# I weep for Americans (Global warming poll). **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [October 23, 2009, 5:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-weep-for-americans-global-warming-poll/514881 "2009-10-23T17:24:09Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 7
**Author:** ![Happy\_Fun\_Ball](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/happy_fun_ball/32/17664_2.png) [@Happy\_Fun\_Ball](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Happy_Fun_Ball)\ **Post date:** [October 26, 2009, 9:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-weep-for-americans-global-warming-poll/514881/121 "2009-10-26T21:05:01Z")
> [@intention (who wouldn't believe the world was warming if he spontaneously combusted)](#): > > This is what turns my stomach about people like L. G. Butts PhD (who believes in AGW) and GIGObuster (who believes in AGW) who get all self-righteous about how they are so noble, how people who oppose them are “fucking morons”, and how they weep for the stupidity of Americans who have had the temerity to notice that the world is not warming now. (Obligatory GIGObuster disclaimer: although it is not warming now, in the future it will start either warming or cooling again, in case you didn’t know that. I wouldn’t want to mislead anyone into thinking that the world will never warm or cool again …). > > Their multi-billion dollar recommended policies, designed to avert a possible threat in fifty years, are causing human misery today by working to prevent development in Africa … and they think they have the moral high ground because they are trying to prevent Africans from building coal fired power plants? I wish I could sentence every one of them to go to Africa, make them talk to the people there, and find out what the real crisis is in Africa. Because I guarantee you one thing — it’s not the fact that atmospheric CO2 has gone from 0.03% to 0.04%, and the Africans know it. You don’t know shit about me and my beliefs so stop fucking pretending you do. Let me help you out here so you can add those cute little parentheticals when you quote me: [QUOTE=Me, i.e. Professor Lucifer Gorgonzola Butts, who believes in AGW and thinks intention is an asshole] If climate change is primarily caused by CO[sub]2[/sub] and other greenhouse gas emissions (which I believe to be the case), I think it is doubtful that there is anything we can do about it due to the time constant of the processes that sequester carbon. Meaning that even if we stopped using petroleum tomorrow, the damage has been done and it will take ~500 years to reduce the CO[sub]2[/sub] concentration in our atmosphere by half. Half measures, like Kyoto, won’t do jack, especially when you take into account that the most conservative accounting of our petroleum reserves give the world less than 100 years of oil and less than 200 years of coal at current consumption rates (we will get more efficient at using these fuels, but this will be offset by developing countries). But even if I thought that we could effectively control the climate by reducing our consumption, most likely the cure would be worse than the disease. This is especially true for people in developing countries that are being stripped of resources by the west. These people have no choice but to develop or die, and if this means polluting their ecosystem and mine, I understand this is the way of the world and I would not stand in their way. If I was in their place, I would do whatever it took to feed my family. [/QUOTE] Now, _dickmunch_, that we have covered some of my beliefs about AGW, let’s talk about _this_ thread. Do you know what this thread is? It is an EPIC FAIL Do you know _why_\*? Because you are exactly the type of person that causes the exact behavior I am pitting and you are doing again in this thread. You take the HARDCRAP III data (or whatever) and say, definitively, that the world is no longer warming. That’s bullshit and you _should_ know it. The variability in world temperature is such that only long term measurements can be used to make any conclusions regarding trends. I don’t know if 10 years is long enough to understand the general trend, but from everything I have read, I doubt it. Regardless, you claim that you _know_ what the trend is. You could have made the same claim in 1950 [looking at the previous 10 years](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Instrumental_Temperature_Record.png) and you would have been wrong. And this leads to what I am pitting: people jumping to concusions based on one fucking data point and convincing other people they are right. There is a lot of solid evidence that the earth has been warming over the last century and their is very little evidence that this trend has stopped or reversed, but you are going to take the HARDCRAP III data (or whatever, it’s not the fucking point) for the last ten years and definitively say that it’s over, we have nothing to worry about, get your skis because it’s going to snow. OK, fine, whatever, I don’t much care what your opinion is. What I do care is that you are going to plant enough doubt with your definitive claims in one or two SDMB posters minds that when a team of climatologists next year says that 2010 is the hottest year on record by a full degree, they are going to think that the climatologists have an agenda and are not just reporting the data. It’s irresponsible and sad. Thus do I weep for this country. They believe you when you **can’t** know. They still believe that asshole doctor that reported that autism was linked with thiomersal even though this has been repeatedly debunked. They believe that water with the _memory_ of a molecule can cure them\*\* (even though there is no evidence besides the experience of the mother’s sister’s cousin’s boyfriend). They believe in stuff like irreducible complexity and that the position of the stars and the planets at the time of our birth can effect who we marry. It’s bullshit and this poll is just the latest example of it. Regardless, whether this thread is an epic fail or not, it was only intended to be a fucking rant, not one those unending arguments between you and **JShore** in GD. If I wanted to discuss the drawbacks of different measurement techniques and had a war of quotes from different peer reviewed journals, I would have done it there. So, bite me! - It was probably an epic fail because I mentioned you in the OP. I should have left well enough alone, and indeed I regret it. \*\* If homeopathy worked, would it’s opposite also work? I.e. wouldn’t you get E coli poisoning from water with the _memory_ of shit? ---
**Author:** ![Happy\_Fun\_Ball](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/happy_fun_ball/32/17664_2.png) [@Happy\_Fun\_Ball](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Happy_Fun_Ball)\ **Post date:** [October 26, 2009, 9:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-weep-for-americans-global-warming-poll/514881/122 "2009-10-26T21:09:05Z")
> [@Duke\_of\_Rat](#): > > It’s this presumption of absolute certainty about what will happen if global warming isn’t stopped/slowed that irritates me. For what it’s worth, I completely agree. This irritates me almost as much as pronouncements of absolute certainty about what is happening in an incredibly complex, non-linear system based on very few measurements. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [October 26, 2009, 9:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-weep-for-americans-global-warming-poll/514881/123 "2009-10-26T21:10:56Z")
