Naked Science Forum
Life Sciences => The Environment => Topic started by: litespeed on 20/11/2009 19:28:52
-
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,k-6975,00.html
"... the world grew warmer by 0.07 degrees Celsius from 1999 to 2008 and not by the 0.2 degrees Celsius assumed by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. And, say the British experts, when their figure is adjusted for two naturally occurring climate phenomena, El Niño and La Niña, the resulting temperature trend is reduced to 0.0 degrees Celsius -- in other words, a standstill."
"Hamburg Max Planck Institute scientist Jochem Marotzke, on the other hand, says: "I hardly know any colleagues who would deny that it hasn't gotten warmer in recent years."
-
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2Ff%2Ff4%2FInstrumental_Temperature_Record.png&hash=9e898a7409a212c4b3224204665df72e)
This image shows the instrumental record of global average temperatures as compiled by NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies. It seems obvious there's a warming trend, but wait! lets look closer!
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg22.imageshack.us%2Fimg22%2F30%2Fenlarged.png&hash=89758520ffd9c4b3960bf685c4a823c3)
Let's ignore the long-term trend and choose to draw a gentle sloping line from 1999 to 2008. That way it doesn't make it look as bad as it is! Then we can set this whole global warming business to the back of our minds and never worry about it again.
This way of interpreting data is just plain dishonest.
-
madi:
Climate models did not predict this. Accordingly, the models are flawed. I am shocked, SHOCKED to find climate models flawed. Perhaps some of us got distracted by Melodius Shakspearean Actors and forlorn Polar Bears.
-
You're shocked that the climate model doesn't predict cooling? You're right, it predicts warming. A long-term warming trend. Climate models can accurately predict long term trends, but there will always be short-term fluctuations.
Anyway, let's say for the sake of argument climate models are completely unreliable and we should throw them all out. How does this change anything? You can see from the instrumental data that although there are large drops in temperature over short term periods, there is an obvious overall warming trend.
I guess you can't see this for all the sand.
-
Global warming has just gone in the wind now.They are just talking things about it and would never happen.
-
Human activities have led to large increases in heat-trapping gases over the past century. The global warming of the past 50 years is due primarily to this human-induced increase. Global average temperature and sea level have increased, and precipitation patterns have changed. Human “fingerprints” also have been identified in many other aspects of the climate system, including changes in ocean heat content, precipitation, atmospheric moisture, plant and animal health and location, and Arctic sea ice.
-
Global warming has just gone in the wind now.They are just talking things about it and would never happen.
That post made little to no sense, but if it would never happen then how do you explain the fact that it is happening already?
-
aiyana - RE fingerprints. These 'climatologists' might be giving up DNA as well as fingerprints in the near future. From Hacked email; the director of Britain’s leading Climate Research Unit, Phil Jones, wrote:
"I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline. Mike’s series got the annual land and marine values while the other two got April-Sept for NH land N of 20N. The latter two are real for 1999, while the estimate for 1999 for NH combined is +0.44C wrt 61-90. The Global estimate for 1999 with data through Oct is +0.35C cf. 0.57 for 1998."
He also advised:
Mike: "Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4?
Keith will do likewise. He’s not in at the moment – minor family crisis.
Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same? I don’t have his new email address.
We will be getting Caspar to do likewise.
I see that CA claim they discovered the 1945 problem in the Nature paper!!
Cheers
Phil
Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit
ANDREW BOLT POINTS OUT, IN HIS OWN BLOG:
"Destroying government data subject to an FOI request is a criminal offence. Is this data being deleted the stuff CA asked from Jones in repeated FOI requests? If true, Jones had better get himself a lawyer very fast, but I doubt very much he would have done anything remotely illegal."
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/hadley_hacked/
-
-
Madi - I am watching your Beavis and Butthead video and will comment as I go along from time to time. However, I wish you had simply listed the URL I now provide below. That you post Beavis and Butthead videos to make your point is, well, dissapointing
Kevin E. Trenberth article An imperative for climate change planning: tracking Earth’s global energy. http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:ufop60Hv4K8J:www.wired.com/images_blogs/threatlevel/2009/11/energydiagnostics09final.pdf+An+Imperative+for+climate+change+planning:+tracking+Earth%27s+global+energy&cd=3&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=opera
The man seems in an absolute panic of confusion and bewilderment. No wonder his email is equally, if not more hysterical.
-
madi - Besides, Jones resigned his position at CRU instead of demanding an open hearing to defend himself.
FROM: Tom Wigley "...Mopping up any awkward evidence about the IPCC’s latest report before Climate Audit gets hold of it?"
From: Phil Jones
To: “Michael E. Mann”
Subject: IPCC & FOI
Date: Thu May 29 11:04:11 2008
Mike,
Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4?
Keith will do likewise. He’s not in at the moment – minor family crisis. Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same? I don’t have his new email address. We will be getting Caspar to do likewise. I see that CA claim they discovered the 1945 problem in the Nature paper!!
Phil
Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit
-
madi - I understand the email includes a bit of 'tongue-in-cheek' self deprication at the Denver weather. Never-the-less, none of it matters anyway since nothing at all is going to be done not matter what. But Take Comfort, Bucky! As I always say. Warm is good [British Pinot Noire], and cold is bad [The Plague of Black Death and Burning Witches!]
DENVER: "... we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t. The CERES data ... shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate.***"
"Well I have my own article on where the heck is global warming? [see URL in earlier post] We are asking that here in Boulder where we have broken records the past two days for the coldest days on record.
We had 4 inches of snow. The high the last 2 days was below 30F and the normal is 69F, and it smashed the previous records for these days by 10F. The low was about 18F and also a record low, well below the previous record low."
-
Isn't this thread a bit like saying that, since yesterday's weather forecast wasn't right, we should give up on meteorology?
We can explain roughly a hundred years of fairly consistent warming with some noise on it. The last couple of years are just more noise.
-
Climate models can accurately predict long term trends
If the data we enter in is not accurate and is also incomplete how can we accuratly predict long term trends.
-
Bored chemist - You wrote: "...We can explain roughly a hundred years of fairly consistent warming with some noise on it. The last couple of years are just more noise."
You apparently did not read "An imperative for climate change planning: tracking Earth’s global energy: Trenberth" Which has been the subject of recent posts and which I conspicuously referrenced above.
"It is not a sufficient explanation to say that a cool year
is due to natural variability. Similarly, common
arguments of skeptics that the late 20th century warming
is a recovery from the Little Ice Age or has other
natural origins are inadequate as they do not provide the
physical mechanisms involved. There must be a
physical explanation, whether natural or anthropogenic.
If surface warming occurs while the deep ocean
becomes cooler, then we should be able to see the
evidence. It may be that there is insufficient data to
prove one way or the other, as is often the case in the
deep past."
-
This
"It is not a sufficient explanation to say that a cool year is due to natural variability"
seems to be an assertion made without any supporting evidence.
It plainly depends on your point of view.
I, because I know that the climate (and weather) are not simple systems and are subject to (at least) small scale chaotic behaviour, think that it is a perfectly sufficient explanation.
It's also the reason that the weather forecasts screw up sometimes.
Ideally, perhaps we might like to explain every last twitch of the curve, but that is probably an inpossible goal.
If we persue that goal at the cost of failing to act on the currently available evidence we risk such grave consequences that it would be abject folly.
If, on the other hand, we accept that there are some things we do know- such as the fact that CO2 absorbs IR radiation, and we make deductions from those facts and test them and find them to be broadly true then perhaps we should have faith in those models. Or we can always wait for more data- so long as we live far enough above sea level.
-
"It is not a sufficient explanation to say that a cool year is due to natural variability"
I agree Scientifically it is definitely not enough.
This is a science forum where beliefs don't quite cut it as evidence. Scientific method cant be tossed out the window when it suits.
A hypothesis can only be disproved it can not be proved and therefore as part of the scientific method scientists outside IPCC need to be given access to the models used, so scientists other than those working on behalf of the IPCC can attempt to replicate their findings. Unfortunately for the world and the scientific method the IPCC will not release details of all the Models they are using and therefore no one other than the Ipcc can test there hypothesis.
Their is a word that covers that type of science its called Pseudoscience. And the worst thing is we could actually be destroying the earth but the case for it is being ran by a bunch of people who dont dserve to be called scientists.
-
Hi bored - You wrote: "If we persue that goal at the cost of failing to act on the currently available evidence we risk such grave consequences that it would be abject folly."
1) Read my lips: 'NOTHING IS GOING TO BE DONE'. Make plans accordingly.
2) Even if it does get warmer that is better then getting colder.
3) I read this Denver guy's paper and I am not encouraged by the 'talent' working the subject area. He is a mediocre writer and seems to have a mediocre and unimaginitive mind as well.
Its like he's been doing the same Chinese Restaurant for decades with Column A and ColumnB. Suddenly there's a Column C and he gets the vapors. The paper simply drips with hand wringing after hand wringing.
-
In answer to the question why has global warming stopped, the answer is that it depends on what data you look at and how you interpret the data.
Much of the (so called) sceptical analysis of climate related data has foundations of sand, which is why many climate scientists ignore it or otherwise refuse to engage with it.
With respect to the CRU emails, the FOI Act requests were refused because CRU did not “own” the data. With hindsight some of the emails were perhaps naïve, but they were written months or years in advance of the FOI requests – and to turn it around, how many people would be happy for every email they have written to be bandied about the web? I currently work in local government and frequently deal with FOI requests. I suspect you would be surprised as to how limited such requests actually are.
It could be said that it is quite arrogant of “scientists” to only supply the data to reputable work groups etc and not to publish the data more generally, but recent years are littered with headline grabbing misinterpretations in relation to Anthropogenic climate change.
To make a factual correction Jones has not resigned – merely stood down pending the investigation – he maintains that there has been no wrong doing or deceit although of course the blogosphere says different, so it must be true…
With respect to the word “trick”, could I suggest that you do a word search for it in the scientific literature? If you do, you will probably realise that it was not used in the context of “deceit”, rather it was used in contest of “clever or ingenious device or expedient” .
It is of course very easy to knock climate modeling – it is a tremendously complex system to try and model and weightings applied to individual mechanisms within the model can always be argued over. For example the effects of aerosols and particularly soot and sulphate are known, but not completely understood.
I think a good analaogy to the situation over the “science” of climate change is to compare it to Darwinian evolution. In general, evolution by natural selection is accepted as the mechanism by which life as we now know it has arisen. However there remains considerable debate about the details with the likes of Steven Jay Gould disagreeing with Richard Dawkins as to some of the specifics...
Ultimately I find it endlessly amusing that there are many bloggers and self appointed experts (often with no scientific background) who know better than the scientists. Even the American Association of Petroleum Geologists (an organization you may expect to be skeptical about climate change) accept to some extent that global warming can be (to an unknown extent) be attributed to mankind. http://dpa.aapg.org/gac/statements/climatechange.cfm (http://dpa.aapg.org/gac/statements/climatechange.cfm)
-
It could be said that it is quite arrogant of “scientists” to only supply the data to reputable work groups etc and not to publish the data more generally, but recent years are littered with headline grabbing misinterpretations in relation to Anthropogenic climate change
It not arrogant ,its stupid and unscientific because unless they allow access and proper independent research into their data and models used they are no better than pseudo scientists.
You say reputable work groups, this unfortunately does not include anyone who wishes to disprove their findings, as they do not consider anyone who can described as a skeptic as reputable which is basically crazy. Scientific method is all about trying to disproving someones findings, without it the theory of relativity would not be accepted by the majority of the scientists.
If they want credibility they must allow the skeptics a chance to disprove their findings.
That is the only way and is what is actually scientifically required for it to be anything other than pseudoscience.
-
maz - You wrote: "...I find it endlessly amusing that there are many bloggers and self appointed experts (often with no scientific background) who know better than the scientists."
Perhaps the Hockey Stick Gang are not actually scientists at all. I am not a scientist but have studied the last 2,500 years of climate variability three ways to Sunday, and the Hockey Stick looks more like a witches crooked cane. My conclusion is The Hockey Stick Gang is either an ignorant rabble, or deliberated racketeers.
PS: If you want MY credentials here they are. Twenty five years as a Congressional Investigator with the USGAO. Yeah. For instance EYE was a junior member of the multimillion dollar study in the 1970's on metrification. You are forgiven if you do not thank me the government did not replace 40,000 miles of Interstate signs with 'Exit .6 Kilometers'.
-
Personally, I do not have the time, nor the knowledge/ intellect to assimilate literally thousands of studies and papers on disparate subjects to reach my own conclusion about climate change. I do not think that any one individual actually can do so, which leads to the often critisized consensus science typified by the IPCC. However as I am very interested in the science I have read all of the AR4 report as I regard it as the most reputable summary of the state of the art. I appreciate that there are a few elements that have been seriously disputed, but overall I found it quite compelling and well argued. I think that everyone who has a serious interest in the debate needs to be familiar with this document.
