With The Latest In Weather Forecasting...

[Guest Sundancefisher]

The thing about the vast majority of science regarding climate change is that the studies are grant funded and peer reviewed at Universities. Scientific research in universities doesn't set out to prove something, it's function is to research the truth. Consulting firms on the other hand, are asked to prove something. A few great examples come to mind....like the firm hired by Telus to prove using cell phone while driving is safe. Exxon hired their scientists to prove global warming is false; they didn't hire them to report the data.

 

It has been well documented that the peer reviewers are those that only believe in the premise and also wish to get grant money from the same trough...

 

The expectations that this is true peer review is false.

 

But still...for all the rhetoric, I have heard no common sense rational reason for how we can assume man made CO2 induced global warming when on one hand, global warming started pre industrial age...and now with full blown CO2 releases world wide and increasing...for the past 11 years we have been cooling.

 

Do you not believe what the IPCC tells you still? Are you off on your own trying to stretch facts? If you believe what you have been told for years by the IPCC...then now they are saying we are cooling. What does that tell you about the theory of "global warming".

 

Also no comment on what the reasons could possible have been for the IPCC to change the term from global warming to climate change...

 

Two very important points...with no reasonable response to date...

 

...and Don...unless you have not been outside lately...don't fuss the hot air...we need it

[dryfly]

I am hooped for 2 or 3 days so will not be here. (Cheers all over. )

 

"Unfortunately, climate change will effect food production in most of the poorer nations of the world, and it will displace an enormous amount of people; it's already happened to one island in the South pacific."

 

Pardon?

 

 

 

 

[SupremeLeader]

It has been well documented that the peer reviewers are those that only believe in the premise and also wish to get grant money from the same trough...

 

Show me your documentation regarding peer reviewed research....You should go and tell that to all of the scientists doing research at a University. My father-in-law researches heart tissue; it is among one of the largest funded areas of research....If he wanted to get rich he would work for a pharmaceutical company not the University.

 

The trend over the last hundred years is warming; in the last 11 years their has been a decrease of "0.2 %"....it is natural variability and the trend continues up when you look at the bic picture. Selective data to support your opinion.

 

The warming trend increased significantly during the industrial age up to the present period.

 

The IPCC didn't change the term from global warming to climate change; that is a bold faced lie. The change occurred due to lobby groups via republican think tanks under the Bush administration.

 

It is amazing how the deniers used the idea not less than a year ago that "we don't have enough weather data to understand climate change", and a year later use a minor change in the last 11 years to draw major conclusions?

 

I watched the news last night and the guest climatologists agreed that the Arctic ocean would be ice free in the next 10 years. I mentioned earlier that there has already been people displaced in the South pacific due to rising ocean levels......but right, 6 000,000,000 human beings that have manipulated the planet's atmosphere, forests, oceans etc. have absolutely nothing to do worth it; it's natural.

 

And who should I believe, the IPCC, or Exxon......if it's all about money; Exxon wins.

 

Humankinds connection to climate change is a lie, and the Rapture is coming.....

 

[SupremeLeader]

I am hooped for 2 or 3 days so will not be here. (Cheers all over. )

 

"Unfortunately, climate change will effect food production in most of the poorer nations of the world, and it will displace an enormous amount of people; it's already happened to one island in the South pacific."

 

Pardon?

 

Tuvala.... look it up Clive.

 

You have to look at current publications though, you won't find the info in any magazines published in 1973.

[trailhead]

The only problem with the peer scientists is they are one voice. Anyone who brings in any data that is outside of the realm of the peer groups expected parameters, is automatically dismissed. It is true that 6 billion humans live on this earth, however they still have much less mass than the ocean and inifinitely less mass than the sun. All the models used by the current researchers into climate change, attribute no temperature variability to the oceans or the sun. There is no effect attributed to the the shape of the earths orbit, the axis of the earths rotation, or the eccentricity or precession of the earths orbit and axis, or the thermal inertia of the oceans. The research of Milankovitch has been ignored. Which is also the case with Abdussamatov's work on the 200 year sunspot cycle. But then they are merely astrophysicists and what the hell do they know. I'm sure David Suzuki and Al Gore are much more qualified to give an opinion on these matters.

[SupremeLeader]

The only problem with the peer scientists is they are one voice. Anyone who brings in any data that is outside of the realm of the peer groups expected parameters, is automatically dismissed. It is true that 6 billion humans live on this earth, however they still have much less mass than the ocean and inifinitely less mass than the sun. All the models used by the current researchers into climate change, attribute no temperature variability to the oceans or the sun. There is no effect attributed to the the shape of the earths orbit, the axis of the earths rotation, or the eccentricity or precession of the earths orbit and axis, or the thermal inertia of the oceans. The research of Milankovitch has been ignored. Which is also the case with Abdussamatov's work on the 200 year sunspot cycle. But then they are merely astrophysicists and what the hell do they know. I'm sure David Suzuki and Al Gore are much more qualified to give an opinion on these matters.

 

Peer reviewed science is 'one voice' that includes every non-profit research organization in academia. You're using double-speak....

 

Milankovitch's data is excellent, but try to understand it, it would never support the rate of temperature change that had occurred over the last 100 years.

 

[bigbowtrout]

I'm waiting for 12/21/2012 and if we're still around after that I might buy my cake local and not frozen shipped from the Black Forest.

[Guest Sundancefisher]

The trend over the last hundred years is warming; in the last 11 years their has been a decrease of "0.2 %"....it is natural variability and the trend continues up when you look at the bic picture. Selective data to support your opinion.

 

The warming trend increased significantly during the industrial age up to the present period.

 

The IPCC didn't change the term from global warming to climate change; that is a bold faced lie. The change occurred due to lobby groups via republican think tanks under the Bush administration.

 

It is amazing how the deniers used the idea not less than a year ago that "we don't have enough weather data to understand climate change", and a year later use a minor change in the last 11 years to draw major conclusions?

 

I watched the news last night and the guest climatologists agreed that the Arctic ocean would be ice free in the next 10 years. I mentioned earlier that there has already been people displaced in the South pacific due to rising ocean levels......but right, 6 000,000,000 human beings that have manipulated the planet's atmosphere, forests, oceans etc. have absolutely nothing to do worth it; it's natural.

 

And who should I believe, the IPCC, or Exxon......if it's all about money; Exxon wins.

 

Humankinds connection to climate change is a lie, and the Rapture is coming.....

 

Comparing heart researcher to scientists predicting doom after studying a very small subset of glaciers to predict doom is not relevant. Same is saying regional climate change should be extrapolated over the whole planet. Today's fear mongering headline was that some "adventurers" concluded that after trapsing around the Arctic that the whole world is in trouble from "warming". This scientific IPCC statement comes even after the FACTS say that the earth has COOLED...not warmed.

 

Your comments on 11 years being unfair to compare to 100 years is also interesting. You are completely ignoring the hundreds of millions of years we can extrapolate from the fossil record that shows that over millions of years...temperatures rise and temperatures fall. Where the Arctic is now was once forest. The northwest passage was open before the industrial revolution and now while ice is thicker this year...whose to say if mother nature will open it again.

 

Saying that temperature increases of the industrial revolution is causing global warming is hardly fair. If you believe the increases at the start of the industrial revolution is caused by CO2...which I might add would be miniscule compared to what industrialized and emerging countries are producing...then how on Earth can you explain away 11 years of massive CO2 loading based upon IPCC data that the Earth's temperature has managed to drop? How come the precious IPCC climate models fail time and time to predict anything remotely accurate. How come climate models can't predict temperatures 1, 2, 5, 10 DAYS in advance let along 100 years.

 

These are such simple questions that the global warming religion can only say...ignore them...for they know not what they say...they doth been brainwashed by thy yonder oil companies.

 

I laugh that the global warmer doom sayers have to back pedal so fast once their shodden science was picked apart by a student to show that the simple calculations were wrong. That puts the supposed computer models which is the main proponent of warming in the correct light. Garbage data in and garbage data out.

 

In the end...just realize one simple scientific fact. CO2 is the building blocks for plants. Plants need it to survive. In the past the atmospheric CO2 levels were way higher...why...ask the scientists. CO2 is not poison to our atmosphere in the miniscule concentrations that you are concerned about.

