The myth of melting ice and rising seas

[heybruce]

12 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Try millennia ago.

Yeah, that's when the vikings were sailing, not walking, to Britain. 

 

If the point is that there was an ice age ten thousand plus years ago, I won't argue.  However that doesn't relieve concerns about dramatic rises in CO2 and temperatures in the last few decades.

[heybruce]

16 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

The ice cap theory only applies to ice that was formed on land. Sea ice that thaws does not add depth. The ice around Antarctica is mainly sea ice. Some of it is from glaciers, but so far not much of that has moved into the sea.

Should the Antarctic warm up, it will start to snow there, which would remove water from a liquid state and retain it as new ice.

 

There are explanations for island or land loss other than sea level rise.

You failed to mention Greenland, which is the greatest concern over the next few decades.  Antarctica is more of a long term concern.

[heybruce]

19 minutes ago, RickBradford said:

Edenhofer is not an "individual" with an individual agenda. He was at the time, co-chairman of the UN's IPCC, and an important policy setter for the IPCC. Not only do his views reflect the policies of the UN, in many cases his views created the policy of the UN.

 

The words don't change the science, but they completely dominate what policies are enacted on the basis of that science. And without government policy, climate science is irrelevant. That's why they hold these enormous gabfests every year (Conference of Parties) to try and thrash out global climate policy.

 

If you think that climate matters are unrelated to politics, then you are being very naive.

 

 

I maintain that climate science, apart from funding, is unrelated to politics.  The response to the science is political and obviously generates much debate.

 

Also, as thaihome posted, change always creates a redistribution of wealth. If you build a bridge you take wealth from the ferry operators, and if self-driving cars and trucks become a reality wealth will be taken away from professional drivers.   Progress usually generates short-term winners and losers.

[canuckamuck]

3 minutes ago, heybruce said:

I maintain that climate science, apart from funding, is unrelated to politics.  The response to the science is political and obviously generates much debate.

Not much climate science going to happen without funding though eh? And you better make sure the patron is happy with the result.

[heybruce]

21 minutes ago, canuckamuck said:

Marxism is at its root an ideology of jealousy and ingratitude. All Marxism is good for is revolution. Once that is accomplished the pipe dreams of the Communist manifesto are immediately pulled from the grasp of the useful idiots who fought for it. What happens instead is a tightfisted super controlling paranoid elite that turn the country into a police state.

 

Ordinary Marxists don't intend this effect, it is simply the nature of humanity that once stripped of any moral compass a power group will appear and quickly subdue the weak.

 

For your second point,  I do believe that men of great power are continually engaged in conspiracy. I believe it has always been this way. A brief survey of history will show the rise and fall of many empires, and the machinations of greedy men behind the scenes. It is what humans do.

Do you also believe that the Economist and climate science support the tyrannical aspirations of the Marxists?  If you want others to share that belief, you need to offer evidence, not paranoid speculation.  Not even theories, pure speculation.

[heybruce]

2 minutes ago, canuckamuck said:

Not much climate science going to happen without funding though eh? And you better make sure the patron is happy with the result.

Of course.  the Koch brothers are doing their best to find sell-out scientists who will cast doubt on the consensus view of the scientific community.  So far they've only come up with arguments (no evidence) that convinces the already converted.

[RickBradford]

1 minute ago, heybruce said:

Of course.  the Koch brothers are doing their best to find sell-out scientists who will cast doubt on the consensus view of the scientific community.  So far they've only come up with arguments (no evidence) that convinces the already converted.

So you agree that climate science is essentially political. It took a long time, but we finally got there.

 

And note that if you believe there are "sell-out" scientists, you'd better believe they exist on both sides of the debate. Otherwise, we really are back in the school playground.

[Andaman Al]

29 minutes ago, Thongkorn said:

 The North sea never existed a few years ago,  it was flooded , there is a finite amount of water on this planet on land or in vapour,  Global warming is a myth the world is actually cooling. all about Money and taxes,

 

The North Sea as we know it has been there for 6500 years or so. Prior to that Glacial deposits and the last ice age had a land bridge for at least the previous 20 000 years before that.

