START A RANT
SIGN UP / SIGN IN
GET PAID TO POST
FOLLOW ON TWITTER
START A RAVE
MY PROFILE
CONTACT US
ABOUT US
Science & Technology

Rant

Global Warming Solves island Dispute.

Posted 22 months ago|104 comments|1,732 views
Islands Sinking Below the Sea
Written by
Altruist
Eugene, OR
Many of the people on this site are demanding evidence that Climate Change is happening. After all it is still cold in the winter.

For the people in low lying islands there is little dispute. They can see their homes disappearing a little more each year. There are many island nations like the Maldives, Tuvalu, and Kiribati where the highest point in the nations range from six to fifteen feet. These islanders are looking for new homes.

This year an island in the Bay of Bengal disappeared below the waves, ending a territorial dispute between India and Bangladeshi. The Bay of Bengal island, which India called New Moore Island and Bangladesh referred to as South Talpatti, has ceased to exist.

This island was uninhabited and had no structures on it, but used to be 1.3 miles long and 1.1 miles wide and was 6 feet above sea level in 1990. See: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/na...

The article states that: "Bangladesh, a low-lying delta nation of 150 million people, is one of the countries worst-affected by climate change. A U.N. panel predicted that 17 percent of Bangladesh will disappear by 2050, displacing 20 million people, if water levels rise by 3.3 feet, as some predict."
EMAIL|FLAG THIS POST
COMMENTS
markbyrn
markbyrn
 Moderator
22 months ago: "It's not an island, it's a sand bar -- created following a cyclone just 40 years ago and this sandbar is in an estuary. Anyone who's lived near a river delta can tell you, "islands" such as this are created and destroyed on a regular basis all the time.

Whatever caused this sandbar to disappear, it most certainly wasn't global warming. Sea level rise from the nearest official gauge shows an increase of only 0.54mm per year."

http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrend...

Oh Al....sigh....
Out Of The Box
Out Of The Box
 Moderator
22 months ago: In Alaska, the trend data shows sea levels falling steadily over the last 60 years.

http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrend...
22 months ago: Sea levels will show up differently around the world.
Where I live the rate is about 6mm/year rise.
In Scotland it is less.

This is partly due to Isostatic bounce.

The mean across the planet will be positive and in the long term even one location in Alaska that is negative, will be positive.
Out Of The Box
Out Of The Box
 Moderator
22 months ago: Well, that depends on from where your starting point is. There are viking reports from the 1200's through the 1400's of expeditions farther north than the Arctic Circle.

Also, the tides are being influenced by the 21000-year perihelion cycle (or the 23000-year equinoctial precession) and the 41000-year obliquity cycle (Milankovich) of the earth, which will change the sea levels around the world.

A stick in the sand is not sufficient to suppose a rise in sea levels, and no accurate measurements can be made until we understand how these cycles affect redistribution of surface water.
22 months ago: You posted a link about a specific location in Alaska that shows short term falling sea levels. That is what I was commenting on.

If you are unsure about what is going on, then your use of one location in Alaska is pointless, which is the point I am making.
Out Of The Box
Out Of The Box
 Moderator
22 months ago: Oh, my bad. I thought from the comment you made:

"The mean across the planet will be positive and in the long term even one location in Alaska that is negative, will be positive."

...that an overall average sea level rise was inevitable.

My point is that we absolutely do not have the technology as of now to determine all the factors involved in measuring accurately the rise and fall of sea levels. We're talking a 41000 year axial tilt cycle, not 150 years of measurements. As the Earth wobbles to and fro, the bulge of the Earth changes with the centripetal forces exerted on it. We are also talking tectonic plate movement that is going to affect measurable sea levels worldwide.
22 months ago: That is junk.

The whole point of Milankovitch is that they are known and predictable.
That is what Milankovitch was about, an engineer working on the 'mechanics' of the earths movement.

If you are questioning Milankovitch then you are undermining your own POV.
Out Of The Box
Out Of The Box
 Moderator
22 months ago: I am not questioning Milankovich. The Milankovitch theory of climate change predicts that global ice volume, and hence sea-level changes, are controlled by long-term quasi-periodic variations in the earth's orbital parameters (obliquity, precession and eccentricity.

If you can show me a paper relating Milankovitch's work to changing sea levels absent a change in ice volume, or even a study done predicting the change in the rotational bulge, I would love to see it.
22 months ago:
"My point is that we absolutely do not have the technology as of now to determine all the factors involved in measuring accurately the rise and fall of sea levels."

You are questioning Milankovich because you claim we allegedly can't determine exactly the rise and fall of sea levels.

Yet you are using Milankovich cycles as a basis of refuting climate science and sea level rises and Milankovich cycles are basic mechanical/physical cycles that are predictable.

You are contradicting yourself.
Out Of The Box
Out Of The Box
 Moderator
22 months ago: Milankovitch dealt with climate change theories based on Earth's rotational and orbital variations.
As I requested before, if you know of any models Milankovitch designed to give a worldwide point by point prediction of sea levels, then please share it. Any models based on the Milankovitch theories would be acceptable also.
22 months ago: out of the box said:
Also, the tides are being influenced by the 21000-year perihelion cycle (or the 23000-year equinoctial precession) and the 41000-year obliquity cycle (Milankovich) of the earth, which will change the sea levels around the world.

