Originally Posted By jonvn "I'm a skeptic of the consensus." I'm sure you're a "skeptic" of gravity, too.
Originally Posted By woody No comment on the article? "Scientists have discovered that glaciers survived for hundreds of thousands of years during an era when crocodiles roamed the Arctic, reports Roger Highfield" "The most pessimistic predictions of sea level rises as ice sheets are melted by global warming may have to be scaled back as a result of an extraordinary discovery that ice persisted when the Earth was much hotter than today." <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/ear" target="_blank">http://www.telegraph.co.uk/ear</a> th/main.jhtml?view=DETAILS&grid=A1YourView&xml=/earth/2008/01/10/sciglacier110.xml
Originally Posted By woody Signs of Global Cooling. <a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSL1146182220080111" target="_blank">http://www.reuters.com/article /topNews/idUSL1146182220080111</a> Snow falls on Baghdad for first time in memory Fri Jan 11, 2008 1:45am EST BAGHDAD (Reuters) - Snow fell on Baghdad on Friday for the first time in memory, and delighted residents declared it an omen of peace. "It is the first time we've seen snow in Baghdad," said 60-year-old Hassan Zahar. "We've seen sleet before, but never snow. I looked at the faces of all the people, they were astonished," he said.
Originally Posted By Sport Goofy A sidebar article linked on the exact same Reuters page you just provided: "World warming despite cool Pacific and Baghdad snow" <a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/environmentNews/idUSL1171501720080111" target="_blank">http://www.reuters.com/article /environmentNews/idUSL1171501720080111</a>
Originally Posted By Sport Goofy Also, on the topic of snowfall in Baghdad. Snow rarely happens in Baghdad, not so much because of temperature, but because it is an arid climate. The average January low temperature in Baghdad is 4 degrees Celsius. There are many days in January when low temperatures hover around freezing. There are fewer days when there is precipitation. January has a relatively high amount of precipitaiton compared to other months of the year, but still is less than 2 centimeters on average. The combination of freezing temperatures and rain isn't likely to happen in Baghdad ever, regardless of warming/cooling trends.
Originally Posted By woody He predicts 2008 will be a cool year and then Global Warming will continue after the cool down. I'm sure he KNOWS because he is a scientist. Quote:"Global warming has not stopped," said Amir Delju, senior scientific coordinator of the World Meteorological Organization's (WMO) climate program. Last year was among the six warmest years since records began in the 1850s and the British Met Office said last week that 2008 will be the coolest year since 2000, partly because of a La Nina event that cuts water temperatures in the Pacific.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <"The most pessimistic predictions of sea level rises as ice sheets are melted by global warming may have to be scaled back as a result of an extraordinary discovery that ice persisted when the Earth was much hotter than today."> That sentence you're trumpeting is interesting in historical scientific terms, but doesn't make much sense in terms of the debate of today. 91 millions years ago we didn't have billions of people living in low-lying coastal areas. We didn't have 2 billion people dependent on glaciers for drinking water. The pessimistic predictions on global warming are mostly not because a warmer period is bad per se, or because the earth itself can't survive it, but because our human situation TODAY means that perhaps billions of people will be displaced or worse, with all the human misery (and possibly war over water) that could bring. And I don't know how many times it needs to be said, but short term geographically-specific anecdotes like snow in Baghdad mean NOTHING. What matters is the long term trends planet-wide. To say that snow in Baghdad is a "Sign of Global Cooling." is to demonstrate that one does not know what one is talking about. Moreover, I notice you left this out of your link: "Although such work might someday help researchers to better evaluate global warming on geological timescales, Dr Bornemann emphasised global climate change is now happening on a completely different, much more rapid, time scale." Exactly. It's interesting from a long-term scientific perspective, and yet he points out that what is happening now is on a different scale and timeline than what we've ever seen before.
