nsw tide rising?

well, thats where i was going.....i even did it in a tub(15L) 50/50 water and ice. the water level didint change when the ice melted. and another thing , 90% of the iceberg are under water, so the water in the ocean is already mostly displaced, surely that 10% cant change global water levels!

Qubert

You're partly there.

That's because the mass of the water displaced is equal to the mass of the object immersed. When water freezes, the mass remains the same (though the density reduces, which is why ice floats). Therefore, when the ice in Keith's bundy-n-coke melts, it won't overflow the glass (even if he hasn't had a sip already!)

Another site is Climate Skeptics The ETS is short for Extra Tax Scheme.
DW

We prefer the Carbon Reduction Assistance Program :)

If you are going to recommend "the Handbook", you should also take the time to look at some of the responses to its arguments that can be found without too much trouble on line. You should also have a look at the other "projects" of the author of the handbook, especially when the person is a professional speaker who has a vested interest in being "contraversial."

Another interesting site is herete Debate Daily

Put both sides of the argument.

No point following junk science guys , the arguement was over 18months ago in the serious world.

The losers will be those who don't adjust and just keep on smoking.

John and Val. Thanks for that. One of the few sites I have seen that genuinely appears neutral and just places the arguments.

The most neutral (well, it seems so to me) attempt to weigh the evidence can be found at the following
http://www.scribepublications.com.au/book/polesapart

I am yet to see anyone challenge their argument and conclusion.

"the argument was over 18months ago in the serious world"

Why, what was so significant 18months ago that allegedly sealed the argument?

A fair question Timbo.

Essentially the United Nations actually made a decision (a feat in itself).

Few years ago all the governments agreed to review the then controversial
information.

They formed the IPCC , Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change ,
thousands of scientists etc all around the world did there work and the outcome was its real and caused by us, this was accepted by the UN in a qualified form with almost no detractors - even China agreed (well with a push).

This happened during the current cycle when warming, while still occurring, has slowed after in was shown that even the slowing was consistent with predications.

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climatechange/policymakers/policy/slowdown.html

Doesn't work that way Rob , primary reason is that when things warm they expand and its the actual expansion of the ocean water causing the issue

Melting ice on land which is a significant but secondary effect.

Robin,

Interesting point. Something I haven't thought of. Doing a quick google...

The average depth of the worlds oceans is 3790m.Water expansion from 17 to 22 deg C is 1.00109. That would be about a 4m rise.

R.

The problem of coastal housing is miniscule.
The real problem is most of the worlds food is grown in river deltas and once salt water invades these places,they wont be able to grow food there.
The other problem is that if sea water temps rise much more than 2c degrees on average,then plankton will not survive,as well as many other types of marine life.
This means the large schools of fish ,which are already under threat ,may disappear.

The river deltas just occur at higher altitudes (or further 'inland') from their current locations - the rivers will always meet the sea, regardless of the sea level.

And the idea that 2°C rise in the ocean temperature will kill all plankton and many fish could only be true if the entire ocean is currently at uniform temperature (and constant throughout the year). A 2°C rise may mean that some parts of the ocean may become too warm for plankton or certain types of fish, but why wouldn't it also warm the parts that are currently too cold?

And consider the wide range of temperatures that humans (and almost all animals) live in throughout the world - or throughout the year, or throughout the day? These variations are usually much more significant than 2°C!

Even if all these suggestions are nonsense, extinctions might be sad (particularly for the sentimental), but the end of the world hasn't exactly come about because of any previous extinctions (not even extinctions of many various types and sizes of creatures ie. dinosaurs), has it?

Even if all my assumptions thus far are incorrect, there seems a significant disconnect in 'commonly accepted' (termed by some as undisputed) scientific theory: It has been my observation that the loudest campaigners for the need to reverse man-induced climate change (forgetting for a moment the impact of CO2 emissions from volcanoes, and the far greater greenhouse effect from the far more prevalent and naturally occuring water vapour etc.) are also the most dogged proponents of a theory that says all life evolved by a process of adaptation to its current enrivonment. Here is the disconnect: if all species evolved/adapted so perfectly and so spectacularly in the past, why can't/won't all species continue to evolve/adapt to a new or changing environment in the present, or the future?

River deltas dont just appear ,they are formed over a very long period of time from the river depositing nutrient rich soils.
The idea that farmers can just move up river is pure nonsense.

As I said ,2c on average. This means in some areas it will be much warmer.
Scientists have already done trials and found that plankton is unlkily to survive with an average 2c rise intemp and also the coral reefs will not survive.
Many forms of life begiin in the sheltered coastal reefs

Im really amazed at some of your ill informed statements.
Extinctions are not sad or sentimental,they are a disaster for all of us.
All life depends on another species for survival.

