« Duke of Graft | Main | AP Wearing Its Bias on Its Sleeve »

Ice Age Predicted, Blamed on Global Warming

Scientist (cough) are now predicting an ice age in Europe... And they blame it on global warming. Better- they base the whole prediction on one set of ocean temps they did not expect.

Failing ocean current raises fears of mini ice age

The ocean current that gives western Europe its relatively balmy climate is stuttering, raising fears that it might fail entirely and plunge the continent into a mini ice age.

The dramatic finding [STOP THE TAPE] comes from a study of ocean circulation in the North Atlantic, which found a 30% reduction in the warm currents that carry water north from the Gulf Stream. [STOP THE TAPE]

Stop the tape... A dramatic FINDING? This is not a finding. It is a conclusion at best but more accurately a prediction. The -finding- is that some temps were not what researchers thought they were going to measure. Everything after that is conjecture.

Never let the media confuse a finding with a prediction.

The slow-down, which has long been predicted as a possible consequence of global warming, will give renewed urgency to intergovernmental talks in Montreal, Canada, this week on a successor to the Kyoto Protocol.

Bogus New Alert! When the third sentence of a news story says "See, this proves we should agree to Kyoto" the whole story is officially suspect.

Harry Bryden at the Southampton Oceanography Centre in the UK, whose group carried out the analysis, says he is not yet sure if the change is temporary or signals a long-term trend.

I'm confused... In the first 2 paragraphs it was a done deal.. It was a FINDING for goodness sake... Now we learn that the researcher has no clue if this is even a temporary change or not? Maybe that haste over Kyoto was misplaced?

We don't want to say the circulation will shut down," he told New Scientist. "But we are nervous about our findings. They have come as quite a surprise."

So.... You got some data you did not expect... From there -someone- (it's unclear who from the story) FOUND that we were going to have an ice age if we don't agree to Kyoto. This is getting thinner by the minute.

The North Atlantic is dominated by the Gulf Stream - currents that bring warm water north from the tropics. At around 40° north - the latitude of Portugal and New York - the current divides. Some water heads southwards in a surface current known as the subtropical gyre, while the rest continues north, leading to warming winds that raise European temperatures by 5°C to 10°C.

But when Bryden's team measured north-south heat flow last year, using a set of instruments strung across the Atlantic from the Canary Islands to the Bahamas, they found that the division of the waters appeared to have changed since previous surveys in 1957, 1981 and 1992.

FOUR. DATA. POINTS.

4 data points in 50 years on a planet a few bazillion years old. They get data they did not expect, they have no idea why it happened or if it is just temporary or not but by golly there is an ice age acoming and we better sign Kyoto. OY! Talk about putting several carts before a single horse.

El Niño warms the water in the Pacific every 4 or 5 years and we've known of this cycle for over 400 years. [Long before the evil United States] Could it be that maybe -just maybe- something like this might happen elsewhere on the planet? (gasp)

No, we won't look at unexpected data and wonder why we were wrong, we now look at unexpected data and draw conclusions. If we didn't know the temps were going to be that high, how the hell can we explain why they were AND use them to predict what it means for the future?

I'm not even going to finish debunking this article, it's not worth my time. But I will add, I really expected more from newscientist.com.


TrackBack

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Ice Age Predicted, Blamed on Global Warming:

» Riding Sun linked with Global warming causing ice age

» Classical Values linked with Insidious laws of nature

» Geopolitical Review linked with Might We Suggest to Stop Using Your Snowmobiles?

» Geopolitical Review linked with Supporting Kyoto by Emiting Extra CO2

Comments (68)

All I have to say is,... (Below threshold)

All I have to say is,

Somebody please tell Scrat to hang onto his acorn. I don't think I can handle him losing it again.

Random Yak, that laugh made... (Below threshold)

Random Yak, that laugh made my day a little brighter.

My tummy ached all day afte... (Below threshold)

My tummy ached all day after I ate pizza late last night.
I blame global warming.

I question the timing...</p... (Below threshold)
mojo:

I question the timing...

Global warming - I'm sure i... (Below threshold)
jp2:

Global warming - I'm sure it's nothing. Let's just wait another 50 years until the correct data rolls in. We'll just set up our research in places that aren't near the coastline, just to be sure.

-jp2

So, if I drive my gas-guzzl... (Below threshold)
Peter F.:

So, if I drive my gas-guzzling truck a little more I can plunge the French into bitter cold for decades?

I'm off to the nearest gas station and out for a little drive.

A few weeks ago: global war... (Below threshold)
Maggie:

A few weeks ago: global warming causes snow.

Now: global warming causing mini ice age.

Earth to scientists: GET YOUR STORY STRAIGHT..Is it getting WARMER or is it getting COLDER?

YOU'VE GOT TWENTY-FOUR HOURS TO DECIDE BEFORE ALL YOUR DAMN GRANT MONEY IS CUT...CUT....CUT....!

Thanksgiving is OVER, you stupid TURKEYS.

