Climate change and sea level

[Jamie Barber]

The BBC are running an article on a conference in Copenhagen, where scientists are warning of sea level rises by up to 1m by the end of the century.

Should this happen (although golf course damage seems insignificant measured against the human cost) it would put a fair few of our seasides courses in danger.

For example, Deal already relies on a large sea wall, whilst I believe there is a pebble ridge which has to be manually replenished to keep Westward Ho! from disappearing.

Does anyone know if sea defence's are on the agenda of any seaside clubs? At Prince's the story seems to be "it'll never happen" - although it has flooded in the past so it seems rather naiive.

[David_Tepper]

Jamie -

Royal Dornoch spent a healthy sum a couple of winters ago building a rock seawall along the length of the 10th & 11th holes.

My guess is many, if not most, seaside courses in the British Isles are very much concerned about rising sea levels and coastal erosion.

DT   

[Rich Goodale]

Jamie

Most links courses have been and will be affected should sea levels rise.  Ballybunion, Portrush and Dornoch have spent significant sums in various sorts of Canute imitations over the past 20-30 years.  Under certain assumptions all of the courses at St. Andrews (with the exception of the Castle Course--maybe that's great forward planning!) will be submerged in 50 years or so.  Carnoustie likewise.

Play 'em while you can....

Rich

[Tom Birkert]

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.

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.

[Niall C]

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.

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.

Tom,

Well said. I've still to be convinced one way or other in the climate change debate. The climate is always in a state of flux but the argument for man-made change still has a bit to go.

That said, coastal erosiion won't be the only problem for links courses in the UK. While many of them might be bolstering there coastal defences, they will still suffer from a rising water table as many of the coarses are fairly low lying.

Niall

[henrye]

Tom.  I think you've alluded to this before (on a previous thread) with what sounded like intelligent points.  I’m one of those skeptics (and there are a great many in the climate change debate).  Over the last few years, in my spare time, I've tried to figure out the arguments based on books and publications and it strikes me that the crux of the "global warmers" argument is the exponential growth in Carbon Dioxide levels in the atmosphere when compared against data going back some 600,000 years or some such.  I understand their logic, but obviously can't account for their measurement techniques going back so far in time.  What're your thoughts on that?

Lastly, just because I'm a global warming skeptic doesn't mean I don't see the value in pursuing a renewable energy strategy, vs. a carbon based one.

[Jamie Barber]

I'd also like to be sceptical about climate change - but don't know enough about the data/models to make an informed judgement. Actually, I have a PhD in mathematical modelling in engineering, so I'm only too aware of the risks in believing what models tell us. On the other hand, good models can provide valuble insights.

If it is happening and should the consequences of climate change prove as predicted, it's a sad thought that we might be one of the last generations to enjoy these courses.

[Jason McNamara]

Most links courses have been and will be affected should sea levels rise.  Ballybunion, Portrush and Dornoch   [etc]

Play 'em while you can....

Rich

But as Mark Rowlinson always says, start with the East Anglian courses fighting* erosion.

* To the extent said courses are being allowed to fight erosion.

[George Pazin]

If it is happening and should the consequences of climate change prove as predicted, it's a sad thought that we might be one of the last generations to enjoy these courses.

Just means more new courses being built by the next generation of gca's!

I always enjoy watching TV shows on geography, geology, etc. It's amazing how much the earth has changed. I saw a show a month or so ago where folks were scuba diving off the coast of France to view cave drawings in caves that are now 50 m below sea level (somewhat confident of that figure...). Kind of puts 1 m in perspective, even if you believe that is happening.

[Richard Choi]

I am sorry, but you guys are ignorant.

Yes, I said it. But you are.

To say that because we cannot say exactly where the tornado touches down you will dismiss all prediction about global warming is covering your ears and yelling nah-nah-nah. Tornado warning systems save COUNTLESS lives every year.

Computer models correctly predicted what would happen if a cat 5 hurricane struck New Orleans, but we chose to ignore and we paid for it with countless lives.

Among scientists there are ABSOLUTELY no disagreements that the global temperatures are rising and the sea level will rise accordingly.

Just because you don't like the results, you choose to ignore facts. That is fine, but it is an ignorant behavior.

Sea levels are rising and it will continue to rise until long after we change our behavior.

[Mike Benham]

If Global warming is occurring, doesn't that mean that more surface water is evaporating, forming clouds (and higher humidity), which should partially offset the rise in seal levels.

