Global Warming Better, Worse Than We Thought

Ah, Lancet. The same publication that claimed 100,000 people died in the Iraq liberation? Might as well be reporting the findings of Pravda.

If global warming is the biggest health risk in this century, that must mean that we'll beat malaria, world hunger, HIV, lack of potable water, cancer and the heebee jeebies.

As for how much the sea would rise if the West Antarctic ice sheet collapsed, good thing it's all still speculation based on dodgy "best guess" computer models. Besides, the ice mass in the Eastern Antarctic is gaining mass and more than offsetting any loss in the West. So, keep buying that beachfront property in Nevada.

Doesn't anyone do any fact-checking over at PopSci?

Well I must respectfully disagree with the other comment. I have put hundreds of hours of research into the actual scientific data, one advantage of being disabled and stuck in a bed, lots of time to do such homework.

While I'm not sure as to the rising sea levels, I can point out as to why the health risk is increased. With a warming of the atmosphere comes shifts in weather patterns. One of the problems this is already causing is that in some areas such as Los Angeles and where I live (Central Valley) we have been getting by far more days where the air is trapped thus the pollution as well, than days with a good air quality rating. China is an even better example, they tried and tried to somehow get theirs cleared for the Olympics and it was unhealthy levels even for health people.

The way I look at the entire issue is this quote from one of my artworks... "Either we will learn to control our pollution or our pollutions will control us eventually!"

Teknowizard:

I must respectfully inform you that the air quality in LA today is far better than it was 30-40 years ago. Instead of spending hundreds of hours reading the speculation of the GW fear mongers at popsci.com, try spending a few minutes at this site, run by a meteorologist who does, you know, real science: wattsupwiththat.com/

With regard to alarmist slant of the article, it's becoming obvious to a majority of people that so-called "global warming", or as they've repackaged it, "climate change", is not man-made: www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/environment/energy_update. The supposed scientists that continue to spout these lies do so largely out of group-think at best and greedy malevolence at worst.

Tek, I strongly encourage you to do some real objective research on this. You seem like a kind soul who's just a little misinformed. Dig around just a little bit and you'll find that these theories are widely speculative and based on computer models for which the "researchers" will not share the code. That's not objective science, it's snake oil.

While I'm not sure as to the rising sea levels, I can point out as to why the health risk is increased. With a warming of the atmosphere comes shifts in weather patterns.[snip]

Actually, global temps have been declining quite dramatically for the last couple of years and in net decline for the past 10. The IPCC itself has projected that temps will decline for the next 20 years though given the accuracy of its past predictions, perhaps we should take the IPCC with a grain of salt.

So, are all those supposed health problems Teknowizard is citing really a result of global warming? As someone who grew up in LA, I can attest that the air has gotten cleaner and the weather is milder this decade relative to the 1990's. But, that's probably an El Nino/La Nina thing.

Laughingboy, I have to agree with you. The Lancet has been placed in my ignore list. They have come out with poorly written and reviewed articles in the past. They published the now infamous MMR vaccine and autism association article that scared many patients of mine. Even today the uban myth of its association reverberates in the paranoia of autism propaganda. And guess what, there have been measles and mumps outbreaks in my community because of vaccine avoidance. And now, politics have taken over Pop Sci, Pop Mechanics, Scientific American, and Science News. Anthropogenic Global Warming is now a undisputable fact, based on scientific "somebody said so". And there are NO REPUTABLE scientist who disagree with this LAW OF ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE. Therefore, I am not a reputable scientist. And I know how Coppernicus and Galileo felt.

The greatest threat to health this century is overpopulation.
Why we ignore the issue it just gets worse. Global warming is just one of the many effects of overpopulation.
---------------------------------

For you doubters about global warming... think about this
A glass of water with ice in it should stay about the same temperature while being heated until all the ice is gone. Once the ice is gone is when the temperature really changes.

The reason I bring this up is this. Too many of you want to discuss the issue of temperature change, but you ignore the discussion of how much ice is being lost, when this is what's important. It isn't getting much hotter because the heat energy is being used to convert ice into water, which doesn't change temperature at all. I must admit I haven't read this in anything recently, but is implied in talk about rise in sea water, etc.

The ice that's been around for a very long time is now not going to be there to stabilize the temperature. Whether this phenomenon is totally man-kinds fault is another discussion.

Now if you were a doubter and just realized the truth you can start crapping your pants with the rest of us.

Well, how many times have the ice caps melted before? Or a better questions might be: how come no global warming proponents know the answer to that question? Try asking them! If their biggest fear really is the ice caps melting, wouldn't they have looked it up?

They won't know that one, but they will know ALL ABOUT the "cures" for "climate change"--the draconian controls and restrictions they want to impose on humanity "for our own good". This is what interests them, and this is what they spend their time studying. It's never been about saving the world. It's always been about imposing a political agenda.

F.U.D. (Fear Uncertainty and Doubt)Sells Advertising Space.
We have nothing to fear, except becoming fearful ourselves.

Global Warming and then the name change to 'Climate Change' indicated to me that the science was dodgy at best and at its worst, a social engineering tool by governments to control behaviour and eventually attempt physical control of populations.

I like the way kyleb2112 is thinking.

Official channels are all suspect. Including Pop Sci.

I can die from exposure right now... I don't need extreme weather to confirm that...

Woomyse:

"Official channels are all suspect. Including Pop Sci."

Pop Sci is to science what Miley Cyrus is to music. While some of their stories are interesting and the covers are always sharp, it's been made pretty clear by the slant of the writers here that they aren't interested in science; they're interested in promoting what they believe is a popular agenda. Like many of the predictions they've made over the life of the publication, they're wrong.

For you doubters about global warming... think about this
A glass of water with ice in it should stay about the same temperature while being heated until all the ice is gone. Once the ice is gone is when the temperature really changes. [snip]

Actually maven, the polar icecaps are getting bigger, not smaller. The Antarctic ice cap has gotten bigger for at least the last 30 years. While the Arctic ice cap did shrink up until 2007, it has expanded dramatically in the last two years reaching the same level it was at in 1979. Recent expeditions to the Arctic have also revealed that the Arctic ice cap is twice as thick as previously reported here at PopSci yet strangely, PopSci hasn't reported that little factoid. So, the entire premise of your argument is false.

As for the overpopulation thing, man, Dr. Julian Simon debunked that argument in the 1980's.

Maven has a great point. The REAL issue is overpopulation. Before 1900, it took hundreds of years for the population to grow by 1 billion people. It has taken a little over 12 years I believe for the world's population to grow by another billion. I don't know the exact numbers, but they are easy to find. The more population the planet has, the more energy we must consume. http://www.photosig.com/go/journals/read?id=1776&forward=myjournalentries

The reason I bring this up is this. Too many of you want to discuss the issue of temperature change, but you ignore the discussion of how much ice is being lost, when this is what's important. It isn't getting much hotter because the heat energy is being used to convert ice into water, which doesn't change temperature at all. I must admit I haven't read this in anything recently, but is implied in talk about rise in sea water, etc.
hwww.globalwarming360.net

I say we make huge freezera and plae them around the ice to keep them cold so they dont melt. :l

^ freezers not freezera