Climate change will show no mercy to dithering Thailand

[JDGRUEN]

People who believe that 'Climate Change' to the extent that it is real - is caused almost entirely by human activity are environmental religionists who have lost contact with reality. 'Climate Change' conveniently morphed from 'Global Warming' when the facts didn't hold up. Climate Change religionists seem to want to ignore the revelations of intentionally false data sets, bizarre unsupported predictions - that never came about, natural occurrences unrelated to climate change and dozens more factors. An

The greatest examples of REAL Climate change was the Great Ice Ages in relatively recent times (on the grand scale)... it got warm - then cold - then ice - then melting - then more stable weather - milder - great for humans. And during those ice ages the human population on Earth was miniscule compared the world population of today. Human Activity Did Not Contribute to the Great Ice Ages ... As one poster so elegantly pointed out - Climate Change - Warming - Cooling of the early is the result of the ongoing cycles of the Sun - the most powerful energy system in our World. The Earth's orbit around the sun is not a perfect ellipse, there are wobbles in the orbit of the earth around the sun, the earth is not perfectly stable on it's tilted axis - there are every so slight changes ... These seeming slight wobbles and changes coupled with changes in the sun's internal cycles are the reason we have great periods of warming - then cooling - then ice - then melting ...etc. etc. Human activity contributes only a tiny fraction to global warming - climate change... to the extent that climate change is real

And C02 is not a toxic gas... the earth would not have life as we know it without C02... plants take in C02 and expel Oxygen... animals take in Oxygen and exhale C02... Any greenhouse effect that is going on is more likely due to natural releases of Methane.

I wish Climate Change (oh I forgot - Global Warming) Religionists would go get mental health counseling for their obsession based on lies and distortions and outright myths (their religious beliefs)... Not the mention the real motivation behind the Environmental Religionists push and shove on Climate Change as caused by human activity is CONTROL... they are nothing more than CONTROL FREAKS .. obsessive - compulsive control freaks with an agenda... and the method of control is to FORCE rich countries to share the wealth by excising Carbon Taxes to reach their agenda ... what a laugh ...

[RPCVguy]

Vincent, Good tongue in cheek satirical reply. The 100%Dividend part of the Carbon Tax plan was elaborated upon already. It needs to be paid out quickly (monthly direct deposit)
... and evenly shared per household.
As those carbon-tax costs get passed through to consumers (who would have their monthly dividend checks to blunt/ over-ride the pass-through costs) there would already be some operations located or planned to use cleaner energy streams AND THEY WOULD IMMEDIATELY HAVE A MARKET/ PROFITABILITY ADVANTAGE. The market forces of making CO2 polluters pay real societal costs does force change, it does so inexorably. Since all the MBAs at every corporate headquarters would read the projections clearly, there would be a race between corporation to get ahead of their competition in having the cost advantage - further speeding the transition.

Of course, it would be easier for some companies to do the marketing blitz to obfuscate the need to cease warming the planet ever faster - because the short term profits in nations like the USA are big enough to bribe (er "Lobby effectively") too many politicians and too much of the media, but that does not deny the force and clarity of transition via a tax and dividend plan.

The real challenge to overcome the corporate effort (example Koch Brothers) is to indeed spread the message loud and clear that CO2 has got to be controlled, and atmospheric concentrations need to be brought down to 350 ppm, maybe slightly lower.
(Oh,and YES,...some of the excess over usual 280 ppm for interglacial periods is what may be needed to balance the 44,000 year cycle in Earth's orbit - to avoid another Ice Age.)

I'll repeat - there IS a PR campaign obfuscating the truth. The question does resolve logically, just look at this image and meditate upon it.

[RPCVguy]

After ranting, you then quoted me. Get your facts straight please.
Don't cherry pick the data.
Look at the insulation factor of CO2 to push the solar absorption/radiance balance out of the equilibrium it has been in since the Ice Ages began.

Oh, and this argument is a red herring. (hence I highlighted it in red.) Not my words.
What I did recommend is this scientific presentation by Dr.Richard Alley -

People who believe that 'Climate Change' to the extent that it is real - is caused almost entirely by human activity are environmental religionists who have lost contact with reality. 'Climate Change' conveniently morphed from 'Global Warming' when the facts didn't hold up. Climate Change religionists seem to want to ignore the revelations of intentionally false data sets, bizarre unsupported predictions - that never came about, natural occurrences unrelated to climate change and dozens more factors. An

As one poster so elegantly pointed out - Climate Change - Warming - Cooling of the early is the result of the ongoing cycles of the Sun - the most powerful energy system in our World. The Earth's orbit around the sun is not a perfect ellipse, there are wobbles in the orbit of the earth around the sun, the earth is not perfectly stable on it's tilted axis - there are every so slight changes ... These seeming slight wobbles and changes coupled with changes in the sun's internal cycles are the reason we have great periods of warming - then cooling - then ice - then melting ...etc. etc.

And C02 is not a toxic gas... the earth would not have life as we know it without C02... plants take in C02 and expel Oxygen... animals take in Oxygen and exhale C02... Any greenhouse effect that is going on is more likely due to natural releases of Methane.

[JDGRUEN]

After ranting, you then quoted me. Get your facts straight please.

Don't cherry pick the data.

Look at the insulation factor of CO2 to push the solar absorption/radiance balance out of the equilibrium it has been in since the Ice Ages began.

Oh, and this argument is a red herring. (hence I highlighted it in red.) Not my words.

