Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1367 1368 1369 1370 1371 1372 1373 1374 1375 1376 1377 1378 1379 1380 1381 1382 Next
Comments 68701 to 68750:
-
jimspy at 05:55 AM on 7 December 2011Nils-Axel Mörner is Wrong About Sea Level Rise
As some of you know I'm a complete layman, but I've circulated in these heady parts of Cyberspace for some time now. In that time I've learned that science is a really "disciplined" discipline. It's kind of a "one strike and you're out" deal. I look at Pons & Fleischmann, for example, and I see two guys who devoted their lives to legitimate science, got one thing wrong (maybe - jury's still out IMHO), and got summarily drummed out of the ranks. No malevolence, no cheating, just incompetence. So my question to you science types is, how is it that someone like this Morner (forgive me, I don't know how to do the little dotty things over the o), can pull such an obviously deliberately misleading and quite laughable Three Stooges stunt like rotating a graph, and be allowed to remain anywhere near the vaunted halls of "Science"? Why does anyone even bother to mention his name, let alone invite him to scientific conclaves of any sort? Don't you people have, like, a drumming-out ceremony? Like the Klingons, when they each symbolically turn their back on you? -
Klaus Flemløse at 05:22 AM on 7 December 2011Nils-Axel Mörner is Wrong About Sea Level Rise
Thanks to prof. Nils-Axel Mörner - never wrong Thank you to prof. Nils-Axel Mörner for an interesting paper. This paper represents an example of virtual fortress, which can’t be taken by any means. His fortress consists of the following claims: 1) He is a large capacity with regard to knowledge about the rising global sea level. In 12 out of 34 references he is the only author. 2) IPCC and their associated ideologues are unreliable. He is describing this by using the term "sea-level-gate". 3) He places great emphasis his own observations, where trees along the coast are reliable evidence. 4) The IPCC and others, who rely on satellite measurements and tidal measurements, are subjective interpretation and therefore they are unreliable. 5) Tidal measurements along the coasts are unreliable because of land subsidence From these assertions Nils-Axel Mörner may at any time reject any arguments not consistent with his own theories. It is a virtual fortress, that can’t be taken over. Therefore, Prof Niles-Axel Mörner will always be victorious in a debate and he will again and again be confirmed in his own opinions. He will never be wrong. Only few scientists will experience such a success. Therefore, I will again give many thanks to prof. Nils-Axel Mörner for his interesting paper. One can learn a lot in the future from this paper. -
Daniel J. Andrews at 05:19 AM on 7 December 2011The Monckton Maneuver
Yes, but it will be a very charming British growl. -
Tenney Naumer at 04:44 AM on 7 December 2011Nils-Axel Mörner is Wrong About Sea Level Rise
Let me rephrase that. The drop itself (Fig. 1) is not so significant, but the fact that it remained so low for so long is what is so odd -- due to it raining so much over land. -
Tenney Naumer at 04:41 AM on 7 December 2011Nils-Axel Mörner is Wrong About Sea Level Rise
Has anyone looked at the statistical probability of such a huge drop in sea level in such a short time period. I find it staggering! -
Jeffrey Davis at 04:37 AM on 7 December 2011The Monckton Maneuver
Lovely stuff. Pretty soon Monckton will simply be reduced to growling. -
tmac57 at 02:02 AM on 7 December 2011Temporarily Frozen Planet, Permanently Frozen Objectivity
Treehugger blog had a piece on this a few weeks back,and they speculated that the global warming message would stay intact,despite the reediting that always occurs with these excellent programs.I hope they are right.They did however give a disclamer that their parent company is the Discover network,which is airing the program,so we will see. -
mspelto at 00:24 AM on 7 December 2011Nils-Axel Mörner is Wrong About Sea Level Rise
Nils was always on the wrong side of this argument. I remember reviewing a paper of his back in the 1980's in grad school, where he had a particular idea on sea level rise and he was convinced that global warming would not have role. This did not fit with the other papers even at that time. The link is to this 1984 paper of his. Morner -
lord_sidcup at 20:51 PM on 6 December 2011Temporarily Frozen Planet, Permanently Frozen Objectivity
