Resisting Climate Hysteria

[artist]

In fact there was some clown here in NZ trying to predict quakes based on lunar cycles.

Funny you should mention that, one of the better known Australian Gann enthusiasts has said that earthquakes (as well as wars and stock markets amongst other activities) follow "natural" - and therefore predictable, cycles. Whether I can find this having been claimed in print is another matter, but is was said in the presence of several people I know.

 

[Knobby22]

The tide actually does vary the crust height by a couple of centimetres according to National Geographic.

I worked in Jakarta and the whole place is sinking because of the large heavy buildings being built.

By the way, does anyone know why I always have a gap after my postings as if i typed a few carriage returns?

 

[derty]

Well the oceans already slosh around a bit due to lunar pull, tides etc. Although regular, the loading and unloading would surely be far greater than that speculated by warmists?

The loading has to be sustained over a reasonable amount of time. Diurnal or even annual variations won't really have an effect as the phenomena of isostasy is caused by the pressure on the crust causing the underlying mantle to flow.

In fact there was some clown here in NZ trying to predict quakes based on lunar cycles.

Just a thought.

There are crackpots all over the place, one guy is claiming that sunspot activity can be used as a predictor of earthquakes.

 

[sails]

...By the way, does anyone know why I always have a gap after my postings as if i typed a few carriage returns?

Probably caused by Global Warming...

Or perhaps it's Mr Abbott's fault...

 

[Knobby22]

Probably caused by Global Warming...

Or perhaps it's Mr Abbott's fault...

And there I was thinking it was Bob Brown.

 

[macca]

I have found this on Wiki, it does have a fair bit of detail

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-glacial_rebound

The point which irked me was that the AGW team adjust the level of the land up the same amount as the measured rise of the land.

Consequently the sea level can never go down, only up, if the land rises they adjust the previous land height measures by that amount upward. If the land goes down they immediately scream we are all going to drown.

What a bunch of dishonest (non) scientists.

 

[basilio]

That was a really interesting find on Post Glacial rebound Macca. Certainly opens ones mind to the range of forces acting on the earths surface.

However it is simply untrue to say scientists are unfairly adjusting sea level data. They just have to take many factors into account in what is a complex situation.

Recent global warming has caused mountain glaciers and the ice sheets in Greenland and Antarctica to melt and global sea level to rise. Therefore, monitoring sea level rise and the mass balance of ice sheets and glaciers allows us to understand more about global warming.

Recent rise in sea levels has been monitored by tide gauges and Satellite Altimetry (e.g. TOPEX/Poseidon). In addition to the addition of melted ice water from glaciers and ice sheets, recent sea level changes are also affected by the thermal expansion of sea water due to global warming, sea level change due to deglaciation of the last Ice Age (postglacial sea level change), deformation of the land and ocean floor and other factors. Thus, to understand global warming from sea level change, one must be able to separate all these factors, especially postglacial rebound, since it is one of the leading factors.

Mass changes of ice sheets can be monitored by measuring changes in the ice surface height, the deformation of the ground below and the changes in the gravity field over the ice sheet. Thus ICESat, GPS and GRACE satellite mission are useful for such purpose.[20] However, glacial isostatic adjustment of the ice sheets affect ground deformation and the gravity field today. Thus understanding glacial isostatic adjustment is important in monitoring recent global warming.

 

[macca]

That was a really interesting find on Post Glacial rebound Macca. Certainly opens ones mind to the range of forces acting on the earths surface.

However it is simply untrue to say scientists are unfairly adjusting sea level data. They just have to take many factors into account in what is a complex situation.

Hi Bas,

Found something on it, read post #1703 on this thread.

 

[Garpal Gumnut]

I have found this on Wiki, it does have a fair bit of detail

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-glacial_rebound

The point which irked me was that the AGW team adjust the level of the land up the same amount as the measured rise of the land.

Consequently the sea level can never go down, only up, if the land rises they adjust the previous land height measures by that amount upward. If the land goes down they immediately scream we are all going to drown.

