Ireland after sea level rise.

session savage · 30-04-2008 12:10pm #1

Hi all.

I had a quick look around but I couldn't find anything.
Is there anywhere on the net where I can view a map of Ireland as it would be if the sea levels rose by 20ft as Mr Gore was saying?

Thanks in advance.

session savage · 30-04-2008 2:06pm

ok I found something....... I'm safe anyway.

http://images.google.ie/imgres?imgurl=http://www.benfieldhrc.org/climate_change/sea_level_rise/UK84m.rise.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.benfieldhrc.org/climate_change/sea_level_rise/sea_level_rise.htm&h=3506&w=2481&sz=727&hl=en&start=2&sig2=USVbjSqL1r_xsdnutxpWuA&um=1&tbnid=7VVKI51O413YZM:&tbnh=150&tbnw=106&ei=6loYSP6mMZfk0AT06sTuCg&prev=/images?q=sea+level+rise+britain&um=1&hl=en&sa=G

thebigshot · 30-04-2008 5:17pm

I'll give you a brief response.

Ireland is doomed, you will be all under 100 metres of water.

Pay a tax of €1000 per person to the mafia (government) and they will sort it all out and you can play with your toys.

Sam Kade · 05-05-2008 12:05am

session savage wrote: »

Hi all.

I had a quick look around but I couldn't find anything.
Is there anywhere on the net where I can view a map of Ireland as it would be if the sea levels rose by 20ft as Mr Gore was saying?

Thanks in advance.

Mr Gore is an idiot. Do you honestly believe the rubbish he talks? What I would like to know was when did he get his degree to become a climate scientist.

troutbum · 08-05-2008 1:28pm

Sam Kade wrote: »

Mr Gore is an idiot. Do you honestly believe the rubbish he talks? What I would like to know was when did he get his degree to become a climate scientist.

You may well believe Mr Gore to be an idiot but does that also extend to the thousands of climate scientists on whose work Al Gore bases his views? If you believe that there will be no rise in sea levels in Ireland and that AGW is not real perhaps you can quote a peer-reviewed scientific source to substantiate your view?

ambro25 · 08-05-2008 1:36pm

You may well believe Mr Gore to be an idiot but does that also extend to the thousands of climate scientists on whose work Al Gore bases his views? If you believe that there will be no rise in sea levels in Ireland and that AGW is not real perhaps you can quote a peer-reviewed scientific source to substantiate your view?

That's one argument. Not great TBH.

Here's mine.

Danuogma · 08-05-2008 6:35pm

troutbum wrote: »

You may well believe Mr Gore to be an idiot but does that also extend to the thousands of climate scientists on whose work Al Gore bases his views? If you believe that there will be no rise in sea levels in Ireland and that AGW is not real perhaps you can quote a peer-reviewed scientific source to substantiate your view?

Scientists who don't go along with global warming/climate change orthodoxy see their funds disappear into thin air. Pseudo-scientists who want to hold on to their jobs stick with the politically correct dogma.

sarahirl · 08-05-2008 7:13pm

Danuogma wrote: »

Scientists who don't go along with global warming/climate change orthodoxy see their funds disappear into thin air. Pseudo-scientists who want to hold on to their jobs stick with the politically correct dogma.

so your argument is that all scientists are money hungry and whoring out their falsified theories just so al gore will have a job. any basis to your argument, like a report, journal entry...

the last time i remember a scientists being publicly hung out to dry was the one who did the channel 4 documentary on how climate change is rubbish. most of the contributors to the documentary pulled their support for him after the airing of the show saying they were misquoted or whatever, also the data sets he had stopped after a specific date and weren't current information freely available through a google search.

Jimbo · 08-05-2008 7:21pm

sarahirl wrote: »

the last time i remember a scientists being publicly hung out to dry was the one who did the channel 4 documentary on how climate change is rubbish. most of the contributors to the documentary pulled their support for him after the airing of the show saying they were misquoted or whatever, also the data sets he had stopped after a specific date and weren't current information freely available through a google search.

How were they misquoted if they were actually filmed?
I've often wondered why more wasn't made of that documentary (The Great Global Warming Swindle).
Why was it totally ignored? Surely there was some truth in it. It was pretty convincing to me.

troutbum · 09-05-2008 1:39am

jimbo78 wrote: »

How were they misquoted if they were actually filmed?
I've often wondered why more wasn't made of that documentary (The Great Global Warming Swindle).
Why was it totally ignored? Surely there was some truth in it. It was pretty convincing to me.

Surely you're not suggesting that selective editing cannot be used to alter the apparent views or statements of people being filmed? Do a search on "scam great global warming swindle" and you will find at least one video lecture that illustrates the techniques used to make the program so compelling and debunks this scam "documentary". It also explains why the previous rebuttals to my earlier comment are without any adequate foundation!

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar · 09-05-2008 1:42am

Danuogma wrote: »

Scientists who don't go along with global warming/climate change orthodoxy see their funds disappear into thin air. Pseudo-scientists who want to hold on to their jobs stick with the politically correct dogma.

that's the exact argument religious nuts in america use against evolution.

Sam Kade · 09-05-2008 10:54am

troutbum wrote: »

You may well believe Mr Gore to be an idiot but does that also extend to the thousands of climate scientists on whose work Al Gore bases his views? If you believe that there will be no rise in sea levels in Ireland and that AGW is not real perhaps you can quote a peer-reviewed scientific source to substantiate your view?

http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/

troutbum · 09-05-2008 11:20am

Sam Kade wrote: »

http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/

Ahh the oh so aptly named junkscience site, what a surprise. Try reading http://www.skepdic.com/refuge/junkscience.html for an analysis of Stephen J Milloy and his motives. The fact that he has close financial and organisational ties to tobacco and oil companies might give you a clue as to his stance on anything to do with the environment and he still denies that there is any linkage between smoking tobacco and cancer!

Sam Kade · 09-05-2008 1:37pm

troutbum wrote: »

Ahh the oh so aptly named junkscience site, what a surprise. Try reading http://www.skepdic.com/refuge/junkscience.html for an analysis of Stephen J Milloy and his motives. The fact that he has close financial and organisational ties to tobacco and oil companies might give you a clue as to his stance on anything to do with the environment and he still denies that there is any linkage between smoking tobacco and cancer!

There are many more sites telling the truth about global warming. Can you give positive proof that global warming is manmade?

ambro25 · 09-05-2008 2:34pm

troutbum, I find interesting that you comment about every other linky that lends itself to some easy bashing with hard-to-verify-for-sure data (works either way of course), but have so far remained silent on mine.

So, can I ask, what the story is /your angle is, with the Leibniz Institute of Marine Sciences, the UK Meteorological Office's Hadley Center for Climate Studies, NASA, University of Alabama at Huntsville and Remote Sensing Systems :pac:

We saw a global cooling scare in 1924, a global warming scare in 1933, another global cooling in the early 1970s, and another warming scare today. The changes the USHCN promised Watts won't help resolve anything for another decade or so, but perhaps future generations will be able to reduce the alarming increase in the number of climate alarms.

gerky · 09-05-2008 6:14pm

ambro25 Do you actually know what you are reading or do you just see what you want, do everyone a favour and stop reading the register and go and read the full paper in the scientific Journal Nature and you'll see that it has nothing to do with denying climate change.
Its about a natural shift in the ocean currents that happens every 70-80 years which can cause slight cooling in only certain parts of the world only, it was last observed in the 30s-40s after which the temperatures went about rising again.

grahamo · 12-05-2008 10:20am

The reason sea levels are rising around Ireland is because of the amount of sewage being dumped into the sea around North county Dublin

Fecking greens! Waffling on about a new sewage treatment plant that should be environmentally friendly and while they waffle on about it sewage is dumped into the sea. What a shower of muppets!:rolleyes:

probe · 14-05-2008 8:51pm

session savage wrote: »

Hi all.

I had a quick look around but I couldn't find anything.
Is there anywhere on the net where I can view a map of Ireland as it would be if the sea levels rose by 20ft as Mr Gore was saying?

Thanks in advance.

The simplest and most precise way to find the altitude above sea level of your house, and the areas that matter most to you is to go to http://earth.google.com/, download and install the free google earth software, zoom in on your house and mouse over the property to see the exact altitude above sea level.

It will also give you the precise latitude and longitude of the property, and you can save a satellite image of the property on your PC if you wish.

There are various levels of resolution for google satellite imagery depending on how lucky you are in terms of where you live, which may affect precision in some cases. You can almost touch the cars flying over the streets of Paris, whereas the visibility is somewhat less clear over many parts of the bogs of Ireland. In any event the options with google earth are superior to those available in the satellite view within google maps.

.probe

Húrin · 16-05-2008 1:03am

I don't think Ireland needs to worry about minute sea level rises. We should worry about how we will deal with the masses of climate refugees that will need to be welcomed to our shores in coming decades.

AngryHippie · 18-05-2008 10:56pm

claymores and barbed wire on the beaches !!!

It all depends really, If there is a limited transport network to and from our countries food supplies, then We are all screwed

probe · 20-05-2008 4:24pm

AngryHippie wrote: »

claymores and barbed wire on the beaches !!!

It all depends really, If there is a limited transport network to and from our countries food supplies, then We are all screwed

What food supply? Mandleson and his fellow EU buddies are doing all in their power to shut it down.

.probe

AngryHippie · 21-05-2008 12:59am

I hear ya buddy. the maths doesn't look that hectic...

gonna dig a garden, gonna dig it good...

Sam Kade · 21-05-2008 9:45pm

Troutbum are you still searching for proof of man made global warming?

troutbum · 21-05-2008 10:17pm

Sam Kade wrote: »

Troutbum are you still searching for proof of man made global warming?

"Proof" would be difficult. No one can "prove" AGW - at least not to the satisfaction of those unwilling to accept that change is necessary. The overwhelming concensus amongst climate scientists, politicians and many others based upon available scientific evidence (which I have researched rather than just relying upon skeptic blogs and US Corporate funded whitewash "Institutes") is enough to persuade me that man's contribution of greenhouse gases has and will continue to destabilise global climate conditions unless we do something about it.

You see, no one can "prove" that I am going to die. All of the evidence to date points to that fact but not one scientist, entrepreneur, politician or religious leader can provide irrefutable proof. I might just be the first person with an "infinity gene"

Sam Kade · 22-05-2008 12:09am

Troutbum I don't rely on blogs etc. Commonsense is all you need. All the restrictions in place to combat so called global warming will cause worse disasters in future.

troutbum · 22-05-2008 12:22am

Sam Kade wrote: »

Troutbum I don't rely on blogs etc. Commonsense is all you need. All the restrictions in place to combat so called global warming will cause worse disasters in future.

In what way does commonsense enable one to dispute the concensus view that if we continue to pour greenhouse gases into the atmosphere at a faster rate than the natural checks and balances within the earth's climate systems can handle it then we are going to create instabilities?

What "worse disasters" will ensue from utilising cleaner and ultimately cheaper energy sources or from preventing a global climate in which our great grandchildren will struggle to survive? The long-term economic consequences for countries that fail to adapt to more renewable energy sources, higher levels of re-use & recycling and lower levels of waste will simply be disastrous for them. There is a cost in making the transition but the ongoing effects are to reduce the base costs of production etc and thus be more competitive.

Sam Kade · 22-05-2008 1:39am

troutbum wrote: »

In what way does commonsense enable one to dispute the concensus view that if we continue to pour greenhouse gases into the atmosphere at a faster rate than the natural checks and balances within the earth's climate systems can handle it then we are going to create instabilities?

What "worse disasters" will ensue from utilising cleaner and ultimately cheaper energy sources or from preventing a global climate in which our great grandchildren will struggle to survive? The long-term economic consequences for countries that fail to adapt to more renewable energy sources, higher levels of re-use & recycling and lower levels of waste will simply be disastrous for them. There is a cost in making the transition but the ongoing effects are to reduce the base costs of production etc and thus be more competitive.

The worse disasters are restrictions on farming and using land to grow crops to produce biodiesel which will reduce food production. As the population of the world is increasing there will be a shortage of food. It takes 11 acres to produce enough biodiesel to run a car average mileage for 1 year. Cleaner energy like wood pellets, but they don't tell you that the wood has to be dried to 95% dry matter using gallons of diesel. Cattle numbers will have to be reduced because their farting causes so called global warming. Your great granchildren would rather have food than a world that is a few degrees cooler. Common sense the amount of man made co2 is a very small contribution to so called global warming. Computer models can't predict future weather, it's hard enough for them to predict the weather 4 days ahead. Not all Climate scientists agree about global warming 17,000 of them disagree. They also keep changing information too often first Ireland will get warmer now it's going to get cooler because we are at the opposite side of the gulf stream. Aeroplanes were big polluters now they are saying that they reduce global warming. The universe is vast bigger than they ever thought what is stopping co2 dispersing out into it.

troutbum · 22-05-2008 3:19am

Sam Kade wrote: »

The worse disasters are restrictions on farming and using land to grow crops to produce biodiesel which will reduce food production. As the population of the world is increasing there will be a shortage of food. It takes 11 acres to produce enough biodiesel to run a car average mileage for 1 year. Cleaner energy like wood pellets, but they don't tell you that the wood has to be dried to 95% dry matter using gallons of diesel. Cattle numbers will have to be reduced because their farting causes so called global warming. Your great granchildren would rather have food than a world that is a few degrees cooler. Common sense the amount of man made co2 is a very small contribution to so called global warming. Computer models can't predict future weather, it's hard enough for them to predict the weather 4 days ahead. Not all Climate scientists agree about global warming 17,000 of them disagree. They also keep changing information too often first Ireland will get warmer now it's going to get cooler because we are at the opposite side of the gulf stream. Aeroplanes were big polluters now they are saying that they reduce global warming. The universe is vast bigger than they ever thought what is stopping co2 dispersing out into it.

There is a common "Urban Myth" that biomass fuels will be grown at the expense of food and starvation will ensue. See http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel_food.html for a balanced assessment of this.
We have to move beyond mere petrol substitution in motor vehicles, neither bio-deisel nor bio-ethanol will be a sustainable solution especially given the carbon footprint of ethanol production & use. It is perfectly feasible that we will have fuel-cell powered vehicles and maybe other energy sources for transportation too.
Similarly the current obsession with wood pellets/biomass fuel is just that, we have to build houses that require no heating or cooling (and we have known how to do it for hundreds of years!) and use electicity from clean sources to fill any gaps. It is possible to produce carbon neutral wood pellets but not in a capitalist economy. The temptation to simply cut corners and make higher profits inevitably leads to the sort of scenario you describe.
Cows contribute less than 2% of greenhouse gases compared to 3% from jets, 2% from industrial processes and 2% from CFC's. Compared to 12% for electricity generation and 17% from petrol used in motor vehicles.
Another "Urban Myth" is that the amount of CO2 man adds is so small that it cannot possibly be significant. May I suggest that you take a drink of water with 1 part per million of tetrodotoxin and see if that is really a true statement?
Computer models don't need to predict future "weather" they need to be able to simulate a global climate - not the same problem. It is perfectly possible to predict the result of adding sulphuric acid to a piece of copper without being able to model the quantum mechanics involved in the process.
There are not 17,000 CLIMATE scientists who disagree - the last analysis shows maybe one or two hundred scientists with climate related fields of study/expertise against the five thousand or so climatologists who agree with the IPCC findings. The Oregon Petition has been widely debunked as a meaningful measure of scientific opposition to AGW.
The changes are hardly frequent and there may be some short term cooling as a result of other effects like ocean current changes but the predictions are still consistent that the overall climate result will be an increase in the average global temperature.
Aeroplanes are still major co2 producers but the water vapour and particles in their "exhaust" also create forcing which helps to reduce the effects of it. This doesn't change the fact that their net impact is to increase CO2 and add to the destabilisation of the climate.
CO2 doesn't disperse into space thankfully because if it did then the same laws of physics would allow the rest of the atmosphere to go with it!

Sam Kade · 22-05-2008 10:27am

troutbum wrote: »

There is a common "Urban Myth" that biomass fuels will be grown at the expense of food and starvation will ensue. See http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel_food.html for a balanced assessment of this.
We have to move beyond mere petrol substitution in motor vehicles, neither bio-deisel nor bio-ethanol will be a sustainable solution especially given the carbon footprint of ethanol production & use. It is perfectly feasible that we will have fuel-cell powered vehicles and maybe other energy sources for transportation too.
Similarly the current obsession with wood pellets/biomass fuel is just that, we have to build houses that require no heating or cooling (and we have known how to do it for hundreds of years!) and use electicity from clean sources to fill any gaps. It is possible to produce carbon neutral wood pellets but not in a capitalist economy. The temptation to simply cut corners and make higher profits inevitably leads to the sort of scenario you describe.
Cows contribute less than 2% of greenhouse gases compared to 3% from jets, 2% from industrial processes and 2% from CFC's. Compared to 12% for electricity generation and 17% from petrol used in motor vehicles.
Another "Urban Myth" is that the amount of CO2 man adds is so small that it cannot possibly be significant. May I suggest that you take a drink of water with 1 part per million of tetrodotoxin and see if that is really a true statement?
Computer models don't need to predict future "weather" they need to be able to simulate a global climate - not the same problem. It is perfectly possible to predict the result of adding sulphuric acid to a piece of copper without being able to model the quantum mechanics involved in the process.
There are not 17,000 CLIMATE scientists who disagree - the last analysis shows maybe one or two hundred scientists with climate related fields of study/expertise against the five thousand or so climatologists who agree with the IPCC findings. The Oregon Petition has been widely debunked as a meaningful measure of scientific opposition to AGW.
The changes are hardly frequent and there may be some short term cooling as a result of other effects like ocean current changes but the predictions are still consistent that the overall climate result will be an increase in the average global temperature.
Aeroplanes are still major co2 producers but the water vapour and particles in their "exhaust" also create forcing which helps to reduce the effects of it. This doesn't change the fact that their net impact is to increase CO2 and add to the destabilisation of the climate.
CO2 doesn't disperse into space thankfully because if it did then the same laws of physics would allow the rest of the atmosphere to go with it!

So we should go back to bicycles and horses and candles for the next hundred years to bust the co2 bubble around the earth.

troutbum · 22-05-2008 11:30am

Sam Kade wrote: »

So we should go back to bicycles and horses and candles for the next hundred years to bust the co2 bubble around the earth.

That's not what I have said and not what most people would suggest. To date almost all scientific & economic progress has been focused on humanity and an assumption that the earth is an infinite supplier of resources capable of absorbing whatever byproducts the human race can throw at it. We have now reached a point where more and more people question how planet earth can go on sustaining us in that manner and given that there is no "Planet B" we had better pay attention to our only means of survival. The human race is nothing if not resourceful and inventive and we have an opportunity to make a revolutionary change in our society in much the same way that we had Agrarian, Industrial & Information Revolutions. The time is right for the Environmental Revolution.

AngryHippie · 23-05-2008 2:08pm

Sam Kade wrote: »

So we should go back to bicycles and horses and candles for the next hundred years to bust the co2 bubble around the earth.

No we should go back to bicycles, horses buses, trams, trains, Fuel Rationing on private vehicles a ban on short haul air travel, so that we can conserve the fuel we are going to need to sow, spray, harvest and transport our food supplies around the world instead of having every asrehole commuting to work on their own in their own air conditioned car as food prices get pushed out of the range of our suffocating minimum wage workers that actually do the most productive work in our economy. The C02 bubble is a total sideshow as far as I'm concerned. Doing the right thing for the wrong reasons will do either as far as I'm concerned, But if you think that we can provide the same lifestyles that have evolved in the last 25 years for the next generation and the ones after, You are fcuking sorely mistaken buddy.:mad:

Ireland after sea level rise.

Comments