Rise of the Sea, All a big scam
Discussion
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
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
If one thing more than any other is used to justify proposals that the world must spend tens of trillions of dollars on combating global warming, it is the belief that we face a disastrous rise in sea levels. The Antarctic and Greenland ice caps will melt, we are told, warming oceans will expand, and the result will be catastrophe.
Although the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) only predicts a sea level rise of 59cm (17 inches) by 2100, Al Gore in his Oscar-winning film An Inconvenient Truth went much further, talking of 20 feet, and showing computer graphics of cities such as Shanghai and San Francisco half under water. We all know the graphic showing central London in similar plight. As for tiny island nations such as the Maldives and Tuvalu, as Prince Charles likes to tell us and the Archbishop of Canterbury was again parroting last week, they are due to vanish.
But if there is one scientist who knows more about sea levels than anyone else in the world it is the Swedish geologist and physicist Nils-Axel Mörner, formerly chairman of the INQUA International Commission on Sea Level Change. And the uncompromising verdict of Dr Mörner, who for 35 years has been using every known scientific method to study sea levels all over the globe, is that all this talk about the sea rising is nothing but a colossal scare story.
Despite fluctuations down as well as up, "the sea is not rising," he says. "It hasn't risen in 50 years." If there is any rise this century it will "not be more than 10cm (four inches), with an uncertainty of plus or minus 10cm". And quite apart from examining the hard evidence, he says, the elementary laws of physics (latent heat needed to melt ice) tell us that the apocalypse conjured up by
Al Gore and Co could not possibly come about.
The reason why Dr Mörner, formerly a Stockholm professor, is so certain that these claims about sea level rise are 100 per cent wrong is that they are all based on computer model predictions, whereas his findings are based on "going into the field to observe what is actually happening in the real world".
When running the International Commission on Sea Level Change, he launched a special project on the Maldives, whose leaders have for 20 years been calling for vast sums of international aid to stave off disaster. Six times he and his expert team visited the islands, to confirm that the sea has not risen for half a century. Before announcing his findings, he offered to show the inhabitants a film explaining why they had nothing to worry about. The government refused to let it be shown.
Similarly in Tuvalu, where local leaders have been calling for the inhabitants to be evacuated for 20 years, the sea has if anything dropped in recent decades. The only evidence the scaremongers can cite is based on the fact that extracting groundwater for pineapple growing has allowed seawater to seep in to replace it. Meanwhile, Venice has been sinking rather than the Adriatic rising, says Dr Mörner.
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. But suddenly the graph tilted upwards because the IPCC's favoured experts had drawn on the finding of a single tide-gauge in Hong Kong harbour showing a 2.3mm rise. The entire global sea-level projection was then adjusted upwards by a "corrective factor" of 2.3mm, because, as the IPCC scientists admitted, they "needed to show a trend".
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". Yet the results of all this "deliberate ignorance" and reliance on rigged computer models have become the most powerful single driver of the entire warmist hysteria.
Although the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) only predicts a sea level rise of 59cm (17 inches) by 2100, Al Gore in his Oscar-winning film An Inconvenient Truth went much further, talking of 20 feet, and showing computer graphics of cities such as Shanghai and San Francisco half under water. We all know the graphic showing central London in similar plight. As for tiny island nations such as the Maldives and Tuvalu, as Prince Charles likes to tell us and the Archbishop of Canterbury was again parroting last week, they are due to vanish.
But if there is one scientist who knows more about sea levels than anyone else in the world it is the Swedish geologist and physicist Nils-Axel Mörner, formerly chairman of the INQUA International Commission on Sea Level Change. And the uncompromising verdict of Dr Mörner, who for 35 years has been using every known scientific method to study sea levels all over the globe, is that all this talk about the sea rising is nothing but a colossal scare story.
