|
Post by woodstove on Feb 25, 2010 14:21:57 GMT
Hi Steve, Nature and humanity lover here! I actually respect humankind enough to tell it the truth: (1) Sea level has changed as long as there has been a sea; (2) the development of modern technology is not a safeguard against this; (3) as of 2010, sea level is not rising at any port or beach that is not itself subsiding; (4) if sea level were to rise by one meter (which no reputable study says it will) in the next century, it would only be the most recent instantiation of something that even Steve from Devon admits has happened cyclically in the past ;D Bear in mind that fear-mongering with regard to rising sea levels is the central addiction for your brothers and sisters in The Movement. James Hansen said in 1988 that the West Side Highway in Manhattan would be underwater within 20 years. This would have required a rise of sea level of two-plus meters! In the meantime, water in New York Harbor is where it was at the time of Hansen's warning. The Boy Who Cried Wolf would be a good item to add to your reading list. In the meantime, please enjoy the following: www.youtube.com/watch?v=-hJQ18S6aag&feature=related
|
|
|
Post by steve on Feb 25, 2010 14:52:29 GMT
Dear Harold of Austin, 1) I agree. 2) The development of modern technology is *a* safeguard against sea level rise. That statement is silly unless you qualify it. 3) Relative to the centre of the earth, sea levels have risen at about 3mm per year on average over the last 30 years. Rises are confirmed by satellite altimetry, tide guage data and GRACE combined with ARGO data 4) Whether it has happened in the past does not diminish its impact. Even woodstove admits that people have been knocked over by traffic in the past, so he doesn't look when he crosses the road! Sources that Harold thinks are not reputable are not necessarily disreputable.
I'm afraid bringing out something that Hansen or Gore has said is an old, and not very effective, technique.
|
|
|
Post by woodstove on Feb 25, 2010 15:33:35 GMT
Steve, your High Priests have been wrong about sea-level rise for decades now, their predictive power = nonexistent. I will ask again: where can you show me a rise in sea level? London harbor? Sydney? Honolulu? Seattle? Where can you show such a rise? Do you think they would have noticed higher water in Venice by any chance? Here's a paper to get you started: gsa.confex.com/gsa/2008AM/finalprogram/abstract_146406.htm"Land movement relative to mean sea level, or relative sea level rise (RSLR), includes in the Venice coastland land subsidence of both natural and anthropogenic origin, and sea level rise due to global climate change. From the early 1900s, about 23 cm of RSLR has occurred at Venice creating a great concern for the survival of the city and conservation of the lagoon environment. Natural subsidence is mainly due to consolidation of recent deposits. Anthropogenic subsidence was caused by groundwater overdraft from the aquifers located in the upper 350 m of the 1000-m-thick Quaternary formation underlying the coastland. Freshwater pumping, mostly performed for industrial purposes, started around the 1930s and reached the peak between 1950-1970 yielding a subsidence of about 5 mm/yr in Venice. Countermeasures adopted in the early 1970s produced a quick general improvement. Recent regional investigations using leveling, GPS, DInSAR, and PSI have definitely verified the stability of Venice over the 1992-2007 period, with a subsidence rate generally less than 1 mm/yr. Conversely, the measurements have revealed that the lagoon edges are sinking at 2-3 mm/yr due several causes, i.e. natural consolidation still ongoing, groundwater withdrawal for agricultural/tourist use, and oxidation of recently reclaimed histosols. Concerning with the sea level rise, an accurate statistical analysis has been performed on the data collected at the Venice gauge. Once removed the subsidence contribution using a nearby stable station, the mean secular eustatic rise has resulted about 1.2 mm/yr. Oscillations characterize the yearly-averaged level behavior which is linked the particular Adriatic Sea tide regimes and depends upon the short-term climatic fluctuations. Significant are the steadily decrease (-0.8 mm/yr) recorded from 1971 to 1993, the serious rise (5.5 mm/yr) from 1994 to 2000, and the new lowering phase (-2.64 mm/yr) between 2001 and 2007." The study authors find a Relative Sea Level change over the course of a century of 23 centimeters. Your 30 centimeters in the last 30 years claim (30 years times 3.3 millimeters) is belied by this measurement AND the authors are describing RELATIVE sea level, which includes the subsidence that they (and you and I) know to be taking place in Venice. Somehow, despite the frightening and accelerating sea-level rise that we all keep hearing about, sea level fell in Venice from 2001 to 2007. So, again, leaving behind the frightening world of satellite-derived sea-sea level changes, and entering the world of a real city on a real coast, Venice's only real worry when it comes to rising water comes from its continued issues and risks of self-induced subsidence. Of course, Venice will eventually be lost, as we know that what has happened before in the realm of nature (Eemian interglacial, Holocene Optimum, etc.) will almost certainly happen again. Hoping or pretending that technology will change this is pure anti-nature.
|
|
|
Post by steve on Feb 25, 2010 18:31:01 GMT
|
|
|
Post by woodstove on Feb 25, 2010 18:44:08 GMT
Steve, you're right to correct me on ad homs in this case. And you're right to correct my math. Thank you twice.
