# Is Global Warming Being Overhyped? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [July 1, 2007, 8:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-global-warming-being-overhyped/410153 "2007-07-01T20:14:53Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2007, 8:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-global-warming-being-overhyped/410153/1 "2007-07-01T20:14:53Z")
I’ve stated before that I accept that manmade sources of CO2 and methane are contributing to global warming, but that it’s still unclear what the real effect of the warming will be, both economically and physically on the planet. One thing that concerns me is that many people are now making radical statements about the effects of global warming that go unchallenged. For instance, the other day I heard a representative from Darfur blame the fighting there on global warming. Every time there’s a hurricane or tornado, someone trots out the notion that global warming is to blame. And the chief culprit is Al Gore. Rather than stick to the science, he’s making radical claims about major destruction heading our way, which are not backed up by science. Here’s an article I just read in the Sun-Times which addresses his exaggerations: [Alarmist global warming claims melt under scientific scrutiny](http://www.suntimes.com/news/otherviews/450392,CST-EDT-REF30b.article) Among the points made in the article: > [@](#): > > Gore claims that Himalayan glaciers are shrinking and global warming is to blame. Yet the September 2006 issue of the American Meteorological Society’s Journal of Climate reported, “Glaciers are growing in the Himalayan Mountains, confounding global warming alarmists who recently claimed the glaciers were shrinking and that global warming was to blame.” > … > Gore claims the snowcap atop Africa’s Mt. Kilimanjaro is shrinking and that global warming is to blame. Yet according to the November 23, 2003, issue of Nature magazine, “Although it’s tempting to blame the ice loss on global warming, researchers think that deforestation of the mountain’s foothills is the more likely culprit. Without the forests’ humidity, previously moisture-laden winds blew dry. No longer replenished with water, the ice is evaporating in the strong equatorial sunshine.” > … > Gore claims global warming is causing more tornadoes. Yet the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change stated in February that there has been no scientific link established between global warming and tornadoes. > … > Gore claims global warming is causing more frequent and severe hurricanes. However, hurricane expert Chris Landsea published a study on May 1 documenting that hurricane activity is no higher now than in decades past. > … > Gore claims global warming is causing an expansion of African deserts. However, the Sept. 16, 2002, issue of New Scientist reports, “Africa’s deserts are in ‘spectacular’ retreat . . . making farming viable again in what were some of the most arid parts of Africa.” > … > Gore argues Greenland is in rapid meltdown, and that this threatens to raise sea levels by 20 feet. But according to a 2005 study in the Journal of Glaciology, “the Greenland ice sheet is thinning at the margins and growing inland, with a small overall mass gain.” In late 2006, researchers at the Danish Meteorological Institute reported that the past two decades were the coldest for Greenland since the 1910s. > … > Gore claims the Antarctic ice sheet is melting because of global warming. Yet the Jan. 14, 2002, issue of Nature magazine reported Antarctica as a whole has been dramatically cooling for decades. More recently, scientists reported in the September 2006 issue of the British journal Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society Series A: Mathematical, Physical, and Engineering Sciences, that satellite measurements of the Antarctic ice sheet showed significant growth between 1992 and 2003. And the U.N. Climate Change panel reported in February 2007 that Antarctica is unlikely to lose any ice mass during the remainder of the century. The debate topics here are many. To start with: - Is the description of Gore’s claims accurate? Are the refutations accurate? - Is it good for global warming supporters like Gore to over-state the risks to catch the attention of the public? Or is it dangerous in that over-exaggeration of the consequences of AGW could result in a popular backlash in which the real science gets caught in the crossfire? My personal opinion is that you should always just stick to the science. Don’t make shit up just to grab attention and scare people. One of the reasons many people are dismissive of claims of environmental disaster is that the movement as a whole has a history of grossly exaggerating problems. Every time a prediction of disaster is made and doesn’t come true, it lessens the credibility of environmentalists and causes people to automatically dismiss them. I believe that’s what’s happening with Global Warming today. It’s a real issue, but the people trying to get our attention with it have such a history of fabrication and exaggeration that many people simply refuse to listen to them anymore. ---
