You mean Gore didn’t do all that ?? And still got paid a Hundred Million $$$ and counting !!??
Did Suzuki also not have all his ‘fruit flies’ in a row ??
It is so pathetic that the alarmists did not perform the most basic of scientific/statistical operations before yelling fire in the movie theatre.
Some lawyers will become very, very rich in the near future.
Antiarctica is getting colder how dose AL GORE and the wackos for GREENPEACE explian this after if its called GLOBAL WARMINcome the penguins and arctic terns are finding it more colder? MAYBE BECUASE AL GORE ISNT FLYING OVER THERE AND BLABBERING HIS MOUTH BECUASE ARCTIC TERNS AND PENGUINS DONT CARE TO HEAR HIM
if you follow the links and go here
theres no ice on hudson bay I guess according to Al Gore the polar bears must all be dead.
Anyone who disagrees with me is in the pockets of big oil.
Daniel M. Ryan: then Brian was the one who turned down that bet. Whether it be for sound reasons or not, that’s the way that one went.
We don’t know enough about the details to say this. If Brian says, I will be willing to bet but we split the costs, then it was the other who turns it down.
regards,
John
ol hoss & alan: I note that all the references that doubt sea level rise point to one man, Nils-Axel Morner and they are all news interviews without supporting data. So I would first encourage Dr. Morner to publish his work so other scientists can evaluate his findings.
However to clarify a couple of points that he raised:
1) He is not currently listed as associated with Stockholm University as a Department head or anything.
2) He is not correct when he claims that the IPCC section on sea-level change does not have experts.
3) He seems to contradict himself when in the article about satellites he says “but absolutely no trend whatsoever.” A couple of years before he seemed sure that the rise was about 1 mm/year and this would continue into the future. http://web.archive.org/web/20030129072703/http://www.pog.su.se/sea/07_research_topics/rt5.htm
4) While this is not related to his work on sea level rise, I will note that he has an interest in dowsing http://www.randi.org/hotline/1998/0012.html . That by itself means nothing, but I found the scientific test he uses amusing.
So, while I would not rule his views out, taken by themselves without supporting evidence, they are not very strong.
Regards,
John
I note that all the references that doubt sea level rise point to one man, Nils-Axel Morner and they are all news interviews without supporting data. So I would first encourage Dr. Morner to publish his work so other scientists can evaluate his findings.
However to clarify a couple of points that he raised:
1) He is not currently listed as associated with Stockholm University as a Department head or anything.
2) His is not correct when he claims that the IPCC section on sea-level change does not have experts.
3) He seems to contradict himself when in the article about satellites he says “but absolutely no trend whatsoever.” A couple of years before he seemed sure that the rise was about 1 mm/year and this would continue into the future.
4) While this is not related to his work on sea level rise, I will note that he has an. That by itself means nothing, but I found the scientific test he uses amusing.
So, while I would not rule his views out, taken by themselves without supporting evidence, they
are not very strong.
As always, links available upon request.
Frenchie77: I note that you did not answer my questions. In which case, I will take the easy way out and say that what you want has been done by the IPCC. If you have a problem with their analysis, then let me know.
Regards,
John
Chip: That explains it. I didn’t think the IPCC AR4 (the 2007 report) said that and sure enough your link is to the IPCC 1995 SAR report.
Regards,
John
First, what do you require as proof? I know that in the past some people have required proof in the mathematical sense and such does not exist for the sciences.
LOL Mathematical proof does not exist for the sciences?????? WTF?
How does one prove a scientific theory in your world John? Consensus? (absolute or 50%+1?) When everyone finishes singing Kumbaya at the same time and in the same key? When the theory invokes a warm and fuzzy feeling?
You’ve just destroyed what little credibility you may have had as someone “interested in the science”. You obviously don’t know what science is.
PS John: civility is not a substitute for honest debate.
Pd: One can never prove a scientific theory (only disprove them). One can develop a hypothesis and then support it with observation. One can then go on to say that “all of the data we have supports this idea”, but all it takes is one observation or fact that doesn’t fit to throw the theory out the window.
That is not the same as a mathematical proof, for example an inductive proof. In an inductive proof, a hypothesis can be shown for a base case then shown to be true for values of n and n+1. It can thus be concluded that the statement is true for all values.
