Q&A
The two videos posted showed an actual environment "cuntry" that is being inhudated how much more source can It be?
The second involved oceanographic research from Woods Hole and the person who did the research. Again how much more orginal source can the info be? Perhaps you should have watched them first then cormmented?
I repeat if these two don't convince you something is terribly wrong then what will it take?
Have a good easter
eAnt.

Mea Culpa eAnt

Here was me thinking I would have to defend yet another amateur video proclaiming the impacts of climate change ... and I do feel very bruised by the onslaught of the OLO 'sceptics'.

I am intensely familiar with the plight of the Small Island States (SIS), I also have colleagues at Woods Hole.

The videos are well worth a watch, thanks.

Now, off to get some chocolate

The great global warming scare has been with us now for over twenty years. Is there a poster to this forum who lives near the sea who can point to any noticeable sea level rise in that time?

I grew up in SE Queensland in the 50s and 60s and I can't detect a visible change in that period. I know that's not a scientific observation but, is there solid evidence of anywhere around the globe that is being affected by sea level rises now?

Professor Morner may be a little eccentric but he is well-credentialled.

Hmmmmm, well, you could start with the two links on page eight.

One of the flaws in many of the debates on this subject is that the deniers tend to be obsessed with Global Warming in AGW. They can't see the actual warming ego It is a myth. Then the conspiracy nuts get a run in they suggest it's motivated by some sort of climatic PC.

Some climatologists prefer Global Climate Change because it is both accurate but more descriptive of the problem. The key issues here are the CHANGES in climate(time)and the variety of seeming unrelated consequences. The actual greenhouse cooker world is the end game but in between now and then Climatologists and other scientific disciplines are predicting a range of environmental problems increasing in progressing intensity. Their problem is predicting accurately What When and How.
What will happen .
When time frame.
By what mechanism and by how much.
While all of these are not entirely clear (agreed upon) my reasoning is that the sheer weight of the number of unique as in truncated time frame climate based events something it horribly wrong and is at an increasing rate.
What removes all this from “natural" variance is Time (weather V time and the increasing rate of changes). The evidence from ice cores etc. tell us that while all these events have happened before the wild cards are the truncated time frame and the increasing rate of occurrences.
The only area of non agreement is prediction i.e. not if.
Judging on the opinions of scientists the level of prediction absolutes I wonder if it's a bit like falling 30 meters into a hungry bear pit will I die from the impact, injuries or be eaten! A moot point.

Fester, when I make statements on a topic about which I have no first-hand knowledge, I tend to reference my sources.

>>The Wilkins Ice Shelf might be thousands of years old. It has decreased in size from about 17,000 square kilometres in the early 1990s to about 10,000 square kilometres currently. Calving of icebergs is commonplace, but the disintegration of ice shelves is not. Hence the interest in sudden sea level rise.<<

Would it be too much to ask for you to do the same? That would enable us to compare sources as well as the opinions you have culled from those sources.

So, in return for my quotes from an opinion piece on the commonplace nature of shelf expansion, could you identify the origin of your assertions? The implication of your statements is also i) that the Wilkins Ice Shelf was always larger than it is today, and that ii) the disintegration of this one will cause sea-levels to rise. Some evidence to support both of these would be good, too.

Much obliged, ta.