Global Warming

[Melanie]

I have just seen an intriguing trailer for this;

http://www.channel4.com/science/microsites/G/great_global_warming_swindle/index.html

[Admin]

This should be a good programme to watch. O0

I must admit that I'm not convinced of anthropogenic global warming at all. ???

It is known that the climate has varied quite a lot in the past. 700-900 years ago the climate in the UK was around 2o warmer than today and in the 1600s to 1800s we had a 'mini ice age' where temperatures were a lot cooler.

I think we're somewhere in between those extremes at the moment and the current slight rise in global temperature is well within the normal variance.

I also question the doom-mongering attitude that's prevalent with global warming alarmists. At times in the past where the climate was warmer than today there was great prosperity. The prosperity of the warm period of 700-900 years ago resulted in the great cathedrals being built throughout Europe.

Why do they assume that global warming is going to be catastrophic?

It might actually turn out to be good.

[huw-l]

A good place to start is the IPCC's summary for policymakers.

http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM2feb07.pdf

Which nicely sums up all the evidence for anthropogenic climate change. Basically it's now almost a certainty that overall warming has been caused by massive increases in greenhouse gases.

http://www.realclimate.org has a good section on paleoclimatology which should answer your questions about climate changes in the past.

But I will agree with you that there are a lot of doom-mongers who over-state the impact of climate change.

However I'm very much in the camp of those who think it is a Bad ThingTM

[huw-l]

also the IPCC's summary for policymakers "Impacts and Vulnerabilities"

http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg2/pdf/wg2TARspm.pdf

which talks about the potential problems of climate change.

All the IPCC reports can be found at http://www.ipcc.ch

happy reading

[Cuddles]

It is known that the climate has varied quite a lot in the past. 700-900 years ago the climate in the UK was around 2o warmer than today and in the 1600s to 1800s we had a 'mini ice age' where temperatures were a lot cooler.

I think we're somewhere in between those extremes at the moment and the current slight rise in global temperature is well within the normal variance.

Unfortunately both the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age were local phenomena. The trouble with the current warming trend is that it is genuinely global. The resolution of most of the climate record is not good enough to say this warming is unprecendented, but we know for sure the world has not warmed this quickly for many centuries, and probably not for thousands, or even millions, of years.

People assume that the change will be catastrophic because this time the warming includes the ice caps. If it was just a case Europe having slightly different weather there wouldn't be a problem, but if you dump enough fresh water in the sea to raise sea levels by metres and disrupt global currents you can be fairly sure that something interesting is going to happen. It's possible that the problems are overstated, but I think there are two main reasons for this. Firstly, it is better safe than sorry. Much better that we stop polluting everywhere, build defenses and are ready to cope with bigger changes than actually happen than not do anything to prepare and all end up underwater because we underestimated it. The other reason is that people simply don't listen. If you tell people average global temperatures will rise by 1.5oC and a bit of ice will melt, no-one will care. If you tell them their city is going to be underwater and we'll have massive hurricanes every day they'll at least pay attention, even if they don't entirely believe it. The fact is that whether we cause global warming or not, in the not too distant future we are going to have problems with pollution, lack of energy and resources. Better that we start thinking about it now than only notice once it is too late.

[Admin]

Thanks Huw, I'll read those links. O0

I must confess to being fairly ignorant on this topic but I think the hype and exaggeration that Cuddles alluded to is actually what puts me off it. ???

The world is warming but no-one really knows what the effects are going to be and even science/scientists are divided on the issue.

[Admin]

Well, I had a read of the PDF Huw linked to and I'm more convinced of AGW now. ???

There's nothing gets me going more than a document full of evidence with error bars!! ;D

Although I did notice that the graphs' Y-axes were truncated in many cases (helps make the peak at the end look sharper and bigger ;)).

[ghosthunterbebunker]

This should be a good programme to watch. O0

I must admit that I'm not convinced of anthropogenic global warming at all. ???

It is known that the climate has varied quite a lot in the past. 700-900 years ago the climate in the UK was around 2o warmer than today and in the 1600s to 1800s we had a 'mini ice age' where temperatures were a lot cooler.

I think we're somewhere in between those extremes at the moment and the current slight rise in global temperature is well within the normal variance.

I also question the doom-mongering attitude that's prevalent with global warming alarmists. At times in the past where the climate was warmer than today there was great prosperity. The prosperity of the warm period of 700-900 years ago resulted in the great cathedrals being built throughout Europe.

Why do they assume that global warming is going to be catastrophic?

It might actually turn out to be good.


Noone is convinced really with the exception of a few, But if it is that little island of Great Britian will be in big trouble.
Great prosperity 700 years ago, you can't even begin to argue that. Was billions of people on the earth at that time!
Now I am not claiming global warming is happening, but I am well versed in weather conditions. And global warming
maybe happening and one thing is for sure we are affecting our world. And if this is true were already dead because there is no reversing now.

[ghosthunterbebunker]

We all have to wonder with all those nuclear bomb tests, did we actually kill our selfs without that missle.
But has I said with all the ice that has already melted, you can't reverse it and it will be a done deal.
So maybe faith and hope will play a leading role in all of our lives.

[Cuddles]

Noone is convinced really with the exception of a few, But if it is that little island of Great Britian will be in big trouble.
Great prosperity 700 years ago, you can't even begin to argue that. Was billions of people on the earth at that time!
Now I am not claiming global warming is happening, but I am well versed in weather conditions. And global warming
maybe happening and one thing is for sure we are affecting our world.

No-one is convinced? The IPCC would disagee with you there, and since that body is made up of thousands of the world's leading climatologists they probably know what their talking about. The deniers would like you to believe that there is still an argument going on, but that is simply not true. We know global warming is happening, and we are pretty sure that we are at least partly to blame. THe only questions now are about exactly what will happen and what we can do about it.


And if this is true were already dead because there is no reversing now.

Rather pessimistic. Why do you think this? If we are able to affect the planet enough to cause global warming, why shouldn't we be able to do something about it? Even if we can't stop it, why would that mean we are dead? Global warming isn't like an asteroid hitting us, all it means is higher sea levels and different (probably more severe) weather patterns. We might not be able to keep our lives and societies exactly the same as they are now, but there is no reason to think that we are all going to die.

