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

[John K]

I actually became aware of global warming in 1995 when a friend of mine who is a meteorologist pointed out the signs to me. I did not have to wait for Al Gore to take it to the front page.

Seeing as this thread looks to be going to a higher level, I may suggest that before you post you should watch “An inconvenient truth” before you comment. Some of the non believer posts are shot down in flames with solid evidence before they click submit.

[Pundi64]

Well if you live around the Gulf, you know this is a bunch of BS, you can already see evidence that water has risen, the sand is dissapering, and in general the coastline is losing ground to mother nature.

[ding]

Makes sense to me. When I put my boat in the water the water level rises 10cm within a 21 meter radius.

Edited October 18, 2007 by ding

[PadThaiGuy]

Suphat Vongvisessomjai,

This must be one of those guys I keep reading about in the Teachers forums that cheated his way thru school.

[John K]

Rising seas threaten 21 mega-cities

By The Associated Press

BANGKOK, Thailand - Cities around the world are facing the danger of rising seas and other disasters related to climate change.

Of the 33 cities predicted to have at least 8 million people by 2015, at least 21 are highly vulnerable, says the Worldwatch Institute.

They include Dhaka, Bangladesh; Buenos Aires, Argentina; Rio de Janeiro, Brazil; Shanghai and Tianjin in China; Alexandria and Cairo in Egypt; Mumbai and Kolkata in India; Jakarta, Indonesia; Tokyo and Osaka-Kobe in Japan; Lagos, Nigeria; Karachi, Pakistan; Bangkok, Thailand, and New York and Los Angeles in the United States, according to studies by the United Nations and others.

More than one-tenth of the world's population, or 643 million people, live in low-lying areas at risk from climate change, say U.S. and European experts. Most imperiled, in descending order, are China, India, Bangladesh, Vietnam, Indonesia, Japan, Egypt, the U.S., Thailand and the Philippines.

[John K]

Bangkok has that sinking feeling

By DENIS D. GRAY, Associated Press Writer Sat Oct 20, 2:15 PM ET

KHUN SAMUT CHIN, Thailand - At Bangkok's watery gates, Buddhist monks cling to a shrinking spit of land around their temple as they wage war against the relentlessly rising sea.

During the monsoons at high tide, waves hurdle the breakwater of concrete pillars and the inner rock wall around the temple on a promontory in the Gulf of Thailand. Jutting above the water line just ahead are remnants of a village that has already slipped beneath the sea.

Experts say these waters, aided by sinking land, threaten to submerge Thailand's sprawling capital of more than 10 million people within this century. Bangkok is one of 13 of the world's largest 20 cities at risk of being swamped as sea levels rise in coming decades, according to warnings at the recent Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change held here.

"This is what the future will look like in many places around the world," says Lisa Schipper, an American researcher on global warming, while visiting the temple. "Here is a living study in environmental change."

The loss of Bangkok would destroy the country's economic engine and a major hub for regional tourism.

"If the heart of Thailand is under water everything will stop," says Smith Dharmasaroja, chair of the government's Committee of National Disaster Warning Administration. "We don't have time to move our capital in the next 15-20 years. We have to protect our heart now, and it's almost too late."

The arithmetic gives Bangkok little cause for optimism.

The still expanding megapolis rests about 3 1/2 to 5 feet above the nearby gulf, although some areas already lie below sea level. The gulf's waters have been rising by about a tenth of an inch a year, about the same as the world average, says Anond Snidvongs, a leading scientist in the field.

But the city, built on clay rather than bedrock, has also been sinking at a far faster pace of up to 4 inches annually as its teeming population and factories pump some 2.5 million cubic tons of cheaply priced water, legally and illegally, out of its aquifers. This compacts the layers of clay and causes the land to sink.

Everyone — the government, scientists and environmental groups — agrees Bangkok is headed for trouble, but there is some debate about when. Anond, who heads the Southeast Asia START Regional Center, believes total submersion may not be imminent, but Smith disagrees.

"You notice that every highway, road and building which has no foundation pilings is sinking," says Smith. "We feel that with the ground sinking and the sea water rising, Bangkok will be under sea water in the next 15 to 20 years — permanently."

Once known as the "Venice of the East," Bangkok was founded 225 years ago on a swampy floodplain along the Chao Phraya River. But beginning in the 1950s, on the advice of international development agencies, most of the canals were filled in to make roads and combat malaria. This fractured the natural drainage system that had helped control Bangkok's annual monsoon season flooding.

"It's the only city in the world where a car has collided with a boat," says Smith, recalling a deluge where residents commuted by rickety boats down roads flanked by high-rises.

As head of Thailand's meteorological department in 1998, Smith warned with little success that the country's southwest coast could face a deadly tsunami. He was proven right.

He urges that work start now on a dike system of more than 60 miles — protective walls about 16 feet high, punctured by water gates and with roads on top, not unlike the dikes long used in low-lying Netherlands to ward off the sea. The dikes would run on both banks of the Chao Phraya River and then fork to the right and left at the mouth of the river.

Anond, an oceanographer who studied at the University of Hawaii, says other options must also be explored, including water diversion channels, more upcountry dams and the "monkey cheeks" idea of King Bhumibol Adulyadej. The king, among the first to alert Bangkokians about the yearly flooding, has suggested diverting off-flow from the surges into reservoirs, the "cheeks," for later release into the gulf.

"There is no one single solution to respond to climate change," says Anond, whose team is putting forward recommendations based on several scenarios. "We have to start doing something about this right now."

As authorities ponder, communities like Khun Samut Chin, 12 miles from downtown Bangkok, are taking action.

The five monks at the temple and surrounding villagers are building the barriers from locally collected donations and planting mangrove trees to halt shoreline erosion.

The odds are against them. About half a mile of shoreline has already been lost over the past three decades, in large part due to the destruction of once vast mangrove forests. The abbot, Somnuk Attipanyo, says about a third of the village's original population was forced to move.

The top of a broken concrete water storage tank protrudes from the muddy sea, which swirls around rows of electricity pylons and telephone polls now stuck offshore.

The monastery grounds are less than a tenth of their original size, and the waterlogged temple is regularly lashed by waves that have forced the monks to raise its original floor by more than three feet. Among a group of villagers attending morning prayers at the temple, 45-year-old shrimp farmer Rakiet Phinlaphak looks toward the watery horizon from the promontory and says, "I have seen the sea rising higher since I was a child."

[JetsetBkk]

[londonthai]

The still expanding megapolis rests about 3 1/2 to 5 feet above the nearby gulf, although some areas already lie below sea level. The gulf's waters have been rising by about a tenth of an inch a year, about the same as the world average, says Anond Snidvongs, a leading scientist in the field.

looks like Suphat Vongvisessomjai based his research on an old data (and anyway, reseach was done several years ago) - the new data would be more accurate as they are more sophisticated than the old days ones

[rychrde]

This is the type of scientific analysis much favored by global warming believers. Astrology, dousing, palm reading are disprovable using scientific method, the large rocks are provable. Global warming is provable, but the cause is not. We have relatively recently (18,000 years ago) come out of a regular 100,000 year ice age period and are in a planetary warming period. The last inter-glacial period (about 125,000 years) peaked at 2 degrees warmer than at present. Therefore there is evidence to show warming is part of the natural cycle. And there are various issues with the theory, for example, what about the cooling effect of particulates? So although there is evidence, there's also a lot of bad science around.

Balderdash! There is plenty of evidence to show increased levels of carbon dioxide as a result of human activities is real and affecting the planet, such as the increased pH level of the oceans. To equate previous global changes in climate that were very gradual and allowed for some life adaptation with the current instant changes, geologically speaking, is ridiculous. The only scientists arguing against global warming are those funded by the large corporations who do not want to lose profits if people change their behavior patterns, specifically the big Oil companies, the same people who brought you the inconvenient non-truths of the Iraq war. The only media channel propagating the concept that the current global warming is simply a natural occurring climate change, the propagandist term that the oil companies prefer for global warming, is the Murdoch controlled global media channels, Murdoch the public apologist for his fellow ruling class members who want to keep the rabble stupid. One of their favorite faux logic tactics is the ad hominen attack, and we see the overspill in this thread as fellow apologists criticize even the Norwegians, a group of people I have found rather likable. You don't have to like Al Gore to see that his cause his just.

true. One of the world's largest oil companies, BP (British Petroleum), has for a few years tried to change its image in the UK with a new slogan, Beyond Petroleum. They will be ready for the change but only when the money dries up.

rych

[John K]

It's going to get very hot - much earlier than expected

Thailand is likely to see the mercury rise to unprecedented levels - beyond 46 degrees Celsius - within the next 15 to 20 years, decades sooner than the previous projection, according to the latest climate model released yesterday.

Of particular concern to Thai scientists is that this extreme heat may stay longer and engulf a much greater

proportion of the country. Peering further into the future, the new findings suggest that by 2100 much of the country could be spending eight months a year in summer temperatures of 35 degrees, compared to just three months at present.

"The modelling suggests that we will see the effects of global warming sooner than we thought, in the 2020s instead of the 2040s and 2050s," said modeller Dr Anond Sanidvongs, director of the Southeast Asia Regional Centre of the Global Change System for Analysis, Research and Training (Start).

"But we are not in a crisis yet. We're just beginning to see the changes, and there's still time to adapt and prepare a response."

The climate scenario assumes that there is little reduction in carbon emission in the future and little cooperation among governments to address global warming, Anond said.

Anond stressed that the climate model, developed in cooperation with the renowned UK-based Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research, is not a definite forecast. It merely attempts to use the best information about future trends in carbon emissions and historical climate trends to produce the best estimates possible consistent with similar simulations conducted throughout the world.

He said the simulation was based on the input of greenhouse gases only. It does not take into account the aerosol factors like sulphate, dust and smoke from diesel engines and other burning that scientists now find produce their own climate impacts.

"The model can only point to potential trends, which in turn should guide further investigation to determine which of those trends are most likely," added Suppakorn Chinvano, who also served on the modelling team.

Anond and Suppakorn released the findings from Thailand's first climate model two years ago. With technical assistance from Australia's Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, the mode predicted a "one-to-two-degree" temperature change, longer summers and shorter winters. The findings also suggested more rainfall in almost every region.

The new model reinforces the same trends, only has them occurring more quickly. The country will have more rain, winter will be shorter, and nights will not be much cooler than the daytime. Mountainous areas in particular will be warmer, and many provinces will no longer see days below 15 degrees.

"Even Loei, the coldest province in the country, may not have days below 15 degrees any more by the end of the century," Anond said. "In Bangkok and the central region we'll be lucky to see temperatures below 22 or 23 degrees."

Joining the Thai scientists in Bangkok this week were two British climate scientists, David Hassell and David Hein-Griggs of the Hadley Centre's Met Office. They stated that Southeast Asian countries were increasingly interested in preparing climate models for their own countries to better understand the climate-change impacts to which they needed to develop responses.

The two were in Kuala Lumpur last August to offer hands-on climate-model training to some 20 scientists from countries in the region. With the climate projection that the world could see a two- to five-degree temperature increase by the end of this century, the point is of concern to scientists around the world.

"It's a question of risk and consequences," said Hassell. "Given that there's a chance of a temperature increase of five degrees, the risk of not doing anything is too great for the world to bet on."

Nantiya Tangwisutijit

The Nation

[klikster]

So lets just say all the ice caps will melt one day, which they most likely will do. Considereing some of the caps that are below sea level won't really make much difference in terms of the water volume increasing or sea level rising, but I am guessing that the rise in sea levels will come from all the ice/ parts of the ice caps that are only above sea level that melt. So lets just say everything melts, what would be the maximum level the seas would rise?

This is very interesting because it is obviously going to happen and low lying areas in some places will be covered and people will need to re-locate, but just what sort of a rise are we talking about if everything melts? 1-2 or maybe even more meters........................

It gets more complex when you start disrupting the cold zones in the oceans of the world. One theory suggests that if land ice melts, the resulting disruption of those cold zones will cause the ocean temps to rise considerably. That starts entirely new sets of environmental problems.

[klikster]

A very interesting read, if you can find it, is an article "Fire Beneath the Ice" that explains how that volcanic warming of the Antarctic ice is what actually keeps the ice intact. Nice paradox.

[Tony Clifton]

Real Bangkok skyline somewhere and photoshop..

[pantarei]

You know after Gore won the Nobel prize I took a moment to watch again his presentation “an inconvenient truth.” Besides what my own eyes are telling me that there are many more category 5 hurricanes and some pushing up to where category 6 would be if there was such a category, there is no doubt in my mind that I agree with what is being said by Al Gore. I particularly agree with the part of the movie where he shows there is deliberate misleading by non scientific people that includes edits to documents presented by scientists. I don’t need anyone to explain the data anymore, it matches what I see, so deciding who to believe is from the last chapter and not this chapter.

Essentially the tipping point is nearing where the cost of doing nothing out weighs the cost of doing the right thing.

As for Bangkok becoming the next Veness, it certainly looks that way. The only out I can see is if seismic activity rases the area.