Lawson’s attack on Attenborough is deeply unpleasant and wholly unwarranted, but it does look like it is part of a sustained campaign. The last episode of Frozen Planet is due to be broadcast on the BBC tomorrow evening and the following day Lawson's "educational" "charity" the Global Warming Policy Foundation is releasing a report on alleged BBC bias on climate change. The report is penned by Christopher Booker (I'll repeat that case it didn't quite sink in - written by a Christopher Booker). I'm sure the timing of the release of Booker’s report for the day after the final episode of Frozen Planet is deliberate. Hopefully it will backfire on the GWPF. Attenborough is hugely admired in the UK. -
Stevo at 14:35 PM on 6 December 2011Temporarily Frozen Planet, Permanently Frozen Objectivity
Having seen the Frozen Planet episode in question I'm surprised that there are still people who take issue with the science. Glacier decline is shown by comparing photographs from 30 years ago with recent shots. Naval data relating to where and when submarines can surface through arctic ice demonstrate clearly the thinning trend in sea ice. A compelling is case4 is made in the program and the tone is foreboding but certainly not alarmist. It seems that myths and badly cooked statistics are all that the denial industry have to fall back on. -
scaddenp at 13:46 PM on 6 December 2011Separating signal and noise in climate warming
Climate models dont actually use past records for prediction. The value of proxies is for validation that you have the physics right. The models predict future temperature by looking at all forcings (all GHG, aerosols, solar etc) with scenarios used to look at different possible sets of emissions. For model validation, you can estimate past forcings, (eg proxies or measurements for solar, GHGS, aerosols) put them into the models, and compare output temperatures with proxies for temperatures. If the hindcast isnt within the range of uncertainties, then the physics in the model is wrong. -
lloyd at 13:33 PM on 6 December 2011Separating signal and noise in climate warming
Consistent temperature records are necessary for predicting future temperatures in a world with doubled or more CO2. The longer the record, the better. My question is, "How do you weight the results of different climate models?" "What changes are likely to happen as the speed of change exceeds past experience?" I know this is a current topic of much discussion for the upcoming IPCC report. Which proxies are they likely to use for supporting their findings? Will projected CO2 level alone be used or projected CO2 plus projected CO2 equivalents? -
Tom Curtis at 13:30 PM on 6 December 2011Nils-Axel Mörner is Wrong About Sea Level Rise
Steve Case @13, I have responded to your issues on a more relevant topic. Hopefully that will help you in understanding that the moderation policy here at SkS is not arbitrary, and for a small effort can be your friend. -
RW1 at 13:28 PM on 6 December 2011The Physical Chemistry of Carbon Dioxide Absorption
Still no response from Hugo?Response:[DB] Not yet. Another message sent just now.
-
Tom Curtis at 13:25 PM on 6 December 2011Has sea level rise accelerated since 1880?
Attn Steve Case, the correct topic for your comment was here. Learning to stay on topic at Skeptical Science can require a sharp learning curve for those used to a more laizez faire moderation style. The correct procedure is to find an appropriate topic and make your comment. You then link back to your comment in the comments of the original post for your discussion. Although following the correct procedure can be a pain, it pays of in terms of far more orderly discussions which can focus on genuine scientific points of interest or misunderstanding. It can also help you understand, as in this case, why certain comments might be considered cherry picking. You are of course welcome to argue the "no-acceleration" hypothesis for the full period of 1880- current above, but on the face of it, that period shows acceleration. Choosing a shorter period to dispute the claim on the Morner thread which is linked to this topic, is therefore cherry picking. -
Steve Case at 12:27 PM on 6 December 2011Nils-Axel Mörner is Wrong About Sea Level Rise
There was nothing in my comment that broke the Comments Policy.Response:[DB] Not quite. This post is on Nils-Axel Mörner is Wrong About Sea Level Rise, not on your predilection for ignoring the totality of the data by focusing on cherry-picked periods of time too short to rise to the level of statistical significance. As such, your comment was OT.