Regards,
John
PS, I agree that civility is not a substitute for honest debate, but do you feel that exchanging insults is more productive?
John Cross:
I see you don’t like Dr. Morner, and that’s okay with me. But can you address the data and trends in data? There really is no trend is there? It really doesn’t matter whether he had a different take a few years ago or not, based on the satellite data, do you see a trend?
Note, my first response to alan and ol hoss was held up in the moderation queue so I submitted a second without the links which made it through. Thanks Kate for releasing my first, the second is no longer relevant.
John
I would submit the first isn’t relevant either.
John
Sorry, I grabbed the wrong link. Those revisions lower were indeed for the report in the 90s.
For the IPCC’s report in 2007, some of the revisions were in fact even more significant than in the previous report. For sea level, it’s prediction has been halved. From the Telegraph:
“The IPCC has been forced to halve its predictions for sea-level rise by 2100, one of the key threats from climate change. It says improved data have reduced the upper estimate from 34 in to 17 in.” http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/
main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/12/10/nclimate10.xml
This reinforces my initial point that the data is far too fluid to gain any certainty on this issue.
RicardoVerde: based on the satellite data, do you see a trend? Yes!
Regards,
John
cal2:
When I looked at alby’s profile, I was so shocked you could have knocked me over with a feather.
When alby’s hero Karl Marx, a do-nothing bum according to a biograhical account I saw on TV just last week, wrote Das Kapital, he sought out his hero to which he could dedicate his book.
Of course, that was history’s first science fiction spinmeister, Charles Darwin, whose logic claimed we were all evloved from rocks.
In 1866, Marx wrote to Frederick Engles that origin of Species contained the basis in natural history for their political and economic system for an atheist world.
Notice how alby’s noble mission statement is to piss of the relgious.
Earlier, in 1861, Marx wrote to Engles: “Darwin’s book is very importan and serves me as a basis in natural selection for the class struggle in history.”
At Marx’s funeral, Egels said that as Darwin had discovered the law of organic evolution in natural history, so Marx had discovered the law of evolution in human history.
Without getting into how species to species transformation has never been scientifically proven, the political theory espoused by Marx has also been thoroughly disproven.
It would be enough to piss off alby, if alby had any courage to debate this issue based on pure scientific fact.
If science were indeed settled on the naming of the atom (which translated from the Greek means smallest indivisible particley) and no further debate was allowed, we would not have the joy of discovering neutrons, protons and electrons.
Long life pure science.
May the perverted form of political science fuelled by science fiction, such as the deceptions and exaggerations performed by Algore, die the death it deserves.
Chip: I am not sure where the Telegraph got its number, but they seem to be quoting from the B2 scenario but comparing it to the A1F from the TAR. This is very much an apples and oranges comparison.
It is true that the A1F has been lowered between the TAR and AR4, but this is mostly due to a different way of estimating sea level rise. In the TAR they included ice dynamics uncertainty in the rate but now they calculate it separately.
Regards,
John.
John Cross: You write: ‘I note that you did not answer my questions. In which case, I will take the easy way out and say that what you want has been done by the IPCC. If you have a problem with their analysis, then let me know.’
You asked for: a) what proof would be required and b) and a question that assumes the CO2 has been proven as a definitive sole factor.
I responded with the initial process that should be followed, for the overall step 2. Yes, there is more – and it is all based on being able to identify, isolate, observe, and then predict/test behaviour of various factors/variables, etc.
From your second question, you (as so many others) have jumped steps and gone straight to assuming man-made CO2 is causing climate change and that this change is bad.
That assumption is premature, why have you made it?
Unfortunately, Taking the easy way it out is all too familiar in this tragedy of science.
If, I repeat, IF AGW proponents truly want to convince us skeptics that the AGW science is accurate, conclusions valid, and solutions appropriate then you must, beyond the shadow of a doubt, show us that. Proponents must accept and explain discrepancies according to the same scientific method. You cannot just call the credibility of skeptics into questions while ignoring the holes in the theory. The theory must be nearly perfect, considering the ramifications it as for society.
Has this really been done by the IPCC, as you state? If it has, then please explain why we (incl IPCC) are still trying to gather more information, from current/new sources/factors all the time.