Evolution doesnt happen overnight and its unlikely a single species can adapt at the rate of current climate change.

By the way are you a creationist? It seems that most who are in denial of climate change have a religeous background or are making money from big business .
The creationists have a problem with climate change as they believe the world is only 6000 years and that dinosaurs walked the earth with man before the great flood.
So therefore any talk of older periods is a waste of time to them

Rivers depositing nutrient rich soils? One of the most significant things 'deposited' by rivers is salt, hence lakes that have rivers feeding them but no outlet (other than evaporation) are invariably salt-lakes (think Dead Sea, Lake Eyre, etc.) and certainly not 'nutrient rich' for growing crops! How much more fertile has the Murray-Darling basin become since rivers have been depositing their 'nutrients' in the area? And, as an aside, you might consider how much saltier the ocean would be if it has really had rivers flowing into it for as long as you seem to think...

If a 2°C average rise means some areas will be much warmer, there must also be areas that will remain the same, or even get cooler for the AVERAGE rise to be 2°C. Plankton and corals exist in certain areas because the conditions in those areas are favourable for them, even if conditions in those particular areas change (to become unfavourable), what evidence is there to suggest that conditions elsewhere would not become more favourable to allow plankton or coral where it is currently unable to live? Large schools of fish may disappear from their current locations, but there is no reason they couldn't appear in other places, is there? What percentage of the ocean has really been explored anyway that we can confidently declare a species "under threat of extinction"? If a species can't cope with a small change in climate, how then could camels imported from Arabian deserts survive immediately in Australia?

All life depends on another species for survival? True, but not necessarily dependant on a single other species - I like to eat beef, but if cows become extinct (as greenies seem to want), I'll survive almost as happily on kangaroo, sheep, chicken etc. If it's such a disaster if a species becomes extinct, why do we seem to be getting on okay without dinosaurs, thylacines or even small pox*?! (No, I'm not advocating that we just kill off species for the fun of it, but I'm questioning whether it's really the disaster it's claimed to be?). Perhaps you might also consider whether the 'extinctions are disastrous' view is consistent with Charles Darwin's theory of 'natural selection' where the strongest species survive by dominating over, and often eliminating, the weaker species - this is just natural selection afterall, what gives us the right to suddenly prevent it from continuing now?

Evolution doesn't happen overnight? No, and that's the point - most (if not all) species would be extinct before they could 'Evolve' to survive in their habitat. Camels would have starved/dehydrated to extinction long before 'adapting' to the deserts, penguins would have frozen to extinction long before 'adapting' to the cold climates, animals would be extinct long before Evolving the ability to even reproduce (the process is very different from that of single cell organisms)...

So I guess that must make me a Creationist in your view? But I fail to see any inconsistency. You say "creationists have a problem with climate change as they believe the world is only 6000 years and that dinosaurs walked the earth with man before the great flood." So where's the logical disconnect? Why should that view allow or disallow belief in Climate Change?

As for what you might term 'Evolutionists', why don't they accept Climate Change as simply a natural process? Even man-made climate change (if such a thing exists) should be actively endorsed since man, by natural processes, has supposedly become the most Evolved species and is simply expressing his dominance over the weaker species which will be 'naturally selected' to become extinct (unless of course they can each adapt to their changing environment).

* Small pox is not quite extinct - some sentimental creeps didn't want the total destruction of this undesirable virus, so there still remains a sample tucked away in a fridge in a laboratory, just in case we ever want to go back to the good old days when small pox ravaged the world!

You are just have no idea what you are talking about.

And here I was thinking/hoping you could answer some of my questions.

The climate change sceptics keep peddling this sort of nonsense. Nobody denies that we have had major climate change previously. The point about the current situation is the speed at which it is happening. While a couple of hundred years may sound gradual, in geological terms this is the equivalent of a major impact event which, when they have occurred previously, have always been disastrous for large slabs of life on Earth. Our species and our civilization is extremely vulnerable to the consequences of rapid climate change.
The denialists have enabled the "boiling frog" mentality to take hold.
Personally, I think the carbon trading policies are far too little and far too late. Nothing short of a major cut in human population numbers will alter the projections. We probably aren't smart enough to plan it, but it is likely to be an unpleasant consequence of the migration pressures that will occur as the word's foodbowls disappear.

The ice caps may have spread in total square area,but its the thickness of the ice packs which is disappearing.

A spread in total area of say 1km sq at 6 inches thick equals the same amount as 500m2 at 12 inches think, so I don't think that argument holds much water.

Mmmm...the cattle population is probably the same as it was 300yrs ago with all the millions of bison around that are now almost wiped out.

As for the costal devt in Sydney and North all we need is a good cat5 cyclone to sort that out.

Read today that a eco-pawpirnt of a pet dog was twice that of a 4.6L Land Cruiser driven 10,000km a year.......

Image Could Not Be Found

and Cats a guzzlers too.. with a eco-pawprint of 0.15ha, slightly less than a Volkswagen Golf...


Richard

I was going to make a post about that Richard , it comes from a good scientific source , but been busy lately.

Imagine when you are next approached by an avid greenie saying your 4wd is bad for the enviroment , you can now feign shock and horror and point at their dog and accuse them of genocide !

Robin,

Over the years I've had to bury some dogs and cats, do they count a carbon credits. :-)

The other problem with the heat, is the energy to raise the temperature of the water. 1 calorie to raise the temp of 10lb's of water 1 deg F.. or 1 joule per litre of water 1 deg c. off the top of my head...

Richard

THey do Richard.

Behind that article , and more fully explained in New scientist , is a serious proposal about reducing the population and impact of meat consumption by pets and its a bit of an eye opener for those who critize 4wds.

I nearly added in my reply above that I have a 4wd and a big dog , but then my dogs a Vegertarian.

Anyone know what the carbon output of a single volcano is? It is irresponsible that governments aren't doing more to control this. More pressure should be put on countries such as Indonesia, New Zealand, US, Japan to reduce harmful emissions - some of these countries have dozens of active volcanoes tjat are constantly venting huge quantities of greenhouse gases and not a single effort is being made to cap them, LOL.

Further, water vapour has a far greater contribution to 'greenhouse effect' than CO2, and is significantly more prevalent in the earth's atmosphere - yet is strangely not taken into account in 'climate change models'

At least the y2k bug hoax had a definite end date...

Kroozer

It's not so much the Earthquakes you gotta worry about, imagine this scanario below in the Indian Ocean .

A last wave goodbye

.

You don't need a mountain Kroozer. Usually tsunamis are less than 10m high (though sometimes up to 30m). You don't usually need to go inland very far to reach this sort of altitude. Yes, you'll hear reports of tsunamis reaching inland for a kilometre or two, but these are low lying areas, and while 'reached' by the waters, they are not generally pounded by the force of the wave itself.

You can't be a scientologist Mike , else you would know that accord to Ron's book 30 billion space beings arrived on the earth a long time ago and we are their descendants.

My theory is that they all disembarked onto Atlantis and their weight caused it to sink.

Water expands when it freezes as well...thats why it floats

Also, the average thickness of ice in Antarctica is 2 kilometres (its up to 4 kilometres thick in places) all sitting on land. If that melts then the level will rise.

Thats how peole go wrong Mike , when water changes its phase state to a solid it expands because of trapped air , however wether it expands or not is irrelevant because such a small part of the ocean water volume is made up of ice (under 1%).

As someone else posted ,the part of ice above sea level will directly contribute.

The fact that water expansion is the major contributer is not challenged , the arguement revolve around how much it will rise not if.

Their is junk science on both sides of the discussion Doug - often quoting mis-quotes by each other.

Some will always believe the earth is flat, smoking doesn't harm you, the twin towers are still standing and Toyotas are better than Nissan's but well love is in the eye of the beholder so what can I say !

Hi Doug,
Interesting read!!!!

The naturalist and scientist David Bellamy (Gordon river Tas. fame) said something similar some 5-6 years ago and has now been banished to the wilderness for his blasphamy, by fellow scientists and their bosses who look after the big money grants that control what they are allowed to say by the establishment.

cheers, Colin.

Doug,

I've mentioned to you before that if you want to have any bit of credibility choose your sources wisely. Do some reasearch into who is putting out the articles and who is paying them to do it. Don't just selectively believe artiicles simply because they fall in line with lifestyle choices.

For example, journals like "Science", require the contributor to submit their article which is then reviewed by 10 different peers to check it's credibilty, before it is even considered for publication. On the other hand, the magazine "Quadrant" does no such checks and they are happy to print anything that aligns with their views.

All's fair in battle of ideas

science

It is your choice how you want to educate yourself.

R.

Rob!
That goes both ways , I would presume believers would follow people like Gore and Wong, It's a bit like Footy .

.

Yes. Tunnel vision has no boundaries.

Sea levels,are they rising ? is written by Ken Ring of Predictweather.com

This site here says he is a scammer and also believes dolpins beam sonar signals to the moonLOL

http://www.sillybeliefs.com/ring.html#heading-1g

Yeah Kev too true mate. It could be worse though, we still dont have Cane Toads down south thank goodness.

Cheers mate.

I am sure some were smuggled home in a Maroon Pajero after the National Gathering ;)

I like that answer.

Yeah it must be Bondi's deep ocean outfall...

Ha ha :) Don't forget the increasing whale populations now that people are discouraged from eating them or turning them into soap, etc.!

That's right 13,000 Humpbacks displace alot of water!!!

specially when they fart all at the same time