Irrefutable evidence showing climate change.

Originally posted by atlasastro
What part of the fact that ice is melting and will impact on the globe do you not understand? Ask your son if all the glaciers on land melt, what happens to see levels? What happens to water systems supplied by glaciers. What happens to populations that depend on the land that will be covered by sea rises and what will happen to those people that rely on the water supplied by the glaciers.

I'm not the person you were responding to, but here are the answers. Sea level will rise, and not as drastically as the fearmongers initially told us. People living in coastal towns and cities will move, cities depending on water from glaciers will either find other sources or buy them from another city. Innovative technology to treat seawater, get into even deeper aquifers, or collect melted glacial water will come up with enough push. Countries like Maldives may disappear, and someone will likely take advantage and make millions from creating an ecoaquatour of the nonexistent country.

The fact is that climate and geological changes have been happening since the dawn of time. We adapt to the changes in nature, not the other way around.

I mean, I'm sure the lemurs weren't screaming "Oh noes! We're drifting away from Africa! We must do something to prevent this from happening!" No. It happened. They adjusted. We humans have been doing the same for thousands of years.

I'm curious what policies you think the governments can come up with that would stop climate change, or specifically glacial melting, since that's what you refer to in every post?

Originally posted by soficrow

Originally posted by atlasastro
Accordingly would mean, to not try and stop the unstoppable but try and minimize and reduce the impact on our societies.

Ya gotta wonder why there's so much resistance to such a basic idea. ...And who's pushing the resistance.

Can either of you give more specifics or at least examples of what you mean by "try and minimize and reduce the impact on our societies"?

Because we do that already when we do anything. It's called environmental assessment.

Furthermore, some municipalities have laws prohibiting building on floodplains, which do change as time goes on, but we cannot just kick people who are living there already out.

@jdub297 LOL! I wish I was clever enough to come up with THAT name in the first place, but I digress. I don't think the OP is a troll, just very ... passionate. (and brainwashed, but mostly passionate, which I still see as a good thing)

[edit on 11-3-2010 by ATSdelurker]

reply to post by TheRedneck


Al Gore the Third, thats pretty funny. That must make you Tim Ball the second.


I guess you missed the part about science refers to observation Redneck.
Tsk Tsk.

That is the great thing about the source Redneck. It is what it is, just an observation.


What you don't mention is that it shows receding glaciers. Not seasonal fluctuations.
It shows that over three years. Summer and WINTER.
The science has been saying that this is happening via their readings from GRACE etc, but this is the first time we have actually observed it as a process. That makes it significant in that we observe what the data from satellites( and other complex processes used to assess the glaciers) is telling us.

I have been saying for years on this board now that it is the water temperatures, not the air temperatures, causing Arctic melt! That means that since the warming aspect of CO2 is atmospheric-based, it cannot be CO2 causing the melting.
I have been saying for years on this board now that it is the water temperatures, not the air temperatures, causing Arctic melt! That means that since the warming aspect of CO2 is atmospheric-based, it cannot be CO2 causing the melting.

That is a scientific analysis... shooting time-lapse photography is not.

Who cares what you have been saying for years Redneck. That is not scientific analysis, repeating something for years. Nor is it a scientific process to trumpet that you have been saying it for years, that is just the art of self promotion. You sound like Al Gore dude.
(BTW: I know you think it is Volcanoes or underground reptilians with hair dryers or something like that based on all your documented and observed studies like time lapse photography over a number of years that show a trend that correlates with numerous other sources.)

I don't care about the CO2 issue as a cause. I don't even mention it once as a cause in this thread. Nor do I attribute a cause in the OP or any of my posts.

Show that these observations are meaningless and irrelevant.
Thanks mate.

Ultrastructural and time-lapse observations of intraepithelial lymphocytes in the small intestine of the guinea pig: their possible role in the removal of effete enterocytes

www.springerlink.com...

A novel microscope system for time-lapse observation of corneal cells in a living mouse

Link

Coastal erosion rates locally exceeding 30 meters per year have been documented along portions of Alaska's Beaufort Sea coastline, and a number of studies suggest that these erosion rates have accelerated as a result of climate change. However, a lack of direct observational evidence has limited our progress in quantifying the role of climate change on coastal erosion rates in the Arctic...........rates have averaged 10-15 meters/year over two years of direct monitoring. We take advantage of these extraordinary rates of coastal erosion in the Arctic to observe coastal erosion directly via time-lapse photography, and to use these observations to calibrate simple models of thermal erosion.

But It just not science



BTW, they are great pictures. Its the first time that anyone has taken images like that.
You can actually see the Ice retreat over years.
It is just an observation.

I was careful to ignore pointing out the references to CO2 in the video and I think I make it clear that I thought people would be interested in the images. Because I know the CO2 discussion drives certain people who don't accept it as a cause to insanity, or at least just inflames it.
Read the OP, Redneck(forum moderator).



Thanks for taking the time reply Redneck.

reply to post by ATSdelurker


Hi dude.

I will start with this first one, and a logical one. Throw the IPCC's estimations and predictions in the trash.

And start again.

The IPCC failed to use the facts that there predictions for sea level rises over the last forty years are wrong. Sea levels have risen 50% more in this period then they had predicted.

