« Bye-election Winners and Losers | Main | Misinterpreting the Elizabeth Poll »

March 02, 2010


Glenn K

Pilkey knows what he talking about. The last IPCC report was inaccurate and didn't include the Greenland or Antartic because of disagreements over the magnitude and the rate of melt in these areas. The world's media then reported that the IPCC had actually lowered it's sea level rise from the previous report in 2000. Of course nothing was further from the truth, all they had done was change the way they made their prediction. If you add back in possible melting from those areas the sea levels rise dramatically as Pilkey and others are now predicting.

Nicolette Bethel

Again, thanks Larry!

Pieter Hale

Have you come across any shaded elevation maps of New Providence?
Contour line maps are harder to read.
People probably would like to see one before they buy property that might be near or below sea level!

Also, I’m curious about how many islands will be formed within NP if sea level goes up a bit.

larry smith

check this out...



Scientific exploration requires critical skepticism.

Let me say first, I am an environmentalist. I believe doing all we can to preserve and protect our environment is essential to a healthy world.

I also am NOT a believer in Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW), - NO I am not a holocaust denier, nor do I believe the world is flat - but I do believe in Climate Change. There is no observable evidence to confirm supposed consensus that man is responsible for any kind of warming trend, which for the past 12 years has actually been more of a cooling trend, nor can the suggested course of action of the 'Alarmists' effectively fix anything - at least not according to their own information.

Taking the example of the rise of sea levels, lets look at what other good scientists can tell us about it. Those not motivated to follow the dogma of AGW.

In sea level rise theories, the melting ice caps are the most signifcant role player. The Arctic cap loses ice in the summer, but no one bothers to mention that we only began collecting data on it in 1979, at the end of the second-coldest period in the Arctic in a century. The ice had to be abnormally expanded then.

it's also floating ice, and melting it and doesn't change sea level at all. And, for all the headlines about loss of ice in Greenland, which does contribute to rising sea levels, the mean temperature there was much higher from 1910 through 1940. Between then and the late 1990s, temperatures in southern Greenland — the region where ice is melting — declined sharply.

Around the world, in Antarctica, for the last few decades, average temperatures across the continent have been going down. Snowfall has increased, resulting in more continental ice. In fact, every modern computer simulation of 21st century climate has Antarctica continuing to accrete ice.

Also, While today's balance between the icecaps and global sea level has been relatively steady since about 1000 B.C., it would be careless to assume that this is the Earth's natural state and that it should always be this way. What could happen to climate naturally in the next few thousand years? If the Earth continued to warm and break from ice age conditions, some of the remaining ice caps could melt. On the other hand, climate might swing back into another ice age. (In fact, some of the environmentalists now worried about global warming were worried about another ice age in the 1960s and 1970s.)

In either case, such a change in climate would take thousands of years to accomplish. Note that it has taken 18,000 years to melt 60% of the ice from the last ice age. The remaining ice is almost entirely at the north and south poles and is isolated from warmer weather. To melt the ice of Greenland and Antarctica would take thousands of years under any realistic change in climate. In the case of the East Antarctic Ice Sheet, which accounts for 80% of the Earth's current ice, Sudgen argues that it existed for 14,000,000 years, through wide ranges in global climate. The IPCC 2001 report states "Thresholds for disintegration of the East Antarctic ice sheet by surface melting involve warmings above 20° C... In that case, the ice sheet would decay over a period of at least 10,000 years." The IPCC is the United Nations' scientific committee on climate change; its members tend to be the minority that predicts global warming and its statements tend to be exaggerated by administrators before release. Given that the IPCC tends to exaggerate the potential for sea level rise, it is clear that no scientists on either side of the scientific debate on global warming fear the melting of the bulk of Antarctica's ice. Consider also this abstract of an article by Jacobs contrasting scientific and popular understanding:

'A common public perception is that global warming will accelerate the melting of polar ice sheets, causing sea level to rise. A common scientific position is that the volume of grounded Antarctic ice is slowly growing, and will damp future sea-level rise. At present, studies supporting recent shrinkage or growth depend on limited measurements that are subject to high temporal and regional variability, and it is too early to say how the Antarctic ice sheet will behave in a warmer world.'

How much concern should we have about the 20% of world ice outside the East Antarctic Ice Sheet? Some sources have recently discussed the "possible collapse" of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet (WAIS). It is suggested that this sheet (about 10% of Antarctic ice) could melt in the "near term" (a usefully vague phrase) and raise sea level 5 to 6 meters. Current understanding is that the WAIS has been melting for the last 10,000 years, and that its current behavior is a function of past, not current climate. The abstract of an article by Alley and Whillans addresses this:

"The portion of the West Antarctic ice sheet that flows into the Ross Sea is thinning in some places and thickening in others. These changes are not caused by any current climatic change, but by the combination of a delayed response to the end of the last global glacial cycle and an internal instability. The near-future impact of the ice sheet on global sea level is largely due to processes internal to the movement of the ice sheet, and not so much to the threat of a possible greenhouse warming. Thus the near-term future of the ice sheet is already determined. However, too little of the ice sheet has been surveyed to predict its overall future behavior."

The suggestion that humans have the power to turn planetary warming into cooling is a scientific absurdity. We have neither the technology, the means, the money, nor the political will to do this.

Consider the Kyoto Protocol, a "baby step" in the fight against global warming. It "requires" the U.S. to reduce its emissions of carbon dioxide to seven percent below 1990 levels by 2008-2012. Requirements vary by a percent or so for most other signatories such as Canada and the EU nations. Yet if every nation of the world met its Kyoto targets, the amount of warming that would be prevented is .07 degrees Celsius per half-century — an amount too small to even measure, as average surface temperatures fluctuate by about twice that much from year to year.

And there is so much more science out there that goes against or is different than what the 'consesus' scientists argue. I believe we should mitigate to the highest degree possible our actual impact on the environment. Pollution and CO2 emissions are harmful, even if in some instances highly exaggerated. My point is don't simply trust one argument, or one theory just because someone has labelled it consensus, there is always another side, and if, as I stated at the start, there is no critical skepticism, the truth will not be known.

For more on 'Consensus Science' read this article by Michael Creighton:

larry smith


Lil Tangerine

Pieter Hale


Looks like about 10.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Become a Fan


  • Bahama Pundit is a group weblog that publishes the work of top Bahamian commentators. We welcome your feedback. You may link to this site but no material may be reproduced without permission.

Email this blog

Global Village

  • Global Voices Online - The world is talking. Are you listening?

Site Meter

Blog powered by Typepad
Member since 09/2005

Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner