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

[ThaiAdventure]

And Jane Francis?

What about the ice sheets?

No discussion on longer timescale evidence proffered?

I've still seen no arguements about climate change but instead a huge amount of political point scoring. I would have thought your energy in finding information would have been better spent in info relating to climate change and/or sea levels in Thailand.

Please stay on topic.

Politics is the art of postponing decisions until they are no longer relevant

(Henri Queuille-1884 - 1970)

[Robski]

Not hard to score points though, it's like shooting ducks in a barrel.

Edited June 13, 2008 by Robski

[ThaiAdventure]

Right.

so we have assertained you have nothing constructive to add to the discussion. So on with the debate.

Could we be seeing the seeds of doubt about global warming?

http://www.planetark.com/dailynewsstory.cf...ate=12-May-2008

[jumnien]

Global warming is a big problem. But is called by a global trend towards obesity. If people wouldn't eat so dam_n much they wouldn't be so fat and feel so hot all the time!

[Robski]

Right.

so we have assertained you have nothing constructive to add to the discussion. So on with the debate.

Could we be seeing the seeds of doubt about global warming?

http://www.planetark.com/dailynewsstory.cf...ate=12-May-2008

On with the debate..

Oh is that the royal 'we' by the way?

[Robski]

Stephen Armstrong meets paleoclimatologist Jane Francis

Stephen Armstrong The Guardian, Saturday December 31 2005 Article historyThe sun almost always shines on Jane Francis. Even when she potters around her second spiritual home on the Isle of Portland. As a nation of schoolchildren who spent geography field trips there, we know to our cost that the Portland weather is wet, misty and stormy. But when she walks there, she is always in the Jurassic era when it was warm and tropical. When she looks at rocks, she travels back in time.

Francis is a paleoclimatologist, an expert in ancient climates. She deals in storm warnings from millions of years ago. Her particular area of expertise is Antarctica and, for reasons more chilling than its polar wastes, her research over the last 20 years is suddenly terribly important in understanding what is about to happen as the effects of global warming take hold. Scientists on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change are trying to predict the effects on the world's climate as we continue to pump carbon into the atmosphere. To be sure they are predicting the future accurately, they ask their supercomputers to describe the past and ask Francis for data to corroborate their findings.

"A few years ago people were saying, 'OK, well, we'll look back a million years or so, something like that, to see the effects of climate change'," she explains. "They thought that we'd still be in the kind of world that we currently know. But now we think that for a vision of what the Earth's going to be like in a couple of hundred years, we may have to go back to a time before the ice, to when it was a greenhouse world. Because if you look at the figures on carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, it's rising very, very fast. It's beyond the levels of CO2 that we classically know from before the last ice age. If it keeps accelerating at this rate then in a matter of just a couple of hundred years we'll have levels of CO2 that we last saw at the time of the dinosaurs."

Already ice shelves are breaking up; there are plants spreading further south into previously barren areas; and the glaciers are shrinking. She allows herself a wry smile. "That's an awful lot of water about to be let loose once it all melts. So I hope you don't live near the Thames. We're OK in the north. It's a bit more hilly. But I wouldn't want to live in large parts of the south of England."

We have this cheerful meeting as she is preparing to head back to Antarctica as part of a project funded by the Natural Environment Research Council and the British Antarctic Survey to try to obtain more data on what exactly is going on at the bottom of the world. For years, Antarctica has been the preserve of geologists and explorers. Recently, however, it has become clear that the continent is fundamentally responsible for the way our world is today. It may even have played a part in our route to the top of the ecosystem.

http://www.google.co.uk/search?source=ig&a...earch&meta=

[Khun Jean]

Google this If global warming gets any worse we'll all freeze to death..

And photographic proof the ice is still growing.

And next time when 0.00415% of the antartic ice breaks of and fall in the water, don't be alarmed. It might be caused by an, wait for this....... an earthquake which occured at the same moment.

