90.9 WBUR - Boston's NPR news station
Top Stories:
PLEDGE NOW
‘Lost Antarctica’: A Scientist’s Tales From A ‘Disappearing Land’

Marine biologist James McClintock knows, as well as anyone on the planet, the incredible majesty of Antarctica. From his home in Alabama, he’s been heading south — all the way south — for 30 years.

Expedition after Antarctic expedition. Over the ice, under the ice. He’s seen wonders that would make your eyeballs pop. Your heart stop. Giant leopard seals, lunging up from the deep. Giant glaciers calving giant ice calves.

And more and more, McClintock says, stark evidence of climate change.

This hour, On Point: To the Antarctic, with a witness to wild change.

– Tom Ashbrook

Guests

James McClintock, professor of marine biology at the University of Alabama at Birmingham, who has been travelling to Antarctica for research since 1982. His current work is focused on the effects of climate change on Antarctica. His new book is “Lost Antarctica: Adventures In A Disappearing Land.” (@JiminAntarctica)

Jeff Goodell, contributing editor at Rolling Stone Magazine whose recent piece, “Goodbye, Miami,” is about rising sea levels. He’s also the author of “How To Cool The Planet: Geoengineering And The Audacious Quest To Fix Earth’s Climate.” (@jeffgoodell)

Book Excerpt

Excerpted from “Lost Antarctica: Adventures In A Disappearing Land” by James McClintock. Copyright 2012 by James McClintock. All rights reserved. Reprinted with permission from Palgrave Macmillan.

Map Of Melting

Rates of basal melt of Antarctic ice shelves (melting of the shelves from underneath) overlaid on a 2009 mosaic of Antarctica created from data from NASA's Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS) instrument aboard NASA's Terra and Aqua spacecraft. (NASA)

CLICK TO ENLARGE: Rates of basal melt of Antarctic ice shelves (melting of the shelves from underneath) overlaid on a 2009 mosaic of Antarctica. (NASA)

From Tom’s Reading List

Rolling Stone: Goodbye, Miami — “By century’s end, rising sea levels will turn the nation’s urban fantasyland into an American Atlantis. But long before the city is completely underwater, chaos will begin.”

NASA: Warm Ocean Causing Most Antarctic Ice Shelf Mass Loss — “Antarctica holds about 60 percent of the planet’s fresh water locked into its massive ice sheet. Ice shelves buttress the glaciers behind them, modulating the speed at which these rivers of ice flow into the ocean. Determining how ice shelves melt will help scientists improve projections of how the Antarctic ice sheet will respond to a warming ocean and contribute to sea level rise.”

The Birmingham News: UAB Scientist Jim McClintock’s Adventures In Antarctica Become A Great Read — “McClintock is a rock star in polar marine biology, so much so that there’s even a point of land named after him in Antarctica. He’s led 14 research expeditions there over the past 30 years, tracking the transformation of the continent caused by climate change.”

Please follow our community rules when engaging in comment discussion on this site.
  • WorriedfortheCountry

    From the Rolling Stone article:
     “Greenland and Antarctica are starting to melt rapidly now, causing the rate of sea-level rise to grow exponentially.”

    Care to offer a source for that claim.  According to the NOAA sea level budget the global sea level rise from 2005-2012 averaged 1.3mm/year which is less than 5 inches per century and this is LESS than the average rise for the last century.

    There are other more recent papers that confirm the same results (eg, http://sealevel.colorado.edu/content/continental-mass-change-grace-over-2002%E2%80%932011-and-its-impact-sea-level )

    http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2012/12/noaa-2012-report-finds-sea-levels.html

    • northeaster17

      This rate may be increasing. Since 1992, new methods of satellite altimetry (the measurement of elevation or altitude) indicate a rate of rise of 3 millimeters (0.12 inches) per year.
      This is a significantly larger rate than the sea-level rise averaged over the last several thousand years.

      http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/sealevel.html.

      • WorriedfortheCountry

        Is it: “This rate MAY  be increasing” or “grow exponentially” ?

        This is typical alarmism.

        • http://neilblanchard.blogspot.com/ Neil Blanchard

           Climate change is happening, and it is alarming.  If you are not alarmed, then you should start listening to the scientists.

          Neil

          • WorriedfortheCountry

             Oh, I do listen to the scientists — very carefully.

            Do you listen to the MIT climate scientist Richard Lindzen?

            http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704448304575196802317362416.html

          • AC
          • WorriedfortheCountry

             Oh yes. I don’t believe that is a change in his position.

            You can read the remarks he gave recently at Sandia National Labs on the state of climate science.

            “For 30 years, climate scientists have been “locked into a simple-minded
            identification of climate with greenhouse-gas level. … That climate
            should be the function of a single parameter (like CO2) has always
            seemed implausible. Yet an obsessive focus on such an obvious
            oversimplification has likely set back progress by decades,” Lindzen
            said.”

            https://share.sandia.gov/news/resources/news_releases/warming_skeptic/#.Ud2xmm3aK8U

          • Don_B1

            Richard Lindzen is a known denier, and a publicity piece from Sandia Laboratories is NOT, repeat NOT, an endorsement of his claims. And the publicity release gives the many individuals and groups which oppose Professor Lindzen’s claims.

            If you were really open to new information, you could (but you won’t) read the debunking of Professor Lindzen’s claims here:

            http://www.skepticalscience.com/search.php?Search=Richard+Lindzen&x=-195&y=-227

          • Ray in VT

            I don’t know.  It seems that you listen very carefully to a relatively small slice of the scientific community on the matter.

          • WorriedfortheCountry

             It might appear that way because I am often rebutting blatant propaganda here.

            My main contention is the science isn’t ‘settled’ and not that the AGW hypothesis has been either proved or disproved.

          • Ray in VT

            I think that it appears that way because it seems that a good majority of your posts relating to the issue of climate change link to Watts’ site, as well as a few others, and relative to the overall peer-reviewed literature in the field, the skeptics and deniers are a relatively small group.

          • WorriedfortheCountry

             OK, I get it.  You don’t like Watts.  Not my problem.

            Notice today I submitted both a peer review paper and an indirect link to a NOAA report.

          • Ray in VT

            Yeah, I noticed.  I was merely stating what I think that I observed.

          • HonestDebate1

            How much faith do you out in the 2007 IPCC report?

          • Ray in VT

            More faith than I put in people who promote conspiracy theories or small groups with extensive links to fossil fuel industries.

          • HonestDebate1

            The IPCC is exactly that.

          • Ray in VT

            That is pretty funny.  The industry isn’t getting what it is paying for then, unlike with Heartland. A bit more like the Kochs and BEST.

          • http://neilblanchard.blogspot.com/ Neil Blanchard

             Why do you trust him (virtually alone) rather than the overwhelming majority of climate scientists?

            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AaUCXO3FzRk&list=PL7Ihm2Mh3MZ5ZVQhhGP8pGu85dj6ued__

            Neil

          • WorriedfortheCountry

             Virtually alone?

            Are you familiar with group think and confirmation bias?

            btw – I noticed your comment on the link and nuclear is ‘virtually’ carbon free, just like solar and wind is ‘virtually’ carbon free.  Right?

          • Don_B1

            But nuclear will cost a lot, lot more, in excess of $0.25 per KWH for a new plant built today, compared to the average $0.10 of today’s plants and wind and solar in the near future.

            Spend your heart out!

          • jefe68

            The reason is the climate change deniers love to use false equivalencies to back up their claims.

          • WorriedfortheCountry

             Or you can simply ignore the logic in Lindzen’s argument:

            “For 30 years, climate scientists have been “locked into a simple-minded
            identification of climate with greenhouse-gas level. … That climate
            should be the function of a single parameter (like CO2) has always
            seemed implausible. Yet an obsessive focus on such an obvious
            oversimplification has likely set back progress by decades,” Lindzen
            said.”

          • jefe68

            Again, false equivalencies.

          • Don_B1

            Because climate scientists recognize that CO2 is the major driver does not mean that they are  “locked into a simple-minded identification of climate with greenhouse gas level.”

            Professor Lindzen has had years to find any other factors that could rival CO2 and he has come up empty, empty, and empty every time, as has been shown by posts at Skeptical Science (see:

            http://www.skepticalscience.com/search.php?Search=Richard+Lindzen&x=-195&y=-227 )

            But your whole purpose here, that of a troll, is confuse people, not to really discuss the issue.

    • MordecaiCarroll

      If some man or woman
      (the blog writer/writers don’t appear to have identified themselves anywhere on
      their blog) from hockeyschtick.blogspot.com says so, then it is indisputable truth.

       

      • WorriedfortheCountry

         The article references a NOAA report and provides the source.  What’s the problem? 

        • MordecaiCarroll

           Ok – my original reply seems to have been mediated out of existence, so here goes again.