What I did recommend is this scientific presentation by Dr.Richard Alley -

People who believe that 'Climate Change' to the extent that it is real - is caused almost entirely by human activity are environmental religionists who have lost contact with reality. 'Climate Change' conveniently morphed from 'Global Warming' when the facts didn't hold up. Climate Change religionists seem to want to ignore the revelations of intentionally false data sets, bizarre unsupported predictions - that never came about, natural occurrences unrelated to climate change and dozens more factors. An

As one poster so elegantly pointed out - Climate Change - Warming - Cooling of the early is the result of the ongoing cycles of the Sun - the most powerful energy system in our World. The Earth's orbit around the sun is not a perfect ellipse, there are wobbles in the orbit of the earth around the sun, the earth is not perfectly stable on it's tilted axis - there are every so slight changes ... These seeming slight wobbles and changes coupled with changes in the sun's internal cycles are the reason we have great periods of warming - then cooling - then ice - then melting ...etc. etc.

And C02 is not a toxic gas... the earth would not have life as we know it without C02... plants take in C02 and expel Oxygen... animals take in Oxygen and exhale C02... Any greenhouse effect that is going on is more likely due to natural releases of Methane.

Obsessive - Compulsive nitpicker you are ... here is the composition of the various gases in our atmosphere... Notice that at normal concentrations of C02 in the atmosphere - it is not toxic or we would all be dead... The subject of so called global warming - climate change is what is happening in our atmosphere - not what would happen in a closed chamber filled with any one of these gasses... You do understand that or don't you Nitpicker?

*****************************************************************

Composition of air in percent by volume, at sea level at 15°C and 101325 Pa.

Nitrogen -- N2 -- 78.084%

Oxygen -- O2 -- 20.9476%

Argon -- Ar -- 0.934%

Carbon Dioxide -- CO2 -- 0.0314%

Neon -- Ne -- 0.001818%

Methane -- CH4 -- 0.0002%

Helium -- He -- 0.000524%

Krypton -- Kr -- 0.000114%

Hydrogen -- H2 -- 0.00005%

Xenon -- Xe -- 0.0000087%

Ozone -- O3 -- 0.000007%

[RPCVguy]

So you have no problem with the chart then? I only mentioned the temperature record, so no need to bring any personalities into this.

We were hotter and it got hot faster in the recent past. And now we are below the last 10,000 year's average temperature. We are possibly slipping into an ice age. Which would be an actual problem. Hopefully we can hang on to this heat for a while longer.

... and a shout out to JDGRUEN who maybe misunderstood my denial... I denied ever referring to CO2 as toxic. I've repeatedly pointed to the increased thermal insulation it is providing to the atmosphere.

Back to Canuckamuck

I agree with the chart as data, but reposted from a different source to get to "current" instead of 95 years ago. The other chart then includes back further - so as to show coming out of the Ice Age. Included with that link are related geological events of a magnitude to affect climate... Canadian Lake and volcanic activity.

I'm not denying that CO2 usually is the trailing part of the equilibrium - most often led by eccentricities in the Earth's orbit and tilt... BUT I am the chemist who sees that any equilibrium can be pushed to a new balance point by adding material to one side of the equation. This is what happens with CO2 over oceans forming Carbonic Acid... Add to the concentration of CO2 in the air leads to more absorption in the oceans leads to more acidity /less alkalinity of the oceans. (In chemical equations an arrow pointing in both directions is the symbol to indicate reactants on both sides of the equation are present in an ongoing active/ dynamic balance.)

see http://ion.chem.usu.edu/~sbialkow/Classes/3600/Overheads/Carbonate/CO2.html for one posting of a chemistry class.

Bottom line, "Total carbonate increases with pH. " But, as pH is now pushed down (less alkaline) shell fish struggle to have hard shells.

Prof. Alley is a geologist, and in his lecture video he details how the eventual weathering of rock (by carbonic acid in rain) is part of the long term thermostatic effect of CO2. He uses the geologic data...

Me, I tag along on those segments, following the chemistry of the shellfish and of the weathering, and then get back into my stronger areas when looking at the energy absorption properties of CO2 as in the paper by David Wasdell on Climate Sensitivity. (when I referred to James Hansen as being more likely right than the IPCC.) http://www.apollo-gaia.org/Climate%20Sensitivity.pdf ... particularly look at pages 6 through 12.

It is the magnitude of chemical imbalance...the releasing (by burning) of carbon that had been sequestered in the earth as about a hundred million years of photosynthesis over the geologically very short span of a century that has pushed the atmospheric CO2 concentration from 280ppm to 400ppm. THIS is the reason the formerly lag indicator has moved into becoming the driving force for changing/ warming the planet's climate.

Edited July 4, 2014 by RPCVguy

[Choctastic]

Those prior events were NOT driven by CO2, but by the orbital gyrations of the planet. This time the tipping off balance is because of the insulation values of the added CO2 in the air, amplified over decades by the increase of water vapor and reduction in snow/ ice cover. Yes,the amount of added heat absorbed is set to take the planet far beyond the 2 degrees - unless we ace the issue now. Nature does not negotiate its laws of physics.

See the 2 attachments.

Bravo for being so non-confrontational in your responses. Refreshing. I shall press on regardless though with my brief foray into the murky waters of TV GW land.

When it comes to 'gyrations' the planet can't hold a candle to the zealots. 'Warming' when it's hot and 'Warming' when it's chuffing freezing. Still waiting for a weather event not laid at that door.

The CO2 argument reminds me very much of medical marketing, which relies heavily on the public's ignorance of 'relative' versus 'actual' risk. The media print headlines such as 'Breakthrough!! Eureka!! 50% reduction in HIV transmission, if you take this shiny new toxic pill!'. They fill many a daily paper with 'relative' reductions which are invariably sent by labs or 'scientists' panhandling for grant money. What they don't tell you is that an 'actual' risk of 0.000009 is now 0.000018. In other words, bugger all. None of these 'breakthroughs' ever materialize because they are simply marketing deceptions.

In one graph you posted it stated that C02 levels had increased from 290ppm to 390ppm.

"Oh no! Run for the hills!"

Hang on a minute. That is 0.00029 to 0.00039

I am not a scientist but I have to say both these numbers are negligible.

