AuthorTopic: The market for delusion on climate change  (Read 15152 times)

Guest

  • Guest
The market for delusion on climate change
« on: November 26, 2013, 11:59:09 PM »

Off the keyboard of Brian Davey


Follow us on Twitter @doomstead666

Friend us on Facebook


Published on FEASTA on October 7, 2013


crapsdiceroll


Discuss this article at the Environment Table inside the Diner


The 5th Assessment Report of the International Panel on Climate Change was published while I was writing this book. It is the consensus assessment of the world’s scientists of the state of their knowledge about climate change and what they think is likely to happen. What happened in the mass media at this time, and even in statements by a government environment minister in the UK, Owen Paterson, was a clear attempt to downplay the message of the scientists and the impact of the report. In the opinion of Paterson:


“People get very emotional about this subject and I think we should just accept that the climate has been changing for centuries…I see this report as something we need to take seriously but I am relieved it is not as catastrophic in its forecast as we had been led to believe early on. What it is saying is that it is something we can adapt to over time, and we are very good as a race at adapting.”


Climate scientists responded angrily – for example, Professor Kevin Anderson of Manchester University and the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research:


“It’s a deliberately partial reading of the report. Either that or he has not read the report properly or does not understand the significance of the emissions scenarios. These tell us that business as usual will give us a 50:50 chance of a 4C temperature rise. His view that we can muddle through climate change is a colonial, arrogant, rich person’s view. Many people will die in the developing world where the changes will be felt the most and it is irresponsible and immoral to suggest that we as a species can adapt to climate change,”


- Independent, 1st October, 2013.


If we are, as neo-classical economists claim, “rational individuals” then you would think that all of us would put a lot of weight on the opinion of such a large number of scientists and the rigour of the process that is gone through. The diagram below shows the IPCC Process for the scientific report (click to enlarge).


5ARReviewProcess


There were 209 Lead Authors and 50 Review Editors from 39 countries. Over 600 Contributing Authors from 32 countries. Over 2 million gigabytes of numerical data from climate model simulations. Over 9200 scientific publications cited. The final draft for governments received 1855 comments from 32 Governments. In total there were 54,677 comments from 1089 Expert Reviewers from 55 countries and from 38 Governments. That is a lot of “rationality” that has gone into the process. [1]


As regards climate science more generally one study searched the university accessible “Web of Science” for peer reviewed scientific articles about climate change published between 1 January 1991 and 9 November 2012 that had the keyword phrases “global warming” or “global climate change.” The search produced 13,950 articles. Only 24 of these rejected global warming – 0.17% of the studies. [2]


The fact that a large number of people do NOT accept the overwhelming scientific consensus in these circumstances is therefore interesting because it is evidence that challenges the neo-classical economist’s view of what people are like. Clearly a very large number of people are NOT rational. Ironically, a key reason that people appear unable and/or unwilling to accept the science is connected to markets supplying pseudo confirmations of non scientific views of reality.


This can be put in another way – there is a market for delusion. The market supplies a stream of messages that create “doubt” about the climate science, even when none exists among the scientists themselves. There is a lot of money in it. According to a 2007 study by the US Union of Concerned Scientists, (ExxonMobil) has spent more than $19 million to promote skepticism about global warming, funding think tanks, publications and web sites that are not peer reviewed by the scientific community. The report shows how the company


- raised doubts about even the most indisputable scientific evidence

- funded an array of front organizations to create the appearance of a broad platform for a tight-knit group of vocal climate change contrarians who misrepresent peer-reviewed scientific findings

- attempted to portray its opposition to action as a positive quest for “sound science” rather than business self-interest

- used its access to the Bush administration to block federal policies and shape government communications on global warming. [3]


Many other fossil fuel companies do the same thing. For example, the Koch Brothers are notorious as donors to organisations attempting to throw doubt on climate change science [4].


Given the scale on which it being funded there is now a lot of delusionary ideas out there: the climate has changed before; it’s the sun; it’s not bad; there’s no consensus; its cooling; the models are unreliable; the temperature record is unreliable; animals and plants can adapt; it hasn’t warmed since 1998; Antarctica is gaining ice….the contrarian arguments are generated in a factory whose aim is to mislead and confuse. All of them have been refuted – but how is the average citizens to know or keep track of the barrage of misinformation that big money keeps generating? [5].