Despite fluctuations down as well as up, "the sea is not rising," he says. "It hasn't risen in 50 years." If there is any rise this century it will "not be more than 10cm (four inches), with an uncertainty of plus or minus 10cm". And quite apart from examining the hard evidence, he says, the elementary laws of physics (latent heat needed to melt ice) tell us that the apocalypse conjured up by
Al Gore and Co could not possibly come about.
The reason why Dr Mörner, formerly a Stockholm professor, is so certain that these claims about sea level rise are 100 per cent wrong is that they are all based on computer model predictions, whereas his findings are based on "going into the field to observe what is actually happening in the real world".
When running the International Commission on Sea Level Change, he launched a special project on the Maldives, whose leaders have for 20 years been calling for vast sums of international aid to stave off disaster. Six times he and his expert team visited the islands, to confirm that the sea has not risen for half a century. Before announcing his findings, he offered to show the inhabitants a film explaining why they had nothing to worry about. The government refused to let it be shown.
Similarly in Tuvalu, where local leaders have been calling for the inhabitants to be evacuated for 20 years, the sea has if anything dropped in recent decades. The only evidence the scaremongers can cite is based on the fact that extracting groundwater for pineapple growing has allowed seawater to seep in to replace it. Meanwhile, Venice has been sinking rather than the Adriatic rising, says Dr Mörner.
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. But suddenly the graph tilted upwards because the IPCC's favoured experts had drawn on the finding of a single tide-gauge in Hong Kong harbour showing a 2.3mm rise. The entire global sea-level projection was then adjusted upwards by a "corrective factor" of 2.3mm, because, as the IPCC scientists admitted, they "needed to show a trend".
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". Yet the results of all this "deliberate ignorance" and reliance on rigged computer models have become the most powerful single driver of the entire warmist hysteria.
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.
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.
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.
But not all the world's ice is in/on the water. For instance Greenland and Antartica...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.
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.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.
Genius.
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
read 'scared to death' written by him and richard north.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
Puggit 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.
But not all the world's ice is in/on the water. For instance Greenland and Antartica...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.
Blib said:
Puggit 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.
But not all the world's ice is in/on the water. For instance Greenland and Antartica...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.
I'm only playing devil's advocate here and dismissing Greg's rather simple home experiment - not the whole argument!
Gargamel said:
Not sure if this has already been brought to the attention of the global warmers yet ?
[url http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/chri... [/url]
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
According to his page on Wikipedia, he has a Hirsch index of only nine, which is hardly support for the contention that "if there is one scientist who knows more about sea levels than anyone else in the world it is the Swedish geologist and physicist Nils-Axel Mörner"! My Hirsch index is much higher and while I am of an international standing in my field, I am certainly no where near the best in the world.[url http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/chri... [/url]
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
Basically a Hirsch index of nine means that he has written nine papers that have been referenced in more than nine other works (and using Google scholar that would include self-citations). A Hirsch index of nine means that basically his work has had virtually no impact on his research comminity. This suggests the journalist has made no effort to determine the accuracy of the science presented.
Apparently Morner has also published articles on the thepory of dowsing!
None of this means that his claims are not true, but I would like to see some evidence first, there is none in the article. Caveat lector!
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. Head straight to the top of the class.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.
Genius.
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.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.
Genius.
ludo said:
Gargamel said:
Not sure if this has already been brought to the attention of the global warmers yet ?
[url http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/chri... [/url]
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
According to his page on Wikipedia, he has a Hirsch index of only nine, which is hardly support for the contention that "if there is one scientist who knows more about sea levels than anyone else in the world it is the Swedish geologist and physicist Nils-Axel Mörner"! My Hirsch index is much higher and while I am of an international standing in my field, I am certainly no where near the best in the world.[url http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/chri... [/url]
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
Basically a Hirsch index of nine means that he has written nine papers that have been referenced in more than nine other works (and using Google scholar that would include self-citations). A Hirsch index of nine means that basically his work has had virtually no impact on his research comminity. This suggests the journalist has made no effort to determine the accuracy of the science presented.
