Bangkok, Gulf Of Thailand Shoreline Likely Under Water In 50 Years

[Jingthing]

So Pattaya is not going underwater? How about moving the capital to Pattaya?

The skeptics are willing to bet the future of our planet and species that the vast majority of mainstream scientists are wrong. This is an era when science is quite advanced. Political? Even GW Bush, the most radically anti-science US president in modern history, eventually had to admit that human activity is responsible for climate change and that action must be taken. He didn't do much, but he acknowledged the problem.

[crazyswede]

Global warming is just fine by me .. i hate every degree of coldness ... but i will keep this in mind when i go look see land in the Mea Klong area next trip ...i will point this out and try to lower the price as it´s going to be under water in 50 years anyway! 5555

[NovaBlue05]

Thongkorn: Sounds like a great explanation.

"......Climate change has become way too political...for both the politicians and the wacko's....."

As if there's a difference.

[tracer]

only if you believe in global warming..........which I notice they dont call it that any more so they call it climate change............and the earths temp has cooled since 2003..........all very confusing.............who to believe?

Call it minor ice age. Last one was 500 years ago... We are seemingly now at the point where its (probably) going to go down again...

Normally these changes went fairly fast which may catch up with some politicians!

Biggest problem is climates take much more to change and in normally a longer period then us humans live... and accurate descriptions are difficult to get!.

Anyway they grabbed global warming as it offers a lot of scope to get their hands on peoples money...

Who is doing that if they predict a cooling????

[phetaroi]

not sure I understand that...

Me either. Seems like he was arguing with himself. Schizophrenia?

[phetaroi]

The flood waters won't be near as deep as the climate change deniers BS.

May I reiterate that it's best to watch the video first and then you can state your argument with confidence.

Again, nobody's denying climate change. It is a natural process that IS occurring but that is independent of human behavior.

But the "human-induced global warming" argument -- in the face of definitive evidence presented in the video -- has NO basis in scientific fact, and the burden of proof to the contrary now rests with its supporters.

And that does NOT means using the numbers of the brain-washed masses as "proof" that your argument is valid. It means disproving the nearly 1-to-1 correlation of the "sun variability -> climate variability" relationship -- which you cannot do...

Ballza, I will give you partial credit. At least you watched a video and have some reasons you believe that "side". I think that's much better than the posters (and there seem to be many) who already have decided exactly what they believe, and then latch on to anyone or anything that would appear to support their point of view. If 100 scientists were in a room and 99 said yes to global warming and 1 said no, they'd go with the 1% who disagreed.

I believe, based on what I have learned at university long ago, as well as other papers I have read since, that we are near a tipping point in the glacial/interglacial balance. Right now, based on things I have personally witnessed up close (extreme melting of glaciers in the U.S. and Canada) and read, I believe we are moving further along toward natural global warming, which at some point will reverse itself, unless...

What's my "unless". I cannot believe it is logical for any of us to think that the tons of smoke and soot and pollution that we have dumped into the atmosphere since the beginning of the industrial revolution could possibly not affect climate. It's about intelligent/logical as my grandfather who, as he died from lung cancer and emphysema, said it had nothing to do with cigarettes, it was just a coincidence that he was a 3+ pack a day man, and that smoking actually helped his lungs stay healthy.

I look at the heat island affect: "Bangkok, Jakarta and Taipei, which have seen rapid urbanization, are experiencing this heat-island phenomenon. However, of all the large cities in the world, it is Tokyo and Osaka where this phenomenon is observed most conspicuously. In Tokyo, the heat-island phenomenon appears in a temperature difference of 3 degrees centigrade to 4 degrees centigrade between its central area and suburbs. The heat-island phenomenon in Tokyo occurs mostly in summer, when air conditioners are in full operation. It is during summer that this phenomenon seriously affects human life." (AUICK Newsletter # 20). I used to sense the same thing when I lived in suburban Washington, D.C. On "snow days", in general more snow was on the ground north and west of the city -- the areas least affected by the heat island of the city. South and east of the city there would be less snow on the ground -- the higher heat island areas. And in the city itself -- virtually always the least snow (if any) left on the ground. It's not a natural heat island, it's a heat island caused by man. Now just expand it to world wide.