It is you that is basing your opinion about sea levels on Milankovitch cycles.
By definition it is a 'model' because it is based on maths and is predictable.

At the same time you are contradicting yourself by saying that it is all to complicated to know anything about sea levels:

out of the box said:
My point is that we absolutely do not have the technology as of now to determine all the factors involved in measuring accurately the rise and fall of sea levels.

eg. If you are dependent on earths movements to predict sea levels then they are very predictable and effectively you are writing them out of your own POV because you are saying the system is more complicated. You are shooting your own feet.
Out Of The Box
Out Of The Box
 Moderator
22 months ago: Ok, Hampy, I can see that logical thought is not your forte. Neither is English.

First off, what is the definition of "influenced"? Does this mean that the "influencer" is the sole factor in determining everything about the"influencee"? No. As a matter of fact, there can be many influences affecting any particular subject of influence.

Secondly, let me try to spell this out in a way you can understand.

Although it is true that the perihelion, aphelion, equinoctial precession and the obliquity cycles can be very accurately predicted mathematically, this only speaks to the position of the earth relative to its former and previous states.

Some theories regarding ice ages have been extrapolated based on the ice age evidence when compared to the cycles of the Earth.

As of now, to the best of my knowledge, no accurate studies have been possible regarding the rotational changes in the earth as it affects sea levels, the gravitational effects of the sun as it affects sea levels, and the axial changes in the Earth's tilt as it would affect sea levels.

I never said "it is all to complicated to know anything about sea levels".
What I said is that we don't know everything about sea levels. Climate change is but one variable in the changing sea levels.
Here is what I actually said:

"My point is that we absolutely do not have the technology as of now to determine all the factors involved in measuring accurately the rise and fall of sea levels."
22 months ago:

Although it is true that the perihelion, aphelion, equinoctial precession and the obliquity cycles can be very accurately predicted mathematically, this only speaks to the position of the earth relative to its former and previous states.

You need to brush up on your English.
But your next comment is a 'classic' and swamps this one.


As of now, to the best of my knowledge, no accurate studies have been possible regarding the rotational changes in the earth as it affects sea levels, the gravitational effects of the sun as it affects sea levels, and the axial changes in the Earth's tilt as it would affect sea levels.

Oh dear.
Are you really seriously suggesting that gravitational effects caused by these long term cycles (such as perihelion) are going to have an influence on sea levels???!!!
Very amusing.
Get that foot bandaged up quickly before you take another shot at it!

Think carefully about what you are saying.
What does the earth do every day?
that is a clue by the way!
Another clue is 'tide'.

There are other gravitational influences on sea levels, such as land masses etc.
But the main influence of the precessions/ cycles are the solar radiation that hits the earth.


I never said "it is all to complicated to know anything about sea levels".
What I said is that we don't know everything about sea levels.

That statement can be applied to every field of science. We don't know everything about particles, gravity, brains, oceans, the climate of Mars or cancer etc.
That is not a reason for rejecting science or not taking action based on the knowledge we are aware of.
TheLegendTomWing
TheLegendTomWing
 Administrator
 Philadelphia, PA
22 months ago: Let's try to avoid Ad Hominem attacks and just stick to the debate, which I am thoroughly enjoying.
scotmanster
scotmanster
22 months ago: "As I requested before, if you know of any models Milankovitch designed to give a worldwide point by point prediction of sea levels, then please share it."

I think you are giving him every attempt to prove his point OOTB. I would be interested in seeing those models too Hampy.
Content Removed by HampyUK
22 months ago: I would rather hear how this new gravity works that Out of the Box has come across.

I suppose if we had a black hole orbiting us, it might do some weird bending around the planet and evenly 'influence' sea levels.
Content Removed by HampyUK
Out Of The Box
Out Of The Box
 Moderator
22 months ago: "Tides are the rise and fall of sea levels caused by the combined effects of the gravitational forces exerted by the Moon and the Sun, and the rotation of the Earth."

tp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tide

Now, as the Earth is an viscoelastic sphere, it bulges along the rotational equator. As the axis of rotation changes, the bulge shifts to the new rotational equator. This happens very slowly.

More to come.
22 months ago:
As of now, to the best of my knowledge, no accurate studies have been possible regarding the rotational changes in the earth as it affects sea levels, the gravitational effects of the sun as it affects sea levels, and the axial changes in the Earth's tilt as it would affect sea levels.

We are all waiting for your explanation of this new gravity you have discovered that can apparently work at right angles (and many other angles apparently) to normal gravity.

Actually I am wondering how the earth orbits the Sun at all with this new gravity you have found.
22 months ago: Out of the Box said:
Although it is true that the perihelion, aphelion, equinoctial precession and the obliquity cycles can be very accurately predicted mathematically, this only speaks to the position of the earth relative to its former and previous states.

Just to add another spanner in the works. The cycles have been calculated to at least 800,000 years into the past and 800,000 years into the future. These calculations have been available since 1978 and have been updated recently and extended.

As well as being used to calculate insolation, they are also used in the calculation of yearly tidal tables.
Out Of The Box
Out Of The Box
 Moderator
22 months ago: HampyUK

I'm glad to see that you have been doing your homework, and actually learning new things.