Rather than the words "High Priests," I should have said "the most august authorities in climatology." That would have been more accurate. Their predictions, however, have not been. I guess you are saying that although the most widely quoted experts on AGW have made predictions that have been falsified regarding sea level, that YOUR predictions will be borne out. That could be. Time will tell.
|
|
|
Post by steve on Feb 26, 2010 11:28:26 GMT
This paper was originally published in 1990, so prior to the satellite era. It identifies a trend in tide guages of 1.1 and 1.9 mm/year over the preceding 80 years after correcting for post-glacial rebound. Geophysical Journal International Spectroscopic analysis of global tide gauge sea level data A. Trupin and J. Wahr www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/119383875/abstract?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0Hansen is a scientist, but he also has taken on an activist role. His activist statements are certainly provocative, but are often disinterpreted (sic). I'd rather discuss "activist" statements separately from scientific statements. The IPCC AR4 report says there is likely to be a rise in sea level of up to about half a metre by 2100 (IIRC) due to land ice melt and thermal expansion. Due to uncertainty in determining ice sheet stability, they have demurred from putting a firm figure on the additional rise in sea level that will be due to dynamic changes in ice sheets, by which they mean, for example, faster moving glaciers. I assume it is this latter effect that contributed to past rises of greater than 1m in 100 years. Concerns about stability of the West Antarctic Ice sheet relate to the fact that a lot of it is sitting on land that is below sea level.
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Feb 26, 2010 13:25:26 GMT
This paper was originally published in 1990, so prior to the satellite era. It identifies a trend in tide guages of 1.1 and 1.9 mm/year over the preceding 80 years after correcting for post-glacial rebound. Geophysical Journal International Spectroscopic analysis of global tide gauge sea level data A. Trupin and J. Wahr www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/119383875/abstract?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0Hansen is a scientist, but he also has taken on an activist role. His activist statements are certainly provocative, but are often disinterpreted (sic). I'd rather discuss "activist" statements separately from scientific statements. The IPCC AR4 report says there is likely to be a rise in sea level of up to about half a metre by 2100 (IIRC) due to land ice melt and thermal expansion. Due to uncertainty in determining ice sheet stability, they have demurred from putting a firm figure on the additional rise in sea level that will be due to dynamic changes in ice sheets, by which they mean, for example, faster moving glaciers. I assume it is this latter effect that contributed to past rises of greater than 1m in 100 years. Concerns about stability of the West Antarctic Ice sheet relate to the fact that a lot of it is sitting on land that is below sea level. When one really looks at the field of "climate science", the conclusion is becoming obvious they really haven't the foggiest idea of what's going on. wattsupwiththat.com/2010/02/21/2009-paper-confirming-ipcc-sea-level-conclusions-withdrawn-mistakes-cited/Go right down the list. It's all "could", "might", "possibly"........ or we're told the evidence is irrefutable only to find out later the paper is flawed or statistical methodology was erroneous, yet the faulty science is still promoted as fact. Jeff ID (who busted the Steig paper) has some pretty strong words to say about climate science. noconsensus.wordpress.com/2010/02/25/climate-scientists-stand-up-or-be-run-over-by-the-god-of-physics/#more-8301
|
|
|
Post by steve on Feb 26, 2010 14:48:41 GMT
Magellan, it's refreshing to see you highlight the withdrawal of a paper that is optimistic about sea level rises not being so bad.
As this paper is based on past sea level rises it must include the dynamic changes in ice sheets, and so concludes these changes will only add 30cm to the 59cm proposed by the IPCC for the pessimistic greenhouse gas scenarios.
Since the problems were apparently spotted by Vermeer and Rahmsdorf, whose own study is much more pessimistic, it will be interesting to see which way the figures go when they reanalyse them.