1. As for Bangkok becoming the next Veness, it certainly looks that way.

I assume that Veness means Venice??

BTW, turning Bangkok into Venice would preferable to rasing it. No?

Below is an excerpt of a publication on the geologic history of the Atlantic Coastal Plain, published by USGS (=US Geological Survey).

http://3dparks.wr.usgs.gov/nyc/coastalplain/coastalplain.htm

<<The stratigraphy of the Atlantic Coastal Plain records a story of 100 million years of transgressions and regressions of seas across the region. Shoreline migrations were driven by major changes in sea level. The rise and fall in the recent geologic past were directly related to the build-up and melting of continental glaciers. However, the causes in the distant past are still unclear. Current theory suggests that Earth was too warm for glaciers to develop during the Late Cretaceous (as inferred by the presence of "warm climate" fossils at high latitudes). Other mechanisms may have been the cause, such as major, long-lasting volcanic events, great pulses in tectonism, or the after-effects of massive comet or asteroid collisions with Earth. Whatever the cause, cyclic oscillations controlled the occurrence (and distribution) of sedimentary material on the Coastal Plain. Erosion and tectonic submergence prior to Late Cretaceous time had probably reduced the topography of the Atlantic Coastal Plain and the Appalachian Mountains to a broad, low plain near sea level. During the most significant transgression during the Late Cretaceous (between 95 and 90 million years ago), sea level was as much as 300 feet higher than present. Imagine waves crashing against the cliffs of the ancestral Watchungs or Palisades! Long Island would probably not have existed, and the core of Staten Islands could have been an island far offshore! >>

In case you cannot understand what it all means, multiple transgressions and regression of the seas had taken place long before homo sapiens appeared.

2. <<I don’t need anyone to explain the data anymore, it matches what I see, so deciding who to believe is from the last chapter and not this chapter.>> Bravo Einstein!!!

The argument about global warming falls in the realm of science. What is science?

Here are comments from a book published by Robert Park – “VOODO SCIENCE – the road from Foolishness to Fraud”. Robert Park is Professor of Physics at the U. of Maryland…..author of more than hundred scientific papers on the structure of crystal surfaces, etc.

P.38 of Dr. Park’s book:

“Animals with much smaller brains than ours also rely on pattern recognition….

In humans, the ability to discern patterns is astonishingly general. Indeed, we are driven to seek patterns in everything our senses respond to. So far, we are better at it than the most powerful computer, and we derive enormous pleasure from it…..

So intent are we on finding patterns, however, that we often insist on seeing them even when they aren’t there, like constructing familiar shapes from Rorschach blots. The same brain that recognizes that tides are linked to phases of the moon may associate the position of the stars with impending famine or victory in battle….

We must also ask if there is a plausible mechanism by which A could cause B. Even if we are satisfied that the connection between A and B is more than coincidence, it still does not mean that A causes B. They could, for example, have a common cause.>>

Unfortunately, some individuals rely on pattern recognition at the level of animals.

[John K]

So lets just say all the ice caps will melt one day, which they most likely will do. Considereing some of the caps that are below sea level won't really make much difference in terms of the water volume increasing or sea level rising, but I am guessing that the rise in sea levels will come from all the ice/ parts of the ice caps that are only above sea level that melt. So lets just say everything melts, what would be the maximum level the seas would rise?

This is very interesting because it is obviously going to happen and low lying areas in some places will be covered and people will need to re-locate, but just what sort of a rise are we talking about if everything melts? 1-2 or maybe even more meters........................

It gets more complex when you start disrupting the cold zones in the oceans of the world. One theory suggests that if land ice melts, the resulting disruption of those cold zones will cause the ocean temps to rise considerably. That starts entirely new sets of environmental problems.

Actually all of this is very clearly explained in “An Inconvenient Truth” with scientific models and examples. If large amounts of cold water are placed in the north Atlantic from melting ice, the ocean currents will stop thus shifting global weather very suddenly. When that happens there will be an effect on the global food supply as land becomes unusable due to drought. That may be the tipping point I talked about in another thread where the food supply can no longer support the global population and nature start the correction process by thinning the human herd.

It seems what they are describing is like falling off a ball. The further off center you are the faster you drop. Apparently we are getting very far off center and global changes are happening at an increasing speed. Look at the huge floods in Mexico. Disasters like this are getting to be the norm.

[jackr]

I think people are getting thrown off by the variations in sea level that exist throughout the world. While these variations are a fact, they do not mean that water from melting glaciers and snow caps are all going to pile up somewhere while the rest of the world's oceans remain unchanged.

The mean sea levels of the Atlantic and pacific will continue to be different from each other, but the overall level of all seas around the world will rise accordingly as well. The differences due to density, current, and wind patterns will still be there to cause differences, but they cannot stop the volume of contiguous water that makes up the world's oceans from growing larger.

It would have been nice if you had cited the source of that comment as well. I was just reading very similar things especially this part "The differences due to density, current, and wind patterns" on the internet somewhere. Hmmm. (I understand you wanted to appear smart, but at least cite the source.)

I didn't cite the source because the comment came from my own knowledge. I didn't have to look it up.

If you want to compare IQ's I'll stand toe to toe with you any day and guarantee you will emerge bruised and battered. I've seen how you debate with "idiot" and "stupid" and your contributions that you paste from elsewhere, and to be honest I think I can say quite confidently that my intelligence is superior to yours, and I'm far from the smartest guy around here so I suggest you go back to your books and study like a good little goon because if you want to start measuring up intelligence then you are far out of your league here boy.

You bleat on about how people here are insulting Thailand but in reality little casts Thailand in a worse light than your rude behaviour here.

My dad's bigger than yours

Perhaps he was just being curious as your first post on the topic seemed to mock the professor and then all of a sudden you develop a keen insight on the subject.

[brahmburgers]

The loss of Bangkok would destroy the country's economic engine and a major hub for regional tourism.

"If the heart of Thailand is under water everything will stop," says Smith Dharmasaroja, chair of the government's Committee of National Disaster Warning Administration. "We don't have time to move our capital in the next 15-20 years. We have to protect our heart now, and it's almost too late."

He (Smilth) urges that work start now on a dike system of more than 60 miles — protective walls about 16 feet high, punctured by water gates and with roads on top, not unlike the dikes long used in low-lying Netherlands to ward off the sea. The dikes would run on both banks of the Chao Phraya River and then fork to the right and left at the mouth of the river.

Building dikes around BKK is not a reasonable solution. New Orleans had dikes and it didn't stop Katrina. Dikes work for awhile and inevitably fail - becoming then a giant reservoir whose only drainage is toward the body of water where it was breached - if, in fact that body of water lowers enough to allow drainage.