[Cuddles]

We all have to wonder with all those nuclear bomb tests, did we actually kill our selfs without that missle.

Nuclear missiles? What do they have to do with anything? The few bombs that have actually detonated have no effect whatsoever on the climate. They don't even have a noticeable effect on background radiation levels.


But has I said with all the ice that has already melted, you can't reverse it and it will be a done deal.


Actually, very little ice has melted yet. The problem is that we can see it will if temperatures increase further. This is why people make a fuss about global warming, because it is not too late to do anything about it, but it probably will be soon.


So maybe faith and hope will play a leading role in all of our lives.

Nope.

[ghosthunterbebunker]

Noone is convinced really with the exception of a few, But if it is that little island of Great Britian will be in big trouble.
Great prosperity 700 years ago, you can't even begin to argue that. Was billions of people on the earth at that time!
Now I am not claiming global warming is happening, but I am well versed in weather conditions. And global warming
maybe happening and one thing is for sure we are affecting our world.

No-one is convinced? The IPCC would disagee with you there, and since that body is made up of thousands of the world's leading climatologists they probably know what their talking about. The deniers would like you to believe that there is still an argument going on, but that is simply not true. We know global warming is happening, and we are pretty sure that we are at least partly to blame. THe only questions now are about exactly what will happen and what we can do about it.


And if this is true were already dead because there is no reversing now.

Rather pessimistic. Why do you think this? If we are able to affect the planet enough to cause global warming, why shouldn't we be able to do something about it? Even if we can't stop it, why would that mean we are dead? Global warming isn't like an asteroid hitting us, all it means is higher sea levels and different (probably more severe) weather patterns. We might not be able to keep our lives and societies exactly the same as they are now, but there is no reason to think that we are all going to die.


It is not pessimistic, it's reality! At the rate the ice is melting, and if global warming is to blame then at this point it's irreversible. Reason being it takes so much time for the tide to shift whenit comes to healing.

[ghosthunterbebunker]

We all have to wonder with all those nuclear bomb tests, did we actually kill our selfs without that missle.

Nuclear missiles? What do they have to do with anything? The few bombs that have actually detonated have no effect whatsoever on the climate. They don't even have a noticeable effect on background radiation levels.


But has I said with all the ice that has already melted, you can't reverse it and it will be a done deal.


Actually, very little ice has melted yet. The problem is that we can see it will if temperatures increase further. This is why people make a fuss about global warming, because it is not too late to do anything about it, but it probably will be soon.


So maybe faith and hope will play a leading role in all of our lives.

Nope.


There have been hundrens of nuclear weapons test', and I can't imagine that being a real good thing!
You live in England Cuddles! Well if all this is true consider the possiblity. But I am not saying
Global warming is happening, there's evidence both ways. If it is we have a big problem!

[ghosthunterbebunker]

We all have to wonder with all those nuclear bomb tests, did we actually kill our selfs without that missle.

Nuclear missiles? What do they have to do with anything? The few bombs that have actually detonated have no effect whatsoever on the climate. They don't even have a noticeable effect on background radiation levels.


But has I said with all the ice that has already melted, you can't reverse it and it will be a done deal.


Actually, very little ice has melted yet. The problem is that we can see it will if temperatures increase further. This is why people make a fuss about global warming, because it is not too late to do anything about it, but it probably will be soon.


So maybe faith and hope will play a leading role in all of our lives.

Nope.


And if you knew what it takes for nature to make rain, you would understand?

[Cuddles]

It is not pessimistic, it's reality! At the rate the ice is melting, and if global warming is to blame then at this point it's irreversible. Reason being it takes so much time for the tide to shift whenit comes to healing.

Evidence? The whole reason scientists are making a fuss about global warming is because they think we can do something about it. We do not even need to reverse it. We are not dead yet, so simply stopping it here would help, even if we can't go back to where we would like. In any case, why do you assume we are all going to die? As I said, we can cope with an awful lot. Global warming isn't a sudden killer, it will simply change the climate. Yes, some people are likely to die, and there may even be a much reduced landmass and population, but even in the worst case we won't reach a Waterworld scenario. To assume that everyone is going to die just because of a change in climate is far from reality.


There have been hundrens of nuclear weapons test', and I can't imagine that being a real good thing!
You live in England Cuddles! Well if all this is true consider the possiblity. But I am not saying
Global warming is happening, there's evidence both ways. If it is we have a big problem!

In your previous post you were very clear that global warming is happening. Why are you now claiming that you are not saying this? Regardless of your opinion, global warming really is happening, there is no argument about that. The only argument is whether it's our fault, and the increasing amount of evidence suggests very strongly that it is.

That aside, why mention nuclear missiles? As I said, they do not affect global temperatures. Even the total of all bombs ever detonated has a tiny effect compared to just one volcano. In fact, there is a tiny effect just compared to the amount of conventional explosives used. Nuclear weapons and power do raise issues about the environment, but global warming is not one of them.


And if you knew what it takes for nature to make rain, you would understand?

If you have a mummy rain and a daddy rain who love each other very much then nature is nice to them and gives them lots of baby rain.

What exactly do you think I don't understand?

[ghosthunterbebunker]

It is not pessimistic, it's reality! At the rate the ice is melting, and if global warming is to blame then at this point it's irreversible. Reason being it takes so much time for the tide to shift whenit comes to healing.

Evidence? The whole reason scientists are making a fuss about global warming is because they think we can do something about it. We do not even need to reverse it. We are not dead yet, so simply stopping it here would help, even if we can't go back to where we would like. In any case, why do you assume we are all going to die? As I said, we can cope with an awful lot. Global warming isn't a sudden killer, it will simply change the climate. Yes, some people are likely to die, and there may even be a much reduced landmass and population, but even in the worst case we won't reach a Waterworld scenario. To assume that everyone is going to die just because of a change in climate is far from reality.


There have been hundrens of nuclear weapons test', and I can't imagine that being a real good thing!
You live in England Cuddles! Well if all this is true consider the possiblity. But I am not saying
Global warming is happening, there's evidence both ways. If it is we have a big problem!

In your previous post you were very clear that global warming is happening. Why are you now claiming that you are not saying this? Regardless of your opinion, global warming really is happening, there is no argument about that. The only argument is whether it's our fault, and the increasing amount of evidence suggests very strongly that it is.

