Over 2 Trillion tons of ice melted in arctic since '03

[btfc]

http://apnews.excite.com/article/2008121...PNG80.html

[Black Landlord]

Melting of land ice, unlike sea ice, increases sea levels very slightly. In the 1990s, Greenland didn't add to world sea level rise; now that island is adding about half a millimeter of sea level rise a year, NASA ice scientist Jay Zwally said in a telephone interview from the conference.

At 1/2 a millimeter a year, how long do you think it will take the coastal regions to become uninhabitable, fueling a recovery of the Chicago housing market?

[OWC Jamie]

How warm does it have to get before pole dancing gets to be a popular tourist activity ?

[NeverMind]

do you have a birth certificate to prove it?

[Acer]

Oh, look! A graph! I love graphs!

I also like to understand where the pretty lines come from.

Here's a discussion of some of the work of R.W. Spencer, the author of that graph. This particular discussion is not about that particular graph, but it does shed some light on Spencer in general. This is not an ad hominem attack, but rather a detailed critique of his data analysis.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/arc.../#more-567

Summary: Spencer cooks data

[Acer]

And as for Loehle's "average of 18 non-tree ring proxies"

A small excerpt:

What does this imply for Loehle's reconstruction? Unfortunately, the number of unsuitable series, errors in dating and transcription, combined with a mis-interpretation of what was being averaged, and a lack of validation, do not leave very much to discuss. Of the 18 original records, only 5 are potentially useful for comparing late 20th Century temperatures to medieval times, and they don't have enough coverage to say anything significant about global trends. It's not clear to me what impact fixing the various problems would be or what that would imply for the error bars, but as it stands, this reconstruction unfortunately does not add anything to the discussion.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/arc...tructions/

Again, not ad hominem. It says nothing about how he heats his swimming pool. It says a lot about where he gets his data and how he uses it.

[Acer]

And for good measure:




Explanation of graph

[Wags]

Lets set aside the argument over belief in global warming and look at what's in store, regardless of who or what is causing it. The majority of key watersheds are in trouble due to melting glaciers and decreased snow pack. For example, one here in the US, the Sierra Nevada Watershed, is the primary source of water for the Central and San Joaquin valleys, producing around 18 billion dollars worth of crops annually. To compensate for the loss or even partial loss of that resource we will be required to spend massive amounts of tax dollars for new infrastructure. There are many other agricultural areas throughout the world facing a similar scenario and many of those will pay not in money but in lives.

Think about the gigantic watershed that is the Himalayas. There are billions of people dependent on that resource for their food and it too is in trouble. China, India, and Pakistan are all dependent on that water for their agriculture, and they all have nuclear weapons.

[mattkime]

>>Lets set aside the argument over belief

ug, i'm probably over analyzing your words but i really don't like it when people talk about the "belief" of global warming in order to equate it with religious belief. the conclusion that global warming is real is based on the scientific interpretation of physical evidence. religious beliefs are not contingent on such evidence.

[Wags]

mattkime wrote:
>>Lets set aside the argument over belief

ug, i'm probably over analyzing your words but i really don't like it when people talk about the "belief" of global warming in order to equate it with religious belief. the conclusion that global warming is real is based on the scientific interpretation of physical evidence. religious beliefs are not contingent on such evidence.

I totally agree with you, that's why I italicized the word. I was going to discuss the difference between a belief and a scientific theory but it seemed like it deserved a separate thread. Its sort of like how the religious zealots try to reject evolution because, well its only a theory. Sure, but its a scientific theory that has a preponderance of evidence to support it and none to refute it, it is predictive and testable. Evolution is a theory much like gravity is a theory. Global warming is that type of theory although not yet as well understood due to the complexity of weather systems.