Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1371 1372 1373 1374 1375 1376 1377 1378 1379 1380 1381 1382 1383 1384 1385 1386 Next
Comments 68901 to 68950:
-
mervhob at 11:48 AM on 7 December 2011Separating signal and noise in climate warming
It is a very poor mathematician that does not accept the limitations of the tools he uses, and their inapplicabilty to certain types of problems. I do not doubt your ability to model a simple outcome - a rise in temperature. What I question is the ability of such a model to quantify the the effects of such a temperature rise, except in equally simplistic terms. The empirical evidence has already started to diverge from the model - the model did not predict the dramatic increase in the rainfall around the Tropic of Cancer, and neither did it predict the very dry conditions in much of the Northern hemisphere in winter. I find the idea that a non-linear model can be 'linearised' and still represent long term behavior baroque - the methods of Lagrange and Laplace only work for small perturbations - hence the good correlation to temperature in the short term. But please don't consider such a model dynamic - it is not. -
scaddenp at 11:46 AM on 7 December 2011Separating signal and noise in climate warming
mervhob, you might also like to look at: FAQ on climate models and Part 2 from the modellers themselves. -
Bob Lacatena at 11:42 AM on 7 December 2011Nils-Axel Mörner is Wrong About Sea Level Rise
24, Bob Loblaw, I didn't intend to make it sound as if scientists have no such input (obviously, at all levels, scientists will be making recommendations, and many scientists eventually wind up in such positions in management, government or business). My statement was more along the lines that the mythical club-of-scientists could not get together and agree to completely deprive two scientists of all funding from all possible sources just because they were deemed to be "out of the club." -
Bob Lacatena at 11:33 AM on 7 December 2011Separating signal and noise in climate warming
5, mervhob, Your opinion is, unfortunately, founded on a large number of false assertions/assumptions. In fact, I'm not sure there is any foundation at all beneath your conclusions. Rather than address them point by point (which would be tedious), I would suggest that since the subject is of such interest to you, your best course would be to educate yourself on how climate models actually are designed and operate. There are a great number of resources available on the Internet, including a number of in-depth books on how to design and implement climate models, and several climate models that you can actually download and run yourself, as well as reading the actual source code (which I myself have done, although not to any great extent). But, as I've already said... most of your foundation statements are false. You do not appear to have an actual grasp of how climate models operate. Instead, you appear to be basing your opinion on the fanciful descriptions of such models that you might find in ignorant venues such as WUWT and others, or on false premises and assumptions inferred purely from your own experience and education in EE or signal theory. This site is a decent place to start to better understand the models at a very high level, but really, to learn what you need to know to be able to speak knowledgeably on the subject, you'll need to go much more deeply into it than this site offers. Google and time are your friends in this. Hasty assumptions and misinformation delivered by sites that specialize in misinformation are not. -
mervhob at 11:10 AM on 7 December 2011Separating signal and noise in climate warming
I am deeply worried, having looked at the mathematical background to the current climate models, by the insistence that there is no dynamic linkage between weather and climate. This is known to be false, from the science of non-linear systems, or dynamics. There is a belief that by the application of ‘smoothing functions’, these variations in systematic boundary conditions may be ignored. I would point out that in the field of oscillator theory, this was proven to be false in 1988, in the landmark PhD thesis of David M. Harrison at Leeds University. David conclusively proved that the lack of correlation between real noise performance, and the then ‘theoretical models’ was the introduction of smoothing functions to allow the generation of closed integral solutions. This investigation was sparked by my observation that the value of close to carrier noise terms in electronic oscillators was often 10 – 100 times worse than the open loop noise. This had led, by modellers, to the introduction of coefficients for these noise terms that could not be related to the physics of operation. David implemented a full, non-linear solution, and showed clearly how the noise terms were multiplicative, leading to a dramatic increase in noise amplitudes at low frequencies. Such as model applies to any dynamic system, and can lead to a system with more than one, potential stable amplitude, and the system jumping from one state to another in a very short timescale. In the case of climate, the noise variables are of very high energy, unlike the noise perturbations in an electronic oscillator. This is a true dynamic model, unlike the crude Laplacian ‘steady state’ model favoured by climate modellers. Laplace, because he was incapable of solving problems in dynamics, reduced all to statics, a system of closed integral curves which allowed the formulation of integrals schoolboys could handle. In this he followed Lagrange. I do not doubt that climate change is occurring, and that man has made some contribution, but I doubt our ability to accurately predict the outcome on the basis of the reasoning of some not very good French mathematicians of the 18th century. No Langrangian or, Laplacian model can be relied on