That aside, why mention nuclear missiles? As I said, they do not affect global temperatures. Even the total of all bombs ever detonated has a tiny effect compared to just one volcano. In fact, there is a tiny effect just compared to the amount of conventional explosives used. Nuclear weapons and power do raise issues about the environment, but global warming is not one of them.


And if you knew what it takes for nature to make rain, you would understand?

If you have a mummy rain and a daddy rain who love each other very much then nature is nice to them and gives them lots of baby rain.

What exactly do you think I don't understand?


First off you are trying to look at this from your point of veiw and not a scientific one!
Second my point about nuclear testing is how screwed is our atmosphere because of it.
Third we are affecting our world in a bad way!
Foruth did we ever give mother nature the chance to heal or adapt...NO.

And last but not least no cold air mixing with warm air, no rain. I am not totally sure that global warming is occuring
since I do not have evidence that it is. However with billions of people on this planet and most have cars.
And yet this same occurance happened back in the 1940's but can you conclude that it is just weather partterns?
So we have to ask how accurate was the data from the 1940', and how accurate is the data now. You cannot dismiss this could be happening and if were going to leaveit up to the politicians, were dead meat.

[Dr B]

Well if life cannot adapt - makes us wonder how we all got here in the first place.

:fsm:

[ghosthunterbebunker]

Well if life cannot adapt - makes us wonder how we all got here in the first place.

:fsm:


Life does adapt but are we overwhelming nature to the point it's not able to keep up!

[Dr B]

Unless I missed it, where is the evidence for this? I was under the impression that the earth had a varied atmospheric past and human life has generally adapted and survived. What makes you think it won't continue to do so?

I dont think its a big deal - however, I must confess that I am not well read on this topic - so maybe you could help me here and give me a crash course on the arguments / evidence for and against GW?

You seem to be making the claim that humans have a role in GW - where I think there is also another consensus claiming that GW is real, but they contest the human contribution to it......or have I misunderstood that?

[ghosthunterbebunker]

Unless I missed it, where is the evidence for this? I was under the impression that the earth had a varied atmospheric past and human life has generally adapted and survived. What makes you think it won't continue to do so?

I dont think its a big deal - however, I must confess that I am not well read on this topic - so maybe you could help me here and give me a crash course on the arguments / evidence for and against GW?

You seem to be making the claim that humans have a role in GW - where I think there is also another consensus claiming that GW is real, but they contest the human contribution to it......or have I misunderstood that?



Well the fact that the ice is melting at a very fast rate kind of say's something. Reason for these thoughts are
that we are filling the atmosphere co2 and it's holding in heat at lower levels,not letting it escape. But if it's true
then we have big problems if the ice does all or mostly melt. You need cold air to make rain with out it no rain.
Satelite photos and just general observation from scienctist are showing the ice melting at a alarming rate.
I don't know if it's global warming or weather patterns, but can we afford to dismiss the possiblity.

[ghosthunterbebunker]

Here you go!

http://nsidc.org/iceshelves/larsenb2002/

http://wxex.wunderground.com/global/Region/AN/pxTemperature.html

[Cuddles]

First off you are trying to look at this from your point of veiw and not a scientific one!

Nope.


Second my point about nuclear testing is how screwed is our atmosphere because of it.

Nope.


Third we are affecting our world in a bad way!

Define "bad". The world doesn't care what we do to it. It might be bad for us, and bad for various other animals, but it very good for others. Yes, we are affecting the world, but whether it is good or bad or just simply is depends entirely on your point of view.


Foruth did we ever give mother nature the chance to heal or adapt...NO.

Mother nature is not a real thing. The world cannot heal or adapt, it is simply a big rock. The world changes, whether it is caused by humans, by other life or by inorganic processes. Whatever happens, things living on the Earth will adapt, whether we or they like it or not. We don't need to give them a chance, they just will.

[/quote]And last but not least no cold air mixing with warm air, no rain.[/quote]

Nope. Air does not need to mix to make rain. There are three different processes that cause rain, cold and warm air mixing is just one of them. In Britain it is the most common. Air rising over mountains and simple convection also cause rain. In any case, I have no idea why you brought this up since it has nothing to do with anything we were discussing.


I am not totally sure that global warming is occuring since I do not have evidence that it is.

Why do you keep saying this? You clearly believe global warming is occuring since you keep saying about ice melting and how we're all going to die. Anyway, as I said before, global warming is a fact. The cause can be debated, but there can be no argument that the world is warmer now than it used to be because we have measured it.


However with billions of people on this planet and most have cars. And yet this same occurance happened back in the 1940's but can you conclude that it is just weather partterns? So we have to ask how accurate was the data from the 1940', and how accurate is the data now. You cannot dismiss this could be happening and if were going to leaveit up to the politicians, were dead meat.

What are you talking about? What happened in the 1940s? Why do you keep saying we're dead when I have quite clearly pointed out why we're not?

[Dr B]

Well the fact that the ice is melting at a very fast rate kind of say's something.

All it says is the ice is melting - as it has done before, and no doubt, will do again. I think you are going way beyond the evidence here.



Reason for these thoughts are
that we are filling the atmosphere co2 and it's holding in heat at lower levels,not letting it escape.

At lower levels? I thought co2 dense bands were at higher levels? Anyway, I am not an expert in this - but I am not convinced by the arguments which seem to convince you or the ones you are making here.



But if it's true
then we have big problems if the ice does all or mostly melt.

Is there any real evidence that global sea levels are rising? My understanding was that any effects of changing shore line were rare and localised and thus - not necessarily consistent with the notion of a global effect.


I don't know if it's global warming or weather patterns, but can we afford to dismiss the possibility.


I dont think people here are dismissing any possibilities - but we are not blindly accepting them either O0

Read some of the stuff by Prof Ken Stott for some interesting observations - apparently there is more rain forest now than 10,000 years ago....which was news to me.

[ghosthunterbebunker]

First off you are trying to look at this from your point of veiw and not a scientific one!

Nope.


Second my point about nuclear testing is how screwed is our atmosphere because of it.

Nope.


Third we are affecting our world in a bad way!

Define "bad". The world doesn't care what we do to it. It might be bad for us, and bad for various other animals, but it very good for others. Yes, we are affecting the world, but whether it is good or bad or just simply is depends entirely on your point of view.


Foruth did we ever give mother nature the chance to heal or adapt...NO.

Mother nature is not a real thing. The world cannot heal or adapt, it is simply a big rock. The world changes, whether it is caused by humans, by other life or by inorganic processes. Whatever happens, things living on the Earth will adapt, whether we or they like it or not. We don't need to give them a chance, they just will.

And last but not least no cold air mixing with warm air, no rain.[/quote]

Nope. Air does not need to mix to make rain. There are three different processes that cause rain, cold and warm air mixing is just one of them. In Britain it is the most common. Air rising over mountains and simple convection also cause rain. In any case, I have no idea why you brought this up since it has nothing to do with anything we were discussing.


I am not totally sure that global warming is occuring since I do not have evidence that it is.

Why do you keep saying this? You clearly believe global warming is occuring since you keep saying about ice melting and how we're all going to die. Anyway, as I said before, global warming is a fact. The cause can be debated, but there can be no argument that the world is warmer now than it used to be because we have measured it.


However with billions of people on this planet and most have cars. And yet this same occurance happened back in the 1940's but can you conclude that it is just weather partterns? So we have to ask how accurate was the data from the 1940', and how accurate is the data now. You cannot dismiss this could be happening and if were going to leaveit up to the politicians, were dead meat.

What are you talking about? What happened in the 1940s? Why do you keep saying we're dead when I have quite clearly pointed out why we're not?
[/quote]

Bury your head in the sand, and believe what you want. I don't spend time with people who just want to argue a point they know nothing about! The world just a rock, is it flat too! And when you learn about real weather conditions
you can talk about it intelligently. I work with the national weather service and I chase tornadoes and severe weather
so when it comes to weather patterns I have 25 years of experence. And when I said that Iam not certain if globalwarming is the cause or just weather patterns, that's what I meant so put words in your own mouth not mine.

[ghosthunterbebunker]

Well the fact that the ice is melting at a very fast rate kind of say's something.

All it says is the ice is melting - as it has done before, and no doubt, will do again. I think you are going way beyond the evidence here.



Reason for these thoughts are
that we are filling the atmosphere co2 and it's holding in heat at lower levels,not letting it escape.

At lower levels? I thought co2 dense bands were at higher levels? Anyway, I am not an expert in this - but I am not convinced by the arguments which seem to convince you or the ones you are making here.



But if it's true
then we have big problems if the ice does all or mostly melt.

Is there any real evidence that global sea levels are rising? My understanding was that any effects of changing shore line were rare and localised and thus - not necessarily consistent with the notion of a global effect.


I don't know if it's global warming or weather patterns, but can we afford to dismiss the possibility.


I dont think people here are dismissing any possibilities - but we are not blindly accepting them either O0

Read some of the stuff by Prof Ken Stott for some interesting observations - apparently there is more rain forest now than 10,000 years ago....which was news to me.

Like I said you can bury your head in the sand and have faith, or act.

[ghosthunterbebunker]

Well the fact that the ice is melting at a very fast rate kind of say's something.

All it says is the ice is melting - as it has done before, and no doubt, will do again. I think you are going way beyond the evidence here.



Reason for these thoughts are
that we are filling the atmosphere co2 and it's holding in heat at lower levels,not letting it escape.

At lower levels? I thought co2 dense bands were at higher levels? Anyway, I am not an expert in this - but I am not convinced by the arguments which seem to convince you or the ones you are making here.



But if it's true
then we have big problems if the ice does all or mostly melt.

Is there any real evidence that global sea levels are rising? My understanding was that any effects of changing shore line were rare and localised and thus - not necessarily consistent with the notion of a global effect.


I don't know if it's global warming or weather patterns, but can we afford to dismiss the possibility.


I dont think people here are dismissing any possibilities - but we are not blindly accepting them either O0

Read some of the stuff by Prof Ken Stott for some interesting observations - apparently there is more rain forest now than 10,000 years ago....which was news to me.

Like I said you can bury your head in the sand and have faith, or act. But I don't have to convince any one the end result will do that. And when it's to late it's too late.

[Dr B]

Rubbish

Why act, when there may be no need to do so? You need to make a reasoned case to warrent such action - otherwise it's nothing more than faith.

Also - i dont think anyone here is guilty of burying their heads - just asking questions

[Jocky]

Hi ghosthunterdebunker,

May I make a small OT request:

When you wish to make a short reply to a long post, there is no need to quote the entire thing. It makes the thread rather difficult to read and follow. Please could you refrain from quoting a whole post (unless it is short), and just quote those parts of other posts which are relevant to your reply.

Thanks O0

Jocky

[Araneus]

Bury your head in the sand, and believe what you want. I don't spend time with people who just want to argue a point they know nothing about! The world just a rock, is it flat too! And when you learn about real weather conditions
you can talk about it intelligently. I work with the national weather service and I chase tornadoes and severe weather
so when it comes to weather patterns I have 25 years of experence.

So we're descending to ad hominem attacks and fallacious appeals to authority, now? Very convincing. You haven't provided evidence or reasoning to support a single assertion you've made, despite the clear requests for such in the posts you are responding to.

[Cuddles]

Bury your head in the sand, and believe what you want. I don't spend time with people who just want to argue a point they know nothing about! The world just a rock, is it flat too! And when you learn about real weather conditions
you can talk about it intelligently. I work with the national weather service and I chase tornadoes and severe weather
so when it comes to weather patterns I have 25 years of experence. And when I said that Iam not certain if globalwarming is the cause or just weather patterns, that's what I meant so put words in your own mouth not mine.


Who's burying their heads? You have made several statements that are simply not true, and I have corrected you. I have stated quite plainly that global warming is happening. That is in fact the exact opposite of sticking my head in the sand. If anything it is you who are doing so with your claims that you have not seen any evidence that global warming is real. I have not put any words in your mouth, I have replied to your exact words. I also seriously question your claim of working for the weather service, since you have demonstrated that you know very little about even basic concepts like rain, which is not even GCSE level.

Incidentally, ostriches don't actually stick their heads in the sand. They lower their heads to the ground and scan the horizon so that any movement is more obvious and they can spot predators more easily.