Before I can expound upon what you call "new gravity that OOTB has found" I need to understand where you have misinterpreted what I have presented. Can you please explain what you re referring to?
22 months ago: Spinning yourself out of trouble won't help.
Unless you want to go into politics.
Out Of The Box
Out Of The Box
 Moderator
22 months ago: "Spinning"

An excellent choice. As anyone who knows anything about the Earth knows, the Earth is not round. It is an oblate spheroid. What happens when you change the axis of rotation on an oblate spheroid?
The spheroid flattens out around the new axis. This being the case, liquid water and solid land are displaced along the changing bulge. This would account for certain areas having a decline in sea level, and other places having an increase.

The sea level has actually been rising steadily for as long as there have been worldwide measurements, or about 150 years, averaging out to about 15 cm per century.

This isn't about "winning" an argument. It's about putting the facts on the table. You got that point-by-point sea level prediction based on what we've been discussing yet?

When we get back, we will discuss RSL and ASL over the past 20,000 years, a relatively short period.
Content Removed by HampyUK
22 months ago:
This isn't about "winning" an argument. It's about putting the facts on the table. You got that point-by-point sea level prediction based on what we've been discussing yet?


I take it that you have read the moderators comments?

Have you understood the complete mess you have got yourself into?

I'm still waiting for the explanation of this new gravity you have found and why in your world, earths orbital cycles can't be calculated accurately over many millenia, past and present.
If you have messed up with your English, then fine, admit your mistakes and move on.
But don't be rude and arrogant.

Sure, facts are fine. But when you start posting stuff, I strongly suggest that you check that you are writing facts first.
Out Of The Box
Out Of The Box
 Moderator
22 months ago: HampyUK

OK, I will have to assume, by your lack of producing one, that there is no model of a point-by-point sea level prediction.

I also have to assume that you don't wish to have a logical discussion, but that you simply want to try to discredit those who disagree with you.

When I asked you to list the reasons why you thought I was talking about some "new gravity" , you fliply replied: "Spinning yourself out of trouble won't help.
Unless you want to go into politics."

"Are you really seriously suggesting that gravitational effects caused by these long term cycles (such as perihelion) are going to have an influence on sea levels???!!!"

Yes, in the sense that gravitational forces influence the distribution of surface water.

I haven't gotten myself into a "mess". If you want to continue to deliberately misconstrue other's statements, and take them out of context to try to poke holes in their arguments, then I can't continue with you. You deny my requests for proof of your arguments, and then you deny my request for clarification of what contention you have with my argument. Like I said before, you haven't brought anything to the table. You are just trying to dismantle and take away what others have brought.
22 months ago: Out of the Box said:
As of now, to the best of my knowledge, no accurate studies have been possible regarding the rotational changes in the earth as it affects sea levels, the gravitational effects of the sun as it affects sea levels, and the axial changes in the Earth's tilt as it would affect sea levels.

It is there for everyone to read.
Then you top it with:

Yes, in the sense that gravitational forces influence the distribution of surface water.

What do you call these effects caused by the Sun??
Tides by any chance?
Any gravitational effect of the Sun on the seas of the earth are daily. The forces rapidly move across the earths surface on a daily basis and cause the tides, along with the forces produced by the moon. They are well understood.

Any long term variation of earths orbit caused by the gravity of the Sun and Moon is going to have an impact on daily tides.

If the earths spin was such that one face always pointed towards the Sun (or the spin resulted in extremely long days), then indeed tides and sea levels would be different, but we probably would not be alive to see it. Although technically a slow sea level change over a very long day is still a tide.

Equatorial bulge...
The earths rotation is slowing down, hence the bulge (including that of the water and the atmosphere) is decreasing.
The change is imperceptible compared to other factors that are influencing sea levels today.

And the other classic:

Although it is true that the perihelion, aphelion, equinoctial precession and the obliquity cycles can be very accurately predicted mathematically, this only speaks to the position of the earth relative to its former and previous states.

Not sure why this has to be repeated just because you refuse to acknowledge mistakes.
22 months ago: You sir are an enigma.

You are toying with me.

I agree with you here.
markbyrn
markbyrn
 Moderator
22 months ago: Bengal Island succumbs to global warming nonsense " AP gets nutty over loss of a sandbar:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/03/25/be...
Perfect Horizon
Perfect Horizon
Chicago, IL
22 months ago: Perhaps Mark...but then explain the rapid deterioration of the ice around the south pole and the rapid decline in polar bear numbers due to them having to swim around to try and find food.
22 months ago: Perfect.

The problem is that too many people are putting to many gravel rocks on their driveways in the midwestern United States that in turn causes grasshoppers to hop higher into the air causing their poor little voice boxes to turn red as their you know whats.

We need to fight against gravel in the world!
Out Of The Box
Out Of The Box
 Moderator
22 months ago: John Turner of the British Atlantic Survey, regarding Antarctic ice

"By the end of the century we expect one third of Antarctic sea ice to disappear," says Turner. "So we're trying to understand why it's increasing now, at a time of global warming."
22 months ago: The organisation is the British Antarctic Survey.

http://www.antarctica.ac.uk/press/press_...


"Reporting in the journal Geophysical Research Letters scientists from British Antarctic Survey (BAS) and NASA say that while there has been a dramatic loss of Arctic sea ice, Antarctic sea ice has increased by a small amount as a result of the ozone hole delaying the impact of greenhouse gas increases on the climate of the continent."
Out Of The Box
Out Of The Box
 Moderator
22 months ago: Ah, yes, thank you for your correction in the title of the BAS.