Edited June 14, 2008 by Khun Jean

[ThaiAdventure]

Loved this bit

“And the BBC reports that a bus company’s efforts to cut global warming emissions have led to services being disrupted by cold weather.”

http://uddebatt.wordpress.com/2008/02/28/f...reeze-to-death/

[BEENTHEREDONETHAT]

Stephen Armstrong meets paleoclimatologist Jane Francis

Stephen Armstrong The Guardian, Saturday December 31 2005 Article historyThe sun almost always shines on Jane Francis. Even when she potters around her second spiritual home on the Isle of Portland. As a nation of schoolchildren who spent geography field trips there, we know to our cost that the Portland weather is wet, misty and stormy. But when she walks there, she is always in the Jurassic era when it was warm and tropical. When she looks at rocks, she travels back in time.

Francis is a paleoclimatologist, an expert in ancient climates. She deals in storm warnings from millions of years ago. Her particular area of expertise is Antarctica and, for reasons more chilling than its polar wastes, her research over the last 20 years is suddenly terribly important in understanding what is about to happen as the effects of global warming take hold. Scientists on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change are trying to predict the effects on the world's climate as we continue to pump carbon into the atmosphere. To be sure they are predicting the future accurately, they ask their supercomputers to describe the past and ask Francis for data to corroborate their findings.

"A few years ago people were saying, 'OK, well, we'll look back a million years or so, something like that, to see the effects of climate change'," she explains. "They thought that we'd still be in the kind of world that we currently know. But now we think that for a vision of what the Earth's going to be like in a couple of hundred years, we may have to go back to a time before the ice, to when it was a greenhouse world. Because if you look at the figures on carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, it's rising very, very fast. It's beyond the levels of CO2 that we classically know from before the last ice age. If it keeps accelerating at this rate then in a matter of just a couple of hundred years we'll have levels of CO2 that we last saw at the time of the dinosaurs."

Already ice shelves are breaking up; there are plants spreading further south into previously barren areas; and the glaciers are shrinking. She allows herself a wry smile. "That's an awful lot of water about to be let loose once it all melts. So I hope you don't live near the Thames. We're OK in the north. It's a bit more hilly. But I wouldn't want to live in large parts of the south of England."

We have this cheerful meeting as she is preparing to head back to Antarctica as part of a project funded by the Natural Environment Research Council and the British Antarctic Survey to try to obtain more data on what exactly is going on at the bottom of the world. For years, Antarctica has been the preserve of geologists and explorers. Recently, however, it has become clear that the continent is fundamentally responsible for the way our world is today. It may even have played a part in our route to the top of the ecosystem.

http://www.google.co.uk/search?source=ig&a...earch&meta=

Are you suggesting that Stephen Armstrong is a expert on climate?

[zzdocxx]

What a great example of how to have a civil discussion.

(I think anyway, I only occasionally click here and just read a few posts before I reach saturation.)

[brahmburgers]

I've read scores of scientific studies and I have my opinion. I could possibly cite reports, but for 2 reasons I'll pass on doing that: (A) I have an atrociously slow internet connection and it would take me hours to try and get a few URL's to cite. and ( I'm not inclined to try and bolster my outlook with tons of reports.

One photo which spoke reams about the temperature changes (to me) was lakes forming for the 1st time on Greenland. It was in a Nat'l Geographic. Also in a later edition, there were a series of maps shown of the Arctic region, indicating how increasing amounts of open water for each successive year. There could well be a NW passage being ice-free year 'round within a few years. For Antarctica, we're seeing very large ice calvings - larger than previously recorded. As that ice melts (and doesn't get re-formed) its water will find its way to all parts of the oceans, including the Gulf of Thailand - in short order.

[Robski]

Stephen Armstrong meets paleoclimatologist Jane Francis

Stephen Armstrong The Guardian, Saturday December 31 2005 Article historyThe sun almost always shines on Jane Francis. Even when she potters around her second spiritual home on the Isle of Portland. As a nation of schoolchildren who spent geography field trips there, we know to our cost that the Portland weather is wet, misty and stormy. But when she walks there, she is always in the Jurassic era when it was warm and tropical. When she looks at rocks, she travels back in time.

Francis is a paleoclimatologist, an expert in ancient climates. She deals in storm warnings from millions of years ago. Her particular area of expertise is Antarctica and, for reasons more chilling than its polar wastes, her research over the last 20 years is suddenly terribly important in understanding what is about to happen as the effects of global warming take hold. Scientists on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change are trying to predict the effects on the world's climate as we continue to pump carbon into the atmosphere. To be sure they are predicting the future accurately, they ask their supercomputers to describe the past and ask Francis for data to corroborate their findings.

