The Taboo Of Not Subscribing To Anthropological Global Warming

[jethro]

The whole flavour of your post has nothing to do with the subject.

the subject of this thread is ....The Taboo Of Not Subscribing To Anthropological Global Warming

It clearly is Taboo here if one cant ask difficult questions without personal attacks

My post was not a rant. It was a simple question......Bearing in mind that the sea level rate of change is not changing; (please note that you have not read my post correctly I did not state that the sea level is not rising) What does this 'barometer' of climate change tell us about Man made climate change?

Its a sensible question. Its not rude, its not a rant.

Village, you're missing the entire gist of my post. Your question that I picked up on was merely the most immediate before my reply. Look at other examples like the one higher up the page where you dismiss the entire AGW theory as 'claptrap'.

This thread is about the taboo of not subscribing but you've been the same in all the threads you've posted in, I've yet to see you post anything backed by a link to a peer reviewed paper to substantiate your claims. I'm one of the biggest sceptics on here and even I think you're just ranting with nowt to back up your claims. Clearly you're not daft so put a little more effort into reasoning from a scientific perspective as to why you don't subscribe to the theory of AGW.

[loafer]

To be fair to Village, the report BFTV posted confirms that sea levels have only been rising at +/-3mm per annum and that the acceleration which is the basis of the report is [yet another] forecast from unproven models.

I think Village's point is that tomorrow never comes.

[Village]

I will be pleased to. Currently am in the process of answering BornFrom The Void with links. I worked in the past on a few projects with Authorities and the threat of flooding due to the sea level rise and thats how i know the rate of rise is pretty constant. Its a myth that the rate of rise is increasing.

[jethro]

I will be pleased to. Currently am in the process of answering BornFrom The Void with links. I worked in the past on a few projects with Authorities and the threat of flooding due to the sea level rise and thats how i know the rate of rise is pretty constant. Its a myth that the rate of rise is increasing.

Thank you.

All I ask is that you support your ideas/claims with science. There's only one way to show that the theory of AGW has been over-hyped or that there are holes in the theory, far too many assumptions made etc is by showing scientifically where those issues are. It isn't a battle of he who shouts loudest wins.

[Devonian]

For the few who do believe the theory that we are changing global climate;

Sea levels have been rising at the rate of 3mm per year every year for hundreds of years. The rate of change is not accelerating. The Capital of East Anglia, a product from the Roman occupation 2,000 years ago and the largest port in the UK one thousand years ago became submerged 800 years ago. It is now two miles out under the North Sea. The annual 3mm rise in sea level continues.

What does this 'barometer' of climate change tell us about Man made climate change?

Vill, I'm trying to find the 'Capital' you refer to but it would help me if you could give it's name?

[knocker]

For the few who do believe the theory that we are changing global climate;

Sea levels have been rising at the rate of 3mm per year every year for hundreds of years. The rate of change is not accelerating. The Capital of East Anglia, a product from the Roman occupation 2,000 years ago and the largest port in the UK one thousand years ago became submerged 800 years ago. It is now two miles out under the North Sea. The annual 3mm rise in sea level continues.

What does this 'barometer' of climate change tell us about Man made climate change?

If we are going to talk of sea level rises over hundreds of years, and I question your statement, then perhaps an observation from H.H. lamb regarding Roman Times and after is pertinent.