 

...and remember...in the 1970's the same scientists were concerned about global cooling...the impending ice age. So then your comment about 11 years being insignificant compared to your 20 years...hmmmm... all arguments aside... there are way to many holes in this theory to stop living except in fear...

 

[Heimdallr]

This argument really isn't going to go anywhere. Both sides, especially the anti-human contribution side (in this case specifically, not in general) like to say that their interpreted data are "facts." Problem with that is, as we all know their is more than one way to read data. The exact same data can be used just as convincingly to support an infinite number of hypotheses. Another problem with this argument is that it does not take into account the accuracy of the various scientific methods used to gather and assess the data. Clive's original post supports this. Simply saying my "facts" say you or your data are wrong is not a meaningful discussion into this. Philosophically this is a major problem with science because it is based on induction which, in terms of proving something, has some serious flaws. Induction also fails when data that is contrary to the conclusion is excluded. Again, this happens on both sides of the coin and is not targeted at any group specifically. So if arguing which view is absolutely right is really impossible, especially for people like us who are merely reading other people's publish work, what should we do about this issue. We live in a democratic society, I assume most people like that idea, and we believe in the democratic ideals. Therefore, does it not make sense that if the scientific community is overwhelming one-sided on an issue that we should trust in "the experts?" It is also important to remember that the burden of proof will always be placed on the person trying to swim upstream, but that those bold and risky predictions, while not proof or support in themselves, are really what forging human understanding is all about.

 

There are several famous instances of a challenge to the status quo that have ultimately become accepted. For instance, the earth is round and not the center of the universe. One could argue that this means we shouldn't accept the dominant scientific opinion because it can be wrong. Which is true, but all that argument really accomplishes is stating that all science can be wrong. Which also is true. But over time, and study, and the interpretation of data and with the injection of new ideas our knowledge grows. And maybe, just maybe, we get one step closer to "the facts."

[SupremeLeader]

Comparing heart researcher to scientists predicting doom after studying a very small subset of glaciers to predict doom is not relevant. Same is saying regional climate change should be extrapolated over the whole planet. Today's fear mongering headline was that some "adventurers" concluded that after trapsing around the Arctic that the whole world is in trouble from "warming". This scientific IPCC statement comes even after the FACTS say that the earth has COOLED...not warmed.

 

The 'adventurers' are scientists, but they would hardly know as much as a perch fisherman from Lake Sundance.

 

Your comments on 11 years being unfair to compare to 100 years is also interesting. You are completely ignoring the hundreds of millions of years we can extrapolate from the fossil record that shows that over millions of years...temperatures rise and temperatures fall. Where the Arctic is now was once forest. The northwest passage was open before the industrial revolution and now while ice is thicker this year...whose to say if mother nature will open it again.

 

First year ice.....and it's not thicker, there's just slightly more ice than 2007.

 

Again to reiterate, you can 1. trust the scientific community 2. you can look for answers from research done by firms contracted by Oil companies to prove something, or 3. you can listen to guys on internet forums.

 

For me, 1 is the best option.

 

Now, don't you have some drilling to do..?

 

 

[duanec]

do you need a hug?

 

[bhurt]

 

The 'adventurers' are scientists, but they would hardly know as much as a perch fisherman from Lake Sundance.

 

Your comments on 11 years being unfair to compare to 100 years is also interesting. You are completely ignoring the hundreds of millions of years we can extrapolate from the fossil record that shows that over millions of years...temperatures rise and temperatures fall. Where the Arctic is now was once forest. The northwest passage was open before the industrial revolution and now while ice is thicker this year...whose to say if mother nature will open it again.

 

First year ice.....and it's not thicker, there's just slightly more ice than 2007.

 

Again to reiterate, you can 1. trust the scientific community 2. you can look for answers from research done by firms contracted by Oil companies to prove something, or 3. you can listen to guys on internet forums.

 

For me, 1 is the best option.

 

Now, don't you have some drilling to do..?

 

I have stayed out of this so far but I have a simple question for Supremeleader.

 

I have noticed that if you do not agree with what the poster has written then it is the evil oil compainies that are paying for this wrong information.