[phetaroi]

If the earth is cooling down, why are the glaciers melting? That is an undeniable fact...it is happening all over the world. Agree that the cause is up for great debate, but they are melting....

Yes I agree with you about ice melting . its just a natural cycle as it has happened many times in the long past. The atmosphere is heating up not the earth ,

You just said you agree with global warming.

[phetaroi]

Thongkorn: Sounds like a great explanation.

And yes, that film was pretty darn good...long...but good. Climate change has become way too political...for both the politicians and the wacko's. Another bandwagon to jump on....

1. And which are you...a politician or wacko?

2. And, which bandwagon are you jumping on?

My point here is that politics is the way we discuss and decide in most of this world. It's not something inherently bad. We all "play" politics, depending on the issue.

[craigt3365]

If I was a politician, I would not be on this board. My bandwagon is the one that says there are too many people on this planet and we have an ADVERSE effect on it. Like mentioned above, you can not deny this. Unfortunately, it is a fact...whether that has an effect on glaciers disappearing, is up to debate.

[teatree]

The flood waters won't be near as deep as the climate change deniers BS.

May I reiterate that it's best to watch the video first and then you can state your argument with confidence.

Again, nobody's denying climate change. It is a natural process that IS occurring but that is independent of human behavior.

But the "human-induced global warming" argument -- in the face of definitive evidence presented in the video -- has NO basis in scientific fact, and the burden of proof to the contrary now rests with its supporters.

And that does NOT means using the numbers of the brain-washed masses as "proof" that your argument is valid. It means disproving the nearly 1-to-1 correlation of the "sun variability -> climate variability" relationship -- which you cannot do...

Ballza, I will give you partial credit. At least you watched a video and have some reasons you believe that "side". I think that's much better than the posters (and there seem to be many) who already have decided exactly what they believe, and then latch on to anyone or anything that would appear to support their point of view. If 100 scientists were in a room and 99 said yes to global warming and 1 said no, they'd go with the 1% who disagreed.

I believe, based on what I have learned at university long ago, as well as other papers I have read since, that we are near a tipping point in the glacial/interglacial balance. Right now, based on things I have personally witnessed up close (extreme melting of glaciers in the U.S. and Canada) and read, I believe we are moving further along toward natural global warming, which at some point will reverse itself, unless...

What's my "unless". I cannot believe it is logical for any of us to think that the tons of smoke and soot and pollution that we have dumped into the atmosphere since the beginning of the industrial revolution could possibly not affect climate. It's about intelligent/logical as my grandfather who, as he died from lung cancer and emphysema, said it had nothing to do with cigarettes, it was just a coincidence that he was a 3+ pack a day man, and that smoking actually helped his lungs stay healthy.

I look at the heat island affect: "Bangkok, Jakarta and Taipei, which have seen rapid urbanization, are experiencing this heat-island phenomenon. However, of all the large cities in the world, it is Tokyo and Osaka where this phenomenon is observed most conspicuously. In Tokyo, the heat-island phenomenon appears in a temperature difference of 3 degrees centigrade to 4 degrees centigrade between its central area and suburbs. The heat-island phenomenon in Tokyo occurs mostly in summer, when air conditioners are in full operation. It is during summer that this phenomenon seriously affects human life." (AUICK Newsletter # 20). I used to sense the same thing when I lived in suburban Washington, D.C. On "snow days", in general more snow was on the ground north and west of the city -- the areas least affected by the heat island of the city. South and east of the city there would be less snow on the ground -- the higher heat island areas. And in the city itself -- virtually always the least snow (if any) left on the ground. It's not a natural heat island, it's a heat island caused by man. Now just expand it to world wide.

It is the heat island effect that is skewing much if the temperature data around the world.

[crusty]

only if you believe in global warming..........which I notice they dont call it that any more so they call it climate change............and the earths temp has cooled since 2003..........all very confusing.............who to believe?

Yeah that's why New York and Washington State had their coldest winter in 40 years last year and the Arctic ice cap had grown 30 %. Meanwhile at the other end of the planet, Australia's CSIRO has proved the Antartic is entering a new ice age and has grown 20% in size this year.

