Global Warming To Hit Thailand's Rice Production

[RickBradford]

That's complete and utter trash. Disproved into the dirt, the lot.

Ah, back to the standard AGW tactic of attacking the messenger because they can't stomach the truth of the message.

I figured it wouldn't take long.

[mridiot]

That's complete and utter trash. Disproved into the dirt, the lot.

Ah, back to the standard AGW tactic of attacking the messenger because they can't stomach the truth of the message.

I figured it wouldn't take long.

Good move.......right from The Idiot's Guide to Becoming a Global Warming Denier.

Divert his attention away from the information he was asking for (questions we have no scientific response to).

Try to get him to provide answers to our questions (about stuff we have no understanding of but have stock answers to, right from Exxon-Mobile funded websites).

Then make people think he is doing what we are actually doing--attacking the messenger because we can't respond to a scientific argument.

Good move.......I knew my brothers could help you.

Which one do you think is the smartest....the one on the left or right?

I am happy that you listened to them and took their advice.

Now who looks stupid?

We are winning......we are winning!

[RickBradford]

^^^

Yes, another telling example of the kind of post that AGW supporters believe to be a valuable contribution to the discussion of how global warming might affect Thai rice production.

JR, you stand alone.

[Throatwobbler]

Dr. Nils-Axel Mörner, one-time expert reviewer for the IPCC, who received his PhD in geology in 1969, is one of the greatest - if not the greatest - sea level experts in the world today. He has worked with sea level problems for 40 years in areas scattered all over the globe. He actually goes out and measures what happens as opposed to sitting in his office playing with computers.

"There is no change," says Mörner. "Sea level is not changing in any way."

"There is absolutely no sea-level rise in Tuvalu," Mörner insists. "There is no change here, and there is zero sea-level rise in Bangladesh. If anything, sea levels have lowered in Bangladesh."

"We do not need to fear sea-level rise," says Mörner. "(But) we should have a fear of those people who fooled us."

When the Maldives government played the victim card by holding a cabinet meeting underwater to dramatize sea level issues (and to try and secure billions of dollars of Western guilt money), Mörner felt obliged to write them an open letter and tell them not to be so silly.

And, much as I welcome the tone of civility which has returned to this debate, I have to point out the dangers of relying on The Guardian or Wikipedia as reliable sources on information on which to base arguments.

The Guardian, England's version of Pravda, has for many years been banging the Leftist and AGW drum without even a token regard for balance.

William Connolley, a leading member of Michael Mann's RealClimate web site, and an activist for the Green Party, has created or rewritten over 5,000 unique Wikipedia articles and removed a further 500, so that the site reflects the "proper" stance on climate change and environmentalism in general.

Also

Mörner's claim that sea levels are not rising has been criticised for ignoring correctly calibrated satellite altimeter records, all of which show that sea levels are rising.

Seems like he's being quite selective himself on the data he's using to make his claims.

[canuckamuck]

Dr. Nils-Axel Mörner, one-time expert reviewer for the IPCC, who received his PhD in geology in 1969, is one of the greatest - if not the greatest - sea level experts in the world today. He has worked with sea level problems for 40 years in areas scattered all over the globe. He actually goes out and measures what happens as opposed to sitting in his office playing with computers.

"There is no change," says Mörner. "Sea level is not changing in any way."

"There is absolutely no sea-level rise in Tuvalu," Mörner insists. "There is no change here, and there is zero sea-level rise in Bangladesh. If anything, sea levels have lowered in Bangladesh."

"We do not need to fear sea-level rise," says Mörner. "(But) we should have a fear of those people who fooled us."

When the Maldives government played the victim card by holding a cabinet meeting underwater to dramatize sea level issues (and to try and secure billions of dollars of Western guilt money), Mörner felt obliged to write them an open letter and tell them not to be so silly.

And, much as I welcome the tone of civility which has returned to this debate, I have to point out the dangers of relying on The Guardian or Wikipedia as reliable sources on information on which to base arguments.

The Guardian, England's version of Pravda, has for many years been banging the Leftist and AGW drum without even a token regard for balance.

William Connolley, a leading member of Michael Mann's RealClimate web site, and an activist for the Green Party, has created or rewritten over 5,000 unique Wikipedia articles and removed a further 500, so that the site reflects the "proper" stance on climate change and environmentalism in general.

Also

Mörner's claim that sea levels are not rising has been criticised for ignoring correctly calibrated satellite altimeter records, all of which show that sea levels are rising.

Seems like he's being quite selective himself on the data he's using to make his claims.

Care to supply a link to the criticism.

It would be a bit odd to prefer satellite data to 40 years of actual on-site measurements. But this reliance on computer modeling and theorizing is what has paved the way for creative interpretation of data.

[RickBradford]

I was interested enough to track the criticism down.

The page isn't live, but Google has a cache, try "Comment Estimating future sea level change Nerem Cazenave". It is a short 2006 criticism of his 2004 paper of that name.

The authors say that Mörner didn't understand that satellite measurements need to be calibrated before they can be properly interpreted. Instead of Mörner's maximum estimate of 1mm/year rise (and average of zero rise), they suggest 3mm/year average rise is a better figure, plus 10% for something they call the effects of 'glacial isostatic adjustment'.

I wonder why anybody would try to estimate millimetre-level rises in sea-level from satellites in space; Mörner's observations over 40 years from all over the globe have directly shown no trend of rising sea levels.

Who knows, maybe Nerem and Cazenave are right and it's gonna be 3mm/year. Head for the hills, guys!

[Throatwobbler]

http://circleh.wordpress.com/2009/11/10/damning-evidence-of-fraud-by-nils-axel-morner/

I was looking at the website above and found the following information

Unfortunately the link to the article itself does not work. I will try and find a link to it somewhere else.

In 2007, other scientists took Mörner’s claims and cut them to pieces.

http://www.imedea.uib.es/goifis/OTROS/VANI...Change_2007.pdf

We feel compelled to respond to the recent article by Mörner (2004) because he makes several major errors in his analysis, and as a result completely misinterprets the record of sea level change from the TOPEX/Poseidon (T/P) satellite altimeter mission. One major criticism we have with the paper is that Mörner does not include a single reference to any altimeter study, all of which refute his claim that there is no apparent change in global mean sea level (GMSL) [see Cazenave and Nerem, (2004) for a summary]. The consensus of all other researchers looking at the T/P and Jason data is that GMSL has been rising at a rate of 3.0 mm/year (Fig. 1) over the last 13 years (3.3 mm/year when corrected for the effects of glacial isostatic adjustment (Tamisiea et al., 2005)). Mörner gives no details for the source of the data or processing strategy he used to produce Fig. 2, other than to say it is based on “raw data”. Because the details of the analysis are not presented in his paper, we are left to speculate on how this result could have been obtained, based on our years of experience as members of the T/P and Jason-1 Science Working Team. Mörner was apparently oblivious to the corrections that must be made to the “raw” altimeter data in order to make correct use of the data. As with any satellite data set, calibration and validation of the data must be performed after launch to determine if there are any instrumental errors, find the source of those errors, and evaluate their behavior over time. Satellite altimetry is somewhat unique in that many adjustments must be made to the raw range measurements to account for atmospheric delays (ionosphere, troposphere), ocean tides, variations in wave height (which can bias how the altimeter measures sea level), and a variety of other effects. In addition, the sea level measurements can be affected by the method used to process the altimeter waveforms, and by the techniques and data used to compute the orbit of the satellite. Early releases of the satellite Geophysical Data Records (GDRs) often contain errors in the raw measurements, the measurement corrections, and the orbit estimates that are later corrected through an on-going calibration/validation process defined by the T/P and Jason Science Working Team.