A massive effort should be started a.s.a.p. to relocate the city to two or three smaller scale cities at higher elevation. There is plenty of land in Thailand. There's a cynical joke about how everything that happens in Thailand must inevitably go through Bangkok. One sub-city could focus on govermental affairs. Another could focus on business/manufacturing, and yet one or two more could deal with Universities. Currently, BKK is like Mexico City - where everything is focused in one dense polluted heap - and every time someone in the provinces is down on his luck - he automatically gravitates to the one gargantuan city.

As for coveted relics and architectural heritage - some can be re-located, others will have to be abandoned. Granted, easier said than done, but engineers did a similar thing at Aswan in preparation for the dam which flooded the Nile. Not identical, but similar in some ways to the fate that will befall Bkk.

[pantarei]

So lets just say all the ice caps will melt one day, which they most likely will do. Considereing some of the caps that are below sea level won't really make much difference in terms of the water volume increasing or sea level rising, but I am guessing that the rise in sea levels will come from all the ice/ parts of the ice caps that are only above sea level that melt. So lets just say everything melts, what would be the maximum level the seas would rise?

This is very interesting because it is obviously going to happen and low lying areas in some places will be covered and people will need to re-locate, but just what sort of a rise are we talking about if everything melts? 1-2 or maybe even more meters........................

It gets more complex when you start disrupting the cold zones in the oceans of the world. One theory suggests that if land ice melts, the resulting disruption of those cold zones will cause the ocean temps to rise considerably. That starts entirely new sets of environmental problems.

Actually all of this is very clearly explained in “An Inconvenient Truth” with scientific models and examples. If large amounts of cold water are placed in the north Atlantic from melting ice, the ocean currents will stop thus shifting global weather very suddenly. When that happens there will be an effect on the global food supply as land becomes unusable due to drought. That may be the tipping point I talked about in another thread where the food supply can no longer support the global population and nature start the correction process by thinning the human herd.

It seems what they are describing is like falling off a ball. The further off center you are the faster you drop. Apparently we are getting very far off center and global changes are happening at an increasing speed. Look at the huge floods in Mexico. Disasters like this are getting to be the norm.

=================

<<For all of Gore's later fascination with science and technology, he often struggled academically in those subjects. The political champion of the natural world received that sophomore D in Natural Sciences 6 (Man's Place in Nature) and then got a C-plus in Natural Sciences 118 his senior year. The self-proclaimed inventor of the Internet avoided all courses in mathematics and logic throughout college, despite his outstanding score on the math portion of the SAT.>>

<<He took the religious studies courses while also working full time as a journalist at the Nashville Tennessean, and after getting off to a strong start with an A-minus in Ethics, he failed to complete any of the three courses he took in the fall of 1971, and those incompletes eventually lapsed into F's. He returned for another semester in the spring of 1972, when two more incompletes turned into F's. Two years later, he enrolled in law school and spent three semesters there taking heavy course loads while still working at the newspaper. He performed satisfactorily, with a high grade of 81 in Legal Writing and a low grade of 69 in Civil Procedures II. Partway through the spring semester in 1976, he decided to run for an open seat in Tennessee's 3rd Congressional District. His mother, Pauline Gore, herself a lawyer, tried to persuade him to remain in school while running, but he withdrew, turning away for good from the academic life, while beginning a political career in which he increasingly took on the characteristics of a scholar.

Gore has never released his transcripts, which were obtained independently by The Washington Post. Parts of them have been cited as well by Bill Turque, a Newsweek writer who has written a biography of Gore titled "Inventing Al Gore.">>

Source: http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wpdyn?pa...37397-2000Mar18

The Washington Post is definitely not a "conservative" paper.

Actually all of this is very clearly explained in “An Inconvenient Truth” with scientific models and examples. Do you know the difference between scientific models and brainwashing?

<<And one of the world's foremost meteorologists called the theory that helped Al Gore win a share of the Nobel prize the product of "people who don't understand how the atmosphere works".

Dr William Gray, a pioneer in the science of seasonal hurricane forecasts, spoke to a packed lecture hall at the University of North Carolina and said humans were not responsible for global warming.

"We're brainwashing our children," said Gray, 78, a longtime professor at Colorado State University. "They're going to the Gore movie and being fed all this. It's ridiculous.">>

Source: Critics slam Nobel winner

Article from: Sunday Herald Sun

October 14, 2007 12:00am

Hey Johnny ,

Above are posted the "scientific accomplishments" of Mr. Al Gore.

Dr. William Gray, a pioneer in the science of seasonal hurricane forecasts, stated that Gore’s movie was "ridiculous". The essence of science is understanding the causes of processes and using them in forecasting/prediction. Dr. Gray has an amazing record of forecasting hurricanes.

Check out Prof. Gray’s credentials on Google. Key words: William Gray, Colorado State University, global warming.

BTW, what are YOUR scientific credentials? An A+ in regurgitating Al’s vomit?

[plachon]

So lets just say all the ice caps will melt one day, which they most likely will do. Considereing some of the caps that are below sea level won't really make much difference in terms of the water volume increasing or sea level rising, but I am guessing that the rise in sea levels will come from all the ice/ parts of the ice caps that are only above sea level that melt. So lets just say everything melts, what would be the maximum level the seas would rise?

This is very interesting because it is obviously going to happen and low lying areas in some places will be covered and people will need to re-locate, but just what sort of a rise are we talking about if everything melts? 1-2 or maybe even more meters........................

It gets more complex when you start disrupting the cold zones in the oceans of the world. One theory suggests that if land ice melts, the resulting disruption of those cold zones will cause the ocean temps to rise considerably. That starts entirely new sets of environmental problems.

Actually all of this is very clearly explained in “An Inconvenient Truth” with scientific models and examples. If large amounts of cold water are placed in the north Atlantic from melting ice, the ocean currents will stop thus shifting global weather very suddenly. When that happens there will be an effect on the global food supply as land becomes unusable due to drought. That may be the tipping point I talked about in another thread where the food supply can no longer support the global population and nature start the correction process by thinning the human herd.

It seems what they are describing is like falling off a ball. The further off center you are the faster you drop. Apparently we are getting very far off center and global changes are happening at an increasing speed. Look at the huge floods in Mexico. Disasters like this are getting to be the norm.

=================

<<For all of Gore's later fascination with science and technology, he often struggled academically in those subjects. The political champion of the natural world received that sophomore D in Natural Sciences 6 (Man's Place in Nature) and then got a C-plus in Natural Sciences 118 his senior year. The self-proclaimed inventor of the Internet avoided all courses in mathematics and logic throughout college, despite his outstanding score on the math portion of the SAT.>>

<<He took the religious studies courses while also working full time as a journalist at the Nashville Tennessean, and after getting off to a strong start with an A-minus in Ethics, he failed to complete any of the three courses he took in the fall of 1971, and those incompletes eventually lapsed into F's. He returned for another semester in the spring of 1972, when two more incompletes turned into F's. Two years later, he enrolled in law school and spent three semesters there taking heavy course loads while still working at the newspaper. He performed satisfactorily, with a high grade of 81 in Legal Writing and a low grade of 69 in Civil Procedures II. Partway through the spring semester in 1976, he decided to run for an open seat in Tennessee's 3rd Congressional District. His mother, Pauline Gore, herself a lawyer, tried to persuade him to remain in school while running, but he withdrew, turning away for good from the academic life, while beginning a political career in which he increasingly took on the characteristics of a scholar.

Gore has never released his transcripts, which were obtained independently by The Washington Post. Parts of them have been cited as well by Bill Turque, a Newsweek writer who has written a biography of Gore titled "Inventing Al Gore.">>

Source: http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wpdyn?pa...37397-2000Mar18

The Washington Post is definitely not a "conservative" paper.

Actually all of this is very clearly explained in “An Inconvenient Truth” with scientific models and examples. Do you know the difference between scientific models and brainwashing?

<<And one of the world's foremost meteorologists called the theory that helped Al Gore win a share of the Nobel prize the product of "people who don't understand how the atmosphere works".

Dr William Gray, a pioneer in the science of seasonal hurricane forecasts, spoke to a packed lecture hall at the University of North Carolina and said humans were not responsible for global warming.

"We're brainwashing our children," said Gray, 78, a longtime professor at Colorado State University. "They're going to the Gore movie and being fed all this. It's ridiculous.">>

Source: Critics slam Nobel winner

Article from: Sunday Herald Sun

October 14, 2007 12:00am

Hey Johnny ,

Above are posted the "scientific accomplishments" of Mr. Al Gore.

Dr. William Gray, a pioneer in the science of seasonal hurricane forecasts, stated that Gore’s movie was "ridiculous". The essence of science is understanding the causes of processes and using them in forecasting/prediction. Dr. Gray has an amazing record of forecasting hurricanes.

Check out Prof. Gray’s credentials on Google. Key words: William Gray, Colorado State University, global warming.

BTW, what are YOUR scientific credentials? An A+ in regurgitating Al’s vomit?

Took your advice Panterei and it seems Dr Gray's theories, if not credientials, are not so well regarded in the scientific world by climate change scientists and physicists. Take this for example, one of many sites dissing his claims:

26 April 2006

Gray and Muddy Thinking about Global Warming

Filed under: Climate Science— group @ 12:45 PM

Anybody who has followed press reporting on global warming, and particularly on its effects on hurricanes, has surely encountered various contrarian pronouncements by William Gray, of Colorado State University. A meeting paper that Gray provided in advance of the 2006 27th Conference on Hurricanes and Tropical Meteorology (taking place this week in Monterey California, and covered here by CNN), provides an illuminating window into Gray's thinking on the subject. Our discussion is not a point-by-point rebuttal of Gray's claims; there is far more wrong with the paper than we have the patience to detail. Gray will have plenty of opportunities to hear more about the work's shortcomings if it is ever subjected to the rigors of peer review. Here we will only highlight a few key points which illustrate the fundamental misconceptions on the physics of climate that underlie most of Gray's pronouncements on climate change and its causes.

Gray's paper begins with a quote from Senator Inhofe calling global warming a hoax perpetrated on the American people, and ends with a quote by a representive of the Society of Petroleum Geologists stating that Crichton's State of Fear has "the absolute ring of truth." It is the gaping flaws in the scientific argument sandwiched between these two statements that are our major concern.

Claim: The Thermohaline Circulation causes Global Warming, Hurricane Cycles, etc

For years, perhaps decades, Gray has been ascribing all sorts of climate changes and hurricane cycles to fluctuations in the Thermohaline Circulation (THC), an overturning circulation in the Atlantic ocean associated with formation of deep water in the North Atlantic. None of the assertions are based on rigorous statistical associations, oceanographic observations or physically based simulations; it is all seat-of -the-pants stuff of a sort that was common in the early days of climate studies, but which is difficult to evaluate when viewed as a scientific hypothesis. The THC is undoubtedly important to climate, because it transports heat from one place to another. However it cannot do magical things. It cannot created energy out of thin air (or thick water), nor can it make energy mysteriously disappear. Thus, Gray's statement that "The average THC circulation cools the ocean by about 3 W/m2" is a scientific absurdity. In the paper Gray makes many extravagant claims about how supposed changes in the THC accounted for various 20th century climate changes ("I judge our present global ocean circulation conditions to be similar to that of the period of the early 1940s when the globe had shown great warming since 1910, and there was concern as to whether this 1910-1940 global warming would continue. But beginning about 15 years following the onset of a strong THC circulation in 1926, in the early 1940s, the warming began to abate. A weak global cooling began from the mid-1940s to the mid-1970s.") but the reader would never guess that he in fact has no direct oceanographic evidence that the THC was doing anything of the sort. These are all subjective estimates based on Gray's conception of the relation of Atlantic temperatures to the THC state. In fact, it is exceedingly difficult to directly monitor the THC, and reliable results have only recently been obtained. We have reported recently on the "Decrease in Atlantic Circulation". For years prior to the publication of evidence that the THC was slowing down, Gray was testifying in Congress and writing widely that hurricane increases were due to Atlantic warming arising from a speed-up of the THC (see our article for some typical quotes). Confronted with evidence that the THC was in fact behaving in the opposite way to what he had been assuming, Gray did a flip-flop and came up with a new story that yields the same conclusions. There's no shame in a scientist changing his or her mind, or in seeking new theories in the face of new observations. However, if Gray's old theory was really testable, where were the tests to show that it was wrong in the years he was touting it? How is one to put any confidence in the new theory? The fact is that neither of Gray's story lines about the THC is sufficiently well formulated to allow any clear-cut test. Nonetheless, insofar as it can be understood at all, some aspects of Gray's new story line about the THC are demonstrably wrong. "

I would imagine that a difference in politics and religion from that of Al Gore would far better explain his contrarian views than science.

At the same time, I would say that Gore's Nobel Prize is not so much in recognition of his scientific accomplishments, but more for his efforts to avert a global catastrophe heading our way, if the politicians and people don't start getting a bit more informed about what is round the corner. Call it what you will, but he's put it a lot further up the international agenda as a result of "An Inconvenient Truth", which as the title suggests, is sits a little uncomfortably with many, Bill Gray included.