If those clouds dump the rain over land, shouldn't we build more reservoirs to collect the rainfall and help solve the world wide drought that is facing us? 

Can't this water be used to irrigate the deserts and arid regions of the world turning them into thousands of new acres of crop land?

Won't these thousands and thousands of acres of new crops, through photosynthesis consume the dreaded carbon dioxide that is one of the causes of global warming?

[Neil_Crafter]

Richard
Thankyou for your measured comments - but I do not appreciate being called ignorant.

I'm afraid its you who is talking rubbish - there is certainly significant 'dissent' among scientists to the "science is settled" and the "debate is over" approach to man made global warming. There is a climate change conference in NYC that is on at the moment put on by the skeptical side of the argument and it has attracted many prominent scientists such as Lindzen, Christy and Spencer to name a few. The conference's keynote opening address was given by Czech president and current EU president Vaclas Klaus, who is a noted skeptic.

As for sea level rise, the seas have been rising at around 2 to 3mm a year since the Little Ice Age, however, it has levelled off since 2006. Most of this sea level rise is simply scare tactics from those with an interest in taxing us out of existence and returning the first world to third world conditions. Do you seriously believe man can control sea level rises or falls on our planet? If so you are deluding yourself, King Canute style.

And Richard, a question for you, and don't look this up on Google or anywhere else - can you tell me the concentration of this "pollutant" gas Carbon Dioxide in our atmosphere? And by the way CO2 is a very well known plant fertiliser that is introduced into glasshouses to make the plants grow faster and better.

[Matt Kardash]

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.

[Tom Birkert]

Computer models correctly predicted what would happen if a cat 5 hurricane struck New Orleans, but we chose to ignore and we paid for it with countless lives.

Among scientists there are ABSOLUTELY no disagreements that the global temperatures are rising and the sea level will rise accordingly.

Just because you don't like the results, you choose to ignore facts. That is fine, but it is an ignorant behavior.

Sea levels are rising and it will continue to rise until long after we change our behavior.

Richard,

The data gained from Doppler radar, amongst other data sources, allowed scientists to model what high winds would do to a city. That, scientifically, is about the impact of one factor - the wind - at a pre-determined level which makes it a lot easier to model and predict.

However, to claim that there are no scientists who disagree is patently incorrect, and to claim a consensus of scientific opinion is always a bad thing. Once there was a consensus the world was flat... Scientists should be continually investigating and evaluating, continually testing theories. Only recently I was reading about a scientist who was ridiculed for 25 years about his theory. He recently has been awarded the Nobel Prize as it turns out he was correct.

Global temperatures have actually fallen recently, which the climate models didn't predict. If they can't get it right even 10 days in the future, or 10 months, why should we believe what they say about 100 years?

I am all for debate on this subject, but it's now not about the science behind the temperature of the planet, but it's about politics - and we all know how trustworthy politicians are.

[Matt Kardash]

If Global warming is occurring, doesn't that mean that more surface water is evaporating, forming clouds (and higher humidity), which should partially offset the rise in seal levels

Geez, don't go around repeating this too much.

[Matt Kardash]

Global temperatures have actually fallen recently, which the climate models didn't predict. If they can't get it right even 10 days in the future, or 10 months, why should we believe what they say about 100 years?

Are you seriously using this as an argument? Climate models show LONG TERM trends. In long term trends there can be variations. but the trend is what is dominant.

[Charlie Goerges]

My local weatherman makes it a point to differentiate between the "weather" and "climate". The weather according to him (and I'm paraphrasing) is how hot, windy, humid, rainy etcetera it is over a day/week/month/year. The climate is much more complex, bigger, and covers a much longer time frame than the "weather".

Be careful about disbelieving what the majority (most would say vast majority) of scientists say about climate change in favor of extrapolations based on one (or many) year's data.

[Matt Kardash]

All I need to hear is God enter this argument and I might lose it haha. I bet there are a couple of dirty creationists on this site  

[Tom Birkert]

Be careful about disbelieving what the majority (most would say vast majority) of scientists say about climate change in favor of extrapolations based on one (or many) year's data.

Charlie,

What you've written there is basically what has been used to tell us that global warming is anthropogenic (remove the "dis" in front of "believing" though). It's not a scientific debate at all sadly - it's a political one. Short term data can be used to prove global warming by scientists / The Media but not to discredit it.

