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

[JR Texas]

That's as it may be, but the important factor is that the land ice mass of Antartica is shrinking, that's ice that either gets shed into the ocean (via glacier flow) at a higher rate, thus possibly explaining how the ice sheet expands, or melts and flows as water into the ocean. I think it's pretty well understood that changes on floating ice sheets like the Artic are irrelevant to the level of the oceans (although they are representative of a rising global temperature), on the other hand, shrinking, land locked ice masses being dumped into the oceans as in Greenland and Antartica do increase sea levels. If all of Antartica's ice cover would melt and drain into the oceans (not very likely that ALL of it would, thankfully!), sea levels would rise 80 meters.

Thank you for jumping in with some accurate information.

One point: Scientists really are not totally sure if all of the land-locked ice is going to melt or not..........that is is melting is absolutely certain.

And a rise in ocean levels resulting from that melting is also certain (but some areas may be less impacted due to complicated factors talked about previously on this thread).

Continuing to support BIG OIL is probably the most dangerous game the human species has ever played.

It is maximizing the probability of another extinction event (this one human induced).

It is also retarding our advance as a species (causing massive social problems in the process).

[brahmburgers]

I think it's pretty well understood that changes on floating ice sheets like the Artic are irrelevant to the level of the oceans (although they are representative of a rising global temperature).....

They are not irrelevant. Among several reasons, is the more floating ice that melts, the more of the sea's surface is exposed. The sea surface doesn't reflect sunlight as ice and snow do. More exposed sea = less reflected sunlight = higher overall temperatures. In other words, melting floating ice feeds the warming process. Such things can start out gradual, and speed up considerably over a short time.

Part of me is concerned about cities/countries that will be flooded and become essentially inhabitable by our species, such as:

Dacca, Bangkok, Shanghai, New Orleans, ....but another part of me figures it's the sort of world/weather changes that have been going on for eons. In my lifetime, I'll only see a few of those major cities go under, but my kids and their kids will see dozens, if not hundreds of such dramatic changes.

Cities come and go. Some of the once-greatest cities now lie under tons of sand or water. This is a finite planet and, due to global warming (and other factors), its habitable land mass is lessening. So it goes. You put five rats in a room, give them a couple cans of dog food each day, and see what happens.

You want to know what overpopulation looks like? Read up on the history of Easter Island. Not a pretty picture.

Edited October 9, 2009 by brahmburgers

[teatree]

The Arctic WAS retreating, but for the past 2 years it has been INcreasing and this trend will probably continue for a while yet as the Earth continues on its cooling phase. Then there will be a retreat of ice as the Earth warms up. Then there will be an increase in ice as the Earth cools. Then there will be a retreat, then an increase, then a retreat and so on just as it has for MILLIONS of years without any help from humans.

What is happening with the climate is entirely normal.

PS The satellite data goes back just 30 years, so this means that when you see a headline like 'Arctic at record low' all that really means is that it is at its lowest level for 30 years.

[JR Texas]

I think it's pretty well understood that changes on floating ice sheets like the Artic are irrelevant to the level of the oceans (although they are representative of a rising global temperature).....

They are not irrelevant. Among several reasons, is the more floating ice that melts, the more of the sea's surface is exposed. The sea surface doesn't reflect sunlight as ice and snow do. More exposed sea = less reflected sunlight = higher overall temperatures. In other words, melting floating ice feeds the warming process. Such things can start out gradual, and speed up considerably over a short time.

Part of me is concerned about cities/countries that will be flooded and become essentially inhabitable by our species, such as:

Dacca, Bangkok, Shanghai, New Orleans, ....but another part of me figures it's the sort of world/weather changes that have been going on for eons. In my lifetime, I'll only see a few of those major cities go under, but my kids and their kids will see dozens, if not hundreds of such dramatic changes.

Cities come and go. Some of the once-greatest cities now lie under tons of sand or water. This is a finite planet and, due to global warming (and other factors), its habitable land mass is lessening. So it goes. You put five rats in a room, give them a couple cans of dog food each day, and see what happens.

You want to know what overpopulation looks like? Read up on the history of Easter Island. Not a pretty picture.

Actually, Aleg is no doubt aware of the relevancy of floating ice, snow, etc.,..........it reflects a large amount of radiation back into space.

That is, I think, why he said: "floating ice sheets like the Artic are irrelevant to the level of the oceans (although they are representative of a rising global temperature)."

Reduce the amount of floating ice......and snowfall.....increases temperature as more radiation is absorbed.

Some scientist think this may have a profound impact on the ocean currents that circulate "energy" from the tropical zones to the poles and back. And that could have a profound impact on weather patterns in general.

I agree with your use of the word "finite." Yes, it is........most people have been taught the opposite. There are limits to everything.........I think.

Overpopulation is a critical variable that we have done virtually nothing about (yes, I know the rate of growth has been reduced).

We should have attacked the problem with a massive sense of urgency.

Another seems to be "energy" and our devotion to BIG OIL. Imagine the energy system we would have today if we had put as much effort into that area of research as we did computers or weapons of war...........but we didn't!

Another seems to be our devotion to a uniform global economy.................why? Is there some rule that says the economy must be global and that only a few corporations should dominate everything?

Biology teaches us that complex systems are far more stable than uniform systems.

I think there is a lesson there for us in terms of our pursuit of a global, uniform economic system.

I also think, back to the original topic, the scientist did not say what posters are implying.

If both polar land masses melt, you can bet money that the Gulf of Thailand will rise significantly.

