Hello Jen,
Our national broadcaster, the ABC, has struck again with a new low in responsible journalism.
In ‘PNG – That Sinking Feeling’, broadcast last night as part of the ‘Foreign Correspondent’ program, reporter Steve Marshall has trashed any credibility the ABC had left on environmental reporting.
The unambiguous message in the documentary and all the introductory material was that here was firm “evidence” of rising sea levels producing climate refugees.
The most powerful scene was of one islander and the reporter standing waist deep in water where the islanders father had once had his veggie patch. The implication being that sea levels had risen by close to two metres over recent decades.
The only problem with this is that the Carteret Islands are only a short distance from Bougainville where no such sea level rise has been reported. Moreover, the area is only 500km from some very serious recent volcanic activity at Rabaul and form part of an active volcanic chain through the Solomon Islands.
The Islanders appear to have been convinced that they are the victims of rising sea levels and global warming, no doubt from a procession of publicly funded planet ponces.
But if Marshall and the program managers at ‘Foreign Correspondent’ had been able to deal with more than one variable at a time they would have drawn the inescapable conclusion that the islands are sinking.
Instead they appear to have manufactured a piece of green propaganda that neatly dovetails with Al Gore’s thoroughly discredited claim that Pacific Islanders are already being displaced by rising sea levels?
What I find most offensive is the way a group of islanders who are confronted by a serious problem appear to have been exploited.
If the ABC can get something this simple completely wrong, then what does that tell us about the veracity of their reporting on much more complex issues elsewhere?
Regards,
Ian Mott
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
OK, this is from the other side of the planet, but anyway interesting.
As far as I have undestood, the Spitzbergen/Svalbard Islands near the North Pole, are rising due to climate change/global warming.
The phenomenonm can be described as follows :
Ice is melting from the islands and this has obviously been pressuring down the islands and now when the ice is melting there will occur an landrise.
Not arguing against, but I need to see the evidence for Motty’s claims of sea levels or land not rising, rising, sinking, here but not there, or evidence of a lack of evidence for the ABC’s story. Cant expect us all to already know it all like you know everything or just swallow your opinion or stone the crows reserach it for ourselves can ya?
Regardless of whether any evidence is provided, would you stick the islanders in your environmental refugee assistance plan? Or bugger em cos we only care about denying AGW claims?
Ann,
Hasn’t the whole of Scandinavia been rising since it threw off the ice sheet caused by the last Great Ice Age? I seem to remember being taught that at school, ooh, say 60 years ago.
Ian, Have you sent this to Media Watch?
Well if the islands are roughly between the Solomon Islands and Manus Island sites of the South Pacific Sea Level and Climate Monitoring Project, the rate (GPS tectonically corrected) would be around 6mm per year at the moment.
Obviously some people missed The 730 Report item several nights back; “Coastal areas face environmental threats” and the most recent interview with James Hansen also on our ABC this week.
As I recall Hansen’s key points were; CO2 > 400ppm as the major trigger, positive feedback overcoming lag, ice sheet melts i.e. Greenland all over with Western Antarctica accelerating past it soon. Also sea level rise at about 1 m / 20 years up to about 25 m for the atmosphere stopped about 400 + ppm.
Davey,
You are correct on this. However, I did a fast Google as well, and they stated that ” there are areas in the North Sea where land is sinking, due to land tipping in North of Scandinavia.
This could make a very ” interesting” scenario , with the melting of the Greenland ice sheet and the Antarctica etc.???
Re the Spitzbergen landrise, some new , small islands have just appeared in the last few years.
A mate of mine was king of Nugerria atoll. Thats a largish atoll, about 130 nautical miles north of Bougainville Island. He might still be the king, but if so he’s a pretty old one by now.
Graham is/was an aussie, but was born there, on the family copra plantation, & the 250 islanders, are polynesian.
In the 70s, when PNG was going through its self government thing, & then independence, with quite a bit of pain, a lot of plantation owners got out.
They had “Gone Pinish”, [finish], in the local lingo.
Now, this is not such a good thing for an atolls people. With your white man gone you find that the two way radio stops working, either because its broken, the batteries are shot, or the generating plant is broken, or its out of fuel.
You can no longer call for help when required, & even if you could, the airstrip has trees where there used not to be trees.
For this reason, & a few others, the elders of Nugerria came to Graham one day in 1973, & told him that he was going to marry Tettau, the island princess. As the polynesian heritage is through the Female line, that made him king, assured his PNG citisenship, & secured their white man.
All the forgoing is to prove that “I know a bit about atolls”, & I thought it may be of interest to a few. I spent quite a bit of time at Nugerria, having first gone there to build them a jetty.
The atoll is 30 Nautical miles long, by 10 wide, & consists of about 153 Islands. I say about, because, depending on the strength, direction & duration of the trade winds each year, it varied from 150, to 156 islands.
The first thing I found was a WW 11 solid coral ruble jetty, stretching from deep water to the south of the home island, 200 yards, across the coral flat, to a point 20 yards off the island. The island had moved over 20 yards in 30 years.
On the airstrip island I found the remains of a small boat jetty, 90 feet inland from the beach on the northwestern side of the island. In another spot there were coconut palms, still alive, 50 Ft off shore, in 3 Ft of salt water.
These islands move around quite a bit, I’m sure a good greenie could do any number of BS stories on them.
After the program on the ABC, I spent 5 minutes googling the Carterets and learned more than I had from the TV. It’s an interesting story from the human interest side and also because it describes, in a contemporary context, the normal growth and demise of coral atolls. A process that was first described by Darwin I gather.
I thought the journalism was substandard because had the journo actually done a little bit of work to augment his taxpayer funded travel to exotic locations, he could have produced a much more interesting and informative article. Instead we got the usual “blame everything on the crisis of the day”.
If I get prostate cancer, you can be damn sure it’ll be blamed on global warming.
I think the appropriate description of all this, in the local vernacular, would be “bullshithimbillongwanka”
Enclose quotes from Wikipedia.
“It has also been suggested that the movement of tectonic plates could be responsible. The islands lie in one of the most complex tectonic areas of the earth. They sit next to a plate convergence zone at the boundary of the Pacific Plate, Indo-Australian Plate, and South Bismark Plate on a subduction zone next to the New Hebrides Trench (Bougainville Trench), where the earth’s crust is disappearing. There is an active volcano on Bougainville Island, 86km away.
Last but not least, it should be noted, that the Carteret islands are built entirely on a base of coral that sits atop of an extinct volcanic mount. In the usual course of events, such islands eventually subside simply due to the underlying volcanic rock being worn away and not replenished. The Carteret islands are a classic example of such coral islands in their final stage of existence. Interestingly, Charles Darwin was the first to propose such a system of creation and submergence”. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carteret_Islands
It is also quite informative to simply google “Carteret Islands” where the range of reporting angles and biases are plain to see.
