Rise of sea levels is 'the greatest lie ever told'

Maybe,

Each of those squiggly lines represents the data from one tidal gauge.

Averaging them together is how the mean sea level for the planet was determined.

In recent years we also have satellite data.

Arthur

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

No it's not.

I've explained why and posted data to support that.

If you disagree, then instead of mere assertion post a peer reviewed STUDY that supports your claim of a 1 meter rise by 2050.

Failure to do so will be an admission that you have no scientific support for that claim.

No, it should be based on the science that the IPCC reports are based on.
Peer reviewed science that passes review by a number of leading scientists in the field.

Yeah, I'm familiar with people who want to discount the extensive work done by the IPCC and put in their own projections for their own reasons.

I'm not impressed.

Arthur

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Dr. Morner

OK, Here is Dr. Morner in 1972, examining glacial varves in Sweden near Upsala.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

It's based on the prediction as posted in the Wikipedia article, that says up to 2m rise could happen by 2100.

So according to you and your fuckwit logic, that can't possibly mean a 1m rise is predicted before 2100. Note that 2050 occurs before 2100.

You must be ignoring that the same scientists, and the IPCC panel, has admitted their predictions are based on conservative estimates. The Wikipedia article also mentions that because certain aspects of climate science are not understood that well, they are ignored by the IPCC. That means that only in the sort of fuckwit world you live in are IPCC reports reliable. Please note once more in case you missed it: the IPCC admits its own reports are no longer reliable, mainly because the reports ignore new data from studies in which the science (of for instance, melting or collapsing ice sheets) is not well understood.

There is no rosy future IPCC scenario; there is no rosy future scenario from any other group either. The only rosy future scenario is Arthur the fuckwit's.

It's like trying to debate what statistics means with a Republican.

p.s. surely it matters very little if Arthur wants to cling to a report that the authors admit is out of date, doesn't consider all the information, and can't be relied on. It doesn't matter what anyone wants to believe, the facts are that we're committed to finding out what 450 ppm or higher CO[sub]2[/sub] is going to be like. Although arguments against that possibility might be interesting, I can't imagine why we would suddenly stop pursuing economic growth--barring some kind of catastrophe.

 

Right. So, you see what I'm really getting at is: do any studies of sea level ever demonstrate the transport of water back and forth between land and sea?

Before anyone can claim ice melt is or is not raising sea levels, it would seem important to know whether any sense at all can be made of the sea level data with regard to transport.

Obviously, the shorelines have changed over the post-ice age era, and it does seem logical to infer that this was ice melt dumped in the sea.

My reason for harping on this is as follows. If the land is drying up as the data seemed to be indicating (to me) - then when ice melts, some of it will go to replenish the lost ground water. If this is true, then after all of the ice is gone, that replenishment will end, and the desiccation of land will, it seems, take a steep increase, and with lost vegetation, surface water will accelerate its evaporation.

I'm just saying that there is some conceivable model that would call for the sea rise to escalate at the end of the era of ice.

I looked at the data posted at

http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends.shtml

and they show something a little different from your Google data, where they are tracking local trends, showing variation by locale. Thus, the Louisiana barrier islands may go underwater whereas some other region may actually see water recede.

I went there since there was some discussion here of discrediting the IPCC. I'm addressing this question to you because you mentioned having published on this subject.

 

And because the temperature estimates that rise are based on have far more global warming AFTER 2050 then before 2050 you can't simply divide the 100 year rise by 2 and claim that they are saying 1 meter by 2050.

Indeed, using that same logic you could divide that 200 cm rise by 100 years and thus claim we should be getting a rise of 20 mm per year now.

Which would indicate we should have had a 200 mm rise over the last decade instead of the slight decline that we have actually had (J1 and J2 are our Jason satellites measuring the sea level).

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

If you can't understand what this simple global temperature vs time graph implies:

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Then I can't help you.

No, I said find a scientific study that predicts 1 meter by 2050.

You haven't done so.

Arthur

 

I can however, claim as I have, that if someone is predicting a rise of up to 2m by 2100, then they're predicting a 1m rise some time before 2100.
Perhaps this 1m rise will occur by 2050. There is absolutely nothing wrong with what I said.

That's ok, I don't want any help from you, or from people who think like you.

