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

[JetsetBkk]

In just one sentence you manage to insult everyone who has ever put forward an opinion or entered into a debate on the Net...

I think anyone who sits on the fence over this issue or doubts its implications to humanity is also rather retarded...

[ThaiAdventure]

http://www.enn.com/ecosystems/article/37443

LIVERMORE, Calif. — New research suggests that ocean temperature and associated sea level increases between 1961 and 2003 were 50 percent larger than estimated in the 2007 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report.

The results are reported in the June 19 edition of the journal Nature. An international team of researchers, including Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory climate scientist Peter Gleckler, compared climate models with improved observations that show sea levels rose by 1.5 millimeters per year in the period from 1961-2003. That equates to an approximately 2½-inch increase in ocean levels in a 42-year span.

And how is that a 50% increase over the IPCC report?

Wierd also how they switch between metric and imperial

IPCC Fourth Assesment Report (2007)

Global mean sea level has been rising. From 1961 to

2003, the average rate of sea level rise was 1.8 ± 0.5

mm yr–1. For the 20th century, the average rate was 1.7 ± 0.5

mm yr–1, consistent with the TAR estimate of 1 to 2 mm yr– 1.

There is high confi dence that the rate of sea level rise

has increased between the mid-19th and the mid-20th

centuries. Sea level change is highly non-uniform spatially,

and in some regions, rates are up to several times the

global mean rise, while in other regions sea level is falling.

There is evidence for an increase in the occurrence of

extreme high water worldwide related to storm surges, and

variations in extremes during this period are related to the

rise in mean sea level and variations in regional climate.

[Khun Jean]

Sea level change is highly non-uniform spatially,

and in some regions, rates are up to several times the

global mean rise, while in other regions sea level is falling.

There is evidence for an increase in the occurrence of

extreme high water worldwide related to storm surges, and

variations in extremes during this period are related to the

rise in mean sea level and variations in regional climate.

And, the part in bold brings us back to the topic at hand.

Edited June 22, 2008 by Khun Jean

[nomoretalksin]

Mccain, obama, and hot air over global warming

By Bjorn Lomborg

Published on June 28, 2008

Whatever the outcome of the United States' presidential election, climate-change policy will be transformed.

Both candidates have placed great importance on global warming. Republican John McCain believes that it presents "a test of foresight, of political courage, and of the unselfish concern that one generation owes to the next", while Democrat Barack Obama calls it "one of the greatest moral challenges of our generation".

It remains far from clear, however, whether the shift in rhetoric and policy will move the planet any closer to embracing the best response. Both McCain and Obama could leave future generations lumbered with the costs of major cuts in carbon emissions - without major cuts in temperatures.

Both politicians are keen to tap into voters' concerns about global warming. McCain launched a television commercial declaring that he had "stood up to President George Bush" on global warming. If elected, Obama plans to count on former vice-president and passionate campaigner Al Gore to help "lead the fight" against warming.

Each would introduce aggressive targets for reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. Obama's plan would reduce emissions by 80 per cent below 1990 levels by 2050, while McCain aims to ensure that emissions are 60 per cent lower by then. Both would achieve these ambitious cuts by the same method: a cap-and-trade system that imposes limits on industry emissions and forces businesses to buy rights to any additional emissions.

A cap-and-trade system can seem like a neat market solution. In fact, it is worse than a straightforward carbon tax. With a tax, the costs are obvious. With a cap-and-trade system, the costs, in terms of jobs, household consumption, and economic growth, are hidden, shifted around, and not easy to estimate, though models indicate they will run into trillions of dollars.

Not everybody would lose. Some big businesses in privileged positions would make a fortune from exploiting this rather rigged market. And politicians would have an opportunity to control the number and distribution of emission permits and the flow of billions of dollars in subsidies and sweeteners. This is a very expensive, unwieldy way to achieve a very small reduction in temperatures.

The Warner-Lieberman bill on climate change, a piece of legislation which was recently abandoned in the US Senate but is seen as a precursor of future policy, would have postponed the temperature increase in 2050 by about two years. Recently, the Copenhagen Consensus project gathered eight of the world's top economists, including five Nobel laureates, to examine research on the best ways to tackle 10 global challenges: air pollution, conflict, disease, global warming, hunger and malnutrition, lack of education, gender inequity, lack of water and sanitation, terrorism and trade barriers.