[brahmburgers]

The Arctic WAS retreating, but for the past 2 years it has been INcreasing and this trend will probably continue for a while yet as the Earth continues on its cooling phase. Then there will be a retreat of ice as the Earth warms up. Then there will be an increase in ice as the Earth cools. Then there will be a retreat, then an increase, then a retreat and so on just as it has for MILLIONS of years without any help from humans.

What is happening with the climate is entirely normal.

PS The satellite data goes back just 30 years, so this means that when you see a headline like 'Arctic at record low' all that really means is that it is at its lowest level for 30 years.

There is a general warming, in spite of fluctuations. To what extent it results from humans' trashy ways is debatable. I can agree there have been major fluctuations between hot and cold during Earth's history, even since humans have been around.

Those things are not so much in contention.

To me, the key issues are first to acknowledge that there's a major shift toward global warming, to acknowledge it will adversely impact a significant proportion of human populations, and will cause mass migrations/suffering. These things will happen within the next few decades and the biggest news items will be large cities becoming permanently flooded - with Bkk among the top ten contenders.

As for data going back 30 years. I contest that. There are photos, taken around the dawn and middle of the 19th century, which show glaciers packing valleys where now, from the exact same vantage points show little bits of snow way up high. That, to me, is compelling.

[dumball]

You put a pair of rats in a room for a year and feed them , you finish up with 20/25.000 rats , that is rapid population explosion , you stop feeding them and have rapid population depletion .

[teatree]

As for data going back 30 years. I contest that. There are photos, taken around the dawn and middle of the 19th century, which show glaciers packing valleys where now, from the exact same vantage points show little bits of snow way up high. That, to me, is compelling.

Earth has been on a general warming trend for that last couple of hundred years - long before there were significant CO2 emissions - as Earth has been coming out a period called 'The Little Ice Age' when temperatures were far lower than today. So naturally the glaciers were bigger.

You do realise that these glaciers have been in retreat for a about two centuries don't you? It's kind of hard to place the blame on SUVs when you have this information.

Incidentally, Greenland used to be green and not covered in ice. This was during a warm stint in Earth's history called 'The Medieval Warm Period'.

Things change. The sky's not falling in. All we have to do is deal with the change the best way we can and forget trying to change a climate that is mainly driven by the Sun.

And we had better hope that the current cooling trend is short, because a repeat of the Little Ice age really would be a disaster for mankind.

[teatree]

What's this??? A balanced global warming report by the BBC??? There's a first for everything I suppose.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8299079.stm

What happened to global warming?

By Paul Hudson

Climate correspondent, BBC News

This headline may come as a bit of a surprise, so too might that fact that the warmest year recorded globally was not in 2008 or 2007, but in 1998.

But it is true. For the last 11 years we have not observed any increase in global temperatures.

And our climate models did not forecast it, even though man-made carbon dioxide, the gas thought to be responsible for warming our planet, has continued to rise.

So what on Earth is going on?

Climate change sceptics, who passionately and consistently argue that man's influence on our climate is overstated, say they saw it coming.

They argue that there are natural cycles, over which we have no control, that dictate how warm the planet is. But what is the evidence for this?

During the last few decades of the 20th century, our planet did warm quickly.

Recent research has ruled out solar influences on temperature increases

Sceptics argue that the warming we observed was down to the energy from the Sun increasing. After all 98% of the Earth's warmth comes from the Sun.

But research conducted two years ago, and published by the Royal Society, seemed to rule out solar influences.

The scientists' main approach was simple: to look at solar output and cosmic ray intensity over the last 30-40 years, and compare those trends with the graph for global average surface temperature.

And the results were clear. "Warming in the last 20 to 40 years can't have been caused by solar activity," said Dr Piers Forster from Leeds University, a leading contributor to this year's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

But one solar scientist Piers Corbyn from Weatheraction, a company specialising in long range weather forecasting, disagrees.

He claims that solar charged particles impact us far more than is currently accepted, so much so he says that they are almost entirely responsible for what happens to global temperatures.

He is so excited by what he has discovered that he plans to tell the international scientific community at a conference in London at the end of the month.

If proved correct, this could revolutionise the whole subject.

Ocean cycles

What is really interesting at the moment is what is happening to our oceans. They are the Earth's great heat stores.

In the last few years [the Pacific Ocean] has been losing its warmth and has recently started to cool down

According to research conducted by Professor Don Easterbrook from Western Washington University last November, the oceans and global temperatures are correlated.

The oceans, he says, have a cycle in which they warm and cool cyclically. The most important one is the Pacific decadal oscillation (PDO).

For much of the 1980s and 1990s, it was in a positive cycle, that means warmer than average. And observations have revealed that global temperatures were warm too.

But in the last few years it has been losing its warmth and has recently started to cool down.

These cycles in the past have lasted for nearly 30 years.

So could global temperatures follow? The global cooling from 1945 to 1977 coincided with one of these cold Pacific cycles.

Professor Easterbrook says: "The PDO cool mode has replaced the warm mode in the Pacific Ocean, virtually assuring us of about 30 years of global cooling."

So what does it all mean? Climate change sceptics argue that this is evidence that they have been right all along.

They say there are so many other natural causes for warming and cooling, that even if man is warming the planet, it is a small part compared with nature.

But those scientists who are equally passionate about man's influence on global warming argue that their science is solid.

The UK Met Office's Hadley Centre, responsible for future climate predictions, says it incorporates solar variation and ocean cycles into its climate models, and that they are nothing new.

In fact, the centre says they are just two of the whole host of known factors things that influence global temperatures - all of which are accounted for by its models.

