Debating The World’s Stupidest People

ScreenHunter_1189 Mar. 06 14.26ScreenHunter_1190 Mar. 06 14.26

http://ecowatch.com/2015/03/06/hbo-vice-climate-deniers-sea-level-rise/#comment-1892357108

About stevengoddard

Just having fun
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

25 Responses to Debating The World’s Stupidest People

  1. nickreality65 says:

    Computer climate models predicting 6’ sea level increases for NYC are most likely based on major melting of the ice sheets. Let’s check in with the global experts on GCMs, IPCC AR5 TS.6.

    “In some aspects of the climate system, including changes in drought, changes in tropical cyclone activity, Antarctic warming, Antarctic sea ice extent, and Antarctic mass balance, confidence in attribution to human influence remains low due to modelling uncertainties and low agreement between scientific studies. {10.3.1, 10.5.2, 10.6.1}”
    “In Antarctica, available data are inadequate to assess the status of change of many characteristics of sea ice (e.g., thickness and volume). {4.2.3}”
    “There is low confidence in semi-empirical model projections of global mean sea level rise, and no consensus in the scientific community about their reliability. {13.5.2, 13.5.3}”

    By their own admission, IPCC GCMs cannot predict and IPCC experts cannot agree on the future behavior of ice sheets, sea ice and sea levels.

    IPCC AR5 Chapter 13 – Sea Levels
    Table 13.8 – medium scenario, median of range: year 2100: 425 mm (16.7”), year 2200: 675 mm (26.6”), year 2300: 890 mm (35.0”), year 2400: 1055 mm (41.5”), year 2500: 1250 mm (49.2”)

    The projected worst, worst, worst case cause for the current sea level hysteria spreads out over the next 485 years.

    TS.SM.3.4.2 Plotting Techniques
    The published Global Mean Sea Level (GMSL) datasets use arbitrary and different reference periods where they start from zero. Furthermore, the altimetry data begins only in 1993. Therefore, the datasets have been aligned in Figure SPM.3d to a common reference period of time using the following steps:
    1. The longest running record (Church and White, 2011) is taken as the reference to which all other datasets are aligned.
    2. GMSL from Church and White (2011) is calculated relative to the average for the period 1900–1905, and the resulting value for the year 1993 (127 mm) is identified.
    3. All other records are then adjusted to give the same value of 127 mm in 1993 (i.e., for each dataset the offset required to give 127 mm in 1993 is applied to all annual values in that dataset).

    Couldn’t get any good, consistent, actual data, so IPCC “adjusted” and “aligned” to confirm their bias.

  2. Gail Combs says:

    “…Couldn’t get any good, consistent, actual data, so IPCC “adjusted” and “aligned” to confirm their bias.”

    Yet there are other studies that show long term the sea levels are falling not rising.

    STUDY #1
    A new approach for reconstructing glacier variability based on lake sediments recording input from more than one glacier

    ABSTRACT:
    …..A multi-proxy numerical analysis demonstrates that it is possible to distinguish a glacier component in the ~8000-yr-long record, based on distinct changes in grain size, geochemistry, and magnetic composition…. Minimum glacier input is indicated between 6700-5700 cal yr BP, probably reflecting a situation when most glaciers in the catchment had melted away, whereas the highest glacier activity is observed around 600 and 200 cal yr BP. During the local Neoglacial interval (~4200 cal yr BP until present), five individual periods of significantly reduced glacier extent are identified at ~3400, 3000-2700, 2100-2000, 1700-1500, and ~900 cal yr BP.

    So MINIMUM glacier extent was ~900 cal yr BP and earlier while the highest glacier activity (glaciers increasing in size) is observed around 600 and 200 cal yr BP.

