Gulf Of Thailand Won't Rise With Global Warming, Expert Claims

[plachon]

I was anchoring the speedboat off Sam Roi Yod yesterday and got the propeller in the muddy bottom. Sure could have used a bit more water. Any good news that its coming soon? The whole coast near Hua Hin is so shallow. It will be fantastic for boating to have the extra inches or feet and will open up an entire new playground for boating and enjoying nature!

Troll alert. Come out from under your bridge before those water levels rise and drown you and sink your tub.

Looks like Plachon is definitely a troll. Dolphin Bay was the exact spot. PM me and I might invite you out for a cruise, if for no other reason than to keep you from TROLLING!

As a plachon, I try to avoid trolls, whether of the bridge/cyberpsace-dwelling variety or the ones attached to the end of a nylon line. So, thanks for the invite, but speedboats aren't my scene and I choose my company carefully.

[Canadianvisitor]

Furthermore, as Canadianvisitor pointed out, there is a whole load (far more than we have ever released to the atmosphere) of methane, and CO2, currently locked in permafrost. It's a timebomb.

'Locked in permafrost'. Manmade? i don't think so.

Probably a volcano that put out more co2 and other very poisonous gasses than man could make in a million years driving their cars and running their factories.

Maybe we should stop breathing, it is a major contributor to co2. It is probably the chinese and indias faults. They are with to many people. Culling a few billion will restore the blance.

I find it amusing that you forgot to include the combustion of hydrocarbon based fossil fuels in you astounding assessment.

And also your scientific analysis that included the word "Probably"

CO2 released to the atmosphere is caused by climate change. Not the other way around.

If it gets warmer you will get more evaporation which leads to more snow, which leads to growing of the ice.

It is just a cycle caused by the differences in the sun. Nothing we as a species can do about it.

Taxing people for driving their car and heating their house will not change that. What it does is make certain people rich and industrialized countries as a whole more poor as their industrie has to pay dearly, while the biggest polluters (air quality , not global warming nonsense) make a killing. Bye bye US, UK, EU.

And to be on topic again. Seas may rise, but land can also rise (The Alps are a good example). Depends on which tectonic plate. Go check the geografic specifics of Thailand and see why it might be true.

In this angle you seem to be saying that the temperature will go up, (which is not caused by climate change) which will lead to more evaporation and I agree. Then you seem to say that there will be more snow because the temperature went up.

I find this puzzling as I do the Alps rising, (that took a while actually).

Many computer models leave out 'small' things like Spee mentioned. The computer power needed to include those is net yet available. I should know because computers are my business.

As a good example of what is possible you should look to the predictions about the weather.

Thailand would not be interesting because if you say that the next 5 days will be sunny with an occasional shower you are right for almost the whole year.

In Europe (The netherlands specific) the weather forecast are still very inaccurate. On a wednesday they predict that saturday will be 28 celsius and sunny. Tursday it is 'calibrated' with new data and it is 24 degrees with occasional clouds by friday after a new calibration the forecast is 16 with thunder and rain.

When you open the curtains on saturday yu see that it is occasional sunny with a little drizzel for an hour.

That was a real observation from last week.

Take that same computerpower or better a factor 1000 less because the al gore models were calculated on machines a few years ago. Make the timeperiod longer, leave out many small things that computerpower will not be able to calculate and you have a recipie for a very inaccurate calculation. The co2 effect was not a surprise result because the model was calculating the effect of c02 without considering many 'small' effects.

What is clear now is that those 'small' effects cancel out most if not everything from those calculations.

I mentioned co2 many times because that is the hoax. As another member mentioned the focus now very slowly goes to methane and it is not called global warming anymore but climate change. All 'signals' that the whole global warming hoax is falling down. Losing face is also in the west very difficult.

Think about that chart for gore again, the one showing c02 levels compared to samples found in ice core from many many decades ago. Then think of how co2 would be trapped in ice? Wouldn't a hot climate melt ice and erase those 'records' from history. And would a cold period not be with less co2?

Water levels are not like in your bath tub. If it was that easy we would have much better results with models representing the world. One way for scientist to get better results is to get their noses out of the computer screens and look out the window more. There is where the real world is.

I not looked up the tectonic movements of Thailand but i do know that in the last 40 years the sealevel is lower for most of Thailand. Islands were never that much higher than the sealevels and erosion (also manmade) is the main cause that there is flooding. Some islands even sinks. Relatively it looks like the sea is rising, but in reality a few islands are sinking.

The last measurments of sealevels show that seas are not rising. Why are many ignoring that FACT!

Inconvenient facts?

I should know because computers are my business.

Seems to sum it all up right there.

[Khun Jean]

Sums up what?

Very long quotes and little data or opinions from you.

Please have another try.

(a deliberate very short post to keep quotes short).

[canuckamuck]

Great comments KJ, too bad your talking to those who have already made up their minds.

[brahmburgers]

I used to visit Cay Caulker (pronounced 'Key') - tiny but popular island off the Belizian coast in Central America.

