Now ill quote the home page of the INQUA web site and link.
http://www.inqua.org/
So INQUA think that the climate is warming...mmm.
The Spectator runs false sea-level claims on its cover
Fraser Nelson makes the biggest blunder of his career by putting Nils-Axel Mörner's, a serial promoter of nonsense, in his magazine
..Mörner turns up on the front cover of the Spectator, under the headline "The Sea Level Scam: the rise and rise of a global scare story". His wild assertions are published in the magazine without qualification or challenge. Far from it: they are proclaimed in the headline as "The truth about sea levels". Yet they are as far from the truth as his claims about dowsing and archaeology.
Mörner maintains that places such as the Maldives, Bangladesh and Tuvalu "need not fear rising sea levels." There is, he says, "no ongoing sea-level rise" and no link between sea levels and climate change. He makes the false claim that the rate of sea-level rise accepted by most climate scientists "has been based on just one tide gauge in Hong Kong" (does he have a thing about Hong Kong?).
These claims have already been comprehensively debunked. To sustain them, Mörner relies on misinterpretations of scientific data so grave that even an arts graduate such as Fraser Nelson should have been able to spot them.
( George goes through each piece of "evidence" Morner uses and points out the papers that expose the lies or misrepresenations that are made.)
M̦rner also claims in the Spectator article to speak on behalf of the INQUA (the International Union for Quaternary Research) commission on Sea Level Changes and Coastal Evolution, whose members he says are "the world's true experts on sea level" Рas opposed to the IPCC, which he asserts has "hijacked and distorted" the data. M̦rner was indeed president of this commission until 2003. However, as documented by the Carbon Brief, INQUA now clearly dissociates itself from M̦rner's views. Current president of the INQUA commission on Coastal and Marine Processes, Professor Roland Gehrels of the University of Plymouth, says his view do not represent 99% of its members, and the organisation has previously stated that it is "distressed" that M̦rner continues to falsely "represent himself in his former capacity."
It has been raining continuously in Townsville, for the last twelve hours.
The wet season has begun, as it has for millennia in this part of the world.
It is a gentle rain, the first since Cyclone Yasi of any moment or measure.
The trees, plants, birds and other animals have responded, as they do to changes in weather. It is a beautiful morning here. I have just seen a 12 foot Carpet slide past my window.
I see no evidence as we head in to the fourth day of summer AD 2011, of any Global Warming.
gg
Quoting from the report:
CO2 increased from 280ppm to 380ppm as stated in that report as also has Nitrous Oxide and trophoseric ozone. These are greenhouse gases.
Now Ozwaveguy, if you don't think the warming is caused by these greenhouse gases then please offer an alternate theory.
I'm all ears.
Knobby, you are not all ears. In fact you have persistently refused to listen. The links which answer your question have been posted many times, months ago, in this thread, by me and others. I am not going to post them again - if you are really interested, find them and read them. Go back six months or more to the time when this thread was particularly active. It's all there.
Empirical observation (as opposed to modelling) has shown that while global temperature initially rises in proportion to the increased CO2 in the atmosphere, it does not continue to do so beyond a certain limit, and that limit has been reached. The line has now flattened out. While atmosperic CO2 continues to increase, the global temperature is not increasing. This is observed fact, and it contradicts the models. The feedback mechanisms at work here are not fully understood, but it does not alter the facts.
If empirical observation indicates one thing, and computer generated models indicate another, which is correct?????
Quoting from the report:
CO2 increased from 280ppm to 380ppm as stated in that report as also has Nitrous Oxide and trophoseric ozone. These are greenhouse gases.
Now Ozwaveguy, if you don't think the warming is caused by these greenhouse gases then please offer an alternate theory.
I'm all ears.
Yes SC, the climate is changing as it always has and we are all in agreement with this as a fact.
I see no evidence as we head in to the fourth day of summer AD 2011, of any Global Warming.
gg
No we are not all in agreement....many posters in this and other ASF climate threads dont think the climate is changing.see below.
No we are not all in agreement....many posters in this and other ASF climate threads dont think the climate is changing.see below.
No we are not all in agreement....many posters in this and other ASF climate threads dont think the climate is changing.see below.
.................But you are saying that is has been caused by greenhouse gases. ..................
The climate is changing that I would agree with although I don't know whether it's natural or man-made.No we are not all in agreement....many posters in this and other ASF climate threads dont think the climate is changing.see below.
... I'll simply point out that my "science" is at least based on actual measurements. ...
But Lord's data showed they had exaggerated the rise by 1000 per cent. His measurement of 1mm a year gives you a sea level rise of no more than 90mm, (0.09m) by 2100.
Amid exaggerated predictions that sea levels would rise by 75m, Lord made the career-ending mistake of actually measuring the sea level and trying to publish the results.
This caused him to be "let go" from his government job and have peer-reviewed scientific papers pulled at the last minute from a conference in Shanghai last year, from a conference in Perth in September and from a journal where they were to be published this year.
Read full article: Other nations, including big greenhouse gas emitters, have no intention of following our kamikaze carbon tax lead"I'm not a climate change sceptic. I believe in the climate change science but I see the need for the real data to be out there," he said
One thing does have me puzzled though, and that is the link between rainfall here in Tassie and the national / international economy.
.Last comment, NASAs latest figures, made obviously in your universe by a cabal of scientists twisting and distorting readings even though they will be struck off if found out and can be easily checked by other scientists. These amazing risks to their good names and career are taken so they can go to conferances and start a world government.
Look at them if you can. I know you can't. Knobby
What exactly is News Ltd's agenda?You spout trash from News Limited and similar and you know they have an agenda.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?