Global Warming...Fact or Fiction?

**Red Team** · 24 Oct 11,, 02:42

Originally Posted by highsea

Go back a few pages on this thread, I think I posted a link regarding the forest cover. If you can't find it I will try to dig it up again.

I have always lived near the ocean. Born and raised in SE Alaska, moved to the Seattle area in my teens. Never been without at least one boat since about 13 years old.

As far as the sea level business, doesn't worry me in the slightest. First of all, I know the claims are wildly exaggerated. Among the other AGW alarmist "facts", that's another one that has been continuously downgraded with each iteration.

Climate scientists withdraw journal claims of rising sea levels | Environment | guardian.co.uk

Second, we already have plenty of places that are settled well below sea level like the Netherlands, New Orleans, etc. A very gradual rise over a century isn't going to drown millions of people. It's not going to drown anyone. What will happen is land will be reclaimed from the water, just like humans have been doing for hundreds of years.

Incidentally, sea levels dropped in 2010. Another thing the models failed to predict....

The Inconvenient Skeptic » 2010 Sea Level: Largest drop ever recorded?

I do know what you're talking about in the forest cover. It has INCREASED in the temperate zones like the NE East Coast and according to this report the average rate of forestry loss has DECREASED from 16 million hectares per year lost to 13 million in the past decade...a decent improvement reflective of increased laws and regulation from world governments on forests. However...13 million hectares a year is still a lot and definitely still overtakes forest growth, plus tropical areas where slash and burn agriculture is extremely common and regulations contrastingly uncommon (Africa/South America) has had continually increased rates of deforestation, largely contributing to the numbers. Plant growth is sadly, still a farcry from being the potential ultimate negative feedback.

Here is my source: http://www.fao.org/docrep/013/i2000e/i2000e01.pdf (It is a PDF file)

**Red Team** · 24 Oct 11,, 03:57

And just read through skeptic website and saw the main graph...it still doesn't seem to me that sea levels are in the process of trending down, in fact I'm still reading a continuation of the current trend of rising sea levels (albeit at a slightly decreased rate). I expect this to be because of a combination of negative feedbacks and regular seasonal drops of sea level, variables beyond the ability for any model to accurately take into account. I suspect if you take out regular seasonal drops from the equation (which also try to anticipate El Nino/La Nina anomalies), you will find nothing really trend breaking in this graph.

Graph with seasonal conditions removed: http://sealevel.colorado.edu/files/c..._ns_global.jpg

Another possible explanation for the sea level drop:
http://news.discovery.com/earth/rain...ls-111006.html

**Xiaohaha** · 24 Oct 11,, 10:58

New study by independent group of scientists claim new analyses of data suggest unequivocal warming trend that closely matches previous other studies.

Press: Cooling the warming debate: Major new analysis confirms that global warming is real

Real deal: Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature (© 2011)

**BadKharma** · 24 Oct 11,, 12:38

I would find a non-commercial website more credible. Berkley, really, do we want to go there?

**highsea** · 24 Oct 11,, 17:43

Originally Posted by Red Team

And just read through skeptic website and saw the main graph...it still doesn't seem to me that sea levels are in the process of trending down, in fact I'm still reading a continuation of the current trend of rising sea levels (albeit at a slightly decreased rate).

Nobody said they were trending down. Just that the models fail to account for the drops in 2005 and 2010.

The planet is still recovering from the LIA. Over the past century, sea levels have risen about 1.8-2.0 mm per year on average.

No big post-industrial surge, the trend today is nothing out of the ordinary.

To get even the low end of the IPCC estimate of 1 meter by 2100, the current trend would have to quintuple to ~11mm per year, and maintain that rate for the next 89 years.

So to repeat myself- no, I am not the least bit concerned.

**gunnut** · 24 Oct 11,, 18:05

Originally Posted by Red Team

A wise person once told me this metaphor:

Global Warming is akin to being on a sinking lifeboat. There are the people trying to plug the leak and fix the boat, and the people who are attempting to convince themselves that the boat isn't really sinking. The only way both sides cannot deny that the boat is sinking is when the boat finally sinks and leaves them stranded in shark infested waters.

Ignorance is bliss.

He doesn't seem too wise to me. Apparently he has never seen a self-correcting lifeboat before.

**highsea** · 24 Oct 11,, 18:31

@Red Team.

This is related to the University of Colorado link you provided earlier. See the link for the graphs, I'm not going to bother posting them.

Sea Level Expert: "80% of us disagree with the IPCC"

according to an interview recorded 5 days ago with Sea Level Expert Dr. Nils-Axel Mörner.

Dr. Mörner is the recently-retired head of the Paleogeophysics and Geodynamics department at Stockholm University in Sweden. He is past president (1999-2003) of the INQUA Commission on Sea Level Changes and Coastal Evolution, leader of the Maldives Sea Level Project. Dr. Mörner been studying the sea level and its effects on coastal areas for some 38 years.

In the interview, Dr. Morner states that none of the 33 authors of the 2001 IPCC Chapter on sea levels was considered to be a sea level expert, that all 33 were from other disciplines and selected "due to loyalty" to the IPCC. Furthermore, Dr. Morner estimates that of the 300-400 individual scientists "in the sea-level [scientific] community", 80% of sea-level experts disagree with the IPCC conclusions regarding sea level rise.

I have emailed Dr. Morner for his reply to the critique by Nerem et al and any comments on the post here "Global Sea Level Decrease 2004-2010 Part 2" and will post his reply here.