> [@intention](#): > > When I was younger, I worked in a number of countries in Africa. It is because of my experiences there that I support the “no-regrets” option. As I mentioned above, this is the path of taking actions which will benefit the poor regardless of whether Gigobuster (who believes in AGW) or I are right about CO2. > > While wandering around the web today, I found an article which expresses the issues much better than I could, because it quotes extensively from Africans. Here is a part of the [article](http://www.hawaiireporter.com/story.aspx?b4f4b1ac-1302-499b-b7bb-7ffe13b447e2): > > This is what turns my stomach about people like L. G. Butts PhD (who believes in AGW) and GIGObuster (who believes in AGW) who get all self-righteous about how they are so noble, how people who oppose them are “fucking morons”, and how they weep for the stupidity of Americans who have had the temerity to notice that the world is not warming now. (Obligatory GIGObuster disclaimer: although it is not warming now, in the future it will start either warming or cooling again, in case you didn’t know that. I wouldn’t want to mislead anyone into thinking that the world will never warm or cool again …). It is not temerity, just ignorance. As Latif said, he brought the point that the decadal variations were expected, and the only thing he got were deniers that claimed that he had said that global cooling was coming. The lie is in insisting that global warming has stopped. Once again, to be brutally honest, one can say only that there has been no cooling or warming in the last 10 years. But the point remains that warming will continue after this period of “temerity”. Latif also mentioned that he and other climate researchers needed to talk about the expected variations because otherwise others would begin to ask questions designed to undermine what they have found. He was once again correct with guys like **Intension**. > [@intention](#): > > Their multi-billion dollar recommended policies, designed to avert a possible threat in fifty years, are causing human misery today by working to prevent development in Africa … and they think they have the moral high ground because they are trying to prevent Africans from building coal fired power plants? I wish I could sentence every one of them to go to Africa, make them talk to the people there, and find out what the real crisis is in Africa. Because I guarantee you one thing — it’s not the fact that atmospheric CO2 has gone from 0.03% to 0.04%, and the Africans know it. And here you clumsily demonstrate that you confuse what to do with the issue with what the science says. (hint: **what you do about it does not change the science** ) If you had paid attention you would had know that I’m on record on being on the side of guys like Bjorn Lomborg: > **[FAQ](https://lomborg.com/faq?PHPSESSID=26b298d56e42b923591cd03fbc1a0cef)** He accepts the science: yep, GW is human made, we will hit the fan when getting close to the end of the century. He does indeed insist that we should accept that not much will be done (I don’t agree with many of his positions but on the whole I pragmatically agree), and that we should concentrate on helping the developing world come out of their bad state sooner rather than later, so that when the changes brought by global warming begin to affect the world the countries affected will deal with the change in an effective matter. Now, as for insults and gaining the moral ground I only have to say that you are now reaching for the childish methods of “Lord” Monckton. I really begin to doubt that your paper will make any difference, you are not really a very serious person. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [October 26, 2009, 9:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-weep-for-americans-global-warming-poll/514881/124 "2009-10-26T21:26:59Z")
> [@Duke\_of\_Rat](#): > > Do we really have absolute proof that a higher average global temperature will cause deserts? I seem to recall that the immense amount of vegetation coupled with higher average temperatures than today were part of the reasons dinosaurs were thought to be so succcessful. If I’m mistaken about this, forgive me. This is by memory, so AFAICR several dinosaur fossils found in Asia showed that they were buried when desert sandstorms covered them, at the beginning of the dinosaur era the planet had huge deserts. Nowadays many scientists think that besides an asteroid a series of super volcano eruptions going on at the same time did them in. > [@Duke\_of\_Rat](#): > > Then there’s [this piece from National Geographic](http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/07/090731-green-sahara.html) that suggests a surge in vegetation in the Sahara within the last few years. > > Were global deserts prevalent back before the current subsiding ice age? The entire recorded human history has been written on the heels of a retreating ice age. There’s never been a human experience written about what the Earth was like without substantial polar ice, are we certain that the entire Earth would be an inhospitable desert should the polar ice vanish until the next ice age? > > I’m absolutely not saying that there’s not global warming going on right now. I’m not saying that humans shouldn’t make an effort to reduce their contribution to global warming. All I’m asking is, are we so absolutely certain that the world will be less hospitable should the average temperature rise to pre-ice age levels? I think that climate change will become bad for humanity, **but not catastrophic by itself**. It will be bad depending on the location where you are; sure, some will benefit, but there was a reason Gore got the Nobel peace price a few years back, even if some will benefit, the countries that will get the hot end of the frying pan will not go down quietly. The research has to be concentrated in finding what AGW will bring to specific areas of the world so that we can prepare better. ---
**Author:** ![intention](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/e95f7d/32.png) [@intention](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/intention)\ **Post date:** [October 26, 2009, 10:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-weep-for-americans-global-warming-poll/514881/125 "2009-10-26T22:58:49Z")
> [@L. G. Butts](#): > > … You take the HARDCRAP III data (or whatever) and say, definitively, that the world is no longer warming. That’s bullshit and you _should_ know it. … Jeez, L. G. (who believes in AGW), are you off your meds again? Even though the global temperature hasn’t risen for ten years, your blood pressure sure has. And it seems like the voices in your head are back again. So now, the voices are saying to you that \*\* I \*\* take the HadCRUT data (that you call HARDCRAP for obscure reasons)? They are telling you that \*\* I \*\* say that definitively? Your voices seem to have mistaken me for Science Magazine. Science Magazine is the one who said _“greenhouse warming has been stopped in its tracks for the past 10 years”_. That’s what Science Magazine said. That’s what I quoted. Definitively. In other words, the world is no longer warming. Now, it might start warming again tomorrow, as I have repeatedly said. Or it might start cooling tomorrow. Or it might stay level for another decade as Latif forecasts. I have said all of those things, in the vain hope that they might protect me from the voices in your head trying to blame me for saying things I haven’t said. Like blaming me for saying that the three-century long trend of global warming has stopped. I didn’t say that. Nor did I imply that, in fact I specifically said the opposite because I saw this kind of crap on the horizon. But that hasn’t stopped your voices from accusing me just the same. So if you think it’s bullshit that the world has stopped warming, don’t come to me and whine about it. Write a letter to Science Magazine and straighten them out. Warn them about the dangers of using the “HARDCRAP” data that they cited. Let them know that they are full of shit when they say things like “Corrected for the natural temperature effects of El Niño and its sister climate event La Niña, the decade’s trend is a perfectly flat 0.00°C.” Don’t let them get away with that kind of deception, they might convince an SDMB poster that … that … well … that there has been no warming for ten years or something evil like that. I’ll keep my eye on the “Letters to the Editor” column for your submission. I wouldn’t mention about the voices in your head, though, you might want to keep that part to yourself … Finally, it is now clear to me that you and GIGObuster (who believes in AGW) do not think that we should spend billions on fighting CO2 but should instead spend the money on mitigation. You have my most sincere and humble apologies for including you in my rant above. It was directed at those who do believe that Kyotoesque solutions are the way to go, and I was under the misapprehension that you were among them. I regret including you in that group, it was unwarranted and incorrect. I let my anger get the best of me, and made assumptions I should not have made. Mea culpa. ---