Did you actually read the article you posted? That the Insurance Industry is looking into extreme weather events shows that there may be money to be made. It is full of the usual caveats and holes. They are using computer models and we know what happens there. Garbage in, garbage out. Enter the 'adjusted' NOAA numbers and hey presto! Increased risk of extreme events. It doesn't state it has sold a policy yet and they are simply assessing the risk.

They try to sell the twaddle that insurance companies are neutral about profit, when they find many a reason not to pay out to policy holders. A decision to sell a climate risk policy is a commercial one. If enough people are convinced the end is nigh, there is a market opportunity. There is no mention in the article that man is responsible for the increase in Hurricane activity and this sentence renders the whole piece, speculation... 'The fact that the frequency of some catastrophic weather events MAY be changing due to climate change...'

[canuckamuck]

deleted

Edited July 4, 2014 by canuckamuck

[ClutchClark]

^{I'm a geologist. So is Don Easterbrook here giving testimony to the US congress. Man Made GLobal Warming/Climate Change is absolute bunk.}

^{http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4LkMweOVOOI&feature=player_embedded}

And all these years I thought geologists studied rocks and told us where to drill for O & G.

The geologists I know work for Energy companies...not one of the branches of science full of tree huggers and friends of bunnies.

Thanks for the information.

Edited July 4, 2014 by ClutchClark

[ClutchClark]

Double Post

Edited July 4, 2014 by ClutchClark

[ClutchClark]

The earth is about 4.5 billion years old and "scientists" are using a few hundred years of data. How can anyone draw any conclusions from such a miniscule amount of data?

I am really onboard with your way of thinking.

Science is so over-rated. The only science is junk science if history tells us anything.

It reminds me of all those lemmings who go to the hospital to treat their illnesses when everybody knows that modern medicine is based on the same BS scientific theory as everything else these stupid scientists screw around with.

How do they describe it again?

A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method, and repeatedly confirmed through observation and experimentation.

What a load of bull.

And where did you get that crazy idea that the world is about 4.5 billion years old? My friend, that is more of the same brain-washing as Global Warming.

I am just glad there are some of us who see past all the lies of the modern world.

Edited July 4, 2014 by ClutchClark

[RPCVguy]

Those prior events were NOT driven by CO2, but by the orbital gyrations of the planet. This time the tipping off balance is because of the insulation values of the added CO2 in the air, amplified over decades by the increase of water vapor and reduction in snow/ ice cover. Yes,the amount of added heat absorbed is set to take the planet far beyond the 2 degrees - unless we ace the issue now. Nature does not negotiate its laws of physics.

See the 2 attachments.

Bravo for being so non-confrontational in your responses. Refreshing. I shall press on regardless though with my brief foray into the murky waters of TV GW land.

When it comes to 'gyrations' the planet can't hold a candle to the zealots. 'Warming' when it's hot and 'Warming' when it's chuffing freezing. Still waiting for a weather event not laid at that door.

The CO2 argument reminds me very much of medical marketing, which relies heavily on the public's ignorance of 'relative' versus 'actual' risk. The media print headlines such as 'Breakthrough!! Eureka!! 50% reduction in HIV transmission, if you take this shiny new toxic pill!'. They fill many a daily paper with 'relative' reductions which are invariably sent by labs or 'scientists' panhandling for grant money. What they don't tell you is that an 'actual' risk of 0.000009 is now 0.000018. In other words, bugger all. None of these 'breakthroughs' ever materialize because they are simply marketing deceptions.

In one graph you posted it stated that C02 levels had increased from 290ppm to 390ppm.

"Oh no! Run for the hills!"

Hang on a minute. That is 0.00029 to 0.00039

I am not a scientist but I have to say both these numbers are negligible.

Did you actually read the article you posted? That the Insurance Industry is looking into extreme weather events shows that there may be money to be made. It is full of the usual caveats and holes. They are using computer models and we know what happens there. Garbage in, garbage out. Enter the 'adjusted' NOAA numbers and hey presto! Increased risk of extreme events. It doesn't state it has sold a policy yet and they are simply assessing the risk.

They try to sell the twaddle that insurance companies are neutral about profit, when they find many a reason not to pay out to policy holders. A decision to sell a climate risk policy is a commercial one. If enough people are convinced the end is nigh, there is a market opportunity. There is no mention in the article that man is responsible for the increase in Hurricane activity and this sentence renders the whole piece, speculation... 'The fact that the frequency of some catastrophic weather events MAY be changing due to climate change...'

Thank you for the compliment upfront.

Like you, I find troubling /downright distasteful a great deal of the marketing.

I also understand that many here on TV share your situation and opinion:

"I am not a scientist but I have to say both these numbers are negligible."

My reply- "Those numbers may APPEAR NEGLIGIBLE, BUT THEY ARE VERY SIGNIFICANT"

That is where the pages 6-12 of David Wasdell's analysis attempt to explain the numbers. Try reading those pages and see if they can help you. This next article makes the same point, same numbers, but uses shock terminology to communicate the meaning in a way that is remembered. Its a matter of doing the math, ...mostly of multiplying out the watts of energy by the sunlit surface area of the Earth.

It is the accumulation of this heat (90% into the oceans) that makes this a cumulative /escalating problem.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/4-Hiroshima-bombs-worth-of-heat-per-second.html

Expressed in this way, people begin to grasp that there is a sufficient push to change the climate... And yes, it all comes from the increasing density of our atmospheric greenhouse gases... "triggered by" but not solely warmed by CO2.