The ABC had been there before http://www.abc.net.au/science/news/stories/s866600.htm reporting that the same story was taking place on Takuu (or Mortlock) Islands, the home of “a Samoan-American woman, known locally as ‘Queen’ Emma Coe, bought the island for four axes and 4.5 kg of tobacco. Under Imperial German protection, she had all the trees chopped down and replaced with coconuts, and she imported Papua New Guineans from New Ireland to work the plantations”.
And the fact that this is occuring in two places would tend to suggest that the dynamiting of coral explanation at Wikipedia is less credible.
The really interesting issue to arise out of this is the question of how many other pacific atolls are actually subsiding for the same reasons put forward by Charles Darwin but collectively being misreported as rising sea levels?
It also appears that the program was also screened on ITV, with the first report in the Sydney Morning Herald on March 30 2002. Other conspicuous turkeys feeding on this bit of journalistic offal include newswire, the Ebono Institute (with two articles), Science & Nature, some sort of Jeremy Sutton-Hibbert with his own photos, while The Independent Online was in there boots and all with a similar story in the indian ocean.
But it seems the ABC just can’t get enough of it with Lateline on 5/02/2007 http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2006/s1840956.htm
Transcript
TONY JONES: The reality of global warming now appears to be accepted by the vast majority of international scientists. This weekend’s report from an international governmental panel on climate change painted a grim picture for thousands of Pacific islanders, a warning that the sea levels could rise dramatically over the next century. And on Papua New Guinea’s Carteret Islands it’s already happening. The entire population is preparing to leave their homeland, forced out by the rising sea. Lateline’s John Stewart has this exclusive report.
The same “exclusive” story was run on Life Matters on 1 November 2006 and the list goes on and on.
Clearly, Climate Central has called for “evidence” of rising sea levels and the Climate Cadres have gone right out there and manufactured it.
Good thinking Davey – Media Watch will be right onto it.
They deplore this type of thing!
Ian appears to be doing an impersonation of a monkey at a typewriter.
Apparently
“The only problem with this is that the Carteret Islands are only a short distance from Bougainville where no such sea level rise has been reported. Moreover, the area is only 500km from some very serious recent volcanic activity at Rabaul and form part of an active volcanic chain through the Solomon Islands”
simultaneously proves the islands are sinking and rising sea levels are bunkum.
Wow. Thats powerful.
So Anthony that comment means you support the clear stupidity in blaming global warming for their dilemma??
Ann,
Can Australia look forward to dragon ships full of environmental refugees from Scandinavia? You would have no problem fitting in – at least you can all speak English. I must suggest a docu-drama on this to the ABC.
You know that every port worldwide records sea levels, and has for at least 50 years? Sea levels rising should be easily and consistently verifiable, not estimated, guestimated and conjectured. The point being that sea levels are not rising at any port with a record of sea levels.
And Anthony- actually, yes it does. It proves sea levels are not rising quite neatly, and suggests the area is sinking due to a routine and repeatedly observed result of volcanic activity.
But hey! Let’s not let empyrical science get in the way of a really cool morality drama!
SBS couldn’t help themselves either. http://www.worldnewsaustralia.com.au/region.php?id=135457®ion=2
I watched the Foreign Correspondent piece. Like most reporting in Australia, the emotive side of this story dominated. It seems that many people are caught up in what journalists regard as the misery of other people. It becomes a never ending source of sadness for some.
This report, like too many others, did not report the science behind the cause of the inundation of the islands. I wanted and needed to hear this information (and I don’t mean a climate change proponent’s explanation). The credibility of the story suffered as a result. Australian journalism ought to contain scientific rationale or at least a scientific discussion of the issues to ensure consumers receive as much as possible of a balanced reporting or recording of events. I did note that there was mention that there had been no known study of the environmental issues that the islanders have been facing.
I do feel a great deal for the people of the island atoll. They have said to have occupied the islands for some 400 years, and have noticed changes most in the last 50 years. Their lives will change dramatically, especially if they are forced to move to Bougainville. I hope that their transition and move from their land will be assisted and supported, because change like this will be difficult.
I have no doubt there are changes happening in our climate. And I have no doubt that humans have contributed to increases in temperatures. However, I also believe there are larger and longer cycles in the earth’s environment and climate that are beyond human control or influence. We will all need to adapt to and find opportunities in the changes that will inevitably happen.
Friends of the Earth http://www.foe.org.au/campaigns/climate-justice/media/news-items/front-page-news-feed-1/climate-justice-a-fair-share-of-the-atmosphere and WWF http://www.wwf.org.au/articles/climate-refugees-in-a-drowning-pacific are also claiming climate change is causing sea level rise on these islands.
They are also asking for donations.
Is this fraud?
Toby – I do not support soley blaming global warming for their dilemma. However I don’t believe that making an ambigous 2 sentence claim amongst 10 paragraphs of assertions and insinuations is any better.
Wreckage – I understand there are slightly more sophisticated measures of sea level changes that taking measurements at ports, no-one has suggested sea levels rise neatly and exactly what emprical evidence has Ian provided for his argument?
Ian has pointed out that the island is on a volcanic chain and that there has been recent ‘activity’.
So by your reasoning, this is empirical evidence? Interesting notion….You also appear to think sea levels may not be rising. Is this based on the empirical evidence of sea port measurements?
I strongly suspect that the volcanic/tectonic story under the oceans has a great deal to do with both ENSO and the recently (1999?) noticed Indian Ocean Dipole, and warming of the Antarctic Peninsula. If there is a breakthrough on this, we may see IPCC sink without trace. Where will all the refugee scientists go? Possibly they will switch bandwagons to the new craze of TISTA (Tectonically Induced Sea Temperature Anomalies). I can feel a paper in Nature coming on…
Anthony my opinion on sea levels rises ( or lack thereof) are based on many things. Not least that since the last ice age sea levels have been consistently rising ( by varying amounts). Satelites are not accurate in measuring minute rises because the error factor is greater than the change they are measuring, requiring many years of data to try to remove teh error factor.
The measurements at port arthur(isle of the dead) do not indicate any dramatic rise in sea level.
And i have certainly not noticed any visible rise in sea levels during my life time of diving and snorkelling around australia’s coastline. Have you?
so do i believe sea levels are rising at a dangerous level, and do I believe these unfortunate islanders can blame humans for their sinking island? NO CERTAINLY NOT. !
Only 3000 years ago global sea level is generally accepted to have been about one to two meters above the present level. That it is currently rising at a few mm per year coming out of the LIA is nothing unusual or alarming.