Their goal was to create a prioritised list showing how money could best be spent combating these problems. The panel concluded that the least-effective use of resources would come from simply cutting CO2 emissions.

A lead author of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change - the group that shared last year's Nobel Peace Prize with Gore - told the experts that spending $800 billion over 100 years solely on mitigating emissions would reduce inevitable temperature increases by just 0.2 degrees Celsius by the end of this century. Even accounting for the key environmental damage from warming, we would lose money, with avoided damages of just $685 billion (Bt22.9 trillion) for our $800 billion investment.

The expert panel concluded that investing in research and development into low-carbon energy would be a much sounder, more effective option - an effort that both McCain and Obama support. But this, not carbon emissions, should be the core of their climate-change policy.

Currently, low-carbon energy solutions are prohibitively expensive. The typical cost of cutting a ton of CO2 is now about $20, but the damage from a tonne of carbon in the atmosphere is about $2. So we need to reduce by roughly tenfold the cost of cutting emissions. We can achieve this by spending dramatically more researching and developing low-carbon energy.

The US could provide leadership by committing to spending .05 per cent of its GDP exploring non-carbon-emitting energy technologies - wind, wave, or solar power - or capturing CO2 emissions from power plants.

It would then have the moral authority to demand that other nations do the same. By focusing more on research and development and less in carbon cuts, both candidates could embrace a solution that encourages the best of the American innovative spirit and leaves the best possible legacy to future generations: a high-income, low-carbon energy world.

Bjorn Lomborg the author of 'The Sceptical Environmentalist' and 'Cool It', is director of the Copenhagen Consensus Centre and adjunct professor at Copenhagen Business School.

copyright: project syndicate

[nomoretalksin]

Talking about the shifting weather patterns, Bangkok apparently did already see an over-average amount of rain this first half of year 2008.

Nice snapshot here posted by Neale Bryan May 28, 2008

http://www.nealeanddalissa.com/wordpress/2...ok-under-water/

[brahmburgers]

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 name Greenland was a shameful attempt to get the country colonised by Norse settlers simply by giving it a good name.

Finland probably derives from a Germanic word, 'finnr', meaning wanderer and was applied to the nomadic farmers who occupied alot of the area now known as Finland.

Thank you for this.

I did not know about this explanation.

Hey, but I thought your sound ideas were all based on "MEASUREMENTS" Jean?

You'll have to start a Dave Barry like "I swear I'm not making this all up" before each sentence in future.

That is why i used the word "suggests". Because for me it was not a 100% sure fact.

Orther facts like meaurements taken by NASA, but yeah who are they, just a bunch of clowns anyway.

Growing icesheets instead of shrinking is measured? Why not accept that?

Not warming up in the last ten years is measured? Why not accept that?

Rising co2 levels and no rise in temperature. Both measured. Why not accept that?

Because they are false? Or less trustworthy than a theorie and a model?

And then someone tells me i am making things up. Different universes we live in probably.

I don't know which NASA you're talking about, but the one that maintains the Goddard Space Flight Centre certainly does not agree with any of your beliefs. I've just been on NASA's website to check it out and invite other's to do so, just to reassure yourselves that KJ really does live in a different universe from the rest of us.

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/eartha...ate_change.html

Very interesting the bit about the minimum concentration of Arctic sea ice recorded occuring in Sept 2005 (how many years ago?) and "...based on data from 1983-2003, the surface warming trends in the Arctic have been 8 times greater than trends over the past 100 years...."

You're a fraud Khun Jean (or more likely, a deluded victim of one).

Please continue your research, you missed quit a bit.

Concentrate on recent satelite measurements.

I think it is you who now have the onus to back up your 3 claims with proof from NASA "measurements".

We have:

1. Growing ice sheets instead of shrinking

2. Not warming up in the last 10 years

3. Rising CO2 levels but no rise in temperature.

It took only a few minutes of my time to see that their research refutes your claims, so now go ahead and prove me and NASA wrong. Shouldn't be hard, as you're the man with the "MEASUREMENTS" remember.

