Resisting Climate Hysteria

[trainspotter]

Ably achieved what? and why do I have no idea? because I suspect you talk in riddles, a bit like that Bolt, and changes the subject (or cuts them of) as soon as he is cornered too.

We have pacific islands sinking into the sea and you think its all okay.
Well I do not and I do not run away either.

And its your "work"; now that is an interesting insight. King Cong of the kids hey.

Auckland University's Associate Professor Paul Kench, a member of the team of scientists, says the results challenge the view that Pacific islands are sinking due to rising sea levels associated with climate change.

"Eighty per cent of the islands we've looked at have either remained about the same or, in fact, gotten larger," he said.

"Some of those islands have gotten dramatically larger, by 20 or 30 per cent.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2010-06-03/pacific-islands-growing-not-sinking/851738

Get your facts straight please

 

[explod]

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2010-06-03/pacific-islands-growing-not-sinking/851738

Get your facts straight please

There is always someone to try and counter twist, can just depend on it. There is a lot of tectonic plate shifting which needs to be acounted for too, new islands and mountains out of the depths. This does not explain away the sinking of islands due to rising sea levels and some of that too is due to larger more violent storms.

If one cannot get in one way we nit pick. Sounds like A Bolt again too.

But one good thing, the argument rolls on for good attention.

 

[trainspotter]

Incorrect summation again explod. The article referred to attests to 80% of studied islands are INCREASING and not decreasing. The islands that are sinking are due to the inhabitants pumping the ground water out for drinking purposes.

The violent storms you refer to actually throw up more coral and debris making the islands larger and not smaller BTW.

 

[wayneL]

I've read over a lot of posts in here and there are a lot of good arguments for and against. However take a look at this video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zORv8wwiadQ

It's simple to understand and makes it quite clear what action the world should take towards climate change imo. whether global warming is occurring or not is "moot".

:sleeping:

Yet another (elaborate) version of Pascal's Wager.

The same sort of thing can be applied to any perceived threat.

LOL about "spread the word". This is what Al Bore, James Hansen, Cate Blanchett, basilio et al are doing.

Spreading the word and maintaining large carbon footprint lifestyles (which the above are doing) will do exactly nought.

I'm happy to act (in fact I'll wager that I already do more for the environment than any alarmist) if I can be convinced by the science. So far, the science is unconvincing and dominated by political expediencies.

Sorry, the video might scare a few uninformed muppets, but not anyone who has looked into this properly.

 

[wayneL]

Even alarmists are disowning Gore

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/oct/07/al-gore-science-climate-weather?CMP=twt_gu

 

[young-gun]

:sleeping:

Yet another (elaborate) version of Pascal's Wager.

The same sort of thing can be applied to any perceived threat.

LOL about "spread the word". This is what Al Bore, James Hansen, Cate Blanchett, basilio et al are doing.

Spreading the word and maintaining large carbon footprint lifestyles (which the above are doing) will do exactly nought.

I'm happy to act (in fact I'll wager that I already do more for the environment than any alarmist) if I can be convinced by the science. So far, the science is unconvincing and dominated by political expediencies.

Sorry, the video might scare a few uninformed muppets, but not anyone who has looked into this properly.

I fail to see how you can apply this to any perceived threat? IF global warming is happening AND it is caused by us, then this is something that can be slowed or potentially stopped with money, policies, and a forced shift in our position to climate change.

If yellowstone goes up, you're not stopping that. Tsunamis? i think not. Please feel free to elaborate on threats that i may be blatantly overlooking in regards to nature. Not to mention that we aren't causing either of these disasters.(Not to say we are definitely causing global warming!)

I agree with you on spreading the word, no one takes celebrity echo-warriors seriously.

The fact is if it is happening(which you cannot disprove)then i dont think you can disagree that pumping money into now would be a bad thing. money is getting blown on far less important things like QE anyway...

 

[explod]

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2010-06-03/pacific-islands-growing-not-sinking/851738

Get your facts straight please

I have taken the time to locate and read the paper referred to by Kench and Webb.

http://www.pacificdisaster.net/pdnadmin/data/original/The_dynamic_response.pdf

A careful read will indicate that it is a very inconclusive study at this stage. On the one hand he finds that the sea levels have risen in the last 200 years by 600 mil and then goes on to compare variences of at most 3 mil over about 21 years, and these by comparing old photos against current satelite images.

Of course the few islands he worked from in fact are such a small sampling of the number of Pacific Islands overall that we have to be joking to think that there is anything of conclusive value at this early stage of this research.