[NedKelly]

In July I attended the Asia Pacific Summit in Melbourne to listen to several Australian and International Scientists presenting on Climate Change. Also present was Al Gore and via video link Dr David Suzuki who both made their own presentations. I am not a scientist but after listening to the presentations and seeing so may different examples of unusual climo/geologic/bio related effects from current climatic conditions, it is very difficult to think that we are not headed for uncertain futures.

Glaciers are melting everywhere, some will dissappear very soon others will be gone altogether within years. If you look at a map of the Himalaya and see how many river systems begin within these mountains, it is obvious to see that if all the glaciers melt the amount of run-off will be greatly reduced. Theses rivers include Yangtze, Mekong, Irrawaddy, Indus, Salween, Ganges etc. How many people rely on these rivers?

The fact is that carbon emissions are rising at an amazing rate and will continue to rise. The scientific consensus is that if emissions continue to rise and we dont act now to reduce emissions then the average temperature around the world will rise. With an increased average temperature we can expect various effects such as crop failure, crop reduction, species extinction (up to 30% of species if the temp rises 4 degrees c), drought, floods and so on. The problem is that no-one can really predict what will happen.

Looking to the arctic ice - well it is reduced every year. Some say it comes back each year, which might be true, but it is to a lesser extent and the thickness reduces each year from what was once metres to only one metre in some places. When the ice melts the sea warms making it more difficult for the ice to return. In the antarctic, large portions have broken up in some areas and this has surprised scientists.

Sea level wont rise too much from arctic ice melts as the ice is already in the water. If yo ulook at Greenland ice which is largely land based, the scenario is a little more frightening. Greenland ice is extremely thick in some places and recent observations insist the melting is occuring at an increasing rate. Apparently you can stand on the ice and hear a feint rushing sound which is melt water running down and under the ice. If greenland ice all melted we may well be looking at sea level rises of several metres - so dont worry about building your sea walls as the new coastline would more likley be out near Saraburi ! Then think about how many people around the planet would be effected by this scenario? The result is unthinkable...chaos, war, breakdown of society, hundreds of millions displaced etc.

But dont fret too much. We are doing things to make changes. New energies are being developed; technologies are improving efficiency, things like hybrid cars are already on the market. We all need to do our bit to reduce our consumption and be more aware that everything we do has some sort of effect on everything else on the planet.

If all this talk ends up being a hoax well be it....at least part of mankind would have moved to a new level in terms of sustainable futures and a planet that is liveable for everyone. The way we live now is not sustainable. In India alone there are 400 million people without electricity in their homes.....!!

[jombom]

Bits of these provinces may well go under water, but it will be from subsidence (40mm/year) not from sea level rises (3mm/year, perhaps).

The biggest problem is that it is impossible to convince climate-change bed-wetters that they are worried about nothing, because they believe it through childlike faith, not science. It makes them feel good to pretend they are saving the planet, you see.

If the figures quoted are correct, it appears 93% of the problem is caused by subsidence, therefore this is where the major work needs to be undertaken. What is causing the subsidence ??

I am therefore amazed (yes Amazing Thailand), that over 50% of the posts are about global warming, which appears to be 7% of the problem.

Subsidence in Thailand is a Thai problem and needs to be solved by Thailand.

Global warming is a global problem, and can only be solved on a global basis.

[rjj04]

You're going to have to do better than stooping to association fallacies. How about coming up with an argument as to why you think he is wrong?

You gotta be kidding me. Okay, do a Google on global warming and you start reading the 33.1 million entries and see what the vast majority of scientists believe. But, if I must, what's happening to glacial trends, just as one example. Go up into Glacier National Park in the U.S. or the Canadian Rockies. You look at the terminal glacial moraines and see how they're being uncovered faster and faster...I did. Hiked places I visited in 1960, 1980, and 2008, and the front of the glaciers have receded nearly a mile...and not just one glacier. Athabasca Glacier, Crowfoot Glacier (which no longer even looks like a crow's foot), and many more. Or, if you like, look at the spread of jellyfish further and further north as the water trends warmer. Or...well, enough.

