Climate Denial Crock of the Week: Ocean levels


Blue Ollie carried a YouTube video that got me to look at Peter Sinclair’s marvelous series of amateur videos, “Climate Denial Crock of the Week.” Sinclair posts under the handle GreenMan at YouTube.

Here’s the Climate Denial Crock of the Week video on ocean levels, and the denial that they are rising — in line with my post a few hours ago about peoples in the South Pacific and in Alaska losing their homes to climate change:

Pat Frank’s work keeps reminding us that, in science, it’s often difficult to establish a clear, indisputable proximate cause.  Something is going on in Newtok, Alaska, and in the Carteret Islands, Papua New Guinea.  Those things should not be ignored, and cannot be ignored safely for long.

(Teachers:  Note most of these videos are around 5 minutes in length — more than suitable for classroom use, perhaps even as a bell ringer.  Notice also that, if you don’t know how to make these videos, as I don’t, you’re behind the curve.)

25 Responses to Climate Denial Crock of the Week: Ocean levels

  1. Ed Darrell says:

    Ed, What do you think about the Maldive tree?

    Never heard of the tree nor this incident. Got a credible source?

    Like

  2. cptwayne says:

    Ed, What do you think about the Maldive tree? A famous tree in the Maldives (right up on the beach) showed no evidence of having been swept away by rising sea levels, as would be predicted by .. global warming… A group of Australian global-warming advocates came along and pulled the tree down, destroying the evidence that their “theory” was false. The subsurface volcanic rims float some of these islands on a layer of fresh water. . Simply put, a lot of these islands are actually sinking due to loss of the fresh water from too much farming.

    Like

  3. cptwayne says:

    Ed, I checked out a paper on the early spring thingy: “… found no evidence for time trends in spring arrival (Start of Spring) from ground- or model-based data; using an ensemble estimate from two methods that were more closely related to ground observations than other methods, SOS trends could be detected for only 12% of North America and were divided between trends towards both earlier and later spring.” (Early Spring and Global Warming, A Frosty Myth, White et al)

    Basicly, early springs in an of themselves says nothing, nada, niminitz, about global warming. Now, an early spring coupled with a later onset of fall and shorter winters is a different story.

    Like

  4. cptwayne says:

    Well, lets keep it cool. There is good reason to clean up the atmosphere, regardless. In Mexico city, children as young as 6, when autopsied, were found to have Alzheimer like brain plaques and entanglements. Of course, age wise, it went up from there. Even the dogs from the rural areas developed the same when forced to breathe Mexico City’s air. Air pollution is killing them and us. But it is not CO2! Clue: Unburnt exhaust fuel.

    As for the ocean is rising. Yes. What is the demographic temperature of the all the oceans?( 20% above 5 deg C and 80% 4 Deg C or less). if so, and the ocean cools, it will still expand. The 20% that warms will expand also. Not CO2 related.

    I found 36 references showing CO2 residence time is 5-10 years. IPPC say 100 yrs. Why is that?

    Also, the Arctic waters, now uncovered by ice, is colder. Doesn’t the specular reflections of the solar energy off the ocean waves reduce the albedo there? More rapid heat loss from the unprotected water then warms the air up, chilling the water more. This is not CO2 related. Clue: The Russians and all need to quit roaming the Arctic with their icebreakers. Not helping a bit.

    Yes, Earth is on the brink of ecologic collapse, but not because of CO2.

    Then there is CWD in Wyoming. Well, lets save that for another day.

    Like

  5. cptwayne says:

    Residence time for atmospheric CO2: Ed says “most estimates go over a century”. I found 36 studies that indicate it is around 5-10 years. The 37th was the IPPC at over 100 yrs. This seems to be way out of line. How long did the C-14 stay in the air from the 60s nuclear testing?

    Like

  6. Yeah I apparently did.

    My apologies.

    Like

  7. Ed Darrell says:

    James, you may have misread what Hank was saying . . .

    Like

  8. Hank, let me point out something for you.

    The less pollution there is the healthier the people are. The healthier the people are…the more economically productive they are. And the less health care costs we incur.

    That is the other main reason to do something about global warming…even if you foolishly believe its a crock.

    Like

  9. Ed Darrell says:

    So, Hank, you’re saying that the loud noises from the denialists, that 20-foot predictions are wide of the mark, are not based on any science at all, but on a typographical error in a newspaper article?

    You’d think that correction could get spread more quickly through serious science circles, in the study of news and social networks, if not in a more science-concentrated organ.

