Projection: In 2007, IPCC reported with “high confidence” that “methane emissions from tundra… and permafrost have accelerated in the past two decades, and are likely to accelerate further.” However, the IPCC offered no projections regarding permafrost melt.
Reality: Scientists estimate that the world’s permafrost holds 1.5 trillion tons of frozen carbon. That worries scientists: The Arctic is warming faster than anywhere else on earth, and researchers are seeing soil temperatures climb rapidly, too. Some permafrost degradation is already occurring.
Large-scale tundra wildfires in 2012 added to the concern.
Why the miss? This is controversial science, with some researchers saying the Arctic tundra is stable, others saying it will defrost only over long periods of time, and still more convinced we are on the verge of a tipping point, where the tundra thaws rapidly and catastrophically. A major 2005 study, for instance, warned that the entire top 11 feet of global permafrost could disappear by century's end, with potentially cataclysmic climate impacts.
The U.N. Environmental Programme revealed this week that IPCC’s fifth assessment, due for release starting in September, 2013, will again "not include the potential effects of the permafrost carbon feedback on global climate."
Tipping points
The IPCC has been silent on tipping points – non-linear "light switch" moments when the climate system abruptly shifts from one paradigm to another.
Projection: IPCC has made no projections regarding tipping-point thresholds.
Reality: The scientific jury is still out as to whether we have reached any climate thresholds – a point of no return for, say, an ice-free Arctic, a Greenland meltdown, the slowing of the North Atlantic Ocean circulation, or permanent changes in large-scale weather patterns like the jet stream, El Niño or monsoons. The trouble with tipping points is they’re hard to spot until you’ve passed one.
Why the miss? Blame the computers: These non-linear events are notoriously hard to model. But with scientists recognizing the sizeable threat tipping points represent, they will be including some projections in the 2013-14 assessment.
This article originally appeared at The Daily Climate, the climate change news source published by Environmental Health Sciences, a nonprofit media company.
See what we're tweeting about
74 Comments
Add CommentThe writer of this article; Glenn Scherer, seems to promote the spreading of inaccurate propaganda and untrue statements which seems typical of this publication. He writes “scientists believe” vs. accurately writing that some individual person or scientist believes without acknowledging that there are many, many other scientists who view the situation differently.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLet’s review some of the claims in this propaganda piece by Scherer
He wrote- “The IPCC’s overly conservative reading of the science, they say, means governments and the public could be blindsided by the rapid onset of the flooding, extreme storms, drought, and other impacts associated with catastrophic global warming.”
My response- Idiots try to claim that any recent bad weather has been caused by cAGW but when you look at the actual long term data trends you find that there is not any significant change from the long term data. Notice how Scherer did not post the link to any data that supported the claimed increase in flooding, extreme storms, drought, etc. in any particular area.
He wrote: “Sea-level rise is another. In its 2001 report, the IPCC predicted an annual sea-level rise of less than 2 millimeters per year. But from 1993 through 2006, the oceans actually rose 3.3 millimeters per year, more than 50 percent above that projection.”
My response- We have had measurements of sea level rise since late 1992 and that data has shown a consistent rate of rise of about 3mm per year. It has not increased in the entire time we have had reasonably accurate measurements. The rate of rise will have to more than double to reach the lower end of the IPCC predicted rise of approximately .6 meters by 2100. There being ZERO evidence of a change in the rate of rise from the non threatening 1 foot per century rate we are seeing.
He wrote- “In November, scientists at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colo., took a closer look at the computer models underpinning most climate predictions and concluded future warming is likely to be on the high side of climate projections.”
My response- This one is the spreading of untruth. The fact is that the computer models the IPCC used have overstated the rate of temperature rise and not understated it has been reported. I have attached the link to the actual analysis. http://rankexploits.com/musings/2012/trends-relative-to-models/
What do the IPCC models indicate for the evolution of the North American continental ice sheet melting that occurred at the end of the last ice age. And what was the cause of it? Why is Ohio not under a hundred foot ice sheet and who do we blame?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSisko,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMost "scientists believe" your statements are "inaccurate propaganda and untrue statements." Everything you said has been debunked numerous times on this site and elsewhere.
Regardless of one's belief of the relative accuracy of satellite observations versus tide gauges, sea level rise was not anywhere close to 3.3 mm/yr over the 19th and 20th centuries. You seem to believe it was, which then allows you to believe there is no acceleration. Tide gauges have also showed the same acceleration.
The premise is that IPCC projected less 2 mm/yr in 2001 and it was underestimated. Are you claiming this was NOT an underestimate?
Sisko is always in error because he cherry-picks.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhen there's an article/comment about long-term temperature and sea level TRENDS focusing on projections to the year 2100 AD, he only concentrates on volatile short-term data for the last ten years.
When there's an article/comment about increased VOLATILITY of observed short-term data, Sisko closes his eyes to that volatility and only looks at long term trends (100 year datasets of rainfall in Nebraska and Colorado to claim droughts are not out of the ordinary).
Cramer
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou just do not like to admit when you are wrong, but you should be used to it since it has been shown so frequently.
I have made no claims about sea level pre 1992 when accurate measurement have been available. Since that time is has been rising at a pretty steady rate that would have to double to meet the IPCC forecast. You on the other hand seem to rely upon what I believe you know are very poor records of sea level prior to our having data from satellites to measure seal level worldwide.
Please Cramer, attempt to show ANY of the propaganda written by Scherer to be accurate. Show where there has been an unusual drought trend somewhere unprecedented historically. You seem to like to claim bad things are happening without evidence to support the claim. (kind of like your and the author of this propaganda do on sea level change.
"Reality: In 2011, Global emissions totaled 31.6 billion tons of carbon, according to the International Energy Agency, exceeding IPCC’s worst-case scenario 88 years ahead of schedule."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSorry, but this is fiction, not fact. Scherer has made a fundamental error here, of the type not generally found in SciAm articles. He has confused 'carbon' with 'carbon dioxide'. Perhaps a basic course in chemistry might be in order for this writer before he attempts any more articles of this type. The amount of carbon contained in 31.6 GT of CO2 is less than 40% of the mass of the CO2 in question in this paragraph, or just under 12 GT of carbon. The figures cited by Mr. Scherer are for the annual human contribution of CO2 to the atmosphere, not that of carbon.