The rates at which they think it will melt is wrong.
The observations in the OP are just one source that is telling us that.
What people are gauging change by is based on a 59cm rise by 2100. All these numbers are wrong.
The IPCC for some reason has the Antarctic Ice sheet gaining mass or balancing out in its reports based on older studies. This is conflicting with the losses we are seeing in the south from new studies. And if you look at historical melts(which no doubt many of you have) this does not happen. The Antarctic is massive and has a huge potential to raise sea levels. It is not figured in to the predictions.

I could keep going but you get the drift.

That is where I would start. Regardless of cause, we need solid and better established time frames. Everything else comes after that I guess. If you believe it is melting faster that is!

So I guess we would have to acknowledge the much quicker rate and then act accordingly.

What do you think?

reply to post by ATSdelurker

I'm curious what policies you think the governments can come up with that would stop climate change, or specifically glacial melting, since that's what you refer to in every post?

I strongly suggest then, that you learn to read.

Point out one post where I say that we have to stop climate change or even can.
Just once.
Point out just once, where I say we need the government to stop the melting, or that I think they can.

Like you point out, we will respond to the changes. But at what point do we respond? That would be another issue I would address. Don't you think we need some kind of Idea about that.
Because it is happening faster.

Do you see much adaptation happening yet?
No, it is mostly arguing.
How much acknowledgement have you seen that these melts are happening faster?
Until this thread, I would guess probably none. As this(the material in the OP) has not been in the MSM at all that I have seen**. I mean if you believe the "scam scare monger theory" this would have been fodder for the masses to whip them with a "tax scam fear campaign its happening faster".

You raise some great points considering Government.
Because they are not doing much. Just look at Copenhagen. Most of the policy advice is based on IPCC reports that do not acknowledge the observations made recently.

I guess what I would like to do is throw the government in the trash with the IPCC too.
They seem ineffective to me.

Thanks again for the reply.



[edit on 12/3/10 by atlasastro]

Originally posted by atlasastro

So I guess we would have to acknowledge the much quicker rate and then act accordingly.

What do you think?

I think I'm interested to know the specifics or your ideas of what you consider "act accordingly". Just examples of what you think so the discussion can actually move forward.

And I mean that sincerely. I'm in the water resources industry so I'm not denying the idea of climate change since it's been messing up my work for the last 5 or so years. And even in my miniscule localized type of work, there's nothing that I can do to adjust our work to suit the forever changing climate, because that's what it is, forever changing, and our guidelines are based on consistent historical data, so until these new changes are permanent and consistent (and I don't mean random changes for a few years), the government, for good reason, will not change their guidelines.

My apologies for assuming you want to slow down the glacial melt, although as I'm not the only person to get that impression, one has to wonder why we all thought that's what you meant.

I already mentioned environmental assessments being done on anything we do to minimize impact, which if applicable would include any definite or at least probable issue like sea level rising though nothing like that is definitively stated. We already minimize building on floodplains in some cities, and the floodlines are moved and expanded when necessary. From another post and another angle, China's looking to get a piece of the action up in the arctic because of the possibility of better shipping route.

So, as I and as someone else had repeatedly asked, what do you think should be done that isn't being done, based on glacial melt?

Originally posted by atlasastro

We have to deal with this reality now, regardless of whether you think it is a natural cycle or AGW.

You see, this is the problem with this whole mess of a debate. We have to deal with the world's weather patterns? Please fill me in on how we are to obtain this goal.

I understand and am on track with taking care of this planet. Limit polluting, replace what we take, etc. But are you seriously saying that little ole man needs to step in and try to prevent what is more likely than not a natural weather cycle?

Originally posted by ATSdelurker

I think I'm interested to know the specifics or your ideas of what you consider "act accordingly". Just examples of what you think so the discussion can actually move forward.

And I mean that sincerely. I'm in the water resources industry so I'm not denying the idea of climate change since it's been messing up my work for the last 5 or so years.

I think I have mentioned a few specifics already. I think my last post was specific on a place to start. But you raise a very interesting subject with water. Because securing this resource and understanding the effects of climate change and glacial melts on water and what these effects will have on local and regional politics, economics etc and the flow on effects, to all our own economies that are dependent on each other and interwoven, is a massive subject but one of the most important in my humble opinion.

One example in my country is how urgent some of our systems need to be upgraded as one of our main water supplies has not only seen a 50% increase in local and regional governments drawing from it, but it loses massive amounts of water simply through old infrastructure. Given we are in a severe and extended drought that scientists have attributed to climate change, acting accordingly would mean securing and managing these resources more efficiently and probably doing that with our regional neighbouring nations being that we are a first world nation.
This will be an issue all over the world when you consider that many populations are also in drought or are seeing seasonal melts that they depend on are really diminishing.
This is local and regional and international in scale.
I would love to hear you relate to my thoughts given your experience.
Having worked in the water resource industry you will be well aware of the importance it plays.

And even in my miniscule localized type of work, there's nothing that I can do to adjust our work to suit the forever changing climate, because that's what it is, forever changing, and our guidelines are based on consistent historical data, so until these new changes are permanent and consistent (and I don't mean random changes for a few years), the government, for good reason, will not change their guidelines.

