Cross this place off my tourist list. I don’t care how inviting, it will be now the “island of stupid” in my memory. Watch the video below the “read more” line for today’s dose of silliness. Look for more stunts like this leading to Copenhagen.
Maldives Cabinet Signs Climate Change Document 20 Feet Under Sea
From Fox News:
Excerpts: GIRIFUSHI, Maldives —
Members of the Maldives’ Cabinet donned scuba gear and used hand signals Saturday at an underwater meeting staged to highlight the threat of global warming to the lowest-lying nation on earth.
President Mohammed Nasheed and 13 other government officials submerged and took their seats at a table on the sea floor — 20 feet below the surface of a lagoon off Girifushi, an island usually used for military training.
With a backdrop of coral, the meeting was a bid to draw attention to fears that rising sea levels caused by the melting of polar ice caps could swamp this Indian Ocean archipelago within a century. Its islands average 7 feet above sea level.
“What we are trying to make people realize is that the Maldives is a frontline state. This is not merely an issue for the Maldives but for the world,” Nasheed said.
Read the complete article at Fox News here
Members of the Maldives’ Cabinet donned scuba gear and used hand signals Saturday at an underwater meeting staged to highlight the threat of global warming to the lowest-lying nation on earth.
h/t to WUWT reader Steven Skinner
In the meantime, readers might benefit from reading this WUWT post:
Despite popular opinion and calls to action, the Maldives are not being overrun by sea level rise
Of course I do, Jeez. But have you read the article you posted?
“This combination of circumstances provided a lucky escape for the coral reefs in Keppel Islands, but is also a clear warning for the Great Barrier Reef. As climate change and other human impacts intensify, we need to do everything we possibly can to protect the resilience of coral reefs,” he adds.
It’s like the ‘miraculous recovery’ of Arctic sea-ice, a ‘recovery’ still trending to an ice free Arctic sea in summer within a decade.
Have you found information about ‘miraculous recoveries’ in other reefs? Or have you cherry picked that part of the Barrier?
I did a one second search on coral recovery. I’m sure there are thousands of articles including some without the obligatory genuflecting to undefined climate change. That one was the first. Every time there is coral bleaching there are bleats of disaster. Then it grows back and there are murmurs of miracles. Coral bleaches then grows back. Happens all the time. Observation bias anyone?
Here’s a more scientificy reference for you.
http://www.bio.warwick.ac.uk/res/abstract.asp?Ref=1315
Jason:
The polar regions are net emitters of radiation
and
tropical regions are net absorbers of radiation,
Polar regions are cold.
They get no solar radiation in the winter.
And they absorb little solar radiation in the summer because of the low angles of their surfaces to the Sun.
Tropical regions are hot.
They get solar heating throughout each day throughout each year.
And they absorb a lot of solar heat throughout the days of each year because of the high angles of their surfaces to the Sun.
Some of the heat absorbed by tropical regions is transported poleward by the oceans and this heat loss acts to cool the tropical oceans. Hence, tropical regions are net absorbers of radiation.
The heat transported to polar regions from warmer regions acts to warm the polar regions. Hence, polar regions are net emitters of radiation.
You ask Jason;
“have you ever stopped to consider that low backlighted oceans are practically black, and would no longer be white if it melts?”
It seems more appropriate to ask you the following questions.
And have you ever stopped to consider that water surface is a better radiation emitter than white ice surface?
Have you ever stopped to consider that an ice cover on polar ocean acts as an insulator that inhibits heat transfer from liquid water to the ocean surface?
Have you ever stopped to to consider that radiation to and from an ocean only occurs at the ocean surface?
So, in answer to your question to Jason; viz
“have you ever stopped to consider that low backlighted oceans are practically black, and would no longer be white if it melts?”
I respond that I have considered it, and I can tell you that polar oceans would COOL if they lost their ice cover because their net net heat loss would increase.
Richard
The outgoing British Prime Minister is clutching at publicity straws with his announcement yesterday, that ” ….negotiators had 50 days to save the world from global warming and break the “impasse”.
He told the Major Economies Forum in London, which brings together 17 of the world’s biggest greenhouse gas-emitting countries, there was “no plan B”.”
That’s it then!
The Maldives is a curious case, because they have the world’s most CO2 intensive economy. Their economy is almost entirely dependent on CO2 spewing jumbo jets full of tourists from far away places like Europe.
It makes no sense that they would want to wreck their own economy, and rest assured that CO2 taxes (aka Cap and Trade or Emissions Trading) will ruin their long haul tourism trade by substantially increasing the cost.
