Am I still allowed to question climate change?

[retep]

This will save you some trouble.

ww.metoffice.gov.uk

Decline in solar output unlikely to offset global warming

 

 

 

The last 10 years 2001-2010 were warmer than the previous 10 years (1991-2000) by 0.2 °C. Met Office

 

You're running round like a scalded cat, get over it.

[MrSmith]

cat

 

Whilst you are on the subject of cats did you know that a new World Wildlife study claims one of the world’s largest tiger populations will disappear by the end of this century because of rising sea levels caused by climate change which leads to the destruction of their habitat along the coast of Bangladesh in an area known as the Sundarbans.

[convert]

So what you're saying is that we should stop putting money into climate change initiatives and start to focus on improving this planet. Things like cutting down on the pollution caused by amount of greenhouse gasses that we use, and ending our reliance on carbon based fuels for starters?

 

Surely if we were using greenhouse gases their concentrations would be reducing? I think you may have meant to use the word release.

 

I agree that we need to wean ourselves off fossil fuels, but only to preserve them for other uses.

 

Nothing wrong with initiatives that conserve our resources and provide plentiful, clean energy. It's just such a pity that both wind and solar can't survive without massive subsidies.

 

PS Greenhouse gases are not pollutants, but they are easy to quantify the useage of, and subsequently to tax joe public upon.

[convert]

Whilst you are on the subject of cats did you know that a new World Wildlife study claims one of the world’s largest tiger populations will disappear by the end of this century because of rising sea levels caused by climate change which leads to the destruction of their habitat along the coast of Bangladesh in an area known as the Sundarbans.

 

I'd be interested to look at this report, do you have a link?

 

Do you know how they differentiate the risk due to climate change, deforestation and plain old poaching?

 

Edited to add. Ah, looks like more non science based hysteria from the WWF. Sea level rises in the area are caused mainly by subduction.

 

Sunderban Island Disappears into the Sea, along with Objective Media Coverage

James M. Taylor – James M. Taylor – March 24, 2010

The Associated Press and other media outlets are breathlessly reporting this morning that global warming has caused one of the Sunderban Islands –part of the Ganges River Delta in the Bay of Bengal – to disappear into the sea. Such an assertion is no different from other hysterical global warming claims in recent years that were quickly debunked by sound science.

 

Sea level has been rising since the end of the last ice age, and will continue to rise (with or without human influence) until the next ice age arrives. Sea level rose approximately 7 inches during the 20th century and human civilization barely noticed. The pace of sea level rise actually declined during the first decade of the 21st century, but it is likely sea level will rise 7 inches or so during the 21st century. And, once again, human civilization will barely notice.

 

The Associated Press article paraphrases (without critical comment or inquiry) an Indian scientist accordingly: “Until 2000, the sea levels rose about 3 millimeters (0.12 inches) a year, but over the last decade they have been rising about 5 millimeters (0.2 inches) annually, he said.”

 

This paraphrase is misleading. The article does not mention that such alleged sea level rise is specific to the localized coastline and is not representative of the pace of GLOBAL sea level rise. Global sea level (which is the pertinent issue here if the alleged culprit is global warming) has been rising nowhere near that fast, and – as noted above – has been slowing down since 2000.

 

So why has local sea level been rising faster in the Sunderbans region than the rest of the planet? The answer is the Sunderbans are on the eastern edge of the Indian tectonic plate, which is subducting under the Asian continent (which also causes the Himalayan Mountains to continue rising inland). This subduction -- completely unrelated to global warming -- is the primary cause of the apparent sea level rise in the Sunderbans region.

 

Blaming global warming – instead of tectonic forces – for the submersion of a small rock island in the Sunderbans is like my neighbor blaming me for damage to his house if I have a fan pointing in his direction during a hurricane. Moreover, when alarmists make a huge fuss over the submersion of a small, uninhabited rock that is a merely a small component of an expansive river delta, they are literally making a mountain out of a molehill.

Edited January 29, 2012 by convert
more data

[convert]

Forget global warming - it's Cycle 25 we need to worry about (and if NASA scientists are right the Thames will be freezing over again)Met Office releases new figures which show no warming in 15 years

 

 

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2093264/Forget-global-warming--Cycle-25-need-worry-NASA-scientists-right-Thames-freezing-again.html#ixzz1kq0xme1I

 

Agreed, it's the cold we have to worry about.

 

 

 

 

What the warmists seem to forget is that the Titanic wasn't sunk by a heat wave...

[retep]

Whilst you are on the subject of cats did you know that a new World Wildlife study claims one of the world’s largest tiger populations will disappear by the end of this century because of rising sea levels caused by climate change which leads to the destruction of their habitat along the coast of Bangladesh in an area known as the Sundarbans.

 

 

 

Bangladesh Concerned With Increased Tiger Poaching

 

The Bengal tiger is currently the tiger species with the greatest population, even at less than 2,500 individuals estimated. Their range, like all other tiger species, has been decimated but the tigers are found in India, Bangladesh, Nepal and Bhutan. Overall, only about 3,200 tigers are estimated to live in the wild and tigers are limited to seven percent of their original habitat range.

 

In Bangladesh, there exists a Bengal tiger population estimated from anywhere between 250 and 400 individuals. These particular Bengal tigers live in the mangroves of the Sundarbans. The Sundarbans is a mangrove forest located between Bangladesh and India. The Bengal tiger is considered the national animal of the country of Bangladesh.

 

Habitat destruction and human pressures are considered key components to the dwindling tiger numbers across the globe. But perhaps the greatest threat to tigers is poaching, which only recently became a major issue in Bangladesh. Due to recent seizures of tiger skins and bones and an apparent increase in poaching in the country, Bangladesh is beginning increased protection of the tigers.

 

Bangladesh has formed a group of 300 individuals which will enforce laws to protect the endangered Bengal tiger and other endangered species in the Sundarbans mangrove forest. The country will be training the individuals in order to keep up with the increasing tools used by poachers today.

 

Minister of Environment and Forests in Bangladesh, Hasan Mahmud, stated: “The forest department staff in Bangladesh need more training, because now the poachers are very sophisticated. Their sophistication has been increased but the sophistication of the forest department has not been increased over the last couple of yeas. So, we have to train them and we have to equip them.”

 

Bangladesh is able to form the group to protect the Bengal tigers due to the World Bank’s Wildlife Crime Control loan of $36 million. Bangladesh, along with other tiger nations, hope to be able to help tiger populations double by 2022.

http://www.aboutmyplanet.com/environment/bangladesh-concerned-with-increased-tiger-poaching/

[JFKvsNixon]

Surely if we were using greenhouse gases their concentrations would be reducing? I think you may have meant to use the word release.

 

I agree that we need to wean ourselves off fossil fuels, but only to preserve them for other uses.

 

Nothing wrong with initiatives that conserve our resources and provide plentiful, clean energy. It's just such a pity that both wind and solar can't survive without massive subsidies.

 

PS Greenhouse gases are not pollutants, but they are easy to quantify the useage of, and subsequently to tax joe public upon.

 

Very true, sorry but I was carelessly posting in a rush. What I should have said was "cutting down on the pollution caused by amount of fossil fuels that we use."

[MrSmith]

I'd be interested to look at this report, do you have a link?

 

Do you know how they differentiate the risk due to climate change, deforestation and plain old poaching?

 

Edited to add. Ah, looks like more non science based hysteria from the WWF. Sea level rises in the area are caused mainly by subduction.

 

What would be the point, you don't think man is in any part responsible for climate change, from your last post you also don't think the planets temperature and sea temperature are rising, if you are right then sea level won't rise and they will be safe from climate change, if you are wrong their habitat will be lost to the sea.

[MrSmith]

Very true, sorry but I was carelessly posting in a rush. What I should have said was "cutting down on the pollution caused by amount of fossil fuels that we use."

 

Technically you were right, because pollution is the introduction into the environment of a substance or thing that has harmful. CO2 and other greenhouse gasses are harmful to many differant lifeforms.

[truman]

Technically you were right, because pollution is the introduction into the environment of a substance or thing that has harmful. CO2 and other greenhouse gasses are harmful to many differant lifeforms.

 

But without them we'd be living on a snowball...which is worse?