I know that. That is why the material being used to adjust policy needs to be updated given what the evidence is showing in relation to increased melts.
I think that would be acting accordingly. Then policy will trickle down to individuals like you so you can adjust to the changes we are seeing.

You are actually showing the problems I see. That the government will wait until the problem is upon it. This is not the governments fault. It is everyones fault.
The IPCC has been over cautious and rather reserved in its predictions too, so all policy and guidelines will be too. As will the publics expectations also be cautious as to what government action will be and so on and so forth.
We should be cautious. I am suggesting we be continue to be cautious by acting with caution to the speed of the changes we are seeing.

So I think acting accordingly in this case would engage populations and discuss with people what is actually happening so they can form opinions on whether or not those representing them are actually up to speed on the reality of the situation.
How that would be achieved is a whole other matter, but perhaps on a personal level a person could engage peers on a website that is enjoyed and populated by a vast cross section of individuals in an effort to foster such discussion.

The acknowledgement of a problem and acting accordingly to it so as to minimize harm to life, and all our systems that we have in place.
I don't see us adjusting to the anything at the moment. The point you mention regarding consistent historical data is interesting because we have thousands of years of evidence that shows what happens when the glaciers melt. Not to mention all the evidence now that is showing it melting faster then previously thought or predicted.

My apologies for assuming you want to slow down the glacial melt, although as I'm not the only person to get that impression, one has to wonder why we all thought that's what you meant.

I accept your apology. I think the reason why a few people share the same impression is because they all did the same thing you admitted doing.
You based your arguments on assumptions.
I have mentioned it numerous times on the thread that We cannot stop climate change nor should we try.
What I say is that we should act accordingly.

I already mentioned environmental assessments being done on anything we do to minimize impact, which if applicable would include any definite or at least probable issue like sea level rising though nothing like that is definitively stated. We already minimize building on floodplains in some cities, and the floodlines are moved and expanded when necessary. From another post and another angle, China's looking to get a piece of the action up in the arctic because of the possibility of better shipping route.

We will have a whole new set of flood plains where cities now exist.
Think about the lose of just a small percentage of the Antarctic.
This region is melting faster and in volumes not even factored in.
They thought the East regions would gain with losses in the west and some of the studies used in the IPCC have it balancing out or gaining. The eastern region is now losing Ice at faster rates.
The Antarctic region could raise the sea level by 74mtr if we lost it all. So even losing just 10% would be a huge raise, or even just 5%.
And that would be added on to the already predicted rises from the Arctic melts and other glacier melts.

So, as I and as someone else had repeatedly asked, what do you think should be done that isn't being done, based on glacial melt?

I have repeatedly stated examples of acting accordingly. I cannot help that some people on here ignore that.

In fact, you ignore that in this post entirely, and then you ask the same question again.
I am not trying to antagonize you, I am stating a fact.

Many posters state that they acknowledge the melts only to question that fact.
I think the problem is that I am not saying the things that many want to hear.

We need to get real. I already posted a response to that.
All our policy will flow from the reality of the melts and the adjusted and updated time frames. As a start.
Perhaps my assumption that logic would be the process used in assessing my OP was wrong.

I provided evidence showing us these increased rates of melts. As well as linking other sources in various post replies that support this.
I then state that we need to first acknowledge these and then act accordingly.

Accordingly, logically, as I stated in previous posts would be to act in a manner that maintains the continuity and quality of our systems of society.

We could do that by trying this, as I stated in a previous post that was also ignored(admittedly I was rather a bit facetious in this post).

risk assessment detailing the benefits of action versus the harm of the implementation of the solutions to said problems.
....list the problems from the glacial melts, their local, regional, global implications in terms of water sustainability to serve existing demands for municipal, industrial, agricultural, and environmental uses especially in regions dependent on glacial melts.

You can do the same with the effect of glacial melts on sea levels.

What are the risks and harm assessments of preparing action plans to relocate populations and to prepare alternative water sources.

What are the geopolitical risks associated with implementing policy(both nationally and internationally) in relation to resource security specifically regarding water.

.....assess a risk to third party nations keen to reduce the movement of refugees predicted or displaced peoples due to sea level rises or drought inflicted regions as a consequence of the observed and continuing trend of glacial melts around the globe.

This post was ignored entirely. It was on the first page. Two pages in the troll started asking me to specify "acting accordingly" and now you seem to be ignoring my posts and parroting the troll

I also asked why is it that we cannot not take the same mentality or approach to climate change as we do with other natural challenges.

Instead of looking at that suggestion, people tried to equate the differing issues and not even acknowledge that what I was actually talking about was an approach and a mentality or an action that is overarching all the differing issues.

I was very specific in this suggestion.

We take precautions to reduce their potential to damage or destroy homes and infrastructure or endanger life. We train people and allocate resources to deal with them, we educate people and we design and build house and infrastructure in high risk areas in order to prevent death, damage and destruction. We set early warning systems and monitor high risk location in order to evacuate people at risk.
We study the problem looking for ways to deal with it more efficiently with a view at minimizing the potential to destroy life, property and infrastructure in order to maintain the highest quality and continuity of our social structures.

I shouldn't have to explain myself or even provide this commentary. Which is why I have ignored another poster who has simply ignored everything I have posted.
Please read my posts.
Just put aside your assumptions and read.

