satguru 
|
I am actually astounded about the sea level claims as there are no studies I am aware of that claim it is rising more than an inch a decade and slowing. One new one was published only today, and as far as I can tell the people who say it is rising appear to be using the IPCC model which ends in 2100, ie is a future projection.
The Arctic melts are annual every summer since the end of the ice age, as polar melts do not occur in the summer during an ice age but do in between until there is no ice at all and the cycle starts again. It has been doing so for many millions of years.
This study for the southern hemisphere is peer reviewed and also affirms a recent one showing a steady fall in the rate of rise, one which has been on a mathematical parabola since the ice began melting 22,00 years ago and is probably posted here already.
Please could you link me your data for an increase in sea level rise Cym as I honestly haven't come across any myself.
Reply #401. Jul 21 11, 6:06 PM
|
| mhenson400
|
Hi Cym, sea levels have risen over 450 feet since the end of the last ice age, starting 22,000 years ago.
 http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/gornitz_09/
Also, it is not like icebergs are something new. And, the iceberg that broke off of Greenland is from a floating ice shelf, so it will not affect sea level (see Archimedes).
http://www.cosmostv.org/2011/07/largest-arctic-iceberg-in-50-years.html
For a kicker, Guru Al Gore recently bought a 9 million dollar beachfront property in California with the money he has made from the global cooling/warming/change scam. Apparently he isn't too worried about rapid sea level change.
Reply #403. Jul 21 11, 7:24 PM
|
| Trademarc
|
Re reply #402 satguru
The Australian is notorious for misrepresenting climate science and this article is no exception. Oh look, there has been a complaint.
http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/media/DecMedia11072205.htm
Here is a more detailed analysis.
http://tamino.wordpress.com/2011/07/22/how-not-to-analyze-tide-gauge-data/
Re reply#403 mhenson400
Sea levels decrease and then increase again during glacial periods due to ice freezing and melting and thermal expansion of water. I fail to see how that has anything to do with the recent sea level rise, which is occurring thousands of years after the end of the last glacial period? A point that is emphasised in the NASA article you have linked to.
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/gornitz_09/
Quote from the link “Twentieth century sea level trends, however, are substantially higher that those of the last few thousand years. The current phase of accelerated sea level rise appears to have begun in the mid/late 19th century to early 20th century, based on coastal sediments from a number of localities. Twentieth century global sea level, as determined from tide gauges in coastal harbors, has been increasing by 1.7-1.8 mm/yr, apparently related to the recent climatic warming trend. Most of this rise comes from warming of the world's oceans and melting of mountain glaciers, which have receded dramatically in many places especially during the last few decades. Since 1993, an even higher sea level trend of about 2.8 mm/yr has been measured from the TOPEX/POSEIDON satellite altimeter. Analysis of longer tide-gauge records (1870-2004) also suggests a possible late 20th century acceleration in global sea level.”
Reply #404. Jul 23 11, 1:01 AM
|
boxjaw
|
Hey daver. I have noticed during the winter that you love to post about, bbrrr! how cold it is, and that alone is reason to belittle global warming. Yet you never say anything about the extreme heat during the summer months. Now granted, I'm not going to say that either of these seasons play into the warmists hands, but as a "coldist" you sure are mum when it's hot. :^)
Reply #406. Jul 23 11, 8:50 AM
|
REDVIKING57
|
And what have you got against the Maldives? What have they ever done to you?
:)))
Reply #407. Jul 23 11, 9:06 AM
|
daver852
|
It's always hot during the summer. It has been very hot where I live for the past two weeks. But, as a local newspaper pointed out, not nearly as hot as it was in 1911 and 1936. As for the Maldives, I have nothing against them (except for their long record of human rights abuses), but the the Maldives are, on average, 1.5 meters above sea level. If there was any real, dramatic tise in sea levels, they would be under water by now. They aren't.
Reply #408. Jul 23 11, 11:16 AM
|
boxjaw
|
I'll be watching for your posts again come winter daver.
Reply #409. Jul 23 11, 12:14 PM
|
daver852
|
If there was any truth in the nonsense known as "global warming," we wouldn't be having winters any longer.
Reply #410. Jul 23 11, 2:29 PM
|
satguru
|
I'm fascinated in the vast variations in sea level, although currently although I can't manage metric (I need to use a ruler to see what it means and then a calculator to multiply it over decades as maths isn't my thing) the lower 1 something mm is not what anyone would call anything unusual, a foot or so a century just like the last one, while that 2.8 is the first I've seen and if nothing else shows even sea level data is well open to interpretation. Of course it's only an average, rises in some areas, falls in others and can and is adjusted as some I posted in the forums. As they are clearly as open to controversy as temperatures and to a lesser degree ice coverage I'd suggest until they can all agree on the same figures on ALL areas they call a time out as they are not inspiring any confidence in those who prefer to trust their professionals, and in this area I for one no longer do.