**Author:** ![Lumpy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lumpy/32/446_2.png) [@Lumpy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lumpy)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2007, 8:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-global-warming-being-overhyped/410153/2 "2007-07-01T20:49:56Z")
[extreme sarcasm] It seems as if **every** change to the environment caused by global warming is going to be bad, **without exception**. No place that is now too dry is going to be wetter. No place that is too cold is going to warmer. Apparently, before 1900 the world just happened to be at the exact perfect average global temperature, from which any deviation is a net loss. :rolleyes: And since it’s all the fault of those greedy capitalists, and those mindless consumers, the obvious answer is to abandon energy-intensive civilization and go back to a less materialistic culture, in which good honest toil in the fields is more spiritually ennobling than working in an air-conditioned office. :rolleyes: :rolleyes: In fact, really agriculture itself was a mistake. We were happiest and most in tune with nature when we were hunter-gatherers. :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: [/extreme sarcasm] ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2007, 9:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-global-warming-being-overhyped/410153/3 "2007-07-01T21:17:00Z")
[QUOTE=Sam Stone] - Is it good for global warming supporters like Gore to over-state the risks to catch the attention of the public? Or is it dangerous in that over-exaggeration of the consequences of AGW could result in a popular backlash in which the real science gets caught in the crossfire? [/QUOTE] Having watched Dennis’s Principles of Management\* in action a few times, even though I wince at the hyperbole, I am not yet persuaded it is unnecessary. There was a fair amount of laughter and finger pointing at the alarmists over the Y2K bug, (much of it deserved–the survivalists were pretty far out there). On the other hand, I know from specific contacts in several major industries that there were CEOs as late as 1998 who were dismissing the whole thing as an attempt by IT departments to get more funds. These guys were in companies (and industries) who (which) were genuinely going to have their financial systems fail if no action was taken. Despite serious pleas from their own IT directors and CIOs with real facts and everything, they did not get off their butts and allocate the funds until they saw some idiotic overblown scare show on 20-20 or Dateline or one of those other infotainment shows. - [quote] DENNIS’S PRINCIPLES OF MANAGEMENT BY CRISIS: [ol][li] To get action out of management, it is necessary to create the illusion of a crisis in the hope it will be acted on.[/li][li] Management will select actions or events and convert them to crises. It will then over-react.[/li][li] Management is incapable of recognizing a true crisis.[/ol][/li][/quote] ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2007, 9:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-global-warming-being-overhyped/410153/4 "2007-07-01T21:36:32Z")
You leave a lot of questions unanswered, **Sam**. For instance, you suggest that the threat of global warming is “overhyped”. All right then, to what degree? Is there no threat at all from GW, this is all just “made up”? How then do you account for the deranged scientists who disagree with you? Have they been suborned by the vast left-wing conspiracy, to publish bogus findings in bogus journals? And, if the threat is merely exaggerated rather than manufactured from whole cloth… to what extent is it exaggerated? Is the threat level “pretty bad” but not “grave”? Or is it “grave” but not “desperate”? Of course, we have the highly respected journal of meterological and climatological sciences, the _Chicago Sun Times_ but they seem more interested in exposing the fiendish pathology of Al Gore. They seem to be taking the position that GW is pure hogwash, with no redeeming merit whatsoever. Is this your opinion? And, if it is, can you explain for us how this nonsensical horseshit came to be foisted off on so many gullible scientists and citizens? ---
**Author:** ![Squink](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5e925/32.png) [@Squink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Squink)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2007, 10:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-global-warming-being-overhyped/410153/5 "2007-07-01T22:19:43Z")
[QUOTE=elucidator] And, if the threat is merely exaggerated rather than manufactured from whole cloth… to what extent is it exaggerated? Is the threat level “pretty bad” but not “grave”? Or is it “grave” but not “desperate”? [/QUOTE] Have no fear, Dick Cheney is working hard to get to the bottom of all these vexing questions: [Cheney on Global Warming](http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=2898539) > [@](#): > > JONATHAN KARL: But what’s your sense, where is the science on this? Is global warming a fact? And is it human activity that is causing global warming? > > THE VICE PRESIDENT: Those are the two key questions. I think there’s an emerging consensus that we do have global warming. You can look at the data on that, and I think clearly we’re in a period of warming. Where there does not appear to be a consensus, where it begins to break down, is the extent to which that’s part of a normal cycle versus the extent to which it’s caused by man, greenhouse gases, et cetera. ---