In addition, say Met Office scientists, temperatures have never increased in a straight line, and there will always be periods of slower warming, or even temporary cooling.

What is crucial, they say, is the long-term trend in global temperatures. And that, according to the Met office data, is clearly up.

To confuse the issue even further, last month Mojib Latif, a member of the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) says that we may indeed be in a period of cooling worldwide temperatures that could last another 10-20 years.

The UK Met Office says that warming is set to resume

Professor Latif is based at the Leibniz Institute of Marine Sciences at Kiel University in Germany and is one of the world's top climate modellers.

But he makes it clear that he has not become a sceptic; he believes that this cooling will be temporary, before the overwhelming force of man-made global warming reasserts itself.

So what can we expect in the next few years?

Both sides have very different forecasts. The Met Office says that warming is set to resume quickly and strongly.

It predicts that from 2010 to 2015 at least half the years will be hotter than the current hottest year on record (1998).

Sceptics disagree. They insist it is unlikely that temperatures will reach the dizzy heights of 1998 until 2030 at the earliest. It is possible, they say, that because of ocean and solar cycles a period of global cooling is more likely.

One thing is for sure. It seems the debate about what is causing global warming is far from over. Indeed some would say its hotting up.

[JR Texas]

The Arctic WAS retreating, but for the past 2 years it has been INcreasing and this trend will probably continue for a while yet as the Earth continues on its cooling phase. Then there will be a retreat of ice as the Earth warms up. Then there will be an increase in ice as the Earth cools. Then there will be a retreat, then an increase, then a retreat and so on just as it has for MILLIONS of years without any help from humans.

What is happening with the climate is entirely normal.

PS The satellite data goes back just 30 years, so this means that when you see a headline like 'Arctic at record low' all that really means is that it is at its lowest level for 30 years.

There is a general warming, in spite of fluctuations. To what extent it results from humans' trashy ways is debatable. I can agree there have been major fluctuations between hot and cold during Earth's history, even since humans have been around.

Those things are not so much in contention.

To me, the key issues are first to acknowledge that there's a major shift toward global warming, to acknowledge it will adversely impact a significant proportion of human populations, and will cause mass migrations/suffering. These things will happen within the next few decades and the biggest news items will be large cities becoming permanently flooded - with Bkk among the top ten contenders.

As for data going back 30 years. I contest that. There are photos, taken around the dawn and middle of the 19th century, which show glaciers packing valleys where now, from the exact same vantage points show little bits of snow way up high. That, to me, is compelling.

All of the nonsensical posts aside by TT (you would think that person would know by now he/she is looking like a total fool), I agree with you about the glacier data. The real issue, I think, is the pace of change. It is like a blink of an eye in terms of "normal."

In the geological past (billions of years) the earth has been both warmer and cooler. We are in the middle zone of these two extremes.

As far as natural cycles go, I believe we are moving toward what should be a cooling period (in 50 thousand years we should be in another deep freeze). But that is the natural cycle related to natural forcings.

What we are seeing is warming during a time when it probably should be cooling a bit. That is scary...........and it is happening at an extraordinarily fast pace.

Too many people...........too many people w/ the global population growing..........too many people believing there are no limits to what the earth can withstand..........too many engaging in environmentally unsound economic activities.........too many with their heads in the sand believing everything BIG OIL wants them to believe........too many rejecting science/reason for emotion.

I would say we are in big trouble.................

[AleG]

The Arctic WAS retreating, but for the past 2 years it has been INcreasing and this trend will probably continue for a while yet as the Earth continues on its cooling phase. Then there will be a retreat of ice as the Earth warms up. Then there will be an increase in ice as the Earth cools. Then there will be a retreat, then an increase, then a retreat and so on just as it has for MILLIONS of years without any help from humans.

What is happening with the climate is entirely normal.

PS The satellite data goes back just 30 years, so this means that when you see a headline like 'Arctic at record low' all that really means is that it is at its lowest level for 30 years.

How does that face up to the fact that, for the last two years, the quasi mythical Northern Passage, an open water link "on top" of Canada has been navigated (by normal, not ice breaking ships) for the first time since the four centuries that it has been sought?

Edited October 10, 2009 by AleG

[ThaiAdventure]

How does that face up to the fact that, for the last two years, the quasi mythical Northern Passage, an open water link "on top" of Canada has been navigated (by normal, not ice breaking ships) for the first time since the four centuries that it has been sought?

The Northwest Passage was first naviagated in 1906 by Roald Amundsen.

Edited October 10, 2009 by ThaiAdventure

[JR Texas]

How does that face up to the fact that, for the last two years, the quasi mythical Northern Passage, an open water link "on top" of Canada has been navigated (by normal, not ice breaking ships) for the first time since the four centuries that it has been sought?

The Northwest Passage was first naviagated in 1906 by Roald Amundsen.

Yes..........he did........after being locked in the ice for three winters! It was an extraordinarily difficult journey.

The point being made today is that the region is losing ice because of climate change.......eventually, if it is all lost it will be easy to navigate the area.

Ships will not be locked in the ice..........no special ice breaking ships will be needed.

As far as TT's off the wall post goes.........no comment other than this: TT refuses to embrace reason over emotion.

[teatree]

Sunday Times

'Why Everything You Know About Global Warming Is Wrong'

http://www.nothingtodowithco2.com/images/S...ct_2009_cpr.jpg

[brahmburgers]

How does that face up to the fact that, for the last two years, the quasi mythical Northern Passage, an open water link "on top" of Canada has been navigated (by normal, not ice breaking ships) for the first time since the four centuries that it has been sought?

some other 'firsts'

Lakes are appearing on Greenland's ice mass for the first time in recorded history. They're actually quite beautiful - ice blue, with 'fingers stretching out over the cracks in the ice. Opposite of Thailand's brown lakes with the visibility of a hand's width..