As a consequence I think it is misleading to suggest that the climate change "establishment" suppresses dissent and does not disseminate data as the McIntyre/ McKitrick analysis (and peer reviewed publication of the analysis) of Mann et al’s Hockey Stick paper demonstrates. That a subsequent re-evaluation by a third research group (Wahl et al.) suggests that the proxy data does indeed fit the “hockey stick” demonstrates an integrity of process widely ignored by the blogosphere (exemplified by popular sites like “Watts Up With That” and “Climate Audit”).
Personally, I dislike the Hockey Stick – as I think it is an oversimplified concept to try and sell climate science to the public and consequently easy to critisize – and I agree that the graph looks more like a curly hazel stick than a hockey stick. Furthermore, it does not address issues such as the medieval warm period etc. but smearing or denigrating the authors (without evidence of incompetence) is clearly not a scientifically credible argument.
Much of the contrarian analysis of the data seems to rely on careful choice of the statistical parameters and other “tricks”, thus lack the rigour required for publication in peer reviewed journals. This results in a chicken and egg situation, as the blogosphere cries foul (or is that fowl?) because the journals won’t accept papers for publishing and so the researchers with expertise in the relevant field do not dispute or critisize the unpublishable work leading to accusations of climate science being a closed shop… The obvious way to prevent this is not to release the data to all and sundry, which gets us to the position we are in today. I think another reason to be careful with data is illustrated by the cockup or conspiracy that revolved around the incorrect data about arctic ice extent/ thickness being published on the cryosphere website a couple of years back
In my opinion the biggest problem with the debate about AGW is that the science is nearly always lost amongst the spin and hype that is applied by the media before it reaches the public. The other issue is that in many respects AGW is a political question, not a purely scientific one since any decisions taken to try and address the problem will be made by our elected representatives rather than by scientists. It is not helpful that the media repeatedly demonstrate ignorance of scientific method and the frequent quoting out of context that occurs. Ben Goldacre’s website “bad science” has some interesting comments about the ability of university press departments to prejudice the media’s reporting of research…
-
I am not a scientist but... My conclusion is....
Then, whatever your conclusion is it is no more valid than any other non-scientist. I think you would do well to remember that!
These 'guys' you are talking about so dismissively probably have more PhD's between them than you've had hot dinners, so excuse me if I have a tenancy to trust their judgement more than yours.
As for you boosting that you 'served' Uncle Sam for years, this has what relevance? Also do you think that 90% of the population cares what units the US marks off it's highways in?
-
Also do you think that 90% of the population cares what units the US marks off it's highways in?
Not to mention all the non-american people on here, who really couldn't care less.
-
Mazurka - You wrote: "Personally, I do not have the time, nor the knowledge/ intellect to assimilate literally thousands of studies and papers on disparate subjects to reach my own conclusion about climate change. I do not think that any one individual actually can do so..."
You sell yourself short. As a lifelong program analyst/investigator, I have observed that a diligent individual will have little difficulty not only understanding any given topic area, but often becomes more acquaited with the larger picture then those he interviews.
For instance, I can interview a dozen experts and read everything they provide in just a couple of weeks. Did it for decades. Most of those interviewed are generally very narrow in their expertise. In fact, I often found experts who would more or less interview me to find out what else was going on. The internet has reduced the time needed to do the same by about half.
-
pepper: You seem intimidated by people with high titles in positions of power. I delt with such people for decades, and they have no special super powers. They are generally easy to interview if you have done preliminary work and show up with a decently informed list of queries. My interviews seldom lasted more then four hours each. Further, they are almost always delighted to provide their publications and will answer follow up questions with flattered delight and at length.
The results of my 'research' amounted to something that might be called a 'meta' study today. This is not rocket science.
-
BenV - You wrote: " [Peper wrote: "Also do you think that 90% of the population cares what units the US marks off it's highways in?"Not to mention all the non-american people on here, who really couldn't care less.
Exactly what our investigation showed. Not changing to the metric system was a matter of supernatural indifference to almost the entire population. This would have changed dramatically had we suggested all the signs either be given silly conversions, or moved and reinstalled to match metric.
And don't get me started on paint cans, cement blocks, or bricks. These were areas of my personal investigative responsibility. Leave it at this: ALL of us were educated in science classes to believe the inherent superiority of metric. ALL of us expected to find metrification would be a good suggestion. However, after two weeks of preliminary study, ALL of us changed our minds.
Ordinary people can easily explore these things and are often more objective in observation then the specialist who have years, or even decades, of narrow experience, or even invested interests.