In the current situation the IPCC Assessment Report 5 draft has generated a huge controversy around the idea that “it has not warmed since 1998”. In the 15 years 1998 to 2012 the actual surface temperature increase was 50% slower than the average on the model runs, although well within the anticipated range of the runs. No one expects the temperature to be bang on the average of all the model runs – this average is not an exaction “prediction”. There are a range of projection of what will happen under various assumptions. Things are going seriously wrong with the science only if actual temperatures over a longer period deviate outside the range of simulated projections. To that should be added that 1998 was a particularly hot year to start measuring a trend from. If the trend between 1992 and 2006 had been chosen it would have shown a surface temperature increase that was much faster than the IPCC average of model runs. Climate scientists refer to natural variability – temperature fluctuations around the trend over relatively short time periods. This natural variability can be accounted for by things like the way that the ocean has absorbed a lot of the heat , as well as variability of the amount of ‘aerosols’ – particulates in the atmosphere from industrial pollution and volcanic eruptions that reflect solar energy back into space. [6]


These are complex issues for a lay person to assess and it is easy to understand that people would feel bewildered by the arguments. It is clear that such bewilderment can and is exploited by people who ought to know better. In fact, there is a whole topic of “civic epistemology” which can guide approaches to these questions. For people who are concerned to maintain a rational approach to controversial matters, when they are not themselves experts in the specialist field concerned, there are criteria, shall we say “diagnostics”, that can be used to assess the issues. In this connection the evidence that underpins any belief can be examined from “procedural” as well as “substantive” grounds.


“Procedural” means looking for consistency of the evidence with due scientific process – this is the quality control in academic production. Is the evidence appearing in a peer reviewed journal? Has the evidence bee replicated by other peer reviewed research processes? Is the research by a scientist operating in the field in which they have been trained and in which they have expertise?


Of course there are a lot of other sources of information out there – academic monographs; investigative journalism; data and reports from government agencies; data collected by corporations; research and reports by NGOs, charities and think tanks, consultants reports and press, radio, television and internet blogs. All of these are potential sources of accurate information – or potential sources of errors and deliberate obfuscation. A politically literate person will sift these sources of information according to quality control criteria. Thus a newspaper article written by a scientist who has published peer reviewed articles in the field, who is highlighting findings from peer reviewed literature can be taken as credible – whereas someone who has no qualifications as a scientist, or who is “a scientist”, but not from the field in question, who has not written peer reviewed articles in the field in question, and/or who has retired and ceased publication – who then casts doubt on peer reviewed literature is a highly dubious source. Especially if you find, as is very often the case, that they are being sponsored by money from fossil fuel companies.


In the tobacco companies war to deliberately create doubt about the health consequences of smoking, politically sympathetic physicists published articles in non peer reviewed journals to help the tobacco companies hold off regulation [7].


However, if climate science wrecks your religion then obviously you are not going to believe in it….In the world of ancient Greece, the world “idiot” was used to refer to people who did not contribute when they were entitled to do so in the democratic process. Instead the idiots devoted their time to their own private interests and wealth. From Adam Smith onwards mainstream economists have told people that, by pursuing their private interests, a greater social good is brought about by the “invisible hand of the market”. After Smith the idiots – naturally I am using the word in the ancient Greek sense – could feel reassured and work to accumulate private wealth. They could feel secure in the idea that, while the state was there to protect them, it was supposed to keep out of their self interested dealings because their “self love” was being converted into social wellbeing quasi-automatically – particularly by stimulating clever technologies. This simple mantra is what I earlier described, following Richard Norgaard, as “economism” and it has become the religious faith of the modern age with the economists as the priesthood.


Actually it is not at all the case that the market works as a socially co-ordinative system because people are pursuing their self interest. What makes the market ‘work’, to the extent that it does, as a co-ordinative system, is only that everyone is playing the same life game. The drive for money as a common criteria for social action leads to a common life style. The way people play or are obliged to play the same money making game glues society together on a particular path of development. Because everyone is playing the same game in terms of motivations, criteria and measures of success, interdependency in capitalist social relationships is made possible.


