Sea levels are NOT rising!

[gsvol]

Good news! Sea levels aren't rising dangerously | The Spectator

This week's Spectator cover star Nils-Axel Mörner brings some good news to a world otherwise mired in misery: sea levels are not rising dangerously – and haven't been for at least 300 years. To many readers this may come as a surprise. After all, are not rising sea levels – caused, we are given to understand, by melting glaciers and shrinking polar ice – one of the main planks of the IPCC's argument that we need to act now to 'combat climate change'?

But where the IPCC's sea level figures are based on computer 'projections', questionable measurements and arbitrary adjustments, Mörner's are based on extensive field observations. His most recent trip to Goa in India last month – just like his previous expeditions to Bangladesh and the Maldives – has only served to confirm his long-held view that reports of the world's imminent inundation have been greatly exaggerated for ends that have more to do with political activism than science.
----------------------

....... he also happens to be the world's pre-eminent expert on sea levels. Besides being responsible for dozens of peer-reviewed papers on the subject, he was also chairman of INQUA Commission on Sea Level Changes and Coastal Evolution. This means that his findings can not easily be dismissed as those of a raving 'climate change denier'.
-------------------------

His view is simple: 'If sea levels really are rising and islands like Tuvalu and the Maldives are in imminent danger of drowning, where is the physical evidence to support it?' So far there is none.

It is those who claim otherwise who are the true 'deniers'.

 

[KiffinKiller]

I'll go ahead and remain unconvinced.

 

[gsvol]

I'll go ahead and remain unconvinced.

So you DO believe that sea levels ARE rising??

If so, what authority are you quoting?

 

[therealUT]

So you DO believe that sea levels ARE rising??

Yes

If so, what authority are you quoting?

INQUA and Morner.

In the article you state, Morner says, "sea levels are not rising dangerously". This does not mean they are not rising. According to Morner's own research they are rising.

 

[gsvol]

Yes



INQUA and Morner.

In the article you state, Morner says, "sea levels are not rising dangerously". This does not mean they are not rising. According to Morner's own research they are rising.

Just exactly how much are sea levels rising?

We know the Earth has been warming since we emerged from the little ice age but Morner says sea levels aren't rising dangerously and haven't been for at least 300 years.

On the other hand we have a government that tells us we must go green to prevent dangerous rising of sea levels and channels $16b in green money to crony partisan campaign fund raisers. (not to mention hundreds of billions squandered on far fetched plans that don't work to our advantage.)

All sorts of wild claims are made to stampede the public into supporting all these green energy policies by making greatly exaggerated (claims) for ends that have more to do with political activism than science.

In other words there is no 'imminent danger' even though we are told there is.

 

[therealUT]

The sea levels are not rising as quickly as the models predict; do you think lying to refute another lie is justified?

 

[TennTradition]

The sea levels are not rising as quickly as the models predict; do you think lying to refute another lie is justified?

Does a model that does not accurately predict sea level response to rising temperature constitute a lie?

 

[lumberjack4]

It's because Obama was elected. Duh.

 

[therealUT]

Does a model that does not accurately predict sea level response to rising temperature constitute a lie?

I do not think so...GS has called it a big lie, though.

 

[RespectTradition]

Does a model that does not accurately predict sea level response to rising temperature constitute a lie?

That depends. If you know that your model does not predict reality and you push your model anyway, then yes, that is a form of lying.

Just answering your question. Not stating an opinion about whether I believe the models or not.

 

[gsvol]

The sea levels are not rising as quickly as the models predict; do you think lying to refute another lie is justified?

No and neither does sophistry exonerate propaganda.

Sea levels are NOT rising dangerously!

Sea levels were gradually rising long before the cause could possibly attributed to human activity.

IPCC projections of the 21st rise in sea levels were wrong, they were greatly exagerated and they damned well knew.

Now that was one lie.

Al Gore's crap is far worse but then some people believe what he has to say.

Increased human emissions of CO2 has NOT led to acceleration of sea level rise.

Sea level rise in the past three hundred years can be measured in centimeters and not meters as some fools believe.

Does a model that does not accurately predict sea level response to rising temperature constitute a lie?