[Cuddles]

All it says is the ice is melting - as it has done before, and no doubt, will do again. I think you are going way beyond the evidence here.

It probably is melting faster than would be expected, but it is very hard to tell since the past record has very poor resolution. We can't really tell if it melted in 1 year or 1000 years, so comparisons can be tricky if they are possible at all.


At lower levels? I thought co2 dense bands were at higher levels? Anyway, I am not an expert in this - but I am not convinced by the arguments which seem to convince you or the ones you are making here.

It doesn't matter where the CO2 actually is, it does not store the heat itself. It simply absorbs long wave infra-red and re-emits it, so more heat is reflected back to Earth. His statement could be technically true, if you take "lower levels" to mean "the Earth's surface and atmosphere", as opposed to escaping into space. I think he basically meant that greenhouse gases trap heat, but said less coherently.


Is there any real evidence that global sea levels are rising? My understanding was that any effects of changing shore line were rare and localised and thus - not necessarily consistent with the notion of a global effect.

It is a global effect and it is really happening. Some old data from http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn1951-predicted-global-sea-level-rise-swells.html

The new data from the University of Alaska shows that the long term contribution to sea level rise from the wastage of the Alaskan and Canadian glaciers is 0.12 millimetres per year, but that this has more than doubled to 0.32 mm in the last decade.
The change so far has been fairly small, but the fear is that if it carries on it will become significant, and there are probably feedback effects that will cause it to accelerate. Current estimates put the average rise at something like 90cm this century.

Edit : Ah, found what I was looking for. http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/dn11083-sea-level-rise-outpacing-key-predictions.html

Satellite data shows that levels have rose by an average of 3.3 millimetres per year between 1993 and 2006.
However, most of the rise is not caused by melting ice, it is caused by thermal expansion. The rate of ice melting does seem to be accelerating though, and it appears that many glaciers, mainly those that actually extend into the sea and under water, are melting much faster and slipping into the sea much faster, so there could be much bigger changes to come.

[Dr B]

It probably is melting faster than would be expected, but it is very hard to tell since the past record has very poor resolution. We can't really tell if it melted in 1 year or 1000 years, so comparisons can be tricky if they are possible at all.

Indeed - and as it is so hard to tell, I would rather not make a Type I error here. So it is quesitonnable as to how to use that information.



It doesn't matter where the CO2 actually is, it does not store the heat itself. It simply absorbs long wave infra-red and re-emits it, so more heat is reflected back to Earth. His statement could be technically true, if you take "lower levels" to mean "the Earth's surface and atmosphere", as opposed to escaping into space. I think he basically meant that greenhouse gases trap heat, but said less coherently. .

Thanks for that O0 I figured he / she was hinting at something but I had no idea what it was.


It is a global effect and it is really happening. Some old data from http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn1951-predicted-global-sea-level-rise-swells.html

The new data from the University of Alaska shows that the long term contribution to sea level rise from the wastage of the Alaskan and Canadian glaciers is 0.12 millimetres per year, but that this has more than doubled to 0.32 mm in the last decade.
The change so far has been fairly small, but the fear is that if it carries on it will become significant, and there are probably feedback effects that will cause it to accelerate. Current estimates put the average rise at something like 90cm this century.
Edit : Ah, found what I was looking for. http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/dn11083-sea-level-rise-outpacing-key-predictions.html

Great resources Cuddles - much appreciated I will take a look when I get the chance. However, you will of course be aware that many quibble over the numbers and what they mean. I read something recently by Scott (or is it Stott?) that did just that. I will see if I can dig it out. I am also sure I spoted something somewhere saying that water levels were receeding.....but can't for the life of me remember where (possibly new scientist :-\)

The fact that it's not easy to find may be a worry.... :o


Satellite data shows that levels have rose by an average of 3.3 millimetres per year between 1993 and 2006.

Maybe it fell by 6millimetres from 1986-1993? ;D
Only joking of course - but i am sure you can see what I mean.



However, most of the rise is not caused by melting ice, it is caused by thermal expansion.

Exactly - nuff said I think. It is clear the debate contains many controversies and lots of lovely logical errors - some of these seem like the "true, but irrelevant" errors.



The rate of ice melting does seem to be accelerating though, and it appears that many glaciers, mainly those that actually extend into the sea and under water, are melting much faster and slipping into the sea much faster, so there could be much bigger changes to come.


Indeed, but changes relative to what? The last 100 years? The last 1000 years? So what? I agree things may be changing (they always are) - where i disagree is with GHDs above comments that the end of the world is upon us. I have a strange feeling we, as a civilisation, have been through these changes before. Modern life may mean a bigger impact for us - but not necessarily anything harmful for the planet in the long term. But as I have said all along, I am no expert in these area and I look forward to reading the links....cheers O0

[Admin]

I am also sure I spoted something somewhere saying that water levels were receeding.....but can't for the life of me remember where (possibly new scientist :-\)

Actually, northern Europe is still rising after the last ice age which gives the appearance of the sea level dropping - particularly in scandanavia I believe.

The wieght of the ice squashed the crust down and it's still rebounding today.

Whether it's enough to save us from rising sea levels in the UK I don't know though.

[ghosthunterbebunker]

I am also sure I spoted something somewhere saying that water levels were receeding.....but can't for the life of me remember where (possibly new scientist :-\)

Actually, northern Europe is still rising after the last ice age which gives the appearance of the sea level dropping - particularly in scandanavia I believe.

The wieght of the ice squashed the crust down and it's still rebounding today.

Whether it's enough to save us from rising sea levels in the UK I don't know though.


I don't know if this is the reason for the ice melt. I am just saying we cannot ignore it no matter what we believe.
And we cannot allow politicians to be politicians and argue about and nothing gets done. So far this is the only planet we can travel.

[ghosthunterbebunker]

Thanks for that I figured he / she was hinting at something but I had no idea what it was

Thank's I feel the same way about you,especially when you argue everyone's wrong even though
you admit no real knowledge of the subject.

[Dr B]

I have never argued everyone is wrong - just that you are in terms of the type of nonsense argument you are trying to make! >:D

I said from the start I am no expert - but that does not mean I cannot see important questions that would need certain types of answers in order for them to be true. Its called critical thinking and scientific reasoning and most around here are quite good at it.