Thanks again for the reply.

Originally posted by dariousg

You see, this is the problem with this whole mess of a debate. We have to deal with the world's weather patterns? Please fill me in on how we are to obtain this goal.

Read the thread please.

I understand and am on track with taking care of this planet. Limit polluting, replace what we take, etc. But are you seriously saying that little ole man needs to step in and try to prevent what is more likely than not a natural weather cycle?

I am not seriously saying that, nor have I said it in jest.
Please read the thread.
Then think about what you have read.
And then formulate a reply that actually addresses what is actually written.
And I say that in all seriousness that I will probably have a serious reply for you.

reply to post by atlasastro


Thank you for posting this.
Why are there so many people willing to take the chance it is not true when the implications are so devastating if it is. There is an old adage...

err on the side of safety

People have made this issue into a political tug of war.
Why risk the fate of the planet because you don't like Al Gore?
Why be so critical of
"those darn liberals always trying to conserve the earths resources?"
They may have a point.

reply to post by loner007

The siberian permafrost which has laid frozen since the last ice age

This is what really irks me about this whole argument.

Yes, the planet is warming, BUT... take the quote above. "LAID FROZEN SINCE THE LAST ICE AGE". Sorry to to be a killjoy but what do you think happened BEFORE the last ice age?

That's right - it was WARM. No ice. No snow.

It is cyclical. The only thing I'm going to do about climate change is GET USED TO IT.

The only real news is that we're running out of oil. It is impossible for the UK Government at least to talk about climate change without also mentioning energy security. Energy security is the actual problem, only they can't say that because it will cause mass panic (just look at what happened a few years ago when fuel for cars was in short supply due to strikes). I'm not convinced (looking retrospectively) that it wasn't a mass behavioral experiment by causing a controlled shortage that will have an end, and seeing how people react to it.

In true style, people hoarded what was left despite being told there was sufficient fuel to last the shortage period at normal rates of consumption. As a result, a lot of petrol stations ran out of fuel.

Apologies if this appears off-topic, but it is highly relevant.

There is an article here news.bbc.co.uk... talking about how a species of bird is getting smaller "as a result of climate change", as if we are supposed to think this is doom created by our evil fossil-fuel burning ways, but when you read the actual article, they've been getting smaller for at least the last 50 years, and I'll bet longer than that. It is called EVOLUTION.

A smaller bird requires less energy, and thus, less food. This enables MORE OF THEM to thrive (if we are worried only about numbers).

TPTB want people to always think negatively about any kind of change, but anyone with half an ounce of intellect should be able to figure spin from facts.

I discovered from the news this evening that the polar bears that are supposed to be dying because of climate change are actually being hunted and killed at a rate of 300 per year by humans with shotguns!!!! BTW, if you weren't aware, the polar bears are actually thriving - their population was less than 5000 in the 70s to over 25000 today. Don't dare to tell me that they're endangered.

Hey Atlas, I see you have repeatedly stated that you are not claiming anything man made in this thread. But you seem to forget that you have claimed this many, many times in other threads, which is why some people may have mentioned this in their posts. Are you saying you no longer believe this to be the case?

Originally posted by atlasastro
We are also at a deep solar minimum. Just think what its going to be like when the solar cycle kicks back in.

Are we really still in a deep minimum? It's interesting to see these filaments on the sun then. And to see so many days with sunspots this year, must be strange for a "deep solar minimum".

Originally posted by atlasastro
Not that I want to be picky, but what you will be actually living close to will probably be muddy banks littered with submerged infrastructure and debris that will be slowly eroded by tidal actions which will eventually become beaches after many, many, many, many years.
Think of what a storm surge does to beaches and low lying regions. These are essentially isolated and localized rises in sea levels driven by storm systems. Beaches disappear. Now think of that as being permanent. That would be your beach.

Do you have any evidence for these 'scary' predictions of what will happen to beaches? Because comparing sea level rise to a storm surge seems like a rather dramatic comparison. It's like saying the 2 ft wave I caught was like a 8 ft tsunami. They are both "essentially" waves.

What's the rate of sea level rise when an approaching storm system nears the coast compared to actual sea level rise, hmmm?

I have lived beside a beach the last few years and have seen first hand how dynamic beach systems are. One storm can take large amounts of sand off the dunes, and change it's appearance dramatically. But within a few months, wave action transports it back to where it was. So I'm interested to see how you think the beaches are going to "disappear" due to sea level rise.

Originally posted by atlasastro
The Antarctic region could raise the sea level by 74mtr if we lost it all. So even losing just 10% would be a huge raise, or even just 5%.

Is there any evidence at all to suggest we would get anywhere near a 5% loss of ice in the recent future?

It is widely acknowledged that ice was gaining in Antarctica recently. So a few years of loss and suddenly we are contemplating a 5% or 10% loss? Sure some studies show gains, some show losses. But many have margin of errors too large to extrapolate an accurate trend from.

Originally posted by atlasastro
Many posters state that they acknowledge the melts only to question that fact.

Of course many acknowledge that the climate changes. What many people question is the amount of truth in the catastrophic claims made by some people.

