http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=2158072e-802a-23ad-45f0-274616db87e6

Another scientist quoted by Morrissey says,

“The mean global temperature, at least as measured by satellite, is now the same as it was in the year 1980. In the last couple of years sea level has stopped rising. Hurricane and cyclone activity in the northern hemisphere is at a 24-year low and sea ice globally is also the same as it was in 1980.”

If true… *very* interesting.

“When the Arctic Ocean ice melts, it never raises sea level because floating ice is floating ice, because it’s displacing water,” O’Brien said. “When the ice melts, sea level actually goes down. I call it a fourth grade science experiment. Take a glass, put some ice in it. Put water in it. Mark level where water is. Let it [melt]. After the ice melts, the sea level didn’t go up in your glass of water. It’s called the Archimedes Principle.”

When the Arctic melts, the oceans go *down*. What could make the oceans rise, possibly, is land ice melt. However, there isn’t a lot of that that wouldn’t be compensated by sea ice melt. Take Antarctica, where admittedly there is a lot of land ice. Well, Antartica also has a lot of sea ice (still). Any melt of Antarctic land ice should be partially offset by a concurrent melt of Arctic and Antarctic sea ice.

OK, then, why should we believe Al Gore and all the other Prophets of Climate Doom when they travel the world on carbon-spewing private jets and own gigantic houses that consume many times the energy of average Americans?

ILC, I read an article about the climate fluctuations, and it makes a lot of the points you’ve made. The one thing that concerns me somewhat are the CO_2 emissions. The point was made that almost all of the emissions are natural. But the percentage of manmade CO_2 is not insignificant anymore. This is the first time that this has happened. So this could, in fact, lead to global warming much worse than what we’ve had in the past ten thousand years or so. On the other hand, the article suggests that we could also be on the cusp of a cooling era much colder than what we’ve had in the past the past ten thousand years, since we’re about due for that. If so, burning more coal may just help.

20: Really? and what are your credentials in public education? (aside from complaining about it?)

As for the oxygen component of the Earth’s atmosphere: absolutely nothing is going to happen to it. Photosynthetic life thrives on CO2 – and inherently converts it back to oxygen (and carbohydrates, i.e., food). The more CO2 there is, the more photosynthetic life will tend to thrive wherever it is, and the more oxygen there will be. I think it would be nice to conserve the Amazon and other rainforests for future human use, but in terms of the oxygen component, it does not matter if we do.

2) That’s an honest answer, thank you. My own answer would be that, since there is not going to be irreparable damage, having a plan to ‘prevent’ it would be irrational.

P.S. Since oil is a fungible commodity, we will never end the world’s dependence on Middle Eastern oil, even if we produce more or end our own dependence. Having said that: We should produce more energy domestically, both of oil and of other kinds of energy, as a way to increase our economy’s real output and hence, our living standard.

4) Good answer. Please note, however, that world climates becoming warmer is a *net good* set of changes. To the extent that the Earth has been getting warmer, we have *benefitted* from it. New farmland is coming into existence. Existing farmland can be made more productive. Deaths from winter freezing, which outnumber deaths from summer heat significantly, should go down. All the best periods in human history have coincided with the Earth getter warmer; the painful periods, where civilization has decayed, have coincided with the Earth getting cooler. Give me global warming, any day.

I will admit that CNN, ABC, etc. said that the Arctic “could” be ice-free, not that it “would” be. But the fact that they gave this (non)story oxygen at all, when so much more real and important things were/are going on in the world, functionally means that they want to create alarm in people: they wanted people to think/fear that the Arctic would be ice-free, or is on the verge of being ice-free, or will soon be ice-free. It wasn’t / isn’t / won’t.

I don’t have complete answers for your questions, but here goes.

1. I have no idea how high the oceans will rise. They have risen slightly, from what I understand, and will probably rise more as more of the Arctic ice melts. The landscape of the Earth could change, with more of the coastal areas under water. That could cause a little damage to the economy. I don’t know what would happen to the oxygen component. It apparently has fluctuated in Earth’s history.

2. I don’t have a proposal to stop it. As you suggest, the measures we take now, even if they affect CO_2 emissions may not do anything. I think we should take some of the steps that are being proposed, not so much for global warming, but to end our dependence on foreign oil.

3. If it takes that long, but it does have a positive impact, better late than never.

4. Build seawalls and/or move to higher land. The goal would be to minimize the negative effects of the economy and standards of living as much as possible, and thrive in spite of these changes.

If irreparable damage is possible, then it behooves us to try and do something about it. Or come up with a plan if we can’t stop the damage that will occur.

1) What “irreparable damage” do you foresee? Are the oceans going to rise 300 feet? Is the Earth’s atmosphere going to lose its oxygen component?
2) How would you propose to stop it?
3) Why would you think that your plan will stop it? Remember, even if we cut CO2 emissions today, there wouldn’t be any impact in the computer-generated climate models (such as they are) for a good 30-50 years.
4) Or if we can’t stop it, what other “plan” do we come up with? With what goal in mind?

But when have even the most ardent believers of global warming ever said that it will never snow in the South again?

Well Pat, they said the Arctic would be ice-free this summer… and they were wrong.

Add Your Own Punchline: How many liberals does it take to SCREW in a lightbulb?

The standard light bulb is dumb looking, gets dim and takes several people to install.

The new light source is weird, runs on excited vapors, and is screwy from top to bottom. What better symbol of liberalism can you think of?

Even an increase of 5 degrees does not mean it will never snow again, even in the South.

Not to mention that the Mason Dixon is pretty far north. There’s a lot of places in the South that get snow on a regular basis.

Florida’s been covered with water before. Whale fossils and shark’s teeth are all over the place here in the “Bone Valley” area. I can tell you where on a map whale fossils have been found. This begs the question what caused Florida to have been under water before.

I’m also waiting for liberals to explain to me how forcing us to use mercury filled lightbulbs made in China is going to save the world.