And this is one of the main points. There are so many facits to the science of climate change/global warming; (and I group them together) and then there are so many thousands of different scientists involved that I would challange anyone to be able to declare where we are at all. And is where Al Gore made his error. Of course the multitude of information (scientist's and different fields) also makes it ripe for those on opposing sides to be selective in support of their own agenda's.

However there are a lot of anecdotal observatiosn that can be made (as I have made some over the last few pages of this thread) that suggest we may have a problem.

If we may have a problem then we need to take the matter seriously at least. To knock it blindly out of hand is the domain of fools.

 

[Garpal Gumnut]

Even alarmists are disowning Gore

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/oct/07/al-gore-science-climate-weather?CMP=twt_gu

I agree. Event attribution, as practised by ole Al, is the domain of the mediocre.

Even worse was a recent article I read in print by a science writer in New Scientist, attributing earthquakes to "weather". I cannot find a link, but it is a disgracefully unscientific article.

gg

 

[LostMyShirt]

I agree. Event attribution, as practised by ole Al, is the domain of the mediocre.

Even worse was a recent article I read in print by a science writer in New Scientist, attributing earthquakes to "weather". I cannot find a link, but it is a disgracefully unscientific article.

gg

It's funny you mention that, gg. I am sure I have heard something similar quite recently which considers certain weather conditions attributed to a disturbance in the Ionosphere in the form of vibration which can also result in Earthquakes - or something along those lines. I don't really understand how.

I never did follow it up.

 

[artist]

Even worse was a recent article I read in print by a science writer in New Scientist, attributing earthquakes to "weather". I cannot find a link, but it is a disgracefully unscientific article.

gg

The article you reference is probably the one listed on the New Scientist site when you click on the "Environment" tab. To read it (if you are not a subscriber) it is necessary to register (free) and then you have access for 12 hours. Why do you characterise it as a "digracefully unscientific" article?

 

[Garpal Gumnut]

The article you reference is probably the one listed on the New Scientist site when you click on the "Environment" tab. To read it (if you are not a subscriber) it is necessary to register (free) and then you have access for 12 hours. Why do you characterise it as a "digracefully unscientific" article?

Post it up artist and I'll discuss it. I wouldn't register with that site after reading that article. It was scuttlebutt and propaganda, more worthy of Al Gore than a science publication.

gg

 

[artist]

Post it up artist and I'll discuss it. I wouldn't register with that site after reading that article. It was scuttlebutt and propaganda, more worthy of Al Gore than a science publication.

gg

The article is way too long for that, three pages with lots of links and an interactive graphic. I believe it is against ASF policy to cut and past an article of that length.

However, as a precis: "The Earth's crust will heave as ice melts and the sea rises – and that could unleash earthquakes, volcanoes and tsunamis" and "The crux of the problem is simple: anything that increases or decreases the load on the Earth's crust causes stresses and strains. When this happens slap bang on top of one of the world's many volcanoes or geological faults, where the crust is already under strain, it can make the area more or less likely to erupt or slip. And there is a very heavy substance whose movements depend largely on the weather and the climate: water."

The article contains many instances, modern and ancient, where this cause and effect relationship is thought to hold.

To be sure, the author quotes one volcanologist (McGuire) who "thinks we will we see a clear effect on volcanoes and earthquakes when climate change really gets going. "Earthquakes and volcanic eruptions over a hundred years would cluster. You need a certain amount of strain to accumulate and climate change may bring forward the time that takes," he suggests. This will mean more earthquakes and eruptions in a given period, rather than more in total, he says."

It appears to me that the author subscribes to AGW and near the end there is this paragraph "Overall, then, the evidence does point to a small but real increase in the likelihood of earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, landslides and tsunamis over the next century or so as a result of climate change. The effect is likely to be greatest in areas where few people live, minimising the threat to lives. Even those who live far from any volcanoes or quake zones, however, could feel the economic and practical consequences."

I am genuinely mystified as to why you are so disparaging of it. I recognise that you are not persuaded that AGW is real, and maybe you doubt GW/climate change in general (I can't be sure without backtracking all of your posts and I don't have time to do that, and whether or not I agree with you is not at issue here) but the article's point is that changes in mass distribution increase the likelihood of earthquakes. If GW doesn't happen then there will not be a corresponding increase in tectonic movents. Be that as it may, it is not a new thesis or hypothesis, National Geographic had an article in January 2007 discussing the role of coal mining in causing earthquakes http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/01/070103-mine-quake.html and when I was studying geology at uni the professor (head of school) discussed how the mass transfers that occur in the mineral extraction industry were thought even then to initiate, or predispose to, earthquakes in susceptible areas.