PS I'll let you off the Greenland and Finland claims as childish bravado in the heat of the moment.

I don't understand the above post.

Even so, I'd like to add that, as fashionable and fun as it is to dis reports by NASA and other US scientific organizations, they're still the ones most quoted. They're the ones investing the most in technology, infrastructure, and freely disseminating scientific data to anyone worldwide. One example: GPS. There are a plethora of other examples: from astronomical data/photos, to climate, etc. .....of free data, often expensively acquired, offered freely to anyone who cares to access it. What other internationally acclaimed scientific organizations are supplying data? Is there a Chinese version of NASA?

It brings to mind a recent show of Nat'l Geographic: dozens of dirt-poor N.Koreans are given free surgical operations for their blinding cataracts. As soon as each has his/her bandages taken off, they immediately scream drawn-out praises to the 'Dear Leader" and his father - whose large photos are the only thing showing on the wall in front of them. Some also scream 'death to America" ..for good measure. The big irony is, it was an American surgery team that just performed the surgeries and freely trained dozens of N.Korean doctors and donated specialized equipment.

[Galong]

In just one sentence you manage to insult everyone who has ever put forward an opinion or entered into a debate on the Net AND every disabled sportsperson who has ever aspired to compete in the Special Olympics. Nice one Galong.

Relax brother. I was deeply involved for my last few years in the States with the Special Olympics. I gladly donated a LOT of time helping them and encouraging them to be all that they could be. They are truly some of the most inspiring athletes/people on this planet in my true opinion. I'm not making fun of them... it was merely a tasteless pun.

[plachon]

In just one sentence you manage to insult everyone who has ever put forward an opinion or entered into a debate on the Net AND every disabled sportsperson who has ever aspired to compete in the Special Olympics. Nice one Galong.

Relax brother. I was deeply involved for my last few years in the States with the Special Olympics. I gladly donated a LOT of time helping them and encouraging them to be all that they could be. They are truly some of the most inspiring athletes/people on this planet in my true opinion. I'm not making fun of them... it was merely a tasteless pun.

Thanks for clarification...........I'm relaxed now.

[plachon]

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 name Greenland was a shameful attempt to get the country colonised by Norse settlers simply by giving it a good name.

Finland probably derives from a Germanic word, 'finnr', meaning wanderer and was applied to the nomadic farmers who occupied alot of the area now known as Finland.

Thank you for this.

I did not know about this explanation.

Hey, but I thought your sound ideas were all based on "MEASUREMENTS" Jean?

You'll have to start a Dave Barry like "I swear I'm not making this all up" before each sentence in future.

That is why i used the word "suggests". Because for me it was not a 100% sure fact.

Orther facts like meaurements taken by NASA, but yeah who are they, just a bunch of clowns anyway.

Growing icesheets instead of shrinking is measured? Why not accept that?

Not warming up in the last ten years is measured? Why not accept that?

Rising co2 levels and no rise in temperature. Both measured. Why not accept that?

Because they are false? Or less trustworthy than a theorie and a model?

And then someone tells me i am making things up. Different universes we live in probably.

I don't know which NASA you're talking about, but the one that maintains the Goddard Space Flight Centre certainly does not agree with any of your beliefs. I've just been on NASA's website to check it out and invite other's to do so, just to reassure yourselves that KJ really does live in a different universe from the rest of us.

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/eartha...ate_change.html

Very interesting the bit about the minimum concentration of Arctic sea ice recorded occuring in Sept 2005 (how many years ago?) and "...based on data from 1983-2003, the surface warming trends in the Arctic have been 8 times greater than trends over the past 100 years...."

You're a fraud Khun Jean (or more likely, a deluded victim of one).

Please continue your research, you missed quit a bit.

Concentrate on recent satelite measurements.

I think it is you who now have the onus to back up your 3 claims with proof from NASA "measurements".