So they have a hypothesis that supports their hypothesis. Nice.
Out Of The Box
Out Of The Box
 Moderator
22 months ago:
POLAR BEAR EXPERT BARRED BY GLOBAL WARMISTS

"Mitchell Taylor, who has studied the animals for 30 years, was told his views 'are extremely unhelpful' , reveals Christopher Booker."

"Dr Mitchell Taylor has been researching the status and management of polar bears in Canada and around the Arctic Circle for 30 years, as both an academic and a government employee. More than once since 2006 he has made headlines by insisting that polar bear numbers, far from decreasing, are much higher than they were 30 years ago. Of the 19 different bear populations, almost all are increasing or at optimum levels, only two have for local reasons modestly declined."

"Dr Taylor had obtained funding to attend this week's meeting of the PBSG, but this was voted down by its members because of his views on global warming. The chairman, Dr Andy Derocher, a former university pupil of Dr Taylor's, frankly explained in an email (which I was not sent by Dr Taylor) that his rejection had nothing to do with his undoubted expertise on polar bears: "it was the position you've taken on global warming that brought opposition".

"Dr Taylor was told that his views running "counter to human-induced climate change are extremely unhelpful". His signing of the Manhattan Declaration – a statement by 500 scientists that the causes of climate change are not CO2 but natural, such as changes in the radiation of the sun and ocean currents – was "inconsistent with the position taken by the PBSG".

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/colum...
22 months ago: 30 years ago...

1980. A bit misleading maybe??
In order to work out why polar bear numbers were the level they were in 1980, we need to know what happened in previous decades, eg. 1950s, 1960s and 1970s.
Once that is known we need to know what happened to bring numbers up since 1980.

I suspect, but might be wrong, that conservation measures have been more robust since the 1980s.

Has Mr Booker done the research into why changes in polar bear numbers (up and down) have occurred since the 1950s?

What relevance does this have to climate change and future prospects for polar bears?

I doubt if Mr Booker or the Telegraph knows or cares.
Out Of The Box
Out Of The Box
 Moderator
22 months ago: Hampyuk, is that a Nunavut name you have? It sounds like it.

Actually, Dr. Taylor has worked for the Nunavut government as a biologist for a long time. But since you wish to cast dispersions, and bring nothing to the table, I will bring it for you.

* 1965: About 10,000 (IUCN 1966)
* 1967: About 10,000 (Schuhmacher 1967)
* 1972: Roughly estimated at 20,000 (DeMaster & Stirling 1981)
* 1983: Perhaps 20,000 (Nowak & Paradiso 1983)
* 1996: 20,000 - 30,000 (Watson 1996)
* 1997: 22,000 - 27,000 (Garner 1997)
* 1998: 22,130 - 27,030 (Truett & Johnson 2002)
* 2001: At least 22,000 (Schliebe 2001)
* 2002: 21,500 - 25,000 (Lunn et al. 2002)
* 2005: 20,000 - 25,000 (Polar Bear Spec. Gr. 2005)
* 2006: 20,000 - 25,000 (IUCN 2006)


Read more: http://www.animalinfo.org/species/carniv...

Significant depletion of polar bear populations, attributed to over-hunting, occurred in Greenland and the Soviet Arctic beginning in the 1930's. Polar bear populations in Alaska, USA declined in the late 1960s and early 1970s in response to excessive hunting with the use of aircraft. As a result of the population losses of polar bears due to over-hunting, an international agreement was reached between the five nations with polar bears (Canada, Norway, USA, the former USSR and Denmark, which governed Greenland at that time). These nations signed the "International Agreement on the Conservation of Polar Bears" in 1973, which prohibits unregulated hunting and outlaws the hunting of the bears from aircraft and icebreakers. The agreement also obligates each nation to protect polar bear denning sites and migration routes, as well as to undertake, and share information on, polar bear research. This agreement and the resulting actions by the signatory nations were responsible for the recovery of the polar bear. The total polar bear population is generally considered to have remained stable since the 1980'
22 months ago: If you bothered reading my comment, you would see that you are confirming what I wrote and that I am not casting dispersions.

What the increase isn't related to is any increase or decrease in ice. eg. the conservation measures are masking the ice issues and given that the ice is going, polar bears are at risk.
Out Of The Box
Out Of The Box
 Moderator
22 months ago: Ah, but I did read your comment. And I can see your point. The rising population of polar bears is masking the declining numbers of polar bears. Quite similar to how global cooling is masking the effects of global warming, eh?
22 months ago: You are misrepresenting what I wrote.

The masking has nothing to do with the numbers of polar bears.
I was referring to the background causes and influences of any decline or growth.

It is likely that loss of ice will overwhelm any gains made by conservation measures made since 1980.
Out Of The Box
Out Of The Box
 Moderator
22 months ago: In all fairness, what you wrote could be true. If the polar bear population rose so dramatically from 1965 to 1980, then continued conservation should have led to further increases from 1980 till present. Instead, we have a plateau effect at the 25,000/30,000 range.

