32,000 scientists dissent from global-warming “consensus”

Johnny Canuck2 said:

I guess this scientist didn't read the IPCC report.

"Tremendous redistribution in where one would be able to have agriculture, tremendous changes in storm patterns. You could very well see sea level rises on the order of several feet and perhaps even several tens of feet," Paul Mayewski, director of the Climate Change Institute at the University of Maine, said. "If sea level were to rise it would be tremendous changes, immense migrations."

Click to expand...

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/jeff-p...al-warming-special-hosted-reporter-who-likene

Click to expand...

Sounds like he read the Stern Report too.

Researchers from the Proudman Oceanographic Laboratory in the UK, using a new, more accurate reconstruction of sea levels over the past 2000 years have concluded that sea levels will be 0.8 to 1.5 meters (2.6-4.9 feet) higher by the beginning of the next century. Compare that to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) prediction of a rise of 18-59 centimeters (0.6-1.9 feet) by 2100
http://www.reuters.com/article/blog...69bC&bbParentWidgetId=B8dTgJxsl2aP4igJ50LB7l1

Click to expand...

Do you personally have a problem with the truths about climate change, Canuck?

tangentlama said:

Packet. Broken.

Click to expand...

Whatever.

At least I'm not a broken record.

tangentlama said:

Steve Nerem from the University of Colorado says that there is now a lot of evidence out there that does indeed support an increase of about a meter by 2100, but that rise will not be uniform around the globe.

Click to expand...

Hope that clears up the misunderstandings.

Click to expand...

Water finds it's own level so how the hell can you have an uneven sea level rise around the globe?

Johnny Canuck2 said:

I suspect there are some here who will read the above quotes and agree with them.

If that is you, recognize that you are no different, and no better, than a christian fundamentalist, or an ultra right wing nationalist, or any other species of closeminded zealot.

Click to expand...

Clever, but no banana for you, Canuck.
You just managed to label yourself as a man in denial of climate change - a close-minded zealot.

e2a: Benefit of doubt - perhaps you are confused by the white-noise made by the climate-change 'sceptics' (like Marohasy and her IPA funders whom both you and bigfish have referenced on this thread), and the studies made by genuinely unbiased scientific researchers. http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2007/feb/02/frontpagenews.climatechange
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23657735-11949,00.html

WouldBe said:

Water finds it's own level so how the hell can you have an uneven sea level rise around the globe?

Click to expand...

Sea level is not globally uniform, as any fule kno.

Off the top of my head:
Sea level change is caused by:

• Thermal expansion/contraction of regional oceans (oceanic temp changes)
• Ocean basins changing size due to tectonic activity along ocean ridges and sediment transfer from land to ocean
• Tectonic uplift - changes in ground levels caused by tectonic plate movement
• Melting of non-polar ice (i.e. ice on the land) which causes isostatic uplift
• Isostatic uplift (glacial rebound) - rise in level of land caused by loss of mass in land glaciers that result in one land region to rise and another to be pushed down.
• Melting/freezing of ice-caps in Antarctic/Greenland

Some of the changes in that list affect global sea levels, others affect local sea levels.
NB: I won't claim that the list above is all the reasons for changes in sea level at local and global levels.

If you want to read more, search for 'eustatic sea level' and 'local sea level'
e2a: This is a fairly easy to understand exposition: http://geology.uprm.edu/Morelock/eustatic.htm

Satirical interlude: The Aria of Prince Algorino

The Aria of Prince Algorino
By John Tierney

Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth," first a film and then a book, is becoming an opera. Officials of La Scala in Milan say the Italian composer Giorgio Battistelli has been commissioned to write it for the 2011 season, The Associated Press reported.

Dear Mr. Gore,

Thank you for sharing your thoughts on my draft of "Verità Inconveniente." Rest assured that I and the management of La Scala are committed to a serious presentation of your scientific work. I will try to adopt some of your suggestions, but I hope you appreciate the constraints faced by the composer of an opera that is already five hours long.

<editor: cut and paste removed. This article can be found all over the web so there is no need for it to be reproduced in full here>

bigfish said:

<editor: cut and paste removed. This article can be found all over the web so there is no need for it to be reproduced in full here>

Click to expand...

No more cut and paste please. Thanks.

tangentlama said:

Sea level variations are caused by:

• Thermal expansion/contraction of regional oceans (oceanic temp changes)
• Ocean basins changing size due to tectonic activity along ocean ridges and sediment transfer from land to ocean

Click to expand...

So when we get a 7 foot sea level rise in the atlantic only we're going to have to install locks at all entrances to the Atlantic so ships can get in and out then?

