Am I still allowed to question climate change?

[Digsy]

It would appear that those islands predicted to be sinking in the pacific (due to rising sea levels don't ya know) aren't actually sinking.

 

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia_pacific/10222679.stm

 

Ever wondered why they build the log houses on stilts?

[convert]

Ever wondered why they build the log houses on stilts?

 

No idea. Is it to get a satisfying 'plop' when they take a dump on the crapper?

[Wildcat]

The article I've provided a link to shows just how parts of the earth have responded to climate change. There is nothing to indicate that future changes will cause anything like the damage the alarmists (warmists) would have us believe.

 

It also preety much says that future sea level rises can't be predicted.

 

For context here is something more specific from New Scientist on Sea level rise:

 

THREE key facts about rising sea levels need to be hammered home to the world's politicians and planners: sea-level rise is now inevitable, it will happen faster than most of us thought, and it will go on for a very long time.

 

Even if greenhouse gas emissions stopped tomorrow, the oceans will continue to swell as they warm, and as glaciers and ice sheets melt or slide into the sea (see "Going, going..."). The growing consensus among climate scientists is that the "official" estimate of sea-level rise in the last report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change - 0.2 to 0.6 metres by 2100 - is misleading. It could well be in the region of 1 to 2 metres, with a small risk of an even greater rise. And barring a megaproject to cool the planet, it could take several thousand years for the system to reach equilibrium .

 

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20327152.800-now-is-the-time-to-prepare-for-the-great-floods.html

 

So yes there is no certainty about the exact rate of sea level rise, what we do know however is that we should be very concerned.

 

More recent research indicates sea level rise could be even more than they were thinking back in July.

 

http://climateprogress.org/2009/12/09/sea-level-rise-six-feet-three-times-faster-than-the-ipcc-estimat/

 

I'd go a little further than the New Scientist and state that the whole 'science' of man made climate change, and even the climate are uncertain, and no one knows what will happen in the future...

 

You aren't actually going a little further than New Scientist, you are going in totally the opposite direction.

 

Except Gordon Brown of course. What did he say in October 2009:-

 

Well, like the British electorate, the World obviously doesn't listen to him.

 

He wasn't talking about Climate change though, was he?

[convert]

I haven't said that sea levels aren't rising.

 

The first New Scientist article states that a rise of 120mm over a 60 year period has been observed.

 

Taking that 2mm per year figure over the next 90 years (to arrive at the year 2100 as per your other quoted article) would give a rise of 180mm or .18m; not the doom-mongering 1 to 2m estimate in your alarmist article.

 

What all the greenies seem to forget is that we are still coming out of the last ice age, and the earth has been warming for a long long time.

 

Never mind the 'scientists' used the word consensus again. A word that has no place in good science.

 

PS there was a good NOAA El Nino advisory issued yesterday.

 

 

...There is an increasing confidence in these colder model forecasts, which is supported by recent observations that show cooling trends in the Pacific Ocean and signs of coupling with the atmospheric circulation. Therefore, conditions are favorable for a transition to La Niña conditions during June-August 2010...

 

 

Good old mother nature.

[Wildcat]

I haven't said that sea levels aren't rising.

 

The first New Scientist article states that a rise of 120mm over a 60 year period has been observed.

 

Taking that 2mm per year figure over the next 90 years (to arrive at the year 2100 as per your other quoted article) would give a rise of 180mm or .18m; not the doom-mongering 1 to 2m estimate in your alarmist article.

 

You can't use past rates of sea level rise to predict future sea level rise without ignoring the impact of all the Ice that is melting.

 

What all the greenies seem to forget is that we are still coming out of the last ice age, and the earth has been warming for a long long time.

 

Never mind the 'scientists' used the word consensus again. A word that has no place in good science.

 

What has us coming out of an ice age to do with anything? The rate of change of temperatures have nothing to do with natural phenomena. All forcings that have been relevant in the past like solar radiation are neutral. The only climate forcing effect is the release of CO2. An effect that according to the models accounts for the evidence.

 

Consensus has every right to play a part in a scientific debate. It is how a non-expert can make a judgement on the evidence, how we can have faith for example in evolutionary science or that the earth is not flat.

 

PS there was a good NOAA El Nino advisory issued yesterday.

 

Good old mother nature.

 

You mean this report:

 

NASA: The 12-month running mean global temperature has reached a new record in 2010 — despite recent minimum of solar irradiance

"We conclude that global temperature continued to rise rapidly in the past decade" and "there has been no reduction in the global warming trend of 0.15-0.20°C/decade that began in the late 1970s."

 

It is likely that global temperature for calendar year 2010 will exceed the 2005 record, but that is not certain if a deep La Nina develops quickly.

 

http://climateprogress.org/2010/06/03/nasa-giss-james-hansen-study-global-warming-record-hottest-year/

[convert]

Yawn, yet more links to warmist propaganda websites from wikicat.

 

'All that melting ice' Are we talking sea ice or land ice? Are we talking northern hemisphere or southern? Are we sure that the amount of ice is actually reducing? Does melted ice actually increase sea levels?

 

Again, the science proves to be uncertain, yet the politicians and green activists are SO certain.

 

Of course the warmists aren't really interested in using actual observed data (yamal anyone - hockeyschtick time).

 

Coming out of an ice age has no effect old chap? Pull the other one.

Natural climate movements can and do affect global temperature, as does solar irradiance.

 

In wikiworld, of course, all that is conveniently brushed away. Only CO2 matters there, and only the minute percentage of CO2 generated by man.

 

The fact that you believe that consensus has a significant role in scientific debate tells me all I need to know. PS we know the Earth isn't flat from our observations...we don't need GIGO models to 'predict' that it's flat... There are some flat earthers around, but they all seem to be on the pro AGW side in my experience.

 

 

Science requires us to share our data, and try to get others to disprove our theories. Man Made(up) Global Warming trembles like a calving ice shelf at this prospect.

 

 

However, like the temperature, the tide is turning.

[Cyclone]

That is a very serious claim. Who are you referring to?

 

The only people that have consistently been exposed as frauds are climate change denialists.

 

Al Gore and a few others have made some mistakes, but nothing that would amount to fraud.

 

Maybe in your world where anything contrary to global warming just doesn't happen.

Everyone else noticed the scandal at the climatic research unit. You could refresh your memory by going back to where it's discussed and your try to rubbish it all, it's probably about 20 pages back.

[Wildcat]

Maybe in your world where anything contrary to global warming just doesn't happen.

Everyone else noticed the scandal at the climatic research unit. You could refresh your memory by going back to where it's discussed and your try to rubbish it all, it's probably about 20 pages back.

 

Maybe you should check the subsequent reports by the House of commons and the university that have exonerated the scientists of the charges against them? You will find that what i was saying all along has been proved to be correct. There was no fraud.

Edited June 4, 2010 by Wildcat

[Wildcat]

Yawn, yet more links to warmist propaganda websites from wikicat.

 

'All that melting ice' Are we talking sea ice or land ice? Are we talking northern hemisphere or southern? Are we sure that the amount of ice is actually reducing? Does melted ice actually increase sea levels?

 

Again, the science proves to be uncertain, yet the politicians and green activists are SO certain.

 

Even a fool knows that the ice displaced from continents will increase sea level. You don't need to be a scientist to understand that.

 

Of course the warmists aren't really interested in using actual observed data (yamal anyone - hockeyschtick time).

 

The observed data from thousands of proxies have proved them to be correct! The only people ignoring evidence are the handful of deniers who prefer to cherry pick their data!

 

Coming out of an ice age has no effect old chap? Pull the other one.

Natural climate movements can and do affect global temperature, as does solar irradiance.

 

In wikiworld, of course, all that is conveniently brushed away. Only CO2 matters there, and only the minute percentage of CO2 generated by man.

 

I didn't say natural effects don't influence temperature. What I said was there is no natural effect that is changing that can explain current temperature change. Solar irradience has been constant over the time period temperature has been rising.

 

The fact that you believe that consensus has a significant role in scientific debate tells me all I need to know. PS we know the Earth isn't flat from our observations...we don't need GIGO models to 'predict' that it's flat... There are some flat earthers around, but they all seem to be on the pro AGW side in my experience.

 

Science requires us to share our data, and try to get others to disprove our theories. Man Made(up) Global Warming trembles like a calving ice shelf at this prospect.

 

However, like the temperature, the tide is turning.

 

Lol There is a huge amount of published data available, it is all out there and you can do all the analysis you want.

 

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/data-sources/

[convert]

Even a fool knows that the ice displaced from continents will increase sea level. You don't need to be a scientist to understand that.

Would you care to answer my questions or just make silly little comments like the one above? Melting sea ice doesn't increase sea levels. So which type of ice is melting?

 

The observed data from thousands of proxies have proved them to be correct! The only people ignoring evidence are the handful of deniers who prefer to cherry pick their data!

The CRU never cherry picked did they, Michael Mann never did, did he? You really should be on the stage old bean.

 

 

I didn't say natural effects don't influence temperature. What I said was there is no natural effect that is changing that can explain current temperature change. Solar irradience has been constant over the time period temperature has been rising.

Solar irradiance hasn't been constant. It has been constantly ignored by true believers though. Increasing levels of CO2 can't explain the recent cooling period, however the massive decrease in solar activity can. So far none of the GIGO models 'scenarios' have been proven to be correct. PS Anecdotal 'evidence' doesn't count, although the IPCC does seem to rely on it when it can't get the results it wants.

 

 

Lol There is a huge amount of published data available, it is all out there and you can do all the analysis you want.

 

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/data-sources/

 

Yet again a link to a pro AGW site, linking to sources that rely on AGW being true to ensure their funding.

 

 

 

As for your climate progress website, weren't they the site that said

An entire generation will soon be ready to strangle you and your kind while you sleep in your beds

when talking about climate realists?