Residents of Europe's Alps are seeing glaciers retreating at all time levels. 'All time' in this reference, is as far back as the stories of their ancestors in those parts, telling of trekking on glaciers (to get from place to place) in areas a lot lower elevation than where the glaciers are currently, if they still exist at all. Same for the Andes, when comparing stories from long-ago ancestors with current residents.

As for whether and how much such warming trends can be blamed on Peoples' trashy ways is debatable. However, there should be no debate that there's a whole lot too much pollution, of all sorts, in the world - nearly all of it caused by our one species. Ok, there's volcanic eruptions, methane from the sea, etc. but regardless of what % People are contributing to pollution, the time to start cleaning up our act is NOW.

[teatree]

How does that face up to the fact that, for the last two years, the quasi mythical Northern Passage, an open water link "on top" of Canada has been navigated (by normal, not ice breaking ships) for the first time since the four centuries that it has been sought?

some other 'firsts'

Lakes are appearing on Greenland's ice mass for the first time in recorded history. They're actually quite beautiful - ice blue, with 'fingers stretching out over the cracks in the ice. Opposite of Thailand's brown lakes with the visibility of a hand's width..

Residents of Europe's Alps are seeing glaciers retreating at all time levels. 'All time' in this reference, is as far back as the stories of their ancestors in those parts, telling of trekking on glaciers (to get from place to place) in areas a lot lower elevation than where the glaciers are currently, if they still exist at all. Same for the Andes, when comparing stories from long-ago ancestors with current residents.

As for whether and how much such warming trends can be blamed on Peoples' trashy ways is debatable. However, there should be no debate that there's a whole lot too much pollution, of all sorts, in the world - nearly all of it caused by our one species. Ok, there's volcanic eruptions, methane from the sea, etc. but regardless of what % People are contributing to pollution, the time to start cleaning up our act is NOW.

We DO need to reduce pollution, I agree. Let's make an effort eliminate our use of fossil fuels to enable us to to breath clean air.

But, let's not make out that CO2 is the cause of our problems because it isn't. Pinning the blame on CO2 so that perhaps, maybe in an indirect way less fossil fuels will be used is just insanity.

[JR Texas]

It is amazing how some people refuse to accept reality.........anyway, the good news is that the world's nations are moving forward on climate change, but not fast enough and not aggressive enough.

We are moving off the topic, but it should be noted that Thailand and Asia in general faces massive social unrest (perhaps even starvation in some areas) if climate change causes a major disruption to rice production.

I was thinking about that today as I was jogging down a road surrounded by rice............the entire system is so fragile. We are all in danger.

You would think the vast majority of humans would see this, link it to our allegiance to BIG OIL and overpopulation, and do something about it.

But try teaching a rock to turn over...........you just can't. Apparently, it is the same with some people.........especially a certain poster who has yet to post one piece of scientific evidence to counter the claim that climate change is real, dangerous, and largely human induced.

[teatree]

Dr. William Gray and Dr. Kevin Trenberth Debate Global Warming: Part 1

What Happened To Global Warming?

So reads the headline of a recent BBC article, which continues:

This headline may come as a bit of a surprise, so too might that fact that the warmest year recorded globally was not in 2008 or 2007, but in 1998.

But it is true. For the last 11 years we have not observed any increase in global temperatures.

This isn’t really news, though it will probably come as such to environmentalists and all the people who have bought into their propaganda.

The following is Part 1 of a written debate between Dr. Kevin Trenberth — head of the Climate Analysis Section at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder — and Dr. William Gray, Professor Emeritus of Atmospheric Science at Colorado State University. This debate originally appeared in the Fort Collins Forum:

Editor’s note: While the issue of anthropogenic global warming is much more than a local issue, we are fortunate to have two leading authorities on climate science in Northern Colorado. Each has a different view of the issue and agreed to this in-paper debate. The Forum believes this type of direct debate is all too rare on this topic and thank doctors Gray and Trenberth for their efforts. The Forum also wants to thank author Ray Harvey for bringing them together for this debate.

We Are Not In Climate Crisis

by Dr. Bill Gray

Professor Emeritus of Atmospheric Science at Colorado State University

Ask ten people on the street if mankind’s activities are causing global warming, and at least eight will say yes. This is because nearly 20 years of gross exaggeration on the part of scientists, environmentalists, politicians, and media; most of whom wish to profit in some way from the public’s lack of knowledge on the topic-have distorted the subject of human-induced global warming out of all sensible proportion. Many have been lead to believe that Al Gore’s movie and book An Inconvenient Truth provides incontrovertible evidence that human-induced global warming is a real threat. Yet, contrary to what is heard from warming advocates, there is considerable evidence that the global warming we have experienced over the last 30 years and over the last 100 years is largely natural. It is impossible to objectively determine the small amount of human-induced warming in comparison to the large natural changes which are occurring.

Many thousands of scientists from the US and around the globe do not accept the human-induced global warming hypothesis as it has been presented by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reports over the last 15 years. The media has, in general, uncritically accepted the results of the IPCC and over-hyped the human aspects of the warming threat. This makes for better press than saying that the climate changes we have experienced are mostly natural. The contrary views of the many warming skeptics have been largely ignored and their motives denigrated. The alleged “scientific consensus” on this topic is bogus. As more research on the human impact on global temperature change comes forth, more flaws are being found in the hypothesis.