"A few years ago people were saying, 'OK, well, we'll look back a million years or so, something like that, to see the effects of climate change'," she explains. "They thought that we'd still be in the kind of world that we currently know. But now we think that for a vision of what the Earth's going to be like in a couple of hundred years, we may have to go back to a time before the ice, to when it was a greenhouse world. Because if you look at the figures on carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, it's rising very, very fast. It's beyond the levels of CO2 that we classically know from before the last ice age. If it keeps accelerating at this rate then in a matter of just a couple of hundred years we'll have levels of CO2 that we last saw at the time of the dinosaurs."

Already ice shelves are breaking up; there are plants spreading further south into previously barren areas; and the glaciers are shrinking. She allows herself a wry smile. "That's an awful lot of water about to be let loose once it all melts. So I hope you don't live near the Thames. We're OK in the north. It's a bit more hilly. But I wouldn't want to live in large parts of the south of England."

We have this cheerful meeting as she is preparing to head back to Antarctica as part of a project funded by the Natural Environment Research Council and the British Antarctic Survey to try to obtain more data on what exactly is going on at the bottom of the world. For years, Antarctica has been the preserve of geologists and explorers. Recently, however, it has become clear that the continent is fundamentally responsible for the way our world is today. It may even have played a part in our route to the top of the ecosystem.

http://www.google.co.uk/search?source=ig&a...earch&meta=

Are you suggesting that Stephen Armstrong is a expert on climate?

How on earth did you come to that conclusion?

Stephen Armstrong meets paleoclimatologist Jane Francis

I posted the article in response to demands from ThaiAdventure, which have yet to be acknowledged.

I have to say that in the enviromental debate it is easy to find articles that back up ones opinion, but an intelligent person that can put aside preconceptions can find the truth of the matter by looking beyond the type to who has the best credentials and peer recognition and also as to who funds the article and what is the motivation behind it.

There is much at stake in the enviromental campaign and one should not let pride stand in the way of logic.

Edited June 14, 2008 by Robski

[canuckamuck]

A scientist who bucks the trend of climate change has the most to lose career wise. Hence the peer review argument works against your theory. It isn't about the truth, it's about riding the hype till the next big scare comes along. Fear is the greatest economic engine of all.

[Robski]

Great sophistry canucamuk.

It should be about the truth, but unfortunatly the whole issue is more a battle of ideology than a rational debate.

Edited June 14, 2008 by Robski

[plachon]

A scientist who bucks the trend of climate change has the most to lose career wise. Hence the peer review argument works against your theory. It isn't about the truth, it's about riding the hype till the next big scare comes along. Fear is the greatest economic engine of all.

Nonsense. There are no end of whore "scientists" (NB: most of them not climate scientists) out there who are only too glad to "buck the trend" and pick up a healthy pay-cheque from the likes of right wing "thinktanks" and business lobby organisations (e.g. paid for the oil industry) who have made decent money out of their lack of scruples and weak grasp of science to plant contrarian opinions in various media that fool the likes of yourself. The info posted on the Cato Institute makes this truism crystal clear. The idea that "scientists" (a term that hides a multitude of evils) are some sort of noble bunch who work for an "ultimate truth" is so naive, as to be laughable.

As is this idea that governments are only pressing the climate change scenario to scare people into paying more tax, is also completely laughable, considering that most govts spent fortunes (start with the Bush admin) in trying to deny any link between greenhouse gases and global climate change for several decades. They could make far more money off the "business-as-usual" scenario, but luckily the more developed country governments (mostly in Europe) finally got the ball rolling with getting some commitment to thinking about reducing greenhouse govt emissions. Admitttedly, it is too little and too late, but to suggest that this is some kind of "fraud" foisted on the people is absolutely ridiculous, if not somewhat amusing that "flat earther's" can be so prevalent in this day and age.

[canuckamuck]

The problem is that it's a battle of ideology from one side and rational debate from the other.

It always comes down to "all the important scientists say so", and the other side says, "they have no proof just a theory that they are collecting symptoms for." And then the other side says "but all the important scientists say so," and the other side says "proof please," and then the other side says "your an idiot".

So yeah your right, it's a battle, but one that resembles an argument between the drunk and the designated driver.

[canuckamuck]

A scientist who bucks the trend of climate change has the most to lose career wise. Hence the peer review argument works against your theory. It isn't about the truth, it's about riding the hype till the next big scare comes along. Fear is the greatest economic engine of all.

Nonsense. There are no end of whore "scientists" (NB: most of them not climate scientists) out there who are only too glad to "buck the trend" and pick up a healthy pay-cheque from the likes of right wing "thinktanks" and business lobby organisations (e.g. paid for the oil industry) who have made decent money out of their lack of scruples and weak grasp of science to plant contrarian opinions in various media that fool the likes of yourself. The info posted on the Cato Institute makes this truism crystal clear. The idea that "scientists" (a term that hides a multitude of evils) are some sort of noble bunch who work for an "ultimate truth" is so naive, as to be laughable.

One man's whore is another man's free spirit (especially in Pattaya)

My point was none of these desenting voices get favorable peer reviews, so the argument that peer review is an indicator of credibility is paradoxical. To come up with hard science against the CO2 argument is to relegate your career to organizations such as Cato and you can kiss your Nobel Peace prize goodbye too. Outcasts have their own clubs, it doesn't make them right or wrong. But it is likely that one common reason you would trash a career would be a question of conscience. I would question the integrity of those who toe the party line much sooner than those who stick their necks out.

[plachon]

The problem is that it's a battle of ideology from one side and rational debate from the other.

It always comes down to "all the important scientists say so", and the other side says, "they have no proof just a theory that they are collecting symptoms for." And then the other side says "but all the important scientists say so," and the other side says "proof please," and then the other side says "your an idiot".

So yeah your right, it's a battle, but one that resembles an argument between the drunk and the designated driver.

Again nonsense. You're kidding yourself if you imagine there are two evenly armed group of scientists battling for supremacy over an "is it or isn't it getting warmer?" or "is it cos of us or isn't it?" type of argument. This argument was lost long ago ( no prizes for guessing which group won, but a Pyrrhic victory, given the implications) and now the real debate is over "how fast" and "how hot" and "what the hel_l should we do about it?" between climate scientists, business groups and govts. Your position is archaic and quaint, but rather irrelevant considering the multitide of facts stacked against your position.

Here's another one to digest.

http://www.enn.com/ecosystems/article/37381

Nevermind, Canada is in a slightly better position than most to weather the coming storms.

[canuckamuck]

Typical, the clone scientist projects ice melting and he gets promoted.

I never said there were evenly armed sides, obviously the big cash is with propaganda machine. It's funny how the pro warming side always says the debates over, kind of like my wife when she's losing an argument.

As for Canada, my friends say it was <deleted> cold and lots of snow. coldest winter in a long time. If I was there I would pray for global warming. But alas, it looks like that was just a dream we shared.

[BEENTHEREDONETHAT]

I find the info posted by Thaiadventure very convincing. Are you saying it is not true? Perhaps it is made up like Al Gore's presentaation?

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/ice_ages.html

Where is the flaw in this information?

[ThaiAdventure]

The problem is that it's a battle of ideology from one side and rational debate from the other.

It always comes down to "all the important scientists say so", and the other side says, "they have no proof just a theory that they are collecting symptoms for." And then the other side says "but all the important scientists say so," and the other side says "proof please," and then the other side says "your an idiot".

So yeah your right, it's a battle, but one that resembles an argument between the drunk and the designated driver.

Good summation of the way this thread is going.

And excellent anaolgy

Edited June 15, 2008 by ThaiAdventure

[ThaiAdventure]

The problem is that it's a battle of ideology from one side and rational debate from the other.

It always comes down to "all the important scientists say so", and the other side says, "they have no proof just a theory that they are collecting symptoms for." And then the other side says "but all the important scientists say so," and the other side says "proof please," and then the other side says "your an idiot".

So yeah your right, it's a battle, but one that resembles an argument between the drunk and the designated driver.

Again nonsense. You're kidding yourself if you imagine there are two evenly armed group of scientists battling for supremacy over an "is it or isn't it getting warmer?" or "is it cos of us or isn't it?" type of argument. This argument was lost long ago ( no prizes for guessing which group won, but a Pyrrhic victory, given the implications) and now the real debate is over "how fast" and "how hot" and "what the hel_l should we do about it?" between climate scientists, business groups and govts. Your position is archaic and quaint, but rather irrelevant considering the multitide of facts stacked against your position.

Here's another one to digest.

http://www.enn.com/ecosystems/article/37381

Nevermind, Canada is in a slightly better position than most to weather the coming storms.

Interestig article, but it's substance seems a litle curios.

Mernild and his team found that the total amount of fresh water projected to flow from the Greenland Ice Sheet into the North Atlantic Ocean from 2071 to 2100 will be more than double current levels.

Seems quite a long (and curiosly specific i.e 29 years) period for a prediction. I will have to look up the data on which that is founded upon.

rather than rising at a rate of 1.1 millimeters per year, sea levels would rise by 1.6 millimeters per year.

Seems they are expecting it to rise natuarlly, but the increased effect of the melting only expected to be 500 microns per year! Thats less than the change in the tappets of my car It's almost suggesting that it will have only a small impact. It just strikes me as strange that they can (and do) "predict" to micrometers instead of sying that they will rise by 14.5mm . I would have thought 0.5mm would be in the margin for error region, but thats just a feeling. As I said....I'll have to look at the data if its availble.

Still. Historically its about as much as a nats wart:p

Edited June 15, 2008 by ThaiAdventure

[plachon]

The problem is that it's a battle of ideology from one side and rational debate from the other.

It always comes down to "all the important scientists say so", and the other side says, "they have no proof just a theory that they are collecting symptoms for." And then the other side says "but all the important scientists say so," and the other side says "proof please," and then the other side says "your an idiot".

So yeah your right, it's a battle, but one that resembles an argument between the drunk and the designated driver.

Again nonsense. You're kidding yourself if you imagine there are two evenly armed group of scientists battling for supremacy over an "is it or isn't it getting warmer?" or "is it cos of us or isn't it?" type of argument. This argument was lost long ago ( no prizes for guessing which group won, but a Pyrrhic victory, given the implications) and now the real debate is over "how fast" and "how hot" and "what the hel_l should we do about it?" between climate scientists, business groups and govts. Your position is archaic and quaint, but rather irrelevant considering the multitide of facts stacked against your position.

Here's another one to digest.

http://www.enn.com/ecosystems/article/37381

Nevermind, Canada is in a slightly better position than most to weather the coming storms.

Interestig article, but it's substance seems a litle curios.

Mernild and his team found that the total amount of fresh water projected to flow from the Greenland Ice Sheet into the North Atlantic Ocean from 2071 to 2100 will be more than double current levels.

Seems quite a long (and curiosly specific i.e 29 years) period for a prediction. I will have to look up the data on which that is founded upon.

rather than rising at a rate of 1.1 millimeters per year, sea levels would rise by 1.6 millimeters per year.

Seems they are expecting it to rise natuarlly, but the increased effect of the melting only expected to be 500 microns per year! Thats less than the change in the tappets of my car It's almost suggesting that it will have only a small impact. It just strikes me as strange that they can (and do) "predict" to micrometers instead of sying that they will rise by 14.5mm . I would have thought 0.5mm would be in the margin for error region, but thats just a feeling. As I said....I'll have to look at the data if its availble.

Still. Historically its about as much as a nats wart:p

It may not seem much, but remember he was only studying the Greenland Ice Sheet. Not Antartica, Arctic ice sheets and other contributing factors to sea-level rise. The underlying message I gained is that the accepted models being used by the IPCC are on the conservative side and need to be continually updated with the evidence provided by new peer-review studies in respected scientific journals (not planted right-wing, enviro-sceptic opinion posing as "fact" in blogs and rags picked up by folks who want to hear AGW is all a lefty plot designed to take the tax out of ordinary folk's pockets). Read back on this thread and you'll soon see the kind of person who has to resort to "koolaid" and "Fat Al Gore" jibes to make their point is your main, vocifereous little band of supporters.

