32,000 scientists dissent from global-warming “consensus”

[Bernie Gunther]

and

These studies show that the projected impacts of climate change can vary greatly due to the development pathway assumed. For example, there may be large differences in regional population, income and technological development under alternative scenarios, which are often a strong determinant of the level of vulnerability to climate change [2.4].

To illustrate, in a number of recent studies of global impacts of climate change on food supply, risk of coastal flooding and water scarcity, the projected number of people affected is considerably greater under the A2 type scenario of development (characterised by relatively low per capita income and large population growth) than under other SRES futures [T20.6].

This difference is largely explained, not by differences in changes of climate, but by differences in vulnerability [T6.6].

Sustainable development can reduce vulnerability to climate change by enhancing adaptive capacity and increasing resilience. At present, however, few plans for promoting sustainability have explicitly included either adapting to climate change impacts, or promoting adaptive capacity [20.3].

On the other hand, it is very likely that climate change can slow the pace of progress towards sustainable development, either directly through increased exposure to adverse impact or indirectly through erosion of the capacity to adapt. This point is clearly demonstrated in the sections of the sectoral and regional chapters of this report that discuss the implications for sustainable development [See Section 7 in Chapters 3-8, 20.3, 20.7].

source above

 

[tangentlama]

http://209.85.173.104/search?q=cach...ca+accumulation+2006&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=ca

http://209.85.173.104/search?q=cach...arctica+accumulation&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=3&gl=ca

http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/igsoc/jog/2004/00000050/00000169/art00011

One study about precipitation last century (20th) and another from studies made between 36 to 10 years ago (20th century) - no doubt invaluable in aiding our understanding of how Antarctic ice behaves over time under various climatic conditions.

However,

A more recent study based on satellite measurements of gravity over the entire continent suggests that while the ice sheets in the interior of Antarctica are growing thicker, even more ice is being lost from the peripheries. The study concluded that there was a net loss of ice between 2002 and 2005, adding 0.4 millimetres per year to sea levels (see Gravity reveals shrinking Antarctic ice). Most of the ice was lost from the smaller West Antarctic ice sheet.

Greenland, whose ice cap holds enough water to raise sea levels by 7 metres, is also losing ice overall. Small amounts of meltwater appear to be lubricating the base of glaciers, speeding the flow of ice into the sea.

The IPCC's latest prediction for sea level rise – 0.2 to 0.6 metres by 2100 – takes this ice loss into account but it is based on the assumption that the rate of ice loss will remain constant. Many researchers think this is unrealistic and that the rate of ice loss will accelerate, which means that sea level could rise much faster than predicted. But no one knows for sure what will happen and the prediction of a net gain of ice in Antarctica could yet turn out to be correct.

http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/dn11648

The quote above refutes your claim that the Antarctic ice sheet is growing.
The Antarctic ice sheet is shrinking overall. The study above uses the most recent data from only 6 to 3 years ago.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

By way of clarification:

Many millions more people are projected to be flooded every year due to sea-level rise by the 2080s.

source above

The 2007 IPCC report estimates that the sea-level rise over the next century, will be about a foot. [IPCC 2007b:fig 10.6.1]

That's not peanuts, but the earth has experienced the same amount of sea level rise since the 1860s, without catastrophic results.

Also, the IPCC keeps lowering its estimate. In the 80s, when the whole scare got started, the prediction was more than 6 feet. By the 90s, the estimate was revised down to two feet.

Now it's down to one foot.

 

[free spirit]

The 2007 IPCC report estimates that the sea-level rise over the next century, will be about a foot. [IPCC 2007b:fig 10.6.1]

That's not peanuts, but the earth has experienced the same amount of sea level rise since the 1860s, without catastrophic results.

Also, the IPCC keeps lowering its estimate. In the 80s, when the whole scare got started, the prediction was more than 6 feet. By the 90s, the estimate was revised down to two feet.