**Author:** ![Public\_Animal\_No.9](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/b9e5f3/32.png) [@Public\_Animal\_No.9](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Public_Animal_No.9)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2007, 10:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-global-warming-being-overhyped/410153/6 "2007-07-01T22:42:28Z")
I don’t think there have been many statements - certainly not major statements - about global warming that have gone unchallenged. The environmental side tends to point to any sign that is consistent with warming as a validation of their views, and the “other” side tends to point to any sign consistent with no warming as supporting their position. The real scientific consensus, however, tends to be between the two extremes, although consistently closer to the environmental side. Scientists hate to state conclusions in black-and-white terms, and stating conclusions with a lot of caveats leaves a lot of room for non-scientific debate. Until recently, the media has treated the scientific debate as though it’s a political debate (and there are definitely major political implications on global warming). By that I mean that they have tried to talk to one person on each side of the story, although the vast majority of atmospheric scientists, ecologists, and other relevant specialists (as opposed to scientists with no particular expertise in relevant fields) have been in agreement that increased greenhouse gas emissions are resulting in global warming, and that global warming will have significant environmental impacts. ---
**Author:** ![Sage\_Rat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sage_rat/32/399_2.png) [@Sage\_Rat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sage_Rat)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2007, 12:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-global-warming-being-overhyped/410153/7 "2007-07-02T00:13:29Z")
I think it’s overhyped, but principally as a reaction to the complete obstinance by the majority in recognizing reality. I don’t know that we’ll see drastic changes in a strictly **dangerous** sense, but that it will cause change to a lot of markets and habitations and such, which will overall be really really expensive to switch to. And overall, you should always be pushing for cleaner more efficient technology, so the existence or non-existence of global warming is for the most part irrelevant. It’s frowned upon to litter, so it makes no sense for it not to be frowned upon to pollute. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2007, 12:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-global-warming-being-overhyped/410153/8 "2007-07-02T00:44:00Z")
[QUOTE=Lumpy] [extreme sarcasm] . . . [/QUOTE] You appear to be confusing the concepts of “sarcasm” and “stupidity.” ---
**Author:** ![Khadaji](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/9e8a1a/32.png) [@Khadaji](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Khadaji)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2007, 1:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-global-warming-being-overhyped/410153/9 "2007-07-02T01:11:10Z")
[QUOTE=tomndebb] Having watched Dennis’s Principles of Management\* in action a few times, even though I wince at the hyperbole, I am not yet persuaded it is unnecessary. There was a fair amount of laughter and finger pointing at the alarmists over the Y2K bug, (much of it deserved–the survivalists were pretty far out there). On the other hand, I know from specific contacts in several major industries that there were CEOs as late as 1998 who were dismissing the whole thing as an attempt by IT departments to get more funds. These guys were in companies (and industries) who (which) were genuinely going to have their financial systems fail if no action was taken. Despite serious pleas from their own IT directors and CIOs with real facts and everything, they did not get off their butts and allocate the funds until they saw some idiotic overblown scare show on 20-20 or Dateline or one of those other infotainment shows. - [/QUOTE] Your experience and mine differ greatly. I was consulting from 95 through 99 and I have to say that not one of the companies that I worked for, nor any of the companies that my friends and acquaintances were with during that time were not already preparing long before the hype hit. I was with both large and small companies during that time (Rite Aid, Amp (now Tyco) York International to name a few.) We all had heard rumors of companies that weren’t prepared - from a friend of a friend - but no one I know in the industry worked for a company that wasn’t prepared and/or preparing. ---