SEA LEVEL AND COASTAL CHANGES IN NORTHERN EUROPE

The slow rise of world sea level, amounting in all probably to one metre or less, that seems to have been going on over the warmer centuries in Roman times, not only submerged the earlier harbour installations in the Mediterranean but by AD 400 produced a notable incursion of the sea from the Wash into the English fenland and maintained estuaries and inlets that were navigable by small craft on the continental shore of the North Sea from Flanders to Jutland (fig. 60). This is a circumstance which may have helped the Anglian and Saxon migrants launching out across the North Sea from their previous continental homelands. The transgression of the sea over the previous coastline of Flanders and the Netherlands between about AD 250 and 275 had caused a depopulation of the coastal plain there. The existence of pre-Norman conquest salterns -saltpans, or 'sandacres', over which the tide washed and from which the salt-saturated sand was then taken -outside the later sea-dykes in the English fenland, on the Lincolnshire coast, may or may not point to a period of slightly lowered sea level between the late Roman and the medieval high water periods. There is other evidence to suggest this between the seventh and tenth centuries. But many later saltpans are known in the area, also on the sea-banks, standing up to 3 m above the present mean sea level. Investigations in the Netherlands have established that the previous activity of blowing sand and shifting dunes on that coast was followed after about 100 BC by eleven centuries of stabilization, with forest ultimately colonizing the dunes.' This must mean that, among other changes, the water table was higher than before and storminess seems to have been reduced. There were only minor and localized intrusions of blown sand in the period of colder climate, which we shall describe, in the middle and later part of the first millennium AD. The coastal forest was cut down by man in the Middle Ages, and it seems certain that this allowed the effects of the subsequent period of renewed dune activity to spread farther eastwards than would otherwise have been the case. Close study by Sylvia Hallam over many years of the history of human settlement near the coast of the Wash in eastern England (Antiquity, vol. 35, pp. 152-6, 1961) has indicated that sea level was rising from some centuries before up to a maximum attained in the last century BC. There was then some recession of the water until about AD 200, followed by a major high stand and incursion of the sea around AD 300-400. Sea level was again rather lower in the seventh and eighth centuries and possibly later, but seems to have been again high in the late thirteenth to fifteenth centuries. The present writer's opinion is that the impression of a high level of the sea as late as the fifteenth century may in reality owe a good deal to storm surges -i.e. to recurrent sea floods as storminess increased.

Source: Climate, History and the Modern World. H. H. Lamb, Routledge.

Edited January 10, 2012 by weather ship

[Village]

I dont know what it is that you are questioning?

Here is a link about Dunwich which backs up the fact that sea levels have been rising for hundreds of years.

http://www.smithsoni...o-the-Seas.html

The rate of change in recent times is not accelerating. I worked on a few projects regarding coastal flooding in the region and the Rivers Authority who used to be in charge of sea defences in the region...now its DEFRA were very clear with their surveys which showed a 3mm rise in sea level (unchanged in rise rate for past 100 years or since trusted records) a 3mm drop in land hight annually which was a combination of techtonic plate movement in the region and a small isostatic rebound rate still occuring since the last ice age. The sum total was an apparent sea level rise of +6mm yearly and therefore a sea coastal defence of six meters above AOD was imposed on the region befor any new development being granted. It was the same hight imposed after the floods of 1953. Again this demonstrtates at how confident the Authority is that the rise rate is the same. Otherwise they would have recomended an increased protection of above +6m AOD.

AOD at the time (seven years ago) awas and still is taken from the average high tide on the Continental shelf off the south west approaches of Britain.

Erosion is happening, but its not the reason why the ruins are under the sea surface now. 6mm annual rise of sea levels means .6metres every century which means that 800 years ago the sea surface was six metres lower. That is a real rise of 3 metres for the sea level taking out the geological changes.

So regardless of erosion, the whole region is six meters down beneath the waves today.

Edited January 11, 2012 by Village

[jethro]

And would you say that this is enough to gauge the entire world? IMO, that would be akin to saying 'look folks, December 2010 was the coldest December in a 100 years in Great Britain - clearly proof that AGW is baloney'.

[loafer]

One is a progression over a long period of time, the other is a single event.

Is the assertion of long term sea level rises incorrect or is no data, other than that put forward already, available?

[Village]

And would you say that this is enough to gauge the entire world? IMO, that would be akin to saying 'look folks, December 2010 was the coldest December in a 100 years in Great Britain - clearly proof that AGW is baloney'.

Sea levels are rising at the same rate throughout the world. The sea level cant rise more than elsewhere unless it is a closed system, ie a landlocked sea. The only places where they are not rising is where geologically the techtonic movements are forcing the land higher than the sea level rate rise.

[jethro]

And both are local, not global.

[Village]

One is a progression over a long period of time, the other is a single event.

