global warming fraud - finally exposed!

quote:

Originally posted by Derry:
As to unsubstantiated claims - any news on current sea level rise?

Fair play digging that up Derry, but it's exactly as I said, you're believing marginal scientists from second rate institutions...why believe them, and not Royal Soc, MIT, GBRMPA etc? It's like ignoring medical advice and listening to a bloke down the pub.

I don't know how many times you want me to repeat it, but I've said...at the present time my employers work on public projects (Shoreline Management Plans) for Defra...it wouldn't be wise for me to comment on a public forum beyond their 2006 figures. I'm happy to discuss it offline (email is on my profile) and I'm not being self important or pompous...it simply wouldn't be wise or right.

I would encourage you to email me though, I'm happy to discuss my thoughts on SLR. As an aside, ok, you don't believe in SLR...do you believe that due to global sea temp rise the worlds warm water corals are disappearing? Is this also in doubt?

BTW Derry, climate change scientists? Well, meteorologists, atmospheric scientists, oceanographers, glaciologists to name a few. The two famed sceptics in the UK and Oz are a social geographer and a geologist respectively!...I mean WTF would they know D, really what would they know!

I am not sure we can progress this much further when you refuse to provide any evidence of what you personally have alleged i.e. SLR, on the very dubious basis that the the public cannot be trusted to be told - surely sharing data is what science is all about (cf Hadley Institute). I still believe you have no evidence of SLR, only "predictions" of what it might be like if certain scenarios hold true - or what you or your employers or the Government would like it to be.

Also, rather than trying to rubbish other scientists because they do not seem to fit with what you consider real science (and you do both geology and geography a great disservice), why not try to argue what they allege - if they are so wrong it should be easy, no?

Anyway, the general point is that AGW is becoming less important as a fact (which it is not) but more important as a political vehicle to lever national policy. It would not matter at all if AGW was found to be a complete fiction because Governments would pursue their carbon policies anyway.

Finally, I believe that climates change: I do not belive that any causal link to anthropogenic Co2 has been established.

Derry, pay attention at the back there mate

Your posts seem to constantly twist what I say...let's be clear:

1) I've never said the public can't be told. I've said Defra's figures are as per 2006. They stand by them...since I am now working for them on projects with a high public profile, all I've said is I don't think it would be wise for a fur and feathers bloke like me to be commenting on a public forum.

2) I don't do geology or geography a disservice at all (and you well know that). The point, and it is blindingly obvious, is that neither discipline is central to climatology. You seem happy to believe these folk, and yet ignore masses of experts in relevant fields. By extension, you clearly believe that geologists can provide invaluable insight into AIDS research? I don't think they can, but I have the humility to admit, I could be wrong.

I don't think we can go anywhere D. I'm happy to believe established experts in relevant fields, you're happy to listen to scientists (of no great reputation) in totally irrelevant fields. Let's leave it at that D, I respect your position on it, and if a geographer finds a cure for cancer, I will personally buy you a beer and see the error of my ways. Lets see how it goes eh.

And for my part if a climatologist can stop climate change, I will buy you and him/her a beer.

best wishes for the future

Guys

Matt posted a link to a table of forecast SLR in UK. This indicated something like a 4.4m rise in London by the end of the century. (mid-range figure)

BBC news tonight talked about 1.3m by the turn of the century.

Wide range of possibility. Why?

Also, how much lower than present levels, were sea levels in SE England in (say) 1900 ??

Cheers

Don

Can someone clear up:- is a given amount of frozen water a larger volume than when liquid?

I guess this is correct otherwise frozen water wouldn't burst pipes.
So why should the water level go up if the ice melts, if indeed frozen ice is bigger than liquid?

No - water is at it's highest density at 4 degrees celsius where it has no air and weighs in at 1g at 1cm3

sorry, i just re-read. I will try and eat my socks again!!

steve

quote:

Originally posted by BigH47:
So why should the water level go up if the ice melts, if indeed frozen ice is bigger than liquid?

It won't BigH...the melting pack ice will make no difference. It's the melting of ice caps over continents and glaciers that are having the impact.

All melting pack ice does is reduce the earths area of reflective white...and provide a home for polar bears and other furry stuff.

So if global warming keeps the water above 4⁰ then?

Still though, when is water/ice at it's largest volume?

Little experiment - fill glass up with ice, pour in your fave drink to the top, let the ice melt = level of drink still the same.

Dear Howard,

It is fifty to one hundred years away!

The cock-up is neither your fault nor mine, though people who leave Naim powered every hour of the day are still complete idiots.

Fortunately you and I will be both dead before the water is lapping at our back doors ...

ATB from George

quote:

Originally posted by Stephen Tate:
Little experiment - fill glass up with ice, pour in your fave drink to the top, let the ice melt = level of drink still the same.

Eccept that the serious problem is from the ice which is not already in the drink [ie. the salty sea]. The Glaciers on Greensland and the Antarctic. Not the float ice which contitutes the main of the North Polar Region.

Ever defrosted a fridge? There is always more water than you planned for!

Sea levels are going to rise if the ice currently contained in glaciers on the land melt, and it seems they are melting.

ATB from George

Yes, i understand the floating ice is dis placing it's own weight as i said earlier in the thread...

But floating ice is not the problem - it is the ice which is deposited over thousands of years on land.

I have a grave worry that whilst the scientific community understand the possibole problem, quantifying the evetual scale of the effect is simply not yet accurately possible.