• Tectonic uplift - changes in ground levels caused by tectonic plate movement
• Melting of non-polar ice (i.e. ice on the land) which causes isostatic uplift
• Isostatic uplift (glacial rebound) - rise in level of land caused by loss of mass in land glaciers that result in one land region to rise and another to be pushed down.
• Melting/freezing of ice-caps in Antarctic/Greenland

Click to expand...

That affects land level not sea level.

Signal 11 said:

Click to expand...

So it really is better to accept just the reliable scientific facts about global warming and be on the sensible safe side...

merlin wood said:

So it really is better to accept just the reliable scientific facts about global warming and be on the sensible safe side...

Click to expand...

Unfortunately, "reliable scientific facts" aren't always what the IPCC gives us. For example, the infamous Hockey curve, the poster child of the IPPC's previous report, has been outed as an egregious fraud.

In your opinion, how many frauds should an institution be allowed to get away with before it can reasonably be considered unreliable or not credible?

You keep saying that bigfish, but:

a) it's not true

b) it's just a graph that Exxon PR people make a big effort to attack because it's striking and easy for the general public to understand, no important part of the scientific case hangs on the 'hockey stick' graph itself.

bigfish;7760275]Unfortunately said:

One of the greatest achievements of the NCGT group in the last 11 years is the establishment of a strong case for the ubiquitous presence of ancient, continental rocks under the present-day oceanic areas and its implications for the real composition of the so-called oceanic crust and for global tectonics.

Many articles in past issues of the NCGT Newsletter have documented indisputable hard evidence against the oversimplified plate tectonic model of the oceanic crust (which is said to be basaltic and gabbroic, to have formed at the mid-oceanic ridges and to have moved to its present position through seafloor spreading), and have argued for the presence of continental rocks in the deep oceans, the most outstanding paper being by Vasiliev and Yano (no. 43, 2007). They showed an impressive crustal section of the Mid-Pacific Ridge at the junction of the Heezen Fracture Zone, and the widespread presence of ancient, continental rocks in the Pacific, Indian and Atlantic Oceans. In addition, we have repeatedly shown that Proterozoic structures on continents continue into the ocean floor (South America and Pacific/Atlantic Oceans; around Australian continent; NW Pacific; Indian Ocean), and we have presented seismic data indicating that the oceanic crust consists of folded and block-faulted basin-filling sedimentary rocks at its top section (some of them possibly Proterozoic to Lower Paleozoic in age – offshore Sumatra, NW Pacific, etc.). Furthermore, the global shear strain pattern discussed by De Kalb (no. 44, 2007) indicates that a uniform crust must have covered the Earth’s surface in Precambrian time. We can now say that the so-called oceanic crust is primarily continental crust which has been locally altered ormetamorphosed in interaction with the upper mantle.

Another important fact brought forward by our contributors is that the present deep oceans were formed in Jurassic to Paleogene time – before that, most of the present oceans had been subaerially exposed and formed paleolands. Mesozoic-Cenozoic basins of great economic interest are well developed in some areas of the deep oceans, mainly near the present continental margins.

The new picture – that continental “oceanic” crust (or sunken continents) underlies the Mesozoic-Cenozoic basins and basalts – is a great gift for the oil industry. They now have positive scientific grounds for exploring deep-sea sedimentary basins. Currently, hydrocarbons are produced in 1,800 m of water off Brazil and exploration is progressing in much deeper waters worldwide (John and MacFarlan, Offshore, October, 2007, for example). In the coming 10 to 15 years, basins with 3,000 to 4,000 m of water will become the most active area for exploration and exploitation (personal communications with many oil company staff at the AAPG European Conference, November 2007). We are very proud of what our members have achieved.

http://www.ncgt.org/newsletter.php#

Recycling of organic material via a non-existing tectonic process of subduction can be instantly dismissed as pseudoscience.

Click to expand...

click for giggles

Science facts from Bigfish.

WouldBe said:

Water finds it's own level so how the hell can you have an uneven sea level rise around the globe?

Click to expand...

If you are claiming to have sufficient expertise to simply contradict the expert opinion that has been quoted, provide evidence of it. Otherwise provide credible sources to support your arguments.

bigfish said:

Unfortunately, "reliable scientific facts" aren't always what the IPCC gives us. For example, the infamous Hockey curve, the poster child of the IPPC's previous report, has been outed as an egregious fraud.

In your opinion, how many frauds should an institution be allowed to get away with before it can reasonably be considered unreliable or not credible?

Click to expand...

Sorry, you have some devious message you want to promulgate so I don't think your worth listening to.

Bernie Gunther said:

You keep saying that bigfish, but a) it's not true as far as actual qualified scientists working in the field are concerned. <Exxon propaganda schtick deleted for clarity>

Click to expand...

And you keep saying that Bernie. Unfortunately for you, it is true as far as the scientific method and its principle of falsification is concerned.

