Feb 02 2007
More Global Warming Fear Mongering
Yes, the earth’s temperature is warming. I has been for 100’s of years. It is NOT hotter than ever seen in recent geological time. It is going to cause problems. Darwin was right (if you understand what he was getting at): those who can adapt will survive easier. But shrill, unfounded, flailing panic is not a survival skill. For example, check out this report which runs from the benign to the horrific in a leap of what can only be called propoganda panic:
Sea levels are rising even faster than scientists predicted, according to a global analysis of data from tide gauges and satellites.
…
The research shows that between 1993 and 2006, sea levels rose by 3.3mm a year on average, while the 2001 IPCC report had predicted an annual rise of less than 2mm.
This is right at the upper limit of the uncertainty in the IPCC’s predictions due to very little data on how ice on land will respond to warming and how fast it will melt. If the climate follows this upper sea level prediction we will experience an 88cm rise in sea levels by the end of the century – much higher than the 14 – 43cm rise predicted under the IPCC’s most likely climate scenario.
A rise of close to 1m would threaten huge areas of low lying coastal land, as well as major cities such as London, New York and Tokyo.
Some things a scientist would note. First is the 3.3mm vs 2mm. Note that the period in question is from 1993 to 2006, 13 years. But the 2mm prediction was made in 2001 – five years ago. Now I would need to look at the data from the 2001 report, but what is should say (if the reporters are being accurate) is this. Over the 13 year period the the levels rose 42.9mm (let’s just call it 43mm). The earlier prediction was for it to rise 26mm over those 13 years. That earlier prediction was made in 2001 and supposedly would include the previous 8 years at 2mm/year. So one would assume the 2001 level had risen 16mm already (I don’t think it did, BTW).
So what does this mean? Well, for this story to be accurate the sea level would have had to make up some serious ground in the last 5 years and rise 27mm! That would be a rate of 5.4mm a year. Now this sounds absolutely astounding, until you realize we cannot measure sea levels globally to the millimeter level. And even if we did, the amounts we are talking about are inside the error bars. For example, the sea height ‘appears’ to be rising around New Orleans, but the truth is the land and sea bed are sinking. Is this an increase in sea hieght? Yes. Is it due to more water and less ice? No.
. Not surprisingly it operated from 1992-2006. For the propeller heads here is a report on its instrument performance over that time. It was nowhere near the mm level in measuring sea surface height (ssh). I don’t have time to go through the 13 years of reports, but my recollection has been is has not seen a significant change. The fidelity of this mission was in the centimeter range for on measurement. But the overall summary across the globe would be more on the fractions of a meter. So the 2-3.3mm range is a bit of a stretch. No one reports numbers like this without the error bars. Just like with polls, this is a statistically derived number and my guess is the error bars are larger then the number (e.g., +/- 5mm or more).
But let’s look at the last part of the screed to see how we jump from 2-3.3mm (fractions of an inch) to 3 feet, 3 inches in one kick dash.
This is right at the upper limit of the uncertainty in the IPCC’s predictions due to very little data on how ice on land will respond to warming and how fast it will melt. If the climate follows this upper sea level prediction we will experience an 88cm rise in sea levels by the end of the century – much higher than the 14 – 43cm rise predicted under the IPCC’s most likely climate scenario.
A rise of close to 1m would threaten huge areas of low lying coastal land, as well as major cities such as London, New York and Tokyo.
See how they go from mm/year to centimeters per century? And one has to wonder about their math. If I multioly 3.3mm/yr times 84 years (end of the century) I get 27 cm – not 88cm. So their models assume a continuous acceleration, which has not been seen ever. But more to the point is the clear propoganda BS at the end. 88cm is not just under 1 meter. They missed their decimeters (a measurement few use today). 88cm is 88/100th’s of a meter. [fixed the math - never do this is tandem with something else with constant interruptions!] In other words, at 88cm/century it would take 100 years to get to 1 meter in sea surface height.
So in the space of a few paragraphs we go from millimeters to meters, yet that time frame is possibly 100 years, or (given the range od 1-4 times the low end) maybe 400 years. And not a word in the article about these time frames. This is the art of propoganda – and it doesn’t belong in science, or articles on scientific speculation (which is what man-made global warming is). The day the Global Warming crowd can DEFINITIVELY measure how much of the warming is directly attributal to man then we can have a serious discussion.
31 Responses to “More Global Warming Fear Mongering”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
I don’t disagree with you, AJ, but I think you might want to modify the following statement:
88cm is 88/100th’s of a meter. In other words, at 88cm/century it would take 10 centuries to get to 1 meter in sea surface height.
Unless I’m misreading this (and that’s certainly possible), you’re saying that at nearly 9/10’s (88/100 is nearly 9/10, right?) of a meter rise per century, it will take 10 centuries to go the last 1/10 of a meter? I admit I’m not a math whiz, but that doesn’t make sense.
AJ, you can’t do simple math or metric conversions:
1 ” = 2.54 cm
88cm = 34.645669 ”
1 meter = 39.37″
34.64″ = .88 meter
A milimeter= 1/1000 of a meter (mille = 1,000; millipede, 1,000 legs)
A centimeter = 1/100th of a meter ( centi=100; a century =100 yrs)
A decimeter = 1/10th of a meter (deci=10; a decade= 10 years)
So, it would take about 113 years to raise sea level 1 meter – NOT 1,000 years.
This makes it kind of hard to trust your judgment, AJ.
Uh – AJ – like Generallissimo Francisco Franco – you’re STILL wrong:
You were right the first time – 88 cm DOES = .88 meter (or 88/100ths).
Further – even at the reduced 27 cm/per century rate, it would only take 370 years to raise sea level 1 meter – NOT a 1,000 years.
You should maybe leave the math and science to people who can add, subtract; do division and multiplication. I got a 770 on my math SAT’s – I’ll be happy to help.
100 cm is one meter. I agree with you that the IPCC’s projected rise in sea level is very unlikely, despite the error on unit conversion. It amazes me that scientists have so much faith in computer models of a very complicated system, the Earth’s ecosystem. The models show accelerating temperature increase as the carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere increases even though it would be expected that a point of diminishing returns would be reached. The people who have made the models are not forthcoming about what the “forcing” is that drives temperature up at an increasing rate. As Freeman Dyson said, they have fudge factors in the models that they do not understand.
The Top of the Hour Radio News (CBS) Says the White House helped with the U.N.’s new report, and are now believer that Man is causing the World to warm. Geez!
I have a lot of books on Climate Change. But I guess I read those who do not subscibe to this Man Made Hype. Pat Michaels, Dixie Lee Ray, Richard Lizdon, Fred Singer, Robert Balling, Indur Goklany, and others. I just think Climate History is being ignored more and more every year. It just doesn’t fit the template.
Further – even at the reduced 27 cm/per century rate, it would only take 370 years to raise sea level 1 meter – NOT a 1,000 years.
And that, Sooth, assumes a static view of the whole issue of global warming; that is, that nothing will change technologically in the next 370 years. Do you believe that? How about the next 20 – 30 years?
BTW, did you see my response re: Arthur Bryant’s in the previous thread?
They’ve won, you guys. It is now a given that man caused the earth to warm. We will now be taxed for our sins. To the death, I would imagine. They couldn’t get you with Marxism, Socialism, or all of the other isms, but globalism has finally done what no other ism could. I feel for our country at the hands of this latest ism. Even while they report that nothing can stop the warming now. Odd that.
On the bright side though, the British Isles can once again become an exporter of fine wines.
Steve, don’t you know that all those people you mentioned are energy industry whores and scientific hacks. They have all taken money (imagine actually getting paid for your time) to speak at energy conferences and testify as expert witnesses in litigation relating to companies like (gasp) EXXON MOBILE, therefore they have NO credibility — zero, zip, nada. /sarcasm off.
Notice how the scientists who are “government grant whores” and “whacko environmental group hacks” are the only ones who have any credibility. Hmmmm, I wonder why that is.
Spook:
Don’t believe it will remain static – more likely it will get worse as China and India come on line. My own view is that I would burn fossil fuel – probably clean-coal technology short-term – along with nuclear fission plants while dumping BIG buck$ into nuclear fusion research.
We will solve fusion technology at some point -and the good thing about fusion plants is you can get rid of fission waste in them cleanly.
The Trillion dollars we’ve poured down the Iraq rat hole would have been far better spent on either Fusion research or guaranteeing Social Security for the next 75 years.
And, yes, I saw your Arthur Bryant response and look forward to BBQ no matter who pays.
Have a good weekend.
I see that everyone picked on his math errors, so I’ll leave that alone.
What I think everyone is missing is the math required to get to the 88cm figure (which I think was the point all along). As he says, a constant 3.3 mm rise every year will only account for a total of 31 cm by 2100. Seeing that that doesn’t work out, a constant increase of 9.45 mm per year gives us 882.15 mm by 2100. This doesn’t make much sense to me, so a compound increase of 6% a year gives 882 mm by 2100. This is questionable because although it takes like 28 years for the yearly change to reach 1 mm/year, by year 66 it is 10mm/year and the last year is 51mm!!
So even with the original math errors, how can this actually happen?
Y’all have a good weekend
Ken,
Before you correct math maybe you should learn Spanish. Anyways, Generalisimo Franco would have had your scalp for mispelling his name.
Dear Doctor Duck (quack! quack!):
AJ has set the standards for spelling in the Strata-Sphere:
and has responded negatively to my chastising him for spelling errors; I shall therefore disregard your concern with misspelling a mass murderer’s name . . . I do think it’s important, on the other hand, that our math be correct.
Regards.
Soothie says: “I would burn fossil fuel – probably clean-coal technology short-term – along with nuclear fission plants while dumping BIG buck$ into nuclear fusion research. ”
Uhh Dude, where we gonna be able to build’em?
Let me answer that for you, nowhere in the US thanks to same scientists that wish to force said GW on us. Face it, they want us all gone. 95% population reduction and a return to an Agrarian society. You think you will be allowed to build fussion plants once these “Scientists” are given control of industry? You have much better chance by building a sound business case to catch the support of the big evil corporations.
On the positive side you do raise a good point. The economic stimulation of massive R/D programs and the resultant Civil work that will be required to move cities, build clean power sources, terra form deserts (good one AJ!), etc. will raise all societies and classes. In additon, these technologies will be greatly needed as we search for more room and opportunities in the stars.
However, that is not what the GW crowd wants.
In the 1500’s the Little Ice Age forced earth temperatures down 3-5 degrees. This caused plague and famine across Europe. Fertile farm land was covered by sheets of ice in greenland and across northern Europe – there was sever impact on farmland, sever impact on forests, etc. They had to develop new crops and new lifestyles to survive….and not a single gasoline engine was in site. The politicans began burning witches because they had to blame someone.
People today are so arrogant that they think they can control the earth’s weather…but can they really? Maybe we are just returning to the warmth that existed before the little ice age?
Spook,
I know! How ashamed I am!
Meltdown is the best science book I’d ever read. It turned my brother, and that is no small feat!
It’s full of links too, so you can see for yourself the data!
Tom-
I really don’t know why you would ask the question:
Critical fission reactors are the most common type of nuclear reactor, producing neutrons by fission of fuel atoms used to induce yet more fissions (the chain reaction) to sustain a controllable energy release. Critical fission reactors typically involve taking advantage of either the heat or the neutrons produced by the fission chain reaction, most commonly:
power reactors intended to produce heat for nuclear power; or
breeder reactors intended to produce nuclear fuels in bulk from more abundant isotopes, most comonly making plutonium 239 from the naturally very abundant uranium 238.
The problem with fission reactors is they generate a great deal of radiation, the controlled fission can become uncontrolled (China syndrome), and they produce radioactive waste. Nobody wants a fission reactor in their back yard.
Fusion, on the other hand, does not require radioactive materials. Two atoms of hydrogen combine to form one atom of helium, and in the process gives off a great deal of energy. Fusion reactions, however, have not yet been successfully harnessed in a manner to exploit their vast potential for power production.
In theory, fusion reactors would be clean, virtually free energy once started, without radioactive waste, and could, in fact, be used to dispose of nuclear waster. I do not foresee insoluble problems with placing fusion plants once the population is educated.
