MODERN SCIENCE IS A VAST INTERCONNECTED ENTERPRISE. Built into its structures and methods of functioning is the consistent principle that challenge may at times be extremely frustrating, but that all theory must be subject to challenge. What is far more than an irritation is the skeptical notion that theories of climate change developed over decades of research, testing and rigorous challenge are simply the proceeds of a crowd of exploitative money-grubbing opportunists. It is dramatically ironic that this notion, expressed by the Wall Street 16, comes from a collection of folks almost half of whom have a financial connection with the fossil fuel business, and only two with peer-reviewed climate research publications in the past three decades.
I open this column with several questions posed for me. Please note that though I have a degree in science, I claim absolutely no authority on this subject — other than an intense curiosity and a capacity to read!
One critic suggested, in differing, that this was a matter of personal opinion, sort of a “you choose your experts and I choose mine” game. With the Wall Street 16 episode in mind, I will grant that while there are “experts” of that sort out there for the denialist, the stakes are far too high for that kind of extraordinary bet. Surely it is sufficient that we have one of our two political parties making that gamble, and tragically enough making it for all of us. Another take on the price of this obscurantism is the observation of Michael Ashley, professor of astrophysics at the University of New South Wales. He is a matchmaker for the Climate Science Rapid Response Team, the aim of which is to connect journalists and government officials with experts in climate science.
“The Murdoch media empire has cost humanity perhaps one or two decades of time in the battle against climate change,” Ashley said in August 2011. “Each lost decade greatly increases the eventual economic costs, the devastation to our ecosystems, and the suffering of future generations ….”
Another point has been raised that in my own analyses of global warming I have not dealt with the reality that over the past 5,000 years there have been continuous fluctuations in temperatures, both higher than those existing today as well as repeated periods of low temperature — a kind of “hey, temperatures go up, temperatures go down, no big deal” observation. “How then (it is asked) can we be 100-percent certain that the changes in temperature trends today are not a repeat of a pattern which has a 5,000-year (and more) history?”
A global warming feature article of the NASA Earth Observatory, titled “How is Today’s Warming Different from the Past?” deals directly with this issue.
“Earth has experienced climate change in the past without help from humanity. We know about past climates because of evidence left in tree rings, layers of ice in glaciers, ocean sediments, coral reefs, and layers of sedimentary rocks. For example, bubbles of air in glacial ice trap tiny samples of Earth’s atmosphere, giving scientists a history of greenhouse gases that stretches back more than 800,000 years. The chemical make-up of the ice provides clues to the average global temperature …
“Using this ancient evidence, scientists have built a record of Earth’s past climates, or ‘paleoclimates.’ The paleoclimate record combined with global models shows past ice ages as well as periods even warmer than today. But the paleoclimate record also reveals that the current climatic warming is occurring much more rapidly than past warming events.
“As the Earth moved out of ice ages over the past million years, the global temperature rose a total of 4 to 7 degrees Celsius over about 5,000 years. In the past century alone, the temperature has climbed 0.7 degrees Celsius, roughly ten times faster than the average rate of ice-age-recovery warming.”
The explosive nature of this rapid temperature increase can be clearly seen on the graph accompanying this article. “Temperature histories from paleoclimate data (green line) compared to the history based on modern instruments (blue line) suggest that global temperature is warmer now than it has been in the past 1,000 years, and possibly longer.
“Models predict that Earth will warm between 2 and 6 degrees Celsius in the next century. When global warming has happened at various times in the past two million years, it has taken the planet about 5,000 years to warm 5 degrees. The predicted rate of warming for the next century is at least 20 times faster. This rate of change is extremely unusual.”
In closing, I quote from the Jan. 14, 2010 article, “A Response to Climate Change Denialism,” by Richard Somerville, a distinguished professor emeritus and research professor at Scripps Institution of Oceanography, UC-San Diego. Somerville issued the following statement in response to a recent request to address claims made by climate change denialists:
“1. The essential findings of mainstream climate change science are firm. This is solid, settled science. The world is warming. There are many kinds of evidence: air temperatures, ocean temperatures, melting ice, rising sea levels, and much more. Human activities are the main cause. The warming is not natural. It is not due to the sun, for example. We know this because we can measure the effect of man-made carbon dioxide and it is much stronger than that of the sun, which we also measure.
“2. The greenhouse effect is well understood. It is as real as gravity. The foundations of the science are more than 150 years old. Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere traps heat. We know carbon dioxide is increasing because we measure it. We know the increase is due to human activities like burning fossil fuels because we can analyze the chemical evidence for that.
“3. Our climate predictions are coming true. Many observed climate changes, like rising sea level, are occurring at the high end of the predicted changes. Some changes, like melting sea ice, are happening faster than the anticipated worst case. Unless mankind takes strong steps to halt and reverse the rapid global increase of fossil fuel use and the other activities that cause climate change, and does so in a very few years, severe climate change is inevitable. Urgent action is needed if global warming is to be limited to moderate levels.