(I found that the 4th comment under that article may assist people...and it also attempted using the kettle analogy.

shoyemore at 07:35 AM on 2 July, 2013

Meanwhile there were attempts to explain this energy in less violent ways

Tom Curtis at 10:00 AM on 2 July, 2013

Trying yet another analogy... Nights in Thailand are rarely very cool. If needed, a light blanket can be added - and even that is often kicked off because it is too much. The CO2 is a very light blanket over a very large area. It is not one to be kicked off. What was in balance is now out of balance, and the continued use of fossil fuels keeps thickening the blanket faster than plants, oceans or weathering of rock can handle.

This means the consequential changes to climate will persist, and continue to be compounded. Even if all burning of fossil fuels were stopped immediately (impossible) the thermal imbalance will take decades before the temperature would cease to climb. Our current civilization is enjoying the convenience of energy use - that future generations will bear the consequences of.

Back to Vincent's question of people taking the easiest current path - I agree. It will take a caliber of leadership not currently abundant to communicate and enact a policy for survival. I don't see people as yet hard pressed enough to give up the global economy and accept that we are within a century of having survival at risk.

Change will come - but more likely under the terms nature delivers harshly, rather than due to humans being collectively sapient.

[GettingOlder]

I sadly observe that the same peope who gladly utilise great mankind technological innovations (cars, computers, television, u name it), which are actually based on fundamental science - later matured into products and services - seem not to accept the conclusions of the very majority of scientists specialised in climate. There will always be a few outliers, can't expect 100% consensus...

The climate IS currently rapidly changing and mankind has to deal with it. Why bother if the change is man made? Why bother if it was hotter 100.000 years ago. The world was different at that time and mankind was not even there... Its getting (global average) hotter right now than a few decades ago and we have to deal with the many consequences, and possibly reduce the impact when considered negative. And there are many where I like to put to attention that just a couple degrees Celsius permanent change favours other flora and fauna competition, and predictions of that is probably even more difficult than predicting the rise in sea level.

Yes, the world has other problems that climate change, and not easy to prioritize. But don't do like most people starting today's work each morning - they attend the urgent but small impact tasks which are easily resolvable, but at end of the day the significant tasks are still undone.

As well explained by others, we can expect an incubation effect, so that the effects of current conditions are to be seen a couple of decades ahead. I feel sorry for my kids - I am not proud of the legacy...

My greatest concern is rising sea level, however just one of many consequences - reduced inhabitable (fertile) land and derived relocation, fighting, war...

Edited July 4, 2014 by GettingOlder

[ClutchClark]

I sadly observe that the same peope who gladly utilise great mankind technological innovations (cars, computers, television, u name it), which are actually based on fundamental science - later matured into products and services - seem not to accept the conclusions of the very majority of scientists specialised in climate. There will always be a few outliers, can't expect 100% consensus...

The climate IS currently rapidly changing and mankind has to deal with it. Why bother if the change is man made? Why bother if it was hotter 100.000 years ago. The world was different at that time and mankind was not even there... Its getting (global average) hotter right now than a few decades ago and we have to deal with the many consequences, and possibly reduce the impact when considered negative. And there are many where I like to put to attention that just a couple degrees Celsius permanent change favours other flora and fauna competition, and predictions of that is probably even more difficult than predicting the rise in sea level.

Yes, the world has other problems that climate change, and not easy to prioritize. But don't do like most people starting today's work each morning - they attend the urgent but small impact tasks which are easily resolvable, but at end of the day the significant tasks are still undone.

As well explained by others, we can expect an incubation effect, so that the effects of current conditions are to be seen a couple of decades ahead. I feel sorry for my kids - I am not proud of the legacy...

My greatest concern is rising sea level, however just one of many consequences - reduced inhabitable (fertile) land and derived relocation, fighting, war...

You guys and your crazy talk about Climate Change...next thing you'll be tellin' us is that the warmer temps are allowing insects to establish themselves in locations previously too cold and these insects are causing problems to the agricultural/food supplies that the human inhabitants depend on.

Sheesh. What next? Are you going to suggest that warmer water temps in the Arctic have pushed the ice pack 20x further out to sea and this impacts the Natives ability to hunt whales and other subsistence practices they have relied on for centuries?

Cheers

Edited July 4, 2014 by ClutchClark

[boomerangutang]

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

Man made climate change is a load of bullshit,when Britain was under the ice ,there were no men about ,and when the Sahara desert was a forest ,was it manmade then ,just a way to tax you .

You miss the point. It's not an issue of what happened historically. No one contests the fact that profound cooling and heating has been going on for tens of thousands, and for millions of years on Earth. The issue is what's going on currently and what's projected for ensuing decades. The main reason is: there's overpopulation, it's going to get worse, and large populations have adapted to many marginal locales. Namely: swamps, arctic, deserts, low-lying coastal regions. Those type of 'borderline survivable' regions are most vulnerable if there are rises in temps or in sea levels. Already, as deserts expand, and seas rise, we're seeing large scale migrations. Such troubling trends will only get more pronounced. Some current trouble spots: Central Africa, Middle East, Bangladesh, Saharan Africa - which already suffer from too many people, and their misery will only get exacerbated by big climate swings, and sea level rises and spreading desertification and overall decimation of habitat.

private corporations and their sales teams the governments push climate change science as a way to implement a tax on carbon dioxide. Most scientists that are not in the pocket of big business say its a scam, pure propaganda perpetrated for profit and control.

That's old stuff. Carbon tax is not on the front burner any more. That's a flaccid argument by GW deniers. Deniers need to spiff up their arguments at the risk of looking like they're grasping at straws.

[canuckamuck]

I sadly observe that the same peope who gladly utilise great mankind technological innovations (cars, computers, television, u name it), which are actually based on fundamental science - later matured into products and services - seem not to accept the conclusions of the very majority of scientists specialised in climate. There will always be a few outliers, can't expect 100% consensus...

