Top Japanese scientists disagree with Global Warming

the_13th_redneck said:
Partisan, any rise in sea level isn't going to be that significant. If it does happen, places that are basically a few inches above sea level would be at risk but the Himalayas will still be the Himalayas. Also, this is another thing that people can't really seem to prove. Temperatures are going up a bit but the sea level doesn't seem to be changing enough for anyone to be absolutely sure.
Click to expand...

You and a few of your mates are quite comical on this subject. Maybe its best that you stick to stuff that you are personally familiar with (like playing with guns???). If you really want to understand the subject start reading the following website material.

http://www.realclimate.org/

Using the Register as source material for this thread is rather sloppy and indicates a lack of depth of understanding of a very complex subject.

Redneck, please have a good look at the index in "real climate".

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/index/

If anyone is talking ignorant rubbish then you and your little pal Tommy are doing a terrific job in that area. I couldn't be bothered writing pages in reponse to your sea level comment. It may be possible that you (and your mates) will find some answers yourselves.

Check out sea level predictions boys!!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPCC_Fourth_Assessment_Report
 
Last edited:
Yes, although the IPCC report is a good place to start, it is often out of date by the time of realese and is subject to political pressures with references to climate feedback toned down considerably.

Scientists at a climate change summit in Copenhagen say changes in the polar ice sheets could raise sea levels by a metre or more by 2100. The implications could be severe, they warn. Ten per cent of the world's population - about 600 million people - live in vulnerable areas.
The new estimate appears to significantly worsen the predictions of a report in 2007 by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which said sea level could rise by up to 59cm this century. The IPCC report also said higher increases could not be ruled out, but that not enough was known about ice sheets to predict how quickly they could break up as temperatures increased.

She said the IPCC report from 2007 was an "invaluable document", but it would be years out of date when negotiators convene in Copenhagen in December to try to agree a new global deal to regulate carbon emissions.
Click to expand...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/mar/11/sea-level-rises-climate-change-copenhagen

In the weeks before publication of the first report, controversy broke out about the report's projections of sea-level change, which in the new report was estimated at less than previous estimates. The now-published text gives a warning that the new estimation of sea-level could be too low:

Bear also in mind what the military advisors said

"There is a lack of rigorously tested data or reliable modeling to determine with any sense of certainty the ultimate path and pace of temperature increase or sea level rise associated with climate change in the decades ahead", "most scientific predictions in the overall arena of climate change over the last two decades, when compared with ultimate outcomes, have been consistently below what has actually transpired" and "this tendency should provide some context when examining current predictions of future climate parameters".
Click to expand...

Now 'immediately' means relative to geological timescales, but this thought may focus the mind

The geological record suggests that ice at the poles does not melt in a gradual and linear fashion, but flips suddenly from one state to another. When temperatures increased to 2-3 degrees above today’s level 3.5 million years ago, sea levels rose not by 59 centimetres but by 25 metres. The ice responded immediately to changes in temperature
Click to expand...

http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2007/07/03/a-sudden-change-of-state/
 
Last edited:
Wordie Ice Shelf has disappeared: scientists


r



WASHINGTON (Reuters) - One Antarctic ice shelf has quickly vanished, another is disappearing and glaciers are melting faster than anyone thought due to climate change, U.S. and British government researchers reported on Friday.
They said the Wordie Ice Shelf, which had been disintegrating since the 1960s, is gone and the northern part of the Larsen Ice Shelf no longer exists. More than 3,200 square miles (8,300 square km) have broken off from the Larsen shelf since 1986.
Climate change is to blame, according to the report from the U.S. Geological Survey and the British Antarctic Survey, available at pubs.usgs.gov/imap/2600/B
"The rapid retreat of glaciers there demonstrates once again the profound effects our planet is already experiencing -- more rapidly than previously known -- as a consequence of climate change," U.S. Interior Secretary Ken Salazar said in a statement.
"This continued and often significant glacier retreat is a wakeup call that change is happening ... and we need to be prepared," USGS glaciologist Jane Ferrigno, who led the Antarctica study, said in a statement.
"Antarctica is of special interest because it holds an estimated 91 percent of the Earth's glacier volume, and change anywhere in the ice sheet poses significant hazards to society," she said.
In another report published in the journal Geophysical Letters, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration reports that ice is melting much more rapidly than expected in the Arctic as well, based on new computer analyses and recent ice measurements.
The U.N. Climate Panel projects that world atmospheric temperature will rise by between 1.8 and 4.0 degrees Celsius because of emissions of greenhouse gases that could bring floods, droughts, heat waves and more powerful storms.
As glaciers and ice sheets melt, they can raise overall ocean levels and swamp low-lying areas.

http://www.reuters.com/article/envi...0090409?feedType=RSS&feedName=environmentNews
 
Nah screw it lets wait 50-60 years and ***** about whether it is man made or not, it will give us something to do while we tread water.
 
