What Carbon

[drron]

Ummm.... is this a trick question, because the obvious answer is "all of them". How could there be any other answer when global sea levels are rising? That is NOT a rhetorical question by the way - I would really like you to answer that, dron.

Go on .....

So you don't even keep up with the ABC.

"Eighty per cent of the islands we've looked at have either remained about the same or, in fact, gotten larger," he said.
"Some of those islands have gotten dramatically larger, by 20 or 30 per cent.
"We've now got evidence the physical foundations of these islands will still be there in 100 years."
Dr Kench says the growth of the islands can keep pace with rising sea levels.

Pacific islands growing, not sinking - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

I could have linked the original article but I know the ABC is never wrong.

 

[Moody]

"The reason for this is these islands are so low lying that in extreme events waves crash straight over the top of them," he said.
"In doing that they transport sediment from the beach or adjacent reef platform and they throw it onto the top of the island."
But Dr Kench says this does not mean climate change does not pose dangers.
"The land may still be there but will they still be able to support human habitation?" he asked

Nice - these uninhabitable islands are getting bigger. By this logic we should create tsunamis to cure the next Australian drought. I'm sure the people living on the coast won't mind.

Nice link, BTW - but you will have to try a bit harder.

 

[drron]

Nice - these uninhabitable islands are getting bigger. By this logic we should create tsunamis to cure the next Australian drought. I'm sure the people living on the coast won't mind.

Nice link, BTW - but you will have to try a bit harder.

And still you present no evidence.
Years ago my mentor in medicine told me that the only people who could be certain that they were correct were those who were very,very young or those who don't let their experience contradict themselves.
You are demonstrating how correct he was.

The islands by the way are inhabited.They have withstood a 100 metre rise in sea level since the last ice age but still you are all doom and gloom.
The last IPCC report,as I have already said,shows that there has been a decrease in droughts in Australia.Besides I thought you guys now say we are all going to drown in floods now.
I'm tired.Le tour is way more interesting.And I am sure the lack of factual posts from the alarmists will continue.

 

[Moody]

And still you present no evidence.
Years ago my mentor in medicine told me that the only people who could be certain that they were correct were those who were very,very young or those who don't let their experience contradict themselves.
You are demonstrating how correct he was.

The islands by the way are inhabited.They have withstood a 100 metre rise in sea level since the last ice age but still you are all doom and gloom.
The last IPCC report,as I have already said,shows that there has been a decrease in droughts in Australia.Besides I thought you guys now say we are all going to drown in floods now.
I'm tired.Le tour is way more interesting.And I am sure the lack of factual posts from the alarmists will continue.

[Off topic. Things I have learnt today - they now give out doctorates in obfusction.]

Present no evidence of what? That sea levels are rising and at an increasing rate?? That your own link makes such a mockery of your own argument that even Andrew Bolt would blush??? So these islands that are "are so low lying that in extreme events waves crash straight over the top of them" are inhabited????

Crabs are not the same as people, drron.

Here's another quote from your own article :-

Naomi Thirobaux, from Kiribati, has studied the shape of Pacific islands for her PhD and says no-one should be lulled into thinking erosion and inundation is not taking its toll and displacing people from their land."In a populated area what would happen was that if it's eroding, a few metres would actually displace people," she said.
"In a populated place people can't move back or inland because there's hardly any place to move into, so that's quite dramatic."
Both Dr Kench and Dr Brook and scientists agree further rises in sea levels pose a significant danger to the livelihoods of people living in Tuvalu, Kirabati and the Federated States of Micronesia.

Any comment or do you now argue against the link you provided?

 

[drron]

OK if you believe that sea levels are rising show me the measurements.Should be very easy to find.
But here is another thing to ponder.Here is a document fromNASA by james Hansen one of your high priests-
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/hansen_07/

Now you will notice at the top of the article a graph showing world temperature increasing but US temperatures cooling with 1934 the hottest on record beating 1998.
Now here is his graph of US temperatures now-
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/Fig.D.gif

Funny isn't it.After 2000 1998 became hotter than 1934.Why is it so.
“He who controls the past controls the future. He who controls the present controls the past.”
― George Orwell, 1984

And of course the part of my link that you believe proves your point is someone's opinion-no facts are given.
If you could be bothered going to read the original paper islands growing larger included inhabited islands.
Of course you are aware that islands are not static-they change even if sea level was dropping.The Hawaian Islands are going to disappear.Nothing to do with global warming and sea level-it is the natural history of volcanic islands.new ones will appear though.

 

[anat0l]

I think the arguments in this thread clearly show there is a need to consider and research both the null and alternative hypotheses, and persecution (moral, social, political or physical) of one or the other is counterproductive.

And can I say - hopefully without persecution, slander or physical threats to myself or my family - that even if climate science doesn't convincingly show that anthropogenic climate change is significant, the considerations and knock on effects to the innovation and (properly considered) regulatory vectors are difficult to argue as being largely misdirected.