Why don't they use the infr... (Below threshold)

Why don't they use the infrared data collected from the weather satellites that have been passing over the Atlantic for nearly 30 years to show us how much things have changed? Surely they realize that if it's changed or changing they can use that data to prove it. Maybe they know it hasn't changed enough to make a difference and just want to keep that grant money coming in. They wouldn't do that, would they?

Did The Day After Tomorrow ... (Below threshold)
ProphetCat:

Did The Day After Tomorrow just open in England or something? This is the exact thing that pile of crap is based on. Looks like someone has been reading Art Bell's books again.

As entertaining as your pos... (Below threshold)
catfish:

As entertaining as your post is(I mean that, you're an excellent writer), I don't think you're entirely fair to the article. The "dramatic finding" referred to in the second sentence is the temperature drop. The article doesn't claim or imply here that scientists have FOUND that an ice age will come--only that new data (the finding) may support that hypothesis (which I'll get back to in a second).

Since it wasn't a "finding" that the gulf stream will slow down and an ice age will ensue, but merely a hypothesis, Harry Bryden was right to say that he's not sure if the change is temporary or long-term. The article and Dr. Bryden are being honest about what this data means--they have credible theories and evidence supporting them, but they're not entirely sure.

The theory that temperatures in Europe will drop, perhaps severely, if the gulf stream shuts down has been a major concern in the scientific community for decades. Salinity (salt content) of cold surface water in the far northern Atlantic Ocean makes water heavier, causing it to sink into the depths and head south, driving warm water from the Gulf of Mexico on the ocean surface north to take its place. This is the Gulf Stream and it is well understood. It's also well established that IF the massive glaciers of Greenland were to melt (and they are melting, as established by satellite imagery and on-the-ground research), the fresh water from those glaciers would enter the north atlantic, lowering the salinity of the water that fuels the Gulf Stream. If global warming raises Earth's temperatures enough to melt a significant portion of Greenland's glaciers, researchers have long feared--with good reason--that the incoming fresh water would shut down the Gulf Stream over time, which could, in turn, cause an "Ice Age" in northern Europe.

The thing is, ocean currents take a long time. It takes years for the water sinking off of Greenland to reach the Gulf. In fact, water on the floor of the ocean can move just a few inches per hour. The water on the surface moves quickly (there's a lot less of it-- after all, the ocean is extremely deep). The threat of a Gulf Stream shutdown has been researched for a long time, but because ocean currents change slowly, scientists believed that it was a long way off. Other consequences of global warming, such as glaciers melting and global temperatures rising, are already well established. This finding is the first concrete evidence that the gulf stream shut down is already happening. And the thing about Atlantic ocean currents is that they are quite stable. There's no "El Nino" in the North Atlantic. A change of this magnitude is very meaningful, and should gives us cause for alarm even if we don't know all of its implications yet.

To the poster Maggie, you tell scientists to "get their damn story straight- is it getting warmer or colder?" If you'd read the article and actually paid attention to what scientists are saying about global warming, you would know that the answer is both. The planet as a whole will get warmer (in fact, it has been getting warmer over the past century) but if the warmer weather causes the gulf stream to shut down, western Europe will get colder while the rest of the planet keeps warming up.

To the poster Bullwinkle, infrared data only tells us the surface temperature of the ocean, but doesn't give meaningful information about ocean currents and flow rate. If indeed the Gulf Stream does shut down, infrared ocean surface temperature data will be one of the later indicators. I certainly understand your confusion here though.

It is utterly shocking how ... (Below threshold)
GOP_1900AD:

It is utterly shocking how many scientists do not understand even the most basic principles regarding measurement statistics. I guess they were bored and failed to pay attention to the parts of their Freshman year Chem or Physics labs that dealt with measurement errors and repeatibility. What is the innate variability, noise, drift and other error producing factors of the measurement device? What is the innate variability in the thing being measured? Without an extensive gage R & R study such questions cannot be answered and as a result, the significance of the measurements cannot be addressed responsibly.

i love how you guys are mak... (Below threshold)
ian:

i love how you guys are making fun of scientists for being so stupid, but the original poster was too retarded to even grasp what the findings were, and refers to them several times as "temperatures" that were being measured.

they were measuring flowrates of the gulf stream current, not temperatures einstein. maybe you want to learn how to read english?

Hmmm.What I find a... (Below threshold)
ed:

Hmmm.

What I find amusing is that they define the *year* that the temperature readings were taken, but not the *month*. By not telling us the month they avoid having to tell us if the temperature readings that they're basing this nonsense on were taken during the summer months or the winter.

The Gulf Stream is based off the ocean water heated by the tropical sun. As winter sets in the northern hemisphere it's frankly logical to consider that the ocean water is not getting as much energy as it did during the summer.