So in short the article isn't arguing for or against the reality of global warming, but is elaborating one fairly-well understood consequence (which it tries to put in perspective) if that is the reality. My question to you is still why you regard the article as scuttlebut and propaganda.

 

[Garpal Gumnut]

The article is way too long for that, three pages with lots of links and an interactive graphic. I believe it is against ASF policy to cut and past an article of that length.

However, as a precis: "The Earth's crust will heave as ice melts and the sea rises – and that could unleash earthquakes, volcanoes and tsunamis" and "The crux of the problem is simple: anything that increases or decreases the load on the Earth's crust causes stresses and strains. When this happens slap bang on top of one of the world's many volcanoes or geological faults, where the crust is already under strain, it can make the area more or less likely to erupt or slip. And there is a very heavy substance whose movements depend largely on the weather and the climate: water."

The article contains many instances, modern and ancient, where this cause and effect relationship is thought to hold.

To be sure, the author quotes one volcanologist (McGuire) who "thinks we will we see a clear effect on volcanoes and earthquakes when climate change really gets going. "Earthquakes and volcanic eruptions over a hundred years would cluster. You need a certain amount of strain to accumulate and climate change may bring forward the time that takes," he suggests. This will mean more earthquakes and eruptions in a given period, rather than more in total, he says."

It all sounds as if they have made their minds up and then look for evidence.
Put some more quotes up.

gg

 

[macca]

Don't you love the corruption in the GW camp

<<However, as a precis: "The Earth's crust will heave as ice melts and the sea rises – and that could unleash earthquakes, volcanoes and tsunamis" and "The crux of the problem is simple: anything that increases or decreases the load on the Earth's crust causes stresses and strains. When this happens slap bang on top of one of the world's many volcanoes or geological faults, where the crust is already under strain, it can make the area more or less likely to erupt or slip. And there is a very heavy substance whose movements depend largely on the weather and the climate: water.">>

This has been going on for thousands of years, its always happens at the end of an ice age.

Buried somewhere in this gigantic thread is a statement released by the Uni of ... (California I think) that states that as the USA rises each year because the ice has melted they adjust the sea level up by the same amount to compensate for it.

If they don't do that, the sea level in relation to the USA is actually falling (and that is not going to keep funding coming is it )

 

[artist]

Don't you love the corruption in the GW camp

Even if one accepts this, how is it relevant to the article gg referred to (if the one I found is indeed the one he read initially)?

<<However, as a precis: "The Earth's crust will heave as ice melts and the sea rises – and that could unleash earthquakes, volcanoes and tsunamis" and "The crux of the problem is simple: anything that increases or decreases the load on the Earth's crust causes stresses and strains. When this happens slap bang on top of one of the world's many volcanoes or geological faults, where the crust is already under strain, it can make the area more or less likely to erupt or slip. And there is a very heavy substance whose movements depend largely on the weather and the climate: water.">>

This has been going on for thousands of years, its always happens at the end of an ice age.

You just agreed with one of the lines of evidence the author presents for the likelihood of it happening again if GW (A or otherwise) comes about.

Buried somewhere in this gigantic thread is a statement released by the Uni of ... (California I think) that states that as the USA rises each year because the ice has melted they adjust the sea level up by the same amount to compensate for it.


I would like to read that post if you can locate it. As I interpret your comment, they say that as the ice melts in any given year so the USA rises that year (again, this is consistent with the article in New Scientist), so "they adjust the sea level up by the same amount to compensate for it." Otherwise, "If they don't do that, the sea level in relation to the USA is actually falling ". Does the article explain what they do when the ice and snow re-form in the ensuing winter, and the USA presumbly sinks back down once the mass increases?

If they don't do that, the sea level in relation to the USA is actually falling (and that is not going to keep funding coming is it )

My initial question of gg was to do with his dismissal of an article as unscientific. The article I tracked down dealt in general with the issue of what is referred to as "induced seismicity". As I wrote earlier, the author of that article appears to accept AGW, and discusses how, if this comes about, the world can expect more induced seismicity, or, the same level of activity but over a condensed time frame. I can obviously understand a GW denier asserting that it ain't gonna happen, and claiming for that reason the article should not have been accepted for publication, and that is why I asked gg to explain the reason for his strong antipathy.

