One of the leading atmospheric scientists in the country made some statements at a conference going on in San Francisco that will almost certainly get no media attention.
As reported by C/Net News.com (emphasis mine throughout):
Approximately 125,000 years ago, the Earth was around three to five degrees Celsius warmer on average than it is today and sea levels were four to six meters higher. The ice sheets covering Greenland's land mass have trapped a significant amount of that water that used to be in the sea, thereby lowering sea levels, Susan Solomon, senior scientist at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (and the co-chair of the latest report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) told attendees at the American Association for the Advancement of Science taking place in San Francisco.
Shocking coming from a co-chair of the recent IPCC report, wouldn’t you say? But that’s just the beginning:
If the land ice on Greenland were to melt completely, the sea levels could rise six or seven meters again, but the current scientific models indicate it will take thousands of years. Both land and sea ice around Greenland are currently melting. (Sea ice is also melting, but it doesn't raise sea levels because it's already in the water.)
Are you listening Dr. Gore?
"It would take centuries, if not millennia, to get a four to six meter rise" in sea levels, she said. Global temperatures would have to be raised by 1.9 to 4.6 degrees Celsius and be kept that way for several centuries, she added.
So much for the imminent cataclysm being forecast by alarmists in the media, Democrats, and a former vice president. Of course, her assertions are somewhat irrelevant given the likelihood that no major media outlet will report them.
This raises an interesting question: If a scientist says something the media don't agree with, does he or she make a sound?
—Noel Sheppard is the Associate Editor of NewsBusters.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Poor Gore, he's such a Bore.
February 19, 2007 - 17:20 ET byGore simply cannot find anything of worth to fix, so he must chase rainbows.
...DJ
Noel,Your collection of anti-
February 19, 2007 - 17:24 ET by Mr. KafirNoel,
Your collection of anti-global warming hysteria articles must be huge! In fact, I'd venture to say you could write a book about it (hint). Hollywood might even make a movie and give you an Oscar. When am I gonna see you on Fox News like your colleague there Tim Graham?
Mr. K
February 19, 2007 - 17:27 ET by Noel SheppardMr. K,
I never discuss the size of my article collection with another man. :-) ns
Mr. Kafir,They are very infor
February 19, 2007 - 17:31 ET byMr. Kafir,
They are very informative. Aren't they?
...DJ
I wonder how much Susan is
February 19, 2007 - 17:42 ET by Russell6I wonder how much Susan is getting from Big Oil?
Once again the alarmist have been proven wrong, but that won't stop them from preaching their tired rhetoric, or the media lapping it up.
It really is laughable that Gore and his ilk can spout all this fear mongering bullshit and get away with it. I thought the media despised those types of tactics but no, he's just saving the world.
“So much for the imminent c
February 19, 2007 - 17:55 ET by Dave High“So much for the imminent cataclysm being forecast by alarmists in the media, Democrats, and a former vice president. Of course, her assertions are somewhat irrelevant given the likelihood that no major media outlet will report them.”
Noel:
I don’t recall anywhere in the debate on global climate change a discussion of the seas rising by four to six meters. A meter of course is over 39 inches, so you are talking about a sea level change of over 12 to 19 feet. The recent IPCC document predicts a sea level rise of 18 to 59cm (7.08 to 23.22in) in the next 100 years. So I think you are putting up a rather oversized straw man here, because NOBODY, not Al Gore, media alarmists, Democrats, or anyone else has, or is predicting such a huge sea level rise. And so why would it be news that a leading scientist is confirming it won’t happen? 7 to 23 inches is quite bad enough, thank you. As I wrote earlier, that will certainly wipe out the family vacation home in Florida that you hope to inherit one day.
While erecting this straw man, you did overlook a piece of important news today. The AP is reporting that the world’s largest general scientific society, the Board of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, has joined the concern over global climate change yesterday, calling it a “growing threat to society.” They went on to say that, “Scientists are observing the rapid melting of glaciers, destabilization of major ice sheets, rising sea levels, shifts in species ranges, and increased frequency of weather extremes.” You know, Noel, the stuff that was documented in Al Gore's movie and endorsed by thousands of scientists and climatologists.
Now I could get on my high horse about the fact that this important story only rated five column inches on page nine of the Philadelphia Inquirer, but then I don’t see media bias lurking around every corner as you apparently do.
Regards, Dave High
...so it's NOW to be referred
February 19, 2007 - 18:06 ET by gfrrman...so it's NOW to be referred to as the all encompassing "climate change" because "global warming" doesn't seem to work anymore....LMAO!!!! The goalposts seem to ever change. Was that "peer- reviewed" too?
Care to debate this topic?We
February 19, 2007 - 18:55 ET by NL207Care to debate this topic?
We can start with the predictions of sea level change. This recent IPCC docuent you cite is only a policymaker's summary. The last version of it the full report from the IPCC predicted sea levels would rise 0.1 to 0.9 meters. I see that the latest summary has back pedaled the range and mean, now calling for 0.18 to 0.59 meters. The actual sea level rise in the last century was about 8-12 inches [0.10 to 0.15] .
You further claim no one has warned of a 20 foot increase in sea levels. Its obvious you haven't seen Al Gore standing in front of a map of Florida drawn to illustrate this prediction in his propaganda movie, 'An Inconvenient Truth'. And you haven't read this. This last is a scare piece from national Geographic about a 23 foot increase in sea level....
Once again, Dave High is shown to be factually incorrect.
You're correct, NL207. I've
February 19, 2007 - 20:17 ET by GalvanicYou're correct, NL207. I've seen footage of Gore telling people that the seas will rise 20 feet, when even the politically-tainted IPCC's latest estimate is less than a meter. Perhaps, having famously declared that "The debate is over," not even Prince Albert can lower his estimates. Afterall, it was Gore himself who said that sometimes data must be exaggerated in order to get people motivated to act.
Most of us would define that as alarmism.
Impalement on the cross of guilt
February 19, 2007 - 20:30 ET by UnsaneI think Dave High wants another source of guilt, so he won't debate. He has yet to answer (or attempt to answer) my infamous list of questions, which I posted to him. Twice.
"HAV3 TH3 BRIDG3S OF INSANITY B33N CROSS3D AND FOR3V3R R3TRACT3D???." - Meshuggah, "3ntrapm3nt", from Catch Thirty Thr33 (2005)
Dave High
February 19, 2007 - 20:45 ET by Noel SheppardDave,
Be advised that this will likely be my last response to you. It has become quite clear that you can't enter a discussion here without insulting Republicans, George Bush, Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, people's religious beliefs, and/or an NB writer or member. As such, you are here basically quoting Democrat talking points, while cutting and pasting articles from liberal websites without citation. It's become somewhat pathetic to tell you the truth.
Let me give you some examples from this most recent piece of tripe you've offered here: "I don’t recall anywhere in the debate on global climate change a discussion of the seas rising by four to six meters. A meter of course is over 39 inches, so you are talking about a sea level change of over 12 to 19 feet."
Hmmm. So, I assume you don't recall Al Gore making a huge point about this in his film? This comes directly from the website for "An Inconvenient Truth": "Global sea levels could rise by more than 20 feet with the loss of shelf ice in Greenland and Antarctica, devastating coastal areas worldwide."
I guess you conveniently missed that. Here's something else you missed:
No, Dave. What you missed is that the article I referenced and cited dealt with statements made at this same conference:
Oops. You missed that, didn't you? Furthermore, this AP article you referred to quoted the same Dr. Solomon that I did, but didn't bother reporting what she said concerning what the climate and seas were like 125,000 years ago, or how long it would take for seas to rise to where they were back then...just as I predicted.
As such, adios Dave. If I want to argue with DKers or DUmmies, I'll go to those websites. However, I really have lost interest in debating folks here who clearly are just looking to anger conservatives rather than advance the discussion.
Regards, ns
Delicious
February 19, 2007 - 21:39 ET by acumenAnd I was wondering what to have for desert tonight......delicious.
Since when is there debate, D
February 19, 2007 - 23:55 ET by Scout FinchSince when is there debate, Dave? I thought the supporters of 'man made global warming' claimed we were 'deniers' if we didn't tow the global warming line. Debate suggests that two sides have legitimate arguments that can be discussed through intelligent discourse. Liberals seem to think the debate is over.
Dave High uses the "worl
February 19, 2007 - 18:39 ET by watchful eyesDave High uses the "world’s largest general scientific society, the Board of the American Association for the Advancement of Science" as his authority. Wow! So many scientists with so much knowlege! Few, though, are climatologists.
It's like my asking the AMA as a whole for help with my my MS. Instead I want a specialist in neurology, not oncology or some other esoteric speciality. Do I want a neurologist or a neursurgeon who doesn't understand my disease?
Unfortunately scientists are people, too, with their own politics and egos. I'm sure they all think they know everything they need to about climate, unwilling to admit their ignorance. They also ignore the 17,800 mostly climate specialists who signed a petition against the global climate fiction.
If you look closely, the cycles of cooling and warming are natural for the earth and we would be better looking to reality rather than this politically and media driven hysteria. Recent temperature readings from Antartica, ruin all of the results from the computer models "designed" to show global warming. How much media coverage that get? Or the information that ice melting in one place is reformed elsewhere?
My goodness, kids are scared and worried about this fictional disaster. Just what we want for our kids as they deal with the business of gowing up. Good job, Gore!
"They also ignore the 17
February 19, 2007 - 18:46 ET by Dave High"They also ignore the 17,800 mostly climate specialists who signed a petition against the global climate fiction."
Watchful:
Please direct me to a link that discusses or shows this petition as I have never heard about it before and would love to read it and learn more! Certainly it’s on the web, somewhere.
Regards, Dave High
It was a link offered on Dan
February 19, 2007 - 18:54 ET by Roger the ShrubberIt was a link offered on Dana Rohrabacher's web site. You might remember Mr. Rohrabacher, the one with a sense a humor that goes over your head. I offered his links for you earlier today. I guess you deigned it unworthy of your time.
The 17,100 signers of this hi
February 19, 2007 - 22:43 ET by dahliatraversThe 17,100 signers of this highly under-reported petition
" include 2,660 physicists, geophysicists, climatologists, meteorologists, oceanographers, and environmental scientists (select this link for a listing of these individuals) who are especially well qualified to evaluate the effects of carbon dioxide on the Earth's atmosphere and climate."
Damn. 2,660 co2 experts alone. That's almost as many as the 3,000 ... oops 1,800 ... make that, more than the 1,200 across the board scientists who insist that GW is man made.
At the risk of asking the obvious, why don't we hear about this group of scientists in the msm???
The Oregon petition.
February 19, 2007 - 19:06 ET by NL207The Oregon petition.
NL, RtS, Watchful:I found wha
February 19, 2007 - 19:08 ET by Dave HighNL, RtS, Watchful:
I found what I needed to know and suspected about the anti-global warming petition. It was a scam, long-since debunked. I think you should check out this link before you "talk it up" anymore. http://www.ecosyn.us...
Regards, Dave High
You need a recalibration. I
February 19, 2007 - 19:25 ET by NL207You need a recalibration. It is not a scam. Those jerks you linked are the scam.
That garbage you linked is like ALL the other liberal attacks against this petition. The document is real. Its circulation was real [this took place about ten years ago] and 99% or more of the signatures are real. Every detailed attempt that has been made to debunk that petition has been HALTED because the would-be debunkers discovered that the signatories are, by and large, real people in science. Some are now deceased. Some have since changed their minds. Many more still agree with it. But the fact remains that virtually all who signed it knew what they were signing at the time and agreed with it in principle.
There has been ONE sunstantiative criticism of the petition. Fred Seitz, one of the sponsors of this petition was once the President of the National Academy of Science. Seitz' cover letter on the petition was written on a letterhead that looked very much like his former NAS President's letterhead. The NAS repudiated this petition as not having been originated by them, which was exactly true, it wasn't. Many detractors claim that the signers of the petition were duped by this letterhead into thinking it was sponsored by the NAS. Polling of the signatories has generally revealed this was not the case. the understood the Seitz was acting on his own. the signed it because they agreed with it.
Would you like me to start linking so as to completely demonstrate your level of ignorance once again?
How's your Chinese coming? You may once again need it.
NL207, would giving Dave High this help?
February 19, 2007 - 19:35 ET by acaiguanaNL207, would giving Dave High this help?
ACA
...
Hillary Clinton says: "I want to take those profits."
How thoughtful of you, Aca!
February 19, 2007 - 19:48 ET by NL207How thoughtful of you, Aca! And Dave says conservatives don't get humor ...
Right tool for the right job, ya know.
February 19, 2007 - 19:50 ET by acaiguanaRight tool for the right job, ya know.
ACA
...
Hillary Clinton says: "I want to take those profits."
NL:I read the National Geogra
February 19, 2007 - 19:52 ET by Dave HighNL:
I read the National Geographic article some time ago. It states that,
“According to a new climate change study, the melting of Greenland's ice sheet would raise the oceans by seven meters (23 feet), threatening to submerge cities located at sea level, from London to Los Angeles.
Even a partial melting of the ice sheet could have catastrophic consequences for low-lying countries like Bangladesh and the Maldives.
"A one-meter [three-foot] sea level rise would submerge a substantial amount of Bangladesh," Jonathan Gregory, the study's lead author and a climate scientist at the University of Reading in England, said in a telephone interview.”
If you read this carefully, it is not predicting that global warming will cause Greenland’s ice sheet to melt entirely, it is just saying that a new scientific study indicates what would happen if it did. There is a big, big difference between making a prediction and citing a study. The article then goes on to discuss that, "the issue of global warming is controversial.”
As for the variation in predictions of sea level change, would you be more comfortable if they were all the same? Isn’t science all about investigation, updating, and changing the models as new facts and study techniques become available?
What puzzles me is if I said to you, “your wife is cheating on you,” you would demand imperacle facts to back up my assertion. With the issue of global warming, despite all the hard evidence, you simply take it on faith that it is some sort of cooked-up plan designed by conivers to alarm people, take their money, etc. It all seems to be rooted in some sort of conspiracy theory that many conservatives seem to share. I don’t get it.
Regarding the link about the petition scam, do you really think the NSA is a pack of liars? Did it bother you at all that the "study" that was part of the petition was not written by climatologists, but by Seitz and his 21-year-old home schooled son and another non-climatologist known to be a fabricator in his previous work? Does any of this matter to you, or is denying global climate change just a matter of faith?
Regards, Dave High
PS - I have to go to a meeting. Have a good night.
The National Geographic artic
February 19, 2007 - 20:29 ET by NL207The National Geographic article is very misleading. It opens thusly:
"Greenland's massive ice sheet could begin to melt this century and may disappear completely within the next thousand years if global warming continues at its present rate.
According to a new climate change study, the melting of Greenland's ice sheet would raise the oceans by seven meters (23 feet), threatening to submerge cities located at sea level, from London to Los Angeles. "
And continues with:
"Scientists have previously calculated that if the annual average temperature in Greenland increases by almost 3° Celsius (5.4° Fahrenheit), its ice sheet will begin to melt.
Many experts believe the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will have reached levels around the year 2100 that would cause the temperature to rise that much.
"We're not saying how long it will take to get to the three degrees or how long it will take to lose the ice sheet," Gregory said. "We're saying there's a high likelihood of passing this threshold of viability with the carbon dioxide levels that are currently being considered." "
And you interpret this as a non-prediction? I read this as "we can't say exactly when but it will eventually happen". If thats not a prediction then I don't know what is.
What difference would it make if a monkey pounding a typewriter had written the Seitz petition? The point was, 18,000 people with scientific degrees agreed with it. At that point, the credentials of the authors are complately irrelevant. Reductio ad absurdum. The town fool asserts the earth is round and gets 20,000 scientists to agree. By your logic, because the original treatise was written by a fool, the conclusion must be false.
I will be comfortable with all these global climate predictions when the makers of these are able to demostrate they have a model of the earth's climate system that (1) can account for the know paleoclimate history. (2) Can correctly regress the entire climate history we have hard data for [about the last 150 years] and (3) has been demostrated correct over a periond of 10-20 years. So far, not one of these goals has been met by climatiologists.
The NAS position on the Seitz petition was merely to deny that it had originated with the Academy. Their complaint with Seitz was his use of letterhead that reembled teh Academy's. They offered no opinion about the accuracy of any of the material it contained. What is significant about it is the large number of degreed scientists who signed it.
Doesn't it bother you in the least bit that these global warming alarmists are demanding fascist government intervention into private economic life on a scale never before seen on this planet in order to solve a 'problem' that has still not been demostarted to exist? This will come as a shock to you I am sure, but science is not consensus. Dogma is consensus. The theory of AGW has not survived the proof of testing yet. It is still a theory. Scientific method: Observe, hypothesize, validate by test.
Doesn't it bother you in the
February 19, 2007 - 20:37 ET by UnsaneDoesn't it bother you in the least bit that these global warming alarmists are demanding fascist government intervention into private economic life on a scale never before seen on this planet in order to solve a 'problem' that has still not been demostarted to exist? That's the point. Dave High has NO problem with the government stealing from the producers in society (and turning around and rewarding failure), as he has made plain countless times before. Thus AGW is yet another excuse for him and like minded fellow travelers to get the government to do what they lack the guts to do themselves (point a gun at one's face and commit armed robbery).
In fact, I would argue that Dave High won't be happy until the government does 100% of his thinking for him, babysits him from cradle to grave, regiments all aspects of daily life, and otherwise controls every aspect of life imaginable. But I digress.
Additionally, like most other GW religionists, they are largely motivated by First World Guilt. If they weren't, then why isn' anyone picketing the Chinese embassy on a daily basis demanding they do more to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions (set to become #1 in the world in 2015; but then that's what happens when you add the power generation capacity of the U.K. year in and year out, largely with coal as a source)? We are just too successful, so we in the United States must be viciously punished for that unpardonable sin, in their twisted world view.
"HAV3 TH3 BRIDG3S OF INSANITY B33N CROSS3D AND FOR3V3R R3TRACT3D???." - Meshuggah, "3ntrapm3nt", from Catch Thirty Thr33 (2005)
NL207 - I'd be happy with the 'models' if they could be built.
February 19, 2007 - 20:39 ET by acaiguanaNL207 - I'd be happy with the 'models' if they could be built.
What we have are 'models' made by people who are not system theorists and who are not modellers. They think they can model, but they have not the critical thinking skills to even agree whether they have a 'closed' or an 'open' system; barring that fault, their models are completely impossible to define.
Oh, make no mistake about it, in their superlative arrogance, they actually believe they can define their model. But they completely ignore chaos theory and quantum mechanics. Einstein was 'annoyed' by Quantum Physics. These guys are clueless.
Then you always have the issue of validation. Regression analysis is actually not validation of predictive accuracy.
In my simplistic humble opinion.
ACA
...
Hillary Clinton says: "I want to take those profits."
The first sentence in that pa
February 19, 2007 - 22:45 ET by MikeBThe first sentence in that paragraph contained the words "could", "may", and "if". In other words, it is all conjecture, a "wag" (wild a$$ guess). That is nothing on which I would care to make an economy destroying policy. And, even if all three of those conditions prevail, it would take a thousand years to happen.
However, NL207, so far Mr. High has been unable to comprehend facts, quoted articles or links that expose the fraud he has bought in to.
Dave, you have more chance to actually receive money from a dead banker in Nigeria than to be correct on the doomsday scenarios of global warming or climate change or whatever the doomsayers will call it tomorrow.
"A communist is someone who reads Marx. An anti-communist is someone who understands Marx." Ronald Reagan
Talk it up, Dave, doesn't cha
February 19, 2007 - 21:20 ET by Roger the ShrubberTalk it up, Dave, doesn't change the fact that you have been taken to the woodshed for the third straight day. Sucks to be you.
Not sure why there is any deb
February 19, 2007 - 19:38 ET by ckc1227Not sure why there is any debate on man-made global warming. Manbearpig's(algore) own charts used in his propaganda piece don't even back up what he's trying to sell.
High Dave also wants to dismiss the scientist's conclusions, even though she was co-chair of the latest IPCC, which is supposed to prove that the end of the world is near. A couple of problems though. This scientist says temperatures were higher 125,000 years ago. How can that be? If CO2 is at it's highest level ever today(according to Gore), and if CO2 causes temperatures to rise, shouldn't we be experiencing the highest temperatures ever seen on this planet today?
99% of the reenhouse gas found in our atmosphere is not there because of man. Anyone who believes the .28% we are responsible for is overwhelming the other 99% will believe anything.
Dear UN and Al Gore,
If you don't drop this global warming crap, we will invade your countries, kill your leaders, and convert you to Christianity.
Well, let's see here ckc1227.
February 19, 2007 - 20:27 ET by acaiguanaWell, let's see here ckc1227.
Clinton did not have 'sex' with 'that' woman.
Hillary did not vote to give Bush the 'authority' to go to war but to continue negotiations.
Americans sent a 'message' to the country about the war in Iraq in 2006.
Democrats have a 'mandate' to go in a 'new direction.'
Global Warming (er Climate Change, er whatever) is 'real'.
Does this help?
ACA
...
Hillary Clinton says: "I want to take those profits."
"As for the variation in
February 19, 2007 - 20:35 ET by Galvanic"As for the variation in predictions of sea level change, would you be more comfortable if they were all the same?"
Uh, yes.
"Isn’t science all about investigation, updating, and changing the models as new facts and study techniques become available?"
Hmmm. Didn't these same gurus and their models warn us that the 2006 hurricane season would be "above average" thanks to global warming, and almost as devastating as the 2005 season?
And didn't the 2006 hurricane season turn out to be not only "below average," but, remarkably, not a single hurricane made landfall in the US?
Yet, they're telling us about what will happen between now and 2100. Yeah, OK. Maybe these folks need to get a new set of goat entrails or whatever it is they're using for prognosticating.
Galvanic, the NatGeoSoc artic
February 19, 2007 - 22:54 ET by MikeBGalvanic, the NatGeoSoc article was predicting not to 2100, but to 3000, a thousand years into the future. The computer models they use for prediction can't accurately predict for 100 hours. What makes the AGW scaremongers think that computer models can accurately depict 100 or 1000 years ahead?
I read an article once that stated that a difference in intitial parameters of one half of one degree Farenheit would mean the difference between a predition of clear and sunny or rain. And that's just for a three day prediction.
"A communist is someone who reads Marx. An anti-communist is someone who understands Marx." Ronald Reagan
Not true! Everyone knows the
February 20, 2007 - 17:08 ET by IAmCanadianNot true! Everyone knows the Earth is only several thousand years old!
Truth Hurts!!
February 21, 2007 - 13:23 ET by sharinliteTake the fact that the only "humans" around then were the Neanderthals and they survived in a bitter cold envirnonment tells us a lot of what Cro-Magnons are...sissies? Maybe the fact that their brains were larger than ours explains a great deal.