Is the assertion of long term sea level rises incorrect or is no data, other than that put forward already, available?

Its a good question. Sea level data on rates of change are extremely fragmented and generally pieced together or non existant. However there are pretty good records dating back a hundred years in many places and before then records can be obtained from other ways. In my region it is very well documented and it is understood that the rate of sea level rise is not increasing. The rates of rise seen this century are really unchanged to those of the last century. The North Sea is not a closed system and so the rate rise should be representative widely.

This being the case, it makes me wonder why it is that we are not seeing a rate rise? In particular whaen some are predicting that with Polar ice melt we can expect increases across the globe. So where is the data demonstrating that this is taking place? IIts not noted to be the case in this country and we should be the one place which feels it first being an island with the highest range of tides in the world.

It begs the question? What does this say about the Climate change theory that we are under threat from the melting ice?

It tells me that the theory is wrong. It tells me that either the rates of ice melt are not what they are reported to be, or that there is greater ice build up elsewhere, or that the atmosphere is more saturated or that it is a combination of factors.

I personally prescribe to the third scenario.

Thats why I dont buy it that we are going to be flooded out as sea levels rappidly rise. We would have seen it already...but its not happening.

We know that it is generally eversoslightly more cloudy now ( i can see this in the CET data) and we also have reports that the Antarctica ice sheet is gaining due to increased precip. Therefore I conclude that the claims that we will be inundated as the oceans rise are currently baseless and simply scaremongering.

Edited January 11, 2012 by Village

[knocker]

Its a good question. Sea level data on rates of change are extremely fragmented and generally pieced together or non existant. However there are pretty good records dating back a hundred years in many places and before then records can be obtained from other ways.

The longest instrumental records of local sea level (two or three centuries at most) come from tide gauges used to measure the rise and fall of the sea. Based on these , the rate of global mean sea level rise during the 20th century was in the range 1-2 mm/yr. The average rate of sea level rise is larger than during the 19th century. For various reasons I think it distinctly possible that future sea level rises may well have been underestimated. But to move on.

Climate related sea-level variations over the past two millennia

Andrew C. Kempa,b, Benjamin P. Hortona,1, Jeffrey P. Donnellyc, Michael E. Mannd,

Martin Vermeere, and Stefan Rahmstorff

We present new sea-level reconstructions for the past 2100 y based on salt-marsh sedimentary sequences from the US Atlantic coast. The data from North Carolina reveal four phases of persistent sea-level change after correction for glacial isostatic adjustment. Sea level was stable from at least BC 100 until AD 950. Sea level then increased for 400 y at a rate of 0.6 mm/y, followed by a further period of stable, or slightly falling, sea level that persisted until the late 19th century. Since then, sea level has risen at an average rate of 2.1 mm/y, representing the steepest century-scale increase of the past two millennia. This rate was initiated between AD 1865 and 1892. Using an extended semiempirical modeling approach, we show that these sea-level changes are consistent with global temperature for at least the past millennium.

http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2011/06/13/1015619108.full.pdf#page=1&view=FitH

[knocker]

Just to quailfy a comment I made in the previous post although this point has been made before.

Climate models assume that ice sheets melt only slowly as heat penetrates through more than 2 km of ice. However, ice sheets fracture as they melt, so that water gets rapidly to the bottom of the ice, warming its full depth and lubricating the interface between ice and bedrock. This may be the reason that the rate of ice loss in Greenland seems to have unexpectedly doubled in the past decade. The IPCC report predicts that sea level will rise by between 19 and 58 cm by 2100 because of melting ice caps and thermal expansion of the ocean. But some scientists say that, because of the effects of fracturing, this is an underestimate. Stefan Rahmstorfof Germany's Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research has shown that world sea levels are rising 50 per cent faster today than predicted in the last IPCC report. If the rate of sea level rise continues in line with global temperatures, he has estimated that sea levels could rise by up to 1.4 m by 2100.

