Climate Change

[gonesail]

Originally Posted by Ex-Calif

And for those who suspect that whatever is happening is irreversible? Good news. It is irreversible. We cannot go backwards, only forward.

i agree with your viewpoint on this. the fact that i own a sailboat and bicycle puts me way ahead of most consumers. if the planet heats up or goes into another ice age i don't think there's much the little guys can do to prevent it from happening. and no i don't think we are to blame for it either.

[Onedaysoon]

It is nonsense to relate the rationale belief that we (humankind) have influenced climate significantly with some sort of political doctrine or outlook! I say "belief" because I acknowledge there is uncertainty involved, but 99% (a figure of speech) of scientists IMHO who have seriously studied climate literature agree with the IPCC conclusions and the evidence for anthropogenically produced greenhouse gases causing climate change. The evidence base is growing from what is already a firm foundation of data and interpretation, as reported by the IPCC. For someone to infer that I and many, many other scientists are lefties or somehow don't want to see economic progress because we "believe" that sea levels are going to rise significantly over the next decades and centuries, that the incidence of severe storms (read hurricanes, cyclones, typhones whatever) is going to occur more frequently and with more devastating effects, and that there is going to be a gradual shift in ecosystems, is quite frankly talking bollocks.

[jzk]

The IPCC? Do you know that the IPCC does not do any research nor does it monitor climate data in any way? Citing the Usless United Nations, in my opinion, detracts from your position.

[Therapy]

Originally Posted by Onedaysoon

It is nonsense to relate the rationale belief that we (humankind) have influenced climate significantly with some sort of political doctrine or outlook! I say "belief" because I acknowledge there is uncertainty involved, but 99% (a figure of speech) of scientists IMHO who have seriously studied climate literature agree with the IPCC conclusions and the evidence for anthropogenically produced greenhouse gases causing climate change. The evidence base is growing from what is already a firm foundation of data and interpretation, as reported by the IPCC. For someone to infer that I and many, many other scientists are lefties or somehow don't want to see economic progress because we "believe" that sea levels are going to rise significantly over the next decades and centuries, that the incidence of severe storms (read hurricanes, cyclones, typhones whatever) is going to occur more frequently and with more devastating effects, and that there is going to be a gradual shift in ecosystems, is quite frankly talking bollocks.

Many of those scientists had their names put on the report without their endorsement.

That "firm" stuff and "interpretation" is suspect in many areas. See post with link about NASA data poorly interpreted earlier.

There is a growing list of scientists who are actively moving to have their names removed from the list. Many are risking their careers and personal safety (yes, some have been threatened) by doing this. Many more are remaining quiet out of fear.

Sometimes I look at data and wonder if we are really warming.

I also read somewhere that if every single car and truck were turned off tomorrow the CO2 getting in the atmosphere would drop by 0.026%.

Really confusing stuff.

I am convinced we need to pollute less but as I have said before, That is simply a population number thing.

[Onedaysoon]

The IPCC is not a body of the United Nations. It is partially funded by them however. Your comment about the "Useless United Nations" speaks volumes. I guess no amount of referenced and reasoned debate is going to change your point of view as you seem (IMHO) to be unable to divorce politics from science. Actually I do know that the IPCC does not do any research. If you had a more than rudimentary knowledge of the literature though you'd know that the several hundred contributing scientists who specialise in climate-related research and who contributed to the IPCC documents through the various working groups do do research though!

[Therapy]

Originally Posted by Onedaysoon

The IPCC is not a body of the United Nations. It is partially funded by them however. Your comment about the "Useless United Nations" speaks volumes. I guess no amount of referenced and reasoned debate is going to change your point of view as you seem (IMHO) to be unable to divorce politics from science. Actually I do know that the IPCC does not do any research. If you had a more than rudimentary knowledge of the literature though you'd know that the several hundred contributing scientists who specialise in climate-related research and who contributed to the IPCC documents through the various working groups do do research though!

If you think that science is completely divorced of politics and is pure science in search of "the truth" then you have a little more research to do on just how these scientists are able to do their work and still pay for food.