-
muoncounter at 11:51 AM on 6 December 2011Nils-Axel Mörner is Wrong About Sea Level Rise
Klaus Flemlose#5: "sea level is affected by the speed of rotation of the earth." This one has to be filed under 'junk.' With that in mind, here is the 'Bad Astronomy' page: the Earth's rotation is decelerating at a rate of about 0.002 seconds per day per century. It's been about a century since the atomic clocks' standard time, so the Earth is slowing relative to an atomic clock by about 0.002 seconds per day, or about 0.7 seconds per year. It is stunning how any scrap of nonsense will fuel a denier, but the hurdle for fact-based science just keeps getting higher. -
John Brookes at 11:18 AM on 6 December 2011Nils-Axel Mörner is Wrong About Sea Level Rise
John Byatt, you have to be a little careful with local observations of sea level. In Perth the Swan River is tidal, and I ride around it at least twice a week. For the summer of 2010 the river was consistently low. If you'd been a skeptic, you'd have sworn that sea levels were falling. The tides had returned to normal by the summer of 2011. -
Bjarne Mikael Torkveen at 10:44 AM on 6 December 2011Nils-Axel Mörner is Wrong About Sea Level Rise
Mörner doesn't just deny that sea levels are currently rising; he also denies graphs showing the rise in sea level after the end of the last ice age. I showed him such a graph during a meeting by the Norwegian denier group Klimarealistene, and asked for his opinion on it. He recognised the graph, but then flat out denied its message. During the same meeting he claimed no sea level rise, not only by tilting the graph above, but also by cherrypicking data from carefully selected locations where the sea level happended to be unchanged or in decline. -
Bob Lacatena at 10:22 AM on 6 December 2011Newcomers, Start Here
imthedragn, I'd be interested in some response to my response to you at 160 RE the greenhouse effect and how it relates to altitude. Let's start by doing what this site is for, and discussing the science. Do you have any questions or does this now correct your original misconception? Do you now have questions about other aspects of the science about which you may be confused, and you'd like to understand properly? If so, as KR pointed out, please look for an appropriate thread on which to post your question, and I and others will do our best to address your scientific concerns in a straightforward and factual way. -
john byatt at 10:04 AM on 6 December 2011Nils-Axel Mörner is Wrong About Sea Level Rise
I have a friend living at Funafuti, "In the three years that i have lived here the high tide is now one metre closer to the front door (5 metres) The tide gauges are mostly on the coral that has been growing and to date, keeping up with SLR, Japanese scientists have been here trying to reactivate coral growth. At the HAT's sea water comes up through the coral, it is quite scary and appears that the island is sinking"Moderator Response: (Rob P) HAT = Highest Astronomical Tide -
Tom Curtis at 09:35 AM on 6 December 2011Nils-Axel Mörner is Wrong About Sea Level Rise
Klaus Flemløse @5, a shortened Length of Day (LOD), ie, a faster rotation speed, will result in water moving from polar regions to equatorial regions. This will increase sea level at the equator, but decrease it at the poles. Satellite measurement of sea level is restricted at the poles, so the net effect will be a measured increase in sea level. Likewise, lengthening of the LOD has the reverse effect. Cazenave and Nerem, 2004, discuss the issue and cite Stephenson and Morrison 1995:"The nontidal acceleration of Earth’s rotation (or, equivalently, the secular decrease of the length of day (LOD)), based on eclipse observations during antiquity (from 500 B.C.) and historical period up to the present day [Stephenson and Morrison, 1995], amounts to an LOD change of 0.6 ms/century."
(My emphasis) As can be seen in the graph provided by Riccardo, the LOD has continued to increase over the twentieth century, resulting in a slight fall in sea level over that period. -
Riccardo at 09:03 AM on 6 December 2011Nils-Axel Mörner is Wrong About Sea Level Rise
Klaus Flemløse I can't quantify the effect but looking at the variation of the length of the day it doesn't look like it is the leading effect.