**Author:** ![jshore](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/b5e925/32.png) [@jshore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jshore)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2007, 1:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-global-warming-being-overhyped/410153/10 "2007-07-02T01:15:49Z")
[QUOTE=Sam Stone] And the chief culprit is Al Gore. Rather than stick to the science, he’s making radical claims about major destruction heading our way, which are not backed up by science. Here’s an article I just read in the Sun-Times which addresses his exaggerations: [Alarmist global warming claims melt under scientific scrutiny](http://www.suntimes.com/news/otherviews/450392,CST-EDT-REF30b.article) [/quote] Well, I would point out that it is not an article…It is an op-ed piece by a writer from the [Heartland Institute](http://sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Heartland_Institute). This doesn’t make what he says automatically wrong but it does make it clear that it is not an objective attempt to investigate what the science says vs. what Gore says; it is rather an attempt to argue against what Gore says. > [@](#): > > - Is the description of Gore’s claims accurate? Are the refutations accurate? > - Is it good for global warming supporters like Gore to over-state the risks to catch the attention of the public? Or is it dangerous in that over-exaggeration of the consequences of AGW could result in a popular backlash in which the real science gets caught in the crossfire? I think for the most part, Taylor has cherry-picked a few scientific articles (or even parts of articles) and ignored the large body of work that goes the other way. The one point that I think he is correct on is the tornado one…i.e., that the IPCC does not feel they can confidently predict trends for tornado activity. (I would like to see exactly what Gore did say about tornadoes.) Is Al Gore perfect on the science? No. But, I think most climate scientists would say that Gore is much closer to Taylor in accurately portraying the science. On the issue of land glaciers: There is widespread acknowledgement that land glaciers on generally in retreat due to global warming. For example, the IPCC summary for policymakers states: > [@](#): > > Mountain glaciers and snow cover have declined on average in both hemispheres. Widespread decreases in glaciers and ice caps have contributed to sea level rise (ice caps do not include contributions from the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets). So, while it is true that there is some debate of the extent to which various different human-caused factors have contributed to the retreat of the Mt. Kilamajaro glacier, this does not mean there is not a general trend due to global warming…and a trend that is expected to continue. As for the Himalayan glaciers in particular, [here](http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/09/060911-growing-glaciers.html) is an article on the study Taylor is referring to. It is a bit of a mystery why the glaciers in this part of the Himalayas appear to be growing but here is some additional context provided in that article: > [@](#): > > All together, the area’s regional variations are at odds with most glaciated regions worldwide, including the Eastern Himalaya, where glaciers have been shrinking significantly. > > Lonnie Thompson, a paleoclimatologist and glacier expert at Ohio State University in Columbus, thinks the latest findings might be a short-term trend only. > > “My guess is that the glaciers in [Haley and Fowler’s] area of study might find short-term benefit where increased winter snowfall outweighs summer melt,” Thompson said. > > "[But] it’s likely these glaciers will follow the same pattern of those in Sweden and Norway, which were growing until 1999 due to increasing winter snowfall even as temperatures rose. > > "However, since 1999 these same glaciers are now retreating. > > “The balance of glaciers globally shows retreat and even acceleration in the rate of retreat,” Thompson stressed. And, according to [this](http://dissidentnews.wordpress.com/2007/05/14/warming-triggers-alarming-retreat-of-himalayan-glaciers/) article, here is what the most recent IPCC report had to say on the subject: > [@](#): > > Glaciers in the Himalayas are receding faster than in any other part of the world and, if the present rate continues, the likelihood of them disappearing by the year 2035 and perhaps sooner is very high if the Earth keeps getting warmer at the current rate. ---
**Author:** ![Lumpy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lumpy/32/446_2.png) [@Lumpy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lumpy)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2007, 1:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-global-warming-being-overhyped/410153/11 "2007-07-02T01:16:55Z")
[QUOTE=BrainGlutton] You appear to be confusing the concepts of “sarcasm” and “stupidity.” [/QUOTE] Do you have anything to contribute other than calling me stupid? If not, take it to the Pit or shut your hole. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2007, 1:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-global-warming-being-overhyped/410153/12 "2007-07-02T01:17:20Z")