 

The Earth may well be about to enter another huge cooling cycle I agree, but it will last 10 000 years or more, with more ice ages etc etc. BUT before that can really kick off seriously there MUST be a warming cycle. There is no denying that all indications show an overall warming in the Earth's climate.

 

I am not going to get into an argument about who is causing that, as personally I am doubtful that anthropogenic global warming was/is enough to start such a planetary effect as overall warming, HOWEVER, we know it (warming) is happening and therefore the inactions taken by humans are certainly exacerbating the situation. We cannot stop it, but we can delay it, and even a 100 year delay will see us with the technology for humans to survive the inevitable coming of the next ice age. Remember Ice ages and the dynamics involved with starting them are all caused by warming of the Earths climate.

 

I agree that certain people have become multi multi millionaires in the scandal of the carbon credit  trading system and Governments in positions of power are now using the carbon credit system to actually prevent other nations from developing as we in the west did. Africa is in dire need of many many power stations and nobody will allow them to burn fossil fuels, and even if they did, they can't because corrupt politicians have sold off their 'carbon credit allocations', to the US and UK etc.

 

The planet is in dire straits, humans can DELAY the process but not stop it, and then the planet will take over and it WILL cleanse itself.

[heybruce]

21 minutes ago, RickBradford said:

So you agree that climate science is essentially political. It took a long time, but we finally got there.

 

And note that if you believe there are "sell-out" scientists, you'd better believe they exist on both sides of the debate. Otherwise, we really are back in the school playground.

No, I believe that by offering enough money the Koch brothers have succeeded in finding people who have some science background, but are not real climate scientists, who will muddy the waters for money.

 

I don't believe the the world wide community of climate scientists, working for governments, NGO's, and universities, could reach consensus on man-made global warming if there wasn't irrefutable evidence to support it.

 

The school playground is a place where immature children believe what they want to believe and reject what they don't want to believe, and do so with no regard to evidence.  For all your speculation about political and class struggles, your only evidence has been a short, out of context statement from years ago made by a UN official.

 

I'm going to dinner now.  If you come up with a response that involves credible refutation of real and meaningful scientific evidence regarding global warming, I will reply.  If you continue to argue with political theories and distrust of people who tell you things you don't want to believe, I may not.

[Grouse]

1 hour ago, Thongkorn said:

Having lived on the East coast of Britain for the last 45 years, I can honestly say the North sea has not risen one inch, How come when a bottle of milk freezes it expands and when thor's it goes back to its original level, So would it be safe to say the water will not rise.

Thor's turns to thunder 

[canuckamuck]

17 minutes ago, heybruce said:

Do you also believe that the Economist and climate science support the tyrannical aspirations of the Marxists?  If you want others to share that belief, you need to offer evidence, not paranoid speculation.  Not even theories, pure speculation.

The Marxists aspirations are to manipulate people into a state of revolution. They think the tyranny wont happen this time. How much The Economist (really the Rothschilds as they own it) are perpetuating Marxism is anybody's guess. The description on Wikipedia seemed pretty Marxist in part. I really don't think The Economist is a big fish in the climate science world. The Rothschilds have more than one iron in the fire, generally speaking. They usually have a stake on both sides.

 

As far as climate science is concerned I would say it is a sweet gig, a bonanza created out of less than a centigrade of change in a hundred years of colossal industrialization. I would say that anyone on that ride is going to do what they can to keep it rolling along. But I think a lot of them have been immersed in toxic Marxism and political correctness since college. I think they have a different moral compass then we did a couple of generations back. I don't think they mind being creative with the truth when it is for the greater good.

 

[Grouse]

1 hour ago, Thongkorn said:

there is a finite amount of water on this planet on land or in vapour, 

Electrolysis? Burning hydrogen? Discuss

[RickBradford]

Quote

If you come up with a response that involves credible refutation of real and meaningful scientific evidence regarding global warming,

 

You seem to have grasped very little from the previous discussion, the key point of which is: The science is largely irrelevant; it's what political actors of various stripes make of it that counts.

 

Let's assume, for purposes of argument, that the hyper-alarmists are right in supposing that man-made climate change represents a clear and present danger to the future of humanity.

 

Then why has nothing been done, after 20 years and the expenditure of trillions of dollars? Because of politics. The politicians spout self-righteous platitudes about the dangers of global warming, but consistently fail to act.