-
Nils-Axel Mörner is Wrong About Sea Level Rise
Klaus Flemløse - Indeed. And what is the quantitative effect of the green cheese in the moon, as well? Mörner is really something. It says a lot that 'skeptics' are so desperate for talking points that Mörner gets cover story status with them - rather than handed a tin foil hat. -
Newcomers, Start Here
imthedragn, other newcomers - I've often seen the first few newcomer posts on SkS come in more than a bit over the top. What folks need to recognize is that the emphasis here on peer-reviewed papers, science, and you know, facts in general - that focus makes pontificating or ranting just not a viable means of making a point. Unless the point is that you have no facts to discuss, which would be unfortunate. Questions on the science? Wondering how some 'skeptic' point actually holds up? Ask away. But start ranting? Meet the moderators...Moderator Response: [DB] Kind of a "pay me now or pay me later" situation. -
Klaus Flemløse at 08:49 AM on 6 December 2011Nils-Axel Mörner is Wrong About Sea Level Rise
Mörner claims that sea level is affected by the speed of rotation of the earth. I will be pleased if someone might quantify this effect. Are we talking about 1 mm pr 100 years, 1 cm pr 100 years,... ? -
Tom Curtis at 08:28 AM on 6 December 2011Newcomers, Start Here
imthedragon @166, it is not a "poke" or a "nudge" to point out that somebody has completely misrepresented the IPCC reports. Nor is that something to which you should "not respond". The correct response to to admit the error, apologize for it and explain how it occurred. Something along the lines of: "I am sorry that I completely misrepresented the IPCC AR4 report, which I have not read. In future I will not assume knowledge of that report without reading its contents first." Failure to apologize and correct the genuine offense (misrepresentation) suggest only that such misrepresentation will continue into the future. -
Tom Curtis at 08:23 AM on 6 December 2011It's the sun
Don Gaddes @952, as there are editorial comments for 1977, and for 1982, the forecast date is almost certainly after those two years. What was the date of publication of the book so that I can know the true date before which all is hindcast? As an aside, I note that your father considers 1813 to be somehow equivalent to 1982. The two years are separated by 13^2 = 169 years. As neither 13 nor 169 figures on your list of significant periods (post 914), either you have misinterpreted your father's theory, or your father indulged in ad hoc modification of this theory to avoid the appearance of being falsified. -
imthedragn at 08:14 AM on 6 December 2011Newcomers, Start Here
again I must apologize for rants. I will refrain from responding the pokes and nudges others have included in their responses. I am after all looking for clarification on things of which I adminttedly do not have a firm understanding. Much has been helpful and I appreciate the time many have taken to present relevant material. -
Tom Curtis at 08:02 AM on 6 December 2011Newcomers, Start Here
imthedragon @162, just yesterday I had reason to link to section 8.6.3.2 of the IPCC AR4, which among other statements of uncertainty, says:"Therefore, understanding of the physical processes that control the response of boundary-layer clouds and their radiative properties to a change in climate remains very limited."