Humans have seen many changes in climate, and I'm sure will see many more in the future. But to be honest, I think there are many more problems that we could deal with now that would have real and positive effects, rather than spend millions on ways to try and counteract climate.

Sure we should be looking to prepare for the future, but there are also many real problems that are happening right now that could be addressed as well.

Sadly, these get ignored by some people because they are too worried about that evil CO2.


[edit on 14-3-2010 by Curious and Concerned]

[edit on 14-3-2010 by Curious and Concerned]

G'day dude,
Thanks for dropping by and adding your thoughts.

Originally posted by Curious and Concerned
Hey Atlas, I see you have repeatedly stated that you are not claiming anything man made in this thread.

Yes I do state that repeatedly and for a reason. I state is clearly in the OP.

But you seem to forget that you have claimed this many, many times in other threads,

I haven't forgotten those claims or expressions on those threads. You are implying I have forgotten. I made the OP specific. Because arguing about causes are irrelevant now given the changes we are seeing IMHO.
Speaking of forgotten threads, why was it you haven't responded to this post where I point out the huge mistakes and assumption you make.
post by atlasastro
I would appreciate your thoughts on the issue. I won't try and make an argument that you simply "forgot".

which is why some people may have mentioned this in their posts.

Maybe! Who cares?
I make the OP clear that this is not about the blame. Maybe you should read the OP again.

Are you saying you no longer believe this to be the case?

Do I say that in the OP or the thread? That should indicate to you what I believe.
What I or other people believe the cause to be is irrelevant to the OP. The fact is that we are seeing faster changes. That is what the OP is about, and I clearly state that.

Are we really still in a deep minimum? It's interesting to see these filaments on the sun then. And to see so many days with sunspots this year, must be strange for a "deep solar minimum".

Yes, you are right. Especially after the incredibly quite years we had in 2008, and 2009.
I just read an article this morning predicting that we should be in max in 2015. So that will be interesting won't it. I should have updated my views on the sun cycle 24. My bad, I'll try not to let it happen again. SOHO is book marked.

Considering we are now coming out of a deep solar minimum it will be interesting to see what happens won't it?

I find this interesting given the sun was pretty inactive in 2008 and 2009.

Although 2008 was the coolest year of the decade because of a strong La Nina that cooled the tropical Pacific Ocean, 2009 saw a return to a near-record global temperatures as the La Nina diminished, according to the new analysis by NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) in New York. The past year was a small fraction of a degree cooler than 2005, the warmest on record, putting 2009 in a virtual tie with a cluster of other years --1998, 2002, 2003, 2006, and 2007 -- for the second warmest on record.

www.nasa.gov...

So, again I guess I should say, now we are coming out of a deep solar minimum, it will be interesting to see what happens.

I have lived beside a........ So I'm interested to see how you think the beaches are going to "disappear" due to sea level rise.

When the sea level rises, the beach does not pick itself up and move.
Like you mention, after storms the beach slowly repairs itself because the system returns to normal. If the rises incur on areas where infrastructure is, in that it floods low lying areas as predicted, that stuff won't suddenly become a beach. It will have to be transformed into a beach by that process. So these area will not be "beaches" as we know them.
As I point out, we can use a historical record of storm surges and even king tides for coastal and low level regions to get an understanding of what the rises will look like.

It is widely acknowledged that ice was gaining in Antarctica recently.

That is wrong and I actually point that out in a post on this page regarding the IPCC using studies that predicted that the Antarctic would see gains or at least balance out. Sadly, that is not true. It is clear that it is not true. So, as I point out we need to act accordingly by acknowledging that.

So a few years of loss and suddenly we are contemplating a 5% or 10% loss?

Yes. It would be logical to look at a process involving loss, the rates of loss. Look at the mass involved and consider what a even a small amount of that mass would mean if it was lost.
ABC interview with Nathan BrindoffNathan, a professor in physical oceanography at the Antarctic Climate Ecosystems Cooperative research centre in Hobart.

NATHAN BINDOFF: Every new estimate of the contribution of Antarctica to sea level rise has actually grown over the last four to five years and what that's really telling us is, that our state of knowledge about Antarctica isn't as good as we would like and it's becoming clearer to us that there is a very significant risk of quite large sea level contributions into the future.

Sure some studies show gains, some show losses. But many have margin of errors too large to extrapolate an accurate trend from.

The OP video is the actual process of observing a trend as documented in studies and data extrapolated from studies. It is observation. What is significant about the observations is that the process is happening faster.
Add to this the facts that the Antarctic is melting in regions that were thought to be either growing or balancing out, I think it would be logical to contemplate what that actually means.
If the process is happening faster, then considering losses or the impact of losses would seem logical.
It would also seem logical given the history of recorded climate cycles that include melts extracted from Ice Core samples.
So we have a history that can lead us to consider amounts of Ice Losses, we have studies documenting these and now we have observations supporting these studies.
And significantly, we now have observations of these process actually happening and that they are observed to be happening faster.
What is important also is who is not considering these changes.

And he says the 2007 IPCC report has underestimated the extent of future sea level rise caused by thinning ice in Antarctica.

Of course many acknowledge that the climate changes. What many people question is the amount of truth in the catastrophic claims made by some people.