We have:

1. Growing ice sheets instead of shrinking

2. Not warming up in the last 10 years

3. Rising CO2 levels but no rise in temperature.

It took only a few minutes of my time to see that their research refutes your claims, so now go ahead and prove me and NASA wrong. Shouldn't be hard, as you're the man with the "MEASUREMENTS" remember.

PS I'll let you off the Greenland and Finland claims as childish bravado in the heat of the moment.

I don't understand the above post.

Even so, I'd like to add that, as fashionable and fun as it is to dis reports by NASA and other US scientific organizations, they're still the ones most quoted. They're the ones investing the most in technology, infrastructure, and freely disseminating scientific data to anyone worldwide. One example: GPS. There are a plethora of other examples: from astronomical data/photos, to climate, etc. .....of free data, often expensively acquired, offered freely to anyone who cares to access it. What other internationally acclaimed scientific organizations are supplying data? Is there a Chinese version of NASA?

It brings to mind a recent show of Nat'l Geographic: dozens of dirt-poor N.Koreans are given free surgical operations for their blinding cataracts. As soon as each has his/her bandages taken off, they immediately scream drawn-out praises to the 'Dear Leader" and his father - whose large photos are the only thing showing on the wall in front of them. Some also scream 'death to America" ..for good measure. The big irony is, it was an American surgery team that just performed the surgeries and freely trained dozens of N.Korean doctors and donated specialized equipment.

I think you have to follow the context of our past exchanges to understand B'burgers. Basically, I was inviting KJ to provide evidence of or links to NASA research that proves validity of the three points listed. So far he hasn't been able to, so I must assume it is all in his mind, like the tenuous notion that FINLAND and wine was somehow linked, and that somehow disproved the AGW theory. He was clearly clutching at straws, which obviously calls into question any claims of scientific basis in his belief system.

[astral]

I wonder if he ever watched Water World

[Galong]

In just one sentence you manage to insult everyone who has ever put forward an opinion or entered into a debate on the Net AND every disabled sportsperson who has ever aspired to compete in the Special Olympics. Nice one Galong.

Relax brother. I was deeply involved for my last few years in the States with the Special Olympics. I gladly donated a LOT of time helping them and encouraging them to be all that they could be. They are truly some of the most inspiring athletes/people on this planet in my true opinion. I'm not making fun of them... it was merely a tasteless pun.

Thanks for clarification...........I'm relaxed now.

Thanks Plachon, I tend to joke about a lot of stuff that I do take seriously... sometimes a bit too much perhaps. Sorry

To further clarify, I don't think that debating/discussing any topic is in any way bad/wrong/silly/etc... it's just when it gets out of hand, which is something that I am VERY guilty of perpetuating at times.

[ThaiAdventure]

NASA tends to sensationalise things a bit, me thinks...

NASA Finds Greenland Snow Melting Hit Record High in High Places

A new NASA-supported study reports that 2007 marked an overall rise in

the melting trend over the entire Greenland ice sheet and, remarkably,

melting in high-altitude areas was greater than ever at 150 percent

more than average. In fact, the amount of snow that has melted this

year over Greenland is the equivalent of more than twice the surface

size of the U.S.

I agree with this analysis of thier claims.

Greenland Climate: Now vs. Then, Part II. Record Greenland Melt Area?

Edited June 28, 2008 by ThaiAdventure

[Spee]

I agree with this analysis of thier claims.

Greenland Climate: Now vs. Then, Part II. Record Greenland Melt Area?

So the area of Greenland that sees the most melting is the part that faces the upper end of the Gulf Stream and the rest of the country experiences essentially no melting?

Gee ... go figure ...

Now what about these latest nut cases spouting off that there is a 50-50 chance that the Artic region will lose all polar ice this summer? Can someone find me a bookie who would lay these kinds of odds? I'd bet my life savings.

If you can't dazzle 'em with brilliance, then baffle 'em with b*llsh*t. That's the current approach of the global warming proponents and koolaid drinkers.

Wake up people! This whole debate has nothing to do with science or global climate. It has everything to do with political will, quest for power, and increased government control over your life.

[Khun Jean]

If someone say i not provided links and info about what i said they are wrong. I just don't have the mood to write it down again.

If Obama wins Al Gore gets another shot. I would say, bye bye American economy.

