Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
cerescokid's comment

Edited for easier reading

Quote:There is delicious irony for those who are disturbed about the NYT article since they consider themselves the intellectual elite and thus the true scientific literates.

But, how many have taken the time to learn the scientific issues? Have they read about the PDO, AMO, or NAO? Do they know the questions with the LIA and MWP or the Roman and Minoan Warm Periods? Have they briefed themselves on decadal, multi-decadal, centennial or millennial oscillations and quasi-periodicities? How about the lack of an upward trend in US Tornado activity or precipitation or forest fires. Do they know the difference between Antarctic sea ice and ice shelves and ice sheet and only 1 can have an effect on SLR. And do they know the Antarctic Sea Ice was at “historic highs” just 3 years ago? Do they know the IPCC said the contribution to GMSLR from Antarctica is only .27mm/yr or 1/5 the thickness of a dime? Do they understand the Arctic Sea ice loss does not contribute to SLR? Do they know about geo-thermal activity in West Antarctica and Greenland? Do they know about the study raising questions about how much ice melt in Greenland is reaching the ocean? Do they know that the Antarctic glaciers are inherently unstable and some scientists said it may take 7000 years for the collapse of the Antarctic Ice Sheet and that the West Antarctic Peninsula is cooling and East Antarctica is gaining ice? Do they know about the settlements in Greenland? Do they know that the Arctic had a warm period 100 years ago? Do they know that scientists 100 years ago were expressing concern about declining global glaciers, warming in the Arctic and the instability of the Antarctic glaciers? Do they know some scientists do not think the polar bear is going down for the last count? Do they know that waters in the abyss can take thousands of years to mix with the atmosphere or that deep waters in the North Atlantic can take 200 years to reach the Pacific? Do they know some scientists still believe that solar and cosmic ray cycles have an effect on climate? Do they know about the studies showing SLR back to the 1700s and before and that some scientists believe there has been no acceleration in SLR and that some estimates of SLR acceleration are 0.0004+-0.0008 mm/yr? (the precision is impressive and the level of uncertainty even more so). Have they read about the locales where subsidence is many multiples of SLR? Or that shrimp farming in the Mekong Delta is exacerbating SLR or construction of embankments in Bangladesh estuaries are a bigger problem than SLR or that many very long Tidal Gauge records show no acceleration?

Do they know that Daniel Patrick Moynihan sent a memo in the White House in 1969 expressing concern about CO2 and the possible 10 feet rise in sea levels and 7 degree F rise by 2000? As he said “goodbye Washington, goodbye New York”. The last NOAA Tidal Gauge report for New York showed 2016 sea level below 2010. And I can attest from personal experience that last month Lady Liberty did not have her hem moistened by the ocean.

I would not expect those who are outraged by the NYT article to actually take the time to understand the numerous and at times subtle (and maybe too complex?) issues surrounding global warming. It is much nicer to mute the jangles in the head listening to the soothing tomes of the Science Guy than to actually do the heavy lifting of thinking for themselves.
It is our attitude toward free thought and free expression that will determine our fate. There must be no limit on the range of temperate discussion, no limits on thought. No subject must be taboo. No censor must preside at our assemblies.

–William O. Douglas, U.S. Supreme Court Justice, 1952

Excuse the brevity of my previous list but it was off the top of my head in between having a cranberry walnut bagel and an Egg McMuffin. Now that I have had a sip of Midnight Mint Mocha Frappuccino, other items have come to mind.

Did any of the NYT readers look into the interrelationship of polynyas and Antarctic glaciers and calving dynamics? Do they know natural variability is eating away at the Totten Glacier? Have they checked the NAO OHC upper 700m to see how, after rising for several decades, it is now dropping? Do they know the role of isostasy and eustasy in the relative sea level computations and are they aware of the constantly changing size of the ocean basins? Did they read the NYT 1989 article discussing the US government study finding that there was no significant warming since 1895? Or did they peruse the 2002 study which found that the warmest years in Greenland since 1873 were 1932,1941,1947 and 1960? Did they read the NTY article from 1896 reporting 163 deaths in New York City from the heat? Are they aware of the see saw relationship between the poles for temperatures? Did they read the NOAA report on State Maximum record temperatures indicating that 37 states have record high temperatures prior to 1940 while only 4 have sole records in the last 30 years? Did they read the 2016 study indicating that the most extreme weather in the US occurred between 1900 and 1960? How about the study on the anti-phase of SST off NW Africa for the last 2500 years? Did they know that climate scientists had at one time put all their eggs in one basket in the form of canvas buckets for recording sea surface temperatures? Did they know that the 1990 IPCC report stated that the rate of recession for mountain glaciers was largest for the period 1920 to 1960? Are they aware of the study finding 3 time intervals of comparable warmth in the Alaska Range for 0-300, 850-1200 and post 1800? Did they ask themselves why there are so many hysterical articles about places like Sydney when the SLR there is 0.65mm/yr without any hint of acceleration?

If they are not aware of these things and find themselves behind the curve, I suggest they get cracking and try to catch up to the skeptics and actually learn some facts instead of whining about some NYT column short on feeding them their usual pablum.
It is our attitude toward free thought and free expression that will determine our fate. There must be no limit on the range of temperate discussion, no limits on thought. No subject must be taboo. No censor must preside at our assemblies.

–William O. Douglas, U.S. Supreme Court Justice, 1952

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)