One of his most shocking discoveries was why the IPCC has been able to show sea levels rising by 2.3mm a year. Until 2003, even its own satellite-based evidence showed no upward trend. But suddenly the graph tilted upwards because the IPCC's favoured experts had drawn on the finding of a single tide-gauge in Hong Kong harbour showing a 2.3mm rise. The entire global sea-level projection was then adjusted upwards by a "corrective factor" of 2.3mm, because, as the IPCC scientists admitted, they "needed to show a trend".
When I spoke to Dr Mörner last week, he expressed his continuing dismay at how the IPCC has fed the scare on this crucial issue. When asked to act as an "expert reviewer" on the IPCC's last two reports, he was "astonished to find that not one of their 22 contributing authors on sea levels was a sea level specialist: not one". Yet the results of all this "deliberate ignorance" and reliance on rigged computer models have become the most powerful single driver of the entire warmist hysteria.
and from a little earlier in the story:
Despite fluctuations down as well as up, "the sea is not rising," he says. "It hasn't risen in 50 years." If there is any rise this century it will "not be more than 10cm (four inches), with an uncertainty of plus or minus 10cm". And quite apart from examining the hard evidence, he says, the elementary laws of physics (latent heat needed to melt ice) tell us that the apocalypse conjured up by Al Gore and Co could not possibly come about.
Well what do you know Josh. My picking of 3.5" (low end of IPCC predictions) was spot on.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.
Not sure I agree with the view that the sea level hasn't risen. It is [should be] one of the very few solid bits of data we have, because measuring height is what we've been able to do well and accurately for a long time.
The only issue is that the trend doesn't show what GW fanatics want. It is a steady long term trend that started way way back and given that there is a thermal inertia of a few decades, arguably since the little ice age in the 1700s. hardly surprising it's been warming up steadily since then.
Plot sea level rise against CO2 levels since 1880, and you'll understand why Al Gore recently bought a multi-million dollar property eight blocks from the ocean.
Sea levels have been rising since the last Ice Age ended. What they have not been doing is accelerating their rise. That means either termperatures today are not unusual, or temperatures don't correlate to faster sea level rise. In either case, there's no major reason to worry about AGW.
It looks like the graph is a little flatter in the early years. However, it also seems there is less data available in the early years, which might be part of why it's flatter.
That said, the graph does look very linear from about 1920 on, though about 2-3mm/yr. Why does that seem familiar?
TallDave wrote:Plot sea level rise against CO2 levels since 1880, and you'll understand why Al Gore recently bought a multi-million dollar property eight blocks from the ocean.
Surely he would argue that his carbon-trading-credits* driven bubble-economy will have the desired effect! He is merely confident in his own business ventures, seeing as they have been lapped up by the socialist-minded defacto World Governement that has begun to precipitate at the centre of all this.
taniwha wrote:It looks like the graph is a little flatter in the early years. However, it also seems there is less data available in the early years, which might be part of why it's flatter.
That said, the graph does look very linear from about 1920 on, though about 2-3mm/yr. Why does that seem familiar?
taniwha wrote:It looks like the graph is a little flatter in the early years. However, it also seems there is less data available in the early years, which might be part of why it's flatter.
That said, the graph does look very linear from about 1920 on, though about 2-3mm/yr. Why does that seem familiar?
The IPCC has historically *underestimated* sea level rise, guys. THe "sea level rise experts" say it's worse than anything the IPCC could come up with, primarily because the IPCC doesn't consider dynamical ice flow.
Science is what we have learned about how not to fool ourselves about the way the world is.
Josh Cryer wrote:The IPCC has historically *underestimated* sea level rise, guys. THe "sea level rise experts" say it's worse than anything the IPCC could come up with, primarily because the IPCC doesn't consider dynamical ice flow.
Would that be from WWF sources? Or just guys making sh*t up?
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.
MSimon wrote:Would that be from WWF sources? Or just guys making sh*t up?
Read.
So far sea level rise hasn't deviated from the 100 year trend line.
And I have shown how the IPCC got its 2.2 (IIRC) mm/year trend number despite no obvious immediate trend.
And the satellite data needs 10 years to detect a 3 or 4 cm rise. Anything less than that is in the measurement noise. And so far the satellite data shows no trend. And any trend shown would have to exceed the 100 year trend line to be AGW.
In 100 years we will be off carbon based fuels. No need to panic.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.
And the satellite data needs 10 years to detect a 3 or 4 cm rise. Anything less than that is in the measurement noise. And so far the satellite data shows no trend. And any trend shown would have to exceed the 100 year trend line to be AGW.
Relevance is lost on me. It matches the record for where records overlap.
In 100 years we will be off carbon based fuels. No need to panic.
Science is what we have learned about how not to fool ourselves about the way the world is.
