BS: Global warming?

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming?
From: Amos
Date: 01 Jul 09 - 08:50 PM

"Jakobshavn Glacier has doubled its speed in the past 15 years, draining increasing amounts of ice from the Greenland ice sheet into the ocean, and Holland, an oceanographer at New York University, has been trying to find out why. Scientists like him are more than a little astonished at the rate at which our planet's frozen frontiers seem to be responding to global warming. The crucial question, though, is what will happen over the next few decades and centuries.

That's because the fate of the planet's ice, from relatively small ice caps in places like the Canadian Arctic, the Andes and the Himalayas, to the immense ice sheets of Greenland and Antarctica, will largely determine the speed and extent of sea level rise. At stake are the lives and livelihoods of hundreds of millions of people, not to mention millions of square kilometres of cities and coastal land, and trillions of dollars in economic terms.

In its 2007 report, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) forecast a sea level rise of between 19 and 59 centimetres by 2100, but this excluded "future rapid dynamical changes in ice flow". Crudely speaking, these estimates assume ice sheets are a bit like vast ice cubes sitting on a flat surface, which will stay in place as they slowly melt. But what if some ice sheets are more like ice cubes sitting on an upside-down bowl, which could suddenly slide off into the sea as conditions get slippery? "Larger rises cannot be excluded but understanding of these effects is too limited to assess their likelihood," the IPCC report stated.

Even before it was released, the report was outdated. Researchers now know far more. And while we still don't understand the dynamics of ice sheets and glaciers well enough to make precise predictions, we are narrowing down the possibilities. The good news is that some of the scarier scenarios, such as a sudden collapse of the Greenland ice sheet, now appear less likely. The bad news is that there is a growing consensus that the IPCC estimates are wildly optimistic.

The oceans are already rising. Global average sea level rose about 17 centimetres in the 20th century, and the rate of rise is increasing. The biggest uncertainty for those trying to predict future changes is how humanity will behave. Will we start to curb our emissions of greenhouse gases sometime soon, or will we continue to pump ever more into the atmosphere?

Even if all emissions stopped today, sea level would continue to rise. "The current rate of rise would continue for centuries if temperatures are constant, and that would add about 30 centimetres per century to global sea level," says Stefan Rahmstorf of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research in Germany. "If we burn all fossil fuels, we are likely to end up with many metres of sea level rise in the long run, very likely more than 10 metres in my view."

This might sound dramatic, but we know sea level has swung from 120 metres lower than today during ice ages to more than 70 metres higher during hot periods. There is no doubt at all that if the planet warms, the sea will rise. The key questions are, by how much and how soon?"


From this article on sea level rise in New Scientist.

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 27 Apr 09 - 07:57 AM

Selling The Green Economy
By Robert J. Samuelson
Monday, April 27, 2009

Few things are more appealing in politics than something for nothing. As Congress begins considering anti-global-warming legislation, environmentalists hold out precisely that tantalizing prospect: We can conquer global warming at virtually no cost. Here's a typical claim, from the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF):

"For about a dime a day [per person], we can solve climate change, invest in a clean energy future, and save billions in imported oil."

This sounds too good to be true, because it is. About four-fifths of the world's and America's energy comes from fossil fuels -- oil, coal, natural gas -- which are also the largest source of man-made carbon dioxide (CO2), the main greenhouse gas. The goal is to eliminate fossil fuels or suppress their CO2. The bill now being considered in the House would mandate a 42 percent decline in greenhouse emissions by 2030 from 2005 levels and an 83 percent drop by 2050.


Re-engineering the world energy system seems an almost impossible undertaking. Just consider America's energy needs in 2030, as estimated by the Energy Information Administration (EIA). Compared with 2007, the United States is projected to have almost 25 percent more people (375 million), an economy about 70 percent larger ($20 trillion) and 27 percent more light-duty vehicles (294 million). Energy demand will be strong.

But the EIA also assumes greater conservation and use of renewables. From 2007 to 2030, solar power grows 18 times, wind six times. New cars and light trucks get 50 percent better gas mileage. Light bulbs and washing machines become more efficient. Higher energy prices discourage use; by 2030, oil is $130 a barrel in today's dollars. For all that, U.S. CO2 emissions in 2030 are projected to be 6.2 billion metric tons, 4 percent higher than in 2007. As an example, solar and wind together would still supply only about 5 percent of electricity, because they must expand from a tiny base.

To comply with the House bill, CO2 emissions would have to be about 3.5 billion tons. The claims of the Environmental Defense Fund and other environmentalists that this reduction can occur cheaply rely on economic simulations by "general equilibrium" models. An Environmental Protection Agency study put the cost as low as $98 per household a year, because high energy prices are partly offset by government rebates. With 2.5 people in the average household, that's roughly 11 cents a day per person.

The trouble is that these models embody wildly unrealistic assumptions: There are no business cycles; the economy is always at "full employment"; strong growth is assumed, based on past growth rates; the economy automatically accommodates major changes -- if fossil fuel prices rise (as they would under anti-global-warming laws), consumers quickly use less and new supplies of "clean energy" magically materialize.

There's no problem and costs are low, because the models say so. But the real world, of course, is different. Half the nation's electricity comes from coal. The costs of "carbon capture and sequestration" -- storing CO2 underground -- are uncertain, and if the technology can't be commercialized, coal plants will continue to emit or might need to be replaced by nuclear plants. Will Americans support a doubling or tripling of nuclear power? Could technical and construction obstacles be overcome in a timely way? Paralysis might lead to power brownouts or blackouts, which would penalize economic growth.

Countless practical difficulties would arise in trying to wean the U.S. economy from today's fossil fuels. One estimate done by economists at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology found that meeting most transportation needs in 2050 with locally produced biofuels would require "500 million acres of U.S. land -- more than the total of current U.S. cropland." America would have to become a net food importer.

