Rise of the Sea, All a big scam

[Puggit]

Spiritual_Beggar said:

WTF has Coastal Erosion got to do with Climate!!!! I sat there laughing at the ridiculous spin they were trying to put on the whole thing.

If we get a windier climate, with higher sea levels - then you'll see far greater coastal erosion.

Again - I'm not pro-climate change nonsense, but lets try and see some of the simple scientific principles, eh?

[ludo]

Yertis said:

I'm interested in why ice at the North pole would get compressed though. How come it doesn't just get pushed down deeper into the water?

The ice melt that would have a significant effect on sea levels is the Greenland ice sheet, the stuff in the ocean only matters in that its loss may produce a drop in local albedo and hence a warming of the artic that might destabilise the Greenland ice sheet.

[mechsympathy]

ludo said:

mechsympathy said:

For a proper comparison we need to know how Morner's peers score?

O.K., in addition to a low Hirsch index, his most cited work is only cited thirty nine times, and ten of those are self-citations, which shows that even his most popular work has had virtually no impact (except on himself). Try comparing that with the impact of Einsteins papers c. 1906.

the Hirsch index is only one measure of productivity and impact, but it does make the case here that Morner is not an acknowledged expert in this particular (or indeed any) field, and the article still presents no evidence other than Morner's opinion.

It's had no impact? Or has been ignored as it doesn't fit in with the MMGW message?

[tamore]

i give this until lunch for turbobloke to turn up!

[Tony*T3]

Yertis said:

Tony*T3 said:

Yertis said:

Tony*T3 said:

GregE240 said:

You can vindicatwe this tonight as you prepare to sit and watch the gogglebox with your favourite tipple.

Fill your glass with ice (you may want to switch your tipple for water just so you're EXACTLY replicating what happens in the sea), but after you've put the ice in, fill the glass to the brim. Right up to the brim so its only the surface tension thats holding the water in the glass.

Then watch as the ice melts.

Proof if needed that this is all a load of old cobblers.

Well done on proving fek all. Hed straight to the top of the class.

Genius.

He's right though, up to a point. And when the ice is unloaded from land mass there will also be a small isostatic adjustment which will affect relative sea levels, I need to bone up on my A level geology. Obviously the land mass rises much more slowly than the sea level.

The land mass will recover over tens of thousands of years. Hardly relevant.

The issue I have is that he decribes an experiment with a glass full of ice (Ice that has come from the fridge and is therefore full of air anyway, not ice thats been commpressed at the Poles by thousands of metres of other ice.

A much more relevant experiment sees you fill a glass to the brim with liquid, then melt some ice cubes in a different glass, then add that water to the first glass and see what happens. 95% + of the worlds ice after all is on land.

I agree. Greg's analogy is scientifically flawed. However, his argument is less flawed than some of the other stuff we get hosed at us on a daily basis.

I'm interested in why ice at the North pole would get compressed though. How come it doesn't just get pushed down deeper into the water?

The North Pole has proportinatly virtually none of the worlds Ice. way less than a couple of %. 90% of the worlds Ice is at the South Pole, nearly all of it on land. The ice at the North Pole can be broken through by a Nuke sub after all.

I agree that most of the claptrap we read in the papers is tainted by the leanings of the author of the article. But thats the same as on PH isnt it? Forgive the pun, bit opinions are so 'polar'. Your either a beleive or a disbeliever, there seems no common ground. You either think its the end of the world or its nothing more than a tax raising scam.

Something I remember from my school years though is that during the great ice ages the North Sea and English channel were land, not water. So the creation or destruction of the worlds Ice does have a positive effect on sea levels. this isnt really an arguement. What causes it is.

However, the human race adapts and survives to most global changes. Millions may die in some regions, or not. Weather patterns change, and that change can mean vast changes in how we live. That could be central Europe being a future desert, or it could be the Sahara once more returning to grassland as it was just a few thousand years ago.

Do I believe Man has an impact on the climte? Yes. Do I beleive it means my grand children will be living in some Kevin Kostner Water World? No. I wouldnt invest long term in property on some glorified mud bank though. (such as Norfolk!)

Do we have to be disbelievers to be on PH? Is it some kind of herasey? Shall those that think its all lies be burnt at the stake. Because we've been there way to often in our history.


Sorry for poor spelling before anyone says it.

[Tony*T3]

GregE240 said:

Fair point Tony, but ice has 90% of the density of water anyway, compressed after thousands of years or not.

I understood Sea Ice (as in the North Pole) has a far higher air content in it than that Ice formed over land (Antartica for example). Also other conditions in the differences in formation of ice at Sea and ice on land had a significant part to play. (such as atmopheric pressure and salinity content).