I've already quoted the study. It's the same one that's predicting a 2m rise by 2100.

But you're too predantic and lost in some kind of desperate need to be correct about the "real" state of global warming. I'm saying you can't be and nor can anyone else be, because there are just too many unknowns. So please stop trying to convince everyone, it isn't working, and all you're doing is looking like a complete twat.

 

Yes you can, but still that's NOT the same thing as saying any scientific reports are suggesting a 1 meter rise by 2050 though.

No, that's not the same thing.
Again, I've asked you to produce a study that shows 1 meter by 2050 and you have not been able to do so.

Arthur

 

Look, idiot, if the prediction is a 2m rise, at some point in time there's a 1m rise in the same prediction. The prediction isn't suggesting a 1m rise by 2050, it's suggesting a 1m rise before 2100. I suggest that "before 2100" could be "by 2050".

There is NOTHING wrong with my argument. What's wrong with your counter-argument is that you're the one making it, and you're an idiot.

 

Would you not both agree that prediction based on history requires an assumption that the trend will continue?

How realistic is that assumption?

 

You're right, the prediction you're quoting isn't suggesting a 1 m rise before 2050.

Only you are.

But who cares what afra brane suggests?

Don't believe me?
Then simply EDIT Wiki and put in your 1 meter by 2050 "suggestion" and we'll see how long it lasts.

Arthur

 

By this I guess you mean that physics is driving the climate change and sea level increase.

But my question was addressing the realism of looking at a tend and extrapolating it into the future.

For example, the population grows exponentially, but only recently has it acquired hydrofluorocarbons to deplete the ozone layer, and fossil fuels to add to the atmospheric carbon dioxide. So, if the trend for average earth temperature had been on a linear upward slope just before the Industrial Age, it would seem that a prediction made back then (by extrapolation) would prove inaccurate, because in fact, humanity learned how to alter both the ozone layer and the greenhouse gas concentrations starting right about then.

When I hear someone say Gore et al are fabricating evidence, I am curious on what basis those claims are made. It is more likely that an error could have been made years ago when the research was tied together. Also, it is possible the research factors in nonlinearities, such as anticipated nonlinear growth in industrial damage to the planet, something like that. In other words, the anti-Gore camp may be oversimplifying the model for prediction.

 

The predictions for the future are NOT done by extrapolation, but by Global Climate Models and such.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_climate_model

They take in all sorts of input (population, energy use, effects of rising CO2 etc etc) and use that to model what the future will be like.

Because we can't be certain of the future, "scenarios" were created that consider various futures, such as a low growth scenario, a Business as Usual and a High Growth scenario, (actually more but you get the idea)

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/special-reports/spm/sres-en.pdf

The scenarios feed the models over time with things like population change and land use changes and energy use thus creating more plausable future oriented projections.

Arthur

 

Yes, it was my understanding they were predicting non-linearity

The mass is increasing from melt, (and, I am proposing, drought). So I guess you are saying the contribution from ice melt is negligible.

Expansion being non-linear over depth, is one thing, non-linear expansion due to non-linear temperature rise is another. I think I see your point though. I was arguing in favor of a non-linearity over time, and against extrapolating from the charts above, which I thought adoucette was advocating. Apparently not, based on the comments immediately above. I was questioning the validity of extrapolating from a chart, nothing more. So I guess that's moot.

I see what you are saying about IPCC model, the expected levels, and the expected non-linearity. I thought adoucette was arguing in favor of linear growth.

 

I was responding to your remark in #24 "nothing to suggest acceleration" under the chart with a linear trend line. I thought you were advocating linear extrapolation.

But, yes, I would assume the modeling tries to understand and factor in the complex causes of heating and expansion, and any other factors, such as transport, which has been the idea circulated in popular understanding of the cause.

 

That's why I also post the projected Temp Graph as the two are related.

That issue in 24 was slightly different, we are many years past when those estimates were made and the trend does not show any deviation upward which is what it would have to be doing if the sea level rise was going to equal the rates needed to get to 1 meter rise in the next 38 years.

 

Well, that's convincing. How could we doubt a man who examines varves? Now did you have any views based on the evidence, rather than personal relationships?

 

Well,
If the earth is shrinking due to decrease in the earths magnetic feild, the the sea level is rising.

DwayneD.L.Rabon