Advertisement

Climate Change

By 4 September 2014 99

island-stock-020914

Just to open the batting… did anyone notice the Canberra Times article page 7 entitled “Aid for island nations hit by warming a moral duty”?

It contains a picture of an island under water. Yeah right. This is a picture of a swimming pool in an island resort, the Sheraton Fiji (I think) has one such swimming pool. There is a snack bar at a level where you swim up to it to get snacks and drinks. Don’t let a fact get in the way! Sprung CT!

The article however, does raise some concerns. This is a really big issue for the islanders.

I went to Kiribati in 1998 as part of a Commonwealth Parliamentary Association gig. I was a newly minted MLA. The conference taught me heaps about parliamentary procedure and purity but enough of that some other time.

Talking to the locals, I found that they had three big concerns.

The first was power – they ran their power off diesel generators and they had to have the diesel delivered by sea. Always a bit precarious.

The second was water. Although surrounded by sea water, rainfall was not all that plentiful and they had often to rely on imported water.

But the biggest concern they had was rising sea water. The Island of Tarawa was only a metre and a half or so above sea level and a decent tsunami or king tide would wash clean over the island.

However, they were really concerned that the rising of sea levels would eventually see their island submerged.

The conference discussed what next. One issue was… what could be done to save the island. Answer – nothing. A climate sceptic from New Zealand thought it was just a natural evolutionary thing and nothing to do with global warming exacerbated by mankind. I disagreed.

Another issue was … who was responsible and what should they do to help. This caused the cats to scatter!

Most blamed the industrialized nations of China and the US. Others blamed the whole world saying that the UN should co-ordinate a rescue package and that the member countries should chip in to pay for it. Yeah right again. The US is always behind in its payments to the UN anyway!

The same thoughts were shared with me when I visited Vanuatu with my grandsons’ footy team, New Caledonia when I went there for a holiday. And these are only some of the islands I have visited and talked to the locals about stuff.

Any thoughts?

Please login to post your comments
99 Responses to
Climate Change
dungfungus 9:07 am
04 Sep 14
#1

You were in Kiribati 16 years ago then.
If all the crazy predictions from climate change alarmists were true then that group of islands would be submerged by now.
Last time I checked, nothing had changed.
I am glad the USA is always behind in its “payments” to the UN. That organisation is spending a disproportionate amount of resources in trying to keep the non- problem of climate change alive. The following is an example of the sort of rubbish they are getting involved in now:
“The United Nations is looking for a young woman to, as BBC put it, be the ‘Malala’ of the climate change movement, serving as a voice that will energize this September’s climate change conference.
The organization has put out a call for a woman under 30 to speak at the opening session of the 2014 Climate Summit, which is being held on September 23 in New York City. The woman has to be from a developing country and must have a background that includes advocacy on climate change or work on implementing climate mitigation or adaptation solutions. So far, the call for applicants has drawn 544 women, who emailed short videos of themselves persuading world leaders to act on climate change to the Secretary-General’s office.
Organizers hope to find someone who can capture the hearts and minds of people around the world as much as Malala Yousafzai, a Pakastani schoolgirl who was shot in the head by the Taliban and has since become an advocate for women’s rights to education, did when she addressed the UN in July 2013. But as the BBC notes, the choice to include only women in the candidate pool could create some controversy. Susan Alzner, who works at the UN Non-Governmental Liaison Service and is the main person in charge of the search, told the BBC that the decision stems from the fact that women are often the ones who suffer the most from climate change impacts.”

watto23 9:55 am
04 Sep 14
#2

Sea levels are changing. http://www.cmar.csiro.au/sealevel/ is just one such piece of evidence.
The thing is that change doesn’t happen very fast, but it also can’t be reversed very quickly either. This is why there are so many skeptics out there. The ozone layer holw has only just stabilised in size and isn’t expected to close til 2070. It was what 20-30 yrs ago they banned the main cause of the ozone layer layer hole. There were skeptics back then too. Problem is when visual proof takes so long to develop people just tend to read the things that suit their skepticism, much like those who will only vote for a political party and refuse to believe any facts that conflict what they want to believe.

John Moulis 10:07 am
04 Sep 14
#3

The CT’s fabrications about so-called global warming have become so blatant that even ex-Labor politicians are now calling them out. As for their headline “Aid for island nations hit by warming a moral duty”, that isn’t surprising either. The paper has waged campaigns over many years urging governments to boost foreign aid. Whenever they published one of their editorials on the subject I would write to them with a contrary view but the letters were never published. As for “climate change”, the paper is growing up a bit. They had previously imposed a total ban on the publishing of any letters or articles criticising pro-climate change theory, but over the past few months I have been able to get two letters published giving the climate realist viewpoint.