    Like

  10. Ed Darrell says:

    Man made CO2 is ~4%, with only half staying in the air(2%). Then of the 100ppm rise since the industrial age, this is only 2ppm CO2!

    Henry, I think maybe you’re misunderstanding parts per million (ppm) and percentages of the atmosphere. The 100 ppm rise “since the industrial age” refers to 100 ppm CO2, not 100 ppm in atmospheric particles.

    If the human causation were only 50%, that would be 50 ppm, not 2 ppm.

    However, you’re also underestimating the hang time of CO2. In the atmosphere, it takes many decades for CO2 to come out of the air. Most estimates go over a century for CO2 to come out. So if human activities add 10 ppm this year, that 10 ppm will be there for decades. Next year’s 10 ppm addition goes on top.

    The 100 ppm rise in CO2 since the beginning of the industrial age is almost wholly man-made. There are no longer large, natural CO2 emitters that could compete with human smokestacks and tailpipes.

    Like

  11. Hank Roberts says:

    > who predicted 20-foot

    A typographical error.

    Just to nail this down, the original error, based on error in Associated Press wire report, began thus as it appeared locally:
    ________excerpt follows________

    OCEANS RISING FAST, NEW STUDIES FIND
    Melting ice could raise levels up to 20 feet by 2100, scientists say
    David Perlman, Chronicle Science Editor
    ————–end excerpt from original story as printed—————–

    Oops.

    Belatedly as corrected:

    Current page:
    http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/03/24/MNG22HTITV1.DTL&hw=global+warming&sn=005&sc=526
    noted at the bottom says
    “This story has been corrected since it appeared in print editions.”

    OCEANS RISING FAST, NEW STUDIES FIND
    Melting ice could raise levels up to 3 feet by 2100, scientists say

    Like

  12. Ed Darrell says:

    What say ye global warming community?

    Don’t know what that community will say, but my experience is that most stuff at American Thinker is 180 degrees wrong. If she says no global warming, there is global warming.

    Like

  13. CPT Wayne says:

    errata: Nov 14, 2010. The atmospheric concentration should read 0.4% not 4%. Likewise, the 2 ppm should read 0.2ppm.

    Anthropogenic CO2 GHE is calculated to be 0.117%.
    Natural global warming is about 0.44 degrees C per century.
    Normal Oscillating Temp changes + or – 0.67 degrees C

    The effect of increased ppm of CO2 does not even show up at all.
    See Girma Orssengo, MASc, Ph.D. article at: http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/10/co2_driven_global_warming_is_n.html

    Let’s see if this is beginning to play out as the years roll by.

    Like

  14. CPT Wayne says:

    CO2 Driven Global Warming is not support by the data! Girma Orssengo, MASc, Ph.D. states: “The linear global warming of the last century was similar to that of two centuries ago. The oscillating warming by 0.67 deg C from 1976 to 1998 is as natural as the oscillating cooling by similar amount from 1878 to 1911. …there is no shift in mean global temperature anomaly in the last century as a result of CO2 emission. None. CO2 driven global warming is not supported by the data.” See the entire article at: http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/10/co2_driven_global_warming_is_n.html

    Her article looks very convincing and straight forward. What say ye
    global warming community?

    Like

  15. Henry W Justice says:

    Man made CO2 is ~4%, with only half staying in the air(2%). Then of the 100ppm rise since the industrial age, this is only 2ppm CO2!
    The GHGs absorption bands are at or near peak absorption for the energy available. This implies, I believe, that adding more GHGs will simply not garnish any meaningful increase in warming (i.e. unless the sun brightens, there are fewer clouds, or the GHGs
    adsorb different bands of available energy, etc). The worry over these gases may be for naught.
    We are now in a Dalton Min solar cycle repeat. But the Sun’s gauss is still declining. Below 1500 gauss in 2016, will the sunspots wink out and flat line into a Maunder min. This is the real problem to watch for now.

    Like

  16. Ed Darrell says:

    The question that comes to my mind is the concept that climate, somehow, should be a static factor.

    In the early days of climate denialism, that was a common response we heard from the denialists: “It’s always been like this, or close to it — live with it.” Then the qualifiers: “Well, since the last ice age, anyway.” “Since humans came on the scene.”

    No scientist claims climate is or should be static. Human interventions in climate have almost always proven disastrous, however — from the dessication of Babylon through poor soil conservation practices, through the deforestation of Lebanon, through the overplowing of the Great Plains and overgrazing of the Great Basin — all of which resulted in new, larger deserts, and social and economic calamity.