What a bunch of dishonest (non) scientists.

You have encapsulated the core argument against the catastrophic global warming believers.

They have a premise, and then rejig the data to fit in with that premise, when the data no longer suits them.

Popper would not be pleased.

gg

 

[ghotib]

I have found this on Wiki, it does have a fair bit of detail

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-glacial_rebound

The point which irked me was that the AGW team adjust the level of the land up the same amount as the measured rise of the land.

Consequently the sea level can never go down, only up, if the land rises they adjust the previous land height measures by that amount upward. If the land goes down they immediately scream we are all going to drown.

What a bunch of dishonest (non) scientists.

Macca, when I look at that Wikipedia page I see maps that show both rising and sinking land.

I read this about adjustments:

Vertical datum

The vertical datum is a theoretical reference surface for altitude measurement and plays vital roles in many human activities, including land surveying and construction of buildings and bridges. Since postglacial rebound continuously deforms the crustal surface and the gravitational field, the vertical datum needs to be redefined repeatedly through time

And this reference to global warming:

Recent rise in sea levels has been monitored by tide gauges and Satellite Altimetry (e.g. TOPEX/Poseidon). In addition to the addition of melted ice water from glaciers and ice sheets, recent sea level changes are also affected by the thermal expansion of sea water due to global warming, sea level change due to deglaciation of the last Ice Age (postglacial sea level change), deformation of the land and ocean floor and other factors. Thus, to understand global warming from sea level change, one must be able to separate all these factors, especially postglacial rebound, since it is one of the leading factors.

I'm bewildered that you could look at the same page and make the assessment you did. Why do you say that the "AGW team" (whoever they are) adjusts the level of the land, or that the adjustment is directly related to changes in sea level? What is dishonest about attempting to separate all the factors that affect sea level?

I was intrigued by the term "Vertical Datum". Turns out that vertical and horizontal datums (that's what the engineers call them) are critical to GPS systems as well as surveying and construction. This comes from a 1998 seminar http://geosun.sjsu.edu/paula/285/285/marc.htm:

To truly understand how to properly use or make a map, you must understand how datums, coordinate systems and map projections tie together. With GPS, and other improved surveying techniques, coordinate accuracy and precision is better today that in the past. Due to these technological changes and earth processes, such as plate tectonics and isostatic rebound, coordinates on the earth's surface shift over time. This shift, known as a datum shift, is a change of the parameters determining the latitude, longitude, and elevation of points on the earth's surface. The following is a very simplified explanation of the topic.

Datums

There are two general types of datums: vertical and horizontal. A vertical datum is a calculation based on a mean sea level calculated over several years. The U. S. uses the National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929 (NGVD29). Horizontal datums are calculated using a mathematical calculation for the approximation of the shape of the earth, known as an ellipsoid. Most ellipsoids are calculated for a geographic region such as North America, India, or Australia. The U. S. uses the North American Datum of 1927 (NAD27) based on Clarke's ellipsoid of 1866 (Clarke 1866). Today, most newly generated geographic data sets use North American Datum of 1983 (NAD83) based on the Geodetic Reference System ellipsoid (GRS80). Using different datums causes an error known as a datum shift and causes some confusion due to the adoption of NAD83 for newly mapped data by federal agencies and everyone else who still use the older NAD27. A datum shift is not a simple mathematical calculation. Changes in surveying techniques (GPS), levels of accuracy and precision, earth changes, and other error generators all lead to difficulty in matching surveys conducted under different datums (Bower 1996).

Everything is always more interesting than it looks on the surface

Ghoti

 

[macca]

This is where all this hysteria is leading, this is the first I have read about but how many more to come. They can't get the weather forecasts right 3 days in advance yet this council accepts the forecast of what will happen 90 years from now, utter cr**

<<A SELF-FUNDED retiree has been told he cannot develop his land at Marks Point because rising sea levels will inundate his property by 2100.>>

http://www.theherald.com.au/news/lo...perty-owner-drowning-in-opinions/2323421.aspx

 

[Smurf1976]

This is where all this hysteria is leading, this is the first I have read about but how many more to come. They can't get the weather forecasts right 3 days in advance yet this council accepts the forecast of what will happen 90 years from now, utter cr**

<<A SELF-FUNDED retiree has been told he cannot develop his land at Marks Point because rising sea levels will inundate his property by 2100.>>

It's really the "legal system" you need to blame for that one. Unfortunately we live in a society where people can and actually do sue for practically anything that happens to them.

