Climate Scientists Admit to Understatement

Published on March 13th, 2009

Daylife/Getty Images

The economic impact of global warming has been grossly underestimated and scientists must warn that inaction will spell disaster says top economist and climate change expert Nicholas Stern.

Stern told 2,000 climate scientists meeting in Copenhagen that they had failed to clearly tell humanity what it faces if global temperatures reach the upper range of forecasts made by the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change (IPCC).

“There has been lots of scientific information on 2.0 and 3.0 degrees Celsius (3.6 and 5.4 degrees Fahrenheit), but you have to tell people loudly and clearly just how difficult 4.0 or 5.0 would be,” he said.

New findings show that these projections were vastly understated, scientists here said…

Stern, whose 2006 Stern Review has become the benchmark for calculating the economic cost of tackling climate change, conceded that his report had also fallen short in assessing the potential consequences of global warming…

Katherine Richardson, head of the Danish government’s Commission on Climate Change Policy and a co-organiser of the meeting, agreed that scientists had not done a perfect job in getting the message out.

“Most of us have been trained as scientists to not get our hands dirty by talking to politicians. But we now realise that what we are dealing with is so complicated and urgent that we have to help to make sure the results are understood,” she told AFP.

Of course, college basketball may demand more of your attention, eh?

84 users responded in " Climate Scientists Admit to Understatement "

Subscribe to this post comment rss or trackback url

# 1 d said, on March 13th, 2009 at 7:37 am

I thought global warming was a hoax Dvorak?

# 2 LibertyLover said, on March 13th, 2009 at 7:39 am

I remember hearing about global warming in the 80s. They talked about just a 1 degree rise in average temperature bringing disaster. Well, that’s happened and now they are talking about 4 to 5 degrees.

What’s going to happen when we reach that and we’re still going strong?

# 3 Personality said, on March 13th, 2009 at 7:40 am

Basketball and Baseball suck.

# 4 Paddy-O said, on March 13th, 2009 at 7:42 am

#2 I remember “global cooling” and all the gov grant $ thrown at “climate scientists” to find a “solution”.

They found a solution all right, a solution to the dwindling gov grant money. LOL!

# 5 ran6110 said, on March 13th, 2009 at 7:47 am

I don’t know if global warming is real or not, I don’t think anyone does.

I have learned to question the motives of those who scream the loudest on both sides.

It seems everyone screaming about how bad it’s going to be have their money invested in carbon credit / cap and trade companies. Or on the other side their research is funded buy oil companies.

For a discussion on the science of global warming I visit

http://www.icecap.us/

Keep in mind they may have a bias also!

Worried about hurricanes? Check this out…

http://www.coaps.fsu.edu/~maue/tropical/

# 6 TreeBeard said, on March 13th, 2009 at 7:48 am

Bring on the Endless Summer! It’s too cold in Maine!

# 7 MikeR said, on March 13th, 2009 at 7:53 am

Freaking groundhog. Only 6 more weeks of winter he said. Tuesday morning temperature was -42 C at the airport, in the -50s with the windchill. Freaking groundhog.

# 8 Billy Bob said, on March 13th, 2009 at 7:56 am

Sounds like they are afraid that the money will run out if they don’t ratchet up the rhetoric a notch.

# 9 ManBearPig said, on March 13th, 2009 at 8:02 am

So, What does it take to be called a climate scientist?
I’m regularly called an “Engineer” even though the only diploma I have is from high school. Are these guys actually qualified, or is it more like this: http://tinyurl.com/dnfvag

# 10 Sinn Fein said, on March 13th, 2009 at 8:04 am

MORE GLOBAL WARMING NOW! YEEE HAAAA, BURN BABY, BURN!

Any of you putz’s out there who believe this garbage can pay my carbon offset taxes when Oblahblah gets them going. More taxes will right the planet’s atmosphere, riiiiight.

When the CHINESE start being concerned with so-called global warming, so will I and will happily pay Al Gore for my carbon offset credits. Nice that he is giving all his profits back to Mother Earth…not!

# 11 The Pirate said, on March 13th, 2009 at 8:10 am

Global warming is nothing but hot air from people seeking to make (or steal) money on a global scale. To believe otherwise is to believe in the tooth fairy.

# 12 Jason said, on March 13th, 2009 at 8:12 am

Nice to see them prognosticate like this even in the face of no net warming in 30 years and a continuing 9 year cooling trend that in the last 2 years has ACCELERATED!!!!

Go spread your fear elsewhere you religio-enviro-nuts!!!

# 13 bobbo said, on March 13th, 2009 at 8:13 am

Silly Hoomans. Attacking scientific issues with your “common sense.” Its what kept disease theory in the dark ages for a few centuries.