It must be pointed out that most climate research is supported by the federal government. All federally sponsored researchers need positive peer-reviews on their published papers and grant proposals. This can be difficult for many of the “closet” warming skeptics who receive federal grant support. Many are reluctant to give full expression of their views, primarily because of worries over continuing grant support. It is difficult to receive federal grant support if one’s views differ from the majority of their peers who receive support to find evidence of the warming threat. The normal scientific process of objectively studying both sides of the question has not yet occurred. Such open discussion has been largely discouraged by warming advocates.

Implementation of the proposed international treaties restricting future greenhouse gas emissions by as much as 20 to 80 percent of current emissions would lead to a large slowdown in the world’s economic development and, at the same time, have no significant impact on the globe’s future temperature.

Many of the Global Climate Model (GCMs) simulations by large US and foreign government laboratories and universities, on which so much of these warming scenarios are based, have some very basic flaws. These global models are not able to correctly model the globe’s small-scale precipitation processes. They have incorrectly parameterized the rain processes in their models to give an unrealistically enhanced warming influence to CO2. This is the so-called positive water-vapor feedback. The observations I have been analyzing for many years show that the globe’s net upper-level water vapor does not increase but slightly decreases with warming. These GCMs also do not yet accurately model the globe’s deep ocean circulation which appears to be the primary driving mechanism for most of the global temperature increases that have occurred over the last 30 and last 100 years. GCMs should not be relied upon to give global temperature information 50 to 100 years into the future. GCM modelers do not dare make public short-period global temperature forecasts for next season, next year, or a few years hence. This is because they know they do not have shorter range climate forecasting skill. They would lose credibility if they issued shorter-range yearly forecasts that could be objectively verified. Climate modelers live mostly in a “virtual world” of their own making. This virtual world is isolated from the real world of weather and climate. Few of the GCM modelers have any substantial weather or short-range climate forecasting experience. It is impossible to make skillful initial-value numerical predictions beyond a few weeks. Although numerical weather prediction has shown steady and impressive improvement since its inception in 1955, these forecast improvements have been primarily made through advancements in the measurement (i.e. satellite) of the wind and pressure fields and the advection/extrapolation of these fields forward in time 10-15 days. For skillful numerical prediction beyond a few weeks, it is necessary to forecast changes in the globe’s complicated energy and moisture fields. This entails forecasting processes such as amounts of cloudiness, condensation heating, evaporation cooling, cloud-free radiation, air-sea moisture- temperature flux, etc. It is impossible to accurately code all these complicated energy moisture processes, and integrate these processes forward for hundreds of thousands of time-steps and expect to obtain anything close to meaningful results. Realistic climate forecasting by numerical processes is not possible now, and, because of the complex nature of the earth’s climate system, they may never be possible.

Global temperatures have always fluctuated and will continue to do so regardless of how much anthropogenic greenhouse gases are put into the atmosphere.

The globe has many serious environmental problems. Most of these problems are regional or local in nature, not global. Forced global reductions in human-produced greenhouse gases will not offer much benefit for the globe’s serious regional and local environmental problems. We should, of course, make all reasonable reductions in greenhouse gases to the extent that we do not pay too high an economic price. We need a prosperous economy to have sufficient resources to further adapt and expand energy production.

Even if CO2 is causing very small global temperature increases there is hardly anything we can do about it. China, India, and Third World countries will not limit their growing greenhouse gas emissions. Many experts believe that there may be net positive benefits to humankind through a small amount of global warming. It is known that vegetation and crops tend to benefit from higher amounts of atmospheric CO2, particularly vegetation which is under temperature or moisture stress.

I believe that in the next few years the globe is going to enter a modest cooling period similar to what was experienced in the 30 years between the mid-1940s and the mid-1970s. This will be primarily a result of changes in the globe’s deep-ocean circulation. I am convinced that in 15-20 years we will look back on this period of global warming hysteria as we now look back on other popular and trendy scientific ideas that have not stood the test of time.

The pro AGW side of the debate is here:

http://fortcollinsteaparty.com/index.php/2...global-warming/

[JR Texas]

Dr. William Gray and Dr. Kevin Trenberth Debate Global Warming: Part 1

What Happened To Global Warming?

So reads the headline of a recent BBC article, which continues:

This headline may come as a bit of a surprise, so too might that fact that the warmest year recorded globally was not in 2008 or 2007, but in 1998.

But it is true. For the last 11 years we have not observed any increase in global temperatures.

This isn’t really news, though it will probably come as such to environmentalists and all the people who have bought into their propaganda.

The following is Part 1 of a written debate between Dr. Kevin Trenberth — head of the Climate Analysis Section at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder — and Dr. William Gray, Professor Emeritus of Atmospheric Science at Colorado State University. This debate originally appeared in the Fort Collins Forum:

Editor’s note: While the issue of anthropogenic global warming is much more than a local issue, we are fortunate to have two leading authorities on climate science in Northern Colorado. Each has a different view of the issue and agreed to this in-paper debate. The Forum believes this type of direct debate is all too rare on this topic and thank doctors Gray and Trenberth for their efforts. The Forum also wants to thank author Ray Harvey for bringing them together for this debate.

