Science Daily reports about the proceedings at the International Scientific Congress on Climate Change in Copenhagen this week. According to research presented at this congress, we are in deep trouble. The upper range of sea level rise by 2100 could be around one meter, or possibly more. In the lower end of the spectrum it looks increasingly unlikely that sea level rise will be much less than 50 cm by 2100.

“The oceans are continuing to warm and expand, the melting of mountain glacier has increased and the ice sheets of Greenland and Antarctica are also contributing to sea level rise”, says Dr John Church of the Centre for Australian Weather and Climate Research and the lead speaker in the sea level session.

“The ice loss in Greenland has accelerated over the last decade. The upper range of sea level rise by 2100 might be above 1m or more on a global average”, says Konrad Steffen, Director of the Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences (CIRES) at the University of Colorado, Boulder and co-chair of the congress session on sea level rise.

And John Church again: “Unless we undertake urgent and significant mitigation actions, the climate could cross a threshold during the 21st century committing the world to a sea level rise of metres.”

Global sea level? What’s that? A computed average just like the global temperature? As if the sea level was exactly the same all over the world. And affected by the very same factors. Are the alarmist getting desperate in their attempts to curb our use of fossil fuels? First, it was the temperature, then the acidification of the ocean, now we are going to drown. What’s next?

You have probably heard of Mark Lynas, 35 years of age, alarmist writer and environmental activist focused on climate change. In today’s Guardian he serves us a scary dish - forget about the 2 degree C global warming. It’s going to be much, much worse.

According to Lynas, the former chairman of the IPCC, Bob Watson, warns us to prepare for 4C global warming. To avoid that, we must make drastic CO2 cuts now. Bob was kicked out of the IPCC by the Bush administration for being speaking too loudly about the global warming threat, Lynas says. Nevertheless, he has continued his quest for a carbon-free world. After leaving the IPCC, he chaired the Millenium Ecosystem Assessment, a UN study looking at the sad future of our planet’s natrual systems. So he, if anybody, should know.

Lynas and Watson are very skeptic about the future of humanity.

“Yes, we should certainly prepare for the worst as far as possible – with flood defences, drought-resistant crops and strategies to ameliorate the loss of wildlife, at the very least – but a look at the likely impact of a four-degrees temperature rise suggests that such a dramatic change would probably stretch society’s capacity for adaptation to the limit, not to mention having a disastrous effect on the natural ecosystems that support humanity as a whole.

(…) The planet would be in the throes of a mass extinction of natural life approaching in magnitude that at the end of the Cretaceous period, 65m years ago, when more than half of global biodiversity was wiped out.”

Rivers will run dry, rainforests will collapse and burn, ferocious heatwaves will kill millions. We are heading for a total meltdown of life as we know it. The solution? STOP BURNING ALL FOSSIL FUELS NOW! Sure, there are no viable alternatives but Mark Lynas would rather see the world return to medieval living conditions than allow for the mercury to rise.

Do not miss to read the comments. Some of them are quite funny.

Wednesday’s Seattle Times article, ”UW Study Examines Decline of Snowpack” begins as follows,

“Maybe the snow in the Cascade Mountains isn’t in such immediate peril from global warming after all.

Despite previous studies suggesting a warmer climate is already taking a bite out of Washington’s snowpack, there’s no clear evidence that human-induced climate change has caused a drop in 20th century snow levels, according to a new study by University of Washington scientists.”

The study findings (note: the study has not yet been peer-reviewed) have already become part of a scientific debate with an unusually political tone. A leading scientist on the other side of the debate (presumably an AGW-supporter) said the latest analysis speculates about the future and offers little new about the past. Well, almost the same is applicable to IPCC’s reports. Aren’t they just loose speculations about the future with no empirical evidence whatsoever?

We’ve been warned that the North Pole will be ice-free this summer. But according to the latest ICESat thickness estimates, it appears that the first-year sea ice in the Arctic Ocean so far this season is comparable in thickness to what it was in 2006 and 2007. Why is that?

The NSIDC says that sparse snow cover over the Arctic Ocean last winter resulted in less insulation from the bitterly cold air, resulting in faster, first-year ice growth. Snow was unable to accumulate last autumn since much of the Arctic Ocean was still ice-free, causing the snow to just melt into the open waters. Once the ice formed later in the fall, it accumulated more quickly than normal as there was very little barrier (snow) between the ice and the cold air just above the surface.

And how about that global warming anyway? The recent years’ fall in global temperatures has led to increasing speculation that global warming is over. The AGW-supporters explain that even if global temperatures rise and fall year-on-year this does not mean that global warming has stopped; only that the continuing rise in temperatures due to man made emissions of greenhouse gases is being temporarily masked.

So the first important question we should ask is:

Is the Earth warming?

NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory has confirmed that an impending phase shift in the Pacific Decadal Oscillation will likely bring colder temperatures for as many as the next 20-30 years.

What if the planet is actually entered a cooling phase while the world’s governments do their best to restrain the use of fossil fuels with no viable alternative at hand?

Regardless of the answer to the first question (“yes” or “no”), there are further uncertainties. Question number two is therefore:

If the world indeed is warming, what is the main cause of this warming and can we do anything to control climate change? And should the world be cooling, can we do anything to stop that?

If climate change is something beyond our control, shouldn’t we be doing everything we can to adapt instead of putting our money on useless mitigation measures?

IPCC indicates that the consequences of a global warming will be dire, with floods, droughts, famine and overall misery devastating the lives of all people.

But what if warming actually turns out beneficial? What is it is cooling we should worry about?

That is the third question we need to ask.

The papers are full of reports on shrinking glaciers, collapsing ice-sheets and worried polar bears. But the most important questions, those above, questions that still remain unanswered, have eluded us. So let’s get back to the basics of climate discussion instead of losing ourselves among thousands of fairly vague implications of what might or might not happen.

Homo sapiens. A fly’s faeces in the vast of the universe? Or a major player - powerful enough to smash and trash the planet we live on? Do we underestimate our influence? Or do we think too highly of ourselves?

In the current climate debate humans are often portrayed as greedy villains who proliferate, exploit and devastate. In order to save the Earth and thereby ourselves from destruction we must turn away from the sin of burning fossil fuels and adopt an environmentally sustainable lifestyle. The latter is defined as anything from refraining from flying to embracing the humble ways of the Amish. Is it fair?

Six and a half billion human beings are accused of jointly polluting the atmosphere to a catastrophic extent. Slowly but surely, we will boil ourselves, melt the ice caps, exterminate all species and put an end to all life on Earth. Are we really that powerful? Or are we just a bunch of megalomaniacs?

When our grandparents were in school it was thought that the universe was very small, perhaps only 5,000 light years across. 500 years ago it was thought that space was only a little bit bigger than the Earth. In modern times, with the power of technology, we are finally starting to grasp the immense size of the universe, and it is much bigger than anyone could have ever imagined. What do we know about all the forces that rule the universe? What do we know about all the mechanisms ruling the climatic system?

The Earth is around 4.5 billion years old and there have been at least four major ice ages in its past. It has withstood asteroids, reverses in polarity and many other truly catastrophic events. The modern form of Homo sapiens first appeared about 100,000 years ago and the Industrial Revolution started in England around 1733 with the first cotton mill. Supporters of AGW claim that in just about 300 years man has managed to strike a deathblow to the Earth’s fragile climate. Reversing the course of things will require total abstinence from fossil fuels.

I don’t have all the facts. Neither do I have all the answers. However, I dare to believe that blaming man for altering the climate and destroying the planet is giving ourselves way too much credit.

In today’s Times Argus, a Vermont publication, Dr. Alan Betts reflects on the analogy between smoking and the “global carbon-dioxide pollution” that comes from the burning of fossil fuels.

We now have public health advertising to warn teenagers of the long-term hazards of smoking. Why? Because for decades the tobacco industry encouraged teenagers to start smoking as a way of building its future market. (…) The biggest consequences from all our carbon dioxide emissions are also in the future, so it’s hard to grasp the significance of our addiction to fossil fuels for our children.

Dr. Alan Betts is Vermont’s leading climate scientist and the past president of the Vermont Academy of Science and Engineering. He received his B.A. in Theoretical Physics in 1967 and his M.A. in 1971 from Cambridge. He received his PhD. in Meteorology in London in 1970. From 1971-1979, he was a professor at Colorado State University before founding Atmospheric Research in Pittsford, Vermont, in 1979. Now how can such a well-educated man call carbon dioxide a pollutant and compare its effect with that of nicotine fumes?

All animals, including us humans, breathe out carbon dioxide, which is then used by plants during photosynthesis. Carbon dioxide is the principle food of plants. When the amount of carbon dioxide in the air increases the food available to the Earth’s plants increases. Carbon itself is the basis of all life on Earth and carbon atoms continually move through living organisms, the oceans and the atmosphere. When you watch your child grow, you actually watch CO2 being further processed. So why all those horror stories about CO2 poisoning the planet?

Another climate change scientist, Dr James Lovelock of Great Britain, predicts Apocalypse in The Daily Mail.

We’re all doomed! 40 years from global catastrophe – and there’s NOTHING we can do about it.

What is it with all those scientists? Are their predictions of total disaster just clumsy efforts to get noticed and published? And are journalists really so ignorant to the basic facts of biology?