In truth, models have a dismal record of predicting major economic upheavals or their consequences. They didn't anticipate the present economic crisis. They didn't predict the run-up in oil prices to almost $150 a barrel last year. In the 1970s, they didn't foresee runaway inflation. "General equilibrium" models can help evaluate different policy proposals by comparing them against a common baseline. But these models can't tell us how the economy will look in 10 or 20 years because so much is assumed or ignored -- growth rates; financial and geopolitical crises; major bottlenecks; crippling inflation or unemployment.

The selling of the green economy involves much economic make-believe. Environmentalists not only maximize the dangers of global warming -- from rising sea levels to advancing tropical diseases -- they also minimize the costs of dealing with it. Actually, no one involved in this debate really knows what the consequences or costs might be. All are inferred from models of uncertain reliability. Great schemes of economic and social engineering are proposed on shaky foundations of knowledge. Candor and common sense are in scarce supply.

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming?
From: Amos
Date: 25 Apr 09 - 12:43 AM

The statistical evidence relating to planetary temperatures over the last thousand years derived from measurements, core comparisons, tree ring comparison, etc, in PDF form.

Essentially the long term trend up to around 1750 had a constant high and low limit; the most recent centuries have broken out of the upper limit in a sharp peaking climb.

But don't take my word for it, please.

A summary article from the National Academy of Sciences lists a great many references as well.

A graph of the last 150 years can be found here.

And here's an interesting very recent article which suggests we may be seeing a combination of anthropogenic climate heating combined with a shifting base climate.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming?
From: Amos
Date: 25 Apr 09 - 12:13 AM

"The London Accord is a unique collaboration between investment banks, research houses, academics and NGOs. The London Accord has produced the first 'open source' research resource for investors in climate change solutions. The CD and website (www.london-accord.co.uk) set out the context for investments in climate change solutions, analyse individual opportunities and discuss the implications for the construction of investment portfolios.

Background

The IPCC shows that the world needs to act to avoid disastrous climate change, and act now1.
The Stern review shows that the overall cost of strong early action is much less than the cost of inaction2.
The International Energy Agency shows the changes in fuel mix and energy usage that are necessary to stabilise greenhouse gas concentrations at a safe level3.
The UN Framework Convention on Climate Change shows how much money is required by region and by technology to realise a scenario that achieves stabilisation4.
The UNFCCC report shows further that 86% of that investment has to come from the private sector. That equates to private sector investment through 2030 in excess of $600bn per year.
The London Accord report shows investors and policy makers by technology how attractive that private investment is, at the end of 2007.
The papers in section A (the Review of the Content and this Executive Summary) give the overview. The papers in section B discuss the context, from public opinion to energy policy. In section C teams from leading investment banks and research houses present reports on individual technologies as investment opportunities. Section D deals with adaptation, and the impact of climate change on investments in the existing economy. Here we also present the legal aspects of investment in low carbon technology. Last but not least Forum for the Future discusses the wider sustainability considerations for investments. Section E is where we present commentary on more advanced issues, from the need for an international standard for the measurement of greenhouse gas emissions at Product-Level, to the role of philanthropic investors and the arguments for and against cap-and-trade and carbon taxes as ways for governments to create economic incentives to encourage investment in low carbon solutions.

The remainder of this executive summary makes the case that investors should pay attention to the changing views of society about climate change, that they need to have a view about the likelihood and timing of changes, and that they need to be realistic about the implications for investments. We show that picking winners and losers is complicated, and fraught with uncertainty, but that it can be done. When investors are ready to take action, we show how to use modern portfolio analysis to generate attractive and robust portfolios. We show how portfolio construction is affected by strong assumptions about an individual technology. We consider the policy implications briefly before closing with the inevitable conclusion that more work is required as the science evolves, and as society responds. There is enough clarity to act now and put CASH IN a portfolio of investments to take CARBON OUT of the economy.

Pay Attention

In B2: The Forces of Change in the Energy Market, Nick Butler states that "If we are fortunate the combination of security concerns, prices and technical progress will come together to offer viable answers to the challenge of climate change. The answer will not be simple, nor, in all probability, will it be singular." At the London Accord's launch conference in March 2007, the Rt Hon Chris Huhne MP warned that real solutions would be 'messy. In B1: Climate Change: the State of the Debate, Alex Evans and David Steven write: "[...]while climate change may have reached a tipping point of sorts in 2006 as far as perceptions of the problem are concerned, the same cannot be said for perceptions of the solution." In D4: Investment in Low-Carbon Technology - the Legal Issues, Lewis McDonald concludes that "low-carbon technology is an area of intense activity and regulations to promote and control these technologies are developing at a fast pace."

These quotes represent a widely held belief that there is an emerging consensus that the world faces a serious problem that requires action now, but that there is no consensus about what to do. The London Accord report attempts to provide some clarity about the options for investors and how to express one's view and beliefs about the public and political will to act, the current and future solutions, and practical steps to react to both the risks and opportunities.

Have a view

If one believes the following three things, then climate change will materially affect future investment opportunities and returns:

population growth is predictable: current demographic predictions are valid and imply a global population of approximately 9-10bn in 2050;
energy intensity is predictable: that the long-term relationship between GDP per capita and energy demand holds true. This relationship, in turn, depends upon assumptions of lifestyle, consumerism and economic structure, e.g. the ratio of services to manufacturing. The London Accord's energy demand numbers are based on the IEA's, which extrapolate from the present on population and economic growth, and assume no discontinuities or unexpected large reductions in population growth;
carbon emissions will cost emitters €30 to €40 per tonne: most economic scenarios seem to arrive at a similar range for the cost per tonne. Any cost per tonne above this range merely intensifies the argument. A cost per tonne below this range definitely softens investment decisions based on climate change. Current ETS trading is around €23, and the average over the past 12 months has been around €20."

(Excerpted from the Executive Summary of the London Accord linked upthread).

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming?
From: Bill D
Date: 24 Apr 09 - 10:41 PM

Oh... and if we want real, serious testimony, why not just invite Rep. Michelle Bachman of Minn. to explain it all for us.
She just clarified the issues with CO₂ today, explaining that it is 'natural'...produced by the Earth, and thus presents "no danger" to us! (She also said it is 'only' 3-4% of the atmosphere. *grin*...) (it's actually about 300 parts per million)

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming?
From: Bill D
Date: 24 Apr 09 - 10:31 PM

Note: it was Monckton who claimed that Democrats "...don't want Gore humiliated.."
And it was Monckton who claimed that "..."Waxman knows there has been no 'global warming' for at least a decade. Waxman knows there has been seven and a half years' global cooling."

I doubt that Waxman 'knows' any such thing...and I'm sure that he (Monckton).. is glad that no Polar bears will be able to testify directly about the "global cooling".

There is a guy who claims that oil is not a product of biomass from ancient forests/jungles, but rather is 'produced' deep in the earth, and will in time renew itself. Should we let him testify on a conference for Solar & wind power?

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming?
From: Don Firth
Date: 24 Apr 09 - 06:18 PM

That's a bit like raising a flap because a flat-earther was not allowed to speak at a conference of astronomers.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming?
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 24 Apr 09 - 06:08 PM

Report: Democrats Refuse to Allow Skeptic to Testify Alongside Gore At Congressional Hearing

Thursday, April 23, 2009
By Marc Morano

'House Democrats don't want Gore humiliated'


Washington, DC -- UK's Lord Christopher Monckton, a former science advisor to Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, claimed House Democrats have refused to allow him to appear alongside former Vice President Al Gore at a high profile global warming hearing on Friday April 24, 2009 at 10am in Washington. Monckton told Climate Depot that the Democrats rescinded his scheduled joint appearance at the House Energy and Commerce hearing on Friday. Monckton said he was informed that he would not be allowed to testify alongside Gore when his plane landed from England Thursday afternoon.

"The House Democrats don't want Gore humiliated, so they slammed the door of the Capitol in my face," Monckton told Climate Depot in an exclusive interview. "They are cowards."

According to Monckton, Rep. Joe Barton (R-Texas), Ranking Member on the Energy & Commerce Committee, had invited him to go head to head with Gore and testify at the hearing on Capitol Hill Friday. But Monckton now says that when his airplane from London landed in the U.S. on Thursday, he was informed that the former Vice-President had "chickened out" and there would be no joint appearance. Gore is scheduled to testify on Friday to the Subcommittee on Energy and the Environment's fourth day of hearings on the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009. The hearing will be held in 2123 Rayburn House Office Building.

According to Monckton, House Democrats told the Republican committee staff earlier this week that they would be putting forward an unnamed 'celebrity' as their star witness Friday at a multi-panel climate hearing examining the House global warming bill. The "celebrity" witness turned out to be Gore. Monckton said the GOP replied they would respond to the Democrats' "celebrity" with an unnamed "celebrity" of their own. But Monckton claims that when the Democrats were told who the GOP witness would be, they refused to allow him to testify alongside Gore.

[ Update: 1:55 PM EST: A GOP House source told Climate Depot that the Democrats on the Committee said "absolutely not" to allowing Monckton to appear during today's Gore hearing. The GOP committee "pushed at multiple levels" to bring Monckton in to testify but the Democrats "refused," according to the GOP source. Former GOP House Speaker Newt Gingrich was called in to testify after Monckton was rejected by the committee Democrats, according to the Congressional source.]

"The Democrats have a lot to learn about the right of free speech under the US Constitution. Congress Henry Waxman's (D-CA) refusal to expose Al Gore's sci-fi comedy-horror testimony to proper, independent scrutiny by the House minority reeks of naked fear," Monckton said from the airport Thursday evening.

"Waxman knows there has been no 'global warming' for at least a decade. Waxman knows there has been seven and a half years' global cooling. Waxman knows that, in the words of the UK High Court judge who condemned Gore's mawkish movie as materially, seriously, serially inaccurate, 'the Armageddon scenario that he depicts is not based on any scientific view,'" Monckton explained. Monckton has previously testified before the House Committee in March. (See: Monckton: Have the courage to do nothing...US Congress told climate change is not real ) Monckton has also publicly challenged Gore to a debate. (See: Al Gore Challenged to International TV Debate on Global Warming By Lord Monckton - March 19, 2007 )

A call to the Democratic office of the House Energy and Commerce Committee seeking comment was not immediately returned Thursday night.

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming?
From: GUEST,KP
Date: 12 Nov 08 - 10:34 AM

Yes, when dealing with weather, its not small changes in the average conditions that get you, its fact that the extremes are more extreme. My take on global warming is that you are putting more energy into the whole weather system, so that hot days are hotter, cold days colder, windy days blow a gale, 500 year floods come along every 10 year etc. In the case of the Maldives it would be a combination of tidal surge with extreme weather that would do the damage I suspect.

KP

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming?
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 11 Nov 08 - 06:55 PM

The quoted distance of 'rise' tends to make people overlook the fact that the real damage is done by tidal surges.

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming?
From: Amos
Date: 11 Nov 08 - 12:56 PM

Many scientists believe that, given enough political will, humanity can still manage to avoid catastrophic climate change. But the president-elect of the Maldives isn't taking any chances.

Mohamed Nasheed, who was sworn in Tuesday as the Maldives' first democratically elected president, says that rising sea levels threaten to inundate the tiny Indian Ocean island nation. He has announced plans for a fund to buy land elsewhere in the region, where the country's population, estimated to be about 386,000, could rebuild their lives.