[ThaiAdventure]

It may not seem much, but remember he was only studying the Greenland Ice Sheet. Not Antartica, Arctic ice sheets and other contributing factors to sea-level rise. The underlying message I gained is that the accepted models being used by the IPCC are on the conservative side and need to be continually updated with the evidence provided by new peer-review studies in respected scientific journals (not planted right-wing, enviro-sceptic opinion posing as "fact" in blogs and rags picked up by folks who want to hear AGW is all a lefty plot designed to take the tax out of ordinary folk's pockets). Read back on this thread and you'll soon see the kind of person who has to resort to "koolaid" and "Fat Al Gore" jibes to make their point is your main, vocifereous little band of supporters.

So put forward a cohesive arguement instead of rhetoric.

[Robski]

A cohesive argument..!?

If there is one thing that plachon has done, it is put forward some unbiased and logical information without dodging the issues or going off topic.

You quote a 130 word paragraph from him that has the basis for an interesting debate and answer it with 9 word hypocritical and contradictory sentence!

Wether I agree with him or not, I respect the fact that he is trying to engage in an intelligent debate.

You repeatedly accuse others of obsfucation, yet when you're demands for clarification are answered you either dodge the issue or resort to childish defamation.

I've seen this pattern before and I know how it ends, those that really are able to engage intelligently get bored with this shallow parody of a debate and move on, leaving people like you to claim victory because everyone else has left.

Who are you? I've seen your profile and from what I can make out you're a nobody.

No friends, no comments and you've never started a topic of your own,

You've really made an impression on people haven't you...

There has been some very interesting and well thought out opinions put forward in this thread, from both sides of the debate, but none of them are yours.

I am able to accept that I could be wrong on any subject and if somebody shows me overwhelming evidence that contradict my own beliefs I am prepared to accept their greater understanding and willing to take on that knowledge. That is how we learn and move forward.

We can agree to disagree, but please don't try and bring this thread down to your level by claiming that you are engaging in a debate to prove your superior intellect on this matter, when clearlty the only one that can see you are not is you.

I'll leave this thread to you to claim your hollow victory, I tried to answer your questions and perhaps point out some flaws in your argument but you have chosen to ignore that.

That's ok I won't lose any sleep over it.

Edited June 15, 2008 by Robski

[canuckamuck]

a last desperate personal attack and then a claim to take the high road.

This is also common at the end of these debates.

[Robski]

Call it what you want, but there's no desperation. Exasperation perhaps.

I'm not trying to take the high road, perhaps trying to elevate the discussion above the very low standard it's at.

If that is the best retort you can muster then I see that I won't be missing much.

Enjoy your 'debate'

[ThaiAdventure]

Ratree Sawat Robski

I guess my signature is very apt

I came accross this today. It's a bit lengthy and doesn't draw many conclusions but worth the effort. I think Khun Jean will find the parts about climate modelling interesting at the very least.

http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2000/ast20oct_1.htm

I particularly liked this picture about short term data in context with long historical data that I'd been thinking about for a while but it always took too many words to write and when I read it back....just sounded confusing.

Edited June 15, 2008 by ThaiAdventure

[Robski]

Edited June 15, 2008 by Robski

[Khun Jean]

For me it is just the co2 part that is supposed to be the culprit.

Large pieces of ice breaking of an icesheet. They claim it was there for 1500 years. The question then is what happened 1500 years ago? We drove to many cars?

And what about GREENland (Green for gras) and FINland (Fin for wine). These names already suggest a much warmer climate a very long time ago.

The basic problem with predicting is the 'margin of error'. If it is only 0.001% the differences in the conclusions can be dramatically different. These margins of error are corrected with what 'feels' right or think is scientifically right'. More often these corrections can exagerate or completely null out a prediction.

Often the result of a research is within the boundaries of what one was thinking to find. Finding something completely different can be quit a shock and even an end to ones research budgets and career.

Already the consensus changes slowly to that it is not co2 but other 'factors'. One main factor now is the sun. And the rotation of the earths axis.

These new insights point to a cooling instead of a warming so there is a lot to loose for one side. Loosing 'face' is just as difficult for westerners as it is for asians, so don't expect to see people supporting global warming (especially who do that publicly) change their opinions. And on top of that there is to much at stake.