“4. The standard skeptical arguments have been refuted many times over … For example, natural climate change like ice ages is irrelevant to the current warming. We know why ice ages come and go. That is due to changes in the Earth’s orbit around the sun, changes that take thousands of years. The warming that is occurring now, over just a few decades, cannot possibly be caused by such slow-acting processes. But it can be caused by man-made changes in the greenhouse effect.
“5. Science has its own high standards. It does not work by unqualified people making claims on television or the Internet. It works by scientists doing research and publishing it in carefully reviewed research journals. Other scientists examine the research and repeat it and extend it. Valid results are confirmed, and wrong ones are exposed and abandoned. Science is self-correcting …
“6. The leading scientific organizations of the world, like national academies of science and professional scientific societies, have carefully examined the results of climate science and endorsed these results. It is silly to imagine that thousands of climate scientists worldwide are engaged in a massive conspiracy to fool everybody. The first thing that the world needs to do if it is going to confront the challenge of climate change wisely is to learn about what science has discovered and accept it.”
Jerome Page is a Benicia resident.
Sharing is caring!
Well, Jerry, once again, you have published this fiction about man-made co2 causing climate change. Why such the exuberance? And, what in the world does Richard Somerville have up his sleeve to make these dire predictions? This entire “theory” behind global warming caused by man-made co2 (which comprises such a small and insignificant portion of our atmosphere and such a small and insignifcant portion of “greenhouse gases” that it’s not worth even talking about, was developed during Margaret Thatcher’s rule as prime minister in England in the 80s. The “theory” was NOT developed over decades of research, testing and rigorous challenge…” As you indicate. It was started as we were coming out of a period of ooling temperatures when the same global warming fear mongers as we see today were crying about the coming Ice Age! Give me a break!
Professor Syun-Ichi Akasofu, the Director of the International Arctic Research Center located (guess where?) in the Arctic, keeps getting calls from people around the world asking him, “Is the Ice Cap Melting?”, to which he replies, “Yes! As it does EVERY year about the same time!” The Ice Cap contracts and grows over tremendous areas each and every year!
The global warming fear mongers need to get off their high horse and start worrying about things that really matter. Such as Monsanto’s goal to take over the world’s agriculture, or the United States imperialistic desire to control the world’s oil supply! Which, by the way, is, indeed, a real concern. The world population needs to learn to use less of the non-renewable resources (petroleum and the like) and use wind and solar energy more effectively. But, the industrialized nations must stop what they are doing to the non-industrialized nations by telling them they can’t use any oil to build their economies. It’s a sin to allow these multi-national banks and companies to tell the 3rd world countries that they can’t industrialize, forcing millions of people to die of hunger and disease. IT IS CRIMINAL!
I appreciate your “intense curiosity and a capacity to read!”, but, unfortunately, you are reading the wrong material.
Best wishes for 2013!
What are some of the other “greenhouse gasses”?
Mr. Petersen, the main “greenhouse gas”, that makes up about 95% of the greenhouse gases is water vapor, otherwise known as clouds! Look it up!
Thank you Mr. Fernst. Are there any others I can look up?
My name is Rick Ernst. The primary greenhouse gases in the Earth’s atmosphere are water vapour, carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and ozone. In the Solar System, the atmospheres of Venus, Mars, and Titan also contain gases that cause greenhouse effects. Greenhouse gases greatly affect the temperature of the Earth; without them, Earth’s surface would average about 33°C colder than the present average of 14 °C (57 °F).
Jerome do you really think the end is near? For three years I have read your articles and guess what I have seen no change. The leading scientific organizations of the world? In whose mind the scientist? I guess that is your case and no one elses research matters as long as it agrees with your very Liberal/Socialist view.. Jerome ,that is exactly what you are ,promoting. No other opinion matters except yours. I do believe you can not be serious. Jerome you are on a serious effort to doubr every other opinion. Regardless if they back it up with scientifc research. Jerome you do not care. Your agenda is very clear and not at all a consensus except in your very narrow thinking. Try for once to listen to Rick and many others that have put up evidence that is not to your liking. Jerome just tell the fine folks of Benicia that you are on an Enviro Greenie agenda and you do not care what anyone else proves. Jerome open your eyes there are many that do not agree with you.
Mr. Page, another well researched article. Your closing remarks by Professor Sommerville are the same conclusions reached by the Pentagon.
http://journalstar.com/news/opinion/editorial/columnists/local-view-u-s-military-global-warming-is-real/article_da07086c-e767-58b4-9258-24196cdecf03.html
This is the same pentagon who are annually killing people by the millions around the world? What concern would they have about the production of co2? They burn fossil fuels faster than anybody! I would stay the hell away from using the Pentagon as a source!
What will President Obama decide to do about Keystone? The letter sent to Mr. Obama includes the signature of many of the world’s top scientists–including Professor Richard Sommerville.
http://www.350.org/scientists-call-president-reject-keystone-xl-pipeline
I apologize for the name mix-up Rick Ernst. Thank you very much for the information on other gasses. I must say, that of the gasses you listed I have heard of methane before. I believe it might be a common gas (I think they might use it in Dutch ovens). I looked up some science-project-type stuff on methane using the Google. There was some joker talking about how natural biological activity could be altered by the rise of gas levels and by global warming itself, making for complicated and enigmatic feedbacks. I thought that sounded puzzling. However, I endeavored to read on. It seems that there was a study done in 1981 that reported that methane in the atmosphere was increasing at an astounding rate. In 1982, a study of air bubbles trapped in ice drilled from the Greenland icecap confirmed that methane was climbing. The climb was super different from any change that could be detected in past millennia. By 1988, they determined the actual rate of increase was about 1% a year. They said that a molecule of methane has a greenhouse effect more than twenty times that of a molecule of CO2. Methane is apparently can be converted easily into ozone in the atmosphere (which I believe has something to do with spray-on deodorants). Ozone reportedly exerts its own greenhouse effects. I guess they later figured out that methane can be thirty times more effective per molecule in producing global warming than additional CO2. Anyway, thanks for prompting me to do more research. If anything at all, I guess anyone can benefit from having a rudimentary understanding of science. .
Check it out. I looked up clouds as well. Clouds are cool because sometimes you can see shapes and stuff in them. But, it turns out that the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere changes regionally and there is virtually no water vapor above deserts or the Arctic and Antarctic regions, and the air above the equator can consist of up to four percent water vapor. So, I am a little confused by 95% of the gasses being water vapor, is that an average? They say that water vapor only stays in the atmosphere for a few days before it returns to the ground as rain (who knew?). The other gasses that find their way up into the sky can hangout for centuries. That’s a pretty long time.
It’s true that there is virtually no water vaapor above the Arctic and Antartic regions is why they are so cold and where the ice caps are maintained. Professor John Christy, Department of Atmospheric Science
University of Alabama in Huntsville states that co2 makes up a very small percentage of earth’s atmosphere. It’s approximately .054% and the percentage of man-made co2 is considerably smaller.
It is a “greenhouse gas”, but, again makes up a very small percentage of “greenhouse gases. Water vapor is a “greenhouse gas”, by far the most important “greenhouse” gas that makes up 95% of all the “greenhouse” gases. Like you say, it must be an average! LIke Mr. Page, I’m not a scientist. I, too, only have an “intense curiosity and a capacity to read!”
I’m much more concerned about who blew up the World Trade Center Buildings in New York. We know why they were demolished and why Al Qaida was blamed for the event — to start a war in Iraq so the billionaire filth banks and wall street corporations could make billions of dollars! This issue should be at the forefront of this conversation!
I agree, Mr. Petersen! “…Anyone can benefit from having a rudimentary understanding of science”. I would add that a rudimentary ability to discern BS when confronted with it is good as well.
This prevarication that man-made co2 is causing the sea levels to rise is very similar to the old story about the Emperor’s New Clothes. I’m sure you remember the story where an out of work tailor talked the emperor into wearing new clothes that were, supposedly, invisible. The emperor paraded around the city naked! This story is very similar to the “sea levels are rising” ruse. A group of fear mongers were out measuring how deep our town of Benicia would be under water with the expected rise in sea level! I haven’t seen any rise in sea levels here in Benicia ever! It’s at the same level it has been since it was founded nearly 200 years ago. What I have seen, or tasted, is that the water in the Carquinez Strait is saltier (more brakish) than it was 50 years ago. But, of course, this is not caused by global warming, but, indeed, because of the amount of Sierra snowmelt (millions of gallons) that are siphoned off and sent to southern California allowing the salt water to travel upstream. Benicia use to get it’s drinking water straight out of the Carquinez Strait some 50 years ago, but now must access fresh water from the Delta and elsewhere.
Well I’m no astrologer, so maybe you can help me out. If there has been no rise in sea level, does that mean that there has been little to no ice melting in the arctic regions? What about the sea ice?
Start researching about Agenda 21 and ICLEI and you will start to understand what the whole green and sustainability movement is all about. It started back in the mid 1990s and has been going on pretty much under the radar for quite some time. That is because people look into it and they respond with really, you can’t be serious. But it is in fact happening. Slowly and gradually but surely non the less.
Think about how many times you have seen the word sustainable printed in the Benicia Herald in the last year and tie that in with the above and you will start to understand what is going. The City of Benicia and the county of Solano are members of ICLEI as are many other cities and counties around the bay area. There are citizens rising up in other cities in the bay area that are against ICLEI and they are just being ignored by city council members. Tons of information on the net about it. Pretty scary stuff when you start to dig into it.