Going green to go against polution is one thing, blaming global warming on it is a scare tactic and gives a reason to tax everyone and everything. People will have less to spend and especially for the USA that will be a catastrophy because a large part of their economy is around borrowing and spending.

It hits me personally because my house on the beach suddenly is estimated 100.000 euro lower than last year. Still the government estimates my house for the full price when it is used to calculate tax. And how conveniently that fits in their plans to rebuild the area. 1 kilomter north a brand new appartment building is build even closer to the sea. There it was not a problem. Double standards?

Fighting it will cost money and a lot of time, both i dont have to much spare. And that only because a theorie that is not even confirmed and supported by most scientists.

T make it even more silly, my house is a lot higher than sealevel compared to almost 80% of the rest of the Netherlands which is way below sealevel.

Just realize that these things are the result of a shaky theorie. Ask some people what happened to their houses in Spain when greenpeace decided to use their area as an example.

[Canadianvisitor]

50-50 chance of first iceless summer for North Pole: scientist

The Associated Press

A leading American ice scientist says there's a 50-50 chance that the North Pole will be ice-free this summer,

which would be a first in recorded history.

Mark Serreze, senior researcher at the National Snow and Ice Data Center at the University of Colorado in Boulder,

said the weather and ocean conditions in the next couple of weeks will determine how much of the sea ice will melt,

and early signs are not good.

He said the chances for a total meltdown at the pole are higher than ever because

the layer of ice coating the sea is thinner than ever.

Last August, the Northwest Passage was open to navigation for the first time in memory.

Preliminary February and March data from a NASA satellite shows that the circle of ice surrounding the North Pole

is "considerably thinner" than scientists have seen during the five years the satellite has been taking pictures, NASA ice scientist Jay Zwally said Friday.

He thinks there is slightly less than a 50-50 chance the North Pole will be ice-free.

Last year was a record year for ice melt all over the Arctic

and the ice band surrounding the North Pole is even thinner now.

"A large area at the North Pole and surrounding the North Pole is first-year ice," Serreze said.

"That's the stuff that tends to melt out in the summer because it's thin."

A more conservative ice scientist, Cecilia Bitz at the University of Washington,

put the odds of a North Pole without ice closer to 1-in-4.

Even that is far worse than climate models had predicted,

which was 1-in-70 sometime in the next decade, she said.

But both she and Serreze agree it's just a matter of time.

"I would guess within the next 10 years it would happen at least once," Bitz said.

Already, figures from the National Snow and Ice Data Center show sea ice in the Arctic

as a whole at about the same level now as it was at its low point last year in late June and early July.

The explanation is a warming climate, scientists said.

For the last couple of decades, there has been a steady melt of Arctic sea ice,

which covers only the ocean and which thins during summer and refreezes in winter.

In recent years, it has gradually become thinner because more of it has been melting as the Earth's temperature rises.

That left just a thin one-year layer of ice that previously covered part of Siberia.

The Canadian Press

[LaoPo]

Interesting but frightening article link from:

The New York Times

What’s Really Up With North Pole Sea Ice?

http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/06/...h-pole-sea-ice/

LaoPo

[ThaiAdventure]

So. No more ice cores then

Interestingly, whilst the Arctic over the last few years has been decreasing, the Antarctic has been increasing

But wait!

Before we all blame human flatulance, it might be worth considering that the newly discovered (relativley speaking) Gakkel Ridge has been very active in recent years. I wonder if this is included in the models?

Arctic Volcanoes Found Active at Unprecedented Depths

[frankman]

Just found that original thread today. Thanks for 6min of laughing. Thank you so much. Missed that articel somehow. You made my day!!!

[plachon]

So. No more ice cores then

Interestingly, whilst the Arctic over the last few years has been decreasing, the Antarctic has been increasing

But wait!

Before we all blame human flatulance, it might be worth considering that the newly discovered (relativley speaking) Gakkel Ridge has been very active in recent years. I wonder if this is included in the models?