Why are increasing amounts of money still being spent on finding new ways to monitor the environment, what is the point? Analogy: would you keep funding doctors at 100% or more to cure cancer once the research showed you the cure? Would it not seem more practical to reduce cancer research funding to a level appropriate to just maintaining a watch, say for mutations?
You have either reduced your errors to an acceptable level (on which you make valid conclusions) or you have not, so where are we? If the IPCC climate scientists have done such a good job, should we not be finding new work for most of them to do and leave a few to keep a simple watch? I mean, the few remaining scientists should just be able to plug the monitoring data into the near-perfect theory and all should be in acceptable limits, right?
Nothing new to discover about climate change, right? Where have I heard similar before?
Question: is there such a thing as consensus in science regarding “thermal expansion” of the Oceans? Based on the theory of melting continental ice (including 90% of the ice on Antarctica), the sea level should be falling according to my humble judgment. This great arcticle just confirms what I’ve always suspected. There IS however a consensus on MOST of the temperature increase of the second half of the 20th century being “human induced”, which makes it a rise of > 0.2C. So how much money is being wasted to prevent another 0.1C rise in temperature??? How many people will die because of lack of priority of food production, clean water, sanitary issues, malaria protection??? Now the carbon traders and oil companies and – the Middle East! – enjoy the fruits of the hype. Please Gore, become President, be busy with real politics and stop driving the oil prize up and up!!!
Markus: You state: Based on the theory of melting continental ice (including 90% of the ice on Antarctica), the sea level should be falling according to my humble judgment
I don’t follow this statement. Could you clarify it?
Thanks,
John
Frenchie77: You state: From your second question, you (as so many others) have jumped steps and gone straight to assuming man-made CO2 is causing climate change and that this change is bad.
That assumption is premature, why have you made it?
First, you are correct and I should have phrased my question better. You did lay out what you would consider proof and I appreciate that. What I was referring to in my previous post was your lack of response to my question about CO2.
I will note that (opposed to what you assert) I have not made any assumption but have stated the science as it stands. There is no question that we are responsible for the current in crease of CO2 and there is no question that adding more CO2 will cause warming.
I will also note that I did not say it was the sole cause as you state and I did not say anything in regards to it being either good or bad. So, in this regards I would say that you have made some premature assumptions about my comments.
My point was in trying to establish where there is a common base to build from.
Regards,
John
John
Whether they include ice dynamics uncertainty or the kitchen sink in the rate is beside the point. The point is that the IPCC is regularly changing (usually lowering) by significant margins their estimates of their global warming targets. So going all the way back to my initial point at the start of this thread, the science is clearly extremely fluid on this subject. But instead we’re deluged with demogoguery, and that worries me more than a sea level rise that by the IPCC’s current estimates would be basically the same as we’ve experienced in the last century.
“If, I repeat, IF AGW proponents truly want to convince us skeptics that the AGW science is accurate, conclusions valid, and solutions appropriate then you must, beyond the shadow of a doubt, show us that. Proponents must accept and explain discrepancies according to the same scientific method. You cannot just call the credibility of skeptics into questions while ignoring the holes in the theory. The theory must be nearly perfect, considering the ramifications it as for society.” Frenchie77 @ 5:49 AM
EXACTLY !!
They can’t defend their position —– see UK court’s Gore-take-down on at least nine counts of fraud.
So what is up with the alarmists ??
Simple. Similiar to the ole’ rope-a-dope tactic.
Job one is to protect their jobs/pensions. (many are at middle age and with a resume like that have no hope of gainful employment)
Sooo, deflect, muddy the water, delay, put off procrastinating for awhile.
Many have said, and it is becoming true lately, that as the alarmists’ science is destroyed, the fanatics will fall back on the religious “good for mankind’ argument.
Good for mankind ?? Ya, right —– good for Gore and Suzuki’s pocket.
“There is no question that we are responsible for the current in crease of CO2 and there is no question that adding more CO2 will cause warming.” JC
This is exactly how scammers and hoaxers operate. They do not tell the whole story.
Mankind has added CO2 to the atmosphere — yes. No one I know of is denying that.
BUT, we are likely only a small part of the increase. CO2 levels have been much, much higher in the past. With no apparent harmful effects to Gaia. CO2 levels FOLLOW temps.