Now it's down to one foot.

you need to look beyond the actual numbers to see what they represent.

the current ipcc forecasts specifically exclude anything other than a very gradual impact from ice melt from glaciers and the greenland / antarctic icesheets, not because they think it's impossible that more rapid ice melt will happen, but because at the time of writing the report there were (are) 2 main competeting hypothesis about the processes involved in the melting of these thick ice sheets, and not enough data to assign any kind of probability to the more rapid melt hypothesis being right or not.

the ipcc is a highly political organisation that regardless of what bigfish might think, er's a long way on the side of caution with it's predictions, so it decided the best thing to do was to completely miss out the potential impact if the rapid melt hypothesis was actually correct, to give a figure that specifically excludes this impact.

The data's still unclear, but let's face it, if the arctic goes on warming as fast as it has recently, and the sea ice does retreat much more and open up the dark ocean so much more, then the greenland ice sheet is going to melt much faster than the IPCC figures allow for.

If the entire greenland ice sheet melts then that's 7.2m sea level rise (ish), and there's not actually much dispute about that, the only dispute is whether this will take thousands of years to happen, or tens / low hundreds, and how much will have melted by the end of the century.

 

[free spirit]

more later - sorry i got distracted by another thread / work

 

[Bernie Gunther]

Also, as I was hoping to show with some of the stuff I selected above, what happens is that you get multiple colliding effects. Even on highly predictable scenarios. Some sea level rise, plus more violent weather, plus reduced fresh water availability, plus lower crop yields, plus increased desertification, plus increased pest invasions. Then add to those, things which are also occuring independent due to 'globalisation' (crude term because I lack time right now), deforestation, soil erosion, salination, rapid unsustainable urbanisation etc.

Adds up to a lot of people in the 'poor south' being in the shit in a way that 'but it's only a foot of sea level rise' tends to obscure.

 

[david dissadent]

Not too mention the potential consaquencies of ocean acidification.


(edited slightly)

 

[bigfish]

Not too mention the potential consaquencies of ocean acidification.

We'll be hearing a lot more claptrap about supposed human induced ocean acidification from the greenshirt gangsters in the months ahead. Now that the slight warming trend has begun moving in the opposite direction they'll be needing another bone to chew on.

The shallows near Dobu Island off Papua and New Guinea have active underwater fumaroles pumping out virtually pure CO2. The sea grass is extraordinarily lush and healthy and there is very healthy coral reef a few metres away.

May 2008 in PNG at Dobu Island in the D'Entrecasteaux Group. Both photos show bubbles of CO2 which continually flow. I collected samples of gas years ago for a vulcanologist and he reported back to me that it was "virtually pure CO2". Unfortunately the water had poor visibility the day I shot the pictures, but it is often clear. Bob Halstead www.halsteaddiving.com

http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/blog/archives/003220.html

 

[david dissadent]

*the usual utterly barmy nonesense*

Can you please state clearly whether or not the ph level in the worlds oceans has measurably changed.


Oh and about those volvanos in the arcitc, what is your position on there impact on arctic ocean temperature?

 

[free spirit]

We'll be hearing a lot more claptrap about supposed human induced ocean acidification from the greenshirt gangsters in the months ahead. Now that the slight warming trend has begun moving in the opposite direction they'll be needing another bone to chew on.

The shallows near Dobu Island off Papua and New Guinea have active underwater fumaroles pumping out virtually pure CO2. The sea grass is extraordinarily lush and healthy and there is very healthy coral reef a few metres away.

May 2008 in PNG at Dobu Island in the D'Entrecasteaux Group. Both photos show bubbles of CO2 which continually flow. I collected samples of gas years ago for a vulcanologist and he reported back to me that it was "virtually pure CO2". Unfortunately the water had poor visibility the day I shot the pictures, but it is often clear. Bob Halstead www.halsteaddiving.com

http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/blog/archives/003220.html

what shall we doo today children? shall we read a story, or play in the paddling pool, or maybe teach bigfish about evolution.

you've obviously been hanging around with creationists too long bigfish, so I guess it's understandable that you've forgotten / never understood how evolution works (I mean why would you, it's only one of the best understood and widest accept tenants of science).

so anyway, for the benefit of the viewers at home, yes it is true that over time plants will evolve to adapt to more acidic parts of the sea - actually it's probably more likely that these plants are more closely related to older strain that once would have been prevalent throughout the ocean when it was more acidic in the past before all that carbon was locked up underground as oil, gas and coal, and the plants in the rest of the oceans are actually the ones that evolved to cope better with the less acidic seas and spread throughout the oceans leaving only small isolated colonies of plants more adapted to the more acidic seas around areas like these vents.