Now if they're comparing winter temperatures to winter temperatures, then that might be something. But they very carefully avoid actually stating that. And my previous experience with such bullshit climate data tells me that this is a complete farce that'll be used as a bludgeon in the New Kyoto talks in Canada.

ed- are you delusional? do... (Below threshold)
catfish:

ed- are you delusional? do you actually believe that a major scientific study would engage in such gross misrepresentation? do you know what peer review is? a scientist who did what you suggest would immediately fall into disrepute.

and as ian pointed out, they were measuring flow rates, not temperatures... did you even read it? do you know anything about deep ocean circulation routes and their relationship with climate? (aside from your brilliant, "frankly logical" deduction that the north Atlantic is colder in the winter)

QUOTE: [i]do you act... (Below threshold)
blue:

QUOTE:
[i]do you actually believe that a major scientific study would engage in such gross misrepresentation? [/i]

Please, do us all a favor and look at past events. Peer review is often pathetic or overly strigent depending on what events you're looking at. I personally know of five different claims of Cold Fusion that passed into 'peer reviewed' papers and quickly were discovered to be completely and totally bogus. The last one, involving sonic waves and acetone, wasn't even supposed to be physically possible - but got published anyway.

Look at the Drake equation. Look at the Swedish Academy of Sciene's (and, later, Carl Saigan's) papers on nuclear winter.

Hell, there were - and are still - many peer-reviewed papers saying that nothing will grow at the site of a nuclear bomb detonation. Nevermind that melons did (and still are) growing at the site of the Nagasaki detonation after just one year.

Greenland's ice sheets are ... (Below threshold)
SheriJo:

Greenland's ice sheets are thickening as are Antartica's. Although throughout the world some glaciers are receding, others are advancing. There's also evidence that the warming of our globe is a solar system-wide event caused by our sun.

I don't think any reasonable person will argue that there are climatic cycles. It's clear that there are. What's not clear is whether scientists fully understand them and can, therefore, predict them with any accuracy. It's also questionable as to whether human activity is fully or even partially to blame, and whether we can do anything about it. From Reason Magazine:

"The Kyoto Protocol would, by 2100, avoid only 0.14 degrees C of temperature rise."

How pathetic it would be to sacrifice our economy for that.

If their is a coming catastrophe (and that's a big if), whether it be baking or freezing to death, we might as well be rearranging chairs on the Titanic, cuz' there ain't a helluva lot we can do to stop it. We can only try to prepare for it.

Must be fun to a grade scho... (Below threshold)
jpm100:

Must be fun to a grade school student today. One day you get a lecture about how the Earth should be a static non-changing place without the intervention of man. Then in your next class you learn about the last ice age and its thaw and how it affected the spread of early man.

There are not more hurrican... (Below threshold)

There are not more hurricanes. We simply identify more rainstorms in the sea early as a precaution. It is not global warming, it is safety

Catfish and Ian--T... (Below threshold)

Catfish and Ian--

There's a really interesting book you might want to read. This famous author put it out a while back. His name is Michael Crichton. The book is called State of Fear.

Ironic, I just finished it a day before this post went up. Crichton managed to wrap a whole lot of legitimate references into a fantastically-paced fictional story. And my already high skepticism of the so-called "scientists" that scream about Global Warming has shot up several more notches, and continues to do so with every junk "report" that comes out.

--TwoDragons

blue -- Sorry, there are <i... (Below threshold)
Earl:

blue -- Sorry, there are no peer-reviewed papers on cold fusion. (Unless you count very small-scale fusion events which couldn't possibly be harnessed for energy.) If you "peronally know" of uch claims, please enlighten us and include the citation. (I know, it's hard to do when you just make stuff up.)

SheriJo -- did you really just cite a 7-year old study? The work on sun variability was important work when it came out -- SEVEN YEARS AGO. Variability of sun activity is now incorporated into all global models. And it turns out to be a relatively minor effect. I hate to tell you this, but the earth's climate system is complex. The concept of global warming is a net warming, and may not be uniform across the globe. But, in total, glacier coverage is shrinking. The thickening of the ice sheets may very well be a result of increased precipitation, which is caused not by colder temperatures, but by more humid conditions.

jpm100 -- who's ever claimed the earth is a "static non-changing place without the intervention of man"? I know this is what skeptics like to think scientists say, but it's just not true.

And TwoDragons -- Hate to t... (Below threshold)
Earl:

And TwoDragons -- Hate to tell you, but State of Fear is a novel. As in: fiction. Just because it has a bibliography doesn't mean it's true. Numerous scientists whose work was cited in the book have come forth saying he grossly misrepresented their research.

Sure Earl! Just fiction. ... (Below threshold)
seamus:

Sure Earl! Just fiction. You're probably one of them moveon moonbats who thinks that the bible is just fiction and that dinosaurs really exist because "science" says so!

Right on Seamus, everyone t... (Below threshold)
GrandOldParty:

Right on Seamus, everyone that reads this blog knows "dinosaurs" are just a lie perpetrated by science to make it seem like the Earth is older than 5,000 years. Good Republicans like jpm, SheriJo, and blue know that the Bible is the word of god. GOD BLESS AMERICA! Go away heathens!!!

Amen! Preach on brother, P... (Below threshold)
seamus:

Amen! Preach on brother, Preach on!

What a daft punk you are, m... (Below threshold)
Dave:

What a daft punk you are, may your armpits be infested with the lice of 1,000 camels and may your scrotum become part of the permafrost on the cliffs of Dover.