For the uninformed and disinterested, Mr. Michael Snyder of The Economic Collapse Newsletter, wrote on December 24, 2012 that “Agenda 21 Is Being Rammed Down The Throats Of Local Communities All Over America”.
If you haven’t heard of Agenda 21, don’t feel bad, because most Americans haven’t. It is essentially a blueprint for a “sustainable world” that was introduced at the UN Conference on Environment and Development in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil in 1992. Since then, it has been adopted by more than 200 countries and it has been modified and updated at other UN environmental summits. The philosophy behind Agenda 21 is that our environmental problems are the number one problem that we are facing, and that those problems are being caused by human activity. Therefore, according to Agenda 21 human activity needs to be tightly monitored, regulated and controlled for the greater good. Individual liberties and freedoms must be sacrificed for the good of the planet. If you are thinking that this sounds like it is exactly the opposite of what our founding fathers intended when they established this nation, you would be on the right track. Those that promote the philosophy underlying Agenda 21 believe that human activity must be “managed” and that letting people make their own decisions is “destructive” and “dangerous”. Sadly, the principles behind Agenda 21 are being rammed down the throats of local communities all over America, and most of the people living in those communities don’t even realize it.
So how is this being done? Well, after Agenda 21 was adopted, an international organization known as the “International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives” (ICLEI) was established to help implement the goals of Agenda 21 in local communities. One thing that they learned very quickly was that the “Agenda 21″ label was a red flag for a lot of people. It tended to create quite a bit of opposition on the local level.
As they try to implement their goals, they very rarely use the term “Agenda 21″ anymore. Instead, they use much more harmless sounding labels such as “smart growth”, “comprehensive land use planning” and especially “sustainable development”.
So just because something does not carry the Agenda 21 label does not mean that it is not promoting the goals of Agenda 21.The goals of Agenda 21 are not only being implemented in the United States. This is a massive worldwide effort that is being coordinated by the United Nations. An article that was posted on RedState.com discussed some of the history of Agenda 21…
In simplified terms, Agenda 21 is a master blueprint, or guidelines, for constructing “sustainable”
communities. Agenda 21 was put forth by the UN’s Commission on Sustainable Development, and
was adopted by over 200 countries (signed into “soft law” by George Bush Sr.) at the United Nations
Rio Conference in 1992. In 1994 the President’s Council for Sustainable Development was created
via Executive Order by Bill Clinton to begin coordinating efforts at the Federal level to make the US
Agenda 21 compliant.
I would be careful of Agenda 21 and ICLEI! They are not unlike Fascist Germany in the 30s!
This always sounds to me as if folks are trying to harken back to “The Protocols of the Meetings of the Learned Elders of Zion”.
Hmmm. The “Protocols” are an antisemitic hoax from 1900. Hitler used them to justify the Holocaust and Henry Ford paid to have 500,000 copies printed and issued in the U.S. Ford also provided hundreds of millions to Hitler’s Nazi Party in the 30s and 40s helping Hitler prepare for war. If not for Ford, and other Wall Street corporate filth, we never would have had World War II. So, help me understand how “This always sounds to me as if folks are trying to harken back to “The Protocols of the Meetings of the Learned Elders of Zion”?
“Hitler used them to justify the Holocaust”. The hoax of the “Protocols” was designed to try to spread fear that a certain, relatively small group of people were endeavoring to succeed in global domination in a non-violent fashion (basically by controlling economies).
It is ironic that you state that “I would be careful of Agenda 21 and ICLEI! They are not unlike Fascist Germany in the 30s!”. Whereas, the use of the “Protocols” to illicit fear would suggest quite the opposite. One could argue that the Agenda 21 and ICLEI conspiracy theories mirror the “Protocols” to a tee.
I see a very close parallel, and that is my concern. Unfortunately, mankind routinely repeats the mistakes of the past.
Thank you for explaining. I agree with you 100%!
The effect of ice-melt on sea level depends on melting of ice built up long and deeply on land. Floating ice displaces only its own weight. No matter its volume, floating ice effects no change of sea-level when it melts. But, the Antarctic continent, the north Canadian islands and Greenland itself bear such immense loads of ice that melting has real effect on sea-level, world-wide. Here in the temperate zone change remains less measurable than in tropical waters where the ocean “bulges” from centrifugal effect near the equator. Many low islands and atolls are already losing land area and are at risk of submergence. If all ice in the caps and glaciers were to vanish, oceanic rise would measure not in tens but hundreds of feet.