Putting the YOU in F&cktards.

# 14 Randomized said, on March 13th, 2009 at 8:15 am

[Duplicate comment deleted. Please don't double post! - ed.]

# 15 Randomized said, on March 13th, 2009 at 8:16 am

Was there a huge anti-global warming study released lately? I can’t go anywhere without seeing every site spammed with global warming/world is ending soon/pay us taxes or we’re all going to die articles.

It’s not very green to waste all that electric posting these fictional stories all over the place.

# 16 freddybobs68k said, on March 13th, 2009 at 8:16 am

So lets say its not true for arguments sake. Governments/countries which did nothing would have a serious competitive advantage over others.

So why are all these governments pursing it? The tax/government argument doesn’t work. So lets cling onto it’s ‘the evil scientists that will do anything for grant money’. I think that’s stupid – as governments would be more likely to fund research showing the opposite (they want to be competitive right?). And until fairly recently that’s what you have been seeing. As I’ve said previously – most scientists live for doing good science.. and _proving_ something controversial is what they live for and get big grants from.

I’ll also ask how many people denied that HFCs affected the ozone layer. And not only that but action by humans led to a measurable and world wide result. Similarly with acid rain.

Humans seem to have a real problem with tackling problems which occur over extended periods or more years. Take the petroleum problems of the 70s, it was pretty obvious a growing dependency on foreign oil should be dealt with. What happened?

Also the idea that ‘climate change’ is a ‘new branding’ that’s recent is wrong. In the Uk its been called that for more than 5 years. The issue is that although overall the average world temperature goes up, in some places it will get much colder, and in general more erratic. Thus ‘global warming’ doesn’t quite explain the situation – certainly for certain people where its locally getting colder. And use that as ‘proof’.

Still never mind – the raptures going to sort all this out for us apparently.

# 17 John C Dvorak said, on March 13th, 2009 at 8:29 am

Cripes, can’t they get this right, ever? Now this. And what happened to all those hurricanes these same people were predicting?

# 18 MikeN said, on March 13th, 2009 at 8:38 am

This guy is not a scientist. I thought only scientists have credibility on the subject?

Reading the article, we can see that it is completely bogus. They are talking about a rise of 50 meters. Looking at the IPCC report, written by all the global warming scientists, they project somewhere around 1 meter, and the highest numbers I can find are 4-6m 125000 years ago, and Greenland adding 7m. True they say that they are not sure and they can’t give an upper bound on the sea level, but it’s clear that no credible scientist would support 50 meters.

The average temperature rise of 5 degrees is a little more reasonable, as two of their 6 scenarios have this in the high end of their estimate(for which they estimate .23-.59m of sea level rise, only off by a factor of 100).

Then there is the additional problem which is also in the IPCC reports, and I think it is due to not enough interaction between the people writing the different reports. To get high levels of warming, you have to have high levels of emissions, which in turn means lots of economic development.

However, the impact of climate change assumes poverty in the third world, and this is where they get all the devastation. But the people who created the warming scenarios assumed lots of development in the third world to get that warming. Some of the scenarios assume more economic development in Africa than the US had in the 19th and 20th centuries.

# 19 mrmigu said, on March 13th, 2009 at 8:43 am

Whether or not the theory that all of the gasses that we are releasing through processes like combustion are insulating the planet and causing the temperature to rise is true or not, we are still releasing toxic gasses.

How long will it be until our cities/planet resemble the garage of someone trying to take their own life by letting their car run and fill the room with exhaust

# 20 MikeN said, on March 13th, 2009 at 8:45 am

Also reading the IPCC report

It is very likely that cold days, cold nights and frosts have become
less frequent over most land areas, while hot days and
hot nights have become more frequent. {WGI 3.8, SPM}
It is likely that heat waves have become more frequent over
most land areas. {WGI 3.8, SPM}
It is likely that the frequency of heavy precipitation events (or
proportion of total rainfall from heavy falls) has increased over
most areas. {WGI 3.8, 3.9, SPM}
It is likely that the incidence of extreme high sea level3 has
increased at a broad range of sites worldwide since 1975. {WGI
5.5, SPM}

So if these facts re no longer the case, then that should change their scientific conclusions, right? If not, why would scientists include them in their report?

# 21 Rick said, on March 13th, 2009 at 8:48 am

The real story should be about how the worldwide recession is affecting emissions and the implementation of emissions standards.