In fact warmer periods (Medieval Warm Period) were a hell of a lot nicer than colder periods. (Little Ice Age) Especially for friggin’ freezin’ Canuckland !! (Ever try living under a mile of ice !!??)
Additional increases of CO2 will cause very little more warming —- that has been proven time and time and time again.
Diminissiong returns, CO2 is a minor GH gas, n’ all that.
Prediction: Al Gore will be hauled up on 9 counts of fraud in a multi-million suit.
Tip: Do not be caught in a guilty-by-association charge 🙂
Chip: You say “Whether they include ice dynamics uncertainty or the kitchen sink in the rate is beside the point”
I disagree with that. It is very important how they calculate this or else we are comparing apples to oranges. You can disagree with the IPCC for changing the way it calculates, but to compare accurately it must be included.
Regards,
John
One gets the impression that John C simply wants the last word.
John Cross:
The link to the U. of Colorado site was very interesting. I was under the impression that there was a long term creep up in sea levels (continuation since the ice age?), but there was no rapid increase in the time scale of the recent warming (1975-present). The graph in your link shows a rapid increase of 3.2 mm per year. That is quite a change from the tidal gauges which showed a more steady 1.5-2.0 mm per year prior to 1979/80 depending on which set of gauges you prefer to use.
But is it really a change? The problem I see with the data is one of the same problems I see with most data posted by both ‘believers’ and ‘deniers’. The data is somewhat cherry picked, probably unintentional, but cherry picked nonetheless. What I would prefer to see is a plot of the trend of the tidal gauges prior to the advent of satellites and a continuation of the trend alongside the satellite data. What they present is the satellite data and how they calibrated it. Nice stuff, but not apples to apples. If the tidal gauges still register a 1.5-2.0 mm trend during the same period then where is the AGW contribution?
Looking at the nice color map, it appears to me what the satellites are measuring is a large gravitational anomaly in the western Pacific. It is a large area of rapidly subducting crust. It would seem to me that the sea level would rise in response. That would be a rise, but not due to AGW. Bad news in any regards if you live in Palau.
Lets say the 3.2 mm rise is correct, due to AGW, and observable at shore (it would have to be observable to be an item of concern). Levels will rise a little more than an inch in 10 years and less than a foot in a hundred years. What would you do differently than if it increased at half that rate without AGW? (please excuse the long post)
Ricardo: Thanks for the interesting response – I appreciate long posts that contain interesting and well expressed ideas.
First, I am not very familar with the satellite methodology so I can not address your comments about errors. In regards to comparison with tide records, there is a graphic in the AR4 – Figure 5.13 – which shows the comparison. According to that, the teo seem to agree well, although I note that they left out error bars on the satellite record. I think they should have included them!From what I have read, I believe the error bars should be +/- 5 mm /year, but I am not sure of that. They have also shown the tidal and satellite readings on an monthly basis for a single location (Kwajalein) in Figure 5.18.
I will note that there are problems with the tidal record as well since the land is not static but rises and sinks. How much is not a trivial question as this paper shows. In addition, the tidal record does not have global coverage as the satellite record does.
Whether it is a concern or not is a fair question and you have an excellent point that I have not thought of before “(it would have to be observable to be an item of concern). ” A large increase in the open ocean would not be a concern (as long as it stayed there).
The rise of 3 mm/ year is not all that large as you point out, but it is expected to continue to increase from both melt and thermal expansion. This is how the IPCC comes up with their increase of 59 cm. (I will note that I have re-read the section and the predictions are for the mid 2090’s, i.e. about 90 years from now. I am not sure why they did this but it does also help to account for the reduction in the predicted rise from the TAR). Also, getting back to my discussion with Chip, this number ignores what is being called the ice dynamics uncertainty. This refers to possible instability of the ice sheets in the future and there is some interesting recent research on it.
Regards,
John
PS Ward, I am happy to leave the last word to you if you wish, but I thought RicardoVerde’s post was too interesting to ignore.
You mean Gore didn’t do all that ?? And still got paid a Hundred Million $$$ and counting !!??
Did Suzuki also not have all his ‘fruit flies’ in a row ??
It is so pathetic that the alarmists did not perform the most basic of scientific/statistical operations before yelling fire in the movie theatre.
Some lawyers will become very, very rich in the near future.
climate change. uncontrolable, inevitable. temp goes up, temp goes down.
pissinginthetent. water. absolutly right.
Antiarctica is getting colder how dose AL GORE and the wackos for GREENPEACE explian this after if its called GLOBAL WARMINcome the penguins and arctic terns are finding it more colder? MAYBE BECUASE AL GORE ISNT FLYING OVER THERE AND BLABBERING HIS MOUTH BECUASE ARCTIC TERNS AND PENGUINS DONT CARE TO HEAR HIM
this is albys profile
http://ca.profiles.yahoo.com/albatros39a
as a 40 something student I think it about time he started paying his way.
if you follow the links and go here
theres no ice on hudson bay I guess according to Al Gore the polar bears must all be dead.
Anyone who disagrees with me is in the pockets of big oil.
cal2
http://ca.profiles.yahoo.com/albatros39a
That explains it, it was the acid he ate at Woodstock when he was 9 years old.
Daniel M. Ryan: then Brian was the one who turned down that bet. Whether it be for sound reasons or not, that’s the way that one went.
We don’t know enough about the details to say this. If Brian says, I will be willing to bet but we split the costs, then it was the other who turns it down.
regards,
John
ol hoss & alan: I note that all the references that doubt sea level rise point to one man, Nils-Axel Morner and they are all news interviews without supporting data. So I would first encourage Dr. Morner to publish his work so other scientists can evaluate his findings.
However to clarify a couple of points that he raised:
1) He is not currently listed as associated with Stockholm University as a Department head or anything.
2) He is not correct when he claims that the IPCC section on sea-level change does not have experts.
3) He seems to contradict himself when in the article about satellites he says “but absolutely no trend whatsoever.” A couple of years before he seemed sure that the rise was about 1 mm/year and this would continue into the future.
http://web.archive.org/web/20030129072703/http://www.pog.su.se/sea/07_research_topics/rt5.htm
4) While this is not related to his work on sea level rise, I will note that he has an interest in dowsing http://www.randi.org/hotline/1998/0012.html . That by itself means nothing, but I found the scientific test he uses amusing.
So, while I would not rule his views out, taken by themselves without supporting evidence, they are not very strong.
Regards,
John
I note that all the references that doubt sea level rise point to one man, Nils-Axel Morner and they are all news interviews without supporting data. So I would first encourage Dr. Morner to publish his work so other scientists can evaluate his findings.
However to clarify a couple of points that he raised:
1) He is not currently listed as associated with Stockholm University as a Department head or anything.
2) His is not correct when he claims that the IPCC section on sea-level change does not have experts.
3) He seems to contradict himself when in the article about satellites he says “but absolutely no trend whatsoever.” A couple of years before he seemed sure that the rise was about 1 mm/year and this would continue into the future.
4) While this is not related to his work on sea level rise, I will note that he has an. That by itself means nothing, but I found the scientific test he uses amusing.
So, while I would not rule his views out, taken by themselves without supporting evidence, they
are not very strong.
As always, links available upon request.
Frenchie77: I note that you did not answer my questions. In which case, I will take the easy way out and say that what you want has been done by the IPCC. If you have a problem with their analysis, then let me know.
Regards,
John
Chip: That explains it. I didn’t think the IPCC AR4 (the 2007 report) said that and sure enough your link is to the IPCC 1995 SAR report.
Regards,
John
First, what do you require as proof? I know that in the past some people have required proof in the mathematical sense and such does not exist for the sciences.
LOL Mathematical proof does not exist for the sciences?????? WTF?
How does one prove a scientific theory in your world John? Consensus? (absolute or 50%+1?) When everyone finishes singing Kumbaya at the same time and in the same key? When the theory invokes a warm and fuzzy feeling?
You’ve just destroyed what little credibility you may have had as someone “interested in the science”. You obviously don’t know what science is.
PS John: civility is not a substitute for honest debate.
Pd: One can never prove a scientific theory (only disprove them). One can develop a hypothesis and then support it with observation. One can then go on to say that “all of the data we have supports this idea”, but all it takes is one observation or fact that doesn’t fit to throw the theory out the window.