Last time I was there, someone (local gov't?) had put up a skirt of metal roofing around the island, upended and somehow anchored in the sandy sea bed. It seemed (to me) ludicrously inadequate against the might of the Atlantic Ocean.

Why am I mentioning this? It just came to mind on t his topic - plus it illustrates some of the things that Man will do to try to counter the awesome forces of mother nature.

The Alps and the Himalayas have risen over time, but ever so slowly, perhaps a few mm per year.

Even if a coastal land mass were to increase in height - it would be rare and localized, and it would rise at a slower rate than the ocean level. The original assertion in this post by the Thai official appears to be wrong on several levels (no pun intended).

Also, a recent Nat'l Geographic issue showed a comparison of about 20 of the world's largest glaciers, and all but one (in the Andes range) were receding substantially.

[nomoretalksin]

BK Magazine - Bangkok (May 2008)

- Bangkok will be under water approx. 2025

- Bangkok is sinking each year 10cm

----

Why are the people still investing in this sinking city?

Edited June 9, 2008 by nomoretalksin

[brahmburgers]

BK Magazine - Bangkok (May 2008)

- Bangkok will be under water approx. 2025

- Bangkok is sinking each year 10cm

----

Why are the people still investing in this sinking city?

you've heard of Occam's Razor? ....The simplest solution is probably the best solution.

Well, here's Albertsen's Razor:

the more congested, polluted, and gridlocked a city, the higher the property prices.

It fits for Bkk, and it fits for every city in the world.

People are a strange species. We're the only species to torture and kill our own kind - for weird reasons (honor killings, different philosophical outlook, etc.). If I believed in reincarnation (which I don't) I'd choose to come back as a kite.

Edited June 10, 2008 by brahmburgers

[Robski]

The last measurments of sealevels show that seas are not rising. Why are many ignoring that FACT!

Inconvenient facts?

Inconvenient facts indeed...

http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/c...ier-799303.html

http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/c...and-429764.html

http://www.terradaily.com/2006/061221015453.078uvrt9.html

http://www.worldviewofglobalwarming.org/pa...ising-seas.html

http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/05/03/asia/pacific.php

[nomoretalksin]

The last measurments of sealevels show that seas are not rising. Why are many ignoring that FACT!

Inconvenient facts?

Inconvenient facts indeed...

http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/c...ier-799303.html

http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/c...and-429764.html

http://www.terradaily.com/2006/061221015453.078uvrt9.html

http://www.worldviewofglobalwarming.org/pa...ising-seas.html

http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/05/03/asia/pacific.php

Thanks for the links, I allow myself to highlight the main figs/highlights of each article (click below to read the full articles by yourself)

1. http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/c...ier-799303.html

Quote

Most climate specialists believe that the current predictions of a maximum 59cm rise by 2100 made by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change are likely to be significantly underestimated.

Unquote

2. http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/c...and-429764.html

Quote

Rising seas, caused by global warming, have for the first time washed an inhabited island off the face of the Earth. The obliteration of Lohachara island, in India's part of the Sundarbans where the Ganges and the Brahmaputra rivers empty into the Bay of Bengal, marks the moment when one of the most apocalyptic predictions of environmentalists and climate scientists has started coming true.

Unquote

3. http://www.terradaily.com/2006/061221015453.078uvrt9.html

Quote

Climatologists so far agree that sea levels will increase 9-88 centimeters (4-35 inches) over 1990 levels by the end of the century (2100).

Unquote

4.

http://www.worldviewofglobalwarming.org/pages/actions.html

Quote

With much stronger language and more assurance than in previous reports, the IPCC members said there was less than 10 percent chance that this global warming was natural -- they pinned it directly on human greenhouse gas emissions. The amount of CO2 spewed out per year from fossil fuel burning is 12 percent greater now than in the 1990s, their report indicated, and the amount of the greenhouse effect is the greatest in 10,000 years.

All probable temperatures are far beyond the increase in the 20th C and will take modern civilization into uncharted territory. Temperatures are sure to rise faster in the next decades, the IPCC said, than they did during the same time span in the last half of the 20th century.

Even now, the scientists reported, the last time the Arctic was significantly warmer was about 125,000 years ago, before the last ice age. At that time, sea level rose 4 to 6 meters as polar ice melted. For this coming century the IPCC is forecasting sea level to rise from 7 inches to about half a meter, depending on emissions and warming. The scientists expressed uncertainty about rapid melting of the Greenland ice cap, citing a lack of enough research so far; this is sure to be one of the more controversial parts of the report since some glaciologists think Greenland will add considerably more to sea level.

Scientists said "it is very likely that hot extremes, heat waves, and heavy precipitation events will continue to become more frequent," that it was very certain that the ocean would become more acid from taking up more CO2 and that the great currents in the North Atlantic were likely to slow but not stop.

If CO2 emissions can be reduced far enough, the report estimated, the atmosphere could be stabilized at a much lower level of greenhouse effect than is forecast now. Still, the effects of global warming will be with us for many centuries, the IPCC said, because of the inertia of the atmosphere and oceans and the 100 + year persistence of greenhouse gases.

