Climate change and sea level

[Craig Sweet]

Accurate measurements haven't been around? Do a little google search for information on the bore samples from the ice fields in Iceland....

[Tom Birkert]

I'm going to retire from this topic after this post, lest I carry on and on!

Everyone is free to believe what they want. Personally, I do not believe the IPCC one iota having read what I have about them. They were the ones who published and spread the hockey graph myth. It's a political organisation, not a peer reviewing scientific organisation.

The "99%" of scientists who aren't funded by the oil / energy companies are, instead, funded by much bigger and more corrupt organisations. The governments. The governments want news about man made global warming, it enables them to bring in policies they want to. The climatologists know that they won't get any of the (much larger) grants from the governments unless they are researching into global warming.

For those of you with an open mind, I suggest reading "Scared to Death" by Booker and North, "Climate Confusion" by Spencer and "An Appeal to Reason" by Nigel Lawson.

[Craig Sweet]

Tom...

If the earth is warming...does it matter whether it is man made or not? 

[Kalen Braley]

And as long as we're on the topic of Corporate funded or incentivized research, I've always wondered why Al Gore's "interests" aren't discussed more.

Here’s a list indicating what it takes to make money along with Al. Funds associated with these companies have placed millions of dollars under Al Gore’s control. And, as you’ll see below, Gore’s selection for the US President of GIM might raise a few eyebrows as well.

AFLAC INC - AQUANTIVE INC - AUTODESK INC - BECTON DICKINSON & CO BLACKBAUD INC - GENERAL ELECTRIC CO - GREENHILL & CO INC - JOHNSON CTLS INC - LABORATORY CORP AMER HLDGS - METABOLIX INC - NORTHERN TR CORP - NUVEEN INVTS INC -STAPLES INC - SYSCO CORP - TECHNE CORP - UBS AG - VCA ANTECH INC - WATERS CORP - WHOLE FOODS MKT INC

According to their own documents, GIM intends to invest in, or buy companies poised to cash in on Global Warming concerns.


http://globalwarminghoax.wordpress.com/2007/03/03/media-ignore-al-gore%E2%80%99s-financial-ties-to-global-warming/

[Jack_Marr]

Any claims about predicted sea rises, temperature rises / falls etc can not be accurate. There are simply too many variables to be taken into consideration which computer models don't and can't account for.

The models predict what the climatologists want them to predict. In the 1970s this was the coming of an Ice Age, now it's Global Warming.

Personally I don't worry about it at all. The climate has always changed and always will, and I believe we have absolutely no way of influencing it.

Anyway, I hope my reply does not sound agressive. I mean it in the spirit of debate.

John

When climatologists / scientists can predict well in advance when tornadoes will strike, or when major climatic events will happen in the short term then maybe I'll start listening to them about predictions 100 years into the future.

They are extrapolating from poor data and a tiny data field in comparison to the history of the world. It's utter junk science in my opinion.

You could be correct, but it's still preposterous to think this. The computer models may not be perfect, but they have been tested with historical data and have been pretty accurate.

As I say, people who dismiss what the climateologists say may be correct - I can't say for sure that they're correct, but it is crazy to dismiss what they say when you don't have a proper grasp of it (like I don't have a proper grasp of it, even if I am a physics graduate).

And "the climate has always changed" argument is often made, but it would be one of the biggest oversights of all time if the people investigating the climate forgot to factor this into their calculations.

It's important that there are skeptics investigating the alternative viewpoint on climate, but it should be left to people who know what they're talking about. There are many credible theories that suggest that there are flaws in the current consensus.  

[A.G._Crockett]

FWIW, NATO believes in global warming, evidenced by their report last year on possible consequences as security threats in the years to come.  NATO could hardly be called a liberal organization, and it seems unlikely that NATO analysts would rely on anything other than the very best data, as opposed to "junk science".

If NATO is convinced of it, I'm not sure where there is left to stand as a "skeptic".  That's kind of like being a skeptic of evolution; you can do it, but you sound pretty dopey.