As for The Australian, besides blaming messengers being ad hominem and irrelevant to the data itself, as I'd prefer to say The Australian are one of the very few media outlets who dare to defy the common opinion and share some of the peer reviewed data which flies in its face, that study was affirmed within a week or two by another study, both stating after a sharp rise 22,000 years ago after the end of the ice age, the trend is continuing with the cessation of the rise to stability, and ultimately to nil, after which it usually falls again as it has every 100,000 years for many cycles. I was really hoping unlike temperatures figures would agree on sea level if nothing else, although it can be measured from floats and satellites, which do seem to produce variations. But the data released last week by The Australian only repeated almost exactly the earlier data just before from the University of Colorado, hardly a hotbed of oil-hungry capitalists http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2011/05/sea-level-rise-is-acceleratingto.html
Now if NASA claim otherwise I suggest they both enter a ring and box the dirt out of each other until they can agree. They can't both be right can they?
Reply #411. Jul 23 11, 7:33 PM
|
satguru
|
Even more controversial figures from Nils-Axel Morner, Head of Paleogeophysics & Geodynamics at Stockholm University, Sweden (1991-2005); President of the INQUA Commission on Sea Level Changes and Coastal Evolution (1999-2003); Leader of the Maldives Sea Level Project (2000 on); Chairman of the INTAS project on Geomagnetism and Climate (1997-2003). Head of Paleogeophysics & Geodynamics at Stockholm University, Sweden (1991-2005); President of the INQUA Commission on Sea Level Changes and Coastal Evolution (1999-2003); Leader of the Maldives Sea Level Project (2000 on); Chairman of the INTAS project on Geomagnetism and Climate (1997-2003).
http://www.speroforum.com/a/21314/Scientist-Maldives-sea-level-is-not-rising
ie hardly a lightweight or expert on a related area (like the ironically named Dr Nurse, a geneticist, Head of the Royal Society who runs a one man campaign of information, and Dr Robert Winston, an obstetrician. They claim to speak for the scientists yet probably know less about the climate than I do as I have actually taken the time to learn everything I can on it as it smelt funny to me and wanted to know why. Extending totally unrelated areas of science and then talking like an old hand is basically cheating, and they would do well to listen to the US meteorologists who tend to be far more independent and not work for government or educational organisations but businesses paid by results, who have their own consensus disagreeing with the theory. As I keep saying, they can't both be right and if nothing else tells anyone who can add up that there can't be a consensus, ie it is not a done deal and cannot be treated by legislators as if it is.
Reply #412. Jul 23 11, 7:56 PM
|
satguru
|
That is a damning and authoritative list there Dave, and unlike the petition project these guys give their reasons. If nothing else it tells us that unless the term is to be redefined, although it's not even relevant to anything scientific, there is no consensus, and I'd go further that to suggest if the real experts have such doubts and disagreements we should as well. No other area of science I can think of since the cause of stomach ulcers has been surrounded by so much controversy and it simply isn't a sign of something that should be accepted on the present situation.
Reply #414. Jul 24 11, 3:26 PM
|
satguru
|
History will tell us the middle result is the commonest with future predictions, the extremes are very rare and as such anyone who starts pushing them long before the figures are in should be treated the same way as the olympic judges with the top scores, ie excluded. NASA have now discovered their satellites have measured heat escaping the atmosphere to be far greater than the IPCC guessed, thus both telling us all that those computer predictions were not either worth the effort or the slightest bit of use or ornament and that every single claim the temperature will be more than a degree or so higher by 2100 is virtually impossible. As the IPCC already say 2C is a safe limit then I'd say the panic, in fact the whole issue is now pretty well over and should be put to bed and preferably buried extremely deeply and concreted over to make sure it stays there. The latest temperatures have already indicated a total lack of positive feedback from increased water evaporating from the warming sea and this now shows the other part of the equation I knew but most did not, that unlike a glass greenhouse the atmosphere is an open system and can allow most heat to escape as there is no solid barrier and cannot be treated like one mathematically. I stopped science half way through A level but have no problem getting stuff that basic while they managed to work round it for over 20 years. I don't think they can now. By the way, this has not been reported by the Daily Mail, Australian, EU Times, The National Enquirer or anyone else some of you may disapprove of. But even if it was they were only reporting NASA who you ought to listen to.
http://news.yahoo.com/nasa-data-blow-gaping-hold-global-warming-alarmism-192334971.html
Reply #416. Jul 28 11, 3:53 PM
|
satguru
|
If that is the case (and remember the two sides concerned are equally qualified) the major question that arises is if such heavyweight experts continue to disagree over what some consider quite basic criteria, doesn't that mean it's basically not yet at a level capable of being measured or understood reliably, and therefore acted on by world governments as if it is? Philip Stott and others have said this already, that they really only understand less than maybe 20% of the total climate mechanism and as such is impossible to make any firm conclusions about it at all. Such fiascos as this if nothing else tell me he is absolutely right as exactly the same thing happens by both sides every time a radical new result is announced. That's fine if it was kept within the boundaries of science, but this affects every single one of us directly.
Reply #418. Jul 31 11, 9:31 AM
|
fontenilles
|
"If there was any truth in the nonsense known as "global warming," we wouldn't be having winters any longer."
This is a classic line and shows the person who wrote it has no idea about what global warming means lol! No I shouldn't laugh but what can one do but :)
Reply #420. Jul 31 11, 2:39 PM
|
Legal / Conditions of Use
|
Play Now! 
: 