That is not the same as a mathematical proof, for example an inductive proof. In an inductive proof, a hypothesis can be shown for a base case then shown to be true for values of n and n+1. It can thus be concluded that the statement is true for all values.
Regards,
John
PS, I agree that civility is not a substitute for honest debate, but do you feel that exchanging insults is more productive?
John Cross:
I see you don’t like Dr. Morner, and that’s okay with me. But can you address the data and trends in data? There really is no trend is there? It really doesn’t matter whether he had a different take a few years ago or not, based on the satellite data, do you see a trend?
Note, my first response to alan and ol hoss was held up in the moderation queue so I submitted a second without the links which made it through. Thanks Kate for releasing my first, the second is no longer relevant.
John
I would submit the first isn’t relevant either.
John
Sorry, I grabbed the wrong link. Those revisions lower were indeed for the report in the 90s.
For the IPCC’s report in 2007, some of the revisions were in fact even more significant than in the previous report. For sea level, it’s prediction has been halved. From the Telegraph:
“The IPCC has been forced to halve its predictions for sea-level rise by 2100, one of the key threats from climate change. It says improved data have reduced the upper estimate from 34 in to 17 in.”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/
main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/12/10/nclimate10.xml
This reinforces my initial point that the data is far too fluid to gain any certainty on this issue.
RicardoVerde: based on the satellite data, do you see a trend?
Yes!
Regards,
John
cal2:
When I looked at alby’s profile, I was so shocked you could have knocked me over with a feather.
When alby’s hero Karl Marx, a do-nothing bum according to a biograhical account I saw on TV just last week, wrote Das Kapital, he sought out his hero to which he could dedicate his book.
Of course, that was history’s first science fiction spinmeister, Charles Darwin, whose logic claimed we were all evloved from rocks.
In 1866, Marx wrote to Frederick Engles that origin of Species contained the basis in natural history for their political and economic system for an atheist world.
Notice how alby’s noble mission statement is to piss of the relgious.
Earlier, in 1861, Marx wrote to Engles: “Darwin’s book is very importan and serves me as a basis in natural selection for the class struggle in history.”
At Marx’s funeral, Egels said that as Darwin had discovered the law of organic evolution in natural history, so Marx had discovered the law of evolution in human history.
Without getting into how species to species transformation has never been scientifically proven, the political theory espoused by Marx has also been thoroughly disproven.
It would be enough to piss off alby, if alby had any courage to debate this issue based on pure scientific fact.
If science were indeed settled on the naming of the atom (which translated from the Greek means smallest indivisible particley) and no further debate was allowed, we would not have the joy of discovering neutrons, protons and electrons.
Long life pure science.
May the perverted form of political science fuelled by science fiction, such as the deceptions and exaggerations performed by Algore, die the death it deserves.
Chip: I am not sure where the Telegraph got its number, but they seem to be quoting from the B2 scenario but comparing it to the A1F from the TAR. This is very much an apples and oranges comparison.
It is true that the A1F has been lowered between the TAR and AR4, but this is mostly due to a different way of estimating sea level rise. In the TAR they included ice dynamics uncertainty in the rate but now they calculate it separately.
Regards,
John.
John Cross: You write: ‘I note that you did not answer my questions. In which case, I will take the easy way out and say that what you want has been done by the IPCC. If you have a problem with their analysis, then let me know.’
You asked for: a) what proof would be required and b) and a question that assumes the CO2 has been proven as a definitive sole factor.
I responded with the initial process that should be followed, for the overall step 2. Yes, there is more – and it is all based on being able to identify, isolate, observe, and then predict/test behaviour of various factors/variables, etc.
From your second question, you (as so many others) have jumped steps and gone straight to assuming man-made CO2 is causing climate change and that this change is bad.
That assumption is premature, why have you made it?
Unfortunately, Taking the easy way it out is all too familiar in this tragedy of science.
If, I repeat, IF AGW proponents truly want to convince us skeptics that the AGW science is accurate, conclusions valid, and solutions appropriate then you must, beyond the shadow of a doubt, show us that. Proponents must accept and explain discrepancies according to the same scientific method. You cannot just call the credibility of skeptics into questions while ignoring the holes in the theory. The theory must be nearly perfect, considering the ramifications it as for society.