[Mike Benham]

Mike, they measure those CO2 levels from long ago (I don't know about 800,000 years in the case I describe) by drilling ice cores in the arctic and on glaciers. Those cores contain air bubbles that have been trapped.

Thanks ...

And what about the data for temperature from 50 / 100 / 200 / 1,000 years ago?

[Sean_A]

Tom...

If the earth is warming...does it matter whether it is man made or not? 

Craig

This is the way to get down to brass tacs.  Slimming down in terms of energy and efficiency is good stuff regardless of this, that and the other.  Lets not lose sight of the big picture.  Of course there are those that try to blur the big picture so they will not have to shoulder any responsibility in changing habits and behaviour, but what can ya do? 

Ciao

[henrye]

You skeptics are painfully ignorant. I have a degree in environmental science and have studied the issue in depth. The evidence clearly shows anthropogenic forcings on the climate having a serious affect. Yes, the earth's climate does vary due to Milankovitch cycles, however those cycles act on periods of 20 000 to 100 000 years. The rapid increase in CO2 since the industrial revolution is unprecidented in the last 800 000 years. Yes, the climate will continue to fluctuate, and we will even go into an ice age again, but the increase in the global temperature is caused by anthropogenic forcings.
When you look at data you need to look at long term trends. Some people are dumb enough to say that just because last summer was a cool one that "global warming" is bullshit. Then again, most people are idiots.

It's too many of these pathetically simplistic diatribes that make me a skeptic.

Tim, what about the increase in atmospheric Carbon Dioxide?  Any insights?

[Craig Sweet]

Gee Kalen...

Gore and his friends stand to cash in from doing something about global warming...lets see...an office products company, an organic and whole foods store, a couple of financial investment companies.....versus the handful of scientist that get their money from the energy companies to spew half truths and out right lies....

Did you see the George Wills piece in the Washington Post? Chuck full of lies...not even remotely factual...and when he and the Post were confronted with the facts they said "so what".......well, the so what is guys like you read what guys like George Wills said and believe him.

[Charlie Goerges]

I'm going to retire from this topic after this post

I'm with you Tom.

As a sort of parting shot, a story that I like (one that has little if any bearing on this discussion).

Fred Hoyle was a brilliant physicist and mathematician. One of the things he is known for is the fact that he coined the term "Big Bang" to describe the theory that posited that the universe had a beginning. Fred Hoyle did not believe the "Big Bang" theory to be true, and spent the rest of his life advocating for the "Steady State" theory. When he began the preponderance of evidence and the scientific community were on his side. When he died, the opposite was true.

One of the true examples of irony of which I am aware is the fact that without him (his naming of it notwithstanding) the big bang would never have been accepted as the most accurate explanation for the existence of the universe. I won't bore you with details that I most certainly do not understand, but he solved a major problem in accounting for certain things that had to happen in order for the big bang to have happened and thus be a viable theory.

[David_Tepper]

The latest from California on the subject. No endorsement implied!

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/03/11/MNTK16DEBF.DTL&tsp=1

[Jack_Marr]

I think it's safe to say that the people who are skeptical about man's influence on climage change are going to be skeptical no matter what the science is. It's almost like following a football team.

To but somewhat unsure could be reasonable, but to dismiss the science completely is ridiculous. 

[Jamie Barber]

What I have I started - I feel like the bloke who farted in a lift and got out!

[Mark Chaplin]

Deal, Sandwich and Princes are all vulnerable to rising sea levels mainly due to the network
of streams running around the hinterland of the courses. Deal flooded 6 or 7 years ago when the tree huggers dammed a small stream to avoid some nesting site getting wet. The knock on effect flooded parts of the course over a mile away.

The club lost 2 Opens due to flooding pre sea wall so the problem is nothing new.

[Sean Remington (SBR)]

Matt, 

Earlier you said:

"You skeptics are painfully ignorant. I have a degree in environmental science and have studied the issue in depth. The evidence clearly shows anthropogenic forcings on the climate having a serious affect. Yes, the earth's climate does vary due to Milankovitch cycles, however those cycles act on periods of 20 000 to 100 000 years. The rapid increase in CO2 since the industrial revolution is unprecidented in the last 800 000 years. Yes, the climate will continue to fluctuate, and we will even go into an ice age again, but the increase in the global temperature is caused by anthropogenic forcings."