Clouds reflect light and heat away from the surface. Though they retain some heat, it is drawn from water surfaces and given back into the air. Deniers can poo-pooh atmospheric carbon all they wish. Taken alone, carbon itself is not the big threat. The great threat is methane. From a methane atmosphere we came, and to a methane atmosphere we can return. This would destroy the biosphere we know, and us with it. Where did all the original methane go that was displaced by oxygen with the advent of blue-green algae and its photosynthesis? It was banished into the crust as “natural gas” and condensed in oceanic depth as viscous liquid, especially in the polar regions. The great balance can be shifted by human carelessness.
Mr. Page has demonstrated the best mind and most disinterested power of expression active on this forum. Arguments aside, all nations now need concerted action to restrain heat build-up and pollution of every kind, especially from carbon compounds. As much petroleum and gas as possible should stay in the ground and be used only for manufacture of essential materials, not for burning as fuel. Really tough, right?
Ummm. Maybe! You’re partially correct. Your 3rd paragraph, in fact, your last sentence is the only one that makes any sense. That is, “As much petroleum and gas as possible should stay in the ground and be used only for manufacture of essential materials, not for burning as fuel.” You are bumping up against BIG OIL who are more than willing to kill anybody that stands in the way between them and the $700 trillion+ of oil still in the ground. I wish you luck!
Mr. Ernst, your inability to find sense in my first two paragraphs is simply astonishing and suggests your mind is blocked. You seem to have no understanding of our atmosphere’s past or how it came to be as it is. Your response sharply lowers my estimate of your learning and intellect.
Well, I can only say that I’m proud to be low on your estimate of learning and intellect. You are low on mine as well after reading your spurious comment. Perhaps I should have been more specific. You stated, “The effect of ice-melt on sea level depends on melting of ice built up long and deeply on land. Floating ice displaces only its own weight. No matter its volume, floating ice effects no change of sea-level when it melts”. It appears as if you were responding to Mr. Petersen’s statement. Your statement of fact is understood by everybody 6 years of age and older who has ever observed a glass of ice water that will never overflow when the ice melts!
So much for your intellect. The rest of your statement is so full of fear-mongering and incorrect, invalid and unsubstantiated fiction, that I am compelled to say that you are clearly wrong! So much for your lack of “understanding” of the atmosphere’s past or how it came to be as it is! Unless you were living on earth a million years ago, your elitist understanding cannot be any greater than anybody else’s. Sorry! We all have access to the same scientific documentation!
Mr. Page I lived in this area for most of my life. Maybe you can explain some things to me. Why do not ships go all the way up to Pachecco as they use to? Why was the Martinez Ferry slip moved out further if the bay is expanding. I do not also understand what the local Space Cadet and others say about Solano Square going to be under water. I remembver the old train station is Martinez would flood at certain high tide times. The Marina was been moved out further in the bay. Just why is that Mr. Page. Is it reverse global warming/climate change. Maybe you have the answers or is it that there is no such a thing as global warming/climate cahange. Could this whole thing just be the Enviro Greenies at work to get more renewable energy and stop all use of fossil fuel. Very selfish motive and also not cost efficient. Well I guess it helps the Coda car company and 85 cars that they have out there somewhere still not to be found. Very strange issue. No sales info from Cota even though they are sibsidised by the tax payers. Oh I forgot renewable energy is a sacred cow. Can not guestion their motives.
Robert L., if your anecdotal recollections could be documented by objective reference, your opinion could take on a halo of respectability. As it is, your bias gives us only snide objection.
Funny how this subject brings up such strong opinions, almost like people have to deny it vigorously because it so challenges their deep-seated view of the world. The denials go beyond reason. Reason is clearly on the side of Mr. Page. All the science and evidence point to unmistakable and ominous trends in global weather caused by the rapid increase in carbon dioxide in our atmosphere due to our burning of fossil fuels.
Economic interests heavily embedded in the current fossil fuel burning regime are the main proponents of denial and obfuscation. Obviously, their views are skewed to denial as it threatens their business as well as the worldview that business is dependent on.
Beach Bum you may be right in your reasoning. But at the same time may be wrong like the economists and weather forecaster. These folks are always off target and never get called out. The only thing on the scientist side is that very few folks are questiong their research. When it is questioned is is overwhelmed by the Enviro Greenie far left thinking. That is all it is thinking not practical experience. Everytime we listen to an economist it is a differen story and in most cases they get the story wrong. I do believe these folks are very well respected but at the same not always on target. Just why are scientist exempt from this kind of review. Just wondering.
Bob, it is not good practice to conflate dissimilar matters. It weakens your argument by a sort of “bait & switch” tactic. Also, whether people are respected or not has no bearing on the validity of their findings. That’s part of a reverse ad-hominem argument and quite irrelevant, as is much of the emotion that colors and distorts your thinking. You seem to have studied all the wrong things in school and never compensated for the lack.