**Author:** ![Gangster\_Octopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/a8b319/32.png) [@Gangster\_Octopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gangster_Octopus)\ **Post date:** [October 26, 2009, 11:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-weep-for-americans-global-warming-poll/514881/126 "2009-10-26T23:22:08Z")
Well, this article by the AP is intreresting, [Statisticians reject global cooling](http://www.ajc.com/news/nation-world/ap-impact-statisticians-reject-174088.html). > [@](#): > > In a blind test, the AP gave temperature data to four independent statisticians and asked them to look for trends, without telling them what the numbers represented. The experts found no true temperature declines over time. > > “If you look at the data and sort of cherry-pick a micro-trend within a bigger trend, that technique is particularly suspect,” said John Grego, a professor of statistics at the University of South Carolina. > > Yet the idea that things are cooling has been repeated inopinion columns, a BBC news story posted on the Drudge Report and in a new book by the authors of the best-seller “Freakonomics.” Last week, a poll by the Pew Research Center found that only 57 percent of Americans now believe there is strong scientific evidence for global warming, down from 77 percent in 2006. > > Global warming skeptics base their claims on an unusually hot year in 1998. Since then, they say, temperatures have dropped — thus, a cooling trend. But it’s not that simple. ---
**Author:** ![intention](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/e95f7d/32.png) [@intention](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/intention)\ **Post date:** [October 27, 2009, 12:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-weep-for-americans-global-warming-poll/514881/127 "2009-10-27T00:25:24Z")
> [@Duke\_of\_Rat](#): > > Do we really have absolute proof that a higher average global temperature will cause deserts? I seem to recall that the immense amount of vegetation coupled with higher average temperatures than today were part of the reasons dinosaurs were thought to be so succcessful. If I’m mistaken about this, forgive me. > > Then there’s [this piece from National Geographic](http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/07/090731-green-sahara.html) that suggests a surge in vegetation in the Sahara within the last few years. … All I’m asking is, are we so absolutely certain that the world will be less hospitable should the average temperature rise to pre-ice age levels? We have no evidence at all that a warmer world will be a worse world. In fact, quite the opposite. Cold is harder on people than warmth, particularly if you are poor. That’s why the homeless move south in the winter, and tend to be concentrated in warmer cities. Studies have shown that there is more excess mortality in cold snaps. Read the stories from the Little Ice Age about how hard life is for the poor when the world is colder. The increasing temperatures over the last three hundred years have generally been beneficial for plants, animals, and humans. In addition, there is no evidence of warming in the tropics. Although both the RSS and the MSU satellite temperature data shows statistically significant warming in both the northern and southern hemispheres, both of them also show that there has been no statistically significant warming in the tropics. (And yes, GIGObuster who believes in AGW, I realize that it is only a thirty year record, and that tropical temperatures might start rising tomorrow.) So although everyone claims that the (mostly poor) people in the tropics are going to get roasted by increasing CO2, the data disagrees. Nor do the models predict such warming, with the modelled warming being largest in the temperate and polar zones, in the winter, at night. As I said before, I doubt that the people in Moscow or Stockholm are going to complain about that. Next, in general a warmer world is a wetter world. This is because when it warms, there is more evaporation. Since what goes up must come down, evaporation must come down as precipitation. This is amply verified by the dust in the ice core records. During the ice ages the amounts of dust in the ice cores is much higher, showing the existence of larger deserts and arid areas. As you point out, as the world warmed in the last century, there has been a general “greening” of the planet. Of course, in addition to increased rain, some of this may also be from increased atmospheric CO2 … We also have little evidence that there will be a general increase in vector-borne disease such as malaria in a warmer world. Dr Paul Reiter was booted out of the IPCC for inconveniently [pointing this out.](http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200506/ldselect/ldeconaf/12/12we21.htm) What’s left? Sea level rise was inconveniently featured by Al Gore. The problem with that is that there is no evidence that sea level rise is increasing, in fact lately it has been [decreasing](http://sealevel.colorado.edu/). (To avoid another attack from GIGObuster who believes in AGW, the rate of sea level rise may speed up again. I know everybody knows that, but he thinks y’all are easily deceived and led.) So no, **Duke of Rat** , we are by no means certain that the world will be less hospitable if it warms. ---
**Author:** ![intention](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/e95f7d/32.png) [@intention](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/intention)\ **Post date:** [October 27, 2009, 12:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-weep-for-americans-global-warming-poll/514881/128 "2009-10-27T00:28:06Z")
> [@Gangster\_Octopus](#): > > Well, this article by the AP is intreresting, [Statisticians reject global cooling](http://www.ajc.com/news/nation-world/ap-impact-statisticians-reject-174088.html). I find very few people claiming that there has been cooling, except for Fox “News” and Newsalikes. Just about everyone agrees, on the other hand, that the warming stopped around the end of the century. (Obligatory disclaimer — it may start up again.) ---
**Author:** ![intention](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/e95f7d/32.png) [@intention](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/intention)\ **Post date:** [October 27, 2009, 12:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-weep-for-americans-global-warming-poll/514881/129 "2009-10-27T00:58:28Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > … there was a reason Gore got the Nobel peace price a few years back … Yeah, chronic candy-assed Norwegian stupidity, which obviously is still alive and well … but that’s another thread. People live in every part of this planet, from the warmest to the coldest. The idea that a shift of a few degrees will lead to massive suffering is unsupported by any evidence. It makes for a lovely theory, and for those who believe in theoretical suffering, and who also believe that said theoretical suffering will be avoided by preventing coal burning power plants, and who are willing to ignore the suffering caused by preventing coal burning power plants, and who want to celebrate someone who jets around burning huge amounts of carbon to warn of twenty foot sea level rises, I suppose a Nobel Prize makes sense. But here in the real world, I don’t see any evidence that the rise in global temperature since the Little Ice Age, or since the Industrial Revolution, or since 1900, or since 1975, has led to any headline making disasters. Sea level rose about 200 - 300 mm in the last century, but no headlines about massive loss of life from rising sea levels … funny, that. **GIGObuster who believes in AGW** , given that we are at the hot end of a centuries-long temperature rise which has passed without a single persistent warming-related problem, anyone like you making claims that _“the countries that will get the hot end of the frying pan will not go down quietly”_ is under a huge obligation to provide evidence for that claim. You and the others parroting this nonsense have three centuries of records to search through to provide them with examples and evidence, but somehow, all I’ve heard so far are overblown claims without anything to back them up. But there are lots of people willing to believe those claims which fly in the face of centuries of experience … remind me again, whose stupidity are we weeping for? ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [October 27, 2009, 1:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-weep-for-americans-global-warming-poll/514881/130 "2009-10-27T01:26:54Z")
> [@intention](#): > > Your voices seem to have mistaken me for Science Magazine. Science Magazine is the one who said _“greenhouse warming has been stopped in its tracks for the past 10 years”_. That’s what Science Magazine said. That’s what I quoted. Definitively. In other words, the world is no longer warming. > [@intention](#): > > Say what? Did you read my post? I did mention that. I said: > > > [@](#): > > > > They go on to explain that this cessation of warming occurs in some 2.7% of the ten year climate runs of a particular model, so there’s nothing unusual about it. Riiight … funny how 97.3% odds that the models are wrong is suddenly meaningless. But I digress. > > And they do speculate that when the flat trend ends there will be a jump … you do understand that is speculation, and that we have absolutely no evidence that it will happen? Now, it was you who said that it was speculation and that they had **no evidence for it** , well they do have evidence that the warming is taking place and on the way to higher temperatures. They already took many complexities into account to realize that we would encounter periods that would look like there was cooling or a stop of the warming in relation to some previous years. As the independent statisticians report, it is indeed deceptive to to claim that a ten year period means that contrarians are correct on **why it is so** , and your original quote from Science Magazine was selective. The name that Science Magazine used for the article makes it more clear: > [@](#): > > What Happened to Global Warming? Scientists Say **Just Wait a Bit** You are confusing the humoring of one point of the contrarians with an acceptance of all what contrarians are saying. And that was one of the main points of Latif on the speech that he made on the conference. Science magazine was not accepting the BS from contrarian bloggers, only explaining why what we see is indeed as expected in the jumpy march towards higher temperatures. You ended that silly post then with: > [@intention](#): > > Guess what? Science Magazine just controverted it. The contrarian bloggers are right. The American people know more about science than you do. Get used to it. So after seeing the deception we point that: “Guess what?” Whaaaaat? “Science Magazine just controverted it.” No they did not. “The contrarian bloggers are right.” One could be tempted to give them the broken watch award for being correct twice on a day, but it has been ten years 🙂 or more of their BS. > **[Anatomy of a lie: How Marc Morano and Lorne Gunter spun Mojib Latif’s remarks...](https://deepclimate.org/2009/10/02/anatomy-of-a-lie-how-morano-and-gunter-spun-latif-out-of-contro/)** > > The blogosphere has been atwitter over the latest supposed defection of a climate scientist to the dark side. Once again, the contrarians have been egged on by a well-timed fabrication from Marc Mo… Anatomy of a lie: How Marc Morano and Lorne Gunter spun Mojib Latif’s remarks out of control > [@](#): > > In response to my initial query, Latif summarized his remarks as follows: > > > [@](#): > > > > ``` > > What I said is that the cooling in the Atlantic and Pacific may offset global warming for a decade so that there may be not much of an additional warming. … I also pointed out that the British group issued a competing forecast for the next decade. They predict that global warming will continue at the rate of the last decades. Thus there is quite some uncertainty about the short-term evolution. Yet we all agree that in the long run, say by 2050 and thereafter, the earth will considerably warm, if we do not considerably reduce global greenhouse gas emissions. > > > > ``` > > Note that this is clearly not an expectation of cooling in the near term, but rather considerably reduced warming. I went on to present the decadal projections and the differences calculated, as seen above. Latif provided the following comments: > > > [@](#): > > > > ``` > > This is all correct. However, our forecast more than one decade ahead does not have much skill, as we know from hindcasts (retropsective forecasts). I think what is important to convey is that there are short-term fluctuations which are superimposed on the long-term warming trend. > > > > ``` > > Exactly. And clearly a precise time for resumption of warming can not be fixed in the Keenlyside/Latif model. Nevertheless, the forecasts beyond one decade (i.e. beyond 2015) call for strong warming in the long term and any uncertainties may cut either way: > > > [@](#): > > > > ``` > > We showed the graph more than a decade ahead to see how long the effect of the initial conditions lasts. It is a forecast, but as I pointed out, we do not have much skill at longer lead times. It may well be that the warming will be even stronger. > > > > ``` > > And, of course, it must be emphasized that this view of reduced warming for the next few years is far from accepted among the majority of climate modelers, as Latif himself has always acknowledged. **So far, observations seem to show considerably more warming than projected by Keenlyside and Latif.** “The American people know more about science than you do.” Nope. “Get used to” One can hope, but it will remain dumb to continue to make posts like that one. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [October 27, 2009, 1:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-weep-for-americans-global-warming-poll/514881/131 "2009-10-27T01:33:00Z")
> [@intention](#): > > But here in the real world, I don’t see any evidence that the rise in global temperature since the Little Ice Age, or since the Industrial Revolution, or since 1900, or since 1975, has led to any headline making disasters. Sea level rose about 200 - 300 mm in the last century, but no headlines about massive loss of life from rising sea levels … funny, that. That is really your favorite straw man. Can you point at the scientists that predicted that all those things were going to take place in the 20th century? Geez, and I thought only right wingers had a blind spot with timelines. ---
**Author:** ![Beware\_of\_Doug](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/278dde/32.png) [@Beware\_of\_Doug](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Beware_of_Doug)\ **Post date:** [October 27, 2009, 1:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-weep-for-americans-global-warming-poll/514881/132 "2009-10-27T01:35:32Z")
OK by me. I’ve come to the point lately that I’m convinced that only stupidity and passivity can save America. The intelligent and educated are a spent force; all they do is chase their own tails and run after unattainable ideals. The real world is the home of the simple and easily led, who do what they’re told, look after themselves and those closest to them, and don’t get involved in the great concerns of the day. The future, as far as I’m concerned, belongs to them and whoever will lead them in a way they can understand. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [October 27, 2009, 1:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-weep-for-americans-global-warming-poll/514881/133 "2009-10-27T01:51:05Z")