With economism functioning as a foundational religion underpinning the general orientation of market based society, it is incredibly unsettling to the faithful to hear the message of climate science because it implies that the free market does not, after all, automatically deliver collective well being. The evidence for this is provided by psychological studies which show that the more people identify with “free market principles” the more likely they are to reject the findings of climate scientists. A study in the USA surveyed the views of a representative 1000 people and found that a market based worldview constituted an overwhelming barrier to the acceptance of climate science. A similar finding applies to the science associated with smoking. The study, by a team led by Professor Stephan Lewandowsky chair of cognitive psychology at the University of Bristol in the UK, is titled “The Role of Conspiracist Ideation and World Views in Predicting Rejection of Science” and is published in the journal PLOS ONE. Commenting to a Guardian journalist about these findings Lewandowsky says:


“I cannot be sure of the causality, but there are multiple lines of evidence that suggest that the involvement of worldview, such as free-market principles, arises because people of that worldview feel threatened not by climate change or by lung cancer, but by the regulatory implications if those risks are being addressed by society. Addressing lung cancer means to control tobacco, and addressing climate change means to control fossil-fuel emissions. It’s the need to control those products and their industries that is threatening people with strong free-market leanings.” (“Planet Oz” Guardian, 2nd October 2013 [8] )


Faced with a choice between what science is telling them or a fantasy, a large number of people prefer the fantasy and there are plenty of vested interests from the fossil fuel industry keen to fund publicity for their delusions. The irony here is that while economists model reality on the assumption of rational individuals market ideology appears to be a powerful influence in favour of irrationality – while powerful vested interests are happy to fund a variety of dangerous delusions.


In the 1999 film, The Matrix, the chief character is asked whether he wants to take a red pill that will show him the painful reality or take the blue pill and remain in the simulated reality that the establishment wants him to see. The economics profession are mostly in business helping to produce the blue pills. Economics is a menace – it is a generator of collective psychopathology, a society dangerously out of touch with reality.


But is there not a chance that climate science is wrong? Might it not be the case that climate change is not the result of human activities and that it does not repay the effort to do anything about it? While the climate scientists go to immense trouble to express their degree of confidence in their findings the climate deniers don’t bother to do the same thing. So yes, even the climate scientists admit that they might conceivably have got it wrong. There is a chance, but on the core issues that chance is a very small one indeed.


Thus, if one reads the IPCC 5th Assessment Report Summary for Policy makers there are a mass of findings about climate change – in regards to atmospheric changes, ocean temperatures, the cryosphere (ice sheets), sea level, carbon and geochemical cycles, drivers of climate change, quantifiying the system and so on. Each of the findings under these headings are assigned a confidence level. For example, when it comes to the attribution of climate change there is this statement:


“Human influence has been detected in warming of the atmosphere and the ocean, in changes in the global water cycle, in reductions in snow and ice, in global mean sea level rise, and in changes in some climate extremes. This evidence for human influence has grown since Assessment Report 4. It is extremely likely that human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century.”


– Working Group I Contribution to the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis Summary for Policymakers


Note the words “extremely likely”. This is defined elsewhere in the same report in this way: “extremely likely: 95–100%” . So yes, the scientists are acknowledging that there is a small chance that they might have got it wrong. But think of it this way – would you get on a plane that is 95% likely to crash because there is a 5% chance that it will not do so? No rational person would if they had a choice – unless they were being misled by a criminal misinformation.


There are other senses in which some predictions based on climate science might be wrong. There has been some argument about whether, or how much, the rising energy and money costs of extracting fossil fuel resources because of depletion might lead to a future fall in emissions because the fossil energy might not be there in sufficient quantities, extractable at an commercial cost, to lead to the worse emissions growth scenarios coming about. Perhaps depletion will mean that carbon energy prices will go so high anyway as to crash the economy, undermining the financial sector. This is another kind of argument, about the other limits to economic growth kicking in faster than climate change.


No one has a magic ability to completely accurately predict the future. Yet we are condemned to make predictions in order to manage our lives. As we reach the limits to growth some nasty surprises – and perhaps even some nice ones – may be waiting to take history in an unexpected direction. At the time of writing the United States government appears to be self destructing because Tea Party market fundamentalists in the USA are unwilling to pass a budget. Were this to go on I dare say it could damage global economic activity seriously and lastingly – and thus perhaps bring down emissions. A war in Syria which might have escalated into a major global conflict was only narrowly averted – that too might have disrupted the flow of fossil fuels. Various diseases are becoming a major threat because the declining effectiveness of antibiotics. Perhaps that might create a population crisis and again bring down emissions. The future is one that no one can foresee. None of these things make climate change any less important as a major threat to humanity that justifies being taken any less seriously.


Many thanks to Nick Bardsley, lecturer in climate economics at Reading University and Feasta member, for his help in regard to “civic epistemology”.


