Australia mean sea levels and IPCC report

[PhilipA]

I thought I would have a look at sea levels seeing there are bids from time to time from pacific island nations to be moved( preferably to the BIG island)
This report
http://www.environment.gov.au/soe/2006/publications/drs/pubs/366/co/co_03_aust_mean_sea_level_survey_2003.pdf

shows that the mean sea level in australia has risen 1.2MM per year for the whole of the 20th century and up to 2005.
Notable is that it has decreased since 2000.
There seems as yet to be no increase in trend over the past 20 years.

The IPCC has issued a report from their recent conference that there is no evidence that climate change has been the source of extreme weather events.
Cookies must be enabled | The Australian (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/health-science/climate-change-effects-unknown-ipcc/story-e6frg8y6-1226199542768)

Regards Philip A

[Chucaro]

From the horse mouth :


UN-backed report spotlights links between global warming and extreme weather (http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=40440&Cr=climate+change&Cr1=)

Quote:
18 November 2011 –
A United Nations-backed report confirms the link between climate change and current trends in extreme weather such as floods and heat waves, and warns that existing measures, even in developed countries, are not enough to cope with the severity of these events.

The report, whose summary was approved today by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in Kigali, Uganda, reveals that high and low daily temperatures have risen on a global scale due to the rise of greenhouse gases, causing an increase in floods, heat waves, droughts, and other extremes associated with damage caused by high sea levels and heavy precipitation.

End of Quote

The Australian and other newspaper are continuing to mislead the readers

[Jeff]

The Australian and other newspaper are continuing to mislead the readers


And the UN have never misled people :o

Jeff

:rocket:

[Chucaro]

And the UN have never misled people :o

Jeff

:rocket:

Oh well I guess that you think like Abbott, Jones, Bolt and others, science is wrong, and may be good idea to close the CSIRO as well :D

[sheerluck]

.....The Australian and other newspaper are continuing to mislead the readers

Given the owners' track record, I think that's a given.

[Fluids]

When the "science" is "backed" by those who "fund" the scientists ... and "nothing" can be held up for discussion because "we" (they) are right and it's not open for negotiation or an opposite opinion ...

... common sense tells one that something is rotten in the state of denmark.

But we already knew that.

Why would the scientists bite the hand that feeds them ? Gotta ensure that next round of funding and continuing tenure of ones employment.

Jeff's entitled to his opinion, as am I, but to cast dispersions by comparison with others who may think differently to yourself, makes you just as bad as those who tell us it IS because they SAY it is and it's not open for discussion.

Science has gotten it wrong plenty of times before, and will get it wrong plenty of times again.

Why close the CSIRO ? ... they do a dam site more than climate science ... oh, that's right, if we don't agree with one thing they do/claim, then it stands to reason that we must disagree with EVERYTHING they claim or do .. !!??

Yes, I know, opions are like rseholes ... everybody's got one.

[DeanoH]

...................................Why would the scientists bite the hand that feeds them ? Gotta ensure that next round of funding and continuing tenure of ones employment...................


So, there's a global conspiracy amongst scientists to mislead the worlds population so that the scientists own careers are protected ?



...................................Yes, I know, opions are like rseholes ... everybody's got one.


Opinions are one thing, facts are something quite different.

Casting aside the absurd notion that scientists globally are a bunch of self seeking con artists with no integrity, I think you'll find that global warming / climate change is proven beyond scientific doubt.

As you say, people are entitled to their own (informed or otherwise) opinion. I'm sure the same people that think the US didn't land on the moon, that the CIA shot JFK and that flying saucers regularly visit Wycliffe Well in the NT will firmly believe that climate change/global warming is just another global conspiracy. A story engineered to delude the worlds populace to the benefit of the US industrial/military hegemony or whatever. But these poor people are harmless and have no credibility and that's the way it should be.
There are of course those who know better but deny the facts for personal or political gain. These are the dangerous ones and pose a far greater risk than an imagined scientific conspiracy.

Deano:)

[PhilipA]

I am just reading the summary report which does not seem to match the rhetoric in the press release.

The strongest evidence appears to be that there are more hot days and fewer cold nights, but there does not seem to be any strong agreement as to what that means for floods , cyclones etc.

IMHO, this is the most credible assessment of climate change so far and seems an enormous backtrack from previous doomsday scanarios put forward by the IPCC..






There have been statistically significant trends in the number of heavy precipitation events in
some regions. It is likely that more of these regions have experienced increases than decreases,
although there are strong regional and subregional variations in these trends. [3.3.2]
There is low confidence in any observed long-term (i.e., 40 years or more) increases in tropical
cyclone activity (i.e., intensity, frequency, duration), after accounting for past changes in
observing capabilities. It is likely that there has been a poleward shift in the main Northern and
Southern Hemisphere extra-tropical storm tracks. There is low confidence in observed trends in
small spatial-scale phenomena such as tornadoes and hail because of data inhomogeneities and
inadequacies in monitoring systems.







There is medium confidence that some regions of the world have experienced more intense and
longer droughts, in particular in southern Europe and West Africa, but in some regions droughts
have become less frequent, less intense, or shorter, e.g., in central North America and
northwestern Australia. [3.5.1]
There is limited to medium evidence available to assess climate-driven observed changes in the
magnitude and frequency of floods at regional scales because the available instrumental records
of floods at gauge stations are limited in space and time, and because of confounding effects of
changes in land use and engineering. Furthermore, there is low agreement in this evidence, and
thus overall low confidence at the global scale regarding even the sign of these changes





There is evidence that some extremes have changed as a result of anthropogenic influences,
including increases in atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases. It is likely that
anthropogenic influences have led to warming of extreme daily minimum and maximum
temperatures on the global scale. There is medium confidence that anthropogenic influences have
contributed to intensification of extreme precipitation on the global scale. It is likely that there
has been an anthropogenic influence on increasing extreme coastal high water due to increase in
mean sea level. The uncertainties in the historical tropical cyclone records, the incomplete
understanding of the physical mechanisms linking tropical cyclone metrics to climate change,
and the degree of tropical cyclone variability provide only low confidence for the attribution of
any detectable changes in tropical cyclone activity to anthropogenic influences. Attribution of
single extreme events to anthropogenic climate change is challenging.






There is medium confidence that some regions of the world have experienced more intense and
longer droughts, in particular in southern Europe and West Africa, but in some regions droughts
have become less frequent, less intense, or shorter, e.g., in central North America and
northwestern Australia. [3.5.1]
There is limited to medium evidence available to assess climate-driven observed changes in the
magnitude and frequency of floods at regional scales because the available instrumental records
of floods at gauge stations are limited in space and time, and because of confounding effects of
changes in land use and engineering. Furthermore, there is low agreement in this evidence, and
thus overall low confidence at the global scale regarding even the sign of these changes. [3.5.2]
It is likely that there has been an increase in extreme coastal high water related to increases in
mean sea level.



I don't how this gels with the Australian data
Regards Philip A

[JamesH]

The maximum confidence on my mind that if I disagree with an economic advice given lefties and greenies

[JamesH]

The maximum confidence on my mind that if I disagree with any economic advice given by lefties and greenies, I'll be right pretty much all the time.

It's about taking money out of my pocket. It's always been about that and it always will be.

[ATH]

I love the way those with a vested interest say it's the "accepted science"!
Accepted by whom may I ask?
Mostly those whose job depends on continued governement (taxpayer) funding, I suspect.
I personally accept that climate change may well be happening. What I don't accept is the UN and other discredited organisations who blame anthropogenic causes and want to tax us and give the tax to third world countries who have no intention of cutting their admissions, like India in particular and China, though they seem from the latest stories to be doing something about their own horrendous pollution.
If these organsisations want to do something useful they should be targetting all pollution at source, stop the wholesale cutting down of native forests, stop the destruction of fisheries around the world due to stupid policies many of which come from the EU.
And stop wasteful and harmful agriculture policies which do nothing except protect their own voting growers.
AlanH.

[Lotz-A-Landies]

You know I read the sea level charts and using the current data that is suggesting that in about 500 years we may see a 1 metre sea (mean) level rise. I don't know about anyone else, but I guess I won't be around to view the results of that estimate. More than that I don't know what changes will occur in the management of the whole of humanity or what technological advances that may be employed to manage the consequences of sea level rise.

I do however know that The Netherlands has a significant proportion of it's land that is below current sea level and that much of it was reclaimed from the sea in the last century. I also know that the level of the lagoon in which Venice Italy is located, is now being controlled by barrages to keep the level of the lagoon from innundating the city.

What I also notice is that many of the people denigrating scientists or science have never studied science or the disciplines of scientific experimentation or, are even able to tell the difference between an "experiment" or a "study" and neither do they care if it suits their argument. I may even be so bold to suggest that many people denigrating science don't even have a decent ability to use the English language or conform to it's grammatical norms.

I have studied science and have worked with the United Nations (World Health Organisation) and have to say that I have not found the suggested conspiracies or attributes in either the UN or science as a whole.

Diana

[PhilipA]

I also know that the level of the lagoon in which Venice Italy is located, is now being controlled by barrages to keep the level of the lagoon from inundating the city.


I do not want to appear to challenge any science but if you have a look at this article you will see that a major contributor to Venice problems is sinking of the city due to groundwater extraction. The worst tidal event was in 1966, well before Climate change was seen as an issue.

[Landscape Architecture Study Tour with Professor Jack Ahern (http://people.umass.edu/latour/Italy/venice_water/index.html)

Similarly, the current inundation of Bangkok is largely caused by sinking of the land area due to excessive extraction of groundwater. I can recall walking along the nearest side street to the Australian Embassy , and looking under buildings that were less than 20 years old and the clearance was up to 50CM. Even back in the 1980s Bangkok was 1M below mean sea level.

The IPCC report recognises that recent flood events are considered more serious because now more people and assets are in harms way.