As for the rest of the article, it is passable, but repeats what we who have been reading science regularly have known for many years now, that our combustion of fossil fuels is changing the planet's atmosphere and warming the world. This has been evident since the 1980s or earlier. However, as evidenced by some of the seemingly disbelieving comments before mine, this repetition of seemingly basic facts will likely be necessary for some time to come, as some people would rather attempt make up their own reality than accept the one revealed by scientific research.
So, keep on repeating the message until it sinks in, but please, try to get the facts right. If you don't do the fact checking, someone else like me will do it, and it always looks better if you get it right the first time.
The IPCC has overestimated & given wild predictions on many more occasions than the reverse. Temperature increases have not increased in parallel with CO2 increase. The predicted demise of Himalayan Glacier is NOT occurring, they are stable.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisA massive storm was responsible driving ice out of the Arctic Ocean this season but recovery has been thefatst ever recorded & is now greater than at the same time last year. This northern summer a few years ago was predicted to be the fist ice free in the Arctic. For yeas the IPCC has been explaining why Antrctic Ice was growing. Now they say it is declining yet Antarctic sea ice is at record levels.
Those are just a few examples.
This is supposed to be a scientific magazine. Why is it almost invariably late in reporting things like this:
Gore foiled. Himalayan glaciers grow back
Andrew Bolt –, Friday, December, 07, 2012, (12:04am)
Global warming - dud predictions
Don’t tell me Al Gore was exaggerating again!
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/
Do not bother trying to shoot the messenger.
Just a quick comment to Sisko and Cramer on the sea-level rise issue. Keep in mind that the RATE of rise is increasing or accelerating, not constant, and this will account for the predicted rise in sea levels forecast by the IPCC. Naturally, there are still many unknowns in the details, but the main trends are apparent, and the models converge on the range of estimates provided, unless new and previously unconsidered factors come to light (which is not impossible).
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWe would be wise to note that so far, these unknowns have generally proven that our case is worse than we originally estimated, not better, a trend which may continue however much we wish otherwise, as we push research further. Ice requires huge quantities of energy to melt, but once it is melted, then the temperature of the water starts to increase, which in turn melts the ice faster, etc.
One thing many people fail to understand in this phenomenon is the huge systemic inertia which must initially be overcome before there are clearly measurable changes - I think we can now say that the initial inertia is overcome, and the warming process is in motion. It is important to realize that the process will not stop if we stop emitting fossil CO2, but gradually slow down (i.e warming will continue, but at a gradually decreasing rate until equilibrium is reached again) over a period of decades or centuries, and I see no serious signs that we will stop emitting fossil CO2 any time soon.
Sisko,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou have already confirmed that sea level has been rising by at least 3 mm/yr since the early 1990s. You have also said there is no proof of acceleration. Please provide evidence that sea level was rising at a rate of 3 mm/yr in the 19th and 20th centuries. When 100 years projections are being made, you might want to consider more data than just 20 years of data.
You are the one claiming that Glen Scherer is wrong (not only that but you seem to be calling him a liar). He has provided plenty of details and references. You have provided nothing but misframed arguments, anecdotes, gut feelings, and an analysis of only ten years of data at rankexploits.com. The onus is one you to provide the evidence that he is wrong, especially after such libelous statements (which says something about your level of scientific expertise).
It is simple: show us that IPCC did not make the projections Scherer claims they made in their 1990, 1995, 2001, and 2007 IPCC reports. And/or show us that the new observations are wrong.
For example:
1. "In the 2001 report, the IPCC projected a sea rise of 2 millimeters per year. ... Observed sea-level-rise has averaged 3.3 millimeters per year since 1990."
Either prove that this was not in the 2001 report and/or prove that sea level is not currently rising faster than 2 mm/yr. You already agreed it's been rising at 3 mm/yr, so I can only guess you believe the 2 mm/yr projection was not in the 2001 IPCC report.
2. In the 2001 report IPCC projected CO2 emissions of 8 to 30 billion tons/yr by 2100. CO2 emissions in 2011 were 31.6 billion tons.
Prove any of these numbers wrong.
And I could continue, but I am hoping that you might now understand how to properly refute the claims you say are not true.
Sisko,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere is absolutely no way of getting through to people like you--believe me, I've tried. So we try to make progress w/o you.
criordon,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSisko has said many times that there is zero proof the acceleration of sea level rise. Not I.
Please address your statements to him (and please use the reply button).
A very lively discussion. How many of the writers believe that there will be a lively discussion of this issue (or of anything much) in, say, 2050?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI know, the models say nothing about the frequency and duration of discussions.
criordon,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou are correct about carbon emissions. Thanks for pointing that out.
P.S.
Sisko,
See how proper refutation works?
The attached link shows the rate of sea level change since accurate measurements have been available. http://sealevel.colorado.edu/
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMeasures prior to satellite data having been available were highly unreliable and the margin of error of these measures makes them of little to no value today.
What Cramer continually tries to ignore or pretend isn’t true is that sea level is rising at a rate of 3mm per year or approximately 1 foot between 2000 and 2100. This means that the rate of sea level rise will have to double from the currently observed rate in order for the .6 meters the IPCC predicted in AR4 to happen. It will have to more than triple for sea level to rise by 1 meter by 2100. There is ZERO evidence to support the claim that it is likely to occur.
PT- I respect your right to have any belief system that you feel appropriate as long as you do not try to force your beliefs upon others. Maybe you believe that the rate of sea level rise will more than double, or maybe you believe in space aliens. I look at the data to support rational conclusions.
We do not know the rate by which the planet is warming as a function of additional CO2
We do not know the net results of a warmer planet or if it will be better overall or worse for humanity. We certainly have no reliable data to tell us what country will be harmed or which ones will benefit.
There is no realistic method to not prevent CO2 levels from rising for decades to come.
Whatever additioanl levels of CO2 will do to change the weather around the world will have to be adapted to by humanity since atmospheric concentrations will not go down from where there are for many many decades.