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Feb 26, 2010 17:14:41 GMT
Magellan, it's refreshing to see you highlight the withdrawal of a paper that is optimistic about sea level rises not being so bad. As this paper is based on past sea level rises it must include the dynamic changes in ice sheets, and so concludes these changes will only add 30cm to the 59cm proposed by the IPCC for the pessimistic greenhouse gas scenarios. Since the problems were apparently spotted by Vermeer and Rahmsdorf, whose own study is much more pessimistic, it will be interesting to see which way the figures go when they reanalyse them. Rest assured, there will be another study in the near future touting "it's worse than we thought".
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Feb 26, 2010 19:14:32 GMT
This paper was originally published in 1990, so prior to the satellite era. It identifies a trend in tide guages of 1.1 and 1.9 mm/year over the preceding 80 years after correcting for post-glacial rebound. Geophysical Journal International Spectroscopic analysis of global tide gauge sea level data A. Trupin and J. Wahr www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/119383875/abstract?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0Hansen is a scientist, but he also has taken on an activist role. His activist statements are certainly provocative, but are often disinterpreted (sic). I'd rather discuss "activist" statements separately from scientific statements. The IPCC AR4 report says there is likely to be a rise in sea level of up to about half a metre by 2100 (IIRC) due to land ice melt and thermal expansion. Due to uncertainty in determining ice sheet stability, they have demurred from putting a firm figure on the additional rise in sea level that will be due to dynamic changes in ice sheets, by which they mean, for example, faster moving glaciers. I assume it is this latter effect that contributed to past rises of greater than 1m in 100 years. Concerns about stability of the West Antarctic Ice sheet relate to the fact that a lot of it is sitting on land that is below sea level. "The IPCC AR4 report says there is likely to be a rise in sea level of up to about half a metre by 2100 (IIRC) due to land ice melt and thermal expansion"Presumably this included the Himalayan glaciers - so perhaps the 2100 date is a century or three too early?
|
|
|
Post by socold on Feb 27, 2010 0:26:23 GMT
Misinterpreting a retraction of rising sea level predictionsA new skeptic argument has emerged that upon close inspection, is a polar opposite to the scientific reality. This week, scientists who published a 2009 paper on sea level rise retracted their prediction due to errors in their methodology. This has led some to claim sea levels are no longer predicted to rise... www.skepticalscience.com/Misinterpreting-retraction-of-rising-sea-level-predictions.html
|
|
|
Post by hunter on Feb 27, 2010 15:56:05 GMT
Misinterpreting a retraction of rising sea level predictionsA new skeptic argument has emerged that upon close inspection, is a polar opposite to the scientific reality. This week, scientists who published a 2009 paper on sea level rise retracted their prediction due to errors in their methodology. This has led some to claim sea levels are no longer predicted to rise... www.skepticalscience.com/Misinterpreting-retraction-of-rising-sea-level-predictions.html socold, Skeptics are disputing the AGW claim that we are not facing catastrophic sea level rises because we are not facing catastrophic sea level rises, not because an article was retracted.
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Feb 27, 2010 19:55:27 GMT
|
|
|
Post by socold on Feb 27, 2010 23:10:34 GMT
Misinterpreting a retraction of rising sea level predictionsA new skeptic argument has emerged that upon close inspection, is a polar opposite to the scientific reality. This week, scientists who published a 2009 paper on sea level rise retracted their prediction due to errors in their methodology. This has led some to claim sea levels are no longer predicted to rise... www.skepticalscience.com/Misinterpreting-retraction-of-rising-sea-level-predictions.html socold, Skeptics are disputing the AGW claim that we are not facing catastrophic sea level rises because we are not facing catastrophic sea level rises, not because an article was retracted. A lot of word-play there. Sea level is rising. Get over it. Skeptics tried to claim the article retraction meant sea level wasn't rising ( legalinsurrection.blogspot.com/2010/02/does-this-mean-my-house-never-will-be.html). Get over it.
|
|
|
Post by socold on Feb 27, 2010 23:16:49 GMT
socold, Skeptics are disputing the AGW claim that we are not facing catastrophic sea level rises because we are not facing catastrophic sea level rises, not because an article was retracted. Rahmstorf has been caught applying Mann-like statistical chicanery more than once. Lastly, what socold doesn't mention and neither does his repository for propaganda source "skepticalscience" (an oxymoron), the entire issue of sea level rise for the retracted article, Rahmstorf etc. are based on.......yep, you guessed it, climate model simulations assumptions of IPCC catastrophic warming. It's just another load of crap that needs shoveling. Yet sea level is rising. You need to get over that too. The lies of skeptic frauds and their scientifically illiterate media pals can't change scientific reality.
|
|