Nils‐Axel Mörner has a new paper out (his 589th). For 60 years he has been tracking the coastlines close to him, and carefully isolated the exact part which appears to be the most stable. From that he shows that the real sea-level rise in Northern Europe is less than 1 millimeter a year since 1890. This is less that the 1.6mm trend in 182 NOAA tide gauges, and far below the estimates of the IPCC reports.
There is also no sign of acceleration in sea-levels for the last 50 years. (How much should Europeans spend to stop a 1mm annual rise that was already going in 1890 and has not changed much since then?) If anything, Nils work shows how difficult it is to measure true sea-level rise on land that shifts.
In this graph below, he compares the rise of most tide gauges with the Kattegatt region, and the IPCC results. This is only one result from one place, but it is based on thousands of readings from sites all around Kattegatt. His painstaking attention to extreme detail and empirical data stands in stark contrast to the IPCC where the trend depends heavily on adjustments. (Those adjustments appear to be based on a tide gauge in Hong Kong that is subsiding compared to the four other records nearby). Nils notes that people once thought true eustatic sea level changes would be the same all over the world, but this is not so. He remarks that the search for a meaningful mean global rate has become “illusive”.
Nils explained that the superb thing with the Kattegatt region is that we have both a perfect control on the crustal movements, as well as a number of fine tide gauges, so, we can separate the two factors in a way hardly possible anywhere else.
FIG. 1. SPECTRUM OF RATES OF SEA LEVEL CHANGES IN RELATION TO THE DISTRIBUTION OF RATE VALUES OF THE NOAA TIDE GAUGE STATIONS [18, 22, 24]. ESTIMATES OF RISE BY THE IPCC FOR YEAR 2100 (GREEN ARROWS) [1], SATELLITE ALTIMETRY (+3.2 mm/yr) [23], MEAN OF 182 NOAA TIDE GAUGE STATIONS (+1.6 mm/yr) [24], THE NEW DATA FROM THE KATTEGATT SEA HERE PRESENTED (+0.8‐0.9 mm/yr), AND THE VALUE FROM SOME KEY SITES (±0.0 mm/yr) [22, 24].
FIG. 5. TIDE GAUGE RECORDS OF KORSÖR, NYBORG AND AARHUS AS PRESENTED BY NOAA [18]. KORSÖR LIES RIGHT AT THE ZERO ISOBASE OF UPLIFT, AND THE SEA LEVEL RECORD (+0.81 ±0.18 mm/yr) SHOULD HENCE REPRESENT REGIONAL EUSTASY. (His graph includes two other areas, not shown here) THIS IMPLIES THAT ALL THREE RECORDS GIVE A CONGRUENT RECORD OF A REGIONAL EUSTATIC RISE IN THE ORDER OF 0.8‐0.9 mm/yr (THE MEAN BEING +0.87 ±0.15 mm/yr). THIS TREND HAS REMAINED STABLE OVER THE LAST 125 YEARS.
FIG. 2. GEOMETRY OF THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF GLACIAL ISOSTATIC UPLIFT OF FENNOSCANDIA [8, 9, 16]. THE KATTEGATT SEA REGION OCCUPIES THE MARGINAL ZONE AND TRANSITION FROM UPLIFT (YELLOW) TO SUBSIDENCE (BLUE). IT IS MARKED WITH AN OPEN BOX CORRESPONDING TO FIG. 4.
A close up map of the area. The top graph shown is of Korsor, marked below.
FIG. 4. THE UPLIFT PROFILE OF THE KATTEGATT REGION: AS ESTABLISHED FROM 40 SYNCHRONOUS SHORELINES [2, 3] AND THE ISOBASES OF THE PRESENT RATE OF UPLIFT (in mm/yr) AS ESTABLISHED FROM A COMBINATION OF GEODETIC BENCHMARKS AND SHORELINE DATA [5]. THE THREE TIDE GAUGES [18] (RED DOTS) LOCATED AT OR CLOSE TO THE ZERO POINT OF UPLIFT (WHICH HAS REMAINED STABLE FOR AT LEAST 8000 YEARS) ARE HERE ANALYSED WITH RESPECT TO PRESENT REGIONAL EUSTASY. THE EXTRAPOLATION OF THE ISOBASES TO THE EAST WOULD IMPLY A TRANSITION TO AN E–W EXTENSION IN THE BALTIC REGION.
ABSTRACT
Changes in global sea level is an issue of much controversy. In the Kattegatt Sea, the glacial isostatic component factor is well established and the axis of tilting has remained stable for the last 8,000 years. At the point of zero regional crustal movements, there are three tide gauges indicating a present rise in sea level of 0.8 to 0.9 mm/yr for the last 125 years. This value provides a firm record of the regional eustatic rise in sea level in this part of the globe.
CONCLUSIONS
The eustatic changes in sea level were originally held to be the same all over the globe [21]. We now know that this is not correct [3, 22] and that sea level changes significantly over the globe. The search for a mean rate of sea level change has become almost illusive as illustrated in Fig. 1. The pros and cons in this debate lie outside the scope of the present paper.
In this paper, focus is set on one single region: the Kattegatt Sea. The reason for this is that we here have a condensed record of the sea level changes and postglacial isostatic uplift [2‐9]. The direction of uplift and the location of the zero isobase (hinge between uplift to the NE and subsidence to the SW have remained stable over the past 8000 years [4, 5] as evidenced by 12 individual shorelines (Fig. 3) [2‐9], 39 benchmarks along the Swedish West Coast [3, 7] and available tide gauges [3, 16‐18].
At, and close to, the line of zero uplift over the last 8000 years, there are three tide gauge stations [13], which are here used in order to define the regional eustatic component in the Kattegatt region. The three sites give a converging picture: a eustatic component indicating a rise in the order of 0.8‐0.9 mm/yr.
Whatever sea level may be doing in other part of the world, the mean regional eustatic value of the last 125 years is hereby shown to have been about 0.8‐0.9 mm/yr in the Kattegatt region (Fig. 1).
A second outcome of the analysis is that there are no signs of any acceleration in the last 50 years.
REFERENCES
Nils‐Axel Mörner (2014) Deriving the Eustatic Sea Level Component in the Kattaegatt Sea, Global Perspectives on Geography (GPG). American Society of Science and Engineering, Volume 2, 2014, www.as‐se.org/gpg
Mörner was born in Stockholm, Sweden. He took his Ph.D. in Quaternary Geology in 1969. He became
associate professor in Quaternary Geology in 1969, and in General and Historical Geology in 1981. He
held a personal Associate Professorship at the Swedish Research Council in Paleogeophysics &
Geodynamics from 1978. He was head of the institute on Paleogeophysics & Geodynamics at Stockholm
University (1991‐2005). Major fields: sea level changes, paleoseismology and neotectonics, Sun‐Earth
interaction.
He has personal field experiences from 49 different countries scattered all over the globe. He has an extensive publication. This is his paper no. 589.
UPDATE: See Nils comment on this post below .
Fort Denison in Sydney.. a very stable area, is measuring at 0.65mm/year.
322
Same at Port Arthur Tasmania harbour gauge that has been there for over 200 years.
141
You sure it’s not 0.65 metres p.a.? Apparently 100 Metre Robyn said on the ALPBC it’s even worse than that.
121
Someone should tell Dr John Hunter!
http://www.acecrc.org.au/Our%20People/Researchers/Dr%20John%20Hunter
40
Interesting …. “He has a keen interest in seeing that the science of climate change is accurately communicated, not distorted by the so-called “climate skeptics” and is appropriately incorporated into public policy.”
who is really doing the distorting I wonder Dr John?
140
My reasoning for any sea level rise is the extraction of ground water is the culprit.
Put extra water into the cycle and it has to be stored somewhere.
712
How’d you get 8 red thumbs? You have a fan club scaper?
10
I’m wondering if Scaper might have a point here. It’s my conjecture that the Pacific islands that are being promoted as being inundated by ‘sea level’ rise are actually sinking due to removal of ground water because of inappropriate use of the land. BTW I am a skeptical-denier. Imagined high rates of sea level rise due to AGW is a non-event.
Ron
R-Coo- K+
40
I brought up the ground water displacement theory because the only time it has been mentioned here was Jo referring to the situation in Perth. Surely the displacement of thousands and possibly hundreds of thousands of teralitres of groundwater must have some effect?
In the case of Perth, I believe it is actually sinking, evidenced by the construction of revetment walls on the highway between Mt Pleasant and the city.
The Earth’s mantle is the prime driver of sea levels but that is not to say that ground water displacement does not have any effect whatsoever.
40
I thought (perhaps wrongly) that it was common knowledge that water extraction causes land to sink. New Orleans being a prime example.
00
Scaper,
It ain’t reasoning that determines the change in sea level, nor the causes of that change. It is measurement. The rise in sea level estimated by Nils-Axel Morner for Northern Europe is around 100mm in over 120 years. The estimation from satellite measurement is globally 65mm in 20 years. With such small changes it is fundamental for calibration and checking of figures from various sources. This is something that climate scientists seem unwilling to do.
As for the causes of sea level rise, this is even more difficult. Thermal expansion could account for the rise, without any net change in the heat content of the oceans. It would just need a transfer of heat from the cooler waters (at 4 degrees water has zero heat expansion) to much warmer waters of the tropics. Then there is polar ice melt, where estimates vary hugely. Loss of ground water is likely to be a small component. To see the scale of the loss, take the largest freshwater lake in Britain is Loch Ness. It would take the equivalent of 40 Loch Nesses is raise global sea levels by just one millimeter. Yet Loch Ness is so vast it is able to hide a small family of monsters from human detection for thousands of years. 🙂
110
Salty water is different to fresh water. Its not linear but sea water does not reach a minimum density 4°C before freezing. The density drops right up until the point of freezing. You still have a valid suggestion because the change in density with temperature is not linear and is dependent on salinity.
