the mammoths were outlawed and all had to be destroyed. That's why we don't have mammoths today and why I don't worry about global warming.

[hoping_to_learn]

Regarding skepticism:

It appears that at least one passage in "Scare of the Century" by JASON LEE STEORTS either needs correction or additional explanation.

<< How much ice has Antarctica gained? In a 2005 study published in Science, Curt Davis used satellite measurements to calculate changes in the ice sheet’s elevation, and found that it gained 45 billion tons of ice per year between 1992 and 2003. Far from flooding the coasts, that’s enough to lower sea levels by roughly 0.12 millimeters annually. >>

According to Curt Davis, whose work Steorts is citing and who is director of the Center for Geospatial Intelligence at the University of Missouri-Columbia:
from https://cf.iats.missouri.edu/news/NewsBureauSingleNews.cfm?newsid=9842

<< Growth of the ice sheet was only noted on the interior of the ice sheet and did not include coastal areas. Coastal areas are known to be losing mass, and these losses could offset or even outweigh the gains in the interior areas. >>

More generally, Davis complains that recent reports are misrepresenting his previous research to back their claims that global warming is not causing ice sheets to shrink in a "deliberate effort to confuse and mislead the public about the global warming debate. They are selectively using only parts of my previous research to support their claims. They are not telling the entire story to the public."

There are more details at the link I have provided. I am not sure if Davis would include Steorts' article as part of his general complaint, but it seems that you would find Davis' comments of interest.

I have not done so, but you might also want to check out whether there are similar issues with other claims in Steorts article.

[ChessExpert]

Great article. I was looking for more information on ice sheets.Thanks for the post.

[marinbruin]

Unfortunatly, the above article is misleading and inaccurate, similar to many scientific studies today. As the above post mentions, the cite of the Davis article was misused, but there are also several other omissions or errors. You can yahoo! the authors name and find several pages that identify those, and here is a link to just one example:

http://thinkprogress.org/2006/05/25/national-review-warming/

Scientific studies and "factual" numbers are often manipulated or disguised to accomplish the original intent of the author. Studies rarely refer to any kind of confidence level or interval because they must use confidence levels too high to make definitive conclusions.

The article makes several assertions, that, when taken individually, do cast some doubt on the issue of global warming.

1: snow fall on the interior of Greenland and Antarctica is increasing. Very true. Increased percipitation is absolutely an effect of Global Warming. However, you must consider the other effects that accompany this. Firstly, due to the higher temperatures snow is less likely to freeze and become part of the glaciers themselves. Secondly, the net-effect must be considered, as the author mentioned. However, what the author does not mention is that the movement of land-glaciers towards the sea is the most alarming issue. No amount of snow fall can account for the kind of glacier loss associated with the Larson collapse. The movement of glaciers on Greenland has also recently been measured at half a football field per day. Again, no amount of interior snowfall would compensate for that kind of loss.

There are several natural cycles of warming and cooling of both arctic waters and air temperatures. This is also very true. However when you look at the statistical data as prepared by numerous studies, the current increases are not a linear or progressive shift, but are in fact increasing exponentially. Nature does tend to shift in order to adjust for changes in the environment, but those shifts tend to be linear and stable. There is ample evidence that the degree in changes do not conform with natural temperature shifts.

Putting aside all scientific evidence which can sometimes be distorted by biased authors, consider the following:

Temperatures have increased by 1 degree last century (no arguement)

The agreement in the scientific community that human activity does have an impact on global warming, not considering the degree, is virtually unnanimous.

Ocean temperatures have increased even in the past decade, and that increase, combined with the increase of CO2 levels are causing a "bleaching" effect, killing incredible expanses of corral and other ocean life.

Land based glaciers OUTSIDE of the polar regions, have DECREASED ANY IN MANY CASES NO LONGER EXIST.

There is plenty of evidence that polar glacial areas are also decreasing.

Insects are spreading to larger areas based on the increases in both temperature and humidity.

And much, much more.

As the author said, if you consider that even the last 100 years is a blip in environmental terms, such drastic changes in that timespan provide OVERWHELMING evidence that global warming is influencing our environment and COULD lead to some catastrophic events. The problem is that the conservative world wants undeniable evidence of such a possibility, and we will not have such evidence until it is all ready too late.