So much bad information and false assumptions are written into computer models that the only really accurate prediction that can be made is how much money will be requested in the next research grant.

I do not think so...GS has called it a big lie, though.

Global warming aka climate change scare tactics are nothing more than a device to steal money and usurp political power.

 

[gsvol]

Bombshell conclusion – new peer reviewed analysis: “worldwide-temperature increase has not produced acceleration of global sea level over the past 100 years” | Watts Up With That?

Our analyses do not indicate acceleration in sea level in U.S. tide gauge records during the 20th century. Instead, for each time period we consider, the records show small decelerations that are consistent with a number of earlier studies of worldwide-gauge records. The decelerations that we obtain are opposite in sign and one to two orders of magnitude less than the +0.07 to +0.28 mm/y2 accelerations that are required to reach sea levels predicted for 2100 by Vermeer and Rahmsdorf (2009), Jevrejeva, Moore, and Grinsted (2010), and Grinsted, Moore, and Jevrejeva (2010). Bindoff et al. (2007) note an increase in worldwide temperature from 1906 to 2005 of 0.74uC.

It is essential that investigations continue to address why this worldwide-temperature increase has not produced acceleration of global sea level over the past 100 years, and indeed why global sea level has possibly decelerated for at least the last 80 years.

 

[MG1968]

if sea levels were really going to rise, would Al Gore have bought a multi-million dollar mansion on the California coast?

 

[gsvol]

 

[TennTradition]

That depends. If you know that your model does not predict reality and you push your model anyway, then yes, that is a form of lying.

Just answering your question. Not stating an opinion about whether I believe the models or not.

I think that depends on the disclaimers attached, the uncertainty stated, etc. Is it the best model available? Is it a lie to suggest it's use over others less accurate even if it is not (satisfactorily) accurate?

 

[PKT_VOL]

I think that depends on the disclaimers attached, the uncertainty stated, etc. Is it the best model available? Is it a lie to suggest it's use over others less accurate even if it is not (satisfactorily) accurate?

I think that is his point. Many climatologists and their models are fairly inaccurate. Climate, changes in climate, interdependence of various climate factors, and past history of the Earth's climate is still shrouded in mystery. We know more than we did a few decades ago but it is still far from an exact science at this point. I view our knowledge of climate in much the same light as our knowledge of the deep oceans; we are still fairly ignorant of both. Very few definitive facts known of each at this point. To suggest otherwise (with models or not) is disingenuous.

 

[YorkVol]

My theory is that there isn't an increase in the volume of water in our seas and oceans it is simply the water is being displaced by the ever increasing amounts of BS coming out of our politicians.

 

[Volsurance]

The lunatic left knows very well that America would never go for their extreme views.

Therefore, they must conjure up wacky ideas and get extremist scientists and media members to help them brainwash the electorate.

And sadly, they have succeeded superbly.:ill_h4h:

 

[KiffinKiller]

the left are all card carrying members of the Hypnotist Society of America.

 

[Nerd-Vol]

Neither are gas prices.


Notice the correlation?


More driving, Lower sea levels.


Also, it was 31 degrees Fahrenheit when I walked the dog this morning. So much for that whole global warming B.S.



Once again Obama and his left wing media are to blame.

 

[gsvol]

Neither are gas prices.


Notice the correlation?


More driving, Lower sea levels.


Also, it was 31 degrees Fahrenheit when I walked the dog this morning. So much for that whole global warming B.S.



Once again Obama and his left wing media are to blame.

What kind of dog?

I thought postal rates were causing global warming.

Notice postal rates and temperature graphs are quite similar.

Well, I could blame the stupidos who believe Obama and the lame stream media and for the same people being doltish enough to believe such crappola.

My theory is that there isn't an increase in the volume of water in our seas and oceans it is simply the water is being displaced by the ever increasing amounts of BS coming out of our politicians.

Well we have been pumping water out of deep aquifieres for some time now, but then Earth's human population has increased somewhat and each human is 80% water so I guess that may equal out.

