Double post

Another nonsensical reply. 1. You're wrong. (Not your. English much?) 2. The North Pole has already melted by about 50%, so please explain how that is going to take another "thousands" of years. 3. All of the ice sheets don't have to melt to cause havoc for humanity, or are you not aware that billions live within meters of sea level?

Concern sharpened in 1975 when Cesare Emiliani at the University of Miami reported measuring deep-sea cores that showed a shockingly rapid rise of sea level — a rate of meters per decade — around 11,600 years ago. (He remarked that this was exactly the time Plato had given for the fall of Atlantis!) Emiliani thought the cause of the flooding might not have been an Antarctic surge, but water rapidly released from enormous lakes that had been penned up behind the North American ice sheet, a titanic jökulhlaup. In places like Florida where the land sloped gently into the ocean, he wrote, "the sea would have been seen to advance inland 300 feet in... a single summer."(9) Other areas at risk included the Nile Delta and the Netherlands. Science journalists made sure that the more spectacular warnings reached a broad public.(10)

Further, the IPCC didn't even deal with ice melt in the report, despite your false claim. This is common knowledge, so why lie about it?

When the authoritative Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) issued its 2007 report, the authors found the new ideas about ice sheets so uncertain that they took no account of the possibility of ice surges in their sea level predictions. Some senior glaciologists worried that ignoring an unknown did not make it go away.

http://www.aip.org/history/exhibits/climate/floods.htm

The Scandinavian Ice Sheet gives some clues:

The Scandinavian Ice Sheet (SIS) was an important component of the global ice sheet system during the last glaciation, but the timing of its growth to or retreat from its maximum extent remains poorly known. We used 115 cosmogenic beryllium-10 ages and 70 radiocarbon ages to constrain the timing of three substantial ice-margin fluctuations of the SIS between 25,000 and 12,000 years before the present. The age of initial deglaciation indicates that the SIS may have contributed to an abrupt rise in global sea level.

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/311/5766/1449

"This study supports what we've been learning about the Greenland ice sheet, which is that it will completely melt within 500 to 1,000 years," said Peter Clark, a professor of geosciences at OSU and an international expert in the study of ancient ice sheets. "Our new analysis of the ancient Scandinavian Ice Sheet, like other studies, is showing how these events unfolded in the past, which will help us better understand what the future will hold."

If there is a net gain in ice in Antarctica, it will probably not be enough to offset the melting of the Greenland ice sheet, scientists say. By itself and without any offsetting mechanisms, a collapse of the Greenland ice sheet would raise sea levels by about 20-25 feet. One prediction is that sea levels should increase by a foot or two by 2100, and up to 25 feet within 500 years. Some of that sea level rise is based on melting of glaciers and major ice sheets, and some is based on thermal expansion of water in the oceans, which increases in size as it gets warmer.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/03/060312210108.htm

You could start with Adam Smith and then read Ricardo, then move on to more modern theories of labor and capital by say Keynes or Friedman. While ideology of the role of the state may be vastly different, nearly all economic models value people as a resource rather than a cost.

Guarrenteed if the shoe was on the other foot, that WorldClimateReport was owned by "Big Oil" (It's not it's owned by Tucows) there would be a flurry of comments that they are influenced by "Big Oil" and hence has an hidden agenda. You can't have it both ways.

http://iacs5.ucsd.edu/~pbang/dance_monkeys.htm

Well, reality has a well-known liberal bias..

More to the point, RealClimate echoes the overwhelming scientific consensus: fossil carbon emissions are heating the planet. Can you demonstrate that the bulk of the scientific community is on the take from the "far left"?

First, there is no "overwhelming scientific consensus", that's been grossly exaggerated to give AGW dogma the appearance of legitimacy. More and more once IPCC scientists are leaving the "consensus". I guarantee you that far left organizations and radical environmental groups are reaping MILLIONS in donations because of the hype in AGW. There are BILLIONS at stake here, some $50 BILLION so far in the past 20 years spent in their direction. Give it time, it will all be exposed soon.

Answer:
Old glaciers are a wonderful repository of historical information, because past samples of earth's atmosphere are locked up in them. Coral heads and Sargasso Sea sediments also leave Carbon 14 and Oxygen 18 clues to the past temperature of the earth. We all agree that the historical CO2 curves and the temperatures curves closely match each other. But when we look very, very closely at the CO2 and temperature data, we find that increases in CO2 are actually following increases in temperature and that CO2 doesn't cause warming - warming causes CO2 to increase. We've heard several anecdotal examples of local children becoming frightened after seeing Al Gore's movie, and maybe that's why we're so angry with him. To counter that, the British High Court has ruled that the film, if shown in their schools, must be preceded by a disclaimer that it is propaganda, not a documentary.. and a specific list of inaccuracies must be included in the warning. From our point of view, we're watching a world gone mad, with everyone hustling to get a piece of the action. Politicians, radical environmentalists, and even mainstream businesses are scrambling to appear as "green" as they can - and reap of piece of the financial action sure to follow as funds are diverted from normal paths in a headlong race to save the planet. […]What is potentially more alarming, is that some of the early knee-jerk scientists that were so quick to jump on the climate panic bandwagon are now fighting desperately to save their careers by deliberately producing falsified data in a last-ditch effort to support their individual research and save their professional reputations. In our own research, we uncovered some "data" in which a CO2 curve from an ice core study was conveniently moved some 87 years up the time scale, so the desired "results" could be obtained.