Apparently Morner has also published articles on the thepory of dowsing!
None of this means that his claims are not true, but I would like to see some evidence first, there is none in the article. Caveat lector!
Sounds like a mad V8 driving Pistonheader to me!!!
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.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.
Genius.
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.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.
Genius.
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.
ludo said:
According to his page on Wikipedia, he has a Hirsch index of only nine, which is hardly support for the contention that "if there is one scientist who knows more about sea levels than anyone else in the world it is the Swedish geologist and physicist Nils-Axel Mörner"! My Hirsch index is much higher and while I am of an international standing in my field, I am certainly no where near the best in the world.
Basically a Hirsch index of nine means that he has written nine papers that have been referenced in more than nine other works (and using Google scholar that would include self-citations). A Hirsch index of nine means that basically his work has had virtually no impact on his research comminity. This suggests the journalist has made no effort to determine the accuracy of the science presented.
Apparently Morner has also published articles on the thepory of dowsing!
None of this means that his claims are not true, but I would like to see some evidence first, there is none in the article. Caveat lector!
And yet Einstein would have a Hirsch index of 4 or 5... For a proper comparison we need to know how Morner's peers score?Basically a Hirsch index of nine means that he has written nine papers that have been referenced in more than nine other works (and using Google scholar that would include self-citations). A Hirsch index of nine means that basically his work has had virtually no impact on his research comminity. This suggests the journalist has made no effort to determine the accuracy of the science presented.
Apparently Morner has also published articles on the thepory of dowsing!
None of this means that his claims are not true, but I would like to see some evidence first, there is none in the article. Caveat lector!
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.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.
Genius.
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'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?
I think it was CH4 news I was watching on the weekend,
But they started by saying Climate change is going to put Britains Coastline at a huge risk!!!!!
They then went on to talk about Coastal erosion and how more funding for coastal protection was needed! :S
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.
But they started by saying Climate change is going to put Britains Coastline at a huge risk!!!!!
They then went on to talk about Coastal erosion and how more funding for coastal protection was needed! :S
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.
Spiritual_Beggar said:
I think it was CH4 news I was watching on the weekend,
But they started by saying Climate change is going to put Britains Coastline at a huge risk!!!!!
They then went on to talk about Coastal erosion and how more funding for coastal protection was needed! :S
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.
this is the problem. any genuine scientific data is diluted with political spin.But they started by saying Climate change is going to put Britains Coastline at a huge risk!!!!!
They then went on to talk about Coastal erosion and how more funding for coastal protection was needed! :S
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.
mechsympathy said:
ludo said:
According to his page on Wikipedia, he has a Hirsch index of only nine, which is hardly support for the contention that "if there is one scientist who knows more about sea levels than anyone else in the world it is the Swedish geologist and physicist Nils-Axel Mörner"! My Hirsch index is much higher and while I am of an international standing in my field, I am certainly no where near the best in the world.
Basically a Hirsch index of nine means that he has written nine papers that have been referenced in more than nine other works (and using Google scholar that would include self-citations). A Hirsch index of nine means that basically his work has had virtually no impact on his research comminity. This suggests the journalist has made no effort to determine the accuracy of the science presented.
Apparently Morner has also published articles on the thepory of dowsing!
None of this means that his claims are not true, but I would like to see some evidence first, there is none in the article. Caveat lector!
And yet Einstein would have a Hirsch index of 4 or 5... Basically a Hirsch index of nine means that he has written nine papers that have been referenced in more than nine other works (and using Google scholar that would include self-citations). A Hirsch index of nine means that basically his work has had virtually no impact on his research comminity. This suggests the journalist has made no effort to determine the accuracy of the science presented.
Apparently Morner has also published articles on the thepory of dowsing!
None of this means that his claims are not true, but I would like to see some evidence first, there is none in the article. Caveat lector!
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.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff