Climate change already happened. You can discuss the physics of ice cubes till doomsday, go to a college and get off the board. We've known climate change already happened since 1968 and we figured out then that there is nothing we can do about it. It is now adapt or die.

"Robinson - sea levels have changed massively in the past, but we didn't have a global population of 6bn+ and hundreds of millions living in areas that might well end up under water. The planet isn't in danger - just our ability to live comfortably on it."

You're making an argument about over-population, not an argument about a little warming. I'm hearing lots of bluster here (and arguments from authority), but there's not much evidence. IPCC predictions for this decade have already proven wide of the mark, so just hold out until it all comes true? At some point you have to stop and realise the models are just plain wrong. If you do that, what's left? Not much.

btw Hansen is an activist and Mann uses dubious statistical methods (see McIntrye, McIntrick & Wegman) - the whole of Climate Science is a rotten vegetable. Ordinary standards of research quality do not count in this field.

Wouldn't that be nice for the rest of the planet, NOT getting invaded and polluted!

P.s. what the FUCK does "floatsum leaching out from the politions" mean??

All your oil are belong to US!!!

nice rebuttal Rex- hope your foot doesn't hurt too bad ;)

Robinson - sea levels have changed massively in the past, but we didn't have a global population of 6bn+ and hundreds of millions living in areas that might well end up under water. The planet isn't in danger - just our ability to live comfortably on it.

Actually it's 10 years .. http://www.theinsider.org/news/article.asp?id=0423 - sorry, I mean 6 years http://ergobalance.blogspot.com/2008/10/uk-oil-to-run-out-in-6-years.html , sorry 22 years http://www.gasandoil.com/goc/company/cnr33277.htm , damn, what I meant to say was 50 years http://www.funadvice.com/q/it_is_right - whoops, 100 years http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Oil_will_run_out_in_100_year_why_will_sugar_cane_not , actually it's 15-20 years http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2/summary_0286-29929822_ITM - OK, no more joking, its 30-40 years http://www.thinkspain.com/news-spain/4958/fossil-fuel-supplies-will-run-out-in-30-or-40-years-time-says-mijail-gorbachev-at-forum-barcelona-2004 - haha, no still kidding, it's really in the year 2020 http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2008/dec/15/oil-peak-energy-iea ok I bored now, it's NEVER GOING TO RUN OUT http://economics.about.com/cs/macroeconomics/a/run_out_of_oil.htm ---- Oh, what do you know, nobody fucking knows, neither do you, thanks for your factual insight tho'.

Now that we've experienced a weak maximum in the 90's and the Barycentric Tides exerted on the sun starting in 1990 will put the Sun to sleep even according to a NASA scientist (Hung not Hathaway) and we are entering a solar and climatic minimum ...

As far as AGW goes, I'm putting together a little piece and I am surprised by the linear developement of the political philosophy (I did a summary of BT theory already and the coming minimum). AGW is not science, as the theory even violates the second law of thermodynamics.

If AGW is anything, it is a subsidy for 'big iron' to totally flesh out how NOT to code for system or process models and why 'first principle' relationships can't be substituted with ad hoc backward derivations of GIGO just because it is badly written in some computing language.

I wouldn't hire any of those talented people tainted by this enterprise to model an industrial process where results and feedback must be integrated in real time, are required and are continuous.

Jim, scepticism is one thing, science is another. People writing "The J-curve is disproven" or "Hansen is an idiot" - that isn't scepticism, that is simply unsupported statements. To refute a scientific theory or prediction, you have to produce actual evidence that it is wrong, and to call it science you then have to work out where the error lies. The "climate change deniers" never do this. They make elementary mistakes like confusing weather with climate, they choose unrepresentative data, they mention alternative explanations (such as solar output) without doing the maths (because it shows it is insignificant.) They also love to quote the views of people who are not actually qualified to comment - like David Bellamy, who is a botanist, or Dyson, who is a physicist with no knowledge of climatology or the models used in forecasting. To put it politely, scientists like to demonstrate that they can do better than other scientists. But they do not welcome the kind of scepticism which consists of a noisy adolescent with its hands over its ears screaming "nah nah nah can't hear you".