So even if the seas become more acidic to the point where it kills off large amounts of the plant life that isn't adapated to cope with this new more acidic environment, then life in the seas will never entirely die as these islands of plantlife that are better suited to the new environment will be there, and will spread out to recolonise the rest of the oceans.

the question is though, how long will that take.

I don't know the answer to that question, but I'm thinking longer than my lifetime, and a lot longer than it will take the plants that aren't adapted to cope with more acidic seas to die off on mass all over the world as they reach the extreme limits of their ability to cope with the more acidic seas.

 

[xenon]

FWIW Material World R4, talked about studying the acidification of oceans today. In particular in an area of the Medateranion subject to CO2 gas bubbling up through the seabed, due to sizemic activity. Theresearchers remarked on the destruction of crustations in that particular region. It's difficult to assess the effect on other marine life there, as fish swim into the area to feed, then move back out to less acidic waters.

Basically, it's not good.

 

[xenon]

According to same R4 programme. The PH of the oceans has gone from 8.3 pre industrialisation to 8.2. Continuing burning fossel fuels at the same rate is predicted to bring it to 7.3

It's a loggerythmic scale.

 

[bigfish]

Can you please state clearly whether or not the ph level in the worlds oceans has measurably changed.

The oceans of the world are a connected dynamic system and so their ph level will naturally fluctuate within certain limits.

The colour scaled chart above of ocean ph suggests a range from 7.9 to 8.2. Low pH occurs, apparently, in areas of upwelling whereas high pH occurs in the centres of ocean gyres. From this extensive mix it is difficult to state with much confidence what the 'average' pH level is for the oceans, let alone whether ph level in the worlds oceans has measurably changed... but don't let that stop you.

 

[WouldBe]

Which idiot produced that?

Universal indicator, that is familiar to every school child, is red when acidic and blue / purple when alkaline so why use the opposite notation for this graph?

 

[david dissadent]

The oceans of the world are a connected dynamic system and so their ph level will naturally fluctuate within certain limits.

The colour scaled chart above of ocean ph suggests a range from 7.9 to 8.2. Low pH occurs, apparently, in areas of upwelling whereas high pH occurs in the centres of ocean gyres. From this extensive mix it is difficult to state with much confidence what the 'average' pH level is for the oceans, let alone whether ph level in the worlds oceans has measurably changed... but don't let that stop you.

Now who is the author refered to in that graph Scott Doney...


Oh this chap
http://www.whoi.edu/science/MCG/doneylab/doney.html

And you can read his opinion on the impact of acidification here.
http://www.whoi.edu/science/MCG/doneylab/papers/orr_nature_2005.pdf

Or his testamony before congress...
http://democrats.science.house.gov/...arings/2008/Energy/05june/Doney_Testimony.pdf

The current rapid rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide levels, due to our intensive burning of fossil fuels for energy, is fundamentally changing the chemistry of the sea, pushing surface waters toward more acidic conditions. Greater acidity slows the growth or even dissolves ocean plant and animal shells built from calcium carbonate, the same mineral as in chalk and limestone. Acidification thus threatens a wide-range of marine organisms, from microscopic plankton and shellfish to massive coral reefs, as well as the food webs that depend upon these shell-forming species. Rising CO2 levels will also alter a host of other marine biological and geochemical processes, often in ways we do not yet understand. Ocean acidification is a critical issue for the 21st century impacting on the health of the ocean, the productivity of fisheries, and the conservation and preservation of unique marine environments such as coral reefs.

"From this extensive mix it is difficult to state with much confidence what the 'average' pH level is for the oceans, let alone whether ph level in the worlds oceans has measurably changed... but don't let that stop you." Yes darling, again the experts with a lifetimes study of a subject must be wrong because bigfish doesn't like there results.

Which idiot produced that?