In an interview with the Guardian, Mr. Nasheed said that he is preparing for the worst:

"We can do nothing to stop climate change on our own and so we have to buy land elsewhere. It's an insurance policy for the worst possible outcome. . . We do not want to leave the Maldives, but we also do not want to be climate refugees living in tents for decades," he said.

Nasheed said that he is looking at land in India and Sri Lanka, because they have climates, cultures, and cuisines similar to that of the Maldives. He is also considering Australia, which has land to spare.

To pay for it, Nasheed says his government will set up a sovereign wealth fund, with revenues coming from tourism, the country's most lucrative industry. The Guardian notes that 467,154 people visited the country, which is famed for its placid beaches, in 2006.

According to the CIA World Factbook, some 80 percent of the 1,192 coral islets that make up the Maldives are one meter or less above sea level, making it the world's lowest country. The UN climate panel predicts that, unless greenhouse emissions are curbed, sea levels could rise by 25 to 58 centimeters by the end of the century. More recent studies, such as this one published in the journal Science, sharply increase the projected sea level rise, to as high as two meters.

If this happens, the Maldives would be uninhabitable. But Maldivians wouldn't be the first population displaced by global warming.

That distinction probably belongs to the half million residents of Bangladesh's Bhola Island whose homes were swallowed in 1995 by rising sea levels. In 2005, the 1,600 residents of Papua New Guinea's Carteret Islands began evacuation, as the advancing sea contunued to destroy gardens, sink homes, and contaminate freshwater supplies. Also that year, 100 residents of Vanuatu's island of Tegua had to be evacuated as their homes became permanently flooded.

Other low-lying Pacific islands that could disappear in this century include those in Tuvalu, Kiribati, the Marshall Islands, and Fiji.

Christian Science Monitor

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming?
From: GUEST,Kevin Parker
Date: 12 Sep 08 - 10:58 AM

Hi all
Some of you may be interested in the link (pdf) on this page:

http://www.london-accord.co.uk/accord_2007/reports/b1.htm

It covers the state of the climate change debate from 1827 onwards. One salient quote:
'Business Week called 2006 "the year global warming went from controversial to conventional for much of the corporate world".'

Its part of a larger study by a consortium of London City financial people looking at the costs and opportunities of Global Warming abatement. Beardedbruce, its perhaps an attempt to extend and deepen the work done at Copenhagen, so you may find it interesting to see the way some business people are starting to think. Lots more links on the site

cheers
KP

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming?
From: Riginslinger
Date: 11 Sep 08 - 09:56 PM

Amos - Nothing in your post suggests that man has anything to do with it. Even a sock for Rush Limbaugh wouldn't help!

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming?
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 11 Sep 08 - 09:52 PM

"sea water appears to be leaking into the deep earth"

Ah! Proof that the Earth is hollow! The water is filling up the centre...

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming?
From: Amos
Date: 11 Sep 08 - 08:28 PM

"Gases that cause volcanoes to erupt may have spewed from meteorites that smashed into the earth billions of years ago, according to research presented at The BA Festival of Science in Liverpool today (Wednesday 10 September 2008). Gases that cause volcanoes to erupt may have spewed from meteorites that smashed into the earth billions of years ago, according to research presented at The BA Festival of Science in Liverpool today

(Wednesday 10 September 2008).

(Media-Newswire.com) - Gases that cause volcanoes to erupt may have spewed from meteorites that smashed into the earth billions of years ago, according to research presented at The BA Festival of Science in Liverpool today ( Wednesday 10 September 2008 ).
Gases that cause volcanoes to erupt may have spewed from meteorites that smashed into the earth billions of years ago, according to research presented at The BA Festival of Science in Liverpool today ( Wednesday 10 September 2008 ).

Research conducted by earth scientists at The University of Manchester in conjunction with other institutions, challenges the conventional belief of scientists that the earth's earliest atmosphere came from solar nebular gases attracted and trapped by gravitational pull.

Gases are trapped in the deep earth and only released when rock is melted and volcanic eruptions and fire fountains occur, driven by the explosive expansion of these gases.

But putting gas into rock in the first place is hard and requires extreme conditions.

Researchers say a clue to how this actually happens is the release of 'light' helium – or the 3He isotope - from mid ocean ridges. Light helium is not produced on earth and somehow became trapped when the earth formed.

Scientists have previously argued that to put enough light helium into the deep earth to explain the volcanic emissions, the early earth was completely molten and surrounded by a dense atmosphere more like that around Jupiter than anything we see today.

But new research on neon gas led by Prof Chris Ballentine, Professor of Isotope Geochemistry in The School of Earth, Atmospheric and Environmental Sciences, casts serious doubt on this.

He said: "We have shown that the neon gas fingerprint expected for the captured solar nebula model is not matched.

"Instead we have found a meteorite signature, which suggests the massive early atmosphere is not trapped by gravitational attraction as originally thought but a result of meteorites spewing out gas on impact.

The research being presented at The BA Festival by Prof Ballentine also suggests that sea water appears to be leaking into the deep earth, with half of the water in the earth's mantle – the region of the earth between the crust and the core – estimated to come from this source."

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming?
From: Ed T
Date: 11 Sep 08 - 08:11 PM

I am unsure if it relates, but I found this new tscience throry interesting:

http://media-newswire.com/release_1072594.html


If the link does not get you there, try Meteorites "behind volcanic eruptions' say scientists at http://media-newswire.com/release_1072594.html

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming?
From: Amos
Date: 11 Sep 08 - 05:31 PM

Rig:

His output is much less hot air than Palin's, or McCain's, and certainly far less than the Bushies.... perhaps you are choosing the wrong target.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming?
From: Riginslinger
Date: 11 Sep 08 - 04:18 PM

"Global warming?"

                Maybe the most constructive thing to do about global warming would be to stuff a sock in Barack Obama!