But the rate of sea level rise has not accelerated over the last 20 years when we had relaible data has it?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere is validity in some of your points but if inertia is a significant factor in continental ice melt, & I believe it is, any melt we see now must be because of heat input from before the present industrial age. You can not have it both ways.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI fail to see the validity of your comment. Nowhere in the comment to which you are referring did I mention melting of continental ice (although glacier comparison photos from the past century will confirm that this is indeed happening). I did refer to ice melting generally, but was thinking more of the Arctic ice cap and the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets. I did specifically refer to SYSTEMIC inertia. There is no either/or about the argument. Yes there are lag times, but it would be silly to imagine that I would somehow have to exclude the hundreds of billions of tons of CO2 that we have dug up and are industriously putting back into the atmosphere, damn the consequences.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThink of the planet like a pot of water on a stove. If it's been sitting there awhile with the stove OFF, it is at room temperature, and will stay that way until the temperature of the room changes OR someone turns on the stove to add heat to the water (or until the water evaporates). When you turn the stove on, the water is NOT instantly hot - there is thermal inertia, and it takes time for the energy from the stove to warm up the water. For the first minute or so, it is still pretty safe to stick your bare hand in the water without risk of being burned, but after awhile, the water gets hotter, until it reaches boiling point, at which point it undergoes phase change to vapour, and when it is gone, the pot melts. This is simple science that we learn in elementary and high school, and the same science that applies to the pot of water applies to the planet - it's just a lot more complex.
Bad comparison, you say, because on Earth, the stove (Sun) is on already. No, not really. Yes the Sun is on, and has been since there was any life on the planet, but the planet is always in an equilibrium state, since the input from the Sun is balanced by the loss of heat re-radiated to space from the atmosphere. The amount of heat re-radiated to space depends on how much CO2 (and other "greenhouse" gases) are in the atmosphere. For as long as humans have been on Earth, the maximum CO2 content of the atmosphere (until the 19th Century) never passed 280 parts per million (PPM) or 0.028%, going back about 4 million years - before that, there were no humans. Today, we are at about 392 PPM and we passed 400 PPM in the Arctic in May 2012 (there are few or no trees in the Arctic to take up CO2). There were times when the CO2 content was lower than 280 PPM (and sea level was 70 feet lower, and there was ice a mile thick on half of North America), but not higher.
Alternatively, think about the ice like a highball. As long as there is ice in the drink, it stays cold, there is condensation on the glass. As soon as the ice is gone, the drink begins to warm up, and if left long enough, will become the same temperature as the room. How long the ice lasts depends on the temperature of the room. If you put your drink in the pot on the stove, you can melt the ice in quite a hurry if the stove is on. Parts of the Antarctic ice sheet have been dated as older than 400,000 years - that ice was there before the first humans came out of Africa, and has been in some form of equilibrium ever since. There is a reason why we refer to the ice sheets as our planetary air conditioner. If we ever lose them, rather than living on a planet which nurtures us and life which is familiar to us, we will be obliged to adapt to a planet with harsh or hostile conditions and contend with species which are trying to do similarly.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMany of the animals and food crops we rely on do not do well when temperatures get too high. They won't necessarily die, but yields diminish, health problems and diseases increase. Some reptiles stop reproducing, non-migratory species find themselves in a climate they cannot thrive in, etc.... We humans can adapt pretty well, even to things we have never experienced before, but the natural world does not have the same capacity, and like it or not, we are almost entirely reliant on the bounty of the natural world, and we have already tweaked a lot of plants and animals substantially to augment productivity.
Before we started adding extra blankets to the bed, more wood to the fire, more CO2 to the atmosphere, the average temperature of earth was about the way it had always been ever in any human experience, sometimes colder, never warmer. Now, it is slightly warmer, and set to get much warmer - as warm as the planet was 65 million years ago when the last dinosaur extinction began, 60 million years before our most distant human ancestors evolved, when atmospheric CO2 levels reached well over 1500 PPM. Do we really want to continue this experiment just to see what happens? It would be a lot less dangerous to drive your Hummer into a huge crowd of people at 85 MPH, or see how many buildings you could set on fire with a single 5 gallon can of gas, than to heat up our only planet just to see what happens. BTW, DO NOT try the above experiments, as with a little common sense, it is quite possible to imagine what would happen. Ditto for global warming.
The Antarctic sea ice sheet has been expanding for thirty years.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNothing we do will alter the inexorable increase in CO2. Whether or not this is going to be a bad thing remains to be seen. the increase in CO2 has NOT resulted in a commensurate increase in temperature.
For all the howls of doom, one measure that could alleviate the situation is ruled out by those who see doom as our only fate. The only practical measure that could be taken to cut down on the burning of fossil fuel would be a global push to convert to nuclear energy production. If those who are profiting from the present hysteria by pushing for alternative energy solutions were genuine in their fears, they would be the greatest advocates of nuclear energy.
By the way, between the 14th- and 15th-century there was a period of warm temperatures and low snowpack along the Columbia and Missouri river headwaters similar to the condtions of the present day that started developing in the 1950s. Then it cooled off again. To think our present climate is unique to our times & that we are responsible for it based on our CO2 emisions, is ludicrous.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"The Antarctic sea ice sheet has been expanding for thirty years."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWrong. The RATE of LOSS is increasing, not the ice. http://www.skepticalscience.com/antarctica-gaining-ice.htm
"By the way, between the 14th- and 15th-century there was a period of warm temperatures and low snowpack along the Columbia and Missouri..."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHere you are clearly confusing local weather conditions with mean global temperature. Not the same thing. While there was a Medieval warm period, its effects were felt only in parts of the Northern hemisphere, and temperatures did not reach those experienced throughout the past decade. Global warming is just that - global.
"Global warming is NOT happening faster than predicted."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGlobal warming is happening at about the worst case (or slightly faster) level predicted in the 4th IPCC report. This was a consensus report, and reflects what the contributing scientists all agreed to. True, some scientists, like James Hansen, have been predicting global warming similar to what is being measured for nearly thirty years, but organized denial campaigns have tried to make out such predictions could only be the work of someone either incompetent or insane. He was right, so which is he? Or could it be that he was correct?
"But the rate of sea level rise has not accelerated over the last 20 years when we had relaible (sic) data has it?"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOr has it? http://climate.nasa.gov/keyIndicators/ (scroll down about 3/4 of the page).
This IS a geological phenomenon which usually plays out over thousands of centuries, not a short-term variance. Seeing even this level of change in less than a century is deeply disturbing.
There are two basic mechanisms for sea level rise: thermal expansion (which accounts for the vast majority of the foot of sea level rise seen over the past two centuries); and melting of land-based ice adding new water to the oceans (which has the potential to raise sea levels by 70m or over 230 feet if it all melts). The thermal expansion rate is fairly steady and is a function of global mean temperature increase, and fairly easy to predict. Net ice melt rate is much harder to predict, being affected by ocean and air temps, sea level, storm activity, and many other factors which have only come to light over the past 20 years (deep fractures, meltwater lubrication, moulins, flow rates, etc...).
Greenland had a net annual loss of just over 100 Billion Tons (Giga Tons or GT) in 2000, but by 2011, that had increased to around 500 GT. The Antarctic has gone from around 50 GT in 2000 to around 300 GT in 2011. Far from slowing down, this process is accelerating, and that is with our current level of global warming of around 1 degree Celsius, with the IPCC now predicting warming of 4 to 7 degrees Celsius by 2100. Feel free to draw your own conclusions. For info on snow and ice, this is a great place to start: http://nsidc.org/. For more breadth of information on climate change and related issues, this is still the best site, and much raw data is available if you wish to do your own analysis or modelling: http://www.realclimate.org/. If you are unsure of the accuracy of a claim about climate change or global warming and want a reliable scientific opinion, you can check it out here: http://www.skepticalscience.com/antarctica-gaining-ice.htm.
Above all, remember, this experiment is happening where we live, to each and every person who inhabits this planet. 97% of serious climate scientists are absolutely convinced we are changing our climate, and most of them feel that it is a bad thing. This is not from a scientific journal, but the data is accurate: http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2012/11/5-charts-about-climate-change-that-should-have-you-very-very-worried/265554/
"97% of serious climate scientists are absolutely convinced we are changing our climate, and most of them feel that it is a bad thing."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOr so criordon asserts. Lets see where that assertion derives:
The number stems from a 2009 online survey of 10,257 earth scientists, conducted by two researchers at the University of Illinois. The survey results must have deeply disappointed the researchers – in the end, they chose to highlight the views of a subgroup of just 77 scientists, 75 of whom thought humans contributed to climate change. The ratio 75/77 produces the 97% figure that warmists now repeat.
The two researchers started by altogether excluding from their survey the thousands of scientists most likely to think that the Sun, or planetary movements, might have something to do with climate on Earth – out were the solar scientists, space scientists, cosmologists, physicists, meteorologists and astronomers. That left the 10,257 scientists in disciplines like geology, oceanography, paleontology, and geochemistry that were somehow deemed more worthy of being included in the consensus. The two researchers also decided that scientific accomplishment should not be a factor in who could answer – those surveyed were determined by their place of employment (an academic or a governmental institution). Neither was academic qualification a factor – about 1,000 of those surveyed did not have a PhD, some didn’t even have a master’s diploma.
To encourage a high participation among these remaining disciplines, the two researchers decided on a quickie survey that would take less than two minutes to complete, and would be done online, saving the respondents the hassle of mailing a reply. Nevertheless, most didn’t consider the quickie survey worthy of response –just 3146, or 30.7%, answered the two questions on the survey:
1. When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?
2. Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?
Compare this to the:
http://www.petitionproject.org/index.php
With now lists 31,487 Skeptical American Scientists.
In any event, the recent letter to the UN:
http://opinion.financialpost.com/2012/11/29/open-climate-letter-to-un-secretary-general-current-scientific-knowledge-does-not-substantiate-ban-ki-moon-assertions-on-weather-and-climate-say-125-scientists/
clearly dispels any consensus myth! GK
GK:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe Petition Project was a hoax, and it is laughable that you even mentioned it. Of the 31,487 "people" who responded, 9,029 had PhD's. Of those 9,029 0nly 39 had a climatology background. Roughly 2,000 respondents were electrical engineers. You, if you chose to, could actually lie on the petition regarding your background and there was not any appropriate filter to catch those that did. The application actually allowed for respondents to have backgrounds in (among others) computer science, agriculture, zoology, food science, plant science, medicine, and metallurgy.
WTF?
So many of your statements are wrong. Where do I start?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2012/09/19/antarctic-sea-ice-sets-another-record/
Antarctic Sea Ice Sets Another Record…
Antarctic sea ice has been growing since satellites first began measuring the ice 33 years ago and the sea ice has been above the 33-year average throughout 2012.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/03/22/more-evidence-the-medieval-warm-period-was-global/
So you can dismiss the opinion of 9000 Phds because they were not climate scientists. Where does that leave the likes of Al Gore & the head of the IPCC:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2011-03-14/coimbatore/28687815_1_harmony-green-drive-renewable-energy-sources COIMBATORE: Given that human actions are increasingly interfering with the delicate balance of nature, natural disasters such as floods, earthquakes and tsunamis will occur more frequently, said Dr Rajendra K Pachauri, director general of TERI, and the chief of the inter-governmental panel on Climate Change.
Already read that one, buddy.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou are starting to be redundant, maybe running out of ammo (blank shells).
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
This denier myth has been thoroughly debunked many times, including by SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN. For further documentation:http://www.merchantsofdoubt.org/; http://www.desmogblog.com/. Is the world still flat, or has that one been debunked too?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAh, nothing like relying on a conservative business magazine and a denier website for accurate scientific information about global warming, is there? Try again.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere were dead people and pets on the list, and the few serious scientists whose names were on the list (without their permission) requested that their names be removed. Let's try a little science, shall we? http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus.htm
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCalling scepticalscience a reliable & factual web site is like naming a habitual arsonist a good fireman. You realy MUST be joking.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhy don't you ask a few climate scientists their view on the veracity of skepticalscience? I doubt you would find them disagreeing with me (unless you ask Fred Singer or one of his camp). They have debunked lots of Tony Watts' claims.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCarlyle:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisStop before you run out of breath. I hope that you are paid by the oil industry, for your sake. They are not getting their money's worth.