Could this be caused by less ice, or could it be the natural maximum the resources can support? Without data previous to 1965, it would be impossible to make an informed judgment. Some short term analysis will be available soon, as the polar caps have been restored for a couple of years, and birth rates will determine what the environment can bear. (no pun intended)

In 2005, the polar bear hunting quota was increased from 400 to 518 in the Nunavut province of Canada.
22 months ago: Taylors input is only useful from the perspective of conservation, not climate change.

Another point is that Taylor has publicly admitted that some populations of Polar bears are "experiencing deleterious effects from climate change".

And has stated that 4 populations of polar bears (out of 19) are having problems due to reductions in ice extent.

Taylor does not deny that the ice extent is reducing.
Having read Taylors comments about his knowledge of climate science, it doesn't surprise me that he wasn't accepted. His knowledge seems to be no better than an average blogger on the internet.
Out Of The Box
Out Of The Box
 Moderator
22 months ago: His views were to be considered to prove false the claims that polar bears are on the brink of extinction, a big selling point for the AWG scientific community.

Don't forget the actual article we were discussing, now, in you haste to discredit Dr. Taylor.

"Over the coming days a curiously revealing event will be taking place in Copenhagen. Top of the agenda at a meeting of the Polar Bear Specialist Group (set up under the International Union for the Conservation of Nature/Species Survival Commission) will be the need to produce a suitably scary report on how polar bears are being threatened with extinction by man-made global warming.

This is one of a steady drizzle of events planned to stoke up alarm in the run-up to the UN's major conference on climate change in Copenhagen next December. But one of the world's leading experts on polar bears has been told to stay away from this week's meeting, specifically because his views on global warming do not accord with those of the rest of the group."
Out Of The Box
Out Of The Box
 Moderator
22 months ago: Pardon my dyslexic fingers. AWG should have read AGW. I'll save you the trouble, since I know it would drive you crazy until you corrected me on it.
Out Of The Box
Out Of The Box
 Moderator
22 months ago: "Dr Taylor had obtained funding to attend this week's meeting of the PBSG, but this was voted down by its members because of his views on global warming."

Now which meeting are YOU talking about?
22 months ago:
His views were to be considered to prove false the claims that polar bears are on the brink of extinction, a big selling point for the AWG scientific community.

Incorrect.
What relevance has polar bear populations to climate change science??

You are confusing environmental campaigners and conservationists that would have had an interest in the outcomes of Copenhagen, with climate science.
Out Of The Box
Out Of The Box
 Moderator
22 months ago: "Incorrect.
What relevance has polar bear populations to climate change science??"

I don't know, you tell me.
I'm not the one who scheduled a PBSG conference at the Copenhagen climate summit.
22 months ago: You are confusing environmental campaigners and conservationists that would have had an interest in the outcomes of Copenhagen, with climate science.
Out Of The Box
Out Of The Box
 Moderator
22 months ago: Hampy, my friend, I am not the one who is confused here. You appear to be confusing two topics that can be discussed in the same thread. It can and will be done. Just for your own clarity, scroll up to the article about Dr. Taylor, Read it, and then read the conversation down as if it were a single topic.

Brief synopsis:

Dr. Taylor, considered one of the most prominent polar bear experts, was excluded from a meeting of PO-LAR-BEAR-EX-PERTS. The purpose of the meeting, which was held at the Copenhagen Climate Convention, was to discuss how global warming is affecting po-lar- bear-pop-u-la-tions.
22 months ago: I suggest you actually read my comments correctly.

You stated yourself that the polar bear issues was according to you a big selling point for the AGW scientific community.

I (correctly) questioned what relevance the polar bear issues has to climate science research eg. the AGW scientific community.

I also clarified the fact that polar bears are a conservation/environmentalist issue.

The point being is that climate science comes first in the sequence, then the impacts (polar bears and other issues) come as a consequence of understanding the climate.

My point was that conservationists and environmentalists make a big issue of polar bears not the 'AGW science community'.
scotmanster
scotmanster
22 months ago: The Polar Bear and their quote near "extinction was one of the linchpins for climate scientists. They used it as a tool to prove their point and here you are telling us it is all nonsense?

I totally disagree the climate community brought that correlation to the table we did not. Al Gore was the leading promoter of it with his fiction movie he brought to the table. Were was the scientific community then? Did they say no he is wrong it is this way? No they certainly did not. It was through other biologists that the false claims were rectified and savvy reporting that exposed climate change for what it really is.
Content Removed by HampyUK
22 months ago: Read very carefully what I write and in fact what Out of the Box wrote.

Al Gore is not a AGW scientist.

Why would a scientist who's expertise in climate want to make any statements about polar bear numbers in any official research paper??

That is why Taylors opinions on climate science is totally irrelevant. He can have an opinion about AGW, but he has not published no papers about the subject.

Also I don't know of any peer reviewed papers published by Gavin or Hansen etc that refer to polar bears.
Out Of The Box
Out Of The Box
 Moderator
22 months ago: HampyUK wrote:

"Having read Taylors comments about his knowledge of climate science, it doesn't surprise me that he wasn't accepted."

The meeting from which he was excluded was about polar bears. It was attended by polar bear experts.

The issue here is not Taylor's knowledge of climate science. The issue is that he was excluded from a meeting of polar bear experts because of his views on climate science.
22 months ago: Al.

Like Polar Bear pictures, you use pictures of flooded trees.

Quit it.
Altruist
Altruist
Eugene, OR
22 months ago: OK Mark I'll give you this one. The 6' island or sand bar was probably washed away with something like tidal or storm surges.

The sea level rise is as your NOAA site shows extremely variable depending on location and many factors like vertical movement of the land. like in Alaska which is probably rising in elevation. Trends look like they average around a foot in the next hundred years so if this is correct folk in Florida won't have to move for quite a while.

Actually I suspect that is also true for Tuvalu because they cut down all of their mangroves which can trap sand from storm surges and build up the island while a lack of trees to anchor the soil will facilitate it being washed away.

The same is true for coral which can trap sediment and protect the islands from those storm surges, while many islands may disappear because they simply sink.

Also I think the Polar Bear expert should have been listened to. Everyone needs to deal with facts not preconceived notions.
22 months ago: I doubt that a six foot above sea level island will disappear due to global warming causing a sea level rise and this be the only one! A six foot rise in the seas would be real news as much of Floridas coast would be much wetter, not to mention all those other places that are barely above the normal sea/ocean level.

As for polar bears, the "decrease" from 5,000 to 25,000 over the last 30 years was an impressive number of "deaths" due to loss of habitat, and no, I did not reverse the numbers nor use the wrong term. Global warming supporters actually said that and stood by their belief that PB's were all going to die, even though their numbers increased fivefold! http://blogs.dailymail.com/donsurber/arc...
That's just one link, there are many.

Sorry Al, I rate this post a hoax.
markbyrn
markbyrn
 Moderator
22 months ago: http://thehill.com/blogs/e2-wire/677-e2-wire/89617-green-think-tank-to-enviros-leave-climate-science-behind

Leaders of a contrarian environmental think tank, The Breakthrough Institute, have a way to get beyond the climate science wars: Break the link between global warming research and the push for low-carbon energy.

Ted Nordhaus and Michael Shellenberger, in a new essay in Yale Environment 360, argue that environmentalists are too eager to link natural disasters and dangerous weather to man-made climate change.

They say this is a losing hand that has been made even weaker by the furor over the now-infamous hacked climate science emails, and controversy surrounding the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

They write:

Climate science, even at its most uncontroversial, could never motivate the remaking of the entire global energy economy. Efforts to use climate science to threaten an apocalyptic future should we fail to embrace green proposals, and to characterize present-day natural disasters as terrifying previews of an impending day of reckoning, have only served to undermine the credibility of both climate science and progressive energy policy.

The essay also suggests that climate advocacy and research have become too intertwined, with environmentalists seeking to represent the science as "apocalyptic, imminent, and certain." The science has been harmed as a result, they argue, stating:

Greens pushed climate scientists to become outspoken advocates of action to address global warming. Captivated by the notion that their voices and expertise were singularly necessary to save the world, some climate scientists attempted to oblige. The result is that the use, and misuse, of climate science by advocates began to wash back into the science itself.
22 months ago: Environmentalists push for political change so it isn't surprising that they have different opinions on how to progress. In order to get even the most mild environmental policy pushed through legislation, environmentalists often have to engage in the same tactics that politicians do.

Scientists generally don't have to get involved with that sort of 'action' and discussion.

Having said that, what is usually at issue are time scales, not whether the scale of disaster is big or small.

Environmentalists work in the political and media domain where timescales tend to be under 50 years (100 years at most), hence they portray disaster happening within periods that politicians and media brains can cope with.
The fact that they appear to exaggerate is often due to politicians and the media unwilling to think beyond 50 years or more. The shorter the timescale the worse it gets, because a few millimetres per year in sea level rises isn't going to bother anyone.

On the issue of sea level rises whether a 6m rise happens in 50 years or 300 years, it is just as alarming if you take responsibility for it happening. It will cause just as many problems regarding land use and population migration. The eventual outcome will be similar.

Another point is that the media misrepresent sea level rises by quoting 'literally' what scientists say will be the case in 2100. The media assume a figure of 1m or 1.2m is the end of the story and planners can just plan for that.
Out Of The Box
Out Of The Box
 Moderator
22 months ago: So in other words, they have painted themselves as liars, falsified and exaggerated information and data, and pulled other scare tactic propaganda because they don't think other people are as smart as them.
22 months ago: Environmentalists vary a great deal and if you support politicians that are liars and a system that thrives on lying, then you only have yourself to blame.

You are also missing the primary point I made, which is time scales.

If politicians, the media and the public started thinking in terms of hundreds of years instead of a few decades then the need to campaign at all on environmental issues would be negated.

Maybe if they took on board the Iroquois seven generation rule, things would be better.
Altruist
Altruist
Eugene, OR
22 months ago: The reason the scientists are pushing control of CO2 is that many different tipping points are soon going to be met which will bring about uncontrollable catastrophic climate change. The science is driving the environmentalism and the urgency and not the reverse.

One of the tipping points is the release of methane from permafrost in the north and from methane hydrates trapped on the sea floor. Methane is something like 23 times more effective as a greenhouse gas than CO2. Enough hydrates are stored to power the earth for thousands of years but if the ocean temperatures rise enough the hydrates will become unstable and will bubble up.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8437703.stm

http://www.worldculturepictorial.com/blo...

Most of the scientists in the world are not very eager to prove that global warming is happening because of criticism from the doubters. They have therefore been very conservative in their estimates. When the IPCC was forced to retract their findings that the sea would rise about a foot in the next hundred years because they didn't consider everything, the AGW folk celebrated this retraction as another sign that the entire Global Warming concept was wrong.

But when everything was recalculated considering possible effects from ice sheets, the studies indicate that the scientists had actually lowballed the expected sea level rise and it would actually be three times what the IPCC stated, or around three feet.

http://climateprogress.org/2010/02/22/se...
22 months ago: It's getting cold in Australia right now. Funny that!
Wonder why?

:-)
markbyrn
markbyrn
 Moderator
22 months ago: ...It's getting cold in Australia right now. Funny that! Wonder why?...

That's easy. When Great Britain was busy colonizing the globe, the dim bulbs they exiled to Botany Bay decided to have winter during the summer.
scotmanster
scotmanster
22 months ago: 'methane hydrates trapped on the sea floor.'

The methane released is from plate tectonics and volcanic eruptions occurring on the sea floor their is no way to control or harness either to stop them. But what you suppose is that global warming is causing the release of methane?
scotmanster
scotmanster
22 months ago: "scientists not eager"

So you are saying it is a fact that scientists can be influenced from outside sources. I thought scientists were just about the facts? If something does not fit their personal ideologies then they can just altogether dismiss it or change the data to fit it? Interesting!
Eco logic
Eco logic
New Zealand
22 months ago: This started as a good string and justified because the AGW enthusiasts along with irresponsible journalists will grab at anything they think will support their warped cause. You actually do not need to be a scientist to make grandiose statements - that has been shown right here in this one case - I suggest you fellows use some common sense and realize that this world has changed in many ways over the past two or three thousand years (or as far back as you want to go) but for me a visit to the South of England to see just how far north the sailing ships used to navigate when the sea level of the time allowed or to visit Pompeii and note that the sailing ships used to dock right outside the city walls - all you so called scientists and experts are so tunnel visioned - the one comment I can really accept is that made earlier that said how little we know about almost every aspect of science - and that supports the fact that there has been one hell of a lot of 'best guess' science going on, especially about the concept of AGW
Content Removed by HampyUK
22 months ago: In this instance of the low-lying island, rising sea levels must have combined with tidal factors. Which are known to transport large volumes of material. But the instance raises the point that our planet is dynamic.

Iceland, for example, has grown an island, a volcanic island. We are blessed with a large moon and it insures our Earth is a dynamic, changing place.

My prediction? By 2020, shipping will plan and use the northwest passage, now rarely open.
22 months ago: eco logic:

"I suggest you fellows use some common sense and realize that this world has changed in many ways over the past two or three thousand years (or as far back as you want to go) but for me a visit to the South of England to see just how far north the sailing ships used to navigate when the sea level of the time allowed or to visit Pompeii and note that the sailing ships used to dock right outside the city walls..."

Your comment isn't very clear but I am assuming that you mean that in the South of England there are some places now that were once on the coast and are now inland, cut off from the sea.

Well, in the past Brits were quite active in land management. Also natural erosion results in deposits silting up rivers and islands joining up with the mainland.

I think you are confusing natural geological processes with other issues that have an impact on sea levels. I know one well known port that is cut off from the sea now that was used in WWI for shipping arms, even then it was opened up especially for military purposes and wasn't practical commercially because it silted up very quickly.

The general public get confused between issues like this and alleged sea levels falling. Even with sea levels rising, you will get changes in coastal landscapes that will seem to be counter intuitive.

The dynamics of rising sea levels can cause varied problems. If a river is dumping tonnes of silt into the sea every day, but sea levels rise and interfere with that process, then all sorts of changes can occur.
Eco logic
Eco logic
New Zealand
22 months ago: Yes yes - for whatever simple explanation one can draw from - and just mentioned two that I have seen for myself (and there are plenty more) there will always be the shooting from the hip reply rubbishing the concept - the fact is that worldwide there is undeniable evidence that sea levels have changed significantly and those changes cannot be blamed on AGW. I also believe that until such time as you separate the loony greenies from measured scientific debate, then yes the whole world is an expert - in my own life I have come across a number of such experts - the most recent telling me that the moon has absolutely no effect upon any aspect of our Earth - all power to the flat earth society then!
Out Of The Box
Out Of The Box
 Moderator
22 months ago: What does this chart indicate? Seems to be saying that in the not to distant past, sea levels were up to 30 meters higher than present

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/co...

Or this one?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/co...

Or even this one? The one that says ASL has been rising steadily for 20,000 years.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Post-G...
22 months ago: I haven't looked into Pompei.
But I know Southern England well!

The problem you have is that you are picking out individual cases, it's a bit like blaming regional weather on global warming.

Every single location on the planet will be different. There is no reason why in some locations that despite rising see levels caused by AGW, that in those locations sea levels may appear to drop or land masses may extend etc.

Those are all red herrings.
Such issues have zilch to do with global sea levels. They are of interest as they always have been, but they do not through any light onto the real problem of sea levels caused by AGW.
scotmanster
scotmanster
22 months ago: "Every single location on the planet will be different. There is no reason why in some locations that despite rising see levels caused by AGW, that in those locations sea levels may appear to drop or land masses may extend etc."

So you are saying that rising sea levels are not a good selling point for global warming conspiracy. Their is no known way to accurately determine if the sea levels are actually rising. Their is to many things to factor in and when we can't even traverse the deepest parts of our ocean then we have no idea what type of activity is occurring at those depths.

