SULPHUR

I assumed from the tone of your comment that it was a dismissal because of the time and your brief foray into other matters. So it irritated me. By the way did you do geography?

RoddyM

I didn't study geography past year 11. That was in 1972. I think cooling was more an issue than warming at the time. But warming was more exciting and politically interesting so it became the fashion by the 80's.

SULPHUR

I studied it in year twelve. There has been a misunderstanding. When you replied to my comment I thought that you didn't know where tasmania was because you mentioned the the time as if to say it is too late in the night.When you mentioned those other problems to me it smacked of someone being a smartarse.I am sorry about our confused meeting and look forward to talking with your in the future.

nermal

Fish catches are dropping everywhere. We used to eat halibut regularly in the states--it's what fish sticks were made of, but the halibut are nearly gone now. Don't know what you mean by associating them with ocean currents.
Where are sea levels rising? This is one I've heard thrown about with no evidence for it, it seems everyone assumes that since global warming causes sea level rise, then the sea level must be rising, and then this is proof of global warming.
There is a benchmark right there in Tasmania, I think set around 1875 at mean sea level. The mark is 13 cm above mean sea level today. This is just one benchmark, but it does show the opposite of what one would expect from sea level rise. Are there other benchmarks underwater I don't know about?

I mentioned politics--that is where the global warming debate is , in the political arena and not the scientific one. Speculation is dressed up as theory, modelling is dressed up as experiment, every possible weather event fulfills the "prophecy."
When 2500 scientists sign a public document declaring global warming to be human-caused, and only one is a climatologist, you can be sure politics are at the root.

Ed

SULPHUR

The bench mark is on the Isle of the Dead at the ex-english penal colony of Port Arthur. I have seen the markings and they seem quiet sound and take into account the land in that area has risen.
As for the fishermen, the change in currents in el nino years coincide with very poor catches and also coincide with the changes in the temperature gradient between sydney and tahiti.
The breakup of various ice shelves which has been reported would indicate temperature variations not noted since antarctic exploration began.Evan Mawsons hut is thawing out?

nermal

As I understand it, factoring for land rise, the mark is about where it should be. This isn't surprising to me, but I still ask what evidence rising sea level?
I concede we've had a lot of el nino years, and as I've said earlier, the climate is a dynamic process. I just haven't seen any evidence that the changes we see are man made, and can therefore be man-remedied.
Some parts of Antarctica are warming, some are cooling. There is no general warming trend in Antarctica as I understand it.

Ed

sourdough

I dont get it,
if there's so much air polution wouldn't it prevent sunlight reaching the ground making the Earth cooler?

SULPHUR

Interesting, which parts are getting cooler?
a couple of references
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov

http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/ncdc html.

ps418

Sea level has been rising for about the past 20k years, since the Last Glacial Maximum. The mean global eustatic sea-level chage between the past 4 glacial-interglacial cycles is roughly 130 meters. The rate of rise was relatively quick between 20 and 11k years, and has slowed since then. Sea level rise over the past 10k years has been relatively slow. The evidence is consistent with a very slow rate of global sea-level rise over the past several thousand years, and an ongoing rate of sea-level rise of about 1.5mm/yr, 15cm/century based on tide-gauge network observations.


For comparison, the rate of sea-level rise between 21 and 10k was roughly 10-15mm/yr, and the fastest rate of sea-level rise since the Last Glacial Maximum was what is known as Meltwater Pulse 1a, which saw rates of 40mm/yr for about 500 years. Most of the Holocene has seen rates of sea-level rise very similar to what is now occurring, in the neighborhood of 1-2mm/yr. I throw these rates in just for comparison, not as an attempt to minimize the present sea-level rise and its potential impacts on humans. No matter how much of the current rise can be attributed to anthropogenic sources, however, the rise wil nonetheless eventually cause problems.

See:

J. Church et al., in Climate Change 2001, The Scientific Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, J. T. Houghton et al., Eds. (Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, 2001), pp. 639-694.

Douglas et al, (eds), 2001. Sea Level Rise: History and Consequences. San Diego: Academic Press.

Meier and Wahr, 2002. Sea level is rising: Do we know why? Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 99, 6524-6526.

Patrick

SULPHUR

That may finally jerk the kitten into some serious thinking