> [@intention](#): > > **GIGObuster who believes in AGW** , given that we are at the hot end of a centuries-long temperature rise which has passed without a single persistent warming-related problem, anyone like you making claims that _“the countries that will get the hot end of the frying pan will not go down quietly”_ is under a huge obligation to provide evidence for that claim. You and the others parroting this nonsense have three centuries of records to search through to provide them with examples and evidence, but somehow, all I’ve heard so far are overblown claims without anything to back them up. [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/02/AR2009010202280.html](http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/02/AR2009010202280.html) > [@](#): > > “There is every reason to believe that as the 21st century unfolds, the security story will be bound together with climate change,” warns John Ashton, a veteran diplomat who is now the United Kingdom’s first special envoy on climate change. “The last time the world faced a challenge this complex was during the Cold War. Yet the stakes this time are even higher because the enemy now is ourselves, the choices we make.” > > Defense experts have also started to see the link between climate change and conflict. A 2007 CNA Corp. report, supervised by a dozen retired admirals and generals, warned that climate change could lead to political unrest in numerous badly hit countries, then perhaps to outright bloodshed and battle. One key factor that could stoke these tensions is massive migration as people flee increasingly uninhabitable areas, which would lead to border tensions, greater demands for rescue and evacuation services and disputes over essential resources. With these threats looming, the U.N. Security Council held a precedent-setting debate on climate change in April 2007 – explicitly casting global warming as a national security issue. > **[Water wars loom in a nation of parched fields](https://www.theage.com.au/world/water-wars-loom-in-a-nation-of-parched-fields-20090925-g6au.html)** > > Farmers are on the verge of violent conflict as thirsty crops, population growth and climate change deprive them of their most vital resource. > [@](#): > > As if India’s water problems were not enough already, global warming threatens to make them much worse. > > “We know that climate change will intensify the water crisis,” says Shiva. > > Scientists say the annual monsoon, on which about 40 per cent of India’s farmers depend, is likely to become more unpredictable. At the same time, the Himalayan glaciers that feed great rivers of the subcontinent upon which hundreds of millions of people rely are receding at a worrying rate. > > The World Bank says climate change alone could reduce the subcontinent’s crop yields by 30 per cent by the mid-21st century. Meanwhile, India adds more than 20 million new mouths to feed every year. > **[Military Daily News](https://www.military.com/daily-news)** > > Daily updates of everything that you need know about what is going on in the military community and abroad including military gear and equipment, breaking news, international news and more. > [@](#): > > “Water at large is the central (global warming) problem for the U.S.,” Princeton University geosciences professor Michael Oppenheimer said after a press conference featuring eight American scientists who were lead authors of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s climate-effects report. > > Roger Pulwarty, one of the federal government’s top drought scientists, said states such as Arizona and Colorado, which already fight over the Colorado River basin water, will step up legal skirmishes. They may look to the Great Lakes, but water availability there will shrink, he said. > > Reduced snow melt supplying water for the Sacramento Valley in California means that by 2020 there won’t be enough water “to meet the needs of the community,” Pulwarty said. That will step-up the competition for water, he said. > > On the East Coast, rising sea levels will make storm surge “the No. 1 vulnerability for the metropolitan East Coast,” said study lead author Cynthia Rosenzweig of NASA. “It’s a very real threat and needs to be considered for all coastal development.” > > Rising sea level can harm Florida’s biodiversity and be dangerous during hurricanes, the scientists added. > > A few hours later, retired Gen. Charles F. “Chuck” Wald focused on the same global warming problem. > > “One of the biggest likely areas of conflict is going to be over water,” said Wald, former deputy commander of U.S. European Command. He pointed to the Middle East and Africa. > > The military report’s co-author, former Army Chief of Staff Gen. Gordon R. Sullivan, also pointed to sea-level rise floods as potentially destabilizing South Asia countries of Pakistan, India, Bangladesh, Indonesia and Vietnam. > > Lack of water and food in places already the most volatile will make those regions even more unstable with global warming and “foster the conditions for internal conflicts, extremism and movement toward increased authoritarianism and radical ideologies,” states the 63-page military report, issued by the CNA Corp., an Alexandria, Va.-based national security think tank. ---
**Author:** ![intention](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/e95f7d/32.png) [@intention](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/intention)\ **Post date:** [October 27, 2009, 6:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-weep-for-americans-global-warming-poll/514881/134 "2009-10-27T06:05:41Z")
> [@](#): > > As if India’s water problems were not enough already, global warming threatens to make them much worse. > > “We know that climate change will intensify the water crisis,” says Shiva. > > Scientists say the annual monsoon, on which about 40 per cent of India’s farmers depend, is likely to become more unpredictable. At the same time, the Himalayan glaciers that feed great rivers of the subcontinent upon which hundreds of millions of people rely are receding at a worrying rate. > > The World Bank says climate change alone could reduce the subcontinent’s crop yields by 30 per cent by the mid-21st century. Meanwhile, India adds more than 20 million new mouths to feed every year. This is all based on the incorrect idea that warmer = drier. It does not. In a warmer world, there will be more evaporation. Do you think that evaporation will simply put water into the air that will never come down? Now, let’s take these claims one at a time. According to the [US EPA](http://www.epa.gov/climate/climatechange/science/futurepsc.html), > [@](#): > > Climate models suggest (IPCC, 2007): > > An increase in global average annual precipitation during the 21st century, although changes in precipitation will vary from region to region. > > An increase in the intensity of precipitation events, particularly in tropical and high-latitude regions that experience overall increases in precipitation. > > Annual average precipitation increases over most of northern Europe, the Arctic, Canada, the northeastern United States, tropical and eastern Africa, the northern Pacific, and Antarctica, as well as northern Asia and the Tibetan Plateau in winter. > > Annual average precipitation decreases in most of the Mediterranean, northern Africa, northern Sahara, Central America, the American Southwest, the southern Andes, as well as southwestern Australia during winter. > > Reduced rainfall over continental interiors during summer due to increases in evaporation. > > However, regional precipitation projections from climate models must be considered with caution since they demonstrate limited skill at small spatial scales. So to start with, the entire underlying thesis of all of your citations, that _“We know that climate change will intensify the water crisis,”_ is not upheld by the models. We don’t know that at all. Warmer = wetter. Get used to it. Yes, precipitation patterns will change in the future. That will happen whether the climate warms or it cools. But climate models are very poor at regional forecasting. Me, I ignore them, they are no more than a guess. Believe them at your own risk. Next, are the Himalayan glaciers disappearing? Maybe, maybe not. Not according to [Indian scientists](http://www.climatechangefraud.com/climate-reports/4943-indian-scientists-call-un-glacier-retreat-claim-unscientific) … > [@](#): > > Indian Scientists Call UN Glacier Retreat Claim