Please provide:

1. links to recent public statements by "actual qualified scientists working in the field" made in support of Mann's discredited study.

2. references to any recently published papers citing favourably Mann's discredited study.

Bernie Gunther said:

You keep saying that bigfish, but:

a) it's not true

b) it's just a graph that Exxon PR people make a big effort to attack because it's striking and easy for the general public to understand, no important part of the scientific case hangs on the 'hockey stick' graph itself.

Click to expand...

Oh, I see that you have deleted from your post the part about "actual qualified scientists working in the field".

Why is that?

bigfish said:

And you keep saying that Bernie. Unfortunately for you, it is true as far as the scientific method and its principle of falsification is concerned.

Please provide:

1. links to recent public statements by "actual qualified scientists working in the field" made in support of Mann's discredited study.

2. references to any recently published papers citing favourably Mann's discredited study.

Click to expand...

...so it seems to me you'd like to be a big fish who's eaten all the minnows but, fortunately, you'll just succeed in chasing them away or make them gang up against you.

bigfish said:

Unfortunately for you, it is true as far as the scientific method and its principle of falsification is concerned.

Click to expand...

Please elaborate on this statement..... we have learnt from your lunatic dribblings in the past that you often post information youve gleaned from blogs without actualy understanding what you are saying.

david dissadent said:

Please elaborate on this statement.

Click to expand...

Please elaborate on your own understanding of scientific principles first. For example, do you understand and accept the principle of falsification? Or do you believe that the validity or otherwise of a scientific study should be decided by a vote?

david dissadent said:

we have learnt from your lunatic dribblings in the past that you often post information youve gleaned from blogs without actualy understanding what you are saying.

Click to expand...

And we have learnt from your past dribblings that you often support your own statements with links from discredited and unreliable sources, such as wikipedia, for example.

Does anyone else have any interesting links to discussion of this wikiconspiracy meme?

It's quite entertaining.

Next up, after the break: how encyclopedias and textbooks are conspiring evilly to discredit the obviously true theory of Intelligent Falling.

But first, a message from our sponsors...

bigfish said:

Please elaborate on your own understanding of scientific principles first. For example, do you understand and accept the principle of falsification? Or do you believe that the validity or otherwise of a scientific study should be decided by a vote?

Click to expand...

Ummm sounds like you dont know what your talking about and your hoping I will explain the concept for you. You brought it up you elaborate.

bigfish said:

And you keep saying that Bernie. Unfortunately for you, it is true as far as the scientific method and its principle of falsification is concerned.

Please provide:

1. links to recent public statements by "actual qualified scientists working in the field" made in support of Mann's discredited study.

2. references to any recently published papers citing favourably Mann's discredited study.

Click to expand...

These things have been provided to you many times on these threads:

ROBUSTNESS OF THE MANN, BRADLEY, HUGHES RECONSTRUCTION OF NORTHERN HEMISPHERE SURFACE TEMPERATURES: EXAMINATION OF CRITICISMS BASED ON THE NATURE AND PROCESSING OF PROXY CLIMATE EVIDENCE
EUGENE R. WAHL and CASPAR M. AMMANN
http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/ccr/ammann/millennium/refs/WahlAmmann_ClimChange2006.html

Independent reevaluation of the Mann-Bradley-Hughes Nothern Hemisphere Climate Reconstruction
http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/ccr/ammann/millennium/CODES_MBH.html

Other papers are cited here:
http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Climate/Climate_Science/CliSciFrameset.html

Summary of the issue is here:
False Claims by McIntyre and McKitrick regarding the Mann et al. (1998) reconstruction
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=8

Posts previously explaining this issue:
http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=6086697&postcount=751 -- from 2007
http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=2595965&postcount=66 -- from 2005

Quite

Arguing with a loony is a complete waste of time.

Signal 11 said:

If you are claiming to have sufficient expertise to simply contradict the expert opinion that has been quoted, provide evidence of it. Otherwise provide credible sources to support your arguments.

Click to expand...

It's the climaloons that are claiming that water can produce gravity defying effects. YOU provide a credible source to back your theory up.

Have I made this too difficult for WouldBe to understand? Do you think he is being deliberately obstuse?

WouldBe said:

originally by tangentlama said:

• Tectonic uplift - changes in ground levels caused by tectonic plate movement
• Melting of non-polar ice (i.e. ice on the land) which causes isostatic uplift
• Isostatic uplift (glacial rebound) - rise in level of land caused by loss of mass in land glaciers that result in one land region to rise and another to be pushed down.
• Melting/freezing of ice-caps in Antarctic/Greenland

Click to expand...

That affects land level not sea level.

Click to expand...

!!!

