Climate-gate
- Thread starter Photizo
- Start date
As you will one day come to find out.
The thread is about the Climate gate scandal. I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything (unlike others who repeatedly try to convince readers how and why not buying into the "convenient" Woo-Woo concocting their myth is tantamount to a crime against humanity). I'm merely providing alternative information. Consider that science is about skepticism not group think...you (plural) in fact demonstrate the precise opposite of all you (plural) supposedly hold sacrosanct while simultaneously curiously exhibiting the characteristics of those you hold in contempt and consider your intellectual inferiors i.e. religious believers. That such hypocrisy and irony eludes detection by your BS meter is disconcerting to say the least. Those of you caught up in this mass hysteria put the most fanatical of religious zealots to shame... Whatever, if you remain unconvinced concerning the fraud perpetrated by the IPCC, again, I submit it says more about you and that BS meter of yours than my outlook.
no one should buy any land in lower Florida, it won't exist in 2100.
:zzz:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iVttichSzFk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MsioIw4bvzI
No. This thread is only titled for the so-called scandal of hacked private emails using jargon you didn't understand. But as the post above that you yourself made, you clearly have felt free to put whatever crap your echo chamber advocates and claim its all part of the discussion. (Even when you yourself don't bother to type any discussion.) You cannot at this late date claim the principle that this thread has always been restricted to the topic of the hacked private emails.
Walter L. Wagner
Believe whatever you like, but the facts aren't on your side. Glaciers are melting, the water is rising(and will continue to do so), islanders have already lost their homes and more will do so in the immediate future and Southern Florida and the Keys are temporary phenomena. Record highs and lows are common now, last year was the hottest on record, until next year...
So deny all you like, you're still going to suffer the consequences regardless.
Grumpy
Believe whatever you like, but the facts aren't on your side. Glaciers are melting, the water is rising(and will continue to do so), islanders have already lost their homes and more will do so in the immediate future and Southern Florida and the Keys are temporary phenomena. Record highs and lows are common now, last year was the hottest on record, until next year...
So deny all you like, you're still going to suffer the consequences regardless.
Grumpy
This chart does not include the last few years, which are all records. It's going to get worse.
And notice that our current sea levels are the anomaly, the mean sea level is over 100 meters higher, glaciers are also a temporary phenomenon. The climate has changed radically over the years. Our current climate is going to change, we've just pushed it in the wrong direction with our sudden jolt of carbon(among other noxious gasses). Buckle up, you have no choice about whether you will experience it, even if you don't believe the evidence of it's approach.
Grumpy
Actually, they are. Wikipedia (that fount of all knowledge) states that the 'current rate' of rise is 3 mm/year. That would be 30 cm in a century. But the rate is higher now than at the beginning of the 20th century. I believe the rise in the 20th century was about 19 cm, and in the 19th century it was about 6 cm. "Sea level rose by 6 cm during the 19th century and 19 cm in the 20th century." and "Between 1870 and 2004, global average sea levels rose 195 mm (7.7 in)" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Current_sea_level_rise That is what I stated; "a few cm for the past century". It is expected to be about 2-3 times as much in the 21st century if current acceleration continues. That is a far cry from all of the glaciers melting in this century, as you suggested.
Walter L. Wagner
As I suggested was a real possibility, you do know the term "worst case scenario", right? The rates of the loss of glacial ice have been accelerating for over 3 decades now,
"Another study suggest that the EAIS(East Antarctica Ice Sheet)has melted once before, during the Pliocene Epoch some 5 to 2.5 million years ago, a period that is comparable in atmospheric CO2 concentrations and global temperatures to those predicted for the end of this century. The EAIS alone added about 10 meters (33 feet) to sea level rise. “This is already after a completely deglaciated West Antarctic Ice Sheet and deglaciated Greenland Ice Sheet,” said Carys Cook, a researcher at Imperial College London. “In total that accounts to be 22 meters (72 feet) of global sea level rise.”
http://nsidc.org/icelights/2013/10/30/is-an-east-antarctic-melt-probable/
Some things are stable until you exceed their limits, then they go chaotic. Weather, climate, ice sheet flow rates, ocean currents, Jurassic Park dinosaurs...sometimes a trend lulls us into thinking we know what's coming, but chaos has a habit of slapping those expectations up side the head.The Antarctic glaciers are accelerating their movements, calving and melting, they are currently twice what they were in the 1990s and have been for most of the decade. And that's before we even consider the methane hydrate problems. We KNOW those are chaotic if triggered, methane is several times the greenhouse gas CO2 is and when it gasifies it does so in large batches. A difference of just a degree or two goes from nice, calm hydrates on the ocean floor to bubbly water that ships might not float in. If that happens on a large scale, it's game over.
Grumpy
As I suggested was a real possibility, you do know the term "worst case scenario", right? The rates of the loss of glacial ice have been accelerating for over 3 decades now,
"Another study suggest that the EAIS(East Antarctica Ice Sheet)has melted once before, during the Pliocene Epoch some 5 to 2.5 million years ago, a period that is comparable in atmospheric CO2 concentrations and global temperatures to those predicted for the end of this century. The EAIS alone added about 10 meters (33 feet) to sea level rise. “This is already after a completely deglaciated West Antarctic Ice Sheet and deglaciated Greenland Ice Sheet,” said Carys Cook, a researcher at Imperial College London. “In total that accounts to be 22 meters (72 feet) of global sea level rise.”
http://nsidc.org/icelights/2013/10/30/is-an-east-antarctic-melt-probable/
Some things are stable until you exceed their limits, then they go chaotic. Weather, climate, ice sheet flow rates, ocean currents, Jurassic Park dinosaurs...sometimes a trend lulls us into thinking we know what's coming, but chaos has a habit of slapping those expectations up side the head.The Antarctic glaciers are accelerating their movements, calving and melting, they are currently twice what they were in the 1990s and have been for most of the decade. And that's before we even consider the methane hydrate problems. We KNOW those are chaotic if triggered, methane is several times the greenhouse gas CO2 is and when it gasifies it does so in large batches. A difference of just a degree or two goes from nice, calm hydrates on the ocean floor to bubbly water that ships might not float in. If that happens on a large scale, it's game over.
Grumpy
Worst case from IPCC #5 is 60cm (.6 meters.) This includes all those chaotic positive-feedback mechanisms you postulated.
The picture you posted showed Florida after a 40 METER sea level rise. So no, worst case scenario we do not lose Florida by 2100. Try various sea rise numbers here to see for yourself:
http://geology.com/sea-level-rise/florida.shtml
No one in the AGW research community is predicting a 22 meter rise.
Yes, and as I posted, based on the current acceleration, one would expect about 2-3 times as much rise in the 21st century as in the 20th (i.e. maybe a meter or so, which is significant).
The fact of the matter is, we really don't know enough about the full causes of any of the past glaciations or glacial-melt phases of the preceding eras. One could also make the claim ("as a worst case scenario"), as have some, that increased warmth means increased precipitation means increased cold/snow in the northern hemisphere/North America (as for example the current extreme cold of North America) which means a re-start of the ice-ages. The full interplay of changing ocean-currents, stopping/stopping of warm currents (e.g. Gulf Stream taking warm water to Europe), changing solar output (solar-cycles), continuing continental drift altering currents, etc., etc. remains as an unknown.
What is known is that CO2 has increased significantly, and that overall, there is a warming trend. But we've had warming trends in the past few milennia on par with the current trend. Indeed, if you look at the sea-level chart I posted, it really isn't known why the rising suddenly 'stopped' (slowed significantly, it never completely stopped) circa 7 kya. And as per that post, there is extensive evidence that we've already experienced significant social change back then, with many underwater ports, etc. from sea levels rising a few meters just in the past few milennia.
So, I believe we still need more information to see what the atmospheric changes will entail in the long-run (slow warming, rapid warming, etc.). Conservatively, we should play it safe and work at reducing those changes. But I don't see evidence of complete melt of the glaciers during this century, even as a "worst case" scenario. Yet the current trend is to increase coal consumption (especially China), oil consumption, etc. One also wonders about the marine effects from potential increase in dissolving of CO2 (acidification).
I really hope you are bright enough - but I seriously DOUBT IT - to realize a couple of things about that VERY stupid article!
First, the writer shows NO credentials to indicate he's qualified to even comment on climate change. Actually, he's just an ordinary dufus like you.
Second, a SINGLE summer means absolutely NOTHING about the climate. Only an idiot could believe that. (And guess what that makes him and YOU!)
Rodney Hide is a former Member of Parliment, he has a degree in Zoology and Botany, a degree in Resource Management, and a Masters degree in Economics from Montana State University. As a member of parliment he started a third party that is generally characterized as center-right. Rodney Hide, as a Member of Parliment has stated that:
"I think I will be the only person speaking in this debate who has any qualifications in environmental science.
It is not that that should count, but I think that it is significant for what I am about to say—that is, that the entire climate change - global warming hypothesis is a hoax, that the data and the hypothesis do not hold together, that Al Gore is a phoney and a fraud on this issue, and that the emissions trading scheme is a worldwide scam and swindle."
Of him, Brian Rudman had this to say:
"Of more concern is his indulging Mr Hide in his fruitcake views on global warming. As part of the deal, Mr Key has agreed to a climate change select committee.
Attached as first appendix to the coalition agreement is Act's terms of reference, top of which is a requirement that the scientific case be relitigated.
It reads: "The committee shall hear competing views on the scientific aspects of climate change from internationally respected sources and assess the quality and impartiality of official advice."
The small print of the coalition agreement says these "terms of reference" are "an initial basis for discussion", but the fact that Prime Minister Key is happy to give official credence to this nuttiness risks making New Zealand, and him, a laughing stock.
He must know there's more chance of finding an internationally respected flat-earther, or apostle of intelligent design, or even a Holocaust denier than there is of finding a peer-reviewed case against human-assisted global warming."
In 2010 Rodney Hide had this to say:
"The so-called scientific agencies responsible for the climate-scare have ruthlessly suppressed competing theories and contrary data controlling and manipulating the peer review process.
Government sponsored climate science has proved to have more in common with the Spanish inquisition than Popperian science.
Climate-gate, Glacier-gate, Africa-gate has left the once vaunted IPCC totally discredited."
To which Gareth Renownden replied:
"Hide is certainly parliament’s highest-profile climate “skeptic” (his spelling), with a long track record of spouting the standard climate crank arguments, but yesterday Hide combined a complete misrepresentation of the so-called “climategate” affair with a scurrilous attack on the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research, based entirely on the discredited smear campaign emanating from the NZ Climate “Science” Coalition and Richard Treadgold’s “Climate Conversation Group”. Here’s the relevant section of Hide’s diatribe, annotated by me to show just how far from the truth he strayed…"
He has characterized the IPCC Fourth Assessment was "infamously wrong" and stated that "It’s mates choosing mates. And the most important thing is for authors to believe the human-induced global warming nonsense before they start."
He has, however, also stated the following:
"Yes, CO2 is a greenhouse gas and causes warming. Yes, burning fossil fuels produces CO2 and the concentration of CO2 in the air has increased. And yes, the Earth is warmer now than it was 100 years ago. The science shows that doubling CO2 in the atmosphere would increase the Earth's temperature by a little over one degree.
It's warmer now than it was but the present temperature is nothing out of the ordinary. It's been warmer. And the present rate of temperature change is, again, nothing alarming. The Earth has seen it all before.
It's all about what happens next. That's where the leap occurs from science to computer models. The predicted rise in CO2 on its own doesn't produce a rise in temperature that is at all worrying. Its effect must be multiplied within the models.
The chief greenhouse gas is not CO2, but water vapour. The models are programmed so increasing CO2 warms the earth, producing more water vapour which, in turn, warms the earth even more. It's that multiplying effect through increased water vapour that causes the "climate change" scare, not the CO2 increase on its own."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Art_of_Being_Right
The issues are: Climategate and implications arising from that with respect to trust...FACT... and, more recently now, the expedition that got stuck in the ice and all the irony contained in all aspects of it i.e. the purpose of the expedition, the rescue etc. FACT.
Your "FACT" simply proves both you and that guy Hide to be complete idiots. As I said, ONE single summer means nothing in the overall scheme of things. One more thing, dummy, it is NOT "Global Warming" - the proper term is CLIMATE CHANGE. Too bad you simpletons cannot understand the difference. It means warmer in some places AND colder in others.
Photizo
Do you know what is under the sands of the Sahara desert? River beds, forests, savannahs, grass plains like the midwest and signs of civilization. Do you know why it's now a desert instead of all those things? Climate change. Denying that climate changes happen is rather, er...thoughtless. And denying science in general when you have no grasp of it is, er...not conducive to your long term survival. You are fated to future disappointment and chagrin, don't you ever get tired of being wrong about everything all of the time?
Grumpy
Do you know what is under the sands of the Sahara desert? River beds, forests, savannahs, grass plains like the midwest and signs of civilization. Do you know why it's now a desert instead of all those things? Climate change. Denying that climate changes happen is rather, er...thoughtless. And denying science in general when you have no grasp of it is, er...not conducive to your long term survival. You are fated to future disappointment and chagrin, don't you ever get tired of being wrong about everything all of the time?
Grumpy
Say about 18 cm from 1910-2010 based on tidal gauges. http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/indicators/oceans/sea-level.html
The current rate from satellites is best described as a few cm per decade. http://sealevel.colorado.edu/ http://ibis.grdl.noaa.gov/SAT/SeaLevelRise/LSA_SLR_timeseries_global.php
The big island is geologically new and is actually causing the crust to bend under its weight. But this effect does not extend to the much older Oahu where sea level gauges also show the slower relative rise in sea levels attributable to higher heat content of the oceans. http://www.uhh.hawaii.edu/~kenhon/GEOL205/Chain/default.htm
Other ocean effects like acidification and wave erosion will take their toll on atolls and other low-lying islands and tend to erode the peaks of the newer Hawaiian islands. Erosion and sea level rise are the major factors with Kiribati, not tectonic sinking.
GPS is a useful tool to distinguish relative sea level change as measured with local tidal gauges from absolute land level change relative to the reference geoid.
The term was originally global warming; then, to take advantage of the vast numbers possessing defective b.s. meters, it became climate change.
I guess you could say the more things change, the more they stay the same.