Unscientific > Written by EIRNS > Saturday, August 29 2009 11:31 > > Disputing the forecast made by the United Nations body studying global warming, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which warned in early May that the glaciers in the world’s highest mountain range could vanish within three decades, V.K. Raina, a leading glaciologist and former Additional Director-General of Geological Survey of India (GSI), claimed recently that the issue of glacial retreat is being sensationalized by a few individuals. Raina, who has been associated with the research and data collection in over 25 glaciers in India and abroad, debunked the theory that the Gangotri glacier is retreating alarmingly. He maintains that the glaciers are undergoing natural changes which are witnessed periodically. > > The issue of carrying out a joint research on the Himalayan glaciers that store more ice than anywhere on Earth except for the polar regions and Alaska, and the steady flow of water from these glaciers that fills seven of the mightiest rivers of Asia, is now under discussion between India and China. Indian Environment Minister Jairam Ramesh told newspersons on Aug. 28 that a comprehensive agreement for joint research on Himalayan glaciers will be drawn up after another round of talks when a Chinese delegation of environment scientists and officials visit New Delhi in October. Both Indian and Chinese rivers and underground aquifers depend heavily on the snow melt during the dry summer season. Glacial runoff also is the source of the headwaters for the Indus River in Pakistan, the Brahmaputra that flows through Bangladesh, the Mekong that descends through Southeast Asia, the Irrawaddy in Myanmar, and the Yellow and Yangtze rivers of China. > > Raina’s views were echoed by Dr. R.K. Ganjoo, Director, Regional Centre for Field Operations and Research on Himalayan Glaciology, who is supervising study of glaciers in northern Kashmirs Ladakh region, including one in the Siachen area. He also maintains that nothing abnormal has been found in any of the Himalayan glaciers studied so far by him. He points out that Indian glaciers are at 11,500-13,000 feet above the sea level, whereas those in the Alps are at much lower levels. Certainly, the conditions under which the glaciers in Alaska are retreating, do not prevail in the Indian sub-continent, he explained. _“sensationalized by a few individuals”_ … hmmm … Next, the monsoons … unlike your citation, there is little agreement among the models as to what will happen to the monsoons. Yes, they may decrease … or they may increase … or neither. As [one modeler says](http://www.usatoday.com/weather/climate/globalwarming/2009-02-27-climate-change-asian-monsoon_N.htm), > [@](#): > > General circulation models have been used for projections of what may happen to monsoon patterns for this region, but the models have disagreed as to whether precipitation will increase or decrease, said Moetasim Ashfaq, lead author of the study and a graduate student in earth and atmospheric sciences at Purdue. > > “South Asia is a unique region with very complex topography,” he said. “It ranges from 0 meters elevation from sea level in the south to more than 5,500 meters from sea level in the north. So in terms of topography playing a role in climate and weather, this region of the world is where we expect to see a large impact. Global models like the ones featured in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reports can resolve large-scale interactions but have difficulty capturing some of the more subtle atmospheric processes.” > > The research team used a high-resolution climate model believed to have the greatest detail currently available for this region. A paper detailing the work was published in the Jan. 3 issue of Geophysical Research Letters. Co-authors from Purdue include assistant professor Wen-wen Tung and associate professor Robert J. Trapp, both from the Department of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences. Additional co-authors include Ying Shi and Xueijie Gao of the National Climate Centre in Beijing and Jeremy S. Pal of Loyola Marymount University. > > “Our simulations are the most detailed to date for this part of the world, but it doesn’t mean we have the answer,” Diffenbaugh said. “It highlights the importance of spatial complexity in the climate response and suggests that understanding the potential impacts of future climate change in this region requires improved understanding of a host of climate processes.” Now his model says the monsoon may be delayed, and rainfall may weaken … but as the modeller admits, that “doesn’t mean we have the answer.” So here’s the facts in the case. We don’t know what will happen with the rainfall at any given point on earth. Models disagree, and they are very poor at hindcasting historical rainfall. Experts pick models that fit their point of view … just what GIGObuster (who believes in AGW) always accuses me of doing. Like most “science” in the climate field these days, all of the studies you cite are full of “might” and “may” and “could” and “possibly”. Here’s a list, from just your few short paragraphs: “every reason to believe” “could lead to” “could stoke” “is likely to” “could reduce” To me, that’s speculation. Warming could lead to decreased rainfall … or not. Warming could lead to changes in the monsoons … or not. But the world has warmed in the last 50 years without a detectable increase in monsoon rainfall. The best [monsoon study](https://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/reprint/314/5804/1442.pdf) I can find says that from 1950 to 2000 there has been a slight increase in the number of days of very heavy rain, but no change in total rainfall amount. Unfortunately, the study does not show the correlation between the temperature and the heavy rain … probably because the correlation is very weak (0.20) and statistically insignificant. So while we can say that heavy rains have increased in India, it is not correlated with the temperature rise. So while there is a lot of speculation about what may happen to rainfall as temperature rises, we don’t know. Or as the modeller says above, “understanding the potential impacts of future climate change in this region requires improved understanding of a host of climate processes.” This is not uncommon in climate science, although you wouldn’t know it to read most of the studies … However, this doesn’t stop things from being “sensationalized by a few individuals”. Your best bet is to watch out for the weasel words, “could” and “might” and “may” and “possibly” and “conceivably” and “perhaps” and “likely” and the rest of the ways that people sensationalize issues. Yes, gamma rays may possibly have an effect on Man‐In‐The‐Moon Marigolds, and “climate change alone could reduce the subcontinent’s crop yields” … yep, they sure could. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [October 27, 2009, 6:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-weep-for-americans-global-warming-poll/514881/135 "2009-10-27T06:20:13Z")
Meh, as your tiresome excuse that we should complain to Science Magazine for whooshing you, I could say “tell it to the marines” 🙂 for worrying about this issue. The difference is that the military is not whooshing anybody about this, it is being investigated, and I already mentioned that the resolution to get localized projections is still not here but it is getting closer. What is clear is that denying that warming is taking place does take care of any eventuality that is protected, but that is only happening in your mind. ---