The original release of the T/P GDRs (as well as some subsequent re-releases) contained several errors that directly affect GMSL change. Based on our experience with these issues, and the shape of Fig. 2 in Mörner3s paper, we believe that he used the original release of the T/P GDRs with no attempt to correct for two significant errors. One of the errors is caused by a drift in the TOPEX Microwave Radiometer (TMR). It was first observed in sea level via a comparison to tide gauges (Chambers et al., 1998; Mitchum, 1998), and was verified to be caused by the TMR via comparisons to other orbiting microwave radiometers and radiosondes (Keihm et al., 2000). It caused a drift of nearly −1.2 mm/year in measured GMSL until early 1998, and then a bias of −5 mm. A second major error was introduced when the redundant TOPEX altimeter was turned on in early 1999 due to degradation in the original instrument (Chambers et al., 2003). Since the electronics of the redundant altimeter were different, it caused an apparent bias in the GMSL measurement related to the Sea State Bias (SSB). The sense of the bias was such to cause an incorrect sudden drop in GMSL from the end of 1998 to the beginning of 1999 of nearly 10 mm. This drop is apparent in Fig. 2 of Mörner’s paper (and in comparison to tide gauge data (Mitchum, 2000)). This error is removed when an updated SSB model is applied (Chambers et al., 2003). Data with these corrections applied are available from both the U.S. and French processing centers, as well as products to correct the original GDRs. When care is taken to make these corrections, the rate of sea level change over the entire T/P mission is 3.0± 0.4 mm/year (http://sealevel.colorado.edu), 3.3 mm/year when corrected for the change in ocean volume due to glacial isostatic adjustment (Tamisiea et al., 2005). In light of this, the statement by Mörner that “This means that this data set does not record any general trend (rising or falling) in sea level, just variability around zero plus the temporary ENSO perturbations” is completely false and is based on his erroneous data processing. Mörner’s paper completely misrepresents the results from the T/P mission, and does discredit to the tremendous amount of work that has been expended by the Science Working Team to create a precise, validated, and calibrated sea level data set suitable for studies of climate variations. Finally, Mörner ignores substantial other oceanographic (e.g. Levitus et al., 2001; Antonov et al., 2002; Munk, 2003; Willis et al., 2004) and cryospheric (e.g. Dyurgerov and Meier, 2000; Rignot et al., 2003; Krabill et al., 2004; Thomas et al., 2004) evidence of sea level rise which corroborate the altimeter observations.

[RickBradford]

Throatwobbler,

This is what is called the scientific method. Someone puts up a theory, someone else "cuts it to pieces." Then somebody else cuts to pieces the "cutting to pieces" and so on, and slowly, the science edges forward. Transparency and robustness of science rule.

In science, truth should be the primary value, and truthfulness the core evaluation. Openness and the willingness to be challenged are central to this notion of honest science.

In the world of climate science, this has not been the case for many years. Even the most fanatical AGW supporters have conceded that the Climategate letters confirmed long-held suspicions that this honesty and transparency has been fatally compromised.

Bluntly put, the activity stopped being science and became something else: zombie science, a science that is dead but it is artificially kept moving by a continuous infusion of funding.

Many are the causes of dishonesty in science; for example, scientists may be subjected to such pressure that they are forced to be dishonest. The corruption of science has been amplified by the replacement of "peer usage" with "peer review" as the major mechanism of scientific evaluation, thus creating space into which dishonesty has expanded.

In this situation, of course they want to stress that "the debate is over".

Examination of their methods and actions gives the lie to the statement that "the science is settled", and no matter how many times that mantram is parroted by hysterical media and cynical politicians, free-thinking skeptics will continue to oppose it.

Mörner may be right, or Nerem & Cazenave may be right, or both may be wrong; just don't tell us that "the debate is over."

[Throatwobbler]

Throatwobbler,

This is what is called the scientific method. Someone puts up a theory, someone else "cuts it to pieces." Then somebody else cuts to pieces the "cutting to pieces" and so on, and slowly, the science edges forward. Transparency and robustness of science rule.

In science, truth should be the primary value, and truthfulness the core evaluation. Openness and the willingness to be challenged are central to this notion of honest science.

In the world of climate science, this has not been the case for many years. Even the most fanatical AGW supporters have conceded that the Climategate letters confirmed long-held suspicions that this honesty and transparency has been fatally compromised.

Bluntly put, the activity stopped being science and became something else: zombie science, a science that is dead but it is artificially kept moving by a continuous infusion of funding.

Many are the causes of dishonesty in science; for example, scientists may be subjected to such pressure that they are forced to be dishonest. The corruption of science has been amplified by the replacement of "peer usage" with "peer review" as the major mechanism of scientific evaluation, thus creating space into which dishonesty has expanded.

In this situation, of course they want to stress that "the debate is over".