I'm not suggesting a direct analogy or the direct opposite argument, but to show that the environment doesn't just take care of itself, there are reasons why we don't use (or heavily minimise the use of) lead added petrol, DDT and Freons in refrigeration.

 

[Moody]

OK if you believe that sea levels are rising show me the measurements.Should be very easy to find.
But here is another thing to ponder.Here is a document fromNASA by james Hansen one of your high priests-
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/hansen_07/

Sea levels aren't rising? Then why are there 1000 links that say otherwise and zero that don't? The big question is - how much of this is our fault? IPCC says that the current yearly rise (~3mm) is about twice the trend (~1.5mm), but predictions of the total rise we can expect this century range from 20cm to 2m. Having predictions that are an order of magnitude apart leaves lots of wriggle room, but what was someone saying before about insurance?

And I have no high priests because I am not religious. Funny how the denialists mostly are ....

Now you will notice at the top of the article a graph showing world temperature increasing but US temperatures cooling with 1934 the hottest on record beating 1998.
Now here is his graph of US temperatures now-
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/Fig.D.gif

Funny isn't it.After 2000 1998 became hotter than 1934.Why is it so.

Why is it funny - as the article itself explains, regional temperature variations are dependent on many factors and can buck the global trend. Here is what they say after explaining the science behind the North American "cooling" period :-

"In the meantime, we can venture two "predictions" on "whither U.S. climate". First, regarding U.S. temperature, we have argued (Hansen et al., 1999a) that the next decade will be warmer than the 1990s, rivaling if not exceeding the 1930s. The basis for that prediction is the expectation of continued greenhouse warming and probable slackening of regional ocean cooling. Second, regarding precipitation and drought, even without analysis of regional patterns of change, we can offer the probabilistic statement that the frequencies of both extremes, heavy precipitation and floods on the one hand and droughts and forest fires on the other, will increase with increasing global temperature. The rationale for this (Hansen et al., 1991) is that increased surface heating increases evaporation, and this increases the intensity of both precipitation and drought conditions where and when they occur."

And of course the part of my link that you believe proves your point is someone's opinion-no facts are given.
If you could be bothered going to read the original paper islands growing larger included inhabited islands.
Of course you are aware that islands are not static-they change even if sea level was dropping.The Hawaian Islands are going to disappear.Nothing to do with global warming and sea level-it is the natural history of volcanic islands.new ones will appear though.

And why were the inhabited islands "growing"? Was it land reclamation or silting? How will that help the inhabitants cope with rising sea levels - particularly of low-lying islands like Tuvalu? [To be honest they are in trouble no matter what we do, but why make things worse than they already are?]

 

[medhead]

Wow! Demands for evidence! i look forward to seeing the evidence quoted that supports the claim that "Climate change is a load of cough." On which page of the IPCC report is that printed? Also where does the IPCC say nothing should be done? Couple of easy questions for those who demand evidence.

 

[burmans]

Wow! Demands for evidence! i look forward to seeing the evidence quoted that supports the claim that "Climate change is a load of cough." On which page of the IPCC report is that printed? Also where does the IPCC say nothing should be done? Couple of easy questions for those who demand evidence.

This is a frequent tactic of course of people who are trying to deny science, demand the others to produce evidence because they have no evidence to support their own theory (save the tame paid monkey). Unfortunately it seems to work well as a tactic, as proved by the smoking/cancer link, where it took 40 years for any slight admission there MIGHT be a relationship.

 

[drron]

1000 links but you cant provide one.My goodness.
And where did I say climate change was cough?
I have provided many links to evidence,those who have a belief that the alarmist predictions are gospel have produced none.Methinks they just accept what they are told.
The 3 Islands that have grown the most in size are from the Funafuti group-that is those with the highest populations.The lkast major landfill was the building of the airfield by the Americans when they had a little problem with the Japanese.The growth in size is from natural phenomena.
coral atolls have been sinking for hundreds of thousand years.They survive because corals grow-up to 2cm a year.Drilling on bikini atoll shows coral down 1500 metres.that below 50 metres though is not growing.

To the temperature-the latest IPCC report says the temperature is rising 0.05C each decade but with a margin of error of 0.1C.So there is as much chance that there will be a fall of 0.5C as there is of a rise of 1.5C by 2100.Surely that does not fit with the extreme alarmism so prevalent now.

And Burmans your smoking analogy is incorrect-the scientists/physicians were convinced but cigarette companies fought tooth and nail to deny it.
A better medical analogy comes in my area of practice in Heart Failure.For the first 15 years after I graduated it was undeniable that Beta blockers were bad for heart failure patients.A few physicians didn't accept that consensus.As a result Beta Blockers are now the standard treatment for heart failure.The first report of them being beneficial was in the mid 50s with a report in an Indian medical journal.It took 35 years before that was finally accepted.

