That's right. We react to crises, not the prevention thereof.

Don't forget Starbucks!

Long term "The World is going to end" forecast in the first week of January. This reminds me to change my oil under the old oak tree.....

My query is always this... Since any reasonably rational person will admin that they can't possibly know with absolute certainty that they are correct... why then are "climate skeptics" so against renewable energy? If we go that route there are so many benefits, and we avert a possible disaster (or two). There is, of course, a chance that the people who actually study the science everyday are wrong... but so what if they are?

Cheney said something like if there is a 2% chance of a terrorist attack we must act... well... I'd say there is a far higher chance of climate problems so...

What is so bad about acting?

As long as our beloved politicians are getting paid by big oil the earth and its citizens will always come second.

Great tip .

Time to invest in water products .

Chris, I've seen your comment several times before typed by various people. It is usually said in the spirit of being nasty or dismissing those who would like to act to make a difference and in the spirit of making jabs at people the poster doesn't know with the insinuation that the people who actually do care on one level or another (and who may be seriously working to make a difference already) are hypocrites who should shut up and go away. I can't speak to your motives, but it really doesn't say much about anyone but you. Of course you have the right to say it and to your opinions, but it sounds a bit as if you are saying, "Well, if you aren't perfect you need to shut up". Maybe you don't mean that and I hope not.

jenny-2549412

Oh no you di-unt. Hahaha She said what!!??

wow...this explains why congress doesn't give a damn about the future or us or anything besides their own immediate pleasure...

Jenny... No one is suggesting we go back to the days of horseback and the spinning wheel. And John, take a look at what computer technology cost back in the sixties; guess we should have avoided that road?

There are "so many benefits"... since they are not appearent I'll list a few:

1. Reduced Polution
2. Stop pumping billions into the economies of brutal regimes in the middle east.
3. Solar power can bring energy independence for "the people"...

Need I go on?

While I agree with the global consensus Earth's average temperature is rising, that it will have catastrophic consequences for humans, and that man is largely responsible, I am singularly unimpressed with this particular study. They asked 13 handpicked scientists for their views and concluded there was a slight chance sea level might rise a meter, but there was no consensus among the 13 as to our own contribution and therefore whether we can do anything about it. This looks like scientific rubbish to me.

unless you (the people's) take a stand and show the way for a future earth, that's beneficial to all, nothing will be done. spraying the sky's and calling it clouds or everyday plane vapors,, cause it aint poisonous or damaging to earth or it's inhabitant's- government reassured - .... for some reason you humans dont pay attention to whats going on above you... recent spikes in climate change ? you'll all be dead before the ice melts anyways - poisoned air is poisoned food,water, and even your hair and skin.... keep overlooking this fact or just continue to ignore it- come talk to me in your near future, I'll sell you a breathing apperatis and teach you to grow food without oxygen. keep denying your nuber one killer, go ahead and laugh, dumb scott is crazy.... or he pays more attention than you ?

yes there are many factors that will end us, well, what now people ???

Good points AG, but maybe not quite rubbish. You have to identify a problem first. Then figure out what causes it and how to solve it.

OK, the problem is identified -- sea level will rise. That's pretty much agreed upon -- how much is not. But even a little can have some severe impact.

The next steps ... what's causing it? If it's totally Mother Nature ... then buckle down and prepare for the worst. If it's man-made, let's look at how to at least stop, if not reverse.

Same goes if it's a combination of both problems ... then we can mitigate by stopping what man is doing and prepare for what Mother Nature is doing.

Ive got my waders, its all good for me.......

Physicist-retired

Every year we delay meaningful action on climate change will cost $500 billion (with a 'B') in mitigation costs later.

Every single year.

You really don't understand this issue at all, John.

I would love to develop a deeper understanding of the issue. Please cite your source(s) for the claim above.

There aren't "so many benefits" for "renewable" energy. Every single scheme is more costly and less convenient than conventional energy sources.

Sorry but not true. If the coal/oil producers and consumers (us) really had to pay the true costs of carbon based energy sources they would be much higher. Instead of paying for our armed forces (much of which has been engaged in protecting international oil supplies) via income tax, let's get that portion of the budget from highway/utility taxes. Let's include the cost of the EPA budget that goes to clean air (EPA not needed? Try living in China or India and breathing their air.) Let's include the costs of acid rain and all the healthcare costs for coal miners, asthmatics, and dead and wounded war vets from both Iraq wars. Let's ensure that ALL costs from every oil spill and any pollution from coal strip mining is paid directly by the producers and consumers of that energy, not just a "settlement" of 10 cents on the dollar or less.

If all that came from taxes directly on Coal and Oil production/consumption then the true costs of those sources of energy would be much more apparent to the consumer.

Please cite your source(s) for the claim above.

The full study can be accessed at the link I already provided, Bill. I'll make it extremely easy for you, because it seems that you didn't read the link I posted above.

Full study.

Cogito:

I'm not against renewable energy. A push for renewable energy makes perfect sense if what you are worried about is resource exhaustion. But you'll probably want to worry about population control too. Also, I am suspicious of a prediction set so far out that the people making the prediction will be dead before they could ever be called on it and that we will all be dead as well. I remember Scott Adams called that "good luck getting a refund now."

Not only would I ask for a cite of sources for the half trillion a year, I'd ask for a track record of their economic predictions. How accurate have they been in the past? Why should we expect them to do any better this time? If they are so smart about money, why aren't they rich?

I agree the earth is getting warmer. However if you care to do the research you will find that NASA has documented that not only is the earth getting warmer but so are Venus, Mercury, and Mars. So I guess we must be shipping these green house gases to those planets as well. Why is it that these type of stories never bother to mention these facts?? I do think that it is only good business to explore the aspect of new energy sources but I do not agree with being forced to make the shift. The best way would be just like what was done years ago when electricity replaced lamp oil for our lighting needs. It was private industry that lead the way not a government mandate.

Go buy some real estate 2 rows in from the ocean... it's currently cheaper than ocean front but will be ocean front in, oh say, 95 years...

Seriously, it does not take rocket science to see that we are polluting our environment with fossil fuels. We need clean energy for MANY reasons... setting ourselves free from the middle east and big oil corporations being the most important!

GREED and the demand for IMMEDIATE GRATIFICATION is the human way.

The future is THEIR problem, until it gets here!

(like now with the fiscal crisis)

Its asta la vista again NJ..

So if the folks on Nantucket have everything to lose we can start with an alternative energy wind farm off the Mass shore. Now hear a rich leftie scream - they're good at telling others how to live.

AG, and Beth,

The problem I find with this study is simply that there isn't a real consensus and that much of what is being talked about is theory (just another WAG). I do not dispute that the climate is changing, but they are unable to accurately forecast the weather next month let alone 100 years in the future. There are too many factors to consider and many more that are completely unknown. Please don't go into the distinction between weather and climate because in this instance it really isn't relevant. The point is that the models that are developed for forecasting climate change are based on assumptions of factors and forces we do not yet understand. The earth has been around along long time and the only constant is the fact that the climate is in a continuous state of change. 400,000 years ago much of the world was a lot warmer than it is now and there was no industry to dump pollution into the ecosystem to cause the rise in world temperatures. Conversely we do not know how the last great ice ages were triggered which covered a great deal of the northern hemisphere in massive ice sheets either. That being said, is it better to expend major resources on things we really do not know enough about or to prepare for the possibility that we will have to adapt to a warmer climate? Renewable energy sources should be pursued, but a break neck program that endangers many national economies is far more risky to the world than changing to slowly. In WWII Japan lashed out at the world for control of greater resources than were available in the home islands. The US basically cut off the vast majority of its imports like oil and steel in an effort to get the Japanese to get in line. Their answer came to the US on December 7, 1941 and cost hundreds of thousands on both sides their lives. Was that really worth it from both sides? We can be a bit more prudent then acting in knee jerk fashion to the "sky is falling" media reports such as this one and work intelligently towards a better tomorrow.

it is clear and evident, after all of the past and present evidence of global climate change that the doubters and disbelievers cannot be convinced. They live for the moment and if catastrophe hasn't happened to them, it's because other's are deserving. The largest percentage of them claim to be Christian and blame it off on "God's will"... basically they are a cop-out to the interest and efforts of human society and are amongst the most self-concerned and selfish people in our world. That being said, the rest of us must push forward and do what we can to fix this, and all of our other problems.

However if you care to do the research you will find that NASA has documented that not only is the earth getting warmer but so are Venus, Mercury, and Mars.

Completely inaccurate, Double D. Another talking point from fake 'skeptics'. Look to NASA for the real science on this. And NASA says:

The claim that other planets in the solar system are heating up is false, although I sometimes see it from the global warming denialists. In fact, it is a pretty silly statement.

And this:

NASA Report: Greenhouse Gases, Not Sun, Driving Warming

On a side note, I'm not the least surprised that you haven't bothered to read either link, JohnCarter. People who deny human-caused climate change are never very interested in the actual research.

I am not against renewable energy either. I am however against the government sponsoring it. If there are reliable technologies out there that are privately funded the chances are that the proper research has already been done. Just as with Solindra and the other failures Obama gave millions of taxpayer money to and not a viable product came to market. Usually you don't see that with the private sector funded programs because results are demanded when privately funded.

Everyone keeps looking to replace gasoline with another type of fuel. My question is, why do they keep trying to replace the fuel? Internal combustion engines were developed to use gas. Not alcohol. They are not efficient enough for that technology. Unless you and the EPA don't mind buying and burning 3 times as much fuel.

If you truly want to get away from oil based fuels a new type of engine must be developed to generate the power and efficiency of the technology you are replacing.

Physicist-retired

The full study can be accessed at the link I already provided, Bill. I'll make it extremely easy for you, because it seems that you didn't read the link I posted above.

Ahhhh .... condescension. I use it myself, from time to time.

I am familiar with the IEED and their commitment to sustainable development. I have also seen the paper you refer to, in which the authors take umbrage with the post-Kyoto UNFCCC estimates of the expenditures necessary to adapt to climate change. The authors state that the costs are too low and more research is required (no big surprise there).

In keeping with the best traditions of academic research, however, the authors state (and I quote):

"The conclusions are ours alone, and not reflective of any organization"

"The purpose of this report is to illustrate uncertainties in UNFCCC estimates, not to develop new estimates" (my emphasis)

"The UNFCCC study has probably underestimated this cost" (my emphasis)

In other (my) words, "We don't like your estimates, so here are our estimates of why your estimates are under-estimates."

Being mathematically inclined, I was hoping you could steer me to something with a little more meat and a little less he-said-she-said.

How many climate deniers here understand the true cost of non-renewable carbon based energy? Oil companies are not only subsidized with tax dollars, they are protected by the US military. How much cost savings could we have if we didn't have to be such a protector of the oil channels? If those costs were added into a gallon of gas, how much would that gas cost? If the US government didn't subsidize oil when we first started to develop it, where would we be now? Even if global climate change wasn't happening and that 7 billion people on the planet doesn't have a thing to do with it, developing renewables and even new as of yet not known technologies would be great for business. It is time now to stop oil subsidies and charge at least a tax on oil companies to help pay for their protection. Gas prices would rise and make renewables at par or cheaper and those costs would only go down from there. The US government has to do something about the spending problem, that would be a good place to take a big chunk out of spending.

garcher, and I am tired of subsidizing oil in the form of tax credits and subsidies and military protection. ALL technologies have had trial and error in their development periods. Not ALL technology development by private enterprise and investments have been successful. ALL viable technology becomes cheaper as they develop. Not ALL technologies have been developed 100% by private enterprise at the start.

SURE ...just like the entire world was going to turn dark in Y 2K... and the End of the World with 12/21/2012... ALlgoRE said we would never know a cold day or winter snow. Never any rain .. biggest snows and rains ... then he changes Global Warming to Climate Change and claims it was what he predicted when he invented the internet. Really People...think for yourself.

I will make a great prophesy that this coming summer will be hotter than it has been ALLL year long. Who wants to bet that I am not correct??

Steps of the Scientific Method:
Ask a Question
Do Background Research
Construct a Hypothesis
Test Your Hypothesis
Analyze Your Data and Draw a Conclusion
Communicate Your Results

Steps of the Denier Method:
Listen to Rush Limbaugh
"Believe" everything he says
Listen to what scientists say
Get confused and scared
Listen to more Rush for new "Beliefs"

All this rising oceans and salt water intrusion and "stuff" is a real downer. I was looking at some really hot places to retire to in Key West.

i hope that it rise's to 2ft. and beyond...that way when i ask moma how high the water is...http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=91OIaPRrDts

Awesome I finally am going to have a backyard pool before I die.

Physicist

"Every year we delay meaningful action on climate change will cost $500 billion (with a 'B') in mitigation costs later" Each year every year.

Well since we have delayed action for the last 20 years at least, then we're at least 10 trillion in the hole already.

I read that article, nowhere did it mention 500 billion a year, it mentioned two extremes and if they both come true then it might cost 500 billion.

You speak in absolutes and no scientist worth his salt would say what you say with the certainty that you use.

So you have no credibility.

Fred Bonfils, founder of the Denver Post said " 'tis a privilege to live in Colorado". I never realized how significant his words were. We're the first to get rained on, but the last ones to drown.

Stop using electronics and such. Electricity is the #1 contributor to the destruction of the environment. Worse in the long run, I would say, if we go nuclear.

If renewable energy were actually better, it wouldn't be necessary to make laws or create subsidies to try to force people to adopt renewable.

Interesting that oil companies recieved, and are STILL recieving subsidies for the exact same reason renewable energy is. The subsidies are given to jump start the industry. Now, I do not understand why big oil still recieves these, they shouldn't.

Timothy,

your argument is one that is so full of holes any who use it do so to prove their own ignorance on the subject. Climate change is not about the world getting hotter or colder. It is about multiple systems that converge together to change the energies in the climate and produce stronger, more erratic storm systems.

In simple terms, the normal goings on of a season becomes more and more severe and erratic. Winters become colder with stronger storms, spring and fall come later and later, summers become hotter and weather systems during this time period become much stronger and more frequent.

Global cooling, global warming, rising and sinking sea levels (from melting and creation of sea ice at the poles) are all a part of climate change. The temperature in one area is not expressly a sign that the macro workings of climate change or any of its subsystems are true/false. They only provide more data for that specific region.

As with all science there is almost no 100% trending occurrence, meaning something that is trending upward one year does not neccessarily have to continue trending upward the next year. You can have several years in a row even where the trend does not go up but overall the trend is still going up

To apply that to climate change, just because there are several years where seasons are milder does not indicate that a hypothesis is in correct as the data for the decade may show that these years, or even down to seasons or months, were statistical anomalies.

It is also possible that the reverse is true, that the years where the seasons are harsher are the blips in the data but the reason we currently think this is not the case is because these years are beginning to out number the years where seasons are normal or weak in comparison. Thus they occur less than seasons where the effects of it therein are more aggressive than what we would consider to be normal.

An example would be last summer where the US was fried to a crisp (has happened two years in a row now) from coast to coast and we got a glimpse of how that kind of situation, if progressed, can lead to our farmlands becoming unsustainable. Ask the farmers in the bread basket if they are worried about that scenario happening again this year and 99% of the time the answer will be "yes".

Does their "Opinion" include the Ice Age happening in China Right now? Or the Coldest Winter last year in Alaska? How about the Antarctic Ice Pact level setting a Record last year?

Hmm imagine that for more "Grant Money" they will tell anything it takes to get even MORE "Grant Money"....Even "Predict the Future" for US!

"What are the facts? Again and again and again – what are the facts? Shun wishful thinking, ignore divine revelation, forget what "the stars foretell," avoid opinion, care not what the neighbors think, never mind the unguessable "verdict of history" – what are the facts, and to how many decimal places? You pilot always into an unknown future; facts are your single clue. Get the facts!" ~ Robert A. Heinlein

I take heart that there are only a few denying that warming is indeed occurring.

That's a start.

John Connor, the economic term is externality. The $500B/yr is a cost humanity will pay. Even if it's only $50B, it doesn't matter, it's not a small number to wall off Florida. If that externality along with the military cost were priced into fossil fuels today, a gallon of gas would be quite pricey compared to renewables.

There are two arguments only now: it's not our fault, and we can't do anything anyway.

For the first, if the changes are naturally occurring, does that mean we do nothing and just accept it?

Death and destruction is coming, and we're arguing about if it's natural or not?

What difference does that make? Look around you. What is natural around you? We manipulate everything. Divert rivers, tear down mountains, build giant buildings out of iron we smelted from ore. Whether the change is due to carbon we've released or it's a natural phenomenon, so what?

If we know how to fix it, what's the argument about fixing it? No one knew how aspirin worked until 1980, yet we sure took it to reduce fever before that. For this, we know what the problem is and the solution.

The other argument against is that we Can't do anything about it? I think you sell humanity too short. We have accomplished quite a few unbelievable things in our history. What makes you think we can't solve this? How much CO2 can we sequester with $3Trillion? $5Trillion? Put somebody on it. Calculate it. If that doesn't do it, what will? We just need to figure it out. An initiative and a lot of money will lead to a solution.

Out of respect for our memory of John Connor, we pay the bill with a surtax on fuel.

Does anyone understand what fascist propaganda this is???!!! So you take a few hand picked scientists and ask their opinion and that's what passes for science these days?! Pathetic! These aren't scientists, they are political hacks.

Those who do believe should be outraged most of all, this article doesn't give the deniers ammunition, it gives them the whole damn arsenal!

I do believe we are causing at least some effect but if this is the methodology used by environmentalists, I'm about ready to dismiss anything they say as outright fraud.

And if that $500 million or billion or whatever is anything like the millions of green jobs "created", it's just as great a pathetic fraud.

Has science now devolved into political propaganda? Disgusting.

I like how you read the headline to be three feet of rise certainly plausible by 2010. But when you read the article, the mean estimate of the survey is one foot, and the outside estimate is three feet.

Sounds like the author is president of the sky is falling club. I guess that no rise in sea level is certainly plausible as well.

MUW,

The facts are there is a scientific consensus that global climate change (global warming) is occurring and that it is caused by increased CO2 in the atmosphere.

Yes, some grant money paid for figuring that out, just like figuring anything out in science. In addition to money, it takes investment of brainpower to learn something. Try it.

Valhalla,

Has anti-science now devolved into political propaganda? Disgusting.

There, I fixed it for you.

I've seen your posts over the year(s). We don't agree on much, but I know you're not dumb. You know the climate change science is true.

If the debt and deficit worries you because of what it portends for our future, doesn't this bother you?

But the real question is, "Does something really need to be done?" They can't even get a 7 day forecast right, what makes anyone think they can predict what will happen in 90 years? The carbon tax and the strong arm tactic to get renewable energy is just a con to steal more money from the middle class. If private companies were able to invent new sources of energy without the interference of huge corp. and gov't it would have been done by now. Until oil becomes less profitable to sell, only then will an alternative be allowed. And by the way it won't be cheaper just more profitable.

If you're young buy property that will become beachfront in 50 years but isn't now. An excellent retirement plan.

It's starting to sound like that movie AI (Artificial Intelligence) starring Haley Joel Osment. Anyone remember that movie?

‘Horrible’ sea level rise of more than 3 feet plausible by 2100, experts say

Yeah, how many of these so called experts will be alive in 2100 to measure the seal level and try to explain the variations to their predictions? My guess is, none.

I would like to hear the opposing view to this as well, these days it is all about warming this warming that and anyone who disagrees or has a different view is a denier.

Only a few days ago we read about “the coldest winter in the last 28 years in China”. Yesterday, I spoke to a friend in Central Europe; this week they are expecting temperatures between minus 10 to minus 20C.

How about getting scientists from opposing sides together, equipped with historical data and verifiable information, to debate the topic publicly. No spin, no unsupported feel good statements, only the facts!

And lets us hear the truth! Does anyone think that the “experts” would agree to that? Of course not, their endless “Climate warming, climate change” funding stream would dry up very quickly and they can’t allow that to happen. Similarly, governments would then have no reason to “rip” the money out of peoples’ pockets, blaming climate warming for the increase in tax take.

As you can see I am a denier.

Read the last paragraph, here I will save you some trouble.

How much of this drama can be attributed to human burning of fossil fuels, the study indicates, remains murky. “There is really no consensus amongst the experts we approached,” Bamber said. “That’s something that we in the scientific community need to address as a matter of urgency.”

I have to wonder if,,during the climate changes that have gone on for centuries....how many of those could have been changed...my thought is none. This earth has climate changes on a timetable of some kind....has had for millions of years...do we really believe for a minute that any one person or group of people can predict changes to our climate and what to do to either stop it or slow it down.? And what about the people picked to make their guesses as to what will or will not happen ? Who really picked them ? ANd what over time, if these folks are allowed to cause any changes, will it cost the averge citizen ? Anyone want to bet on who will pay for any cost of the so called corrections that will surely show up sooner or later ?

Horrible' Flying Monkeys plausible by 2100, experts say

WTC,

their endless “Climate warming, climate change” funding stream would dry up very quickly

So who is feeding you that crap? Limbaugh? Fox? If you guys think this is all some kind of scam, then those who are telling you that are the ones running a scam. They are called demagogues. They tell what they know to be untruths to idiots who they know will believe anything. And there is a purpose behind that game.

Benefits of renewable energies? Does anyone out there know what "carbon neutral" means?

Back in the stone age, whoops--1964, when I was in Mrs. Rogers 4th grade class, we discussed the events of the ice caps probably melting. Even way back then, when we were learning about the past glaciations of the world, and how it warms and cools, we knew that the ice would melt, someday.

Someday is here. Now, for those without an abacus, and liking nice round numbers, we knew this information about 50 years ago. We 10 and 11-year-old kids were asking the exact same questions that are being asked now. And guess, what the answers are the same.

For those living in low-lying areas, dikes will need to built. (We had a lovely slideshow of Holland.) If dikes aren't an option, then higher ground is the way to go. (Mountains were quite lovely on the slides, as well) If a man-made structure is already established, then dams, stilts (as in Venice, more slides), or moving are also ideas. Climatology and geography, all in one class--Wow.

Today, we can rant and rave all we want about the causes. If that's all that gets done, then I think purchasing SCUBA equipment and planning for future sales will make one a fortune. Blaming, yelling, finger-pointing, etc., will get you NOTHING but more underwater in a hurry. It's too late for any real reversals. Things are not going to change. The only thing that can change is US.

So stand on the beach and yell and scream; or get active and make what we have work. Save what can be saved, move to higher ground, plan for the worst, hope for the best. We really have no choice at this stage of the game. The environment/nature doesn't do reversals on command.

My thermometer outside says its 3 degrees colder than it was yesterday!!! ...so what do these scientists know???

We should put them in a UFC cage and see who comes out alive!

Those dang scientists, so smart they can predict the position of Pluto in the year 5603, but they can't tell us what the weather is going to be next week. It's a conspiracy! They ought to be locked up!

They're going to be dead in 100 years! Of course we can't hold them to their predictions! What a con, they just want all that grant money!

AirThief

Interesting that oil companies recieved, and are STILL recieving subsidies for the exact same reason renewable energy is. The subsidies are given to jump start the industry.

Wrong. Subsidies in the form of grants are given to renewable energy companies because they cannot obtain private financing due to their inabilty to turn a profit on the investment. Subsidies in the form of tax rebates are given to a wide range of commercial industries. They were originally given as an incentive to keep jobs in the United States.

Now, I do not understand why big oil still recieves these, they shouldn't.

I agree. And, in fact, the Democrats sponsored a bill to disallow these rebates for oil companies a couple of years ago. They took it off the table when Republicans suggested that, in fairness, it should be disallowed for all the other industries that receive it.

global warming is a complete myth.ive heard the rich and they assure me its not happening.the republicans say its not happening.all these stories are is scare tactics to try to pass some whacko environmental laws.its some people trying to get something for nothing.its because you envy them.its class warfare.you want to punish the achievers.the rich will leave if they dont get their way.they wont hire americans.theyll move manufacturing out of the country.theyll get off shore bank accounts to hide their money.that about covers all the excuses ive heard a bazillion times.they can afford to put their beach front homes on higher stilts and if a hurricane wipes the home out they always have the republicans to tax the rest of us to help them rebuild.more jobs for us.i love being their slave

MSNBC knows no limits when trying to hyperventilate liberal thermometer watchers.

The idea of citing a poll of 13 so called experts as the source of a misguided article is repulsive.

Note that 13 of the 26 experts "did not respond"---did not respond according to MSNBC's desired outcome is more plausible.

Flush this garbage article where it belongs--the poop treatment facility.

But the real question is, "Does something really need to be done?" They can't even get a 7 day forecast right, what makes anyone think they can predict what will happen in 90 years?

By this logic, if you cannot predict exactly what will happen in the next 5 minutes all predictions are useless. Since a mother can't predict exactly whether her kids will need to eat in the next 5 minutes, she need not worry about buying any food.

We know exactly what is happening with the climate and it is going exactly in the direction that climate scientists have predicted for years.

alsophia theophilos

Maybe you can answer these questions:

Could someone tell me why not so long ago in Earth years, major parts of Europe, North America and some parts of Northern Asia were ‘buried” in ice and what caused the ice to melt and withdraw to today’s boundaries? Surely that was not caused by human interference?!

If I recall correctly, there were several periods in the life of the Earth with similar “glacial and non glacial” periods. Are we not living through one of the Earth’s cycles?

Has anyone studied the impact of our Milky Way Galaxy rotation, one revolution to be around 200 million years, on the Earth’s long term weather patterns?

If humans, increasing world’s population, are the cause of our current weather unpredictability, there were billions and billions more birds and hundreds of millions of hoofed and other animals on the earth before the humans took hold and replaced them. If you say animals and birds did not have our polluting industries, ok, would volcanoes alone be enough to compensate for that?

How can anyone say that we are the cause of our changing climate?

The EXSPURTS have spoken again! The definition of EXSPURTS: EX - has been..... SPURTS - drips under pressure!

LMFAO! at you liberal, hippie scientists! LOL!

I own 2 beachfront homes in South Florida. One is in the Florida Keys. The water has not risen one inch in the 13 years I have owned this property.

My old neighbor likes to bring out his ancient scrapbook when this subject comes up. It contains dozens of newspaper / magazine articles from the 50's, 60's, and 70's from whacked-out hippie scientists from Harvard, NASA, Stanford, etc who said the Keys would be underwater by 1980, 1990, or at the absolute latest, 2000. LOLOLOL!

But of course we should believe you now! LOLOLOLOLOL!!

PS.

We have plenty of fuel. I own a pickup, large SUV, and 600 HP Corvette. Also have a 36' SeaRay cruiser with twin V8s. I also have a Boston Whaler with twin 300 HP outboards. I also have a Harley and waverunner. We have enough fossil fuel for several hundred years so get over it.

Bobster, are you going to believe what the "experts" tell you, or what you see with your own eyes! Gee, you must be a real moron not to believe what these "caring" politicians tell you! And I am sure that you would be upset if Obama tried to jack up your taxes a few thou a year to pay for new "studies" on "Global Warming"! You are just so selfish!

Maybe we shouldn't have built in those areas.... The earth will fix itself... It will get rid of us all...

I believe in global warming and I believe we have generated a boat load of CO2.. I believe the earth and uni-mulit-verse have cycles that none of us understand, but until all of us want to start walking, don't want electricity, don't like our homes heated or cooled, build stuff that perhaps we could do without and just live in a smaller foot print, it ain't ever going to make a difference to this situation.

So to have government penalize (tax) us for breathing and living or for some bozo (Gore) to get rich off of it this is crazy. Y2K was another example of this craziness.

We all should do a better job like driving less... but it will never happen in all developing countries. We should start to moving from the coast lines instead of trying to keep all of those homes there. I don't want to pay for their homes that can't be saved.

But the last thing I want is to give this incompetent government of ours any more money. They have had years since 1970's to do something on the oil thing and nothing has been done for my lifetime. What makes you think they will do anything now?

This is the kind of pathetic reporting that I have come to expect from MSNBC and the rest of the lamestream media.

The title of the article says a 3 ft. rise in sea level is "plausible" by 2100.

The article then goes on to specifically state that the scientists that were polled said there was a 5% chance of it actually making a 3 ft. rise.

The median estimate from the experts is that the melting ice sheets will contribute 1 foot (29 centimeters) to sea level rise by the year 2100 with a 5 percent chance their contribution could exceed 2.8 feet (84 centimeters). When the effect of thermal expansion (water expands as it warms) is taken into account, the high-end estimate is more than 3 feet (1 meter).

Now, the definition of plausible is: Seemingly or apparently valid, likely, or acceptable; credible

I don't think a 5% chance counts as "likely", "credible", or "valid" do you?

Whether you believe climate change simply happens or we humans have a massive impact on it and are the reason the weather is changing is irrelevant. This article is a joke for the simple fact that it debunks its headline with its own facts.

Anyone with an IQ above plant life has to question the integrity of ANYONE who would write such garbage.

Melting glaciers in Antarctica and Greenland may push up global sea levels more than 3 feet by the end of this century, according to a scientific poll of experts that brings a degree of clarity to a murky and controversial slice of climate science.

Polling...another indication of how politicized climate science has become.

In addition, glaciers respond to external forces such as warmer temperatures in different ways, even when they are located right next to each other. As a result, there is tremendous uncertainty in the scientific community over how the melting will affect sea levels over the next century.

Maybe they should stick to predicting the weather accurately within a 10 day period. Perhaps go way out on a limb and predict a weather pattern for just one small region accurately during one seasonal period.

alsophia theophilos

“Benefits of renewable energies?”

There is absolutely nothing wrong with “advancing” renewable energy sources and industry. But this can be done without the government slugging the public with ever increasing energy costs and making the use of essential items, e.g. like electricity, air-conditioners, hot water systems, unaffordable.

So far we, here in the US have been spared of this madness but have a look at Australia for example and what’s happening there with energy costs. The affordability of electricity there is getting out of reach for many. Electricity, once an essential item in their daily lives in now a “luxury” item. And have a guess who is suffering, yes, the less privileged, elderly and families with children.

Look, deniers, it's not that difficult to understand. Every day sunlight in the form of very energetic photons enters our atmosphere and warms the ground. Every night, low energy photons are re-radiated through the sky to outer space. For the past 165,000 years at least, the balance has been nearly perfect (with modest ice ages and hot periods).

The problem is that with more greenhouse gasses like methane and CO2 in the air, fewer photons can be radiated to space (while there is no impact on the sun's photons getting through). The laws of physics tell us with an imbalance, we will heat up. It is really not that hard to predict (Arrhenius predicted it more than 100 years ago). It is not magic, or a mystery, (or conservative or liberal) it is simply nature behaving according to the laws of physics.

The reason that conservatives are overwhelmingly more likely to be deniers is simply that conservatives are more likely to believe in dumb things, like creationism, Obama is Kenyan, more guns reduces gun murders, we are in the Biblical endtimes, etc. Conservatives are suckers being tricked by their corporate masters who, unfortunately, include oil companies.

Note that only America conservatives are so easily fooled. The real question, and the one that our conservative posters sould answer for us, is this: why are you guys so remarkably gullible?

wtw of KC: Australia suffered through a horrific drought that was far more devestating than the price of electricity. They used to be the only other denier nation (besides America) and they are now in full apology for their denierism. Don't go to Australia. They do awful things to deniers down there, because they know how mush suffering denierism is causing. Believe me, wtw, deniers are hated around the world, and own children will soon learn to hate deniers, too. Denierism is, quite seriously, the worse, most destructive ignorance today.

noncoms

Look, deniers, it's not that difficult to understand. Every day sunlight in the form of very energetic photons enters our atmosphere and warms the ground. Every night, low energy photons are re-radiated through the sky to outer space. For the past 165,000 years at least, the balance has been nearly perfect (with modest ice ages and hot periods).

The problem is that with more greenhouse gasses like methane and CO2 in the air, fewer photons can be radiated to space (while there is no impact on the sun's photons getting through). The laws of physics tell us with an imbalance, we will heat up. It is really not that hard to predict (Arrhenius predicted it more than 100 years ago). It is not magic, or a mystery, (or conservative or liberal) it is simply nature behaving according to the laws of physics.

What happens when those energized photons get blocked from extra cloud cover due to excessive warming, hermmm? Or will you deny any of the plethora of factors that also come into play?

To everyone complaining about the costs of alternative energy, remember that you are giving Big Oil $70.2 Billion of your tax money every year. Year after year.

Corn ethanol is getting $16.8 Billion of your tax money a year.

Renewable energy like wind and solar is getting $12.2 Billion a year and you are whining and complaining about it.

Why? If wind and solar got the money Big Oil gets it would be cheaper than Big Oil. We could run our computers cheaper, and our electric cars would cost less.

And there would be even more oil for neanderthals like Bobster to burn on their dime, not ours.

Transparency: How Much Does the United States Subsidize Energy - Environment - GOOD

Contrary to what some in politics and the media have said, the oil and natural gas industry currently enjoys no unique tax credits or deductions. Since its inception, the US tax code has allowed corporate tax payers the ability to recover costs and to be taxed only on net income. These cost recovery mechanisms, also known in policy circles as “tax expenditures”, should in no way be confused with “subsidies”, i.e., direct government spending.

Kornfed - there are other factors, but these include the release of methane from permafrost that make it much worse. And yes, there are a host of questions as to how the extra energy will be manifested - more clouds are likely, also more rain, more storms, more hurricanes, and more floods, but at the same time, shifts in energy will cause some areas to become drier, more arid, and we get worse droughts.

The basic science, however, is just that. Add more greenhouse gasses, as mankind is unquestionably doing, and we have an imbalance. If we collect more photons than we shed, we have to warm up. It is undeniable to anyone with common sense and a scientific background. We've been predicting it for 30 years and more, and those predictions have been correct for 30 years. There is no excuse for denierism except that so many people are credulous, stupid, and conservative, but I repeat myself.

S. Capps - what I think is horrible is the price that US oil drillers pay per barrel. Oil belongs to us the people. It is worth $90/bbl. Oil producers on federal lands, however, pay less than $15/bbl of our oil. That is the big give away that politicians have worked out with the oil companies in return for political donations. (In Norway, the people get full value. That is why Norway balances its budget and has a higher per capita income than we do. Same for Kuwait and others.)

noncoms,

You know, continually bashing conservatives and other people you disagree with only ruins whatever possible credibility you may have.

While you may have made some sense in your more scientific commentary, you lose whatever positive "points" you may have scored by being hostile, insulting and obnoxious towards those with opinions different than yours.

You have zero credibility at this point with anyone other than those who believe exactly the same way you do and you will sway NO ONE with your hostile, self-righteous attitude.

Grow up...and try pulling the corncob out of your backside sometime.

And by the way...the oil doesn't "belong to us the people". You are not entitled to anything regarding it simply because it is there and you exist.

Sheesh, people like you really aren't too terribly smart...but you sure think everything automatically belongs to you don't you?

SmBusOwnerinNY... If I hadn't read a number of your posts before in other articles I may have said WTF... nice post!

Apply for the permits, invest in producing it, pay your taxes and then lets see if you have the same opinion.

The basic science, however, is just that. Add more greenhouse gasses, as mankind is unquestionably doing, and we have an imbalance. If we collect more photons than we shed, we have to warm up. It is undeniable to anyone with common sense and a scientific background. We've been predicting it for 30 years and more, and those predictions have been correct for 30 years. There is no excuse for denierism except that so many people are credulous, stupid, and conservative, but I repeat myself.

Before man was around, what caused weather pattern abnormalities?

Totally agree wizard, NBC is playing politics misleading public opinion

'Horrible' sea level rise of more than 3 feet plausible by 2100, experts say.......NBC Headline

The median estimate from the experts is that the melting ice sheets will contribute 1 foot (29 centimeters) to sea level rise by the year 2100 with a 5 percent chance their contribution could exceed 2.8 feet (84 centimeters). When the effect of thermal expansion (water expands as it warms) is taken into account, the high-end estimate is more than 3 feet (1 meter).......This is what the actual the expert said.

NBC is misleading opinion from experts. For years , media and politicians are misleading public opinion in order to support their radical environmental agendas and redistribution of wealth from "Colonialist countries" to underdeveloped countries.

Nobody deny the fact of the global warming it is a phenomenon that is happening for thousand of years. The raising of the level of water is not new neither, as we know most part of the earth was cover with ice during the Ice Age.

CogitoErgo

My query is always this... Since any reasonably rational person will admin that they can't possibly know with absolute certainty that they are correct... why then are "climate skeptics" so against renewable energy? If we go that route there are so many benefits, and we avert a possible disaster (or two). There is, of course, a chance that the people who actually study the science everyday are wrong... but so what if they are?

Cheney said something like if there is a 2% chance of a terrorist attack we must act... well... I'd say there is a far higher chance of climate problems so...

What is so bad about acting?

CogitoErgo, your words fall upon mostly deaf ears as you can see the flotsam of post following yours, most of which prefer to mock the notion of experts rather than grasp and join voice in your so rational statement that it should be canon. I've been saying it for years that we need not speak of global warming as an issue because in fact the issue is pollution. Remove the pollution and we remove the warming. It is also easier to sell the harmful effects of pollution than it is the effects of planetary warming. But people prefer to be loud and ignorant as opposed to thoughtful and forward thinking.

Regardless, thanks for your voice in this small chorus of wisdom.

noncoms...1.80

Yes, but droughts in Australia are a regular event and according to Wikipedia, during the 19^th century, well before industrialization, they experienced at least 22 major droughts. That’s why Australia is the driest continent on Earth.

The most recent one in 2010 was broken by saturating rains and everyone, except the government of course (as their predictions of continuing drought and lack of rain were shattered), were celebrating the end of the drought.

The government is on the nose there and the elections later this year will be the end of them. Maybe, I can take a holiday there then and I as a denier, won’t be persecuted. A couple of months would be nice.

The only other drought that I know about in Australia is Carlton Draught, a pile lager, a heavenly drop. Brrrr, it’s too cold here to have one now.

We have plenty of fuel. I own a pickup, large SUV, and 600 HP Corvette. Also have a 36' SeaRay cruiser with twin V8s. I also have a Boston Whaler with twin 300 HP outboards. I also have a Harley and waverunner. We have enough fossil fuel for several hundred years so get over it.

It is OK, AF1 produce more CO2 in one flight to Hawaii that you in 100 years. Al Gore and Matt Demon produce more CO2 with their private jets than 1000 cars , but it is ok for them.

You're absolutely correct except your blaming the wrong people. 99.8% of American's can't truly afford to buy that gas guzzler and those that do think about it every time they go to the pump. That leaves the .2%, you hit them right on the head or I wish you would! Where does China fall into your blame game? I hope you're not blaming the Chinese people or at least the mass majority of them because they are in worse financial shape than our poorest of poor. Who rules this world? It's the military and the war mongers that rule this world and they will tell you if you buy all he oil, gas and natural resources in the world you will be the master of the Universe or what we know of it! There is where the .2% thrives they are the ones stealing from the poor to sell to the richest. 50 years ago when you bought land you bought the dirt and everything that was in it, including the water. Now day's you own only the part of the dirt that isn't worth a dime, everything in it worth money is minerals and you don't own that. The more use we find for what we stand on the more valuable it becomes and the less it becomes ours. There is no turning back the clock on the degradation we do to this planet and 98.8% are helpless to do anything about it. 100 years from now and 3 feet higher sea level is nothing compared to what else we are doing. Try no drinking water unless we drink salt water! Try 1/3 less land for us to live on! Try cattle and all other livestock being raised on corporate farms where they never see the light of day or walk father then it is from one side of a 3x4 pen to the other side, pretty much what our pigs do now. 100 years from now, I doubt we make it 50!

The seas are rising! The seas are ribblubbbubblebubble...

noncoms --- I love how you compare us to Norway so here goes, Norway subsidizes their oil in the form of tax breaks and credits but they definitely subsidize. They also give credits for future drilling.

For all the other wing-nuts who claim Co2 increases are man made, maybe some smart person drilling ice core sample might come up with periods in the earths history where Co2 not only increased at certain times but did so in very short amounts of time. The best part about all the predictions by the experts is all the money they are going to need to control the problem. When they are questioned or criticized they refer to the fact that they are specialists in their field and other scientists who state other opinions are not specialized and would never understand. All they are saying is no one is as smart as they are and you should believe them. I thought science was about asking all the questions not just the one you want answers to. Apparently not in the climate change field and they wonder why people do not believe them.

---

I see so many ridiculous comments

The bottom line is this.

1) You have a group of industrialists who have a corner on the market in petroleum. They pay politicians to protect their interests.

2) You have a group of industrialist who are focused on alternate sources of energy. They pay politicians as much or more than the petroleum industrialists to get their ideas financing from government and for government to pass laws favorable to them.

Here is the Punch line. Petroleum isn't even a fossil generated, it is geothermally created under high pressure from carbon, water, and whatever other minerals or chemicals that are in the areas of creation. You cannot find many of these chemicals in plant or animals, and several of them are toxic to humans and other creatures.

Would you like to laugh harder? The petroleum industry knows this, but won't tell you.

http://suite101.com/article/theories-on-origin-of-petroleum-a54954

http://www.livescience.com/9404-mysterious-origin-supply-oil.html

http://www.wnd.com/2005/11/33630/

http://freeenergynews.com/Directory/Theory/SustainableOil/

http://redstaterusa.blogspot.com/2009/06/abiotic-oil-makes-more-sense-than.html

Now, that I have exposed the heresy of science over fossil fuel, maybe you should re-look at AGW.

There is no question that the earth is heating up. First off that is a normal pattern. The earth has a consistent history of 13,500 - 15,000 year cycles where the planet chills into an Ice Age in just decades and then warms at a maxium 1 Degree Celcius per 100 years with some periods were the planet's temperature actually declines.

Can Carbon contibute. Yes and No. Temperature and Carbon actually rise together as much as they fall together, as much as they act independently.

Do humans contribute. Clearly yes. Everything we do revolves around recycling of Carbon. Eat, stay warm, build things, and transportation. The sum total of our contribution is 2 - 4%. And that is how much more we are contributing to global warming.

I understand people's concern about warming too much, but to believe that our contribution of carbon is going to throw the planet over the edge of temperature in 100 years is unrealistic.

There is one last hint that what the scientists are pushing an agenda is the meteorlogical records. They now show the planet has been in an overall decline in temperature for the past 13 years.

Wake up folks, be more skeptical instead of a blind follower.

For all the naysayers, that say it is all a hoax, propaganda, hype, bs, nonsense, that claim to have done all the research, invest a mere 54 minutes of your time, see George Bush, Dick Cheney, and many of the people and corporations that are saying global warming is junk science admit it is real and needs immediate attention, this was while Bush was in office. What do you have to lose?

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/climate-of-doubt/

DB spewing garbage once again why am I not surprised?

I was told to make an ark.....Can someone tell me ...what's a cubit?

1 cubit equals the distance from your elbow to the tip of your middle finger.

I was lied to in the seventies about pollution control and it cost this country its industrial base to China, thank you tricky Dick. When you control China's pollution which is ten times the output we did in our history, then I will know you are serious. I was against plastic, ocean dumping, deforestation and all the other bad practices. There were a lot of earth initiatives we did with pollution controls and laws. Then guess what? Alaska Pipeline, Superfund to cleanup lakes, rivers, and land. Speed limit, mileage act, cars in the 80's 50 miles a gallon, environmental laws changing quicker than presidents, special interests destroyed gains made, loopholes created to maximize profits for certain industries. Energy, communications, Agriculture, and of course foreign investment. All done in my lifetime on the people of Americas backs and prosperity.

The overwhelmingly dominant greenhouse gas is WATER VAPOR. CO2 isn't even in the same ball park. At any given moment, between 3 and 5 percent of the atmosphere is water vapor. CO2 is 0.038%. So there is roughly 100 times more water vapor, and it has a correspondingly greater effect on global temperature. This means, for example, that if you stop watering your lawn, you'll have a bigger effect on climate change than stopping driving your car. So quit pouring that drinking quality water out onto the ground, lower humidity, and let the Earth cool naturally.

99.999999% of the respondents here are not experts - despite what they read on the internet. Who cares whether it's man made or not- let's step up and solve something for the future generations.

Nope- instead we mock the black guy in office, deny science (in any way), want everyone to adhere to our religious beliefs, stall everything and anything and refuse to accept a simple thing such as the fact that we need to get our fiscal house in order with a blend of revenue (i.e taxes- corporate or personal) and spending cuts. Problem there is ~ 63% of our annual budget is set for SS, Medicare and Defense. So, to muddy the water we hear about cuts to planned parenthood funding but we should never touch the defense budget....

Sad.

Irvmani, Please define how one would "ask all questions". A scientist may have many questions. He addresses these questions one by one. He will choose the first question that may support a particular theory. He tests that theory with scientific methods to prove or disprove that theory with evidence. If there is no evidence that is conclusive, he will weigh the evidence that supports the theory against the evidence that may disprove it. Only a strong imbalance of evidence either for or against the theory will prompt him to take a stand.

He then moves on to the next question related to the first question in search for inevitable truth. That is the nature of true scientists. That is the process responsible for the discovery of fire and the invention of the wheel. That is the process responsible for the many technological advances available today.

The steady advance of science has long been suppressed by naysayers for religious and political stability or gains. The Earth had to be flat because the Bible told us so. That same reasoning insisted that the Earth was the center of the Universe despite conclusive proof to the contrary.

Circumventing the globe in search of a shorter and more direct route to the East Indies was preposterous. It would destroy the enormous profits of land-locked traders. The marvelous discovery of a new world to the west proved to surpass trade with the Far East beyond anyone's wildest dreams.

Such is the nature of science vs. religious and profiteering politicians. There have always been rogue scientists willing to sell out their calling and brother scientists for pockets lined of gold. Deep pockets of the priests and moneyed interests will always flush them out.

Take your pick, man. Scientists with pure devotion to the betterment of mankind or the few greedy hypocrites willing to sacrifice all in the name of the almighty dollar. That decision remains the same from the beginning of civilization to today.

plan271A, in post #1.91--you make a good point about removing the pollution. And in fact, regardless of the arguing about climate change/global warming, who can argue about people AND corporations simply acting responsibly? After all, one of the important lessons that we humans were SUPPOSED to learn in kindergarten was to clean up after ourselves......

You poor libs will worry yourselves , and abort yourselves out of existence far before you have to actually live through any of your concocted calamities. Relax a little, perhaps invest some time into an actual career, and you may actually find some fulfillment in your lives....

Hey Starsailing

A cubit is about 45.5 cm or the distance from the tip of you middle finger to the elbow. Good luck on the ark. Be careful though because there are a lot of people here that would strongly condemn you for cutting down a tree.

Have a good new year

I have noticed that climate is warmer than when I was a kid. In Florida, if you had a 75 degree day in the winter, that was considered warm and you bragged to your Yankee relatives how you wore shorts on Christmas Day. Now it is common to have days in the 80's in winter down there. I moved up here to the north to Central New York State. Last year, we barely had any snow and it was way less cold than the old timers remember. This year so far, we have had only intermittent snow, and often it is in the upper 30's, low 40's. Old timers say there was much more snow in the past and it hardly ever went above freezing. So everybody notices a change. Anyone who doubts global climate change needs to talk to old timers.

As far as sea level rise, I have not noticed that. You can't count hurricanes (like Sandy) because the wind always blows the water ashore. Is the water level higher on a calm day? Anyone see that? I never saw the Florida west coast disappear. What if that water were trickling off into deep space or something? Mars used to be wetter. Where did Mars water go?

The pollution levels have gotten worse over the years. Air quality is worse. We have to change the way we get energy, or it will soon be Soylent Green. I think we need to fund well inventors. We gotta get more efficient wind and solar. We need a new Nikola Tesla...NOW!

... this is all crap! But just in case, I'm making sure the kids take plenty of swimming lessons!

lets see... should I believe the Mayans or Al Gore? I'll take the Mayans even though their predictions suck, Al Gore is a profiteer not a prognosticator, and he always seemed goofy to me!

Kornfed,

Tell Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, Andrew Jackson, Franklin D. Roosevelt, Harry S. Truman, John F. Kennedy, Lyndon B. Johnson, James E. Carter, William J. Clinton and Barrack H. Obama that they never had an "actual career" or any fulfillment in their lives.

These are but a few Democrats that actually became Presidents of the United States. Pretty much the pinnacle of prominent positions in the entire world. The list of other great statesmen, businessmen, inventors and war heroes that proudly called themselves Democrats is exhaustive.

Perhaps you would like to compare resumes.

The US is making progress towards the reduction of green house gases. But all of the good we do here in this country is being offset by a factor of 4 by China, India, and Brazil. Until people put pressure on them it will only get worse. But personally I believe the opening of the northwest passage is a cyclical thing as it happened in the 1700s. It will open for a few years before it freezes over again for another century or two.

Thank God for mass killers/suiciders - if there were more of them maybe such disasters like this might be avoided because you can't possibly count on the human race to do anything to prevent this until after it is too late! There's just way to much money to be made in the short term - screw the children who'll have to live with the results!

archangel 316

AG, and Beth,

The problem I find with this study is simply that there isn't a real consensus and that much of what is being talked about is theory (just another WAG). I do not dispute that the climate is changing, but they are unable to accurately forecast the weather next month let alone 100 years in the future. There are too many factors to consider and many more that are completely unknown. Please don't go into the distinction between weather and climate because in this instance it really isn't relevant. The point is that the models that are developed for forecasting climate change are based on assumptions of factors and forces we do not yet understand. The earth has been around along long time and the only constant is the fact that the climate is in a continuous state of change. 400,000 years ago much of the world was a lot warmer than it is now and there was no industry to dump pollution into the ecosystem to cause the rise in world temperatures. Conversely we do not know how the last great ice ages were triggered which covered a great deal of the northern hemisphere in massive ice sheets either. That being said, is it better to expend major resources on things we really do not know enough about or to prepare for the possibility that we will have to adapt to a warmer climate? Renewable energy sources should be pursued, but a break neck program that endangers many national economies is far more risky to the world than changing to slowly. In WWII Japan lashed out at the world for control of greater resources than were available in the home islands. The US basically cut off the vast majority of its imports like oil and steel in an effort to get the Japanese to get in line. Their answer came to the US on December 7, 1941 and cost hundreds of thousands on both sides their lives. Was that really worth it from both sides? We can be a bit more prudent then acting in knee jerk fashion to the "sky is falling" media reports such as this one and work intelligently towards a better tomorrow.

#1.32 -

well said

Relying on a consensus of 50% of the experts, instead of the REAL data collected over centuries???

The longest running sea-level measurements are recorded at Amsterdam, in the Netherlands, beginning in 1700.^[38] Since 1850, the rise averaged 1.5 mm/year (about 0.060")...

Records dating from 1843 Australian data taken by an amateur meteorologist at the Port Arthur convict settlement, when merged with data recorded by modern tide gauges, indicated sea level rise of about 1 mm a year (about 0.040").^[39]

Global average sea level rose at an average rate of around 1.7 ± 0.3 mm per year from 1950 to 2009 and at a satellite-measured average rate of about 3.3 ± 0.4 mm per year from 1993 to 2009,^[5] an increase on earlier estimates.^[6]

This satellite-measurement accuracy is still in question due to their very short data period and the many other factors that influence these measurements. Most satellite data is verified by direct measurements, prior to its adoption as FACT...

The IPCC projections were based on a decade long Pacific Island study that started during the end of a major typhoon cycle. This contributed to a abnormal depression in the start of the Pacific Sea Level data base...

If you do not understand how these data bases are constructed and what effects the sea level measurements. ie - Continental rebound, tectonic plate movements, atmospheric conditions, limited numbers of data points/periods covered, etc...

Antarctic sea ice set another record this past week, with the most amount of ice ever recorded on day 256 of the calendar year (September 12 of this leap year)...

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...

National Snow and Ice Data Center, the WORLD clearing house for NASA & NOAA data... see

Now you want to talk about the record snow coverage during the winter of 2011/12 in the Northern Hemisphere or the record low temperatures in BOTH the Arctic & Antarctic???

wakeup...

Planned parenthood pnly gets about 7% (2010) of their fundingfrom the federal government (excluding xfer payments for billable medicaid and medicare). Just check out there annual statements. They can get by without it just as the military can get by wityh spending less as well as medicaid.

The nice thing about sequestration is that cuts are across the board for the military and discretionary. This means that the politicians can't whine about what programs get hit (ie no more sacred cows).

SS disability needs to be funded differently since it was added to the SS program without a seperate funding source. Medicare and SS retirement needs to have the level of contributions increased by everyone, especially by those most likely to get it. You know, pay their fair share.

The skys used to be such a brilliant shade of blue back in 1976 and the clouds were so large and fluffy looking and a clear white color.... And the only time i've seen them come anywhere close to that is when the terrorist attack came on 9/11 and they declared the USA a no fly zone.... Now the skys in those 3 days only turned about half the shade of blue back to that, other than that grey dingy ugly blue that they are today.... So if your old enough to remember the skys back then you'll know what I mean by this statement....

This is why all the ice caps are melting, the atmosphere is thinning blocking less the suns rays that come through it and making the summers sun a bit more intense in the earths northern hemisphere.... Well at least i'm pretty sure that this is the cause of these occurrences.... Also perhaps the oils left in the air are coating the vegetation and not letting out all the oxygen that vegetation normally would.... Just a thought i've been thinking about for few years now.... Any thoughts....

It doesn't matter as astrominists are saying a neutron star will be entering our solar system in 75yrs, and when it does it is suppose to be a ELE (end of life event) which may explain our Gov. out of control spending.

It's interesting...

the NOT discussing IF things are happening anymore...

Are we now joining the rest of us

in the Human Being category,

we're finally listening to WHAT is going on

So what do you do with the Corporations that

will NOT admit to anything that's been said here...

Simply form a community that does NOT support

their visions of what our lives should be

talk to other people (that's everyone, not just some),

behaviors that are more like the kid with his hand

in the Candy Jar.... :-) are cute when left to their own

disguise...

Frustrate the heck out of people Marketing the next new products

support each other in the quest for a valued Life

become who you are, not WHAT the personality profile

says you are...

congrats and many blessings

Heart of ALL that is..:-)

the WHOLE of ALL that is...

is Us-Together...

C_P

What science should be studying is how brains so small can have such immense egos? To think that man can understand such complex systems and that he can, in any way, change the climate and start cooling it down is absurd. Not only that but with such incredible certitude that the change causing the heating is is man-made. For all of the Left Wing Liberal/Progressive Wack Jobs and their belief in progress they sure do want to stop things from changing. It almost appears as if they wish for stasis. FYI geniuses. If it weren't for climate change you wouldn't be here.

What's the elevation of Al Gore's ocean front mansion in California?

No problem, says Obama, because only 'rich' people live by the ocean, and who cares about THEM - and it's 'Bush's fault' anyway.

By the way - should we just let it happen, or should we spend tens of $Trillions to limit the rise to only 2.7 feet. In the fairly recent geological past, the sea level has risen as much as 400 feet. Here's a quote from Wikipedia;

"Sea level reached 120 meters (394 feet) below current sea level at the Last Glacial Maximum 19,000-20,000 years ago."

In other words, sea level has been rising fairly consistently for the last 20,000 years. Perhaps we can trace the beginning of 'Global Warming' to those darn campfires where people used charcoal (Carbon based) to cook and keep warm. lol

Personally, I think we are all of God's little beans in his intestine, swelling up a collective biblical fart that could end life on earth as we know it.

The thing is...I don't think most of the folks posting in this thread truly realize how little they know about climate science when compared to an actual, practicing climate scientist with a doctorate. That knowledge gap is **VAST***. I don't mean this as an insult to anyone - I truly don't - but you are like first grade children arguing about calculus. This thread is LITERALLY that absurd. Even people with PhDs in other, but related, fields are completely unqualified to be disputing anything said about climate change by climatologists that study that topic. These scientists have devoted their entire adult lives (often 60 or even more hours per week) to studying and trying to understand climate science. Their knowledge of this topic is farther above that of a well educated, interested layman than a college math major is above a first grader just learning basic addition. I'm not exaggerating. You may think you're well informed about it, but you are not.

I am absolutely not saying that climatologists are any smarter than any of you in any objective sense -- only that they KNOW what they are talking about when they say that human activity is warming the planet and that this is a serious problem.

And before someone says it -- most of them are paid by government grants that are awarded by panels of experts on the basis of the quality of the science. In contrast, most of the climate change denial is ultimately funded by oil companies (and similar industries) that stand to lose a lot of money if strong steps are taken to curtail climate change.

Meanwhile, the scientific studies are funded by groups motivated by political agendas, the results will be questionable. It is important the impartiality in scientific studies, but this is not what is happening. We have many cases in which renowned pseudo-scientists have submitted false studies to prove their theories about global warming. While there is hypocrisy in the actions of those who demand radical actions, to stop global warming, acting in a manner contrary to what they preach, as the case of Al Gore, Matt Demon and other so-called leaders of the protection of the environment, they lose all credibility when themselves, own aircraft private jets, luxurious recreational vehicles , limousines that produce massive quantities of pollutants compared with the average of vehicles nothing is going to happens , more over the same scientific do not have any real way to demonstrate the changes of the climate and temperature during a period of time if certain actions are taking.

Redvirginia: google "pbs climate of doubt" for a full-length video on this issue. 97% of the world's top environmental scientists agree that climate change is real, that it is at least partly influenced by human events, and that it can be altered if we act fast.

If 97% of oncologists told you had a cancerous growth in your chest, would you act on that information?

Junicon

The thing is...I don't think most of the folks posting in this thread truly realize how little they know about climate science when compared to an actual, practicing climate scientist with a doctorate. That knowledge gap is **VAST***. I don't mean this as an insult to anyone - I truly don't - but you are like first grade children arguing about calculus.

Perhaps you should listen to the local Pasteur then, for he has VAST knowledge of such things. Accept God as your savior libs!

Massachusettz

It is not about is climate change exist or not. We know it is a fact and has been for millions of years, the point scientific have not idea how to deal with the climate change and politics bring pseudo solutions , base in political ideologies that do not hold any water.

Pollution has many layers, like onions do. Now to say doing nothing about pollution is OK would be to admit it doesn't matter. Look around, breathe the air, drink of the water, if it doesn't catch fire. Eat of the fish that will soon be 10% plastic. Swim in the ocean until you reach the Islands of garbage that are reaching continent size and walk. How many Atomic and Nuclear tests and accidents have left radiation in the atmosphere? My point is know one cared, out of sight out of mind. Ozone depletion was and is a paramount concern but a few countries have not halted using chemicals that destroy the Ozone. I don't think I have to tell you who they are.

P.S. Ozone depletion is a scientific fact. It is caused by chemicals not found in nature causing a adverse chemicalreaction. This is a agreed upon globally. That is why there was a treaty, remember r12 refrigerant?

Massachusettz "Redvirginia: google "pbs climate of doubt" for a full-length video on this issue. 97% of the world's top environmental scientists agree that climate change is real, that it is at least partly influenced by human events, and that it can be altered if we act fast."

Here's some 'Food for thought';

The average temperature has been consistently rising for the last 20,000 years – for example, here's a quote from Wikipedia; “"Sea level reached 120 meters (394 feet) below current sea level at the Last Glacial Maximum 19,000-20,000 years ago." (Link below) In other words, sea level has been rising fairly consistently for the last 20,000 years.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_level#Sea_level_and_dry_land

As the temperature rises, it creates a natural 'feedback loop' wherein the ground releases massive amounts of Carbon that has been trapped, which further increases Greenhouse gases, which accelerates warming even further. This has been going on for the last 20,000 years – long before the 'Industrial Revolution', and it follows a very consistent pattern of Ice Age cycles that repeat themselves about every 100,000 years, with temperatures rising quickly over about a 20,000 year period, and then peaking before a dramatic drop in average temperatures.

We are currently near the point where the Earth seems to naturally 'cycle itself' into a very dramatic cooling period, which will devastate civilization on a massive scale that dwarfs recent events such as the 'Little Ice Age' (Link below);

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

If you LOOK CAREFULLY AT THE GRAPHS BELOW, and consider where we are in this current cycle, you should ask yourself “Do we want to interfere with this natural cycle in an attempt to speed up the cooling process, when that might actually start a new Ice Age?”

http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=ice+age+cycle+graph&id=B059362169FE08D863EA1C1DA3BBD1C991FAC52F&FORM=IQFRBA#view=detail&id=B4361364CFD8E0081327D31FF51DB27C593A25C8&selectedIndex=13

http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=ice+age+cycle+graph&id=B059362169FE08D863EA1C1DA3BBD1C991FAC52F&FORM=IQFRBA#view=detail&id=B16FC980A7F2A934050B8170B7E0D44D7202A77E&selectedIndex=6

Most people don't use Wiki for a reason.

bob-2476682 "Most people don't use Wiki for a reason."

More people use Wiki than any other source for reliable information on most subjects, and since Wiki provides links to the scientific sources for the data, what's your point?

Can you provide ANY reputable source that materially disagrees with the Charts that were linked?

Here's a link to a more 'scholarly' source for Ice Ages, which agrees completely with the Wiki source;

http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=ice+ages+charts&qpvt=ice+ages+charts&FORM=IGRE#view=detail&id=C1EE90F2F0D6C7B90186B717BE365116A3DA8EF3&selectedIndex=12

Every year we delay meaningful action on climate change will cost $500 billion (with a 'B') in mitigation costs later.

Every single year.

[...]

What part of that scenario looks 'more costly' than getting off fossil fuels - and why are so many other developed countries making such great progress without destroying their economies?

The accuracy of this claim notwithstanding, you are missing the point. Fossil fuels are cheaper now, and that's all that counts for most people. What will happen "down the road" is irrelevant because people have a marvelous capacity to ignore things they don't want to think about, which is why so many people still smoke, eat junk food, and don't exercise enough.

For those who ridicule the article for being alarmist about a 5% chance of the 3-foot elevation in sea levels... ask any hard-core gambler in Vegas if they were faced with a 5% risk-of-ruin proposition (odds that they would lose everything) if they would take that bet. Go ahead. You wouldn't have a single taker.

Weathermen, climatologists, Mayans, fortune tellers, horoscopes. All the same to me. How often are they ever really right? At least a broken clock is right twice a day. I would have more faith in that than the group thinking so called expert cult of climatologists that have proposed everything from painting our ice caps black to help warm the earth to saying that global warming would have ended the world by now. Maybe one day they will get up to the broken clock success rate.

"There is one last hint that what the scientists are pushing an agenda is the meteorlogical records. They now show the planet has been in an overall decline in temperature for the past 13 years."

This is a lie.

We need to have a discussion about what constitutes a real, objective fact. YES, it is possible to show a decrease in the last 13 years, but it's only through a careful, calculated reading of the data through sampling that begins on an especially hot year. The overall climate trend, all sampling aside, is obviously rising at a rate that even a reserved person would describe as troubling.

We need to be intellectually honest and admit just how much our political beliefs are now coloring what we see as facts. There once was a time when FACTS, when proven and established as facts, were beyond reproof. But the 24-hour news cycle and the wonderful, invaluable, and simultaneously terrifying idea of everyone on earth being entitled to a soapbox on the Internet has totally destroyed the very meaning of a fact. The very idea that someone has the gall to look at the data and say "the Earth is not warming" should be stunning to all involved. But....why is it warming? That's another question, with a murkier answer...but, yes, the early data suggests mankind's activities are playing a role in this trend. I wish we weren't, but it seems we are.

I'm no enviro-Ed Begley Jr-type, but I'm troubled by a lot of what I see on forums like this, especially in the reflexive, hysterical, and almost always uncalled-for distrust of science and those who practice it. Only in a society as woefully scientifically ignorant as the U.S. would hard-core climate deniers make some of their more spectacular claims and get a pass. I don't know what scientists have done to earn the ire of the deniers (scientists weren't running AIG, Moodys, Lehman Bros, or Goldman Sachs, were they?).

Some here have even focused on the scientists' reluctance to firmly state an opinion as proof of their failings......this idea shows a complete misunderstanding of science and those who practice it. Go to a major science symposium, and I'll show you a room of the most cautious people you've ever met. Scientists are taught by their discipline to be open to possibility, and have a deep-seated need for proof after proof after proof before even making the most cautious claim. Science demands this as it refines hypothesis into reliable theory.

So trust me, when the vast majority of scientists, who study this stuff more than you can even imagine, when they all say, "Hey, we're really in trouble..." .....you should maybe think they REALLY mean it.

There ya go! Everyone is crying for jobs. Better get on the construction of those sea walls. We have been warned!

'Horrible' sea level rise of more than 3 feet plausible by 2100, experts say

More bs studies imo. Predicting the future of 2100 and we are only in the year 2013.

At my age, I won't even be around. So I am not going to even bother to worry about these gummit bs studies done to try and get more of your more out of you thru some bs fee.

AND a few hundred years ago the EXPERTS said the earth was HORRIBLY FLAT. Probably wanted to initiate a flatness tax.

Blah, Blah, Blah.......

A Gallup poll from last February shows that 70% of Americans now believe in Climate Change ( maybe more so, now after Hurricane Sandy flooded New York and NJ).

The remaining 30% of Americans who still refuse to believe in Climate Change are folks who believe in creationism, you know..."...and on the 4th day He created tigers and lions......"

These are the same folks who also believe that assault weapons have a place in America. (Why not bazookas ? Don't I have a God-given right to own a bazooka ? Surely the Constituion is OK with Bazoooka ownership. The Founding Fathers would have loved to own .50 Caliber tri-pod mounted machine-guns,too...

Cracks me up all the doubters on here. Also, all the freaks saying it is a liberal thing. It's ok, you will see soon enough but from what I have observed from the Tea bags here, you don't care about anyone but yourselves anyway.

@ Aliam-1161783

Gallup poll from last February shows that 70% of Americans now believe in Climate Change ( maybe more so, now after Hurricane Sandy flooded New York and NJ).

The remaining 30% of Americans who still refuse to believe in Climate Change are folks who believe in creationism, you know..."...and on the 4th day He created tigers and lions......"

These are the same folks who also believe that assault weapons have a place in America. (Why not bazookas ? Don't I have a God-given right to own a bazooka ? Surely the Constituion is OK with Bazoooka ownership. The Founding Fathers would have loved to own .50 Caliber tri-pod mounted machine-guns,too...

#1.141

Man, you people are just stuck on stupid aren't you? And it is that special kind of stupid.

So, if they disagree with you, you must denigrate their religion? I don't think that you are aware that Atheism is a religion too. And so is this "Man Made Global Warming" thing you believe in.

"70% of Americans now believe in Climate Change" I don't suppose you ever read a book called "How to Lie With Statistics"? What a BS statement. You give the impression that 70% of people believe in "Man Made Global Warming", and no doubt you believe it as well.

Well I am one of those who believe in 'Climate Change', or at least a changing climate. Do I agree with your bass ackward college professors and so called scientists? HELL NO. Common sense tells me that something cause the recession of the ice sheets 20k years ago (or when ever), and I have seen nothing to indicate that same force has reversed itself. I.e. If it is not getting colder, then it is getting warmer. One thing is certain, the Earth is neither static nor constant. The only thing CO2 maybe considered it an accelerant.

Yes, if you have ever read anything on the Founding Fathers you would know, that they intended "the people", that is the individuals, to be armed (with all that they could afford). The thing they never imagined is the Federal Criminal Agencies (FBI, ATF, IRS etc) and standing Army that all you liberals say need to be armed, but not us citizens. You people have the whole thing in reverse.

My State Constitution reads "A standing Army in time of Peace is a danger, and shall not be tolerated", yet here it is. {I for one knowing the length of time to train people in modern warfare am actually not opposed to the Standing Army, we need to update our constitutions to reflect the changes though.}

The Constitution does not "Guarantee" my rights, I was born with them. The Constitution tells the Government the limit of what they can do to my rights. The Constitution is not for me. It is for the Government. It says the Government may not do this, this or this. PERIOD. It says not what I may or may not do.

And yes, technically, the 1934 Firearms Control Act is unconstitutional. Any gun control that doesn't directly influence public safety, such as shouting "Fire" in a crowded theater, or shooting someone who is not a direct threat to one's own safety, (commonly referred to as homicide or manslaughter), is an "infringement"

And Question me this, since it was legal up until 1934 to purchase (no questions, and delivered via USPS) a fully automatic Tommy gun or BAR (if guns are the problem and need to be banned), why were there so many spree shooting in the 20's? How many thousands died from those hails of bullets?

Do you think the Founding Fathers envisioned the Porn Industry being protected by the first Amendment or TV, Movies or Hollywood? the Internet?

Or how about indirect surveillance? Supposed to be covered under the 4th. Or Health Insurance? which amendment was that, that made it my right to access health care?

GetaClue-2104366 ""There is one last hint that what the scientists are pushing an agenda is the meteorlogical records. They now show the planet has been in an overall decline in temperature for the past 13 years."......................This is a lie.We need to have a discussion about what constitutes a real, objective fact. YES, it is possible to show a decrease in the last 13 years"

So what they said is true, but you call it a lie?

Very funny.

The most recent annual World Energy Outlook issued by the International Energy Agency last November focused heavily on the effect on both global temperature rise and sea-level rise that burning the projected growth in fossil fuels demand through 2100 would have, also based on continuing world population growth through that time period.

The IEA is a well-respected world scientific body of oil industry and climate scientists. Their report calls for a catastrophic global average temperature rise by 2100 of between 5 and 6 degrees Celsius, or between 9 and 10.8 degrees Fahrenheit, along with a sea level rise of between 3 and 5 meters, or between roughly 10 and 16 feet. Other world climate scientists including the IPCC are also calling for a sea level rise in the 2 to 4 meter range by 2100 too.

The elevation of Lake Okeechobee is 10 feet above sea level, as is the elevation of Houston, TX. Imagine what a sea-level rise of 10 feet will do to an awful lot of low-lying American real estate, especially when a hurricane storm surge is added to it? The storm surge caused by many strong hurricanes can be 15-25 feet, which basically means that an awful lot of our Gulf and Florida Coasts will become unlivable including a number of major cities.

Far too much peer-reviewed scientific research from all over the world is centered around a 3-meter rise in sea-level by 2100 due to massive amounts of polar and glacial melting. This past year was the warmest year on record in the US by almost a full degree Fahrenheit, and 2012 was the worst year ever for carbon dioxide emissions, even worse than 2011, despite all but a handful of nations around the world being in-compliance with Kyoto.

The long-term prospect for sustainable continued human life on large areas of our planet further dims every year. Frankly we can not sustain continued population growth and if we can't continue to grow our population, economic growth goes right out the window too, which will make it increasingly more difficult for society to afford to make the ever more expensive changes to technology and infrastructure that long-term sustainability will demand.

Raw natural resource depletion is looming on the near horizon for several key resources without which human life will become much more difficult too. By 2100 our planet will almost certainly be out of economically-recoverable copper ore, oil, and phosphate too. Without phosphate for fertilizer the agricultural land size requirement to feed population doubles, and our planet does not have enough surplus farmland to support a projected population of 11-12 billion by 2100 without phosphate for fertilizer, especially not if sea-level rises by 10 feet.

In addition to the IEA World Energy Outlook the IMF also issued their own oil futures report last November based around eight different development scenarios which depend on the degree to which world society conforms to the goal of reducing carbon dioxide and methane atmospheric release, and conforming to various sustainable criteria. The average of their eight scenarios is calling for an increase in oil-based fuel prices of 400% in 2011 Dollars by 2030, just 17 years from now. Imagine the effect on transport prices of a 400% rise in fuel costs, (up to a rise as high as 800% if none of the sustainability and atmospheric gas emissions targets are met), along with the effect on our ability to extract ourselves from an ever more unlivable scenario that we will have ever-less economic ability to successfully rectify?

So, business as usual, until the cows come home, or are we courageous enough to take substantial corrective steps now before billions of people have to die, including a 9-figure sum here in the US?

You have to love these "scientific" studies. They send a survey to 26 people, half don't respond, AT ALL.

Under what statistical analysis is 13 people a representative sample of ANYTHING, except maybe members of the Cabinet of the President of the United State ?

While there is no doubt that man made emissions contribute to the changing climate, or global warming, or whatever it is called this week, they are not the sole factor. They need to be controlled, in a responsible fashion to which ALL countries are subject.

Darn it Dirp, just when I thought you were a true blue idiot, you have to go and write a post that makes sense. Well said.

Seriously, if there were only some way to get those calving icebergs into the Colorado River, it would help offset two deadly results of global warming: sea rise and drought.

The Mississippi could use them too. About to stop shipping because of drought conditions.

Stop using laptops and electronics and other appliances. Electricity production is the #1 destroyer of the environment: carbon, mercury, dams (gee those terrible terrible things they want to take down)...and worse in the long term if we go nuclear and have one single accident.

Glen,

how about instead of throwing the world back into the dark ages we just find a way to get rid of fossil fuel production. Energy production is not what is causing the problem. It is energy product from oil that is.

Energy from nuclear plants, hydroelectric dams are clean sources of energy (I suppose nuclear is debatable but it does not release anything into the air as a by-product). With some more funding into improving technologies Wind and Solar can be every bit as efficient as oil and the others are. We just need someone to ball-up and make the investment. If the Private sector refuses to do it then the Public sector is going to have to.

I believe we should do A LOT more hydroelectric but environmentalists are against it. Even with more efficient turbines and grid technology, the DEP takes down small and mid size dams everywhere in the US any chance it gets to restore wetlands, salmon runs, and reduce liability.

Solar will come into being practical sometime after 2014.

Oh my God, the humanity!!!! Dogs and cats living together.... disasters of Biblical proportions!

Geowil,

I'm sorry but you are incorrect.

Wind and solar will NEVER be as efficient as oil and coal are. Both wind and solar rely on energy sources that are not constant by their very definition. Therefore, they simply cannot be as efficient.

As for the public sector doing it because the private sector won't "ball-up" as you call it...feel free to donate your money anytime you like. Don't EVER automatically think you can donate mine though.

Our government already wastes more than enough of my money because people like you think its a good idea for the public sector to do all this crap.

There aren't "so many benefits" for "renewable" energy. Every single scheme is more costly and less convenient than conventional energy sources. If renewable energy were actually better, it wouldn't be necessary to make laws or create subsidies to try to force people to adopt renewable. But use of coercion IS necessary, and that tells us all we need to know about so-called renewable energy.

Perhaps one day it will be better, but the crisis is being manufactured to get more action from an already bloated government who never lets a good crisis go to waste. Even at the top of the page you have some schlub, jenny2549412, who thinks our actions of an SUV are killing the planet. Funny----I look at my own life and find the economics of it very funny indeed. For example:

I drive a Cobalt for the gas mileage because gas is outrageous...I prefeer a small truck that is at least functional for simple things like mulch and compost for my garden beds.

I have curly q lights that are 2 times more costly and don't last any longer than the other BAD bulbs.

I have a mandated toilet in my home that takes multiple flushes----saving water indeed.

Add to that that WAYYYYY back in the 80's in Scholastic magazine I read that we are looking at a new Ice Age (1982 or so), we will be out of gas and fuel by 2000, and by 2010 we would be flying in our cars. None of this has happened. Guess the answer is more misery through regulations. THANK GOD WE HAVE THE ONE!

starbuck49

Look at the bright side, build more desalination plants and we will never run out of water. No more drought like Texas had. No more cold winters so we can burn less fuel for heat and make more gas for our gas guzzling SUV's.

Hey starbuck49 check out my post just above #1.119.....

I don't think any cars have as much to do with it as much as the rocket engines on jet airliners blowing all that diesel fuel out into the atmosphere simply because they have a great emission system in place on most of them.... If you think about the rocket engines blowing all that oily resin out at the high altitudes they do then maybe you'll conceive the idea that I had too.... I feel that they killing the planet slowly and a ground traveling system is more eco friendly....

Basically, the scientists involved with global cliumate change are facing a singular problem. Weather and climate are chaotic systems. (Google "chaos" foir more information.) Weather and climate donot respond in a linear way, but rather respond to "strange attractors." (Google "strange attractors" for more information.)

People trying to predict weather and climate are using linear deterministic models to do their prediction. The problem is that weather and cliimate are NOT linear determinmistic systems. And we really do not have the math (yet) to model the phase chances inherent in chaotic strange attractors. These systems will act like liunear determnistic systems for a while and then suddenly change and act under a new set of rules. There are huge numbers of well-studied simple systems, but nothing that can approach the complexity of weather and climate --- yet. Lots of mathematicians are working on it.

The issue surfaces as predictions that are always wrong on the conservatiuve side. So far globlal woarming and ice melting have exceeded anyones model-based predictions. This is because they are linar deterministic models that are far too back-loaded with old data. A true chaotic model would only contain data on the most recent phase and the phase shift that brought us into that phase.

Until chaos emerges as a full-blown branch of mathematics, the models are always going to predict much less warming and ice melting than will actually occur. Get used to it.

warthog213-984171

I don't think any cars have as much to do with it as much as the rocket engines on jet airliners blowing all that diesel fuel out into the atmosphere simply because they have a great emission system in place on most of them

I don't know what country you're from, but the last ROCKET engine on an aircraft that I know of was the x-15. The aircraft that are flying now are equipped with JET engines and the contrails that they produce is almost pure water vapor formed when hot air is dumped in a super cold environment. Cars produce more toxic chemicals and co2 than all the planes in existance. The contrails have been produced since planes have been able to get into the stratosphere in the mid 40's.

Right. Washington politicians are paralyzed with the fear of actually doing something and being criticized for it... even if years later, they are proven to have been right!

It's not even the fear of failure anymore that paralyzes politicians. It's the fear of being criticized and even the slightest chance they won't get elected in the next election.

We need politicians who are either too wealthy to give a sh$% about being re-elected or who are smart enough and capable enough of finding another line of work if they don't get re-elected.

Well, then there are the ones who just want easy access to "power." Of course, not many politicians actually get that kind of power, but these people are not thinking rationally.

Actually there is something which can be done. Assume there will be a 2 foot rise in sea levels. The maximum height of the highest tides of the year can be calculated out to 100 years, now. Couple the 2 foot rise in sea level, with the highest tides, then figure that during that period a sustained wind blowing toward shore at 40 mph would last for three days. This later figure would give you an idea of close to maximum storm surge. From here figure your flooding elevation height, and make your building codes, or your levee hight adjustments from that elevation. Certainly there will be a few failures which result in flooding, but 80% of your flooding issues will be resolved, especially if you restrict residential buildings within these recalculated coastal boundaries. These flood prone zones would still have usage for certain commercial development, so wouldn't necessarily have to be returned to tidal flat and marshland, which wouldn't hurt anything if they were.

Intelligent -

We need politicians who are either too wealthy to give a sh$% about being re-elected or who are smart enough and capable enough of finding another line of work if they don't get re-elected

the problem is many (mostly the rich) get into politics for power and control, the power to control people so they and their friends can party while Rome burns. Talk about kicking the can down the road, where will most adults be in 2100 ...dead. Most politicians don't give a rats a$$ about their own grand kids they live for now and for them.

We have been saying this will happen in the 60s and it is and it will continue as the scientist say.

No one acts until it effects them directly. Until water is ripping their homes apart, they do not care what they are doing to the environment. The Earth will correct itself and that usually means that things get pretty nasty on the surface. At 43, I'll be long gone before any of this hits the fan, but it will be fun to watch the panic and double talk that goes on in the meantime. I'll have to weather some nasty storms as I live on the coast, but I can manage for myself. We will see. There is no money to do anything about it, we send all our money to foriegn countries to make them our friends. Live well America, you have voted and made your wishes known, now live with it. The people you elected have no concern for you or the future and feel that we are their servants. They work for us, not the other way around. Make it known, grow a set and speak up.

gunner, I hope you are right. I have it a bit better than you at 55 :) but I have a bad gut feeling even I will see those much stronger and destructive storms in my future. We are already experiencing that. Stay safe on the coast as I do my best to weather out the severe and prolonged draughts in the mid-west and actually declining great lakes water levels.

Since everyone agrees that the vast percentage of people now alive and living in the areas prone to coastal flooding due to non Tsunami storm events, as the owners of the flood prone properties die off, make sure there is no transfer of such properties to future residential habitation. Thus industry related to port activity, commercial fisheries, etc., could remain, residential housing couldn't. The owner of said residential property could die in it, wouldn't be denied access to it for the remainder of their lives... but when they croak, that's it. No kid nor grandkid get's the residential property which is prone to coastal flooding for the purpose of residential habitation. Within 100 years, as the sea rises, residential housing won't be a problem. It should be underwater at least seasonally if the calculations are correct, and if the calculations aren't correct, well no worry for FEMA disaster aid, which can be applied to non calculable catastrophe.

I agree with you Steve. There is plenty of evidence of low lying communities in the ancient world that are now completely underwater so we certainly should be considering "the cost to humanity" and making the proper adjustments. I read a very scientific and scholarly book that showed evidence that in previous warming cycles there is a relation between colder less salinized water(Glacier melt?) in the oceans and the cumulative effect on warm water currents that can trigger a rapid Ice Age. One thing is for sure, Mankind has had a pretty easy ride so far but it cannot last forever.

Just a reminder to you enviros.... These same "experts" said that we were on the way to a new ice age back in the 70's! I guess they were wrong back then, too!

You know Dan....we can plan for some possibilities and if they do not pan out no harm done. Sorry that "nature" does not produce major climate change on whatever timeline that suits your attention span.

Dan M-1100664: Well, you're a source we all should trust.

The levels CAN'T RISE.....we have THE ONE! He said the ocean levels would recede like Biden's hair line.

The IPCC and the World Media like to point @ these as examples of sea level rising;

1. An island in India - located at the tip of a river delta, was also experiencing soil erosion and decreasing elevation as the sea ward tip of the delta fell into the Ocean...

2. Bangladesh flooding - the country is almost entirely located on a river delta, their highlands have been stripped of its forest(increasing water run-off), and they have experienced annual floods for centuries...

3. South Pacific islands - one of the most active tectonic areas in the world. Real scientific studies are indicating these coral atolls are actually INCREASING in size...

BTY - River deltas SINK naturally; as the sediment compacts, vegetation in the soil decomposes and the delta moves toward the ocean depths. And in New Orleans case - PLUS the removal of the crude oil has DECREASED the land elevation in areas 8+FEET BELOW sea level in less than 200+years...

we can plan for some possibilities and if they do not pan out no harm done.

Different "Dan" here but... no harm done? Are you not familiar with the concept of "opportunity costs"?

Suppose the government spends $80T over the next 50 years planning for a global climate emergency -- then, whoops, sorry, we figured out where we went off the rails. Never mind, no harm done, except for everything else that could have been done with that money.

I'm not arguing against warming here, mind you, just the insane mentality that says that preparations for something that doesn't happen have no cost.

Dan-451... You're still going to have coastal flooding due to hurricanes, even if the oceans don't rise. This is due to construction in ports and harbors even if all residential housing is removed. Hurricanes are not going to cease to exist, for a hurricane is winds over 75 mph. Spring and neap tides aren't going to cease to exist as tidal heights are related to the moon and the season. So if hurricane force winds, in excess of let's say 80 mph, during a spring tide, at a river mouth, the river will back up and flood low lying areas, even if excessive rainfall does not occur. This flooding will occur in ports and harbors, as they are designed to dock boats and ships, and the floats which the boats tie up to, do exactly that, float. Once you loose your boat moorings, vessels are at the mercy of tides and currents. Assume a boat weighs five tons, for example, and the water current is going at ten miles an hour,... five tons of something hard like a boat, hitting something at 10 mph, does damage, and the more weight, the more damage...like a floating house in the flood waters. So you want to start assessing the potential for damages well before the catastrophe, so you can lessen the damages. Damages will still occur.

That's very scientific of you. 

What possible reason could you have for saying that, other than being retarded?

"Life is tough, it's even tougher when you're stupid." John Wayne

Talk about clowns, you take first prize Bozo!

go ahead and listen to the likes of limbaugh, hannity, beck, rather than organization like the National academy of Scientists. Shows how dumb you are.

Yes Ron they are relentless with their half-baked science crap.

Just take this part of the article:"there is tremendous uncertainty in the scientific community over how the melting will affect sea levels over the next century"

They don't know and don't have specifics to deal with. Its all hear-say and doomsday hand wringing.

:"there is tremendous uncertainty in the scientific community over how the melting will affect sea levels over the next century"

I still wouldn't bet on sea levels going down anytime soon.

Perhaps Ron has a savior that will make everything better.

Ron-750988My god, these clowns are relentless with their scams.

Remember the nerds in your class who weren't good at sports and didn't get the girls but got straight A's because they were simply more intelligent than the rest of you? Those are the people that become scientists, doctors, and researchers. Of course this stuff baffles and confuses you, that comes as no surprise. And of course you lash out with insults as you probably did back in the day. That does not, nor will it, change the reality of climate change. In these deniers minds every cold spell and snow tells them nothing is wrong but that's only because they don't exactly understand the concept.

Another 65 degree day here in January. My girlfriends out back on a lounge chair getting some sun. It's getting pretty weird already.

My god(sic) these cons are relentless with their ignorance. They just cling to their guns and Bibles. Bless 'em, because it's all they have got! As usual we will just have to steer around them and hope they don't start shooting!

Shipwrecked

There is ALWAYS a degree of uncertainty in science. The certainty seems to always come from those who reject science with no alternative explanation of the data, no solid reason to reject the science and, frankly, no real knowledge of the subject. It's always nice to throw in a conspiracy theory or two just to further convince your fellowship of willfully ignorant anti-science blowhards, like how rich the scientist become on the phony climate study grants or the I-hate-Al-Gore-so-I-believe-nothing-he-says "logic."

Well, you know what they say, if you want to find out the truth you follow the money. So, we have a select group of people paid by the government to say what? Of course they are going to say what their bosses want. At least they admit that they hand picked who they sent this to. Sure, they call them the "experts" and "top of their field" and that sort of stuff, but they really mean is that they knew in advance that they were going to say what they are paid to say. And the beauty of it for them is that they are asked to make predictions so far into the future that it makes no difference whether they are right or wrong. There's no accountability for what they say.

Let's face it, as late as the early 1980s these same type of people had spent 20 years screaming about global cooling. When they were proved wrong, they changed course and called it global warming. Then, when they were proved wrong again, they changed course again and called it climate change. Yet, they still want to make the same arguments that we need to turn over our lives and trust the politicians. And, yes, that is what it boils down to. Trust the politicians to tell us what to do and how we should live.

The evidence of their fraud is indisputable. Heck, they spend most of their time trying to hide their data from us. The predictions they have made to date have not come to pass and have been so far off base that it is clear that there is no scientific certainty in anything they do. I guess there's a reason why scientists who disagree with the scheme are fired and kept away from all these conferences that they hold to try to convince the public that something has to be done.

Questions anyone should have answered before buying into this BS are: What would be happening now if humans weren't on the earth? What is the specific impact of what humans had on the earth? What is it that humans do that actually impacts the earth? Assuming that you can even get to that point, then, and this is the question that no one even pretends to answer, is that impact good or bad?

The assumption by the left is always that man is bad and whatever man does is bad. That being the case, then one would have to assume that it would be bad to avoid another ice age that wipes out most of the planet.

But, I still look at the very basics in determining credibility. That is, does the person that makes the claims they are making live like they believe it? And with the issue of man causing global warming the only answer that can logically be reached is NO! It's the ol' do as I say and not as I do thing. In other words, there is a total lack of credibility. The little boy has cried WOLF way too often and continues about his day as if there were no wolf. End of story.

witchrunner

Why is it that you no-nothing "follow-the-money" folks completely ignore the energy company anti-climate change misinformation campaign. The Koch brothers and others who have a strong financial (BIG, BIG MONEY) interest in the continued use of fossil fuels have spent billions on fake science institutes and support of boneheads like Rush, Glenn, Fox, etc., etc.

So, witchrunner ..... why don't you REALLY FOLLOW THE MONEY.

Scientist build their reputation on being correct, not shilling for a phony cause. Their reputation is their livelihood. Rush, Glenn, and Fox News, on the other hand ..... will you know that story.

You do not understand science. You do not understand peer review. You do not even understand the money influence that you are ranting about. You are a conspiracy theorists and, as such, need no proof. Good thing .... the proof for your allegations does not exist.

My previous post, #4.8, was about YOU ..... didn't you read it?

So, we have a select group of people paid by the government to say what? 

Their scientific findings.

Damn, you sure wrote a lot of silly nonsense to dispute that!

Science is almost totally inaccurate and changes every 20 - 30 years. We did not have this problem until Universities started begging for Govt Lawmakers to appropriate taxpayer funds to qualify false conclusions about any subject. These gimmicks need to be stopped and all taxpayer funding stopped. We are being lied to from every direction by office workers!! They are trying to justify raising fuel prices, period.

We did not have this problem until...

... we developed modern techiques and instruments that allowed us to learn more in the last 20-30 years than we learned in the previous 1000-2000 years.

So, we have a select group of people paid by the government to say what? Of course they are going to say what their bosses want.

Was the Bush government paying these people to claim that humans caused climate change, too? Because there was an awful lot of research done during the Bush years, and virtually every bit of it said the same thing - the planet is warming, and humans are the primary cause.

Why would Bush and Cheney pay them to say that?

Everything else you say is equally inaccurate, wr. Take a science class, or read some research, and educate yourself on the facts. All you've posted are long-debunked talking points fed to you by fake 'skeptics'.

"Science is almost totally inaccurate and changes every 20 - 30 years."

Good lord, I don't even know how to respond to that level of ignorance. Have you ever taken a science class in your life? Maxwell's equations alone, formulated in the mid-1800s, are largely responsible for most of our modern technology, unless you think electricity is redefined every 20-30 yrs.

don97524, good call. Frontline did a show, last year I think, that exposed the "there's no proof of global warming" folks as all being involved in some sort of fossil fuel industry. They have "experts" that have no knowledge or experience in the issue, but are ph.d's in something else. It was an eye opening program. And yes, the Koch brothers were involved greatly.

It is clear that the opponents of current scientific theories about global climate change who claim that the scientist benefit from "lies" concerning the human impact of global climate change do not understand the concept of PEER REVIEW.

Peer review is an important aspect of scientific research because it is, in essence, a fact check that involves the entire science community in the field of discussion. Even if the scientist publishing findings concerning the human aspect of climate change had a financial interest, those peers who subject those findings to scrutiny do not. As a matter of fact, those reviewers can build a substantial reputation in the field by reinterpreting the data or supplying their own facts that refute the publishing scientists.

The idea that scientists have banded together (97-98% agree that humans have altered the climate) so that a few of them can reap some yet unidentified financial reward is beyond lunacy.

willieb is the kind of guy I am talking about.

Let's face it, as late as the early 1980s these same type of people had spent 20 years screaming about global cooling. When they were proved wrong, they changed course and called it global warming.

Witchrunner: That's a very misleading statement. Of course they were the same types of people - climate scientists, but certainly not the same people. Would you expect climate predictions from economists or lawyers?

Those pushing the new ice age theory were using a very limited data set, and from the start of the ice age publicity their reports and predictions were rejected by the majority of their peers. By the 1980's it was quite clear that the cooling trend they had based their theory upon was merely a brief leveling off of the overall warming trend. Unfortunately, the artist drawings of New York skyscrapers poking through a vast ice sheet on magazine covers stuck in the public memory a lot longer than the rejection of the ice age theory right from the start, by the majority of climate scientists.

Sea levels have risen before there was any fossil fuels. 'Splain that.

witchrunner Well, you know what they say, if you want to find out the truth you follow the money. So, we have a select group of people paid by the government to say what? Of course they are going to say what their bosses want.

LOL! So that's where the money is going, not to entitlements and defense! Because that is a sh-tload of scientists you would be paying. And I suppose the 2% of scientists that do not agree with the fact the Earth is warming are just refusing the money? And of course many of these scientists are not American so we would need every civilized country to participate in this fraud and do the same. The evidence of your conspiracy theory is apparently "indisputable" yet you offer not a single piece of credible evidence to support it, only your suspicions. Never mind owning such an opinion makes you an extreme cynic and a virtual misanthrope.

You probably still believe OJ was innocent!

Sea levels have risen before there was any fossil fuels. 'Splain that

Last night I was walking through my living room and hit my knee on the coffee table ... knee hurts.

This morning I slipped on some ice and fell on my knee ... knee hurts.

An hour ago I had an argument with my girlfriend and she kicked me in the knee ... knee hurts.

Three separate events with different causes, similar result.

THIS TIME, it is because of our consumption of giga-tons of carbon based fuels. THIS TIME, we can change things.

Spike

Climate changes and resultant changes in sea level occur for lots of reasons including shifts in the Earth's orbit, changing positions of continents due to plate tectonics, changes in the composition of the atmosphere, variations in the Sun's energy output and others. But rather than expect someone else to "splain" it for you, why not just do your own research. Just google "climate change" and see what you find out.

Steps of the Scientific Method:
Ask a Question
Do Background Research
Construct a Hypothesis
Test Your Hypothesis
Analyze Your Data and Draw a Conclusion
Communicate Your Results

Steps of the Denier Method:
Listen to Rush Limbaugh
"Believe" everything he says
Listen to what scientists say
Get confused and scared
Listen to more Rush for new "Beliefs"

Witchrunner thinks electricity comes from other planets. That makes it easier to do the hillbilly stomp until you pass out and hit the floor.

Core samples taken from deep within the Antarctic (beyond the ice shelves) clearly show a long climate history (13.5 million years) that cannot be challenged. There is a temperature acceleration that is not a part of a natural cycle. Those changes noticeably correspond to the increases of CO2 being released into the atmosphere just over the last century. And as the ice melts, other gases such as methane are also released, further speeding up the process (methane is worse than CO2). The ANDRILL project has provided a lot of new data for dissection. The question isn't whether or not the sea levels will rise, it's to what extent.

freethinker: Your scientific method list is exactly why the global warming myth falls short of reality. Mostly on the "test your hypothesis" premise. All of the global warming claims that have come and gone have failed miserably. So, we know have them putting predictions far enough into the future that everyone will forget what the hypothesis was and whoever made them will be long dead.

Here's a link that, at the very least, points out the fallacy of the global warming argument. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/03/19/despite-popular-opinion-and-calls-to-action-the-maldives-is-not-being-overrun-by-sea-level-rise/

But, I'm sure that peer review by the global warming alarmists will say that it doesn't matter because it wasn't tested by someone on their list of approved global warming scientists, or some other such BS.

voxrationis: Actually, you have an excellent example there. OJ was "peer reviewed" so we should all just accept the conclusion, right?

Of course, it all boils down to the actual "science" of it. When experiments can be conducted and replicated then there will be some legitimacy. But, as soon as the recommendation is take away my SUV or whatever other BS is involved, it is no longer science. In other words, if it's really about the science then the scientists should stick to the science. But, for some reason, the global warming crowd seems incapable of doing that. Heck, they can't even follow their own advise. You have all these global warming conferences over the years decrying the carbon footprint that humans place on the earth and what do they do? The do their darnedest make sure they increase that footprint by flying hundreds or thousands of people all over the globe so they can discuss how their carbon footprint is good, but if someone disagrees with them, then that person's carbon footprint is bad. And how is it that all these supposedly brilliant people don't see who stupid and hypocritical they come across?

Robin, Those same core samples contain the vegitation from a tropical enviroment thousands of centuries old as well. Wonder how tropical plants grew @ the south pole back then. Its because that land mass was NOT @ the south pole when tropical plants grew there. Then you have maps of the Antarctic drawn who knows when from well over one thousand years ago showing every costal valley and tributary in great detail. Antarctica was once warm and teaming with life. And my guess is it well may again in the future of this planet. Milking money out of every man woman and child to fund this crap is the largest con job of human existance. Thinking we can control our weather is another. This planet is just coming out of a long cold cycle that hit without warning in the past. A nuclear winter if you will caused by an astronomical event we dont have the ability to fully describe. All those sunken cities around our coastlines attest to the fact our planet will change its coastlines when the balance of the planet dictates. Man will probably always exist here as we have no idea who lived at 1000 feet below sea level hundreds of thousands of years ago and probably never will. They just moved to high ground btw....Exactly what we will do.

Me and the guys at work was discussing when the next "Doomsday" prediction would come... Not only does this fit the bill but it so far in the future (87 yrs!!) that the 14th (or 1st) Mayan Backtun will be in well under way... mmm... Maybe they were right after all... (snicker)

witchrunner

You absolutely do not know what you are talking about and a very good example is that you use OJ as an example.

Peer review in science circles means that the theory is reviewed by virtually all of the experts in the field of discussion, not, as in the case of the OJ trial, a group of citizens who met the criteria of being chosen at random, being available and who swore to be impartial. Not knowledgeable .... impartial. No expertise required ..... just be there and listen. Nothing like the scientific peer review process at all.

Peer review is important. It is how medical breakthroughs become established practice. It is how we establish the structure of atoms and the germ theory of disease.

The theory in question about human causation of global climate change has, in fact, been replicated many, many times. Data has been collected by many different scientists and scientific organizations and analyzed using different computer programs written independently by different researchers.

Your belief to the contrary only emphasizes your ignorance in this area.

MediOMO

Your un-brilliant analysis that we will just "move to high ground" fails to consider the expense of such a move .... an expense that really makes the coming sea level rise, as the article indicates, "horrible". Get out your atlas and look at how many major cities .... centers of huge populations and economic activity ..... are on the coastline. Think about what a sea level rise of just a few feet will do to cities like Miami, New York, and New Orleans, just to name a few.

Your statement is an example of how just a little bit of knowledge and not much rational thinking contributes nothing of value to a discussion.

Don, your annalitical powers of observation dont impress me at all. Screw the cost, move or die. Abandon all stupid investments (costal living) is a major one. There are hundreds of years to get it done and the clock is ticking. My suggestion would be to raise your replacenents 1000 feet above sea level if it concerns you that much. The ongoing hairsplitting and sudo scientific debates all go into 2 boxes with me. One is the "adapt" box and the other is the "blame and punish box". In Japan they found a stone marker thousands of years old that said "Do Not Build Below This Marker". It was overlooking the flooded remains of Fukushima after the sunami and found during the cleanup. That warning was over 1000 years old and still the sunami stopped at the base of this marker. You may possibly need to do a little more research and less looking down your nose at others with doubt and condesending attitudes. I could care less about your opinion of me btw. The biggest worry i have is that people will fund the fraud and live in ignorance of governments will to milk the human race of every penny it can. They will punish us for their policies because we elected the idiots that make it. There is our error. Electing career confidence men to bring home our share of pork so they can later punish us for wanting it. That is the greatest truth in human history.

Three words to all of you Monday Morning Scientists...... Hockey Stick Graph! And everything from the enviros is just settled science! DUH!!!!!!!

MediOMO - I appreciate your response. The location of the continents has changed throughout Earth's history through continental drift, Pangaea is an example. The Antarctic was located closer to the equator at one point. And yes, there has been green mass on what is now an ice land. There have been many other types of "shifts" that have taken place that have impacted global climate as well. But what is taking place now is unprecedented. The scientists involved are looking at a number of studies that paint a more solid picture of the climate changes, and what falls out of the norm. The data collected is substantial in this case. It is also a means to better predict what we're looking at in the very near future.

don97524 - thank you for mentioning the importance of peer review. Also, many people get confused about the difference between a theory and scientific theory.

Science rocks. It's life.

don: You might try doing your own research. Try "global warming fraud," "global warming hoax" or the like. You'll find that there are a lot of people who disagree. And, as I've said before, I have no problem with anyone who wants to believe in global warming. But, as soon as you try to tell me or anyone else what to do because you so believe is the time you lose all credibility. It then becomes clear that your interest is more about controlling my freedoms than it is with the science of global warming. We've already spent billions, if not trillions of dollars because of this scam. We have all this alternative, renewable energy stuff floating around and it's known that the politicians and others are seeking ways to make money off of it. The problem is, that they are doing it by trying to mandate people's behaviors and taking money from people. If you want to perfect solar energy, then I'm all for it! Just do it on your own dime.

What i think is unpresidented is the attitude of humans who think you can throw money at this planet and cause a preceptible change. The rollercoaster has left the starting point millions of years ago and the end of the ride is unforseen. There is no finger to stick in this dyke my friends. But one solution that will possibly work is nuclear winter. That could stop global warming and mans stupid idea he can control a planet. Our civilization was grown on fossil fuel. Without it we would be riding horses and not bicycles, as modern manufacturing would not exist. We would be limited to using wood for everything from building materials to heat and light. Even wire requires fossil fuels to create because of the insulation. Back in the days of Tesla JP Morgan defunded him for proposing free energy. Just the thought of it scared JP Morgan! That is the world we live in. And that is the mindset of most human beings. All of our problems as well as our greatest achievements are the result of human greed. Collect some data on that and get back to me. The planet has always came last and until people understand civilization requires fossil fuels to exist the arguments are wasted air and energy. Our real past has always been buried just under a few feet of dirt. But once they find evidence of truth its roped off and kept from further digging mostly by the greed that comes from tourisim money and ownership of the find by greedy groups of visionary investors. Greed has always held us back and it will be the end cause of our demise. Just look at the new pyramid finds in Bosnia. Egyptologists just want it to go away because it is contrary to their story of world history. Those are the idiots we have to live UNDER. Even with carbon dating showing those structures at over 25,000 years old. Grant money to egyptologists will dry up if they concour with those findings. Greed again stopping human advancement. And until man walks on the surface of Mars we still wont know any truths about the strange findings there. After all, governments cant concede power to something greater than itself can it? Not till they cant deny it anymore is the correct answer. Everyone that feels we are being spoon fed crap that go's with their story. Sure would be nice to live in a age of truth and knowledge. The global warming con job is about money and fear. We are only reaping what has been sown by our keepers. Id make my home well above sea level and let the fools swim. BTW, New York was farther above sea level than Mt Everest at one time. Do you really think we can stop this planet from anything but its own evolution? Can we stop Japan from moving on the map every earthquake? Can we correct the extra tilt from the last earthquake in Chile? No, we are stuck with it. Just like polar ice caps melting, its not gonna happen without nuclear winter. Just think of all the new coastline land and all fresh water deposited on the poles as snow and ice as well as all those underwater monolithic structures being above sea level again. The earth will be right back to the way it was before the mass extinction events of the past.

Medi

How much does it cost to conserve? Using less costs less, right? As we continue to use fossil fuels, particularly oil, it becomes more scarce and more expensive. Alternatives will be less expensive at some point and as technology advances in other areas have shown, we can drive the price down as we improve the technology. Wouldn't agree that sooner is better than later when it comes to planning for the inevitable disappearance of oil and other fossil fuels as our primary energy source?

As we conserve Don, rates have to go up to make up for lost revenue. Any business model thats not making 15% more every year is a losing proposition to the real world of making money. Just based on that fact your idea while all nice and fuzzy is not gonna happen. The US has now found we have the largest natural gas reserve in the world. Hundreds of years of energy....enough to get us to a technological state of discovering or declassifying unlimited power. The only reason its not available now is the world would destroy itself if we had it. Unlimited power in the wrong hands would do us in because we are still a warring race who would kill their way to power. The simple fact is we as a race are hitting our firewall, or balance point of advancement. Maturity of government officials is always in question, we all know they dont trust us. We in turn dont trust them to look after our best intrests even though they always look out for theirs with yearly raises and exemptions from our soon to be forced healthcare. If conservation and using less really worked i would advocate for it. If it makes you feel better please conserve all you can. The simple fact is we are being punished for the stupidity of the people we elect to offices. Our government is petitioned to look out for our needs and the payment is giving the government permission to manage our lives. Human beings are regressing as we pull together in huddled masses for protection in lew of freedom. Our failure is relying on the federal government to look out for our personal needs. Freedom in its purest form means "on your own". Nobody has the nads for that kind of life anymore anyway.....right? Don, the cost of oil in the middle east is anywhere from 25 cents to 50 something in some places. Theres only one reason ours is so high and thats government tacking on all those punishments for using it and the cost of importing and not using our 400 year plus reserve. The US could lower the price to 99 cents if we were so inclined to by drilling all our fields just enough to say scare the Arabs into selling at the same price they sell it in their country. And then theres our punishment for causing tensions in the middle east in the first place. Kadafi decides to go to a gold standard and is destabilized and killed outright. Few days later the world bank is installed with Kadafi's gold and all is fine. World bank gets the gold and the country gets a fiat currency. The big picture is rarely looked at is all im saying. Which countries dont use the world bank? Look for trouble in those places. Iceland has it right. Now they are living in the Home of The Free. We should take the hint. They are becoming whole again. They threw out the international bankers! Sovereignty is what America needs again. Shame its not gonna happen too. We live in a time where those that would rule us have agendas we really cant fathom. The overall picture is really not good at all. We are being distracted and mislead with all the blame for everything brought to our attention about the condition of our condition. The real questions could be something like...say...Why is the poison "ricin" being snuck by the tons into the US by the same groups that ship cocaine? Google ricin, its interesting. Some say depopulation is the point. Im not sure but i know its too deadly to allow to exist in our world. My main worry is things like that. We will find better ways to power our world long before we flood it or run out of natural resourses. The last hundred years has took us from horses to spaceships. Petroleum will always be needed to manufacture plastics as we know them. As will millions of other products. Our next hundred years, if we are lucky enough to make it that far should answer all our worries but ocean levels. My personal thoughts on it are nothing but normal cyclic changes we cant really change. Id say move inland. Well, guess thats how i see it.

Nasa: What is the Ozone hole?

Each year for the past few decades during the Southern Hemisphere spring, chemical reactions involving chlorine and bromine cause ozone in the southern polar region to be destroyed rapidly and severely. This depleted region is known as the “ozone hole”. The area of the ozone hole is determined from a map of total column ozone. It is calculated from the area on the Earth that is enclosed by a line with a constant value of 220 Dobson Units. The value of 220 Dobson Units is chosen since total ozone values of less than 220 Dobson Units were not found in the historic observations over Antarctica prior to 1979. Also, from direct measurements over Antarctica, a column ozone level of less than 220 Dobson Units is a result of the ozone loss from chlorine and bromine compounds.

In other words in laymen terms, Ice melts.

I just want to thank the writers of this article for providing my family with information concerning my children's future. I also want to thank Robin’s Serendipity 1 and Physicist-retired your posts are
always perceptively written. I appreciate your knowledge base and look forward to reading your posts. Please keep up the great work.

I read an article in the past that China is now the number 1 producing of greenhouse gases. I hoping that the liquid battery MIT is working on can help reduce greenhouse gases for heating and cooling. I believe they will be releasing it end of 2014. I’m also hoping more people will invest in Hybrids. We changed to geothermal heating and cooling and traded our cars for higher mileage types. I’m hoping if everyone chips in and heating and cooling changes, we can reduce the amount of CO2.

Your claim that an ice age was predicted by mainstream science is totally false. That "hypothesis" started from a couple of popular magazine articles that became "viral" (in 1960's fashion).

You are correct about the Milankovitch cycle. But it does not explain how fast our planet has heated up in under a century, when it has cycles on the order of tens of thousands of years (and we are nowhere near an extreme in the cycle).

The early 70's predictions were pretty much in the right direction: it took a few decades for most of the science to get properly done (it requires millions of observations, sophisticated physical models, and a whole lot of supercomputer time).

By the way: I just started college in 1970. I became a scientist. To this day, I don't lie, cheat on my taxes, steal from the public, beat my wife, or eat my children.

Dav...you gave me a good chuckle with your last paragraph.:)

All I can saw is that in all my years studying science I learned that scientists are people and make mistakes just as anyone else can, but that the methods used and the fascination with finding answers sure give me more confidence than the people who have knee-jerk reactions and dismiss all scientists who don't say what they want to hear. There is no logic in saying that nothing will happen or that it is all made up. It isn't logical after you look at the data to just dismiss people who have concluded that some big problems are coming and that there are steps to take now that would help prevent or lessen some of the effects of what will be happening. But this isn't about logic, and you can't argue with people who are cynical about the whole scientific process and who have dismissed the possibilities.

Dav, I really think that as a scientist you would agree that there is no such thing as "settled science"! It is just amazing how many people are just willing to follow in line with the liberals using this "Global Warming" crisis to tax the hell out of people, take away as many rights as possible, and make as many people as possible dependant on the government! Just wait when this government really runs out of money and credit. The swift change to a totalitarian regime will shock us all!

I really think that as a scientist you would agree that there is no such thing as "settled science"!

Not accurate, Dan. Our own National Academy of Sciences calls man-made climate change 'settled fact':

From a philosophical perspective, science never proves anything—in the manner that mathematics or other formal logical systems prove things—because science is fundamentally based on observations.

Any scientific theory is thus, in principle, subject to being refined or overturned by new observations.

In practical terms, however, scientific uncertainties are not all the same. Some scientific conclusions or theories have been so thoroughly examined and tested, and supported by so many independent observations and results, that their likelihood of subsequently being found to be wrong is vanishingly small.

Such conclusions and theories are then regarded as settled facts. This is the case for the conclusions that the Earth system is warming and that much of this warming is very likely due to human activities.

That statement was released nearly 3 years ago. Not one single scientific organization in the world disagrees with it.

Neither does our military, BTW, which calls man-made climate change a grave threat to our national security.

I should also add that in scientific lingo, 'very likely' means more than 99% likely - about as sure as anyone can get when dealing with a scientific theory. Gravity and evolution fall into that same category.

This hysteria over taxes and government control has no place in a scientific discussion. Science deals with observations and empirical data. It's up to our policy makers to decide what (if anything) to do about it.

The fuel industry was taken over by environmental laws costing independent gas station owners to update storage containers with fiberglass or other composite that had an exorbitant price.What happened was the Oil companies gained full control of output and distribution, even cutting costs and increasing profits by making them self-serve and leasing to individuals for convenience stores. You want to hear about the other industries that gained control of their prospected markets?

The above post was in response to teds comment about trying to get control of certain aspects of National Security issues as they are known by now. Energy!

Higher In "many countries"???? Are you listening to yourself? Hello ... anyone in there? Goof balls ... And I'm supposed to plan my great great grandchildren's lives on your "brilliant analysis"?

backtobasics: Your solution poses a logical fallacy. In fact, 7-9 billion people drinking desalinated water will only result in the sea becoming too salty to support life--like the Dead Sea, and the Salton Sea. Every desalination plant spews a highly salted brine back into the sea, only to magnify the growing shortage of freshwater.

With the rise in sea levels, a great many freshwater sources will also become salty, for example, the entire California Delta, which supplies potable water to millions, will be inundated. Rivers and freshwater deltas all over the world will turn salty as well.

Those posting here who do not think global climate change is real should watch the National Geographic specials titled "Six Degrees" and Earth Under Water." You should at least be informed as to the possible consequences.

We know the world's supply of oil is finite. We know the most recent attempts to find it, fracking, is killing cattle with arsenic, benzene, heavy metals, and whatever chemical stew they use that our laws protect them from disclosing. Eventually, if we don't stop fracking soon, it will destroy us--dying cattle are our canaries.

If we don't prepare alternative solutions now, civilization will come to an abrupt halt and millions will die as we near the end of this finite resource, within the next half century or so.

Solar and wind power are both free and inexhaustible. We need the federal government to build a smart grid that can save and transmit that power everywhere across the nation--an electrical system that isn't a bunch of wires strung on vertical wooden poles, subject to damage with every new storm.

The development of a new, smart grid and these renewable sources of energy will be a great good thing no matter what the climate is doing. These are careers that cannot be outsourced, and as the technology develops, the prices will come down.

If we fail to develop clean, renewable energy and a smart electrical grid we will become a third world country. That, fellow posters, is indisputable.

Solar and wind are not really free, there is land to acquire and solar collectors and windmills to be built, and all those people will have to be paid, including all the attorneys. So how would this smart grid work Dee...bury the wires? And don't forget that the "smart" grid will have to connect to the existing grid, which will have to be maintained and ready to go as a backup, since the sun doesn't always shine and the wind doesn't always blow.

Dee Turner, I am sure that you are a supporter of the same scientists which said that we were going to run out of fossil fuels in the 1890's, errr... the 1950's, err..... the 1970's, err..... the 1990's, err...... (getting the point)! We have a very resilient society and energy industry! Our economy finds ways to survive spikes in prices by finding substitutes to products or increasing our efficiencies. The typical liberal knows in their hearts that this is true, but, they are so damned happy about calling themselves the "smartest in the room" that they do not want to see the obvious! Then if you do not agree with them completely, you are considered and called an idiot and in their eyes, dismissed!

Say what you want, but the US Coast uard has built 4 new stations on Alaska's North Slope. Why? Because there isn't any ice there anymore.

And who gave them the money to build there anyway?

Good for you, bobo! No one said that global climate is uniformly changing to very warm, everywhere, all the time, because it won't. But I'm sure you're very happy with you nice little knownothing world view.

I am sure that if the winter was very warm in China the enviros would be screaming "Global Warming" and demanding more money to "fix" the problem! The liberals cannot find a way to stop spending OUR money and take more of our rights away at the drop of a hat!

Remember the Olympics in China? The pollution so thick it choked the athletes. Science of that is real simple. Cloudy day cooler, sun don't shine it's not going to be hot, or warm up. Confucious say; heat do not reach ground, you have cold ground.

Isn't it amazing how accurate science fiction writers are? It may take 20 - 30 years, or more, to realize it, but so many things that people can't accept at the time actually happen!

Science fiction writers can "think outside the box," unlike many other people, like politicians...

LMFAO!

Yeah, "2001: A Space Odyssey" was dead on. LOL!

Or how about "1984" by Orwell. LOL!!

Or how about all those Jules Verne books. I guess I missed where we can now time travel. LOLOL!

Liberals. God love em!

Refresh my memory about which Jules Verne book was about time travel? Perhaps you mean HG Wells?

And if you want to ridicule the predictive powers of Science Fiction authors, you should probably stay away from Verne, who predicted the nuclear submarine, manned travel to the moon, skyscrapers, high speed trains, the automobile, world-wide newscasts, solar sails, videoconferencing, and the taser.

""LMFAO! Yeah, "2001: A Space Odyssey" was dead on. LOL! Or how about "1984" by Orwell. LOL!!"

Bobster, I'm sorry, but you're coming off as a particularly obnoxious fellow. You're obviously not very well read and painfully ignorant as well: Much of the technology Asimov wrote about has indeed come to pass, actually. He did have a keen insight after all, as he helped design satelittes. And George Orwell's 1984 isn't even science fiction. It's a prediction, a political novel about fascism.

Maybe you could ride your Harley or billion-horsepower cars you seem to like bragging about and head to a library. You know, the place where the books live? It would help round off some of your rough edges, as you seem to be happier throwing rhetorical bombs ("liberals, God love em") than having anything resembling a valuable conversation.

I'm watching yet another Steve Martin movie as I type this. His character in Grand Canyon stated "All life's answers can be found in the movies." If 2001 and 2010 Space Odysseys were true, we'd be having manned missions to Jupiter and large-scale colonies on the moon by now. Unfortunately, we're too busy worrying about Jay-Z's mansion or another rapper's 11 illigitimate kids by 10 different women. As long as we're too preoccupied by our gut or groin, we'll never be able to focus on our legitimate needs how to address them as a society. Let's split the difference: Yes, climate changes; No, we're not totally sure why. In either case, more study is needed, and it's not always prudent to build tall, heavy cities on top of swampy islands on the coastline. More $ for science, less for entertainment. Kinda like more protein, less fat. Maybe we can grow up after all...

You're willing to put money that there will be another 10 km wide asteroid impact before sea level rises, say, 10 meters? I could also sell you a bridge in Brooklyn.

!0 meters? Oh yeah, I'd bet that all day long. Better wear a helmet. Sorry, I already own a bridge, but good luck selling yours.

Hey, what if I really have liberal pants, and you still wear the pants your mother makes you wear? What then, huh?

And the only thing getting any lower is the IQ's of all the morons who say 'well it's been hot in the past and cold in the past so what's the big deal this time'?

Thanks! Great resource!

Oneman - go live in myopic peace.

Average Guy, I suggest you worry a lot more about the debt we're ALL CURRENTLY DROWNING IN more than some conjecture about the oceans rising...Obama's "Neptunic" spending spree is drowning everyone.

Guess you didn't get the note that President Obama's spending hasn't increased, Huh!

Grandpa, they got the note. But Rush said don't believe it. So they don't. I think it is so funny that none of these people were screaming about the debt when 43 was spending like a drunken sailor on leave. 2 wars on the government credit cards,, going to China hat in hand. Nope not a peep.

Tired,

LMFAO!! Yes, Bush was a free-spending liberal too. Forget the democrat-backed wars. Bush spent more on the worthless dept of Education than any prez ever. And he expanded Medicare more than any prez ever. He did some good things like helping small business though.

But now we have an even bigger liberal prez ruining our country. He actually just added $4 trillion to the deficit (Government numbers, not mine) when he should be eliminating spending. Remember when he said he would cut the debt in half?

And Bob was one of those that did NOT say a word. But all of a sudden it's important. You see Sir, I was screaming at the top of my lungs then and long before 43 was selected. He took 4 businesses and ran them into the ground. What in the hell did you think would happen with a surplus?

Wrong Tired. Bush was a liberal and Clinton was a conservative. But I see now: You are one of the sheep that sees everything as democrat or republican.

Liberals. God love em! LMFAO!!

Bob oh Bob. How's that stereotyping working out for you?

Sorry sir, but this INDEPENDENT, votes in terms of who she believes will do the best for this country and ALL of her citizens. Not along some weird and whacked out party lines. But you keep on with your little world and the rest of us will keep trying to make sure that this country gets back on her feet.

4 businesses and they all went BANKRUPT!!!!

Tired,

"Independent" LMFAO!!!!

And did you even read my post? LOL! Obviously not! I said Bush was a free-spending liberal. He was one of yours. But you are a sheep who thinks in democrat / republican terms only. Think for your self instead. Glad I could help straighten you out. You're welcome.

Liberals. God love em! LOL!

Bob, reading comprehension is not your friend is it? Oh well one day you will get it. Until then I'll just smile and laugh at you and your poor attempt at stereotyping.

Hey, Clinton was a lot of things. He lied under oath in Federal Court. He committed what most people would term as sexual abuse in the workplace. And his claim to have had a balance Budget? Forget it. His claim had two majot items supporting it that no orporation could ever get away with. First item is, the government uses a "cash basis" for the annual budget. Only counts expenses when they are paid, not when they occur. And with that item in his favor he committeed what would cause most private citizens to really yell if their boss did it. HE DELAYED THE REGULAR FEDERALS EMPLOYEES LAST PAYCHECK FOR THE YEAR BY A FEW DAYS SO IT WOULD BE COUNTED AS THE NEXT YEARS EXPENSE.

It may not sound like a terrible thing unless it occurrs to you and results in you being late on several bills, causing you hundreds in penalties and late fees. All just so he could claim a balanced budget, when it really was a lie.

*Gives Bob and Mikey a cookie and a glass of warm milk* time for a nap and please tell us now, do you need your pull-ups this time?

You two should get together somewhere, because all of the hot air and nonsense that you are blowing is really dumb. You would be a perfect match.

Typical. Since it doesn't effect you in the here and now then let someone else down the road worry about it. Nice.

Agreed. If WE are the problem, there is nothing WE can do about it.

With the population growing every day, only a slowing of the inevidable is possible.

Probably none, because sea level has been rising at 3 mm / year for the last 20 years and is now probably going at 5 mm / year. This isn't conjecture, Einstein, this is based on measurements.

I posted the following above, but seems more appropriate here, so I'm reposting here:

For those who ridicule the article for being alarmist about a 5% chance of the 3-foot elevation in sea levels... ask any hard-core gambler in Vegas if they were faced with a 5% risk-of-ruin proposition (odds that they would lose everything) if they would take that bet. Go ahead. You wouldn't have a single taker.

@Tetrapoda (Einstein),

The University of Colorado uses the Topex and Jason satellite data since 1992 to track the sea level rise. It is 3.1 +/- 0.4 mm. Very linear and the rate is not increasing. Check out their website and do the math; about a foot for the century, about the same as the century before. Very boring and non-alarmist, so it doesn't get mentioned much.

RandomB

Do you know any "Hard core gamblers"?

Let me understand this. Are you saying if you took 20 gamblers and told them 1 of them would lose all their money and the other 19 would continue to win indefinately, no one would except the offer?

You sound like you read Kenny Uston. Am I right?

5% risk-of-ruin... gamblers in Vegas WISH they had that kinda chance!

We will probably get hit by an asteroid by 2100 ? How is that for global warming science ?

That's about as much as you could be expected to understand of it.

Too cool, God posts on MSNBC, that must mean there is really no need to go to church, just log on MSNBC (not like I've been in a church in the past thirty years anyway) I must call my Mom and tell her she doesn't need to go to church on Sunday "God" is right here...

There's always a chance the plane could crash , but they're always full of passengers aren't they ?

The odds of being killed in an airline crash are LESS THAN 0.000027%. My kids are going on the flight.

I don't have any idea what is coming for my grand or great-grandkids. The only way to keep them safe, I suppose, is to sterilize all our child-bearing young people.