That is precisely the problem with the whole debate. Few are reallyinterested in the science as such, it's all about politics.Once science become politicised, or worse, religion as this has, there is always going to be corruption.
I'm not sure why isostatic adjustments are only being accommodated in the data now. I would have assumed that they would have been part of the regular calculations.Dodging issues is a AGW alarmists specialty...If the data doesn't match computer generated hypothesis - simply change the data and let the magic flow! A new Hockey Stick, New Zealand's NIWA magic temperature increases and magical sea level rises....
NASA-Funded Group Doctors Sea Level Data
Source: Forbes
by James Taylor
Catastrophic sea level rise is one of the most valued hole cards played by alarmists in the global warming debate. In An Inconvenient Truth, Al Gore showed computer generated images of what Manhattan would look like if sea level rose 20 feet. Building on this theme, elevation charts of coastal cities have become a staple in global warming presentations by Al Gore wannabes. But what happens when sea level in the real world does not rise nearly as much as alarmists predict? If you are a NASA-funded gatekeeper of sea level data, you merely doctor the data.
Faced with the embarrassing fact that sea level is not rising nearly as much as has been predicted, the University of Colorado’s NASA-funded Sea Level Research Group has announced it will begin adding a nonexistent 0.3 millimeters per year to its Global Mean Sea Level Time Series. As a result, alarmists will be able to present sea level charts asserting an accelerating rise in sea level that is not occurring in the real world.
..
..
Satellite measurements, however, show global sea level rose merely 0.83 inches during the first decade of the 21st century (a pace of just 8 inches for the entire century), and has barely risen at all since 2006. This puts alarmists in the embarrassing position of defending predictions that are not coming true in the real world.
And here's the justification from the Uni of Colorado:
One important change in these releases is that we are now adding a correction of 0.3 mm/year due to Glacial Isostatic Adjustment (GIA)
Of course when all the reporting is rolled up, all such changes will be massaged to show that Sea Level changes are accelerating.
All I need now is a Royal Commission wand.
Isostasy (Greek Ãsos "equal", stásis "standstill") is a term used in geology to refer to the state of gravitational equilibrium between the earth's lithosphere and asthenosphere such that the tectonic plates "float" at an elevation which depends on their thickness and density. This concept is invoked to explain how different topographic heights can exist at the Earth's surface. When a certain area of lithosphere reaches the state of isostasy, it is said to be in isostatic equilibrium. Isostasy is not a process that upsets equilibrium, but rather one which restores it (a negative feedback). It is generally accepted that the earth is a dynamic system that responds to loads in many different ways.
During the last glacial period, much of northern Europe, Asia, North America, Greenland and Antarctica were covered by ice sheets. The ice was as thick as three kilometres during the last glacial maximum about 20,000 years ago. The enormous weight of this ice caused the surface of the Earth's crust to deform and warp downward, forcing the fluid mantle material to flow away from the loaded region. At the end of the ice age when the glaciers retreated, the removal of the weight from the depressed land led to slow (and still ongoing) uplift or rebound of the land and the return flow of mantle material back under the deglaciated area. Due to the extreme viscosity of the mantle, it will take many thousands of years for the land to reach an equilibrium level.
Glacial Isostatic Adjustment
During the last glacial period, much of northern Europe, Asia, North America, Greenland and Antarctica were covered by ice sheets. The ice was as thick as three kilometres during the last glacial maximum about 20,000 years ago. The enormous weight of this ice caused the surface of the Earth's crust to deform and warp downward, forcing the fluid mantle material to flow away from the loaded region. At the end of the ice age when the glaciers retreated, the removal of the weight from the depressed land led to slow (and still ongoing) uplift or rebound of the land and the return flow of mantle material back under the deglaciated area. Due to the extreme viscosity of the mantle, it will take many thousands of years for the land to reach an equilibrium level.
I
Even just building a decent sized dam will cause the land surface to subside or force an isostatic adjustment.
Oh I see, let me get this straight...it's man's production of CO2 that's melting the ice caps and driving glaciers to retreat globally as most AGW alarmists claim, but yet you use a quote that explains ice sheets were kilometers thick thousands of years ago.
I thought the Hockey Stick that still seems to be credible in the eyes of Alarmists explained that the earth's global temperatures were relatively flat up until the mid-twentieth century where CO2 "pollution" has devastated ice caps and glaciers.
