Hahhahahahaha. I can’t believe you’re still bringing up that incompetent liar Morner. ROFL.
Here’s the NASA TOPEX Poseidon data, from real scientists across many countries:
climate.nasa.gov/keyIndicators/i … m#SeaLevel
Let me know when you have a real discussion of this data from a real scientist, and not a skeptidork who doesn’t realize that raw data have to be processed and can’t tell the difference between an instrument error and actual data, believes in dowsing, omits references necessary for published papers, and whose work has been categorically rejected by the scientific community.
Not only that, but you’ve never read a scientific paper on tide gauges, you don’t know anything about methodology, you’re not familiar with the data sets, and you couldn’t name a single name in the field. As a critical mind, you’re about as engaged as a guy in a sensory deprivation box.
Vorkosigan
[color=#BF0000]
Climate scientists withdraw journal claims of rising sea levels
[/color]
[quote][color=#4000BF]Scientists have been forced to withdraw a study on projected sea level rise due to global warming after finding mistakes that undermined the findings[/color].
The study, published in 2009 in Nature Geoscience, one of the top journals in its field, confirmed the conclusions of the 2007 report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). [color=#400040]It used data over the last 22,000 years to predict that sea level would rise by between 7cm and 82cm by the end of the century[/color].
At the time, Mark Siddall, from the Earth Sciences Department at the University of Bristol, said the study “strengthens the confidence with which one may interpret the IPCC results”. The [color=#BF00FF]IPCC said that sea level would probably rise by 18cm-59cm by 2100[/color], though stressed this was based on incomplete information about ice sheet melting [color=#BF00FF]and that the true rise could be higher[/color].
[color=#00BF00]Many scientists criticised the IPCC approach as too conservative[/color], and several papers since have suggested that sea level could rise more. Martin Vermeer of the Helsinki University of Technology, Finland and Stefan Rahmstorf of the [color=#4000BF]Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research in Germany published a study in December that projected a rise of 0.75m to 1.9m by 2100[/color]…
“[color=#804080]
It’s one of those things that happens. People make mistakes and mistakes happen in science
[/color].” …
In a statement the authors of the paper said: "[color=#4080BF]Since publication of our paper we have become aware of two mistakes which impact the detailed estimation of future sea level rise. This means that we can no longer draw firm conclusions regarding 21st century sea level rise[/color] from this study without further work.
“[color=#400000]One mistake was a miscalculation; the other was not to allow fully for temperature change over the past 2,000 years[/color]. …”[/quote]
Do any of these folks have a clue?
If it was pseudo science they would never admit to any mistakes.
[quote=“Deuce Dropper”]
[quote]For the past three years, the vast cap of shining-white ice covering the Arctic has melted away in summer to an area that would have been unbelievable just a decade ago. At the end of the winter, the frozen seas cover 15.7m square kilometres (6.1m square miles), an area more than one and a half times that of the United States. By September the ice regularly used to melt to 7m square kilometres. But since a great collapse in 2007 the figure has been closer to 4.3m square kilometres.
Every summer an extra area of ice six times the size of California has been disappearing.
As well as this reduction in area, scientists believe that, hidden beneath the surface, the ice is growing ever thinner, setting up the Arctic for another sudden, catastrophic collapse. The big question now is when the ice will disappear totally each summer. There will be an answer in 2010.
Another year of observations, better computer models and—the Holy Grail of ice scientists—maps of the thickness of the ice from a new European satellite called -Cryosat-2 should reveal in 2010 how long the Arctic ice has left. Estimates range from 2013—terrifyingly soon—to 2050 for the first year when the Arctic is free of ice in summer.
When that happens, it will be the biggest and fastest change to the Earth’s surface ever made by human influence. The ice, poised between freezing and melting, is an especially sensitive indicator of the planet’s temperature. When it disappears, it will be a disaster for all the Arctic life that depends on ice, from the polar bears that walk on it to the tiny creatures that live within it.
And it will be a disaster for the planet. That great dome of ice reflects sunlight back into space throughout the 24 hours a day of polar summer sunshine. When it turns sea-dark and soaks up the sun, global warming will really take off.[/quote]
economist.com/theworldin/dis … payBarrier[/quote]
funny how this keeps getting ignored
Its the norm DD, I am in awe with how extensive the campaign to discredit the climate scientists is, and with such little scientific facts of their own, how they can convince such a large percentage of the population the science is all wrong.