We Are Not In Climate Crisis

by Dr. Bill Gray

Professor Emeritus of Atmospheric Science at Colorado State University

Ask ten people on the street if mankind’s activities are causing global warming, and at least eight will say yes. This is because nearly 20 years of gross exaggeration on the part of scientists, environmentalists, politicians, and media; most of whom wish to profit in some way from the public’s lack of knowledge on the topic-have distorted the subject of human-induced global warming out of all sensible proportion. Many have been lead to believe that Al Gore’s movie and book An Inconvenient Truth provides incontrovertible evidence that human-induced global warming is a real threat. Yet, contrary to what is heard from warming advocates, there is considerable evidence that the global warming we have experienced over the last 30 years and over the last 100 years is largely natural. It is impossible to objectively determine the small amount of human-induced warming in comparison to the large natural changes which are occurring.

Many thousands of scientists from the US and around the globe do not accept the human-induced global warming hypothesis as it has been presented by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reports over the last 15 years. The media has, in general, uncritically accepted the results of the IPCC and over-hyped the human aspects of the warming threat. This makes for better press than saying that the climate changes we have experienced are mostly natural. The contrary views of the many warming skeptics have been largely ignored and their motives denigrated. The alleged “scientific consensus” on this topic is bogus. As more research on the human impact on global temperature change comes forth, more flaws are being found in the hypothesis.

It must be pointed out that most climate research is supported by the federal government. All federally sponsored researchers need positive peer-reviews on their published papers and grant proposals. This can be difficult for many of the “closet” warming skeptics who receive federal grant support. Many are reluctant to give full expression of their views, primarily because of worries over continuing grant support. It is difficult to receive federal grant support if one’s views differ from the majority of their peers who receive support to find evidence of the warming threat. The normal scientific process of objectively studying both sides of the question has not yet occurred. Such open discussion has been largely discouraged by warming advocates.

Implementation of the proposed international treaties restricting future greenhouse gas emissions by as much as 20 to 80 percent of current emissions would lead to a large slowdown in the world’s economic development and, at the same time, have no significant impact on the globe’s future temperature.

Many of the Global Climate Model (GCMs) simulations by large US and foreign government laboratories and universities, on which so much of these warming scenarios are based, have some very basic flaws. These global models are not able to correctly model the globe’s small-scale precipitation processes. They have incorrectly parameterized the rain processes in their models to give an unrealistically enhanced warming influence to CO2. This is the so-called positive water-vapor feedback. The observations I have been analyzing for many years show that the globe’s net upper-level water vapor does not increase but slightly decreases with warming. These GCMs also do not yet accurately model the globe’s deep ocean circulation which appears to be the primary driving mechanism for most of the global temperature increases that have occurred over the last 30 and last 100 years. GCMs should not be relied upon to give global temperature information 50 to 100 years into the future. GCM modelers do not dare make public short-period global temperature forecasts for next season, next year, or a few years hence. This is because they know they do not have shorter range climate forecasting skill. They would lose credibility if they issued shorter-range yearly forecasts that could be objectively verified. Climate modelers live mostly in a “virtual world” of their own making. This virtual world is isolated from the real world of weather and climate. Few of the GCM modelers have any substantial weather or short-range climate forecasting experience. It is impossible to make skillful initial-value numerical predictions beyond a few weeks. Although numerical weather prediction has shown steady and impressive improvement since its inception in 1955, these forecast improvements have been primarily made through advancements in the measurement (i.e. satellite) of the wind and pressure fields and the advection/extrapolation of these fields forward in time 10-15 days. For skillful numerical prediction beyond a few weeks, it is necessary to forecast changes in the globe’s complicated energy and moisture fields. This entails forecasting processes such as amounts of cloudiness, condensation heating, evaporation cooling, cloud-free radiation, air-sea moisture- temperature flux, etc. It is impossible to accurately code all these complicated energy moisture processes, and integrate these processes forward for hundreds of thousands of time-steps and expect to obtain anything close to meaningful results. Realistic climate forecasting by numerical processes is not possible now, and, because of the complex nature of the earth’s climate system, they may never be possible.

Global temperatures have always fluctuated and will continue to do so regardless of how much anthropogenic greenhouse gases are put into the atmosphere.

The globe has many serious environmental problems. Most of these problems are regional or local in nature, not global. Forced global reductions in human-produced greenhouse gases will not offer much benefit for the globe’s serious regional and local environmental problems. We should, of course, make all reasonable reductions in greenhouse gases to the extent that we do not pay too high an economic price. We need a prosperous economy to have sufficient resources to further adapt and expand energy production.

Even if CO2 is causing very small global temperature increases there is hardly anything we can do about it. China, India, and Third World countries will not limit their growing greenhouse gas emissions. Many experts believe that there may be net positive benefits to humankind through a small amount of global warming. It is known that vegetation and crops tend to benefit from higher amounts of atmospheric CO2, particularly vegetation which is under temperature or moisture stress.

I believe that in the next few years the globe is going to enter a modest cooling period similar to what was experienced in the 30 years between the mid-1940s and the mid-1970s. This will be primarily a result of changes in the globe’s deep-ocean circulation. I am convinced that in 15-20 years we will look back on this period of global warming hysteria as we now look back on other popular and trendy scientific ideas that have not stood the test of time.

The pro AGW side of the debate is here:

http://fortcollinsteaparty.com/index.php/2...global-warming/

In case you need info. on Prof. Gray and what he is all about, look here: http://www.logicalscience.com/skeptics/Gray.html

[brahmburgers]

In case you need info. on Prof. Gray and what he is all about, look here: http://www.logicalscience.com/skeptics/Gray.html

Thanks JR, I read the entire article. It certainly paints Dr. Gray as a lone guy putting down the entire scientific community in order to bolster his belief that global warming is bunk.