    STUDY #2
    Ice free Arctic Ocean, an Early Holocene analogue

    Abstract
    Extensive systems of wave generated beach ridges along the North Greenland coasts show that these areas once saw seasonally open water. In addition to beach ridges, large amounts of striated boulders in and on the marine sediments from the same period also indicate that the ocean was open enough for ice bergs to drift along the shore and drop their loads. Presently the North Greenland coastline is permanently beleaguered by pack ice, and ice bergs are very rare and locked up in the sea ice. Predictions of the rapidly decreasing sea ice in the Arctic Ocean generally point to this area as the last to become ice free in summer. We therefore suggest that the occurrence of wave generated shores and abundant ice berg dropped boulders indicate that the Arctic Ocean was nearly free of sea ice in the summer at the time when they were formed. The beach ridges occur as isostatically raised “staircases”, and C14-dated curves for relative sea level change show that they were formed in the Early Holocene. A large set of samples of molluscs from beach ridges and marine sediments were collected in the summer of 2007, and are presently being dated to give a precise dating of the ice free interval. Preliminary results indicate that it fell within the interval from c. 8.5 to c. 6 ka – being progressively shorter from south to north. We therefore conclude that for a period in the Early Holocene, probably for a millenium or more, the Arctic Ocean was free of sea ice at least for shorter periods in the summer….

    Again land ice is building not melting.

    STUDY #3
    Mid to late Holocene sea-level reconstruction of Southeast Vietnam using beachrock and beach-ridge deposits

    ….backshore deposits along the tectonically stable south-eastern Vietnamese coast document Holocene sea level changes…..reconstructed for the last 8000 years….The rates of sea-level rise decreased sharply after the rapid early Holocene rise and stabilized at a rate of 4.5 mm/year between 8.0 and 6.9 ka. Southeast Vietnam beachrocks reveal that the mid-Holocene sea-level highstand slightly above + 1.4 m was reached between 6.7 and 5.0 ka, with a peak value close to + 1.5 m around 6.0 ka….

    Translation the sea level was up to 1.5 meters higher than today in a tectonically stable area ~5000 years ago to 2000 years ago.
    STUDY #4
    Sea-level highstand recorded in Holocene shoreline deposits on Oahu, Hawaii

    Unconsolidated carbonate sands and cobbles on Kapapa Island, windward Oahu, are 1.4-2.8 (+ or – 0.25) m above present mean sea level (msl)…we interpret the deposit to be a fossil beach or shoreline representing a highstand of relative sea level during middle to late Holocene time. Calibrated radiocarbon dates of coral and mollusc samples, and a consideration of the effect of wave energy setup, indicate that paleo-msl was at least 1.6 (+ or – 0.45) m above present msl prior to 3889-3665 cal. yr B.P, possibly as early as 5532-5294 cal. yr B.P., and lasted until at least 2239-1940 cal. yr B.P

    This study shows a sea level highstand ~1.6 meter above the present level from ~5500 years ago to 2000 years ago.

    STUDY #5
    Sea Level Changes Past Records and Future Expectations

    For the last 40-50 years strong observational facts indicate virtually stable sea level conditions. The Earth’s rate of rotation records an [average] acceleration from 1972 to 2012, contradicting all claims of a rapid global sea level rise, and instead suggests stable, to slightly falling, sea levels.….

    Three very different sets of observations and ALL point to a falling not rising sea level.

    • Gail Combs says:

      Then there are the sea ports that are now inland. For example Ephesus in western Turkey was a port during Roman times. It is now about 6 miles inland from the coast.

      A nice analysis of various ports with photos: The Rising Sealevel Myth

      Turkey of course was not siting under a mile high glacier so there is no rebound.
      Tectonics: http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/eqarchives/year/2003/2003_05_01_maps.php

    • David A says:

      Gail, I am a bit confused on the last point regarding earths rotation rate. If the mass moves closer to the center, the rotation accelerates. Land Ice is higher then sea ice, and so, at first thought, I would think that land ice melting would be moving the mean mass closer to the center = faster rotation.

      Thinking further though, perhaps this is balanced by a larger area (the oceans) rising?
      So the only mean change would be the density change of ice going to liquid?

  3. Y’oughtta ask ’em why Water Street in Manhattan is so named. They might also do well to puzzle out why it isn’t like it once was.