Endnotes


1. http://www.climatechange2013.org/ipcc-process/

2. http://desmogblog.com/2012/11/15/why-climate-deniers-have-no-credibility-science-one-pie-chart

3.


http://www.ucsusa.org/news/press_release/ExxonMobil-GlobalWarming-tobacco.html


4. http://www.desmogblog.com/2012/10/22/koch-brothers-produce-counterfeit-climate-report-deceive-congress

5. http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

6. http://www.skepticalscience.com/ipcc-model-gw-projections-done-better-than-you-think.html

7. Naomi Oreskes and Erik M. Conway Merchants of Doubt. How a handful of scientists obscured the truth on issues from tobacco smoke to global warming Bloomsbury 2010

8. http://www.theguardian.com/environment/planet-oz/2013/oct/02/climate-change-denial-skeptics-psychology-study-conspiracy-theorie




Offline Eddie

  • Global Moderator
  • Master Chef
  • *****
  • Posts: 17502
    • View Profile
Re: The market for delusion on climate change
« Reply #1 on: November 27, 2013, 10:32:10 AM »
I think the reason that climate change deniers are currently able to muddy the waters so effectively, is that people in the Western world, in spite ominous signs of impending doom, are not currently seriously affected by climate change.

They are affected in small ways, of course, but they generally are all able to still find food at a price they can afford, more or less, and the air is still very nice to breathe. Whatever might be going on in the depths of the vast oceans doesn't mean much to the average modern human, and it won't until the impact people feel is more real than now.

By then, it will be too late. Hell, it's already too late. I'm made to understand that the current effects of climate change have been set in stone by pollution that happened forty years ago. It's like a big ship traveling at 20 knots, it takes a while to slow down...and unfortunately the things we've been doing in the last forty years are all making the process speed up anyway. So the expectation is for some kind of rapid decline..

The only question is exactly when, and we have a pretty good idea of that too. I feel like a passenger on a bus that is clearly headed for a brick wall. The driver has had a heart attack and his foot is wedged onto the accelerator. All I can do now is watch and wait for the inevitable collision.
What makes the desert beautiful is that somewhere it hides a well.

Offline Eddie

  • Global Moderator
  • Master Chef
  • *****
  • Posts: 17502
    • View Profile
Re: The market for delusion on climate change
« Reply #2 on: November 27, 2013, 12:06:07 PM »
Which would be a natural consequence of climate change not being the apocalypse some wish to cast it as.

While I would love to believe this, I must confess that to me, the preponderance of the evidence appears to be the contrary. And I am no zealot, by any means.
« Last Edit: November 27, 2013, 12:11:16 PM by Eddie »
What makes the desert beautiful is that somewhere it hides a well.

Offline agelbert

  • Global Moderator
  • Master Chef
  • *****
  • Posts: 11820
    • View Profile
    • Renewable Rervolution
Re: The market for delusion on climate change
« Reply #3 on: November 27, 2013, 01:09:18 PM »
Quote
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/sean-long/2013/11/07/antarctica-not-melting-ice-levels-record-high

PS: Disclaimer for Idiots - Perceived Agreement, or disagreement, of any particular reference should not be confused with the rationalization of zealots staked out on either side of an issue, but instead must be considered in the context of assembling information on both sides of a given issue as a prerequisite to building an informed opinion.

Su-u-u-re. Absolutely! 
   

Mking, the EPITOME of rationality and "hard nosed" reality claims to KNOW what the humans during the retreating ice sheet days of the last ice age thought! Of course, he is just trying to calm all of us nervous nellies down so we can hop on the new great oil massive find in Australia (bigger than Saudi, Alberta and Bakken together!) band wagon and make lots of money! 
 


You are consistent, I'll give you that.  :evil4: You are also quite predictable. Consequently you straw grasp with ad hominem ("idiots") for those who anticipated your next propaganda fecal bolus before you loaded it on the catapult. 

Quote
Land & Ocean GLOBAL Temperature Percentiles October 2013

« Reply #1548 on: November 19, 2013, 05:01:31 PM »

Quote
October 2013 Antarctic ice largest extent since records began in 1979! Is Snowleopard vindicated? Does Agelbert have to eat a snowball with his crow? :P           



October was a RECORD HOT MONTH GLOBALLY!



Nevertheless, expect the Global Warming Deniers to do some world class mendacious "Antarctic ice is growing at a record pace! Global Warming is a hoax!" cherry picking.
Read the EVIDENCE that Global WARMING hasn't "paused" but is, in fact, worsening!


Averaging the globe as a whole, the temperature across land and ocean surfaces combined during October 2013 was 0.63°C (1.13°F) above the 1901–2000 average of 14.0°C (57.1°F)—the seventh warmest October since records began in 1880. It also marked the 37th consecutive October and 344th consecutive month (more than 28 years) with a global temperature above the 20th century average.