Perhaps after one of the coldest winters in our history after the climate change believers assured us that it would never happen again, even the staunchest climate change advocates might be realising that they got things terribly wrong.

HenryBG 10:34 am
04 Sep 14
#4

dungfungus said :

If all the crazy predictions from climate change alarmists were true then that group of islands would be submerged by now.

http://www.climate.gov.ki/category/effects/coastal-erosion/
“The Australian National Tidal Centre reports that sea levels in Kiribati have averaged a rise of 3.7 millimetres a year since 1992.”

http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg2/index.php?idp=671
“Many small island nations are only a few meters above present sea level. These states may face serious threat of permanent inundation from sea-level rise. Among the most vulnerable of these island states are the Marshall Islands, Kiribati, Tuvalu, Tonga, the Federated States of Micronesia, and the Cook Islands (in the Pacific Ocean); Antigua and Nevis (in the Caribbean Sea); and the Maldives (in the Indian Ocean). Small island states may face the following types of impacts from sea-level rise and climate change (Gaffin, 1997; Nurse et al., 1998):
Increased coastal erosion
Changes in aquifer volume and water quality with increased saline intrusion
Coral reef deterioration resulting from sea-level rise and thermal stress
Outmigration caused by permanent inundation
Social instability related to inter-island migration
Loss of income resulting from negative effects on tourist industry
Increased vulnerability of human settlement due to decrease in land area
Loss of agriculture and vegetation.
Gaffin (1997) concludes that without planned adaptation, the vulnerabilities of small island states are as follows:
An 80-cm sea-level rise could inundate two-thirds of the Marshall Islands and Kiribati.2
A 90-cm sea-level rise could cause 85% of Male, the capital of the Maldives, to be inundated (Pernetta, 1989).”

I see no “crazy predictions”, just careful and professional scientists recording reality. Perhaps you can backup your assertion with something?

dungfungus said :

Last time I checked, nothing had changed.

What did you check with? Tidal gauge data? Satellite altimetry?
Or…and going out on a limb here…you didn’t really “check”, did you?

Here’s what you find when you actually *do* check:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/wea.396/pdf
“Table 1
Significant parameters for the sea-level situation in the Kiribati area.
Parameters Values Comments
Length of data 16 yrs Not long enough yet
Sea-level trend + 3.9mm/yr Very small change from the previous months
Sea-level rise ~ 6.14cm For the last 16 years
Vertical land movement ~+0.2mm/yr Not significant [slightly reducing sea level]”
“A study of sea-level changes in the Kiribati area for the last 16 years”, Than Aung, Awnesh Singh and Uma Prasad, Royal Meteorological Society, Weather, Vol 64 no9.

And that is the difference between people who source their opinions carefully, and those who rely instead on tabloids and dodgy blogs. Or their imaginations.

HenryBG 10:47 am
04 Sep 14
#5

John Moulis said :

Perhaps after one of the coldest winters in our history after the climate change believers assured us that it would never happen again, even the staunchest climate change advocates might be realising that they got things terribly wrong.

Here is some data for Kiribati:
http://www.pacificclimatechangescience.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/11_PCCSP_Kiribati_8pp.pdf

As you can see, Kiribati is experiencing increased temperatures and sea level rise.

Describing yourself as a “climate realist” would make more sense, were you to in fact accomodate reality within your beliefs.

You could perhaps start by explaining what you mean by “coldest winters in our history”, and then explaining how a bit of cold weather negates the laws of physics, which laws show that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and that increased greenhouse gases result in greater heat retention.

(Incidentally, a “theory”, in science, is an explanation of the facts against which nobody has found any contradicting data. In other words, a “theory” in science, is a description of reality. If you don’t like a theory, you’re going to need to provide something pretty compelling to convince anybody your opinion is worth anything.)

Here is BoM’s summary for June 2014:
“Above average temperatures, particularly in
eastern States
• Warmest January–June period on record for
Australia
• Warmest Australian-region sea surface
temperatures on record for June”
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/mwr/aus/mwr-aus-201406.pdf

July 2014:
• Warm days and cool nights over much of the
mainland
• Another warm month overall in the south
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/mwr/aus/mwr-aus-201407.pdf

And seeing as August isn’t out yet, for interest, May2014:
Record-breaking late-season warm spell
• Above average mean temperatures (3rd-warmest
May on record nationally)
• South Australia’s warmest May on record for both
mean and minimum temperatures.