Association fallacies? Are you honestly telling me that FOX News does not have more coverage of the naysayers of climate change than the other networks? Are you telling me that Sarah Palin has not advocated "drilling our way out of the energy crisis" and said repeatedly that climate change is not man-made?

Perhaps the checks are flowing from Exxon et al

[JR Texas]

For those who don't know about these site, please note that they are run by responsible scientists who are actually working on the problem of climate change. They were constructed to counter the BIG OIL funded misleading information that has already surfaced on this site.

Please have a look:

http://www.realclimate.org/

http://ossfoundation.us/

http://www.skepticalscience.com/

In addition, the so-called skeptics (totally manipulated by BIG OIL) often resort to presenting misleading information that supposedly comes from an "expert."

You can check out the qualifications of most of the "expert skeptics" here (most are not qualified to be dog catchers):

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=SourceWatch

Beware.....the skeptics do not present scientific information........only pseudo-scientific information.......all of which is selected, not for accuracy, but to make a point and support a position that has lost the debate.

A scientific debate did take place among responsible scientists. But it is over. The skeptics lost big time. Human-induced climate change is a reality. Now responsible scientists and politicians are trying to find a solution to the problem.

You are either part of the solution, or you are part of the problem.

The ultimate solution, by the way, involves the development of a new system of energy (decentralized so that BIG OIL can't control it) and environmentally sound, and a radical reduction in the size of the human population.

But, before we do that, we must make heavy use of transitional energy systems (e.g., solar).

[hansnl]

I have no idea if man is changing the climate.

But would somebody please tell me who changed the climate before there were so many people living on earth?

There maybe are too many people on earth, I could easily believe so.

However, there are remedies for a raising sea and for loss of land.

It is called water management.

It means dykes, polders, and more of those nice things.

The Dutch know all about it.

The Thai Government might ask some advise from the Deltaworks commission.

Would be interesting.

However, that would probably seen as a massive loss of face, asking advise from a farang.

Before living in Thailand I lived in the Netherlands, near the town of Gouda.

The land around Gouda is somewhere between 4,5 and 6,5 meter BELOW sea level?

Actually, 40% of the Netherlands is below sea level.

So what is the problem with land above sea level?

Build some dykes, install a lot of pumps, problem solved.

Edited November 18, 2009 by hansnl

[ScubaBuddha]

I have no idea if man is changing the climate.

But would somebody please tell me who changed the climate before there were so many people living on earth?

There maybe are too many people on earth, I could easily believe so.

However, there are remedies for a raising sea and for loss of land.

It is called water management.

It means dykes, polders, and more of those nice things.

The Dutch know all about it.

The Thai Government might ask some advise from the Deltaworks commission.

Would be interesting.

However, that would probably seen as a massive loss of face, asking advise from a farang.

Before living in Thailand I lived in the Netherlands, near the town of Gouda.

The land around Gouda is somewhere between 4,5 and 6,5 meter BELOW sea level?

Actually, 40% of the Netherlands is below sea level.

So what is the problem with land above sea level?

Build some dykes, install a lot of pumps, problem solved.

hansl, the issue of rising ocenas is but one of many issues climate change is causing. Droughts, super hurricanes, mass extinctions, massive floods just to name a few. Sticking your finger is a dike, figuratively and literally, is not going to save us.

[figo88]

I have no idea if man is changing the climate.

But would somebody please tell me who changed the climate before there were so many people living on earth?

There maybe are too many people on earth, I could easily believe so.

However, there are remedies for a raising sea and for loss of land.

It is called water management.

It means dykes, polders, and more of those nice things.

The Dutch know all about it.

The Thai Government might ask some advise from the Deltaworks commission.

Would be interesting.

However, that would probably seen as a massive loss of face, asking advise from a farang.

Before living in Thailand I lived in the Netherlands, near the town of Gouda.

The land around Gouda is somewhere between 4,5 and 6,5 meter BELOW sea level?

Actually, 40% of the Netherlands is below sea level.

So what is the problem with land above sea level?

Build some dykes, install a lot of pumps, problem solved.

hansl, the issue of rising ocenas is but one of many issues climate change is causing. Droughts, super hurricanes, mass extinctions, massive floods just to name a few. Sticking your finger is a dike, figuratively and literally, is not going to save us.