    • nielszoo says:

      You’re expecting them to, a) research and understand the science behind natural, physical processes, b) read and understand unaltered historical information and, hardest of the three c) use logic or reason or science or, God forbid, common sense to get a valid answer. Not guessin’ they’ll be figuring that one out any time soon…

      • Theyouk says:

        And that, neilszoo, is exactly the problem. We have a populace who are scientifically, economically, historically, and politically illiterate. They are all trying to get positive affirmation from the ‘cool’ crowd, which at this point is the alarmists (they are media masters w/o scruples). While on a 1:1 basis we can usually ‘win over’ one person, the challenge is how we open the minds and eyes of the masses. I’m open to suggestions…

        • Bob123 says:

          The alarmists get the traction because they are selling a comfortable lie. It’s easy to sell something people belive in. They’ve been taught the alarmist lie as school children.

    • Anthony S says:

      Canal street too.

  4. Gail Combs says:

    This quote is a real goody Nick.
    “In Antarctica, available data are inadequate to assess the status of change of many characteristics of sea ice (e.g., thickness and volume). {4.2.3}”
    “There is low confidence in semi-empirical model projections of global mean sea level rise, and no consensus in the scientific community about their reliability. {13.5.2, 13.5.3}”

    What an understatement.

    Holocene sea-level change and ice-sheet history in the Vestfold Hills, East Antarctica

    A new Holocene sea-level record from the Vestfold Hills, Antarctica, has been obtained by dating the lacustrine–marine and marine–lacustrine transitions that occur in sediment cores from lakes which were formerly connected to the sea. From an elevation of ∼7.5 m 8000 yr ago, relative sea-level rose to a maximum ∼9 m above present sea-level 6200 yr ago. Since then, sea-level has fallen monotonically until the present….

    The above is a RELATIVE sea level. The area is not tectonically stable because the area has isostatic uplift in response to deglaciation from the Wisconsin Ice Age. The same applies to the following study.

    A new Holocene relative sea level curve for the South Shetland Islands, Antarctica
    nora(DOT)nerc.ac.uk/15786/

    The curve shows a mid-Holocene RSL highstand on Fildes Peninsula at 15.5 m above mean sea level between 8000 and 7000 cal a BP. Subsequently RSL gradually fell as a consequence of isostatic uplift in response to regional deglaciation….

    Don’t want the public to see those studies now do we? … OH LOOK a 0.01mm Squirrel!

  5. Stephen Richards says:

    Stupid is as stupid does and there is rien plus bête q’un socialiste

  6. Don’t talk to CB. He’s widely known to be as dumb as a giant box of really dumb rocks.

    Talking to CB is like talking to the space between the rocks.

  7. au1corsair says:

    I may be only handing ammunition to climate scientists such as Hank Johnson ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QjG958lZ1KI ) and the “global warming” boys that cry WOLF WOLF WOLF” and the Chicken Littles in the mainstream news media–but LAND also rises and sinks.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subsidence

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tectonic_uplift

    So, is it sea level rising or land sinking? Or land rising and sea level falling?

    • Theyouk says:

      See http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends.html
      Welcome to the discussion. Yes, correct, and there are different reasons for the rising and falling. You will hear many of us mention ‘isostatic rebound’, which is the land rising after being compressed by thousands of feet of ice during the last ice age (look at the arrows in Canada). You will hear us discuss plate tectonics, which can have a rising or falling effect. You will hear us discuss subsidence, as in New Orleans. And therein is both a problem and an opportunity for understanding.

      As I’ve said previously, “they” can’t even get a 1 mm-accurate read on the elevation of Mt. Everest–and it’s standing still (of course, that’s a ‘relative to sea level’ measure–and sea level itself is arguably the problem). Now think about the surface of the oceans, influenced by storms, wind, currents, tectonics, etc. What the h_ll is mean sea level? We have a rough sense of it, but anyone claiming a 1 mm accuracy is building that account on a string of mathematical assumptions and, frankly, constructs. Add to the mix the varying impact of dams, irrigation, groundwater pumping, and so on, and it gets a bit boggled, doesn’t it?

      So let’s revert to tide gauges as at least relatively constant vehicles for measurement. And what do you see? No ‘escalating’ threat of mean sea level rise. None. And this point alone *should* disarm the alarmists–but they can’t think on their own. They can’t digest raw data. They need to be spoon-fed information that caters to their guilty-for-existing sentiments. It’s all rather sad, not the least because it falls on the pessimistic view of things, but arguably more so because it shows us that a huge portion of people live in la-la land–and won’t be budged from it. But despite that, we need to keep trying…and selfless efforts like Tony’s (and the major contributions from Gail–you’re a rock star) are foundational to that campaign.