The significance of this report is less its absolute numbers, than in the strength of its judgements and its acceptance, in the UN's consensus procedure, by the world's nations including the U.S. and China. The IPCC will report in more detail later this year on changes to the natural world, and on mitigation and adaptation strategies to reduce the impact of climate change. To read the current report, please go to:

http://www.ipcc.ch/press/prwg2feb07.htm

10 MYTHS about Global Warming

Don't believe these commonly heard statements:

*

It isn't really happening

(documented science overwhelmingly shows temperatures rising rapidly)

*

It's natural

(temperature increases, especially since the 1970's, are far above natural variations)

*

Any effects well be very gradual

(not only are severe storms getting stronger, but climate history shows sharp climate changes can occur abruptly, in only a few years)

*

It does not affect the U.S.

(the U.S. is experiencing rising sea levels, more severe storms and droughts, die-off of forests, altered animal migrations, and loss of glaciers such as those in Glacier National Park)

*

It will be good for us

(some areas may become more pleasantly warm, but the cost of negative effects will far outweigh any benefits; disease and heat deaths are increasing)

*

Agriculture will benefit

(CO2 may make some crops grow faster, but also will accelerate weeds, pests and droughts; crops may not grow well where they once did as climate zones shift.)

*

It's being handled by our government

(The current U.S. Administration advocates studying, not dealing with, global warming; its energy policy completely based on burning more coal & oil. Most state and local governments are unprepared for major changes)

*

It's not a big deal compared to national security

(Global warming is actually the most serious threat to the widest range of human concerns. Our national and world security is directly threatened by negative climate effects on weather, water supply, disease, agriculture, marine resources, and health)

*

Technology will solve the problem for us

(Massive "fixes" like burying greenhouse gases are very unlikely, but many smaller changes can make a difference AND are available now)

*

There's nothing to be done anyway

(Everyone can make a difference today -- SEE BELOW...)

15 Very Important Things to Do about Global Warming...from the individual to the national

1. Learn about it -- start with this Web site and see the References.

2. Sell the SUV and choose cleaner, more efficient vehicles. Reduce your driving: one gallon of gas burned creates 20 pounds of CO2. Fuel up on ethanol and biodiesel.

3. Use efficient appliances, replace light bulbs with low-voltage compact fluorescents, check your home insulation. Buy renewable energy, like wind and solar, from your power company.

5. Companies -- the one you work for and the ones you buy from -- can save lots of money and reduce global warming by taking similar steps toward energy efficiency.

6. Shop smart: Look for products made from recycled materials, created with renewable energy, and which help you save money and reduce pollution.

7. Use your vote and influence as a citizen to elect responsive leaders; help them organize the neighborhood and town for energy efficiency.

8. Suburban sprawl makes for lots of global warming pollution; plan for walkable communities, lots of trees, open spaces, and public transportation in and between cities.

10. Build new homes and buildings for efficiency and solar power.

11. Support sustainable farming and forestry, including new crops to make into ethanol and other biofuels.

12. Let the corporations who make our cars, fuels, goods and power know you want their products to be as ecological as possible.

13. At all government levels, develop an efficient energy policy, moving away from fossil fuels.

14. Export new energy technology that uses renewable energy sources to the rest of the world.

15. ....and start doing these things today.

Unquote

will read and paste here the reminder later on sometime this week - Tks Robski-

Edited June 10, 2008 by nomoretalksin

[plachon]

To add to the list above of v. important things to do about global warming:

16. Avoid or stop altogether buying your fuel from US oil companies, esp. Exxon/Esso.

17. Avoid or stop altogether buying consumer products from China. (US and China are No. 1 and No. 2 contributors to CO2 in the world - positive purchasing habits sends the most powerful message to serial polluters)

18. Avoid or stop altogether buying products with palm oil in them, especially if it's come from Indonesia. (Indonesia is No. 3 CO2 contributor in world, mainly due to its destruction of rain forest, mostly for palm oil plantations. The oil is sold to companies like Procter & Gamble and Unilever to turn into household products. You buy their stuff, you help encourage forest destruction and increased global warming. Use your wallet wisely).

There are of course dozens of other things the average person can do to reduce their carbon footprint. Wouldn't agree with point 11 (the biofuels bit) and wonder why there is no mention of flying - an absolutely criminal contributor to the problem when aviation fuel is not taxed and flying is cheaper than train travel in many countries, Uk included. The point is to be a thoughtful consumer and tread lighter on this earth.

[brahmburgers]

There's a guy in Arcata California who took a vow, 13 years ago, to not partake in any transport that uses fossil fuels.

Granted, it's too extreme of a vow for all but a few people to adhere to, but the basic sentiment has merit.

I just cancelled a long distance jet trip. Main reason: not wanting to contribute to burning hundreds of gallons of jet fuel. Plus, jets rip gaping holes in the ozone each time they ascend. Sometimes they have to jettison raw fuel in dire situations.

Ok, one person cancelling one round-trip is not going to put a dent in thousands of trips that happen every day. But if more people got the idea, it would make a difference. Fossil fuels will have a value, once for ounce, around that of natural perfume in not-too-distant future.

Meanwhile, Thailand's EGAT is looking longingly at getting 4 nuclear power plants. Significantly, they're not saying where they want to site them. They'd rather wait until the last possible minute, so as to lessen the amount of resistance from locals. Nuclear plants will have to be near sea coasts, so this topic (rising sea levels) relates to that also. A flooded nuclear reactor building would be more dire than a flooded international airport (SUV). added details: http://sabaibooks.com/nuke1.pdf

[canuckamuck]

I just cancelled a long distance jet trip. Main reason: not wanting to contribute to burning hundreds of gallons of jet fuel. Plus, jets rip gaping holes in the ozone each time they ascend. Sometimes they have to jettison raw fuel in dire situations.

Wow, the jets you fly in are topping 50,000 meters (183,000 feet) Ozone layer is from 9600 to 50,000 meters.

No wonder you cancelled, that's got to be a pricey ticket.

I hear that pilots jettison a lot more than fuel in the most dire situations.

[jumnien]

Has anyone actually looked at the sea level in the Gulf of Thailand? I look at it every day and it has lots of room to rise before it hits the high water mark of days gone bye. I realize this is not the sort of "head plastered against a computer screen" research one gets from frenzied self-proclaimed "scientists". But really, a quick glance at the the ocean is worth a thousand words!

[0Mix1up]

Has anyone actually looked at the sea level in the Gulf of Thailand? I look at it every day and it has lots of room to rise before it hits the high water mark of days gone bye. I realize this is not the sort of "head plastered against a computer screen" research one gets from frenzied self-proclaimed "scientists". But really, a quick glance at the the ocean is worth a thousand words!

did you check if the tide was in or out?

[nomoretalksin]

Has anyone actually looked at the sea level in the Gulf of Thailand? I look at it every day and it has lots of room to rise before it hits the high water mark of days gone bye. I realize this is not the sort of "head plastered against a computer screen" research one gets from frenzied self-proclaimed "scientists". But really, a quick glance at the the ocean is worth a thousand words!

As I read everywhere it's not only the rising sea levels, it's also the unusual changing weather patterns plus "sinking landside" Bangkok. Same above what you said, was to be believed with slow rising sea levels at "New Orleans" and "Burma" Cyclones etc.. Apparantly (the weather experts and scientists say so) Thailand will get those cyclones too, and then a view cm in rise, can mean a whole sea-side city under water for months, after such an event. Don't forget also a dam and a big river near/in Bangkok too.

Show us statistics or similar, not just your rumours/thoughts.

Edited June 11, 2008 by nomoretalksin

[Robski]

I mentioned co2 many times because that is the hoax. As another member mentioned the focus now very slowly goes to methane and it is not called global warming anymore but climate change. All 'signals' that the whole global warming hoax is falling down. Losing face is also in the west very difficult.

Think about that chart for gore again, the one showing c02 levels compared to samples found in ice core from many many decades ago. Then think of how co2 would be trapped in ice? Wouldn't a hot climate melt ice and erase those 'records' from history. And would a cold period not be with less co2?

Seems it's not only the ozone layer that's full of holes.

Ice cores are collected from deep within the Arctic and Antarctic, where snow and frost deposists occur every year regardless of the temperature of the rest of the planet.

Well you'd expect an expert to understand that would be the best place to take samples from.

Edited June 11, 2008 by Robski

[honoluludave]

How much did he pay for his degree and where can I get one

[Khun Jean]

Ice cores are collected from deep within the Arctic and Antarctic, where snow and frost deposists occur every year regardless of the temperature of the rest of the planet

This is funny. So you say the ice on the Arctic and Antarctic does not melt when it is warmer.

Good nothing to be afraid of then, as by your analysis the ice won't melt when it gets warmer on the rest of the planet.

And the other quotes. I guess everyone can find enough 'evidence' in what they believe.

Sofar in quotes supporting global warming caused by co2 the words 'likely', 'probably', 'believed to' etc.. are used to many times. By that you can deduct they are not sure and 'need more research'.

Other information that can be found in the form of collected data does not support the global warming caused by co2.

I guess it is what you put in the search engine what results you get.

I am more interested in numbers that are measured in the last 100 years. Surely that must show evidence that the global warming has a human cause. The last 100 years were the most important because of the industrialisation. Going from almost 0 co2 emission through large emissions in the time industrialisation started all the way to now where the emissions are a lot less.

Data from those 100 years should show a trend, and they do. It is getting warmer. But not in the last 10 years! global warming caused by co2 would suggest temperatures would continually rise and more and more rapid.

And that is NOT happening!

[Robski]

Funny? The weather in the arctic is seasonal just as it is everywhere. I'm merely contending your previous point.

It's a valid argument, perhaps you would like some data on the research sites and the science behind the data that is being gathered.

If you want to shrug it of with humour and disregard the point as irrelevent, how can you expect me or others to take your side of the discussion seriously?

Why are you only interested in data for the last 100 years?

Whichever side of the argument a person is on, they could not base a credible argument on such a small amount of data.

Perhaps you could provide some links to your sources of information, so you can persuade me that you have an opinion worth regarding.

Edited June 12, 2008 by Robski

[ThaiAdventure]

Funny? The weather in the arctic is seasonal just as it is everywhere. I'm merely contending your previous point.

It's a valid argument, perhaps you would like some data on the research sites and the science behind the data that is being gathered.

If you want to shrug it of with humour and disregard the point as irrelevent, how can you expect me or others to take your side of the discussion seriously?

Why are you only interested in data for the last 100 years?

Whichever side of the argument a person is on, they could not base a credible argument on such a small amount of data.

Perhaps you could provide some links to your sources of information, so you can persuade me that you have an opinion worth regarding.

Allow me to do the honours for Khun Jean. (Should keep you going for a bit ) )

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Carbonif...nchor147264

http://www.dailytech.com/Temperature+Monit...rticle10866.htm

http://www.terradaily.com/reports/Tropical...Shifts_999.html

http://motls.blogspot.com/2006/07/carbon-d...atures-ice.html

http://www.cato.org/testimony/ct-pm110697.html

http://geocraft.com/WVFossils/LIND0710.html

Why 100 years? Because we have far more detailed records (and more sources of records e.g ground temperature monitoring) of climate change over 100 years. But those resords still coincide with the longer timescale data.

Edited June 12, 2008 by ThaiAdventure

[Robski]

I'm sure Khun Jean can speak for himself. I'll take a look at the links though thanks.

Link one didn't work.

Link two http://www.dailytech.com/Temperature+Monit...rticle10866.htm

shows a decrease in temperature over one year, do you claim that as proof that global warming isn't happening?

If you look at the graph it shows a dramatic drop over a one year period, yet the rest of the graph shows a sporadic but nevertheless upward trend.

I think if this was put into a scale covering the last fifty years the drop would look even less dramatic.

Do you know who Daily Tech is funded or owned by? It might give some validation to it's credibility, or not.

Believe me I would like to hear some good news, but you have to ask in who's interest is this article.

Link three http://www.terradaily.com/reports/Tropical...Shifts_999.html

uses data from ice cores in glaciers in the Andes, this wouldn't be as reliable as

samples from the Arctic. The data recorded on;ly covers the last 2,00 years and actually one scientist says;

""And in that same record, you can clearly see the 20th Century and the thing that stands out - whether you look at individual cores or the composite of all seven - is how unusually warm the last 50 years have been"

If we are talking about rising sea levels, and that is what this thread is about, you have to be able to look at data much older than 2,000 years.

You have to make comparisons with periods where glacial periods begin and end and the only reliable source for data that old is in the ice cores of the Arctic.

It may or may not be man made warming, but there is a definate shift going on in the worlds weather and the ice caps are retreating further than we have ever known, that water must go somewhere.

I think I can see where this is leading and I'm not convinced, I'd like to be but I'm not.

I'd like to check out the information and the sources of these links further, but I have to say that the weight of evidence and credibility still lays with those that say the planet is warming and with it melting glaciers will raise sea level.

Edited June 12, 2008 by Robski

[Robski]

Please take the time to look at the link I supplied regarding the Thames flood barrier.

http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/c...ier-799303.html

It's relative to the situation in Bangkok.

Two low lying capital cities laying on major river estuaries.

The UK realised a long time ago that sea levels are rising and that it why it undertook such a huge engineering project.

Now there is a possibility that prevention measure will not be enough to hold back the increasing magnitude of future sea level rises.

Coupled with heavier rain and storm predictions, this could mean a major catastrophe for London.

Also take the time to read the original post, the claims of Suphat Vongvisessomjai are in contradiction to the findings of the United Nations' Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change.

Perhaps the cost of building prevention measures are considered too high for the rulers of Thailand.

Edited June 12, 2008 by Robski

[ThaiAdventure]

I'm sure Khun Jean can speak for himself. I'll take a look at the links though thanks.

Link one didn't work.

Apologies...Try again Here

Link two http://www.dailytech.com/Temperature+Monit...rticle10866.htm

shows a decrease in temperature over one year, do you claim that as proof that global warming isn't happening?

If you look at the graph it shows a dramatic drop over a one year period, yet the rest of the graph shows a sporadic but nevertheless upward trend.

I think if this was put into a scale covering the last fifty years the drop would look even less dramatic.

Do you know who Daily Tech is funded or owned by? It might give some validation to it's credibility, or not.

Not entirely. If you had read my posts on pages 5.6 and 7 you would have seen that I actually believe the earth climate is always changing and capable of warming and cooling.

Believe me I would like to hear some good news, but you have to ask in who's interest is this article.

That remains to be seen. From my point of view, I read an article (any article) and validate the facts/sources separately to ascertain if 1) the basis of their arguement has foundation and 2)Whether the arguement has merit. That includes people on thai Visa who may or may not have expertise in this area but put forward a cohesive arguement. Unfortunately, I have not seen a reciprocal arguement from yourself as yet.