# 22 JimR said, on March 13th, 2009 at 8:51 am

Sorry, the debate is not over. Anyone with an ounce of respect for science is not an IPCC lemming. If you are interested in seeing a scientific answer to these types of alarmist predictions, watch this video.
Flaws In Catastrophic Global Warming Forecasts

# 23 Proud Alien said, on March 13th, 2009 at 8:53 am

Here we go again: the resident skeptics are making fun of scientists. Why do you, Yanks, always need to smack your face against a wall before you start considering reasonable arguments and available evidence? Just because you don’t like something doesn’t mean the reality is going to adjust to your liking.

# 24 Paddy-O said, on March 13th, 2009 at 8:58 am

# 20 Proud Alien said, “Here we go again: the resident skeptics are making fun of scientists. Why do you, Yanks, always need to smack your face against a wall ”

I don’t know why the global warming alarmist won’t listen to scientists…

# 25 Olo Baggins of Bywater said, on March 13th, 2009 at 9:00 am

Just because you don’t like something doesn’t mean the reality is going to adjust to your liking.

That’s exactly what the majority of the US is telling the right-wingers, but they have their fingers in their ears saying la-la-la-la-la-la-la.

# 26 Jeff said, on March 13th, 2009 at 9:09 am

Boom…….There goes the Dynamite!

# 27 Proud Alien said, on March 13th, 2009 at 9:20 am

# 21: care to expand on your “alarmist vs scientists” statement? To the best of my knowledge, the scientists are the ones who raise the alarm on this subject.

# 28 Paddy-O said, on March 13th, 2009 at 9:24 am

# 24 Proud Alien said, “To the best of my knowledge,”

Sounds like you need more knowledge…

# 29 Benjamin said, on March 13th, 2009 at 9:30 am

If policies are changed due to global warming fears, it will cause economic chaos. It does matter if the fears materialize or not. The only important thing is to use global warming to wrest control away from the people.

People do not need to drive to work when the global warming laws are put into place. Their jobs will go to China where there are no global warming laws.

Communism failed due to people not wanting to give up freedoms to a totalitarian regime. The Green movement is trying to take our freedom in a different way. Remember, Green is the new Red.

It is not about the planet. It is about control. Some commission will have veto authority on every decision you make, unless you are on the commission.

# 30 QB said, on March 13th, 2009 at 9:37 am

Hmmmm, there are alarmist alarmists now.

# 31 pedro said, on March 13th, 2009 at 10:13 am

I got shivers down my spine seeing that picture. It looks as real as the global warming threat. I wonder if they used the global warming modeling photoshop plug-in to make that photo.

#25 Man, you’re in a roll today.

# 32 JimR said, on March 13th, 2009 at 10:25 am

QB, lol… re alarmist alarmists…

Before, it was the arms race and the Cold War,
… now it’s the alarms race and the Warm War.

# 33 Olo Baggins of Bywater said, on March 13th, 2009 at 10:39 am

pedro…could that be Gary, Indiana?

# 34 Proud Alien said, on March 13th, 2009 at 11:06 am

# 25: It sounds like you are big on making large statements but short on specifics.

# 35 The0ne said, on March 13th, 2009 at 12:11 pm

That’s one unsightly photo there. Reminds me of my business trips to China. I love swimming at the beach but I wouldn’t step foot in those water over there, especially when I see tons of garbage floating around, smells awful just being near it and looks like green puss.

I can’t imagine anyone would use the beach but they do, tons of people. I wanted to go out there and tell them the water isn’t safe but who am I to say anything like that I’m not PhD scientist. Those garbage floating about might be on purpose, that smell might be from people farting and the green color might be because of coloring to make the beach look “nicer.” Shrug.

The wackiest part of all this experience was when there were some actual good swimmers that had to plow through the garbage just to be able to get far enough to be able to use swim!

# 36 Ed said, on March 13th, 2009 at 1:05 pm

At this point there’s no way to avoid the extreme climate change that’s going to take place over the next 50 to 100 years. I doubt human activity can be curtailed to keep CO2 under 450ppm.

No worries. Humans will still be around after Earth is ice free playing their iPods and bitching about their stock portfolios. Presumably there’ll be a real estate boom in Antarctica. But it’ll be sad to see the mass extinction of species (which would happen eventually anyway when the next large asteroid hits Earth).

So, yeah, let’s keep questioning the science and talking out our ass and let the chips fall where they may.

# 37 Mr. Fusion said, on March 13th, 2009 at 1:40 pm

Hhhmmm, the same right wing nuts that defended Bush, Boss Limpdick, and Bill O’Rielly are attacking this report. No evidence except some stupid video. Nothing peer reviewed or remotely scientific. Just the usual blather about commies, totalitarian governments, and stupid Al Gore. Yup. A lot of real intelligent thought there. Some real hard hitting comments.

