Don't know how many watched the CBS special on global warming Sunday evening. There was an amazing (almost certainly deliberate) missed opportunity for the intervier who was there on the western Antactic coast talking about the rapid melting of the glacial termini there (they extend way out into the Antarctic Ocean). They are being melted not by warming of the polar area per se but by the warming Circum-Antarctic Current which comes into contact with the glaciers on the west coast where the melt is occuring. The eastern side of Antarctica is experiencing no such melting as the current does not come as close to the continent there. Also, no evidence the main ice sheet of Antactica is in meltdown. Obviously that current is warmer now than in years past. It gets measured frequently I'm sure, so the WLS's should have known it was getting warmer for years now.
The scientist being interviewed was our leading Antarctic climate man there (don't recall the name, but one of the World's Leading Scientists I am sure). He stated: "We thought this glacial melting would not occur for at least another ten years. But it is happening now!"
Question not asked: "Well sir, if your computer models couldn't project even this one element of the effect of GW on the Antarctic any more accurately than this, why should anyone believe the rest of your models are any better?"
Question 2: Is it possible CBS only reports what fits its agenda and avoids asking embarassing questions like this?
Bad ( Repent! The end is near! ) Bob
OK Deke-Time for counterpoint!
CBS and the whole truth
-
john elder
- Star Board Poster
- Posts: 8668
- Joined: Mon Sep 22, 2003 2:44 pm
Well, Bob, I screwed up...didn't hear about the show, so don't even have it on TiVo! Wish I'd have seen it. In any event, I'll do something outrageous and agree with you on a couple things at least:
1. The news reporting is always biased to tell the story they want you to hear...and it is hardly ever "dog bites man", eh?
2. Models are just that..models. And being in molecular biology, I can tell you that models are excellent ways to prove answers you already know...you want a real "deer-in-the-headlights" look, ask a modeler to risk his tenure on the outcome of his model predictions.
Having said that, i think we have to keep trying to model, since that is our only hope to see things coming that could be addressed...unless a new jean Dixon happens along...haven't had a good Psychic pop up in 20 years!
The Deke
(who continues as poster boy for the adage: "keep your mouth shut and appear stupid or open it and remove all doubt")
1. The news reporting is always biased to tell the story they want you to hear...and it is hardly ever "dog bites man", eh?
2. Models are just that..models. And being in molecular biology, I can tell you that models are excellent ways to prove answers you already know...you want a real "deer-in-the-headlights" look, ask a modeler to risk his tenure on the outcome of his model predictions.
Having said that, i think we have to keep trying to model, since that is our only hope to see things coming that could be addressed...unless a new jean Dixon happens along...haven't had a good Psychic pop up in 20 years!
The Deke
(who continues as poster boy for the adage: "keep your mouth shut and appear stupid or open it and remove all doubt")