for development as a time series solution, and crude attempts to introduce coupling terms will lead the analyst astray. It is now accepted that linear approximation reduces the potential behaviours in a physical system, and in the case of a simple non-linear system – an oscillator, led us up the garden path for decades. In the case of a system as complex and multivariate as climate, we should not be surprised if it springs a few surprises on us. We seem prepared to hang all on a few decades of data, and a very limited understanding of the dynamic behaviours involved. We cannot avoid jumps in a non-linear system by pretending they cannot occur – and the potential jumps could be in any direction!Moderator Response: Your personal skepticism of the ability of climate models to predict must take a back seat to the empirical evidence that climate models do predict easily well enough to feed decisions to act; in the Search field at the top left of this page, type "models are unreliable" without the quote marks. Also search for "chaos." -
muoncounter at 09:49 AM on 7 December 20112011: World’s 10th warmest year, warmest year with La Niña event, lowest Arctic sea ice volume
jimb#39: "I had no intention of suggesting that it was not a consequence of greenhouse warming." I didn't say that you had suggested it; I merely find it yet another piece in the mountain of evidence that all point in the same direction. Let's watch how those who claim the stratosphere isn't cooling spin this evidence that it is. -
Bob Lacatena at 09:06 AM on 7 December 2011The Monckton Maneuver
8, pbjamm, Really, at this point it's beginning to be thanks to WUWT for being so far over the top, so demonstrably wrong, and so ridiculously one-sided that it wants to prop up someone as wrong as Monckton, and as a result they will all go together when they go. -
Rob Honeycutt at 08:58 AM on 7 December 2011The Monckton Maneuver
As compelling as Monckton can manage to sound when in his element (a stage presentation), he's shown himself to be woefully incapable of defending himself after the fact. Almost to the point of being sad. -
Paul Magnus at 08:55 AM on 7 December 2011Nils-Axel Mörner is Wrong About Sea Level Rise
Apparently most of that water went to land. As the world ice melts wet areas are going to get much wetter more of the time. ie swamplands. We are going to have a vastly eire landscape much different to anything we are accustom to now. Swamps and deserts with very little in between. -
jimb at 08:46 AM on 7 December 20112011: World’s 10th warmest year, warmest year with La Niña event, lowest Arctic sea ice volume
re #38- I was simply referencing the article in Nature where the title of the abstract was titled "Unprecedented Arctic Ozone loss in 2011". (don't have access to the full article) As a non-scientist, I try to keep up with the various issues, and find this site very helpful in sorting out the wheat from the chaff, so to speak. I should have been more clear with my question, I suppose, but I assume from your response that the 'unprecedented ozone loss' is not expected to have any effect on arctic temperatures. I'm not sure how to take your last rhetorical question, but I had no intention of suggesting that it was not a consequence of greenhouse warming.Response:[DB] "(don't have access to the full article)"
Try here: http://ozone.unep.org/Publications/nature10556.pdf
-
Bob Loblaw at 08:34 AM on 7 December 2011Nils-Axel Mörner is Wrong About Sea Level Rise
Tenney @17: The Wikipedia entry on the Mississippi River says that the retention time from the headwaters at Lake Itasca to the Gulf is typically about 90 days (last sentence in the Watershed section). That is along the Mississippi proper (starting in Minnesota), not along its longer tributary, the Missouri. The Amazon and Nile are longer yet, and any river system with a lot of lakes probably slows the length of time it takes to get water from the headwaters back to the ocean. Obviously, shorter rivers return water to the ocean a lot faster, but winter snowfall won't have a chance to start the journey until spring snowmelt season. Also, there are large areas of the globe that basically have no drainage to the ocean, so you have to wait for water to evaporate and fall somewhere else to get it back to sea, or feed it to groundwater. The US southwest Great Basin is one such example. Getting all that rain back to the ocean is not a quick and easy task. jimspy @19: You need to remember that a career in science is not the same thing as a career in academia. Yes, sometimes people do both, but there are skills that can give a person a great academic career in certain disciplines without ever being any good at science. And someone can accomplish enough science to start a career, and then move on to other ways of extending a career, without science. Sphaerica @20: Sometimes other scientists do get to determine funding. Many grant agencies have rigorous review panels, primarily made up of practising scientists. Participating on such panels is one of the things that academics are expected to do as part of a successful career. The participating scientists don't get to decide how big the pot of money is, but they do influence who gets it. -
pbjamm at 08:33 AM on 7 December 2011The Monckton Maneuver
Wow, that series of videos from Peter Hadfield is devastating. My hat is off to him. 'Monckton answers a troll' (from WUWT) Thanks also to WUWT for its continued commitment to the highest quality scientific discourse. -
Rob Painting at 08:21 AM on 7 December 2011Nils-Axel Mörner is Wrong About Sea Level Rise
Tenney Naumer @ 16 & 17 - It certainly is unusual. Carmen Boening from NASA JPL has a forthcoming paper on the subject. We'll post on it when it's published. -
Rob Painting at 08:14 AM on 7 December 2011Nils-Axel Mörner is Wrong About Sea Level Rise