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming?
From: GUEST,Don Firth (computer still in the shop)
Date: 10 Sep 08 - 04:20 PM

Yep, Charlie B., that's it. I notice they also had Life After People there too.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming?
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 10 Sep 08 - 06:52 AM

Today's news from Australia

Greens air coastal development fears

The New South Wales Greens says not enough is being done to ensure coastal development in the Illawarra accounts for the effects of rising sea levels caused by climate change.

A Victorian Court has overruled a council approval for six coastal homes on the grounds they could be threatened by storms and rising sea levels.

The recent decision comes after a similar NSW Land and Environment Court challenge to a housing development and retirement village at Sandon Point, north of Wollongong.

Greens' MP Lee Rhiannon says the State Government needs to be more prescriptive about coastal development and climate change.

"The impact of climate change needs to be taken into account at the start of the planning process, it can no longer be an afterthought," she said.

"That's quite clearly the direction that this decision is taking us."

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming?
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 10 Sep 08 - 06:34 AM

Just in:

'Witch' attacked for causing PNG floods: report

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming?
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 10 Sep 08 - 06:28 AM

Climate change 'causing extreme waves'


Climate change 'causing extreme waves'

September 10, 2008 06:03pm

CLIMATE change has caused an increase in weather events and extreme waves being generated off the southern coast of Australia, researchers have found.

In a report released today, researchers from the CSIRO said they had found a link between climate change and extreme weather off the southern coast.

An analysis of available data shows significant increases in wave heights in the Southern Ocean over the past 45 years, particularly during the southern hemisphere autumn and winter months, the report said.

The frequency of large wave events has also increased.

"Extreme wave conditions are greatest south of the Australian continent, associated with the passage of extra-tropical storms along Australia's southern margin," the report said.

The researchers also discovered a connection between an increase in the power of waves in northern Australia and the length and strength of monsoon seasons.

"Variability of wave power in northern Australia is potentially related to variability in the length and strength of the monsoon season," the report said.

Federal Climate Change Minister Penny Wong said the research would improve understanding of how global warming might affect offshore waves and the potential impact on coastal zones.

"This study will help increase our understanding of the potential impacts to the coastal zone, as well as providing valuable information for those seeking to generate electricity from wave energy," Senator Wong said.

The report would also provide critical information for coastal zone managers to help them plan for the potential impacts of climate change, Senator Wong said.

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming?
From: GUEST,Charlie B
Date: 09 Sep 08 - 08:16 PM

is this it?

CB

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming?
From: GUEST,Don Firth
Date: 09 Sep 08 - 07:42 PM

Patience, sinky. The planet may be your rotisserie soon enough.

I saw THIS recently on the History Channel. Absolutely fascinating!

The earth has gone through a lot of changes over the past 4.5 billion years. Life got started a number of times, only to be wiped out by some planet-wide catastrophe or other, some sudden, like a meteor strike or a massive volcanic eruption, some slow, like a drastic climate change—although not all climate changes were slow—some happened with startling rapidity.

Example: when plate tectonics brought what we now call the North and South American continents together (Central America bridging the two), it cut off the warm current from the (now) Pacific Ocean to the Atlantic (basically separated one ocean into two) and the result was an ice age about as severe as one can get:   the entire planet was covered by a deep coating of ice.

The meteor strike 65 million years ago that wiped out the dinosaurs allowed the chittering little mammals inhabiting the trees to grow beyond being mere lizard snacks and evolve into us.

If we manage to kill ourselves off by precipitating a runaway greenhouse effect and leaving the earth with a Venus-like atmosphere, not to worry. There are organisms right now living around volcanic vents in the oceans' floors, thriving in water temperatures of 700 degrees (water pressure at those depths allow the temperature to go way above what we regard as the boiling point of water). They derive their energy from the heat surrounding the vents, not photosynthesis or necessarily from eating each other. They may evolve, eventually find they can live on land in the Venus-like atmosphere, and continue to evolve to become. . . ?

Life on earth would continue. In the Grand Scheme of things, we would not be missed.

Don Firth

P. S. The History Channel had yet another show that tends to make one think a bit more long range that folks normally do. CLICKY

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming?
From: GUEST,sinky
Date: 09 Sep 08 - 07:17 PM

global warming my arse,england is wet and freezing,more chance of a sun tan in alaska

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming?
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 09 Sep 08 - 06:45 PM

"Why has your country not accepted the Kyoto Protocol?"

Because those politicians are ignorant wankers - or corruptly bribed.

Little Fascist Johnny wouldn't sign, but blathered on about how 'we are ahead of our Kyoto targets anyway'. I think many people finally had enough of him when he babbled on about 'solar cannot provide baseload power', when it was already doing so in some parts of the world. He was one of the very few sitting Aussie Prime Ministers to ever lose his seat - such pollies usually hold 'safe seats' which require massive voter swings. The new Govt had campaigned on signing Kyoto - one of the first official acts they did. Many here think it was only Johnny sucking up to Bush is why he wouldn't sign.


"the 5 feet some goofballs are suggesting cannot happen"

Ah! - but you are thinking of a Canute like gentle ebb - recent storm surges have already been on the order of 18 feet... :-P and when your house and contents are totally stuffed by one inundation, it doesn't really matter if the tide goes out...

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming?
From: GUEST,Charlie B
Date: 09 Sep 08 - 05:15 PM

Touché!

CB

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming?
From: GUEST,Don Firth
Date: 09 Sep 08 - 02:00 PM

"Your Government has a two pronged attack plan for its people. It is to do with taxing you, peak oil production and the introduction of hydrogen based energy technology. I cannot go into more detail here because the truth I will write will cause this thread to be terminated. Censorship applied in the same way as your government censors you."