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/topstory/2006/doney_bio.html

Scott Doney, is a Senior Scientist in the Department of Marine Chemistry and Geochemistry at the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, in Woods Hole, Massachusetts. He studies marine biogeochemistry and ecosystem dynamics, large-scale ocean circulation and tracers, and the global carbon cycle. He graduated with a PhD from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology/Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution Joint program in 1991 and was a postdoctoral fellow and later a scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research, before returning to Woods Hole in 2002. He was awarded the James B. Macelwane Medal from the American Geophysical Union in 2000 and was a 2004 Aldo Leopold Leadership Fellow.

Yes and next time you post dont forget to tell us all about what impact those volcanos had on arctic ocean temperature

Yes and BigFish next time you post dont forget to tell us all about what impact those volcanos had on arctic ocean temperature

 

[WouldBe]

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/topstory/2006/doney_bio.html

Scott Doney, is a Senior Scientist in the Department of Marine Chemistry and Geochemistry at the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, in Woods Hole, Massachusetts. He studies marine biogeochemistry...

He should know which way universal indicator runs then.

 

[tangentlama]

The data's still unclear, but let's face it, if the arctic goes on warming as fast as it has recently, and the sea ice does retreat much more and open up the dark ocean so much more, then the greenland ice sheet is going to melt much faster than the IPCC figures allow for.

If the entire greenland ice sheet melts then that's 7.2m sea level rise (ish), and there's not actually much dispute about that, the only dispute is whether this will take thousands of years to happen, or tens / low hundreds, and how much will have melted by the end of the century.

And of course there's the effect that lessening of ice has on the land i.e. isostatic land uplift (it rises up, because it's less weighed down by the ice) I'm having a wee look for some papers on isostatic land uplift/post-glacial rebound, although it's not a top priority of mine.

 

[bigfish]

Which idiot produced that?

Well he can't be an idiot now that dave's all over his stuff like a cheap suit, can he?

Universal indicator, that is familiar to every school child, is red when acidic and blue / purple when alkaline so why use the opposite notation for this graph?

It's called a false colour map - they are common, dave uses them all the time on his The North Pole is disappearing faster than you can say Jack Robinson thread.

I found the map here:

Ocean acidification - part 2

Are oceans becoming more acidic and is this a threat to marine life? How does it work?
By Dr J Floor Anthoni (2007)

http://www.seafriends.org.nz/issues/global/acid2.htm

 

[bigfish]

Yes and BigFish next time you post dont forget to tell us all about what impact those volcanos had on arctic ocean temperature

Straw man, dave - as I have already explained you asked me if I stand by an assertion I haven't made. Now you seem to be insisting that I tell you all about something or other. This is a public discussion forum, Dave - not the High Courts of Gaia.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

 

[david dissadent]

Straw man, dave - as I have already explained you asked me if I stand by an assertion I haven't made. Now you seem to be insisting that I tell you all about something or other. This is a public discussion forum, Dave - not the High Courts of Gaia.

So from now on I can safely assume that you post links from blogs that you do not and cannot understand, you have just been told that they are good rebuttles to AGW and other ecological issues. Quality my mate. So on that basis instead of posting a link to here......

Well he can't be an idiot now that dave's all over

http://www.seafriends.org.nz/issues/global/acid2.htm

Please actualy explain what you have read and what you are trying to communicate to us, as we have learnt from the volcanos fiasco, what scientificaly literate people may assume you inted to say with a link and a C&P is not what you may be trying to say.


Explain to us the detailed scientific rebuttal that ocean acidification poses a real threat to calcifiying marine organisms.

Remember your cut and pastes are often misinterperated.

 

[xenon]

So is Big Fish arguing acidification of the oceans isn't happpening. Or it is happening but i'ts not a major problem?

But he links to an article by an expert who says it is a problem.


The credibility gap's just got wider.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

Bigfish frequently shows that he doesn't actually understand what his sources are saying. Perhaps he doesn't read them, perhaps he's too scientifically illiterate to understand them. I've never been able to work that out.

Basically he just goes by the headlines as far as I can tell and usually makes a fool of himself.

 

[xenon]

I look at this thread and similar ones on here. I see many posters who know how to interpret the data on offer, explain it, cross reference and site it.