Jimpsy@19 -" how is it that someone like this Morner ..........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?" I can assure you The Spectator is far, far, far from the vaunted halls of science. -
Brian Purdue at 08:05 AM on 7 December 2011The Monckton Maneuver
Decimating exposures like this are surely sending indisputable wakeup signals to climate “skeptics” because Monckton is one of their most prominent distributers of politically motivated science. Vaudeville sideshows will not change the knowledge database of climate science. Other vocal denialist like Watts, Plimer and the rest (including fossil fuelers and media hacks), hang their hats on or lend support to Monckton’s utterances. Plimer’s books prove he is guilty of the same gross manipulation of the science. Excellent investigative journalism, like this from Peter Hadfield (Potholer54), will eventually marginalise these promoters of confusion and misinformation. Either that or the sheer weight of scientific evidence will. -
muoncounter at 07:54 AM on 7 December 20112011: World’s 10th warmest year, warmest year with La Niña event, lowest Arctic sea ice volume
jimb#37: The Arctic ozone hole has been kicking around for 15 years or so; apparently a consequence of a cooler-than normal stratosphere. The Arctic ozone hole first appeared in the mid-1990s, more than a decade after the Antarctic hole. Like its southern cousin, it forms as the Sun rises after the midwinter night. Solar radiation triggers reactions between ozone in the stratosphere and chemicals containing chlorine or bromine. These occur fastest on the surface of ice particles in clouds, which only form in the polar stratosphere at temperatures below 80 °C. And isn't that a consequence of greenhouse warming? -
muoncounter at 07:42 AM on 7 December 2011Newcomers, Start Here
NCSE is a fine group with a great track record on education outreach. -
Paul D at 07:17 AM on 7 December 2011The Monckton Maneuver
A nice Christmas present from Peter. -
jimb at 07:04 AM on 7 December 20112011: World’s 10th warmest year, warmest year with La Niña event, lowest Arctic sea ice volume
What effect, if any, is expected now that there is an ozone hole over the Arctic? -
tmac57 at 06:38 AM on 7 December 2011Newcomers, Start Here
Skeptical Science just got a recommendation by Eugenie Scott,the executive director of The National Center for Science Education (NCSE) on the Rationally Speaking podcast interview #49. Her organization is expanding their educational outreach to include Climate Change education. -
william5331 at 06:35 AM on 7 December 2011Nils-Axel Mörner is Wrong About Sea Level Rise
In the end, sea level rise, at least for the Coral atolls, may be the least of their worries. The truly disastrous effects of our burning of fossil fuels may be the demise of corals due to warming of tropical oceans as the transfer of heat northward decreases and the acidification of their waters as more Carbon dioxide is absorbed into sea water. http://mtkass.blogspot.com/2011/09/by-by-coral-atolls.html The effect on coastal cities will be something else again. -
Bob Lacatena at 06:33 AM on 7 December 2011The Monckton Maneuver
2, Daniel, I really am amazed that anyone could consider the man charming or beguiling in any way. Really, I don't know how people keep from bursting into laughter in his presence. To me, that's just one more sign of how badly denialists want to believe what they believe... that they'll not only accept but tout a spokesman like Monckton. If he were instead supporting the science, I think I'd be begging him to shut up and retire, due to the damage that he would do to the credibility of the (true, real) science. -
Bob Lacatena at 06:27 AM on 7 December 2011Nils-Axel Mörner is Wrong About Sea Level Rise
19, jimspy, Can you support your assertion that Pons & Fleischmann were "summarily drummed out of the ranks?" Both continued to work on their project until retirement, although they moved to France to do so (presumably to get funding -- I don't know -- but other scientists don't decide on funding, so it was hardly the scientific community that did that "drumming out"). Of course, part of the problem was that they stepped into the limelight by releasing their work first through a press release. As far as the graph rotation... everyone is making a big deal out of it, but it was very obviously a political statement, implying that it was equivalent to the sort of machinations that he claimed that "alarmist" scientists do -- he was poking fun at other scientists with whom he disagreed, not making an actual argument. It clearly was not a sideways attempt at "falsifying data," and other scientists have actually done worse (IMO) by truly misrepresenting the science before the U.S. Congress, but in an even and professional tone that adds credibility to their outright falsehoods. I think it was a silly and unprofessional thing to do, but hardly reason to "summarily drum him out of the certified-and-official scientist-club ranks." -
John Hartz at 05:59 AM on 7 December 2011Continued Lower Atmosphere Warming
Dana: Thumbs-up for spelling out that the acronym "TLT" means "Temperature of the Lower Troposphere" in the opening paragraph of your article. Thumbs down for not defining what the term "temperature of the lower troposphere" means. I, for one, do not know what the term actually means. Is TLT different from land and ocean temperature? Is it a combination of the two? If I do not understand what "temperature of the lower troposphere" really means, I suspect that many of the readers of this article and its comment thread are "also flying in the dark" so to be speak. If our mission is to explain the science to the average person, we need to avoid playing "inside baseball" with acronyms and scientific terms. -
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,... ?
Prev 1371 1372 1373 1374 1375 1376 1377 1378 1379 1380 1381 1382 1383 1384 1385 1386 Next