 

Very famously, Australian PM Kevin Rudd stated that "Climate change is the great moral challenge of our generation", and the moment he realised that represented political suicide, he backtracked.

 

I'm sorry to ruin your dinner, but it really is all about politics and very little to do with science. As the EU's climate action commissioner Connie Hedegaard said recently:  “Let’s say that science, some decades from now, said ‘we were wrong, it was not about climate’, would it not in any case have been good to do many of things you have to do in order to combat climate change? “

 

In other words, sod the science, we're going ahead with our pet feel-good climate projects anyway.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Grouse]

45 minutes ago, Andaman Al said:

 

The North Sea as we know it has been there for 6500 years or so. Prior to that Glacial deposits and the last ice age had a land bridge for at least the previous 20 000 years before that.

 

The Earth may well be about to enter another huge cooling cycle I agree, but it will last 10 000 years or more, with more ice ages etc etc. BUT before that can really kick off seriously there MUST be a warming cycle. There is no denying that all indications show an overall warming in the Earth's climate.

 

I am not going to get into an argument about who is causing that, as personally I am doubtful that anthropogenic global warming was/is enough to start such a planetary effect as overall warming, HOWEVER, we know it (warming) is happening and therefore the inactions taken by humans are certainly exacerbating the situation. We cannot stop it, but we can delay it, and even a 100 year delay will see us with the technology for humans to survive the inevitable coming of the next ice age. Remember Ice ages and the dynamics involved with starting them are all caused by warming of the Earths climate.

 

I agree that certain people have become multi multi millionaires in the scandal of the carbon credit  trading system and Governments in positions of power are now using the carbon credit system to actually prevent other nations from developing as we in the west did. Africa is in dire need of many many power stations and nobody will allow them to burn fossil fuels, and even if they did, they can't because corrupt politicians have sold off their 'carbon credit allocations', to the US and UK etc.

 

The planet is in dire straits, humans can DELAY the process but not stop it, and then the planet will take over and it WILL cleanse itself.

Yes, nicely put!

 

Even if we humans have not had a negative effect on climate change (we have) we still need to take urgent remedial action. I'm reminded of Armageddon; would we do nothing? It's not our fault! The Earth will heal itself!

 

Of course it should be all hands to the pumps; not just the altruists, scientists and the educated.

 

Just watch a BBC program highlighting massive deforestation in Cambodia! Insanity that this still happens

[boomerangutang]

9 hours ago, craigt3365 said:

Understood.  But don't give up.  Try to educate the deniers.  It's not an easy task, but a worthy one.

 

8 hours ago, canuckamuck said:

-Why is a warming planet a problem? Historically warming trends have coincided with advances in civilization, prosperity. and a better quality of life

-Don't worry the rich people need the poor people to do all the work. If cities need to be built elsewhere, they will give them a place.

- I didn't make out the point of the hurricane bit.

-Those looking at the world from a well off perspective must also know that prosperity can be fleeting. The possibility of global financial collapse or another world war or both, is magnitudes more likely than apocolyptic climate change.

We don't see eye to eye.  Warming is a problem because many folks (close to half the world's pop) are adapted to where they are. Many of them don't have the wherewithal to relocate.

Your second point is elitist.  Look at poor people from Libya, Syria and SW Burma.  There's a lot to worry about.  Perhaps it's not all directly related to GW, but GW is a factor, particularly with impoverished people from deserts (Sudan) and flooded regions (Fils, southern Burma, Bangladesh, PR).

 

Poverty is poverty and is debilitating.  There are no quick fixes.  There are a lot of miserable people in the world who T.Visa posters are out of touch with.  Last December, I visited Namibia.  There were families living in hollowed-out termite mounds, I kid you not.  And Namibia is better off than some of its neighboring countries.

[Airbagwill]

The argument about Climate change is over. It is a near as science ever gets to fact. Yet this OP has actually regurgitated just about every discredited argument glued them together with a dollop of fake news and a dash of ignorance and has put them forward as an argument?....I presume it is satire?