Questioning of the evidence after all is the essence of the scientific method.
I'm still waiting.

 

[medhead]

Which page of the IPCC says "climate change is cough"? This is the position you support on the carbon tax. No links to the evidence, I see. Not a single link to evidence.

In other news, apparently Australia's pollution output was reduced by 9.5%. Gee, there is a novel idea - reducing pollution. I wonder if there is any evidence linking reduced atmosphere pollution and improved health.

 

[drron]

Which page of the IPCC says "climate change is cough"? This is the position you support on the carbon tax. No links to the evidence, I see. Not a single link to evidence.

In other news, apparently Australia's pollution output was reduced by 9.5%. Gee, there is a novel idea - reducing pollution. I wonder if there is any evidence linking reduced atmosphere pollution and improved health.

Absolute hogwash.You must be deliberately reinterpreting my words.If this is your idea of a sensible argument there is no hope.

 

[whatmeworry]

Climate change must be cough if Rupert acknowledges it.
Fight climate change by building away from sea: Rupert Murdoch

 

[Moody]

1000 links but you cant provide one.My goodness.

Do I have to do this? Really?? Fine - look here :: Sea-level Rise :: CSIRO & ACECRC :: and then when you debunk that one we can move on to link #2, then #3, etc. etc. I still think it would be quicker if you provided a link that said sea levels are falling,

And where did I say climate change was cough?

OK - what is your belief as to the current and future impacts of human activities on our climate, and what do you advocate being don?. Fair warning though - if you mention the words "direct action" I may vomit.

I have provided many links to evidence

Evidence of what exactly?

those who have a belief that the alarmist predictions are gospel have produced none.Methinks they just accept what they are told.

There are a range of opinions and models on climate change and specifically AGW. Very few scientist offer the opinion that AGW is a myth - not because they fear being lynched by the cosy alarmists club, but out of the fear of looking really, really stupid. It tends to be the non-scientific right-wing commentators who have no qualms about making outlandish claims based on easily discredited statistics. After all - that's enough to fool some of the people all of the time.

The 3 Islands that have grown the most in size are from the Funafuti group-that is those with the highest populations.The lkast major landfill was the building of the airfield by the Americans when they had a little problem with the Japanese.The growth in size is from natural phenomena.
coral atolls have been sinking for hundreds of thousand years.They survive because corals grow-up to 2cm a year.Drilling on bikini atoll shows coral down 1500 metres.that below 50 metres though is not growing.

It's a known phenomena - king tides on beaches can deposit material as well as often as they strip it away. Makes a mess of the sandcastles though. So the residents of low-lying islands should get used to rebuilding their houses as the shape changes? Will the depositing of new material keep up with the changing sea levels in future? And how does coral growth help other low-lying coastal areas?

To the temperature-the latest IPCC report says the temperature is rising 0.05C each decade but with a margin of error of 0.1C.So there is as much chance that there will be a fall of 0.5C as there is of a rise of 1.5C by 2100.Surely that does not fit with the extreme alarmism so prevalent now.

But they also state that there is no scenario that predicts an increase of less than 1.5 degrees by the end of the century, compared to pre-industrial times. Some models exceed 2 degrees of warming. Hardly "extreme alarmism", is it?

I'm still waiting.

For Godot?

 

[medhead]

Absolute hogwash.You must be deliberately reinterpreting my words.If this is your idea of a sensible argument there is no hope.

You support Abbott's opposition to the carbon tax. His stated position is "climate change is a load of cough". Where is the evidence for the position that you support? You are, after all, all about evidence. The only hogwash is the your avoidance of this question. Where is the evidence that climate change is a load of cough?

 

[drron]

You support Abbott's opposition to the carbon tax. His stated position is "climate change is a load of cough". Where is the evidence for the position that you support? You are, after all, all about evidence. The only hogwash is the your avoidance of this question. Where is the evidence that climate change is a load of cough?

Why do you always have to criticise people who have a different opinion to you medhead?
Read post 37 again and this time try and understand it.

 

[medhead]

Why do you always have to criticise people who have a different opinion to you medhead?
Read post 37 again and this time try and understand it.

Sorry but I support your opinion that evidence is all that matters. To suggest otherwise is a falsehood. Why do you always distract from the question that you can't answer? Where is the evidence to support the statements of those you support?

Besides this thread is about the response to climate change. You do not support the carbon ETS. You do support the removal of the ETS. The basis for that removal is that climate change is a load of cough. Where is the evidence that you accepted to support that position? It really is an easy question. Why did you support "climate change is a load of cough"? What evidence?

Edit: Besides, if asking you for evidence, the exact standard you demand, is ridiculing your opinion, I think that says more about you then me.