August 2005. 50% chance th... (Below threshold)
Faith+1:

August 2005. 50% chance that results of scientific papers and reports are wrong.

http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn7915

August 2005. 50% chance ... (Below threshold)
Earl:

August 2005. 50% chance that results of scientific papers and reports are wrong.

That was for epidemiological studies only. Not exactly relevant to study of the earth's climate. Sorry.

If global warming causes co... (Below threshold)
Novs:

If global warming causes cooling, doesn't it just fix itself then? Why do we need to be worried? There was warming, it caused an ice age - bammo - problem solved. And if we are in an ice age, we just keep doing what we are doing and we warm the planet up again - since we can!

Earl,there is no u... (Below threshold)
jpm100:

Earl,

there is no uniform agreement by scientist on whether there is global warming and even less that it is caused by man. There is very little disagreement over the fact the earth goes through warming and cooling cycles naturally.

Damn straight! Just like t... (Below threshold)
seamus:

Damn straight! Just like there's no scientific consensus on evolution or the advantages of stem cell research. You whacky moonbats with your sicence and fancy pants book learnin' will believe any fairy tale any one tries to tell you, as long as it's Bush's fault!

Novs- the "Ice Age" from a ... (Below threshold)
catfish:

Novs- the "Ice Age" from a Gulf Stream shutdown would make western Europe, a tiny fraction of the planet, cooler, while global warming warms the planet as a whole.

jpm100- virtually the entire scientific community is in agreement that global warming is happening and that its causes are anthropogenic (by man). the scientists that disagree are mostly hacks in the pockets of corporations and governments that are facing the expensive prospect of cutting emissions. can you refute this? when a hurricane is heading for land, meteorologists are exactly sure where it's going to make landfall, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't take precautions..

SheriJo- "The Kyoto Protocol would, by 2100, avoid only 0.14 degrees C of temperature rise." That's because the Kyoto Protocol is insufficient to address the problem, but it's a first step. The economic costs to future generations of rising ocean levels and climate change will be immense if the problem isn't properly addressed. Also, a 0.14 C rise on a global scale IS significant.

edit:I meant to say:... (Below threshold)
catfish:

edit:
I meant to say:
when a hurricane is heading for land, meteorologists AREN'T exactly sure where it's going to make landfall, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't take precautions..

Mann et al. published the e... (Below threshold)
George:

Mann et al. published the extensively referenced and
quoted study that gave us the global warming
temperature "hockey stick." Years later, when
scientists attempted to reproduce the results with
they original data, they couldn't. They found
major problems with the original study (missing
data, duplicated data, etc.) and they found using
totally transparent and reproducible methods that
the earth was actually warmer hundreds of years ago.
Mann has been less than cooperative in helping
reconcile the discrepancies in his results.
http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/trc.html

Sorry, but I don't buy it. ... (Below threshold)
ProphetCat:

Sorry, but I don't buy it. How are we getting reliable data from 1000 years ago? The sample size is so small that no scientist in their right mind could make the assumption that any kind of global warming is caused by man. 100 years ago virtually the entire scientific community was in agreement that man couldn't fly. How did that work out? The presence of a plurality does not prove a postulation.

Can we do better things to decrease what small effect humanity might have on the environment? Absolutely yes. Are we consuming too many resources? Probably. Anything that can be done to cut down on them should be, but let's at least be honest about the problem.

100 years ago virtually ... (Below threshold)
Earl:

100 years ago virtually the entire scientific community was in agreement that man couldn't fly

Sure is fun to just make up stuff, huh? The Wright Brothers first flew in 1903. And their success was a culmination of a very long process in which a number of scientists and engineers were competing to be the first. (Of course, I know how tough Google is to use, so I'll give you a pass on this.)

The issue with climate change is not what happened 1000 years ago (which we do have some reliable data for, btw). The question is how we may be affecting the climate. Yes, it's very important to take into account natural variability -- and every scientist thinking about the problem knows this -- but the consensus (and it's a heck of a lot more than a mere "plurality") is that the changes occurring now cannot be accounted for by natural variability. Don't for a second think scientists are stupid enough to simply ignore the possibility that the changes could be natural.

Seems we could back-calcula... (Below threshold)
tomg:

Seems we could back-calculate that the days are 22% longer than they used to be from this data - doesn't the sqr or sqrt of the earths rotational speed have something to do with the water velocity?

Global temperature and atmo... (Below threshold)
catfish:

Global temperature and atmospheric carbon dioxide are very strongly correlated historically--that's a fact not in dispute. The first graph on this page illustrates data over the past 160,000 years:

http://www.safesci.unsw.edu.au/gens8005/module1/envproblems.htm

Climate does not respond immediately to changes, it's an incredibly complex system. When atmospheric carbon dioxide has naturally increased in the past, the increase has occurred very gradually, at a maximum sustained rate of roughly 100 ppm every 25,000 years, or 1 ppm every 250 years. Now it's increasing at a rate of nearly 1 ppm per year--250(!) times the natural rate of increase. Yes--the climate has changed in the past, but gradually. With those changes, life has changed, tropical forests have moved away from the equator in warmer periods and receded back in colder periods. Tundra has grown and receded. Animals have migrated. But these changed happened so slowly that they wouldn't have been perceptible during the life of a single organism. In just a single century, CO2 levels have increased more than they have during any 10,000+ year period of the Earth's history. The climate is not going to respond immediately to these changes, but it will respond. Do we know exactly what is going to happen? No. Climatic changes this extreme haven't happened in recent history. Similarly dramatic changes have happened in the distant past, when major asteroids have struck the Earth, and the consequences were extreme. Life survived, but many species went extinct and the world changed dramatically.