"Climate change skeptics are just those too fearful to face facts or those that don't want to spend money to protect the future they probably won't be around for. Religion can also play a part in climate change skepticism as previous climatic events such as ice ages etc do not comply with creationism!"

So in other words, skeptics have no business questioning science? Good science is based on questioning. If the science behind an assertion is good, then it will stand up to skepticism. Call me misunderstanding, but I thought a good scientist would WELCOME skepticism?

If anything, your assertion is as much religious as in "absolute fact" as the creationists you're bashing.

Physician, heal thyself.

Ice is less dense than water, which is why ice cubes float. (Water ice is unusual in this respect)

To quote your own post, I hope sufficiently embarrassingly,

"We are truly doomed if people commenting here represent the average level of science knowledge. Does everyone just spout off without even understanding the basics of what you are talking about? I feel so sorry for your elementary school teachers."

The answer in your case would seem to be Yes.

Ice does float, but most of the mass of a glacier or an ice cube is in the water like someone sitting in a bath. Ice is denser than water, so when it melts it takes up less space in the water. Try the experiment with the glass of ice water. The water level declines when the ice melts. Also, ice melting on land could end up evaporating, but it is too difficult to explain how weather works to people who refuse to consider something as simple as what happens when ice melts in water. We are truly doomed if people commenting here represent the average level of science knowledge. Does everyone just spout off without even understanding the basics of what you are talking about? I feel so sorry for your elementary school teachers.

@Horse
Not being a native English speaker, it is possible I might have wrongly formulated my previous post. Concerning Steig & al or the crowd working for realclimate/Hansen and the like, I am just wondering why on earth these people are hasting to release their discoveries in the press whereas they did not even check the data they have been working with. By the way, this "bad science" leads to exactly the same conclusion that we do not know and cannot prove that man made global warming/AGW is a reality.
Concerning your lack of confidence in the ability for us to adapt, I do not quite follow you. If we should believe the scenarios they are trying to scare us with will take place within the next decades, we will have to adapt anyway. I do not think taxes on CO2/Kyoto like BS will ever significantly change our CO2 production. And what about Asia and Africa? Do you want these parts of the world to stagnate in pre-industrial state? Don’t these people also have the right to develop their economies? Instead of pumping money into useless tax systems, don’t you think this money could better be used in R&D for new sources of energy?

so when it runs out won't the problem go away?

There are a relative handful of people who are actually qualified to understand this shit, and then everyone else who thinks that doing high-school science, or knowing how to turn on a computer and do a Google/Wiki search, somehow makes them qualified to comment.

Facts are that almost nobody, bar these few experts, are in a position to make any sensible assessment of the science, and even those experts agree that the science is incomplete, and the data constantly changing.

So the only reasonable way for mere mortals (including politicians) to deal with it, is on a risk-cost assessment basis. The potential cost of taking the advice of doomsayers and then finding they were wrong vs. the potential cost of taking the advice of naysayers and then finding they were wrong. The first one has a worse-case scenario of economic disaster, the second one has a worse case scenario of extinction... and waiting to see which one is more likely is not an option if either worst case scenario is to be believed. Which one would you rather risk ? Place your bets.

Wow. For the planet's most adaptable species (ok, not counting microbes), we're certainly suddenly very worried about environmental change. Consider: the sea has risen by over 400ft since the end of the last ice age (hence the ancient myths of Noah's Ark, Atlantis, etc.). Consider also that the temperature (global average) has risen by a poxy 0.6 degrees since 1880! WOW! That's well within natural climate variation.

So, what's the panic about? Sure, stop using so much oil and gas - but only because we're giving lots of distasteful regimes too many dollars. But other than that, this whole CO2 based AGW scare is a load of complete and utter rubbish. It is and will destroy public trust in Science. That, my friends, is a far more dangerous thing than a tiny change in temperature.