Still waiting to hear back from you regarding the "Petiton Project".
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnd you refer to Forbes (not one reputable climate scientist has written an article for Forbes) and the BS site WUWT?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHere is a summary regarding climate change from a "conservative business":
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Population growth and economic development are driving energy demand. All energy sources will be needed, with fossil fuels meeting the bulk of demand. At the same time CO2 emissions must be reduced to avoid serious climate change. To manage CO2, governments and industry must work together. Government action is needed and we support an international framework that puts a price on CO2, encouraging the use of all CO2-reducing technologies."
Shell Oil
http://www.shell.com/home/content/environment_society/environment/climate_change/
Sorry, that post was directed at Carlyle. My bad, criordon. I apologise.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOn the one hand you accuse those you do not agree with of being in the pay of big oil, next you quote Shell oil as being on the other side of the fence. The fact is big oil wins qudos, subsidies & contracts by supporting with donations (Bribes), Green organisations & the AGW groups far in excess of the miniscule donations to the sceptics.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Qudos"? I think you mean "kudos". "Blinkers"? I think you mean "blinders".
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou can not be taken seriously, because of your illiteracy, that which you accused me of.
The "skeptics", as you refer to, take roughly 4.3 billion dollars per year in tax subsidies.
Who do you think has a bigger stake in the scheme? Scientists? Or is it the oil companies, who share an unprecedented profit in regards to global business in general, and whose product is fostering climate change and destroying local ecology?
My point was that even the oil companies are aware of the adverse effects of their product. If you are able to get them to admit it, then why do you not do so as well?
You probably know the answer, as you may (I'll only give you credit if it is true) be paid by them.
Who is illiterate?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Blinkers?s=t
Blinkers: either of two leather flaps on a bridle, to prevent a horse from seeing sideways; a blinder. See illus. under harness.
Yes, I often make spelling errors. I hope that gives you a great sense of superiority. You do not have many other arrows in your quiver.
HUFBAUER: Debunking the big-oil subsidy myth
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisEnergy companies receive same tax treatment as other manufacturers
Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/dec/7/debunking-the-big-oil-subsidy-myth/#ixzz2ERYwZsBr
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/09/23/skeptical-science-conspiracy-theorist-john-cook-runs-another-survey-trying-to-prove-that-false-97-of-climate-scientists-believe-in-global-warming-meme/
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI found the methodology of the sample selection quite ridiculous:
Our search of the ISI Web of Science database has found X of your papers published between 1991 and 2011 matching the search phrases ‘global warming’ or ‘global climate change’ (noting that due to the specific search parameters, it’s possible that some of your papers may not be included). It’s not essential that you are an expert in attribution of global warming
With all the caterwauling at SkS by Cook himself and elsewhere about my supposedly “non-expert” involvement in expressing my invited opinion on the PBS News Hour, here in Cook’s world, they simply don’t care if you are an expert or not if you have an opinion on global warming/climate change. Such hypocrisy. I suppose we can call this the “cartoonist clause” since Mr. Cook is a cartoonist by trade.
"All energy sources will be needed, with fossil fuels meeting the bulk of demand. At the same time CO2 emissions must be reduced to avoid serious climate change."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis is evidently a complete contradiction in terms, although I will readily concede that we have no choice but to continue to use fossil fuels until we have other energy sources established, but we are VERY rapidly running out of runway on this one.
We are teetering on the edge of permanently losing the Arctic Ocean ice sheet, which will significantly change the energy balance in the North during summer as the dark oceans absorb increasing quantities of the Sun's energy that was once mostly reflected back to space. this in turn will unleash a chain of events that will make our move to a permanently warmer climate inevitable and unavoidable.
As the oceans warm, methane and CO2 release from melting peat and clathrates increases, this will be increasingly added to our own CO2 output (hopefully decreasing). There is ample and multiplying evidence of both these processes accelerating, from slumping Arctic permafrost (now a misnomer) to a sub-sea methane plume a kilometer (0.6 miles) wide.
Predictions are increasingly suggesting that in 5 to 8 years, we will witness the first period when the Arctic Ocean will be completely free of any significant solid ice mass (other than floating debris ice). Minimum Arctic sea ice area usually occurs mid-September.
We are poised at the top of a potentially long slide depending how much more greenhouse gas - principally CO2 and methane - we dump (and create the conditions for the 'natural' release of) into our atmosphere. If we go down this slide, we cannot simply walk around to the ladder and climb back up. We must walk entirely around the planet, and cross two major oceans - in really bad weather, without using fossil fuels. The potential for the slide has always existed, but we made it real, and we build it higher with every tank of gas burned, and with every light bulb powered by coal, oil, or gas.
You very well know we cannot just stop using fossil fuel, but we are really overdue to make the move to alternatives, with all possible haste. If we do, we may preserve the option of climbing back down the ladder.
"Sorry, that post was directed at Carlyle. My bad, criordon. I apologise."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNo trouble. My reply to it may be worth reading in any event. :)
"Energy companies receive same tax treatment as other manufacturers"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWith combined profits in the hundreds of billions of dollars annually, do the energy companies really need the same tax treatment as other manufacturers? Other manufacturers are in fact almost entirely dependent on the energy companies for the electricity and transportation fuel they NEED to do business.
Is it right to pay the energy companies to perpetuate the use of energy sources which are very clearly putting the lives of billions of people at risk, and for the most part, people who have absolutely no means of defending themselves because they do no yet exist.