TC has been posting on the melting glacier predictions over and over, if you point out the IPCC had 3 working groups, the basis for science being working group 1 and accurately presented the state of the Himalayas and this statement went into a 1000 page document from working group 2, responsible for mitigation issues, and should have been basing the science on working group 1 and didn’t even make it in the summary, hence missed for so long. You think there is a chance the deniers can put that in perspective?
The lies are too numerous to deal with, Fred Smith within a single post can have half a dozen, which he follows up with back to back posting, repeating “facts” which are at best highly disputed and in many cases plain wrong. His recent rants on sea level rise with only a short google search can prove his belief is founded on an extremely questionable foundation.
He gets shown paper after paper, discrediting his source. Such as Church et al 2006 which in addition sites numerous other scientists that will refute the claims made.
Fred goes on about incomplete data, despite there being quite a large number of tide gauges in places, some of them with complete data for over 50 years, as can be seen from the paper and other references used. THEN uses Morners work, which not only is done on the basis of 6 trips, the data is never provided, AT ALL.
Bob apparently found all this rather convincing of bringing much doubt to the issue. Yet, in their efforts to discredit global warming, they will not acknowledge any scientific work, poke fun at polar bears or joke how a snowstorm must mean global warming is a silly idea yes and this will be the legacy of our generation. We knew, we had a responsibility to act, we were selfish and greedy and did nothing. Future generations will pay the price.
Not sure I would say it was “convincing” one way or another. It is just that when I got thinking about the immensity and complexity of the processes involved I started to wonder about the certainty with which “facts” were being presented on the issue of sea level change. On the basis of satilite information they can tell whether the oceans are rising or falling, and to within a few milimeters? A milimeter is a tenth of a centimeter. Satelites are floating around in the stratosphere looking down on a mass of liquid that is moving around constantly in the wind and the tide and in relation to land masses that are themselves moving up or down, and they can judge with this kind of precision? It is complicated to by the fact that the oceans don’t rise and fall uniformly.
The calculations are all based on averages I imagine but still I find the whole thing doubtful. I just haven’t seen anyone, anywhere explain how all these variables were taken into consideration.
This doesn’t change my mind about the fossil fuel tax in any way whatsoever because there are obviously other indicators of climate change. Besides, I would be in favour of a fossil fuel tax for a variety of reasons even of climate change were not occuring, and I think it is.
If Morner’s data is not available AT ALL I don’t know why it was ever discussed.
I agree, the more you look into how various issues are calculated, the more you realize there are a great deal more factors than one might have expected and wonder how its possible to reach any meaningful conclusions.
The glacier retreat in the Himalayas for example, you read its not only the length that needs to be factored, theres depth, mass and density. Theres areas poorly documented, and others which are advancing. In the case of rising sea levels, they are factoring in ENSO , they forgot to factor in the Arctic as I recall. So I see your point.
But we do have a broad agreement from the brightest minds on the planet regarding these issues. Despite going through quite a few pages, I have yet to see a single sentence from Fred or TC that acknowledges the science, as presented by the IPCC has any merit whatsoever. If as they say, conclusions can not be drawn due to such large uncertainties, then these papers and broad agreements on climate change should not exist.
Now if those on the denialist side are able to address that issue, I will be very impressed.
[quote=“Tigerman”][color=#BF0000]
Climate scientists withdraw journal claims of rising sea levels
[/color]
[quote][color=#4000BF]Scientists have been forced to withdraw a study on projected sea level rise due to global warming after finding mistakes that undermined the findings[/color].
The study, published in 2009 in Nature Geoscience, one of the top journals in its field, confirmed the conclusions of the 2007 report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). [color=#400040]It used data over the last 22,000 years to predict that sea level would rise by between 7cm and 82cm by the end of the century[/color].