# 38 pedro said, on March 13th, 2009 at 2:01 pm

#37 So, did you buy your carbon offsets for that reply before or after clicking “Submit”?

# 39 Floyd said, on March 13th, 2009 at 2:38 pm

#33: I used to live near Gary. It’s probably US Steel, with the pic either taken at Gary’s Marquette Park, or maybe from nearby Ogden Dunes. It’s probably taken with a telephoto lens and maybe using a brown filter or Photoshopped.

The effluent from that mill is mostly cooling water that is treated and goes into the lake, with some converted to steam when cooling the iron or steel. There was little air pollution from the steel mill even 25 years ago when I lived in the area.

# 40 MikeN said, on March 13th, 2009 at 3:07 pm

>Nothing peer reviewed or remotely scientific.

There you have it. Fusion declares the IPCC is not peer reviewed or remotely scientific.

# 41 SH said, on March 13th, 2009 at 3:22 pm

It’s a shame that no one seems to want to quote the facts but rather concentrate on the fiction!

The FACT is that the world, long term temperature trend has risen by about 0.7 degrees in total. There is absolutely no trend over recent years to suggest it will ever get to 2.0 let alone 4.0 degrees. The second FACT is that over the last few years the world temperature has FALLEN not risen. Yes, let me say that again – the temperature has fallen – that is a FACT.

The other FACT is that whilst both temperature & CO2 emissions have risen there is absolutely NO proof of any correlation between the two. Yes, it could be true but the truth is that there are other far more probable explanations that are just ignored by the media. However it is not politically correct to debate or discuss these issues as they are natural phenomenon and not much we can do about them.

Unfortunately there is a huge industry out there that is rewarded by perpetuating the myth that only CO2 could cause the long term temperature to rise.

If you say something long enough & to enough people they simply believe it. Remember we once believed the world was flat! Can I suggest you do a little research yourselves?

# 42 thecommodore said, on March 13th, 2009 at 3:48 pm

Nansy Pansy.

# 43 The0ne said, on March 13th, 2009 at 3:55 pm

I love it when people spout “this is a FACT” as though one journal is more accurate than another. What is FACT is what is only reported on and how it is reported. That FACT could be twisted, one sided or manipulated to receive the outcome.

Unless you know what the hell your talking about and/or doing in regards to the environmental issues surrounding us, I take reading journals a little less seriously.

And yes, I’m a green guy. Not fanatic or anything like that.

# 44 Dallas said, on March 13th, 2009 at 3:57 pm

I’m on the side of science. While science doesn’t always predict the weather to dvorak’s liking, it’s the best we’ve got.

The issue is too serious to rely on the usual conservative remedy of “do nothing and pray the problem goes away”. I will not remain passive and watch the these important decisions that impact the future of my family rest on a hunch that all is just dandy.

# 45 Joe said, on March 13th, 2009 at 4:09 pm

I disagree. Have a nice day

# 46 MikeN said, on March 13th, 2009 at 4:35 pm

As long as you don’t have an SUV or live in the suburbs or eat meat or use electricity. You wouldn’t want to impact the future of your family after all…

# 47 Lou Minatti said, on March 13th, 2009 at 5:01 pm

Meanwhile, tropical cyclone activity falls to a 30 year low.

http://www.coaps.fsu.edu/~maue/tropical/

# 48 QB said, on March 13th, 2009 at 5:14 pm

Yea, modelling weather is real easy. It’s not hard like developing a new operating system to follow Windows XP. Or hard like monitoring national and global financial systems. Or hard like picking winners in college football.

Yea, modelling and predicting weather is really, really easy. That’s why we can all make flippant comments about what idiots these scientists are.

If only they’d let me and my Excel spreadsheet do the work and create simple little line graphs then I’d show everyone who is right.

# 49 Timuchin said, on March 13th, 2009 at 5:26 pm

These Humanist control freaks have got to keep as much of the public in blind panic as they can so Obama can pretend to ’save the world’ by signing laws that bring a new level of control to the proletariat. Oh yes, and denying global warming will be hate speech. Stifling websites like this will result.

# 50 deowll said, on March 13th, 2009 at 5:46 pm

Climate change is.

Anyone who has looked at what climates where like in the past has to to know that at times the Earth has been vastly warmer than now and at times it has been vastly cooler.

That’s the first thing you need to know. Climate change is and nothing we can do will change that. Those who talk like if we do this or that the climate won’t change are nuts.

The addition of carbon dioxide to the air most likely is warming things up a nd the planet clearly has warmed up a tad but I read something a few days back about some bug spray being upteen thousand times better at this than CO2 so maybe the bug spray does as much as fossil fuel burning?

I keep running into this sort of crap.