Please don't come on here and make lies up about what people are truly saying. You have already done this with one of the remarks by Cuddles. Don't do it again - it wont get you very far.

We foster real argument here, not the childish nonsense of intellectual imbeciles. Now, if you would like to present that evidence of yours we would all like to see it.

[Cuddles]

Great resources Cuddles - much appreciated I will take a look when I get the chance. However, you will of course be aware that many quibble over the numbers and what they mean. I read something recently by Scott (or is it Stott?) that did just that. I will see if I can dig it out. I am also sure I spoted something somewhere saying that water levels were receeding.....but can't for the life of me remember where (possibly new scientist :-\)

I don't think I've ever heard that one. The figures as they stand now are generally accepted as accurate. Previous methods of measuring sea level were based on measuring coastal levels, mostly in the Northern Hemisphere, so the numbers were always open to dispute. The data we have now come from satelite altimetry (possibly spelt correctly) which measures the actual sea level all over the world and gives a reliable answer. I know some people dispute even these results, but most of their arguments have been refuted. There were problems with the first sattelite data acquired (can't remember exactly what), but these problems have now been sorted even though deniers still like to bring them up so they can accuse the data of not being reliable.

A couple more links about this sort of thing.
http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/dn9717
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11396-ice-sheet-complexity-leaves-sea-level-rise-uncertain.html


Indeed, but changes relative to what? The last 100 years? The last 1000 years? So what? I agree things may be changing (they always are) - where i disagree is with GHDs above comments that the end of the world is upon us. I have a strange feeling we, as a civilisation, have been through these changes before. Modern life may mean a bigger impact for us - but not necessarily anything harmful for the planet in the long term. But as I have said all along, I am no expert in these area and I look forward to reading the links....cheers O0

I don't think civilisation has seen changes of this magnitude before, although there is no doubt that humans, or at least something fairly close, will have. As far as I know the sea level hasn't changed significantly since the end of the last ice age, which is pretty much when humans really started being human. Like you, I certainly don't agree that the end of the world is nigh, but we are now pretty sure that something is going to happen, and we need to work out what it will be and how to cope with it, even if there isn't anything we can do about it.

That actually seems to be a false dichotomy that the deniers love to bring up. Either you don't believe global warming is happening or you think the world is about to end. I think the vast majority of people are, like us, somewhere in between. Yes, global warming is happening, but when we say we need to do something, that something might turn out to just be building sea defenses a bit higher. I think part of the problem is similar to the problems consiparcy theorists have, they might be paranoid and imaginative, but they're not nearly paranoid or imaginative enough. For some reason the giant alien space lizards who rule the world always come up with elaborate, Hollywood style schemes that always have a few fatal flaws that can be found by some lonely, young, whit male sitting at a computer in his parent's basement, when any real giant alien space lizards would do a far better job of it. In the same way, global warming deniers dismiss the extreme cases as silly, and therefore think nothing significant is happening and we don't need to do anything. What they fail to realise is that an average sea level rise of a few centimetres still means billions need to be spent on flood defenses. They seem to have the imagination to imagine Hollywood catastophes, but they can't imagine the real world.

[Dr B]

Cuddles

Great post and thanks for the links. O0



I know some people dispute even these results, but most of their arguments have been refuted. There were problems with the first sattelite data acquired (can't remember exactly what), but these problems have now been sorted even though deniers still like to bring them up so they can accuse the data of not being reliable.

A couple more links about this sort of thing.
http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/dn9717
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11396-ice-sheet-complexity-leaves-sea-level-rise-uncertain.html



That might have been the stuff I vaguely remember....I certainly remember the arguments.



I don't think civilisation has seen changes of this magnitude before, although there is no doubt that humans, or at least something fairly close, will have. As far as I know the sea level hasn't changed significantly since the end of the last ice age, ...

Here - I am perhaps more unsure. The issue of magnitude is not the same as the issue of 'rate of change' and I do not think we have records complete enough on both counts to fully support that we have not been here before - but hey, I am still ploughing through stuff - so may be its there and I have just not come across it yet. :D

Of course we could always ask ghosthunterdebunker for a considered opinion :D :D

[Cuddles]

Here's one I hadn't noticed before, apparently the current CO2 levels are the highest for at least 650,000 years.
http://environment.newscientist.com/article/dn8369.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_level
It also seems the Wiki pages on this are quite good, with references and everything. It seems that sea levels have only risen since the last ice age, and have never been anywhere near as high as they are now. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Post-Glacial_Sea_Level.png
Looking at just the Holocene, when civilisation really started, the sea level has risen by about 4 metres, but has been essentially constant for the last 2000 years. Of course, this doesn't say anything about the rate of change, only the magnitude which may not be as relevant. Since we only have reliable data for the last 100 years or so it is hard to make any comparison of the rate of rise.

However, while we may have survived faster increases in the past there is one important difference now. 2000 years ago there were about 200 million humans in the world. Even just 200 years ago there were only 700 million. There are now about 6.5 billion of us. We no longer have nomadic tribes that could just move away from the sea, or even small communities that could move relatively easily even if they didn't enjoy it. If the sea level rises now, someone is going to get wet. It is not just a case of knowing that similar things have happened in the past, it is also very important to know what the differences between the past and now are. A small change now will have a much greater effect than a large one 2000 years ago. And of course, we will see the results as well. 2000 years ago, if the sea level rose and Bangladesh and New Zealand were all drowned, the rest of the world wouldn't know or care, but if the same thing happened now it would be a pretty big deal.

[Dr B]

I totally agree that there would be a bigger disruption to life today - indeed I hinted at this at the begining of this thread in response to someone else I think.

It really does - stand to reason. 8)

I am still not convinced by the arguments that there is a link between Humans - warming and various gases, and there seem to be some deviations from trends that remain unexplained (though I am still reading through that stuff). If similar things have happened in the past then it suggests other mechansisms could be involved.

So it could be that there is problem
it could be - there is not a problem
if there is a problem, it could be that humans are causing the problem (to some degree)
it could be 'x' is causing the problem
or both - because both humans and 'x' are impacting on some other variable(s) in a similar way.

There are many issues here like - have we experienced this before, and what is our contribution to the current situation? These questions are very, very different and in the current political climate I think they are being fudged somewhat. I think the effects that GW will have now on the population is an important though tangential issue to these other questions above.