MontyB said:
Nah screw it lets wait 50-60 years and ***** about whether it is man made or not, it will give us something to do while we tread water.
Click to expand...

Actually a delaying action is probably the primary tactic of the skeptics. It will be then too late to do anything about it so why bother? In fact some scientists think the climate has already flipped (from greenhouse gases NOT naturally) and cannot be reversed.
 
Of course it is but lets face it until something catastrophic happens nothing is going to be resolved so I suggest that if you can't beat them, join them lets speed this process up.
 
Well I haven't heard that one since a denier tried to intimidate me, but I agree it is unlikely that the average Joe will actually do anything other than token gestures until beach frontal properties are threatened. Of course some ecological effects are probably already taking place but they won't worry too much about that. It will be interesting to see how it will all turn out.

The risk is that a true technological fix to reducing carbon emissions will not come along and we will have to move to plan B, geo engineering, essentially trying to patch things up after the horse has bolted. In fact this may be the most likely scenario with significant risks in either case. Moreover these don't encourage the reduction of carbon emissions, it's a bit like providing medical care for a heroin addict so he can tolerate injecting more. Not sure which one you favour.

Fixing the planet Could technology help save the world?

Injecting the air with particles to reflect sunlight

Volcanic eruptions release huge amounts of sulphate particles into the upper atmosphere, where they reflect sunlight. After Mount Pinatubo erupted in 1991, sulphates reflected enough sunlight to cool the Earth by 0.5C for a year or two. The Nobel Laureate Paul Crutzen suggested in 2006 that it may be possible to inject artificial sulphate particles into the upper atmosphere – the stratosphere. However, the idea does not address ocean acidification caused by rising CO2 levels. There may be side-effects such as acid rain and adverse effects on agriculture.

Creating low clouds over the oceans

Another variation on the theme of increasing the Earth's albedo, or reflectivity to sunlight, is to pump water vapour into the air to stimulate cloud formation over the sea. John Latham of the United States National Centre for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colorado is working with Stephen Salter of Edinburgh University and Mike Smith at Leeds to atomise seawater to produce tiny droplets to form low-level maritime clouds that cover part of the oceanic surface. The only raw material is seawater and the process can be quickly turned off. The cloud cover would only affect the oceans, but still lower global temperatures.

Fertilising the sea with iron filings

This idea arises from the fact that the limiting factor in the multiplication of phytoplankton – tiny marine plants – is the lack of iron salts in the sea. When scientists add iron to "dead" areas of the sea, the result is a phytoplankton bloom which absorbs CO2. The hope is that carbon taken up by the microscopic plants will sink to deep layers of the ocean, and be taken out of circulation. Experiments support the idea, but blooms may be eaten by animals so carbon returns to the atmosphere as CO2.

Mixing the deep water of the ocean

The Earth scientist James Lovelock, working with Chris Rapley of the Science Museum in London, devised a plan to put giant tubes into the seas to take surface water rich in dissolved CO2 to lower depths where it will not surface. The idea is to take CO2 out of the short-term carbon cycle, cutting the gas in the atmosphere. Critics say it may bring carbon locked away in the deep ocean to the surface.

Giant mirrors in space

Some scientists suggest it would be possible to deflect sunlight with a giant mirror or a fleet of small mirrors between the Earth and the Sun. The scheme would be costly and prompt debate over who controls it. Many scientists see it as contrary to the idea of working with the Earth's systems.
Click to expand...

The alternative is to adapt, and before you jump and say YES. This means allowing mass migration out of Africa, Latin America and SE Asia, and abandoning cities (along with historic treasures that cannot be moved) to the sea.
 
perseus said:
The alternative is to adapt, and before you jump and say YES. This means allowing mass migration out of Africa, Latin America and SE Asia, and abandoning cities (along with historic treasures that cannot be moved) to the sea.
Click to expand...

Alternatively we could just nuke Africa and the middle east and use the dirt to build our countries a little higher, in the process we will cure terrorism, poverty and world hunger not to mention the nuclear winter should cool the Earth a bit.

Seems like a win win solution.
 