          When I go to the “article” (I would call it a blog post) you mentioned in your original comment, most of the links provided by the unknown authors refer back to earlier hockeyschtick.blogspot.com blog posts.  And when you follow the links on these prior blog posts, they mostly refer back to still earlier posts from the same blog. 

          Also, if the writers on that blog are so knowledgeable and on the level, why don’t they identify themselves?

          Sorry – color me unconvinced

          • Don_B1

            You are correct in being unconvinced.

            WorriedfortheCountry is a troll, possibly paid, to push ideological themes that would lead to total deregulation of the economy (thus no CO2 emissions restrictions) and a plutocracy not seen since the Middle Ages.

  • 2Gary2

    I wish I was rich and could afford to travel to these places to see them first hand.  The f-ing 1% have stolen our productivity gains over the last 40 years and GD I want it back so I can not live paycheck to paycheck.  As it goes now I can not even afford to pay attention.

    Its hard to worry about the arctic etc as I am standing in line at the food pantry.

    • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

      perhaps you should join them.

    • John Cedar

      As one of the people who has stolen the productivity gains over the last 40 years, I can tell you I would not bother to get out of bed in the morning to merely be in the top one percentile of earners. Do you realize the top one percent averages a mere ~$250k per annum? Do you know how much a Gulfstream costs? Even if you can depreciate it in two years, its still a lot. Have you seen the price of a better vintage of dom perignon or a Picassos lately? Do you know how much it costs to keep a yacht in service and that you are just one unmarked shoal away from a $300k bill to rebuild the lower unit?

      • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

        no matter much money you have you cant buy happiness. on the other hand I can imagine the huge shiteating grin on my face should I ever be lucky or smart or hard working enough to have or even ride around on a sweet G4.  people have no idea how much BMW oil changes cost

        • 2Gary2

           Well if money can’t buy happiness then poverty cant buy anything.

          • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

            there are plenty of happy poor people
            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6AZNb-UpwNU
            she seems pretty happy and she makes me happy and I am not that rich

          • 2Gary2

             I did not say poor people where not happy, just that poverty can’t buy anything.

            As a side note people who say money can’t buy happiness probably never had money to see if that statement is true.

            I for one would love to be rich and see for myself if money buys happiness.  I am sure it could at least rent happiness.

            I would be happy to no longer need to go to the food pantry or have my power turned off or no longer have to worry about which bill to not pay this month.

          • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

            there are plenty of lousy jobs available, I bet you can attain that dream if you work hard. beware though you may prefer sitting in the dark to working hard

      • Don_B1

        @2Gary2:disqus @johncedar:disqus @facebook-1200344852:disqus 

        When a comment like John Cedar’s on the income of the 1% is so grievously wrong, and no one pushes back, it is no wonder that the country is so badly off.

        I really do wonder if Mr. Cedar just got confused with the 10%, and even then he is wrong.

        From 2006 data (see:

        http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2011/10/30/nyregion/where-the-one-percent-fit-in-the-hierarchy-of-income.html?_r=0 )

        The top 1% (1.499 million) salaries start at $386,000, average $1.286 million and comprise 22% of the total U.S. income.

        The top 10% (minus the top 1% – 1.35 million) salaries start at $108,000, average $167,000 and comprise another 25% of U.S. income.

        When the proponents of lower taxes, etc for the wealthy want to discuss the issues with real data instead of made-up data, maybe a rational result can be arrived at.

        The data for 2006 almost certainly underrepresent the top incomes as they are the ones that have soared since the Great Recession.

        • John Cedar

          Your quibble over the minutia is an odd response to my satire.

          The grey lady is senile.
          Here is a more up to date and comprehensive link:
          http://www.lazymanandmoney.com/how-many-people-make-more-than-250000-per-year/

          My link, like your NYT’s link, breaks income down by return, not by individual. (regardless of the exact income cut-off for the top one percentile), my earlier point was that, the 3 million families earning $200k – $500k, are hardly wealthy compared to the people the OP claims have stolen 40 years of productivity gains.

  • MadMarkTheCodeWarrior

    One detail on ice sheets often missed by skeptics is the quality and thickness of ice cover. Surface area does not equate to volume or mass… Just a little factoid I thought to throw out there.

  • HonestDebate1

    “Goodbye Miami”!? Gee wiz, you guys are a hoot.

    • http://neilblanchard.blogspot.com/ Neil Blanchard

       They have already seen highways washing away, and lots of salt water infiltrating into fresh water supply.