That is not the language of a report which claims to "have all the answers". Clearly you are demonstrated to either be in complete ignorance of that on which you pontificate, or to be deliberately (and stupidly) lying. Newcomers here should certainly take note of this tendency of yours, and discount your claims accordingly. The regulars certainly will. -
DSL at 07:53 AM on 6 December 2011Peter Hadfield addresses the recent email release
What do you mean by "skeptical," Karl? Genuine skepticism is equivalent to critical thinking. It is a mode of thought, and it can be taught. Practice and consistent application in all areas of life are essential to becoming a genuine skeptic. I think you mean "concerned" or "does trigger one's skeptical apparatus, doesn't it?". Are you implying anything beyond agreement with Doug H, Karl? If so, have out with it (well-evidenced, of course, and on the appropriate thread), or remain comfortably surrounded by your illusions. If you're not implying anything, then, yes, I agree as well. -
Karl_from_Wylie at 07:29 AM on 6 December 2011Peter Hadfield addresses the recent email release
Doug H @45 "Hiding raw data" does make one skeptical, doesn't it? -
DSL at 06:13 AM on 6 December 2011Newcomers, Start Here
One more note, imthedragon: if you're serious about engaging the science and operating with a truly skeptical approach, you might ask questions instead of presenting assumptions (even light elbows and subtle finger-pokes). If you present assumptions, responses naturally seem antagonistic. Another way to present your understanding without making it seem like an unquestionable absolute is to couch it in relative phrasing: "As I understand it, _____________." Finally, if you make a substantive claim about physics, models, or data, expect to be ignored or ridiculed unless you provide references. -
Don Gaddes at 06:11 AM on 6 December 2011It's the sun
For Tom Curtis (950) The date you seek is 1976. -
jimb at 05:31 AM on 6 December 2011Changing the Direction of the Climate
re posts 1-4- a bit late, but the local paper printed two 'letters to the editor' pointing out that CERN did not in fact say what the author of the op-ed piece said it did (and thanks for the link) Unfortunately I expect that a lot more people read the op-ed piece than the letters. Also in the news was the story that Canada was withdrawing from Kyoto, something that had been rumoured for some time, but confirmed today. This seems to be continuing a pattern. -
Newcomers, Start Here
imthedragon - I would strongly suggest you take a look at the various Global Warming & Climate Change Myths - those links will take you to discussions on many of the snipped items you brought up. Note that there are a lot of threads here - if you could place comments relevant to particular threads on those threads, it will keep discussions relevant. Most regular readers follow the Recent Comments page, so don't worry that your posts will be missed. Climate 'skeptics', or more correctly 'deniers', have thrown a lot of junk around - apparently in order to prevent changes they disagree with. If you really wish to separate fact from flummery I would suggest you look at the collected science, such as this web site contains references/links to, and discussion of said science - rather than political or ideological statements such as from Spencer and Singer.Moderator Response: Indeed, the moderators quickly lose patience with off-topic comments after just one warning, and so often just delete without further warning. -
william5331 at 05:20 AM on 6 December 2011Separating signal and noise in climate warming
Even if the climate was not changing and in danger of trashing human society, there are many other reasons to break our dependence on fossil fuels http://mtkass.blogspot.com/2010/10/forget-climate-change.html -
imthedragn at 05:14 AM on 6 December 2011Newcomers, Start Here
I apologize for the previous post which was more just a rant. Al Gore was the climatologist that has all the answers, or alternately the IPCC xth report of 20xx. (-snip-)Response:[DB] For the record:
- Rants are not necessarily proscribed here. But they must comply with the Comments Policy and be on-topic to the post on which they are placed.
- Gore is not a climatologist. However, for a politician, he was remarkably correct.
- Future off-topic and/or ideological remarks will be deleted rather than snipped, as this comment has.
-
John Russell at 04:59 AM on 6 December 2011Newcomers, Start Here
@imthedragn #158 I applaud your dedication to keeping an open mind and am sure that if you do, you'll eventually sort out the genuine science from the opinions. With regard to natural variability, you might find this article about some new research, together with its links, useful in helping you arrive at the facts. And if you need to learn about any particular aspect of climate science you can do no better than putting the word or phrase into the search tool at the top left of this page, which will provide links to the research, together with discussion aplenty. -
CBDunkerson at 04:37 AM on 6 December 2011Nils-Axel Mörner is Wrong About Sea Level Rise
Had Mörner published his 'tilted graph' or 'spliced photos' in a research paper it would be cut and dry scientific misconduct. The fact that he can do just as much damage on topics of popular interest by instead pushing his misrepresentations in the mainstream press is a loop-hole which ought to be closed... and ignored. Call him out for misconduct and let him explain that it 'does not count' because he was trying to deceive everyone rather than just other scientists. -
Philippe Chantreau at 03:56 AM on 6 December 2011Nils-Axel Mörner is Wrong About Sea Level Rise
So he's the one who came up with the tilted graph first. Well Monckton has been downgraded to the subservient role of mere propagator of that fine piece of visual representation. I think even less of him now. What a joke! How can Morner expect to be taken seriously by anyone able to think when he comes up with such grotesque idiocy? This is beyond stupid. -
Bob Lacatena at 03:34 AM on 6 December 2011Newcomers, Start Here
157, imthedragn,The greenhouse effect in the upper atmosphere (and this is merely a belief) is pretty much negligable when compared with what takes place in the lower atmosphere.
