Science Journalism Gem of the Day

[earthseed]

What is it about the climate change issue that attracts the most bizarre statements, even from those who should know better? In today's Energy Imbalance Behind Global Warming we find the following:<blockquote><em>In scientific terms, the imbalance is 0.85 watts per square meter. It's equal to nature shining an extra 1-watt light bulb on every desk-sized patch of the planet.<br /><br />It all adds up. If the imbalance were maintained for 10,000 years, it would melt enough ice to raise the oceans by six-tenths of a mile (1 kilometer), the scientists said.</em></blockquote>Considering that Greenland and Antarctica have enough ice that would raise the ocean level by 75 meters if it all melted, I would like to know where the other 925 meters of water will come from?<blockquote><em><br />The analysis lends support to the contentious idea that humans are contributing to the warming trend by burning gas, coal and other fossil fuels that generate greenhouse gases.</em></blockquote>No, this kind of analysis lends support to the idea that little of use can be learned about the climate change issue from the popular media.

 

[jurgens]

yep I was just going to point that out, but you did a good job =)

 

[ve7rkt]

Well, my WAG would be that there's a couple meters worth in the rest of the north polar ice cap, and another meter or two in glaciers worldwide... so, only 910 more meters to go. <img src="/images/icons/laugh.gif" /><br /><br />There's also no indication of who "the scientists" are. <b>I'm</b> a scientist, but they didn't ask me. Which is just as well, because most of what I 'know' about Global Warming comes from Expo '86 and Fifty Simple Things You Can Do To Pave The Earth.