Rex, it is you who is spreading bad science. Assuming that the ice and the water are the same (i.e. not freshwater vs salt water), if the ice is floating it will only displace as much water as its weight, meaning that when it melts, the water level will remain EXACTLY THE SAME. In the case of freshwater icebergs in salt water, when the iceberg melts, the difference in densities (fresh vs salt water) will cause the water level to rise slightly. Look up buoyancy.

"Apparently Venus & Mercury Have Already Fallen To Plight: Global Boiling, EARTH IS NEXT"

I have heard people go on about this before too, how earth will get a little carbon in the air and turn into venus. what they don't tell you is that venus gets almost 3x the suns energy as earth, and this extra heat caused all the lighter molecules to boil away into space. CO2 wasn't the cause there either, just the effect.

Apparently Venus & Mercury Have Already Fallen To Plight: Global Boiling, EARTH IS NEXT. BE Warned: Citizens, Its Your Fleash. Today Temperature went UP Twenty Degrees from 6AM to Noon, When Will It Stop? STEAM Vents Largter Than Volcanoes. Ohhhhh d' inhumanity....STeWie drashek EARTHS'SteamFitter.

Tod said "Water absorbs air as id freezes making it float when it should sink."

Back to school, Tod. As water freezes, hydrogen bonds link up water molecules in a crystalline structure, which takes up more space (and thus is less dense). Air has nothing to do with this.

Congratulations to "Human accelerated global climate change". I rarely see anyone talking sensibly about global warming (at least in comments).

To "Washington DC under water?" and others who think warming will be beneficial: consider the impact of multiple massive wars (perhaps even nuclear) as nations fight for reduced land, food, water, and other resources. Think it can't happen? Lots of past examples (Maya and Inca in the Americas) of advanced civilizations crashing due to climate change.

Washington DC under water, and this is a bad thing?

If this is the effect, bring on the global warming!

Firstly, in the comment labelled 'West Of Antartica', Mike mistook 500 metres as 500 miles, there's a massive different between the two as 500 metres is just under a third of a mile.

I'd also like to point out the misconception of artic sea ice. There may be more sea ice coverage during winter, but this sea ice is much thinner than what was there before. During summer warmer temperatures helps melt the perennial sea ice, during winter the ice reforms but is only seasonal and not perennial as it was before. Seasonal ice is much thinner than perennial ice. The other issue is with a possible drop in surface sality due to the melting of perennial sea ice (as the salt precipitates out of the ice over a fairly long period of time), in addition to the snow and ice melt off greenland and other iced land masses, there is a very good chance of an increased ability to freeze as salt acts as an antifreeze! It may only be a seemingly small amount of salinity difference, but this is enough to induce a greater freezing of seasonal ice during winter!

I do not doubt human accelerated climate change, but people need to realise that there are natural variations in the weather, and the possibility of abnormal condition either side of whats considered normal. The difficult thing about climate change is the actual affect on the current conditions. The snow storms in Europe could actually be worse without human induced climate change, likewise as with any other event. The likelihood of certain events will increase as a result of human accelerated climate change, with the events depending on where in the world you are.

The term human accelerated (global) climate change is sometimes used as its a more accurate name for it. Climate change is a natural process that occurs continually, this natural change is just being altered and accelerated by the increase of CO2 caused by human activities.

Climate change skeptics are just those too fearful to face facts or those that don't want to spend money to protect the future they probably won't be around for. Religion can also play a part in climate change skepticism as previous climatic events such as ice ages etc do not comply with creationism!