I also read the entire entry which was cut & pasted by Teatree.

Interesting to note that Dr. Gray has never had a peer review paper published on climatology. He's purported to be a hurricane expert, but a fellow climatologist, Dr. Judith Curry writes:

"Every year, Gray’s forecasts are “wrong”. In my testimony and in an AGU workshop, a diagram and analysis from Greg Holland plotted the forecasts against the actual data, and did a simple statistical analysis. Bottom line is that Gray’s forecasts are worse than just forecast the average for the last 5 or 10 years.1 .........The second thing that surprised me was in the Gray/Klotzbach presentation they counted their 2005 forecast as a “skilful” forecast (they forecast 15 [tropical storms] in June, compared with 27 observed) since the observations and forecasts were above the 50 year mean of 9.6. This immediately called to mind an article in the popular media that i read at the end of 2005 that discussed the worst forecasts for 2005, and gray’s hurricane forecast was #1."

[brahmburgers]

Penn and Teller, the witty comedians, have a book titled 'Bullshit' which attempts to debunk generally accepted science regarding global warming. Here is a URL which debunks the debunkers.

Also, a graph which may be of interest:

[JR Texas]

Penn and Teller, the witty comedians, have a book titled 'Bullshit' which attempts to debunk generally accepted science regarding global warming. Here is a URL which debunks the debunkers.

Also, a graph which may be of interest:

Good one Brahmburgers..........interesting reading. I wonder how long TT will keep pissing in the direction the wind is blowing?

I can see it coming now.........now one carefully though out word about what we just posted and the good doctor.......just another misleading post taken off of a website funded by BIG OIL.

It is really boring TT.........really boring. Your side is looking silly.

Now.......the topic? Will the Gulf of Thailand rise or not rise in the face of climate change?

[ThaiAdventure]

http://www.oism.org/pproject/

[teatree]

Penn and Teller, the witty comedians, have a book titled 'Bullshit' which attempts to debunk generally accepted science regarding global warming. Here is a URL which debunks the debunkers.

Also, a graph which may be of interest:

One thing you may like to do some research into is exactly how temperatures are recorded, where the recording stations are and why there is a such a huge difference between ground temperatures and those of the troposphere (the troposphere SHOULD be rising in temperature but it isn't).

Also you may want to research into where the funding for the global warming alarmists comes from.

The IPCC has been found time and again tampering with data and cherry picking.

Edited October 15, 2009 by teatree

[teatree]

Penn and Teller, the witty comedians, have a book titled 'Bullshit' which attempts to debunk generally accepted science regarding global warming. Here is a URL which debunks the debunkers.

Also, a graph which may be of interest:

Good one Brahmburgers..........interesting reading. I wonder how long TT will keep pissing in the direction the wind is blowing?

I can see it coming now.........now one carefully though out word about what we just posted and the good doctor.......just another misleading post taken off of a website funded by BIG OIL.

It is really boring TT.........really boring. Your side is looking silly.

Now.......the topic? Will the Gulf of Thailand rise or not rise in the face of climate change?

Yes, you continue time after time to attack the person and drone on and on about BIG OIL.

Why not debate the science? What are you scared of? When people have no answer to the science all that is left is to attack the person in an attempt to discredit them.

ps could you please tell me where the funding for the man made global warming believing scientists comes from?

[JR Texas]

Penn and Teller, the witty comedians, have a book titled 'Bullshit' which attempts to debunk generally accepted science regarding global warming. Here is a URL which debunks the debunkers.

Also, a graph which may be of interest:

Good one Brahmburgers..........interesting reading. I wonder how long TT will keep pissing in the direction the wind is blowing?

I can see it coming now.........now one carefully though out word about what we just posted and the good doctor.......just another misleading post taken off of a website funded by BIG OIL.

It is really boring TT.........really boring. Your side is looking silly.

Now.......the topic? Will the Gulf of Thailand rise or not rise in the face of climate change?

Yes, you continue time after time to attack the person and drone on and on about BIG OIL.

Why not debate the science? What are you scared of? When people have no answer to the science all that is left is to attack the person in an attempt to discredit them.

ps could you please tell me where the funding for the man made global warming believing scientists comes from?

You did precisely what I predicted.........you posted a non response to the criticisms of the professor you apparently think is an expert on climate change.

In fact, I doubt you even bothered to read the criticisms.

Funding? For public universities? NSF? NOAA? UN? etc., a lot of it comes from taxpayers. So what?

Your side is funded by BIG OIL.

Quite frankly, your posts are not worth responding to.......sort of a waste of space.

The problem is that they are so misleading that it is hard for me and others to ignore them.

Climate change is a serious topic that should be taken seriously.

For the record, the actual debate among scientists has already taken place and most governments (and responsible scientists) have moved way beyond the trivial crap we are talking about on this thread and other similar threads.

The BIG OIL backed skeptics lost the debate a long time ago...........now all they can do is post pseudo-scientific crap from people like Prof. William Gray, all taken from BIG OIL funded websites (and most taken out of context).

Having lost the debate, there is nothing else they can do to keep the public supporting BIG OIL except create "doubt." That is what TTs post are all about. It has nothing to do with science..........it has everything to do with MAKING MONEY off of the backs of working people worldwide.

In case you don't see the connection between BIG OIL and the ECONOMY.......just think what recently happened after BIG OIL decided to raise the price of oil over and over again..........we saw a GLOBAL ECONOMIC CRISIS.