How much sea level rise before London is flooded, let alone the Maldives or Bangladesh, which is more or less one huge river delta.

I cannot help thinking that the people curently living in these places will want somewhere else to stay before too long ...

ATB from George

I know sea water or rather salt water is more dense than fresh water, what this equates to i do not know. anyone?

A quick search - http://www.hometrainingtools.c...403&bhcd2=1259714179
A bit off topic i suppose but interesting nevertheless.
and this -http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Current_sea_level_rise

In my view and from what i can gather it all just shifts about.

One part melts another part freezes.
Where one place was once dry it is now wet and vice versa. Water levels rise in part of the world and drop in another. It's all seems very patchy as to what is really happening.
Even the land rises or drops and even has tides aswell.

all very sceptical it seems...mmm...This has all been going on since the first comet smashed the planet with it's ice onboard.

quote:

Originally posted by GFFJ:
people who leave Naim powered every hour of the day are still complete idiots.

Guess i must be a complete idiot then, i'm one those that leaves my hifi on. Oh well, not to worry, hey. I don't have a TV or run a car or fly on planes or use anything that consumes much power, guess i must be greener than most then.

You haven't got a tumble dryer running or something similar as you type by any chance George?
It's all becoming abit self righteous round here of late, guess i need a break for a while...

quote:

Originally posted by GFFJ:
Fortunately you and I will be both dead before the water is lapping at our back doors ...

It depends where you live George...assuming you've got a few years left on the pocket watch.

Stephen - no, it's not the case that there's an equilibrium of melt and freeze. The large icecaps of the Antarctica, Greenland and the Himalaya will melt and sea levels will rise (kicking in gradually from now on, then significantly post 2050). Predicted levels vary, with best case scenario's based on global temps staying constant and worst case on significant global warming.

Even with no global warming, at todays temps, ice will melt and levels will rise.

A bit harsh on Naim leaveroners George. Although I might have come across otherwise on this thread...I'm actually very anti-econazi. I believe that preaching to folk from some kind of moral high ground has done more harm to environmentalism than just about anything else. Thinking you're not part of the problem because you (not talking about you here George btw) don't take plastic bags at Waitrose (food shop fyi northern folk), have energy efficient lightbulbs and buy organic coffee - just get's folks back up.

From my stance, I don't really care when fossil fuels run out, I just care about their impact on the planet when consumed and I want sustainable energy. I think predictions that we'll have to all become more energy frugal are off the mark, renewables and nuclear (whatever you think of them) will see future generations living similar lifestyles to ours (imo...and nowt more than that).

I've seen the future - it's rosey and I'm still slim and gorgeous.

Hi Mat,

Thanks for the insight. I don't really have an education, coming from an typical common would you adam & and eve it council town rebel background. So, if i come across as rude or direct and dry please forgive me. I'm trying to make up for my wasted younger stupidity years now, re-learning/listening all over again

Anyway i'm finding all this stuff very interesting and indeed educational!
This forum is a great place to be.

Regards, steve

Stephen...no at all mate. Forums are funny places and we're all a bit larger than life...I'm worried about coming across as preachy or nowitall on this. I'm no expert, I just work on the fringe of it.

In my experience, I'll take folk from council houses over just about everybody else in life.

quote:

people who leave Naim powered every hour of the day are still complete idiots.

George.....!!!!! The nuclear powerstations supply MY hifi - clean green and sustainable enough. I refuse to buy my electricty from a coal powered jobbie in Yorkshire or an oil/gas powwered one in London. I also avoid visually intrusive wind-powered supplies!! (ok, I jest! but it would be nice if we could vote with our pockets IMHO - inwhich case I would go for a balanced mixture of cost and reliability of supply)

can ANYBODY answer my question re London sea levels in 1900 v sea levels in 2009 ??

Cheers

Don

Derry

I haven't read the attachement, its too full of emotion, but I have scanned through it.

However, I can't see any reference to sea level change betwen 1900 and 2009.

Perhaps the link wasn't posted in response to my post above. But if it was, could you identify the relevent page(s)?

Cheers

Don

Derry mate...I really can't be bothered to respond to blokes like Monkton (he's a sensationalist nutter...no credentials in science and no reputation as a journalist).

We've already agreed to disagree. I'll listen and read accounts of NASA et al. I'll also read anybody with proper credentials (ie a scientist in something relevant) regardless of their position. But Monkton is tabloid fodder (at best). Monkton, Limbaugh, Wogan, Clarkson...it's not a group I'll take seriously.

I'll ask around tomorrow Stephen and see what figures exist for 1900. I'd think that although we can measure past temperatures accurately, we may not have been able to measure SLR accurately in 1900? Maybe saltmarsh strata may actually show this accurately? Dunno...I'll ask around.

100% spot on Mat
The proplem is no one actually believes Wogan & Clarkson are serious, unless that is you believe wrestling to be a real sport
Monckton however can sell a tale to gullible tabloids and succeed in impressing low life in Downing St and his unqualified pontifications could actually be dangerous.

Limbaugh: don't want to go there as its another whole new topic
He is just a tabloid like sensation seeker, but if Palin gets close to the Whitehouse it might be another story. I am not a fan of the Democrats, but the "conservative" Republicans are dangerous and I fear US ping-pong politics could put them close to power if Obama's stuff goes pear shaped