This statement is false. I suspect you believe it because thought-without-math suggests it will be the case, but the reality is that when you work through the radiative transfers, line by line (as done by MODTRAN), you find that in fact an important aspect of GHG theory is that ultimate radiation takes place from a higher altitude at a lower temperature. This, in fact, is the real cause of the warming. A simplistic way (by analogy) to look at it is to think of the earth as covered by layers of blankets. Adding more CO2 does not add a new, thinner blanket to the top. It instead adds a new, thickest blanket to the bottom, and pushes all of the other blankets up one level. You are now losing heat from that topmost blanket, but with more layers underneath. Another (more correct) way to look at it is that the layer from which emissions occur unobstructed into space before increasing CO2 levels is warmer and lower. By increasing CO2 across the board that same altitude is even warmer and radiates more, but in all directions. The amount of radiation going up towards space is increased, but so is other radiation heading back down to warm the surface further. More importantly, the layer above that one now has more opportunity to absorb radiation (more CO2), but it is cooler than the original level of spacebound emission and so radiates less. The end result is that a basic tenet of GHG theory is exactly what you claim defeats it... the idea that increased CO2 levels raise the altitude and lower the temperature of the point at which emissions effectively escape, and this in fact forces the entire planet to warm both below and at that level in order to restore the balance (i.e. to allow the planet to radiate energy away at a brightness temperature of 255K). -
Composer99 at 03:30 AM on 6 December 2011Nils-Axel Mörner is Wrong About Sea Level Rise
I'd love to say nobody could possibly interpret Mörner's tilted graph as anything but evidence of his creativity in propagating incorrect information, but someone brought up Mörner's claims on Deltoid's December open thread and proved me wrong. -
Martin at 03:17 AM on 6 December 2011Nils-Axel Mörner is Wrong About Sea Level Rise
What was Mörner's position on sea level rise while he was INQUA's president? -
CBDunkerson at 03:12 AM on 6 December 2011Newcomers, Start Here
imthedragn, you rely on demonstrably false beliefs and assumptions. That isn't skepticism. Examples; "I take great issue with alarmists who feel they have all the answers as to how much and when." Who are these mythical beings who claim to have all the answers? I'm only familiar with scientists who have said, 'it will be in roughly this range and over roughly this time period'. "30 years worth of observations" Actually, Joseph Fourier first observed the existence of the 'greenhouse effect' in 1824. A bit more than 30 years ago. Even the satellite record is (slightly) more than 30 years... and hardly the only data we have to go on. "they have screamed that NONE of the warming could possibly be natural variability" Pure nonsense. Cite one example of this claim. It doesn't exist. Made up denialist fiction. "But when there was a cooling trend for a few years" The terms 'trend' and 'a few years' are mutually exclusive for any sort of scientifically robust result on global temperatures. Your argument here is the same as saying that if the second day of Summer is cooler than the first then clearly Summer has a cooling temperature trend. Et cetera. You seem to be using a 'gish gallop' of blatantly false arguments. Pick one and follow it to the end. If it turns out to be false that might be a clue that you should be getting your information from someone other than Singer and/or Spencer... both of whom also say that smoking doesn't cause cancer BTW. -
imthedragn at 02:39 AM on 6 December 2011Newcomers, Start Here
Although I am not sold on the whole "global warming" thing, I don't consider myself a "denier". I value the opinion of crebible sources from both sides; those being the "alrmist" and "denier" camps. If I am a skeptic, then I am a skeptic of arguments from both sides. I take everyhitng with a grain of salt. I started my quest for knowledge when Fred Singer and Roy Spencer provided me with their arguments. I have been using information from many sources to try to wrap my head around the whole thing. I concede that rising CO2 has and will cause warming. I take great issue with alarmists who feel they have all the answers as to how much and when. 30 years worth of observations and they have screamed that NONE of the warming could possibly be natural variability (I mean c'mon have you seen that hockey stick). But when there was a cooling trend for a few years, that was (and I almost fell out of my seat when I read the opinion) just natural variability.Response:[DB] "I take great issue with alarmists who feel they have all the answers as to how much and when."