I wouldn’t bet two cents that next winter won’t be much colder than this winter or much warmer. To many factors vary to much and we don’t even know what some of them are much less being able to modal it accurately.

# 51 swimcoach said, on March 13th, 2009 at 6:56 pm

So it`s (a)worse than expected, (b)it can`t be stopped, (c)anything we do up to and including simply shutting down our society will make virtually no difference….YET we have to hurry up and destroy what`s left of the economy with crippling carbon reduction plans anyway?

If it`s this bad, what`s the point? We have to put money into how to help people adapt as well as they can, not trying to stop the unstoppable.

If you are in a sinking lifeboat, and your choices are to learn to swim or bail with an eyedropper, which is the best course?

# 52 Mr. Fusion said, on March 13th, 2009 at 7:52 pm

You know that when the commenter uses words like “proletariat” they are on a political agenda and not a scientific agenda.

# 53 SoobieTech said, on March 14th, 2009 at 6:58 am

All you liberal, tree hugging, euphoric pukebags just keep drinking the kool aid, don’t you? The Earth is NOT your mother. Get over it.

# 54 Canuck said, on March 14th, 2009 at 7:44 am

The arctic ice pack thickness mid January this year was reported as the thickest it has been in the past 70 years. That doesn’t prove anything but interesting.

The real purpose of “global warming and the IPCC” is to transfer money from wealthy to poor nations in the form of carbon credits. As with everything the explanation comes by following the money.

# 55 MikeN said, on March 14th, 2009 at 8:34 am

$54, Canuck, no the real purpose is to keep the poor nations poor, while simultaneously giving them money. Foreign aid works that way too. Give them free food, and put their farmers out of business.

# 56 MikeN said, on March 14th, 2009 at 2:42 pm

http://tinyurl.com/co28k8
Global Warming is Creating a Climate of Fear

# 57 Misanthropic Scott said, on March 14th, 2009 at 2:49 pm

#18 – MikeN,

Regarding sea level rise, the uber-conservative IPCC does not account for glacial meltwater. The truth is that we don’t know just how much of the glaciers will melt by the end of the century. Most estimates I read are for around 4 meters.

IPCC is only considering the sea level rise from the expansion of water as it warms. The problem with that is that the glaciers are melting far more quickly than anyone expected.

# 58 Misanthropic Scott said, on March 14th, 2009 at 2:51 pm

#18 MikeN,

Also, I missed your point about a five degree rise in temperatures. Keep in mind that a five degree rise melted all of the glaciers over north america. At just five degrees cooler than today, New York was under thousands of feet of ice.

# 59 MikeN said, on March 14th, 2009 at 2:51 pm

“On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but — which means that we must include all the doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands, and buts. On the other hand, we are not just scientists but human beings as well. And like most people we’d like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climatic change. To do that we need to get some broadbased support, to capture the public’s imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. This ‘double ethical bind’ we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both.”

Scientist Stephen Schneider, admits to alarmism

# 60 Misanthropic Scott said, on March 14th, 2009 at 2:54 pm

#24 – Paddy-trOll,

I don’t know why the global warming alarmist won’t listen to scientists…

So … for once … you are going to provide us a link to some peer reviewed paper stating that global warming is not happening. Yay!! I await your next post, with link, with baited breath.

# 61 Misanthropic Scott said, on March 14th, 2009 at 3:00 pm

#29 – Benjamin,

People do not need to drive to work when the global warming laws are put into place. Their jobs will go to China where there are no global warming laws.

As opposed to all the jobs already there? Or, perhaps you haven’t noticed that container ships burn fuel. Appropriate pricing of carbon may help to bring some jobs back. More importantly, it may spark a whole new renewable energy economy that actually gives the U.S. more jobs, if we can first play catch up with all of the countries that already have a higher level of renewable energy technology because A) they listened to science and B) they actually have science in their schools.

Communism failed due to people not wanting to give up freedoms to a totalitarian regime. The Green movement is trying to take our freedom in a different way. Remember, Green is the new Red.

What are you talking about? What freedoms is anyone taking away by giving you fuel efficient cars and lighting that uses less electricity, thus costing you less.

It is not about the planet. It is about control. Some commission will have veto authority on every decision you make, unless you are on the commission.

Wrong on all counts. It’s not about the planet. The planet will be fine until the sun engulfs the planet in 4.5 billion years.

It’s about life on the planet. This may be important to those of us who recognize that we are A) alive and B) part of a complex web of life without which we will not survive.

# 62 MikeN said, on March 14th, 2009 at 3:49 pm

My point is that whoever wrote the article referred to in the post is not basing his work on science. They project a sea level rise of 50m. The IPCC does mention glaciers melting, as I said in my post, they added 7m for Greenland.
Same with the 5 degree change they project. It is out of range of most IPCC forecasts.