Yeah, fear mongering about fear mongerers.
I am actually talking about people on this thread who claim they acknowledge the changes, but then go on to actually argue against that or infer that it is not happening.
I don't make claims based around catastrophe. I simply say that we must act accordingly, not hysterically.

Humans have seen many changes in climate, and I'm sure will see many more in the future.

Yes I know.
It is interesting to note that those that didn't act accordingly, didn't survive those changes. In particular, the Norse vikings whose Greenland home suffered from climate change as well as environmental degradation along with other issues. I think we can learn a lot from past mistakes.
It is how you respond to change that is significant and not the fact that change happens in the climate.

But to be honest, I think there are many more problems that we could deal with now that would have real and positive effects, rather than spend millions on ways to try and counteract climate.

Where do I ask people to spend millions trying to counter act the climate?
You actually point out something important though. There are many problems that we could be trying to solve or improve or react to, and we just don't.
We don't act accordingly. We often wait until it is too late or in many cases we simply do nothing. Why add another issue to that list?
Its massive dude, all the problems of the world, what is significant about this one is that we will all be experiencing this one together.

Sure we should be looking to prepare for the future, but there are also many real problems that are happening right now that could be addressed as well.

This is what I mean about people in denial. Is climate change a real problem or is it not a real problem?
It is either happening or it is not.
It is either real or it is not.
At what point does it become a real problem to you? It is when you acknowledge it as a real problem.
Mate, I don't ever post comments that we should dismiss all other problems in the world in preference of just the climate change issue.

Sure we should be looking to prepare for the future, but there are also many real problems that are happening right now that could be addressed as well.Sadly, these get ignored by some people because they are too worried about that evil CO2.

You seem worried about the CO2 argument regardless of what side of the debate you are on.
I don't even mention it in this thread. Which you seem to have ignored.
I find your assumption that people who site CO2 as a cause for climate change are not worried about other local, regional or global issues to be a gross misrepresentation and an insidious generalization not to mention that it is an assumption unsupported by any facts whatsoever.

Once again, I would appreciate your thoughts on this post you may or may not have forgotten.
post by atlasastro

Thank you for the reply.

Originally posted by mirageofdeceit

I discovered from the news this evening that the polar bears that are supposed to be dying because of climate change are actually being hunted and killed at a rate of 300 per year by humans with shotguns!!!! BTW, if you weren't aware, the polar bears are actually thriving - their population was less than 5000 in the 70s to over 25000 today. Don't dare to tell me that they're endangered.

The majority of your reply is not even on topic.
I know your are replying to another member and I appreciate you stance. This is not about cause.

What I will point out is that the Polar Bears were being hunted to extinction in the 70's.
It was not until Governments stepped in and protected the species that we saw them regain population.
Canada, Norway, US, the former USSR and Denmark, which governed Greenland at that time all signed the ‘International Agreement on the Conservation of Polar Bears’,
It was a mindset of conservation and protection that resulted in the bears reaching the numbers they have now.
I often see people quoting what you have essentially posted a some kind of argument that climate change is not effecting the bears because they seem to have grown in population.
I think this argument is not based on anything solid given that the bears where in fact just recovering from the extensive hunting patterns of humans.
That recovery means nothing if the Arctic region continues to change. Polar Bears rely on Sea Ice to a great extent, and that sea ice is seeing losses every year.
Here are some of the challenges they face now after recovering from extensive hunting habits.


The Polar Bear is Used as an iconic representation of climate change.
I guess, we humans have a habit of making issues emotional in order to trigger a response or action.
Unfortunately, it can be just seen it as spin and so it is answered with more spin.

I discovered from the news this evening that the polar bears that are supposed to be dying because of climate change are actually being hunted and killed at a rate of 300 per year by humans with shotguns!!!! BTW, if you weren't aware, the polar bears are actually thriving - their population was less than 5000 in the 70s to over 25000 today. Don't dare to tell me that they're endangered.

You point out that we are killing them now, well we were also killing them before and now the climate is effecting them.
I guess it is a matter of whether you think we have anything to do with the climate element that makes the topic significant to your argument.
If you think its natural, we can try and at least preserve some of them. If you think its AGW, then people will use the Bear to try in promote change.
Either way I will guess we will try and save some of them and not ignore their plight.
We will act accordingly, just like we did before.

Thanks for the reply.

reply to post by atlasastro

Not to continue on a side topic, but your answer made no sense:

You point out that we are killing them now, well we were also killing them [polar bears] before and now the climate is effecting them.

The population of polar bears since the 70s, according to the numbers given, has grown by 500%, in just 40 years, due to simply regulating the hunting. Now, if you believe that Global Warming is now putting pressure on the bears, then it would appear from the data that such pressure is minimal compared to unregulated hunting (which they survived for some time).

I was able to verify the current population:

How many polar bears are there?
Scientists can only provide informed estimates. In 2008, scientists estimated that there might be 20,000 to 25,000 of them.

Source: www.polarbearsinternational.org...

TheRedneck

Originally posted by atlasastro
G'day dude,
Thanks for dropping by and adding your thoughts.

Your welcome, dude.

When the sea level rises, the beach does not pick itself up and move.
Like you mention, after storms the beach slowly repairs itself because the system returns to normal. If the rises incur on areas where infrastructure is, in that it floods low lying areas as predicted, that stuff won't suddenly become a beach. It will have to be transformed into a beach by that process. So these area will not be "beaches" as we know them.