[ace]

See, the Bangkok article is a case in point. I bet most people see that & think "Global warming is going to destroy bangkok" end of story. Well, no, the full article includes:

"

The still expanding megapolis rests about 3 1/2 to 5 feet above the nearby gulf, although some areas already lie below sea level. The gulf's waters have been rising by about a tenth of an inch a year, about the same as the world average, says Anond Snidvongs, a leading scientist in the field.

But the city, built on clay rather than bedrock, has also been sinking at a far faster pace of up to 4 inches annually as its teeming population and factories pump some 2.5 million cubic tons of cheaply priced water, legally and illegally, out of its aquifers. This compacts the layers of clay and causes the land to sink."

So in fact the primary cause by a factor of 40x is Bangkok's bad position and poor environmental control.

But you can bet that story will be picked up by Al Gore, the BBC, etc. and run as a global warming headline story. Bad science, bad reporting.

For the record I think global warming is occurring and carbon, methane & aerosol emissions are at least partly to blame. It's just that I don't like to see bad science. It's so prevalent these days, I really sometimes think people are getting dumber....

Ace

[John K]

So lets just say all the ice caps will melt one day, which they most likely will do. Considereing some of the caps that are below sea level won't really make much difference in terms of the water volume increasing or sea level rising, but I am guessing that the rise in sea levels will come from all the ice/ parts of the ice caps that are only above sea level that melt. So lets just say everything melts, what would be the maximum level the seas would rise?

This is very interesting because it is obviously going to happen and low lying areas in some places will be covered and people will need to re-locate, but just what sort of a rise are we talking about if everything melts? 1-2 or maybe even more meters........................

It gets more complex when you start disrupting the cold zones in the oceans of the world. One theory suggests that if land ice melts, the resulting disruption of those cold zones will cause the ocean temps to rise considerably. That starts entirely new sets of environmental problems.

Actually all of this is very clearly explained in “An Inconvenient Truth” with scientific models and examples. If large amounts of cold water are placed in the north Atlantic from melting ice, the ocean currents will stop thus shifting global weather very suddenly. When that happens there will be an effect on the global food supply as land becomes unusable due to drought. That may be the tipping point I talked about in another thread where the food supply can no longer support the global population and nature start the correction process by thinning the human herd.

It seems what they are describing is like falling off a ball. The further off center you are the faster you drop. Apparently we are getting very far off center and global changes are happening at an increasing speed. Look at the huge floods in Mexico. Disasters like this are getting to be the norm.

=================

<<For all of Gore's later fascination with science and technology, he often struggled academically in those subjects. The political champion of the natural world received that sophomore D in Natural Sciences 6 (Man's Place in Nature) and then got a C-plus in Natural Sciences 118 his senior year. The self-proclaimed inventor of the Internet avoided all courses in mathematics and logic throughout college, despite his outstanding score on the math portion of the SAT.>>

<<He took the religious studies courses while also working full time as a journalist at the Nashville Tennessean, and after getting off to a strong start with an A-minus in Ethics, he failed to complete any of the three courses he took in the fall of 1971, and those incompletes eventually lapsed into F's. He returned for another semester in the spring of 1972, when two more incompletes turned into F's. Two years later, he enrolled in law school and spent three semesters there taking heavy course loads while still working at the newspaper. He performed satisfactorily, with a high grade of 81 in Legal Writing and a low grade of 69 in Civil Procedures II. Partway through the spring semester in 1976, he decided to run for an open seat in Tennessee's 3rd Congressional District. His mother, Pauline Gore, herself a lawyer, tried to persuade him to remain in school while running, but he withdrew, turning away for good from the academic life, while beginning a political career in which he increasingly took on the characteristics of a scholar.

Gore has never released his transcripts, which were obtained independently by The Washington Post. Parts of them have been cited as well by Bill Turque, a Newsweek writer who has written a biography of Gore titled "Inventing Al Gore.">>

Source: http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wpdyn?pa...37397-2000Mar18

The Washington Post is definitely not a "conservative" paper.

Actually all of this is very clearly explained in “An Inconvenient Truth” with scientific models and examples. Do you know the difference between scientific models and brainwashing?

<<And one of the world's foremost meteorologists called the theory that helped Al Gore win a share of the Nobel prize the product of "people who don't understand how the atmosphere works".

Dr William Gray, a pioneer in the science of seasonal hurricane forecasts, spoke to a packed lecture hall at the University of North Carolina and said humans were not responsible for global warming.

"We're brainwashing our children," said Gray, 78, a longtime professor at Colorado State University. "They're going to the Gore movie and being fed all this. It's ridiculous.">>

Source: Critics slam Nobel winner

Article from: Sunday Herald Sun

October 14, 2007 12:00am

Hey Johnny ,

Above are posted the "scientific accomplishments" of Mr. Al Gore.

Dr. William Gray, a pioneer in the science of seasonal hurricane forecasts, stated that Gore’s movie was "ridiculous". The essence of science is understanding the causes of processes and using them in forecasting/prediction. Dr. Gray has an amazing record of forecasting hurricanes.

Check out Prof. Gray’s credentials on Google. Key words: William Gray, Colorado State University, global warming.

BTW, what are YOUR scientific credentials? An A+ in regurgitating Al’s vomit?

I don’t want to belittle anyone’s accomplishments however it does make me remember a time I was observing a debate over who can make a judgment. The discussion came down to mathematical formulas. At the end of the debate it was concluded that you may need a significant level of education to write a mathematical formula, but anyone that can turn on a computer and load that formula can run it. Meaning anyone can load the variables and click start. You can go to a website and calculate how fast a car was going based on the length of the skid marks, or you can go to another website and calculate how many months you can shave off your mortgage and how much money in interest you will save by making a regular over payment. There is even a website that will let you plug in data to see how much damage will happen when a meteor hits, crater size, seismic shock and so on.

Predictions of where a hurricane will make landfall are improving not because of better formulas, it is because of more data. Those are Dr. Grey’s own words as I remember them from watching him on TV. Where there is no weather station the programs extrapolate and plug in what it thinks that information is. As the distance between weather stations is reduced, the accuracy improves as less extrapolation is needed.

It is the same weather stations that provide the information for global warming or cooling trends. The difference is the extrapolation is more in time and not distance between weather stations.

The bottom line is I have seen change over the last 10 years, and no scientists needs to tell me that. It almost sounds like a bunch of racing enthusiast other wise known as “gear heads” arguing if a Chevy 427 can beat a Chrysler 426 Hemi. It is good for talk but does nothing.