Guys, it is much more of a pleasure to discuss this topic now, as opposed to three or four years ago, when the global warming mania was at it's peak. People are catching on.

Due to the enormous amount of diatribe on the topic, this is what I suggest you do to find out, in your own mind if the sea level is rising or global warming is taking place.

Bangkok - 1 meter or so above sea level. notice any change in the sea level there? say in the last 40 years? How about any other shoreline in the world, say at your favorite resort?

Glaciers - Ever been to a galcier? Have someone take a photo now of a glacier you've been to. Collect some data.

Cooling or Warming - If you are setting a lot of record lows in your area, then you can say your area is getting cooler. If you are getting a lot of record highs, your are is probably getting hotter.

As for the causes of heating / cooling we have

Earths core - hot, vocanoes, lava.

Magnetoshpere earth vs Sun - relates to cloud formation

Gasses - N2, O2, H2O, Methane (absorption of various electromagnetic wavenlengths (sun))

Biosphere - Vegetation (absorption)

Solar output - sunspots - this relates to the magnetosphere

A basket of other variables - planetary tidal effect gravity, jupiter - sun interaction, galixy effects, earths axis vs ellipse orbit in summer/winter variation cycel,

The above stuff was known for a many years...

Then seemingly out of the blue comes this guy Al Gore trumpeting a CO2 greenhouse conspiracy theory.

<deleted>?

Hey, next time I won't say <deleted>. I leaned quite a while ago that most people don't like to think for themselves, maybe it's too hard a work? Scam artists recognize the opportunity, come in as experts, and have a field day.

CO2 increase can correspond to an increase in biomass.

Increase in temperature can result in a lower sea level due to evaporation and an increase in biomass = carbohydrates in the form of cellulose = CH2O.

The documented decrease in Indian Ocean sea levels might be due to the increase in temperature over the past 50 years, combined with a most recent increase 1990 to present, increase in overall icemass (Antarctica)

Consider that.

Edited November 19, 2009 by figo88

[JR Texas]

I considered it........you posted a lot of inaccurate and misleading, pseudo-scientific information, most of which is being generated by BIG OIL to confuse the public.

For those interested in a recent comment by an actual scientist about the general climate change problem, go here:

http://english.aljazeera.net/news/europe/2...1059758863.html

Southeast Asia is very vulnerable to climate change........especially its agricultural production and river systems. For more on climate change and food production, look up Lester Brown.

As far as Bangkok goes, it is so low in terms of elevation, that only a few inches of permanent water in the city would cause massive economic problems for residents, along with health problems (e.g, malaria).

Anybody who has walked around Bangkok knows how vulnerable it is to water damage. It will not take a major tidal wave or flood to cause great damage......just a few more inches of water that has no place to go.

Data has already been posted elsewhere about beach erosion and an increase in wave action over the past decade.......the negative changes are happening now. But we are human and tend to measure things in "human time."

Many of these changes take a long time to materialize........they sort of creep up on us.

It is like putting a frog in warm water and turning up the heat slowly. The frog doesn't notice until it is too late.

It is not too late for us to make positive energy and population choices that will massively improve the quality of ALL LIFE on this fragile planet.

[RickBradford]

... do not present scientific information........only pseudo-scientific information.......all of which is selected, not for accuracy, but to make a point and support a position that has lost the debate.

You're talking about Al Gore, I presume?

Even in Britain, a haven for climate change bed-wetters, a judge has told schools that if they show Gore's "alarmist" and "one-sided" film, they must also point out nine serious scientific errors which poke up above the rest of the hogwash...

Edited November 19, 2009 by RickBradford

[JR Texas]

... do not present scientific information........only pseudo-scientific information.......all of which is selected, not for accuracy, but to make a point and support a position that has lost the debate.

You're talking about Al Gore, I presume?

Even in Britain, a haven for climate change bed-wetters, a judge has told schools that if they show Gore's "alarmist" and "one-sided" film, they must also point out nine serious scientific errors which poke up above the rest of the hogwash...

So the "judge" is an expert on climate change and has published numerous papers in peer reviewed scientific journals?

Think about it......just more nonsense from a member of the radical-right-wing lunatic camp that wants to keep us all in a mental and economic prison.

I am sure if a different life and time, that same judge would probably have supported stoning for any scientist making the claim that the earth is not really flat and at the center of the universe.

Most of these skeptics have their heads and feet firmly embedded in the cement of emotion; they know virtually nothing about reason and science.

[RickBradford]

^

...have their heads and feet firmly embedded in the cement of emotion; they know virtually nothing about reason and science.

Now, you're definitely talking about Al Gore....

[teatree]

... do not present scientific information........only pseudo-scientific information.......all of which is selected, not for accuracy, but to make a point and support a position that has lost the debate.

You're talking about Al Gore, I presume?

Even in Britain, a haven for climate change bed-wetters, a judge has told schools that if they show Gore's "alarmist" and "one-sided" film, they must also point out nine serious scientific errors which poke up above the rest of the hogwash...

So the "judge" is an expert on climate change and has published numerous papers in peer reviewed scientific journals?

Think about it......just more nonsense from a member of the radical-right-wing lunatic camp that wants to keep us all in a mental and economic prison.

I am sure if a different life and time, that same judge would probably have supported stoning for any scientist making the claim that the earth is not really flat and at the center of the universe.

Most of these skeptics have their heads and feet firmly embedded in the cement of emotion; they know virtually nothing about reason and science.

You are right, the judge is not a scientist. But wait neither is Gore. He's just a very slick snake oil salesman.

At least the judge can read a graph, something which the 'warmers' don't seem to be able to do. The relationship between CO2 and temperature is that temperatures go up FIRST and THEN CO2 goes up after a lag of several hundred years. This is in the ice core data, it is indisputable and the fact that Gore imp-LIED that the relationship is the other way round shows what a lying, deceitful, toe-rag he is.

[cheshiremusicman]

As usual the figures here are being thrown around without making a great deal of sense - as has been pointed out already they suggest that subsidence is a far more significant problem than sea level rising and are almost of different levels of magnitude.

Also how a rise in sea level of 3mm a year becomes 1 metre in 50 years needs explaining too.

If I remember correctly, not long ago one of the so called 'Thai Experts' was telling us ( and it was reported on the TV forum) 'That the gulf of Thailand would not be affected by the rising sea water caused by glacial melting at the south pole'. How do we do it? He had probably come to some agreement to ship the water to another country like Saudi Arabia!

[JR Texas]

The relationship between CO2 and temperature is that temperatures go up FIRST and THEN CO2 goes up after a lag of several hundred years. This is in the ice core data, it is indisputable and the fact that Gore imp-LIED that the relationship is the other way round shows what a lying, deceitful, toe-rag he is.

Predictably, you are being influenced by data that has been manipulated by BIG OIL. Scientists don't present arguments the way you just did. They don't pick and chose data points and selectively omit important parts of the entire equation.

You are confusing a natural cycle (pre-industrial revolution and multiples of millions of years) with an unnatural cycle (the post-industrial revolution period....short time period in terms of geological time).

If you take an unbiased view, you will not how CO2 has skyrocketed, especially over the past 50 years. You will also not see a similar increase in temperature coming before the CO2 increase.

So, something else is at work...........huuuuummmmmmmm.......what could it be?

What could account for the abnormal and very rapid increase in CO2?

Let me guess: TOO MANY HUMAN BEINGS BURNING FOSSIL FUELS.

About the Thai expert telling people the Gulf of Thailand will not be impacted by climate change under any and all conditions. That is not what he said.

But the skeptics, of course, have taken his words out of context.

He was talking about something very complex.........pointing out anomalies in tropical zones that might lesson the degree of sea level rise.

But if both poles melt, there is no doubt the Gulf of Thailand will see a very large sea level rise.

Personally, I think the Thai scientists in question would agree with what I just said.

It would be nice if posters would stop posting pseudo-scientific crap........it is the same nonsense, posted over and over again.

Before you post anything else, you really should read what the scientists are saying; not the BIG OIL paid for hacks......I am talking about what real and responsible scientists who work on climate change are saying about the subject.

This is a good place to begin. I don't think there is a specific topic here about the Gulf of Thailand, but you can learn about sea level rise and climate change, among other things.

http://www.realclimate.org/

http://ossfoundation.us/

http://www.skepticalscience.com/

[RickBradford]

^

It would be nice if posters would stop posting pseudo-scientific crap........it is the same nonsense, posted over and over again.

I agree.

Predictably, you are being influenced by data that has been manipulated by BIG OIL.

...misleading, pseudo-scientific information, most of which is being generated by BIG OIL to confuse the public.

They were constructed to counter the BIG OIL funded misleading information that has already surfaced on this site.

The same nonsense, posted over and over again...

[MarkTSpalding]

Temperature Monitors Report Widescale Global Cooling

Twelve-month long drop in world temperatures wipes out a century of warming

Over the past year, anecdotal evidence for a cooling planet has exploded. China has its coldest winter in 100 years. Baghdad sees its first snow in all recorded history. North America has the most snowcover in 50 years, with places like Wisconsin the highest since record-keeping began. Record levels of Antarctic sea ice, record cold in Minnesota, Texas, Florida, Mexico, Australia, Iran, Greece, South Africa, Greenland, Argentina, Chile -- the list goes on and on.

No more than anecdotal evidence, to be sure. But now, that evidence has been supplanted by hard scientific fact. All four major global temperature tracking outlets (Hadley, NASA's GISS, UAH, RSS) have released updated data. All show that over the past year, global temperatures have dropped precipitously.

A compiled list of all the sources can be seen here. The total amount of cooling ranges from 0.65C up to 0.75C -- a value large enough to wipe out most of the warming recorded over the past 100 years. All in one year's time. For all four sources, it's the single fastest temperature change ever recorded, either up or down.

Scientists quoted in a past DailyTech article link the cooling to reduced solar activity which they claim is a much larger driver of climate change than man-made greenhouse gases. The dramatic cooling seen in just 12 months time seems to bear that out. While the data doesn't itself disprove that carbon dioxide is acting to warm the planet, it does demonstrate clearly that more powerful factors are now cooling it.

Let's hope those factors stop fast. Cold is more damaging than heat. The mean temperature of the planet is about 54 degrees. Humans -- and most of the crops and animals we depend on -- prefer a temperature closer to 70.

Historically, the warm periods such as the Medieval Climate Optimum were beneficial for civilization. Corresponding cooling events such as the Little Ice Age, though, were uniformly bad news.

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

[MarkTSpalding]

AL GORE WARMING LIES & THE REAL 'INCONVENIENT TRUTH'

By IAIN MURRAY

AL Gore was born and spent most of his life in Washington, D.C. Yesterday, he returned to the fever swamp to show he's forgotten none of his old political tricks.

Addressing the House and Senate on global warming, he put forth a litany of half-truths that he twisted into a morality tale. But the facts tell a different story. The former veep is a master politician, not a prophet or a planetary savior.

Gore's biggest rhetorical trick is saying that the Earth has a fever. He says that 10 of the hottest years in history came in the last 11 years, and this proves we must do something, because, "If your baby has a fever, you go to the doctor."

This is meaningless. The Earth has been much, much hotter in the past than today. No giant space nanny fed it medicine.

Moreover, a healthy baby has a constant temperature - that's why a fever is bad. The Earth does not have a constant temperature. It has been generally warming since the end of the Little Ice Age in the early 19th century, but that has not been uniform. It's had warming phases (the 1920s and 1930) and cooling phases (the 1940s to 1970s).

It's also had periods like today, when temperatures are flat - there hasn't been much warming since 1998. Yes, it's warmer today than it was a hundred years ago, but that's not necessarily a bad thing. Talking about fevers is misleading, but it's a great rhetorical trick.

And when it comes to the economics of the issue, Gore is way outside the mainstream. Appearing before a House committee, he said that changing the American economy in the way he proposes - a plan of freezes, taxes, market controls and regulations that would represent a massive expansion of government control over the economy - would not be costly.

Yet he also endorsed the ill-fated Kyoto Protocol (which he helped negotiate). The U.S. Energy Information Administration calculates that Kyoto would reduce U.S. gross domestic product by $100 billion to $400 billion a year.

Gore is a very wealthy man, but it's hard to see why he can't recognize that this is a lot of money lost - and a lot of jobs lost and a lot of families going cold and hungry.

How does Gore address this point? He doesn't; he simply avoids it, with highfalutin rhetoric. It's not just the Earth's "fever" and our supposed moral duty to cure it; he says our descendants will either condemn us as blind or praise us for our moral courage. He also makes veiled references to himself as Churchill, while all around him others appease fascism.

It's not subtle stuff - nor accurate.

If you establish that the Earth is warming, it doesn't necessarily follow that we have a moral duty to reduce emissions. What should follow is an informed debate about the costs and benefits of various policies to address that warming - reducing emissions is just one possible answer. Another debate should focus on those policies' economic costs.

Al Gore doesn't want to have those debates, because the majority of evidence suggests that emissions reduction will be very costly and will have little effect. Kyoto, fully enacted by all its parties, would for all its cost reduce global warming by a mere 0.07 degrees Celsius by 2050 - a barely detectable amount.

Meanwhile, 2 billion people around the world go without electricity. About 3 million die each year because of fumes given off by primitive stoves. The U.S. economy sneezes when gasoline hits $3 a gallon.

If we have a moral duty, it's to keep energy affordable here and to expand access to it overseas. That's the real moral truth, however inconvenient for Al Gore.

Iain Murray is senior fellow in Energy, Science and Technology at the Competitive Enterprise Institute in Washington, D.C.

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedc...WKZDieukjRUChXJ

[JR Texas]

The earth is not cooling; it is warming. You can find an actual SCIENTIFIC discussion of the subject here:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-cooling.htm

Maybe this will help (anybody see a trend?):

[brahmburgers]

climate change is undeniable, but debatable to its causes. However, for what ever reason the ice caps and glacies are melting and sea levels are rising and its sensible to get ready, build sea defenses, etc.

Building sea defenses may apply in some places. However, better long term planning would be to relocate. Granted, it's expensive and a lot of toil, but if seas are rising (as it appears they are), then it's better to get to higher ground, than to keep fortifying sea walls and buying bigger pumps, as New Orleans is doing. I went to a tiny island off Belize, with about 200 population. They've put a 1/8" steel wall around it to try and keep mother nature out. May work for a couple years, but surely won't work for the long term, particularly when it's in a hurricane region.

But, if I must, what's happening to glacial trends, just as one example. Go up into Glacier National Park in the U.S. or the Canadian Rockies. You look at the terminal glacial moraines and see how they're being uncovered faster and faster...I did. Hiked places I visited in 1960, 1980, and 2008, and the front of the glaciers have receded nearly a mile...and not just one glacier. Athabasca Glacier, Crowfoot Glacier (which no longer even looks like a crow's foot), and many more.

If you do any sort of "global" travel, you will see how much the earth has changed recently. I flew over the Amazon in Bolivia recently. I was shocked as to how much land is under development/farming. Way over 50%. Entire mountains have been cleared...heck, entire mountain ranges have been cleared. I was in shock. I also recently returned from Patagonia and a trip around Cape Horn. Visited dozens of glaciers, did some serious ice trekking on 3 of them. I saw pics from the guides showing the glaciers just 5 years ago. One, in Torres del Paine, has receded well over 1km in 5 years. He showed me where they started ice trekking 6 months earlier. It was 100 meters away from where we started. Same was true of my recent hike up Kilimanjaro. We all know what is happening there. But what we don't know is that when that glacier is gone, as it will soon be, the local people will be without a reliable water supply. Horrible for them... When you see all this, you know something is happening. Impossible to deny, but hard to identify the culprit. But for sure, glaciers are melting...and I have to believe the incredible increase in the human population has something to do with it....we are for sure ruining our beautiful planet.

First hand reports are compelling. Notice none of the climate change naysayers offer us first hand reports. Instead they tell us to watch a video. I watched it. It is compelling. Then I did a Wiki search on it and its author, and found that several of the scientists on the video later said they were misrepresented (dialogue taken out of context to give a different spin, etc.). Some of the charts in the video were tampered with in order to make a stronger case to convey the message of the video. I'm not saying it's all bunk, but just as Photoshop can do amazing things with photos, so too can video makers with an agenda do amazing things to espouse a particular opinion.