      Read the article:  http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/why-the-city-of-miami-is-doomed-to-drown-20130620

      It certainly is not funny…

      Neil

      • HonestDebate1

        From rising sea levels? I think it’s funny, sue me.

        • jefe68

          Which says a lot about the kind of person you are.

          • HonestDebate1

            It’s not about me.

  • ToyYoda

    Will the melting of Antartica mean that nations will begin the race to secure mineral and drilling rights like they do the basin of the Arctic Ocean?

    • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

      i am sure we already have

  • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

    looks like a great opportunity to invest in future beachfront property. I would not mind if Worcester became a tropical archipelago

    • JobExperience

      Your tiny property rights would be negated by imminent domain as soon as the 1% saw possibilities.

      • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

        by then they will have a floating city so they wont care how high the oceans get

    • http://neilblanchard.blogspot.com/ Neil Blanchard

       You go ahead and buy all the beachfront property you want.  Good luck insuring it…

      Neil

      • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

        you missed it huh? I was saying that there will be lots of new beachfront property. I don’t need to buy any beachfront property, I just need to wait

        • Don_B1

          And there will be a lot of dispossessed beach property owners with more money that you to buy the “new” beachfront property. Remember, it won’t happen in a day but over a period of maybe 50 or 100 years.

          Unless, of course, some big Antarctic ice sheets start sliding off the continent faster than predicted.

          • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

            and I will be happy to sell it to them at a tidy profit and move somewhere inland where my house wont get washed away

  • Markus6

    On the one hand, I think these depressing programs need to be produced to wake people up. On the other, they make it seem so hopeless that it drives people to denial or conspiracy theories (i.e. the scientific community gets a lot of funding to find that global warming is increasing quickly). 

    Anyway, I believe that climate change is happening and that it’s man made and that it will be very bad. I also think that we’re only getting one side of it – the side that errs on the side of awful.

    That said, I almost never hear of any solution that provides real hope. We get some perfunctory comments about conservation, wind power, solar energy, etc, but then we hear about China, India, SE Asia and other parts building weekly power plants, buying cars and all the rest. They’re just doing what we do, but the net is that any good the US does is dwarfed by the increased energy needs of the rest of the world and by population increases. And then of course, there’s a group of people who just can’t wait for the end of the world in order to stick it to fat cats. 

    You just get inured to these doom and gloom shows after a while. 

  • JobExperience

    FUTO:
     Stop not making sense. Who should Gary join?
    The 1%? If we could all voluntarily join the 1% income and wealth would equal out. Gary may actually be waiting on a box of food-like substances so please be more considerate. You don’t want to look like some fascist bully, buddy.

    Consider this: the amount of fresh water available decreases as ice melts and flows into the salty oceans. That’s true in Austria and India as well as Antarctica.

    *intended as reply to post below

    • HonestDebate1

      Who determines your income, if not you?

    • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

      sounds like you have a defeatist attitude. you will never make it to the 1% like that.
      he wont make it to the 1% because he is wasting his time and money on a phone to send internet posts whilst he waits in line for handouts.

  • JobExperience

    Ice mass at the poles is an integral part of air and sea current patterns on this planet. Combined with hotter oceans this absence could drive catastrophic instability. Has anyone noticed a peculiarly loopy jet stream lately? It’s been raining in the inland Southeast for three weeks and trees are staring to topple over, and a hurricane may be coming. Pretty normal, right?

  • AC

    what sorts of carbon emissions are you finding as permafrost melts?

    • http://neilblanchard.blogspot.com/ Neil Blanchard

       Both methane and carbon dioxide is being released as the  so-called “permafrost” melts.  This is one of the very strong feedback forcings that has been predicted, and it is already happening more quickly than we first thought.

      Neil

      • AC

        last i heard it was 30% higher than was predicted, USGS were going to do a study, then i heard no more? i guess i’ll search their site this weekend for papers…..

  • Jim

    a shared society to save Antarctica is required…

    that place is the last sanctuary of beautiful wild life…

  • ToyYoda

    Can you ask your guest what he thinks about probing Lake Vostok?  It’s a buried Antarctic lake isolated from the rest of the world for millions of years.  

    Because I love science, I would like to know what life may reside in the lake, but at the same time, it depresses me that man can’t keep even a small parcel of land truly pristine.

  • Jeff

    Isn’t the warming a good thing since we are due for an ice age at any moment?