Africa seems to be face with a choice of either liberalising markets imposed by the IMF and World Bank whilst the Europeans and Americans place tariffs on their agriculture, or no investment opportunities at all. Unbridled capitalism for Africa, Socialism as far as trade is concerned for others.

No doubt Africa was probably hoping that the Soviet Bloc and NATO would fire at one another so they could be left with a level playing field in terms of trade. Unfortunately Gorbachov messed that one up.

Osama Bin Laden however is a ecological hero, think how much carbon emissions he saved in reduced international flights (albeit at the cost of emitting a bit of carbon in the first place).

Good job this is a liberal board!
 
Last edited:
Actually I may have spoken too soon, it seems large sea level rises of the order of 8ft over 50 years are possible after all. So don't buy a seaside property!


Nature sea level rise shocker: Coral fossils suggest “catastrophic increase of more than 5 centimetres per year over a 50-year stretch is possible.” Lead author warns, “This could happen again

This research amplifies the findings in a number of recent studies — and warnings from leading climate scientists — that sea level rise can occur much more rapidly than scientists thought just a few years ago:
  • US Geological Survey stunner: Sea-level rise in 2100 will likely “substantially exceed” IPCC projections
  • Startling new sea level rise research: “Most likely” 0.8 to 2.0 meters by 2100
  • Sea levels may rise 5 feet by 2100
  • Inundated with Information on Sea Level Rise
  • Amazing AP article on sea level rise
Report from AGU meeting: One meter sea level rise by 2100 “very likely” even if warming stops?
And remember, many of those studies and estimates were made before the new recent projects that temperature rise this century may be 4°C to 5°C or more.

If sea levels were even 3 feet higher in 2100 (let alone 5 or higher) and rising 1 to 2 inches a year at that point, it would be the single greatest preventable catastrophe in human history. We cannot let it happen.

http://climateprogress.org/2009/04/15/nature-sea-level-rise-global-warming-reefs/
 
Rob Henderson had made the point, "But would it really be a BAD thing to be more conscious of our environment?"

Heck no, Rob. It's responsible to do so.

What folks like me chafe at are these issues, among others:

1. We see the planet as a dynamic environment FAR too big and FAR too complex for mankind to screw up, even if we wanted to;

2. We see the solar cycles as far more responsible for CLIMATE FLUCTUATION than the miniscule effects that the entirety of homo sapiens sapiens' existence on the planet caused;

3. Because of #1 and #2 above, we do not think that we have to severely curtail our use of energy resources, limit our natural development as a species, or roll back our standards of living in pursuit of an imaginary Gaia-worshipping utopian ideal where every living thing makes no effect on its surroundings at all.

Rob, we have gotten to the point that the EPA has declared CARBON DIOXIDE A POLLUTANT! What does the EPA have against plants?

The atmospheric components have fluctuated over the course of geologic history, why should the Holocene (present geologic period) be any different? No, we should not be dumping refrigerators in beautiful mountain streambeds, nor slinging bags of garbage out of our windows, nor dumping raw sewage in the rivers. But engaging in nonsense like "carbon footprint" fretting, outlawing freon forcing up the price of air conditioning, and forcing rolling blackouts because the environmentalist alarmists won't let us build nuclear power plants or drill for oil is simply Ludditic.

"Anthropogenic Global Warming" is a HOAX, Rob. We couldn't warm up the planet even if we really tried.

And, perseus, PLEASE tell me what caused climate fluctuations before this pestilence you consider mankind to be ever infested the savannahs of Africa.
 
Last edited:
And, perseus, PLEASE tell me what caused climate fluctuations before this pestilence you consider mankind to be ever infested the savannahs of Africa.
Click to expand...

These, along with volcanic activity

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles

but the earths orbit and inclination only changes over tens of thousands of years. The solar flux has decreased over the last 30, so it's not either of them. What else, surely not these?
GHG.gif


Of course this sudden increase in the last hundred years could be entirely natural, mans influence being a mere coincidence!;)

PS You wouldn't believe it but this chart is from a sceptics site! Of course it's the timescales which are important here, anything can happen over millions of years! Scientists don't say natural factors couldn't cause warming far greater than we see it now. They say natural factors cannot be causing changes this fast given the relative stability of greenhouse gases and temperature over the last 5000 years. If something changes this fast the reason must be obvious and it is!
 
Last edited:
Well as someone that is not a skeptic I have trouble with those graphs as there is no real measurement of frequency 5-10000 years in the scheme of things is not a long time especially since the Earth has measurable cycles as long as 26 and 65 million years.

How do we know that for instance at 12000, 20000, 250000 or 1000000 years ago there are not matching peaks?
 
MontyB said:
How do we know that for instance at 12000, 20000, 250000 or 1000000 years ago there are not matching peaks?
Click to expand...

If you go back a very long way such as the Eocene you can get indications of CO2 concentrations vastly in excess of what we have today. This has little relevance why not go back a few billion years when the atmosphere was mainly composed of it due to volcanic gassing?

We need to know what is likely to happen with the present levels of volcanic and solar activity and current orbital cycles therefore I doubt if there is little point going back much more than say 5000 years since the last ice age. However if you must then ice core samples indicate CO2 levels for 100s of thousands of years. We are now nearing 400ppm

decarb1.gif


I am constantly amazed when people seriously question these CO2 changes, isn't the source obvious due to the rapid blip? You don't even need to calculate the CO2 release from fossil fuel, its jumps out at you!
 
Last edited:
What is obvious and what isnt is somewhat irrelevant because as long as "science" refuses to talk in absolutes skeptics will always find holes and I have to admit when I hear people using terms such as "Likely cause" I immediately start to question the certainty of the information being released.

Just for the sake of argument you data shows a peak of about 300ppm 350000 years ago and as of 2001 we were 375ppm (which apparently was the last known reading at the time the graph was presented) is an increase of 75ppm significant, is it possible that the samples are not deteriorating with age and in fact CO2 levels were higher during that period?

Also in terms of how far back data has to go to considered unbiased I would suggest at least one full frequency cycle would be sufficient.
 
Scientists rarely talk in certainties, only probabilities. Richard Dawkins says that his belief in God isn't exactly zero, just on par with there being fairies at the bottom of the garden! Except for perhaps Mathematical truths we are uncertain of everything.

It's just for the sake of practicality when you have a probabilty of say 99% as in the case of AGW one has to weigh the pros and cons of doing something and nothing.

If there was a 1-10% chance then it would be like an insurance policy for civilisation, but is is more like 90-99%, a no-brainer?

Incidentally looking back at the first CO2 graph over the 10000 year scale, and considering that the sudden surge is only covers the last 100 years, what would you say is the probability that this may have something to do with industrialisation, even if we know this can potentially happen naturally over geological timescales?
 
Last edited:
What consumes CO2 and produces O2? Plants, trees.

Weren't we being fed that the rain forest was dying off a few years ago? Isn't a boost in CO2 levels GOOD for flora and fauna? If folks think mankind is killing off trees, seems to me an increase in CO2 is a GOOD thing.

Additionally, it is a planet, the atmosphere is not static.

Can you actually state what the CO2/O2/Nitrogen ratios are SUPPOSED to be?

I can remember in the early 70s, heck, we were all headed for a new ICE AGE, and the Maunder Minimum now is pointing to the possibility of another "Little Ice Age" (the Sun is devoid of sunspots right now, not a SINGLE one).

And now we actually have people suggesting we add POLLUTION to the stratosphere/troposphere to increase albedo (reflection of sunlight)????

Sorry, Chicken Little. The sky is just fine, it's still blue, the planet still revolves, ice sheets expand and shrink all the time, climate fluctuates. It's called NATURE, and I ain't ready and willing to give up the modern world because a group of politically motivated "scientists" armed with charts and graphs want to shut down the advance of mankind and return us to an agrarian age and force us to use one square of toilet paper and recycle turds.
 
bropous said:
-snip- If folks think mankind is killing off trees, seems to me an increase in CO2 is a GOOD thing.

-snip- ...I ain't ready and willing to give up the modern world because a group of politically motivated "scientists" armed with charts and graphs want to shut down the advance of mankind and return us to an agrarian age and force us to use one square of toilet paper and recycle turds.
Click to expand...

...yeah, and the sun rotates around the earth... or was it vice versa? And, as we all can clearly observe, earth is flat... or?

Opinion is one thing, facts are another, and you have to analyze them. A good start is to doubt your own opinion and take it from there.

Rattler
 
Nothing says that I have to take slanted data produced for a political end as truth, rattler. I like how you have to equate not believing in this global warming Bravo Sierra as thinking the earth is flat or the sun revolves around the earth...but here's the shoe on the other foot:

Natural cycles, man, is my point, and throwing away modern technologies and conveniences in pursuit of some alarmist trumped-up Leftist environmentalist whacko Birkenstock Gaia-worshipping religion is not my idea of a future I want to see.

If the climate is fluctuating, it is a NATURAL CYCLE, and even if mankind WANTED to change the climate on purpose, he couldn't. :firedevi:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top