The climate IS currently rapidly changing and mankind has to deal with it. Why bother if the change is man made? Why bother if it was hotter 100.000 years ago. The world was different at that time and mankind was not even there... Its getting (global average) hotter right now than a few decades ago and we have to deal with the many consequences, and possibly reduce the impact when considered negative. And there are many where I like to put to attention that just a couple degrees Celsius permanent change favours other flora and fauna competition, and predictions of that is probably even more difficult than predicting the rise in sea level.

Yes, the world has other problems that climate change, and not easy to prioritize. But don't do like most people starting today's work each morning - they attend the urgent but small impact tasks which are easily resolvable, but at end of the day the significant tasks are still undone.

As well explained by others, we can expect an incubation effect, so that the effects of current conditions are to be seen a couple of decades ahead. I feel sorry for my kids - I am not proud of the legacy...

My greatest concern is rising sea level, however just one of many consequences - reduced inhabitable (fertile) land and derived relocation, fighting, war...

"Global warming alarmists and their allies in the liberal media have been caught doctoring the results of a widely cited paper asserting there is a 97-percent scientific consensus regarding human-caused global warming. After taking a closer look at the paper, investigative journalists report the authors’ claims of a 97-pecent consensus relied on the authors misclassifying the papers of some of the world’s most prominent global warming skeptics. At the same time, the authors deliberately presented a meaningless survey question so they could twist the responses to fit their own preconceived global warming alarmism."

This from a Forbes article, the rest can be read here Global Warming Alarmists Caught Doctoring '97-Percent Consensus' Claims

Edited July 4, 2014 by canuckamuck

[ClutchClark]

Would urge people not to click on Canucks link because it just froze up my computer and required a reboot.

Edited July 4, 2014 by ClutchClark

[canuckamuck]

Well I can't say what happened with your attempt to link. I have no problem linking to it. but the site is Forbes.com and not some attack site. perhaps your computer is set to block articles that disagree with your politics.

Here is the link with a space where the dot should be in dot com. I am quite sure it is legitimate.

www.forbes com/sites/jamestaylor/2013/05/30/global-warming-alarmists-caught-doctoring-97-percent-consensus-claims

If you really believe in the 97% consensus I suggest you look up the method in how John Cook came up with that number.

Edited July 4, 2014 by canuckamuck

[rakman]

<quote>

You are cherry picking your science, a symptom of American Republicans. Are you one of those George Murderous Bush touting, Rush WIndbag worshipping idiots?

The rapidity of the Greenland ice shelf melting is so rapid that the land mass is rising an inch a year -- ask a geologist, and they will tell that is an insane development. Ask the people whose islands are being swallowed by the rising seas -- just pick one out of literally thousands -- and your arguments do not hold water. Ask people in central Virginia, where they will tell you that it snowed every year while they were growing up and now it is once every few years, because they live where snow is neither absent nor constant and can tell you their margin has shifted..

First, industrialists claimed there was no change. Then they claimed there might be change. Then they admitted there was change going on, even rapid change, but it was not from human action. Now the new call to inaction is that 'there is rapid change, but we cannot do anything about it."

I am one of the 97% of the scientists who agree, and I am no bogus lie. At conferences all over the world, in poll after poll after poll, more than 96.2% of all relevant scientists agree on climate change and furiously argue about what should and can be done (some polls only ask physicians, who are neither meteorologists nor climatologists, and are funded by Republican group-think tanks).

You are cherry picking scientific information to fulfill a political agenda.

That is laughable.

</quote>

Talk about cherry picking.. you are the altar boy of the AGW religion

[rakman]

<..snip>

The climate IS currently rapidly changing and mankind has to deal with it. Why bother if the change is man made? Why bother if it was hotter 100.000 years ago. The world was different at that time and mankind was not even there... Its getting (global average) hotter right now than a few decades ago and we have to deal with the many consequences, and possibly reduce the impact when considered negative. And there are many where I like to put to attention that just a couple degrees Celsius permanent change favours other flora and fauna competition, and predictions of that is probably even more difficult than predicting the rise in sea level.

<../snip>

My greatest concern is rising sea level, however just one of many consequences - reduced inhabitable (fertile) land and derived relocation, fighting, war...

We haven't had a rise in global temperature in over 13 years.

In the 70's, the computer models gave us warnings of a new ice age. The current computer models predictions also don't match what is happening even with higher CO2.

Water vapor is a much bigger global warming gas than CO2.

Higher CO2 increases crop yields.

Can anyone name a place that hasn't had ground sinking that has real sea level rise?

Bkk isn't experiencing sea level rise, it's sinking.

[VincentRJ]

I sadly observe that the same peope who gladly utilise great mankind technological innovations (cars, computers, television, u name it), which are actually based on fundamental science - later matured into products and services - seem not to accept the conclusions of the very majority of scientists specialised in climate. There will always be a few outliers, can't expect 100% consensus...

In order to determine what the 'real' and scientifically accurate consensus is, using scientific methodology, one would have to privately interview each individual scientist working in the 20 to 30 different specialities involved in the very broad discipline of climatology.

One would have to assure such scientists beforehand that the results of the interview would not be associated with their name or revealed to their employer. Ideally, they should be asked to accept a lie detector test during the interview, but I doubt that that would be practicable, so already such a methodology of determining the 'true' consensus is flawed.

It's a well-established fact that employees in any organisation are expected to be in broad agreement with the goals and motivations of the organisation. Climate Research centres around the globe have been created, and funded by public money, mainly as a result of a perceived threat from rising CO2 levels. Even the most junior scientific assistant in such an organisation would surely realise that such funding would likely be maintained only if the threat of climate change is maintained.

The other issue, which seems to be poorly understood by non-scientists, or those who have read little about the history and the methodology of science, is that the scientific theories that are at the foundation of our cars, computers and televisions etc, have been tried and tested repeatedly, in the laboratory, in real time, in relation to real conditions and accurately simulated conditions. That a car or a TV works is a testament to the accuracy of the scientific theories involved in its production.

The science of climate change is a different order of complexity with strong elements of chaos. Predictions often cannot be tested in real time. We have to rely upon computer models. Ask yourself, would you take a new drug that had never been tested even on mice, and which had been created using computer models that suggested it 'should' work and hopefully 'should not' have serious side effects?

[GettingOlder]

<..snip>

The climate IS currently rapidly changing and mankind has to deal with it. Why bother if the change is man made? Why bother if it was hotter 100.000 years ago. The world was different at that time and mankind was not even there... Its getting (global average) hotter right now than a few decades ago and we have to deal with the many consequences, and possibly reduce the impact when considered negative. And there are many where I like to put to attention that just a couple degrees Celsius permanent change favours other flora and fauna competition, and predictions of that is probably even more difficult than predicting the rise in sea level.

<../snip>

My greatest concern is rising sea level, however just one of many consequences - reduced inhabitable (fertile) land and derived relocation, fighting, war...

We haven't had a rise in global temperature in over 13 years.

In the 70's, the computer models gave us warnings of a new ice age. The current computer models predictions also don't match what is happening even with higher CO2.

Water vapor is a much bigger global warming gas than CO2.

Higher CO2 increases crop yields.

Can anyone name a place that hasn't had ground sinking that has real sea level rise?

Bkk isn't experiencing sea level rise, it's sinking.

Instead of yourself interpreting and picking which consequences fit your predetermined opinion, you could (critically) try relying on what specialised scientists, spending most of their awake hours investigating the topic, conclude.

One thing is prediction of the future, another thing is historical observations. Getting accurate data is an art in itself but let the thousands of nerds do their job and then try extract the consensus....

Warming is one thing, rising sea level is another... They are somewhat related, as increased melting of the huge amounts of ice stored at the poles and Greenland can dramatically change the sea levels, while heating the sea will also cause expansion of the already present sea (only valid for sea water being more than 4C). And salinity and other factors are involved...

But although I hold a Ph.D. in chemical engineering, I do not believe that I can contribute ANYTHING to the very complicated analysis and interpretations related to climate - I leave that to the nerds - or should I say those nerds as I myself could be considered being a nerd when focusing on another topic.

Below is a recent graph, just one of many, showing the MEASURED, averaged trend for global sea level, based on ultra precise satellite measurements, so only going back 20 years. So this research group in Colorado Uni finds that for the last 20 years the global sea level has increased 3.2 mm per year. And there is no sign of any levelling out, although I have heard others concluding that the RISE is levelling of (still rising but lower speed). Anyway, the sea level already rose 6.5 cm since 1994, and in 50 years when my kids coming kids (I can hope they want to reproduce themselves and I get to enjoy grand children) are going to settle down in their own house - together with probably 50% more people on the Earth than today which is another major challenge - the sea level has most probably increased further 15-20 cm.

IPCC and others predict far higher rise, due to predicted accelerated level increase but lets for the time being question if there will be an acceleration... Here is a slightly outdated graph comparing various research groups predictions, all predicting level increase around 1-1.5 m over the coming century.

Now, for most regions the land shrinkage only starts getting severe at 1 meter increase, but quite a lot highly fertile land will fast be affected (all the large river deltas). But also BKK, NYC and other metropolis will face giant challenges... If I am lucky it will be my grand-grand kids that will face those challenges :-)

[RPCVguy]

My reply inserted using indented /blue text :

<..snip>
The climate IS currently rapidly changing and mankind has to deal with it. Why bother if the change is man made? Why bother if it was hotter 100.000 years ago. The world was different at that time and mankind was not even there... Its getting (global average) hotter right now than a few decades ago and we have to deal with the many consequences, and possibly reduce the impact when considered negative. And there are many where I like to put to attention that just a couple degrees Celsius permanent change favours other flora and fauna competition, and predictions of that is probably even more difficult than predicting the rise in sea level.

<../snip>
My greatest concern is rising sea level, however just one of many consequences - reduced inhabitable (fertile) land and derived relocation, fighting, war...

We haven't had a rise in global temperature in over 13 years.

Asked previously and answered... Yes, there are cycles of warming, then slower apparent warming.
I shared this one earlier,and I'm attaching another image below. Global (Land & Sea) Warming has not stopped.

90% of the heat is going into the oceans. It is the accumulation of this heat (90% into the oceans) that makes this a cumulative /escalating problem.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/4-Hiroshima-bombs-worth-of-heat-per-second.html
You may begin to acknowledge this as El Nino events increase in frequency and strength.

In the 70's, the computer models gave us warnings of a new ice age. The current computer models predictions also don't match what is happening even with higher CO2.

Water vapor is a much bigger global warming gas than CO2.

The cooling after World War II was forced by human-produced aerosols, based on available information. And the idea that scientists were warning about global cooling in the 1970s, so beloved of the “skeptics”, is a misrepresentation. Newsweek ran an article on this, and some interesting science was being done on ice-age cycling, and on cooling by particulates, and the possibility of a “nuclear winter”, but the scientific community was already primarily focused on warming at that time, and never released any consensus documents pointing to cooling. And while Newsweek may be a respected general-information source, it is NOT a respected scientific source.
BTW - even Nixon's staff knew. (See attached from the Nixon Library)

Higher CO2 increases crop yields.

This is the commonly believed but incomplete view.
Only to a certain point, after which plants accept the abundance but either lack other nutrients or begin increasing their production of defensive toxins.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/plants-carbon-sinking-capacity-is-much-lower-than-thought/

"As carbon dioxide increases in the atmosphere, plants become more efficient at producing their food and chemical requirements. They can allocate more resources for defence against pests. This is good for the plants but bad for the animals that eat them. Plants produce more toxins such as cyanide and it is thought the chemical composition of some leaves may make them unsuitable for animals which once relied on them as food. Protein is reduced and animals need to eat more leaves to maintain their level of proteins. Ros Gleadow warns that changing the composition of the atmosphere has broader consequences than just climate change. There are direct effects on plants, some of which don't grow so well under increased atmospheric carbon dioxide."
http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/scienceshow/how-plants-respond-to-increasing-carbon-dioxide/3031138#transcript

What IS being observed already is that negative impacts of Climate Change are outpacing positive impacts.

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/mar/31/climate-change-food-supply-un

Can anyone name a place that hasn't had ground sinking that has real sea level rise?

Bkk isn't experiencing sea level rise, it's sinking.

Other than very low lying Pacific Island nations, or those places built upon river deltas (like New Orleans, Bangkok, or much of Bangladesh) the problem of sea level rise still appears to be very slow incremental. (not much consolation for affected people, especially as storm surges start from a higher base.)
The incremental rise DOES have a hidden tipping point concern of unknown timing. The geologic record shows large ice sheets such as in Antarctica can and have floated off their shallow bases allowing huge amounts of ice to break free and once in the open sea, melt rapidly. Those events look to be after the floating ice sheets cease buffering the ice-locking continental ridge. Those events are non-linear/ events of meters of rise over a few decades, and we don't have any certainty yet as to when or even if they will occur during this interglacial.
Again a video of Alley (the key part is in the last 10 minutes) Slip Slidin' Away - Ice sheets and sea level in a warming world - YouTube
If any of those here have a subscription to"Nature", then there is a wealth of data beyond the abstract at
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v458/n7236/full/nature07809.html

[boomerangutang]

responses, below in pig's blood red (in Thai: see luat mu)

We haven't had a rise in global temperature in over 13 years. not so

In the 70's, the computer models gave us warnings of a new ice age. The current computer models predictions also don't match what is happening even with higher CO2. Water vapor is a much bigger global warming gas than CO2. Methane is considered 8 to 20 times more of a greenhouse gas than CO2, and methane releases are increasing, particularly at areas with tundra.

Higher CO2 increases crop yields.

Can anyone name a place that hasn't had ground sinking that has real sea level rise?

Bkk isn't experiencing sea level rise, it's sinking.

A combination; rising seas and sinking soil. Not a whole lot of that happening now, but as with future methane releases, it could worsen, and sections of Bkk would have year 'round standing water. Putting a large levee around Bkk and further walling in the Chao Praya (and its tributaries) have been suggested. That, along with mega pumps would be a bad idea. Mother nature doesn't take to well to being walled out. Plus, when you wall something out, you're also walling things in.

[spidermike007]

Considering the fraud science that is perpetrated by the likes of Hanson and Mann et.al. The IPCC report which keeps being quoted as the bible is a regurgitation of false information.

All the computer models say we should be another degree warmer, but temperatures have either not changed or have gone down in the last 15 years. The amount of ice in the Arctic and Antarctic has grown. The US Great Lakes broke new records of ice, but one year is not climate.

How can the US historical temperature go down in the early 20th century and be higher than measured in the late 20th century? First, historical data doesn't change, unless modified by an agency with a flawed computer models and a agenda.

Statistical studies show fewer storms and less energy than historical norms have happened over the last years. One reason these storms seem so bad, there are more people and development in harms way.

The lesser countries are looking to cash in on a global tax bonanza, and they are just lining up for the payoff.

The 97% of scientists agreeing is another bogus lie, but the propaganda masters know if you tell it long enough and often enough it will be believed.

You are cherry picking your science, a symptom of American Republicans. Are you one of those George Murderous Bush touting, Rush WIndbag worshipping idiots?

The rapidity of the Greenland ice shelf melting is so rapid that the land mass is rising an inch a year -- ask a geologist, and they will tell that is an insane development. Ask the people whose islands are being swallowed by the rising seas -- just pick one out of literally thousands -- and your arguments do not hold water. Ask people in central Virginia, where they will tell you that it snowed every year while they were growing up and now it is once every few years, because they live where snow is neither absent nor constant and can tell you their margin has shifted..

First, industrialists claimed there was no change. Then they claimed there might be change. Then they admitted there was change going on, even rapid change, but it was not from human action. Now the new call to inaction is that 'there is rapid change, but we cannot do anything about it."

I am one of the 97% of the scientists who agree, and I am no bogus lie. At conferences all over the world, in poll after poll after poll, more than 96.2% of all relevant scientists agree on climate change and furiously argue about what should and can be done (some polls only ask physicians, who are neither meteorologists nor climatologists, and are funded by Republican group-think tanks).

You are cherry picking scientific information to fulfill a political agenda.

That is laughable.

Agreed. Very few disagree on climate change. It is happening. Nearly all scientists agree. The debate is whether or not it is being caused by man. Not over whether or not it is happening. Within the boundaries of climate change, there are incremental ups and downs in temperature. An unusually cold winter is normal for climate change. Fluctuations are part of the science. Like anything in nature, there is no set pattern. So, one has to look at very long climate models to access correctly. Not one season.

Spidermike

Chaiyaphum, Thailand

Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

[RPCVguy]

Agreed. Very few disagree on climate change. It is happening. Nearly all scientists agree. The debate is whether or not it is being caused by man. Not over whether or not it is happening. Within the boundaries of climate change, there are incremental ups and downs in temperature. An unusually cold winter is normal for climate change. Fluctuations are part of the science. Like anything in nature, there is no set pattern. So, one has to look at very long climate models to access correctly. Not one season.

Spidermike

Chaiyaphum, Thailand

Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

Spidermike, ...fair statement. I highlighted the one segment I wish to respond to.

We are now 5 pages into the discussion and the CO2 contribution to triggering the warming is being more acknowledged than initially. I go back to my initial post (http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/738919-climate-change-will-show-no-mercy-to-dithering-thailand/#entry8043622) and say the human activity is demonstrably the cause of the inflection point.