If the council allowed building amidst widespread community knowledge that there were predictions of a rising sea level then the council would have little chance legally if sea levels did rise. Practically every industry has to think like that these days, at great detriment to the majority of people, and local government is no exception.

I know that my local council employs someone whose primary (only?) role is to walk the streets looking for anything that may give someone a chance to sue the council. Things like uneven footpaths that could be tripped over etc. That's because 30 years ago if someone fell over then they got up and walked on. These days they fake an injury and call their lawyer. Sad but true...

 

[basilio]

Couple of interesting developments in the CC Debate.

Global warming study finds no grounds for climate sceptics' concerns

Independent investigation of the key issues sceptics claim can skew global warming figures reports that they have no real effect


Ian Sample, science correspondent
guardian.co.uk,

Climate sceptics' criticisms of the evidence for global warming make no difference to the emerging picture of a warming world, according to the most comprehensive, independent review of historical temperature records to date.

Scientists at the University of California, Berkeley, investigated several key issues that sceptics claim can skew global warming figures and found they had no meaningful effect on world temperature trends.

Researchers at the Berkeley Earth project compiled more than a billion temperature records dating back to the 1800s from 15 sources around the world and found that the average global land temperature has risen by around 1C since the mid-1950s.

This figure agrees with the estimate of global warming arrived at by major groups that maintain official records on the world's climate, including Nasa's Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York, the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (Noaa), and the Met Office's Hadley Centre, with the University of East Anglia, in the UK.

"My hope is that this will win over those people who are properly sceptical," Richard Muller, a physicist and head of the Berkeley Earth project, told the Guardian.

"Some people lump the properly sceptical in with the deniers and that makes it easy to dismiss them, because the deniers pay no attention to science. But there have been people out there who have raised legitimate issues," he said.

In the Berkeley Earth project, Muller sought to cool the debate over climate change by creating the world's largest open database of temperature records, with the aim of producing a transparent and independent assessment of global warming.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/oct/20/global-warming-study-climate-sceptics

Amongst the largest funders of this project were the Koch brothers who have been amongst the most determined to destroy the current scientific case against GW.

Second story spells out what will be the human consequences of these changes in the climate - in particular rising sea levels.


Climate change could trap hundreds of millions in disaster areas, report claims

Report says refugees forced to leave homes by weather caused by global warming may end up in even worse afflicted areas

Fiona Harvey, environment correspondent
guardian.co.uk, Thursday 20 October 2011 07.30

Hundreds of millions of people may be trapped in inhospitable environments as they attempt to flee from the effects of global warming, worsening the likely death toll from severe changes to the climate, a UK government committee has found.

Refugees forced to leave their homes because of floods, droughts, storms, heatwaves and other effects of climate change are likely to be one of the biggest visible effects of the warming that scientists warn will result from the untrammelled use of fossil fuels, according to the UK government's Foresight group, part of the Office for Science.

But many of those people are likely to move from areas affected by global warming into areas even worse afflicted – for instance, by moving into coastal cities in the developing world that are at risk of flood from storms and rising sea levels.

"Millions will migrate into, rather than away from, areas of environmental vulnerability," said Sir John Beddington, chief scientific advisor to the UK government, and head of the Foresight programme. "An even bigger policy challenge will be the millions who are trapped in dangerous conditions and unable to move to safety."

The scientists, in a report entitled Migration and Global Environmental Change, found that between 114 million and 192 million more people were likely to be living in floodplains in urban areas of Africa and Asia by 2060, partly as a result of climate change.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/oct/20/climate-change-millions-disaster-report

It is this information upon which Councils decide not to allow people to build on land that will be vulnerable to rising sea levels.

 

[Calliope]

Global warming study finds no grounds for climate sceptics' concerns

Writers for The Guardian are extremely skewed towards Global Warming, and should not be given much credibility. The same applies to the Pravda on the Yarra. Naturally these are your favourite rags.

Ian Sample, science correspondent
guardian.co.uk,

Fiona Harvey, environment correspondent
guardian.co.uk, Thursday 20 October 2011 07.30

 

[wayneL]

Couple of interesting developments in the CC Debate.

Global warming study finds no grounds for climate sceptics' concerns



http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/oct/20/global-warming-study-climate-sceptics

Amongst the largest funders of this project were the Koch brothers who have been amongst the most determined to destroy the current scientific case against GW.

Second story spells out what will be the human consequences of these changes in the climate - in particular rising sea levels.


Climate change could trap hundreds of millions in disaster areas, report claims



http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/oct/20/climate-change-millions-disaster-report

It is this information upon which Councils decide not to allow people to build on land that will be vulnerable to rising sea levels.

Pielke Snr comments:

http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.c...-the-economist-on-rich-mullers-data-analysis/

 

[basilio]

Writers for The Guardian are extremely skewed towards Global Warming, and should not be given much credibility. The same applies to the Pravda on the Yarra. Naturally these are your favourite rags.

Ian Sample, science correspondent
guardian.co.uk,

Fiona Harvey, environment correspondent
guardian.co.uk, Thursday 20 October 2011 07.30

You'll find pretty much the same story in any newspaper that sees this as newsworthy Calliope. The Guardian is just repeating their Press releases.

Would you give them any more credance if they have another reference ?

 

[Calliope]

Y
Would you give them any more credance if they have another reference ?

No. Actually, I don't even read your long-winded discredited propaganda any more. It is too predictable.

 

[OzWaveGuy]

Have the AGW extremists on this thread found the Observed evidence yet? I see Basilio is still gulping the propaganda with useless studies that can only suggest possibilities that may, could, perhaps, <legal disclaimer>, predict some far off calamity without any linkage to man's 3% contribution to total CO2.

Basilio, your continuous desperation in this thread can only mean you have an agenda or perhaps even a paid one?

 

[sails]

No. Actually, I don't even read your long-winded discredited propaganda any more. It is too predictable.

Nice to know I'm not the only one...

And Japan and the EU are having second thoughts on pricing carbon (bold is mine0:

TOKYO””Japan is reconsidering plans to cut carbon-dioxide emissions by 25% by 2020 due to a rethinking of its energy future, and the country is worried that it is spending too much on carbon-credit programs, a senior government official said on Wednesday.

Read more from the Wall Street Journal by MARI IWATA:
Japan Reconsiders Plan to Cut Carbon Emissions

and on the EU (bold is mine):

BRUSSELS””The European Union is for the first time clearly questioning whether it should press ahead with long-term plans to cut greenhouse-gas emissions if other countries don't follow suit, in what could herald a significant policy shift for a region that has been at the forefront of advocating action to combat climate change.

Read more from the Global Warming Policy Foundation by Alessandro Torello, The Wall Street Journal:
Europe Reconsidering Its Unilateral Climate Policy

Thanks to Andrew Bolt's blog for providing the links...

 

[startrader]

Couple of interesting developments in the CC Debate.

Global warming study finds no grounds for climate sceptics' concerns



http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/oct/20/global-warming-study-climate-sceptics

Amongst the largest funders of this project were the Koch brothers who have been amongst the most determined to destroy the current scientific case against GW.

Second story spells out what will be the human consequences of these changes in the climate - in particular rising sea levels.


Climate change could trap hundreds of millions in disaster areas, report claims



http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/oct/20/climate-change-millions-disaster-report

It is this information upon which Councils decide not to allow people to build on land that will be vulnerable to rising sea levels.

I really don't know how anyone can take this stuff seriously. The climate has been changing for millions of years and is going to keep changing, regardless of what we do.