      • au1corsair says:

        I’m going to claim that a silly little millimeter is not statistically significant. What about instrumentation error? Erosion? Build-up from precipitation or air pollution or the ground swelling due to temperature variations? See a single millimeter difference annually and it is meaningless. An entire meter difference in a single month might be significant–in context. Six meters of snow cap on Mount Everest (in a “hotter” world) is still isolated. ‘

        Both land and sea are moving. Pick any three spots in the ocean and odds are that they are not the same altitude from Earth’s center–if you can designate a point that is “center.”

        Why don’t we panic over the Earth’s air ocean? Depending upon latitude, this ocean may be ten miles deep or close to thirty–and it isn’t a distinct boundary as is the water world and air world. Matter of fact, the boundary between ocean and shore is porous. The sea bottom isn’t “dry” either, but water-saturated! Pick a specific air temperature or “boundary layer” for the air ocean and latitude will cause the depth of the air ocean (hence its ceiling) to vary by miles. Now add in the difference in altitude between day side and night side. Wait! Hurricanes have a low pressure center–a “hole” in the atmosphere. I’m missing out on an opportunity for fame and riches and glory–

        –oh wait, the “hole in the ozone layer” kids got there first. Damn! http://www.theozonehole.com/ Just for the record, the Ozone “Hole” is at a place where the atmosphere is thinner anyway.

        Sounds almost like “denial,” doesn’t it? Someone has developed a single metric (my tea leaves made this pattern!) and I claim that in the grand scheme of things their ‘news’ isn’t even a blip on the global radar screen.

  8. Mike D says:

    The biggest problem is you tell them the rate they are referring to results from a change in methodologies and they don’t even care. Shows the utter lack of scientific integrity.

  9. Steve Case says:

    There are 71 tide gauges on the East Coast, and 43 have reasonably long records that can be analysed. Totaled up the last 30 years of data for those 43 gauges averages out to a rate of 2.5 mm/yr. The highest rate was 5.1 mm/yr for the 30 year period ending in 1953, and the 30 year period ending in 1929 was a minus -0.2 mm/yr.

    • Robert Austin says:

      Does your tide gauge analysis correct for glacial isostatic rebound, ie, the US east coast is sinking since the disappearance of the Laurentide Ice Sheet?

      • You don’t need to correct for it. You measure it. The difference between scientists and science frauds is scientists measure things and explain them, science frauds correct the data and then lie about it.

        Glacial isostatic rebound is linear, not accelerating. Sea level rise is linear. Not accelerating. The conclusion is perfectly clear.

  10. David A says:

    Tony, you may find this to be an interesting comment
    Nick Stokes
    March 6, 2015 at 3:16 pm
    I did a similar analysis of Boulder data here.
    “Never the less i wonder if it gives any meaning to prefer one type of measurement for the other.”

    No one is saying that any TOB is better. The point of the TOBS adjustment is to fix what happens when the time (TOB) is changed.
    ==================================================
    And here I thought it had to do with times recorded once per day in the afternoon, and the following days high was lower then the beginning of that days 24 hour period, which was actually the day before right after the previous days reading was taken.

  11. Richard Todd says:

    Every 20 years or so you have to move your beach chair inland about an inch. Terrifying

    • rah says:

      The fight against sea level rise is a fight for the rich and powerful. It is they, for the most part, which own the sea side property and assets that the government has not reserved. And the poor, such as those in New Orleans, enjoy disproportional Federal benefits and protections also.

      I personally object to the fact that we who do not reside on the sea shore and coastal areas are expected through our tax dollars, to bear the greatest portion of the financial burden for insuring those that do. Those that live in tornado alley nor those that live in river basins that sometimes flood, enjoy such a level of nationalized disaster benefits, nor Federal investment in preventative measures, as those that live in the coastal regions.

  12. Anthony S says:

    Unfortunately, basic calculus is beyond some people.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s