Hmmm…but maybe April was cold:
Above average mean temperatures (7th-highest on
record nationally)
• Above average maximum and minimum
temperatures
• Queensland’s warmest April on record for
minimum temperatures

Nope. And March?
Above average maximum and minimum
temperatures

I have a suggestion for you John: Form an opinion *after* carefully analysing the facts. Because when you do the opposite by selectively quoting facts(if that’s what they are) to support an opinion, you don’t come across as somebody doing any sound thinking.

dungfungus 1:41 pm
04 Sep 14
#6

HenryBG said :

John Moulis said :

Perhaps after one of the coldest winters in our history after the climate change believers assured us that it would never happen again, even the staunchest climate change advocates might be realising that they got things terribly wrong.

Here is some data for Kiribati:
http://www.pacificclimatechangescience.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/11_PCCSP_Kiribati_8pp.pdf

As you can see, Kiribati is experiencing increased temperatures and sea level rise.

Describing yourself as a “climate realist” would make more sense, were you to in fact accomodate reality within your beliefs.

You could perhaps start by explaining what you mean by “coldest winters in our history”, and then explaining how a bit of cold weather negates the laws of physics, which laws show that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and that increased greenhouse gases result in greater heat retention.

(Incidentally, a “theory”, in science, is an explanation of the facts against which nobody has found any contradicting data. In other words, a “theory” in science, is a description of reality. If you don’t like a theory, you’re going to need to provide something pretty compelling to convince anybody your opinion is worth anything.)

Here is BoM’s summary for June 2014:
“Above average temperatures, particularly in
eastern States
• Warmest January–June period on record for
Australia
• Warmest Australian-region sea surface
temperatures on record for June”
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/mwr/aus/mwr-aus-201406.pdf

July 2014:
• Warm days and cool nights over much of the
mainland
• Another warm month overall in the south
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/mwr/aus/mwr-aus-201407.pdf

And seeing as August isn’t out yet, for interest, May2014:
Record-breaking late-season warm spell
• Above average mean temperatures (3rd-warmest
May on record nationally)
• South Australia’s warmest May on record for both
mean and minimum temperatures.

Hmmm…but maybe April was cold:
Above average mean temperatures (7th-highest on
record nationally)
• Above average maximum and minimum
temperatures
• Queensland’s warmest April on record for
minimum temperatures

Nope. And March?
Above average maximum and minimum
temperatures

I have a suggestion for you John: Form an opinion *after* carefully analysing the facts. Because when you do the opposite by selectively quoting facts(if that’s what they are) to support an opinion, you don’t come across as somebody doing any sound thinking.

Here are some real facts. (some facts are more factual than other facts)
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2010/11/11/kiribati-was-half-submerged-in-wwii/
Also, can’t you recall lessons about tectonic plate convergences that were taught to us in primary school?

arescarti42 2:30 pm
04 Sep 14
#7

dungfungus said :

Here are some real facts. (some facts are more factual than other facts)
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2010/11/11/kiribati-was-half-submerged-in-wwii/
Also, can’t you recall lessons about tectonic plate convergences that were taught to us in primary school?

Oh oh, some black and white pictures on a climate denialist blog.

Well that proves it, somebody body better call the IPCC and let them know that climate change is a scam.

Now if only people would wake up to the way the CIA is implementing mind control through the use of orange golf balls.

You know what I’m talking about dungfungus.

dungfungus 4:59 pm
04 Sep 14
#8

HenryBG said :

dungfungus said :

If all the crazy predictions from climate change alarmists were true then that group of islands would be submerged by now.

http://www.climate.gov.ki/category/effects/coastal-erosion/
“The Australian National Tidal Centre reports that sea levels in Kiribati have averaged a rise of 3.7 millimetres a year since 1992.”