Arctic Volcanoes Found Active at Unprecedented Depths

I think this analysis by the British Antarctic Survey gives a more balanced and nuanced view of what is happening in Antarctica, admitting that there may be increased ice cover while temperatures are rising in the Southern air and oceans beyond many models predictions, concluding that:"......there is increasing evidence that a significant part of this change is ultimately driven by human activities."

http://www.antarctica.ac.uk//bas_research/...mate_change.php

They also make the important point that there is huge variability at various stations in climate change and records do not stretch as far back as Arctic stations. Glaciers are retreating and huge ice shelves are cracking off/calving, the most dramatic of which was Larsen B in 2002. "The Antarctic Peninsula is contributing to sea level rise at about the same rate as Alaskan glaciers". Circumpolar westerly winds seem to be key as to what transpires in Antarctica.

[plachon]

If someone say i not provided links and info about what i said they are wrong. I just don't have the mood to write it down again.

If Obama wins Al Gore gets another shot. I would say, bye bye American economy.

Going green to go against polution is one thing, blaming global warming on it is a scare tactic and gives a reason to tax everyone and everything. People will have less to spend and especially for the USA that will be a catastrophy because a large part of their economy is around borrowing and spending.

It hits me personally because my house on the beach suddenly is estimated 100.000 euro lower than last year. Still the government estimates my house for the full price when it is used to calculate tax. And how conveniently that fits in their plans to rebuild the area. 1 kilomter north a brand new appartment building is build even closer to the sea. There it was not a problem. Double standards?

Fighting it will cost money and a lot of time, both i dont have to much spare. And that only because a theorie that is not even confirmed and supported by most scientists.

T make it even more silly, my house is a lot higher than sealevel compared to almost 80% of the rest of the Netherlands which is way below sealevel.

Just realize that these things are the result of a shaky theorie. Ask some people what happened to their houses in Spain when greenpeace decided to use their area as an example.

The truth emerges at last in this post. It was a case of me, me , me all along. Unenlightened self-interest is what it comes down to. Well tough titty Blue Jean. Your beach house has taken a nose dive, taxes are biting, you don't like local planning decisions and now you're crying into your latte. Welcome to the real world. Think yourself lucky you have a beach house standing above sea level and it's not been flattened by typhoon Nargis or Hurrican Katrina. Make the most of it while it's there, but don't take it for granted in the future. Change is afoot in the oceans. Deciding whether AGW is a "shaky theorie" or not is your perogative, but you ignore it at your peril if you have a house by the sea.

As for thinking that the American economy is not tanking under Bush, also highlights another area you are a bit shakey on yourself. And what's all this about Al Gore getting another shot? Something like "Vote Obama and get Gore in the White House"? Pray do explain your whacky theory?

[ThaiAdventure]

I think this analysis by the British Antarctic Survey gives a more balanced and nuanced view of what is happening in Antarctica, admitting that there may be increased ice cover while temperatures are rising in the Southern air and oceans beyond many models predictions, concluding that:"......there is increasing evidence that a significant part of this change is ultimately driven by human activities."

http://www.antarctica.ac.uk//bas_research/...mate_change.php

Just to expand on your bold quote....

Many of the theories that seek to explain the circumpolar warming of

the ACC also have the strengthening of the westerly winds as their root

cause. Whilst there is not yet a clear consensus on which are the

mechanisms that are most important, there is increasing evidence that a

significant part of this change is ultimately driven by human activities

.....and to bring it into context with this line of the next paragraph:

They also make the important point that there is huge variability at various stations in climate change and records do not stretch as far back as Arctic stations. Glaciers are retreating and huge ice shelves are cracking off/calving, the most dramatic of which was Larsen B in 2002. "The Antarctic Peninsula is contributing to sea level rise at about the same rate as Alaskan glaciers". Circumpolar westerly winds seem to be key as to what transpires in Antarctica.

It seems our other (former) evil deed is working for us at the moment. (SAM=Circumpolar Westerly Winds)

Ozone Layer to the Rescue?