Phil, I've learned not to waste my time arguing with conspiracy theorists. You folks live in a your own paranoid world, and the more I try to reason with folks like you, the more you insist that I'm in on the conspiracy.

Bye bye.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming?
From: GUEST,Phil
Date: 09 Sep 08 - 01:00 PM

Ok Don…. Here are my replies.. An eleven year sunspot cycle, though unproven will not cycle continuously and simultaneously and its strength will vary. The same is true with Milankovich cycles. You need to worry about the sun's intensity because it may have reached Gaia's tipping point. It is this tipping point that is of relevance: not the sun's intensity; per se.

Nasa receives your government's funding. Your Government has a two pronged attack plan for its people. It is to do with taxing you, peak oil production and the introduction of hydrogen based energy technology. I cannot go into more detail here because the truth I will write will cause this thread to be terminated. Censorship applied in the same way as your government censors you.

These agencies are, in fact, toeing your governments line.. Look deeper Mr. Firth.. Try thinking more about the prime directive of all or any government.

I note you have studied Geologic science. Then please answer the following questions because they are central to the warming debate...yet are never disclosed...

What is the relevance to climate of the Tibetan plateau?

Temperature led warming is shadowed by atmospheric gaseous flux; this is an example of positive feedback. Do you know the implied and resultant negative feed back mechanisms of Gaia?

Please tell me about delta oxygen 18 values and also about delta carbon 13 values over geologic time.

Please quote the accepted value of the Earths albedo and its link to Hadley cells with specific reference to a warming planet.


Why has your country not accepted the Kyoto Protocol?

Please explain your statement "humans to keep accelerating the process by continuously pouring greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere"… specifically what greenhouse gases are you talking about and which greenhouse gas is in the ascendance?

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming?
From: the lemonade lady
Date: 08 Sep 08 - 06:27 PM

I found this and wondered if it is relenvant... I quote...


"What is one to make of a recent press release and submitted preprint blaming global warming on the Tunguska meteor event in 1908? Well, although it is not unknown for impact events to affect climate (the K/T boundary event springs to mind) there are a number of hurdles for any such theory to overcome before it moves into the mainstream from the wilder shores of unsubstantiated speculation.

Firstly, one would anticipate that immediate effects of the impact on climate would be strongest near the time of the impact (allowing for some inertia in the system) and decay away subsequently. Secondly, the timescales for any mechanism associated with the impact (in this case disruption of the atmopsheric water vapour) would need to be in line with the change one hopes to explain. And thirdly, one has to show that this explanation is better than the alternatives. Unfortunately, none of of these requirements are met by this hypothesis.

An impact hypothesis is usefully contrasted to the impacts of a large volcanic eruption like Pinatubo in 1991. There was a very clear dip in temperatures a year or so after the eruption and a subsequent relaxation back to normal. No such event (warming or cooling) is recorded in 1908 to 1910. The timescales for water vapour in the lower atmosphere is on the order of days (see our previous post on the subject), while in the stratosphere it is a a few years. But there are no reservoirs of climatically important water vapour amounts that could still be causing the impact effect to be felt (and to accelerate!) almost 100 years later. And finally, current theories based on greenhouse gas increases, changes in solar, volcanic, ozone , land use and aerosol forcing do a pretty good job of explaining the temperature changes over the 20th Century. It's very hard to see what this idea has to add to that.

In an additional twist, it is suggested that atmospheric nuclear tests from 1940s to the 1970s masked out the effects of the impact due to the supposed mixing up of tropospheric water vapour into the stratosphere after every explosion. This is even odder since stratospheric water vapour is actually quite a significant greenhouse gas, and had this occured to any large extent, it would have been a warming factor, not a cooling one.

So while the physics being invoked here is barely worth discussing, a more interesting question might be why the University of Leicester thought that this was worthy of a press release in the first place, and why this got any traction in the media at all. True, it didn't get much attention, so maybe there is some hope for science journalism after all…"

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming?
From: GUEST,Don Firth (wife's computer, mine's in the sh
Date: 08 Sep 08 - 04:12 PM

Okay, Phil, if you're "well educated in earth sciences," then you should know better.

Yes, it is the earth we are concerned with. And, yes, it is true that the sun gets hotter as it grows older, but this is a process that takes place over millions of years, and in the brief period of time we are talking about, the effect is negligible to the point of non-existent. The eleven year sunspot cycle affects us far more than this does. Our descendants (should we survive our own shortsightedness) will not have to worry about increases in the sun's temperature for a few billion years yet, and much can happen between now and then.

And yes, NASA receives government funding, but if what you imply is true (that they would cobble the science to keep their funding), then how do you explain the fact that what NASA is saying regarding global warming runs completely counter to what the Bush administration is saying? Answer me that.

And the same holds for the Stanford Solar Center. Neither of these agencies is toeing the government line, so your argument just doesn't wash.

I have studied geologic history as well as astronomy. So perhaps it is you who needs to learn a bit about astronomy, particularly the evolution of stars, especially main-sequence, G spectral class stars like the sun.

I support candidates who favor signing the Kyoto treaty.

Don Firth

P. S. By the way, even if it were true that an increase in the sun's temperature is the main factor in global warming, how smart is it for humans to keep accelerating the process by continuously pouring greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere? Raises a question about whether or not there is intelligent life on this planet.

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming?
From: GUEST,Phil
Date: 08 Sep 08 - 01:49 PM

Hello Mr. Firth, I am completely well educated in earth sciences, thank you very much. You quote data released by NASA, they are in government pay, they use the right buzz words in their research to secure American government funding, and hence they are not to be believed. I have no confidence in the Stanford Solar Centre, again they are government funded. I suggest you educate yourself in two poignant ways;

1: Study geologic history, and not astronomy, as it is the earth that we are more concerned with. The sun is getting hotter as it grows older. This debate is about Giai's ability to regulate itself much more than a star's evolution.
2: Lobby your government and ask them why they will not sign to Kyoto.