Link three http://www.terradaily.com/reports/Tropical...Shifts_999.html

uses data from ice cores in glaciers in the Andes, this wouldn't be as reliable as

samples from the Arctic. The data recorded on;ly covers the last 2,00 years and actually one scientist says;

""And in that same record, you can clearly see the 20th Century and the thing that stands out - whether you look at individual cores or the composite of all seven - is how unusually warm the last 50 years have been"

Is a few million years more to your liking?

Why not reliable? Cohesive arguement please

Clearly? According to the long timescale graph, it is not unusual at all.

If we are talking about rising sea levels, and that is what this thread is about, you have to be able to look at data much older than 2,000 years.

You have to make comparisons with periods where glacial periods begin and end and the only reliable source for data that old is in the ice cores of the Arctic.

It may or may not be man made warming, but there is a definate shift going on in the worlds weather and the ice caps are retreating further than we have ever known, that water must go somewhere.

Ahh. some common ground. Yes the ice sheets are retreating and it is getting warmer, it will also get colder at some point and the ice sheets will once again spring forth. I beleive the earth is generally a cold place with brief warm periods. We are just lucky enough to be in one of the warm spots.

[

I think I can see where this is leading and I'm not convinced, I'd like to be but I'm not.

Where is this leading? I'm just presenting an arguement that just so happens to coincide with Jane Francis

" What we are seeing really is just another interglacial phase within our big icehouse climate." Dismissing political calls for a global effort to reverse climate change, she said, " It's really farcical because the climate has been changing constantly... What we should do is be more aware of the fact that it is changing and that we should be ready to adapt to the change."

Jane Francis

[

I'd like to check out the information and the sources of these links further, but I have to say that the weight of evidence and credibility still lays with those that say the planet is warming and with it melting glaciers will raise sea level.

What evidence. Who are "those" you speak of? Examples please

I also suggest you read back a few pages to see where Khun Jean and I's standpoint is.

Real education must ultimately be limited to men who insist on knowing, the rest is mere sheep-herding.

(Ezra Pound 1908-1969)

[jumnien]

Has anyone actually looked at the sea level in the Gulf of Thailand? I look at it every day and it has lots of room to rise before it hits the high water mark of days gone bye. I realize this is not the sort of "head plastered against a computer screen" research one gets from frenzied self-proclaimed "scientists". But really, a quick glance at the the ocean is worth a thousand words!

did you check if the tide was in or out?

I have gazed at the sea in the gulf at all hours at all tides. You will never understand the phenomenon of nature looking at graphs, statistics, books and such nonsense. Look to the sea and the stars to understand all of heaven and earth!

[BEENTHEREDONETHAT]

Thaiadventure that is some very conviencing stuff you come up, and all very logical. I've definitely moved into your corner on this.

GOOD ONE

[Khun Jean]

I am 100% convinced that climate change is not by any means cause by humand activity.

CO2 or carbon footprint are ways to get money out of your pocket. And on a bigger scale a big threat to western countries, because those are the ones that will suffer as the rest will merily go on with what they are doing.

The 11000 year cycle is quit convincing and why i mentioned 100 years is because we actually have recorder temperatures from that period. (300 years for a few countries.)

As it happen in the last 100 years man made a lot of progress. 100 years ago we were not driving cars, looking tv having lightbulbs, aircondinition etc.. I think you get my drift.

Also within those 100 years we started to industrialise. A lot of coal has been burned and a lot of co2 was released, all with negligable effect on the global climate. co2 and polution is a more direct problem. Humans should not foul up there own 'nest' so to speak. Breathing clean air is a much better argument for reducing fossil fuels.

Since Al Gores movie suddenly it is co2 that is causing global warming and we HAVE to do something about it. (Scare factor, do it now before it is to late). A much used strategy by salespersons. Because that is what he was doing. He was selling the idea that co2 caused global warming. I just aint buying it. But unfortunately our goverments are happy with it, more tax dollars.

I think we just have to prepare for it, nothing will stop it, whatever it will be global cooling or global warming. We are here for the ride.

In short, i think that climate change is caused by the movement around the earth axis which influences the magnetic fields and solar activity. Especially the combination of those 3. And once in a while a vulcano erupting will also influence it on a shorter timescale.

Thanks ThaiAdventure for digging up those articles. They tell a different story, and a more logical one i think.

And that graph is interesting. It shows an enormous decrease in CO2 compared with a long time ago. Another proof that co2 has little to do with global warming.

Edited June 12, 2008 by Khun Jean

[ThaiAdventure]

The UK realised a long time ago that sea levels are rising and that it why it undertook such a huge engineering project.

Rubbish.

The Thames barrier was originally constructed to combat storm surges in extreme combinations of tidal and atmospheric anomolies and had nothing to do with rising sea levels. I remember the Commons debate on the TV.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thames_Barrier

][/b]

Thaiadventure that is some very conviencing stuff you come up, and all very logical. I've definitely moved into your corner on this.

GOOD ONE

Woohooo. The wolf has managed to separate another sheep from the flock

[Robski]

Believe me I would like to hear some good news, but you have to ask in who's interest is this article.

That remains to be seen. From my point of view, I read an article (any article) and validate the facts/sources separately to ascertain if 1) the basis of their arguement has foundation and 2)Whether the arguement has merit. That includes people on thai Visa who may or may not have expertise in this area but put forward a cohesive arguement. Unfortunately, I have not seen a reciprocal arguement from yourself as yet.

I think you are only trying to convince yourself of that.

The links you put forward come from right wing blog spots, hardly impartial.

In fact I have slightly more respect for Khun Jean as at least he is stating his own opinion.

But like Suphat Vongvisessomjai flying in the face of the UN panel on climate change, you are both deluded.

I've seen this kind of argument develop on many forums and it follows a similar pattern.

Ok a simple question for you both.

Do you agree that the Greenland and Arctic ice sheets have receded and continue to recede further than we have seen in recent history?

Edited June 13, 2008 by Robski

[ThaiAdventure]

That remains to be seen. From my point of view, I read an article (any article) and validate the facts/sources separately to ascertain if 1) the basis of their arguement has foundation and 2)Whether the arguement has merit. That includes people on thai Visa who may or may not have expertise in this area but put forward a cohesive arguement. Unfortunately, I have not seen a reciprocal arguement from yourself as yet.

I think you are only trying to convince yourself of that.

The links you put forward come from right wing blog spots, hardly impartial.

In fact I have slightly more respect for Khun Jean as at least he is stating his own opinion.

But like Suphat Vongvisessomjai flying in the face of the UN panel on climate change, you are both deluded.

I've seen this kind of argument develop on many forums and it follows a similar pattern.

Ok a simple question for you both.

Do you agree that the Greenland and Arctic ice sheets have receded and continue to recede further than we have seen in recent history?

Oh dear. Again, no counter arguement, or attempt to provide evidence to the contrary even though requested.

Right wing blog spots......

Here is a sample of the sources I have quoted. How you arrived at a right wing conclusion makes me laugh heartily.

Jane francis is a professor from the Leeds center for Ice Science.

Jane Francis

was awarded the Polar Medal in December 2002 for my contribution to British research in the polar regions, in recognition of my work on fossil plants and ancient climates of the Arctic and the Antarctic. I received the award from H. M. Queen at an investiture ceremony in March 2003. For press picture see http://reporter.leeds.ac.uk/480/honours.htm

The Polar Medal, dating back to 1857, was founded as an Arctic Medal to honour explorers who had died discovering the North West Passage in the Arctic. Following the exploration of the Antarctic in the early 1900s the medal became known as the Polar Medal. Famous recipients of the medal have included great explorers such as Scott and Shackleton, and more recently Fuchs and Hilary. These days the medal is awarded in recognition for individual distinction in polar exploration.

Patrick J. Michaelsis a fellow of environmental studies at the Cato Institute

Cato International is a network of ten major programs and many subsidiary projects working together across linguistic, cultural, and regional contexts to bring the ideas and policies of individual liberty, toleration, free markets, the rule of law, and peace to populations around the world.

Ok a simple question for you both.

Do you agree that the Greenland and Arctic ice sheets have receded and continue to recede further than we have seen in recent history?

Better still. Why don't you show us evidence (one way or the other not fussed ) that you beleive shows they are retreating/growing and let me decide whether it has merit Engage us for a change. You never know. I might be persuaded by your arguement and change my view in the light of new information.

[Robski]

Cato is one of several think tanks providing corporate America and its political allies with research, "expert" testimonials, and most importantly, ideological direction. In a city thick with think tanks, these Washington-based outfits stand out for the seriousness of their opposition to union goals.

Founded in 1977 by industrialist Charles Koch and financial analyst Edward Crane, the Cato Institute presently boasts a full-time staff of 35, more than 60 adjunct scholars and a $4.5 million annual budget. Cato’s board of directors brings together heads of a variety of companies, from Holiday Health Spas to Tamko Asphalt Products. The heavyweights, though, are billionaire media mogul Rupert Murdoch, president and CEO of The News Corp. Ltd., and Frederick W. Smith, chairman and CEO of Federal Express Corp

http://www.ranknfile-ue.org/uen_rwtanks.html#TARGET

Op-Eds for Sale

A columnist from a libertarian think tank admits accepting payments to promote an indicted lobbyist's clients. Will more examples follow?

A senior fellow at the Cato Institute resigned from the libertarian think tank on Dec. 15 after admitting that he had accepted payments from indicted Washington lobbyist Jack Abramoff for writing op-ed articles favorable to the positions of some of Abramoff's clients. Doug Bandow, who writes a syndicated column for Copley News Service, told BusinessWeek Online that he had accepted money from Abramoff for writing between 12 and 24 articles over a period of years, beginning in the mid '90s.

http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflas..._1037_db016.htm

For the third year in a row, conservative or right-leaning think tanks in 1997 provided more than half of major media's think tank citations, according to FAIR's third annual survey of major newspaper and broadcast media citations in the Nexis computer database. Think tanks of the right provided 53 percent of citations, while progressive or left-leaning think tanks received just 16 percent of total citations.