-
Madi - I am watching your Beavis and Butthead video and will comment as I go along from time to time. However, I wish you had simply listed the URL I now provide below. That you post Beavis and Butthead videos to make your point is, well, dissapointing
I'm getting Deja vu, haven't we had this discussion before?
I'd like to quote Bored Chemist -
The real problem is that he thinks it matters.
I don't care if the video was fronted by an naturalist, a "Shakspearean Actor" or a gorrilla in a tutu.
The facts remain facts.
-
I must have missed something.
How is the US choice of units for measuring roads related to the change in global temperatures?
Something like 90% of the world's population will never see a road sign, or anything else, in the USA.
-
pepper: You seem intimidated by people with high titles in positions of power. I delt with such people for decades, and they have no special super powers.
Mmmm, don't know where you got the idea that I'm intimidated by... how did you put it? ... people with high titles.
I can only infer that you are talking about the scientist at the IPCC, etc. I'm not intimidated by them, I do however have respect for their better understanding of the climate than myself.
As for asking them questions, I'd be more than happy to have the opportunity!
The results of my 'research' amounted to something that might be called a 'meta' study today. This is not rocket science.
I'm glad to see you had the sense to put your 'research' in inverted commas.
-
BTW, for the benefit of those who say the data is not available I recommend that you look at, for example, the second post in this thread.
-
BTW, for the benefit of those who say the data is not available I recommend that you look at, for example, the second post in this thread.
Its not as simple as plotting a temperature rise on a graph an saying thats due to human influence.
-
BTW, for the benefit of those who say the data is not available I recommend that you look at, for example, the second post in this thread.
Its not as simple as plotting a temperature rise on a graph an saying thats due to human influence.
It looks more interesting when you overlay global population onto the same graph.
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fplus.maths.org%2Fissue17%2Fnews%2Fpopn%2Foldpop.gif&hash=f3a54b6a449dd8dce2cfaddd5f0fa729)
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2Ff%2Ff4%2FInstrumental_Temperature_Record.png&hash=9e898a7409a212c4b3224204665df72e)
-
Here is another graph for good measure.
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.iricen.gov.in%2Fdocuments%2Fshared%2FN1772135%2FGlobal_Carbon_Emission_by_Type_to_Y2004.png&hash=290d2ffbbc9f1aecf6c6ad343e7e1a04)
-
nixie - Your temperatures and population graphs don't match. Specifically, your population graph shows not one blip for the catastrophic population declines in Eurasia during the Black Death. The estimate is population declined from as little as 25% to as much as 50%. In addition, it does not show a blip when Native Americans were reduced by Eurpean diseases to as high as 90 percent, by some calculations.
Please provide sources for a stable population during the pre-industrial age.
-
nixie
Further, your other chart shows significant changes since 1850. Well DUH. The Little Ice Age ended at about that time. The previous couple of centuries were cold as hell. The Thames and Delaware rivers routinely froze over. Subsequent warming was a welcome change.
This stuff is really not all that difficult. I will ask you one question. Was Britain as war or warmer in Roman times then it is now? This is a very very easy question.....
-
litespeed, just before I go find you a ladder to climb down from your high horse, let me point out to you that my posts were to add to the comment made by ukmicky.
-
nixietube - You wrote: "... just before I go find you a ladder to climb down from your high horse, let me point out to you that my posts were to add to the comment made by ukmicky."
What's your point? Your population graph shows nothing but continued population increase, which seems ill informed. Further, your 1800 - 2005(?) graph is less then useless since it does not include ANY of the previous warming or cooling events.
More importantly, you have ignored my question temperatures in Roman Era Britain. And I will give you a leg up. Whatever the correct answer, it is not a local phenomena. As for high horses? Somebody needs to lead from the front.....
-
What's your point? Your population graph shows nothing but continued population increase, which seems ill informed.
ukmicky said: "Its not as simple as plotting a temperature rise on a graph and saying thats due to human influence. "
Human influence being the key here, the population growth post industrialisation is STAGGERING.
Further, your 1800 - 2005(?) graph is less then useless since it does not include ANY of the previous warming or cooling events.
More importantly, you have ignored my question temperatures in Roman Era Britain. And I will give you a leg up. Whatever the correct answer, it is not a local phenomena. As for high horses? Somebody needs to lead from the front.....
You appear to have lost all track of this thread. The temperature graph IS NOT MINE. Take a look back to post #2 in this thread.
So, my point is simple. To remind people of the SCALES involved. 7 billion people.. are you suggesting we have NO EFFECT on this planet? Billions of Joules of energy released from stored deposits .. are you suggesting that has NO EFFECT?
I have no desire to continue this with you, and the fact is I was not even seeking your input, or input from anyone else. My questions in this post are rhetorical, they require no answer from you.
-
nixie - I like your moxie, and resign my position since I did not adequately follow the thread. And I don't blame you if you decline to respond further. However, the number of humans on the planet is entirely irrelevant to the discussion as would be the number of dynosaurs on the planet during previous epochs. Once upon a time CO2 eating Stormatalites dominated the entire planet. They were responsible for delivering oxygen in sufficient quantities for subsequent animal populations.
My basic proposition is humans believe they are way much more important then they really are. This has always been the case and I doubt it will ever change. Its all about ME ME ME. When the time comes, Mother Nature Will Eat Us All Alive. And it will have NOTHING to do with coal fired power plants. Are you entirely unaware ALL fossil fuels were generated from the earths very own generously productive climate?
In addition Ice Ages are recurrent, for various reasons, and are WAY worse for life on earth then warmer epochs. In fact, we are now in a climate optimum. Leave it to egocentric human kind to find this is a bad thing. Jeeze.
-
"Are you entirely unaware ALL fossil fuels were generated from the earths very own generously productive climate?"
I'm aware of that, and of the time scale during which they were made. I'm, also aware of the time sscle over which we are burning them.
"In fact, we are now in a climate optimum. "
Would you like to explain the benfits of this warming to the people of, for example, Tuvalu or Bangladesh?
-
nixie
Further, your other chart shows significant changes since 1850. Well DUH. The Little Ice Age ended at about that time. The previous couple of centuries were cold as hell. The Thames and Delaware rivers routinely froze over. Subsequent warming was a welcome change.
This stuff is really not all that difficult. I will ask you one question. Was Britain as war or warmer in Roman times then it is now? This is a very very easy question.....
I hear it was the perfect time to enjoy a fine bottle of wine, made from home grown grapes.:)
-
"In fact, we are now in a climate optimum. "
Would you like to explain the benfits of this warming to the people of, for example, Tuvalu or Bangladesh?
You cant blame people for living in these places as you live where you are born but Low lying land is subject to problems with flooding.
Bangladesh is a giant natural flood plain which has suffered from adverse weather and flooding all through its history.
Bangladesh gets what you would expect it to get and would still get it even if humans did not inhabit the earth.
-
ukmicky & bored "Would you like to explain the benfits of this warming to the people of, for example, Tuvalu or Bangladesh?" You fail to mention The Maldives. You know, the scuba guy in the Copenhagen fish tank.
I have decide to try my best to be civil. Accordingly, instead of chastizing you for not researching sea levels, I will simply provide you with the URL on this matter:
"By the end of this century, sea level may have risen by between 30cm and 50cm according to the various IPCC scenarios. Our records suggest a maximum of 20cm. Neither of those levels would pose any real problem — simply a return to the situation in the 17th and the 19th to early 20th centuries, respectively." http://www.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/5595813/why-the-maldives-arent-sinking.thtml
Really, it is not that difficult to google: "Sea Level History" and come up with all sorts of interesting and often contradictory data. With all due respect, what are your findings on sea level changes, and from what sources have you found them?
uk: I can't make a drinkable wine. However, I have made dark beer that is better then Guiness but not as good as Siera Nevada Stout. It is just a matter of economics really. Wine is an art, but beer is a craft. If you are interested I will try to resurect my Stout Formula. At this very moment I am fermenting molasses beer at a ratio of one part molasses and five parts water. To this I have simply added half a packet of bread yeast.
It has no malt, barley or hops. Accordingly, I anticipate something rather simple. Perhaps paletable. Distill the stuff and you get Rum! Boutique distilleries have become a major hobby in the US. I don't know if they are legal, but they do not sell their product.
Incidentally, having lived in the Southern Appalachian Mountains I have had access to a variety of Moon Shine. Most of it is to gag you with a spoon. However, I had access to one gallon of yellow brew that I would place on the same saloon shelf as Single Malt Scotch and Bourbon. $32 a gallon. What a bargain. Hard to even believe. Further, impossible to re-acquire.
Phantom mists in the smoky mountains, never to be seen again. More's the pitty!