Has this really been done by the IPCC, as you state? If it has, then please explain why we (incl IPCC) are still trying to gather more information, from current/new sources/factors all the time.
Why are increasing amounts of money still being spent on finding new ways to monitor the environment, what is the point? Analogy: would you keep funding doctors at 100% or more to cure cancer once the research showed you the cure? Would it not seem more practical to reduce cancer research funding to a level appropriate to just maintaining a watch, say for mutations?
You have either reduced your errors to an acceptable level (on which you make valid conclusions) or you have not, so where are we? If the IPCC climate scientists have done such a good job, should we not be finding new work for most of them to do and leave a few to keep a simple watch? I mean, the few remaining scientists should just be able to plug the monitoring data into the near-perfect theory and all should be in acceptable limits, right?
Nothing new to discover about climate change, right? Where have I heard similar before?
Question: is there such a thing as consensus in science regarding “thermal expansion” of the Oceans? Based on the theory of melting continental ice (including 90% of the ice on Antarctica), the sea level should be falling according to my humble judgment. This great arcticle just confirms what I’ve always suspected. There IS however a consensus on MOST of the temperature increase of the second half of the 20th century being “human induced”, which makes it a rise of > 0.2C. So how much money is being wasted to prevent another 0.1C rise in temperature??? How many people will die because of lack of priority of food production, clean water, sanitary issues, malaria protection??? Now the carbon traders and oil companies and – the Middle East! – enjoy the fruits of the hype. Please Gore, become President, be busy with real politics and stop driving the oil prize up and up!!!
Markus: You state: Based on the theory of melting continental ice (including 90% of the ice on Antarctica), the sea level should be falling according to my humble judgment
I don’t follow this statement. Could you clarify it?
Thanks,
John
Frenchie77: You state:
From your second question, you (as so many others) have jumped steps and gone straight to assuming man-made CO2 is causing climate change and that this change is bad.
That assumption is premature, why have you made it?
First, you are correct and I should have phrased my question better. You did lay out what you would consider proof and I appreciate that. What I was referring to in my previous post was your lack of response to my question about CO2.
I will note that (opposed to what you assert) I have not made any assumption but have stated the science as it stands. There is no question that we are responsible for the current in crease of CO2 and there is no question that adding more CO2 will cause warming.
I will also note that I did not say it was the sole cause as you state and I did not say anything in regards to it being either good or bad. So, in this regards I would say that you have made some premature assumptions about my comments.
My point was in trying to establish where there is a common base to build from.
Regards,
John
John
Whether they include ice dynamics uncertainty or the kitchen sink in the rate is beside the point. The point is that the IPCC is regularly changing (usually lowering) by significant margins their estimates of their global warming targets. So going all the way back to my initial point at the start of this thread, the science is clearly extremely fluid on this subject. But instead we’re deluged with demogoguery, and that worries me more than a sea level rise that by the IPCC’s current estimates would be basically the same as we’ve experienced in the last century.
“If, I repeat, IF AGW proponents truly want to convince us skeptics that the AGW science is accurate, conclusions valid, and solutions appropriate then you must, beyond the shadow of a doubt, show us that. Proponents must accept and explain discrepancies according to the same scientific method. You cannot just call the credibility of skeptics into questions while ignoring the holes in the theory. The theory must be nearly perfect, considering the ramifications it as for society.” Frenchie77 @ 5:49 AM
EXACTLY !!
They can’t defend their position —– see UK court’s Gore-take-down on at least nine counts of fraud.
So what is up with the alarmists ??
Simple. Similiar to the ole’ rope-a-dope tactic.
Job one is to protect their jobs/pensions. (many are at middle age and with a resume like that have no hope of gainful employment)
Sooo, deflect, muddy the water, delay, put off procrastinating for awhile.
Many have said, and it is becoming true lately, that as the alarmists’ science is destroyed, the fanatics will fall back on the religious “good for mankind’ argument.
Good for mankind ?? Ya, right —– good for Gore and Suzuki’s pocket.
“There is no question that we are responsible for the current in crease of CO2 and there is no question that adding more CO2 will cause warming.” JC
This is exactly how scammers and hoaxers operate. They do not tell the whole story.