No, of course it is not right, and the energy companies, along with every other individual and institution should be working together to find sources of energy the energy companies can use to power our society, which will not inevitably cause us great harm and even possibly much worse. Keep in mind that Venus (a terrestrial planet, like ours) is suffering from a very bad case of runaway Greenhouse effect, with a mean global temperature of 462 degrees Celsius (863 F). At this temperature, most of the carbon has been baked out of the planet and into the atmosphere (96.5% CO2)
It is doubtful we could even possibly reach these temperatures on Earth even if we burn every last ounce of fossil fuel on our planet, but we can get a good part of the way there. Long before we even reached this point, there would be no surface dwellers left on Earth, a and at some point the original life forms of our planet, ocean-dwelling, hydrogen sulfide producing purple bacteria would re-inhabit turning the atmosphere to a poisonous fog. Paleogeologists have found evidence that such an event likely happened at least once about a quarter of a billion years ago, and wiped out over 90% of all the species on the planet. Among others, sharks and jellyfish survived this ordeal.
The only way humanity would survive such a fate would to be to find a way to live off-planet, with no hope of return to this one in any meaningful human time-frame. Is it not a whole lot simpler to attempt to stave off even the possibility of such an outcome, especially since we have been watching it come now for 30 years, and the evidence is getting more and more "in-your-face"?
"I found the methodology of the sample selection quite ridiculous:"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThen perhaps instead of whining about it, you can do better. As I previously suggested, a great deal of the original data climate scientists use is available at http://www.realclimate.org/.
One of the principal founders of this site, (which has become a collection point for climate science research data and results once published) is Dr. Michael Mann, the climate scientist whose data produced the graph commonly referred to as "The Hockey Stick" graph.
While those in denial accuse him of fabricating the graph for some nefarious purposes of social control, it is quite simply a pictorial representation of the numbers collected from tens of thousands of sources. All subsequent accurate analyses of the same data, and any new data uncovered in the interim) have produced a graph almost identical in shape (as one would expect from people studying the same event). Dr. Mann's story is riveting, and the trials he went through as he was effectively assaulted by an organized campaign to discredit him and his work and the work of associated scientists for political purposes, ought to be known by all. Anyone interested can read the entire story: http://cup.columbia.edu/book/978-0-231-15254-9/the-hockey-stick-and-the-climate-wars, and it is time very well spent. The book was published in 2012, and so is reasonably up to date.
If there is something on realclimate.org which you cannot find, and if it exists, any self-respecting climate scientist will usually be more than happy to share data with you. Sometimes, analytical software and algorithms are available as well, but these are often the intellectual property of their creator or their funding research organism, so generally it is best to create your own.
For anyone hoping to genuinely understand Global warming and its causes, I would also recommend "The Weather Makers" by Tim Flannery, as a seminal work. While not as recent, it does a wonderful and readable job of covering the basic science behind the problem. You can find it here: http://www.theweathermakers.org/
Sisko wrote: "But the rate of sea level rise has not accelerated over the last 20 years when we had relaible (sic) data has it?"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI got into this discussion in response to the sea-level rise issue. So, to update...
This in last week from Science Magazine (one of the big two): http://www.sciencemag.org/content/338/6111/1183.full
You can only read the summary, unless you are a member or willing to buy the paper, but that is enough. If you are not a member and want more details, Joe Romm gives us a more detailed look here: http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/11/30/1260591/science-stunner-greenland-ice-melt-up-nearly-five-fold-since-mid-1990s-antarticas-ice-loss-up-50-in-past-decade/. Presuming I read this correctly, at least the ice melt contribution to average sea level rise has increased in the past 20 years to the point where it is about double the average rate of the 20th Century. Wikipedia has this to say, "Observational and modelling studies of mass loss from glaciers and ice caps indicate a contribution to sea-level rise of 0.2–0.4 mm/yr, averaged over the 20th century." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Current_sea_level_rise
For sea level rise in North America, the NOAA gives us detailed data trends here: http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends.shtmlThis may seem confusing, because some places are rising, some decreasing (in the same way that weather often gets mistaken for climate change), but the global mean is the really important measure here, and it is rising at an accelerating rate. National Geographic has claims so here: http://ocean.nationalgeographic.com/ocean/critical-issues-sea-level-rise/. Skepticalscience shows a graph which corroborates this also: http://www.skepticalscience.com/sea-level-rise.htm. The University of Colorado has an excellent resource for GMSL, including multiple analyses which confirm each other: http://sealevel.colorado.edu/. Finally, Weather Underground does an excellent job of describing and analysing the issue in considerabloe detail here: http://www.wunderground.com/climate/SeaLevelRise.asp.
Here is one more authoritative study on ice sheet loss: http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.php?release=2012-376&cid=release_2012-376. Sadly, it is pretty clear the process is accelerating.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs the ice melts and the polar regions warm, the temperature differential change relative to the equatorial regions is affecting the jet stream, leading to the increased frequency of blocking patterns (http://www.theweatherprediction.com/blocking/) such as the one that drove hurricane Sandy inland (http://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/comment.html?entrynum=958) allowing storms to linger longer (http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-12-08/phillipines-declares-state-of-calamity-following-bopha/4416780)and cause more extreme weather events - heavier precipitation, longer droughts, more significant and longer snow storms and hot spells. How would East Coast residents feel if Sandy were to have returned a week after the initial devastation to do it all again, as seems to be happening in the Phillipines?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI know you are well intentioned & genuine in your concerns. I share some of them. I am not defending big oil, merely pointing out the dishonesty in the claims repeatedly made about them. So many lies are told about global warming that you can not simply believe what you read without checking out the counter arguments & then try & form a balanced view. You will find credible counter arguments to most if not all the claims you are relying on. Take sea level rises for example. How can you believe claims made about the area you live in, by researchers in another country, when actual physical tide gauges carved in rock show the claims are false? There are such gauges in New Zealand, the Eastern side & the Western side of the Australian continent. A span of many thousands of miles covering the Western Pacific & Eastern Indian Oceans.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTim Flannery is despised b many in Australia. His claims & predictions have cost us billions of dollars. He is the chief climate adviser to our government. Some years ago while Australia was in the midst of a drought, which occur regularly through our history, he convinced our State & Federal Governments that this was the new normal. That there was absolutely no point in building new dams to cope with our growing poulaton, dealination plants must be built. The drought broke as they always do. Billions of dollars worth of useless desal plants on care & maintenance & rate payers saddled with paying for it all. New dams could have been built at a fraction of the cost. He also makes outrageous claims about sea level predictions in the metres, not millimetres. You can Google his false predictions. Also he relies on dubious sources for his claims.