Sorry Real American you do not know what you are talking about. DDL said they were obscene, he does not need to bow to your request for some definition that you will not agree with any how. I think you are not seeing the side of Robert Shelby that many are seeing and have seen. It it not a pretty scene. Over the last three years I have seen the constant attack on Conservatives, Tea Party, Fox News, WSJ and talk radio. Yes they are attacks and many are very nasty and can get personal. Real American is that what you want? When you make your nasty personal attacks on folks they will many times come right back. at you with nasty comments. Very simple Real American, Shelby and others keep the comments civil and all comments back will be civil.
Sorry Bob you do not know what you are talking about. Calls for civility from you are laughable. You have only yourself to blame for the level of discourse you despair of. I have followed this blog since it began and without question, the acrimony and bitterness and antipathy started with you. Reexamine your own values and style of conversation, reform or abandon your hypocritical call for civility and revert to your true self.
Real American you know I am right so just become civil. Just what comment are you referring to? You know the one that started it. See you tonight.
As long as you continue to label and denigrate your superiors among the liberals in Benicia, you will continue to get what you dish out. It’s pretty simple really. You are wrong, constantly, and I and others will continue to point it out.
What comment are you talking about. Just give us all the answer to that simple question. I need not respond to you any longer on this string. There will many other opportunities to get your goat. I will just let you destroy yourself. See you tonight?.
Oh no, I enjoy this. Because I know it drives you crazy. You deserve all the invective that can be sent your way. You started with your unfair and vicious attacks on the mayor and your name has been mud in this town ever since. It will never get better. Get used to it.
But for the love of god stop whining. It’s unbecoming
From the above column:Some changes, like melting sea ice, are happening faster than the anticipated worst case.
The above quote is taken from a piece which is three years old. More recent research, also at UC San Diego, offers an opinion which contradicts the above statement:
…the ice mass change over Greenland between April of 2002 and August of 2011. Although the total mass loss trend has remained linear, actively changing areas of mass loss were concentrated on the southeastern and northwestern coasts, with ice mass in the center of Greenland steadily increasing over the decade.
Source:
Mapping Greenland’s mass loss in space and time
By: Christopher Harig1 and Frederik J. Simons
Edited by Mark H. Thiemens, University of California at San Diego, La Jolla, CA, and approved October 9, 2012 (received for review April 24, 2012)
Dennis, the study you cite covers only seven months and is already eight months old. It raises a genuine question of sufficiency.
RMS stated: Dennis, the study you cite covers only seven months and is already eight months old.
April 2002 to Aug. 2011 is over nine years Robert. Plus due to the peer review process it was released three months ago.
Second, Mr. Page’s reference is three years old, yet you do not comment to him that it is out of date. Why not?… Likely answer is once again: ideological bigotry.
It is difficult to take you seriously anymore Robert, and this is an indicator of why.
Far more take him seriously than take you. He is a genuine thinker; you are a pretender, routinely exposed by your elementary conclusions and shallow grasp of history. “Ideological bigotry” will find its way into your obituary someday, I am sure.
You are a despicable person for the respect you withhold from your elders, and betters, like Bob Shelby and Jerome Page.
Real American you may want to re-think that statement about Robert Shelby. I give you a pass on Jerry Page. Nasty nasty. Despicable person. I do not find that to be the case about DDL. Now real america if that was self description you are correct.; By the way not a personal attack just a very easy assumption.
Bob Shelby is less strident than you Bob. You try to be clever by admonishing people for personal attacks while engaging in them all the time. Bob Shelby is honest in his disagreements with the intellectually dishonest. You say “not a personal attack, just an easy assumption” — which is, of course, a personal attack. So let’s just stop the whining and go after each other, shall we? I have no problem with it. It’s your dishonest approach that galls me. And countless others.
And if I get a pass on Jerry, what about your buddy DDL? Did you read the nasty, personal (and totally false) letter he wrote about Jerry in the Vallejo paper? I guess that’s ok by your standards. I guess if a conservative does it it’s ok. But it was low and despicable and earned him a permanent demerit in this community. It won’t be forgotten
Do you have a link to the Vallejo paper letter, or is it in the print version?
Thomas,
Here is a link to where it was discussed in this forum:
http://beniciaherald.me/2012/05/27/the-power-of-the-bent-pen/
I just reread Jerry’s original piece that I responded to, but was unable to find the letter I wrote in response.
This was the part where Mr. Page was decidely wrong in his response:
While I make no case for misogynist comedy and cringe at the use of the words by Bill Maher or anyone else, the impact of this compared with the onslaught of the trash from the right and its effects is as a rainstorm to a tornado.
As I recall, I asked that the same level of standards be used in comparing one side to the other, but that is never the case.
DDL
I don’t blame you for being “unable to find” your letter. It was vile and (for you) best forgotten.
But following that link we are able to read that you accused Jerry of contempt and hatred for the right. You rightly referred to that as an “erroneous conclusion,” of which it has ample company in your writings, but the damage was done. And Jerry very skillfully dismissed your blathering attempts at explanation.
RA stated: You rightly referred to that as an “erroneous conclusion,”
The above was not what was stated, I quote:
I know not what is in your heart, nor do you know what is in mine. For both of us to make an erroneous assumption on motivation is a conclusion to which we have both jumped.
Yes, I have a habit of fighting fire with fire and give back that which is directed at me.
Let’s be honest with the whole “Sandra Fluke kerfuffle”, which is what this exchange was all about. Sandra Fluke was a classic Strawman argument, conceived and directed by her Democrat handlers. She was a cheapskate and liar who, not wanting to pay $9 for birth control pills, demanded that the taxpayers do so and she did this while attending a $50,000 a year law school.
She represented the feminist mentality: “GOP STAY OUT OF MY WOMB”, while demanding that taxpayers fund her right to use her ‘womb’ as she sees fit.
(For the record, I have no issue with birth control pills being prescribed for medical purposes and that should be covered in health care)
Rush called her out, and stepped right into the trap that the dems had laid. They loved the furor, and celebrated it.
Mr. Page then excoriated both Rush and the editor of the Vallejo Paper. Was Rush over the top – Yes. Was Jack Bungardt? No. Was Mr. Page? Probably. Was I? In your mind, no words I say will suffice to convince you otherwise, but I maintain I fought fire-with-fire.
You have called me a “liar” over this, which is absolutely not the case. What I stated was my perception of how Mr. Page came across in his letter in regards to Rush and subsequently to the editor. If that was a misconception, so be it, but it was not a “lie”.
The article that Jerry Page wrote appeared in the Times-Herald on Sunday March 18, 2012. Yes it was a personal attack on the editor. Is Mr. Page exempt from that? I think not. Remember what the editor wrote was an opinion. What Jerry Page wrote was a personal opinion attack on the editor and the Conservative talk radio hosts. The editor was looking at balance. Jerry Page did not want balance and made an attak on Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, Michele Malkin and Michael Savage all along sort of giving a pass to Bill Maher and Ed Schultz. You know that Ed Schultz and what he called Laura Ingraham. As Mr. Page says he then did a major mea culpa, a genuine heart felt apology. Sorry Jerry the damage was done and will never be forgotten no matter what you say. Jerry did show his very biased thinking and I was very surprised by his article. Even though Jerry has no like at all for the Conservatives I have never scene him attack like he did. It was right for anyone to come back at Mr. Page for his vicious attack on the the editor and the Conservative talk show hosts. I am not saying what Rush said was the right thing to do. He took plenty of heat from it. It was not condoned by the Conservatives. But at the same time the editor was correct the left gets a pass and a few laughs at their very vulgar and nasty comments. It was all about being balanced . Dennis was right in writing a responce. Real American do you have a copy of the letter that Dennis wrote and can explain the term vile. Real American it is very apparent you have no use for Conservatives, DDL, Bob Livesay and even Jim Pugh. You seem to think your very nasty attacks are OK and should be respected. You can think that all you want. The judgement has already been made and you did not win. Thats a memo. Please Real American show some courage with your responce and be civil. We will all appreciate that.
Jerry Page has never been “vicious” in writing here or anywhere. To characterize his oped in the VTH as that is a falsehood. However, I can understand how unwelcome truths may seem that way to those unfamiliar with reality.
The false equivalency of the conservatives on this is what deserves attention. Jerry’s opinion in the VTH was an “attack” only in the sense that he pointed out their prevarications. DDL’s response to that was an escalation and a journey through the mire. He knows it, too, which is why he spends so much time trying to explain himself. In vain.
It’s been taken down, probably at DDL’s request.
Then you cannot verify what he said was vile.
Yes I can because I read it. See the exchange DDL links to for details.
“It’s been taken down, probably at DDL’s request.”
That is not a denial.
RA stated:You are a despicable person for the respect you withhold from your elders, and betters, like Bob Shelby and Jerome Page
You mean like the respect you show to Bob Livesay, is he not your elder? What is the word for that, oh yes, hypocrite. You used it the other day, directed at me.
Respect once lost is seldom recovered. I showed plenty of respect to Shelby, at first, but he lost that in a serious of obscene e-mails directed to me at my private e-mail address on two separate incidents separated by several months.
Disagreement, by itself, with Mr. Page is not disrespectful and you will find that I have showed none towards him.
Again, facts do not support your allegations.
Again, yes they do. How were his emails obscene? Please define obscenity. Or were they, as we all suspect, merely politically divergent from your own views, something you plainly cannot handle?
You already showed your disrespect for Jerry, and it won’t be forgotten.
RA askedHow were his emails obscene?
I have deleted the e-mails, so must paraphrase (and also back up before doing so). He sent me e-mails in which he said personal things directed at me, to which I took offense (it was never about a political disagreement). I asked him to stop. He continued. I told him (via e-mail) that if he continued in this vein, I would block him. He did and I did.
That was round One.
He then asked to be reinstated, and I told them if he continued his old habits he would be blocked. He did and I did.
Mind you now many of these were not just between him and I, but he copied many other people on his comments, including some people who contribute regularly to the paper, as well as his son, to whom I wrote a sincere note of concern (I received no reply). Some of the things I do recall (paraphrased):
Lund – ‘ FU and the horse rode in on’
‘I don’t know what you use for F’n brains, but horses produce more useful crap then you do’
‘I don’t know what is inside a fetid mind like yours to produce such bile’
‘how any (woman) could be around you long enough to conceive a child, let alone two is beyond the grasp of my imagination.
And you ask that I respect him because he is older than I am?
RA:Please define obscenity The Supreme Court could not, so I will pass. I will say this as well. The above leaves out many things, including a reference to my wife, which I will not repeat. Also, I repeatedly asked him to stop and he persisted, which is the real point.
The article cited below speaks specifically to sea ice:
“The sea ice extent fell to 3.41 million square kilometers, breaking the previous all-time low set in 2007 by 18%–despite the fact that this year’s (2012) weather was cloudier and cooler than in 2007. Nearly half (49%) of the icecap was gone during this year’s minimum, compared to the average minimum for the years 1979 – 2000″
Find more here: http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/09/20/885601/earths-attic-is-on-fire-arctic-sea-ice-bottoms-out-at-new-record-low/
Interesting article on Arctic shipping routes:
http://www.thearcticinstitute.org/2012/10/the-future-of-arctic-shipping.html
I have to interject here that this particular blog is one of the most civilized blogs In which I have ever participated. Clearly, we have many differing points of views that are presented clearly and fairly and there is no name calling! Wow! What a pleasure to be able to get facts on both sides of the fence without being called inappropriate names simply for voicing your opinion. You are all gentlemen! Thanks! You probably know about whom I am talking! An individual that is absent from this blog. Thank god!
Yes, gentlemen. Meaningful engagement over facts is what we should be about. It is not easy. We should use the scalpel of discernment more that the cudgel of willfulness.
Sorry Robert just who do you think you are. You have no feelings for others. No feelings for others opinions. Just a poet that calls the American Flag a Tri-Colored Rag. Robert are you pround of that statement. I sure hope not. You must be exposed for what you stand for. I believe it is very Un-American.
The one-note jackass brays again.
Real American such harsh and nasty comments. WOW
Your false umbrage is (once again) duly noted.
Then, why, Mr. Shelby, do you rudely attempt to insult, label, and call writers on this blog names? Name calling is abusive. This phenomenon is studied by a variety of academic disciplines from anthropology, to child psychology, to politics. It is also studied by rhetoricians, and a variety of other disciplines that study propaganda techniques and their causes and effects. The technique is most frequently employed within political discourse and school systems, in an attempt to negatively impact their opponent. It appears as if you have studied this phenomenon of name calling and are using it for that very purpose to negatively impact their opponent. A tactic of elitism! Perhaps I should withdraw my statement above that this is a “civilized blog” for, as it turns out, it is not!
Back to the topic of climate change. More information and facts for the community to consider…
http://www.counterpunch.org/2013/01/15/inside-the-latest-climate-report/
Thank you, Mr. Gregory! Less the public feels this is a good thing, read their article!
The article NCADAC describes the purpose of this draft NCA Report this way:
“The goal of this assessment report is to establish (where none exists) a scientific and credible (currently incredible) foundation of information that is useful for a variety of science and policy applications (we already have many scientific studies going back hundreds of years) related to managing risk and maximizing opportunities in a changing climate. The report also documents some societal responses to climate changes, and gives public and private decision-makers a better understanding of how climate change is affecting us now and what is in store for the future (how can they possible predict what the future holds for climate?).”
The article prior to the article you provided is of more interest, “KILLER DRONES AND THE PSYCHOPATHOLOGY OF OBAMA’S LEADERSHIP: historian Norman Pollack excoriates the Obama administration’s depraved policy of drone warfare and targeted assassinations.”
Obama administration’s depraved policy of drone warfare and targeted assassinations.
I am surprised more Obama acolytes are not offended by this action (yes some are). Remember when we had:
“Hey, Hey! LBJ!
How many men
did you kill today?”
And of course: “Bush lied people died”
Those really got the crowds going! We need to get the marketing department to work on that and come up with a catchy phrase/chant, like:
When Obama drones fly
Who will be the next to die?
Where is Peter Bray when you need him?
RA stated: That is not a denial.
You really are slower on the uptake than even I thought. How is this for a denial:
It is not DDL’s fault, nor was any request made by me to remove it.
I think maybe Campanis did.
Forgot to add: Stong language warning on the link provided
Any further comments on this thread that are off topic will be deleted. Eye on the ball, please. Ed.
OMG! Thanks, Ed!
That worked well.