If we can know the rate of change we can estimate the rate of decline and see if this is a self-correcting process - thats at least one possibility.

[ghosthunterbebunker]

I have never argued everyone is wrong - just that you are in terms of the type of nonsense argument you are trying to make! >:D

I said from the start I am no expert - but that does not mean I cannot see important questions that would need certain types of answers in order for them to be true. Its called critical thinking and scientific reasoning and most around here are quite good at it.

Please don't come on here and make lies up about what people are truly saying. You have already done this with one of the remarks by Cuddles. Don't do it again - it wont get you very far.

We foster real argument here, not the childish nonsense of intellectual imbeciles. Now, if you would like to present that evidence of yours we would all like to see it.


No I was right, you argue to argue and on this subject you have no knowlrdge of it,so you claim. And my arguement is
whether this is real or not we cannot dismiss it since we don't know and we have to act...so this is childish.

[Dr B]

Your are quite wrong

You are saying whether its right or wrong we had better not ignore it ;D

I find this functionally equivalent to saying we should not ignore anything that is unture....how does that make sense? Why should I pay any attention to the tooth-fairy?

It is not childish to examine poor reasoning....it is how we all learn.

It seems you are displaying a similar type of reasoning to that known as Pascal's wager - which is a very interesting discussion in its own right. Google it and see.

[Cuddles]

No I was right, you argue to argue and on this subject you have no knowlrdge of it,so you claim. And my arguement is
whether this is real or not we cannot dismiss it since we don't know and we have to act...so this is childish.

Your argument makes no sense. How can we act if we don't know what is happening? We can't do anything until we know what it is we should be doing, or even if we should do anything at all.

I have to say, I haven't seen anything childish apart from your answers. You have yet to provide any kind of coherent argument and have simply responded to everyone else by saying they are wrong, without ever providing a reason for them being wrong or giving what you think the correct answer is. That is not how a sensible discussion takes place.

[ghosthunterbebunker]

No I was right, you argue to argue and on this subject you have no knowlrdge of it,so you claim. And my arguement is
whether this is real or not we cannot dismiss it since we don't know and we have to act...so this is childish.

Your argument makes no sense. How can we act if we don't know what is happening? We can't do anything until we know what it is we should be doing, or even if we should do anything at all.

I have to say, I haven't seen anything childish apart from your answers. You have yet to provide any kind of coherent argument and have simply responded to everyone else by saying they are wrong, without ever providing a reason for them being wrong or giving what you think the correct answer is. That is not how a sensible discussion takes place.


It makes perfect sense but you do what ever you want, and believe what ever you want. You want to dismiss
something that could potenally ruin our world which by the way is the only one we have, then by all means do so!
But when you get your meterology degree then maybe you'll have some sort of understanding but for now you are nothing but childish.

[Cuddles]

It makes perfect sense but you do what ever you want, and believe what ever you want. You want to dismiss something that could potenally ruin our world which by the way is the only one we have, then by all means do so! But when you get your meterology degree then maybe you'll have some sort of understanding but for now you are nothing but childish.

Nope. Please point out just one instance where anyone in this thread has said we should dismiss anything. Unfounded insults will not get you anywhere here. If you think something is happening, why don't you tell us what is happeeing? If you think we should act, why don't you tell us how we should act? If you think our reasoning is wrong, why don't you tell us where we are wrong? Simply dismissing everything we say without providing any evidence against our ideas or for your own is not a debate. If that is how you wish to conduct yourself, please just go somewhere else.

[ghosthunterbebunker]

It makes perfect sense but you do what ever you want, and believe what ever you want. You want to dismiss something that could potenally ruin our world which by the way is the only one we have, then by all means do so! But when you get your meterology degree then maybe you'll have some sort of understanding but for now you are nothing but childish.

Nope. Please point out just one instance where anyone in this thread has said we should dismiss anything. Unfounded insults will not get you anywhere here. If you think something is happening, why don't you tell us what is happeeing? If you think we should act, why don't you tell us how we should act? If you think our reasoning is wrong, why don't you tell us where we are wrong? Simply dismissing everything we say without providing any evidence against our ideas or for your own is not a debate. If that is how you wish to conduct yourself, please just go somewhere else.


I am sorry you and your freind Dr b were the ones dismissing everything. I don't care what you do or believe with this
issue. It seems to me that you and your freind have an alot of time to be on the computer obviously neither of you work, so look it up.

[Dr B]

Actually both Cuddles and I are very busy educating the public.....The public will be reading our little discussion and will come to their own ideas.

In addition, it takes no time and effort at all to deal with your reasoning.

[Dr B]

I am sorry you and your freind Dr b were the ones dismissing everything.

For the last time no one is dismissing anything - we are exploring the issues through debate. You want to prepare for what might be nonsense, the rest of us would like to see whether there really is a need to prepare for anything, and if so, what would be the best way to prepare.

You keep making sweeping unfounded comments about other people in this discussion who have done nothing more than ask you "why do you think that?"


It seems to me that you and your freind have an alot of time to be on the computer obviously neither of you work, so look it up.

Meaning....you don't know what you're talking about and have been caught out by some simple questions. The frustration you are feeling now, should motivate you to go to the library. Treat it as a positive not a negative.

[Cuddles]

I am sorry you and your freind Dr b were the ones dismissing everything. I don't care what you do or believe with this
issue. It seems to me that you and your freind have an alot of time to be on the computer obviously neither of you work, so look it up.

Once again, evidence? Just because you claim we have dismissed things does not make it true. Can you provide just one single example from this thread where either Dr B or I have dismissed anything about global warming. In fact, it seems you are the only person who has done so, with your assertion that you don't know if global warming is happening. The fact is, and both Dr B and I have acknowleged this, global warming is happening. What we don't know is the extent, the consequences or what we might be able do to about, if we need to do anything. Asking questions about this is not dismissing anything, it is simply common sense.

In any case, regardless of whether we are right or not, and regardless of our own attitudes, do you have anything at all to offer to the debate that is not just attacking other people? If you have knowledge of this sort of thing, as you claim, you should be able to provide something constructive, such as evidence.