Mankind has added CO2 to the atmosphere — yes. No one I know of is denying that.
BUT, we are likely only a small part of the increase. CO2 levels have been much, much higher in the past. With no apparent harmful effects to Gaia. CO2 levels FOLLOW temps.
In fact warmer periods (Medieval Warm Period) were a hell of a lot nicer than colder periods. (Little Ice Age) Especially for friggin’ freezin’ Canuckland !! (Ever try living under a mile of ice !!??)
Additional increases of CO2 will cause very little more warming —- that has been proven time and time and time again.
Diminissiong returns, CO2 is a minor GH gas, n’ all that.
Prediction: Al Gore will be hauled up on 9 counts of fraud in a multi-million suit.
Tip: Do not be caught in a guilty-by-association charge 🙂
Chip: You say “Whether they include ice dynamics uncertainty or the kitchen sink in the rate is beside the point”
I disagree with that. It is very important how they calculate this or else we are comparing apples to oranges. You can disagree with the IPCC for changing the way it calculates, but to compare accurately it must be included.
Regards,
John
One gets the impression that John C simply wants the last word.
John Cross:
The link to the U. of Colorado site was very interesting. I was under the impression that there was a long term creep up in sea levels (continuation since the ice age?), but there was no rapid increase in the time scale of the recent warming (1975-present). The graph in your link shows a rapid increase of 3.2 mm per year. That is quite a change from the tidal gauges which showed a more steady 1.5-2.0 mm per year prior to 1979/80 depending on which set of gauges you prefer to use.
But is it really a change? The problem I see with the data is one of the same problems I see with most data posted by both ‘believers’ and ‘deniers’. The data is somewhat cherry picked, probably unintentional, but cherry picked nonetheless. What I would prefer to see is a plot of the trend of the tidal gauges prior to the advent of satellites and a continuation of the trend alongside the satellite data. What they present is the satellite data and how they calibrated it. Nice stuff, but not apples to apples. If the tidal gauges still register a 1.5-2.0 mm trend during the same period then where is the AGW contribution?
Looking at the nice color map, it appears to me what the satellites are measuring is a large gravitational anomaly in the western Pacific. It is a large area of rapidly subducting crust. It would seem to me that the sea level would rise in response. That would be a rise, but not due to AGW. Bad news in any regards if you live in Palau.
Lets say the 3.2 mm rise is correct, due to AGW, and observable at shore (it would have to be observable to be an item of concern). Levels will rise a little more than an inch in 10 years and less than a foot in a hundred years. What would you do differently than if it increased at half that rate without AGW? (please excuse the long post)
Ricardo: Thanks for the interesting response – I appreciate long posts that contain interesting and well expressed ideas.
First, I am not very familar with the satellite methodology so I can not address your comments about errors. In regards to comparison with tide records, there is a graphic in the AR4 – Figure 5.13 – which shows the comparison. According to that, the teo seem to agree well, although I note that they left out error bars on the satellite record. I think they should have included them!From what I have read, I believe the error bars should be +/- 5 mm /year, but I am not sure of that. They have also shown the tidal and satellite readings on an monthly basis for a single location (Kwajalein) in Figure 5.18.
I will note that there are problems with the tidal record as well since the land is not static but rises and sinks. How much is not a trivial question as this paper shows. In addition, the tidal record does not have global coverage as the satellite record does.
Whether it is a concern or not is a fair question and you have an excellent point that I have not thought of before “(it would have to be observable to be an item of concern). ” A large increase in the open ocean would not be a concern (as long as it stayed there).
The rise of 3 mm/ year is not all that large as you point out, but it is expected to continue to increase from both melt and thermal expansion. This is how the IPCC comes up with their increase of 59 cm. (I will note that I have re-read the section and the predictions are for the mid 2090’s, i.e. about 90 years from now. I am not sure why they did this but it does also help to account for the reduction in the predicted rise from the TAR). Also, getting back to my discussion with Chip, this number ignores what is being called the ice dynamics uncertainty. This refers to possible instability of the ice sheets in the future and there is some interesting recent research on it.
Regards,
John
PS Ward, I am happy to leave the last word to you if you wish, but I thought RicardoVerde’s post was too interesting to ignore.