Examination of their methods and actions gives the lie to the statement that "the science is settled", and no matter how many times that mantram is parroted by hysterical media and cynical politicians, free-thinking skeptics will continue to oppose it.

Mörner may be right, or Nerem & Cazenave may be right, or both may be wrong; just don't tell us that "the debate is over."

I apologise if I said the debate is over. All i said was that I found this on another website, tried to give links and when that didn't work cut and pasted the article. So if the words "debate is over" is in there then they are not my words. I tried to cut out all the inflammatory words. If i missed any then once again I apologise.

As for scientific method, my degree is in physics so I think I understand how the process works.

[RickBradford]

^Throatwobbler

My turn to clarify -- I wasn't aiming the "debate is over" comment at you personally.

There are many commentators, on this forum and in the wider media, who regard any attempt to question the sanctity of AGW as akin to criminal activity.

Whether they know it or not, they are supporters of political figures who have the power to create social and economic upheaval and damage well beyond that which might be caused by a possible 30cm sea-level rise in the next 100 years.

My argument is not with you or anyone else who can debate this matter in a rational way, but with the fanatics who cannot abide any criticism of their cherished theories.

[Throatwobbler]

Ok thanks Rick. I'm with you on having a rational debate.

[AugustineB]

Mörner insists. "There is no change here, and there is zero sea-level rise in Bangladesh. If anything, sea levels have lowered in Bangladesh."

Todays news :

an "island" has just dissapeared - completely - from the bay of Bengal - I dont think Morner is wrong - I think he is a barefaced liar :

Disputed Bay of Bengal island 'vanishes'

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/8584665.stm

"Anyone wishing to visit now, he observed, would have to think of travelling by submarine."

Dr. Nils-Axel Mörner, one-time expert reviewer for the IPCC, who received his PhD in geology in 1969, is ..........................

................ considered a joke by his peers. Even the organisation of which hwe is a part consider his views to be eccentric and entirely unrepresentative of the field. I dont think he is a wacko - I think he is another minor scientist on the pay roll of big oil (but he is a big exponent of dowsing as well.....) . But you dont need to take it from me - here is what his own organisation said about him :

Dr Morner was, quite some time ago, president of one of INQUA’s commissions, indeed, the commission on sea-level changes. That commission no longer exists, as such, but is now part of our Commission on Coastal and Marine Processes. Dr Morner’s views concerning sea-level change are his own and are not endorsed by the current Executive Committee of INQUA, nor have previous INQUA Executive Committees endorsed Dr Morner’s views. On several occasions INQUA has requested of Dr Morner that he not inadvertently represent his views on sea-level change as if they have some connection with INQUA.

This is what Mörner says about the satellite measurements:

Now, back to satellite altimetry, which shows the water, not just the coasts, but in the whole of the ocean. And you measure it by satellite. From 1992 to 2002,[the graph of the sea level] was a straight line, variability along a straight line, but absolutely no trend whatsoever.

.

These are the actual measurements, there is a clear upwards trend :

http://sealevel.colorado.edu/

So you can see for yourself the "expert" is either unable to read a graph or is .... lying.

I can understand people being resistant to the idea of climate change - people dont like being told what to do and are worried changing to renewables might mean they have a lower standard of living. I dont see what all the fuss is about - in the long run renewables will work out much more economical than oil and nuclear anyway - if that's all your worried about. The only people who will lose out are the people who sell oil (if they dont change) and they are the ones trying to discredit climate science at the moment. Its blatantly obvious (see above)

Edited March 24, 2010 by AugustineB

[mridiot]

Ok thanks Rick. I'm with you on having a rational debate.

Good one......me and my brothers are really having an impact here.

You understand: Say the opposite of what you are really thinking.

Of course, we can't have a rational debate because we don't know anything about the subject.

Our job is to create confusion and doubt and keep the money flowing to the energy companies.

Remember, we are on your side. All of us deniers have to stick together.

My brothers and I will continue to feed you stupid information so that we can keep this thread alive.

I think we have them on the run!

[RickBradford]

My brothers and I will continue to feed you stupid information so that we can keep this thread alive.

Yes, there's plenty of that going around, and you are perfectly qualified to feed it.

Now we have the old Bangladesh islands nonsense again. This subject has been trawled over repeatedly -- these are delta islands composed entirely of silt fed to them by the Ganges, a process now being interfered with by human activity. The same University of Colorado which shows a graph of rising sea levels also points out:

A new study led by the University of Colorado at Boulder indicates most of the world's low-lying river deltas are sinking from human activity, making them increasingly vulnerable to flooding from rivers and ocean storms and putting tens of millions of people at risk. The study concluded that 24 out of the world's 33 major deltas are sinking and that 85 percent experienced severe flooding in recent years, resulting in the temporary submergence of roughly 100,000 square miles of land. About 500 million people in the world live on river deltas.

Factors include: upstream trapping of sediments by reservoirs and dams, man-made channels and levees that whisk sediment into the oceans beyond coastal floodplains, and the accelerated compacting of floodplain sediment caused by the extraction of groundwater and natural gas.

Trust the Bolshevik Broadcasting Corporation to try and put a man-made climate change spin on it.

As to motives, it is the standard position of those who need to feel morally superior, to portray climate change skeptics as either being in the pay of Big Oil (I wish) or of being so selfish as to not to want to give up their comfortable fossil-fuelled lifestyle. ("Look, Ma, I'm Saving The Planet, while those horrible deniers want to jet off to Phuket for the weekend.").

Skeptics are not resistant to the idea of climate change. They are resistant to the bogus claim that climate change is largely man-made and that it represents a serious enough threat so as to require drastic and immediate global regulation, taxation and control.

Edited March 25, 2010 by RickBradford

[mridiot]

Good response....try to make them think we are not working together on the same team and present completely misleading and false information to confuse readers.

You are learning...one of my best students.

Don't worry, my brothers and I will continue to feed you "science."

[RickBradford]

Don't worry, my brothers and I will continue to feed you "science."

Which one is you, JR?

[mridiot]

Don't worry, my brothers and I will continue to feed you "science."

Which one is you, JR?

You really want me to tell them the truth that I am the one standing next to you?

The "JR" code again.

I think they already know that means "oil man" and you are saying we are in the same "oil man club."

If they don't, they probably think you are crazy.

Either way, we have them confused.......good move.

Totally off topic now. I wonder how they will respond.

[RickBradford]

Actually, this Bengal island story is a classic example of why the one-eyed mainstream media is so heartily disliked by those of us known as skeptics.

The BBC is asking us to believe that global warming has done for this pile of silt, which at one time was 2 meters high. The closest tide-gauge to that area shows, over the past 70 years, an average sea-level rise of 0.5 millimeters per year, or an inch every 50 years. At that rate it would take 4000 years to sink this island.

The BBC then helpfully draw a map showing this island somewhere well out in the Bay of Bengal, whereas it lies (or used to) in the Ganges Delta. They then parrot a sympathetic quote from someone interviewed by Associated Press, who drags the magic words "global warming" into the thing, and then shovels the whole thing uncritically online.

You don't have to be a skeptic to be ashamed of the way the MSM treats their readers. The story correctly says the island has sunk; the rest is pure alarmist b*ll*cks.

I wonder if the Thai press is as lazy, deluded and compliant.

[teatree]

The Bay of Bengal island was a sand bar that was not permanently settled on due to its instability.

The way the AGW alarmists have reacted to the news just sums up why they are losing the battle. People are starting to look past the scary headlines and look at the facts instead. In this case it is not to difficult at all to discover that the mud island sank into the sea.

Screaming 'Global Warming' at everything may have worked in the past, but not anymore.

[AugustineB]

My brothers and I will continue to feed you stupid information so that we can keep this thread alive.

Yes, there's plenty of that going around, and you are perfectly qualified to feed it.

Now we have the old Bangladesh islands nonsense again. This subject has been trawled over repeatedly -- these are delta islands composed entirely of silt fed to them by the Ganges, a process now being interfered with by human activity. The same University of Colorado which shows a graph of rising sea levels also points out:

A new study led by the University of Colorado at Boulder indicates most of the world's low-lying river deltas are sinking from human activity, making them increasingly vulnerable to flooding from rivers and ocean storms and putting tens of millions of people at risk. The study concluded that 24 out of the world's 33 major deltas are sinking and that 85 percent experienced severe flooding in recent years, resulting in the temporary submergence of roughly 100,000 square miles of land. About 500 million people in the world live on river deltas.

Factors include: upstream trapping of sediments by reservoirs and dams, man-made channels and levees that whisk sediment into the oceans beyond coastal floodplains, and the accelerated compacting of floodplain sediment caused by the extraction of groundwater and natural gas.

Trust the Bolshevik Broadcasting Corporation to try and put a man-made climate change spin on it.

As to motives, it is the standard position of those who need to feel morally superior, to portray climate change skeptics as either being in the pay of Big Oil (I wish) or of being so selfish as to not to want to give up their comfortable fossil-fuelled lifestyle. ("Look, Ma, I'm Saving The Planet, while those horrible deniers want to jet off to Phuket for the weekend.").

Skeptics are not resistant to the idea of climate change. They are resistant to the bogus claim that climate change is largely man-made and that it represents a serious enough threat so as to require drastic and immediate global regulation, taxation and control.

Actually the island was made of rock.

If you dont trust the BBC here is the same story in the Telegraph (who less than two weeks ago were trumpeting the vagaries of climate science from every rooftop) :

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/...s-into-sea.html

You have also to explain the discrepancy between the graph Moner is looking at and his "interpretation" of the results - or simply the fact that satelite readings indicate a clear rise in sea level .

I would like to know if skeptics believe the world is not warming or that it is but not caused by humans. If the latter then sea level rise should not be a problem. Some skeptics seem to believe global warming is occuring but not human caused and some seem to believe it isnt happening at all - yet they never seem to argue the point amongst themselves. Most curious....

I am not suggesting everybody who disagrees with the climate scientists works for big oil - I am suggesting that big oil is fanning the flames of propaganda that are currently sweeping across the internet. As for the huge regulation and taxation - I personally believe the changes bought about by renewable will bring huge advantages to us nor will their be any huge "lifestyle change" - look at Sweden and Spain - already half of their energy is made from renewable sources and they dont have huge taxes as a result.

As for having the moral high ground - that is completely irrelevant - it is purely a political debate with pretensions towards scientific debate - whereas in the real scientific world the debate was over long ago.

Edited March 26, 2010 by AugustineB

[catmac]

As for the huge regulation and taxation - I personally believe the changes bought about by renewable will bring huge advantages to us nor will their be any huge "lifestyle change" - look at Sweden and Spain - already half of their energy is made from renewable sources and they dont have huge taxes as a result.

Spain? Over half from renewables? That would seem to be news to the Spanish Government........

"Spain proposes doubling of renewable energy capacity

Government sets out plan to generate over 22 per cent of energy from renewable sources by 2020

Rachel Fielding, BusinessGreen, 02 Mar 2010 "

http://www.businessgreen.com/business-gree...oposes-doubling

Sweden? Yes, you guessed......

"By 2020 renewable energy should account for 20 percent of the EU's final energy consumption To meet this common target, each member state needs to increase its production and use of renewable energy in electricity, heating and cooling and transport. Sweeden has sat their target at 49 percent renewable energy by 2020."

http://www.nordicenergysolutions.org/perfo...nergy-in-sweden

[RickBradford]

Actually the island was made of rock.

Actually the island was made of silt, according to Bangladesh's Centre for Environment and Geographic Information Services (CEGIS) and the Bangladesh Centre for Advanced Studies. (and even that AGW stalwart Wikipedia, which points out that the island only emerged in 1974, grew, and has now disappeared again. Fast-growing rock? Or dropping sea levels? Or plain old silt?).

On the other hand, new land is being created. After studying 32 years of satellite images, Bangladeshi scientists found the landmass was increasing by 20 sq km annually as a result of silt being deposited in the Bay of Bengal by big Himalayan rivers like the Ganges and the Brahmaputra, said Mohammed Abu Syed, a research fellow at the Bangladesh Centre for Advanced Studies.

But the new silt islands, or "chars", only become habitable after a few years, and the country's existing landmass is being washed away faster than new land is being formed.

"New land is rising everywhere in this estuary," said Sareng, a fisherman. "I hear Bangladesh will sink under the sea but I keep seeing new land rising."

and

The Dhaka-based Centre for Environment and Geographic Information Services (CEGIS) has studied 32 years of satellite images and says the country's landmass has increased by 20 square kilometres (eight square miles) annually.

It says 1,000 square kilometres of land has risen from the sea in the past three decades.

The rivers, which meet in the centre of Bangladesh, carry more than a billion tonnes of sediment every year and a third of it rests on the southern coastline where the new territory is forming.

It happens all the time, in both directions. Unless you restrict your critical analysis to trendy alarmist media stories, of course.

[mridiot]

You boys need to watch it.......they might find this and figure out what we are up to:

NEW DELHI — For nearly 30 years, India and Bangladesh have argued over control of a tiny rock island in the Bay of Bengal. Now rising sea levels have resolved the dispute for them: the island's gone.

New Moore Island in the Sunderbans has been completely submerged, said oceanographer Sugata Hazra, a professor at Jadavpur University in Calcutta. Its disappearance has been confirmed by satellite imagery and sea patrols, he said.

"What these two countries could not achieve from years of talking, has been resolved by global warming," said Hazra.

Scientists at the School of Oceanographic Studies at the university have noted an alarming increase in the rate at which sea levels have risen over the past decade in the Bay of Bengal.

Until 2000, the sea levels rose about 3 millimeters (0.12 inches) a year, but over the last decade they have been rising about 5 millimeters (0.2 inches) annually, he said.

Another nearby island, Lohachara, was submerged in 1996, forcing its inhabitants to move to the mainland, while almost half the land of Ghoramara island was underwater, he said. At least 10 other islands in the area were at risk as well, Hazra said.

"We will have ever larger numbers of people displaced from the Sunderbans as more island areas come under water," he said.

Bangladesh, a low-lying delta nation of 150 million people, is one of the countries worst-affected by global warming. Officials estimate 18 percent of Bangladesh's coastal area will be underwater and 20 million people will be displaced if sea levels rise 1 meter (3.3 feet) by 2050 as projected by some climate models.

[anotherpeter]

I have heard that sea levels in some places are actually dropping.

This isn't because of the sea level itself, but because the land is rising.

The weight of the glaciers on land is reducing because they are melting, which allows the earths crust to lift, which effectively lowers the sea level in those locations.

This actually leads to another interesting possibility.

Climate change is causing earthquakes. Wait. Read on.

Given that climate change is causing glaciers to melt (at least melt faster than they would have without man being involved).

The weight of the glacier (water) is moving from the mountains down to the oceans.

With this weight moving, pressures are changing on the earths crust.

Pressure changes on the earths crust cause the earthquakes.

[RickBradford]

Yep, Associated Press got it wrong, and before they retracted the incorrect version, many other fawning outlets had brainlessly seized on and parroted, almost verbatim, this alarmist nonsense.

It is not a rock island, as the Bangladeshi authorities have clearly stated. It is mangrove-stabilised sand and silt brought down to the delta by the Ganges or Brahmaputra rivers. This island first appeared in 1970 after Cyclone Bhola. In a region that has annual monsoons and frequent cyclones, it is hardly surprising they appear and disappear regularly. This type of behavior has been recorded in coastal regions all over the Earth for thousands of years ... to assume that "global warming" is the cause for this is complete nonsense. If the cause was sea-level rise, all the other delta islands would have disappeared; and they haven't.

There are millions of AGW fairy stories in the world's mainstream media, capable of supporting any idiotic position.

This kind of eco-fantasy knows no bounds:

KOLKATA: 2007. Kodak Theatre, Hollywood. The list of Oscar presenters includes Jack Nicholson, Meryl Streep, Leonardo DiCaprio, Jennifer Lopez. Instead of the usual million-dollar goodies, each of them receive a small glass model called the Lohachara sculpture after an island which "in December, 2006, became the first inhabited island to be lost to rising sea levels caused by global warming".

A little more than two years later, Lohachara [another sandbar - Ed.] island is emerging again. This was first noticed by Jadavpur University scientists in satellite images. According to Tuhin Ghosh, senior lecturer, School of Oceanographic studies, JU, "Lohachara and Bedford were there in 1975 satellite data. In 1990 pictures, a small portion of Lohachara is visible. There's no sign of Bedford. In a 1995 satellite picture, Lohachara had vanished. But in satellite pictures of 2007, you can see Lohachara coming back... It's a revelation."