# 63 pedro said, on March 14th, 2009 at 11:34 pm

Was it sepia they used on the photo?

# 64 Misanthropic Scott said, on March 15th, 2009 at 2:03 pm

#18 – MikeN,

Excellent point. Stern is writing about the economic disaster that is global warming. For scientist opinion, one should pay attention to this paragraph.

“Recent observations confirm that, given high rates of observed emissions, the worst-case IPCC scenario trajectories — or even worse — are being realised,” the three-day conference, organised by top universities worldwide and the Danish government, concluded Thursday in a closing statement

More importantly though, one should really stick to peer reviewed work. Much has been said in the peer reviewed pubs for a while now about how much the IPCC has underestimated the problem.

# 65 Misanthropic Scott said, on March 15th, 2009 at 2:10 pm

#38 – pedro,

#37 So, did you buy your carbon offsets for that reply before or after clicking “Submit”?

Don’t know what point you think you’re making. I’ve been buying my carbon offsets for about 4 years now.

http://terrapass.com/

# 66 Misanthropic Scott said, on March 15th, 2009 at 2:14 pm

#40 – MikeN,

>Nothing peer reviewed or remotely scientific.

There you have it. Fusion declares the IPCC is not peer reviewed or remotely scientific.

Do you even realize what an ass you are for deliberately taking Mr. Fusion’s statement 100% out of context and applying it to something else?

It makes you look incredibly stupid, not to mention completely inept at debating.

Somewhere in the world, there is a gnat flying around performing fourth order ordinary differential equations in his/her head and not regretting having exchanged brains with you at all.

# 67 Misanthropic Scott said, on March 15th, 2009 at 2:31 pm

#54 – Canuck,

The arctic ice pack thickness mid January this year was reported as the thickest it has been in the past 70 years. That doesn’t prove anything but interesting.

That would indeed be very interesting. Do you have a link for that? My information this year was that the ice extent was greater than last year by quite a bit. However, with it all being first year ice, it is not expected that much of it will last through the summer.

(google break)

Nope. I’m wrong. This year’s ice beats out all the years since 2002, but that’s it. The trend is still strongly down. This year was a La Nina year, so a bit cooler than the years around it, but not cool enough to really matter unfortunately.

And, the fact that single year ice is far thinner than multi-year ice will not help through the summer.

Sorry. Good try though.

http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/
http://nsidc.org/sotc/sea_ice.html

Actually, I really am sorry. I would love to have any hope at all that it’s not as bad as all of the indicators make it. Oh well.

# 68 Misanthropic Scott said, on March 15th, 2009 at 2:45 pm

#56 – MikeN,

Certainly the author of fiction like Andromeda Strain, Jurassic Park, and Sphere knows a lot about fear. He presumably also knows quite a bit about medicine, as a medical doctor.

But, what exactly does he know about climate change?

Al Gore, for example, is excellent at reporting science to the masses. But, when I want to go to the source, I go to the likes of James Hansen.

# 69 pdcant said, on March 15th, 2009 at 3:02 pm

Predicting climate with computer programs? GIGO!

Al Gore is a lawyer who prosecuted a global warming case without rebuttal. (It was purely entertainment, though not really Oscar award level. That was Hollywood’s statement, in case we didn’t know where they stand on the issue.) Any lawyer would win that kind of case. There are two sides, but greens only want their side told.

Yes, the Earth warms and cools. Look at websites with (accurate) ice core sample graphs. Our civilizations flourish when its warm and regress when it cools.

# 70 MikeN said, on March 15th, 2009 at 3:15 pm

What? Did you read the link, or just the title? Michael Crichton didn’t write it. Al Gore is not an excellent reporter. He has taught in his classes that only one side should be presented.

# 71 Misanthropic Scott said, on March 15th, 2009 at 3:21 pm

# 69 pdcant said, on March 15th, 2009 at 3:02 pm

Our civilizations flourish when its warm and regress when it cools.

We’re talking about far greater change than that. Do you have an example of when humanity was alive at all, let alone what you would call civilized, that the temperature was 5 degrees warmer than today? We’ve survived cooler, that’s true. But, we’ve never survived warmer, at least not significantly warmer.

Remember, at 5 degrees cooler, NYC was covered by a multi-thousand foot thick glacier.

So, when exactly was it 5 degrees warmer in the last 200,000 years? (Link please!)

# 72 Misanthropic Scott said, on March 15th, 2009 at 3:37 pm

#70 – MikeN,

Michael Crichton didn’t write it.