 

[Garpal Gumnut]

My initial question of gg was to do with his dismissal of an article as unscientific. The article I tracked down dealt in general with the issue of what is referred to as "induced seismicity". As I wrote earlier, the author of that article appears to accept AGW, and discusses how, if this comes about, the world can expect more induced seismicity, or, the same level of activity but over a condensed time frame. I can obviously understand a GW denier asserting that it ain't gonna happen, and claiming for that reason the article should not have been accepted for publication, and that is why I asked gg to explain the reason for his strong antipathy.

I'll try and chase the article online for you artist, and if it has been taken down by New Scientist, I will scan it in from my print edition.

It appears from memory to be similar to macca's paraphrase, a motley collection of basic science, e.g mass and gravity = pressure under the mass etc etc and quite fanciful unproven hypotheses about the future.

I also resent the word denier. It has religious/fascist connotations.

I merely think AGW is bollox.

gg

 

[derty]

My initial question of gg was to do with his dismissal of an article as unscientific. The article I tracked down dealt in general with the issue of what is referred to as "induced seismicity". As I wrote earlier, the author of that article appears to accept AGW, and discusses how, if this comes about, the world can expect more induced seismicity, or, the same level of activity but over a condensed time frame. I can obviously understand a GW denier asserting that it ain't gonna happen, and claiming for that reason the article should not have been accepted for publication, and that is why I asked gg to explain the reason for his strong antipathy.

Artist, just use the advanced search feature using Isostasy as the keyword and display results by post. This will take you to around where the discussion took place. It is both an interesting and amusing read.

Induced seismicity is a known and well understood phenomena. It happens around things as small as large dams when they are initially filled. The unloading of the crust and subsequence isostatic rebound as a result of the melting of the ice sheets at the end of the previous ice age is still occurring today. One would assume that the induced seismicity would be greatest following the initial unloading and would taper off with time. The level of seismicity would be a function of the volume, area and rate of unloading.

While the article is entirely correct with respect to the phenomena, invoking a heaving Earth unleashing volcanoes and earthquakes is getting a bit too excited. In reality while the effects may be statistically observable over time it is unlikely that we would see a significant increase in catastrophic events.

 

[artist]

I'll try and chase the article online for you artist, and if it has been taken down by New Scientist, I will scan it in from my print edition.

It appears from memory to be similar to macca's paraphrase, a motley collection of basic science, e.g mass and gravity = pressure under the mass etc etc and quite fanciful unproven hypotheses about the future.

I also resent the word denier. It has religious/fascist connotations.

I merely think AGW is bollox.

gg

I didn't know the word denier had that commotation to you. I didn't actually have you in mind when I wrote "I can obviously understand a GW denier asserting that it ain't gonna happen," as I don't know what your opinion is on that issue (as I noted earlier). No offence meant, and I shan't use it again.

If you can find the article and give your analysis of it, that is what I asked about in the first instance.

 

[artist]

Artist, just use the advanced search feature using Isostasy as the keyword and display results by post. This will take you to around where the discussion took place. It is both an interesting and amusing read.

Induced seismicity is a known and well understood phenomena. It happens around things as small as large dams when they are initially filled. The unloading of the crust and subsequence isostatic rebound as a result of the melting of the ice sheets at the end of the previous ice age is still occurring today. One would assume that the induced seismicity would be greatest following the initial unloading and would taper off with time. The level of seismicity would be a function of the volume, area and rate of unloading.


While the article is entirely correct with respect to the phenomena, invoking a heaving Earth unleashing volcanoes and earthquakes is getting a bit too excited. In reality while the effects may be statistically observable over time it is unlikely that we would see a significant increase in catastrophic events.

Thanks derty. This is the sort of analysis which gg seems to have made too, and what I asked for was his reasoning. I can't agree or disagree until I know that, not that my agreeing or otherwise has any significance for him. But I might learn something I didn't know by seeing these things elucidated.

FWIW the sentence "The Earth's crust will heave as ice melts and the sea rises – and that could unleash earthquakes, volcanoes and tsunamis" I quoted from the article was the 'header' to get attention and might not represent the author's point of view or preference, in which case the editors are to be criticised - who knows? I included it as I neeeded to give some pegs as gg requested.

 

[wayneL]

It happens around things as small as large dams when they are initially filled.

Well the oceans already slosh around a bit due to lunar pull, tides etc. Although regular, the loading and unloading would surely be far greater than that speculated by warmists?

In fact there was some clown here in NZ trying to predict quakes based on lunar cycles.

Just a thought.