http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg2/index.php?idp=671
“Many small island nations are only a few meters above present sea level. These states may face serious threat of permanent inundation from sea-level rise. Among the most vulnerable of these island states are the Marshall Islands, Kiribati, Tuvalu, Tonga, the Federated States of Micronesia, and the Cook Islands (in the Pacific Ocean); Antigua and Nevis (in the Caribbean Sea); and the Maldives (in the Indian Ocean). Small island states may face the following types of impacts from sea-level rise and climate change (Gaffin, 1997; Nurse et al., 1998):
Increased coastal erosion
Changes in aquifer volume and water quality with increased saline intrusion
Coral reef deterioration resulting from sea-level rise and thermal stress
Outmigration caused by permanent inundation
Social instability related to inter-island migration
Loss of income resulting from negative effects on tourist industry
Increased vulnerability of human settlement due to decrease in land area
Loss of agriculture and vegetation.
Gaffin (1997) concludes that without planned adaptation, the vulnerabilities of small island states are as follows:
An 80-cm sea-level rise could inundate two-thirds of the Marshall Islands and Kiribati.2
A 90-cm sea-level rise could cause 85% of Male, the capital of the Maldives, to be inundated (Pernetta, 1989).”

I see no “crazy predictions”, just careful and professional scientists recording reality. Perhaps you can backup your assertion with something?

dungfungus said :

Last time I checked, nothing had changed.

What did you check with? Tidal gauge data? Satellite altimetry?
Or…and going out on a limb here…you didn’t really “check”, did you?

Here’s what you find when you actually *do* check:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/wea.396/pdf
“Table 1
Significant parameters for the sea-level situation in the Kiribati area.
Parameters Values Comments
Length of data 16 yrs Not long enough yet
Sea-level trend + 3.9mm/yr Very small change from the previous months
Sea-level rise ~ 6.14cm For the last 16 years
Vertical land movement ~+0.2mm/yr Not significant [slightly reducing sea level]”
“A study of sea-level changes in the Kiribati area for the last 16 years”, Than Aung, Awnesh Singh and Uma Prasad, Royal Meteorological Society, Weather, Vol 64 no9.

And that is the difference between people who source their opinions carefully, and those who rely instead on tabloids and dodgy blogs. Or their imaginations.

All of us read fairy tales when we were young. Some of us still do, apparently.
As I said, if all those alarmist’s crazy predictions were true, all these islands would be submerged by now and they are not so why dredge up more data?

astrojax 5:28 pm
04 Sep 14
#9

http://www.nanseninitiative.org/

i’d assume this is a hot topic of conversation – well, has been – in samoa at the moment as the un holds its decadal small island developing states conference. does australia, as a developed country, have a moral obligation to resettle [some of] these people? probably.

John Hargreaves Ex M 6:01 pm
04 Sep 14
#10

Thanks to all posters. Good quality debate. I was in Switzerland a couple of years ago and went to a glacier near Mont Blanc. It had receded about a hundred metres in depth and about two kilometres in length (my memory is still a bit hazy but the effect of warming was obvious and I stopped being a sceptic about then.

The same is happening in the glaciers in New Zealand so for those who don’t want to rely on facts in print, go see for yourself and ask the locals.

They have seen the effects of warming over their lifespan.

ScienceRules 6:19 pm
04 Sep 14
#11

I was going to comment, but HenryBG nailed it.

Every major peak scientific body has acknowledged that the climate is changing and that humans are largely the cause of this. It isn’t up for debate or argument. All we can discuss is how the situation can be managed so that there is the potential for the planet to support life sometime in the future.

HenryBG 6:19 pm
04 Sep 14
#12

dungfungus said :

Here are some real facts. (some facts are more factual than other facts)
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2010/11/11/kiribati-was-half-submerged-in-wwii/

Those aren’t facts. That’s Steven Goddard.

Notice that I have pointed you to real facts published in the academic literature by genuine scientists who conduct actual science research, while you point me to a notoriously inaccurate and inexpert blogger who does no actual research and publishes no science?

dungfungus said :

Also, can’t you recall lessons about tectonic plate convergences that were taught to us in primary school?

I don’t recall any of my textbooks talking about “tectonic plate convergences”, however assuming you are in fact referring to convergent boundaries, I am puzzled by what you may mean. You may find it interesting to brush up on Kiribati’s situation slap bang in the middle of a tectonic basin.
You also may have missed the bit in the science that I quoted from which mentions that Kiribati’s net vertical movement is *positive*. That means *up*.
Perhaps recalling past science lessons isn’t one of my issues.

HenryBG 6:20 pm
04 Sep 14
#13

dungfungus said :

All of us read fairy tales when we were young. Some of us still do, apparently.
As I said, if all those alarmist’s crazy predictions were true, all these islands would be submerged by now and they are not so why dredge up more data?

The predictions you are sharing with us are indeed alarming.