True. However, his caricature of scientists was the source of the vast majority of the article. Without the Chrichton fiction, there is no article. From your article, in case you didn’t read it.

the novel State of Fear by bestselling author Michael Crichton, appeared in German bookstores,

Crichton’s thriller deals with the violent conflict between sober-minded realists and radical idealists when it comes to the subject of climate.

While the impending catastrophe in Emmerich’s film is climatic, Crichton predicts an economic collapse in his novel.

In Crichton’s book, the idealists are so obsessed by their mission that, in a last-ditch effort to shake up public opinion, they finally trigger the catastrophes they themselves have predicted.

Crichton has certainly delivered an accurate portrayal of the dynamics of communication among the scientific community

in Crichton’s thriller, the general belief is that in order to keep public attention focused on the issue of “climate catastrophe”

Like the characters in Crichton’s novel who incite public fear, the media are now claiming that all kinds of extreme events are increasing in frequency

But there are always scientists for whom, in keeping with the maxims of the alarmists in Crichton’s book, these scenarios are insufficiently dramatic.

Crichton’s thriller deals with the violent conflict between sober-minded realists and radical idealists when it comes to the subject of climate.

Crichton predicts an economic collapse in his novel.

In Crichton’s book, the idealists are so obsessed by their mission that, in a last-ditch effort to shake up public opinion, they finally trigger the catastrophes they themselves have predicted.

OK, so, let me get this straight, the number one completely uninformed climate change denier in the world creates a caricature of climate scientists in a work of fiction in order to discredit scientists based on nothing. The idiots who wrote this article take the fiction as gospel and claims it to be truth and use it to discredit climate scientists.

Does this sort of totally whacked out logic actually work in your brain? If so, you need to go find that gnat in a hurry.

# 73 MikeN said, on March 15th, 2009 at 9:38 pm

Oh boy, is that as far as you read? These guys wrote an article for Science magazine deconstructing the hockey stick, but apparently that doesn’t interest you, and doesn’t count as real science. Perhaps if you would read these things instead of being selective you would realize the hockey stick has been debunked.
That’s right. Mann’s original hockey stick is no longer considered scientifically valid, and in fact was just bad math. You could have fed random noise into his program and it still would have produced a hockey stick.

# 74 Misanthropic Scott said, on March 16th, 2009 at 3:44 am

#73 – MikeN,

This one is obviously directed at me. However, half of your posts are not so obvious. Please make sure you reference the post to which you are replying.

As for the hockey stick, you are incorrect again Lyin’ Mike.

http://tinyurl.com/c85nqw

The “debunking” of the hockey stick was done by a bunch of assholes who debunked the first version of the article after the second version had already been printed. The second version had already addressed all of the concerns they raised with respect to the first.

It is unclear why the assholes bothered to publish their critique of the first article after the second had already come out. But, they did. And, somehow, they got it published in a peer-reviewed journal, proving that there is no bias against anti-climate-change articles in the peer reviewed publications.

# 75 Misanthropic Scott said, on March 16th, 2009 at 3:55 am

#73 – MikeN,

Oh, and if you had actually read the peer reviewed article that “debunked” the already outdated older hockey stick article, you would have seen that they merely pointed out that there was not enough overlap in the data where they switched from tree rings to ice cores. That had already been addressed in the second article.

As you seem to think that the hockey stick was “bad math”, you probably think that it was a projection into the future. Just to make sure you are aware, the hockey stick graph is a graph of past temperatures. I fail to see how you could plug in anything you want with respect to past temperatures. This was not using climate models, but real hard data from the real world.

# 76 Misanthropic Scott said, on March 16th, 2009 at 3:58 am

#73 – MikeN,

One last point. If you think my reading of your non-peer-reviewed article was selective, it really did have at least 10 different paragraphs that mostly discussed a Chrichton work of fiction. I think if you found any real information in that article, it was you who were being selective. Perhaps there was a paragraph in that article that had a bit of meat to it. If so, yes, I missed it.

But, noticing 10 paragraphs about Chrichton in a one page article cannot be called selective reading.

# 77 MikeN said, on March 16th, 2009 at 12:28 pm

Let me explain the bad math in the hockey stick to you. I am aware that it is not projections, but a reflection of history. This is where the bad math comes in. Basically Mann took some historical data, and then based on that data calculated temperature for those time periods. It doesn’t really matter what he was calculating, but for his calculations he had a program that took in some data and produced some output that looked like a hockey stick. The math used was a bit complicated, involving principal component analysis. Instead of using standard principal components, Mann did things a bit differently, and it turns out his program emphasized hockey stick shaped figures. The debunkers took his program and fed in random noise, that is completely random data they made up in a Monte Carlo dartboard fashion, and had nothing to do with the tree rings or ice cores or anything else. With this data, the output of the program was still a hockey stick!