 

My question is quite simple, How do you KNOW if this is true and if so could you supply us with information to back up what you are saying, cause otherwise it just sounds like *hit distrubing to me, I would like to see soild information to prove that the oil compainies are doing this, and by the way don't bother to say something along the line of the oil compainies are brainwashing us, I hear you say that all the time, now is the time to show us proof to what you are accusing the oil compainies of doing, otherwise all your agruments mean crap.

 

Also I thought you were done with this site???? Less then a month and your back..... Does make things some what intresting.

[headscan]

cause otherwise it just sounds like *hit distrubing to me

As opposed to the same people who start yet another one of these threads every time the mercury drops or it snows? How many of these threads do we really need? If someone started a redundant topic on something fishing related everyone would tell them to use the search function because there are already a bunch of other threads about the same topic. Just sayin'.

[bhurt]

As opposed to the same people who start yet another one of these threads every time the mercury drops or it snows? How many of these threads do we really need? If someone started a redundant topic on something fishing related everyone would tell them to use the search function because there are already a bunch of other threads about the same topic. Just sayin'.

LOL,

 

I agree but how many of these past threads have been closed??????? Kind of hard to replie to a closed thread, eh...

 

Anyways I agree with you marc.

[headscan]

I agree but how many of these past threads have been closed??????? Kind of hard to replie to a closed thread, eh...

I just did a quick search of the NFR forum for the word "warming" and none of the threads are closed. Oddly enough, the majority of the threads were started by the same person.

[SupremeLeader]

The 'adventurers' are scientists, but they would hardly know as much as a perch fisherman from Lake Sundance.

 

Your comments on 11 years being unfair to compare to 100 years is also interesting. You are completely ignoring the hundreds of millions of years we can extrapolate from the fossil record that shows that over millions of years...temperatures rise and temperatures fall. Where the Arctic is now was once forest. The northwest passage was open before the industrial revolution and now while ice is thicker this year...whose to say if mother nature will open it again.

 

First year ice.....and it's not thicker, there's just slightly more ice than 2007.

 

Again to reiterate, you can 1. trust the scientific community 2. you can look for answers from research done by firms contracted by Oil companies to prove something, or 3. you can listen to guys on internet forums.

 

For me, 1 is the best option.

 

Now, don't you have some drilling to do..?

 

 

I have stayed out of this so far but I have a simple question for Supremeleader.

 

I have noticed that if you do not agree with what the poster has written then it is the evil oil compainies that are paying for this wrong information.

 

My question is quite simple, How do you KNOW if this is true and if so could you supply us with information to back up what you are saying, cause otherwise it just sounds like *hit distrubing to me, I would like to see soild information to prove that the oil compainies are doing this, and by the way don't bother to say something along the line of the oil compainies are brainwashing us, I hear you say that all the time, now is the time to show us proof to what you are accusing the oil compainies of doing, otherwise all your agruments mean crap.

 

Also I thought you were done with this site???? Less then a month and your back..... Does make things some what intresting.

 

Look up a documentary called the The Denial Machine (Fifth Estate) and the references to The Great Global Warming Swindle, some great facts regarding the 'science' and agenda behind the climate change deniers.

 

-- edited by mods - please review the Code of conduct for posting in the forums --

[Guest Sundancefisher]

I just did a quick search of the NFR forum for the word "warming" and none of the threads are closed. Oddly enough, the majority of the threads were started by the same person.

 

 

just passing the time guys... If supreme has great points...happy to read em. By all means guys...if the topic is not of interest... read another...

 

Hopefully the weather will warm so we can get a bit more fly fishing in before perch ice fishing season hits...

 

...and I see no value in re-starting up old posts...can you?

 

I do find the logic often circular from both sides. Seems like only time will prove either sides point. But should that time be measured in days, years, tens of years or millions of years?

[SupremeLeader]

 

just passing the time guys... If supreme has great points...happy to read em. By all means guys...if the topic is not of interest... read another...

 

Hopefully the weather will warm so we can get a bit more fly fishing in before perch ice fishing season hits...

 

...and I see no value in re-starting up old posts...can you?

 

I do find the logic often circular from both sides. Seems like only time will prove either sides point. But should that time be measured in days, years, tens of years or millions of years?

 

 

Indeed.

 

And for Bhurt

 

http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/denialmachine/

[Guest Sundancefisher]

Look up a documentary called the The Denial Machine (Fifth Estate) and the references to The Great Global Warming Swindle, some great facts regarding the 'science' and agenda behind the climate change deniers.