For those who wish a balanced view of “global warming” and climate change, I would suggest the website of Dr. Roger Pielke, Sr.
http://climatesci.colorado.edu/
In particular, read the article entitled:
January 31, 2007
“A Personal Call For Modesty, Integrity, and Balance by Hendrik Tennekes”
I think a lot of the hype about gloabla warming is hysteria, plain and simple.
I think that global warming is a natural phenomenon and one the world has seen many times before. That does not mean however that man is not contributing to it in some marginal way. But people like our sooothie here are too busy frothing at the mouth to come up with any kind of realistic alternatives.
As for Iraq, we were spending billions just to fly the no fly zones over Iraq, dealing with Saddam was not free. In fact if it had not been for people like Soothie poo here we could have taken care of the dictator years ago and spared hundreds of thousands of people their lives in the 90’s.
so while Sooothi yearns for the happy days when Saddam pulled off the biggest heist in history with the help of corrupt UN officials and our planes were getting shot at while they burned tons and tons of fuel flying in circles over Iraq…none of that helps deal with the issues we face now today. it is just noise.
That hsould be global warming. preview is not my best thing.
And btw soothsayer, you seem to assume that if we had not gone into Iraq now that we would not have been forced to deal with Saddam or a failed regime there in the future. I disagree. Saddam was going to cost us and the world one way or another. That is why Clinton bombed the Iraqi regime in the late 90’s and made regime change our national policy..because it was felt that confrontation with Saddam was inevitable and it was felt that either a collapse of his regime or aggression on the part of the regime or both was inevitable.
The effort to create a stable government in the region would pay off in the long term. Even Clinton felt that way. And what is more this thread is about global warming. The need of the left to mourn the end of Saddam’s sadistic regime in any and all contexts is really tiresome.
Kyoto, global warming, etc are all code words for destroying capitalism as a means of destroying America’ s success.
Just heard this quote from Chirac (paraphrasing)
Kyoto is the first step toward truly global governance.
Ya got that? GLOBAL GOVERNANCE.
Wake up and smell the America Haters.
And btw, capitalism is the best system on the face of the earth for citizens having the opportunity to reach their highest potential and/or dreams.
I despise global socialists, for misery loves miserable company.
Snark on/
Lets just require every city on the oceans edge to install desalinization plants to dispose of the ocean rise with all the water from the ocean intake.
Don’t raise the bridge lower the river.
Snark off/
Soothsayer
Just a a point to ponder, we have had for many years now mobile nuclear power plants, it is known as the US Navy.
We have lost two nuclear submarines in deep water and the ocean didn’t dry up all fish still live there.
The russians have had more.
Also a little know fact is that we are each year obtaining from Russia under the Salt Treaties and other agreements weapons grade material for disposal, actually reprocessing down to fuel civilian reactors, the material from all the weapons being placed out of service due to weapons reduction agreements.
I would suggest that we would be better served to have that material reprocessed down less and civilian reactors use higher enrichment material since it would expand drastically the amount of time between refuelings of of civilian plants.
Currently the amount of material being kept in very poor quality sites in the Russian country is enough to supply our country with all the uranium we need for the next 30 years without anyone needing to mine a single pound of uranium on the entire planet even if we up our number of nuclear plants by a factor of five.
It is also true to me the treaty requirements, the amount of material to be recycled is growing much faster than the reuse concept.
We are obligated by the treaties to provide hundreds of millions of dollars per year to support this effort.
Why not use it to increase our use of nuclear power generation to offset other technologies.
It is available, it doesn’t have to be considered wishful thinking pie in the sky and we have many trained personnel to work with the technology.
Most people in this country have no clue that the “nuclear waste” generated from plants is not fuel remnants. It is such mundane stuff as tools that were contaminated above the limits imposed and used protective clothing and other materials used to maintain the plants.
The actual fuel is reprocessed to create new fuel.
It is like suggesting eliminate cars, since your mechanic gets a dirty hand rag changing the oil on your car.
There are major misconceptions that exist in this world which are exploited to the max.
It helps to persuade the sheep.