Help me to understand how the science in the 1970's had is so wrong but today it is so absolutely correct.

[Mike_Cirba]

Let's see...hundreds and thousands of scientists or Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity...

Hmmm...who should I believe??   

[Sean Remington (SBR)]

   And if you are a scientist that does not sign onto and promote man made global warming you will never get your research funded, won't get published, will not make tenure etc. etc. 
 
   

[Craig Sweet]

Sean...

What was the status of computer modeling in the 1970's?  What was the status of high observation satellites in the 1970's? 

Based on the information available there were scientist in the 1970's saying things were warming up...

[Neil_Crafter]

Here's something to consider. A meteorologist by the name of Anthony Watts has been surveying the climate network stations in the US that are part of the US Historical Climate network or USHCN, particularly for their siting issues that might give these stations a heat bias. His website is at www.surfacestations.org

He and his contributors have surveyed nearly 75% of these stations to date, and the quality rating of the stations is generally extremely poor, with a very low percentage of well sited stations. Poorly sited stations are those with the temperature sensors adjacent to asphalt car parks, south facing walls, air conditioner outlets even barbeques, all heat sources or sinks. A number are sited at sewage treatment plants, also a considerable heat source. The data from these stations is what is being taken into the temperature records to present the case for global warming, although that has miraculously transmogrified into "climate change" now. Seems global warming as a term is old hat.

Anyway, here are few sample stations to give you an idea of what passes for a climate recording station in the USA. Food for thought........

[Craig Sweet]

Neil...

There is a huge difference between monitoring the local weather and long term climate change.  There is also a huge difference between "predicting" what the weather will be tomorrow and long term climate change...

Here's a site with some information for those that are skeptical.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/news.php?n=11

[Neil_Crafter]

Craig
You don't seem to understand - these are the quality of sites that are in the historical record and are still being used to gather the climatic data being used to determine "the earth is warming". These are not weather forecasting sites. Does this not worry you at all?

[Sean Remington (SBR)]

Craig  - I can't agree more. Technology has improve exponentially in the last 30 years.  What can we expect to happen in the next 30 years?  Will we be that much smarter or do we have all the information now?

    You'll excuse me if I am sceptical of computer models as some of these have indicated that a golf course is not good for the environment.

    I think Neil's post says if the best.  Garbage in, garbage out.  Computer models are not immune to the opinions or agendas of those who program them.  This applies to both sides of the argument and the truth is probably somewhere in the middle.  

   Not all environmentallism has been bad.  There have been times when a wake up call was in order.  The Bald Eagle is doing fine now.  You can fish in Lake Erie again.
   In the 80's the nightly news would regularly talk about smog and unhelthy air quality days in Los Angeles.  There are far more cars on the road today and yet the air quality in SoCal does not make the news so much anymore.  The problem with enviromentalism is it is never satisfied and now it has the ultimate cause celeb to fight for, the earth.  

[Craig Sweet]

Sean...

The original idea about "greenhouse" gases dates back to 1824...and was confirmed in the late 1800's...so this is not a new theory.   The computer models I have seen say "here is the situation today...if the rate of increase continues at its current pace, this is what we will have X number of years down the road...computer models are tested against the past...does the model accurately predict what has happened?  The answer is yes...

Neil...

I understand fully....what you fail to understand is this is meteorological data...surface temperature....measuring climate change does not rely SOLELY on meteorological data that shows the up and downs on a daily basis of temperature.....never the less, this data is adjusted to take into consideration the "urban heat island effect"....

They use weather balloons, satellites...etc, to measure surface temps....they also look at ocean water temps, ice core samples, they measure what's going on in the atmosphere, ice sheet thickness, sea levels, etc. etc....

[John_Cullum]

Craig

Is there any radical leftist cause that you don't champion?