Temperature does change from year-to-year, so you're right, there's not enough TEMPERATURE data to say with absolute certainty that we're in a warming trend, but the data do show warming over recent years that is correlated with increasing CO2 levels. It will take time for us to see exactly how the climate will respond to increased CO2 levels. The important thing to understand is that the changes in atmospheric CO2 over the past century are unprecedented--the change has been enormous and rapid.

We rely on the Earth for our well-being. Our activities have dramatically increased CO2 in the atmosphere and CO2 is very strongly correlated with global temperature historically. The Earth's climate system is complex and will be altered by greenhouse emissions (which include methane and other gases as well). This is a very serious cause for alarm. It's not a political ploy. It's not a left-wing trick to gain power. Why would almost the entire scientific community get behind this issue? Why would almost every nation on Earth agree to a climate change treaty if the threats weren't credible? There's no question that the atmosphere has been dramatically changed by human activities and we're just beginning to see how it will respond. A few centuries is but a second on geological time scales. Is it really a good idea to just pretend nothing is happening?

OUTSTANDING!!!Anyt... (Below threshold)
Cardinals Nation:

OUTSTANDING!!!

Anything that causes the accelerated eradication of the entire French nation is just fine with me. In fact, lets crack off a few more ice flows from the glaciers in Greenland for greater effect. And if a few other Euro-wusses turn blue in the process, so much the better.

Damn, this is the best news I've heard all day.

I don't know why you expect... (Below threshold)

I don't know why you expected more from New Scientist... they post non-credible non-science all the time.

You arrogant bunch of libta... (Below threshold)

You arrogant bunch of libtard punks. You really think a chunk of dirt like the Earth can be ruined by a bunch of hairless monkeys? Good grief. You really think that we humies are capable of rivalling the average volcano in carbon dioxide output? Do you actually have the unmitigated gall to assume that we naked doing irreparable damage to a system that has consistently self-repaired itself for uncounted eons? It's a wonder you can pull your Earth First! shirts over that swollen cranium of yours. You elm-felchers have done more damage to Mama Nature than any Alcoa plant, by waddling your fat sweating asses into every State Wildlife Management Area and telling people who have spent DECADES how to fucking "treat the land" when the only experience you dope-sucking dipshits have comes from a latte-charged night of watching "Dances With Wolves" while dropping acid and necking your latest "life-mate".

All the "science" you nanny-statist numbnuts swallow is a bunch of politically-geared leftist trash built around a computer-generated prediction model that is INHERENTLY FLAWED and has been PROVEN to show the SAME DAMN RESULTS no matter WHAT data is put into it--and you have the fucking BALLS to tell US how screwed up OUR facts are?

I'd tell you to blow your collective brains out, but you neither have the guns, nor would putting a high-caliber slug of lead through your empty skulls do more than give you a few more holes to pierce fashionably.

As to your slamming us "theocratic hillbillies" for our beliefs, I have a friendly hint to give you. Not everyone here is a Christian, nor does everyone here believe that the Earth was made in seven days. So take that broad brush you've been painting us all with and cram it up your ass. Yes, it's a tight fit what with your head and Michael Moore's cock already jammed up there, but I'm sure you can get it to fit with a little Vaseline.

And you all sound like a bunch of smug lobotomized parrots. Do us a favor and at least try to come up with backtalk we haven't already heard. I know it's a terrible strain on that lump of shit you have between your ears, but it would at least give us the impression that you're actually supporting a cause and not just following the rest of your mindless herd.

So Crichton's work is fiction. So is "Dianetics" and "The Da Vinci Code", but I see dipshits like you following it like it was canonical fact. Crichton did his research, posted clear links and backed his claims up. But in the end, I might as well be talking to a brick wall. You bunnyfuckers will keep on believing what you want to believe and if it doesn't fit your tunnel-vision worldview you'll just do what every good libbie does--cover your ears and scream "I"M NOT LISTENING! LALALALA!!" until the opposing side gives up in disgust.

--TwoDragons

Wow! angry and dumb! What... (Below threshold)
Seamus:

Wow! angry and dumb! What a fantastic combination! How much you want to bet she's fat and ugly too?
Dianetics? Is Tom Cruise posting on here? And how many people have you actually seen quoting The Davinci Code as absolute fact?
And you couldn't possibly be so incredibly, mind bogglingly hypocrtical as to chastise the left for painting you flat earth numbnuts with a broad brush in the EXACT same post where you accuse everyone who belives there's some truth to global warming of being acid dropping, latte drinking, Kevin Costner fans. (At least it wasn't Tin Cup!)
Of course, you sound like a bush voter, so you probably are that incredibly, mind bogglingly hypocritical!

In case it isn't obvious th... (Below threshold)
catfish:

In case it isn't obvious that nothing in Denita's post can be trusted-- she stated "You really think that we humies are capable of rivalling (sic) the average volcano in carbon dioxide output?"

Human activity releases **130 times** as much as carbon dioxide as ALL of the world's volcanos combined. 130 times! Denita, you told a blatant LIE in the 4th sentence of your post, so yeah, it's not even worth responding to the rest of your angry ranting.

I think I'm going to curl up with a latte and wait for the acid I just dropped to kick in.

Catfish, you're not watchin... (Below threshold)
seamus:

Catfish, you're not watching Kevion Costner movies again are you?

(As an aside, since we're talking about the effects of global warming, wouldn't Waterworld have been a better Kevin Costner movie to use? Poor dumb cons. Always choose rock!)

but I'm sure you can get... (Below threshold)

but I'm sure you can get it to fit with a little Vaseline.

Vaseline is a petroleum product. They'll have to use a earth-friendly substitute. ;) Nice rant, though.

virtually the entire scientific community is in agreement that global warming is happening and that its causes are anthropogenic (by man). the scientists that disagree are mostly hacks in the pockets of corporations and governments that are facing the expensive prospect of cutting emissions.

Wow. So every scientist that disagrees with you that the main reason for global warming is man is a hack getting money from "the Man?" I guess you wouldn't mind if someone came back and yelled that you were nothing but a dirty hippie on Greenpeace's payroll.

George - I was waiting for someone to link to that (I can't post from work). I notice how none of our friends here have anything to say about it. Hmmm.

Waterworld... quite funny. ... (Below threshold)
catfish:

Waterworld... quite funny. Unfortunately, I'm unable to laugh at the moment, for something horrible just happened. I ordered a soy latte, and they made it with 2% milk. I didn't realize it until I curled up on the couch with a copy of Dianetics, and now I don't want to go back out in the cold to get a replacement latte. I'm going to cry.

the scientists that disagre... (Below threshold)
seamus:

the scientists that disagree are mostly hacks

So every scientist

And so we come to the crux of the issue. Are conservatives simply intellectually dishonest or just plain stupid? Discuss.

So every scientist that ... (Below threshold)

So every scientist that disagrees with you...

The real question is, can Seamus quote correctly? I think we all know the answer.

Such a wonderful world it i... (Below threshold)

Such a wonderful world it is...I get lectured on my scientific veracity by a pair of trolls going by the names of a barking dog in a Pink Floyd song and a bottom-feeding fish.

130 times, you say? Care to back up your "figures" with some facts, kiddies? Or did you get this stupid by breathing sulfur fumes as you measured an active volcano...? I'm as willing to Google my facts as you are to flip through the latest issue of Mother Earth News to find yours.

--TwoDragons

No, the real crux of the is... (Below threshold)

No, the real crux of the issue is: Are liberals simply this stupid by birth, or did they get this way due to heavy cannabis use? Discuss.

--TwoDragons

Sure Denita, I can absolute... (Below threshold)
catfish:

Sure Denita, I can absolutely back it up. The 130 figure I referred to was the most conservative estimate I found--others estimate that volcanoes produce an even smaller fraction of greenhouse output. I did a quick google search (google, which you esteem so much) and found these sources.
Care to show me any research that says volcanoes produce the most greenhouse gases?

http://volcano.und.edu/vwdocs/Gases/man.html
"Man-made (anthropogenic) CO2 emissions overwhelm this estimate by at least 150 times."

http://www.geology.sdsu.edu/how_volcanoes_work/climate_effects.html
"Volcanic eruptions can enhance global warming by adding CO2 to the atmosphere. However, a far greater amount of CO2 is contributed to the atmosphere by human activities each year than by volcanic eruptions."

http://www.fs.fed.us/gpnf/press/2001/pr284.htm
"By comparison, human activities such as the burning of fossil fuels and deforestation produce 130 times more CO2 than all the world's volcanoes put together (adding 26,000 million tons of CO2 to the atmosphere each year, the equivalent of 8,000 Kilaueas (Hawaii's most active volcano). This comparison suggests humans are producing CO2 at a rate unprecedented in a geological history stretching back many millions of years"

http://www.soc.soton.ac.uk/CLIVAR/publications/exchanges/ex14/spaper/s1407.pdf
[excludes volcanoes from its calculation because they are insignificant compared to anthropogenic CO2]

Mars is warming? I blame H... (Below threshold)

Mars is warming? I blame Halliburton.

Peer review? You mean like ... (Below threshold)
BrianOfAtlanta:

Peer review? You mean like this?

http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn8398

Money quote:

But Richard Wood, chief oceanographer at the UK Met Office’s Hadley Centre for climate research in Exeter, says the Southampton team's findings leave a lot unexplained. The changes are so big they should have cut oceanic heating of Europe by about one-fifth – enough to cool the British Isles by 1°C and Scandinavia by 2°C. "We haven’t seen it yet," he points out.

We didn't listen!!!!!... (Below threshold)
Webster:

We didn't listen!!!!!