When I made that post, two of the video links showed as images...but the 3rd never got much attention.

It is under 3 min. and shows that it is CO2 from burning fossil fuels and not volcanoes.

It's title is "It's Us" and it defines how the debate must settle out. This time I succeeded in getting the image to appear.

[spidermike007]

Agreed. Very few disagree on climate change. It is happening. Nearly all scientists agree. The debate is whether or not it is being caused by man. Not over whether or not it is happening. Within the boundaries of climate change, there are incremental ups and downs in temperature. An unusually cold winter is normal for climate change. Fluctuations are part of the science. Like anything in nature, there is no set pattern. So, one has to look at very long climate models to access correctly. Not one season.

Spidermike

Chaiyaphum, Thailand

Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

Spidermike, ...fair statement. I highlighted the one segment I wish to respond to.

We are now 5 pages into the discussion and the CO2 contribution to triggering the warming is being more acknowledged than initially. I go back to my initial post (http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/738919-climate-change-will-show-no-mercy-to-dithering-thailand/#entry8043622) and say the human activity is demonstrably the cause of the inflection point.

When I made that post, two of the video links showed as images...but the 3rd never got much attention.

It is under 3 min. and shows that it is CO2 from burning fossil fuels and not volcanoes.

It's title is "It's Us" and it defines how the debate must settle out. This time I succeeded in getting the image to appear.

Thanks. And for so much these days I rely more and more on common sense. When you look at the level of degradation we are currently engaged in, it just makes sense that it is going to have a huge impact on this exceptional planet we have been blessed with. Talk about playing with fire. Seems like too big a chance to take. Easy to use reason to bury ones head in the sand but the cost is high.

Spidermike007

[VincentRJ]

Higher CO2 increases crop yields.

This is the commonly believed but incomplete view.

Only to a certain point, after which plants accept the abundance but either lack other nutrients or begin increasing their production of defensive toxins.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/plants-carbon-sinking-capacity-is-much-lower-than-thought/

"As carbon dioxide increases in the atmosphere, plants become more efficient at producing their food and chemical requirements. They can allocate more resources for defence against pests. This is good for the plants but bad for the animals that eat them. Plants produce more toxins such as cyanide and it is thought the chemical composition of some leaves may make them unsuitable for animals which once relied on them as food. Protein is reduced and animals need to eat more leaves to maintain their level of proteins. Ros Gleadow warns that changing the composition of the atmosphere has broader consequences than just climate change. There are direct effects on plants, some of which don't grow so well under increased atmospheric carbon dioxide."

http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/scienceshow/how-plants-respond-to-increasing-carbon-dioxide/3031138#transcript

What IS being observed already is that negative impacts of Climate Change are outpacing positive impacts.

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/mar/31/climate-change-food-supply-un

RPCVguy,

All views are incomplete whatever the subject under discussion.

It's understood that all types of plants do not increase their growth equally with increased CO2 levels, and it's understood that growth is usually enhanced with increased application of water and fertilizers. Increased CO2 levels are just one ingredient in an increased rate of growth, and an ingredient which happens to be free.

If anyone is worried about reduced levels of protein and and other nutrients in their rice, as a consequence of increased CO2 levels, the solution is dead simple. Just make sure you always eat brown rice and wholemeal bread.

The fact that whole wheat flour and brown rice contain higher levels of protein, nutrients and minerals than white rice and white flour, is a scientific fact that is far more certain than the predicted dire effects of increased CO2 levels.

This reinforces my previous argument that it is unreasonable to expect the public to make any sacrifices to reduce CO2 levels in view of most people's attitude to other risks. If it can be demonstrated without a shadow of a doubt that brown rice is more nutritious than white rice, yet most people continue to eat white rice because they prefer the taste, then why should such people be expected to make sacrifices to avoid an uncertain threat to their well-being from climate change?

[JDGRUEN]

Agreed. Very few disagree on climate change. It is happening. Nearly all scientists agree. The debate is whether or not it is being caused by man. Not over whether or not it is happening. Within the boundaries of climate change, there are incremental ups and downs in temperature. An unusually cold winter is normal for climate change. Fluctuations are part of the science. Like anything in nature, there is no set pattern. So, one has to look at very long climate models to access correctly. Not one season.

Spidermike

Chaiyaphum, Thailand

Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

Spidermike, ...fair statement. I highlighted the one segment I wish to respond to.

We are now 5 pages into the discussion and the CO2 contribution to triggering the warming is being more acknowledged than initially. I go back to my initial post (http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/738919-climate-change-will-show-no-mercy-to-dithering-thailand/#entry8043622) and say the human activity is demonstrably the cause of the inflection point.

When I made that post, two of the video links showed as images...but the 3rd never got much attention.

It is under 3 min. and shows that it is CO2 from burning fossil fuels and not volcanoes.

It's title is "It's Us" and it defines how the debate must settle out. This time I succeeded in getting the image to appear.

Thanks. And for so much these days I rely more and more on common sense. When you look at the level of degradation we are currently engaged in, it just makes sense that it is going to have a huge impact on this exceptional planet we have been blessed with. Talk about playing with fire. Seems like too big a chance to take. Easy to use reason to bury ones head in the sand but the cost is high.

Spidermike007

You will grow very old and pass away many years from now and nothing permanent related to Climate Change will have happened ... Naive alarmist like you should be ticketed and fined for falsely spreading rumors and attempting to instill panic among the populist ...

[spidermike007]

You sound like a lobbyist for Dupont or Dow Chemical.

Spidermike007

[canuckamuck]

I am always amazed the the folks who mock the idea of a big green conspiracy are the first to claim a conspiracy of big oil or MNC's.

Of the three choices, only big green gets free money from national governments (1 billion $ a day) to run it's mouth. The other two have to do it out of pocket.