In summary, I would like to see a reduction in the use of fossil fuels but I spent ten years in the alternative energy field & know alternatives can only play a minor role. They will never be the answer. You really must go to other sites to gain a balanced view. You certainly will no obtain it at Sceptical science.
http://notrickszone.com/2012/12/06/meteorologist-klaus-eckart-puls-sea-level-rise-has-slowed-34-over-the-last-decade/
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMeteorologist Klaus-Eckart Puls: Sea Level Rise Has Slowed 34% Over The Last Decade!
Don't know where Sikso lives, here on Earth? From right here, around my home in the Midwest, the evidence is clear. There is less snow, fewer cold days, from one decade to the next. The droughts are more frequent and last longer.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTo make his case Carlyle references Klaus-Eckart Puls... Wow! There is so much bias in his analysis that climatologists can only laugh at this meteorologist. Carlyle's link is for the English translation. Puls' analysis was originally posted on the website of the German climate skeptics (i.e. denialist) organization, EIKE.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHis interview at Factum shows his biases. Zero substantance and bunch of name calling. Here's one of his more scientific statements (that's not riddle with ad hominem attacks):
"There are a great number of factors that influence sea level, e.g. tectonic processes, continental shifting, wind currents, passats, volcanoes. Climate change is only one of ten factors."
It's telling that he only mentioned the factors that influence LOCAL sea levels or are insignificant. We all know that Louisiana is sinking and Alaska is rising. All the factors he provides either net out to ZERO at the GLOBAL level or are insignificant in the short-term (< 1 million years).
Why did he not mention the factors that influence GLOBAL sea levels and are the most significant, like thermal expansion and continental ice? Oh yeah... I guess they have to do with climate change.
ONE of Australia's foremost experts on the relationship between climate change and sea levels has written a peer-reviewed paper concluding that rises in sea levels are "decelerating". http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/sea-level-rises-are-slowing-tidal-gauge-records-show/story-fn59niix-1226099350056
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe above gauges span a distance of 3500 miles across the Tasman Sea, the entire width of Australia to the Indian Ocean. You call this Local?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe researcher stated that:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"What we are seeing in all of the records is there are relatively high rates of sea-level rise evident post-1990"
And:
"that studies of a small number of northern hemisphere records spanning two or three centuries had found a small acceleration in sea-level rises. He said it was possible the rises could be subject to "climate-induced impacts projected to occur over this century".
You should read articles that you refer to.
Yes. Ignore the decelerating bit. it does not fit the meme.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thiscriordon
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSo the bottom line is thatyou acknowledge that sea level is not rising at an alrming rate currently, but your BELIEF is that the rate of rise will increase in the future. You might be correct or you might be wrong. Is it also your belief that everyone else should be forced to agree with your belief system? Sounds like a forced 1 world religion.
Sisko couldn't resist inserting the word "propaganda" into his comments. That speaks directly to the underlying fallacy of most climate change deniers: They think there's a conspiracy among the world's scientists, the world's governments, and the world's press to promote evidence of climate change. It's absurd on its face.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAustralia/New Zealand sea level rise...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYes, I call that local.
A better question might be: Do you call this global?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOn the other hand you regard the false claims by island nations that they are being swamped as global.
"In summary, I would like to see a reduction in the use of fossil fuels but I spent ten years in the alternative energy field & know alternatives can only play a minor role. They will never be the answer. You really must go to other sites to gain a balanced view. You certainly will no obtain it at Sceptical science."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisEither you are in the pay of the fossil fuel industry, or their brainwashing has been nearly 100% effective in your case. Briefly, you are presenting falsehoods as facts, and denying the truth. Obviously, you "simply believe what you read without checking out the counter arguments". I have read all the links and the books to which I give reference, and furthermore, I have spent the last seven years intensively studying the issues, and recognize your references for the false arguments they represent. There will always be a few people like you who wish to remain willfully ignorant for whatever reason, but that does not mean you have to keep publishing evidence of your ignorance in public. please desist.
"Meteorologist Klaus-Eckart"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI could find no material by this individual published in any peer-reviewed literature, only a handful of references on well-known denier sites, most of which are documented as being funded by the oil or coal industries.
And you believe this individual is better qualified than either NASA or the NOAA to determine sea-level rise? Really? REALLY? You don't have children, do you, otherwise you might even care. Yes, Germany has global warming deniers too.
"ONE of Australia's foremost experts on the relationship between climate change and sea levels"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisis strangely absent from the list of experts on the relationship between climate change and sea levels in Australia. Why? Could it be because he is NOT indeed one of the leading experts in this area?
To find out what the real experts think, this article actually quotes experts: http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/sharp-rise-in-sea-levels-to-australias-north-report-20120703-21e6n.html
"Yes. Ignore the decelerating bit. it does not fit the meme."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisReal science does not ignore the inconvenient bits. In fact, they are especially precious, as they are often the parts that make or break a hypothesis. Global warming and climate change are not memes EXCEPT in the anti-scientific rhetoric of the deniers, into which category you seem increasingly to belong.
"So the bottom line is thatyou (sic) acknowledge that sea level is not rising at an alrming (sic) rate currently, but your BELIEF is that the rate of rise will increase in the future."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn fact, I do find the accelerating rate of sea level rise to be most alarming. Furthermore, it is not a belief that the rate of rise will increase in the future. It is a probability, and the likelihood or unlikelihood of the probability becoming reality is entirely dependent on how humanity deals with the clear and present problem that adding CO2 to the atmosphere raises the temperature of the planet.
There is a definite probability that anyone's house might burn down. The probability is very low if the house is built of fireproof materials, has an alarm system connected to a monitoring service, has automatic sprinklers, is inhabited by people with safe practices, is not in a war zone, and is not in an area naturally prone to fire risks (flammable forests, volcanoes, etc...). We generally buy insurance in the unlikely event that our house might burn down, and we do not want to be stuck with the entire cost of replacing the house and its contents - we share the risk.