The recent summary of findings from the South Pacific Sea Level and Climate Monitoring Project is well worth looking over.
See the first paper listed at: http://www.bom.gov.au/pacificsealevel/presentations.shtml
It is titled “What the South Pacific Sea Level and Climate Monitoring Project is Telling Us”.
This quote is from the summary – “Historical sea level trends, and even to an extent the current SEAFRAME sea level trends, would suggest that we could expect sea level rises of less than 0.5m over the next 50 years, which is considerably at variance to current scientific commentary. It is possible, therefore, that the effects of recent accelerations in climate change have not yet started to have a significant contribution to or impact on current sea levels; but based on international scientific opinion, it is more a case of when, rather than if.”
Disregarding the obligatory nod to AGW the actual rate of rise over the past quarter to half century from a broad range of stations (p.9) is particularly telling. It averages 0.67 mm/year. A rise of less than an inch and a half over the past 50 years can not account for what is happening in the Carteret Is.
Anthony is simply engaging in a bit of rearguard sophistry. It is common knowledge that sea level rises over the past 50 years has been nowhere near the 2 metres indicated by the program. So reasonable men and women would have no qualms about concluding that the observed change in water levels is the result of sinking islands, not rising sea levels.
But I guess that leaves Anthony well outside the set of reasonable men and women. If he had bothered to read Luke’s post on measured SL rises in the area he would have his answer. But clearly, his only purpose here was to sow a little mischief and muddy this already very murky water. On ya bike, ya bum.
Hi Ian, gee, did I touch a nerve or something?
Where is Luke’s post or am I not worthy? Might have been usefule to include a link in your article, if you are relying on it for your data… don’t you think? Dare I say, it would seem reasonable to do so.
Thanks for your kind words , Davey!
Re, climate refugees from Scandinavia, we actually don’t know yet if it’s gonna be colder or warmer here!!! You know them experts….
Davey,
I visit this blog for many reasons, and one of them is to improve my English…. I have learned many new words, for example, ” spivs”, ” shonks”, ” as well as some urban slang! LOL!!! Most words from Motty, Pixie and Lukey.
On the drive programme on ABC 666 local radio last Tuesday, the presenter had on a researcher from ANU going off to do some preliminary work on a drowned lake off the coast of Kangaroo Island.
Apparently it is much like Lake Alexandrina of today with all its features still intact ie beaches, dunes etc ,albeit under many metres of seawater.
It suggests that the sea level rise of that time must of been rapid as the features weren’t eroded by wave action with the gradual rise of sea levels.
The lake existed during the last Ice Age.
I wonder who can be blamed for that particular episode of global warming/sea level change/tipping point that caused this lake to be drowned and where can compensation be claimed?
It is also worth noting that the ABC’s own science show made it absolutely clear that the islands were sinking back in 28/05/2003.
As Anthony didn’t bother to look at the links I provided above, and then had the gall to claim I should provide some links, I provide this one again. http://www.abc.net.au/science/news/stories/s866600.htm
But even without the fact that the ABC didn’t even bother to reference their own work before shooting their mouth off, the islands are only 86km from Bougainville and the reporter could only get to the Carterets from Bougainville, then even the dumbest, knuckle dragging green neanderthal should have wondered why there were no stories of rising sea level at Bougainville.
This story provides a very useful insight into the green mind. It’s curiosity extends only so far as the first factoid that reinforces their prejudices. Anything beyond that is pure no-mans-land.
Ann,
You speak, or at least write, better English than most Australians. I bet you speak a couple of other languages too. I remember going into an office in Brussels once, where the lady was speaking on the telephone in Flemish. She then spoke to me in perfect English, and then to the next person in French. Maybe she spoke German, or Spanish, at home.
Ann, Perhaps you could “refugee” your way to Australia and get a job as a teacher. Just mention grammar in the interview and you will get the job for sure.
All the best
Ann: In the past I’ve written to our authorities on behalf of a visiting entertainer who overstayed.
We eventually got him back through the exit gate based on particular talent and personal interest in our environment. However, this world traveller had a good look round everywhere first. Can you hack a backpack?
Davey and Chrisl,
Thanks again, I’m really flattered!!! BTW, this is a bit off topic, but in my Swedish paper today there is a big article from Australia re the thirsty camels…. I would really be keen on to know more about this problem/topic. Somebody might perhaps post a guest post on this????
Gavin,
Unfortunately I’m not a world traveler, but sure I can hack a backpack ( actually this is the first time I hear this expression, does it mean ” carry”)???
Some Isle of the Dead debunking fodder for Toby
The Trumpet urls rebutting Daly on Isle of the Dead watermark is a dead link revived by the very handy “Bring it Back” service for old links-web.archive.org
http://web.archive.org/web/20031203174202/http://www.trump.net.au/~greenhou/reply.html
http://web.archive.org/web/20060218082437/http://www.trump.net.au/~greenhou/home.html
6mm/year is not much for most places. For an island chain as low lying as this one, after a few decades it probably will be significant, although perhaps not as much as portrayed in the ABC report.
Sorry to get back on topic, but did anybody notice in the TV “report” how far away, the other part of the island was.It was not a sea level rise nor was it recent. Perhaps it was where they filmed Lost.
Ann
I didn’t know we had a camel rampage in Australia, but this link has everything you need to know.
http://environment.newscientist.com/article/dn11379-australian-drought-provokes-wild-camel-rampage-.html
Large animal population collapses are not out of the ordinary during bad seasons. In Western Australia (the left-hand third) there is an emu fence which keeps emus from the interior out of the farming country in the south west corner. Sometimes in bad years there are large numbers of birds caught on the outside (the eastern side) of the fence trying to migrate to the west. It’s not a pretty sight by all accounts. It sounds like the camels are going through the same problems further inland.
If you go to Google maps http://maps.google.com.au/maps and search for “Yellowdine WA”, turn it on to satellite image. 15 km to the west of Yellowdine is the emu fence running north-south with mostly farmland to the west and the darker bush country to the east. The fence is a white line on the sat image running north-south. Zoom out until you can see the south west coastline of Australia, you can see the quite clear line between the cleared farmland and the bush. It’s a boundary about 1000km long but I don’t know how much of it has the fence along it.
Sorry folks, I digress. Unlike the Carteret Islands, Yellowdine is not sinking. That completes the circle.
Thanks Boxer. Now I know where Yellowdine is.
Very interesting Boxer, thanks!
Guess though that one million feral camels can’t be too good for native flora and fauna.