Ozone has another, less obvious effect, on global climate. Over the

past 50 years, the Antarctic ozone hole has amplified a key cyclonic

wind pattern in the Southern Hemisphere called the Southern Annular

Mode (SAM). A dense ozone layer heats the underlying stratosphere, 12

to 50 kilometers above Earth's surface, while the ozone hole leads to

cooling. Affected by both the greenhouse-gas buildup at lower altitudes

and the cooler stratosphere, SAM has blocked warmer air from reaching

Antarctica, resulting in an icier continent but warming just about

everywhere else south of the equator.

[Khun Jean]

The truth emerges at last in this post. It was a case of me, me , me all along. Unenlightened self-interest is what it comes down to. Well tough titty Blue Jean.

My truth or yours, because i laugh myself sily with what climate change groepies do.

Your beach house has taken a nose dive, taxes are biting, you don't like local planning decisions and now you're crying into your latte.

This makes it personal and makes me research all material to see who is right. Sofar i found that this 'consensus' is not there at all. I am now awaiting a review.

Welcome to the real world.

Never been on another one, although Thailand comes close.

Think yourself lucky you have a beach house standing above sea level and it's not been flattened by typhoon Nargis or Hurrican Katrina. Make the most of it while it's there, but don't take it for granted in the future. Change is afoot in the oceans. Deciding whether AGW is a "shaky theorie" or not is your perogative, but you ignore it at your peril if you have a house by the sea.

This 'shaky theorie' is costing me a lot of money now! I would like it to be more final before it damages me and others.

As for thinking that the American economy is not tanking under Bush, also highlights another area you are a bit shakey on yourself.

2 (4 if you count his pappy) times bush has done already a lot of damage. The economy is already bad and it will only get worse when this 'carbon footprint" nonsense really starts.

And what's all this about Al Gore getting another shot? Something like "Vote Obama and get Gore in the White House"? Pray do explain your whacky theory?

These are not my words but Obama himself that said Al Gore would play a key role. What role would that be you think? And who did Al Gore endorse? (Now who is whacky?)

And would that 'key role' not bring him into a position to make more momey, eh i mean make people more aware of climate change.

Edited June 30, 2008 by Khun Jean

[jumnien]

The truth emerges at last in this post. It was a case of me, me , me all along. Unenlightened self-interest is what it comes down to. Well tough titty Blue Jean.

My truth or yours, because i laugh myself sily with what climate change groepies do.

Your beach house has taken a nose dive, taxes are biting, you don't like local planning decisions and now you're crying into your latte.

This makes it personal and makes me research all material to see who is right. Sofar i found that this 'consensus' is not there at all. I am now awaiting a review.

Welcome to the real world.

Never been on another one, although Thailand comes close.

Think yourself lucky you have a beach house standing above sea level and it's not been flattened by typhoon Nargis or Hurrican Katrina. Make the most of it while it's there, but don't take it for granted in the future. Change is afoot in the oceans. Deciding whether AGW is a "shaky theorie" or not is your perogative, but you ignore it at your peril if you have a house by the sea.

This 'shaky theorie' is costing me a lot of money now! I would like it to be more final before it damages me and others.

As for thinking that the American economy is not tanking under Bush, also highlights another area you are a bit shakey on yourself.

2 (4 if you count his pappy) times bush has done already a lot of damage. The economy is already bad and it will only get worse when this 'carbon footprint" nonsense really starts.

And what's all this about Al Gore getting another shot? Something like "Vote Obama and get Gore in the White House"? Pray do explain your whacky theory?

These are not my words but Obama himself that said Al Gore would play a key role. What role would that be you think? And who did Al Gore endorse? (Now who is whacky?)

And would that 'key role' not bring him into a position to make more momey, eh i mean make people more aware of climate change.

I hate to get back to the original topic and especially relate it to Thailand, but, the sea level seems to be down drastically here on the Gulf of Thailand. Either Gore or Obama could walk out and step into the fishing boats stranded on the sand. Just an observation that continues over time and at all tide levels.

[Spee]

I hate to get back to the original topic and especially relate it to Thailand, but, the sea level seems to be down drastically here on the Gulf of Thailand. Either Gore or Obama could walk out and step into the fishing boats stranded on the sand. Just an observation that continues over time and at all tide levels.

Could it be that the land levels are rising rather than the sea level reducing? Where is the evidence to support either?