Originally Posted By woody >>That sentence you're trumpeting is interesting in historical scientific terms, but doesn't make much sense in terms of the debate of today.<< Of course it does because it claims the earth is hot while having no effect on melting any ice. >>The pessimistic predictions on global warming are mostly not because a warmer period is bad per se, or because the earth itself can't survive it, but because our human situation TODAY means that perhaps billions of people will be displaced or worse, with all the human misery (and possibly war over water) that could bring.<< There would be no misery since the ice won't melt, thus no flooding or displacement. If the concern is drought, that would be a secondary effect, which would be an important issue, but easier to deal with. >>Exactly. It's interesting from a long-term scientific perspective, and yet he points out that what is happening now is on a different scale and timeline than what we've ever seen before.<< How can I argue about the moving of goal posts.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <>>That sentence you're trumpeting is interesting in historical scientific terms, but doesn't make much sense in terms of the debate of today.<< <Of course it does because it claims the earth is hot while having no effect on melting any ice.> No effect? You demonstrate once again your inability to understand what you read. It said there was more ice than previously thought. It most definitely did not say no effect. It merely said that some glaciers remained during this hot period that they didn't know about previously. They didn't say there were as many glaciers or ice caps compared to today, only that there must have been SOME for these types of fossils to have found. >>The pessimistic predictions on global warming are mostly not because a warmer period is bad per se, or because the earth itself can't survive it, but because our human situation TODAY means that perhaps billions of people will be displaced or worse, with all the human misery (and possibly war over water) that could bring.<< <There would be no misery since the ice won't melt, thus no flooding or displacement.> The ice is already melting, Einstein. The debate (such as it is) is about why, and what to do about it. Even skeptics admit the ice IS melting now. <If the concern is drought, that would be a secondary effect, which would be an important issue, but easier to deal with.> I love how you throw out these opinions so blithely, with absolutely nothing behind them. It's always good for a chuckle. >>Exactly. It's interesting from a long-term scientific perspective, and yet he points out that what is happening now is on a different scale and timeline than what we've ever seen before.<< <How can I argue about the moving of goal posts.> It's all from your article, woody. You'd have done well to understand what it was actually saying before you posted it.
Originally Posted By woody Dabob2: You show you don't care about what you read. The article clearly said ice persisted even though it is hot. Therefore, the forecasts of a calamity must be re-evaluated. >>The ice is already melting, Einstein. The debate (such as it is) is about why, and what to do about it. Even skeptics admit the ice IS melting now.<< Yes, where's the flooding? >>It's all from your article, woody. You'd have done well to understand what it was actually saying before you posted it.<< Of course, it is all my fault to point out the folly of MY ARTICLE where they don't even know the future, which is my whole point.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <Dabob2: You show you don't care about what you read. The article clearly said ice persisted even though it is hot. Therefore, the forecasts of a calamity must be re-evaluated.> Are you really that dense? Ice persisted. Whoopee. No one said NO ice would remain if the current warming trend continues. Nobody said the major ice caps and glaciers were going to disappear. Just that they'd melt enough to create a problem. It's not a black and white thing, though you love to see the world that way. It's a question of degree. >>The ice is already melting, Einstein. The debate (such as it is) is about why, and what to do about it. Even skeptics admit the ice IS melting now.<< <Yes, where's the flooding?> You do understand that this is long-term problem, and not overnight, right? That people are talking about the major problems happening in 30-50 years, not tomorrow, and that the fact that Bangla Desh hasn't flooded yet doesn't mean squat, right? Apparently not. >>It's all from your article, woody. You'd have done well to understand what it was actually saying before you posted it.<< <Of course, it is all my fault to point out the folly of MY ARTICLE where they don't even know the future, which is my whole point.> Your "whole point" was that somehow the situation 91 million years ago - and all they're saying is that there was more ice than they used to think - means that global warming is not a problem now. That point is not logical, and does not follow from the evidence - it's not surprising that you do not understand this, as you clearly do not understand what this article is saying.
Originally Posted By woody >>It's a question of degree.<< To a degree where it isn't significant. Who's the dense one? Global Warming is not a problem based on what we know right now from the facts. The issue certainly gotten you hot, which is the problem.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 >>It's a question of degree.<< <To a degree where it isn't significant. Who's the dense one?. You, clearly. <Global Warming is not a problem based on what we know right now from the facts.> Exactly wrong. The facts that we know as interpreted by EVERY major scientific group studying the problem (not every single scientist, but every major group) says that it is a problem. Even most of the skeptics admit that it's a problem and are now either arguing over the cause, or over what to do about it. By claiming it's not a problem at all you have placed yourself in a very small, uninformed group to which even Pres. Bush no longer belongs. <The issue certainly gotten you hot, which is the problem.> I'm very coolly telling you the facts. They seem to upset you.
Originally Posted By woody >>I'm very coolly telling you the facts.<< No you're not. You mitigated every recent fact that I presented in favor of older consensus reports. This shows the end of debate. Let's freeze our research. It has been decided.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 >>I'm very coolly telling you the facts.<< <No you're not. You mitigated every recent fact that I presented> What you presented didn't "show" anything like what you said it showed. <in favor of older consensus reports. This shows the end of debate. Let's freeze our research. It has been decided.> Skepticism is always welcome in science. But all the major organizations that actually study this are saying the same thing. And in fact, they are more firm in their conclusion that the current warming is at least partially human-caused than they were a few years ago, and certainly more so than 10 years ago.