50
Oops, increases not decreases.
10
Movements in the form of bulges in the deep ocean floor could also account for sea level rise.
We know we have growing volcanic islands, because some appeared recently. We know land surfaces are constantly moving in may areas.
If some major parts of the deep ocean floor were rising at several centimetres a year, would we even know?
50
Isn’t 65mm in 20 years vs 100mm in 120 years a pretty big difference in data? What’s behind that?
20
Two entirely different methods of measurement. The higher figure is from satellite data which, as Jo points out, is incorrectly calibrated from a single tide gauge in Hong Kong. The lower figure is from Nils-Axel Morner, which is calibrated from multiple points.
Given that in parts of North Devon the daily tidal range can be 5 meters, and even in the Mediterranean can be up to 60cm, calculating the average change requires very careful calibration from a number of points.
50
KM
Where as the science of thermal expansion is OK reference to mythological monsters doesn’t really add anything concrete to scientific debate. However, I’m with you on the scientific argument.
Ron Cook
R-COO- K+
Potassium salt of an aliphatic acid
“Born to be a chemist”
10
You might be onto something there:
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2012/05/120531-groundwater-depletion-may-accelerate-sea-level-rise/
“…a team of Dutch scientists led by hydrologist Yoshihide Wada, a Ph.D. researcher at Utrecht University,
Before 1990 or so, he added, that offset was large enough that the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change never took groundwater depletion into account in predicting 21st-century sea-level rise.
But that offset is no longer as significant as it once was, Wada said. “There are not so many places where people can build new reservoirs,” he said. “They are already built.”
Already, he and his colleagues have found, groundwater depletion is adding about 0.6 millimeters per year (about one-fortieth of an inch) to the Earth’s sea level.”
Nature Geoscience | Letter Model estimates of sea-level change due to anthropogenic impacts on terrestrial water storage Yadu N. Pokhrel,
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v5/n6/full/ngeo1476.html
“We find that, together, unsustainable groundwater use, artificial reservoir water impoundment, climate-driven changes in terrestrial water storage and the loss of water from closed basins have contributed a sea-level rise of about 0.77 mm yr−1 between 1961 and 2003, about 42% of the observed sea-level rise. We note that, of these components, the unsustainable use of groundwater represents the largest contribution.”
10
Thanks, markx. I’ve had this theory for quite awhile but was hesitant to bring it up until now.
Seems it is a very likely contributor to any sea level rise…until there is a major sea floor compression that we will be none the wiser of.
10
Just back from a holiday in the Baltic. According to our Swedish guide, the concern in Sweden and for many of the Northern countries like England is that the land is rising quickly after the ice age, narrowing the rivers and closing ports. It is why Stockholm was established in its current position and it has to be reached through very narrow complex channels in an area with thousands of islands. The reason is that with the end of the very recent ice age, the 1-2km thick massively heavy glaciers have melted and the land is springing back, up to 1 metre/100 years (10mm/year) in Northern Sweden and 1/3 of that in Southern Sweden (3mm/year). You suspect they would be happier if the Baltic sea could keep up. Of course you also have most of the world’s ports silting up, like the ancient Roman port of Ostia which is now 40km inland and so many ports on the English coast. So if we are truly at the top of the cycle for warming, the problem will be self correcting.
Of course that is also true for world carbon as fossil fuels as they will run out long before we can do anything about minimizing their use, carbon taxes or not. The UN would be better trying to sort out real international problems like Syria, Iraq and the Ukraine, problems for which the body was created, rather than getting involved in meteorology, clearly an even more dismal science than economics. Maybe they could have a Nobel Prize in Meteorology, but then they can use the Peace prize for that. Oops! Already done.
362
Twilight of Abundance: We should be better utilising fossil fuels, reserving gas for transportation and coal for conversion to diesel and petrol, and also shale oil. Thorium-burning, molten-salt reactors to power electricity plants.
160
Totally agree. My favorite is Thorium, the one after Uranium. As it is 100% usable against the 2% of Uranium, there is simply much more of it. You cannot get a meltdown. You cannot make bombs. You do not need breeder reactors producing deadly Plutonium. Besides in Australia we have at least 1/4 of the world supply.
210
Actually we should preserve oil to make plastic, much more appropriate use than burning it! Nuclear fuels are best for energy, thorium is very promising.
110
Plenty of coal.. Coal to oil is reasonable way of getting liquid transportation fuels.
12
The waste from the thorium reactors are suppose to have less radioactivity than fly ash from a coal burning power stations. Also, the thorium reactors are handy at decommissioning plutonium bombs.
110
The issue with tackling problems that can be assigned KPI’s and success or failure measured is, someone ends up accountable.
This is the beauty of AGW, its what Michael Crichton referred to as a “classic hand wringer”. The left and the eco lobby love handwringers because they rarely have any sort of KPI. This is why I keep asking these questions of warminsts and I have yet to ever see an answer.
1. State the optimum level of CO2 in the atmosphere in ppm
2. If that level could be achieved tomorrow what would be the effect on climate events such as El Nino, La Nina, droughts, floods etc?
3. Provide evidence of a period in history when the CO2 level was at your optimum point.
4. Describe the general weather and climate features at that time.
They cant answer that, basically there is no way to determine what the optimum level of CO2 in the atmosphere is for human well being. So the argument about AGW and its supposed effects can just go around and around indefinitely with warmists safe in the knowledge that success and failure can never be measured.
Richard Toll summed it up.
“The idea that climate change poses an existential threat to humankind is laughable” — Prof. Richard Tol”
He went on to point out that if you asked a family living in a refuge camp on the Syrian border right now to rank their problems, climate change would be unlikely to feature. Its a western luxury topic to be kicked around over coffee by underweight adolescents with guilt complexes over their own humanity. Its a nonsense to suggest anyone has any idea what the “problem” is, if one exists at all, how to address it and what the outcome of that action would look like were they ever able to achieve it. There never was any “natural harmony”, the notion of balance in nature is a mind trap for the stupid.
So will you see the UN or its related supporters start focusing on the genuine measurable issues facing mankind anytime soon? I doubt it. Its too easy to ride along on the gravy train of panic that is, promoting human self hatred via the myth of carbon dioxide as a threat.
140
Enjoyed your comment Safetyguy66 @ 4.2.
I have also alluded before to a relatively long period of stable, rudderless prosperity, giving birth to the a societal (?Progressive) angst that encompasses and relies upon a variety of ‘issues’ including those centered around climate change, and one of my favourite red flags, an almost obsessive-compulsive preoccupation, an infinite capacity to take offense from the personal to the institutional, seen at every level in society. To disagree with the meme is to offend, unless the agenda is predetermined by all beforehand, and the discourse is a ‘safe’ theatrical exercise.
Climate, along with a number of other agendas has been successfully used in a Progressive ideological war. The co-operation and co-opting of issue centered views seems part of its astonishing cultural plasticity. Seeing beyond the issue centered distraction is key, possibly to sanity.
“A memeplex is a co-adapted group of memes that replicate together and reinforce each other’s survival; cultural or political doctrines and systems.”
10
TdeF:
Please! The last thing we need is the UN going anywhere near Syria or Iraq, and letting them loose in the Ukraine would make a Third World War a certainty. Just look at their record.
40
Actually the UN peacekeepers have been doing a good job, simply because you hear nothing. They seem to be able to stop murder and mayhem and are in many countries, not just the Middle East but other disputed areas. East Timor. Cyprus. Kosovo. Haiti. Scores of African conflicts and more Eastern European areas like Georgia. Israel/Jordan/Syria of course. When conflicts are out of control, they seem to be able to keep warring parties apart. The UN also provides a forum for talking, something governments must do somewhere. WHO also does a great job. Recently real action has been left to NATO, which seems to function, at least in the Libya clashes.
The IPCC was however a UN concept which never worked, but desperate for funds, it lives on a scare and so we have the disaster of Global Warming which started not long after the IPCC was created in 1988. What a coincidence! There is also the brilliant idea that a carbon tax would crippled the dominant and rich Western countries, so Global Warming became a real socialist/Green/Communist cause. As the money potential grew, many contries turned up wanting handouts, like recently populated pacific islands who claim that they will drown without UN money. The UN should close the IPCC and stop them creating work for themselves.
30
Actually the Nobel prize in Economics might have been more suitable for Al Gore. It was established by a Swedish Bank in 1968, not the original 1895 Nobel bequest. If Al Gore had won the Nobel Prize in Economics with his Armageddon view of climate, he could join the ranks of the many geniuses in economics who correctly predicted the GFC. Clearly both disciplines have the same basis in real science and predictability. Anyway, both are about taxation.
150
Poor Al, he now claims to have been jet lagged when he stood alongside Clive in Canberra, in fact he did not know what country he was in or who the man standing next to him was. So I read this morning.
230
So what was his excuse for AIT- frontal lobotomy? tertiary syphilis? delerium tremens?
I think Al is doing the “walk of shame” having had a lousy drunken one-nighter, and feeling used and abused, he has to trudge his way home with his dress all askew, his hair all mussed, and facing the daunting prospect of having to front ‘the olds’ when he gets home. I’m sure he feels so cheap! The little hussy!
213
TdeF there are some decent economists and there are some Al Gore types, too.
Some of the good ones who have won the Nobel in economics include Milton Friedman, FA Hayek, and Bob Lucas.
As for the global financial crisis, there were a number of people who warned about future problems resulting from the government mandate to make mortgage loans to people with low incomes who were likely to default on them. There were a number of people who warned about the excessive participation of Fannie Mae and Freddie mac in the mortgage market, and the implied federal guarantee on their debt. And there were many people, such economist Robert Shiller, who warned about the bubbles in the real estate markets. It was clear to most that earlier bubbles, such as what happened in Japan in the late 1980s, resulted in disaster.