I second Archtop’s reco to visit Roger Pielke’s site, and read the Hendrik Tenekes article – excellent synopsis. Drives home point that we know much less than we think — or, in case of IPCC and the Algore types, much less than we admit. As James Williams said above, everything is based on the models. But the models have too many assumptions and fudge factors to provide any credence to these long range soothsay, ‘er, doomsayers predictions.
I completely agree with IVEHADIT — it’s the creeping trans-nationalism or globalism that’s behind much of this, and of course money. The euros are morphing into the EU, but are still mostly secondary players in world affairs. But thru the UN and other faceless, trans-national organizations, these smug, elitist, and often corrupt bureaucrats get to influence the use of US assets and more power than they deserve. Of course, liberals and elitist lefties in our country are joined at the hip with these euros and socialist, enviro whackos. And you can’t forget about the $. These “scientists” and assorted organizations hype the threat because they are the experts and they/we need more studies and tests and regulations, and taxes and … on and on so they get the govt grants and subsidies, and it cycles on. You’ve heard the NASA employee (scientist?) say that he was pressured or harassed by Bush admin to not speak about global warming, … well, he actually spoke quite freely all he wanted. The reality is the exact opposite — scientists and others looking at GW realistically and in a factual, logical sense are ridiculed, smeared and misquoted.
Looking at Pielke’s site, I also noted one Jim Hansen referenced there. No surpirse — he’s on the green brigade.
Ken you are sorry ass. You don’t have the cojones ( good spanish for you) to even keep your identitiy.
Good Doc, who is Ken, “Soothsayer?”
Real Reason Behind Global Warming Report…
It’s about wealth transfer. Incomplete science, which is no better than junk science, is being used to support wealth transfer. The media doesn’t bother to point out the obvious – that the climate is constantly changing and that the scientists themse…
Doc:
I stopped paying attention to whining maricons (there’s some good Spanish for YOU) a long time ago.
I don’t know who the f*** “Ken” is – but it isn’t me.
Before everyone worries himself to death about all this hoked up hysteria I offer this bit of info acquired at a siminar sponsored by the University of ‘South Carolina in the early 1980’s when the SC state legislature passed a “Beachfront Management Law” which prohibited building, repairing or rebuilding more than 50% damaged structures located in what was designated as the “dead zone.” , the area projected to be under water when the present meltdown reached it’s end and the next Ice age set in.
Background. To save taxpayer’s money used to subsidize insurance on property located in areas prone to natural disasters, the state legislature passed the Beach Front Management law. In an attempt to explain the need for the law after a loud public outcry from the rich folks who owned beachfront property, USC held several siminars around the state to explain the purpose of the law. Experts from government, environmental agencies ,educational instutions, NASA, and private industry were brought in to answer questions.
NASA acientists showed satellite photos which showed that the earth had gone through several melt downs and ice ages. These pictures showed that at one time the Atlantic Ocean came all the way in to the Appalachian Mts. After an ice age of unknown duration, another meltdown brought the Atlantic Ocean in about half way between the Appalachian Mts. and the present coast line. This area is delineated in the photos by the massive swamps that run thru the Carolinas, GA and FLA. Based on these ancient shore lines it was projected that during the present meltdown the ocean would rise another 14 feet before the next ice age began. Therefore, to prevent public money from being wasted on insuring houses which would be under water within 50 to 100 years, a “dead zone” was established where construction and rebuilding was prohibited.
Needless to say, this law was overturned by a judge after a Mt. Pleasant, (Charleston) SC property owner sued when his million dollar beachfront lot was included in the ‘Dead Zone.”
All this was before the global warming scare. And all these experts agreed that the ancient shorelines in the NASA photos were actual shorelines. So freeze ups and meltdowns are natural phenomina and there ain’t nothing that man can do about it. I find it amusing that man, in his egotistical, self centered, “I am equal to God” world, thinks he can alter the forces of nature. The God that made it will see to it that man doesn’t destroy it unless he wants it destroyed.
Ken get a spanish -english dictionary. It is maricon or maricones . It’s funny you quack like Ken so I guess a maricon.
Yes Gotaknow is him.