At the time, Mark Siddall, from the Earth Sciences Department at the University of Bristol, said the study “strengthens the confidence with which one may interpret the IPCC results”. The [color=#BF00FF]IPCC said that sea level would probably rise by 18cm-59cm by 2100[/color], though stressed this was based on incomplete information about ice sheet melting [color=#BF00FF]and that the true rise could be higher[/color].
[color=#00BF00]Many scientists criticised the IPCC approach as too conservative[/color], and several papers since have suggested that sea level could rise more. Martin Vermeer of the Helsinki University of Technology, Finland and Stefan Rahmstorf of the [color=#4000BF]Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research in Germany published a study in December that projected a rise of 0.75m to 1.9m by 2100[/color]…
“[color=#804080]
It’s one of those things that happens. People make mistakes and mistakes happen in science
[/color].” …
In a statement the authors of the paper said: "[color=#4080BF]Since publication of our paper we have become aware of two mistakes which impact the detailed estimation of future sea level rise. This means that we can no longer draw firm conclusions regarding 21st century sea level rise[/color] from this study without further work.
“[color=#400000]One mistake was a miscalculation; the other was not to allow fully for temperature change over the past 2,000 years[/color]. …”[/quote]
Do any of these folks have a clue?
[/quote]
I love the way the anti-science crowd pounced on this as proof! Yes! Again! See! No global warming.
Reality: the paper was withdrawn because its estimate of sea level rise was TOO LOW.
Climate Progress has a great piece on this, with all the relevant links.
The ghost of Yellow Cartman says:
I’m beginning to know what it’s like to listen to a discussion on the difference between 10 millimeters and 11 millimeters.
[quote=“Vorkosigan”]
I love the way the anti-science crowd pounced on this as proof! Yes! Again! See! No global warming.
Reality: the paper was withdrawn because its estimate of sea level rise was TOO LOW.
Climate Progress has a great piece on this, with all the relevant links.
climateprogress.org/2010/02/22/s … l-warming/[/quote]
They withdrew it because it was “too conservative”. They wanted one that was more liberal.
[quote=“TomHill”]The ghost of Yellow Cartman says:
I’m beginning to know what it’s like to listen to a discussion on the difference between 10 millimeters and 11 millimeters.
[/quote]
I thought we were talking in inches. I’m so outa here.
More sad news for those who still promote the fallacy of GlobulWarming/ClimateChange/AGW and Good News for those who have been skeptical of the cult-like mantra of it and its promoters:
I posted earlie\r in the thread that, so far, there have been 16 lawsuits brought about re:this episode and that 3 US states Attorney Generals are among the litigants. This is now moving into the US Gov’t with a Senator calling for further investigation of the cabal that got this crap rolling:
[quote]Climategate Meets the Law: Senator Inhofe to Ask for DOJ Investigation
“Inhofe intends to ask for a probe of the embattled climate scientists for possible criminal acts. And he thinks Gore should be recalled to explain his prior congressional testimony.” (Click here for the just-released Senate Environment and Public Works report behind Inhofe’s announcement.)
Senator James Inhofe (R-OK) today asked the Obama administration to investigate what he called “the greatest scientific scandal of our generation” — the actions of climate scientists revealed by the Climategate files, and the subsequent admissions by the editors of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Fourth Assessment Report (AR4).
Senator Inhofe also called for former Vice President Al Gore to be called back to the Senate to testify.
“In [Gore’s] science fiction movie, every assertion has been rebutted,” Inhofe said. He believes Vice President Gore should defend himself and his movie before Congress.
Just prior to a hearing at 10:00 a.m. EST, Senator Inhofe released a minority staff report from the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, of which he is ranking member. Senator Inhofe is asking the Department of Justice to investigate whether there has been research misconduct or criminal actions by the scientists involved, including Dr. Michael Mann of Pennsylvania State University and Dr. James Hansen of Columbia University and the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies…excerpt[/quote]
Al?..Al?..where are you Al?
As might be expected, politicians are beginning to distance themselves from the coming fall-out:
[quote]BREAKING: Senator Barbara Boxer and EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson Throw IPCC Under the Bus
"Following the release of the Inhofe Report, Boxer claimed she was only quoting “American scientists,” and Jackson reversed herself on the use of the IPCC as the “gold standard.”
During the review of the Environmental Protection Agency budget in today’s Senate Environment and Public Works Committee hearing, both Senator Barbara Boxer — the chair of the committee — and EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson distanced themselves from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Fourth Assessment Report (AR4).
Boxer and Jackson’s statements, in addition to being a striking change in policy, are problematic because U.S. climate science is very closely tied to the IPCC reports (as Christopher Horner showed in his recent PJM series on the NASA FOIA emails.)…excerpt[/quote]
Algore?..Where are you Algore?
A really good read-
[quote]Al Gore Is Lying Low – for Good Reason
Maybe Al Gore’s been advised by legal counsel to lie low. He may be the leader of the anthropogenic global warming (AGW) movement, but he’s not defending it in public, not even when it’s falling apart and his new fortune is based upon it.
Mr. Gore and his financial backers earned millions of dollars in start-up “green” companies and carbon trading schemes. If the scam worked, he could’ve become the first “carbon billionaire.”
“What goes up can fall down” applies to ill-gotten gains in the stock market or “carbon trading” schemes. In such schemes, it’s foreseeable that trusting investors will (a) not only get hurt when the scam collapses, but they’ll also (b) pursue legal remedies and sue him for fraud.
Mr. Gore’s financial gains were based on the contradictory and error-plagued assertion that man’s release of the trace gas CO2 will fry the planet.
Once it becomes clear to everyone that the AGW theory is based on cleverly manipulated data twisted by rigged computer models controlled by several dozen IPCC politicians/scientists, [color=#FF0000]we can expect that investors who lose millions by investing in these companies will eventually haul Mr. Gore and the insider IPCC scientists into court[/color]
As investors learn the extent of the scam, Mr. Gore’s start-up “green” companies will lose considerable value, like flaky dot-com companies lacking a real product. Investors in these “green” companies – who reasonably relied upon Gore’s alarming claims – may pursue several possible remedies:
-
derivative shareholder lawsuits, disgorging from Mr. Gore and other senior officers in these companies any illicit gains from any insider trading that could be proven; and/or
-
lawsuits against brokers who did not perform the SEC’s necessary “due diligence” research before peddling those shares; and/or
-
civil RICO lawsuits against Mr. Gore and any IPCC scientists who participated in blocking the publication of contrary research, cooking the data, all of whose annual income skyrocketed from the public hysteria.
On the state level, it’s impossible to predict if one or more state attorney generals will look back on the tobacco industry cases and decide, representing the taxpayers of his or her state, to file criminal and/or civil RICO actions against Gore and the enriched IPCC scientists.
(On the federal level, while President Obama is in office, the Justice Department will not file RICO or SEC actions against their buddy Al Gore. Remember, the president originally hoped that Boxer-Kerry cap-and-trade would generate over $600 billion in new corporate taxes – “emergency” measures justified by fantasy AGW theory…excerpt[/quote]
RICO…Learn It!..LIVE IT!..LOVE IT!
algore?..psst…algore?..where ya at man?
I would like to see a probe of Gore and Inhofe side by side with criminal penalties for the biggest liar. It would be bye bye Jimmie.
As I said earlier, the IPCC has lost much of its perceived legitimacy. But that doesn’t mean Global Warming isn’t happening. There is still a lot of evidence to support it. Let the scientists figure it out, and stop looking at it from a political viewpoint!
Well, we knew that the IPCC was not to be trusted long before you did.
Whoever said it isn’t? Our side has argued 1) its not happening due to man, 2) its not happening at a rate that will result in catastrophy, and 3) that we shouldn’t be signing up for an enormous distribution of wealth that will have little impact on how warm or cool the planet gets.
Support what? GW or AGW?
Since when is Al Gore a scientist?
If you have a dictionary, you might want to look for the word “irony”.
Why not?
Personally I’m “hoping” for a bit of distribution my way. I imagine there are a lot of unemployed people in the west who would be eager to take on the “work” of easing our way out of an over dependence on fossil fuels.
Anywa, it isn’t terribly difficult to see that man produces an awful lot of CO2. Nor is it difficult to see that the climate is changing. You can look to the shrinking polar ice caps for evidence of that. It isn’t difficult to see that fossil fuel dependancy, on the scale that exists today, is the cause of a litany of environmental problems. It isn’t difficult to see that solutions to these problems exist and it isn’t difficult to see that the money to pay for it exists. Solutions that would “create” employment. Solutions that would help slow the flow of funds out of the west and toward countries antagonistic toward us.
What “is” really hard to see is why anyone would think this was a bad idea. Wouldn’t you like to think of a future with less urban sprawl, less air pollution… Even if you have invested massively into fossil fuel developments there has to be an aspect of yourself that would like to see that.
Oh whatever, nobody in this thread is “ever” influenced by anything anybody else says anyway…
That much is obvious.
Well, we knew that the IPCC was not to be trusted long before you did.[/quote]
You think “glaciergate” is some sort of proof the IPCC cant be trusted? Heres a good article on who the IPCC is and how the reports are made and the significance of the erroneous claim. IPCC errors: facts and spin
You will note, working group 1, which is responsible for the science wrote over 45 pages on glaciers, none of which has needed any correction. The error, from WG2 (who should have been using WG1s science) was spotted by one of the lead authors of the IPCC report from WG1. Hardly evidence of a grand conspiracy.
[quote=“Tigerman”]
Since when is Al Gore a scientist?
If you have a dictionary, you might want to look for the word “irony”.[/quote]
TC’s article uses a link to Lord Monckton of all people to expose his films " error-plagued assertion that man’s release of the trace gas CO2 will fry the planet." Using Monckton to expose errors is dripping in irony.
What with the Bush administration having spent 8 years asking the EPA, OSHA, and every other federal agency to sit on their hands and shut their mouths, we’ve seen the sort of commitment that those asshats had regarding science.
And then you take Fox News commentator and GOP darling Stephen Milloy, and his “junk science” bit. Masquerading as a guy trying to police the science community, he spent all his time and energy attacking the concept of global warming and effects of second-hand smoke while taking paychecks, respectively, from the oil and tobacco industries. Apparently the Republicans consider guys like Milloy “disinterested” when they mean “uninterested,” as in “uninterested in any sort of actual legitimacy”.
I can’t wait for the latest Approved Republican Science Textbook to be issued to the schoolchildren of America. Based on what I’ve seen so far, it will be filled with references to how the dinosaurs are evidence of the “Mammon” beasts of the Bible, a chapter on sex ed with simply the word “NO!” filling one page and a picture of a bundle-carrying stork on the other, with an illustrated gatefold stating that AIDS was created through human-ape homosexual acts in Africa. And for a special section on Global Warming, there will be a set of outdated photos and maps showing how the poles and major glaciers looked 30 years ago. To appeal to budding astronauts, there will be an extensive account of how the footage of the Apollo missions was faked “by liberals” at NASA and stating that “someday Americans may actually reach the moon.”
So, while not all scientists are always right, I do tend to trust the free market of ideas enough that the competition between universities and research institutions, the peer-review process, and the natural advancement of real science over crap political science will triumph in the end. Scientists who do care about their careers, reputations and future legacies try hard to reach correct results and to advance our understanding of how our world and universe work. There are numerous nations that do embrace science and are continuing to move up the economic ladders in an effort to surpass America, but given the efforts of “conservatives” over the past couple of decades to dumb down our nation’s scientific dialogue, apparently they’re content to see America slide so long as their buddies in Big Oil and Big Tobacco can ensure we’ve got as much smoke in our air and as much tar in our lungs as they can dish out.
Well, we knew that the IPCC was not to be trusted long before you did.
Whoever said it isn’t? Our side has argued 1) its not happening due to man, 2) its not happening at a rate that will result in catastrophy, and 3) that we shouldn’t be signing up for an enormous distribution of wealth that will have little impact on how warm or cool the planet gets.
Support what? GW or AGW?
Since when is Al Gore a scientist?
If you have a dictionary, you might want to look for the word “irony”.[/quote]
Tigerman, I never said anything about Al Gore, so don’t drag him into your response to my comments.
You knew the IPCC was wrong? Who says it’s wrong? They made a few mistakes. It’s only politicals or boneheads who think that makes everything they say wrong.
I’m still going with the majority of scientists worldwide who say AGW is most likely. You read your crappy web sites if you want to.