Cant find the white paper that details this though so happy to be corrected.

[Gargamel]

I think the key point here is the composition of the IPCC group of experts and the extrapoloation of the computer models based on ONE sea gauge showing a slight rise.

Perhaps Morner is a crank, I don't know ? But are the models any more accurate because they are built on computers rather than real world evidence ? After all there has ALWAYS been flooding.

[ludo]

mechsympathy said:

ludo said:

mechsympathy said:

For a proper comparison we need to know how Morner's peers score?

O.K., in addition to a low Hirsch index, his most cited work is only cited thirty nine times, and ten of those are self-citations, which shows that even his most popular work has had virtually no impact (except on himself). Try comparing that with the impact of Einsteins papers c. 1906.

the Hirsch index is only one measure of productivity and impact, but it does make the case here that Morner is not an acknowledged expert in this particular (or indeed any) field, and the article still presents no evidence other than Morner's opinion.

It's had no impact? Or has been ignored as it doesn't fit in with the MMGW message?

Had no impact, his most cited work appears to have little direct relevance to MMGW, so that is unlikely to be an issue, especially as it was published in 1969. As I said, none of this establishes the truth or otherwise of his claims, but it does show that the journalist either has an agenda (which is why it is better to check out the science for yourself rather than rely on journalists or political activists) or doesn't bother to verify the facts he is given.

[ludo]

Gargamel said:

I think the key point here is the composition of the IPCC group of experts and the extrapoloation of the computer models based on ONE sea gauge showing a slight rise.

Is there any evidence (other than Morner's word) that this is actually true (I very much doubt it is, but maybe I am just automatically sceptical of wild claims by maverick scientists)?

[Yertis]

ludo said:

it is better to check out the science for yourself rather than rely on journalists or political activists

Unfortunately most of us don't have the time or qualifications to do this - that's a job for journos etc.

[mondeoman]

The antartic has somehting like (IIRC) 90% of the worlds fresh water tied up in its ice and glaciers and
Mean Temps:
Winter: -40 to -94°F (-40 to -70°C)
Summer: -5 to -31°F (-15 to -35°C)

So just how much Warming do we need to get to melt all that fecking ice?



Scare mongering for the hard of thinking!

[ludo]

Yertis said:

ludo said:

it is better to check out the science for yourself rather than rely on journalists or political activists

Unfortunately most of us don't have the time or qualifications to do this - that's a job for journos etc.

You don't need any qualifications to check up on articles such as this one, just google the name of the prof and see if his background checks out. If you do want to leave it to the journalists, you would be better off going with a mainstream science magaine like New Scientist, Scientific American, Science or Nature (although Nature is a bit too high level for most, including me on most topics). Also remember that wild claims need strong evidence to back them up, so if the article doesn't provide a means of verifying what has been claimed, assume it is bullst, most of the time you will be right.

[ludo]

mondeoman said:

The antartic has somehting like (IIRC) 90% of the worlds fresh water tied up in its ice and glaciers and
Mean Temps:
Winter: -40 to -94°F (-40 to -70°C)
Summer: -5 to -31°F (-15 to -35°C)

So just how much Warming do we need to get to melt all that fecking ice?



Scare mongering for the hard of thinking!

I don't think anyone is seriously suggesting that there is any risk of large scale melt in the Antarctic (except on the peninsular and the ice shelves, which are floating and will have little effect on sea levels), so it is a bit of a straw man in the first place.

[mondeoman]

ludo said:

mondeoman said:

The antartic has somehting like (IIRC) 90% of the worlds fresh water tied up in its ice and glaciers and
Mean Temps:
Winter: -40 to -94°F (-40 to -70°C)
Summer: -5 to -31°F (-15 to -35°C)

So just how much Warming do we need to get to melt all that fecking ice?



Scare mongering for the hard of thinking!

I don't think anyone is seriously suggesting that there is any risk of large scale melt in the Antarctic (except on the peninsular and the ice shelves, which are floating and will have little effect on sea levels), so it is a bit of a straw man in the first place.

The whole thing is a straw man ludo, and thats the problem.

[ludo]

Gargamel said:

One of his most shocking discoveries was why the IPCC has been able to show sea levels rising by 2.3mm a year. Until 2003, even its own satellite-based evidence showed no upward trend.

Actually that isn't true, go to Wikipedia and look up TOPEX/Poseidon and Jason 1 satalite altimetry sea level data (follow the links to the primary source, see also link to a relevant abstract below).

Gargamel said:

When I spoke to Dr Mörner last week, he expressed his continuing dismay at how the IPCC has fed the scare on this crucial issue. When asked to act as an "expert reviewer" on the IPCC's last two reports, he was "astonished to find that not one of their 22 contributing authors on sea levels was a sea level specialist: not one".

Apart from A. Cazenave, for a start (I stopped investigating further after the third contributing author had a paper demonstrating the claim to be false. The first two contibuting authors may also be sea-level specialists, but I couldn't quickly find anything definitive. I suspect other 25 contibuting authors may also be sea level specialists).

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2004/2003RG000139...

It is interesting that one side of the argument is represented as "sceptics", when they are clearly pretty gullible if they accept nonsense like this at face value, when the most cursory of checking throws up this sort of basic error.

[s2art]

Given the rise in global temperature since the little ice age it would be nearly impossible not to have a rise in sea levels. The interesting thing is what is happening, or will happen now and in the near future.

[Tony*T3]

ludo said:

Gargamel said:

One of his most shocking discoveries was why the IPCC has been able to show sea levels rising by 2.3mm a year. Until 2003, even its own satellite-based evidence showed no upward trend.

Actually that isn't true, go to Wikipedia and look up TOPEX/Poseidon and Jason 1 satalite altimetry sea level data (follow the links to the primary source, see also link to a relevant abstract below).

Gargamel said:

When I spoke to Dr Mörner last week, he expressed his continuing dismay at how the IPCC has fed the scare on this crucial issue. When asked to act as an "expert reviewer" on the IPCC's last two reports, he was "astonished to find that not one of their 22 contributing authors on sea levels was a sea level specialist: not one".

Apart from A. Cazenave, for a start (I stopped investigating further after the third contributing author had a paper demonstrating the claim to be false. The first two contibuting authors may also be sea-level specialists, but I couldn't quickly find anything definitive. I suspect other 25 contibuting authors may also be sea level specialists).

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2004/2003RG000139...

It is interesting that one side of the argument is represented as "sceptics", when they are clearly pretty gullible if they accept nonsense like this at face value, when the most cursory of checking throws up this sort of basic error.

Ah, I see your intrest in this subject comes from the fact that you live in Norfolk.

Have you bought a boat yet?

[ludo]

Tony*T3 said:

ludo said:

Gargamel said:

One of his most shocking discoveries was why the IPCC has been able to show sea levels rising by 2.3mm a year. Until 2003, even its own satellite-based evidence showed no upward trend.

Actually that isn't true, go to Wikipedia and look up TOPEX/Poseidon and Jason 1 satalite altimetry sea level data (follow the links to the primary source, see also link to a relevant abstract below).

Gargamel said:

When I spoke to Dr Mörner last week, he expressed his continuing dismay at how the IPCC has fed the scare on this crucial issue. When asked to act as an "expert reviewer" on the IPCC's last two reports, he was "astonished to find that not one of their 22 contributing authors on sea levels was a sea level specialist: not one".

Apart from A. Cazenave, for a start (I stopped investigating further after the third contributing author had a paper demonstrating the claim to be false. The first two contibuting authors may also be sea-level specialists, but I couldn't quickly find anything definitive. I suspect other 25 contibuting authors may also be sea level specialists).

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2004/2003RG000139...

It is interesting that one side of the argument is represented as "sceptics", when they are clearly pretty gullible if they accept nonsense like this at face value, when the most cursory of checking throws up this sort of basic error.

Ah, I see your intrest in this subject comes from the fact that you live in Norfolk.

Have you bought a boat yet?

nah, I'll just weld up the doors on my Elise like they did on Top Gear .. oh bugger!

[ludo]

s2art said:

Given the rise in global temperature since the little ice age it would be nearly impossible not to have a rise in sea levels. The interesting thing is what is happening, or will happen now and in the near future.

(IIRC sea levels have been rising for a fair while longer than the little ice age)

[ludo]

Gargamel said:

Not sure if this has already been brought to the attention of the global warmers yet ?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/chri...


Good article by Christopher Booker. The key part of which is that nothing much is going to happen to sea levels ....

Scare Mongering again by those that are still disappointed that communism failed

Edited by Gargamel on Tuesday 31st March 09:59

I haven't followed up the links to verify any of this (so caveat lector), but Wikipedia says the following about Christopher Booker

Wikipedia said:

Via his long-running column in the UK's Sunday Telegraph, Booker has claimed that man-made global warming was "disproved" in 2008[1], that white asbestos is "chemically identical to talcum powder" and poses a "non-existent risk" to human health[2], that "scientific evidence to support [the] belief that inhaling other people's smoke causes cancer simply does not exist"[3] and that there is "no proof that BSE causes CJD in humans"[4]. He has also defended the theory of Intelligent Design, maintaining that Darwinians "rest their case on nothing more than blind faith and unexamined a priori assumptions".[5]

Which suggests a somewhat non-standard approach to scientific journalism!