[camaraderie]

SEA LEVEL RISE? Here's what the IPCC said about MEASURED rise in 2001:
B.4 Observed Changes in Sea Level

Changes during the instrumental record

Based on tide gauge data, the rate of global mean sea level rise during the 20th century is in the range 1.0 to 2.0 mm/yr, with a central value of 1.5 mm/yr (the central value should not be interpreted as a best estimate). (See Box 2 for the factors that influence sea level.) As Figure 6 indicates, the longest instrumental records (two or three centuries at most) of local sea level come from tide gauges. Based on the very few long tide-gauge records, the average rate of sea level rise has been larger during the 20th century than during the 19th century. No significant acceleration in the rate of sea level rise during the 20th century has been detected. This is not inconsistent with model results due to the possibility of compensating factors and the limited data.
Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis

Sure sounds like a crisis to me!
As for 99% of scientists agreeing...thant is pure bunk. Here's one sea level EXPERT scientist that details quite nicely that there is no sea level rise acceleration and HOW the IPCC has been fudging the actual data to make it align with the models.
http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.co...rInterview.pdf

He states:
"When I became president of the INQUA
Commission on Sea-Level Change and
Coastal Evolution, we made a research
project, and we had this up for discussion
at five international meetings. And all the
true sea level specialists agreed on this
figure, that in 100 years, we might have a
rise of 10 cm, with an uncertainty of plus
or minus 10 cm—that’s not very much.
[See Figure 3, p. 32.] And in recent years,
I even improved it, by considering also
that we’re going into a cold phase in 40
years. That gives 5 cm rise, plus or minus
a few centimeters. That’s our best estimate.
But that’s very, very different from the
IPCC statement. Ours is just a continuation of the pattern
of sea level going back in time."

Dr. Nils-Axel Mörner has studied sea level and its effects on coastal areas for some 35 years. Recently retired as director of the Paleogeophysics and Geodynamics Department at Stockholm University, Mörner is past president (1999-2003) of the INQUA Commission on Sea Level Changes and Coastal Evolution, and leader of
the Maldives Sea Level Project.

Right...there is 99% consensus...the discussion is over.

[jzk]

Originally Posted by Onedaysoon

The IPCC is not a body of the United Nations. It is partially funded by them however.

The IPCC is a scientific intergovernmental body set up by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). Its constituency is made of :

• The governments: the IPCC is open to all member countries of WMO and UNEP. Governments of participate in plenary Sessions of the IPCC where main decisions about the IPCC workprogramme are taken and reports are accepted, adopted and approved. They also participate the review of IPCC Reports.
• The scientists: hundreds of scientists all over the world contribute to the work of the IPCC as authors, contributors and reviewers.
• The people: as United Nations body, the IPCC work aims at the promotion of the United Nations human development goals

IPCC - Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

[Onedaysoon]

Camereraderie: OK you've mentioned a name, Dr. Nils-Axel Mörner. I've personaly met him a couple of times. He is well known in climate and rad-waste scientific circles for some rather non-conventional views (nothing wrong with that if sincerely held) and he has his own agenda - as you'd expect. He is definately in the minority and I accept that he is one of the 1%, not one of the 99%. And just because he says that he speaks on behalf of all of the "true" sea level scientists doesn't make it so. David Bellamy is another even better known scientist who debunks anthropogenically caused global warming. I can quote other names who also have similar opinions. I can also quote names who believe as I do that we are having an impact. Big dea;, who's right? Who knows, but the evidence is becoming stacked more one particular way.

The fact that observed sea level rise to date is small, doesn't mean anything in relation to what may occur as climate change impacts get under way. You refer to a projection from Mörner that suggests only a 10cm rise over the next century (plus or minus 10cm), as opposed to the range of published projections from the IPCC that tries to capture uncertainty (following from IPCC Climate Change 2001, that was subsequently updated, but I don't have time to find the revised figures and these are to hand):

Mid-range scenario (IPCC Model IS92a). An increase in global mean surface
air temperature relative to 1990 of about 2°C by 2100. Projected result is an increase in global sea level of about 48 cm from the present to 2100, although the model results varied from 9 cm to 88 cm due to uncertainties in modelling.
- Low greenhouse gas emission and low climate and ice melt sensitivity scenario
(IS92c). Results in a projected global sea level rise of about 15cm from
the present to 2100.
- High emission and high climate and ice melt sensitivity scenario (IS92e). Simulations based on this scenario produce a projected global sea level rise of
about 95 cm from the present to 2100.

Now take the low scenario results. Try telling the people of the Maldives it's insignificant. Try telling that to a lot of other people around the world who live in coastal areas. 10cm doesn't sound much but it will have effects. You have to bear in mind that it's not just the absolute sea level rise that will impact in the next decades (although over the next centuries the results will be truely telling), but combined sea level rise with increased frequency and strength of storm surges that is going to do a lot of damage in the near term.

jzk - you've got me regarding it being a UN body. I was rather loose with my thinking at 2.00am last night. Still, my other points about the implications of climate change remain.

Finally, all of this discussion is about opinions at the end of the day. Just look critically at the evidence yourself and don't believe everything you read. I know that is exactly what you're doing, but please give credit to the majority of scientists who have had the time to look into the issues in real depth, are open-minded and are trying to unravel the truth, all the while admiting to levels of uncertainty that are inherent in projections. Without doubt some are making the most of some claims to get extra dollars, and its happening on both sides. This debate is being played out in thousands of forums. I'm not going to change your mind as I haven't got the time or inclination to bring forward the majority of the research that supports the concensus and there are always going to be other "experts" (the 1%) who either mis-represent results, don't think critically or widely enough or who have legitimate and valid concerns. That's where and why the research is still needed.

With that, I'm off sailing on MoretonBay this morning before the weather changes.

[anotherT34C]

Originally Posted by Onedaysoon

Camereraderie: OK you've mentioned a name, Dr. Nils-Axel Mörner. I've personaly met him a couple of times. He is well known in climate and rad-waste scientific circles for some rather non-conventional views

I knew that name was familiar... He's the schmuck who believes in "water witching", or finding water (and other junk) underground using a y-shaped stick. Woooooooo. I remember reading about him via James Randi.

Don't think I find him credible.

http://www.randi.org/hotline/1998/0012.html

[bvimatelot]

Originally Posted by anotherT34C

I knew that name was familiar... He's the schmuck who believes in "water witching", or finding water (and other junk) underground using a y-shaped stick. Woooooooo. I remember reading about him via James Randi.

Don't think I find him credible.

The Randi Hotline -- 1998: End-of-month-notes

Well, "water witching" or "Dowsing" or "Water Divining" does actually work. We used a Dowser on a farm in Devon who, with the aid of his hazel twig, found water. We drilled and had a working well!.

Now - it could be argued that our tapping into the natural water table may have helped to cause a corresponding rise in sea-level as Mother Earth strives to achieve a Balance???? I'll have to consult a tame Druid about that one Tony

[anotherT34C]

Originally Posted by bvimatelot

Well, "water witching" or "Dowsing" or "Water Divining" does actually work. We used a Dowser on a farm in Devon who, with the aid of his hazel twig, found water. We drilled and had a working well!.

Now - it could be argued that our tapping into the natural water table may have helped to cause a corresponding rise in sea-level as Mother Earth strives to achieve a Balance???? I'll have to consult a tame Druid about that one Tony

Hmm... maybe he had magical powers, indeed. Or maybe if you just dig deep enough in most places, you'll find water.

[Robertcateran]

I have always been agnostic about water divining, but studies of success rate against general guess work based on topography showed no significant difference- much to my disappointment. I would have though taking water out of a well would probably slightly lower sea level by a very small amount.

Please check the scientific literature to determine the general trend in research and modeling rather than quoting a few mavericks who get plenty of publicity as they encourage business as usual and that is what the media wants. I suppose this sounds like a conspiracy theory , but it is hard to come to any other conclusion after comparing the two sources of information

[Whimsical]

Originally Posted by Robertcateran

I have always been agnostic about water divining, but studies of success rate against general guess work based on topography showed no significant difference- much to my disappointment.

I think divining is a load of bunk but.
A friend had drilled many holes without realising more than about 1 cup of water. Some holes were well over 100 feet. Someone brought over a diviner who claimed there was only one spot where they would find water. 50 feet and shitloads.
Still think it is a load of bunk but I don't say it aloud now.

Mike

[cooper]

....old diviners made money and kudos from keeping the fact that they where amateur geologists hidden. Certain topography can increase the chances of finding water as well as the closeness of the surface to the water. Waggling a stick while going for a nice walk to see whats what is a terrific idea !! That way the knowledge does not get widely known and when other people try the wagging a stick routine it fails. Thus proving that the power only rests with the "devine".


Onedaysoon...I hoped you enjoyed your sail : )