I think that is his point. Many climatologists and their models are fairly inaccurate. Climate, changes in climate, interdependence of various climate factors, and past history of the Earth's climate is still shrouded in mystery. We know more than we did a few decades ago but it is still far from an exact science at this point. I view our knowledge of climate in much the same light as our knowledge of the deep oceans; we are still fairly ignorant of both. Very few definitive facts known of each at this point. To suggest otherwise (with models or not) is disingenuous.

Maybe this will unshroud that mystery somewhat.

I agree that what much of what is said, particularly in the media, is disingenuous in the extreme.

Chinese 2,485 year tree ring study shows natural cycles control climate, temps may cool til 2068 JoNova: Science, carbon, climate and tax

The temperature, the rate of change — it’s all been seen before. Nothing about the current period is “abnormal”, indeed the current warming period in Tibet can be produced through calculation of cycles.
--------------------------------------

In Tibet, it was about the same temperature on at least four occasions — back in late Roman times (those chariots!), then again in the dark ages (blame the collapse of industry), then in the middle ages (the Vikings?), then in modern times (blame the rise of industry).

Clearly, these climate cycles have nothing to with human civilization. Their team finds natural cycles of many different lengths are at work: 2-3 years, 100 years, 199 years, 800 years, and 1,324 years. The cold periods are associated with sunspot cycles. What we are not used to seeing are brave scientists willing to publish exact predictions of future temperatures for 100 years that include rises and falls. Apparently, it will cool til 2068, then warm again, though not to the same warmth as 2006 levels.

Volsurance
The bottom line is very simple.

The lunatic left knows very well that America would never go for their extreme views.

Therefore, they must conjure up wacky ideas and get extremist scientists and media members to help them brainwash the electorate.

And sadly, they have succeeded superbly.

I've actually talked with a couple of guys locally who, although not very educated but otherwise very intelligent, that are so brainwashed by the globlal warming propaganda that it would probably be a full time job to try to deprogram them.

The Rosett Report Climate Corruption 101

Never mind where you might stand on the question of global warming, global cooling, climate change or plain old weather. If there’s one constant to this entire climate debate, it is that in the name of “climate,” the United Nations wishes to regulate and tax the economy of the planet — stripping resources from the most productive economies to hand them out as assorted UN bureaucrats deem fit.

This is an agenda for global central planning — which, at the extreme, is what the Soviet Union envisioned as the radiant future of mankind, at least until the USSR itself collapsed as a basket case of monstrously misallocated resources, pervaded by the nightmare repression required to enforce such a system.
Nonetheless, at the UN this agenda keeps coming up, year after year, at one climate conference after another. The proclamations of emergency have varied, but always, in the middle of it, there is the UN, proposing to serve as planner and traffic cop for global commerce — a role that entails the UN aiming to redirect resources and collecting a cut to cover the administrative enterprises of its own neo-colonial empire of agencies, organizations, intergovernmental outfits, programs and special envoys. Somehow that already includes a need for climate conferees to travel great distances at other people’s expense, with UN officials touching down from business class long-haul flights to spend a week, or maybe two, conferring at luxury hotels in locations such as Rio, Copenhagen, Cancun and Bali.

And it isn't a big secret either, they have made statement after statement about world government and that they would use environmental issues to gain that end.

 

[gsvol]

It's because Obama was elected. Duh.

Obama's Job-Killing Global-Warming Agenda Continues Under the Radar - HUMAN EVENTS

The troubling question therefore is why is President Obama still determined to implement extremely expensive, job-killing domestic global-warming regulations through his Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), especially as we struggle with a weak economy? Even Lisa Jackson, the head of the Obama EPA has admitted that the United States acting alone would have no impact on the climate. Now with the complete collapse of the Kyoto process, there is no question that Obama’s global-warming regulations would be all pain for no climate gain.

Regulation Trickery

Over the past decade, we succeeded in defeating the global-warming cap-and-trade agenda in Congress, which would have destroyed hundreds of thousands of jobs and caused electricity prices to “skyrocket.”

President Obama understands that the American people have caught on to the economic damage that his agenda would cause, so he is trying to implement it under the radar.
--------------------------

If the first Climategate scandal, and the errors in the IPCC science, were not enough to display the IPCC’s political agenda, another batch of Climategate e-mails, now known as Climategate 2.0, has surfaced just before the Durban conference. But as Joe Romm of “Climate Progress” said about the timing of their release, “It’s so refreshing that anybody thinks those climate talks actually matter.”

Does a model that does not accurately predict sea level response to rising temperature constitute a lie?

If they knowingly feed in inaccurate data and omit known scientifice factors that don't align with their agenda, then yes, they are lying.

The basis of most of the IPCC conclusions on anthropogenic causes and on projections of climatic change is the assumption of low level of CO2 in the pre-industrial atmosphere. This assumption, based on glaciological studies, is false.



All-Time Weather Record To Be Broken

"Did it feel chilly this year in the Pacific Northwest? If you answered yes, you would be correct. With less than 25 days remaining in 2011 and no significantly warmer weather on the way, the Portland International Airport is very likely to set a new all-time record for the least number of 60 degree or higher days in a calendar year. So far in 2011, the Portland International Airport has reached 60 degrees or higher just 169 times which eclipses every other year on record at that location. Records date back to 1940 at the airport. The next closest year to 2011 is 1950 and 1955 which each recorded 172 days at or above 60 degrees. Looking even further back, the last time Portland recorded fewer days at or above 60 degrees was in 1909 (102 years ago) with 160. Records were taken in downtown Portland prior to 1940. The average number of days that Portland reaches 60 degrees or higher in a given year is approximately 200. The lowest was set in 1893 with just 145 days, while the highest was set in 1885 at 244 days. When analyzing the complete set of data dating back to 1875 (136 years) including both the airport and downtown, 2011 is the only year in the past 102 years to break the 170 day threshold."

In Sydney, a city in the sub-tropics, Australians are shiverring their way through the first weeks of summer. Freezing nights, cold days, sharp winds. The coldest start to summer in 40 years.

the left are all card carrying members of the Hypnotist Society of America.

That explains all the dhimirats then.

Bob Hope on Zombies and Democrats - YouTube
(24 seconds)

Record cold in Alaska as many glaciers grow worldwide.

Record cold in Alaska as many glaciers grow worldwide - Coeur d'Alene Press: Weather Gems

 

[gsvol]

The sea levels are not rising as quickly as the models predict; do you think lying to refute another lie is justified?

Exclusive: UN Climate Draft Text Demands 'New International Climate Court' to compel reparations for 'climate debt' -- Also seeks 'rights of Mother Earth' & 2C° drop in global temps | Climate Depot

Ø “Right to survive”: The draft childishly asserts that “The rights of some Parties to survive are threatened by the adverse impacts of climate change, including sea level rise.” At 2 inches per century, according to eight years' data from the Envisat satellite? Oh, come off it! The Jason 2 satellite, the new kid on the block, shows that sea-level has actually dropped over the past three years.

Who's lying now?

if sea levels were really going to rise, would Al Gore have bought a multi-million dollar mansion on the California coast?

Are you implying Al Gore is a rational human being?

Only his maseuse knows for sure.

 

[gsvol]

Top 10 Inconvenient Truths about Global Warming - HUMAN EVENTS

Another question, during the war period between 1,200 and 800 years ago when the Earth was a good bit warmer than now and the Vikeings had settlements on Greenland, why wasn't western Europe under water if sea levels are supposed to rise as Gore and the IPCC say?

"Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been overshadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields. In the same fashion, the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. For every old blackboard there are now hundreds of new electronic computers.

The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present – and is gravely to be regarded.

Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite. The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present – and is gravely to be regarded."

Dwight David Eisenhower

 

[gsvol]

--:: Clean TV ::-- TODAY'S NEWS

Here's a breaking news story about a huge discovery of methane gas reserves. The bad news is this methane is burping up into plumes from the arctic ocean into the atmosphere from holes in the ice that are 3,000 feet across. Russian scientists say they have discovered thousands of these holes emitting methane plumes from the arctic shelf.
------------------

Semiletov has studied these methane plumes for years but most of that time they were only about 30 meters in diameter. Semiletov said, "We carried out checks at about 115 stationary points and discovered methane fields of a fantastic scale — I think on a scale not seen before."