The sea level has been rising and falling for a long time. So I'm not sure why you think the beaches will "be lost". This would be quite a catastrophe. But luckily beaches do move. There is no such thing as "returns to normal". The sea level is constantly changing and the beaches move with it.

If you are reffering solely to places with existing infrastructure, then you would have a valid point. It is a very complex problem to predict how sea level will affect existing infrastructure. But I can assure you, beaches will be around much longer than any present day infrastructure.

As I point out, we can use a historical record of storm surges and even king tides for coastal and low level regions to get an understanding of what the rises will look like.

Comparing storm surge damage on beaches to the effects of sea level rise is rather erroneous. The rate of sea level rise during a storm is far, far greater than actual sea level rise. Let alone the actual storm causing wave and wind damage. You can not expect the gradual sea level rise observed and predicted to have similiar effects.

If you wanted to compare these to future storms, then that's fine. Luckily, there's no indication of an increase in severe storms though.

I don't make claims based around catastrophe.

Oh yeah? See above.
Also, you keep reffering to how much the entire greenland and antarctic ice sheets could raise sea levels. You and I both know that those kinds of melts are not even considred by anyone. Yet it would be catastrophic if they did, eh?

It is widely acknowledged that ice was gaining in Antarctica recently.

That is wrong and I actually point that out in a post on this page regarding the IPCC using studies that predicted that the Antarctic would see gains or at least balance out.

No it isn't wrong. You have showed that the ice may now be decreasing. The IPCC used those studies because it was gaining mass.

The OP video is the actual process of observing a trend as documented in studies and data extrapolated from studies. It is observation. What is significant about the observations is that the process is happening faster.

It observes a loss of ice which has been happening since the last glacial period, and times of cooling such as the LIA. You cannot infer a trend from 2 or 3 years of time lapse footage.

But it is hard to predict glacier's, as they have varying reaction times, sometimes 1000's of years, to climate. For instance, quite recently here in NZ, many of our glaciers were gaining mass although the climate was warming. Precipitation play's a major role as well. So they are not so good at playing the role of the canary, mentioned in the OP.

Where do I ask people to spend millions trying to counter act the climate?
You actually point out something important though. There are many problems that we could be trying to solve or improve or react to, and we just don't.

You are doing the same thing you have criticised many for doing in this thread. I didn't say that you said that. But it doesn't matter if you did or didn't, because this is what IS happening.

But it's good to see that we agree that there are many problems that this world is facing. Many that would have very real positive effects now. Yet it seems only the profitable solutions come about.

Sure we should be looking to prepare for the future, but there are also many real problems that are happening right now that could be addressed as well.

This is what I mean about people in denial. Is climate change a real problem or is it not a real problem?

Pulling out the "denial" card now
Where did I say that climate change wasn't a problem? I said we should prepare for the future, but that there are also many problems now.

It seems the only solutions you have put forth, are along the lines of "preparing action plans to relocate populations and to prepare alternative water sources." I would say that this is already happening, but it could definitely be improved.

There are many parts of the world that will benefit from improved water supply, and it is an ongoing effort. And while we should prepare for potential sea level rise, there is a considerable amount of time to get these issues sorted. So I believe that this is being worked on, but is not a solution needed right now.

You seem worried about the CO2 argument regardless of what side of the debate you are on.
I don't even mention it in this thread. Which you seem to have ignored.

After telling me and many others to look at the OP, it appears you need to do so yourself. The photographer in the video you are so proudly promoting quite clearly mentions this. He also misleads people, saying nature naturally "caps CO2" at 260ppm(there abouts). This is bollocks, as you should know.
The other link you posted is also a typical AGW supportive site, quoting the IPCC and explaining how to reduce your carbon footprint (not a bad thing, IMO). So it's quite astounding to see you attack people for mentioning the CO2 link. The link you provide in the OP, which you seem to have ignored.

[edit on 15/3/10 by Curious and Concerned]

Originally posted by Curious and Concerned
It seems the only solutions you have put forth, are along the lines of "preparing action plans to relocate populations and to prepare alternative water sources." .

Thanks Curious. I agree with your entire post; it's a relief that I didn't have to repeat that, b/c it's getting to be like slamming my head repeatedly on a wall at this point.

Originally posted by atlasastro

in my country is how urgent some of our systems need to be upgraded as one of our main water supplies has not only seen a 50% increase in local and regional governments drawing from it, but it loses massive amounts of water simply through old infrastructure. Given we are in a severe and extended drought that scientists have attributed to climate change, acting accordingly would mean securing and managing these resources more efficiently [...]

1. Old infrastructure has nothing to do with climate change. Take it up with your municipalities.

2. Excuse my ignorance, but where does it say that we are in a severe & extended drought attributed to climate change?

3. We have droughts in some parts of the world already where people have no water. Not for climate change or actual lack of water but for political reasons. These are real and immediate. How about we work on those before claiming climate change is a "real problem"? Why it is even considered a real problem unless the salinity decrease kills off a bunch of aquatic species?