Originally Posted By woody >>What you presented didn't "show" anything like what you said it showed.<< You explained it away by dismissing it. You already covered your ears. la la la. The report said the ice remained persistent. It didn't melt enough to any degree that it is significant. >>Skepticism is always welcome in science. But all the major organizations that actually study this are saying the same thing.<< They certainly are, which is strange because all the reports say essentially that there is warming, but they lack information on the claims about the effects. Even you admit there is no such evidence of a calamity, only the hope they it might happen. They are using computer models as the basis for their research rather than empirical evidence of the eventual calamity. That's why the news report was important because it tries to relate an event in the past. Certainly, the situation is different in terms of how we get there, but if true, there is no need to panic about the the melting ice.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 >>What you presented didn't "show" anything like what you said it showed.<< <You explained it away by dismissing it. You already covered your ears. la la la.> No, I pointed out your faulty interpretation. That's quite different. <The report said the ice remained persistent. It didn't melt enough to any degree that it is significant.> It did not say that. Show me where, please. It didn't form an opinion on how significant it was; it only said there was more at this period than previously thought. YOU translated that in your brain into "not significant." But they didn't say that. >>Skepticism is always welcome in science. But all the major organizations that actually study this are saying the same thing.<< <They certainly are, which is strange because all the reports say essentially that there is warming, but they lack information on the claims about the effects.> That it not what they say. Show me where they say that, please. Or don't make stuff up. <Even you admit there is no such evidence of a calamity, only the hope they it might happen.> The hope is, obviously, that it DOESN'T happen. But what they're saying is that it will if current trends continue unimpeded. <They are using computer models as the basis for their research rather than empirical evidence of the eventual calamity.> By definition you can't have "empirical evidence" of something that hasn't happened yet, Einstein. They do have empirical evidence; ice cores, fossils, and more. This is what shows them that, although we've had periods of warming before, what is happening now is of a different degree, and happening faster. Hell, your OWN link said that. <That's why the news report was important because it tries to relate an event in the past. Certainly, the situation is different in terms of how we get there, but if true, there is no need to panic about the the melting ice.> There is no need to panic, but there is a need to alleviate the situation rather than stick our heads in the sand.
Originally Posted By woody <The report said the ice remained persistent. It didn't melt enough to any degree that it is significant.> >>It did not say that. Show me where, please. It didn't form an opinion on how significant it was; it only said there was more at this period than previously thought. YOU translated that in your brain into "not significant." But they didn't say that.<< The first paragraph said it "The most pessimistic predictions of sea level rises as ice sheets are melted by global warming may have to be scaled back as a result of an extraordinary discovery that ice persisted when the Earth was much hotter than today." The significance comes from not melting enough ice to cause the sea level to rise. Quote "Today, the Antarctic ice cap stores enough water to raise sea level by about 60 metres if the whole mass melted and flowed back into the ocean. But the new results are consistent with independent evidence that sea level fell by about 25-40 metres at this time. Sea level is known to fall as water is removed from the oceans to build continental ice-sheets and to rise as ice melts and returns to the sea." So actually, the sea level fell during a time of a hot temperature contrary to arguments that the sea level could rise. >>They do have empirical evidence; ice cores, fossils, and more. This is what shows them that, although we've had periods of warming before, what is happening now is of a different degree, and happening faster. Hell, your OWN link said that.<< He did say that, but I think this came from an opinion not supported by the evidence. In other words, he doesn't know and he admitted this. Quote "Dr André Bornemann, who led the research at Scripps Institute of Oceanography, University of California, and who has since moved to Leipzig University, Germany, says it is not clear where such a large mass of ice could have existed when the Earth was so hot or how ice growth could have started. 'This study demonstrates that even these super-warm climates were not warm enough to always prevent ice growth." Then he said "However, paradoxically past greenhouse climates may actually have aided ice growth by increasing the amount of moisture in the atmosphere and creating more winter snowfall at high elevations and high latitudes,' he said." So.... the greenhouse effect might do the opposite of what we think is true. In the last quote "The findings support for another related study from The University of Sheffield and Yale University in the journal, Nature Geoscience which suggested there could still be cold spells in a general greenhouse world.". Another hedge on the Global Warming debate, but I think it describes a fact rather than the exception. >>There is no need to panic, but there is a need to alleviate the situation rather than stick our heads in the sand.<< Yes, the panic is unnecessary and your head is in the sand. The un-Eistein and it shows.