Your use of the term alarmist is revealatory. That you yourself do not know something should preclude you from then deciding how much or how little other people know.
Skeptical Science is about discussing the science of climate science. It is not about opinions, innuendo or anecdotal recollection. Please thoroughly familiarize yourself with the Comments Policy and ensure that ALL future comments you make both comply with it and are on-topic to the thread you post them on.
-
John Russell at 02:36 AM on 6 December 2011What's Happening To Tuvalu Sea Level?
@kellybrook #21 The post is about sea level rise around Tuvalu. It is probably the case that the things you mention tend to make the outcome of sea level rise worse, but they won't affect the rate of the rise. As you rightly say, Coral islands depend on living coral to grow; however both ocean acidification and bleaching mean that in the long term the ability of coral to grow will cease. From then onwards the islands will be vulnerable to erosion from the action of wind and waves until a point when it becomes uninhabitable. Clearly the rate of sea rise will influence the timing of this event. -
What's Happening To Tuvalu Sea Level?
kellybrook - Have you read the topic post? Tuvalu has been experiencing (Becker 2011) 5.1 (±0.7) mm sea level rise per year for the last 60 years, only 10% of which is due to subsidence (from, for example, being "full of holes"). Coral growth cannot keep up with that, and since the 'island' it self (as Tom Curtis points out) is sand on top of dead coral, it won't. That's over 1/4 meter rise in 60 years, on an island that is mostly less than 3 meters above sea level. Of course, if Tuvalu was uninhabited, this particular example would be less interesting. But it is inhabited, and does seem to be suffering some effects from sea level rise. The current and predicted sea level rise will wipe out most of the Pacific atoll islands over the next 100-150 years or so - and Tuvalu has (for better or worse) become an example of that. -
imthedragn at 02:27 AM on 6 December 2011Newcomers, Start Here
Getting back to the Mars thing. The amount of sunlight received decreases proportionally to the square of the distance.(reasonable assumptoin?) Mars would receive enough sunlight to make its massive amount of CO2 cause more of a greenhouse effect than it exhibits if there were more atmposhpere for that greenhouse gas to heat through emission of thermal radiation. That further emphasizes my point that the lack of atmosphere diminishes the ability of the CO2 in the upper atmposphere to have much of an effect.Moderator Response: I cannot parse your third sentence. -
Tom Curtis at 02:23 AM on 6 December 2011What's Happening To Tuvalu Sea Level?
Kellybrook @21: 1) Tuvalu consists of several coral atolls. However, people do not live on the coral, but on the islands that form when sand and reef debris form a layer over the top of the coral, killing it. The islands are more or less stable over time, with new reef debris replacing older sediment washed away by waves. However, with rising sea levels, more sediment is washed away with each storm, and the sediment that forms the island starts to be eroded. So, although the environment minister did lament that the Island was "full of holes", that was a consequence of rising sea levels, not a cause of land subsidence. 2) Below is a photo of the main island of Funafuti atoll (Tuvalu's capital):
As you can see, the entire idea that the population has been pushed into low lying areas by over population is rather specious. True, areas 1 meter above sea level which were not previously occupied are not occupied, because the other areas 1 meter above sea level which where previously occupied are now full. Can you really think that is the main problem.
More importantly, it is not the policy of the Tuvalu government to lower its tide level gauges by 1 mm per 1,000 head of population increase, nor is there a Tuvalu population adjustment in satellite altimetry. Both tide gauges and satellites show rising sea levels at Tuvalu, so without question this is an example of inundation.
Prev 1367 1368 1369 1370 1371 1372 1373 1374 1375 1376 1377 1378 1379 1380 1381 1382 Next