Any chance you could share your source for those alleged predictions?

I’ve already provided evidence that the IPCC says no such thing.

wildturkeycanoe 7:35 pm
04 Sep 14
#14

Why should we be so alarmist about islands under threat of oceans rising, when there are other islands and indeed countries, who are under threat of another global crisis – shifting tectonic plates!!
If you look at events around the world that have occurred in the last several thousand years, there is non-disputable proof that volcanoes have wiped out entire cities and civilizations. Granted, the short term – just like global warming – evidence is not as convincing, but looking at the past we can see that tectonic movement of the Earth’s crust is destroying our world. Mt. Vesuvius, Krakatoa, Mt. St. Helens…these are examples that we know of that have caused great catastrophes and compared to global warming not exactly a small issue either. Should we also fund anyone within earshot of a “dormant” volcano to relocate to a safe place??
I only came up with this on a whim just then, but if you used the global warming style of argument to support global volcanosation, what difference is there in the scientific “evidence” and predictions of what is to come? Maybe mankind is to blame for all the earthquakes everywhere too, but we just haven’t figured out who to blame yet.

dungfungus 8:56 pm
04 Sep 14
#15

John Hargreaves Ex MLA said :

Thanks to all posters. Good quality debate. I was in Switzerland a couple of years ago and went to a glacier near Mont Blanc. It had receded about a hundred metres in depth and about two kilometres in length (my memory is still a bit hazy but the effect of warming was obvious and I stopped being a sceptic about then.

The same is happening in the glaciers in New Zealand so for those who don’t want to rely on facts in print, go see for yourself and ask the locals.

They have seen the effects of warming over their lifespan.

Do a Google search on “Mt. Blanc Glaciers Refuse to Shrink” and you may become a sceptic again.

Maya123 9:40 pm
04 Sep 14
#16

dungfungus said :

John Hargreaves Ex MLA said :

Thanks to all posters. Good quality debate. I was in Switzerland a couple of years ago and went to a glacier near Mont Blanc. It had receded about a hundred metres in depth and about two kilometres in length (my memory is still a bit hazy but the effect of warming was obvious and I stopped being a sceptic about then.

The same is happening in the glaciers in New Zealand so for those who don’t want to rely on facts in print, go see for yourself and ask the locals.

They have seen the effects of warming over their lifespan.

Do a Google search on “Mt. Blanc Glaciers Refuse to Shrink” and you may become a sceptic again.

According to the first link below, between 1980 and 1995 the glacier of Mont Blanc and the Bossons retreated 519 meters.
http://www.toptotop.org/climate/montblanc.php

Other links:

http://glacierchange.wordpress.com/2010/04/04/mer-de-glace-glacier-retreat-a-receding-sea/

http://www.chamonet.com/events/news/mont-blanc-glacier-retreats-by-15-metres

Moving away from the Mt Blanc area and travelling south, last year I was shocked on a visit to New Zealand to see how much their glaciers had retreated, because up till then I believed the NZ ones hadn’t. An eye-opener, which corrected my ignorance.

dungfungus 9:54 pm
04 Sep 14
#17

ScienceRules said :

I was going to comment, but HenryBG nailed it.

Every major peak scientific body has acknowledged that the climate is changing and that humans are largely the cause of this. It isn’t up for debate or argument. All we can discuss is how the situation can be managed so that there is the potential for the planet to support life sometime in the future.

Climate changes by nature.
Just because a few government funded self-elected climate scientists mix data with computer modelling to bamboozle everyone doesn’t mean that we should believe them. There is no evidence that humans are causing climate change and even if they are there has been no catastrophic sea level rising or more frequent storms/bushfires/eathquakes etc.
A bit of common sense would go a long way with some of you people.

Masquara 10:45 pm
04 Sep 14
#18

Well Tim Flannery bought low-lying waterfront property north of Sydney, and he’s the climate change guru, isn’t he? So I wouldn’t worry about it John.

Masquara 10:46 pm
04 Sep 14
#19

dungfungus said :

You were in Kiribati 16 years ago then.
If all the crazy predictions from climate change alarmists were true then that group of islands would be submerged by now.
Last time I checked, nothing had changed.
I am glad the USA is always behind in its “payments” to the UN. That organisation is spending a disproportionate amount of resources in trying to keep the non- problem of climate change alive. The following is an example of the sort of rubbish they are getting involved in now:
“The United Nations is looking for a young woman to, as BBC put it, be the ‘Malala’ of the climate change movement, serving as a voice that will energize this September’s climate change conference.
The organization has put out a call for a woman under 30 to speak at the opening session of the 2014 Climate Summit, which is being held on September 23 in New York City. The woman has to be from a developing country and must have a background that includes advocacy on climate change or work on implementing climate mitigation or adaptation solutions. So far, the call for applicants has drawn 544 women, who emailed short videos of themselves persuading world leaders to act on climate change to the Secretary-General’s office.
Organizers hope to find someone who can capture the hearts and minds of people around the world as much as Malala Yousafzai, a Pakastani schoolgirl who was shot in the head by the Taliban and has since become an advocate for women’s rights to education, did when she addressed the UN in July 2013. But as the BBC notes, the choice to include only women in the candidate pool could create some controversy. Susan Alzner, who works at the UN Non-Governmental Liaison Service and is the main person in charge of the search, told the BBC that the decision stems from the fact that women are often the ones who suffer the most from climate change impacts.”

Of course, as climate activists, they’ll be skyping in to New York, not flying …

pajs 9:43 am
05 Sep 14
#20

Masquara said :

Well Tim Flannery bought low-lying waterfront property north of Sydney, and he’s the climate change guru, isn’t he? So I wouldn’t worry about it John.

That is an outright lie. Flannery’s house is not low-lying. It is above the levels of projected sea level rise.

http://www.crikey.com.au/2011/11/22/flannery-hadley-concocted-story-on-my-waterside-home/

John Hargreaves Ex M 10:22 am
05 Sep 14
#21

HenryBG said :

dungfungus said :

Here are some real facts. (some facts are more factual than other facts)
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2010/11/11/kiribati-was-half-submerged-in-wwii/

Those aren’t facts. That’s Steven Goddard.

Notice that I have pointed you to real facts published in the academic literature by genuine scientists who conduct actual science research, while you point me to a notoriously inaccurate and inexpert blogger who does no actual research and publishes no science?

dungfungus said :

Also, can’t you recall lessons about tectonic plate convergences that were taught to us in primary school?

I don’t recall any of my textbooks talking about “tectonic plate convergences”, however assuming you are in fact referring to convergent boundaries, I am puzzled by what you may mean. You may find it interesting to brush up on Kiribati’s situation slap bang in the middle of a tectonic basin.
You also may have missed the bit in the science that I quoted from which mentions that Kiribati’s net vertical movement is *positive*. That means *up*.
Perhaps recalling past science lessons isn’t one of my issues.

For those who don’t know, Tarawa, the island capital of Kiribati, is a coral atoll, or what’s left of it. It has an airport and a road from the airport to the main township has a bitumen buckle in it about half way cross the causeway. it is about 3 cm high and the locals call it Mount Tarawa.

John Hargreaves Ex M 10:24 am
05 Sep 14
#22

dungfungus said :

John Hargreaves Ex MLA said :

Thanks to all posters. Good quality debate. I was in Switzerland a couple of years ago and went to a glacier near Mont Blanc. It had receded about a hundred metres in depth and about two kilometres in length (my memory is still a bit hazy but the effect of warming was obvious and I stopped being a sceptic about then.

The same is happening in the glaciers in New Zealand so for those who don’t want to rely on facts in print, go see for yourself and ask the locals.

They have seen the effects of warming over their lifespan.

Do a Google search on “Mt. Blanc Glaciers Refuse to Shrink” and you may become a sceptic again.

My eyes don’t lie. The ice cave was at road level and now one has to go down about a hundred metres of steps to cross the glacier to get to it. I trust my eyes before Google.

dungfungus 11:22 am
05 Sep 14
#23

John Hargreaves Ex MLA said :

dungfungus said :

John Hargreaves Ex MLA said :

Thanks to all posters. Good quality debate. I was in Switzerland a couple of years ago and went to a glacier near Mont Blanc. It had receded about a hundred metres in depth and about two kilometres in length (my memory is still a bit hazy but the effect of warming was obvious and I stopped being a sceptic about then.

The same is happening in the glaciers in New Zealand so for those who don’t want to rely on facts in print, go see for yourself and ask the locals.

They have seen the effects of warming over their lifespan.

Do a Google search on “Mt. Blanc Glaciers Refuse to Shrink” and you may become a sceptic again.

My eyes don’t lie. The ice cave was at road level and now one has to go down about a hundred metres of steps to cross the glacier to get to it. I trust my eyes before Google.

Did you hear on ABC News this morning that the snow at Perisher has been so good this year that they are extending the season into October?
Maybe Australia should consider exporting snow to NZ.

dungfungus 11:38 am
05 Sep 14
#24

John Hargreaves Ex MLA said :

dungfungus said :

John Hargreaves Ex MLA said :

Thanks to all posters. Good quality debate. I was in Switzerland a couple of years ago and went to a glacier near Mont Blanc. It had receded about a hundred metres in depth and about two kilometres in length (my memory is still a bit hazy but the effect of warming was obvious and I stopped being a sceptic about then.

The same is happening in the glaciers in New Zealand so for those who don’t want to rely on facts in print, go see for yourself and ask the locals.

They have seen the effects of warming over their lifespan.

Do a Google search on “Mt. Blanc Glaciers Refuse to Shrink” and you may become a sceptic again.

My eyes don’t lie. The ice cave was at road level and now one has to go down about a hundred metres of steps to cross the glacier to get to it. I trust my eyes before Google.

Glaciers have been disappearing for millions of years. I read somewhere that where Canberra is was previously covered by a glacier.
Field studies conducted by geophysicists 150 years ago concluded that glaciers advance and retreat on average every 30 years.
Another study by T. J. CHINN, Institute of Geological & Nuclear Sciences, Dunedin, New Zealand
states that an investigation of 127 glaciers of the New Zealand Southern Alps shows the losses that have occurred since the end of the Little Ice Age on average were between 35% and 60%.
Note the time span involved everybody and relax.

dungfungus 11:43 am
05 Sep 14
#25

John Hargreaves Ex MLA said :

dungfungus said :

John Hargreaves Ex MLA said :

Thanks to all posters. Good quality debate. I was in Switzerland a couple of years ago and went to a glacier near Mont Blanc. It had receded about a hundred metres in depth and about two kilometres in length (my memory is still a bit hazy but the effect of warming was obvious and I stopped being a sceptic about then.

The same is happening in the glaciers in New Zealand so for those who don’t want to rely on facts in print, go see for yourself and ask the locals.

They have seen the effects of warming over their lifespan.

Do a Google search on “Mt. Blanc Glaciers Refuse to Shrink” and you may become a sceptic again.

My eyes don’t lie. The ice cave was at road level and now one has to go down about a hundred metres of steps to cross the glacier to get to it. I trust my eyes before Google.

There are lots of reasons why glacial caves disappear: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glacier_cave

Roksteddy 12:55 pm
05 Sep 14
#26

Canberroid 1:43 pm
05 Sep 14
#27

It’s interesting how climate sceptics deny global scientific consensus which is inconvenient for them, but are more than happy to take advantage of scientific advancements that suits them (such as the computers they’re using right now).

There is no debate in the global scientific community about whether man-made climate change is real and bad news. Our oceans are acidifying, atmospheric levels of greenhouse gases are increasing, and changes are too rapid for ecosystems to adapt.

Personal anecdotal evidence against climate change does not invalidate the huge body of evidence pointing to ACC.

I wish people would stop complaining about a small rise in their quarterly energy bill and recognise that their current actions will have devastating results for future generations. It’s not okay to ignore it simply because you might have died of old age by then.

HenryBG 2:11 pm
05 Sep 14
#28

dungfungus said :

Field studies conducted by geophysicists 150 years ago concluded that glaciers advance and retreat on average every 30 years.

Any current science source for that factoid?

dungfungus said :

Another study by T. J. CHINN, Institute of Geological & Nuclear Sciences, Dunedin, New Zealand
states that an investigation of 127 glaciers of the New Zealand Southern Alps shows the losses that have occurred since the end of the Little Ice Age on average were between 35% and 60%.
Note the time span involved everybody and relax.

You mention a study, but provide no date, no title, no publication.

Could it be that you are asking people to believe your story about Glaciers not melting on account of a 20-year-old paper that looked only at New Zealand glaciers, and doesn’t say anything remotely like what you are claiming it says?

Here, on the other hand, I am presenting real information consisting of some genuine science:
http://nsidc.org/data/g10002
Shorter version:
http://nsidc.org/glims/glaciermelt/index.html

If you prefer not to have to wade through a professional paper on the subject, it is summarised visually :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Glacier_Mass_Balance_Map.png
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/e5/Glacier_Mass_Balance.png/280px-Glacier_Mass_Balance.png

As you can see, the known effects of increased CO2 in the atmosphere are without a skerrick of a doubt causing glaciers to melt.

And as you saw, claims to the contrary are confused and contradicted by the facts.

watto23 4:10 pm
05 Sep 14
#29

dungfungus said :

John Hargreaves Ex MLA said :

Thanks to all posters. Good quality debate. I was in Switzerland a couple of years ago and went to a glacier near Mont Blanc. It had receded about a hundred metres in depth and about two kilometres in length (my memory is still a bit hazy but the effect of warming was obvious and I stopped being a sceptic about then.

The same is happening in the glaciers in New Zealand so for those who don’t want to rely on facts in print, go see for yourself and ask the locals.

They have seen the effects of warming over their lifespan.

Do a Google search on “Mt. Blanc Glaciers Refuse to Shrink” and you may become a sceptic again.

Yep because one glacier not retreating makes up for all the others. If there is a general trend of glaciers retreating which there is, then theire is also most likely a cause.

I will agree sometimes climate based science can be alarmist at times, but the real issue is when is it too late to make a change to prevent the alarmist situation from occuring. Its like speeding, people speed all the time and never have an accident. Does it mean its safe? No not really. There is plenty of evidence from many many sources with no financial interest or gain, showing that the global climate is changing and having an effect on the globe.

I’m happy to have an argument about whether we should do anything or just let it happen, but to suggest there is no climate change or global warming is just being ignorant and showing your inability to read and interpret information in an unbiased and constructive manner.
More disturbing is at one time a majority of voters were all for doing something to stop climate change. Then they were told, no its too expensive (and it might be I’m not arguing that point here) and now they are all sceptics! Its important to keep the political party policy seperate from the science, although that doesn’t suit many peoples arguments.

dungfungus 4:31 pm
05 Sep 14
#30

HenryBG said :

dungfungus said :

Field studies conducted by geophysicists 150 years ago concluded that glaciers advance and retreat on average every 30 years.

Any current science source for that factoid?

dungfungus said :

Another study by T. J. CHINN, Institute of Geological & Nuclear Sciences, Dunedin, New Zealand
states that an investigation of 127 glaciers of the New Zealand Southern Alps shows the losses that have occurred since the end of the Little Ice Age on average were between 35% and 60%.
Note the time span involved everybody and relax.

You mention a study, but provide no date, no title, no publication.

Could it be that you are asking people to believe your story about Glaciers not melting on account of a 20-year-old paper that looked only at New Zealand glaciers, and doesn’t say anything remotely like what you are claiming it says?

Here, on the other hand, I am presenting real information consisting of some genuine science:
http://nsidc.org/data/g10002
Shorter version:
http://nsidc.org/glims/glaciermelt/index.html

If you prefer not to have to wade through a professional paper on the subject, it is summarised visually :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Glacier_Mass_Balance_Map.png
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/e5/Glacier_Mass_Balance.png/280px-Glacier_Mass_Balance.png

As you can see, the known effects of increased CO2 in the atmosphere are without a skerrick of a doubt causing glaciers to melt.

And as you saw, claims to the contrary are confused and contradicted by the facts.

From Physical Geography, William Morris Davis, Professor of Physical Geography in Harvard University, published 1898:
“The length of glaciers is found to increase and decrease slowly in successive years. For a time they lengthen or advance; then they melt back or retreat; the change being completed in the Alps in a period of about thirty-five years. This is believed to result chiefly from a variation in the snowfall.
A change of snow supply is sooner indicated by a variation in the end of a short than of a long glacier; hence all the glaciers of a mountain range do not vary together.”

From: http://hydrologynz.co.nz/downloads/20071015-094857-JoHNZ_2001_v40_2_Chinn.pdf please read the section titled Ongoing Snowline Monitoring which I will quote from.
“……the data collected have shown that the trend of glacier recession (New Zealand) over the past 100 years has reversed, with the glaciers showing inferred positive balances in most years since 1978.
Currently, all except a few glacier fronts are thickening and advancing”

It’s easy to find the populous stuff about so called climate change on the internet but the truth takes a a bit longer.
Now I have demolished the myth about glaciers disappearing I will look at the other false claims of the alarmists and report back.
Factoid indeed.

Follow
Follow The RiotACT
Get Premium Membership
Advertisement
The-RiotACT.com Newsletter Sign Up

Images of Canberra

Advertisement
Sponsors
RiotACT Proudly Supports
Advertisement
Copyright © 2014 Riot ACT Holdings Pty Ltd. All rights reserved.