[boomerangutang]

a bit more on poverty:  a hill tribe family, friends of mine, resided by a creek (family was put there via a Bkk relocation program).  For 3 months every year, there would be between 50 and 100 cm of water flooding around their crappy bamboo and thatch dwelling which was about 50 cm above grade.  I gave then some money to build a meter higher.   Now they're better off, but they still have to wade through knee high water to get to the outhouse which is 2 meters from the middle of the creek.   They're in a packed community where houses are willy nilly built within meters of each other, and many suffer the same flooding problems and, or course, abject poverty.

 

During the day, about 10 moms hang out in the tiny general store, all with their little babies, and nothing to do except talk and tend to babies.   

 

I mention this, not so much re; GW, but because we touched on the topic of poverty - and I sense that T.Visa posters are out of touch with what poverty is.  We've become innured in our cuccoons of retirement checks, ATM cards, and comfort.  I'm not saying that's bad, but it doesn't qualify many here to talk intelligently about the hundreds of millions of folks ww, who are being (and many more will be) affected by the adverse affects of a warming planet.

 

Deniers are split into groups:  Some admit there is warming, but say it can't be human-affected because we're so small and the planet is so big.

There are other deniers who claim there is no warming, and instead there may be a global cooling.

 

Look at the data without a jaundiced eye.  The indications are many: the planet is warming and humans are part of the equation.  Each human produces, on average, a ton of CO2 annually.   That's around 7 billion tons, with a 'B.'    That's a lot of CO2. Plants soak up some, but much isn't soaked up.  ...and then there's methane, which is many times more of a greenhouse gas than CO2.  All indications show increasing amounts of methane being released, particularly from ocean depths and permafrost regions.  What can happen with methane, is a tipping point, where large releases take place in a relatively short time.

[heybruce]

4 hours ago, RickBradford said:

 

You seem to have grasped very little from the previous discussion, the key point of which is: The science is largely irrelevant; it's what political actors of various stripes make of it that counts.

 

Let's assume, for purposes of argument, that the hyper-alarmists are right in supposing that man-made climate change represents a clear and present danger to the future of humanity.

 

Then why has nothing been done, after 20 years and the expenditure of trillions of dollars? Because of politics. The politicians spout self-righteous platitudes about the dangers of global warming, but consistently fail to act.

 

Very famously, Australian PM Kevin Rudd stated that "Climate change is the great moral challenge of our generation", and the moment he realised that represented political suicide, he backtracked.

 

I'm sorry to ruin your dinner, but it really is all about politics and very little to do with science. As the EU's climate action commissioner Connie Hedegaard said recently:  “Let’s say that science, some decades from now, said ‘we were wrong, it was not about climate’, would it not in any case have been good to do many of things you have to do in order to combat climate change? “

 

In other words, sod the science, we're going ahead with our pet feel-good climate projects anyway.

So needy, so desperate to turn the argument to ground you can relate to, so obviously out of your comfort zone.

 

You edit my post to one sentence that you think you can reply to if you offer enough words, and ignore all else.

 

"The science is largely irrelevant; it's what political actors of various stripes make of it that counts."

 

Yeah, let's ignore  reality and focus on words.

 

If the end of the world is clearly imminent, do you want to debate political differences, or take corrective action?

[lannarebirth]

10 hours ago, jmd8800 said:

From the Wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism

 

Liberalism is a political philosophy or worldview founded on ideas of liberty and equality.[1][2][3] Liberals espouse a wide array of views depending on their understanding of these principles, but generally they support ideas and programmes such as freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, free markets, civil rights, democratic societies, secular governments, gender equality and international cooperation.

 

 

 

That's interesting, but probably not for the reason you think.  I posted that same link a few years back. I was trying to make the point that in western societies both progressives and conservatives were Liberals per the definition of liberalism. I see the Wiki definition has been altered since then to skew more specifically to the progressive view, as if they are the only "liberal thinkers'. Not wholly but in some obvious ways. I guess that's why people scoff when people post Wiki links. Let's hope they don't burn all the books.

[JimmyJ]

19 hours ago, JimmyJ said:

 

"The fear campaign is unwarranted and simply about power."

 

What are your scientific credentials?

 

Same question for others in this thread who disagree with 97% of scientists on this issue.

[If you prefer, "...disagree with the vast majority of scientists..."]

 

Unsurprisingly, no scientific credentials cited thus far for the climate change science deniers in this thread and I predict there will not be any cited.

 

So a few individuals with no expertise in this area disagree with experts using the scientific method who are in ~97% agreement.

OK...
 

One denier here stated that the North Sea has not risen an inch, citing nothing.

I assume that was based on his driving past once and glancing at it. Or perhaps he saw a picture of it and made his decision.

Another seems to be on a crusade vs. the Greens, and Liberals, and Marxists, and 97% of climate scientists.

 

 

Nobody would be able to convince Wendy Wright of the truth of evolution in the Dawkins video.

She is guided by Christian Fundamentalism and is close minded to facts.

No idea what motivates the deniers in this thread to be likewise closed to facts (although one made it clear he believes in the Noachian Flood which is as anti science as it gets).

 

 

[JimmyJ]

[JimmyJ]

7 hours ago, Airbagwill said:

The argument about Climate change is over. It is a near as science ever gets to fact. Yet this OP has actually regurgitated just about every discredited argument glued them together with a dollop of fake news and a dash of ignorance and has put them forward as an argument?....I presume it is satire?

 

Well spoken.

[canuckamuck]

8 hours ago, boomerangutang said:

a bit more on poverty:  a hill tribe family, friends of mine, resided by a creek (family was put there via a Bkk relocation program).  For 3 months every year, there would be between 50 and 100 cm of water flooding around their crappy bamboo and thatch dwelling which was about 50 cm above grade.  I gave then some money to build a meter higher.   Now they're better off, but they still have to wade through knee high water to get to the outhouse which is 2 meters from the middle of the creek.   They're in a packed community where houses are willy nilly built within meters of each other, and many suffer the same flooding problems and, or course, abject poverty.

 

During the day, about 10 moms hang out in the tiny general store, all with their little babies, and nothing to do except talk and tend to babies.   

 

I mention this, not so much re; GW, but because we touched on the topic of poverty - and I sense that T.Visa posters are out of touch with what poverty is.  We've become innured in our cuccoons of retirement checks, ATM cards, and comfort.  I'm not saying that's bad, but it doesn't qualify many here to talk intelligently about the hundreds of millions of folks ww, who are being (and many more will be) affected by the adverse affects of a warming planet.

 

Deniers are split into groups:  Some admit there is warming, but say it can't be human-affected because we're so small and the planet is so big.

There are other deniers who claim there is no warming, and instead there may be a global cooling.

 

Look at the data without a jaundiced eye.  The indications are many: the planet is warming and humans are part of the equation.  Each human produces, on average, a ton of CO2 annually.   That's around 7 billion tons, with a 'B.'    That's a lot of CO2. Plants soak up some, but much isn't soaked up.  ...and then there's methane, which is many times more of a greenhouse gas than CO2.  All indications show increasing amounts of methane being released, particularly from ocean depths and permafrost regions.  What can happen with methane, is a tipping point, where large releases take place in a relatively short time.

I get what you are saying and I know you are a good guy. But you have decided that a catastrophe is around the corner and I disagree with that. The planet is warming sure, it either is warming or cooling 50/50 chance eh. It might stop warming, It may have stopped, it might keep warming for a couple thousand years. We don't know. All we can do is make computer models which is only a guess and have never proved to be accurate. And the models depend on human inputs which themselves are guesses. And the models so far have been generally wrong to the alarmist side of the scale.

 

The planet isn't warming at a rate you can notice in a lifetime though. Unless you think you can tell what .5 degrees difference feels like 50 years later. So if we are in the scenario where it is just going to keep warming - humans will adapt. That there are poor people in bad situations, will not change. We will always will have poor people in bad situations because it has always been this way. Some of them will get help from good people like you and me. And some will die after a miserable life. The warming of the planet will not change any of that because even if the planet stopped warming, we would still have people at risk. Because of politics, and greed mainly.

People always portray warming as lose lose. Why must we never talk of the benefits. Historically, warming has been the best situation for humanity. There is no reason to think that will change.

[RickBradford]

Quote

If the end of the world is clearly imminent, do you want to debate political differences, or take corrective action?

 

The end of the world isn't "clearly imminent", and the science states that unequivocally. Politicians are the ones making apocalyptic statements, along with renowned scientific experts like Prince Charles and Bob "Extinction by 2030" Geldof.