# 78 MikeN said, on March 16th, 2009 at 12:31 pm

You should read your link again. The hockey stick graph goes back 10000 years. This review gave high confidence that it is correct-for 400 years. So 96% of the graph they do not have high confidence, and they say maybe to another 6 percent.

DEBUNKED

# 79 Misanthropic Scott said, on March 16th, 2009 at 5:10 pm

#78 – MikeN,

Well, I can believe a panel of experts or an anonymous blogger.

Think I’ll go with the experts.

BTW, the 400 years is still 67% of the original 600 year hockey stick graph. Your statement of 10,000 years shows plainly and simply that you are mistaking the hockey stick for one of many other studies that all coincidentally show the same thing as the hockey stick graph.

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

As for the Wegmen report versus the National Research Council Report. One took scientists from 12 different areas and carefully evaluated the hockey stick from many viewpoints and concluded it correct for the bulk of its time frame.

The other was a report from a bunch of statisticians. Again, statisticians vs. climate scientists from many fields, I’ll go with the scientists.

The hockey stick stands.

# 80 MikeN said, on March 16th, 2009 at 6:30 pm

Hmm the link you posted gave a probably true for the past 1000 years.

# 81 MikeN said, on March 16th, 2009 at 6:48 pm

OK, it appears I was wrong about 10000 years, and that 1000 is the right number. Going back 600 years, the statement is probably valid because of the medieval warm period.
However, that still debunks the hockey stick, because it’s not the conclusion alone that has to stand but the methodology and the totality of the graph. If instead of looking like a hockey stick, the graph had gone up and down, gradually going higher, it wouldn’t mean much, and it wouldn’t look like a hockey stick. And this part was debunked by the review panel, they gave little confidence in supporting it on a smaller time scale. They only accepted with high degree of confidence that this is the warmest period in 400 years. They are not willing to support the hockey stick idea.

As for the math, you can look it up yourself. There are some good explanations at Watts Up With That if you want to learn. You feed in random noise, and you end up with a hockey stick. They’ve done fix after fix and made various claims about how the critiquers got it wrong, but in the end the IPCC dropped it from their latest report.

# 82 MikeN said, on March 16th, 2009 at 7:22 pm

A good layman’s review of the various critiques and counter critiques.

http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2008/8/11/caspar-and-the-jesus-paper.html

Strangely this paper says the hockey stick IS in the IPCC report. I’ve never seen it, and you’ve never mentioned it either.

# 83 Misanthropic Scott said, on March 17th, 2009 at 3:04 am

#82 – MikeN,

Interesting write-up. I’m surprised they mentioned neither the National Research Council nor the Wegman report.

Anyway, without a hockey stick, here’s a nice long graph, going back about 540 million years. It does not, of course, resemble a hockey stick at that scale.

http://tinyurl.com/geotemp

However, you may note that during human civilization, temperature has indeed been relatively constant. The little ice age and medieval warm periods are barely noticeable. And, today is warmer than the medieval warm period.

You will also notice that there are a few brief slightly warmer periods than today in the last 500,000 years. However, to get significantly warmer than now requires going back 20 million years, when it was about 3 degrees warmer than today.

This is important. To get 5 degrees warmer than today, a temperature well within the range of estimates for global warming, you must go back about 50 million years. As it was cooling from 55 million years ago, life began to come back from the extinction of the non-avian dinosaurs.

This is even more important.

Life did not begin to come back until the earth cooled quite a bit. 10 million years after the cometary impact at Chixulub, the comet could no longer be blamed for the lack of life. A warm earth can though.

Many extinctions on earth correlate with warm periods, most notably the biggest extinction of them all 250 million years ago. It was 6 degrees warmer than today at that time.

# 84 Misanthropic Scott said, on March 17th, 2009 at 3:08 am

MikeN,

If you are really interested in climate change, I would strongly suggest reading The Weather Makers.

If you are interested in extinctions, I would suggest Under A Green Sky.

I don’t know if you have the level of interest required to read full length books on the subjects. They are both written for an educated general audience.

Leave Your Reply Below...

Comment Moderation is Active, so if your comment doesn't
show up immediately, please don't submit it again.

Special Deals 4U

25% off eHarmony subscription with code EHTECH
12-percent discount forever with code TECH
10-percent discount and free month using TECH10
10-percent or 30 dollars off weekly car rental!
Get 10-percent discount on car rental!
Get 10% off rental cars!
Get 10% off Dollar rentals!
Discounts on domain names!