The last below-average October global temperature was October 1976 and the last below-average global temperature for any month was February 1985. The warmest October on record occurred in 2003 when global land and ocean surface temperatures were 0.74°C (1.33°F) above the 20th century average, while the coldest October occurred in 1912 [-0.57°C (-1.03°F)].


http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/

Renewable Revolution
[/size]

In a century or so, if we don't "reform"    the Mkings among us, a few sad ETs will gaze on the brown, dead ball that was once a vibrant place full of life called Earth.

They will discuss the timeframe for a seeding procedure to attempt bioremediation based on a several thousand year time scale due to the presence of DNA destroying radionuclide contamination of the soil and the oceans. They will lament the Homo SAP tragic and suicidal fixation with caloric intake and concentrated power that blinded them to the vital, non-optional requirement for inter-species and intra-species cooperation and altruistic behavior in order for the sustainability of a complex biosphere to be a reality. They will wonder how, with so much knowledge of the life processes around them, humans failed to realize the fragility of the biosphere they so depended on.

One ET specialist in endocrine systems and biochemical signaling considered the possibility that the sugar reflex was behind most of the human excesses that blinded that species into the belief that hoarding and storing energy was a viable strategy, even when taken to extremes that resulted in excess "fat", creating analogous "anoxic" conditions in the biosphere, even as excess fat in a human liver brings necrosis from lack of oxygen, that began to destroy them.

Perhaps their brains became intoxicated from the toxins present in too much caloric intake.

Perhaps they weren't as intelligent as they seemed.

Homeostasis, if applied to their biosphere and industrial civilization, would have saved them. But, like a primitive primate given the choice of cocaine over food, would always pick cocaine until it died. :(

Attention then turned to the next planet on their survey and the quandary of the seemingly intelligent humans with such incredible lack of foresight was shelved for a future discussion. 


[img width=640 height=280http://i.huffpost.com/gen/503063/thumbs/r-JOHN-GLENN-large570.jpg[/img]
Mking, your credibility has gone well below that of a used car salesman. I know you aren't stupid. I know what you are doing.

You think you can profit from the dirty energy band wagon status quo and milk that for all it's worth and jump on the renewable energy bandwagon when that is the preponderant energy status quo. You don't care about anything or anybody but yourself and you think that is right and proper. You are an impediment to human progress.

If you were truly as rational as you claim, you would seriously ponder Pascal's Wager and your logically bankrupt position on ethics, morality and spirituality.

Have  A NICE DAY, "GENIUS".  ;)
Leges         Sine    Moribus      Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

Offline Snowleopard

  • Waitstaff
  • ***
  • Posts: 505
    • View Profile
Re: The market for delusion on climate change
« Reply #4 on: November 27, 2013, 04:16:27 PM »


Quote
October 2013 Antarctic ice largest extent since records began in 1979! Is Snowleopard vindicated? Does Agelbert have to eat a snowball with his crow? :P           


Since you mentioned me i'll jump back in for a minute with mho. 

Very simply the "record" (since 1979) south polar ice extent, while true, is well within natural variability. THIS is what is being talked about:



Do YOU see a significant trend here, hot or cold?  I don't.  IF there is a GLOBAL trend currently, the Antarctic ice seems immune. 

A good number of  heat "records" could be viewed with a similar light.

The above, of course, presumes the data has not been screwed with, like economic data, and other data "managed" by our scrupulously honest government(s).  :icon_mrgreen:

Another factor to consider in assessing "climate change" is the time period under review. Since we have ocean temperature cycles of 30-60 years (PDO NAO etc) any period of comparison showing less than two of these complete cycles is likely to be skewed by them.

When looked at in this time frame even the arctic ice melt of 2012 seems within parameters as similar events occurred in 1959 and 1922.

Further one might consider our position in the longer cycle from the Medieval Warm Period thru the "Little Ice Age" into the "modern warming?".  Since, (measured by where you can grow grapes) we have not yet reached the historic climactic warmth of the Medieval Warm Period or the previous Roman Warm Period, it SHOULD still be getting warmer. 

Some say it is still warming, and if you accept their data they are correct; but, given the amount, i doubt its significance.  Others say the warming has ended or "paused", they select different data, but might be correct.

As for the IPCC, it is interesting how, as time goes on,  the more their climate models overestimate the actual temperature trend, the more certian the IPCC are that they are correct about AGW. 

While the reality of antarctic ice increase is not significant in the big picture, the fact that climate models predicted antarctic ice decrease and more significant warming than has occurred should be considered when making decisions based on their other predictions. 