* National Geographic (November 19, 2008)- Dark Matter Proof Found Over Antarctica?:
High-energy electrons captured over Antarctica could reveal the presence of a nearby but MYSTERIOUS ASTROPHYSICAL OBJECT that's bombarding Earth with cosmic rays, researchers say...
* LiveScience (06 June 2008)-Antarctic Ice Causes Glacial 'Earthquakes':
Scientists have discovered their first icequake, if you will — a movement of a huge stream of ice in Antarctica that creates seismic waves, just like an earthquake, and can be felt hundreds of miles away... These ice-driven seismic waves had the force of a magnitude 7 earthquake:
http://cristiannegureanu.blogspot.com/2009/02/livescience-antarctic-meltdown-would.html

I've read the real article on this, and the science is quite sound. What the Inquirer is not telling you is that they don't expect the ice sheet to melt for another 500-1000 years. It is not a close term speculation of future climate but a long term one.

Jan: "Why can't humanity just adapt, instead of pretending we could do anything to change the climate the way we'd like it to be?"

Leaving aside the attitude that science you don't agree with must be "bad science", especially if denouncing it happily coincides with the status quo, how do you suggest that hundreds of millions of people whose habitats are threatened by global warming, potentially within decades, "just adapt"?

Most people in the developed nations don't want to give up their SUVs and superfluous 4x4s, or even sort out their own environmental problems (for example, reconstructing New Orleans), never mind help people in developing nations "just adapt".

But hey, let's just ignore such stuff. There are even a few Web sites out there that make their readers feel comfortable doing so, as you've probably noticed already.

Where, exactly, would you be if you were 500 miles west of antartica?

I noticed long time dormant volcanoes are now re-activating, the most recent, very near Tokyo, Japan. The previous ones in Chile, South America.

Like the squeeze of many pimples on ones human face, the water bulge is adding pressure to Earth's skin crust. The planet is teen ageing itself and we are are ones concerned with who's trousers dropped?

Come on Numpty even most of the global warming scientists have started to be quiet about the matter. Pretty much Al Gore is the only one left really outspoken about it. Well I do not know about all of the world temps, but I know starting last summer that temps in Canada, US and even Dubai (know someone who has lived there for about 5 years) are seeing much cooler temps than 2006 and 2007.

Actually the water levels will remain the same if it is floating ice that melt. Water absorbs air as id freezes making it float when it should sink. Glazure ice is much denser, but again only floats because of the air. If anything would be effected the warmer temps will make more water air born, which would lower water levels.

But yes we are polluting the world. Weither or not it is effecting the global change is questionable. We naturally need things to be cleaner and more efficient and also recyle more, but we have to look at the costs. Recycling is always a good one. Curb side recycling is a waste... not only do you have extra containers that are made from oil, but you now have extra trucks running the routes to puck up this garbage. Only large scale mass recycling actually lowers the pollution overall. Electric cars are really not an option either as the batteries are so toxic and the actually manufacturing proccess drives up pollution levels. Fuel cells are no better as Hydrogen is most cost effective when made from oil (hydro-carbons). Even things like LEDs and solar panels have a huge environmental footprint for manufacturing... currently.

I have always thought that the most important things that need to be done right now is simply research... everything else is a very limitted in it impact. The main arreas I see the need for are LEDs, solar pannels, and batteries. Almost everything now uses batteries from MP3 players, cell phones, laptops, and electric cars. We need batteries that last longer (lifetime not charge) and are more environmentally friendly to make and recycle. LEDs are so efficient and last a long time and can be used in all sorts of lighting applications, but also displays (OLED or LCD backlights). Solar panels are just too expensive and hard to manufacture. They are not even close to being a viable option. Wind power is OK, but really the one with the least environmental impact right now is nuclear power. There are current ideas being worked on to fix all three of these technologies, but they are still llikely 2-5 years out. I think it would be more prudent to spend the money now on the reasearch then on those solar expensive panels and toxic Lithium-ion batteries and flouresent lights. Build some more wind turbines and nuclear plants and find an alternative to oil based plastics that wont kill the environment worse.