It is time to evolve as a species and move beyond our addiction to a fuel source that is creating a dangerous pattern of climate change, hurting the economy, causing the quality of life of the majority to decline, and causing population levels to increase.......and doing so almost in the blink of an eye in terms of geological time.

Unless we move forward on the energy issue and develop and deploy a new system that is environmentally sound and economically viable, we will never be able to deal with the twin problems of overpopulation and poverty (and the social unrest that comes with them).

What does that mean? It means that even if the skeptics are right--even if we continue to worship at the alter of BIG OIL--our efforts to improve population and economic conditions worldwide will fail.

And if they are wrong? It means a massive increase in pain and suffering worldwide to add to the massive pain and suffering we are trying to deal with now, especially in the developing world.

Does that have something to do with Thailand. Of course it does.

[Pattel]

I don't know about the science but common sense tells me that if you destroy millions of rai of rain forest every year for 40 or more years you are eventually going to have a problem.

[JR Texas]

I don't know about the science but common sense tells me that if you destroy millions of rai of rain forest every year for 40 or more years you are eventually going to have a problem.

UN-REDD is a good place to start to learn more about tropical deforestation and climate change. http://www.un-redd.org/

The significance of tropical forests is not immediately obvious to most people.........a tree is a tree, right? Wrong.

This might help explain why:

1) They store carbon (absorb it) from the atmosphere and release life giving oxygen in the process (but so do all plants),

2) They exist in earth's warm zone.......while some trees do shed their leaves, it is not like in the temperate zones. where they become virtually dormant for months.

In short, you see more CO2 absorption in the tropics, all things being equal........warmer climate, more sunshine........

In my mind, the tropical forests are the part of the earth's "lungs" that work year round......absorbing CO2 even when the trees in the northern climates are "dormant."

That is critical for our climate..........chop them all down and you add massive amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere.

I think UN-REDD calculated that the amount of CO2 released into the atmosphere due to the internal combustion engine was actually less than that released due to tropical deforestation (but I have not been to their site in some time).

That is why tropical forests are critical and do make sense in terms of carbon credit trading schemes.

[Rumfoord]

Penn and Teller, the witty comedians, have a book titled 'Bullshit' which attempts to debunk generally accepted science regarding global warming. Here is a URL which debunks the debunkers.

Also, a graph which may be of interest:

the graph could be used to prove the Kurt Vonnegut line: "We are here on Earth to fart around. Don't let anybody tell you any different."

isn't it amazing how all graphs having exactly the same shape. it's so obvious and self-evident that there must be a direct correlation between the them. what is your interpretation? what is cause? what is effect?

humanity is a virus and the host gaia having a fever. higher body temperature as the organism response to a desease.

or since the temperature is rising the human society, science, technological progress, increased at an amazing speed, it's getting better and better and that faster than ever before. the high medieval mortality rate is a thing of the past. today there is cure and overall better living conditions for the human population.

anyway, at least one point is totally wrong and evidently false. the website state and claims: "This is known as the "hockey stick". It is arguably the most analyzed graph in the history of science. "

what a hubris and overstatement. make them sound like a confidence trickster or a travelling salesman trying to sell blue-green algae at inflated prices to the elderley. for me they lost any credibility.

everybody knows, or at least everybody who is at least a little bit into truth and reality knows that the most analyzed graph in the history of science and mankind is the graph below. taken from this website: http://www.venganza.org/

[dave_boo]

Penn and Teller, the witty comedians, have a book titled 'Bullshit' which attempts to debunk generally accepted science regarding global warming. Here is a URL which debunks the debunkers.

Also, a graph which may be of interest:

the graph could be used to prove the Kurt Vonnegut line: "We are here on Earth to fart around. Don't let anybody tell you any different."

isn't it amazing how all graphs having exactly the same shape. it's so obvious and self-evident that there must be a direct correlation between the them. what is your interpretation? what is cause? what is effect?

humanity is a virus and the host gaia having a fever. higher body temperature as the organism response to a desease.

or since the temperature is rising the human society, science, technological progress, increased at an amazing speed, it's getting better and better and that faster than ever before. the high medieval mortality rate is a thing of the past. today there is cure and overall better living conditions for the human population.

anyway, at least one point is totally wrong and evidently false. the website state and claims: "This is known as the "hockey stick". It is arguably the most analyzed graph in the history of science. "

what a hubris and overstatement. make them sound like a confidence trickster or a travelling salesman trying to sell blue-green algae at inflated prices to the elderley. for me they lost any credibility.

everybody knows, or at least everybody who is at least a little bit into truth and reality knows that the most analyzed graph in the history of science and mankind is the graph below. taken from this website: http://www.venganza.org/

To which all true believers reply "Hail his noodly appendages".

[brahmburgers]

Is there objective scientific data regarding sea levels in the Gulf of Thailand?

If so, where can it be accessed, and how far back does the data go?

I don't know how such data is gathered, but I can envision a series of stoutly anchored (in many tons of concrete) metal poles at the seashore. Periodic precise measurements would be taken, ideally when the waters are relatively calm. If there's a concern about subsiding land masses, then perhaps GPS positioning would help that, though I believe GPS only works highly detailed for the US gov't (which paid for and provided it). For worldwide royalty/fee-free use, its accuracy is intentionally not as precise.

Is the appropriate Thai gov't Ministry taking precise/accurate measurements, or is the OP's statement just some gut feeling he had after eating MSG-laden rice soup one morning after his wife found his mia noi's tel number in his mobile? I'd guess that any scientific measurements are probably administered by an outside/farang outfit. Thais too readily rely on outside experts to do such things.

Edited October 15, 2009 by brahmburgers