 

[drron]

Do I have to do this? Really?? Fine - look here :: Sea-level Rise :: CSIRO & ACECRC :: and then when you debunk that one we can move on to link #2, then #3, etc. etc. I still think it would be quicker if you provided a link that said sea levels are falling,



OK - what is your belief as to the current and future impacts of human activities on our climate, and what do you advocate being don?. Fair warning though - if you mention the words "direct action" I may vomit.



Evidence of what exactly?



There are a range of opinions and models on climate change and specifically AGW. Very few scientist offer the opinion that AGW is a myth - not because they fear being lynched by the cosy alarmists club, but out of the fear of looking really, really stupid. It tends to be the non-scientific right-wing commentators who have no qualms about making outlandish claims based on easily discredited statistics. After all - that's enough to fool some of the people all of the time.



It's a known phenomena - king tides on beaches can deposit material as well as often as they strip it away. Makes a mess of the sandcastles though. So the residents of low-lying islands should get used to rebuilding their houses as the shape changes? Will the depositing of new material keep up with the changing sea levels in future? And how does coral growth help other low-lying coastal areas?



But they also state that there is no scenario that predicts an increase of less than 1.5 degrees by the end of the century, compared to pre-industrial times. Some models exceed 2 degrees of warming. Hardly "extreme alarmism", is it?



For Godot?

1.Well first those sea level graphs are after "adjustment".You need the original data.That used to be available but made really hard to find now.My original saved links now come up as Page not found.

2.My whole point is that the predictions given are just that.Not proven science.To know what to do you really need more understanding on the earth's response to climate change.For example why did the earth warm 4C in 10 years in the past when CO2 levels didn't change.

3.Same answer as 2.

4.there are very respected scientists who do question the predictions.Again re read post 37.I have not denied climate change.

5.It sure has kept up in the past.Again predictions are just that.

6.then you need to reread the last IPCC report.My figures come from there.So yes predicting a rise of greater than 2C is extreme alarmism let alone knowing for certain how the earth would respond to that rise.

 

[Moody]

1.Well first those sea level graphs are after "adjustment".You need the original data.That used to be available but made really hard to find now.My original saved links now come up as Page not found.

Ooohhh - I love a good conspiracy theory. But not as much as scientific proof, so if you could find me just onelink that proves that global sea levels are falling (or even just not rising) I would be much obliged.

2.My whole point is that the predictions given are just that.Not proven science.To know what to do you really need more understanding on the earth's response to climate change.For example why did the earth warm 4C in 10 years in the past when CO2 levels didn't change.

Predictions are about what will happen in the future based around models that mostly use past behaviour. If you were keeping up you would see that the IPCC also reports on past and current measurements and trends, which they state are almost certain to prove AGW. They don't claim that this is irrefutable (that sort of dogma is peddled by denialists), but just so we are clear - are you saying the observed measurements that chart global warming and rising sea levels are being faked?

Atmospheric CO2 levels are a FACTOR in climate change. Why do you pretend to be so obtuse? [RQA]

3.Same answer as 2.

Ditto.

4.there are very respected scientists who do question the predictions.Again re read post 37.I have not denied climate change.

Of course there are, and every year they compare the predictions against the actual behaviour and feed that back into the models. But how many respected scientists reject the theory that humans are changing the global climate? Again- what is your opinion of AGW?

5.It sure has kept up in the past.Again predictions are just that.

You need to understand the science - not just cherry pick figures. The fact that storm surges deposit material onto the fringes of the atolls does not mean that the inhabitants (if there are any) will live a happy and fulfilled life. In fact if the rising sea levels match the upper predictions then nations like Tuvalu will be forced to live their lives on boats.

6.then you need to reread the last IPCC report.My figures come from there.So yes predicting a rise of greater than 2C is extreme alarmism let alone knowing for certain how the earth would respond to that rise.

Please quote the part of the report you are using in full and then I will look into it, but what are you basing your comment that "2C is extreme alarmism" on? We are nearly half-way there already ...

 

[juddles]

.... how many respected scientists...

Sorry Moody, but I just HAVE to weigh in here.

BTW, my academic background is Philosophy of Science. Complicated childhood.

I get alarmed, not by global warming, but by the nature of the scientific ¨debate¨ that is involved. In my humble view, this debate has raged out of control. A sane debate involves people comparing facts and in a unified process, perform an unbiased seeking of the most plausible theory or paradigm.

Unfortunately, in this debate, we have, as a scientific community, managed to regress to standards worthy of the Inquisition.

It is a truth that today, any person who refuses to run with the majority in the unwavering support of global warming, etc etc, is immediately subjected to attack and ridicule. This is a most unsavoury and unacceptable scientific position!

To allude to ¨respected scientists¨ is confirmation of this demolition of true scientific values. It suggests that some scientists are ¨not¨ respected.