    • http://neilblanchard.blogspot.com/ Neil Blanchard

       Jeff, no, warming at the very quick rate that it is happening is already having very serious effects.  Crops fail when it gets too warm, and we cannot just move them north, as the soil and pollinators are all different.

      There is no ice age cycle – there have been changes, but there are always reasons for the change, and this time the reason is we humans are burning fossil fuels and this is raising the level of carbon dioxide.

      Pay attention, PLEASE!

      Neil

      • Jeff

        You lost all credibility when you said “[t]here is no ice age cycle”, look it up…it’s real and we are due for it at any moment.  CO2 in the atmosphere is a good thing for life, especially for human life on this planet.

        • http://neilblanchard.blogspot.com/ Neil Blanchard

          All the ice ages we have had were caused by specific changes; like changes in our orbit around the sun, or the the axis of the earth’s rotation, or volcanic activity, or the sun’s output, among other things.

          There is no “cycle” of ice ages – look it up. 

          Jeff, I am stating my understanding of what the science says.  You are ignoring the science, and that negates your standing in this discussion.

          http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=Z_-8u86R3Yc

          Neil

          • Jeff

            Yep, looked it up, it’s a 100,000 year cycle called Milankovitch cycles.  It’s a solar issue and we can have an influence on delaying and/or preventing the next cycle (which we are due for right now) from being so severe.

          • WorriedfortheCountry

             Too much kool-aid and algorian altar worship to expect a rational response.

          • jefe68

            If you read about the Milankovitch cycles theory you would have also read that they are other theories that suggest the 100,000 year cycle is not a strong theory. 

            You posted a good example of a false equivalence in that you only used on theory about ice age cycles and also left out some crucial information in regards to the theory.
            So one can conclude, as I did that you only picked the info to support your agenda. Hence the False equivalence. I mean yours not Milankovitch. 

            As the 100,000-year periodicity only dominates the climate of the past million years, there is insufficient information to separate the component frequencies of eccentricity using spectral analysis, making the reliable detection of significant longer-term trends more difficult, although the spectral analysis of much longer palaeoclimate records, such as the Lisiecki and Raymo stack of marine cores[2] and James Zachos’ composite isotopic record, helps to put the last million years in longer term context. Hence there is still no sheer consensus on the mechanism responsible for the 100ka periodicity—but there are several popular contenders.

      • HonestDebate1

        But we are not warming at present, are we?

        • TomK_in_Boston

          LOL

        • http://neilblanchard.blogspot.com/ Neil Blanchard

           The climate is still on a strong warming trend.

          Neil

    • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

      actually the melting is what causes the ice age. all the fresh water messes with the oceans ability to circulate heat and then you get an ice age

      • Jeff

        Which is more powerful then?  The global warming or the ice age force? I ask because we were not always in an ice age cycle (i.e. during the age of the dinosaurs)…therefore it may be possible to pull ourselves out of the current ice age cycle and revert back to a time that was much more beneficial for life.

        • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

          global warming causes the ice age its not a matter of one being more powerful than the other. we (humans) do best when the temperature is right in the middle and the global thermocline is operating properly
          i think this current time or perhaps a century or so ago are pretty beneficial to human life. humans would not survive in dinosaur atmosphere. life in general does not care much and is flexible.  if we could manage the atmosphere we could perhaps balance out the effects of the longer cycles due to distance from the sun and such.

        • http://neilblanchard.blogspot.com/ Neil Blanchard

           “Ice age force”?  “Ice age cycle”?  Huh?  These are not real.  Look at science.

          Neil

      • Dataninja

        Pretty sure it has more to do with that big hot yellow thing in the sky.

        You would think a “weatherman” like you would know that?

        http://youtu.be/yN2_5jlpMFM

        • Don_B1

          Currently (and for the last few decades at least) the sun has been producing lower levels of energy radiation, tending to cool the earth.

          But the increased CO2 has increased the heat storage of the earth’s atmosphere more than the lower heat input has lowered it.

          In addition, increased CO2 in the atmosphere has caused faster absorption of the extra CO2 by the oceans, where it forms carbonic acid (the weak acid of soft drinks) but which reduces the ability of shellfish to form their shells and other fish to fertilize their eggs. Other hot periods have been associated with near collapse of sea life.

          The negative consequences of CO2 emission driven climate change are not trivial.

