"The Earth climate is entering uncharted territory."

Ah, that must be why on your own chart the current temperature rise (i.e. the one that stopped 15 years ago) looks so much like the rises 100,000 years ago and 300,000 years ago and 400,000 years ago. The ones that the polar bears and the coral and the frogs and the foraminfera all survived just fine. And the people, of course.

See http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/03/03/new-interpretation-of-antarctic-ice-core and the associated references for a more balanced review of paleoclimatic data.

[Deleted for abuse.]

Dealing with this coming catastrophe of sealevel rise of up to 2 metres this century is not helped by ignorant comments and rap songs. Andrew Glikson is a scientist who is as up to date as anyone on the earth with the data needed to assess the situation. And that data personally terrifies me. Low lying areas as in coastal Japan will see the same devastation as wrought by the recent tsunami though it won't be as rapid. Coastal cities everywhere will be inundated and people will have to move to higher ground and find new land to plant crops. If runaway warming starts - a strong likelihood if methane is released from the tundra - then that will affect food production and mass starvation will result. James Lovelock may end up being right - there may just be a few of us surviving, huddled around the poles.

"And that data personally terrifies me"

yes, exactly the intent

The world is ending

So what do we do?

Adapt, pay tax?

Once we've paid the tax, then of course the Australian government will make it ok, we don't need to do anything further at all since they will take it all out of our hands and make it better

yay for carbon tax!

"Dealing with this coming catastrophe of sealevel rise of up to 2 metres this century is not helped by ignorant comments and rap songs"

How do you reckon anyone can "solve" it?

Why do you think it can be "solved" .. ?

my sarcastic comments above about the tax are frivolous for that reason, you are talking about changing the climate .. scientists hint it can be changed and deliberately scare you to motivate action .. apart from squealing and running around hysterically, what can you do?

Protest at people who disagree, blog and comment nasty things about them (reaaaly helpful)

Ask the government to help? Experts in getting elected, taxing and spending money may not be our best investment.

If Australia disappeared overnight, it would be 2 weeks before China takes up the slack in CO2 production, so we're irrelevant.

No one is going to "follow" Australia, that is just fantasy to think the world is waiting to see what WE do.

Our egos are not matched by the world's respect.

So China, India, USA, Russia all of South America, Africa and many other nations are going to do absolutely nothing. So we have no choice but to adapt, to whatever happens, regardless of whether Andrew is right or wrong.

It's pointless scaremongering and while I'm sure he feels he is making a contribution and justifying his position .. it does nothing for the situation.

Unless of course, we can change the climate .. big call .. everything I read tells me it will take hundreds of years for any effect and only if we all disappeared tomorrow.

[Deleted for abuse.]

rpg asks "What can you do?" Well, the carbon tax is a start and it should be sufficiently high to give impetus to the renewable energies (geothermal, solar, wind). We can remove all subsidies for fossil fuel industries. We don't open any new coal power stations. We can close down Hazelwood and all the other dirty power stations. We can change transport rapidly towards electrified rail and cars. We can facilitate people using bicycles. We can mandate that all new houses be energy efficient, sited correctly and have solar hot water on their roofs. We can stop flying as much. We can buy locally grown food. We can reduce, reuse, recycle. We can limit the number of children to two and reward those who have none or one. We can ensure that priority is given in our foreign aid program to reproductive health care, including family planning, so that it is available to all women everywhere. I can go on, but I think I'm running out of space...

Dear Hasbeen. Perhaps the US Navy has its own agenda but who is to say? What is evident is that the Arctic summer sea ice is shrinking in area at a rapid rate and you can see that from the photos. There are too many of them from too many sources for it to be a lie. What the thickness is doesn't matter as much but clearly it must be thinning if it's melting sufficiently for us to see water rather than ice from the air. And your comments about Gillard and cheques are misogynist nonsense. Would you have said the same of Rudd or Howard?

popnperish says:

Well, the carbon tax is a start and it should be sufficiently high to give impetus to the renewable energies (geothermal, solar, wind).

*geothermal is lttle use to us since we are not on a fault line, current attempts have all failed. Wind and Solar will never supply base load.

We can remove all subsidies for fossil fuel industries.

*why? but regardless, these will be replaced by biofuels

We don't open any new coal power stations.

*if we don't others will

We can close down Hazelwood and all the other dirty power stations.

*how do we power the desal plant at WOnthaggi?

We can change transport rapidly towards electrified rail and cars.

*Powered by what? closed power stations

We can facilitate people using bicycles.