« Last Edit: November 27, 2013, 04:35:48 PM by Snowleopard »
"A man sees what he wants to see and disregards the rest." -  Simon and Garfunkel

Offline agelbert

  • Global Moderator
  • Master Chef
  • *****
  • Posts: 11820
    • View Profile
    • Renewable Rervolution
Re: The market for delusion on climate change
« Reply #5 on: November 27, 2013, 06:45:33 PM »
Quote
Do YOU see a significant trend here, hot or cold?  I don't.  IF there is a GLOBAL trend currently, the Antarctic ice seems immune. 




                                    Globe BELOW:
Antarctic region HERE---->


NOTE: When discussing GLOBAL TRENDS, it is customary to include the ENTIRE GLOBAL surface area.  That means, like, adding up the hotter than baseline normal areas and subtracting, in appropriate percentile segments  ;), the cooler than baseline normal areas.

IOW Antarctica is not the globe, as in "Global Trend", get it?  ;)

But since you fine fellows are all fired up about all that ice in the OCEAN around Antarctica, let's talk about ALL of Antarctica.  :icon_mrgreen:


Quote
All the sea ice talk aside, it is quite clear that really when it comes to Antarctic ice and sea levels, sea ice is not the most important thing to measure. In Antarctica, the largest and most important ice mass is the land ice of the West Antarctic and East Antarctic ice sheets.

Therefore, how is Antarctic land ice doing?

Shepherd et al. 2012
Figure 2: Estimates of total Antarctic land ice changes and approximate sea level contributions using a combination of different measurement techniques (Shepherd, 2012). Shaded areas represent the estimate uncertainty (1-sigma).

Estimates of recent changes in Antarctic land ice (Figure 2, bottom panel) show an increasing contribution to sea level with time, although not as fast a rate or acceleration as Greenland.
Between 1992 and 2011, the Antarctic Ice Sheets overall lost 1350 giga-tonnes (Gt) or 1,350,000,000,000 tonnes into the oceans, at an average rate of 70 Gt per year (Gt/yr). Because a reduction in mass of 360 Gt/year represents an annual global-average sea level rise of 1 mm, these estimates equate to an increase in global-average sea levels by 0.19 mm/yr.

There is variation between regions within Antarctica (Figure 2, top panel), with the West Antarctic Ice Sheet and the Antarctic Peninsula Ice Sheet losing ice mass, and with an increasing rate. The East Antarctic Ice Sheet is growing slightly over this period but not enough to offset the other losses.  There are of course uncertainties in the estimation methods but independent data from multiple measurement techniques (explained here) all show the same thing, Antarctica is losing land ice as a whole, and these losses are accelerating quickly.


Last updated on 10 July 2013 by mattking. View Archives

See images referenced in the quote at the link below along with the full and well referenced article. :emthup:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/antarctica-gaining-ice.htm

The image below shows dovetails with images in the article quantifying the rapidly depleting Antarctic LAND ICE. As the article above claims, the CAUSE of the rapidly expanding Antarctic SEA ICE is the rapidly depleting LAND ICE.


Are you going to tell me these scientific facts and observations are "not considered 'CFS' to the lay person"? It doesn't pass the sniff test? Do you smell a global warming agenda rat here?

I don't. Check the reference!




 
Gentlemen Snowleopard and MKing, the specialty of the house, Hot Antarctic Crow, is served. Bon appetit! 



Note: if you don't like crow, the meal may be substituted for standing at the door of the Doomstead Diner and repeating the word, "UNCLE" for several days.          



Leges         Sine    Moribus      Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

Offline Snowleopard

  • Waitstaff
  • ***
  • Posts: 505
    • View Profile
Re: The market for delusion on climate change
« Reply #6 on: November 27, 2013, 08:57:18 PM »
Quote
The image below shows dovetails with images in the article quantifying the rapidly depleting Antarctic LAND ICE. As the article above claims, the CAUSE of the rapidly expanding Antarctic SEA ICE is the rapidly depleting LAND ICE.

Are you going to tell me these scientific facts and observations are "not considered 'CFS' to the lay person"? It doesn't pass the sniff test? Do you smell a global warming agenda rat here?


Actually the facts are mostly OK.  :emthup:

We could quibble about how much land ice is melting, but i'll agree it is probably adding to the sea ice. 

I could also question the proportional area represention of antarctic temperatures in the GLOBAL climate models. But mostly it's what you leave out. 

What you don't mention is why the land ice is melting, and that it is melting mostly from underneath.