          Please use the Skeptical Science website:

          http://www.skepticalscience.com

          to investigate the answers to claims made by all sides. The site has three levels of answers, tailored for the level of understanding the questioner is prepared, by previous learning, to grasp.

  • http://www.facebook.com/tim.weiskel Tim Weiskel

    You may want to see some of the “new” discoveries of “old” biota that are coming to light from the Antarctic lakes:
    http://grist.org/list/bleeding-glacier/

    • Jack Wolf

      Don’t forget ancient artifacts as glaciers recede.

  • http://www.facebook.com/tim.weiskel Tim Weiskel

    The Miami case and that of the other 180 US cities threatened by sea level rise have been discussed in Cambridge : http://www.cctvcambridge.org/node/171068
    You may want to see Wanless interviewed at:
    http://environmentaljusticetv.wordpress.com/2012/10/15/florida-threatened-by-rising-sea-levels/

  • injun2

    “55 million years ago Arctic summertime surface-ocean
    temperatures were as high as 18 °C. Such temperatures are comparable to those
    of the modern summer ocean on the French coast at Brittany (where hardy souls
    even go swimming). Most importantly, climate models for 55 million years ago
    don’t come close to simulating such warm waters, even when reflective ice
    sheets are left out and atmospheric CO2 levels are pumped up to 2,000 parts per
    million — nearly ten times the levels before the Industrial Revolution.
    Clearly, CO2 is not the only driver of the extreme polar warmth.

    http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v441/n7093/full/441579a.html
    But the Arctic and the Antarctic
    were not always frozen and barren. Over the past 55 million years or so, the
    Earth has experienced a major cooling, from a greenhouse climate to the cur­rent
    icehouse climate. The results of a remark­able scientific project in the Arctic1,
    as reported in three papers in this issue provide a detailed
    picture of the Arctic’s role in the long­term cooling, and its response during
    oscilla­tions of the preceding greenhouse climates.

    • Jack Wolf

      That paper shows how the temperature of the poles increase at a rate higher than lower latitudes.  The current warm forcing is much, much greater than that in the past.

  • Rainbow_sky

    Is it possible to harvest the melting fresh water? Could we use capitalism to help keep the sea water from rising? There is a lot of bottled water still being bought and sold around the world. Even hauled across the ocean (depleting some aquifers).

    • Michael Irvine

      Silly. Where do you think all that harvested water is going to go, Mars? All liquid water returns to the ocean no matter how much you drink or pour on your golf greens.
       

      • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

        some is in aquifers, lakes and ponds 

        • Jack Wolf

          Don’t forget the atmosphere.  More is being held there as temperatures rise.

          • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

            yes and it turns condensation from seawater to fresh water again

          • Jack Wolf

            Yea, but it also strips the soil epipedon of moisture.  Not good for crops.

          • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

            plants are going to need the atmosphere

      • apaddler

        Of course you could inject it, along with a slew of chemicals, back into the earth after using it for fracking.

    • Jack Wolf

      Catching rainwater would be easier don’t you think?

      • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

        for example the bush family is buying up the land that is the headwaters for the amazon.

  • WorriedfortheCountry

     No, the ‘blog’ post simply extracts highlights from a a NOAA report and then provides a link to the full report on the NOAA.

    I guess you are a skeptics skeptic.

    Here is the link they provided.

    http://ibis.grdl.noaa.gov/SAT/SeaLevelRise/documents/NOAA_NESDIS_Sea_Level_Rise_Budget_Report_2012.pdf

    • WorriedfortheCountry

       btw – I know nothing about the ‘hockeyschtick’ site and today may have been my first visit to their site.  I posted their link because it provided some important highlights from the NOAA report.

    • Don_B1

      The “extractions” were cherry-picked and distortions of the NOAA report. It would do you good to go and find them and put them in context for yourself.

      I won’t hold my breath.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Craig-King/100003741083027 Craig King

    It is always puzzling how these terrible things are happening where not many people live or even go to. Here in the place where I live the ocean levels are as they have been for the last two centuries. The weather is variable in the same way I have always known and farming activities, grapes, grains, cattle and forestry are more extensive but essentially the same, and in the same places as they ever were.

    The 72 climate models all disagree with each other, and with reality, yet they contain every bit of the climate scientists understanding of the climate and what effects it. How is that possible? Where is the actual evidence that Man Made CO2 is doing anything to the global climate because so far it boils down to “things are changing and mankind’s CO2 is to blame”.