 

You illustrate my point very well. The science says one thing; the politicians and activists say something quite  different, in pursuit of a personal or political agenda.

[Airbagwill]

This kind of article is typical of those who use the word "balance".

Unable to put up a real argument to a scientifically accepted theory they claim that an inane piece of journalism like this gives "balance"....this is of course nonsense...balance in this case is the overwhelming evidence and what they claim as balance  is the supposed right of one totally uninformed writer to publish complete nonsense.

[craigt3365]

12 hours ago, RickBradford said:

So you agree that climate science is essentially political. It took a long time, but we finally got there.

 

And note that if you believe there are "sell-out" scientists, you'd better believe they exist on both sides of the debate. Otherwise, we really are back in the school playground.

Climate science is not political.  It is, sadly, used like that at times.  But in the end, if from reliable organizations, it's just science.  Ignore the "sell-out" scientists.

 

Pick your news sources properly.

[Airbagwill]

6 minutes ago, craigt3365 said:

Climate science is not political.  It is, sadly, used like that at times.  But in the end, if from reliable organizations, it's just science.  Ignore the "sell-out" scientists.

 

Pick your news sources properly.

There aren't 2 sides to this debate any more than debating if the world is flat or not.

There is an established scientifically theory (please no stupid comments- look it up) and then there is a small group of a few cranks and ill informed loons like the OP

[FreddieRoyle]

10 minutes ago, Airbagwill said:

There aren't 2 sides to this debate any more than debating if the world is flat or not.

There is an established scientifically theory (please no stupid comments- look it up) and then there is a small group of a few cranks and ill informed loons like the OP

So we should eliminate all ruminating beasts and all volcanic activity from the earth to solve the CO2 problem? Do you have any idea how much effect these 2 have on so-called global warming as opposed to the internal combustion engines? 

 I marvel at the egos of humans that truly believe by driving around in a vehicle that they are changing the earth? Madness. And even worse are those that drive these Tesla thingies that have rare earth batteries coming from huge open cast mines that have truly wrecked the environment around them, and made from materials mined around the world and transported to market using vast amounts of fossil fuels. Trying to make sense of the climate-change fascists is not for me.

[craigt3365]

8 minutes ago, Airbagwill said:

There aren't 2 sides to this debate any more than debating if the world is flat or not.

There is an established scientifically theory (please no stupid comments- look it up) and then there is a small group of a few cranks and ill informed loons like the OP

Agreed.  Sadly, the naysayers cling to these few cranks to help push their views forward.  Click bait, IMHO.

 

This statement is totally misleading, from the OP:

Quote

Sea levels have been falling since the days of the Roman Empire – the world is dotted with former port cities that now lie kilometres inland. Visit the ancient Roman city of Ephesus in modern day Turkey and you can still see the road that led to the nearby harbour, only now there is no harbour.

I've been to many port cities where the original port is now underwater.  Had some great boat tours of the sunken cities off the coast of Turkey a few years ago.

 

https://www.archaeology.org/issues/162-features/top10/2789-turkey-submerged-byzantine-basilica

Only 100 miles from Istanbul, the ancient city of Nicaea, on the shores of Turkey’s Lake Iznik, is not remote or unknown. So archaeologist Mustafa Sahin was in for a shock when a routine aerial survey of the lake revealed traces of a fifth-century basilica. “I did not believe my eyes when I saw it under the helicopter,” says Sahin. “I thought to myself, ‘How did nobody notice these ruins before?’” The site is now slated to become an underwater archaeological museum.

[RickBradford]

50 minutes ago, craigt3365 said:

Climate science is not political.  It is, sadly, used like that at times.  But in the end, if from reliable organizations, it's just science.

Science is nothing without action. The action, in the form of policy making, has to come from politics. Why else do you think all those people attended a 'March for Science' in Washington DC in April demanding political action on climate? Incidentally, there were a large number of scientists in the crowd, so the contention that science is not political fails the reality test immediately.

 

In the real world, science exists inside a framework of political actions, agendas and budgets. Those actions may support the science, or in some cases might be opposed to it.

 

If you want to believe in a Disneyfied version where pure and noble scientists use their discoveries to bring the awed peasantry into the sunlit uplands of enlightenment, go ahead.

 

But that's not the way the world works, in my experience.