[knocker]

We know that it is generally ever so slightly more cloudy now ( i can see this in the CET data) and we also have reports that the Antarctica ice sheet is gaining due to increased precip. Therefore I conclude that the claims that we will be inundated as the oceans rise are currently baseless and simply scaremongering.

This has been explained before and is due to mankinds intervention much the same as pumping carbon into the atmosphere changes the chemistry and heat of the oceans. Ergo I conclude your conclusion is based on a certain amount of thin air minus CO2.

Increased growth in Antarctic sea ice during the past 30 years is a result of changing weather patterns caused by the ozone hole according to new research published this week (Thurs 23 April 2009).

Reporting in the journal Geophysical Research Letters scientists from British Antarctic Survey (BAS) and NASA say that while there has been a dramatic loss of Arctic sea ice, Antarctic sea ice has increased by a small amount as a result of the ozone hole delaying the impact of greenhouse gas increases on the climate of the continent.

Sea ice plays a key role in the global environment — reflecting heat from the sun and providing a habitat for marine life. At both poles sea ice cover is at its minimum during summer. However, during the winter freeze in Antarctica this ice cover expands to an area roughly twice the size of Europe. Ranging in thickness from less than a metre to several metres, the ice insulates the warm ocean from the frigid atmosphere above. Satellite images show that since the 1970s the extent of Antarctic sea ice has increased at a rate of 100,000 square kilometres a decade.

The new research helps explain why observed changes in the amount of sea-ice cover are so different in both polar regions.

http://www.antarctic...ease.php?id=838

Edited January 11, 2012 by weather ship

[loafer]

This is interesting, in that it gives detailed local data for sea level changes.

http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends.html

[Village]

This has been explained before and is due to mankinds intervention much the same as pumping carbon into the atmosphere changes the chemistry and heat of the oceans. Ergo I conclude your conclusion is based on a certain amount of thin air minus CO2.

No, it hasnt been explained before, there is wide ranging ongoing research taking place regarding the relationship of cosmic rays and average global cloud cover. This has nothing to do with mankind as you make out.

"Experiment probes connection between climate change and radiation bombarding the atmosphere."

"'cosmic rays' from deep space might be creating clouds in Earth's atmosphere and changing the climate. An experiment at CERN, Europe's high-energy physics laboratory near Geneva, Switzerland, is finding tentative evidence for just that."

Here is a link for you.

http://www.nature.co...s.2011.504.html

There is also ongoing research over the different types of cloud cover and the percentage fluctuation in variation of average types. How ice clouds and lower cumuliform clouds effect temperatures also has nowt to do with Mankind.

Not all clouds are the same; different types of clouds affect the Earth's climate differently. While some types of clouds help to warm the Earth, others help to cool it.

"Right now, "the scientific community is uncertain about how the effects of clouds will change in the future," says Hugh Morrison, a scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colo."

Here is a link for you;

http://www.livescien...ge-nsf-ria.html

None of this has anything to do with my observations regarding the CET sets over the past few decades.

One will note that during the warming period that much of the warming was not due to extreme high daytime observations. The majority of the warming was due to fewer extreme minima recordings. This had the effect of demonstrating average overall mean increases. The blanket statement; 'increasing average temperatures' therefore disguised another truth and other possible alternative explanations other than the same old AGW theoretics. One of which is increased cloud cover.

Increased growth in Antarctic sea ice during the past 30 years is a result of changing weather patterns caused by the ozone hole according to new research published this week (Thurs 23 April 2009).

Yet again all changes are due to Mankind? I dont buy it. There are plenty of other reasons and drivers for change. If the AGW government grants dry up then we will get to see links to other causes in time. But scientists will find it harder to fund their time in a desolate freezing wilderness.

Edited January 12, 2012 by Village

[knocker]

I don't see much point in continuing this discussion as I'm well aware of the research regarding clouds but just to comment on this.

Yet again all changes are due to Mankind? I dont buy it. There are plenty of other reasons and drivers for change. If the AGW government grants dry up then we will get to see links to other causes in time. But scientists will find it harder to fund their time in a desolate freezing wilderness.