Whole land formations are "born" on the ocean floor meaning when a volcano erupts it adds more mass to the sea floor. This factor alone could never been accurately projected and I can guarantee it will never be found in a rising sea level graph. But common sense tells me when I drop rocks into a glass and they float to the bottom the water in the glass will rise. Now just imagine the new lava added daily to the sea floor as the rocks in the glass.
scotmanster
scotmanster
22 months ago: We have been taught our Planet has been forming for trillions of years and here some crowd comes a long trying to teach us about how our planet works with only 50 years of research behind their belt. I know we are smart as human beings but we are not Gods nor can we change how our planet keeps forming itself and the effects that come along with it.

If you don't like Co2 emissions then go petition a car manufacture company or better yet stop driving your car. If you are worried about Co2 emissions then go buy some energy saving light bulbs and put your computer in sleep mode. If you are not living a sustainable lifestyle then you are the cause of global warming. Me though? I think it is all a bunch of trumped up data that has no bearing on my day to day life other than hearing it spew forth from Al's mouth every week here at RR.
21 months ago:
We have been taught our Planet has been forming for trillions of years and here some crowd comes a long trying to teach us about how our planet works with only 50 years of research behind their belt.

That is more junk and bull.
Understanding the science of the earths history that goes back billions of years isn't the sole domain of skeptics and deniers.
One can turn around your silly comment by pointing out that we now have a politically motivated skeptic crowd that abandons science and instead uses spin and politics of every sort to undermine the basis of science.


If you don't like Co2 emissions then go petition a car manufacture company or better yet stop driving your car.

I don't have a car. But that is irrelevant in any case. It isn't a question of me having personal opinion about CO2 emissions. It is a scientific fact that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, go and ask a scientist if you don't believe that. Opinions do not define how the greenhouse mechanism works in our environment, science does.
It is the greenhouse mechanism that warms the planet, by definition if we influence the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, we also influence the climate.
Content Removed by HampyUK
21 months ago:
So you are saying that rising sea levels are not a good selling point for global warming conspiracy.

Nope, It just means you are not capable of understanding the issue or the science.
Or maybe I and others are not making it simple enough for you to understand.


Whole land formations are "born" on the ocean floor meaning when a volcano erupts it adds more mass to the sea floor. This factor alone could never been accurately projected and I can guarantee it will never be found in a rising sea level graph.


You are incorrect. A large displacement of water by a large volcano would be noticed, even if it was deep underwater. Plus there is the fact that such activity occurs along known fault lines.
Small displacements of water caused by the trickle of material being ejected into the seas in such places as Hawaii would not add much to sea levels and and would be negated by land being removed by plate movements and other processes (in comparison there are thousands of glaciers depositing water into the seas).

People also get confused between the transmission of energy by a wave and the actual displacement of water. Volcanic activity and earthquakes cause tsunamis, which are waves and transmit energy, they don't actually displace a lot of water.
Out Of The Box
Out Of The Box
 Moderator
21 months ago:
"Nope, It just means you are not capable of understanding the issue or the science.
Or maybe I and others are not making it simple enough for you to understand."

And I suppose you are capable of understanding it. So give it your best shot. Lay it out here in terms simple enough for us morons to understand why the sea level rise and the glacial melting we are experiencing, is any different from the sea level rise and glacial melting over the last 20,000 years. Better yet, do your own Rave article, and put it out there about how irrefutable the climate scientists are.
Eco logic
Eco logic
New Zealand
22 months ago: While many charts/graphs can be called upon to defend a point of view, my comments were made from extensive travel I have undertaken and in so doing have witnessed many geological features that have been crafted by mother nature over the passage of time. My point which contains no spin, was prompted by the news story of a 'so called' island - which in fact was a sand bar built by weather conditions (happens regularly around the world) which disappeared by the force of the same thing that created it - weather - the arrogance or maybe ignorance of the person who proposed that it disappeared due to AGW is unfortunately too regular an occurrence - the string started with some helpful comment but now seems to have come down to who is right and who is wrong - in my book there is insufficient evidence to support AGW and until someone can start actually producing 'real' evidence I see no reason to go along with that proposition - I do appreciate the debate but at the moment it seems to me that there needs to be some points of agreement from whence the proposition can be further built!
TheLegendTomWing
TheLegendTomWing
 Administrator
 Philadelphia, PA
22 months ago: just to clarify, Al Gore didn't draw any of those maps/graphs did he? Just checking.
22 months ago: I agree that the island in the news story seems to be transitory and that it isn't a good example. The definition of an island is that it is a piece of land surrounded by water.
I don't think an island is defined by how long it has existed.

From what I can gather the island built up over a relatively short period, I assume from sediment deposits into the Bay of Bengal.

There is evidence in the region of sea levels rising, because sea water is backing up into the Ganges delta and rivers, causing salt water problems for the people that live on the Ganges delta and rivers.

This is a problem for many rivers around the world.
Out Of The Box
Out Of The Box
 Moderator
22 months ago: Can you please provide credible evidence supporting your statement that sea levels have risen significantly over the past few years or even decades. Anecdotal evidence, such as sea water backing up into a river, is not evidence of rising sea levels.

Unless, of course, there is something weird and unexplained going on, that would allow mean sea levels to rise in one part of the ocean, but not in other parts.