[QUOTE=Sam Stone] And the chief culprit is Al Gore. Rather than stick to the science, he’s making radical claims about major destruction heading our way, which are not backed up by science. Here’s an article I just read in the Sun-Times which addresses his exaggerations: [Alarmist global warming claims melt under scientific scrutiny](http://www.suntimes.com/news/otherviews/450392,CST-EDT-REF30b.article) [/QUOTE] And your evidence? A piece written by a non-scientist [shill](http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/personfactsheet.php?id=631) for a right-wing ‘think’ tank, the [Heartland Institute](http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Heartland_Institute). Considering the source, I wouldn’t believe anything Taylor says without its being backed by a REAL cite. What’s being overhyped is global warming denial. ---
**Author:** ![jshore](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/b5e925/32.png) [@jshore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jshore)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2007, 1:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-global-warming-being-overhyped/410153/13 "2007-07-02T01:44:53Z")
To continue with other claims by Taylor… > [@Sam Stone (quoting op-ed)](#): > > Gore claims global warming is causing more frequent and severe hurricanes. However, hurricane expert Chris Landsea published a study on May 1 documenting that hurricane activity is no higher now than in decades past. Well, yes, that may be what Landsea published…but there have been plenty of other studies that have concluded the opposite. Admittedly, this is an area of very active study right now and not one where the science is completely settled. Here is what the IPCC summary for policymakers has to say: > [@](#): > > There is observational evidence for an increase of intense tropical cyclone activity in the North Atlantic since about 1970, correlated with increases of tropical sea surface temperatures. There are also suggestions of increased intense tropical cyclone activity in some other regions where concerns over data quality are > greater. Multi-decadal variability and the quality of the tropical cyclone records prior to routine satellite observations in about 1970 complicate the detection of long-term trends in tropical cyclone activity. There is no clear trend in the annual numbers of tropical cyclones. Furthermore, in their table on recent trends, under “Intense tropical cyclone activity increase,” they rate it as “likely” (\>66% chance) that such a trend has occurred in the 20th century, “more likely than not” (\>50% chance) of a human contribution to the observed trend, and “likely” to be a trend in the 21st century. > [@Sam Stone (quoting op-ed)](#): > > Gore claims the Antarctic ice sheet is melting because of global warming. Yet the Jan. 14, 2002, issue of Nature magazine reported Antarctica as a whole has been dramatically cooling for decades. More recently, scientists reported in the September 2006 issue of the British journal Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society Series A: Mathematical, Physical, and Engineering Sciences, that satellite measurements of the Antarctic ice sheet showed significant growth between 1992 and 2003. And the U.N. Climate Change panel reported in February 2007 that Antarctica is unlikely to lose any ice mass during the remainder of the century. Again, there are many half-truths in this…and it may be that Gore has overstated things…but Taylor definitely overstates things in the other direction. It is true that Antarctica as a whole has shown a cooling trend (although one might or might not quibble with the word “dramatically”). However, one part, the peninsula, has been warming significantly…and, unfortunately, that part may be the most important part (as there is no real disagreement that **most** of Antarctica is going to remain plenty cold enough to maintain ice—what really matters is what is happening near the edges where melting and other dynamical ice disintegration effects can occur). And, what the IPCC Summary for Policymakers actually said is: > [@](#): > > Current global model studies project that the Antarctic ice sheet will remain too cold for widespread surface melting and is expected to gain in mass due to increased snowfall. However, net loss of ice mass could occur if dynamical ice discharge dominates the ice sheet mass balance. That last point is a pretty big caveat since many scientists believe that such dynamical ice sheet discharges will indeed dominate. The IPCC essentially “punted” on trying to predict these dynamical ice sheet effects on sea level because they didn’t feel the science was at the point where a very definitive prediction can be made. What they say when they discuss sea level rise is: > [@](#): > > The projections include a contribution due to increased ice flow from Greenland and Antarctica at the rates observed for 1993-2003, but these flow rates could increase or decrease in the future. For example, if this contribution were to grow linearly with global average temperature change, the upper ranges of sea level rise for SRES scenarios shown in Table SPM-2 would increase by 0.1 m to 0.2 m. Larger values cannot be excluded, but understanding of these effects is too limited to assess their likelihood or provide a best estimate or an upper bound for sea level rise. > [@Sam Stone (quoting op-ed)](#): > > Gore argues Greenland is in rapid meltdown, and that this threatens to raise sea levels by 20 feet. But according to a 2005 study in the Journal of Glaciology, “the Greenland ice sheet is thinning at the margins and growing inland, with a small overall mass gain.” In late 2006, researchers at the Danish Meteorological Institute reported that the past two decades were the coldest for Greenland since the 1910s. Just to summarize what the IPCC says about the current situation in Greenland and Antarctica, [here](http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/wg1-report.html) are the first two paragraphs on the subject from the IPCC full report (See Chapter 4, p. 361): > [@](#): > > New and improved observational techniques, and extended time series, reveal changes in many parts of the large ice sheets. Greenland has experienced mass loss recently in response to increases in near-coastal melting and in ice flow velocity more than offsetting increases in snowfall. Antarctica appears to be losing mass at least partly in response to recent ice flow acceleration in some near-coastal regions, although with greater uncertainty in overall balance than for Greenland. Shortcomings in forcing, physics and resolution in comprehensive ice flow models have prevented them from fully capturing the ice flow changes. > > The ice sheets of Greenland and Antarctica hold enough ice to raise sea level about 64 m if fully melted (Bamber et al., 2001; Lythe et al., 2001). Even a modest change in ice sheet balance could strongly affect future sea level and freshwater flux to the oceans, with possible climatic implications. These ice sheets consist of vast central reservoirs of slow-moving ice drained by rapidly moving, ice-walled ice streams or rock-walled outlet glaciers typically flowing into floating ice shelves or narrower ice tongues, or directly into the ocean. Ice shelves often form in embayments, or run aground on local bedrock highs to produce ice rumples or ice rises, and friction with embayment sides or local grounding points helps restrain the motion of the ice shelves and their tributaries. About half of the ice lost from Greenland is by surface melting and runoff into the sea, but surface melting is much less important to the mass balance of Antarctica. Dynamics of the slow-moving ice and of ice shelves are reasonably well understood and can be modelled adequately, but this is not so for fast-moving ice streams and outlet glaciers. Until recently (including IPCC, 2001), it was assumed that velocities of these outlet glaciers and ice streams cannot change rapidly, and impacts of climate change were estimated primarily as changes in snowfall and surface melting. Recent observations show that outlet glacier and ice stream speeds can change rapidly, for reasons that are still under investigation. Consequently, this assessment will not adequately quantify such effects. ---
**Author:** ![jshore](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/b5e925/32.png) [@jshore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jshore)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2007, 1:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-global-warming-being-overhyped/410153/14 "2007-07-02T01:49:15Z")
[QUOTE=jshore] But, I think most climate scientists would say that Gore is much closer to Taylor in accurately portraying the science. [/quote] That should read: “But, I think most climate scientists would say that Gore is much closer **than** Taylor in accurately portraying the science.” ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2007, 2:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-global-warming-being-overhyped/410153/15 "2007-07-02T02:05:49Z")
[QUOTE=BrainGlutton] You appear to be confusing the concepts of “sarcasm” and “stupidity.” [/QUOTE] You seem to be confusing this Forum with the **Pit**. Knock it off. **Lumpy** , responding to rudeness with rudeness is a less than optimal response, particularly in this Forum with the Report button available. [/Moderating] ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2007, 2:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-global-warming-being-overhyped/410153/16 "2007-07-02T02:09:36Z")
[QUOTE=tomndebb] You seem to be confusing this Forum with the **Pit**. Knock it off. [/QUOTE] :dubious: I beg your pardon. Calling another poster’s **statement** “stupid” (even without support or elaboration) is perfectly GD-kosher and does not count as flaming. ---
**Author:** ![jshore](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/b5e925/32.png) [@jshore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jshore)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2007, 2:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-global-warming-being-overhyped/410153/17 "2007-07-02T02:44:37Z")
> [@Sam Stone quoting op-ed](#): > > Gore claims global warming is causing an expansion of African deserts. However, the Sept. 16, 2002, issue of New Scientist reports, “Africa’s deserts are in ‘spectacular’ retreat . . . making farming viable again in what were some of the most arid parts of Africa.” This claim of Taylor’s about the New Scientist article is technically true but lacking context. [Here](http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn2811) is the article but you can see that the context that is lacking is: (1) This is a trend that has occurred “since the great droughts of the early 1970s and 1980s”…i.e., it is in the context of a truly horrific drought situation that had occurred then, not a longer term context. (2) Part of this recent trend may also be explained not just by climate effects but also by the fact that “farmers have also been adopting better methods of keeping soil and water on their land”. The discussion in the [full IPCC report](http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/wg1-report.html) on the precipitation trends in Africa is on p. 298-299 in Chapter 3. The story is rather complicated so you should read there for full details. However, here is a relevant paragraph on the Western Africa region including the Sahel that gives more context (with the bolding added by me): > [@](#): > > West Africa experiences marked multi-decadal variability in rainfall (e.g., Le Barbe et al., 2002; Dai et al., 2004b). Wet conditions in the 1950s and 1960s gave way to much drier conditions in the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s. The rainfall deficit in this region during 1970 to 1990 was relatively uniform across the region, implying that the deficit was not due to a spatial shift in the peak rainfall (Le Barbe et al., 2002) and was mainly linked to a reduction in the number of significant rainfall events occurring during the peak monsoon period (JAS) in the Sahel and during the first rainy season south of about 9°N. **The decreasing rainfall and devastating droughts in the Sahel region during the last three decades of the 20th century (Figure 3.37) are among the largest climate changes anywhere.** Dai et al. (2004b) provided an updated analysis of the normalised Sahel rainfall index based on the years 1920 to 2003 (Figure 3.37). Following the major 1982–1983 El Niño event, rainfall reached a minimum of 170 mm below the long-term mean of about 506 mm. **Since 1982, there is some evidence for a recovery (see also lower panel of Figure 3.13) but despite this, the mean of the last decade is still well below the pre-1970 level.** These authors also noted that large multi-year oscillations appear to be more frequent and extreme after the late 1980s than previously. In a still larger context, the IPCC summary for policymakers table on recent trends concludes that, on a global scale, for the phenomenon of “area affected by drought increases”, the likelihood of such a trend having occurred is rated as “likely in many regions since the 1970s”, “more likely than not” that there was a human contribution to the observed trend, and “likely” to be a trend in the 21st century. ---
**Author:** ![dropzone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dropzone/32/7515_2.png) [@dropzone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dropzone)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2007, 3:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-global-warming-being-overhyped/410153/18 "2007-07-02T03:05:03Z")
No. Edited to add: Since when could we do three character posts? If I had known that these GD threads that ask yes or no questions would die on the vine! [quote=Sam Stone] ---
**Author:** ![dropzone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dropzone/32/7515_2.png) [@dropzone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dropzone)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2007, 3:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-global-warming-being-overhyped/410153/19 "2007-07-02T03:19:21Z")
Sorry, that edit broke the 5-minute mark. > [@Sam Stone](#): > > Here’s an article I just read in the Sun-Times which addresses his exaggerations: BTW to others: I know the Sun-Times has a reputation as being the “liberal” Chicago paper while the Tribune is the “conservative” one, but I assume **Sam** knows that hasn’t been true since before Murdoch bought the Sun-Times. He sold it but the politics haven’t changed. And **Tomn** , love that Dennis quote! And I’m glad **Khadaji** ’s former employers were not like those of mine who Dennis defined so precisely. OTOH, in the late 90s Rite-Aid and Tyco were probably happy to have a crisis not of their making to distract people from their irregularities. My own company was unconvinced until they were told their AS400s were hardware-incompatible with the 21st century. How true it was I don’t know, but if IBM were using it as a marketing ploy it backfired by pushing us into the poxy arms of SAP. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2007, 6:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-global-warming-being-overhyped/410153/20 "2007-07-02T06:33:37Z")
[QUOTE=BrainGlutton] :dubious: I beg your pardon. Calling another poster’s **statement** “stupid” (even without support or elaboration) is perfectly GD-kosher and does not count as flaming. [/QUOTE] ::: sigh ::: Then be a heck of a lot less cryprtic in the future. I can see where you would want that interpreted as an attack on the argument not the poster. (And I will accept that that was your intention.) However, your comment did not address his words, but his self-identified frame of mind when posting. If you have to be insulting in this Forum, you are much better off making sure that there is no possible way to interpret the object of the insults as the author rather than the text. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-global-warming-being-overhyped/410153.md?page=2)