As for forecasting the specific timing and circumstances of the financial meltdown, it was not something that many outside of the mortgage-backed security and mortgage derivatives markets could have made accurately. Many of the financial institutions made side bets with derivatives on the value of the mortgage-backed securities, confident that they could not lose value. Such activity of the part of financial institutions is not something an economic forecaster could easily forsee.
10
On the subject of Dr John Hunter, I thought on a whim I would check his website. I noticed that he links to a document of his own titled “What’s Wrong With Still Waiting For Greenhouse”. Clicking on that leads to a message from Dr John saying he has misplaced the document, which he further explains means it has been “lost”. Same happens when I clicked on another link mentioned in this comment on Tamino’s web site;
Does anyone know how to use the wayback machine?
50
This page “What’s wrong with still waiting for the Greenhouse Effect?” still exists?
is this what you’re after?
11
No, that seems to be the website of John Robert Hunter. It appears to be junk particularly as it suggests that RealClimate is a useful site.
The alarmists hated John Daly -Phil Jones mentioned him in the Climategate emails saying something like “it is good that he is now dead”. The reason they hated John Daly is because he presented facts that were inconvenient and they could not discredit without discrediting him personally. RIP John Daly -many respect your work.
200
Yes that is what I was looking for. This is what you get. Message from Dr John:
Curious!
10
Dr John seems to have put the webpage back up again. I have no idea if he made any changes.
00
PeterC -Why not try (the late) John Daly’s website http://www.john-daly.com/. There is a heap of useful information.
(David Evans is likely to be aware of the information in the post “Solar Activity and Terrestrial Climate” but it could be back ground reading for others)
You should be ashamed at looking at Tamino’s website. His contribution is less than useful
61
At least Tamino aka Grant Foster let me comment once before banning me…
50
PeterC -I should have added that you maybe looking for a different John Hunter -Dr John Hunter of the University of Tasmania wrote a few articles as co-author with D Pugh about sea level at Port Arthur but also wrote one where he was the lead author (Geophysical Research Letters Vol30 No7 The Sea Level at Port Arthur, Tasmania, from 1841 to the Present),( I think he kindly sent me a copy of the latter). John Daly’s post here http://www.john-daly.com/deadisle/index.htm covers the situation well with many references including the papers John Hunter co-authored. Please read the post as in the appendix he covers sea level measurements at other sites.
30
Thanks Cementafriend,
I think your Dr John Hunter and the one I refer to are one and the same.
http://www.acecrc.org.au/Our%20People/Researchers/Dr%20John%20Hunter
The link will also take you to his web site.
I am a great admirer of the work of the late John Daly. Most particularly I liked his research on the Isle of the Dead Tide mark.
John Daly and Dr John Hunter had quite different views about the significance if the Isle of the Dead Tidemark.
20
I have a request from a skeptical researcher today who would like someone to check the height of the tide mark on the Isle of the dead in Tasmania. Anyone live near there? It would update the figures on the mark.
Jo
10
For a more advanced study on sea level rise in central Europe
https://www.google.com.au/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&rlz=1C1GGGE_enAU482AU499&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=decadal%20post%20glacial%20rebound%20for%20central%20europe
The conclusions demonstrate the very complex evaluation required to come to any meaningful values. One factor not included in this study from what I can see is the transport of sea level from the Arctic to the tropics as the Arctic ice thins to a virtually zero level and the action of the moon and the centrifical force of the earth’s rotation cause the oceans to bulge in the tropics. Now there is another complication in the form of an Arctic Ocean fresh water bulge.
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-16657122#panel-anim
323
I presume you have read the first 110 papers you pointed to with your first link and are in a position to tell us which one(s) support your argument and are relevant to this post?
For example, I am curious about the relevance of :
Wu, P., Mode coupling in a viscoelastic self-gravitating spherical earth induced by axisymmetric loads and lateral viscosity variations, Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 202, 49-60, doi:10.1016/S0012-821X(02)00750-1 (2002).
and:
Wu, P. & H.S. Hasegawa, Induced stresses and fault potential in Eastern Canada due to a disc load: a preliminary analysis. Geophys.J.Int., 125: 415-430 (1996)
considering this discussion was about Northern Europe not Central Europe, nor even Eastern Canada.
132
It is all relevent, Sophocles.
But the real issue is that Jo Nova is so desperate to make a head line that she has to hunt around the globe to find a shoreline with minimal sealevel rise ignoring the fact that this low rise is due to a multitude of factors not the least of which is post glacial rebound, with the sole purpose to maintain the illusion that global warming has somehow magically ended.
I can see that this is going to be a drawn out wind down process as the climate bad news continues to mount and global warming effects become ever less toleradle, to an inevitable fate similar to Brave New Climate with its nuclear focus.
————
Bilb — feel free to point me at at equivalent sites with as many observations of a stable zone. As Nils has shown in many of the 45 countries he has visited, actual sea level rise of 0.5 – 2mm is common and the rate was higher in the first half of last century. There is no acceleration. Dare I say “post glacial rebound” is a magical excuse? – Jo.
118
There is no “magic” about so-called global warming scare ending.
Very little of it was real in the first place, and there have been zero discernible effects of that tiny amount of warming.
And now the main driver of that small amount of warming might have occurred, the sun, is having a bit of a snooze.
No “magic” needed at all.
The real “fantasy” was that CO2 was a major climate driver.. that is the fairy story that has ended.
121
Time will tell, Griss.
27
Yeah check back in 1000 years, we should have at least the start of a meaningful data set by then.
51
Clearly you are a slow learner, “Safetyguy66” to need 1000 years of evidence. The information is already all in to the extent that over 97 percent of scientists endorse the conclusion that global warming is human induced. Perhaps you need some help in perceiving this reality…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cjuGCJJUGsg
017
Got your thermals?
Or moving to Brisbane ?
Or do you already live somewhere nice and warm.? BY CHOICE.
30
My family is moving to colder climes, Griss. One daughter is in Melbourne, and the other is moving to Sweden to go to university. Sydney has become far too humid in summer to be comfortable, and winter has become very mild and short. Southern coastal NSW appeals to me.
18
Alas,a thumbs down for the ol’ 97 . Staring to feel like an emperor at the colosseum.
10
I gave you a thumbs up for that one BilB.
00
Sea Level has been rising for 20,000 years.
20
Jo doesn’t have to hunt around Bulb; Phil Watson’s 2011 study covers 4 sites in Australia and NZ and shows sea level rise is decelerating in complete contradiction to AGW forecasts.
10
Its normally only 3 m thick in winter. From a crew member of USS Skate in 1959.
(0.6m).
Emotive stuff BilB but not very informative.
70
Are you really that desperate, Vic G. I hope you don’t teach you students with such deceptive cherry picking. Here is the whole quote
“the Skate found open water both in the summer and following winter. We surfaced near the North Pole in the winter through thin ice less than 2 feet thick. The ice moves from Alaska to Iceland and the wind and tides causes open water as the ice breaks up. The Ice at the polar ice cap is an average of 6-8 feet thick, but with the wind and tides the ice will crack and open into large polynyas (areas of open water), these areas will refreeze over with thin ice. We had sonar equipment that would find these open or thin areas to come up through, thus limiting any damage to the submarine. The ice would also close in and cover these areas crushing together making large ice ridges both above and below the water. We came up through a very large opening in 1958 that was 1/2 mile long and 200 yards wide. The wind came up and closed the opening within 2 hours. On both trips we were able to find open water. We were not able to surface through ice thicker than 3 feet.”
17
That is 10 feet for the dull minded. The quote only estimates 6-8 feet. What cherry picking? Oh singling out melted water at the North Pole in 2011 and ignoring some in 1959?
I haven’t taught for a while but I was one teacher who didn’t avoid teaching conversion of units.
51
So the retired teacher needs updated information…
http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/detect/ice-npole.shtml
This is a moving target, which is moving in only one direction…..thinner and a little less of it each year.
05
You’re cherry picking pictures? There are pictures of lakes of water near the north pole from the submarine expeditions 50 years ago.
Here is the latest ice-volume calculations in the Arctic, PIOMAS. These are calculations from modelling. Wide-spread measurements of thickness from satellites begins in Feb of 2011. Still an estimate from modelling but it does show that the volume is not plummeting anymore.
30
Which is why I can set a glass full of ice cubes and water on a table, allow the ice to fully melt yet the water won’t overflow the glass.
Think about it for awhile then revisit your statement.
30
Try spinning the glass earth fashion, Robert, and see what happens.
15
No BilB. Try reading the cheat sheet again but this time, don’t ignore the paragraphs.
An ice cube has the same mass as the (fresh) water that it displaces. The volume after a cube has melted is the same as the volume of water displaced by the cube, the rest sticks out. In salt water, the bit that sticks out is about 0.3% greater because salt water is more dense than fresh but there would be bugger-all sea level increase from sea ice melting.
Since the Earth doesn’t spin faster, no one expects that the sea rise will be greater near the equator than the poles, percentage wise. I will not do your thinking for you. What do you expect the absolute difference to be.
70
Sorry 2-3% rather than 0.3% The bugger-all comes out to be 0.2%.
50
Sorry, Vic G, but you need further correcting. The densty of sea water is 1.027 depending on temoerature, and the density of ice is .937. Sooo that ice is .912 parts below the surface and .089 parts above, if I got those conversion tables of yours working properly. Not .3% nor 2 to 3%, but 8.9% or there abouts.
04
2-3% greater. The density increases as ice melts and the volume above the water line is the amount the volume decrease in fresh water ie 0%. 2-3% of that more when in sea water. 2-3% x 9% is about 0.2-0.3%.
20
In a dynamic system, Vic G, the distridition is proportional, not uniform. So the above surface mass (in the centre of rotation) will proportionally transport to the perimeter as it melts and heats. Regardless of how lttle this is, it will cause a spill. That is science fact at work for you.
05
The spin makes the equatorial radius 0.3% more than polar radius. Do you really think that you could pick up that difference in the sea-levels?
30
Crazy. Did you also know that some blogger is expecting a 0.1% increase in TSI to be visible in temperatures recorded in a small region of the atmosphere???
13
Crazier than that GA, some idiot reckons an increase in a trace gas by 0.01% will cause the sea levels to rise.
40
Nice to see you falling into the circular argument pit with the sign on it warning of its dangers?
13
I just followed you in GA
Cheers
30
GA, Nice to see you again contributing absolutely nothing to anything
50
All you need to do is find a way to simulate relative core gravity in the glass Robert and it will be a valid analogue.
And he calls others cherry pickers lol.
61
It is close enough to demonstrate that BilB is clueless. Even if I “spin the glass earth fashion” it wouldn’t matter, because the spin for the glass that would be equivalent to one rotation in a 24 hour period might as well be called stationary.
20
Ice in a glass, or in a bathtub, or in the ocean, they all react to gravity the same way. Unless I happen to be doing my experiment on the ISS in zero-g, then I would need to simulate the gravity. But here on good old terra-firma we’ve established a gravitational constant that will result in the same outcome whether the ice melts in a glass full of water, a bathtub full, or an ocean full. The displacement has already taken place, all we are doing is changing the state of one of the water components from solid to liquid.
But I really love the way evaporation is ignored, as though we just keep adding water to the pool with none ever being removed.
10
Much as I hate to agree with Bilbe, he is apparently correct on the redistribution of melted polar ice as equatorial water … but it is (calculated to be) the gravitational effect of the missing ice which is the mechanism:
The Gravity of Glacial Melt
by Elizabeth Gudrais
May-June 2010
http://harvardmagazine.com/2010/05/gravity-of-glacial-melt
If only the Greenland Ice Sheet melted, sea levels would fall along the shores of Scotland, and the Netherlands would see only one-fifth the average sea-level rise worldwide. (“Of course, that’s what they’re hoping for, even as they plan for the worst-case scenario,” says Mitrovica.
It is interesting because perhaps the effects of warmer seas on Greenland and Antarctica would be lessened as ice caps lost mass (ie, a self limiting mechanism) … apparently the effects on dropping sea levels towards the poles would be very significant. (talking perhaps hundreds of metres of sea level fall, and self limiting ice melt).
Here is a video by Jerry Mitrovica, (very much of alarmist bent, but he is a good speaker and it is a very interesting talk) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RhdY-ZezK7w
MSM article on global gravitational effects of ice melt here; http://harvardmagazine.com/2010/05/gravity-of-glacial-melt
Technical article here: Evolution of a coupled marine ice sheet–sea level model Gomez etal JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH, VOL. 117, F01013, doi:10.1029/2011JF002128, 2012
http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~phuybers/Doc/evolution_ice_sealevel.pdf
11
Well damn, then we’re truly screwed because if the sheer mass of a glacier can do that just imagine what the sheer mass of a continent can do.
00
I didn’t think the /sarc tag would be needed, but on reflection realized it probably would be.
00
If this is the case then wouldn’t objects/people on the glacier weigh more due to that same gravitational pull? If it is sufficient to pull water closer, then it must be exerting by some fractional amount a stronger gravitational attraction than that which we normally experience on the rest of the planet.
Wouldn’t a far more plausible explanation be that upon the glacier melting the area of the earth’s crust that was supporting it no longer has the weight of the glacier on it and therefore it rebounds causing the appearance of a lowering of the sea level in that area?
One doesn’t need to be of an alarmist or skeptic bent to reason that out, basic physics should have taught us how to reach that conclusion.
00
To Robert June 30, 2014 at 4:38 am:
In fact, some places on Earth could find the local sea level falling. This is because the sheer mass of glaciers generates gravitational pull and draws water closer, raising the sea level nearby.
Yes…. if the ‘glacier’ (icecap may be more apt) was simply external to the mass of the earth. But given that it has displaced some of the mantle, I guess the answer depends on how far that displacement procedure has progressed at this stage.
Yes. It has mass. It must have some gravitational effect.
No doubt that would eventually occur. But Mitrovica and Gomez, and others, claim that if the ice melted instantly, the regional sea level near that ice would drop instantly. (He comments on this in the video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RhdY-ZezK7w)
One doesn’t need to be of an alarmist or skeptic bent to reason that out, basic physics should have taught us how to reach that conclusion.
I don’t know if they are correct or not, but their argument seems logical enough to me. Considering the Greenland and Antarctic icecaps are effectively 4 km of ice attached to the outer surface of a very smooth planet, it is hard to imagine it having no effect. Remember the oceans themselves only average about 4 km deep. A good way to envisage how absolutely tiny that is, is to put a 4 km mark on the ground on Google earth, then slowly zoom out to a view of the full planet. Considering that, 100 metres of water redistribution ain’t exactly gigantic tides sloshing about.
It is all physics models (!!):
01
There is a great deal from the alarmist side of “science” that “sounds logical”, I would be more inclined to consider this were it not being put forth by someone who is of an “alarmist bent”.
A lot of things have mass, but is that mass sufficient to overcome the core gravitational effect of the planet?
Elementary physics, my mass is for all practical purposes constant, whether I am in my chair behind my desk on the earth, floating in zero gravity at the ISS, or hopping along in the lower gravity of the moon. No matter which of those locations my mass hasn’t changed.
My weight however has changed because of the gravitational force pulling on my mass.
So, if there is some gravitational pull being exerted due to the mass of the ice then an object of a given mass should be able to be shown to weigh more when in close proximity to this mass than when it is not.
If I am floating in the water near this mass of ice does it pull me towards it too? Their claim may sound logical to you, but it doesn’t sound logical to me. It sounds more like the results of assumptions plugged into a computer model which when run “proves” something when in reality all they have is a video game.
Plate rebound after having a significant mass removed from on top of it sounds logical too, and I suspect it would be far easier to prove via observational measurements than their hypothesis.
Either way, it doesn’t really mean much when the core assumptions of those using this type of information to worry the public have yet to be proven correct.
00
Robert
July 1, 2014 at 5:46 am · Reply
Al good questions. I agree it is hard to imagine it could have as much effect as they say. But undoubtedly the forces do exist. Here are my thoughts:
No. We don’t fly sideways to stick to a nearby mountain. The ‘lateral’ forces in this case are very much smaller than the attraction towards the centre of the earth, and do not in any way negate it, but are there.
Not necessarily weigh more: it would (to some tiny extent) be drawn towards that mass if it were beside it. However, if it were on top of it, (not really relevant to this of sloshing seas) the distance from the core of the earth increases, and the force of gravity will decrease markedly with the increase in distance between the centres of the masses in question. (the force is inversely proportional to the square of the distance between the bodies). Discussion here: http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/phy00/phy00348.htm
Yes, it must do so. Here is a bit more discussion on the topic. http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=680819
True, plates will rebound over time and they consider that. But I think they are looking at the short term “catastrophic collapse” scenarios put forward.
To me, this scenario if true is a good thing in terms of worrying about tipping points in icecap melt.
00
Measuring the lateral gravitational effect of a mountain:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schiehallion_experiment
00
update on the EU Brussels energy meeting…paying mere lip service to CAGW:
28 June: Bloomberg: Ewa Krukowska: EU Pledges Focus on Cheaper Energy With Secure Supply
The European Union must make security of energy supply, reduction of costs and the fight against climate change a priority for the next five years, the 28-nation bloc’s leaders agreed…
“We must avoid Europe relying to such a high extent on fuel and gas imports,” leaders said in the document. “To ensure our energy future is under full control, we want to build an energy union aiming at affordable, secure and sustainable energy.” …
The commission is considering proposing an energy efficiency goal of 27 percent to 30 percent next month, according to two people with knowledge of the matter who asked not to be identified, citing policy…
The EU must also continue to lead the fight against global warming by agreeing setting ambitious 2030 climate targets, according to the document…
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-06-27/eu-leaders-to-pledge-focus-on-cheaper-energy-with-secure-supply.html
reality:
27 June: Deutsche Welle: Germany amends renewables legislation
Germany’s parliament has voted to revise the country’s green power subsidies and surcharges system, ostensibly to rein in costs. Critics say households will foot the bill for 45 percent renewables in Germany by 2025.
Chancellor Angela Merkel’s coalition mustered a 78 percent majority vote in parliament on Friday to modify Germany’s 14-year-old Renewable Energy Act. Objectors said households and not industry will end up paying more.
In a ballot, 454 parliamentarians voted for the package, six abstained, and 123 voted against the package of amendments decried by the opposition Greens and Left party…
Parliament’s renewables package would gradually trim subsidies paid in recent years to householders and firms which feed electricity from their own solar, wind, hydro-power and biogas installations into the public power grid.
Currently, one kilowatt-hour of such power draws a 17 euro cent subsidy. Next year, this will sink to 12 cents…
Greens parliamentarian Oliver Krischer criticized Gabriel for extending surcharges to householders, especially those who generated power from their own solar panels or wind turbines. An estimated 1.4 million residential buildings have solar power…
NABU also said the legislative amendments also failed to further reduce Germany’s extraction at brown coal mines which are blamed widely for climate warming…
http://www.dw.de/germany-amends-renewables-legislation/a-17741733
70
Last week the wife and I went across Kattegatt from Göteborg(Sweden) till Fredrikshamn(Denmark). Old forts, light houses & shorelines show no perceptible sea level encroachment.
BTW: Accuweather tells us that we might get up to 73F in my area this summer! Bring on the BBQ.
