Realo,

Ha Ha Ha Ha!

There is no evidence for rising sea levels. Sea swells have increased due to Thermodynamic inducements to climate change and this alone can cause TEMPORARY lowland flooding and island evax.

As for temperature reises. Forget it. A dubious .2 degC global rise doth not a 10 deg rise make over the next 10, 50 or 100 years.

You have to learn to think for yourself.

It can be enlightening!

My god! Rationality again!

Thanks Realo for injecting another dose into this discussion.

There are really three separate issues.

There are people like KAEP, George Bush and, apparently until recently, John Howard, who thought that global warming and rising sea levels were all a beat-up, or who simply have no concept of what science is about.

Then there are the people presenting evidence that we need to stop injecting CO2 into the atmosphere if we are to avoid an ultimate crisis. This is the consensus position of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

Finally, and perhaps more urgently, is the argument that people like Bjørn Lomborg have presented: that whether anthropogenic causes are responsible or not, we need to deal with the effects of increasing climate temperature and higher sea levels.

I happen to accept both the second and third of these, but argument over the second is no reason to ignore what is necessary to deal with the third.

Four years ago the low-lying nation of Tuvalu sought agreement for its population to progressively immigrate to Australia and New Zealand. The Australian Immigration Minister Phillip Ruddock, deeply worried that Australia's 20 million inhabitants would be swamped and overrun by Tuvalu's 12,000 people, declined. http://www.tuvaluislands.com/news/archived/2002/2002-09-10.htm

After all, WE decide who comes here, AND THE CONDITIONS ON WHICH THEY COME.

Risk of drowning in rising seas is not classed as being victim of state persecution. It is no justification for asylum.

Perhaps someone should start an appeal to acquire 12,000 swimmers' snorkels.

KAEP, Do you not see the circular logic in your argument? You state that “There is NO evidence of sea level rises, otherwise low lying island groups would already have sunk.”
Then when presented with people’s experience of inundation on low lying Pacific islands and that two Kiribati islands, Tebua Tarawa and Abanuea, disappeared underwater in 1999, you switched logic systems to claim that, “Sea swells have increased due to Thermodynamic inducements to climate change this alone can cause TEMPORARY lowland flooding and island evax.”

It seems to me that you are claiming that average global sea level isn’t rising because this would result in submerged islands. But if islands are being submerged it’s not because of sea level rise.

I am more convinced about global average sea level rise by the findings from monitoring stations around the world. And by people's lived experience of inundation.

I am similarly more convinced by the actually measurement of temperature rise then your claim of a 0.2 degree rise. The NOAA data shows that the five year average to 2005 is in the range of 0.6 degrees warmer then the 20 year average to 1900, & in the range of 0.5 degrees warmer than the 100 year average to 1980. The NOAA data is supported by UK assessments. http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=368

Mike M, In my opinion your contributions have been valuable. Facts, evidence and source checking are vital in this debate. I suppose you get less of a response from the likes of me because of the outrageous carry-on that I instead chose to attend to. Though I think that you have made an important contribution in exposing that carry-on for what it is.

MikeM:This is the consensus-position of the-Intergovernmental-Panel-on-Climate-Change.

Would that be the same IPCC panel that has fallen off-the-twig, passed-away, expired?

The IPCC's 'consensual' problem is that they do not know nearly enough about the Biosphere to make their ambitious-sea-level, CO2 and global-warming-predictions.
A full understanding of the Biosphere is likely to be out of human reach for many centuries to come. It is certanly beyond the IPCC. There are many ASSUMPTIONS they make in their predictions. So to be impartial, they must wait the 10 years I have specified to see if a divergence appears between Greenhouse warming and Human-Wastewater-Induced-Regionally-Ectopic-Thermodynamic-Imbalances(HWIRETI) as the cause of Climate-Change.

The signs are good from recent US hurricane seasons, accelerating coastal development and increasing wastewater expulsion efficiencies that this divergence will be sufficiently discernable in the climate-change-laboratory-of-the-Caribbean/GOM to exclude global greenhouse-warming, a much slower developing and non-regional theory.
What we will find over the next 10 years is that specific population/agriculture/mining growth regions will attract more than a fair share of climate changes and at an accelerated-rate that defies GW-theory.
These regions include circumpolar REGIONS. As circumpolar regions are thermally connected to all regions across the globe they integrate climatic happenings across the planet. This does not in any way make them a global indicator as they too are just other REGIONs of the planet like the Caribbean or Oceania or any other region.

Now GWOBFFAEs want to whinge that enough time has passed and that nations need to reduce greenhouse emissions now to stop a warming crisis. But they must be able to put their hand on their heart and say YES WE HAVE LEARNED ALL THERE IS TO KNOW ABOUT EARTH'S BIOSPHERE.

Everyone knows they cannot do this and so a 10-year-wait-see is their onus.

And Mike, look at a sea-height-map for Oceania and see how +/-30cm sea-height(SHA) variations make any real measure of rising sea-levels-at-island-chains meaningless. http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/phod/dataphod1/work/HHP/NEW/2006084spsha.png
The variability in SHAs is caused by REGIONAL-heating due to the impact of wastewaters. It has little to do with greenhouse-warming. For starters pollutants cause increased sea-surface-heating and sea-swell. Other wastewater-based-mechansms do too.

KAEP shares another of his delusions with us: "Would that be the same IPCC panel that has fallen off-the-twig, passed-away, expired?"

Which IPCC panel might that be, KAEP?

The only one I am aware of has working groups currently preparing its Fourth Assessment Report, with meetings scheduled so far through to May 2007, http://www.ipcc.ch/calendar.htm

Realo,

Thanks.

MikeM isnt it about time you did some proper homework and analysis, before going off half cocked as you usually do. Here you are having a go about Tuvalu.

"Four years ago the low-lying nation of Tuvalu sought agreement for its population to progressively immigrate to Australia and New Zealand. The Australian Immigration Minister Phillip Ruddock, deeply worried that Australia's 20 million inhabitants would be swamped and overrun by Tuvalu's 12,000 people, declined. http://www.tuvaluislands.com/news/archived/2002/2002-09-10.htm

After all, WE decide who comes here, AND THE CONDITIONS ON WHICH THEY COME.

Risk of drowning in rising seas is not classed as being victim of state persecution. It is no justification for asylum."

The facts from the National Tidal Centre as are as under.

Read the Executive Summary and look at Figure 7 on Page 16
http://www.bom.gov.au/fwo/IDO60102/IDO60102.2005_2.pdf

The only thing about Tuvalu is that it isnt being swamped by rising tides but is more likely going to subside because of the way they have treated it. AGW has nothing to do with it.

Now, what was that about beat ups