Oh dear. You have a broken packet again.
If the land level rises due to isostatic uplift (through glacial rebound and tectonic activity the land is pushed up or down) then the Local Mean Sea Level (LMSL - see 1) in sea-level glossary below) will change, because the land-benchmark which we measure 'sea level' against will have changed.

Your original question, based on the premise that 'water finds it's own level', was:

WouldBe said:

Water finds it's own level so how the hell can you have an uneven sea level rise around the globe?

Click to expand...

I explained in post 725 how we can have an uneven sea level rise around the globe, but you've then stated :

WouldBe said:

That affects land level not sea level.

Click to expand...

I've already described to you the many ways in which variations of sea-level occur.

I've now requoted my original post below, and added disambiguations.

Furthermore, the measurement known as 'sea level' (at zero metres) is relative:

1) Local Mean sea level: (LMSL) the height of the surface of the sea in relation to a land-benchmark.
2) Mean Sea level: (MSL) the height of the surface of the sea above which the heights of geographical features are measured. Mean sea level (MSL) is calculated from the average level of the sea between high and low tide.
3) Sea level: the base point against which land elevation and sea depth are measured; the height of the land above the sea.
4) Eustatic sea level: Global sea level can alter in the ways listed in the list I gave you (see below for repeat list where 'eustatic' has been added for disambiguation, and salinity has been added as an additional cause of sea-level change). Eustatic levels are influenced by: a) temperature (volume of sea dependent on sea temperature); b) mass of water on land i.e rivers, lakes, glaciers, ice-caps, sea-ice; plus c) changing shape of oceanic basins due to tectonic activity
6) Local/regional sea level: local sea level can alter in all the ways listed in above with the addition of a) salinity changes.

Of course, a rise in sea level will still make the mean sea level (MSL) at 0 metres, because we measure sea level as relative to the mean level (i.e. between high and low tide) as it touches landmass.
However, the coastal land that sinks below sea level or is submerged by a volume increase in the local ocean will fall below sea level.

If you want to read more:

Steric sea level : http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Steric+sea+level&btnG=Search
Eustatic sea level: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Eustatic+sea+level&btnG=Search


Remember - sea level change is relative

Here's the disambiguated list:

tangentlama said:

Sea level is not globally uniform.

Sea level variations and changes are caused by:

• Thermal expansion/contraction of regional oceans (oceanic temp changes) [Disambiguation: Steric]
• Ocean basins changing size due to tectonic activity along ocean ridges [Disambiguation: Eustatic] and sediment transfer from land to ocean [Disambiguation: Isostatic]
• Tectonic uplift - changes in ground levels caused by tectonic plate movement [Disambiguation: Isostatic]
• Melting of non-polar ice (i.e. ice on the land) which causes isostatic uplift [Disambiguation: Isostatic (land uplift) and Eustatic (ice-melt water added to ocean)]
• Isostatic uplift (glacial rebound) - rise in level of land caused by loss of mass in land glaciers that result in one land region to rise and another to be pushed down. [Disambiguation: Eustatic (glacial melt entering ocean) and Isostatic (land uplift)]
• Melting/freezing of landmass ice-sheets, e.g. ice-caps in Antarctic/Greenland, continental ice-sheets, glaciers [Disambiguation: Eustatic, Hydroisostatic]. Ice lost to ocean results in depression of oceanic crust. Ice gone from land results in isostatic uplift (land rise). This creates global sea level change AND local sea level change
• Changes in salinity [Disambiguation: Steric]

Some of the changes in that list affect global sea levels, others affect local sea levels.
NB: I won't claim that the list above is all the reasons for changes in sea level at local and global levels.

If you want to read more, search for 'eustatic sea level' and 'local sea level'
e2a: This is a fairly easy to understand exposition: http://geology.uprm.edu/Morelock/eustatic.htm

Click to expand...

WouldBe said:

YOU provide a credible source to back your theory up.

Click to expand...

tangentlama already quoted an expert. If you want to dispute that expert you have the burden of proof. Provide the evidence I asked for or withdraw your claim.

WouldBe said:

It's the climaloons that are claiming that water can produce gravity defying effects. YOU provide a credible source to back your theory up.

Click to expand...

For the last century, the global level of the sea appears to have risen at an average rate of nearly two mm/yr. However, in any given region, the apparent rate of rise can vary considerably from the long term global value. Geographical and temporal variations from the long-term mean value occur from a variety of causes such as interdecadal fluctuations of ocean density and circulation, continuing isostatic adjustment of the land level from the last deglaciation, subsidence due to the extraction of underground fluids, and others. The middle Atlantic region of the U.S. east coast gives a good illustration of this phenomenon.

Click to expand...

http://www.ngs.noaa.gov/GRD/GPS/Projects/CB/SEALEVEL/sealevel.html

Bugger me thats three in about two minutes. Lol.