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 07 Sep 08 - 10:06 PM

"Greenland may BE green in a few decades"

Let's hope so. Then the descendants of the Vikings will be able to recolonize a once choice area and realize the dream that their great great great grandfathers held dear. ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming?
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 07 Sep 08 - 03:24 PM

Guest Phil-
You might be right---but it's a bet we really can't afford to lose.

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming?
From: Don Firth
Date: 07 Sep 08 - 01:15 PM

Just keep on believing that, Phil, if it makes you feel comfortable.

The behavior of main-sequence G-type stars such as the sun is very stable. The only variation in our sun is the eleven-year sunspot cycle, but this has been going on for billions of years.

I could supply you with enough documentation on this (involving many astronomy textbooks) to keep you reading until the sun goes through its death throes some five to seven billion years from now.

The scientific evidence that the current surge in global warming is human cause is overwhelming. If you can handle the truth, read a bit and educate yourself. For openers:

While a component of recent global warming may have been caused by the increased solar activity of the last solar cycle, that component was very small compared to the effects of additional greenhouse gases. According to a NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) press release, "...the solar increases do not have the ability to cause large global temperature increases...greenhouse gases are indeed playing the dominant role..." The Sun is once again less bright as we approach solar minimum, yet global warming continues.

This is from the Stanford Solar Center. Google it and read the whole article for yourself. Lots of data about the sun. Fascinating stuff.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming?
From: GUEST,Phil
Date: 07 Sep 08 - 07:14 AM

Science has indicated that the planet, taken as a whole, is warming. It is more likely that the planet is warming as a result of increased solar flux. It is also more likely that the warming is far less to do with human interference... specifically because of negative feed back mechanisms reacting to the positive feed back of increasing solar intensity.

Interesting to read the posted comments on "global warming". Who are these commentators? Are they scientists? Are they in Government pay? Are they speculators?

The comments though interesting, are pure scientific speculation based on MET office empirical computer models. Put simply, we do not know what will happen as the sun gets hotter. The temperature of the planet is driven by solar warming, (quote ref Geological history) and not by human induced global warming. It would be helpful if we did not make statements about what may or may not happen to Mother Earth (Gaia) All we need to know is that if we continue as a species to take more than we need, abolish attrition and wars and recycle in the name of political expediency, we will without a shadow of doubt realise our own demise.

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming?
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 06 Sep 08 - 09:44 AM

"The panel concluded that the least effective use of resources in slowing global warming would come from simply cutting carbon dioxide emissions."

They went on to say:

"The economists didn't conclude that the world should ignore the effects of climate change. They pointed out that a better response than cutting emissions would be to dramatically increase research and development on low-carbon energy -- such as solar panels and second-generation biofuels.

The United States has an opportunity to lead the world on research and development, which would give it the moral authority to demand that everyone else do the same. The world's sole superpower could finally provide the leadership on climate change that has been lacking in the White House."

Of course, the simplest way to reduce CO2 release to the atmosphere is to burn less fossil fuel.

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming?
From: GUEST,Jim Martin
Date: 06 Sep 08 - 08:02 AM

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?xml=/earth/2008/08/31/eaarctic131.xml

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming?
From: Ed T
Date: 05 Sep 08 - 08:01 PM

http://features.csmonitor.com/environment/2008/09/04/shrinking-arctic-ocean-sea-ice-signals-climate-change/

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming?
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 05 Sep 08 - 07:51 PM

"global cooling continues to do its diabolical work around here"

Here we go again.

What you are experiencing personally is NOT "global cooling", but the turbulence effect of "global warming".

May sound paradoxical BS, but the whole BASIS of the GW theory IS that TURBULENCE will cause more mixing of hot and cool pools of air, sweeping more energy from the warm bits to the cold bits - thus sweeping big pools of 'cold' away to normally 'warmer' spots where they 'warm up'.

Ignorance is bliss, unless it gonna kill ya!

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming?
From: Bill D
Date: 05 Sep 08 - 05:59 PM

not only is the 3000 year old ice melting, the 200,000 year old ice is in trouble. Greenland may BE green in a few decades.

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming?
From: Don Firth
Date: 05 Sep 08 - 04:11 PM

Oh, what the hell!

Two Hunnert!

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming?
From: Don Firth
Date: 05 Sep 08 - 04:03 PM

"Global cooling" is a great sop to those who want to keep right on using the ecosystem as a garbage dump. But the so-called "global cooling" phenomena are local weather purturbations that are caused by overall global warming.

Example:   the melting of the Greenland ice sheets dumps cold fresh water into the north Atlantic which disrupts the warm, heavier salt water flowing up in the Gulf Stream. It is the warm water of the Gulf Stream that keeps Northern Europe's climate moderate. Disruption of the Gulf Stream by the melting ice sheets could, more than likely, trigger extremely cold winters in Northern Europe.

But localized (even though apparently widespread) cooling of this type comes as a result of global warming.

Seeming small actions can have monumental effects down the line. The legendary fluttering of a butterfly's wings in the Amazonian jungle….

:-O    Eeeeeek!!

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 05 Sep 08 - 03:12 PM

Meanwhile, global cooling continues to do its diabolical work around here. It's dreadful. I can hardly imagine what October will be like! ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming?
From: Amos
Date: 05 Sep 08 - 02:51 PM

From Ars TEchnica:

The landscape surrounding Ellesmere Island in the Canadian Arctic is a shadow of its former self, thanks in part to last month's departure of 55 square kilometers of the Markham Ice Shelf. Ellesmere Island anchors one of only five remaining ice shelves in the Arctic, although how long it will retain that distinction remains to be seen. Including the Markham loss, Ellesmere Island has now lost 10 times more shelf ice this summer than scientists predicted on July 30.