 

Have you read The Deniers?

 

http://www.amazon.com/Deniers-Renowned-Sci...n/dp/0980076315

 

The Deniers: The World Renowned Scientists Who Stood Up Against Global Warming Hysteria, Political Persecution, and Fraud**And those who are too fearful to do so (Hardcover)

 

They list a lot of A level scientists. Just recently a pre-eminent scientist turned his back on global warming theory. It was in the paper recently. Maybe someone remembers his name.

 

Anyways, the Deniers is written by a Journalist who decided to actually look at some of the major points of contention between both sides and try and see what the credibility of such scientists were.

 

Good read.

 

...and for SupremeLeader...I have enjoyed the exchange of opinions... I would fish with you any day...

 

Cheers

[Smitty]

Just a quick comment.

 

Perhaps I'm cynical, but as far as the term "peer reviewed" is concerned, I have some pretty healthy skepticism. Goes back to my earlier post; numbers of people believing a concept doesn't make it true. Reminds me of the comedian's joke about the difference between a cult and religion; one is a small group and the other has thousands (millions) of followers.

 

What I see is that both sides to GW have agendas; and therefore it increases the likelihood that peer reviews can been tainted, or given the ol' once over before someone signs their name and says "yep, i agree with that guy".

 

Here's the metaphor: I look for a guitar tab on the internet for a song I want to learn to play - poorly .

 

So I look the song up one one site; I play through it, and notice the transcriber got 2 chords wrong. I look for a "different", i.e. correct version elsewhere. What's the bottom line?: literally dozens of websites have littered the internet with the wrong version of the song I want to learn, cause no one can be bothered to pick up a magnifying glass and really review what some other hack is claiming is the right version.

 

But guess what? Once one numbnut has transcribed the song incorrectly, everyone else, does the same on their website, claiming they have the "correct" version. Yeah right. I know damn well a C# minor 7th chord when I hear it.

 

Anyways, I alot of misinformation can get propogated, nearly endlessly in this day and age; numbers of people supporting a set of data doesn't necessarily translate or speak intelligently to how thorough, how meticulously that data has been peer reviewed.

 

SL, I don't hold in high esteem the ivory towers that you seem to do. You seem to think universities are the last bastion of unbiased sources of data. They can be, but I see them more and more these days as serving their agendas.

 

Smitty

 

[SupremeLeader]

SL, I don't hold in high esteem the ivory towers that you seem to do. You seem to think universities are the last bastion of unbiased sources of data. They can be, but I see them more and more these days as serving their agendas.

 

Smitty

 

Perhaps , but but we all know the corporations and their research is definitely not unbiased, and certainly serving their own agendas.

[canadensis]

"Seems the only hope for the planet is a complete collapse of industrialized civilizations"

 

When you listen to Gore, Suzuki, and the radical proponents of global warming they dont come right out and say this (some do), but really nothing else seems to fit the template they put forward.

 

David Suzuki was on BNN today and he quoted a statistic that is consistent with the dribble that he and his foundation put forward that has ZERO relevance to the discussion; "The 66 poorest nations on the globe only emit 1% of the greenhouse gas"

Well no *hit shirlock- no industry, poverty, living in dung houses, etc, etc. Oh ya, I bet it does not get near freezing in these 66 countries either...

 

Ya, these guys have no bias.....

[dryfly]

SL "I mentioned earlier that there has already been people displaced in the South pacific due to rising ocean levels...." Just politics and money SL. The misconception of accelerating sea-level rise is a construct of alarmists like Gore and the media..it makes hellishly great press to tell folks they will be inundated with water. Boo.

 

The scientific data show that sea level rise is "business as usual" and not accelerating. Sea levels have risen since we crawled out of the LIA and there is no increase in rate of rise.

 

Sounds like someone has been suck in by the Goracle ... and the CBC.