[rken]

Gulf of Thailand won't rise with global warming, expert claims

Apr 23, 2007, 3:03 GMT

Bangkok - Global warming is not likely to cause the sea level in the Gulf of Thailand to rise because the body of water is too far from melting glaciers, a leading Thai hydrologist claimed on Monday.

It would seem that perhaps the professor might be correct if only modest sea level rises occured yearly, but the rate at which sea level are predicted to rise, and which are increasing, it would appear that tectonics could hardly keep up.

We are talking sea level rises up to 70 meters if all the land based ice melts. It might be true that levels differ in different locations around the globe but I think that 70 meters or even 20 meters would more than account for any variations.

My opion is that global warming is a fact.

It is mostly a natural occurance that we are adding to.

If you live in Bankok buy a boat or move.

I have really enjoyed all your posts. Some very amusing and some inlightening thanks

[JetsetBkk]

<snip>

I don't like to see bad science. It's so prevalent these days, I really sometimes think people are getting dumber....

Ace

I don't think people are getting dumber so much as the "scientists" are getting smarter - there's money to be made in future disasters. They won't get any funding if all they say is "Everything's OK, it'll all get better in 20 years, it's cyclical, nothing to worry about, move along please."

[wilko]

There are plenty of good theories to dispute global warming.......in the same way that the tobacco industry spent millions on disputing the theoretical links with cancer, and the Catholic church spent a lot of effort to prolong the theory that the world was flat......Ford Motor company tried to hide the explosive properties of the Pinto......Kansas wants to stop Darwinism taught at schools .....I'm sure you could think of many more......not a club I'd want to belong to.

[Mosha]

Well pretty soon we may get to test the what happened to the dinosaurs theory.

Toutatis passes pretty damned close in 2029, and if it it's a cosmic keyhole at that time 2036 gets very interesting. ELE

[John K]

LONDON (Reuters) - Weather-related disasters have quadrupled over the last two decades, a leading British charity said in a report published on Sunday.

From an average of 120 disasters a year in the early 1980s, there are now as many as 500, with Oxfam attributing the rise to unpredictable weather conditions cause by global warming.

"This year we have seen floods in South Asia, across the breadth of Africa and Mexico that have affected more than 250 million people," said Oxfam's director Barbara Stocking.

"This is no freak year. It follows a pattern of more frequent, more erratic, more unpredictable and more extreme weather events that are affecting more people.

The number of people affected by disasters has risen by 68 percent, from an average of 174 million a year between 1985 to 1994 to 254 million a year between 1995 to 2004.

"Action is needed now to prepare for more disasters otherwise humanitarian assistance will be overwhelmed and recent advances in human development will go into reverse," Stocking said.

Oxfam wants the UN conference on Climate Change in Bali in December to agree a mandate to negotiate a global deal to provide assistance to developing countries to cope with the impacts of climate change and reduce green house gas emissions.

[John K]

Climate change science hard to ignore

By Walt Barnes - Special to The Garden Island

Climate change, sometimes called global warming, is the gradual warming of the planet caused by man’s activities. The Earth’s climate has always been changing, sometimes getting a little hotter, sometimes cooler, but the impact of 6.6 billion industrious human beings is now far outpacing naturally occurring climate cycles. This second article on global warming explains the mechanisms causing climate change.

The principal human activity causing climate change is burning coal and oil, called fossil fuels. As long as coal and oil remain underground they don’t affect the climate, but when burned, they release carbon dioxide, or CO2, an odorless, colorless, non-toxic gas. And they release a lot of it. Burning one gallon of gasoline releases 24 pounds of CO2 into the atmosphere. Burning one pound of coal releases two pounds of CO2 into the atmosphere. And like pouring water into a glass, pouring CO2 into the atmosphere causes it to fill up with more and more CO2.

For the last 400,000 years the concentration of CO2 in the Earth’s atmosphere varied naturally between 200 and 300 PPMV (parts per million by volume). Atmospheric CO2 concentrations started increasing steadily around 200 years ago when we began mining coal and later using oil. As the Earth’s population grew, became more industrialized and rapidly consumed coal and oil, CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere increased to unprecedented levels. Carbon dioxide levels are now 27 percent higher than at any point in the last 650,000 years.

What we have only recently realized is that the increasing atmospheric concentration of CO2 is directly causing the Earth to warm and our planet’s climate to change. Even this seemingly small increase in CO2 is having a profound greenhouse warming effect on climate. As the sun warms the Earth, some heat is absorbed and some is reflected back towards outer space. CO2 in the atmosphere traps reflected heat, and the higher the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere, the more heat gets trapped.

The Earth has a delicate heat balance. Its oceans, rivers and valleys formed over tens of thousands of years, much as a result of our stable climate. The places where food grows well are a result of our climate. The places where lakes form to store water are a result of our climate. While natural climate changes occur over 10,000 years and give the planet time to make new rivers and allow fertile areas to gradually shift across the globe, man-made climate change occurs 100 to 1,000 times more rapidly. Dr. Peter B. deMenocal, of the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory at Columbia University, said, “It’s not this abstract notion that happens over millions of years. The magnitude of what we’re talking about greatly, greatly exceeds anything we’ve withstood in human history.”

Some fertile areas will suffer drought and quickly become unproductive. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change estimates 232,000 square miles of cultivatable farm land in Africa alone will be ruined by inevitable climate change already in progress as a result of the current atmospheric CO2.

What can we expect on Kaua‘i? Both the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change predict that “warming and other climate changes may expand the habitat and infectivity of disease-carrying insects (into Hawai‘i), increasing the potential for transmission of diseases such as malaria and dengue (break bone) fever.” Certainly Kaua‘i can expect a big impact from rising sea level. Every refinement of research brings more accurate predications of the coming global sea level rise. The panel’s research confirms the CO2 already in the atmosphere commits us to a minimum 4.6-foot rise in sea level. With development and infrastructure in Kaua‘i located predominately in low coastal areas we will be especially impacted. The sea level rise which scientists now consider inevitable within our lifetimes will put Nawiliwili and Port Allen harbors underwater along with many stretches of coastal road. The fight now is to reduce global warming so we limit climate change to prevent the 20-foot to 40-foot sea level rise that will happen without quick global action to reduce CO2 emissions. James E. Hansen, who directs NASA’s Goddard Institute of Space Studies, underscored the urgency in an interview with the Washington Post, “It’s not something you can adapt to. We can’t let it go on another 10 years like this. We’ve got to do something.” He explained that the changes we will experience if we don’t take quick action “imply changes that constitute practically a different planet.”