Big Fish isn't one. I wonder what he thinks he's gaining. It's like he's just Googling for anything that controvenes a body of scientific opinion. Using search terms "current theory"+doubt. Then pastes up the results.

Very weak stuff.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

I suspect he's just trawling tinfoil hat sites plus Spiked Online, Exxon PR outlets and other capitalist stooge sites for links that he doesn't bother reading or is incapable of understanding.

He started getting into all this contrarian stuff about the same time as a big split happened within the 911 troof movement over peak oil and its relationship to remote controlled airplanes etc. After ranting about abiotic oil for a while he then branched out into other areas. The basic ideology seems like it's Furedi et al though, but he's not at all fussy about using stuff that comes from creationists, 911 loons and obvious Exxon mouthpieces.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

the ipcc is a highly political organisation that regardless of what bigfish might think, er's a long way on the side of caution with it's predictions, so it decided the best thing to do was to completely miss out the potential impact if the rapid melt hypothesis was actually correct, to give a figure that specifically excludes this impact..

I beg to differ.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

you need to look beyond the actual numbers to see what they represent.

the current ipcc forecasts specifically exclude anything other than a very gradual impact from ice melt from glaciers and the greenland / antarctic icesheets, not because they think it's impossible that more rapid ice melt will happen, but because at the time of writing the report there were (are) 2 main competeting hypothesis about the processes involved in the melting of these thick ice sheets, and not enough data to assign any kind of probability to the more rapid melt hypothesis being right or not..

So what you're saying, is that when the IPCC comes out with doomsday scenarios, you accept that as 'good science', but when it comes out with conservative predictions, you are sceptical based on it being 'a political decision'?



What is this overweening need to believe only in calamity?

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

the ipcc is a highly political organisation that regardless of what bigfish might think, er's a long way on the side of caution with it's predictions, so it decided the best thing to do was to completely miss out the potential impact if the rapid melt hypothesis was actually correct, to give a figure that specifically excludes this impact.
.

Where was the error on the side of caution when it predicted a seven foot rise, back in the 80s? Surely the knowledge base was less then than it is today, giving the IPCC of the 80s, even greater reason to err on the side of caution.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

If the entire greenland ice sheet melts then that's 7.2m sea level rise (ish), and there's not actually much dispute about that, the only dispute is whether this will take thousands of years to happen, or tens / low hundreds, and how much will have melted by the end of the century.

Yes, and if another meteor hits the Yucatan, we're all fucked.

However, in both instances, the probability is very low.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Also, as I was hoping to show with some of the stuff I selected above, what happens is that you get multiple colliding effects. Even on highly predictable scenarios. Some sea level rise, plus more violent weather, plus reduced fresh water availability, plus lower crop yields, plus increased desertification, plus increased pest invasions. Then add to those, things which are also occuring independent due to 'globalisation' (crude term because I lack time right now), deforestation, soil erosion, salination, rapid unsustainable urbanisation etc.

Adds up to a lot of people in the 'poor south' being in the shit in a way that 'but it's only a foot of sea level rise' tends to obscure.

As you know, something in excess of 2.5 billion people in the world, rely on biomass for their energy needs.

http://www.iea.org/textbase/papers/2006/fs_cooking.pdf

That means, burning wood in campfires or cook stoves, burning dung, etc. This has a number of negative effects, on health, on deforestation, etc. But it also has serious economic effects as much time must be spent collecting biomass, and the inefficiency of the fuel acts as a deterrent to these economies moving forward, and thus enriching the people of the third world.

Making the switchover for these people from biomass, to fossil fuels, be it oil or natural gas, etc, makes sense for their health and economic welfare in the short to medium term. When you do the math, the cost associated with bringing about this change, while concentrating resources in development of renewable energy sources, makes much greater economic sense than the ham handed Kyoto approach, and is more humanitarian, in that it is a method of bringing about betterment in the lives of third world citizens now and in the short term, as opposed to expressing concern for the welfare of their descendants, who will be alive 100 - 200 years from now.

Also, enabling the Third World to advance economically, allows them to participate in the energy supply corrections that are needed, as opposed to remaining a perpetual drain on resources.