Graphs from a Chapter written by Dr. Morner in the book Encyclopedia of Coastal Science by Maurice L. Schwartz, editor, showing TOPEX satellite altimetry data with no long term trend prior to the slew of adjustments broadly outlined by Nerem et al:

John Daly also has a graph of the same period of TOPEX satellite data, which shows a linear trend of 0.9 mm/yr.

At some point in time, this data was greatly adjusted to show a rise of 3.2mm/year, an increase of over three-fold, which is the only data now available from the University of Colorado sea level site. There is no publicly available record of how and why these large changes were applied to the original satellite data. Inquiring minds want to know.

THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: Sea Level Expert: "80% of us disagree with the IPCC"

**Red Team** · 24 Oct 11,, 19:58

Originally Posted by highsea

Nobody said they were trending down. Just that the models fail to account for the drops in 2005 and 2010.

The planet is still recovering from the LIA. Over the past century, sea levels have risen about 1.8-2.0 mm per year on average.

No big post-industrial surge, the trend today is nothing out of the ordinary.

To get even the low end of the IPCC estimate of 1 meter by 2100, the current trend would have to quintuple to ~11mm per year, and maintain that rate for the next 89 years.

So to repeat myself- no, I am not the least bit concerned.

Yes to meet the IPCC estimate, you say it as the actual trends have to plot by plot follow the model perfectly...

Who said anything about sea levels rising to a linear pattern? Who says anomalies like El Nino (overall increases average sea level) La Nina (vice versa effect) which did occur in 2010 can't divert the model in a major way?...I'm not defending the IPCC's estimates here, I personally thought them too liberal in the publishing of their official model, but you can't say an overall long term trend of rising sea levels is "normal" in anyway.

And @gunnut: As to my metaphor, forgive my friend and I for we are both ignorant landlubbers.

**Wooglin** · 24 Oct 11,, 20:34

Red Team,

The IPCC estimate range of sea level rise by 2100 is 18cm to 59cm, not 1 meter, so I'm not sure what official IPCC model you are referring to.

As for the long term trend in sea level rise not being normal, well...

And more recently...

That sea level would be rising since the end of the LIA shouldn't really be a surprise to anyone, and is certainly normal.

**gunnut** · 24 Oct 11,, 20:40

Using government accounting, if the sea level rises at a slower pace than expected, does that mean the sea level has "lowered?"

**Wooglin** · 24 Oct 11,, 20:45

And this just in....

Abstract

Statistical relationships between annual floods at 200 long-term (85–127 years of record) streamgauges in the coterminous United States and the global mean carbon dioxide concentration (GMCO2) record are explored. The streamgauge locations are limited to those with little or no regulation or urban development. The coterminous US is divided into four large regions and stationary bootstrapping is used to evaluate if the patterns of these statistical associations are significantly different from what would be expected under the null hypothesis that flood magnitudes are independent of GMCO2. In none of the four regions defined in this study is there strong statistical evidence for flood magnitudes increasing with increasing GMCO2. One region, the southwest, showed a statistically significant negative relationship between GMCO2 and flood magnitudes. The statistical methods applied compensate both for the inter-site correlation of flood magnitudes and the shorter-term (up to a few decades) serial correlation of floods.

Taylor & Francis Online :: Has the magnitude of floods across the USA changed with global CO2 levels? - Hydrological Sciences Journal -

Hirsch, R.M. and Ryberg, K.R., 2012. Has the magnitude of floods across the USA changed with global CO2 levels? Hydrolological Sciences Journal

**Red Team** · 24 Oct 11,, 20:45

Has anyone watched the South Park episode parodying The Day After Tomorrow?

"We predict that global warming will happen 2 days before the day after tomorrow."
"Wait...THATS TODAAAYYY!!!!!" "AAAHHHHH!!!!!"

**gunnut** · 24 Oct 11,, 20:56

Originally Posted by Red Team

Has anyone watched the South Park episode parodying The Day After Tomorrow?

"We predict that global warming will happen 2 days before the day after tomorrow."
"Wait...THATS TODAAAYYY!!!!!" "AAAHHHHH!!!!!"

Yes, one of the best episodes.

THE best episode of all time is still the hippie episode. It perfectly illustrates the OWS hooligans today.

**Red Team** · 24 Oct 11,, 21:08

Originally Posted by Wooglin

Red Team,

The IPCC estimate range of sea level rise by 2100 is 18cm to 59cm, not 1 meter, so I'm not sure what official IPCC model you are referring to.

That sea level would be rising since the end of the LIA shouldn't really be a surprise to anyone, and is certainly normal.

I was answering to a response about the 1 meter model estimate yes (again that model is too liberal in it's application IMO).

By long term I mean the period late industrial to present day post industrial period, your second graph....which again still implies to me a connection between CO2 emissions/global warming affecting sea levels. Also the first graph is a bit misleading if your purpose is to try and make a case for/against human effects on sea level (scale is in meters I assume for purposes towards portraying LIA melting effects)...2nd graph is a much clearer portrayal.

**Red Team** · 24 Oct 11,, 21:14

@gunnut
South Park lover too?

I've been to an OWS area in NYC and to a Woodstock type festival...trust me they're both opposites to intellect, it's the dumb ones that tend to overtake the headlines these days. Same thing applies with Tea Party. I can't bring myself to half trust any news outlets these days....but I digress.