I can see that some of the contributors to this thread have a jaundiced view of scientists, but I can assure you that I have worked with scientists and tasked them , working for the largest state run scientific organisation in NSW.
I formed a view after a considerable time that many scientists spend a large amount of their time seeking funds for project proposals to ensure that they were able to lead projects, and thus be able to publish and gain promotion, as projects won and scientific articles published are the major basis for career progression and promotion.
In this environment there is a great incentive to "say what is wanted to be heard". I do not think that ONE project has been funded in Australia arguing against Climate Change.
I have tried in this thread to only consider facts , that is why I have referenced where possible.
Regards Philip A

[Chucaro]

I wonder if the proof about the melting of the glaciers by the world glacier monitoring service (h) is enough to convince the skeptics that the planet is warming.
The facts are there to see.
New satellite images show that an Antarctic ice shelf continues to disintegrate and even more surprising is that it's happening during the Southern Hemisphere's winter.
Are the images from the satellite manipulated for political purposes, or by the scientist to have the results in the way that they like?
Ted Scambos, an expert with the U.S. National Snow and Ice Data Center, said warm sea water appears to be "reaching the underside of the Wilkins Ice Shelf and thinning it rapidly — and perhaps reaching the surface, or at least mixing with surface waters." (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25638651/ns/us_news-environment/t/antarctic-ice-shelf-breaking-dead-winter/#.Tsnl3VZIEqM) Perhaps Ted Scambos if from the left :angel:

Environment Canada’s Canadian Ice Service (CIS) is predicting the minimum Arctic sea
ice extent to again be less than 5 million square kilometres in September, 2011. A value
similar to or less than the average extents observed in September, 2008, and September,
2010, is expected. This value (≤4.9 million square kilometres) will make the Arctic sea
ice extent in September, 2011, either the second or third lowest in the 1979-2011 record.
This value lies well below the average September extent for 1979-2010 of 6.6 million
square kilometres based on the NSIDC sea ice index.
Have the Polar Bears in the north pole a secret agenda and are starving to prove a political point?
I do not think so.

[Lotz-A-Landies]

I do not want to appear to challenge any science but if you have a look at this article you will see that a major contributor to Venice problems is sinking of the city due to groundwater extraction. ...

...I can see that some of the contributors to this thread have a jaundiced view of scientists, but I can assure you that I have worked with scientists and tasked them , working for the largest state run scientific organisation in NSW.
I formed a view after a considerable time that many scientists spend a large amount of their time seeking funds for project proposals to ensure that they were able to lead projects, and thus be able to publish and gain promotion, as projects won and scientific articles published are the major basis for career progression and promotion.
In this environment there is a great incentive to "say what is wanted to be heard". I do not think that ONE project has been funded in Australia arguing against Climate Change.
I have tried in this thread to only consider facts , that is why I have referenced where possible.
Regards Philip APhillip

In regard to the comment about the sinking cities and innundation. Yes I am aware and have been for some years about the over-extraction from water ossifers under Venice. However my point was not about the reasons for the sea level rise in any city or region of the world, but to point out that sea level rise in any particular area may be mitigated by technological solutions, not just by relocation of the affected inhabitatants.

That many scientists have to devote significant time and effort to seeking funding sources is true. Assuming that the funding of research taints the findings of the research subsequently conducted, is derogatory of the ethics of the majority of scientists. Furthermore, suggesting that "not one project has been funded in Australia ...", is drawing a rather long bow and one in itself that I suspect is not backed up by research or evidence.

Thank you for your diligence to the facts and provision of references.

Diana :)

[PhilipA]

Chucaro , no need to worry about the Polar bears yet.
In October the coverage is 7.9 Million square miles and is increasing rapidly.
Arctic Sea Ice News & Analysis (http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/)

I have been reading several articles on Climate change from the skeptic's sites and scientific sites and there seems to be little consensus on the position in Antarctica. While continental ice is decreasing slightly, sea ice is increasing.
However one thing has become clear to me that I did not know. That is that Arctic warming and melt has almost no effect on sea levels as it is mostly floating already and Archimedes principle holds, however the main game is continental Antarctic ice melt which has the potential to raise sea levels by up to 16 metres.
So let us hope that the Antarctic ice stays solid as this would be the most devastating effect of climate change. Anything else is "chump change".
Regards Philip A

[rockyroad]

So was it global warming or la nina that caused last summers floods?

I am now at least willing to concede that CO2 has the potential to warm the planet as I was persuaded by facts presented in an unbiased documentary that was all about the carbon cycle as it relates to the petroleum industry. With no scientist for or against making wild claims what they had to say made sense.

I dont however believe in the Al Gore doom and gloom predictions as it would take so many years for the planet to become unliveable due to carbon pollution that the human race would have found another way to destroy the planet before then.

[Mudsloth]

I wouldn't worry too much, all our water is being slowly sucked into space because our atmosphere is getting thinner every year, although I wouldn't even be too worried about that because the Sun is gonna go super nova eventually (around 20 million years). We live on an end of life planet. A bit like an old Disco, she's doin pretty well at the moment but it's only a matter of time......