[ghosthunterbebunker]

And once again I am not here to present evidence on this matter, all I am saying is we cannot dismioss this has not being a real possibility. No one has the answers to this yet, but we cannot just bury our heads in the sand and not act to change. Who here hasn't seen a picture of a large city with the smog bank hovering over. Once again all I am saying and have said is if this is true and we don't act for the better we are in trouble. Your looking for answer's well so is every sceintist in the world, and they have there beliefs. But what is true is ice packs that have been on this earth for millions of years have vanished. And sceintist's that have spent decades studing the ice are very concerned
and are speaking out.

[ghosthunterbebunker]

I am sorry you and your freind Dr b were the ones dismissing everything. I don't care what you do or believe with this
issue. It seems to me that you and your freind have an alot of time to be on the computer obviously neither of you work, so look it up.

Once again, evidence? Just because you claim we have dismissed things does not make it true. Can you provide just one single example from this thread where either Dr B or I have dismissed anything about global warming. In fact, it seems you are the only person who has done so, with your assertion that you don't know if global warming is happening. The fact is, and both Dr B and I have acknowleged this, global warming is happening. What we don't know is the extent, the consequences or what we might be able do to about, if we need to do anything. Asking questions about this is not dismissing anything, it is simply common sense.

In any case, regardless of whether we are right or not, and regardless of our own attitudes, do you have anything at all to offer to the debate that is not just attacking other people? If you have knowledge of this sort of thing, as you claim, you should be able to provide something constructive, such as evidence.


I have read your responses and you argue to argue nothing more! And thanks for proving me right about the no job,
thing.

[Cuddles]

And once again I am not here to present evidence on this matter, all I am saying is we cannot dismioss this has not being a real possibility. No one has the answers to this yet, but we cannot just bury our heads in the sand and not act to change. Who here hasn't seen a picture of a large city with the smog bank hovering over. Once again all I am saying and have said is if this is true and we don't act for the better we are in trouble. Your looking for answer's well so is every sceintist in the world, and they have there beliefs. But what is true is ice packs that have been on this earth for millions of years have vanished. And sceintist's that have spent decades studing the ice are very concerned
and are speaking out.


I have read your responses and you argue to argue nothing more! And thanks for proving me right about the no job, thing.

Seriously, what the hell are you talking about? Have you actually read a single thing anyone else has posted?

[ghosthunterbebunker]

Moderator Edit: Post deleted - abusive language.

[ghosthunterbebunker]

I don't consider the previous post abusive in the least! Not anymore than someone who comes on here
and argues just to argue. The truth of it is most of you are british, but you don't need to proclaim it because that snobbish demeaning attitude sure shine's through.

[median]

The truth of it is most of you are british, but you don't need to proclaim it because that snobbish demeaning attitude sure shine's through.


Stereotyping and ad hom.
Definitely a no no. ;)

[Araneus]

Hasn't this guy been banned already? This is a place for mature debate, not childish name-calling.

[Outsider]

From http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/6247371.stm


Chrysler's chief economist said his German colleagues at DaimlerChrysler's headquarters in Stuttgart and other professionals in Europe viewed global warming "with much more alarm than we do".

He called on Europeans to deal with climate change "in a step-by-step, rational way, and not play much Chicken Little", referring to the US children's story in which Chicken Little runs around in circles saying "the sky is falling".

If nothing else, Mr Jolissaint's remarks illustrate the yawning gap between mainstream opinion on climate change among the educated elites of Europe and America.

Hmmm.
Interesting.

Are we going to fall out about how we deal with the problem, or are we going to debate it rationally? :o

[Dr B]

I think most were debating it rationally but then.....you always get one.... O0

[Legaleagle]

Hi there, newbie here :smiley:

Apologies if this subject is already covered in here somewhere but one thing puzzles me about the global warming/sea levels question and wonder if anyone can shed any light?

I understand that the melting of (land based) glaciers will cause rising sea levels by dumping a load of fresh water into the oceans, but will this not be offset by the melting of ice at the north polar ice cap which currently displaces the ocean? If the displacement effect of the north polar ice cap is reduced or removed surely this would reduce sea levels balancing out or moderating the effect of the melting of land based glaciers?

I guess this must be taken into account in the models used somewhere?

[Araneus]

I understand that the melting of (land based) glaciers will cause rising sea levels by dumping a load of fresh water into the oceans, but will this not be offset by the melting of ice at the north polar ice cap which currently displaces the ocean? If the displacement effect of the north polar ice cap is reduced or removed surely this would reduce sea levels balancing out or moderating the effect of the melting of land based glaciers?

Melting of ice which is floating in water makes no difference to the water level, therefore the melting of north polar ice will not compensate for glacial melting elsewhere. I believe that there may be some effect based on the desalination of the sea (due to the sudden influx of fresh water), but I'm not well-versed in the necessary science to know what the result would be.

[Legaleagle]

Melting of ice which is floating in water makes no difference to the water level, therefore the melting of north polar ice will not compensate for glacial melting elsewhere.

OK, I thought that water in solid form displaced more than water in liquid form but I guess this is accounted for by the fact that the ice is only partially submerged and part is sticking up above the water surface?


I believe that there may be some effect based on the desalination of the sea (due to the sudden influx of fresh water), but I'm not well-versed in the necessary science to know what the result would be.me neither :sad:

[Cuddles]

OK, I thought that water in solid form displaced more than water in liquid form but I guess this is accounted for by the fact that the ice is only partially submerged and part is sticking up above the water surface?

A floating object displaces it's mass. Since ice is generally less dense than water (depending on the temperature), floating ice will cause a slightly higher water level than when it melts. However, this effect is very small and is more than overcome by other effects. The main factor contirbuting to the rise in sea level observed so far is the heating of water causing it to expand. I think about 75% of the rise so far is explained by this. Since sea ice cools the water around it, if the sea ice melts the local temperature will rise further and so any drop caused by the ice no longer existing will be offset by the rise in temperature. Desalination can cause the water to expand by less than expected but cannot cause the level to drop. Imagine having a jug of salt water and pour some more water into it. If you pour salt water in it will take up slightly more volume than if you pour pure water in, but no matter what you put it the level goes up, not down.

Also bear in mind that the vast majority of ice is on land. Even if you were correct that melting sea ice would cause the sea level to drop, there simply isn't anywhere near enough to compensate for land ice.