For the record, I don’t accept the BOM estimate of 0.67mm annual sea level rise in the pacific over the pasthalf century. That figure is an average of 20 data sets varying in length from 20 to 54 years. It has two major anomalies from Fiji and Rarutonga both recording 4mm annual rises while the rest fluctuate between -2.0mm and +2.0mm. They are both short duration data sets while the longest ones have lower means. When these two anomalies are excluded the mean of the remaining 18 is only 0.3mm a year. (10% of the records account for 55% of the mean) If one were to extrapolate over the century, which is unwise, it would only be 30cm in total, probably much less.
See the first paper listed at: http://www.bom.gov.au/pacificsealevel/presentations.shtml courtesy of Luke’s link above
Furthermore, some of these stations are bunched together, like Fanning and Christmas Island and tend to distort the sample. The BoM has not improved things much by only using eight stations for ongoing research. These are limited to the tropical zone and only cover parts of the Western Pacific. Important blind spots needing records are Norfolk and Kermadek Islands as well as Maria Theresa Reef.
But even this would still be an unrepresentative sample. One cannot generalise about Pacific sea level when there is essentially no data from East of the Date Line. There appears to be nothing from French Polynesia or from Easter Island but this would hardly serve as a surrogate for all the ocean between Cape Horn and Alaska.
Luke, i did not say sea levels had not changed, i said they had not risen much….and your links confirm that !! My comment relates to these islands being flooded by rising seas caused by AGW. That is bollox. You know sea levels have not risen much as well, doesnt mean they might not rise by more…….but the example in teh lead article is yet another example of ‘evidence’ for AGW that is rubbish. You can use your theories as much as you like, and your models….. but most of the actual evidence seems to be bunkum to me….as we have discussed in depth over the last year……..
Toby how bolshy can you get. See what I have written above about sea levels you twit. Am I saying that sea levels have risen by metres. I have reported a modest increase as per BoM’s study. As for – “Most of the actual evidence seems bunkum to me” – yep I guess the world has just warmed up for no reason at all – just woke up and decided to warm up? Theories/models – not even needed for a prima facie case. Put all your faith in cosmic rays Toby. 🙂
Ian – BoM’s study probably covers our ability to participate on local regional issues e.g. Tuvalu etc. We do have an Australian specialist in sea level rise – John Church – so why not at face value accept his findings:
A 20th century acceleration in global sea-level rise (2006), Church, John A; White, Neil J, Geophysical Research Letters [Geophys. Res. Lett.]. Vol. 33, no. 1
“Multi-century sea-level records and climate models indicate an acceleration of sea-level rise, but no 20th century acceleration has previously been detected. A reconstruction of global sea level using tide- gauge data from 1950 to 2000 indicates a larger rate of rise after 1993 and other periods of rapid sea-level rise but no significant acceleration over this period. Here, we extend the reconstruction of global mean sea level back to 1870 and find a sea-level rise from January 1870 to December 2004 of 195 mm, a 20th century rate of sea-level rise of 1.7 +/- 0.3 mm yr super(-1) and a significant acceleration of sea-level rise of 0.013 +/- 0.006 mm yr super(-2). This acceleration is an important confirmation of climate change simulations which show an acceleration not previously observed. If this acceleration remained constant then the 1990 to 2100 rise would range from 280 to 340 mm, consistent with projections in the IPCC TAR.”
We have the recent SPM report talking about an upper range of 59cm for that period and a range of 18-59cm.
There has been some criticism post-SPM release that recent monitoring of glacial instability in Greenland and Antarctica how shown an acceleration of ice loss but I’d suggest this is still being looked at to see if a long-term trend.
Luke, bolshy maybe, but you suggest links to debunk Jon Daly re isle of the dead.I said ntg about jon daly, i merely was making the point that nobody can seriously suggest global warming/ rising sea levels is relevant to the islanders problems. Do your links debunk this? NO they verify it! Does that make me a twit? Only if you are dill i would suggest!!
did i say you thought sea levels had risen a lot….I DID NOT!! I was implying you would surely agree that they had not.
You sent links to debunk something i had not said at all!!! the isle of dead is evidence that sea levels have not risen dramatically…irrespective of jon daly’s thoughts or mean or high tide marks.
stop looking for an argument or debate where there isnt one!
The links were merely to point out some of the criticism of Isle of the Dead mark as high resolution information. That’s all.
This link http://www.marine.csiro.au/media/03releases/21jan03b.htm has good photos of the Isle of the Dead measuring mark and a discussion on its history and how CSIRO are interpreting data.
It is just another reason to come to Tassie to have a look at our heritage.
Recently a UNESCO delgation looked at Port Arthur ( originally established as a sawmiiling and wooden boat building settlement as a possible world heritage site. They also looked at forests already within the massive reserve system in the State.
The ABC reported that the director of the United Nations World Heritage Centre, Francesco Bandarin, flew over part of the South-West Wilderness and met conservation and logging groups.
He says he was impressed by what he saw and did not find any major problems in the area.
“I had the impression this site has great relevance in our system, we have a number of protected forests around the world and this is one of the biggest ones,” he said.
“I think it’s very, very important that this will be kept and managed virtually as it is.”
Just another endorsement by an international expert on the way Tasmania is sustainably managing its forests.
Toby re Daly; given it’s size a lot of funny people lived in Tasmania, each dedicated to something or other. Yeh; I know cause I can tell big stories too about coastlines there and can still easily find the old ebb marks inland.
Luke, I have no problem either way with the 180mm to 340mm guestimated rise to 2100. But the specific BoM stuff showing 6mm to 7mm a year over the past decade or so does not adjust for height changes due to baromentric changes, which are significant. And it is these numbers that are too prone to being extrapolated from.
And as for Greenland melting soon, we already know that this 2.5 million km3 ice mass is only melting at a rate of only 129km3 a year. It would need 2,500,000/129 or 19,400 years to melt.
And that means the current melt rate is only delivering 0.36 of one millimetre of world wide sea level rise each year.
This whole “tipping point” theory that anticipates a rapid melt is contingent on a very major reduction in the height of the ice sheet. It is 1500m high and the theory postulates that a certain reduction in this height will produce an increase in temperatures due to lower altitude.
And that, given the location and the length of the annual melting period (a month or two) is a very dubious assumption. In any event, even if rapid melt was triggered when the ice is 500m lower, that still leaves us a spare 6,470 years to think about solutions.
But in fact, we dont need to think about solutions because they are already at hand. All it will take to stop Greenland and Antarctic ice sheet melting is to build ice dams to capture the melt water so it re-freezes each winter.
The whole ice sheet melt theory is based on all melted water escaping into the sea but if it is trapped in shallow storages it will simply keep on thawing and refreezing for centuries to come.
Jennifer: It seems everyone still has their head in the sand. Nobody lached onto the 7.30 program.
http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2007/s1869888.htm
Ian: It’s time you did some basic physics at home, ice in the jug, -/+ .1 C thermometer etc before commenting on thermal lag or the “tipping point” again.
Gavin, surely you are not suggesting that this load of ABC froth is an addition to the sum of knowledge, are you?
Next you’ll be suggesting that the planning institute doesn’t see a big pot of moolah and job prospects in planning for climate Y2K? Perhaps someone should explain to these bozos that Cyclones used to always head south so their return would be no big deal.
I wonder if they have heard about the empty dams that were all built on an assumption of south bound cyclones?
And as for “the latest papers” on Greenland mentioned by Pittock, the problem is that they were only based on modelled data while ignoring the actual records of ice deposition on top of the sheet.
And as for your moronic little homily about the ice in the beaker at +0.1 degree C, I suggest you take your little beaker and leave it on top of 2.5 million cubic km of ice and see what happens to it when the 5 weeks of summer is over.
Surprise, surprise, it freezes again. And it will also be covered with another 5mm of snow by spring. So when Pittock actually has evidence that new ice deposition has actually stopped, over the entire ice sheet, then come and tell me so I can set my clock for year 4007 when the 1 metre sea level rise will be due.
Better stick to the comedy routine till then, at least someone might take pity on you and toss you dollar.
Leave my mate Gavin alone. And we were being so nice to each other on this post too and ya had to go spoil it.
Ian you wouldn’t know if the results were modelled or not.
Newsflash – facts defeat envelopes:
Science 16 March 2007:
Vol. 315. no. 5818, pp. 1529 – 1532
Recent Sea-Level Contributions of the Antarctic and Greenland Ice Sheets
Andrew Shepherd1 and Duncan Wingham2*
After a century of polar exploration, the past decade of satellite measurements has painted an altogether new picture of how Earth’s ice sheets are changing. As global temperatures have risen, so have rates of snowfall, ice melting, and glacier flow. Although the balance between these opposing processes has varied considerably on a regional scale, data show that Antarctica and Greenland are each losing mass overall. Our best estimate of their combined imbalance is about 125 gigatons per year of ice, enough to raise sea level by 0.35 millimeters per year. This is only a modest contribution to the present rate of sea-level rise of 3.0 millimeters per year. However, much of the loss from Antarctica and Greenland is the result of the flow of ice to the ocean from ice streams and glaciers, which has accelerated over the past decade. In both continents, there are suspected triggers for the accelerated ice discharge—surface and ocean warming, respectively—and, over the course of the 21st century, these processes could rapidly counteract the snowfall gains predicted by present coupled climate models.
1 Centre for Polar Observation and Modelling, School of Geosciences, University of Edinburgh, EH8 9XP, UK.
2 Centre for Polar Observation and Modelling, Department of Earth Sciences, University College London, WC1E 6BT, UK.
Of course being fair minded and doing the old duty of care we should point out in the same issue.
Science DOI: 10.1126/science.1138478
Submitted on December 6, 2006
Accepted on January 24, 2007
Rapid Changes in Ice Discharge from Greenland Outlet Glaciers
Ian M. Howat 1*, Ian R. Joughin 2, Ted A. Scambos 3
1 Polar Science Center, Applied Physics Lab, University of Washington, 1013 NE 40th Street, Seattle, WA 98105-6698, USA; National Snow and Ice Data Center, University of Colorado, 1540 30th Street, Boulder, CO, 80309-0449, USA.
2 Polar Science Center, Applied Physics Lab, University of Washington, 1013 NE 40th Street, Seattle, WA 98105-6698, USA.
3 National Snow and Ice Data Center, University of Colorado, 1540 30th Street, Boulder, CO, 80309-0449, USA.
Using satellite-derived surface elevation and velocity data, we find major short-term variations in recent ice discharge and mass-loss at two of Greenland’s largest outlet glaciers. Their combined rate of mass-loss doubled in less than a year in 2004 and then decreased in 2006 to near the previous rates, likely due to fast re-equilibration of calving front geometry following retreat. Total mass-loss is a fraction of concurrent gravity-derived estimates, pointing to an alternative source of loss and the need for high-resolution observations of outlet dynamics and glacier geometry for sea-level rise predictions.
or in more detail .. ..
Our results indicate that large variations in outlet glacier
discharge can produce large discharge anomalies in a span of a few years. While the initial triggering for the recent changes
are unclear, it is well known that very small perturbations to
thickness can induce retreat in calving glaciers (15). In the
cases we have examined, large imbalances appear to have
caused rapid adjustments in the glacier geometry leading to a
quick (~2 year) return to near balance, though some degree of
moderate thinning may persist. The surface drawdown of 100
m or more at low elevations within the outlets may have
significant impacts on summertime surface melt rates,
potentially predisposing them to further ice thinning and
retreat. However, prediction of near-future change will
require detailed bed elevation and ice thickness data. This is
not yet available for most of the outlet glaciers.
Dynamic re-equilibration following a perturbation in
geometry may not always be as rapid as observed here. For
example, Jakobshavn Isbrae has maintained high speeds for
several years after retreat and acceleration (fig. S1) (3). In this
case, retreat from the fjord increased inflow from the sides,
potentially resulting in lower thinning rates (~15 m/yr) (5,
10). Likewise, many glaciers along Greenland’s northwest
coast have retreated into the ice sheet with sustained thinning
at rates of a few m/yr but show no apparent change in speed
(1). This suggests that geometry and other characteristics
unique to each glacier may determine the time scale over
which discharge anomalies occur.
The highly-variable dynamics of outlet glaciers suggest
that suggest that flux-gate estimates in Greenland provide
only a snapshot of mass-balance (1). Therefore, special care
must be taken in how these and other mass-loss estimates are
evaluated, particularly when extrapolating into the future
because short-term spikes could yield erroneous long-term
trends. Rather than yielding a well defined trend, our results
are significant in that they show Greenland mass-balance can
fluctuate rapidly. If these changes are the result of recent
warm summers (21), continued warming may cause a longterm
drawdown of the ice sheet through a series of such
discharge anomalies, perhaps with a similar degree of
variability. Therefore, accurate estimates of ice-sheet massbalance
will require sub-annual observations of outlet glacier
dynamics to avoid aliasing this rapidly varying signal.
In other words it can vary, each glacier system is unique and we’re in the middle of finding out. Is it short term variation or the real deal. Gee we don’t know do we. Needs some more that big pot of moolah and Y2K climate dudes to do some monitoring eh?
So Ian you have to ask youself in the immortal words – “do feel lucky punk?”. Of course you feel lucky – answer not needed. But then remember the closing scenes in Dirty Harry.