There appears to be a major... (Below threshold)
echibby:

There appears to be a major philosophical difference between those who believe in the scientific method as it is currently defined (and, by extension, peer review) and those who don't.

For those who don't, if you'd like to dispute the paper from Nature, write in to the editors with your hypothesis, and back it up with experimental evidence. Think that the number of data points are insufficient for the conclusions of the paper? Dispute it- show how the data is statistically invalid. Science, above all, thrives on controversy and paradigm shifts. Anyone with solid evidence against the paper is sure to be published, and sure to get funding. And certain to be subject to a vigorous debate. Remember- the truth will prevail!

Look at the recent Nobel Prize in Medicine, awarded to two Australian physicians who showed that ulcers are caused by bacteria (and not stress, as previously believed). Their finding was met with scorn and controversy initially, and they could barely present their results at conferences without censure. Now, two decades later, they have received the most prestigious prize in science. And their theory is regarded as sound by the vast majority of physicians.

There is a bright and sunny future for anyone who can prove the majority of climatologists are incorrect. Maybe even a Nobel...

Denita asked me to back up ... (Below threshold)
catfish:

Denita asked me to back up my figures, and I did immediately.

I asked her to back hers up, and we hear nothing...

Just for fun, let me remind... (Below threshold)
catfish:

Just for fun, let me remind the thread what Denita said:


"130 times, you say? Care to back up your "figures" with some facts, kiddies? Or did you get this stupid by breathing sulfur fumes as you measured an active volcano...? I'm as willing to Google my facts as you are to flip through the latest issue of Mother Earth News to find yours."

You really think that we... (Below threshold)

You really think that we humies are capable of rivalling the average volcano in carbon dioxide output?

Well, if you include Howard Dean as a "humie"...

Catfish -- that's because s... (Below threshold)
Earl:

Catfish -- that's because she keeps "believing what she wants to believe and if it doesn't fit her tunnel-vision worldview she'll just do what every good libbie[?!?] does--cover her ears and scream "I"M NOT LISTENING! LALALALA!!" until the opposing side gives up in disgust." I think she also said that that's something that "bunnyfuckers" do. (Lot of projection going on with these people, huh?) Really, it's just best to drop it -- the concepts of "facts" and "science" just don't matter for some people.

No, it's because I have a t... (Below threshold)

No, it's because I have a three year old son and a family to take care of. Unlike basement-dwelling masturbation-monkeys like yourselves, I have a life beyond the keyboard.

I was impressed with the speed with which you responded with references, and I was going to commend you on backing up your statements--and assure you that I will consider, them along with any other references that have been offered by EITHER SIDE. I would have valued them in my ongoing quest to discover what is truth--global warming, global cooling, or neither. BUT you have since gone on to continue behaving like a smug little assnugget. Not just here at Wizbang's site, but having the temerity to slime onto MY site and drop shit into a comment thread on one of my HUSBAND'S posts which had ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with ANYTHING discussed here. Rather than quietly wait for my rebuttal or response, you tried to drag the fight into an area where it was neither necessary nor welcome.

Whether you have won or lost no longer matters, because either way you're still a fuckstick deserving of none of my respect. You're either a sore winner or a sore loser. And you're still a degenerate pig-fucker.

--TwoDragons

This pig has a 3 year old? ... (Below threshold)
seamus:

This pig has a 3 year old? Jesus! anybody know the number for child welfare?

It is true that most scient... (Below threshold)
robert:

It is true that most scientists agree that GW occurs and that human activity is a part of it.

To imply though that there is any kind of consensus about the pace of the warming, or the degree of human involvement, is misleading.

It is not necessary to deny GW to be against Kyoto. Even many on the left are concluding that the effectiveness of Kyoto is less - and the costs much greater - than the hope and hype in which the plan was born.

We simply have to have better plans. To get there, we are going to need better data, and a better working environment than politics and the usual retrenchment to fast-held positions.

To state that volcanic activity and sunspots have been factored in is again misleading. It is the degree to which, as before, that is the question.

I don't have the answer, but I do know that calling one group leftist moonbats and the other side Jesus freaks is probably not it.

Come on, folks on the right admit that GW is real and is a threat (degree to which later); on the left, admit to not know the unknowable, and that Kyoto is a failed regime.

Denita--Well, I do... (Below threshold)
catfish:

Denita--

Well, I don't think the fact that I posted a link to this blog on your own blog really makes a difference in the facts.

Thanks for commending me on backing up my facts! The truth does matter, and I'm glad you agree that I made accurate statements and supported them. On the other hand, you just made up your own facts, and then when I contested them, YOU accused ME of being unable to back up my facts while stating that YOU look to reputable sources for your facts. I responded immediately with credible sources...and again, even you agree that I backed my facts up--in fact, you wanted to commend me!

Anyway, after this episode, the people who read your blog should be warned about how you operate. I wouldn't want to get my facts from you!

Back to the topic (although... (Below threshold)

Back to the topic (although that was a first class drubbing and a fantastically entertaining response).

What didn't make the post is this (from Science magazine news):

[...] The slowing [of the current], although sizable, is comparable to the estimated uncertainty of the observations, Bryden notes. Still, "it's real variability," he says.