http://www.middlebury.net/op-ed/global-warming-01.html

2. Since the sun is currently at a solar minimum, but Earth has been warming while getting to that solar minimum, why aren't you mentioning that? And the fact that it is heading out of the minimum after this year, if past patterns hold?

Answer: The current warm trend (which appears to have if not stopped, at least slowed down since 1998) started around 1880 and stopped in the 1940s long before the bulk of our CO2 emissions (some 70% of which has been in the past 50 years). Then dropped until about 1976 right when the CO2 levels were starting to accelarate. What caused that? What caused the Medeval Warm Period? How would one know FOR SURE that this trend is not normal. Also:

Solar data suggest our concerns should be about global cooling

Excerpt: Solar data suggest our concerns should be about global cooling. February 16th, 2008 by Warwick Hughes David Archibald’s new paper “Solar Cycle 24: Implications for the United States”, will be presented at the Heartland Institute Climate Conference in NY City, March 2-4, 2008. David points out how solar data indicates that Solar Cycle 24 which is in the early throes of commencing now, could initiate global cooling. Posted in Solar, IPCC, News and Views | 9 Responses1. julian braggins Says: February 17th, 2008 at 5:29 am

http://www.warwickhughes.com/blog/?p=150

3. Why did the ice melt so much in 2005 and 2007 with the sun so weak?

Answer: Reference please to back that up.

4. Since CO2 is higher now than it has been in hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of years, how did it get there and why is it not important?

Answer: We are currently coming out of a CO2 low, the lowest it's been in HUNDREDS of millions of years. CO2 in the geological past was often 3-4 TIMES the current levels. The current low in CO2, which started some 50 million years ago, is suggested to be cause by when India collided with Asia and changed rain patterns in that region. That rain soaked in CO2 disolved the growing mountains to produce the huge carbinate deposits in the India Ocean. And, yes, I have references to back that up (it's been understood for decades).

5. Please explain away Hansen, et al's, recent work on climate sensitivity.

Answer: Don't know it, but will google and read up.

Question for you. Why has the rate of sea level rise not accelarated? To get to the dire predictions of tens of feet there would have to be several times increase in that rate, if not as much as 10 times for the real outlandish predictions. But the rate of sea level has not changed in 110 years of measurments. In fact the IPCC says there has not been any accelaration in spite of their predictions (which they have 3 times now down graded).

Re: The sun and CO2 levels:

Solar Cycle 24: Implications for the United States (By Geologist David Archibald of Summa Development Limited in Australia)

Excerpt: I will demonstrate that the Sun drives climate, and use that demonstrated relationship to predict the Earth’s climate to 2030. It is a prediction that differs from most in the public domain. It is a prediction of imminent cooling. […]I will show that increased atmospheric carbon dioxide is not even a little bit bad. It is wholly beneficial. The more carbon dioxide we can put into the atmosphere, the better the planet will be – for humans, and all other living things. […]We have 29 years of satellite temperature data. It shows that the temperature of the Southern Hemisphere has been flat, with a slight increase in the Northern Hemisphere. Note the El Nino peak in 1998. Globally, we have had 10 years of temperature decline since that peak in 1998, with a rate of decline of 0.06 degrees per annum. I am expecting the rate of decline to accelerate to 0.2 degrees per annum from the end of this decade. That satellite record is corroborated by the record of Antarctic and Arctic sea ice extent over the same period. There is no long term trend evident. Most recently, there has been a 1 million square kilometre increase over the long term mean. This is a five per cent increase. […]The peak US temperature was in 1936, at much the same time that Total Solar Irradiance peaked. If you have wondered why US temperatures are still lower than what they were 70 years ago, the fact that Total Solar Irradiance is lower than what it was 70 years ago might provide an explanation. […]The peak of the Medieval Warm Period was 2° warmer than today and the Little Ice Age 2° colder at its worst. The total range is 4° centigrade. The warming over the 20th century was 0.6 degrees by comparison. This recent warming has melted ice on some high passes in the Swiss Alps, uncovering artifacts from the Medieval Warm Period and the prior Roman Warm Period. […]2008 is the tenth anniversary of the recent peak on global temperature in 1998. The world has been cooling at 0.06 degrees per annum since then. My prediction is that this rate of cooling will accelerate to 0.2 degrees per annum following the month of solar minimum sometime in 2009. Dr Hansen’s statement that the maximum safe level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is 350 ppm begs the question of what the actual ideal level is. I have taken the 1,000 ppm figure from the level that commercial greenhouse operators prefer to run their greenhouses at. The ability to grow food is going to be the overriding concern next decade. Regarding that 1,000 ppm level, we will never get there. Atmospheric carbon dioxide levels have been much higher in the geological past. But most of that carbon is now bound up in the Earth’s sediments where we can’t get to it. Half of the carbon dioxide we are producing now is being gobbled up by the oceans, in soils and in the Russian tundra. At best, we might get to about 600 ppm. What I have shown in this presentation is that carbon dioxide is largely irrelevant to the Earth’s climate. The carbon dioxide that Mankind will put into the atmosphere over the next few hundred years will offset a couple of millenia of post-Holocene Optimum cooling before we plunge into the next ice age. There are no deleterious consequences of higher atmospheric carbon dioxide levels. Higher atmospheric carbon dioxide levels are wholly beneficial.