As for the Gold Coast and sea level rise – not so worried about that – what we should be concerned about is a king tide and a cut-off low at the same time. Or a southerly traversing tropical cyclone. i.e Storm surge risk!! The sort of coastal low that filled Russ Hinze Dam real quick a little while ago. So whoopy-te-doo Ian you just wouldn’t believe it but CSIRO have done some darn modelling and yep the old return frequency for flooding around the Gold Coast and near your beloved waterfall goes up. I suggest a good thing to do is stand under the hydro-pneumatic hammer when one of these little beauties drops its bundle. More natural than us beating facts into you.
And so Gavin was trying to tell about instability and you had to be rude – couldn’t help yourself.
But Gavin – there are advantages:- There’s nothing more enjoyable than doing Ian slowly.
Hello Jen,
Lots of things to talk about here.
The earth’s crust is like a scum, floating on a mass of fluid magma. Seven eights of the mass of the earth is fluid. The continental crust averages about 30 km thick. The sub oceanic crust averages about 6 km thick.
The crust is not rigid, it is plastic, it flexes and deforms.
A mass sitting on top of the crust causes the crust to deform, and to sink. As mass is removed, the crust rises. This is known as isostacy, and the crust is always changing to create a state of isostatic equilibrium.
Most of the islands in the SW Pacific are the tops of sea mounts. As such, their mass causes the crust underneath to flex, and the island tends to sink. However, the sinking is often masked by an effect of rebound, where the mass is bouncing up and down.
When the subject of sea level rise became a topic for serious discussion a few years ago, the federal government commissioned the then National Tidal Facility at Flinders university to investigate the effects revealed by analysis of Australian tide gauge data, supplemented by some other stations in the pacific. The analysis showed a steady rate of rise of about 1.2 mm per year.
A second component of the project was to put precision tide gauges on the islands of the SW Pacific to produce hard evidence of sea level change. The results showed seal level rising at some islands, falling at others, and if I remember correctly Fiji was tilting.
The IPCC estimates that for the worst case scenario of temperature rise, it will take between 6,000 and 10,000 years for the ice caps to melt. By the way, the Antarctic ice cap started melting about 6,000 years ago.
Ian , you don t expect ‘believers’ to see the logic of your arguments do you? But do keep trying. It could be we are wrong in being sceptical of AGW, and the significance of the GW and its human influence and the ‘dire projections’ seen over the last 30 years….but you do make some very powerful points that even the most ardent supporters must find hard to argue against!….although they will of course try in most instances. ( I have no doubt they feel the same way about us however… and sometimes their arguments and points are equally good…i am happy to concede this, but i am far from convinced from the evidence that they can put forward).
Rememeber we all have our own biases and its very hard to not see what we want to see.
Ive said it before and I’ll say it again, but I started as a ‘beleiver’ ( unlike people like SJT who did the inverse i recall), but now I think you can only be sceptical.
I need some real evidence, and I havent seen it yet. I don trust proxy data (from either side), I m sceptical of the accuracy of temperature measurements even in the not too distant past, I am sceptical of where the temp were taken and the influence of local temp change on this data, I am highly sceptical of the models, and I am very sceptical of most of teh evidence we are given to suggest disaster is nigh.
I think scientists and good communicators can argue their case whichever side they are on.
“The ice caps are melting say many believers…no they arent say the non believers…well they would be if it wasnt for the …….”
By the way I seem to recall someone asking a very good question in relation to aerosols and temp changes in the southern hemisphere where there was much less industrial activity, was there a response? I have just looked very quickly and found that.”A steady period of warming is seen for the northern hemisphere from about 1910 through the mid-1940s. For the southern hemisphere, there is less warming observed from about 1910 through 1930, with sudden and rapid warming from about 1930 through the mid-1940s. The northern hemisphere record shows gradual cooling from the mid-1940s through the mid-1970s, followed by rather steady temperature increases thereafter. The southern hemisphere shows an abrupt shift to cooler temperatures after 1945, quite variable temperatures until the mid-1960s, followed by a gradual increase over the remainder of the record. Linear trends for the northern and southern hemisphere series are 0.69°C and 0.70°C, respectively, over the entire period of record. from….http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/temp/jonescru/jones.html
If aerosols really were to blame for the ‘cooling’ then it seems very logical that where there were fewer man made aerosols there should have been less cooling. But this article at least would suggest otherwise.
Empty vessels beyond Sydney?
There is a thought. Hmmm Plenty of noise but not much jazz hey!
re AGW, climate change; teh evidence Toby is what goes on above YOUR head also under your toes etc.
Some human activities leave big holes in the ground. Dont keep looking upwards mate.
I hope Dan can give us the melt down story like rates of change, peak sea levels and ripples in between
So Toby – has the world warmed remarkably in the last 30 years and if so – why?
And also Toby have a think what differences there might be between the hemispheres.
Has it warmed, yes, is it remarkable, I don t know, I don t know that the proxy data is able to support this claim….its certainly not a noticeable increase as far as i can tell/ or anybody else i know….and i know a frog doesnt jump out of water warming slowly to boiling!
Why has it warmed, well it could be co2 from humans….or it might not be. I don t think we understand enough about the planet to be able to make this claim with any degree of certainty.
Yes i m guessing you are meaning less land, more water in the south, yet another example of an explanation for why things are not as logical or easy to argue as they appear on the surface to be.
Yes much of the science points to humans.
But that doesnt stop Ian’s comments from frequently being very good/ interesting. Do you have an argument for why a 5 week period of warmth is going to cause such a dreadful melting so rapidly? Is he wrong to suggest that we could trap/dam teh water and let it freeze again? (Maybe its not possible, it all falls through teh crevasses and runs underground so we can t trap it? But if it does run underground would it freeze down there 1.5 km below teh surface? I DON T KNOW. Ice being melted by a marginally warmer sea will not allow us to trap and dam teh melt water …so we couldn t slow that down if its happening.
Ian certainly made me think twice about my fears of co2 released by a melting tundra/ permafrost. And his rebuttal of your comments and links was very good indeed I thought.
You guys can abuse each other as much as you like ( or me), it doesn t stop me being interested in teh thoughts you all have ( I particularly like Hasbeen’s comments).
I do know that a lot of the ‘evidence’ put forward as proof is rubbish however. Not all of it however, but I have not seen enough to convince me that is for sure.
And I am still of the ilk that since climate has always changed i need to be convinced it is humans….not the other way around.
Gavin sorry your last two comments were too cryptic for me cos they ‘ flew through to the keeper?’…what is the evidence above my head and below my toes? Have i missed something?
Of course the southern hemisphere has more – ocean – see how easy it is if you think for 2 minutes before ranting. Pretty bloody basic Toby.
Toby – half the anti stuff you see on here is total b/s – if you haven’t got the capacity to sort this out yourself now from the information offered your issue I’m afraid.