111
***classic!
27 June: AfricanManager.com: Niger launches coal-fired power plant
Niger has launched a new coal power plant in the Tahoua region.
PANA reported that the new power plant will contribute to efforts to combat desertification by reducing wild logging for domestic purposes and helping to achieve energy self-sufficiency.
Niger loses 100,000 hectares of woodlands, particularly because of the use of firewood for domestic cooking.
Faced with this situation, the government decided to exploit its reserves of coal.
Niger’s President Mohamadou Issoufou launched the construction of the new 600MW coal power plant in Salkadamna, 80km northwest of Tahoua, Thursday.
***Fully funded by the US company California Energy Services (SAP), the project covers an area of 30 square kms.
At a total cost of US$1.475 billion, the project involves the construction of an open pit mine, the 600-megawatt power plant and electricity lines to take power to the main consumption centres of the country.
Once self sufficiency is achieved, Niger will also export electricity to neighboring countries such as Mali, Burkina Faso and Benin…
http://www.africanmanager.com/site_eng/detail_article.php?art_id=22190
220
Someone has COMMON SENSE !!! 🙂
101
“Fully funded by the US company California Energy Services (SAP)” – …and out of California no less. Wonders never cease.
100
Thanks pat,
I love the way it says here:
See where they mention that they will ‘soon’ be exporting power. It makes you think that electrical power is readily available in Niger (Niger here, and not Nigeria) and really, nothing could be further from the truth.
This new coal fired power plant, the equivalent of One unit of 600MW Nameplate, will in effect multiply Niger’s current power generation by a factor of ….. TEN.
Currently Niger generates around 400GWH of electricity, and they import some electricity from Nigeria.
The population of Niger is 17.3 Million people.
That 400GWH is around the same power consumed by Dubbo here in Australia, a city with the population of 30,000 people, around 0.17% of the population of Niger.
This new plant will generate around 4,200GWH to 4,600GWH of power per year to add to the existing consumption in Niger.
I really don’t think they will be exporting very much power to any nearby Countries soon.
Oh, and those umm, nearby Countries:
Mali – Population 15 Million, Current Power generation – 520GWH
Burkina Faso – Population – 16 Million – Current Power Generation – 600GWH
Benin – Population – 10 Million, Current Power Generation – 150GWH
So, this one new coal fired power plant increases the total generation for all 4 Countries (total population 58 Million people) by a factor of 3.2 to around the same power consumption used by the whole of the Gold Coast Tweed region, which has a population of around half a million people, or 0.8% of the population of these 4 Countries.
And see where I mentioned that Niger currently imports some power from Nigeria. Well, Nigeria doesn’t have all that much for itself. It has a population of 168 Million and currently generates 26TWH of power, the fourth highest generator in all of Africa , 50+ Countries. That population is 7.63 times that of Australia, and they generate around 10% of what we generate here in Australia.
One coal fired power plant with one unit. I can see warmists heads exploding all across the Globe. Pity they have no grasp of facts.
Tony.
340
Tony
O/T but have you seen this?
http://thepointman.wordpress.com/2014/06/26/why-the-developing-world-hates-environmentalists/
70
I’m curious as to what the average power consumption per capital is for those countries. Australia’s is obviously high, we are developed and eat the stuff like candy, but the forementioned countries are developing and I doubt many people would even have access to power.
I ask because it is a common tactic of CAGWers to quote countries like China as having a low energy consumption per capital, as thou it’s meant to be held up as a beacon of hope, what they fail to mention is a great portion of the country lives below the international poverty line and probably doesn’t even have access to electricity.
20
Anthony,
thanks for this.
Let’s then just look at where that new 600MW single unit coal fired station is going in, Niger.
The Capital and largest city is Niamey, which has a population of 1.3 Million people. There would be electrical power in that city, but again, as you can see here, even if all that whole Country’s existing power generation, barely 400GWH was consumed in just that city alone, it is still less power than consumed by Dubbo with a population of only 30,000 here in Australia.
In Niger, probably everyone living outside of that city has NO access to electrical power at any level whatsoever, and that’s more than 16 Million people.
Niger is not alone here, as there are 25 Countries in Africa with total power generation less than or around the same as for Niger, and that’s probably around 40% of the population of Africa, or around 450 MILLION people.
Just this ONE 600MW generating unit will deliver TEN TIMES the existing power generation for Niger ….. and Bayswater, finished construction in 1985 has FOUR units, each of 660MW.
Africa is not alone here, as the same applies in India and also in China. Outside of the major cities there is no access to electrical power.
In China, probably 600 million have no access to electrical power, and in India it would be the same total of people without power, and in actuality, probable even more than that in Africa.
That’s why the usual green meme of per capita electrical power consumption, and by extrapolation per capita CO2 emissions is such a crock of sierrahotelindiatango. These idiots have no concept of the way things are. They just automatically think that because they have access to electrical power on tap at every level, then everyone on Earth has that same access.
Well, they don’t, and their green dream is that actually we go back and live like those people in those Countries, for some fantasy of saving us all from CO2 emissions.
The World Bank, in its infinite wisdom has NOW cancelled funding for coal fired power plants in Developing Countries, so you can see that they really couldn’t care either.
It’s something that makes my blood boil, these smug green hued hypocrites. As soon as you mention it to them, they only have one response.
“Hey, look over there, Isn’t that Britney Spears?”
They have no idea at all. You can’t even explain it to them, because, well, they just don’t want to know.
Like pigs, they’re happy in their own little mud pit.
And I’m called a shill for the coal power lobby.
Well, I’m proud of that, because I have the data to back me up when it comes to things like this, things that they have no response to.
Tony.
Source – International Energy Statistics – Now when you go to this site, it should open up with Electricity already tabbed in the top menu line and then Generation tabbed on the menu line under that one. Now, under that menu line see the heading Country, well, click on the arrow at right and when the drop down menu opens, then click on Africa. Then, press the yellow UPDATE button, and the totals open up for all the Countries in Africa.
At the top, the whole generation for Africa shows 654TWH. That’s for a population of 1.111 Billion people, Australia generates 240TWH for a population of 22 Million, an end ratio of 2.725 times more power than Oz, but a population ratio of 50.5 times our population.
As I mentioned Dubbo consumes around 400GWH. Now look at the COUNTRIES which have less consumption than Dubbo, or at that table, less than 0.400, the number at the right in the main window.
You’ll see Niger at 0.300, but as I mentioned above, they import a small amount of power from nearby Nigeria.
30
Wow, thanks for the link and responce. You can certainly see the correlation between economic growth and power consumption, eg Brazil.
00
Brazil is still classified as a Developing Country, just one of 153 Countries.
Brazil has access to electrical power, well mostly.
It generates about 550TWH of power, around 2.3 times the power we generate here in Australia. However their population, at just a tick under 200 Million is 9.1 times that of Australia, so even in Brazil there would be a goodly part of their population without access to electrical power.
Incidentally, with respect to those 153 Developing Countries, the edict from the UNFCCC is that the 24 Developed Countries must set up an ETS, forward a large portion of that money raised to the UN for distribution in those Developing Countries to pay all their costs with respect to CO2 Emissions reduction.
The list of those already Developed Countries which must pay via their ETS is shown at this link. (the Countries with the bracketed (a) after their Country Name)
20
Obama agrees, gotta keep those brown men down.
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/obama-planet-will-boil-over-if-young-africans-are-allowed-cars-air-conditioning-big
00
What, they didn’t build windmills? /sarc
10
Riding through South China, visiting villages National Geographic couldn’t find, having one room where the TV and light bulb were housed was not a really rare event.
10
Yeah I see that a lot in South America, one light and a TV, but it’s also not vary rare to see only a light. Most of the cooking is done with gas, and in the more remote areas, no electricity and an open fire for cooking. One of my first exexperiences here was a trip to my guides family home in Canon de Colca. No electricity and an open fire for cooking, the home couldnt get much more basic, complete with live cuy running around and hiding in the corner of the kitchen, waiting their turn on the grill.
10
11 Jun 2014
“Plans announced by the Pakistani government to more than double the country’s power output by building upwards of 15 coal-based power plants have drawn strong criticism from environmentalists who fear the consequences for the environment and the health of the country’s population.”
. . .
Of course environmentalists would fear the improvements to the health, prosperity & quality of life that cheap energy brings to humanity.
30
obviously these are o/t, but they do indicate that coal remains king, so it’s good to know it hasn’t been causing the scary sea level rises the CAGW crowd predicted:
27 June: Reuters: Yuka Obayashi: Japan trading firm Sojitz in talks to buy undeveloped Australia coal mine
Examining 3 assets near Minerva as development targets
Says its coal assets are still profitable at current prices
Sees coal market improving from 2016-2017
Japan’s Sojitz Corp is in talks with a coal mine developer in Australia to buy an undeveloped asset as the mid-sized trading house looks to replace its Minerva mine whose life is due to end in 2019, a company official said…
Sojitz may be in a good position to snare a bargain as a slide in coal prices to near five-year lows has forced miners, led by BHP Billiton Ltd and Glencore, to cancel coal projects, shut mines and sack thousands of workers….
“It’s not a bad time to develop mines,” Bito said.
“Compared to two years ago, it’s much easier and cheaper to secure equipment and hire engineers for exploration.”…
Sojitz is also looking at two other assets near Minerva – another undeveloped coal concession and the Athena exploration area in which the company owns a 45 percent stake – for development…
Despite the slumping prices, Sojitz, which holds a stake in four coal mines in Australia and three in Indonesia, is still making profits from its coal assets, Bito said.
He expects the market to improve from 2016-2017 due to growing coal demand from thermal power plants in China, South Korea and Japan as well as from emerging countries such as Vietnam and Myanmar.