**Author:** ![intention](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/e95f7d/32.png) [@intention](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/intention)\ **Post date:** [October 27, 2009, 6:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-weep-for-americans-global-warming-poll/514881/136 "2009-10-27T06:32:10Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > [QUOTE=intention] > But here in the real world, I don’t see any evidence that the rise in global temperature since the Little Ice Age, or since the Industrial Revolution, or since 1900, or since 1975, has led to any headline making disasters. Sea level rose about 200 - 300 mm in the last century, but no headlines about massive loss of life from rising sea levels … funny, that. That is really your favorite straw man. Can you point at the scientists that predicted that all those things were going to take place in the 20th century? Geez, and I thought only right wingers had a blind spot with timelines. [/QUOTE] Let me take it in very small steps for you: 1. People predict a host of horrible, headline-worthy disasters from a small temperature rise of a couple degrees. 2. We have seen a comparable temperature rise in the last few centuries since the Little Ice Age. 3. We haven’t seen the headlines. The historical warming did not lead to those disasters. … or … 1. People are predicting disasters from the IPCC forecast sea level rise of 380 mm (180 - 580 mm). 2. Sea level rise in the 20th century was about 200 - 300 mm, well within the IPCC range (and up to 400 mm in places like Bangladesh and 1,000 mm in Bangkok and Cairo, due to subsidence). 3. We haven’t seen the headlines. The historical sea level rise did not lead to those disasters. Nor, despite the 20th century warming, have we seen any increase in the rate of sea level rise. Finally, I don’t know why you think I said scientists predicted headline-making disasters in the 20th century. A hundred years ago, scientists were generally not so foolish as to try to predict what would happen in a hundred years … and they knew that warming generally leads to better conditions, not disasters. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [October 27, 2009, 6:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-weep-for-americans-global-warming-poll/514881/137 "2009-10-27T06:37:12Z")
I also I do remember that there are projections of more rain, (but that also gets us to a different problem, flooding) but once again: location, location, location. I would really have to suspect not even you would predict that all deserts would get greener. Just in the USA, for example I do remember seeing a map of projections regarding the USA, it was noticed that the north central regions of the USA could expect to see an increase on precipitation, while at the same time the west would get even dryer. AFAICR I think that map was several years old, and just from memory I can remember 2 “100 year” floods happening in the north central USA recently. And here in Arizona I don’t see the huge monsoon rainclouds like they appeared before, it is getting drier. So no, that warming getting more moisture in the air does not mean that all will get a share of it. ---
**Author:** ![intention](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/e95f7d/32.png) [@intention](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/intention)\ **Post date:** [October 27, 2009, 6:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-weep-for-americans-global-warming-poll/514881/138 "2009-10-27T06:57:33Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Meh, as your tiresome excuse that we should complain to Science Magazine for whooshing you, I could say “tell it to the marines” 🙂 for worrying about this issue. **L. G who believes in global warming** complained bitterly that I said that there has been no warming in ten years. Do the math. Unless you are seriously saying that Science Magazine is a whoosh … [Quote=GIGObuster] The difference is that the military is not whooshing anybody about this, it is being investigated, and I already mentioned that the resolution to get localized projections is still not here but it is getting closer. [/quote] Cite for the claim that regional predictions are getting better? Because even the global predictions didn’t see the 10-year hiatus in global warming, so what evidence do you have that the models were better at forecasting (not hindcasting, but forecasting) regional changes over this decade? And please don’t give me a cite to somebody somewhere just repeating your claim that the regional projections are getting better. Point me to some evidence that they are getting better, you know, something like a comparison study of how well the 1990 regional forecasts did in forecasting 1990-1999 conditions versus how well the 2000 regional forecasts did in forecasting 2000-2009 conditions. > [@GIGObuster](#): > > What is clear is that denying that warming is taking place does take care of any eventuality that is protected, but that is only happening in your mind. Yes, the military is investigating this, along with hundreds of both likely and unlikely scenarios. The military is tasked with developing plans for every conceivable outcome, from floods in Bangladesh to race riots in New York. Somewhere in the Pentagon are files on how to invade England. This doesn’t mean that we’re about to invade England, but if we have to, they are required to have a plan for it. The idea that the military spends much time worrying about global warming is nonsense. As you may (or may not) have noticed, they’ve got much larger issues to worry about these days. Finally, where am I “denying that warming is taking place”? That makes no sense. Warming over what time period? As I said before, in 1970 it was cooling, in 1988 it was warming, now it is doing neither. The globe warmed from 1910 to 1945, and cooled from 1945 to 1975 … am I denying or affirming warming? Your statement makes no sense unless you put dates on it. You are correct that the scientific consensus is that it will warm in the next decade … but then the scientific consensus was that it would warm in this decade. So we can’t say the forecasting record of the consensus is all that good … but it may happen. However, if it does I don’t think it will lead to headline making disasters … but I’m sure that YMWV. Finally, what is an _“eventuality that is protected, but that is only happening in [my] mind.”_? ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [October 27, 2009, 7:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-weep-for-americans-global-warming-poll/514881/139 "2009-10-27T07:31:50Z")
> [@intention](#): > > Let me take it in very small steps for you: > > 1. People predict a host of horrible, headline-worthy disasters from a small temperature rise of a couple degrees. Fine, lets see what people, because based on your sources you get whooshed a lot. I already mentioned that a cataclysm is not coming, but humans are not prone to be quiet when the resources they depend of are affected. In any case, the goal now is to avoid going over 2 degrees Centigrade, it was reported that we should be able to cope with any issues at that increase level. > [@intention](#): > > 1. We have seen a comparable temperature rise in the last few centuries since the Little Ice Age. > **[RealClimate: Little Ice Age (“LIA”) Petit Âge Glaciaire](https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/11/little-ice-age-lia/)** > > RealClimate: Term originally introduced in the late 1930s by Matthes (1939) to describe a broad interval of the late Holocene during which significant glacial advances were observed. In the climatological literature the LIA has now come to be used to... > [@](#): > > A number of myths or exaggerations can still be found in the literature with regard to the details of this climate period [see Jones and Mann, 2004]. These include the citation of frost fairs on the River Thames as evidence of extreme cold conditions in England. Thames freeze-overs (and sometimes frost fairs) only occurred 22 times between 1408 and 1814 [Lamb, 1977] when the old London Bridge constricted flow through its multiple piers and restricted the tide with a weir. After the Bridge was replaced in the 1830s the tide came further upstream and freezes no longer occurred, despite a number of exceptionally cold winters. Winter 1962/3, for example, was the third coldest winter recorded in instrumental records extending back to 1659, yet the river only froze upstream of the present tidal limit. It is also sometimes claimed that the extreme cold of the “Little Ice Age” impeded the navigation of a Northwest Passage in the Canadian Arctic during the early 19th century. However, an exhaustive study of 19th century explorer logs for the region