As for “it’s always changed” – gee that’s so easy to say – but ever thought WHY?
And have you done a two-way table Toby – write down for arguments in dot point one side and anti’s the other – tell me if you do ! Instead of darting around all over the shop.
Hey what about the lies told everyday by our government and picked up by every major news outlet in the nation? We swallow those without getting too upset! I am still stuck with my wheat because the damned government is playing coverup on the AWB Oil for Food Scandal.
Ian you should put the energy you do into discrediting the AGW arguement into … say questioning general media laziness (or dare I suggest propaganda)in reporting … say … is Iran really dangerous, have we passed Peak Oil, will the ethanol push lead to a massive die off in developing nations … ummm how bad the US economy really is and how bad our economy genuinely is … You know issues that will make a difference to the world your kids grow up in! Amazing stories!
Note how Luke has this heightened capacity to miss the point in his own copied posts. The key point in his long quote was
“In both continents, there are suspected triggers for the accelerated ice discharge—surface and ocean warming, respectively—and, over the course of the 21st century, these processes could rapidly counteract the snowfall gains predicted by present coupled climate models”.
Now lets just have a brief journey into basic comprehension for the three stooges, shall we?
“Over the course of the 21st century” (got that now?) “these processes could” (possible but not certain) “counteract the snowfall gains” (that is, they might merely counteract the gains from snowfall)
And if these gains from snowfall are counteracted then the actual ice mass will begin to decline, but very very gradually.
Note that the paper merely refers to the potential for the marginal gains from snowfall to be rapidly counteracted. (over the next century) It does not refer to the whole damned ice sheet.
Please also note that the Shepherd1 and Wingham2 paper estimates total annual loss of ice from both Antarctica and Greenland at 125Gt or 125Km3. But the number I have been using for Greenland alone was 129Km3/year per NSIDC.
But this number was based on earlier work that has now, thanks to Lukes second paste, “Rapid Changes in Ice Discharge from Greenland Outlet Glaciers”, Ian M. Howat 1*, Ian R. Joughin 2, Ted A. Scambos 3 been revealed to have been a surge that has subsequently slowed down.
But even at that larger melt rate, the 2.5 million Km3 greenland ice sheet will still take 19,380 years to melt. This latest data suggests we have even longer.
It is also worth noting that the Pittocks of this world appear to have only retained the part of the title that refers to, “Rapid Changes in Ice Discharge from Greenland Outlet Glaciers”, but have failed to grasp that these rapid changes refer to rapid reductions in discharge as well as equally rapid increases in discharge.
And this allows your garden variety Climate Cretin to assume that the rapid changes apply to the entire ice sheet volume and, of course, that all rapid change is negative.
The pathetic thing about all this is that Luke actually thought he was showing us a hand full of trumps for his own rudimentary grasp of the situation. But thanks for the paper anyway, Luke.
Ian’s nose grows longer by the day. Just keep spinning Ian.
There is a current imbalance measured and calculated as a present day situation – don’t try it just blur the whole paper into a future issue.
The second paper shows that the “accelerating” ice discharge issue is more variable than we thought and the authors argue for much further work to pin all this down.
I actually said in my post “In other words it can vary, each glacier system is unique and we’re in the middle of finding out. Is it short term variation or the real deal. Gee we don’t know do we. Needs some more that big pot of moolah and Y2K climate dudes to do some monitoring eh?
Does this sound like someone who’s claiming we have the definitive answer and it’s all over. Ian a smarty pants would have given you paper number one but not two and claimed more. A sophist would also have not given you John’s Church’s paper of BoM’s measurements showing modest sea level rises.
Ever thought why I’ve given you more than just the abstract in paper #2.
Gavin’s point was about the instability in these systems and our lack of understanding of all the dynamics. A point of future concern and worth some research effort. We clearly don’t understand the cyrosphere near enough.
So this saga illustrates your inability to read and comprehend what’s been written in toto.
Does the new data indicate that Greenland ice melt will take longer or not, Luke?
Longer of course.
Toby: I often use indirect methods to get people thinking about issues for themselves. That’s how I have campaigned for decades.
It goes back to when I was a kid and did a lot of reading on the subject of brainwashing and various counter techniques. My local C of E minister got a few of us going in High School RI class because he himself was a wiz. BTW there was no standing room in those classes cause all the rest from other doms were near empty.
Embarrassing hey.
In my heyday I practiced on unwinding sales recruits and international religious teams frequently trained in the biggest pyramid opps college in Melbourne. It’s a small world when it comes to making subjects for submission enterprises. Oddly my last caller is also a scientific instrument maker so he got the reverse message too this week.
Toby: Given I was either making up or making work the greatest range of instruments, recorders and controls this country had in the post war years starting long before most posters here could pull on their socks I could cry at much of the stuff written in response to fresh questions about our environment and its management. Even a few old timers have no idea how modern technology fits in and my judgement on that applies to their understanding both models and real systems.
Interacting inputs can be tested in many ways. Essentially we rely on initial observations then calibrations to zero in on results. Complex system design, also calibration of models for is a special branch of engineering and physics. In my early days our learned masters frequently got either their sums or their initial assessments wrong. However they could each swear to a perceived certainty in their particular work. Demonstrating errors in a non destructive way sometimes required a great stretch of the imagination.
Toby: We each live by our wits (as always) in this cluttered modern world.
My blunt message to others is to depend primarily on direct observation then follow your instincts as science is just a luxury. Even more of a luxury is exploiting our ability to procrastinate.
In my winners and losers game, the only experts are the ones picking the right trends. Like the pokies, I don’t put two bob on random events unless it’s for charity.
We had more rain overnight but it was another thunderstorm where lightening hitting the ground triggered the downpour. Two mature cats shut out on the veranda reckoned it was freaky stuff and are both still under my bed today.
Although we had heavy rain and the creek was up early I bet it’s down again as I cant hear the flow measuring weir.
This week John Ives a former CSIRO scientist was on ABC 666 radio comparing this drought with the one in 1944 -45 by soil our moisture & evaporation records over the 118 year period.
Worst in history is a subjective thing.
Moisture and evaporation rates were my thing in industry. I sometimes write to authorities now about tree stress and sudden shock based on my experience with cellulose. Subtleness in structural timber is also subjective.
I once used long strands of human hair to find due points and many other things to do with drying regimes.
Hey that’s why Toby should examine what’s between his toes from time to time
Toby
“Why has it warmed, well it could be co2 from humans….or it might not be. I don t think we understand enough about the planet to be able to make this claim with any degree of certainty.”
We certainly don’t, as laymen, have that ability. We couldn’t go out and run a synchrotron, design a 747 or launch a moon shot. That’s why these days there are specialists for everything. It’s just a limitation of being human. Apart from a few outliers, and professional pontificators with no actual current scientific knowledge, the answer is known, with a good degree of confidence.