I can only assume that the promise of cash from CO2 taxes routed via the United Nations proved too strong. And this cash will go directly into government bank accounts (whether in Switzerland or elsewhere) rather than into the hands of tourist operators and workers, who rather understandably would try to keep the money, rather than hand it over to the government for deposit in said bank accounts.
maksimovich,
though the observed level (+0.50 ± 0.1 m) is lower than that projected.
There is good evidence from Pacific Ocean islands (archeology from Polynesian settlements) that sea levels fell fairly abruptly by about this amount, around the start of Little Ice Age.
Which means, were the climate to return to Pre-Little Ice Age levels (ie Medieval Warm Period levels) then sea levels would naturally rise by a half to one meter without any help from CO2.
Many references for the sea level fall, one example
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/119826516/abstract?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0
The sea level fall around 500 years ago is well documented and there is little doubt it was caused by LIA cooling. Climate Scientists not completely blinded by the AGW ideology should know this, and know that a return to a pre-LIA climate will be accompanied by a half meter or more rise in sea level.
Which makes me smell an extremely large rat in the whole CO2 will cause rising sea levels story.
Either sea levels will rise or we are heading back into a LIA climate.
“Ray (21:23:11) :
Morons!”
Not at all. They are plucking at AGW heart strings (Or to put it another way, indicating their intention to fully pluck “developed” nations for their sins), clever policy to secure income as tourism falls off (Because the usual, sinful, tourists, can’t afford to buy a loaf of bread. And no, Australia will not accept people who’ve stollen a loaf of bread any more).
That should have read,
Which makes me smell an extremely large rat in the whole CO2 will cause rising sea levels story.
Either sea levels will rise naturally, and without any help from CO2, as a result of the end of the Little Ice Age, or we are heading back into a LIA climate.
Maldives …
.
Probably the most moronic state in the world .
A piece of randomly grown coral reefs unsuitable for life and lacking of everything .
300 km² all in all on which are now compressed 400 000 people .
The capital Male stuffs 80 000 people on 1.5 km² which leads to the world’s highest population density (about 3 times the density of Manhattan) .
During centuries the population of the Maldives was at best anecdotical – a few pirates and fishers .
In the last 40 years the population has been multiplied by FOUR and continues unabated .
Are their politicians raving lunatics ?
.
Well 400 000 tourists visit per year (!) what is as much as the whole population . That provides more than enough money to grow . Without that , they would simply starve and go back to an equilibrium which might be anywhere around 40 000 or less . Having only fish to eat and no more money and energy to make the drinkable water plants work does the trick easily .
.
If people simply said NO to the tourism on Maldives it would eliminate 90% of the population much , MUCH faster and more reliably than any sea water level could ever do .
After this stunt I have decided to cancel my trip over there and to write to their minister of tourism that I will vote and make vote “No to travels to Maldives .” because it is the only way I see how they could contribute to the necessary dramatic reduction of CO2 emissions .
RR Kampen (01:22:02) :
Mark, coral grows harly these days on account of acification of the oceans.
Bullsh*t.
To dismiss that underwater conference out of hand is to not understand what vulnerability you have when you country is nowhere higher than 2 metres above sea level.
It is like dismissing any action of New Orleans to build better levies and dykes. Only people not living in these areas could be so arrogant!
[1] Don’t presume to tell me what I do and don’t understand – that’s true arrogance.
[2] The example of the Maldives is nothing like that of New Orleans, the latter requires constant protection now; this is achieved via engineering projects and is solved on a local scale. (As to the general principle of living close to / at / below sea level is a separate topic IMHO.)
[3] I grew up on the North Sea coast in England and am very much aware of the issues surrounding sea-levels, storm surges, coastal erosion and so forth, but hey you didn’t ask did you…
[4] The Maldives underwater conference was a publicity stunt, with one main aim – to get more money for the Maldives via [a] publicity and [b] reinforcing the compensation / guilt mentality that is starting to run riot, to paraphrase (Sir) Bob Geldof (“just give us yer f*cking money”).
Cheers
Mark
Jason (01:27:50) :
Fawcett, maybe not overnight but if it’s faster than the reef can compensate or not, I wouldn’t be suprised either way.
I prefer “Mark” to “Fawcett” ta :o)
Indeed that was the main point of my conjecture…a sea level rise of 20-70cm in the next 100 years (going by rough IPCC figures) equates to 2-7cm per decade or 2mm to 7mm per year – I think I may do some digging on coral growth rates…
(That’s if assume those figures are vaguely accurate of course…)
Cheers
Mark.