http://www.warwickhughes.com/agri/Solar_Arch_NY_Mar2_08.pdf

"5. Please explain away Hansen, et al's, recent work on climate sensitivity."

http://mc-computing.com/qs/Global_Warming/Papers/Hansen_2007.html

This page discusses Climate change and trace gases by James Hansen, et al., 2007.
I don't make it a point to simply read and criticize Hansen's work ... but this paper begged for it.

In this paper, Hansen admits and then proves, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the ice core data shows that CO2 will NOT have any effect on temperature. That's right, in an effort to prove that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, Dr. Hansen provides all the evidence that anyone should need to actually prove the contrary position.

But, then he provides the solution - Just fudge the data so that it matches his theory.

...

The same Vostok ice core that defines past Antarctic temperature also reveals the history of long-lived atmospheric gases. Bubbles of air are trapped as annual snowfalls pile up and compress gradually into ice. page 3
The temperature change appears to usually lead the gas changes by typically several hundred years, as discussed below and indicated in figure 1b. This suggests that warming climate causes a net release of these GHGs by the ocean, soils and biosphere. page 4
The temperature–GHG lag is imprecise because the time required for snow to pile high enough (approx. 100 m) to seal off air bubbles is typically a few thousand years in central Antarctica. ....
Despite multiple careful studies, uncertainties in the ice–gas age differences for the Vostok ice core remain of the order of 1 kyr. ....

Data from a different Antarctic (Dome C) ice core with slightly higher snow accumulation rate ... support temperature leading GHGs by ca 600–800 years. page 4

Basically, this says that temperature change causes a change in CO2. And when you look at the plots in other sources, it is obvious that the CO2 increase did not cause any additional temperature increase. In fact, in almost all cases, an increase in CO2 is correlated with a significant temperature decrease.

You can not tell that from the graphs in Dr. Hansen's paper because he has adjusted them so that most of the major CO2 increases coincide with temperature increases - that's right, he changed the data to fit the theory. In fact, that is the purpose of his paper - to explain why he thinks he is correct in changing the data in this way.

That's right, the data proves his theory wrong, so he changes the data.

Global Warmer Hoaxer James Hansen Once Pushed Global Cooling

NASA bureaucrat James Hansen, who has been making a pretty penny by helping Al Gore prop up the global warming hoax, is a veteran of the global cooling hoax popular in the 1970s.

Investor's Business Daily reports that a 1971 Washington Post scare piece entitled "U.S. Scientist Sees New Ice Age Coming" fretted that burning fossil fuels discharges particles into the atmosphere that reflect the sun's rays back into space. Emissions over 5–10 years supposedly "could be sufficient to trigger an ice age."

The NASA research behind this hysteria was supported by a "computer program developed by Dr. James Hansen," the same guy who now refers to those who won't drink the global warming Kool-Aid as "court jesters."

The Global Warming Money Trail

To Newsweek's credit, a recent issue devoted to hyping the global warming hoax included a piece by MIT Professor of Meteorology Richard Lindzen, who refuses to drink the Kool-Aid. Lindzen observes that climate fluctuation is normal, and that warmer weather would be beneficial, not catastrophic. As Jeff Jacoby points out, Newsweek felt compelled to include a disclaimer that Lindzen "receives no funding from any energy companies," thoughtfully inoculating him from the standard claim that anyone who won't pretend to see clothes on the naked Emperor Albert is a shill for Big Oil.

Actually, the shills are on the other side. The global warming hoax may put the screws to the poor and middle class, but its perpetrators are making a mint. The reason unscrupulous scientists are willing to play along is that by hyping it into a crisis, they guarantee themselves fortunes in grant money.

NASA's wild-eyed James Hansen, for example, won a $250,000 Heinz Award in 2001, and last month was co-winner of the $1 million Dan David Prize.

Then you are missing part of the story by ignoring ClimateAudit. Are the critizisms there sound? If you don't read the critizisms from other sources you are not getting a complete picture. Besides, Hansen saying we need to bulldoze all the coal fired plants is a polticial radical statement that very much strains his credibility and puts questions as to his true motives.