Related StoriesHoley cling-film (may slow global warming) batman
Modeling ice-melt may lead to improved global climate forecasts
Located just west of Greenland, Ellesmere Island is Canada's most northerly landmass. Prior to the 20th Century, it was covered by one continuous 9,000-square-kilometer ice shelf. The Arctic has warmed more rapidly than the rest of the planet, though, over the past 100 years, and Ellesmere's ice shelf soon split into five distinct entities. In summer 2008 alone, Ellesmere Island's other ice shelves, the Ward Hunt and the Serson. have lost 43 square kilometers and 120 square kilometers respectively. The Markham split is the latest loss, leaving Ellesmere with only around 800 square kilometers of shelf ice.

Arctic sea ice has been disappearing at near record pace this summer. While the ice retreat has traditionally slowed in early August, this year's downward trend appeared unflappable in those telling few weeks. Scientists are concerned other cracks in the largest remaining shelf, the Ward Hunt, will continue the trend over the next few years.   

Ellesmere Island's ice shelves are estimated to be around 4,000 years old, and experts do not expect them to reform under current climate conditions. "These changes are irreversible under the present climate and indicate that the environmental conditions that have kept these ice shelves in balance for thousands of years are no longer present," said Derek Mueller, Arctic expert at Trent University in Canada.

Ice shelves like those found around Ellesmere Island support unique ecosystems, many of which have gone unstudied. The Ward Hunt Ice Shelf, for example, dammed the mouth of the Disraeli Fjord to form a 3,000-year-old freshwater ecosystem. As the glaciers on the island melted each summer, their runoff fed the "epishelf lake" that was suspended atop the denser seawater. Between 2000 and 2002, the Ward Hunt Ice Shelf cracked and drained the lake, whisking its rare inhabitants out to sea.

Ellesmere Island lost much of its original ice shelf in the 1930s and 1940s, a particularly warm period in the last century. Since 2002, though, ice loss has again accelerated as Arctic temperatures overtop those seen in the first half of the 20th Century

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming?
From: Rumncoke
Date: 27 Jun 08 - 06:28 PM

Casually listening to a nature program on BBC Radio 4 I heard a report of how sea bird colonies were being affected by the spread of tropical plankton and other organisms outward toward the poles.

It is not a theory, not an opinion, the birds can't find the right sort of food to give their chicks in the places they habitually breed. They bring them all sorts of things they can find, but in many cases it is not suitable, so the bird watchers are finding nests of chicks dead from starvation but surrounded by rejected organisms, or even choked by unsuitable food.

The tropical boundaries - an arbitary separation of the Earth's seas by the classification of ecosystems seems to be showing a considerable recent alteration in the warmth of the oceans.

I expect some Northern Hemisphere birds will begin to move their breeding places Northwards once the permafrost melting has settled down and the land develops vegetation suitable for a warmer climate which hopefully will stabilise it.

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming?
From: Amos
Date: 27 Jun 08 - 03:27 PM

IF you mean the Earth as a rock-based accretion in orbit around 150,000,000 KM from SOl, sure it will still be here. If you mean Gaia--a huge and sophisticated community of organisms thriving under a narrow band of temperature and chemical variation osupported by a precise orbit, reliable ratios of light, water and key elements in circulation--not so much, maybe...

But if the removal of Gaia from Earth does occur, it will not be because of people writing gloomy articles.

I would guess, purely speculatively, that it won't even be because of anthropogenic warming. More likely one could whack on the side of the ecosystem by a medium sized comet, or a planetary tidal commotion caused by the Moon getting knocked out of orbit, or some such cataclysm. IF you think life in the ecosphere is brutal, you should try surviving in cold vacuum.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming?
From: Don Firth
Date: 27 Jun 08 - 02:57 PM

What a marvelous bonanza for the oil companies!

The earth will survive, no matter what we do to it. But will we?

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming?
From: Amos
Date: 27 Jun 08 - 03:00 AM

Polar scientists reveal dramatic new evidence of climate change
By Steve Connor, Science Editor
Friday, 27 June 2008


INDEPENDENT GRAPHICS
ENLARGE
Related Articles
Click here to have your say
Peter Wadhams: Every time I visit the Arctic, the ice gets thinner
Print   Email

Search
Go
Independent.co.uk   Web
Bookmark & Share
Digg It
del.icio.us
Facebook
Stumbleupon
What are these?
Change font size: A A A
It seems unthinkable, but for the first time in human history, ice is on course to disappear entirely from the North Pole this year.

The disappearance of the Arctic sea ice, making it possible to reach the Pole sailing in a boat through open water, would be one of the most dramatic Ð and worrying Ð examples of the impact of global warming on the planet. Scientists say the ice at 90 degrees north may well have melted away by the summer.

"From the viewpoint of science, the North Pole is just another point on the globe, but symbolically it is hugely important. There is supposed to be ice at the North Pole, not open water," said Mark Serreze of the US National Snow and Ice Data Centre in Colorado.

If it happens, it raises the prospect of the Arctic nations being able to exploit the valuable oil and mineral deposits below these a bed which have until now been impossible to extract because of the thick sea ice above.

Seasoned polar scientists believe the chances of a totally icefreeNorth Pole this summer are greater than 50:50 because the normally thick ice formed over many years at the Pole has been blown away and replaced by hugeswathes of thinner ice formed over a single year. (The Independent)

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming?
From: Don Firth
Date: 26 Jun 08 - 10:22 PM

"The panel concluded that the least effective use of resources in slowing global warming would come from simply cutting carbon dioxide emissions."

We should do one helluva lot more than "simply" cut carbon dioxide emissions. But reducing CO2 emissions is essential to diminishing and, hopefully, eventually putting the brakes on the greenhouse effect.

Don Firth