'Skeptics Guide' To Global Warming...

[Tony Dismukes]

So the argument against him is that he has accepted money from Philip Morris.

Robert, are you sure you actually read that criticism of Mr. Milloy's site? Phillip Morris is not mentioned anywhere, neither is Mr. Milloy's funding.

The criticism being argued is of his approach and his site in general, so they aren't offering a debunking of any of his specific articles in detail. I'll try to reread and respond to his greenhouse article later this weekend. (I know, I know - I promised to respond to Cliff's link over a week ago. I was down with a bad sinus infection for a few weeks and it kind of hurt my motivation to do any work that I didn't have to. I'm feeling a bit better now, and more up for the research.)

[Webmaster]

Robert, are you sure you actually read that criticism of Mr. Milloy's site? Phillip Morris is not mentioned anywhere, neither is Mr. Milloy's funding.

Yes, but I was being preemptive since that is what the majority of the criticism of Mr. Millory is on most other sites. Attacking the messenger is the normal mode of operation for most, and not the science involved.

I realize that you, and maybe others seem to think that scientists are somehow "pure as the wind driven snow" and are above financial consideration, and personal and political agendas. As someone that has worked for the past seven years at a major research university (and in two separate departments) I can ensure you they are not. Here is the reality check that many folks need.

First, most researchers are extremely liberal in their political views and have personal or political agendas.

Second, these same researchers are the ones that sit on funding boards of organizations like the National Science Foundation and judge those proposals submitted for funding. They are also the ones that make up the reviewers and editors of the peer-reviewed scientific journals.

Third, I have prepared, proof written, and been in on the planning sessions of well over a hundred funding proposals and research manuscripts.

Fourth, I have seen with my own eyes how proposals are geared toward certain agendas, and the conclusions of research molded to fit the expectations of reviewers of scientific journals and progress reports and renewal proposals manipulated for the reviewers when a grant is in need of renewal.

Fifth, the salaries of most researchers and their staff are funded through their grants. Either they get them and keep them (through renewals) or they don't get paid. It's that simple. So they prepare proposals, write reports and publish manuscripts that meet whatever the current trend or agenda is at the time.

There is a saying amongst scientists, "Publish or Perish". From what I have seen over the years supports this. So excuse me if I think that most of the researchers out there are "full of it" and their research cannot be trusted because I have seen them manipulate results, stretch their conclusions, and otherwise do whatever it takes to get funded over and over again.

[Webmaster]

Just a quick follow-up to my previous post.

A good example of how things can be bent in order to gain funding is as follows.

Following 9-11, there was literally billions of dollars that were being spent on research related to homeland security. So when that money became available, many (or most that I knew of anyway) looked for a homeland security connection in their field of research and submitted proposals accordingly. Those that had novel ideas and got in early, got gobs of money. That was the current "trend" and where the money was. So everything got twisted to conform to where the money is at. While homeland security is still a big deal with regard to grant money, so is climate change research. So now, you have scientists everywhere looking for a climate change angle to their research. Those that get funding of course want to keep it once the grant has expired, thus they had better make sure that their conclusions and manuscripts favorably support the "agenda" or they do not get renewed.

So before you buy everything (or anything for that matter) published by the scientific community, then you need to look at the old saying, "Follow the money".

[Ramirez]

Expertise still counts for something and according to this site, Milloy does not have expertise in climatology, "He holds a bachelor's degree in Natural Sciences, a law degree and a master's degree in biostatistics."

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php...unkScience.com

[Webmaster]

Expertise still counts for something...[/url]

Yes it does, and it is amazing how many of these scientists that are slobbering all over the climate change thing don't have any expertise in climatology either. It is equally amazing how many of those that are climatologist dispute the climate change business (for instance, Dr. Gray from Colorado State).

Let me pose a common sense question. The Climate Change "Scareologist" claim that if the ice in the Antarctic melts, it will raise the sea level and flood out coasts. OK, we know that water is one of the few things that actually expands when frozen (as opposed to contracting). So here's the question...

I take a glass, fill it part way with water and then drop enough ice into it so that the water level is raised to the brim. When the ice melts, does it cause the water to overflow the glass? No, it does not. So why do we think that ice in the Arctic or Antarctic that is already in the water going to cause the sea level to change if it melts? What makes this different than that glass? Oh and for those that are not aware, the various Ice Shelfs in the Antarctic are in the water.

[Ramirez]

I take a glass, fill it part way with water and then drop enough ice into it so that the water level is raised to the brim. When the ice melts, does it cause the water to overflow the glass? No, it does not. So why do we think that ice in the Arctic or Antarctic that is already in the water going to cause the sea level to change if it melts? What makes this different than that glass? Oh and for those that are not aware, the various Ice Shelfs in the Antarctic are in the water.

I am not sure if your ice experiment works but it seems to me that ice being lmore dense than water means it has less volume, when the ice melts that means more volume of water in the sea.

[Cliff Hargrave]

I am not sure if your ice experiment works but it seems to me that ice being lmore dense than water means it has less volume, when the ice melts that means more volume of water in the sea.

Now you are making me squeeze my brain back to junior high science class. If I am not mistaken, isn't water the only substance that expands when frozen and everything else in the world shrinks when frozen? I remember something like that. So actually ice takes up more space than liquid water. Which is why ice floats, it's less dense than water. Is that right or did I just dream it? It's been a long time since school...........

[Ramirez]

Now you are making me squeeze my brain back to junior high science class. If I am not mistaken, isn't water the only substance that expands when frozen and everything else in the world shrinks when frozen? I remember something like that. So actually ice takes up more space than liquid water. Which is why ice floats, it's less dense than water. Is that right or did I just dream it? It's been a long time since school...........

Actually I stand corrected, ice is less dense than water, that is why it floats.

[Webmaster]

Actually I stand corrected, ice is less dense than water, that is why it floats.

Also, because it expands, it has more volume and displaces more water. So when the ice melts in our imaginary glass, it will not push water over the brim, but instead the water level will go down.

[Tony Dismukes]

So why do we think that ice in the Arctic or Antarctic that is already in the water going to cause the sea level to change if it melts? What makes this different than that glass? Oh and for those that are not aware, the various Ice Shelfs in the Antarctic are in the water.

Scientists are not worried that melting Arctic ice will raise the sea level, for precisely the reason you point out. They are worried about the ice sheets that are sitting on top of land in the Antarctic melting. Those ice sheets could make a huge difference in sea level. The ice shelfs in the water on the edge of the continent which have been melting are just the early warning sign. Once those are out of the way, the land based ice is next to go. (It's actually kind of complicated, and there are several possible scenarios here. Once concern is that as the ice shelfs on the edge of the continent melt, the rate at which the grounded ice flows into those shelfs will increase.) http://yosemite.epa.gov/oar/globalwa.../chapter_5.pdf

I believe there are other potential hazards which come with the melting of the Arctic ice cap. As the area covered in ice decreases, the albedo of the region decreases, which means more solar radiation is absorbed, leading to more ice melting, and so on in a positive feedback loop which could accelerate the whole global warming process. Another concern is that the melted ice would reduce the salinity of the ocean which could potentially shut down the Atlantic "conveyor belt" currents which keep Europe temperate.

The Greenland ice shelf is another source of worry. If the Greenland Ice Sheet melted completely,sea level would rise 7.6 meters. http://yosemite.epa.gov/oar/globalwa.../chapter_4.pdf

[Webmaster]

Scientists are not worried that melting Arctic ice will raise the sea level, for precisely the reason you point out.

Excuse me Tony, but that is one of the scare tactics that they use. Of course, just a few years ago, we were all being terrified over the coming global ice age.

Oh, from page 77 of your reference...

We remind the reader, however, that the precipitation scenarios used in the sensitivity analyses of this chapter were based on our initial assumptions that precipitation will change with saturation vapor pressure or its derivative.

You know what they say about assuming don't you!

Since we are obviously not going to solve this issue here, or convert those on either side of the issue, then let's just agree to disagree. However, there is plenty of stuff to call into question the whole Climate Scare debate and it's important that both side of the controversy be presented and folks make up their own mind:
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php...hange_skeptics

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_controversy

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/1833902.stm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_skeptic

http://www.skepticism.net/faq/enviro...lobal_warming/

In the meanwhile, I am going to lock myself in my home and get my personal affairs in order since every day we hear about some stupid nonsense that is going to kill us all. Eventually, one of them might actually come true!

[TonyU]

In the meanwhile, I am going to lock myself in my home and get my personal affairs in order since every day we hear about some stupid nonsense that is going to kill us all. Eventually, one of them might actually come true!

Already in the works. I have plenty of ammo in case I get overrun by the conspiracy theorists.

[Tony Dismukes]

Excuse me Tony, but that is one of the scare tactics that they use.

Tell you what, Robert. If you can find me a citation from a single scientist working in climatology or any of the earth sciences claiming that ocean levels would be directly raised by the melting of those ice masses which currently reside in the water (the Arctic ice cap or the Antarctic ice shelves) as opposed to the melting of land-based ice on Greenland or the Antarctic, I will send you a check for $20. I'll throw in another $15 if you can find a quote from Al Gore making that claim. C'mon, free money! You can use it to stock your survival kit for the coming apocalypse.

Those wikipedia links are good. I recommend anyone interested in the subject not only read the article on the controversy, but also follow the linked related articles and primary sources.

[Webmaster]

I am willing to concede that I am wrong, but I have heard in interviews that the ice shelf's melting was going to kill us all. From a quick check of the references, it appears that the ice shelfs are buffers for the ice sheets. However, I don't have the time to search through a bunch of scientific gobbily-gook. On the other hand, this article implies as such.

"We have shown that the Larsen ice shelf has progressively thinned due to the combined effects of surface and basal ice melting," Dr Shepherd said.

"The previously undetected imbalance may provide a simple link between the regional climate warming and the successive disintegration of of Larsen ice shelf sections, and suggests that fluctuations in the surrounding ocean should be considered in any future assessment of climate change."

Now, when it comes to melting arctic ice, there is a bunch of stuff that says it will raise sea levels.

http://www.peopleandplanet.net/doc.php?id=2470

The Arctic melt season has lengthened by 10-17 days, shrinking the amount of ice buildup that remains from year to year. As sea ice thins and recedes from coastlines, indigenous hunters and fishers are finding themselves cut off from traditional hunting grounds. Coastal communities face more violent and less predictable weather, rising sea levels, and diminishing access to food sources.

http://www.nrdc.org/globalwarming/qthinice.asp

And along Arctic coastlines, entire villages will be uprooted because they're in danger of being swamped.

http://www.cbc.ca/health/story/2004/...elt041108.html

The development threatens to raise global water levels and submerge low-lying regions around the world, including parts of Florida and already flood-prone Bangladesh.

I don't necessarily dismiss that there are some changes in the weather and climate. The real question is whether it's a natural pattern of nature, or if us terrible humans are to blame.

Anyway, I will now go and make my peace with my maker in anticipation of this or some new dreamed up crisis that will end all life on earth. Geeze, I don't know what I would do it I could not wake up each morning with some new crisis for me to be scared about.

[Tony Dismukes]

Robert, your third link is a good illustration of why I never rely on the popular media for analysis of scientific issues. In this case, the reporter conflates the potential changes in sea-level due to melting land ice with the other hazards which may result from melting sea ice. By placing the quote from Dr. Correll in proximity to the mistaken claim that melting sea ice would raise sea level, they present the implication that he is endorsing that claim. In fact, what his quote says is that current projections predict a certain rate of rising seas at a certain level of increased global temperature. He never attributes that rise to melting sea ice. I don't expect that the reporter was trying to be deceptive, merely that he/she was scientifically ignorant enough not to know the difference between sea and land ice.

The first link is to an advocacy group, who should know better than to make such a basic mistake, since they should be studying the issue in depth if they're going to be advocates. As far as I can tell, the author of the article, Danielle Massey, is not a scientist. To her credit, that was the only obvious error I found in the article in a quick scan.

The NRDC, at your second link, got it right:

Melting glaciers and land-based ice sheets also contribute to rising sea levels, threatening low-lying areas around the globe with beach erosion, coastal flooding, and contamination of freshwater supplies. (Sea level is not affected when floating sea ice melts.)

[Webmaster]

The NRDC, at your second link, got it right:

Then why did they say this?

3. How does this dramatic ice melt affect the Arctic?

The melting of once-permanent ice is already affecting native people, wildlife and plants. When the Ward Hunt Ice Shelf splintered, the rare freshwater lake it enclosed, along with its unique ecosystem, drained into the ocean. Polar bears, whales, walrus and seals are changing their feeding and migration patterns, making it harder for native people to hunt them. And along Arctic coastlines, entire villages will be uprooted because they're in danger of being swamped. The native people of the Arctic view global warming as a threat to their cultural identity and their very survival.

[Jeff C.]

Here's another "Al Gore is twisting the truth about global warming" piece: http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008597

About the author of the article: Mr. Lindzen is the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT. How do his qualifications affect how his article should be received? Or is he, too, in someone's pocket on this issue?

Jeff Cook

[Tony Dismukes]

Then why did they say this?

The swamping they're referring to is due to "melting glaciers and land-based ice sheets ", not floating sea ice. The section I quoted (only two paragraphs after the section you quoted), explicitly makes that clear.

[Webmaster]

How do his qualifications affect how his article should be received? Or is he, too, in someone's pocket on this issue?

Oh probably Jeff! He either smokes cigarettes or he has at least tried one somewhere in his lifetime, so he is obviously a slave to Phillip Morris!

[Jeff C.]

Dr. Lindzen's testimony to Congress: http://www-eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lind...Senate2001.pdf

It seems to be a great look into the science AND politics of this issue.

If anyone finds anything to discredit Dr. Lindzen, please let me know.

Jeff Cook