Beyond global warming from atmospheric CO2, climate scientists are very concerned about climate tipping points. These tipping points occur when the Earth warms enough to jump start natural processes that cause increasing, runaway warming. “When you start messing around with these natural systems, you can end up in situations where it’s unstoppable. There are no brakes you can apply,” said Dr. David Viner, a senior scientist at the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia in the United Kingdom. Scientists are especially concerned about three tipping points, deep ocean gas hydrates, melting glaciers, and changing ocean currents.

Dr. Gerald Dickens of Rice University notes that the cold, deep ocean contains more than 10 times as much carbon as the atmosphere, trapped in frozen gas hydrates. These gas hydrates are sensitive to relatively small changes in deep-ocean temperature. Scientists believe four times in the distant past, 250, 183, 120, and 55 million years ago gradual warming of the planet caused the ocean to warm enough to release these gas hydrates into the atmosphere resulting in abrupt, runaway climate change.

Glaciers, especially in Greenland and Antarctica, represent a stabilizing influence on the climate, much like ice cubes keep a drink cold. Glaciers typically move very slowly towards the sea, their total size remaining approximately constant because as they drop huge ice burgs into the sea, snow fills in gradually becoming hard packed ice. But scientists have recently recorded glaciers accelerating their move to the sea. Researchers Dr. Pannir Kanagaratnam, at the University of Kansas Center for Remote Sensing of Ice Sheets, and Dr. Eric Rignot of NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, Calif., report that Greenland’s 21 largest glaciers accelerated 28 percent between 1996 and 2000 and 57 percent between 1996 and 2005. They report the flow acceleration is widespread and systematic. Dr. Duncan Wingham, professor of climate physics at University College London, tracks Antarctic ice and reports its loss has picked up speed in recent years. As ice trapped in glaciers decreases on a global scale, scientists fear even more warming might occur. Scientists at the U.S. Geological Survey estimate that if all the ice sitting on land in Greenland and Antarctica melted it would cause global sea levels to rise by 215 feet, but no climate change models currently predict such a catastrophe.

The effect of global warming on ocean currents is a third potential runaway climate change. Ocean and climate models developed by Dr. Uwe Mikolajewicz, at the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology, in Hamburg, Germany, predict even moderate global warming could cause ocean effects that might lead to runaway warming. His model predicts warmer surface water at high latitudes will reduce the upwelling of dense, salty water from the deep ocean. This, in turn, reduces the total amount of CO2 the ocean can hold resulting in even higher greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere. The last 20 years of North Atlantic Ocean temperature measurements match the results predicted by these models.

Global warming and serious, inevitable consequences are an established fact. There is still time to avoid tragic consequences if we all act immediately. “If there’s no action before 2012, that’s too late,” said Rajendra Pachauri, the scientist who heads the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. “What we do in the next two to three years will determine our future. This is the defining moment.”

The third article in this series appearing next month will outline the scope of global solutions needed to combat climate change.

Why trash and meat matter

CO2 isn’t the only greenhouse gas. Methane, or CH4, is a greenhouse gas, pound for pound 20 times more powerful than CO2. Methane is the sour smell we associate with decomposing waste. Small landfills, like Kaua‘i’s, which don’t trap methane released by decomposing organic garbage, are a major source of methane. Kaua‘i’s Kekaha landfill releases methane causing global warming equivalent to 250 million vehicle miles annually, making it one of Kaua‘i’s largest contributions to climate change.

Anyone with a normal sense of smell who has lived near a farm or industrial feedlot knows animal wastes are a significant source of methane. Manure also releases nitrous oxide, or N2O, a greenhouse gas 296 times more potent than CO2. Global consumption of meat is increasing rapidly, worsening climate change. In 1962 the world’s 3.1 billion people consumed 48 pounds of meat per person, a total of 68 million metric tons. In 2002 the Earth’s 6.2 million people consumed 88 pounds per person, or 247 million metric tons of meat, 3.6 times more than in 1962. The UN Food and Agriculture Organization reports the global livestock sector generates 18 percent more greenhouse gas emissions than the entire global transportation sector, including cars, trucks, and airplanes.

One immediate thing you can do to combat global warming is to be sure organic waste like food waste and green waste don’t get in trash heading to the Kekaha landfill. The second thing we can all do is eat less meat. While giving up meat, dairy, and eggs would reduce 50 percent more greenhouse gas than trading your SUV for a hybrid car, most of us are not ready to go completely vegan, so do what you can to cut back on the meat you eat.

Are we really sure?

Historic scientific caution has created confusion about the certainty of man-made global warming. Ten years ago when widespread research into global warming was beginning, scientists could only report their data suggested the Earth was warming and human activities might be contributing. Five years ago research was well underway but still incomplete, so scientists could only say they believed human activity was a likely cause of global warming. Today, scientists have completed enough research for the final report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change to determine that man-made global warming is “unequivocal.” U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon summarized the scientific certainty at this weeks release of third panel report. “The world’s scientists have spoken clearly and with one voice,” he said.

But even though the latest data and the most thorough analysis supported almost unanimously within the scientific community has concluded that man-made global warming is a fact, plenty of 5-year-old and 10-year-old reports which say more study is needed are still circulating. NASA climatologist Dr. Gavin Schmidt explained the undeniable case for global warming this way to the BBC a few weeks ago: Warming is unequivocal. Weather stations, ocean measurements, decreases in snow cover, reductions in Arctic sea ice, longer growing seasons, balloon measurements, boreholes and satellites all show the results of global warming.

Determined skeptics of climate change would do well to consider the advice the Australian Psychology Society, “Sometimes, if the information is too unsettling, and the solutions seem too difficult, people can cope by minimizing or denying that there is a problem, or avoiding thinking about the problems. The caution expressed by climate change skeptics could be a form of denial, where it involves minimizing the weight of scientific evidence/consensus on the subject.”

Source: http://www.kauaiworld.com/articles/2007/11...news/news07.txt

It is a bit like the Titanic at this point if we are already committed to 4.6 feet (1.4 meters) sea level rise based on the damage we have already done.

[JetsetBkk]

It is a bit like the Titanic at this point if we are already committed to 4.6 feet (1.4 meters) sea level rise based on the damage we have already done.

I'm not committed to anything.

[soundman]

Climate change science hard to ignore

By Walt Barnes - Special to The Garden Island

Burning one gallon of gasoline releases 24 pounds of CO2 into the atmosphere.

Somehow, I don't think this is possible.

Maybe a mistake by a factor of nearly ten? Maybe the author's sources are out and the sea level will rise by 14cm or 14m....

But then again, that won't affect Thailand because a professor of something or other has said so.

Soundman.

[John K]

I agree the numbers are off perhaps by a factor of 10.