 

by C. R. DE FREITAS, School of Geography and Environmental Science

University of Auckland,

PB 92019, Auckland

New Zealand

In light of IPCC scenarios of rapidly rising seas, the wellbeing of the populations low lying atolls in the tropical Pacific has been the subject of much speculation. As a result, it is alleged that the government of Tuvalu was ready to sue the United States and Australia because they had not signed the Kyoto Protocol. The Tuvalu government believes that most of its country, which at its highest is only five meters above sea level, will have disappeared into the ocean within 50 years. The New Zealand government too, by all accounts, believes this. It recently improved immigration procedures for Tuvalu residents after a false claim that the ocean level is rising, presumably to cater to “environmental refugees” wishing to re-settle in New Zealand. In fact, detailed measurements at the main Tuvalu island of Funafuti have shown no dramatic rise in ocean level over the past 30 years (Fig. 23).

 

 

by Dr. Madhav Khandekar

 

Dr. Madhav Khandekar, Retired Environment Canada Scientist

Dr. Madhav L. Khandekar is a former Research Scientist from Environment Canada where he worked for about 25 years. Khandekar holds M.Sc degree in Statistics from India and M.S. and Ph.D. degrees in Meteorology from USA. Khandekar has been in the fields of atmosphere/ ocean/climate for over 50 years and has published over 125 papers, reports, book reviews, scientific commentaries etc. He has published over 40 peer-reviewed papers in various international Journals and authored a book on ocean surface wave analysis and modeling, published by Springer-Verlag in 1989. Khandekar is presently on the editorial board of the Journal Natural Hazards (Netherlands) and is a former editor of the journal Climate Research (Germany). He was an expert reviewer for the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) Climate Change Documents (AR4) published in 2007.

 

Sea-level rise, ocean surface warming/cooling

Among the most debated impacts of GW on future climate is the escalating sea-level rise (SLR) due to the melting of glaciers and polar ice sheets leading to massive flooding of coastal cities and adjacent towns. The possible disastrous impact of escalating SLR on small islands like the Maldives in the Indian Ocean and the Tuwalu Island in the Pacific were highlighted in many studies and articles during the 1990s. Recent media hype about the melting of Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets as depicted in the publicized movie “An Inconvenient Truth” has created an urgency about ‘halting’ the GW impact through GHG reduction.

 

It is instructive to look at the evolution of SLR value in the last ten years or so. The 1996 IPCC Document estimated a SLR of about 50 cm over the next one hundred years. Several papers published in the 1990s obtained SLR estimates which varied from a low of 20 cm/century to a high of 1 m or more. In recently published literature, SLR values have been moderated and the problem of uneven SLR in various ocean basins is being discussed. Some of the important recent papers are:

a. “New perspectives for the future of the Maldives” N-A Morner M

Tooley & G Possnert Global and Planetary Change 40 (2004) p. 177-

182

b. “Estimates of the regional distribution of sea-level rise over the 1950-

2000 period” J A Church et al J of Climate 17 (2004) p. 2609-2625

c. “Low sea-level rise projections from mountain glaciers and icecaps

under global warming” Sarah Raper & Roger Braithwaite Nature V.

439 (2006) p. 311-313

d. “Nonlinear trends and multiyear cycles in sea-level records” S

Jevrejeva et al J of Geophysical Research V.111(2006) C09012

e. “On the decadal rates of sea level changes during the twentieth

century” S J Holgate Geophysical Research Letters 34 (2007)

doi:10.1029/2006GL028492

 

These and many other papers bring out a number of uncertainties re: SLR in the past and future. Prof. Morner and coworkers demonstrate [study(a)] that in the region of Maldives a general fall in SLR occurred some 30 years ago possibly due to increased evaporation in the central Indian Ocean and intensification of the NE Monsoon. Further, there does not appear to be any evidence of increasing SLR in the near future.

 

Authors Church and coworkers [study, b] analyze patterns of regional SLR over the period 1950-2000 and conclude that it is not possible to detect a significant SLR over this period anywhere. These authors obtain global-averaged SLR rise of 1.8 mm +/- 0.3 mm per year over the 1950-2000 period. In study © Raper & Braithwaite obtain future projection of SLR from mountain glacier and icecaps (outside of Greenland & Antarctic Ice Sheets) as only about 5.1 cm by 2100, half of previous projections. The recent study (d) obtains global SLR trend of 2.4 mm per year for the period 1993-2000 and further document that over last 100 years the rate of 2.5 mm per year occurred from