:
Oh I see, let me get this straight...it's man's production of CO2 that's melting the ice caps and driving glaciers to retreat globally as most AGW alarmists claim, but yet you use a quote that explains ice sheets were kilometers thick thousands of years ago.
I thought the Hockey Stick that still seems to be credible in the eyes of Alarmists explained that the earth's global temperatures were relatively flat up until the mid-twentieth century where CO2 "pollution" has devastated ice caps and glaciers.
So what caused the melting thousands of years ago? Perhaps some other horror we should start to worry about! The credibility of alarmists continues to deteriorate in this thread and the flip-flopping of AGW answers continues...what's next? More extreme weather events called Snow?
Basically a while a go there was an ice age that lasted for approx 100,000 years. Glaciers covered most of the continents in the higher latitudes (not Australia) at a depth of up to several kilometres. Variations in the Earths orbit and spin cause the earth to enter these gold periods and exit them. Before the last ice age was a warm period much like the warm period (interglacial) were are currently inhabiting. The current interglacial commenced around 11,000 years ago.
These cycles are driven by cyclical variations in the Earth's orbital eccentricity (how circular), orbital inclination (angle of our orbital plane) and the precession of the Earth's axis (the Earth wobbles like a spinning top). Milankovitch is the guy credited with the discovering the theory (around WW1), though a Scottsman, James Croll documented the same theory and even calculated the times of the previous ice ages with reasonable accuracy in the mid 1860's.
The Milankovitch Cycles
The isostatic adjustment does not occur uniformly. Some bits go up quickly, some bits more slowly and some parts are going down. Also due to the redistribution of magma post the ice age the prevailing adjustment of the ocean floors is down (in contrast to the continents which is up).However this is not factored in when alarmists trumpet the plight of low lying islands, blaming sea level rises when in fact it is land use which is the problem.
Isostatic adjustments seem to be selectively applied.
Climate change denial becomes harder to justify
By Editorial, Published: May 16
“CLIMATE CHANGE is occurring, is very likely caused by human activities, and poses significant risks for a broad range of human and natural systems.”
So says — in response to a request from Congress — the National Research Council of the National Academy of Sciences, the country’s preeminent institution chartered to provide scientific advice to lawmakers.
In a report titled “America’s Climate Choices,” a panel of scientific and policy experts also concludes that the risks of inaction far outweigh the risks or disadvantages of action. And the most sensible and urgently needed action, the panel says, is to put a rising price on carbon emissions, by means of a tax or cap-and-trade system. That would encourage innovation, research and a gradual shift away from the use of energy sources (oil, gas and coal) that are endangering the world.
None of this should come as a surprise. None of this is news. But it is newsworthy, sadly, because the Republican Party, and therefore the U.S. government, have moved so far from reality and responsibility in their approach to climate change.
Seizing on inevitable points of uncertainty in something as complex as climate science, and on misreported pseudo-scandals among a few scientists, Republican members of Congress, presidential candidates and other leaders pretend that the dangers of climate change are hypothetical and unproven and the causes uncertain.
Not so, says the National Research Council. “Although the scientific process is always open to new ideas and results, the fundamental causes and consequences of climate change have been established by many years of scientific research, are supported by many different lines of evidence, and have stood firm in the face of careful examination, repeated testing, and the rigorous evaluation of alternative theories and explanation.”
Climate-change deniers, in other words, are willfully ignorant, lost in wishful thinking, cynical or some combination of the three. And their recalcitrance is dangerous, the report makes clear, because the longer the nation waits to respond to climate change, the more catastrophic the planetary damage is likely to be — and the more drastic the needed response.
Good passage, very true. What do you suppose is the solution bandicoot?the public hears the argument so often repeated, and accompanied by such a wealth of imposing statistics,charts, curves and pie-slices, that it is soon taken in.when at last the disinterested [parties] recognize that the danger of the schemes enactment is real, they are usually too late!
they cannot in a few weeks acquaint themselves with the subject as thoroughly as the hired brains who have been devoting their time to it for years; they are accused of being uninformed, and they have the air of men who presume to dispute axioms."
Good passage, very true. What do you suppose is the solution bandicoot?
Good passage, very true. What do you suppose is the solution bandicoot?
AGW alarmists.... So that obviously includes the whole body of scientists represented by the the National Research Council of the National Academy of Sciences. The falsified evidence is the sum total of thousands of research papers by hundreds of scientists over 30 years.(
.
And yet on an issue where we all face quite horrendous consequences if we don't act you insist this whole scientific community is wrong, fraudulent and mischievous.
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?