Sojitz does not rule out the possibility of buying developed mines, but has no plan to acquire any mining firms, Bito said. The company wants to add fresh assets with majority stakes in Australia but will stay a minority shareholder in Indonesia’s mines, Bito said.
http://in.reuters.com/article/2014/06/27/japan-sojitz-coal-idINL4N0P716J20140627
27 June: 247WallSt: Goldman Sachs Conviction Buy List Surprises: MLP and Coal
By Jon C. Ogg
If one brokerage firm on Wall Street can generate excitement with stocks to buy, it is Goldman Sachs. That is particularly so when the company makes changes to its Conviction Buy List. On Friday, two very unusual changes were made: a master limited partnership (MLP) and a coal company were added to the firm’s prized Conviction Buy List…
SunCoke Energy Inc. (NYSE: SXC) is not a typical Conviction Buy List stock. The company operates as an independent producer of coke in the Americas, offering metallurgical and thermal coal for use as a raw material in the blast furnace steelmaking process. Goldman Sachs had a Buy rating but moved it up to the Conviction Buy List and assigned a $27 price target…
http://247wallst.com/investing/2014/06/27/goldman-sachs-conviction-buy-list-surprises-mlp-and-coal/
30
27 June: Mining Weekly: Ajoy K Das: India’s Coal Ministry identifies coal blocks for power sector
India’s Coal Ministry has identified eight coal blocks for allocation to thermal power companies that are facing a shortage of feedstock…
The blocks have been explored regionally by the provincial government and reserves estimated at around 8.3-billion tonnes.
In July 2013, the Indian government had allocated 14 coal blocks for captive use by steel, cement and power producers, including the country’s largest electricity generator, NTPC Limited.
However, Coal Ministry officials said that the eight blocks identified in eastern India would be allocated specifically to power companies given the shortage of coal and the risk of power shortages across the country…
According to the Independent Power Producers’ Association, thermal power plants were facing a fuel shortage of about 120-million tonnes…
According to Coal Ministry estimates, peak coal supply shortage was forecast at 200-million tonnes by 2016/17, compared with 120-million tonnes in 2013/14. The shortfall would have been higher, at 150-million tonnes, during the last fiscal but for the fact that several new thermal power plant did not go into production having failed to secure coal supplies.
Nearly 208 coal blocks have been allocated since 1993 with a reserve capacity of 50-million tonnes to 60-billion tonnes. At an average annual production of 400-million to 500-million tonnes these mines had the potential to last 50 years
http://www.miningweekly.com/article/indias-coal-ministry-identifies-coal-blocks-for-power-sector-2014-06-27
ONCE UPON A TIME, THIS COULD HAVE BEEN CLIVE PALMER BEING INTERVIEWED!
VIDEO: 26 June: Fox News – “Your World: Neil Cavuto: Murray Energy CEO: The president is grossly wrong
TRANSCRIPT:
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA: Folks will tell you climate change is a hoax or a fad or a plot. It’s a liberal plot…
(LAUGHTER)
ROBERT MURRAY, CEO, MURRAY ENERGY: I am scared to death for our country. What he is doing is destroying the most reliable, lowest-cost power grid that the world has ever seen…
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
OBAMA: People don’t like gas prices going up. They don’t like electricity prices going up. And we ignore those very real and legitimate concerns at our peril…
MURRAY: The president, Neil, is grossly wrong.
It’s incompetence. It’s evil. It’s a power grab of America’s electric power grid is what he is doing. And electric rates are going to double between now and 2017. The PJM interconnection that represents 61 million Americans in 16 states had their auction this month, and the utilities themselves bid the price of electricity up double in ’17 and ’18 over what Americans are already paying for their electricity…
MURRAY: They’re shutting down 411 coal-fired power plants in America, Neil. That’s about 100,000 megawatts of 4-cent-a-kilowatt-hour electricity.
The wind and solar that President Obama and the Democrats in the Senate espouse is 22-cents-a-kilowatt-hour, five times more costly, and it wouldn’t even exist, except it gets a subsidy from the taxpayer. He is driving this country from a reliable, low-cost power grid to enormous electric power costs for absolutely no environmental benefit whatsoever…
MURRAY: He’s appeasing the radicals who got him elected, liberal elitists such as Bloomberg, the mayor of New York, who gave him $50 million to get rid of coal, Tom Steyer, $100 million in California, most all the Hollywood characters, radical environmentalists, radical unionists in some cases…
CAVUTO: Does it bother you, then, Bob, that George Shultz, a former top Nixon, Reagan, Ford Cabinet member has no problem with it? Hank Paulson, the former treasury secretary, has no problem with it. They’re worried about climate change. They’re worried that if we don’t do something now to take out an insurance policy, we will regret it.
The president has included them in a task force to look at this and the problems that are mounting, including Michael Bloomberg, who you just mentioned. Do you feel like in that company you’re an odd man out?
MURRAY: No, I’m not an odd man out.
I’m in the mainstream of the scientific facts. If he shut down every coal- fired power plant in America, it would affect the amount of carbon dioxide one-twentieth of 1 percent. China is going to burn 4,300,000,000 tons of coal this year. He has knocked the United States coal industry down from 1.2 billion to 800,000.
They’re going to burn five times as much. Which way does the wind blow, which way does the Earth spin? It has nothing to do with the environment, sir. It has to do with power. It has to do with getting power over the grid.
When he says sky — electric rates would skyrocket, he meant it. He’s carrying it out. How would you want to get control of America the most? Do it through the electric power availability, rationing it and the cost of electricity. That is what is happening.
I’m afraid to death for America. And the people in this country had better be, because the people on fixed incomes — and I grew up poor — are going to be hurt the worst…
CAVUTO: OK, but, Bob, what do say then? It’s not just Democrats, Bob, as you know. A number of Republicans are on board with this as well and big believers that climate change is a worry. I mentioned George Shultz. I mentioned Hank Paulson. There are a number of others who similarly fear. What do you say about them?
MURRAY: There are very few Republicans — I’m an engineer.
CAVUTO: Yes.
MURRAY: I have studied the climate change science for decades.
I don’t profess to be an expert. But I know who they are. This global warming is a hoax. Twenty years ago, it was acid rain. Today, it’s a hoax to try to get control over the economy, to try to get control over this country. And the easiest way to do it is the electric power grid and the cost of it…
That’s their agenda…
CAVUTO: Bob Murray, you always speak your mind. I appreciate that.
And you’re quite right. It was 40 years ago there were TIME and Newsweek covers bemoaning a global freeze. We were all going to be shivering. That was then. This is now.
http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/your-world-cavuto/2014/06/27/murray-energy-ceo-president-grossly-wrong
101
Yes a very enlightening post Pat.
It’s absolutely no different here when Murry points out middle America and the poor are going to bear the consequences of the global warming fraud.
For no measurable change in the planets temperature.
But how do we stop them here?
Abbotts trying but ne needs help.
I’ve made my apologies to Clive and his merry band on other blogs.
He, when you boil it down has given Abbott his biggest leg up in his fight against these fraudsters in this country.
Like Milne, Shorten and co.
But he still needs help.
Back on topic of the alleged sea level catastrophe thats about to “drown” all of us.
Triple that average yearly rise thats reported above.
Then multiply it out to the end of the century.
Now get your tape measure out and look at the projected rise.
Feel panicked?
I thought the election sent a clear message to these loony leftards that the majority dont want a bar of this fraud.
But still they persist.
61
While I’m on the alarmists and warmists case.
I dug this comment and prediction out I made back May 12
It was in response to another alarmist and global warming fraudster that Jo was into here.
http://joannenova.com.au/2014/05/antarctica-stealing-australian-rain-prof-matthew-england-anu-unsw-nature-struggle-to-get-cause-and-effect/
Drawing on all my extensive knowledge of global warming and alarmism that a 3rd form drop out of the sixtys can muster.
And with whats about to belt us weather wise this weekend again I thought I’d wack it up again.
Yes, yes it may be of topic(is it) but my tip is better than the global warmists at the minute.
LeighMay 12, 2014 at 5:47 pm
What an absolute load of frog shit.
Here’s my tip and you can put your house on it.
Those antarctic blasts we in the southern states cop on a regular cycle during winter are going to be whole lot colder.
I’m tipping some pretty heavy snow dumps on the alps this winter.
Some highly credentialed global warmists scientific “experts”are going to be made to look pretty ordinary at the end of winter.
Think about it .
Winter hasn’t started yet and already ice records in Antarctica are being smashed.
Lows moving up from down south this winter will highly likely be exceptionally nasty this winter.(real bloody cold)
If mainland Australia cops it , spare a thought for tassie.
Damn that global warming.
52
IT’S BACK.
The megablizzard returns this weekend –
bigger, stronger and quite possibly snowier than the blizzard earlier this week which delivered the heaviest June snowfalls of the century.
But look at those weather charts. Just look at them.
They’re like mirror images.
On the left, last Monday and Tuesday’s system.
On the right, Saturday’s forecast chart.
Even if you can’t read a weather map, you can see how similar these two charts are. This does not happen often. Not within the same week anyway.
60
But then Nova says:
Such “science” makes me just a little sceptical of you, Jo.
But when you’ve surrounded yourself with a group of ardently admiring old men who’ll back whatever you say, I expect it’s hard to realise how foolish you look, eh?
[Jo’s comment was appropriately qualified, as was the whole issue of coming up with a global sea rise figure. Jo also pointed out that the IPCC seem to rely on data which is erroneously based on one selected harbour (HK). – Mod]
344
Try a mirror some day, you dosey twerp……
If you can stand to look into it for more than a second…
….. you will see a major fool looking straight back at you.
223
The abuse always tells you that you hit bullseye.
You definitely are an instrument of science Gristle – you’re a barometer of abusive stupidity for this site and the confirmation of the truth of my comment, as always. Well done, laddie.
323
The reaction was to the insult though, which Chester the Jester deliberately included to deflect from the nonsense of its point.
Jo has an uncanny ability to extract the significance, which the nitpicking ninnies lacking in vision and perspective either fail to grasp or are terrified is exposing their their boondoggle.
213
No she has an uncanny ability to make stuff up that is scientifically unfounded.
Which she did. Real sceptics would pick her up on it, which you didn’t. Why is that? The answer to that question brought me to my second point…
[You have given no evidence that Jo made anything up. You should apologise. – Mod]
323
Your continued NON-ability to understand anything beyond primary school level is quite hilarious. 🙂
[Message to all: No point in continuing the O/T discussion and name calling so I have snipped following comments. All contributors should stick to the subject an avoid ad homs please. – Mod]
82
[SNIP – you might be right, but lets not make an anonymous non-contributor the topic… He is just not that interesting. Ta. – Jo]
20
Chester, please SHUT UP.
00
Oh, Chester, people like you need to read what is shown at Comment 10.2 to see what your religious belief really means.
Tony.
192
[Snipped – O/T – Mod]
42
[ I know I am a bit late moderating this string but it is off topic and we all need to stay away from ad homs. And remember the adage – don’t feed the trolls! – Mod]
72
The “science” of sea level rise is confirmation bias personified. Clearly in a global environment dominated by not only erratic tectonic activity, but often dramatic subsidence and uplift, the true measure of sea level rise would be to find all these points (as Morner demonstrates above) around the globe where uplift meets subsidence to get a large series of globally distributed data points free from any post-hoc adjustment to determine the true rise in sea level and its rate, compared for example to the rate coming out of the last glacial period 11,000 years ago (which was dramatically faster by orders of magnitude than is currently occurring, btw).
A “true” scientist would try to eliminate any adjustments for uplift or subsidence in this way, because data selection ( e.g excluding 80% of those sites with uplift but only 20% of those with subsidence, for example) will necessarily skew the trend away from the true realistic measurement of not only whether sea level is actually rising perceptibly at all, but also at what rate, and whether that rate is accelerating or decelerating. As it stands currently, scientists seem more interested in confirming the consensus position (whether out of fear of rocking the boat, blatant activism, or due to the recriminations and career damage such an anti-consensus stance would necessarily produce- e.g witness Salby and Morner), so it is highly unlikely that anyone other than someone as fearless as Nils Morner would even attempt to look at the data globally in this way because of the time consuming nature of the exercise, the spottiness of the data in many locations around the world, and the complete lack of potential remuneration for such an undertaking because governments and NGOs have a vested interest in NOT finding evidence that contradicts that sea level rise is a serious problem requiring heavy taxation and onerous regulation of the population.
This is exactly why the egregious politicisation of this (and most other) research casts doubt on any results gleaned from it, because the data is so problematic, is fraught with fudge and fiddle factors that require an unacceptable level of human interpretation (and therefore reliant on the objectivity of those involved), and the whole scientific spectrum has become so infected by fear of bucking the system, so riddled with activism and pseudo-religious zeal to save the world, and so marked by endless butt-covering and face-saving, that these have become the main raisons d’être for such research to even be undertaken, rather than the more noble quest for knowledge and objective truth.
202
I guess you’ve never been to Broome either, where just 10 more mm would flood the main shopping centre at high tide, the same as in 1916 when Sun Pictures was built and wet feet were the result on leaving after the movies during Spring tides. The theatre is still there, tides haven’t risen, and tourists still flock there to see the tidal phenomenon. I used to get wet feet at high tide 25 years ago in the fish factory, nothing has changed since.
70
2012 tidal images can be seen here, 2013 and 2014 levels did not reach this high.
40
[Snipped – O/T – Chester if you continue with irrelevant, O/T and ad hom comments, we will have to place your comments into automatic moderation. The purpose of having nested real time comments is to allow for discussion on the topic, not to use for name calling and your favourite theories. Mod]
43
Chester……
small and jumpy with yellow fur and brown, perky ears.
Do you remember the Warner Brothers cartoon that had the two dogs in them? One was a big bulldog, and the other was a smaller, lighter dog. The smaller dog, Chester, was always hanging around the bigger dog, Spike, always looking for his favor, giving him compliments, and acting tough when he had Spike to back him up.
00
[Snipped O/T]
21
How much of that miniscule rise in sea level seen at such a point of isostasis arises from the post glacial uplift of the crust elsewhere, rather than from meltwater ?
As long as nations try to avert such natural sea level rises by wasting billions on curtailing carbon, arent they just wasting time and resources that could be much better spent to real effect on building actual sea defences ?
Ah but whats the point of wasting on sea defences think the socialists, when all we want is to get our hands on the wonga ?
80
Lets stop and think for a moment about the kids. . .
‘What Teachers Are Telling Kids About Climate Change’
Recently, io9 reported that the Wyoming legislature became the first in the U.S. to reject new science standards for schools, claiming that lessons on climate change would wreck the state’s economy. This week, a reporter for the National Journal sat in on a Wyoming science class, and it wasn’t pretty.
http://io9.com/what-teachers-are-telling-kids-about-climate-change-1597062923/all
You want to grind your teeth in frustration? Read the comments too.
We keep thinking the climate change scam is coming to an end. But the brainwashing will take many, many years to reverse.
90
Is it really the kids that are the most vulnerable to misinformation or is it the teachers and the kids who become teachers, or just the teachers that rise in the profession to positions from where they can hand down such anointed wisdom ?
80
Eddie, it starts at the universitys.
Every university in the world is left tilted.
Not only do they teach the teachers.
Who in turn teach the kids.
They also “instuct” not teach, the journalists of the future.
Those journalistic instuctors are usually failed journalists that list on the employment history some left wing loony publication.
Some of these publications are nothing more than socialist propoganda outlets.
Such as “your” ABC and fairfax.
But in all media there is an overly emphasized list to the left.
And thats what makes Jo’s and everbody else’s efforts to expose the fraud so damned difficult.
Ask yourself these two questions.
How often do read in mainstream media about some new planet ending study?
How often do you read in mainstream media of Jo and company comprehensively scientifically debunking it?
10
That was really mean, although in your defense I will say I should have known better.
But I did what you asked and read some of the comments…
20
This post brings to mind the great John Daly of Tasmania and his study of the tide gauge record there. It was the first “skeptic” site I came across. A sad loss.
90
Just love this new switch by the Gang Green
Here in this post poor old Chester is doing his nana
In BIG NEWS VIII MattyB starts backpedaling & does one each way eheehee
And again in BIG NEWS VIII Bill Connolley goes for the sarcasm
But this is tame compared to a few years ago, where they had full confidence in their religion.
Even more so before Tim Flannery & Al Gore had Premature Prediction disorder problems.
The drop off has been great, even I don’t get mad at any of them anymore, because they are back pedaling at 100 KPH, or quicker than a failing solar panel.
The whole game has changed since BIG NEWS I came out.
Not that I understand much, but BIG NEWS VIII where a cooler earth is possible from 2015, becomes a very scary little problem for the alarmists, IPCC etc
Even in 10 years David & Jo’s theory/model etc is wrong, the result even in a few short weeks has been good honest debate and criticism from people of both sides (TS). Keep it up.
The thing that hasn’t changed is the MSM especially the ABC, Guardian & Fairfax, plus a few backyard climate CAGW experts, but the average Joe & I are getting through these fairly well.
Gee David & Jo, this colder ahead is now becoming a scary option in the big world
140
The old roman ports around the Mediterranean are now many km. from the sea. Either the land has uplifted due to the loss of ice sheets, or the sea level has dropped. Actually Roman times were a couple of degrees warmer than today!
100
The desert winds from Africa, the Sirocco dump up to 1cm of sand a year on Southern Italy. The same in Beijing. Yes, Rome is being buried and it makes putting an underground near impossible. The old Rome is tens of meters below the new Rome. You can apply to the Vatican to visit the old city, buried below the present St. Peter. Then you can walk through the old streets below the city. There are whole villas under modern Rome and teams of archeologists who explore them.
At the same time mountains rise and fall. As Darwin suggested, coral atolls are formed from mountains which vanish, some quite quickly. With the nuclear explosions at Bikini atoll, they drilled and found the coral was km thick and coral only lives near the surface. So much for the vanishing islands. It has nothing to do with sea levels. The surface of the earth is not constant in height. There are other effects too. It is fascinating that the earth is flat at the top, nearly 40km lower in radius than the equator but the ocean is not 40km deep at the poles.
What I find very puzzling is that for all the arguments about Global Warming, the arctic reaches 25C in summer, as does Siberia. I have been through Siberia in summer and the ice and snow is all gone and the rivers run fast, but no one is drowning in Scotland and the seas are not rising by many meters in summer. There is more to our world than a single bathtub concept. We go through Global warming every day and massive changes every summer, but we know sea levels hardly change. Someone is making it up. Self evidently, they are wrong.
50
Remember Tuvalu.. not just one place.. 🙂
Quote from that link above.
81
Even in light of all the above, I would still guess sea level rise is more dangerous than 1.2 degrees of additional warming. It’s just difficult to get upset over a 0.4% rise in temperature no matter how quickly that happens. Sea level rise is more certain to be disruptive than air temperature rise, due to it removing habitats for humans and agriculture.
Since we are allegedly locked in to 1.2m of sea level rise by past natural warming and the CO2 we’ve emitted already, I have to wonder why there is still talk of emissions reductions. If these catastrophic figures are true then it’s a sunk cost (figuratively and literally). If we’re going to have to rebuild cities inland to mitigate 1.2m of inevitable sea level rise we may as well rebuild those cities far enough to mitigate 7m of anthropogenic sea level rise at the same time, the cost of relocation is hardly any greater. We’ve then bought ourselves 100 years of extra time to understand the climate and sea level rise. If we can’t understand it with 100 years more data then we never will. The first move is the most expensive and we are already destined to do it, the only question is when it will actually be needed.
Did I mention the pace of the change? Just 2m of sea level rise will take from now until the year 2500. No need to raid the super fund just yet! It’s also pertinent that temperatures have generally dropped over the globe since 8000 years ago, yet sea level has risen for the majority of that time. A 2011 study found there had even been slight deceleration in sea level during the 20th century when temperatures were rising.
It all points to there being A Lot Of Time to forecast and adapt to sea level rise.
As for the model projections, they are a joke. The excuse for imprecise temperature model projections was the same BS excuse that Wikipedia/IPCC originally offered for sea level: “The total computed rise indicates an acceleration of only 0.2 (mm/yr)/century, with a range from −1.1 to +0.7 (mm/yr)/century, consistent with observational finding of no acceleration in sea-level rise during the 20th century.”
Yeah! Because if a century of rising CO2 caused cooling of the oceans that would also be perfectly consistent with projections of global warming. Their inability to predict the future is given as the reason they aren’t mistaken. It’s a joke.
The final word goes to A Boretti, who found sea level is currently going into deceleration and said “the oceans are truly the best indicator of climate”.
30
[…] joka linkki on myös alla Linkkejä-osiossa. Hyvä yleisesitys tutkielmasta on Joanne Novan blogissa(Linkki), josta linkistä kiitos […]
00
I would like to express my appreciation to Nils‐Axel Mörner for his dedicated work in gathering the data to publish his 589th paper.
Thank you sir.
You have highlighted and addressed the problems inherent in the dynamics of plate tectonics in relation to tide gauges.
I would also like to express my dismay that the ‘environmentalists’ have used a Hong Kong study of tide gauge measurements from 1954 to 1999(?) as the basis of global sea level adjustments.
Talk about disappearing Himalayan glaciers and dicing and splicing tree ring data!
40
Jo Nova<
Sad News we just lost another warrior. Nigel Calder just died at age 82.
http://www.thegwpf.org/nigel-calder-1931-2014/
50
Hard to believe that the sea level (anywhere) can be measured with the accuracy claimed.
All that seems to be certain is that the rise is nothing to worry about.
40
OT but it looks like Steve Goddard has had a win over Anthony Watts and the other doubters on his temperature tampering crusade. Steve Goddard is right –gross tampering and Watts is eating humble pie.
20
Just a question: If the Australian Climate Council has to get resurrected as a part of a deal with Clive Palmer, would Jo and David be available for positions on it?
10
Here is a paper published by CSIRO, featuring graphs for sea levels for a number of South Pacific atolls & Islands. http://www.publish.csiro.au/?act=view_file&file_id=SP11006.pdf
Just scroll down to Fig 4.
Clearly some people have been had, as these locations have long been paraded as the poster boys of sea level rise.
10
But what about the Federated States of Micronesia?
Thankfully they are closer to Indonesia than Australia so it must be Indonesia’s fault that out of 11 Pacific Island nations the Federated States of Micronesia is the only Pacific nation to report a tide increase of over 5 times the least of the 11, Kiribati.
Could someone post the YouTube video that shows the representative of the Federated States of Micronesia crying into his cups at Copenhagen please.
I want to submit it to the Adelaide Comedy Festival.
20
Sorry… Table 1 from the report supplied by @Dave Broad.
00
Had to laugh to myself, there’s a literal translation of the name Kattegatt … Cats’ Ass !
00
In case it hash’t been noted:
David Archibald, over at Quadrant, gives the notch filter a run amongst others.
20
So what type of equipment did they use over 100 years ago to measure sea levels, other than a stick?
00
I’m still left wondering why sea level changes measured in fractions of a mm are even of such great interest.
10
[…] This is from the Jo Nova site: Nils-Axel Mörner has a new paper out (his 589th). For 60 years he has been tracking the coastlines close to him, and carefully isolated the exact part which appears to be the most stable. From that he shows that the real sea-level rise in Northern Europe is less than 1 millimeter a year since 1890. This is less that the 1.6mm trend in 182 NOAA tide gauges, and far below the estimates of the IPCC reports.There is also no sign of acceleration in sea-levels for the last 50 years… […]
00
I have a few questions, and a comment:
1. Can someone please supply a link to Dr. Moerner’s full paper?
2. Peltier’s widely-used VM2 model shows Korsor’s GIA as 0.00 (land neither rising nor subsiding). His less-used VM4 model shows Korsor’s GIA as +0.51 (land rising). So my guess is that the GIA maps in Fig.2 and Fig.4 are based on VM2? Is that right?
3. Is that belief (that there’s very little vertical land movement in the Kattegatt region) corroborated with GPS satellite measurements, as well? Or is it based only on modeling (VM2)?
4. There’s something odd about Fig.1. There are six (rather than five) ticks on the vertical axis between ±0 and +5. Is the axis mislabeled?
5 (the comment). It appears to me that the Kattegatt region is slightly atypical of areas with low Peltier VM2 PGR estimates, exhibiting about 0.6 mm/yr less sea-level rise than is typical of such locations.
Starting with NOAA’s 2013 list of 285 long-term tide stations for which they had done regression analysis (trend calculations), I selected the stations with at least 60 years of data for which Peltier’s VM2 adjustment was ±0.1 mm/yr or less, and put them in a spreadsheet, which I then sorted by trend, here:
http://www.sealevel.info/MSL_global_trendtable4_min60yr_lowVM2.html
(That’s an exported Excel spreadsheet, so you can load it into Excel for analysis.)
There are 21 such stations. Korsor is 3rd from the top (i.e., it has the 3rd-lowest trend). The average, VM2-adjusted average, median, and VM2-adjusted median are all between 1.40 and 1.45 mm/yr.
That rate is about midway between the IPCC’s claimed 1.7 mm/yr and the 1.1 mm/yr median and geographically-weighted average which I found in an earlier analysis of stations from an earlier NOAA list. It’s also about 0.3 mm/yr less than the IPCC’s claimed average rate of 20th century sea-level rise, which I believe includes the addition of a 0.3 mm/yr “fudge factor” to account for hypothesized sinking of the ocean floor.
That 0.3 mm/yr is Prof. Dick Peltier’s estimate of the amount by which sea-level at the coasts would be falling due to ongoing post-glacial sinking of the ocean floor (enlargement of ocean basins) due to crustal loading from meltwater from the last major deglaciation (about 10K yrs ago). The IPCC’s 1.7 mm/year claimed rate for the 20th century is exaggerated by the addition of that 0.3 mm/yr adjustment. Sea-level is the level of the surface of the sea, which means that you can’t legitimately subtract off factors (like Peltier’s 0.3 mm/yr GIA) which lower sea-level. Such arithmetic is useful for mass budget calculations, but the result of that subtraction isn’t sea-level!
If you subtract the IPCC’s erroneous 0.3 mm/yr adjustment, their estimate is consistent with the 1.40 to 1.45 mm/yr average & median from those 21 excellent tide gauges.
00
Typo correction (sorry!):
“
Moerner” should be “Mörner”00
#34
First let me thank heartily you all for the interest in my paper. Great comments to read.
Dear David,
You posted a number of comments. Let me reply on them one by one.
1. Can someone please supply a link to Dr. Moerner’s full paper?
http://www.as-se.org/gpg/Archive.aspx
2. Peltier’s widely-used VM2 model shows Korsor’s GIA as 0.00 (land neither rising nor subsiding). His less-used VM4 model shows Korsor’s GIA as +0.51 (land rising). So my guess is that the GIA maps in Fig.2 and Fig.4 are based on VM2? Is that right?
Peltier’s GIA models have nothing to do with my paper. The glacial isostatic profile of uplift tilt with isobase lines of the rate of absolute uplift from 0.0 mm/yr to +2.0 mm/yr is entirely a product of observational facts (as discussed in the paper and the background references).
Because we have this “crustal solution”, we can deduce absolute (eustatic) sea level changes.
3. Is that belief (that there’s very little vertical land movement in the Kattegatt region) corroborated with GPS satellite measurements, as well? Or is it based only on modeling (VM2)?
Again, all observational facts – no modelling.
4. There’s something odd about Fig.1. There are six (rather than five) ticks on the vertical axis between ±0 and +5. Is the axis mislabeled?
Yes, – you are right: +5 mm/yr should be one step down.
5 (the comment). It appears to me that the Kattegatt region is slightly atypical of areas with low Peltier VM2 PGR estimates, exhibiting about 0.6 mm/yr less sea-level rise than is typical of such locations.
By no means. Again the Peltier modelling is not involved, because here we can rely on real observational facts.
The good (maybe unique?) thing with the Kattegtt region is that are here able to separate the crustal and oceanic components and quantify both with high precision.
May I also take the opportunity to correct another misprint. The Aarhust tide gauge is located at the +0.28 isobase (as shown in Fig. 4). In Fig. 5, however, it is given as +2.8, however. The eustatic factor is correctly given as ≈0.9 mm/yr.
With the best wishes from the author / Nils-Axel – “Niklas”
50
Yes, thanks heaps for your work on the sea level issue 🙂
00
Thank you, Dr. Mörner!
00
Truly impressive,
Contrasting all unfounded Gore-like terrorizing predictions, Mörner has the ambitious goal of trying to inform an ignorant world with scientifically based facts.
We need such people in order to stop the criminal deception propagande now tsunamiing the world.
00
Ocean rise is caused by the 2.6 billion tons of silt and dust that fulls into our oceans each and every year.
00
Ocean rise is caused by the 2.6 billion tons of silt and dust that fulls into our oceans each and every year.
00