Thanks for the feedback, Toby, and thanks for the questions. The most powerful intellectual weapon in anyone’s armory is the willingness to ask a simple, even silly question.
And the first defence of those bent on misleading others is their impatience with or contempt for the person asking that question. Use it well and use it often.
And don’t worry about Gavin, he doesn’t have an encore, just a regular stream of off-topic ramblings that are sometimes mistaken by undergrads as the voice of wisdom.
“is their impatience with or contempt for the person asking that question” .. .. hmmm .. .. fasinating – noted.
Of course Toby might note that a technique by radical activists is just to keep yelling and asking 1,001 stupid questions that never lead to a discussion. The basic anti-AGW propagandist’s tool is to convince the public that’s it’s very scientifically uncertain. As admitted by the Republican’s chief strategist at the time. Just keeping pounding away on the uncertainty or keep up the perception of uncertainty.
Ian: Before the encore we must recognize the symphony. We can do this a number of ways for Toby’s sake on or off topic but it depends on Jennifer’s wish to let us indulge in further discussion either way on practice or “best practice” if we want modern jargon.
Let’s start with this confession; I have no science qualifications what so ever to defend however I doubt that I need one for even the loftiest on this next little digression. It’s all about seeking anomalies to prove uncertainties in general though.
I recall Luke’s link in the Canberra Storm thread to NOAA’s current hot spots in the Pacific sent Ian off chasing chills anywhere he could find one. I made the guess then that waters were quite warm around Bass Strait after many years of storm watching in the region
http://www.osdpd.noaa.gov/PSB/EPS/SST/data/hotspotese.gif
Jennifer: I was going to branch off onto assessing the values in historical measurements re climate etc after the Daly / Port Arthur thing but this is also important. Hey; did you notice nobody picked me up on using human hair hygrometers (beastly unpredictable things). Our vision looking back today is clouded by such history but this is why I say we can still read between the lines. Trends come only from comparisons made with wide experience and limits in the bounds of our ignorance. Sorry Ian. That’s the wise factor.
http://www.physics.uwo.ca/~whocking/p103/instrum.html#tagg
I did a lot of work for people interested in stream flow, laminar differentials, turbulence etc. Unfortunately we don’t hear enough about “turbulence” in say bushfires or other reactions where rates of change are critical in determining outcomes nor do we hear much about things like tone, system fatigue or shock on this blog.
Big notes I see almost everyday. Today it was a former “apprentice of the year” who reckoned on fixing the split face of badly restored antique Italian violin. Us retired “jack of all trades” feared to anticipate what another “handy man” could do.
My contribution to the group conversation was the story of my former metal trades master who retired into the glib art of “faking” in restored heirlooms. Perfection at best is an illusion. Need I go on?
Several of my old masters gave their best to a railway workshop during the ww2 effort. One taught me how to “ring” a big steel shaft with a ceased roller bearing with a 14lbl sledge hammer. The faker above was obliged to create optically flat and ridged test surfaces in heavy cast iron slabs by hand.
After months of detailed scraping two out of his three “standards” stuck together in “marking” (dye) tests near completion. Another pair had to be cast in haste and completed on the original schedule. It was his experience that got me “apprentice of the year” and started a life long interest in creating gauges for measurements and testing systems the other way.
Not standing back in industry while some Uni physics team tests your creation or maintenance is satisfying enough. As I have so often stated the science comes later.
Thankyou all for your advice and thoughts! Yes I have noticed ‘contempt’ in some of the responses Ian. Luke it must be nice to be so certain of your stance! Do I have a problem if i do not believe? No, I don t think so, if I seem confused I haven t expressed myself clearly. I m not confused I am sceptical, the only position anybody should have on this issue!! Its just a question of the degree of uncertainty.
Interesting article in the Australian on sat.
Hydroclimatologist Stewart Franks says “We cannot explain natural variability ….or the when and why of cloud formation…..its clear we do not understand enough of the physics of climate to understand natural variability but I dont expect climate change from c02 to be particularly significant at any point in the future”
And “You don’t appeal to consensus if you have a scientific argument” …clearly the science is not settled because like it or not there are still many scientists who do not accept the co2 hypothesis.
And on models ” They all get clouds hugely wrong and a small change in clouds has a much bigger effect than doubling co2″
SJT I know we can build a 747, I know we can get to the moon, would I try it and do it myself, obviously not. BUT since most people agree we do not understand our world as well as we would like it seems reasonable to keep questioning/ looking. You say “Apart from a few outliers, and professional pontificators with no actual current scientific knowledge” thats a bit harsh on the scientists who do have the guts to say what they actually think.
When you go looking for ‘something’ its easy to find “it”, just ask Rosenthal and his rats….(The self fullfilling prophecy or pygmallion effect)
http://www.accel-team.com/pygmalion/prophecy_02.html
Confused..no, interested…yes. Religous …no/ agnostic yes
cheers, Toby
Toby – it’s OK to have doubt – but work out your likely’s ,unlikely’s and don’t knows. This issue is about risk management with incomplete data.
When you see a fundamental change in southern hemisphere circulation patterns that line up with current observations and models including aspects of our current droughts I say we have some cause for concern. But you have to be prepared for some study and pondering to work out the intercactions.
As I said do your two-way table of effects/for and against arguments and see what the balance tells you. Frankly I’d be surprised if you didn’t get a compelling story.
And as for Stewart Franks – we can explain about 50% of the variability – it’s called El Nino – so so much for Stewie – do some reading !
Luke: Watchers on the edge of this raging debate are going to have to plant their retirement money somewhere some time. At the moment I reckon all fringe dwellers having two bob each way are running out of options and it’s the ones with few private funds that will be most affected by substantial change to where we can all live comfortably
Teachers have another obligation and that is to get youngsters up and running in the right direction. Who knows how many will have to contemplate sharing resources with those now living on sand and coral. Better still what will their technology be worth in places like Dubai?
Gavin just can’t help himself “how many will have to contemplate sharing resources with those now living on sand and coral”.
Despite all the evidence that coral atolls sink, and that past records of sea level rise are distorted, Gavin is back at the old dogs vomit, predicting sea level crisis on the basis of chooks guts.
The thing about old dogs Ian is they fall off the front of the pack. Have your day mate.
Please note there are relict coral reefs that are presently some distance above current sea level. I dare anyone to suggest from this that the sea level is not lowering.
S. Moore (actualy geomorphological occurrences, but raised in jest in the context of this thread)
This is really important ive got a project due on this friday so i need the answer by thursday night. My Question is what does the parish/church think about sea level rising??
thanking you
from cindy