I saw a Discovery program a while back discussing the Roman Empire in its heyday. There was a lengthy discussion on a former Turkish port that at one time was at sea level and was a key trade center for the Romans. This port is presently about 3 miles inland. Were the effects of mankind to blame for this? Hardly not! Have the sea and/or land levels changed? Obviously yes. But why and how?

How about just natural behavior? Nature is constantly changing and adapting. The only constant in nature is change.

If the tidal levels are indeed permanently changed in Thailand, then ok, they are permanently changed and mankind must adapt, just as all other natural life around has adapted or will adapt. Are drinking the koolaid and allowing increased governmental controls, taxation and control over our lives going to alter the behavior of nature? No <deleted>' way!

Edited July 1, 2008 by Spee

[Galong]

If you missed The Daily Show's bit on the White House's inaction on doing anything about it, check this out... very funny, but pathetic too. Basically, the EPA sent an email to the White House with their recommendations on limited greenhouse gas emissions, but the White House sent them an email saying that they didn't want to open the attachment... freakin' amazing!

[Spee]

very funny, but pathetic too.

What's pathetic is people who think that anyone in the White House or any other elected office can do anything about global climate change and feel letdown if nothing is done. People would be much better off removing the expectation from their elected officials, who can't do anything anyway, and will only use this situation to be politically opportunistic (e.g., use it as a political issue to get re-elected, and usurp, acquire and eventually abuse power). It's pathetic to the point of being funny.

[Galong]

very funny, but pathetic too.

What's pathetic is people who think that anyone in the White House or any other elected office can do anything about global climate change and feel letdown if nothing is done. People would be much better off removing the expectation from their elected officials, who can't do anything anyway, and will only use this situation to be politically opportunistic (e.g., use it as a political issue to get re-elected, and usurp, acquire and eventually abuse power). It's pathetic to the point of being funny.

I agree 100% with everything you said, Spee. If the average citizen doesn't do whatever he/she can do to curb the problems, it's hopeless. Now, for the camp who believes that CO2 emissions aren't a contributing factor, the fact still remains that our burning of fossil fuels causes health problems at the minimum and likely some influence on global warming. I'm remaining open-minded about it... even though I was firmly seated in the Gore camp.

Smog, air pollution or whatever you want to call it is un-natural and there are consequences whether or not one of them is global warming.

[ace]

Could it be that the land levels are rising rather than the sea level reducing? Where is the evidence to support either?

Yes it could. Bangkok is sinking at a fast rate due to being built on a swamp, remember that when you hear global warming scare stories. It will flood. It is not because of global warming.

Another example, the UK is tipping to the east (the west is rising). This is due to springback effect following the retreat of glaciers from the last ice-age.

[Galong]

Could it be that the land levels are rising rather than the sea level reducing? Where is the evidence to support either?

Yes it could. Bangkok is sinking at a fast rate due to being built on a swamp, remember that when you hear global warming scare stories. It will flood. It is not because of global warming.

Another example, the UK is tipping to the east (the west is rising). This is due to springback effect following the retreat of glaciers from the last ice-age.

Hi Ace,

Isn't it possible that it's a combination of the two? Evidence would be nice.

The 'scare stories' have some merit. Ice is melting and that ice will cause problems. Ice melts when it gets warm... right? The big question is whether it is due to human activities or whether it is occurring naturally.

I originally was on the Al Gore side, but now I'm more neutral/open-minded as to the actual cause. It could be natural. Temperature changes have happened throughout history. However, I also think that the burning fo fossil fuels needs to be curtailed. We can't pump dangerous gases into the atmosphere without some consequences. I feel that it is time we clean up our act and start thinking about a cleaner planet. If for no other reason than to supply everyone with clean air to breathe.

Whatever the actual cause, it seems like Bangkok is in for an interesting future. I ain't buyin' any land there.

[Maestro]

An example of what global warming does to icebergs:

A phallic iceberg which was photographed by Andy Rouse in Brandsfield Strait, Antarctica

Picture: REX FEATURES

Source: www.telegraph.co.uk/telegraph/multimedia/archive/00873/iceberg-penis_873217i.jpg

--

Maestro