yields no evidence of conditions that would be considered unusually cold by modern standards. > [@intention](#): > > 1. We haven’t seen the headlines. The historical warming did not lead to those disasters. And here is once again, when researchers and policy makers are talking about controlling the issue (even when going to 2 degrees centigrade higher) that should give you a clue that they are not or were not so interested in the effects of the warming in the 20th century. They were interested on how CO2 and other gases increased the temperature but there was very little about the effects of it on the 20th century, like Lomborg, some ugly stuff is expected by researchers before the end of the 21th century if nothing is done. > [@intention](#): > > … or … > > 1. People are predicting disasters from the IPCC forecast sea level rise of 380 mm (180 - 580 mm). > > 2. Sea level rise in the 20th century was about 200 - 300 mm, well within the IPCC range (and up to 400 mm in places like Bangladesh and 1,000 mm in Bangkok and Cairo, due to subsidence). > > 3. We haven’t seen the headlines. The historical sea level rise did not lead to those disasters. ..Or just decide to continue propping up the straw man. It seems to me that the same people that tell us that supporters of AGW just promote end of the world stuff (And I already mentioned that disasters will only depend on where you are) are the sames that told us that all scientists thought that an ice age was coming in the 70’s > [@intention](#): > > Nor, despite the 20th century warming, have we seen any increase in the rate of sea level rise. Nor I have seen were they said that an increase in the rate was expected in the 20th century. The problem with the rise of the oceans is that they will go up, but a change in the rate is not excluded in the 21st century, it all depends on how stable is the ice. > **[New NASA satellite map pinpoints worldwide sea level rise](https://www.desmog.com/2008/08/05/new-nasa-satellite-map-pinpoints-worldwide-sea-level-rise/)** > > According to new data analysis from the Topex/Poseidon and Jason-1 satellites, NASA is reporting that “warming water and melting land ice have raised global mean sea level 4.5 centimeters (1.7 inches) from 1993 to 2008.” Here’s the image showing... > [@](#): > > According to new data analysis from the Topex/Poseidon and Jason-1 satellites, NASA is reporting that “warming water and melting land ice have raised global mean sea level 4.5 centimeters (1.7 inches) from 1993 to 2008.” > [@intention](#): > > Finally, I don’t know why you think I said scientists predicted headline-making disasters in the 20th century. A hundred years ago, scientists were generally not so foolish as to try to predict what would happen in a hundred years … and they knew that warming generally leads to better conditions, not disasters. > **[RealClimate: How much will sea level rise? ¿Cuanto subirá el nivel del...](https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/09/how-much-will-sea-level-rise/)** > > RealClimate: ... is the question people have been putting a lot of thought into since the IPCC AR4 report came out. We analysed what was in the report quite carefully at the time and pointed out that the allowance for dynamic ice sheet processes was... > [@](#): > > The first paper to really try and assess the future limits on dynamic ice sheet loss appeared in Science this week. Pfeffer et al looked at the exit glaciers for Greenland and West Antarctica and made some back of the envelope calculations of how quickly the ice sheets could dynamically drain. > > Good news: they rule out more than 2 meters of sea level coming from Greenland alone in the next century. This is however more than anyone has ever suggested and would be comparable to the amount that disappeared at the Eemian (125,000 years ago) (see this post for more on that). > > Bad news: they can’t rule out up to 2 meters in total. > > In summary, they estimate that including dynamic ice sheet processes gives projected SLR at 2100 somewhere in the 80 cm to 2 meter range, and suggest that 80 cm should be the ‘default’ value. This is remarkable in a number of ways – first, these are the highest estimates of sea level rise by 2100 that has been published in the literature to date, and secondly, while they don’t take into account the full uncertainty in other aspects of sea level rise considered by IPCC, their numbers are significantly higher in any case. And this week the Dutch ‘Delta Commission‘ published its estimate of sea level rise that the Dutch need to plan for (p111): 55 to 110 cm globally and a bit more for Holland, based on a large number of scientists’ input. [Clarifying update: this is meant to be a “high end estimate”.] > > Lest readers think this is no big deal, the estimates for the number of people who would be affected by 1 meter of sea level rise is more than 100 million – mainly in Asia. Of some recent relevance is the fact that the storm surge caused by Gustav in New Orleans was within 1 foot of the top of the levees. Another 3 ft caused by global sea level rise would have put a lot more water into the ‘bowl’. > > Thus better estimates of sea level rise from ice sheets remain a high priority for the climate community. More sophisticated models and deeper understanding are coming along and hopefully those results will be out soon. > > We were going to leave it at that, but we’ve just seen the initial media coverage where this result is being spun as a downgrading of predictions! (exemplified by this Reuters piece, drawing mainly from the U. Colorado press release). This is completely backwards. We stress that no-one (and we mean no-one) has published an informed estimate of more than 2 meters of sea level rise by 2100. Tellingly, the statement in the paper that suggests otherwise has no reference. > > There have certainly been incorrect assertions and headlines implying that 20 ft of sea level by 2100 was expected, but they are mostly based on a confusion of a transient rise with the eventual sea level rise which might take hundreds to thousands of years. And before someone gets up to say Al Gore, we’ll point out preemptively that he made no prediction for 2100 or any other timescale. The nearest thing I can find is Jim Hansen who states that “it [is] almost inconceivable that BAU climate change would not yield a sea level change of the order of meters on the century timescale”. But that is neither a specific prediction for 2100, nor necessarily one that is out of line with the Pfeffer et al’s bounds. > > Thus, this media reporting stands as a classic example of how scientists get caught up trying to counter supposed myths but end up perpetuating others, and miss an opportunity to actually educate the public. The problem is not that people think that we will get 6 meters of sea level rise this century, it’s that they don’t think there’ll be anything to speak of. Headlines like that in the Reuters piece (or National Geographic) are therefore doing a fundamental disservice to the public understanding of the problem. ---
**Author:** ![elfkin477](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/a9a28c/32.png) [@elfkin477](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elfkin477)\ **Post date:** [October 27, 2009, 7:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-weep-for-americans-global-warming-poll/514881/140 "2009-10-27T07:42:09Z")
> [@kidchameleon](#): > > SUVs and American Idol cause sunspots, don’t you know? Too bad they don’t. The omg-level of snowiness in the northeast the last two winters (with 205% and 150% of the yearly snowfall averages, average being 60") have been linked to the last few years having the lowest amount of [sunspots](http://www.wintercampers.com/2009/09/03/sunspot-activity-predicts-a-colder-winter/) since the “little iceage” during the 1600s-1700s. I want more sunspots and less snow, and if that means boosting the popularity of SUVs and stupid reality shows, I’m on board 😃 [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-weep-for-americans-global-warming-poll/514881.md?page=6) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-weep-for-americans-global-warming-poll/514881.md?page=8)