Actually they keep discovering pesky facts like this:

New volcano discovered smoldering under a thick ice of West Antarctica

During a project to reconstruct Antarctica’s climate history, scientists from Washington University in St. Louis discovered that a new volcano is smoldering under a 1.2 - 2 km thick ice. They say its heat may increase the rate of ice loss from one of the continent’s major ice streams.

Although numerous volcanoes exist in Marie Byrd Land, a highland region of West Antarctica where this new volcano is located, until now there has been no evidence for recent magmatic activity.

A recently deployed seismic network showed that in 2010 and 2011, two swarms of seismic activity occurred at 25–40 km depth beneath subglacial topographic and magnetic highs, located 55 km south of the youngest subaerial volcano in the Executive Committee Range.

The swarms were interpreted as deep long-period earthquakes based on their unusual frequency content. Such earthquakes occur beneath active volcanoes, they are caused by deep magmatic activity and, in some cases, precede eruptions.

Scientists which made the discovery also used radar profiles to identify a prominent ash layer in the ice overlying the seismic swarm. Located at 1 400 m depth, the ash layer is about 8 000 years old and was probably sourced from the nearby Mount Waesche volcano.

Together, these observations provide strong evidence for ongoing magmatic activity and demonstrate that volcanism continues to migrate southwards along the Executive Committee Range.  Eruptions at this site are unlikely to penetrate the 1.2 to 2-km-thick overlying ice, but would generate large volumes of melt water that could significantly affect ice stream flow.

“Most mountains in Antarctica are not volcanic,” Douglas A. Wiens, a professor of earth and planetary sciences in Arts & Sciences at Washington University in St. Louis and one of the project’s principal investigators, said, “but most in this area are. Is it because East and West Antarctica are slowly rifting apart? We don’t know exactly. But we think there is probably a hot spot in the mantle here producing magma far beneath the surface.”

The scientists calculated that an enormous eruption, one that would release 1 000 times more energy than the typical eruption, would be necessary to breach the ice above the volcano.

On the other hand, a subglacial eruption and the accompanying heat flow will melt a lot of ice. “The volcano will create millions of gallons of water beneath the ice — many lakes full,” Wiens said.

This water will rush beneath the ice toward the sea and feed into the hydrological catchment of the MacAyeal Ice Stream, one of several major ice streams draining ice from Marie Byrd Land into the Ross Ice Shelf.


By lubricating the bedrock, it will speed the flow of the overlying ice, perhaps increasing the rate of ice-mass loss in West Antarctica.

Melt water from the new volcano will drain into the MacAyeal Ice Stream, labeled above as ice stream E, its original designation. This radar image of West Antarctica (see box on the inset at bottom right for location) has been color-coded to indicate the speed at which the ice is moving. Red marks the fast-moving centers of the ice streams and black lines outline each stream’s catchment area. By greasing the skids with water, the new volcano might increase the rate of ice loss from the MacAyeal Ice Stream.


Please see source for image:

http://thewatchers.adorraeli.com/2013/11/18/new-volcano-discovered-smoldering-under-a-thick-ice-of-west-antarctica/

How many more of these volcanoes remain undiscovered????
« Last Edit: November 27, 2013, 09:17:13 PM by Snowleopard »
"A man sees what he wants to see and disregards the rest." -  Simon and Garfunkel

Offline agelbert

  • Global Moderator
  • Master Chef
  • *****
  • Posts: 11820
    • View Profile
    • Renewable Rervolution
Re: The market for delusion on climate change
« Reply #7 on: November 28, 2013, 03:43:53 PM »
Snowleopard changes the subject of GLOBAL WARMING TRENDS with a question:
Quote
How many more of these volcanoes remain undiscovered????

You don't like crow? You refuse to say, "UNCLE"?

Such a proud, persistent prevaricator.

For the viewing audience, Snowleopard's "question" CARRIES AN UNDERLYING STATEMENT.

AND THAT "STATEMENT" is a, nauseatingly consistent, propaganda point that Global Warming Deniers in the service of DIRTY ENERGY cling tenaciously and mendaciously to:

Snowleopard continues to claim day and night, 24/7 that "WE JUST DON'T KNOW".


How convenient. 


I guess it's true that A LEOPARD WILL NEVER CHANGE ITS SPOTS!   


<a href="http://www.youtube.com/v/usDzh7l5HZw#&fs=1" target="_blank" class="new_win">http://www.youtube.com/v/usDzh7l5HZw#&fs=1</a>
 Video on Antarctic Land Ice measuring science

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2013/06/de-ice-antarctica/

Snowleopard, please look up "order of magnitude". It will help you establish a proper perspective on total planetary volcanic heat versus Anthropogenic CO2 emissions caused HEAT.

Quote
Annual anthropogenic CO2 emissions exceed annual volcanic CO2 by two orders of magnitude, and probably exceed the CO2 output of one or more super-eruptions***. Thus there is no scientific basis for using volcanic CO2 emissions as an excuse for failing to manage humanity’s carbon footprint.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2011/08/volcanic-vs-anthropogenic-co2/
Leges         Sine    Moribus      Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

Offline Snowleopard

  • Waitstaff
  • ***
  • Posts: 505
    • View Profile
Re: The market for delusion on climate change
« Reply #8 on: November 30, 2013, 06:29:34 PM »
Snowleopard changes the subject of GLOBAL WARMING TRENDS with a question:
Quote
How many more of these volcanoes remain undiscovered????

You don't like crow? You refuse to say, "UNCLE"?

Such a proud, persistent prevaricator.

No YOU are the "proud, persistent prevaricator".

The subject was land ice loss in Antarctica.  A subject YOU brought up, despite my suggestion that whatever was going in Antarctica (mostly in reference to Antarctic sea ice, another subject you brought up) was irrelevant to any GLOBAL trend.  The melting of antarctic land ice by volcanoes under that ice is a major cause of the loss, is therefore directly relevant to land ice loss, and you know it. 

For the viewing audience, Snowleopard's "question" CARRIES AN UNDERLYING STATEMENT.

AND THAT "STATEMENT" is a, nauseatingly consistent, propaganda point that Global Warming Deniers in the service of DIRTY ENERGY cling tenaciously and mendaciously to:

Snowleopard continues to claim day and night, 24/7 that "WE JUST DON'T KNOW".

Well gee, scientists ARE studing this, have maybe covered a fifth of the continent in detail, have just discovered another active volcano directly melting ice, and it is somehow wrong to imply they will probably discover more????

Furthermore, IT SHOULD BE OBVIOUS that the major justification for scientists studying anything is:  THERE IS STUFF THEY DON'T KNOW!!!  Most of THEM are willing to admit that.



<a href="http://www.youtube.com/v/usDzh7l5HZw#&fs=1" target="_blank" class="new_win">http://www.youtube.com/v/usDzh7l5HZw#&fs=1</a>
 Video on Antarctic Land Ice measuring science

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2013/06/de-ice-antarctica/

Snowleopard, please look up "order of magnitude". It will help you establish a proper perspective on total planetary volcanic heat versus Anthropogenic CO2 emissions caused HEAT.

If you were not busy insulting my intelligence, and assigning false motivation, you might manage to comprehend and respond to what i actually did say.  Or perhaps you "misunderstand" on purpose and don't think the audience is smart enough to notice?

Quote
Annual anthropogenic CO2 emissions exceed annual volcanic CO2 by two orders of magnitude, and probably exceed the CO2 output of one or more super-eruptions***. Thus there is no scientific basis for using volcanic CO2 emissions as an excuse for failing to manage humanity’s carbon footprint.

Now who's changing the subject (again), this time with a tangental strawman?   We were discussing ice, not CO2.


FYI i'm familar with Gerlach's paper.  It discusses volcanic CO2 vs anthropogenic CO2 it does not discuss volcanic heat and is irrelevant in a discussion of direct volcanic heat melting ice.

I might have mentioned i had a problem with Gerlach's paper.  But again, not relevant.
FWIW the paper seems valid but based on old data and is likely off a bit.   But even if newly discovered undersea volcano ranges and increased activity are factored in, (and new studies are in progress that should do so) they could maybe double the volcanic CO2 estimate.  If that happened, it would bring us to the ~50/1 (human/volcano) range. 

So what?!  If, for some reason, you want a major emitter of CO2 that dwarfs current human CO2 emissions by an order of magnitude :) (and more if it continues to warm) it is the ocean.


PS. If you want to eat some antarctic crow, you might have a problem finding one there!  Crow is native to every continent EXCEPT Antarctica.
« Last Edit: November 30, 2013, 06:40:27 PM by Snowleopard »
"A man sees what he wants to see and disregards the rest." -  Simon and Garfunkel

 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
29 Replies
13566 Views
Last post December 03, 2013, 01:24:08 AM
by RE
14 Replies
4649 Views
Last post July 07, 2014, 01:30:39 PM
by Randy C
0 Replies
992 Views
Last post June 26, 2015, 02:32:07 AM
by Guest