4. I see climate change as more of a weather pattern change. Where I am, we see more frequent mid-size storms and less frequency of severe storms, so some things are either over or under designed. BUT the gov can't just change guidelines because we design based on historical frequencies, which is for the last ~100+ years. We can't just change our designs b/c things changed the last 5 years. It'd be a big waste of $$$.

So I think acting accordingly in this case would engage populations and discuss with people what is actually happening so they can form opinions on whether or not those representing them are actually up to speed on the reality of the situation.
[...]

The acknowledgement of a problem and acting accordingly to it so as to minimize harm to life, and all our systems that we have in place.

I can't get the whole quote. but first, atlasastro ... no one was trolling. The person who asked you what "act accordingly" meant specifically wasn't trolling because what you said wasn't specific. So please stop with the automatic trolling accusations.

If acknowledging climate change, discussing it, and vaguely saying that we should have "all our systems ... in place" are considered specifics of "act accordingly", I'm going to wonder if you yourself are a government worker.

Telling us we need action plans to relocate people? What, you think if a city is submerged, people wouldn't move without an action plan? The other reason this wouldn't work -- do YOU have any idea where the coastal line will be 50 years from now? 100 years? Do the scientists who advocate for GW (or climate change or whatever new lingo)? At what point should we drop our luggages to say "ok, we can build a town here because the ocean wouldn't flood to here FOR SURE. EVER."? Or should we pack our bags every 50 years and move inland? In your opinion, where should all these coastal towns move to? And until the ocean floods up to that point of high elevation dry land, would you also mind telling us how these towns will get their goods that normally come by ship? How to maintain their local fishing industry? What are all of these people to do in the meantime while waiting for this oh-so-definite ocean level rise?

Prepare alternative water sources? We already do that -- climate change or not.

I could go on, but this is getting redundant. I'm not here to argue, so take what you want out of this.

sea level rise is difficult to measure, because land 'floats' on the mantle and isn't static, erosion plays a role, too and from what i've seen so far, their rises are measured in millimeters which begs the question how they intend to actually measure it, let alone over wide areas, which would be required to draw any meaningful conclusions.

www.agu.org...

e construct a high-resolution relative sea-level record for the past 700 years by dating basal salt-marsh peat samples above a glacial erratic in an eastern Connecticut salt marsh, to test whether or not the apparent recent acceleration in the rate of sea-level rise (SLR) is coeval with climate warming. The data reveal an average SLR rate of 1.0 ± 0.2 mm/year from about 1300 to 1850 A.D. Coupling of the regional tide-gauge data (1856 to present) with this marsh-based record indicates that the nearly three-fold increase in the regional rate of SLR to modern levels likely occurred in the later half of the 19th century. Thus the timing of the observed SLR rate increase is coincident with the onset of climate warming, indicating a possible link between historic SLR increases and recent temperature increases.

so, iow, sea levels are believed to have risen by approximately 1mm/a from at least the 14th century until 1850, at which point it increased to around 3mm/a (how quickly???). a couple of obvious questions: what could people do about the original 1mm/a? nothing, because 'fossil' fuel wasn't even in widespread use yet. what was the 'greenhouse gas' load from 1850 to 1900? has it increased since then? yes? have sea levels mirrored the trend?

if not, then it seems the best bet is to increase the height of your average dike by the aforementioned tenth of an inch each year, isn't it?

besides, the IPCC itself projects a sea level rise around half a meter, see f-ex

en.wikipedia.org...

There are six families of SRES Scenarios, and AR4 provides projected temperature and sea level rises (excluding future rapid dynamical changes in ice flow[5])for each scenario family.

Scenario B1
Best estimate temperature rise of 1.8 °C with a likely range of 1.1 to 2.9 °C (3.2 °F with a likely range of 2.0 to 5.2 °F)
Sea level rise likely range [18 to 38 cm] (7 to 15 inches)

Scenario A1T
Best estimate temperature rise of 2.4 °C with a likely range of 1.4 to 3.8 °C (4.3 °F with a likely range of 2.5 to 6.8 °F)
Sea level rise likely range [20 to 45 cm] (8 to 18 inches)

Scenario B2
Best estimate temperature rise of 2.4 °C with a likely range of 1.4 to 3.8 °C (4.3 °F with a likely range of 2.5 to 6.8 °F)
Sea level rise likely range [20 to 43 cm] (8 to 17 inches)

Scenario A1B
Best estimate temperature rise of 2.8 °C with a likely range of 1.7 to 4.4 °C (5.0 °F with a likely range of 3.1 to 7.9 °F)
Sea level rise likely range [21 to 48 cm] (8 to 19 inches)

Scenario A2
Best estimate temperature rise of 3.4 °C with a likely range of 2.0 to 5.4 °C (6.1 °F with a likely range of 3.6 to 9.7 °F)
Sea level rise likely range [23 to 51 cm] (9 to 20 inches)
Scenario A1FI
Best estimate temperature rise of 4.0 °C with a likely range of 2.4 to 6.4 °C (7.2 °F with a likely range of 4.3 to 11.5 °F)
Sea level rise likely range [26 to 59 cm] (10 to 23 inches)

for 2100 mind you which at this point would require 5.5mm/a on average rather than the reported 3mm/a reported so far.

[edit on 2010.3.16 by Long Lance]

How do we make China agree to stop their refineries and change over to a green industry?