Alarmist nonsense, religiously believed in by the dwindling band of AGW faithful.

[mridiot]

Alarmist nonsense, religiously believed in by the dwindling band of AGW faithful.

Ha ha ha.........good response to actual science........now we have them running around like chickens without heads.

Just keep them confused.

"Dwindling." Good one.

"Religiously believed." Good one.

"Alarmist nonsense." Good one.

[canuckamuck]

It is fascinating to see that the AGW crowd has no problem believing that global warming has somehow caused the sea to rise up to 2 meters around certain islands in Bangladesh while claiming (simultaneously) that the detected rise is 3mm per year. at 3mm a year it should have taken 666 years to sink that 2 meter high island, which is bizarre considering the island only existed for 35 years.

It might occur to some that Bangladesh is nothing but a massive delta which, by its very nature, has been prone to flooding for it's entire history, and is a poor model for observing global changes.

[RickBradford]

^^^

They have no trouble believing anything at all, no matter how fanciful, as long as it fits into their precious narrative of imminent doom, catastrophe and apocalypse at the hands of Evil Capitalists and Horrible Deniers.

[AugustineB]

Spain? Over half from renewables? That would seem to be news to the Spanish Government........

"Spain proposes doubling of renewable energy capacity

Government sets out plan to generate over 22 per cent of energy from renewable sources by 2020

Rachel Fielding, BusinessGreen, 02 Mar 2010 "

We are both slightly wrong on this - the actual figure is 34.8 percent as of january - I believe the last figure I saw was 39 percent :

http://www.energias-renovables.com/paginas...Nombre=Noticias

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_energy_in_Spain

http://www.businessgreen.com/business-gree...oposes-doubling

Sweden? Yes, you guessed......

"By 2020 renewable energy should account for 20 percent of the EU's final energy consumption To meet this common target, each member state needs to increase its production and use of renewable energy in electricity, heating and cooling and transport. Sweeden has sat their target at 49 percent renewable energy by 2020."

http://www.nordicenergysolutions.org/perfo...nergy-in-sweden

Again last count Sweden is producing 40 percent of its energy from renwables :

http://www.energy.eu/#renewable

Without quibbling over exact figures , safe to say , a significant fraction of energy produced by renewable energy in both countries and has not been accompanied by a huge rise in the cost of living - as the alarmists suggest.

Yep, Associated Press got it wrong, and before they retracted the incorrect version, many other fawning outlets had brainlessly seized on and parroted, almost verbatim, this alarmist nonsense.

It is not a rock island, as the Bangladeshi authorities have clearly stated

Can we have some sources for these two bits of information please (the retraction and the clear statement by the Bangladeshi authorities) ?

t 3mm a year it should have taken 666 years to sink that 2 meter high island,

Global sea level rise has local variations just like temperature.

So anyway - how are the satellite readings explained - a conspiracy ? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Current_sea_level_rise

I would still like an explanation as to how some skeptics deny sea rise is happening yet accept the world is warming (just thats its not manmade).

Edited March 28, 2010 by AugustineB

[canuckamuck]

t 3mm a year it should have taken 666 years to sink that 2 meter high island,

Global sea level rise has local variations just like temperature.

So anyway - how are the satellite readings explained - a conspiracy ? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Current_sea_level_rise

I would still like an explanation as to how some skeptics deny sea rise is happening yet accept the world is warming (just thats its not manmade).

So exactly how local is sea level rise, where it is affecting specific islands in the Bay of Bengal (e.g. 2M in 35 years) but not flooding anywhere in Thailand, or India. You do realize that water generally runs downhill right? Or should we start the science lesson there?

As far as sea level rise actually occurring or to how much; there is obviously some dispute among experts. But since we are warmer globally than we were 200 years ago, for example, then I can see the logic that there should be some sea level rise. I cannot see that this immediately makes the cause to be man or this to be a sign of doom. Especially considering that records show a continual rise and fall of global temperatures and sea levels which were not caused by man.

Edited March 28, 2010 by canuckamuck