*yep, till it rains. This is a fantasy that everyone can do all their travel on PT

We can mandate that all new houses be energy efficient, sited correctly and have solar hot water on their roofs.

*will it be free?

We can stop flying as much.

*how will I get to meetings that require my physical presence, you can't "network" by telecommuting, ask all the folks who went to Copenhagen or Cancun, why didn't they all telecommute?

We can buy locally grown food.

*where do I get local steaks in inner city Melbourne?

We can reduce, reuse, recycle.

*to a point

We can limit the number of children to two and reward those who have none or one.

*good luck on that

We can ensure that priority is given in our foreign aid program to reproductive health care, including family planning, so that it is available to all women everywhere.

* since most of us will no longer have jobs since there will be bugger all electricity and our industries will all be gone since they are unreliable, we'll have no money to pay taxes or give away

Andrew is one of those many academics that seems to have an aversion to checking his own theories.

If any of the graphs and figures he quotes actually meant anything then we should be seeing some increase in sea levels now right?

Unfortunately for Andrew a check of the site that records satellite observations of sea levels - http://sealevel.colorado.edu/ - indicates that sea levels are still moseying along at 3.1 mm a year or about one third of a metre (about a foot in the old measures) over a century. That rate of increase has been the same since the mid-90s when satellite measurements started. If anything the average has declined in recent years rather than increased, although this is marginal.

This is also very difficult to reconcile with recent statements by Prof Garnaut that sea level increases have been accelerating since he made his original reports. Nor is there anything in the tidal guage records (the land based instruments) to suggest an acceleration. What figures are these academics relying on??

In the article Andrew partially gets around this lack of real world results by suggesting we will reach what amounts to tipping points. Everything will be alright until we get to these tipping points, when ever that may be. Then we will get this long-delayed, much promised watery apocalypse. Right.

Thanks, Andrew for your observations on uncharted territory.

It may be more constructive to wait for it to be charted and give some sort of scientific analysis, rather than the incoherent and disjointed comment you present in this article,

You make frequent reference to studies of Al Gore’s adviser James Hansen, who, despite his ability, has shown himself to be incapable of scientific objectivity.

Hansen continually revises NASA’s figures on global temperature to make them warmer, so his ability to exercise objective judgement as a scientist has encountered serious doubt among objective scientists.

Sea levels have not risen for 50 years, so there is something seriously wrong with your data. Perhaps it is AGW fraudulent. There is a lot of that going around. We may be in danger of reaching a tipping point, there is so much of it.

You say: “The extreme rate of greenhouse gas forcing, rising at ~2 ppm CO2/year, leads potentially to tipping points such as high-rate methane release from permafrost and Arctic sediments, and the potential collapse of the North Atlantic Thermohaline Stream.” .

In that short statement you have one “potentially” and one “potential”. Why not look at the actual. The so called greenhouse gas forcing has not forced anything. In reality (unfamiliar territory to you, Andrew) the increase in CO2 said to have occurred has resulted in no rise in global temperature, despite the forecasts of pseudo scientific bodies like the IPCC.

Perhaps if you read Ian Plimer, and Robert Carter, you might sort yourself out.

If you want an assurance of their integrity, look at the scurrilous and baseless attacks on them by the pro AGW fraud backers. That is a great assurance of their worth. Some “scientist” even came up with an opinion that human activity emits 130 times more CO2 than all of the worlds volcanoes put together.

This nonsense will be used to denigrate Plimer until it is refuted scientifically, by someone without government funding.

Andrew Glikson. Clearly you are personally convinced that man's anthropogenic CO2 emissions are causing catastrophic warming and sea level rise. It would be good to see your evidence for such propositions.

It would be good too to see your evidence for assumptions of positive feedback that increase the likely around 1 deg C warming for a doubling of CO2 to 3 deg C or more. The evidence I see suggests that the feedbacks are likely negative, not positive.

And it would be good to hear your comments on two questions. How much will it cost us to impose a Carbon Dioxide Tax? And how much will global mean temperature in 2050 be reduced by us taking that action?

And Andrew. I've noticed in the past when you posted here that you didn't bother responding to any of the questions. You made your poorly presented and largely incoherent pronouncements from the mount. And left.

Losing tract with the middle? Being exposed as alarmist? Gross exhaggerations no longer convincing people to Take Action Now to prevent The End of All Things?

Quickly! Wheel our the "worse than was thought!" grenade.

Global Climate Disruption! Worse than was thought! Herpdy Derp Derp.

Andrew,
There is nothing new here. In a five part debate with Science educator Jo Nova Andrew was woefully un-able to build a compelling case for urgent action. Readers are recommended to have a look at the paucity of Glikson's arguments at Jo Nova's site...
http://joannenova.com.au/2010/04/no-dr-glikson/.

Yep, no matter how bad we thought it was ...its always 'worse than we thought!'

I notice this guy is big on putting as much chaotic and indigestible information into an article as possible in an attempt to force people to accede to his apparently superior understanding of the matter. Its an old ploy and it doesn't work.

He makes many nonsensical statements such as:

"Changes in sea level (SL), consequent on the cumulative outcome of thermal expansion or contraction of water and the melting or freezing of ice sheets and mountain glaciers (in the long term SL is also affected by uplift or sinking of continents and ocean floor), represent a definitive measure of variations in Earth climate."

So how can Sea Level be a DEFINITIVE measure of climate if sea level also affected by continental uplift and sinking? What nonsense!

seems EVERYONE has been told
get it done this year ...or your fun-ding*..stops

its now or never..[the models are wrong]
science pushed by frauds [publish or perish]

ross garnew[
the ecoomist hired by john howard
to bring us a new tax to garnish off income on carbon]

was on the news today[abc news channel]
for arround half an hour

he revealed the new carbon tading oversight body
would look much the same and have the same standing
and powers structures..as the federal reserve..

ie not under federal control
not under parlimentry control
not even under minesterial
nor corperate control

ie all powerfull..
[its scary stuff]

he indicated the tax "will be" indexed
and quite a few other interesting..contention-points
[he is a scary dude...john blowhard at his best]

sadly i didnt bother looking for a transcript..
but it must be worth reading..this guy thinks he is god*

a damm ..e-con-o-mist*

also intersting was the recent big idea
http://www.abc.net.au/tv/bigideas/stories/2011/03/15/3163439.htm

it was very revealing in revealing the structures of how they have been subverted from activism..into in house 'house servant status'

and how the lobby does its omnipotant things
[litle realising they were doing it*..[spin is the new green]
get a new tax..or perrish the paid thinking..[thought]

of course they didnt realise what big ideas ..they were revealing
and i cant find a written transcript to point it out..

simularilly the australian has a piece today
all the hit pieces are comming fat and fast

be afraid
very affraid

lest we forget

It is becoming apparent that GE,
has a unique ability to cozy up to government.. massage regulations and bring dangerous toxins..into our lives---

and I mean seriously dangerous...[mercury]

NYT now tells us about the containment vessels
at the damaged nuclear power plants in Japan are manufactured by GE:

...the type of containment vessel and pressure suppression system used in the failing reactors at Japan’s Fukushima Daiichi plant — and in 23 American reactors at 16 plants — is physically less robust, and it has long been thought to be more susceptible to failure in an emergency than competing designs.


GE is also heavily involved with the new CFL light bulbs
we will all be forced to buy...

and guess who makes windmills
and solar bits and pieces

who is involved in generating scares
as well as income
via lobby?

Read more: WHAT REALLY HAPPENED
The History The Government HOPES You Never Learn!

http://whatreallyhappened.com/#ixzz1GpO8J7lq

http://www.activistpost.com/2011/03/tokyo-streets-and-shops-empty-and-air.html

CNBC's Jim Cramer: Japan not a crisis.
No Chernobyl. Go back to buying stocks!

http://www.cnbc.com/id/42090187

CNBC is owned by General Electric,

http://whatreallyhappened.com/#ixzz1GpPPJjJi
http://whatreallyhappened.com/#ixzz1GpPcncfU

the global-warming issue
is a great ge scam

there is no limits
to how far they will go

these are al'gores mates
running your govt

Fukushima:Mark 1 Nuclear Reactor Design
Caused GE Scientist To Quit In Protest[35 years ago]

after becoming increasingly convinced
that the nuclear reactor design they were reviewing--the Mark 1--
was so flawed
it could lead to a devastating accident.

Questions persisted for decades about the ability of the Mark 1 to handle the immense pressures that would result if the reactor lost cooling power,

and today that design is being put to the ultimate test in Japan.
Five of the six reactors at the Fukushima Daiichi plant, which has been wracked since Friday's earthquake with explosions and radiation leaks,..

*are Mark 1s.

http://whatreallyhappened.com/#ixzz1GpPz7ysK

solar-cells
will last only 25/30 years
wind turbines much less
then what?

What's with you denialists? Are you afraid of the truth about climate change? Putting your head in the sand like the proverbial ostrich? Why don't you look at the vast majority of scientific papers that say climate change is real, it's happening now and unless we reduce the amount of carbon we put into the atmosphere, we will face a very different world that will experience ever more extreme weather events and inundation from rising sea-levels. Bob Carter, Ian Plimer and Jo Nova are a tiny minority of scientists who question anthropogenic climate change. By all means, read them, but read the rest of the literature as well. If you don't understand the literature, stay out of the debate!

popnperish -- we HAVE looked at the (not vast) majority of papers that support AGW. We have noted that they contain lots of 'potentially's and 'might's and 'possible tipping points', like Dr Glikson's paper, but very little in the way of verifiable predictions. We have noted that where they DO make verifiable predictions, those predictions have not been verified. We have noted that the majority are funded by governments which committed themselves to AGW 'action' when they thought it was a good way to separate a scared populace from their money and their rights, and that many, including our own PM, are now learning otherwise. We have noted that the main proponents of AGW vilify their critics and recommend and carry out activities that are unethical, unscientific and often illegal.

Then we have looked at the (large) minority of papers and articles written by people who have no vested interest, and have discovered them to be clear, honest and convincing. You should try it. You could start with the 850(!) papers here: http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html

popnperish - actually climate change is real and none of us are denying it. What we are questioning is whether industrial activity has added to present high temperatures.

Its now known and agreed on all sides that we are in the high part of a natural climate cycle. So how much warmth has been added by industrial activities? In any case, how can you tell the difference between natural climate change and induced change?

Despite billions pouring into the field very few of the papers you refer to actually address that point. Where they do, they use computer models, which say what the operators want them to say.

We are not the ones burying our heads in the sand.

popnperish, hate to pop your bubble but Glickson ain't a climate scientist. He has as much credibility on this as...me.

Just listen to the scientists who study earthquakes.They are very guarded about conclusions drawn.It is very complex and too many unknowns.

Climate is equally complex,if not more so.Why are some of these scientists so sure about outcomes? The figures have been cooked by a corporate agenda for a derivative scam called the ETS.It will condense more power and wealth into the hands of a few and not reduce even the acceleration of CO2 into the atmosphere.

We have wised up to this con and the GFC con.The world's 80,000 ships produce 5 times more pollution that the 850 billion cars and trucks.They use low grade bunker oil which is dirt cheap.No mention is made of limiting trade or cleaning up the shipping industry since the large corporate powers will lose out.Where is the Green movement on this issue? Total hypocracy!

perish the thought [pop]
hear your leader last night[juliar]
singing ...its *now ..or never*

think why
the science [and modeling bling] is fast unraveling

mate i was on your side for a longtime
then i read the science..and saw it was a huge con

its sad you apparently read the same spin
and refuse to see even if it was valid science
evenm if the models wernt fluffed up
even if there wasnt a huge new big tax
even if it clearly wassdnt to trade a new commodity for the money men

the tax and trading will still not cure a single thing
us paying up to 46 billion per year ..,will AT BEST
remove less than...*POINT.0001% .,of the carbon

how can we think that will change a single thing?

we get less value
more guilt..more useless solarcells
[that dont last as long as many marrages]
for what...near nothing...

and all the while the OTHER grenhouse gasses not being taxed
are left to do their worst[many are FAR WORSE than casrbon]

nitrouse oxide from farmers nitrogen is
300 times as bad per particle as carbon..

methane from leaky gas wells and home composting
is 150 times as bad as opne carbon

WE ARE BEING SOLD SPIN
just to get a new commodity
for the money market to get bonus upon
one that will increase in value ..as the govt imposed LIMITS apply

how much your kids will pay for carbon..depends on how greedy these carbon traders shall chose to become..

[govt only sets the minimum price]..
they set the max

and even worse..
we BAILOUT THE BIG USERS...lol

In articles I have written for OLO, I tried to keep scientific language to a minimum, provided links to other material in support of points being made and conclusions reached. Dr Glickson does not achieve this with his latest contribution. That is a pity since it prompts the same old response from the same old deniers spouting the same old rubbish – most of it off-topic. A shame really since OLO is a venue with potential to inform readers in easily understood language and promote intelligent debate.

Dr Glickson tells us “Earths climate is entering uncharted territory”. Not good enough! Nor is it a very convincing comment to come from a climate scientist, people who are primarily responsible for providing us not only with a chart but explaining what it means. Hansen (2011) does a far better job, giving us a clear outline of what can be expected by the end of the present century – in a word, disaster!

Hansen and Sato tell us that, based on what has previously occurred on earth, business as usual will produce 6C warming and around 5m rise in sea level by 2100. And you can say goodbye to the Greenland and West Antarctic Ice Sheets. Both will be on a one way road to melt-down. Oddly, they come to these conclusion without taking into account the feedback effects of methane emissions found by (Shakhova 2010).

She reports that rising sea temperature is already melting clathrate (an ice like substance) on the Arctic seabed off Eastern Siberia and releasing methane - a far more powerful greenhouse gas than CO2. Presently, over 1 million tonnes of methane is entering the atmosphere per annum from this source. That helps explain why polar warming is occurring more rapidly than in the rest of the world and why we should keep an eye on the rising rate at which the Greenland Ice Sheet is melting.

All of this has implications for sea level rise (SLR). Five metres is one helluva rise. That kind of increase spells major flooding of virtually every city and town on our coast. But come on! Could it occur when present SLR is only creeping along at 3.7mm a year? Since there are only 90 years left this century, shouldn’t we be looking at a harmless rise of less than a metre?

Not if the Greenland and West Antarctic Ice Sheets start melting faster, pouring their ice into the oceans. Not if average global temperature rises by 6C and expands ocean waters. By 2020, we are likely to be looking at SLR of about 7.5mm/year and by 2030 it could be 15mm/year - and accelerating!

These outcomes might be avoided, or at least slowed down, if we reduced CO2 and CH4 emissions. And when I say “we” I do not mean Australia alone. I mean the Top Twenty emitting countries, which includes us. Some of the TT emitters have already put a price on carbon and begun reducing their emissions but others have yet to do so and until they do – particularly the giant emitters (China, USA, India, Japan). If they do not act - and soon – my advice is … demand they act and move to higher ground.

agnotsic "These outcomes might be avoided, or at least slowed down, if we reduced CO2

Really? So if we reduced the CO2 output by how much .. by when will it reduce the rise by what amount?

If you can't answer that then you're just an alarmist in most people's opinions. No science, just more alarmist blather, same old, same old, world is ending unless we DO something, anything. (and of course lashing out at disagreers, that's the real issue isn't it, we disagree)

The reality is if we did it all as you wish in Australia, it would change nothing at all .. getting the top 20 countries to reduce CO2 output will not happen, so the sooner you realize that and stop fantasizing the better.

We need effort into adapting not trying to stop the sky falling, it will fall, so accept it and build a better habitat.

The attract to scold people and not deny that you have to adapt is just so much easier than stopping the huge investment in climate science and investing in engineering works to mitigate the effects.

"it prompts the same old response from the same old deniers spouting the same old rubbish" I agree, you need to let go of the same old doom saying hysterical world is ending crap and move on to solutions .. solutions that have a chance, and reducing CO2 in Australia by taxing and compensating, is just redistributing wealth.

China talks a good fight, but is completing 2 coal fired power stations per week .. so how about accepting the reality, stop denying the reality, that adaption is needed.

the "fight" to reduce CO2 before it is too late, is over .. you lost

NOTE...re agnostic quote

""She reports that rising sea temperature is already melting clathrate (an ice like substance) on the Arctic seabed off Eastern Siberia and releasing methane*!*!*"":

get it folks?

methane NOT CARBEN DIOXIDE
we are TAXING CO2
but NOT METHANE..!

" - a far more powerful greenhouse gas than CO2.""..!*!*!

GET IT?

""Presently*, over 1 million tonnes of methane
is entering the atmosphere per annum from this source.""

so reducing co2
AINT GOING TO DO NUTHIN..!

get it?

""That helps explain why polar warming
is occurring more rapidly than in the rest of the world and why we should keep an eye on the rising rate at which the Greenland Ice Sheet is melting""

egsactly

ALSO lets mention the 40,000 gas wells from COAL SEAM GAS
[in auastralia alone]...all leaking METHANE..!

and lest we forget home composting GENERATES METHANE TOO.

yes so too does mining coal
and many other things

BUT THEY ARNT..[wont] be taxed

get it?

taxing co2
AINT GOING TO CHANGE NUTHIN..!

[then there is nitrous oxide from farming
300 times worse that carbon
TWICE AS bad as methane

they regester as lower numbers
BUT their AFFECT ...is MUCH GREATER

get it?

Round and round in circles, for months.

MarcH:
You accuse Andrew Glikson of not being a climate scientist. Well, he is and he isn't. He's a paleogeologist but we need such scientists to tell us what happened in climates of hundreds of thousands of years ago so we can compare. If you dismiss him then you can forget Ian Plimer as well who is a geologist with no peer-reviewed climate science papers under his belt as far as I'm aware, unlike Glikson who has.

Oh dear, RPG,

Your child is bleeding at a rate that would exsanguinate in five minutes. Extensive and expensive first aid *might* slow this adequately, or *merely* reduce the brain damage that results by an unpredictable amount (given that murphy's law applies). You then demand that no first aid be applied if it costs you or the taxpayer generally *anyting* unless conclusive proof of specific rather than general outcomes is immediately forthcoming.

Jolly good. I would for one let you bear this burden.

Unfortunately, first principles indicate that additional heat is necessarily being trapped in the atmosphere/ocean/ice system. once thermal buffers are exhausted, overt temperature rises will accelerate.

This a problem affecting all of us, and correction however partial may well be something you thank us for later.

Agnostic of mittagong:

My suggestion is move to higher ground and *don't* demand action. Capitalise on (hem hem) rising values.

If the denialists complain later, we can explain the concept of "market value" to them all over again.

Rusty

popnperish...If Glickson has PEER reviewed papers in Respected Climate science journals?-list them. He appears to have a lot of opinion pieces spouting climate alarm here and on the ABC but nothing substantive. As credible as you point out as Ian Plimer.

rusties comments only add to the mystery
there is no bleeding corps[no blood]
and the 'cure' is placeabo affect

its by some authority
claiming to be a docter
but in reality only the cleaner..[or accountant]..

wearing a white lab coat
with an off white hat in one hand..
and his hand in your pocket..with the other hand..

its the same sky is falling we heard last time
its the ozonehole...its warming legislate new light bulbs
[not turn off your hotwater system..or not buy a plasma tv that chews up power]

you wouldnt know it..but off peak is not switched off
so your hotwater meter ticks over 24/7..if you only need hotwater at 5 pm..why heat water at 6 pm..and keep it hot for 24 hours

or worse why get solar hot water
that cools the water at night
[at huge subsisdised replacement costs]

see the so called 'cures' are placeabo affect
replacing a light bulb has near no affect[compared to switching on your hot water heater only just before you need hotwater]

we get told by accountants ..we need to bleed
they apply leeches..give placeabo affects

and these placeabo affect [called infastructure]..double/tripple the cost of our power..that gets gifted to the chicken littles screaming the sky is falling..give me a subsidy

we denialists get called lobby for big oil
yet who are you lot lobbying for
big solar and big wind?

follow the money
green is chasing the new green..
$$$$...as in [yanki-dollar/...greedy-green]

Dear MarcH
Peer-reviewed papers on climate change from Andrew Glikson? Let's start with these two:

Glikson, A.Y., 2008. Milestones in the evolution of the atmosphere with reference to climate Change. Australian Journal of Earth Science, 55, 123-157.

Glikson, A.Y., 2009. The science of climate change. In: Climate Law, editor: David Hodgkinson. Lexis-Nexis, in press.

rusty .. more alarmist gobbledegook, it's what I expect from hysterical believer warmists and you beautifully underline the perception to reinforce it, thanks .. no wonder Australians are losing interest in self obsessed, self declared "intelektualls" like yourself who try to be oh-so-clever with their insults to thus fly under the moderator's radar ..

what child is bleeding ? What are you talking about, are you trying to be obscure to hide the fact your are flaming me?

come on mate, say it, don't hide behind leftie rubbish secret talk .. man up and say it out loud if you disagree, fine .. but lose the trivial sliming ok?

I have no problem with people disagreeing, I'm often wrong .. but sliming me this way is just weak and looks suspiciously like passing notes int he classroom ... oooh so clever!

Your comments would be better served suggesting how we are going to cope with rising sea levels. A lot of AU population is at sea level.
In ten years time you will still be denying is ever going to change, while you are drowning.

a597: Your comments would be better served by not resorting to "alarmist" scare mongering. If you want to present a cogent case for adapting to a changing climate, or for mitigating GHG emissions, please stick to the facts. Too many "denialists" resort to the tactics you have just demonstrated, albeit they inhabit the other extreme.

popnperish, I did say RESPECTED climate science journals. So in fact there's nothing. Care to try again?

MarcH,

In so far as you trust what you define as "respectable" science journal, you may wish to consult recent papers in Nature, Nature Geoscience, Science, PNAS, Journal of Geophysical Research, Geophysics Research Letters, EOS, Journal of Climate, Earth and Planetary Science Letters and numerous other perfectly respectable journals. You will find out that what is written in the article "polar ice melt and sea level rise" is consistent with trends indicated in the majority of papers published in these journals.

A comprehensive compilation of up-to-date climate data and trends is presented among other in: Steffen, W., 2009 - Climate Change, 2009: Faster Change and More Serious Risks, Australian Government, Department of Climate Change, 52 pp. Similar reports have been published by the Bureau of Meteorology and CSIRO during the last two years.

And here are some more Andrew Glikson peer-reviewed climate papers for MarcH's interest:

Glikson, A.Y., 2010. The world at 4 degrees Celsius: lessons from Pliocene climates. Journal of Cosmology , vol. 8.
Glikson, A.Y., 2010. Homo sapiens, greenhouse gases and the atmosphere. Journal of Cosmology, vol. 8.
Glikson, A.Y., 2010. Discussion: climate model sensitivity to changes in Miocene paleotopography. Australian Journal of Earth Sciences, 57, 337–339.
Glikson, A.Y., 2010. Archaean impacts, banded iron formations and MIF-S anomalies: A discussion. Icarus, 207, 39–44
Glikson, A.Y., 2009. Discussion of the “Cronus theory”. Journal of Cosmology, 2, 230-234.
Glikson. A.Y., 2009. IThe Science of Climate Change. Climate Law, Chapter 2. LexisNexis Publishing. Editor: David Hodgkinson.
Glikson, A.Y., 2008. Milestones in the evolution of the atmosphere with reference to climate Change. Australian Journal of Earth Science, 55, 123-157.
Glikson, A.Y., 2008. Implications of abrupt atmospheric changes in the recent history of Earth for 21st century climate projections. The Australian Geologist, 149, 16-18.
Glikson, A.Y., 2007. Homo sapiens on thin ice. The Australian Geologist, 142, 25-28.
Glikson, A.Y., 2007. Sea change: implications of the 4th IPCC report for 21st century climate change. The Australian Geologist, 143, 33-35.

A597 You say in ten years we will be drowning? Well what if we are not? Can I claim back every cent of tax and every cent given (Stolen) by dishonest Climate change scientists and politicians?
Simple solution matey. Turn off your electricity and your car. If all the proponents did this the problem will be solved but you want my house and my car. Good luck sunshine I use electricity, drive a car and VOTE! Just wait Juliar!

RPG,

Yes, I'm very clever.

You however have not shown that fourier was wrong. A little more CO2 in a gas system absorbs a little more heat. This a demonstrated fact, a first principle in this matter.

Following that are physical consequences of a long term, stead-state input of CO2, increasing the steady state concentration of such.

So, we have first principles reasons for anticipating extra heat absorption by the atmosphere, and structures in equilibrium with it, all other things being equal.

Corrective mechanisms, of necessity cannot be immediate, or certain to be corrective in the manner of calibrated feedback.

Anytime new revisions of my old physics books contradict me on this, you be sure to let me know.

So, extra heat, and ice known to be melting, since people from the lab down the hall went to measure such ten years ago, and I trust their competance.

When the ice in my drink is still melting, it is still cool. When the ice runs out, the drink heats up rapidly.

Ta ta, do read up, please forgive my sarcastic tone, I think you needed it. Don't let the baby bleed out, don't let your scotch get warm.

Rusty

All these anti-green people with so-called IQ,s tis,tis,tis. I just love this one from OUG......"we denialists get called lobby for big oil
yet who are you lot lobbying for
big solar and big wind?"

follow the money
green is chasing the new green..
$$$$...as in [yanki-dollar/...greedy-green]

OUG....all humans love and hunt the money trail, but that doesn't mean we have to pretend that climate change, whether or not mans failures to see it, or its just our bad luck that the industrial takings of the baby booters of this planet,and mankind just cant fess up to the fact, that the 20th century old codgers are the ones that know they are reasonable for all we are seeing today.

Play school time:) Now what window shall we look through today? I think the round one:)

http://tinyurl.com/4pss5oa

http://tinyurl.com/4ryvd2e

Now OUG, which one of these is wrong? and what affect does the media have on people when they don't want to panic us into thinking all is fine?

Ive always said the planet will change whether humans are here or not, However, I,ll give you a clue.

The answer is all in the time framing.

Leap.

Food for thought:)

See if climate change was to happen rapidly as some scientists and doomsayers have predicted, all those specialized creatures that requires a certain type of habitat or ecosystem to evolve in, none would be here including us. So in conclusion to point one, there is no sure thing as rapid climate change for the upper obvious. So we can conclude (whether man is here or not) how ever this planet behaves,( and remember, Co2 levels have been 100 plus before ) it has to be a gradual one, and again nothing would exist. Now we can surmise that whatever change is happening on this globe, it has to be a slow and gradual one, with the help or not of the human footprint and the serviettes on how we are affecting this planet that is in fact changing whether we like it not.

So now that this is pasted with, there are four effects that are a main threat that we are or not going to experience or will in the next 300 years plus.

continue

Now lets look at this and think about it on a planetary scale. When we have four seasons that we can predict year after year give or take elmino or other (sorry for being lazy) all is basically quiet and peaceful for the aboved specialized lifeforms that need this peaceful times to evolve in there assorted states.
Now down to business. Equation in mathematical linguistics. World sits on tectonic plates= water displacement and pressure to the amount of ice melting = oceans plate goes down = one plate goes up = disasters/tsunamis = volcanic distabilization = 4.6 billion years of the same planetary cycles = past fossils found thousands of meters that was once at the bottom of the ocean = weight of water again, tectonic plates, = an earth that never rests, never stops, and is always changing to the point that we will now get to with being on topic, with the weight of water from the melting poles and the Tons per square inch that it puts on the underwater plates.


LEAP.

serviette....or clean up our act...hint, hint, hint.
"table napkin," 1489, from Fr. serviette "napkin, towel," perhaps from pp. of servir "to serve" (see serve). Exclusively Scottish at first, re-introduced from Fr. 1818. Sorry! severity!..Severity may refer to:

* Severity (video game), an upcoming video game
* a dimension for classifying seriousness for Technical support issues

or a climate model:) which would suggest not:)

This is in all to play with OUG,s mind.

Green code...lol.....Iam going to pay that one. lol...

But still we have a planet that's changing, but in the long time.

truth will come some day OUG and people like all of us, can make it come quicker.

Good luck to all.

LEAP

the leapers quoted link
is a power point presentation
that takes far too long to load

it does ask
How Fast are the ICE Sheets Melting?
well i know they are double thickness at present time
and that they change constantly..getting fatter and thinner

melting and agrigating depending on season
to look at some fools clever anmimation[power point]
is as absurd as the rust cathers ice cube in scotch 'melting'

so lets say as the cube gets hotter[and melts]
the drink gets cooler

now lets look at the earth as the ice cube
and the drink as outerspace

outer space is 40 degrees *under zero
from memory

this means in affect the earth[icecube]..sits in a freezer
any excess heat is soon lost into outerspace

just as i was trying to tell belly

anyhow while trying to get the leapers link up
i scrolled down
to his last post

found a time and enwergy waster
much the same ilk as ol trusty rusty

[heck they may even be each others sockpuppets]

quote

""This is in all to play with OUG,s mind.""

yeah i figured as much

leap

David Evans, Carbon Accounting Modeler, Says It’s a Scam

Scientist who was on the carbon gravy train was once an alarmist,
but is now a skeptic.

He now admits man-made global warming is ‘a scam’.
http://revolutionarypolitics.com/?p=5118
Dr David Evans’ address to the Anti-Carbon-Tax rally,

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eZJoCfgAEuE&feature=player_embedded#at=91

http://dailybail.com/home/preacher-delivers-sermon-on-the-national-debt-the-american-p.html

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2011/03/government-responds-to-nuclear-accident.html

http://vidrebel.wordpress.com/2011/03/26/the-last-days-of-the-dollar-and-the-empire/

here is why they need the hope for a new tax
dont think ''accountants/e-con-o-mists''.. dont know

http://www.activistpost.com/2011/03/ge-zero-us-tax-furor-reignites-calls.html
http://dailybail.com/home/bernie-sanders-the-top-ten-us-corporate-tax-avoiders.html
http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=24008
http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/senate/151765-cbo-says-taxing-drivers-based-on-miles-driven-a-real-option-for-raising-revenues

http://www.cleanupge.org/gemisdeeds.html

http://profilesinevil.blogspot.com/2011/03/monsanto-by-any-other-name-would-be_29.html
http://www.alternet.org/rights/150337/cia_psychologists_notes_reveal_true_purpose_behind_bushs_torture_program?utm_source=feedblitz&utm_medium=FeedBlitzRss&utm_campaign=alternet

http://fucorporatemedia.com/news/8780

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9_I5Z5q8A68&feature=player_embedded