"The pattern is reasonably convincing," says physical oceanographer Peter Rhines of the University of Washington, Seattle. "It's a pretty nice picture." Some think the picture is still fuzzy, however. Ocean and climate modeler Richard Wood of the Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research in Exeter, U.K., says that, like any part of the complex climate system, the conveyor is bound to slow down at times and speed up at others. The two latest surveys may have happened to catch the Atlantic as the conveyor slowed temporarily, he says, giving the impression that a permanent change had taken place. It may take a decade or two more of watching and waiting to know for sure.

The original Nature article (which is in the form of a letter, and should have been linked).

An separate Nature article puts the research in perspective, noting that the findings are somewhat supported by other research. Additionally, it points out areas where Bryden and his colleagues may have run into problems when analyzing the data.

It may be time to begin planning my family's return to the US from Switzerland.

I agree with Maggie. How ca... (Below threshold)
edmcgon:

I agree with Maggie. How can an ice age be caused by global warming? If the Earth is getting warmer, than an ice age should be impossible. Call it global cooling.

Personally, I don't think anything is dramatically changing. Some years are hotter, some are cooler. If there's a trend buried in all the temperature readings, it's a VERY slow moving trend. The nice thing about slow moving trends is they give you plenty of time to adjust.

The difference between now and 50 years ago is that if you went around 50 years ago yelling "The End is Near!", people called you a lunatic. Today, they call you a science reporter.

I have to commend Catfish, ... (Below threshold)
Snobbish:

I have to commend Catfish, Seamus and Earl for their heroic efforts to educate these brainwashed serfs. Reading this post and others like it one is struck by a couple of observations:
1. In any thread discussing G.Warming you can always count on the Republican to be the first to use insults as an argument, here Maggie's post was the first to call names.Incidentally I find it interesting that although Denita Two Dragons began her first post with the line: "You arrogant bunch of libtard punks. " and ends by saying Catfish doesn't deserve her respect.Well call me Snobbish but one ususally has no desire for respect from a body who addresses one with the words " degenerate pig-fucker."
2. In any thread where Republicans/Conservatives are "arguing" with those of other POVs. The RepCons invariably either fail to understand the precision of language utilized in intellectual debate or purposefully ignore it. For example Maureen says "Wow. So every scientist that disagrees with you that the main reason for global warming is man is a hack getting money from "the Man?"" Seamus patiently points out that the actual words used were "the scientists that disagree are mostly hacks" Mostly DOES NOT equal Every. Maureen then attempts to defend herself by accusing Seamus of quoting wrongly when she extends her quote "So every scientist that disagrees with you..." This in no way validates her initial point, she still does not see that mostly and every do not mean the same thing. Anyway CONGRATULATIONS to CATFISH for an excellent thrashing.People should ensure they have educated themselves on a subject before insulting its proponents. And The O'Reilly Factor does not constitute education.

I am RIGHT in the middle of... (Below threshold)
Emily:

I am RIGHT in the middle of the road on this topic. I fully believe that we should take care of Earth and do all that we can to live WITH the planet, and not against it. In the grand scheme of things we are guests here, and if we abuse our privlidges too much we will be smote. Not by the hands of god, but by our lifesource, Earth. Earth has things so perfectly balanced, so DELICATELY balanced. But, Earth is stronger and more resiliant than people give her credit for. It is not EARTH we should fear for. Because all of us, even if we were TRYING could not destroy the Earth. All we can really do is destroy most of the life on Earth. Now obviously that is a bad thing, but if we are stupid enough to destroy that which sustains us, we deserve what we get. Be it ice age, heat wave, draught, famine, war, etc etc. If global warming is something we have direct control over, we should obviously try to reverse whatever negative effects we have wrought. However, if it is something we cannot control *which may very well be the case, *but my we humans do have a very strong need for control over EVERYTHING don't we* we should then just accept the fact that if the climate changes it is survival of the fittest. Eventually, no matter what we do, most of the human population if not all of it will die. We are but a page in history, ONE page. There were thousands of pages before us, and there will be many more after we are gone...

Um, why don't you oh so con... (Below threshold)
rhodeymark:

Um, why don't you oh so concerned, oh so superior elites lead the way? Hmmm. Where are the energy communes of the true believers? I like oil, it keeps the General Lee happy, but if we need to cut back I'll happily heat my home with the reactor built in your back yard. I laugh my @$$ off at all the liberal hypocrites shrieking and wetting themselves over the thought of a windfarm in *their* precious Nantucket Sound. Every time its put up or shut up the leftists fall back on their true nature... "not for me, but for thee".

Nat'l Geographic (the sky ... (Below threshold)
DL:

Nat'l Geographic (the sky is falling folks,) have actually reported major discoveries of huge thermoplumes of heat arising from the Indian Ocean floor to the tune of 100,000 megawatts, saying many more are around and even larger. They actually admit that they effect ocean currents hence the world's climate. These are tectonic plate volcanic type things, so increases and decreases in temperature could easily accounted for.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/12/1212_051212_megaplume_2.html




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy