The Great Global Warming Swindle

[rabcbroon]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=429xoDtqS-A...player_embedded

My posts are in no way an attempt to make light of this global fraud. My educational background is simply representative of the masses whom have been recently informed of this fraud. The scam has been exposed and your feeble cry of 'peer Review' means little.

According to your opinion only those who have been indoctrinated with this false science should have an opinion. (Peer review blah blah blah).

Please take a few minutes to watch the video and just see how many times 'Peer review' is blurted out.

Well, you've ducked the question of education, but posted a link to FOX News. The problem being that even the management of FOX news has said that the programming that appears in prime time is opinion journalism, not news. The Ruppert Murdock method of journalism is to key up a story in one segment, then follow up in subsequent segments with the "news" that such-and-such is being discussed, ramping the volume with each cycle. Do you and other viewers of such programming have opinions – sure, but are they reasonable? Can it affect votes? - sure. Will poor science fix whatever is happening to the environment? - not one iota.

IMO "Peer Review" is important because if you want to understand the workings of a complex issue, it is generally best to seek help from those who've made that field of knowledge significant enough to study the complexities, and also to learn the tools (concepts, equations, etc. ) to give an accurate assessment.

If you truly don't value peer reviews, then you'd have no issue in asking any cobbler to fix your new car, or seeking medical advice from an accountant to evaluate why you've been vomiting for several days- with a fever. Such behavior would be absurd, but comparable to what you are saying here.

About the segment you linked to, I watched it fully. Senator Inhofe is recognized as a leading advocate of the big business agenda. Cavuto seeks ratings by editing for controversy while following the FOX agenda. Ed Begley at least was honest enough to say "wait till the facts are in" as to the emails in question.

Again, have you watched either of the two video links I posted? Do you really have room to hear other ideas? For brevity on the "Crash Course" try going quickly to chapter 18, but ideally take the whole course.

Fox new may well be 'opinion journalism'. However, they are very quick to ridicule and undermine anyone that does not hold their dogma.

I must say it is the first time i have suggested Fox as a source of information to enforce an opinion. Fox is a medium of the profane for the profane and i would normally treat their reporting as such. In this case i find them to be of use as most Fox viewers hold many views alien to my beliefs and this speaks to them.

This has nothing to do with saving the earth and, as the climategate scandal has illustrated, nothing to do with the real science – but everything to do with a relatively small clique of globalists running roughshod over humanity itself in pursuit of their malthusian control freak agenda

[RPCVguy]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=429xoDtqS-A...player_embedded

My posts are in no way an attempt to make light of this global fraud. My educational background is simply representative of the masses whom have been recently informed of this fraud. The scam has been exposed and your feeble cry of 'peer Review' means little.

According to your opinion only those who have been indoctrinated with this false science should have an opinion. (Peer review blah blah blah).

Please take a few minutes to watch the video and just see how many times 'Peer review' is blurted out.

Well, you've ducked the question of education, but posted a link to FOX News. The problem being that even the management of FOX news has said that the programming that appears in prime time is opinion journalism, not news. The Ruppert Murdock method of journalism is to key up a story in one segment, then follow up in subsequent segments with the "news" that such-and-such is being discussed, ramping the volume with each cycle. Do you and other viewers of such programming have opinions – sure, but are they reasonable? Can it affect votes? - sure. Will poor science fix whatever is happening to the environment? - not one iota.

IMO "Peer Review" is important because if you want to understand the workings of a complex issue, it is generally best to seek help from those who've made that field of knowledge significant enough to study the complexities, and also to learn the tools (concepts, equations, etc. ) to give an accurate assessment.

If you truly don't value peer reviews, then you'd have no issue in asking any cobbler to fix your new car, or seeking medical advice from an accountant to evaluate why you've been vomiting for several days- with a fever. Such behavior would be absurd, but comparable to what you are saying here.

About the segment you linked to, I watched it fully. Senator Inhofe is recognized as a leading advocate of the big business agenda. Cavuto seeks ratings by editing for controversy while following the FOX agenda. Ed Begley at least was honest enough to say "wait till the facts are in" as to the emails in question.

Again, have you watched either of the two video links I posted? Do you really have room to hear other ideas? For brevity on the "Crash Course" try going quickly to chapter 18, but ideally take the whole course.

Fox new may well be 'opinion journalism'. However, they are very quick to ridicule and undermine anyone that does not hold their dogma.

I must say it is the first time i have suggested Fox as a source of information to enforce an opinion. Fox is a medium of the profane for the profane and i would normally treat their reporting as such. In this case i find them to be of use as most Fox viewers hold many views alien to my beliefs and this speaks to them.

This has nothing to do with saving the earth and, as the climategate scandal has illustrated, nothing to do with the real science – but everything to do with a relatively small clique of globalists running roughshod over humanity itself in pursuit of their malthusian control freak agenda

That you and I agree about Fox News helped sooth my concerns greatly. Whether or not this is a clique of globalists is yet to be ascertained. The CRU emails have certainly been diced and sectioned lately, often unfairly, but the results need to be found.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archi...1/the-cru-hack/ is but one review, senate hearing may be another. I do know about having email reviewed and reassembled unjustly, and it isn't pretty - rather politics played at full court pressure.

[teatree]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=429xoDtqS-A...player_embedded

My posts are in no way an attempt to make light of this global fraud. My educational background is simply representative of the masses whom have been recently informed of this fraud. The scam has been exposed and your feeble cry of 'peer Review' means little.

According to your opinion only those who have been indoctrinated with this false science should have an opinion. (Peer review blah blah blah).

Please take a few minutes to watch the video and just see how many times 'Peer review' is blurted out.

Well, you've ducked the question of education, but posted a link to FOX News. The problem being that even the management of FOX news has said that the programming that appears in prime time is opinion journalism, not news. The Ruppert Murdock method of journalism is to key up a story in one segment, then follow up in subsequent segments with the "news" that such-and-such is being discussed, ramping the volume with each cycle. Do you and other viewers of such programming have opinions – sure, but are they reasonable? Can it affect votes? - sure. Will poor science fix whatever is happening to the environment? - not one iota.

IMO "Peer Review" is important because if you want to understand the workings of a complex issue, it is generally best to seek help from those who've made that field of knowledge significant enough to study the complexities, and also to learn the tools (concepts, equations, etc. ) to give an accurate assessment.

If you truly don't value peer reviews, then you'd have no issue in asking any cobbler to fix your new car, or seeking medical advice from an accountant to evaluate why you've been vomiting for several days- with a fever. Such behavior would be absurd, but comparable to what you are saying here.

About the segment you linked to, I watched it fully. Senator Inhofe is recognized as a leading advocate of the big business agenda. Cavuto seeks ratings by editing for controversy while following the FOX agenda. Ed Begley at least was honest enough to say "wait till the facts are in" as to the emails in question.

Again, have you watched either of the two video links I posted? Do you really have room to hear other ideas? For brevity on the "Crash Course" try going quickly to chapter 18, but ideally take the whole course.

Fox new may well be 'opinion journalism'. However, they are very quick to ridicule and undermine anyone that does not hold their dogma.

I must say it is the first time i have suggested Fox as a source of information to enforce an opinion. Fox is a medium of the profane for the profane and i would normally treat their reporting as such. In this case i find them to be of use as most Fox viewers hold many views alien to my beliefs and this speaks to them.

This has nothing to do with saving the earth and, as the climategate scandal has illustrated, nothing to do with the real science – but everything to do with a relatively small clique of globalists running roughshod over humanity itself in pursuit of their malthusian control freak agenda

That you and I agree about Fox News helped sooth my concerns greatly. Whether or not this is a clique of globalists is yet to be ascertained. The CRU emails have certainly been diced and sectioned lately, often unfairly, but the results need to be found.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archi...1/the-cru-hack/ is but one review, senate hearing may be another. I do know about having email reviewed and reassembled unjustly, and it isn't pretty - rather politics played at full court pressure.

You do know that one of realclimate's resident contributers is Michael Mann don't you? He is one of the 'scientists' at the heart of the climategate scandal and also the guy who produced the infamous hockey stick chart. You ridicule FOX news (very easy to write them off as right wing nutbags) but continue to have faith in partisan junk science websites like RC who have been caught red handed manipulating data, refusing to release data so that scientists can verify their findings and using their influence to silence any skeptics.

The Titanic is sinking and the band is still playing, but for how much longer?

[Kitsch22]

The Titanic is sinking and the band is still playing, but for how much longer?

And if the band had stopped playing, the Titanic would have remained afloat?

[Beacher]

It's encouraging to see that many people are waking up to the "climate swindle" -- starting to realize that a lot of greed and the desire to keep us in check with fear is behind this scam.

ClimateGate seems to provide some evidence that the "scientists" who have the most influence on what the governments do and what the (totally untrustworthy) mainstream media says have little if any integrity left -- they've sold out and shouldn't be trusted.

Of course, the problem with pointing out how we've been conned with utter BS like Al Gore's load of crap, is that people jump on us and call us "planet haters", but let's not be silly. Just because I don't like to be bamboozled by the likes of Al (I can't wait for all the that bogus carbon credit money) Gore, doesn't mean that I shouldn't be conscientious about how we treat the planet or how many pollutants we spew into the atmosphere. Common sense tells us that if we sh*t in our bed, it's not going to be a very nice place to sleep, but don't keep flashing those shots of the face of a glacier falling off into the ocean, and saying, "See - there's your proof that we're suffering from global warming." Glaciers are constantly moving and when part of one creeps past the edge of the shoreline and the face of it falls into the ocean, well that's from very natural reaction -- it's called gravity.

Unfortunately, too many people have been deeply indoctrinated to believe anything other than what the politicians and mainstream media sources tell them to believe, and they'll never accept that maybe we're being conned by the information providers and public office representatives. They'll fight those who offer a different opinion right to the end -- to the time when their financial resources have been drained by way of contrived taxes and their freedoms lost. Too bad!

[basinboy]

Conspiracy theorists as far as the eye can see

[jombom]

Sophie Freeman

Daily Mail

Wednesday, November 25, 2009

Health Secretary Andy Burnham is urging the nation to stop eating meat in a bid to save the planet.

Speaking at the launch of a new report on how rising temperatures will affect the public, Mr Burnham said eating a more vegetarian diet would cut the impact of livestock on the climate – as well as improve health by lowering the amount of saturated fat consumed.

The Health Secretary is supporting calls for a 30 per cent reduction in the number of farm animals bred for meat.

Horror of horrors. What will the Americans do without steaks and burgers ??

[barrella]

From a none Science guy

Science itself is about questioning itself about the question not the answer as do we really know anything for sure.

I am more on the side that this is just a total scam but we need to keep on asking the question and the questions, as we are gambling more than just $20 on a cheap shot hand of Texas hold’m.

I am helping out a company at the movement that is deeply involved in new environmental technologies and products. What they have is safe clean and on a different scale productivity wise to is none environmental alternatives that are globally used now.

What this company is having problems with is getting to market because every step of the way is a massive conglomerate blocking the doorway in even though their products are in a different world, really quite amazing. If this can be blocked and they can make a difference in a positive way, I’m sure the real news can be blocked, the same way as fake news can be broadcasted.

We all, not just scientists need to keep and open mind and clean up this world, even if it is or is not making us warm up a bit.

[Birdman]

"Glaciers are melting, gigantic glacier lakes emerge. Simultaneous water supply for 1,3 billion people in the neighboring countries of the Himalayas is in danger."...so the government of Nepal at a meeting in the shadow of the Mount Everest.

Better we stop gluttony in all perspectives, even if, as many here are comfortable with, nothing serious will happen.

[RPCVguy]

That you and I agree about Fox News helped sooth my concerns greatly. Whether or not this is a clique of globalists is yet to be ascertained. The CRU emails have certainly been diced and sectioned lately, often unfairly, but the results need to be found.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archi...1/the-cru-hack/ is but one review, senate hearing may be another. I do know about having email reviewed and reassembled unjustly, and it isn't pretty - rather politics played at full court pressure.

You do know that one of realclimate's resident contributers is Michael Mann don't you? He is one of the 'scientists' at the heart of the climategate scandal and also the guy who produced the infamous hockey stick chart. You ridicule FOX news (very easy to write them off as right wing nutbags) but continue to have faith in partisan junk science websites like RC who have been caught red handed manipulating data, refusing to release data so that scientists can verify their findings and using their influence to silence any skeptics.

The Titanic is sinking and the band is still playing, but for how much longer?

I was pleased to see others on ThaiVisa also add comments supporting consideration of the real issue here -

that the climate is changing. Here is a follow-up to my earlier post, this time quoting from Dan Lashof, Dir. Climate Center, Washington, DC http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/dlashof/hacked_emails_dont_change_fact.html

"After 20 years of working on global warming I’m still naïve. I thought there was a chance that the controversy stirred up by the emails hacked from the University of East Anglia Climate Research Unit might be a short blip that would die down after the scientists involved explained the context of the handful of emails that appear most troubling. After all these emails involved a small fraction of the climate science community and center on one of the least important (tree ring records) of the multiple independent data sets that unequivocally show that the earth is heating up due to carbon pollution...

...email chatter doesn't change the facts. So let's take this opportunity to review the fundamental facts about global warming.

• Carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere are at their highest levels in millions of years. The concentration of heat-trapping carbon dioxide in the atmosphere reached 385 parts per million (ppm) in 2008, an increase of 105 ppm above preindustrial levels. Concentrations have been increasing at an average rate of 1.9 ppm per year during this decade, significantly faster than the rate of increase during the 1990s.
  
• The earth is warming. The 10 hottest years on record have all occurred since 1995 according to NOAA. Global surface temperatures are increasing at a rate of 0.19ºC per decade, in line with climate model predictions. Including the most recent data in the 25-year average increased this trend slightly from 0.18ºC per decade, which was the rate reported by the IPCC in 2007. (So what about claims that global warming has leveled off or even that the earth has started to cool? Nonsense according to independent statisticians commissioned to examine the data by the Associated Press. Such claims are based on giving inappropriate weight to 1998, which was an anomalously hot year compared to the long term trend.)
  
• Arctic sea ice is melting. Sea ice declined to a record low in 2007 with a minimum ice extent almost 40% below the average for 1979-2000. Melting was not as extreme in 2008 and 2009, but the overall trend in September sea ice extent from 1979 through 2009 is a decline of 11% per decade.
  
• The heat content of the ocean is increasing. Most of the extra heat that the earth retains due to the build of CO2 in the atmosphere goes into the oceans. The observed increases in the total heat content of the ocean (not just rising sea surface temperatures) demonstrates that earth is absorbing more energy from the sun than it is releasing. To me this is the smoking gun of global warming because there is simply no plausible explanation other than increases in heat-trapping pollution in the atmosphere.
  
• Sea levels are rising at an accelerated rate. This is partly due to thermal expansion as the ocean column warms and partly due to melting of land-based ice from Greenland and Antarctica.
  
• The oceans are becoming more acidic. Even if the CO2 buildup was somehow not causing global warming it would still be a huge problem because the oceans absorb a portion of the carbon dioxide released into the atmosphere, reducing ocean pH. As NOAA chief Dr. Jane Lubchenco demonstrated to a House Committee yesterday, this makes life more difficult for ocean creatures that build shells out of calcium carbonate. Unless CO2 concentrations are stabilized soon large parts of the ocean will become literally too corrosive for many of these organisms to survive.
  

Global warming deniers are the ones who selectively manipulate data in an effort to demonstrate a preconceived ideologically-driven view. Many of them are devoted to the belief that regulation is always bad. Their unstated syllogism is that if global warming is real then regulating carbon emissions is necessary and good. Regulation is bad. Therefore global warming can't be real.

Scientists devoted to discovering the truth regardless of its implications have nothing to fear from full transparency of global warming data. Bring it on."

[RickBradford]

Scientists devoted to discovering the truth regardless of its implications have nothing to fear from full transparency of global warming data. Bring it on

Michael "Hide the Decline" Mann, writes to fellow members of the Goon Squad on Feb 9, 2006:

“I see that Science (the journal) has already gone online w/ the new issue, so we put up the RC [RealClimate] post. By now, you’ve probably read that nasty McIntyre thing. Apparently, he violated the embargo on his website (I don’t go there personally, but so I’m informed). Anyway, I wanted you guys to know that you’re free to use RC in any way you think would be helpful.

"Gavin and I are going to be careful about what comments we screen through, and we’ll be very careful to answer any questions that come up to any extent we can. On the other hand, you might want to visit the thread and post replies yourself. We can hold comments up in the queue and contact you about whether or not you think they should be screened through or not, and if so, any comments you’d like us to include. You’re also welcome to do a followup guest post, etc. think of RC as a resource that is at your disposal to combat any disinformation put forward by the McIntyres of the world. Just let us know. We’ll use our best discretion to make sure the skeptics don’t get to use the RC comments as a megaphone…”

And Phil "The Trick" Jones, July 8, 2004

The basic message is clear - you have to put enough surface and sonde obs into a model to produce Reanalyses. The jumps when the data input change stand out so clearly. NCEP does many odd things also around sea ice and over snow and ice.

The other paper by MM is just garbage - as you knew. De Freitas again. Pielke is also losing all credibility as well by replying to the mad Finn as well - frequently as I see it.

I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow - even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is !

Cheers

Phil

Man-made global warming: a sure sign that the world's supply of gullible fools is not melting away

Edited December 8, 2009 by RickBradford

[RPCVguy]

Man-made global warming: a sure sign that the world's supply of gullible fools is not melting away

Trying to control political fallout from non-scientists misconstruing email is different than the ostrich-like ignoring of man's influence on the ecosphere. Name calling / labeling of people is similarly not supportive of clear reasoned discussion.

[RickBradford]

Name calling / labeling of people is similarly not supportive of clear reasoned discussion.

I agree.

Jones (2004)

Pielke is also losing all credibility as well by replying to the mad Finn

Ed Miliband, 2009

Scientifically, they are the flat-earth brigade of the modern era.

Gordon Brown, 2009

.. we mustn’t be distracted by the behind-the-times, anti-science, flat-earth climate sceptics.

Hugo Rifkind, 2009

Your natural bedfellows are the 9/11 Truthers

[Jingthing]

Today's Washington Post included a new concept to me. The global warming skeptics are of the same cloth as the smoking causes cancer skeptics. What fools they look like now. No doubt the global warming skeptics are heading for the same fate, but we can not allow them to drag the entire human species down with their ignorance.

Don't be fooled about climate science. In April, 1994 -- long after scientists had clearly demonstrated the addictive quality and devastating health impacts of cigarette smoking -- seven chief executives of major tobacco companies denied the evidence, swearing under oath that nicotine was not addictive.

Doubters insist that the earth is not warming. This is in stark contrast to the consensus of 18 of the world's most respected scientific organizations, who strongly stated in an Oct. 21 letter to the U.S. Senate that human-induced climate change is real.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...9120903860.html

Edited December 10, 2009 by Jingthing

[jkinbkk]

Lord Monckton on Climategate

Lord Christopher Monckton speaks at the second International Climate Conference, addressing the so called Climategate scandal and key players involved in what appears to be one of the biggest science scams of our time

http://www.cfact.tv/2009/12/07/lord-monckt...ate-conference/

[RickBradford]

And the world's leading sea-level expert, Dr. Nils-Axel Mörner, who has been studying sea-levels worldwide for 35 years, agrees that global warming is a total swindle, and that political pressure is brought to bear to hide that fact.

Full interview Claim that sea level is rising is a total fraud

Excerpts:

"Working in this field, I don't think there's a spot on the Earth I haven't been in! In the northmost, Greenland; and in Antarctica; and all around the Earth, and very much at the coasts. So I have primary data from so many places, that when I'm speaking, I don't do it out of ignorance, but on the contrary, I know what I'm talking about.

"From 1992 to 2002, [the graph of the sea level] was a straight line, variability along a straight line, but absolutely no trend whatsoever. We could see those spikes: a very rapid rise, but then in half a year, they fall back again. But absolutely no trend, and to have a sea-level rise, you need a trend.

"But again, you look at the tide-gauge record: There is absolutely no signal that the sea level is rising. If anything, you could say that maybe the tide is lowering a little bit, but absolutely no rising. If you go around the globe, you find no rise anywhere."

"I accused them of this [twisting data s to show a bogus rise] —I said you have introduced factors from outside; And they answered, that we had to do it, because otherwise we would not have gotten any trend! That is terrible! As a matter of fact, it is a falsification of the data set. Why? Because they know the answer....

[TAWP]

You cannot lose! Because if disaster gets real in 20+ years, how can you say gosh I was wrong, but I cannot make good for that, because we all have to die now.

Just a question, but do you know what that smoke is?

[RickBradford]

[RPCVguy]

And the world's leading sea-level expert, Dr. Nils-Axel Mörner, who has been studying sea-levels worldwide for 35 years, agrees that global warming is a total swindle, and that political pressure is brought to bear to hide that fact.

Full interview Claim that sea level is rising is a total fraud

Excerpts:

"Working in this field, I don't think there's a spot on the Earth I haven't been in! In the northmost, Greenland; and in Antarctica; and all around the Earth, and very much at the coasts. So I have primary data from so many places, that when I'm speaking, I don't do it out of ignorance, but on the contrary, I know what I'm talking about.

"From 1992 to 2002, [the graph of the sea level] was a straight line, variability along a straight line, but absolutely no trend whatsoever. We could see those spikes: a very rapid rise, but then in half a year, they fall back again. But absolutely no trend, and to have a sea-level rise, you need a trend.

"But again, you look at the tide-gauge record: There is absolutely no signal that the sea level is rising. If anything, you could say that maybe the tide is lowering a little bit, but absolutely no rising. If you go around the globe, you find no rise anywhere."

"I accused them of this [twisting data s to show a bogus rise] —I said you have introduced factors from outside; And they answered, that we had to do it, because otherwise we would not have gotten any trend! That is terrible! As a matter of fact, it is a falsification of the data set. Why? Because they know the answer....

Dr. Nils-Axel Mörner, former head of the Paleogeophysics and Geodynamics department at Stockholm University, seems the most credible of the scientists that you sited at

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/Global-Clima...78#entry3197578 So I appreciate that you also quote him here. The scenarios of disaster from rising sea levels are based upon the concurrent disaster of loss of the glacial ice sheets on Greenland and/or Antarctica. Neither has happened yet, so any changes to sea level are still minimal. How hard is it to filter out the noise in measurement readings caused by tides, storms, tectonic plate shifts, and sinking sediment? Extremely hard. The details of such are presented at http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/mtsparker.html and though I expect you to resist the source, if you do read its entirety you'll likely agree that reasonable people are aware of and seeking to grapple with the uncertainties involved. Thanks for the link you posted. Now I've a need to continue searching for the raw data.

[RickBradford]

^^

The scenarios of disaster from rising sea levels are based upon the concurrent disaster of loss of the glacial ice sheets on Greenland and/or Antarctica. Neither has happened yet, so any changes to sea level are still minimal.

I don't know where you get that from -- even AGW scientists don't agree.

The largest contributions to sea level rise are estimated to come from thermal expansion (0.288 m) and the melting of mountain glaciers and icecaps (0.106 m), with smaller inputs from Greenland (0.024 m) and Antarctica (- 0.074 m)1.

Nor does the IPCC agree (at least they didn't in 2001)

Projected sea level changes from 1990 to 2100

Projections of components contributing to sea level change from 1990 to 2100 (this period is chosen for consistency with the IPCC Second Assessment Report), using a range of AOGCMs following the IS92a scenario (including the direct effect of sulphate aerosol emissions) give:

thermal expansion of 0.11 to 0.43 m, accelerating through the 21st century;

a glacier contribution of 0.01 to 0.23 m;

a Greenland contribution of �0.02 to 0.09 m;

an Antarctic contribution of �0.17 to 0.02 m.

Edited December 12, 2009 by RickBradford

[RPCVguy]

^^

The scenarios of disaster from rising sea levels are based upon the concurrent disaster of loss of the glacial ice sheets on Greenland and/or Antarctica. Neither has happened yet, so any changes to sea level are still minimal.

I don't know where you get that from -- even AGW scientists don't agree.

The largest contributions to sea level rise are estimated to come from thermal expansion (0.288 m) and the melting of mountain glaciers and icecaps (0.106 m), with smaller inputs from Greenland (0.024 m) and Antarctica (- 0.074 m)1.

Nor does the IPCC agree (at least they didn't in 2001)

Projected sea level changes from 1990 to 2100

Projections of components contributing to sea level change from 1990 to 2100 (this period is chosen for consistency with the IPCC Second Assessment Report), using a range of AOGCMs following the IS92a scenario (including the direct effect of sulphate aerosol emissions) give:

thermal expansion of 0.11 to 0.43 m, accelerating through the 21st century;

a glacier contribution of 0.01 to 0.23 m;

a Greenland contribution of �0.02 to 0.09 m;

an Antarctic contribution of �0.17 to 0.02 m.

Thanks for going back and adding question marks to your data. I think your source was either quoted out of context, or slipped a few decimal points. The annual change in glacier depth can indeed significantly affect the oceans. If the climate is warming, as is being noted, then the oceans will rise. Thermal expansion is indeed important, but its effects can be masked or mollified, depending upon how the oceanic layers mix thermally. This is because thermal expansion does not occur linearly. The more universally the deep water mixes thermally, the less apparent will be the effects of thermal expansion in the short term. (see my prior post for link) ... Ok, back to ice melt possibilities. What amount of water is involved, though none of us will live to see such. Total melts would take earth back to the shallow seas that allowed oil fields to be created ages ago.

Antarctica's surface equates to 4.2% of the oceanic area. Antarctica has 70% of all the world's freshwater frozen as ice - and 90% of all the world's ice. Specifically:

Thickness

Mean 1,829 m / 6,000 ft

Mean thickness East Antarctica: 2,226 m / 7,300 ft

Mean thickness West Antarctica: 1,306 m / 4,285 ft

Maximum ice thickness: 4,776 m / 15,670ft

Lowest point - Bentley subglacial trench, depth below sea-level 2,496 m / 8,188 ft

The end extreme (not in anyone's forecast) effect of that much ice melting, and still NOT accounting for thermal expansion, would be 4.2% times 2,496m = 88.9m

Greenland's glacier covers 80% of the area of Greenland with a mean thickness of 1,500m and Greenland's surface area equates to 0.6% of the oceanic surface area. Because it is in lower latitudes than Antarctica, and part of the industrially heavy northern hemisphere, it is expected to show earlier effects of climate change. It's potential for contributing to rising ocean levels is thus 80% x 0.6 x 1,500 = 7.8m.

There are also large volumes of glacier ice in the Alp, Himalaya, and Andean ranges. The runoff from which sustains the rivers and farmlands of each region. Glaciers are indeed retreating and loosing average thickness. The rate of change is still small. There is more than enough ice currently to significantly affect mean ocean levels - even if only 10% of it melts.

I've added a graph to show how the situation can rapidly worsen for people, water, agriculture, and society as now structured. This will be MOST evident in 30 years. If mankind has contributed to the slope of this graph, then it will be too late to rectify the problem. Unfortunately, most people do not react to long term problems.

[RickBradford]

I think your source was either quoted out of context, or slipped a few decimal points.

My second source was an actual IPCC report, so I don't see how that could be considered as being out of context.

They may well have slipped a few decimal points, they have the reputation for this kind of poor science, but from the raw figures I can't tell -- you'd have to take it up with them directly.

[RPCVguy]

I think your source was either quoted out of context, or slipped a few decimal points.

My second source was an actual IPCC report, so I don't see how that could be considered as being out of context.

They may well have slipped a few decimal points, they have the reputation for this kind of poor science, but from the raw figures I can't tell -- you'd have to take it up with them directly.

Maybe like me just earlier pulling out the wrong depth to multiply here:

"The end extreme (not in anyone's forecast) effect of that much ice melting, and still NOT accounting for thermal expansion, would be 4.2% times 2,496m = 88.9m" which should have been:

The end extreme (not in anyone's forecast) effect of that much ice melting, and still NOT accounting for thermal expansion, would be 4.2% times 1,829m = 77.8m.

At least I saw it didn't read correctly as I checked new postings.

[RickBradford]

^

I think you can also take comfort from the fact that Greenland has been a fair bit warmer in the recent past than it is now, and there was no measured rise in sea level.

I am referring to the Mediaeval Warm Period, which is accepted as fact by essentially all climate scientists (although Mann and Jones tried to airbrush it from history). This is when the Norse people colonised Greenland and so on, and a string of warm summers (maybe 1-2C warmer than today) melted ice enough for them to sail around the Arctic regions unhindered.

But nothing untoward seems to have happened with the sea-level.