If this is the same kind of science than the recent "study" proposed by Steig et al on Antarctica you are talking about, go and have a look at http://climateaudit.org about how serious these guys are.
Anyway, I'd rather have a Global warming than a global cooling. Why can't humanity just adapt, instead of pretending we could do anything to change the climate the way we'd like it to be?

"Hmmm" :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-glacial_rebound

See "Effects"

As for "Bad Science", melting ice cubes in water produce NO change in water level, and the melting of the Arctic ice cap would do the same. It's the Ice over Greenland, Antarctica and other places that are the problem

hairbear

Rex: "Ice has mass that pushes into the water... Try it with a glass of ice water."

Yes, but Greenland and Antarctica are landmasses where you find quite a lot of ice obviously not in the water at all.

"If we are going to discuss climate, let's at least get the laws of physics right."

No, let's start with geography lessons for everyone calling out "bad science" and bringing up poor analogies.

Ice has mass that pushes into the water, causing it to rise like someone sitting in a bath tub. When ice melts, the water level decreases. Try it with a glass of ice water. Measure the water level before and after the ice melts. If we are going to discuss climate, let's at least get the laws of physics right.

This is possibly the worst article i've ever seen on t'inq.

kedas has a point, but Todd, you don't. Do you really think your local weather proves anything about climate change? The models show the weather will probably get more extreme in North America, as it will in most places. That might well mean colder winters...

I've noticed an increasing, irrational back-lash against climate change science. But it doesn't matter, because all the things we need to do to mitigate climate change are the exact same things we need to do for a whole host of other reasons.

For example, would the above anti-science folk like to see us reduce our need for gas from Russia and oil from Iran? Would they like to pay lower fuel bills? Would they like their 90 year old gran to be able to heat her home properly? Would they prefer for our air and water supplies to be cleaner and less cancer-giving? I would flippin' well hope the answer to these questions is yes.

And if you want to achieve these things, you have to do EXACTLY the same things as you do if you want to fight climate change: energy efficiency; clean energy; and the general responsible use of resources.

Ho hmmm, another surf's up spasm about the environment comming down, or up around our ears.

If Washington DC get's flooded, I'd be more worried about the floatsum leaching out from the politions.

You know they had been screaming global warming last winter, which seemed to have been the peek in global temps. The biggest thing that they pointed to was the melting of the north pole... which was caused by a change in ocian currents not overall temps... and the South pole has actually increased... but that is beside the point. Last summer was pretty mild and this winter has been much colder than average with many places receiving record temps and snowfall.

It is not very common here in Michigan to have snow on the ground all winter. The average temp is actually just a few digrees below freezing so the snow comes then melts a few weeks later. Well this year we have only had one warming period this winter, so almost the entire winter has had snow on the ground. At least the massive snowfall that were were getting almost every day did back off a bit about a month ago, or else we would have passed most records for the year by the 2nd week of January. But it is still way colder than normal and none of it melted.

Maybe if Al Gore wanted to keep saying that Global Warming was real, then he should lower his own "carbon footprint" instead of trying to get around that with "carbon offsets", which typically are just a bunch of bull. put about 15,000 miles on my car that gets 30MPG... what does his private jet get? I also average about 750kw a month on my 1500 square foot house... what does he use in his mansions?

WASHington-on-Sea.... brilliant. Maybe the filth and stench emanating from the former "White" house will be washed away for good. Although if that doesn't cause widespread Oceanic pollution nothing will. I feel sorry for the sharks already. Excuse me while I go start my Humvee and leave it running till petrol (gas is gas...yanks) runs out.

Look at the source - New Shietisht (Shurely Shome Mishtake)... If all they write would be true, then we would have already had inexhaustible source of free energy and means of reliable time/space travel. They have notoriety of publishing articles based on non verified claims (i.e. Heim's theory).

That the water will not rise equally for every one on the planet, that is normal.
But getting extra water due to a rising antarctic that doesn't make much sense because if something is going up, somewhere else it will have to go down.
(unless they are in the business of making extra matter or vacuum spaces under the antarctic.)