Half of the ten most-cited think tanks are conservative or right-leaning, including three of the top four. The centrist Brookings Institution held the top spot as the most widely cited think tank for the second year in a row. Three right-wing institutions--the Heritage Foundation, American Enterprise Institute and Cato Institute--maintained their respective positions as the second, third and fourth most cited. The top four think tanks were each cited more than a thousand times, and provided 46 percent of all think tank citations.

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1425

Right-wing think-tank hates DRM

Posted by Cory Doctorow, March 21, 2006 12:15 PM | permalink

The Cato Institute, an ultra-libertarian, right-wing think tank, has released a white paper damning the US Digital Millennium Copyright Act's ban on breaking the anti-copying systems used to cripple digital media, like DVDs and iTunes songs.

http://www.boingboing.net/2006/03/21/right...thinktank-.html

The Cato Institute

The Cato Institute leads the right-wing's push for privatization of government services. In 2001, the Washington Post, noting Cato’s influence, said it “has spent about $3 million in the past six years to run a virtual war room to promote Social Security privatization."

http://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/general/default.aspx?oid=6182

Over the past 10 years, a huge influx of private sector money has allowed conservative think tanks and advocacy groups to grow by leaps and bounds. Not only are well-known organizations like CATO, the American Enterprise Institute and the Heritage Foundation more flush with cash than ever, but giving by corporations and wealthy businessmen---all of which is tax-deductible---has underwritten the rise of a new generation of smaller and often brasher conservative think tanks like the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) and the Reason Foundation. Corporate money has also fueled the explosive growth of dozens of state-based conservative think tanks, of which the Independent Institute is a prime example. In 1996, according to data I published in a report early this year by the National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy, the top 20 conservative think tanks spent $158 million, more than half of it contributed by corporations or wealthy businessmen

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/...ahan.think.html

Jim Henley Wants a Better Right-Wing Thinktank

Specifically, he wants a Cato Institute that will inform him rather than mislead him about the business cycle:

: Are we, as a commenter wrote downblog a couple weeks ago (in rough paraphrase), "Like Argentina, a formerly wealthy country that went bankrupt, and we just don't realize it yet?"... Or is it just a matter of wringing out the excess briefly so the economy can come roaring back. And, could Cato's blog hire a non-hack economist to address the subject? No? Never mind then! (Still love you guys, my Cato foreign-policy homies! But your econ staff has not risen to the level of engagement a standard-issue Weekly Standard writer managed vis a vis Iraq in 2005. Alan Reynolds' choosing today of all days to favorably cite an "excellent economist" from Bear Stearns may go down in history as the "We're Winning" of the Recession of 2008.

Just saying! And other than that, it’s eerily quiet over there. You’ve got Tim Lee and Justin Logan and Benjamin Friedman doing their usual great work on civil liberties and foreign policy, but the site’s been a wasteland on money matters...

http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2008/03/jim-henley-want.html

From DMI's Year In Review, "a hawk’s eye view of what the think tanks on the conservative right are up to." Read the full report on the year in politics and policy on our website.

Cato Institute

The libertarian Cato Institute has always toed a consistent line: America would be better off without most of the laws, regulations, and public goods we have today. The privatization of everything from schools to Social Security is part of the plan. Accordingly, Michael F. Cannon, Cato’s director of Health Policy, wants you to trust free markets with your life. Cannon advocates cutting the public safety net out of health care altogether. He makes the case against “conservatives [who] have been seduced into thinking we can achieve universal coverage in a free-market way,” arguing that “a free market would not provide health insurance to all; some people are uninsurable…” And with that, Cannon is off organizing the “Anti-Universal Coverage Club.” That’s the last we’ll hear from him about the “uninsurables”—mostly very sick people with expensive medical conditions, who certainly cannot afford to pay for the care they need out-of-pocket—because those of us who think that sick people ought to have access to medical care are “lefties and rent-seeking weasels.” But Cannon needn’t worry: while millions of Americans are still without adequate health coverage, and medical expenses are a leading contributor to personal bankruptcy, they’re not feeling the squeeze at Cato, which declared assets of well over $22 million last year.

From the late 1970s until today, by spawning and funding numerous “government downsizing” think tanks the Koch foundations, based on the multibillion dollar Koch Oil fortune, have changed the terms of policy debate in the areas of environmental protection, corporate regulation and civil rights enforcement. These think tanks include Americans for Tax Reform, the American Legislative Exchange Council (the “ideas” home of state level corporate pork barrel spending and deregulation), the Cato Institute, FreedomWorks, Institute for Justice, National Center for Policy Analysis, and the Reason Foundation and Claremont Institute in California (for more on the latter two see my report just published by the Center on Policy Initiatives in San Diego,

http://www.equaljusticesociety.org/newsletter6/story2.html

Edited June 13, 2008 by Robski