Can you point out where myself, or anyone else, has said all changes are due to mankind. This would be absolute nonsense. Yours is a typical Bulverist stance. Which in case you don't know is a method of argument that avoids the need to prove that someone is wrong and then explaining why the person could hold such a fallacious view.

[loafer]

@weather ship - your statement "This has been explained before and is due to mankinds intervention much the same as pumping carbon into the atmosphere changes the chemistry and heat of the oceans." maybe a little misleading on that basis.

[knocker]

@weather ship - your statement "This has been explained before and is due to mankinds intervention much the same as pumping carbon into the atmosphere changes the chemistry and heat of the oceans." maybe a little misleading on that basis.

Possible but I didn't think there was any question that mankind created the ozone hole and there doesn't seem to be much doubt from quite a few papers I've read that the increase in atmospheric CO² is changing the Marine Carbonate System. This to my mind is along way from "all changes are due to mankind". I'll concede that the known effects of this down the road are not a given.

Edited January 12, 2012 by weather ship

[Devonian]

I don't see much point in continuing this discussion as I'm well aware of the research regarding clouds but just to comment on this.

Can you point out where myself, or anyone else, has said all changes are due to mankind. This would be absolute nonsense. Yours is a typical Bulverist stance. Which in case you don't know is a method of argument that avoids the need to prove that someone is wrong and then explaining why the person could hold such a fallacious view.

I'm rather ashamed to say that, after countless fruitless 'debates' on and across the net over too many years, I've just learnt a word I really should have known at the start. Thanks

Edited January 12, 2012 by Devonian

[Gowon]

Possible but I didn't think there was any question that mankind created the ozone hole and there doesn't seem to be much doubt from quite a few papers I've read that the increase in atmospheric CO² is changing the Marine Carbonate System. This to my mind is along way from "all changes are due to mankind". I'll concede that the known effects of this down the road are not a given.

Did you read this paper WS.

Scientists at San Diego's Scripps Institution of Oceanography and other authors published a study showing how much the pH level (measuring alkalinity versus acidity) varies naturally between parts of the ocean and at different times of the day, month and year.

Human beings have indeed placed marine ecosystems under terrible pressure, but the chief culprits are overfishing and pollution. By comparison, a very slow reduction in the alkalinity of the oceans, well within the range of natural variation, is a modest threat, and it certainly does not merit apocalyptic headlines.

http://www.thegwpf.o...in-of-salt.html

Edited January 12, 2012 by Higrade

[knocker]

Did you read this paper WS.

Scientists at San Diego's Scripps Institution of Oceanography and other authors published a study showing how much the pH level (measuring alkalinity versus acidity) varies naturally between parts of the ocean and at different times of the day, month and year.

Human beings have indeed placed marine ecosystems under terrible pressure, but the chief culprits are overfishing and pollution. By comparison, a very slow reduction in the alkalinity of the oceans, well within the range of natural variation, is a modest threat, and it certainly does not merit apocalyptic headlines.

http://www.thegwpf.o...in-of-salt.html

Yes I have read that Higrade plus five or six others plus I have a book on oceanography which explains much of this in detail. The sentence I find most amusing is "Human beings have indeed placed marine ecosystems under terrible pressure, but the chief culprits are overfishing and pollution". I assume some alien creatures are to blame for the latter. Actually I quite like Ridley and have a couple of books of his.

[Gowon]

Yes I have read that Higrade plus five or six others plus I have a book on oceanography which explains much of this in detail. The sentence I find most amusing is "Human beings have indeed placed marine ecosystems under terrible pressure, but the chief culprits are overfishing and pollution". I assume some alien creatures are to blame for the latter. Actually I quite like Ridley and have a couple of books of his.

If the main culprit that's affecting the marine ecosystem is overfishing and pollution, why do you keep blaming CO2?

[knocker]

If the main culprit that's affecting the marine ecosystem is overfishing and pollution, why do you keep blaming CO2?

I don't keep blaming CO² but the concensus of papers I've read on the subject lean towards the Marine Carbonate System being more affected by increased Atmospheric carbon. Obviously overfishing and pollution have a part to play but they are human induced as well.