1920-1945 and this trend is likely to be as large as the recent trend. This study further documents a nonlinear trend in various ocean regions and a 2 to 14 year variability in sea-level records which appears to be increasing in recent years. The latest study (e) [published January 2007] makes a careful analysis of nine long and continuous records of sea-level changes from 1904 through 2003 and obtains sea-level change of ~2.03 +/-.35 mm/yr from 1904-1953 while for the latter period 1954-2003, sea-level change is found to be lower ~1.45 +/-.34 mm/yr. The study further documents high decadal variability in sea-level changes with the highest decadal rate (~5.3 mm/yr)

for the 1980s

 

[dryfly]

Dr. Nils-Axel Mörner is the 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, and leader of the Maldives Sea Level Project. Dr. Mörner has been studying the sea level and its effects on coastal areas for some 35 years.

 

So while you are at it SL read this interview with Dr. Nils-Axel Mörner.

 

=====

 

And SL, don't even mention the bogus Catlin Arctic Ice Survey as reported on CBC ... the one you watched. This fiasco was a grandstanding joke at best ... more like an outright fraud. But that's the CBC for ya. The ceeb never mentioned this did they? Nope.

 

Now THAT is inconvenient wot?

[tonyr]

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has estimated that a collapse of this ice sheet would raise sea levels around the world by about 16.5 feet, on average, and that figure is still widely used. However, that theoretical average does not consider several key forces, such as gravity, changes in the Earth’s rotation or a rebound of the land on which the massive glacier now rests, scientists say in the new study.

 

Right now, this ice sheet has a huge mass, towering more than 6,000 feet above sea level over a large section of Antarctica that’s about the size of Texas. This mass is sufficient to exert a substantial gravitational attraction, researchers say, pulling water toward it – much as the gravitational forces of the sun and moon cause the constant movement of water on Earth commonly known as tides.

 

A study was done more than 30 years ago pointing out this gravitational effect, but for some reason it became virtually ignored. People forgot about it when developing their sea level projections for the future.”

 

Aside from incorporating the gravitational effect, the new study adds further wrinkles to the calculation – the weight of the ice forcing down the land mass on which it sits, and also affecting the orientation of the Earth’s spin. When the ice is removed, it appears the underlying land would rebound, and the Earth’s axis of rotation defined by the North and South Pole would actually shift about one-third of a mile, also affecting the sea level at various points.

 

When these forces are all taken into calculation, the sea level anywhere near Antarctica would actually fall, the report concludes, while many other areas, mostly in the Northern Hemisphere, would go up.

 

If the West Antarctic Ice Sheet completely melted, the East Coast of North America would experience sea levels more than four feet higher than had been previously predicted – almost 21 feet – and the West Coast, as well as Miami, Fla., would be about a foot higher than that. Most of Europe would have seas about 18 feet higher.

 

If this did happen, there would also be many other impacts that go far beyond sea level increase, including much higher rates of coastal erosion, greater damage from major storm events, problems with ground water salinization, and other issues. And there could be correlated impacts on other glaciers and ice sheets in coastal areas that could tend to destabilize them as well.”

 

It’s still unclear, Clark said, when or if a breakup of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet might occur, or how fast it could happen. It may not happen for hundreds of years, he said, and even then it may not melt in its entirety. Research should continue to better understand the forces at work, he said.

 

However, these same effects apply to any amount of melting that may occur from West Antarctica. So many coastal areas need to plan for greater sea level rise than they may have expected.

 

A significant part of the concern is that much of the base of this huge ice mass actually sits below sea level, forced down to the bedrock by the sheer weight of the ice above it. Its edges flow out into floating ice shelves, including the huge Ross Ice Shelf and Ronne Ice Shelf. This topography makes it “inherently unstable,” Clark said.

 

There is widespread concern that the West Antarctic Ice Sheet, which is characterized by extensive marine-based sectors, may be prone to collapse in a warming world. the researchers wrote in their report.

 

Both digital images and video of the impact around the world of sea level increases up six meters can be obtained at this web site: https://www.cresis.ku.edu/research/data/sea...rise/index.html

 

A digital image of what Antarctica would look like if it consisted only of land actually above sea level is also available at this URL: http://oregonstate.edu/dept/ncs/photos/RonneFichner.JPG