If the house has a very high probability of burning down, most insurance companies will refuse the risk (as they now do for flood insurance in risky coastal zones), or write exclusions into the contract so the loss will only be covered in the event of certain types of risk.
In the case of global warming, the probability of losing all the Arctic Ocean sea ice periodically each year starting sometime this decade is likely over 50% (no insurance company will accept this level of risk unless the premium is over 50% of the insured loss), and growing higher.
The risk of losing the totality of the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets is not zero, but is unknown and unknowable without knowing in advance how humans will do in reducing the CO2 emitted into the atmosphere. It might be 0.05%, it might be 3%, it might be 15%. The only thing we know with certainty is that the more CO2 we add to what we have already put into (and caused to be released into) the atmosphere, the higher the risk of long-term catastrophe, and the less the chance of reducing or reversing the risk.
What I believe in this case depends on how society, governments and businesses react to the warning signs. So far, the prognosis is very poor, and the time for effective action is passing, so I believe the probability of a catastrophic outcome is also high. Events may change my beliefs. I really hope they do.
"On the other hand you regard the false claims by island nations that they are being swamped as global."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt is unclear to me whether this sentence actually has any meaning, but in the off-chance that it does, I shall risk a response.
Firstly, the allegations that the claims of island nations being swamped is false belies the evidence. The evidence shows sea levels rising, storms worsening, and precipitation events becoming more intense. On an island where the maximum height of land above sea level is one meter (just over 3 feet), how much storm surge would be required to "swamp" the island? Oh, about 3 1/2 feet would do it (and that's not counting waves). Let's see, what was the storm surge for hurricane Sandy? According to this map, http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/refresh/graphics_at3+shtml/030836.shtml?gm_esurge, pretty much the entire coast from Virginia to Massachusetts got well over 3 feet, and some areas of New York and New Jersey got close to 15 feet. Seems pretty plausible that unless the rest of the planet is miraculously storm-free, the inhabitants of those islands have a valid argument, and actual measurements, photo and video records prove their point.
So much for your false claim about false claims. We shall add it to your growing list. As to the question of whether or not this is global, it is more global than your reference (which is in itself inaccurate) to Australia.
As you obviously have difficulty in understanding the concept of global, it really only refers to an averaging of measurements taken around the planet, in both hemispheres, from as many points as possible. As the BEST study (prompted in part by Tony Watts whining about the biased readings used by climate researchers) showed, even a few hundred representative recording locations will give a very accurate picture of global average temperatures, and the tens of thousands of locations we have today offer finer degradation of the values, but do not change the overall picture. A 1 MP camera and a 16 MP camera will show the same image, but the latter has less grain and better detail.
The global view is the average value, and it has clearly been shown, time and again, even by studies paid for by the Koch brothers themselves, temperature is shown to be rising, and it necessarily follows that in a warmer world, the sea level must also rise, from BOTH thermal expansion and from melting ice, as it has been doing for some two hundred years at a gradually increasing rate, and will continue to do for the foreseeable future.
All your claims here are incorrect except one, and it is virtually meaningless.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn effect, your first two claims would be correct if you added the conditional "compared to the worst-case scenario."
As for your third claim, "Asian glaciers are melting slower than was forecasted," it requires both a condition "in relation to the erroneous date published in the 4th IPCC assessment", and the conditional "it is the only area of the planet where this is occurring. All other glaciers and ice caps are melting faster than predicted."
You might want to watch this: http://www.chasingice.com/ Balog is a photographer, but here he is doing science as well as art.
We read: Sinking Island Holds Underwater Meeting
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://www.motherjones.com/blue-marble/2009/10/sinking-island-holds-underwater-meeting
Later we read: Sunday, September 25, 2011
Maldives crying for climate reparations while building new airports, hotels, and yacht marinas
9/25/11, "Walking the walk: Maldives constructing 11 new airports, each with hotels and yacht marinas too?" TomNelson.blogspot.com
"2009: 11 new airports to be constructed in Maldives | Maldives Tourism Update
The Government is working to construct 11 new regional airports in 11 regions and work is under way to complete them as soon as possible
...
The Minister further said the construction work of these airports have been handed to Airports Investment Management Company which is a company established for this project. There will be a 200 bed hotel, a yacht marina and a transit hotel in every airport in order to
http://doingadvancework.blogspot.com.au/2011/09/maldives-crying-for-climate-reparations.html
I would say you have had your seven years of plenty. No doubt at taxpayers expense. Be prepared for the bubble to burst.
Carlye said, "On the other hand you regard the false claims by island nations that they are being swamped as global."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI will not touch your "false claims" point, but only the illogic of your entire statement. Any single point on the globe is not a global point, but do actually believe that global conditions can not effect any single point on the globe?
"We read: Sinking Island Holds Underwater Meeting"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTrue enough. Since the principal source of revenue on the Maldives is tourism, it seems likely that all these construction projects are ultimately paid for by the tourists who use these facilities, rather than by the taxpayers, but that is splitting red herrings.
I note you did not comment on the $100,000,000,000 spent in the U.S. to rebuild New Orleans on an area of land which is mostly below current sea levels, on a river delta which is sinking, defended by barriers built to withstand effects from a maximum Category 3 storm (as before).
In both cases, investors seem to feel that they will be getting their money's worth, despite the potentially short duration of their construction. What can I say? Some people enjoy taking risks. This does not change the fact that sea levels are rising and that the rate of this change is increasing will to continue to increase as ice melt accelerates.
If the Maldives investors can pay off their investment in 15 or 20 years and make money while doing so, perhaps they are not crazy, but construction takes vast amounts of material and energy, most of which relies largely or entirely on the energy from fossil fuels to produce, and ends up simply making our situation worse. From this perspective, their actions are sheer folly.
Just because we have the means to do something does not imply that it is wise to do so. The only benefit from such activity is short-term and immediate, at a huge cost down the road to someone else.
"Wriggle wriggle. If the developed nations want to throw money away, who can blame them for scheming to get a share of it :)"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis is completely off-topic, which was increasing sea-level rise, not developed nations spending policy.