    The tone on every alarmist site I go to is that this is all the fault of big business, the 1%, western consumerism etc. In fact the alarmist position is essentially one of hostility towards capitalism by people who have no understanding of what the market does. Climate Alarmism as it is constructed is simply a useful vehicle for the abolition of markets and their replacement with state control, preferably at a global level. Naive undergraduate thinking because the market sees everything while people see only their own narrow understanding which is why the world has developed as it has. The market brings freedom and growth while central control brings stagnation and collective misery.

    Climate science as it currently stands is political science and is fast becoming a religion.

    • Jack Wolf

      I don’t know where you live, but I just returned from the Delaware shore, but the homes are definitely closer to the water and the shores are smaller.  Furthermore, same with all along the VA and MD coast.

      I was taught the radiative properties of CO2, and all the profs discussed it in while in college in the late 1970s and although I did not dismiss it, I thought it would take more time for global warming to express itself.  And, silly me, I thought that since the government was aware of it, global warming would be addressed and regulated if necessary.  But, while I pursued my career in soil and wetland science, CO2 kept accumulating.

      In 2005, an uncle who was an asst. dean at a business school asked me if I was aware of a growing group of scientists that was advising that the climate situation was too far gone to  repair.  I said, nah, if it was that bad, I’m sure that I would have read it in my journals especially since climate is one of the five factors of soil formation and controls hydrology in a wetland. 

      Then, fully formed pansies start blooming in the middle of January in my garden.  It had been a warm winter and quite pleasant for the PA in the snow belt. 

      That’s when my light bulb went off, and the more I researched, the more alarmed I became.

      I am certain you will have your own pansy moment and am surprised that you haven’t already.

      At the 2012 Cabot Lecture, Dr. Kevin Anderson (link below) points the finger at scientists and governments for not accurately reporting how bad the climate situation truly is.  He also explains why we cannot meet the 2 degree C (3.8 F) target set by the world’s governments and its impacts on us today (i.e. catastrophic). 

      There isn’t any wiggle room left for any negotiation. 
      Globally, we are nowhere close to meeting our mitigation pledges and long lived CO2 emissions continue to accumulate in the atmosphere at an
      accelerating rate.  Dr. Anderson is very
      animated and I think you will find it enlightening. 

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RInrvSjW90U

      Once people realize the enormity of accelerating abrupt climate change, they are going to look back at all those promises, see who promised them, see who delivered, then act accordingly. 

      And, take care.

  • apaddler

    I know this is trivial, but I sure would like to see a link to that clothesline photo McClintock referenced as proof of global warming.

  • wbsurfver

     What are the actual numbers ? Sea levels have risen less than 10 inches in the last 100 years at a steady rate that has not increased in recent years. 

     Here is a simple chart that anyone should be able to understand. if anyone thinks they have a better chart  i challenge them to post a link and spare us the rhetoric about so called denials and all that . 

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Trends_in_global_average_absolute_sea_level,_1870-2008_(US_EPA).png

     The best explanation for climate change to date seems to be that the powers that be would like to find some compelling reason for carbon taxes and carbon trading.  

    • ExcellentNews

      Utter BULLSH-T. Now go post on some other forum, asking for inheritance tax cuts to our “job creators” and bankers… (who exported 15,000,000 American jobs and created 85,000,000 Chinese jobs since 2000 – but let’s not get little things like facts get in your way). 

      • wbsurfver

         please post your sources for how much the sea level has risen in the last 30 years is all I ask. Do you have those numbers ?

        • Jack Wolf

          Go to NOAA, but then you probably don’t trust government sources.  So, try any oceanographic institute and they will say the same.  Woods Hole Institute is a good one to try.

          • wbsurfver

             I looked at NOAA site. It only predicts future trends, current trends to date on that NOAA site seem to show what I said which is about 1/10 of an inch per year or less than a foot per century. They claim the rate is increasing based on a supposed 2/100 of an inch increase per year (additional) which seems very minor if significant.
            If that is true then claims of sinking islands and eskimo villages seems to be hype and where there is hype one needs to be careful such as claims in the 1980′s that everyone was going to get AIDS

      • wbsurfver

         If you can’t do a simple google search to figure out how much the sea level has actually risen in the last 30 years, I don’t see how you can call me unscientific denier .. It only shows that the debate is unscientific and politically motivated. You are relying on other people rather than you’re own understanding – the so called experts who work for some agency and are assigned the task of finding evidence of global warming or you find some other person who you dislike politically whom the media parades around and you associate everyone who disagrees with you with that person ..