Accurate measuring of climatic conditions has not been around for more than a couple of generations (and many would argue that the data still is not accurate due to a number of reasons).  That's an unbelievably small percentage of the lifetime of the planet. It's been colder before. It's been hotter before. It will be colder in the future, it will be hotter in the future.

It's impossible to state from the available data what is causing any temperature change in the planet. There are too many variables, and the computer models are only as good as the data they are given (see the discredited "Hockey Stick" for proof of that).

[Mike Benham]

If Global warming is occurring, doesn't that mean that more surface water is evaporating, forming clouds (and higher humidity), which should partially offset the rise in seal levels

Geez, don't go around repeating this too much.

Matt -

Are you making fun of my typo? 

I am uneducated on the subject (gee, that's not said very often on this board) and perhaps I misremembered my high school biology or chemistry, so please educate me.

But I am curious, how do we measure something 800,000 years ago?

Mike

[Charlie Goerges]

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.

[Charlie Goerges]

Be careful about disbelieving what the majority (most would say vast majority) of scientists say about climate change in favor of extrapolations based on one (or many) year's data.

Charlie,

What you've written there is basically what has been used to tell us that global warming is anthropogenic (remove the "dis" in front of "believing" though). It's not a scientific debate at all sadly - it's a political one. Short term data can be used to prove global warming by scientists / The Media but not to discredit it.

Accurate measuring of climatic conditions has not been around for more than a couple of generations (and many would argue that the data still is not accurate due to a number of reasons).  That's an unbelievably small percentage of the lifetime of the planet. It's been colder before. It's been hotter before. It will be colder in the future, it will be hotter in the future.

It's impossible to state from the available data what is causing any temperature change in the planet. There are too many variables, and the computer models are only as good as the data they are given (see the discredited "Hockey Stick" for proof of that).

Tom,

As I see it you bring up two issues. I'll paraphrase them as:

1. Don't believe everything you're told, especially by the politicians and media.

and

2. Accurate measurements haven't been around long enough to justify the predictions being made.


If I'm terribly far off, let me know, but I don't want to get involved in a semantic brouhaha.

To 1, I'd say that I'd be more concerned as to what their sources are. I am not a climatologist or scientist. Therefore unless I want to decide based on a wholly ignorant opinion (my own), I must listen to someone who knows what he or she is talking about. For me, this has meant talking to a close friend who is a scientist (technically a grad student) and finding out what would be a credible source. She pointed me to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. This organization is the largest organization of climatologists in the world and its last report was fairly unequivocal about the scale and scope of the climate change problem. Since no organization of remotely similar size and respect exists, the evidence and (more importantly) interpretations that they have offered is the one I've chosen to believe. Could they all be lying? Yes, but it's no more likely (I'd call it less likely) than the possibility that those on the other side of the issue are lying. Since in the realm of science (at least in my book) Tie goes to side with the majority of more-qualified scientists, I believe the IPCC.


As to number 2, I'd say that only a scientist can really know what is good enough. I've mentioned the ice cores that can contain evidence (which is different than data) from long, long ago.

[Matt Kardash]

If Global warming is occurring, doesn't that mean that more surface water is evaporating, forming clouds (and higher humidity), which should partially offset the rise in seal levels

Geez, don't go around repeating this too much.

Matt -

Are you making fun of my typo? 

I am uneducated on the subject (gee, that's not said very often on this board) and perhaps I misremembered my high school biology or chemistry, so please educate me.

But I am curious, how do we measure something 800,000 years ago?

Mike

Antarctic ice cores can now give us data going back 800 000 years.

[Kalen Braley]

If anyone would like to know the straight story on whats going on, its easily put to bed by reading this.

http://www.ourcivilisation.com/aginatur/sealevel.htm

[Craig Sweet]

If you look at the so called "dissenting" scientist you will find that 99% of their research is funded by coal/gas/oil companies.....which is to say, the organization they work for gets lots of money from energy companies...they have been very good about getting the media (GE...hmmm...what media do they own?) to pay attention to their "science", to the point that some people actually believe it....it's like the myth that Reagan cut the size of government....eh, right!

It is pretty difficult to dispute the facts...such as the area of tundra that is thawing and releasing even more CO2 into the atmosphere...or the area of coral that is dying as the oceans change...or the amount of CO2 that is (I believe) no longer being absorbed by the oceans...

Certain things are happening and they are not good things...but I guess it is far easier to be distracted by a debate over "man made cause" or not...or a debate about last winter being a cold one, so I global warming isn't happening...etc. etc...