cg22165 (Chris Golledge)


Comment history

Letter: Real climate threat

As it happens, I kind of enjoy coffee, chocolate, air conditioning, and water I can drink coming straight out of a pipe. I'm trying to avoid a future where those things are hard to come by. It would be easier for us to achieve this if the climate were changing less rapidly.

November 22, 2015 at 11:51 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Letter: Real climate threat

Is there some reason you think Mr. Delingpole, columnist for Breitbart, has a better understanding of the research done by Dr. Zwally than Zwally himself?

November 21, 2015 at 9:18 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Letter: Real climate threat

What climate research has Dyson done in the last 20 years, and why should we trust his word over the hundreds of people who actually have done research.

You express a desire to work with facts, but you have only brought opinion to the table.

November 21, 2015 at 8:03 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Letter: Real climate threat

Provider: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd
Content:text/plain; charset="UTF-8"

AU - Church, John A.
AU - White, Neil J.
AU - Konikow, Leonard F.
AU - Domingues, Catia M.
AU - Cogley, J. Graham
AU - Rignot, Eric
AU - Gregory, Jonathan M.
AU - van den Broeke, Michiel R.
AU - Monaghan, Andrew J.
AU - Velicogna, Isabella
C8 - L18601
TI - Revisiting the Earth's sea-level and energy budgets from 1961 to 2008
JO - Geophysical Research Letters
JA - Geophys. Res. Lett.
VL - 38
IS - 18
SN - 1944-8007
UR -
DO - 10.1029/2011GL048794
SP - n/a
EP - n/a
KW - aerosol
KW - energy budget
KW - sea level
KW - 0720 Glaciers
KW - 0726 Ice sheets
KW - 1641 Sea level change
KW - 4556 Sea level: variations and mean
PY - 2011
ER -

Feel free to pick another from this list if you like,

November 21, 2015 at 2:21 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Letter: Real climate threat

Well David, you can decide that hundreds of thousands of people _will_ die because no one will help them, or you can decide that a few hundred people _might_ die because there are a handful of bad apples in those hundreds of thousands. That's really what the choice boils down to.

November 21, 2015 at 11:54 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Letter: Real climate threat

"Sorry, Mike but the 97% number has been debunked."

Debunked by whom? I've seen half a dozen studies on the subject of this consensus, and they all come in within the same ballpark. Do you have something other than an opinion page to support your belief, or did you just decide that the person telling you what you wanted to hear must be correct?

November 21, 2015 at 11:37 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Letter: Real climate threat

"But if there has been no “global warming” for nearly 19 years.. "

That's a pretty big "if", especially considering that the heat content of the planet has been increasing by 3 or 4 Hiroshima size bombs per second for decades.

November 21, 2015 at 11:33 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Letter: Real climate threat

Wall of words.

However, you should get your science information closer to the source. The Breitbart article about the Antarctic ice has suffered distortion. (Think of the telephone game.)

The original article explains that the East Antarctic ice sheet has been gaining mass since the end of the last glacial period. Basically, it's still very cold in East Antarctica, but the surrounding ocean has warmed. Relatively warm water and leads to relatively more moisture content in the air. When the moist air travels inland and cools, more snow falls. The original article in no way supports any kind of conclusion that the world is not warming.

Also, you might want to consider that there have been a score of research studies about the ice mass in Antarctica, and all the others show loosing mass. The original article is very interesting, but I think you are a bit premature to hang your hat on it.

November 21, 2015 at 11:28 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Letter: Real climate threat

"The effect of releasing excess carbon into the atmosphere should be debatable."

It depends on what you mean by that. If you mean the indirect effects, the feedbacks like how quickly methane will be released, increasing the GHG effect, or what are the changes in snow and ice cover doing to change how much sunlight is absorbed versus how much is reflected, yes, there is some wiggle room left in these estimates.

On the other hand, if you mean the direct effect of CO2, there is very little wiggle room left. The science of gas spectroscopy, how radiant energy flows through gasses, has advanced quite a bit since Tyndall first discovered that CO2 affects infrared in the 1850s. If you mean to debate that CO2 has an effect, that's not really a reasonable debate. There is a mountain of evidence to support that it does, and zero evidence to support that it does not.

November 21, 2015 at 11:17 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Letter: Voting responsibly

Why should we have a law which prevents hundreds of voters from voting per election in order to not fix 11 voter fraud cases in 10 years?

November 13, 2015 at 10:44 a.m. ( | suggest removal )