RR Kampen,
What evidence do you have that the “coral grows harly these days on account of acification of the oceans”? I don’t know if “harly” is even a word. I presume it is some science term for inhibited.
Now, can you please explain what the amount of acidification is and why, if it exists at all, it should be damaging to calcification when foraminifera thrived in the geological past when CO2 levels were ten times higher than today?
And please don’t tell me it’s to do with rate of change, because I shall then ask you to provide evidence of such an assertion.
Vincent, if you need to point at typo’s, well really…
This is a site where people know what is happening. Why ask me the well known facts? Coral erosion by acidification is going on world wide and affect more than half the reefs, both in the tropics and outside, conform first predictions of this since about 1965.
I will not give sources for these assertions, because they will invariably be called ‘alarmist’ or something like that. Sources are very easy to find for yourself, if you don’t already have them.
When, exactly, were CO2-levels ten times as high?
What is the response of diverse coral forms to a slow change in CO2? To a fast change in CO2?
What evidence do you have that the “coral grows harly these days on account of acification of the oceans”? I don’t know if “harly” is even a word. I presume it is some science term for inhibited.
I checked this out some time ago. Extensive laboratory experiments show no effect on coral growth at current levels of water acidification due to CO2. To find an effect on coral growth they had to increase CO2 acidification far in excess of current levels, and from memory well over the amount of acidification that would result from a doubling of CO2.
I don’t have time to chase down the links but I found them from references at the bottom of the wikipedia page.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_acidification
Don’t use,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_acidification_and_its_effects_on_marine_systems
This is opinion and has no links to any real science.
Mark, I am Dutch myself.
As to [4], because in the climate discussion ANY argument can be spinned as to ‘making/grabbing money’ by all participants and from all perspectives, I tend to dismiss such arguments from any side out of hand. E.g. I don’t care if Gore makes money with his AGW-bandwagon; I care about his comments about AGW + consequences itself. You see, the truth value of a message is always entirely independent of the messenger (and I know this is one of the least known principles within society!).
RR Kampen (04:28:49),
You won’t give sources because you don’t have credible sources.
If I’m wrong, show us that the ocean is acidifying. No papers, no speculation, no opinion, no models; raw data only, and data from across the world’s oceans, not from a few cherry-picked locations.
The ocean acidification canard is the latest in the lineup of failed examples of AGW — which, when looked at closely, show that there is no AGW.
Data, and data only. Everything else is speculative opinion, if not outright alarmist propaganda.
Vincent:
Your question concerning ‘ocean acidification’ is well put.
It is reasonable to consider effects (e.g. on biota) of altered ocean surface water pH.
And it is reasonable to make that consideration whatever the cause of the altered pH may be.
But it is a logical error to assume that ocean pH must reduce in response to anthropogenic emission of CO2.
I explain the logical error as follows.
Available data does not permit adequate measurement of ‘ocean acidification’ (more properly, ‘reduced alkalinity’ of the oceans) and all estimates of it are model studies.
As with almost all climate-related data there are large uncertainties concerning change to ocean pH. This uncertainty is because
(i) the variations with geography are larger than the global average temporal change being assessed
and
(ii) the measurement sites are sparse.
Hence, empirical data cannot show with required accuracy what the change to ocean surface layer pH has been over the last century.
In this case, Wiki gives a good start to a reading list of measured and modeled ocean pH changes at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_acidification
Reading of those papers and reading the chains of references from them is useful. For now, I provide the following.
The equilibrium of dissolved CO2 and atmospheric CO2 varies with ocean chemistry and temperature. The equilibrium value is very sensitive to the chemistry of the ocean surface water, and the pH of the surface water is a useful proxy for altered ocean surface water chemistry.
Large change to the atmospheric CO2 concentration would provide small change to the chemistry of the ocean surface water by increased CO2 solution concentration with resulting small change to the water’s pH.
But, as I keep pointing out, the opposite is also true. Small change to the chemistry of the ocean surface water with resulting small change to the water’s pH would provide large change to the atmospheric CO2 concentration.
And there is reason to suppose that such relatively-large, natural changes to the pH occur. The undersea volcanic outputs of sulphur and chlorine affect the pH of the water the sulphur and the chlorine enter. And that water returns to the surface at a much later date. This must alter the pH of the surface water where the deep ocean water upwells to the surface. And altered pH of ocean surface waters alters the atmospheric and oceanic equilibrium concentrations of CO2.
The data is not capable of determining which of these possibilities has happened and/or to what degree.
Please note that over each year the amount of CO2 in the air increases and reduces by over an order of magnitude more than both the anthropogenic emission and the annual increase. The annual increase to the CO2 in the air is the residual of the seasonal variations for each year. Therefore, the observed increase to the CO2 in the air over the last 50 years could have resulted from
(a) increased CO2 input to the air
or
(b) reduced CO2 extraction from the air
or
(c) a combination of increased CO2 input to the air and reduced CO2 extraction from the air.
So, a variation to ocean surface layer pH could have induced the observed rise to atmospheric CO2 concentration over recent decades by reducing the ability of the surface waters to extract CO2 from the air (as they do seasonally each year).
Furthermore, the isotope data and Beck’s data each suggest that ocean chemistry changes are causal of the atmospheric CO2 concentration change (n.b. this is the reverse of the normal assumption of ‘ocean acidification’).
Please note that – because of the rate constants – altered pH would have a more rapid effect on the atmospheric CO2 concentration than altered atmospheric CO2 concentration would have on the pH of the ocean surface layer.
And the changes to ocean pH are so small that observing their global variation is not possible at present. The following listed points are pertinent to this.
1.
Ocean pH varies from 8.2 to 7.6 between localities. A change in average ocean pH of less than 0.2 would account for all recent observed rise to atmospheric CO2 concentration (and some of that CO2 rise must have resulted from temperature rise).
2.
Changes to upwelling cold water do alter global atmospheric CO2 concentration as is demonstrated by ENSO.
3.
Small changes to the pH of the upwelling water would have much greater effect on global atmospheric CO2 concentration than the changes induced by temperature effects of ENSO.
So, it is not known if or how much the ocean surface layer pH has changed globally over the last century and/or decade(s), and if it has changed then it is not known why it has changed.
However, there is a chain of assumptions which is often accepted: i.e.
(a) It is assumed that the anthropogenic CO2 is sufficient to disrupt the carbon cycle despite its relatively small amount (the total anthropogenic CO2 emission over the last century is only 2% addition to the carbon flowing around the carbon cycle).
(b) It is assumed, therefore, that the anthropogenic CO2 emission is increasing the atmospheric CO2 concentration.
(c) It is assumed that the increased atmospheric CO2 concentration is inducing increased oceanic solution of CO2.
(d) It is assumed that the increased oceanic solution of CO2 is altering the pH of the ocean surface layer.
But it is equally valid to use the following chain of assumptions.
(A) It is assumed that the pH of the ocean surface layer has altered (e.g. as a result of past undersea volcanic emissions of S and Cl).
(B) It is assumed that the altered pH of the ocean surface layer has altered the equilibrium for atmospheric and oceanic CO2 concentrations.
(C) It is assumed that the altered equilibrium is increasing the atmospheric CO2 concentration.
(D) It is assumed that the anthropogenic CO2 emission is too small to significantly affect the effect of altered equilibrium for atmospheric and oceanic CO2 concentrations (the total anthropogenic CO2 emission over the last century is only 2% of the carbon flowing around the carbon cycle).
A very important point is that the AGW hypothesis is founded on three assumptions: viz
(1) It is assumed that the anthropogenic CO2 emission is the major cause of the increasing the atmospheric CO2 concentration
and
(2) It is assumed that the increasing atmospheric CO2 concentration is significantly increasing radiative forcing
and
(3) It is assumed that the increasing radiative forcing will significantly increase mean global temperature.
There are reasons to doubt each of these assumptions. But if any one of them were known to be false then the entire AGW hypothesis would be known to be false.
Serious science investigates the validity of assumptions as a method to attempt to falsify hypotheses and theories. Hence, serious science investigates each of the three underlying assumptions of the AGW hypothesis. It is bad science to accept any one of these assumptions as being true. The acceptance is especially bad science when each of these assumptions fails to agree with empirical data (e.g. the isotope data conflicts with the assumption that the anthropogenic CO2 emission is the major cause of the increasing the atmospheric CO2 concentration).
I hope this helps your thoughts.
Richard
Smokey, a sum of real numbers always returns a real number. How do you expect me to prove this to you – given the fact you want data for all real numbers?
richardscourtney,
Thanks for that excellent analysis:
Untill Kampen can overcome these measurement issues, he’s just giving uninformed opinion. Hardly a basis for taking any kind of action.
richardscourtney, not being funny or anything, but do you have any specific expertise in this area? I would love to quote your post elsewhere, but given arguments usually boil down to “authority” (eventually), I hesitate to quote, “bloke from Watts blog”.
RR Kampen (04:35:41) :
Mark, I am Dutch myself.
I had a feeling you we’re going to tell me that :o)
As to [4], because in the climate discussion ANY argument can be spinned as to ‘making/grabbing money’ by all participants and from all perspectives, I tend to dismiss such arguments from any side out of hand. E.g. I don’t care if Gore makes money with his AGW-bandwagon; I care about his comments about AGW + consequences itself. You see, the truth value of a message is always entirely independent of the messenger (and I know this is one of the least known principles within society!).
To a certain extent I agree with your point in relation to it being an argument that can be applied from just about any perspective.
However, I can’t agree on the latter point you make; having a messenger who themselves has a degree of power, an invested interest and their own agenda can (and indeed I would say must) influence the message that is given.
It may well depend I suspect on what you (personally) think that the true value of the message is…from my own point of view if the underlying context is one of “be nicer to the world” then I’m all for that.
Unfortunately, most people will take a message on face value and therein I have a problem with AGW – we’re being sold a pup and a lot of people are falling for it. This is a crying shame as the money, time and best-efforts of some very talented people could be put to much greater use in solving some of the real problems facing this planet.
Cheers
Mark
Anthony: “Cross this place off my tourist list”. Well, in a world where most of the press and main stream politicians are chanting the AGW message, where do you plan to go on holiday then? After all the Maldivians (and just watch some of the Dutch commenting here!) have more immediate concerns than most other nations. And at least they have more sense of humor than England’s new doomsday prophet Gordon Brown: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/oct/19/gordon-brown-copenhagen-climate-talks – “The extraordinary summer heatwave of 2003 in Europe resulted in over 35,000 extra deaths. On current trends, such an event could become quite routine in Britain in just a few decades’ time”. Rather than worrying about purely a purely hypothetical AGW connection to the 2003 heat wave (1540 AD also saw a scorching heat wave over Europe…), the politicians should rather worry about their short-sighted enthusiasm for biofuels, which may have killed hundreds of thousands of people all over the world (starvation rates have risen again the last couple of years, and the biofuel mania is one of the reasons).
(1) It is assumed that the anthropogenic CO2 emission is the major cause of the increasing the atmospheric CO2 concentration
I know no better than that this is both easy to measure and de facto measured, first in 1961 I know of.
and
(2) It is assumed that the increasing atmospheric CO2 concentration is significantly increasing radiative forcing
Yes, that is straight physics dating back to Fourier, about 1850, followed up by Arrhenius, Arrhenius again (1906) and others. This assumption is exactly as strong as Newton’s second law.
and
(3) It is assumed that the increasing radiative forcing will significantly increase mean global temperature.
Follows from (2) modulo feedback effects – which have proved to be quite small hitherto, which is why you see CO2 rise and temperature rise virtually in unison.
I find it quite hard to believe these points are still doubted so strongly by some.
I have decided to mount a scientific expedition to the Maldives next year. I shall be taking along a tape measure (Pen Hadlow/Catlin Artic Ice Expedition style) to measure sea levels, a fridge/freezer thermometer to measure both surface and sea temperatures, as well as a packet of litmus papers to measure oceanic acidification levels.
I shall be following standard Climatological practices when it comes to releasing the data. This can best be summed up by paraphrasing a plaque that can be found in many English pubs, namely “Please do not ask for data as a smack in the mouth often offends”. I’m 100% with Dr Phil Jones of the Met Office on this one – you’d only find fault with my data if I were to release it. And besides, suppose a certain unnamed person over at CA were to get hold of it. Think what he might do with it.
Nevertheless, I would like to reassure WUWT readers that both my results and analysis will be completely robust, as they will have been fully peer-reviewed by my mates down the pub.
The expedition will be entirely at my own expense. Should interested parties be prepared to sponsor my expedition, which will be proving conclusively that climate change is indeed both catastrophic and being caused by man, please contact me.
Not really that different than when the democrats in the Senate turned up the heat in the hearing room to make Hansen’s 1988 speech more dramatic:
A stage prop, paid for by tax payers, to sell a lie.
RR Kampen,
You are doing exactly what the AGW promoters want you to do:
Relying on a simplistic model, full of false assumptions, and false conclusions.
AGW and the models that are used to make cliams about it are not based on basic physics.
They are based on feedback loops that have not been shown to exist in nature.
But if believing this merely gave you comfort, that would be no different from any other religion, except that you and your fellow believers want to control the world based on your misapplied faith.
RR Kampen there is no evidence at all that ‘coral erosion from acidification’ is happening.
There is evidence that irresponsible countries like the Maldives are polluting coral with run off, bad fishing practices, commercial harvesting for the pet trade, etc.
To have acidification killing coral you would first be required to have acidification.
And there is no evidence of that.
AGW- the intersection of historical ignorance and fear mongering.