    • Jack Wolf

      Check NOAA, and anyone with waterfront property along the eastern seaboard as reference that the level of rise is increasing.

      And, your link won’t open.

      • wbsurfver

         The links work fine for me ..

         One should be careful as beach erosion could cause property damage rather than a rising sea level.

  • wbsurfver

    When they say an eskimo village is sinking, that village is on a barrier island. Houses being washed away, coastal erosion. Pacific islands are sinking rather than the sea rising. Those facts match up with the facts that the sea level has only risen a few inches in the last 50 years. 

  • ExcellentNews

    Wow, the “denier” shills paid by the coal and oil PACs (and their volunteer flunkies enlisted via Pox News and the fundamentalist blogs) are out in force today…

    Evidence for climate warming in the last 100 years – It is overwhelming, it is present in every large-scale data or geophysical survey. You can see it for yourself by visiting any glacier or flying over the Sierra.

    Evidence for man-made CO2 being the cause of this warming – admittedly is it less direct, but it is the ONLY factor that can be accounted for to explain the warming. It is also in full agreement with both basic physics as well as complex computer models.

    Evidence for the force behind the deniers – about 2.5 TRILLION in annual profit by coal and oil oligarchs. There are virtually no new net jobs created in the carbon economy. The technology is 100 years old and highly optimized (don’t preen about fracking jobs – it is a transient drop in the bucket overall). Virtually all the money disappears in the pockets of a handful of global oligarchs and repressive third-world regimes.

    Stop carbon. Not only it will be better for our long-term environment. It will be better for DEMOCRACY and FREEDOM too.

    • wbsurfver

       The oil companies are not going to lose a cent. If coal is hurt, it may help the oil companies. Do you really belive that ? No, it will be you and me who is going to pay not the oil companies.

      or try this one out, 20,000 people in uganda evicted from their homes at gun point, many murdered for carbon offsets. Hadn’t heard that on NPR ? Gee I wonder why ?

      http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100107476/killing-ugandans-to-save-the-planet/

    • Jack Wolf

      Nicely said, but they won’t listen until they bottom out. 

      And when I don’t understand how people act against their own self-interests, I remember the wise words of Mom: “Never forget that 50% of the population has below average intelligence”.

ONPOINT
TODAY
Aug 28, 2014
Photos surround the casket of Michael Brown before the start of his funeral at Friendly Temple Missionary Baptist Church in St. Louis, Monday, Aug. 25, 2014.  (AP)

The message that will last out of Ferguson with New Yorker writer Jelani Cobb.

Aug 28, 2014
Some of the hundreds of earthquake damaged wine barrels cover and toppled a pair of forklifts at the Kieu Hoang Winery, Monday, Aug. 25, 2014, in Napa, Calif. A powerful earthquake that struck the heart of California's wine country caught many people sound asleep, sending dressers, mirrors and pictures crashing down around them and toppling wine bottles in vineyards around the region. (AP)

Drought in California, earthquake in Napa. We look at broken bottles and the health of the American wine industry.

RECENT
SHOWS
Aug 27, 2014
The cast of the new ABC comedy, "Black-ish." (Courtesy ABC)

This week the Emmys celebrate the best in television. We’ll look at what’s ahead for the Fall TV season.

 
Aug 27, 2014
Russian President Vladimir Putin, left, shakes hands with Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko, right, as Kazakh President Nursultan Nazarbayev, center, looks at them, prior to their talks after after posing for a photo in Minsk, Belarus, Tuesday, Aug. 26, 2014. (AP)

Vladimir Putin and Ukraine’s leader meet. We’ll look at Russia and the high voltage chess game over Ukraine. Plus, we look at potential US military strikes in Syria and Iraq.

On Point Blog
On Point Blog
Poutine Whoppers? Why Burger King Is Bailing Out For Canada
Tuesday, Aug 26, 2014

Why is Burger King buying a Canadian coffee and doughnut chain? (We’ll give you a hint: tax rates).

More »
1 Comment
 
Why Facebook And Twitter Had Different Priorities This Week
Friday, Aug 22, 2014

There’s no hidden agenda to the difference between most people’s Facebook and Twitter feeds this week. Just a hidden type of emotional content and case use. Digiday’s John McDermott explains.

More »
1 Comment
 
Our Week In The Web: August 22, 2014
Friday, Aug 22, 2014

On mixed media messaging, Spotify serendipity and a view of Earth from the International Space Station.

More »
Comment