    There are great lessons in those previous, human-caused disasters of climate. Our current modifications are magnitudes greater.

    Climate has always changed and done so radically. Throughout most of geologic time scales, it clearly occured without human participation.

    Yeah, and most of those radical changes would have killed off all human life had it existed. You really should spend some time in geology and paleontology. In the distant past, there was essentially no oxygen in the air. The Earth did very well, but of course, all animal life today would be wiped out.

    Pick any of the wild swings you speak about from the past. Tell us which of those would not be disastrous to human life and economics today, will you?

    The Earth did quite well when the Chixculub object struck near the Yucatan Peninsula — but of course, all forests in North America and many of those in South America were burned off within minutes, and almost all life on North America perished. Humans could not have survived, nor would television signals have been uninterrupted. It wasn’t human caused, and the planet survived — but that’s a bad argument for letting things run to ruin now.

    The world seems to have survived these changes quite nicely and come back for more.

    Except the rivers never recovered in the Sahara; Carthage is no longer a garden spot; Lebanon remains a desert; the Great Basin is still an alkali desert instead of the grassland it was; and for most of the climate change you talk about, most of human ancestry was wiped out.

    Yes, the planet will recover. Will your children or grandchildren live to see it? That’s the question you are ignoring completely.

    Humans also seem to possess an uncanny ability to adapt to change. Certainly we want to be responsible as possible yet changes to temperature, ocean levels, and such are normal, not abnormal.

    Now we’re talking abnormal temperature change, not only for the last 100,000 years, for the for the last 1 million years. And, really, we’re talking abnormal changes like the Earth has not seen for 3 billion years.

    Change is normal. In the last million years, changes of CO2 running well under 350 ppm have occurred. But never before have we pushed so much CO2 into the air; not in a couple billion years have the CO2 levels been so high without astounding oscillations in climate that would ruin the world as we know it today. (I could be off by a few million years, but you can get the drift — clearly you didn’t bother to look up any information before you posted, and I ought to be allowed at least as much SWAG room . . .)

    Never before have we seen such atmospheric conditions except by huge natural calamity that took hundreds of thousands of years for the planet to recover from.

    Yes there have been great oscillations in climate. No, humans didn’t survive them.

    Like

  17. Kernm says:

    The question that comes to my mind is the concept that climate, somehow, should be a static factor. Climate has always changed and done so radically. Throughout most of geologic time scales, it clearly occured without human participation.

    The world seems to have survived these changes quite nicely and come back for more. Humans also seem to possess an uncanny ability to adapt to change. Certainly we want to be responsible as possible yet changes to temperature, ocean levels, and such are normal, not abnormal.

    Like

  18. Ed Darrell says:

    Michael, with all due respect, have you never heard of the Maldive Islands? Marshall Islands?

    Sea levels rising is sort of the last step. If we get that far, it’s really too late, isn’t it?

    If we assume that the “non-experts” got it wrong, that sea-levels are not rising (and the Maldive government is completely insane, a necessary condition to that claim), how does that affect the fact that the planet is warming, that the warming causes drought and flood and gross displacement of people and destruction of crops?

    In other words, even if your claim is 100% correct, we’re still in a whole lotta trouble. And the fact is, whatever the IPCC report says, sea levels are rising.

    Like

  19. Michael says:

    “When I spoke to Dr Mörner last week, he expressed his continuing dismay at how the IPCC has fed the scare on this crucial issue. When asked to act as an “expert reviewer” on the IPCC’s last two reports, he was “astonished to find that not one of their 22 contributing authors on sea levels was a sea level specialist: not one”. Yet the results of all this “deliberate ignorance” and reliance on rigged http://www.sustainableoregon.com
    /oceanlevel.htmlcomputer models have become the most powerful single driver of the entire warmist hysteria.

    •For more information, see Dr Mörner on YouTube (Google Mörner, Maldives and YouTube); or read on the net his 2007 EIR interview “Claim that sea level is rising is a total fraud”; or email him – morner@pog.nu – to buy a copy of his booklet ‘The Greatest Lie Ever Told’

    Like

  20. Ed Darrell says:

    With the lifestyle we live in our modern society, it may be impossible to completely halt the emission of Carbon Dioxide . . .

    No “may be” about it; of course it is impossible to halt emissions of CO2. However, emissions can be limited a lot. We can find alternatives that reduce the amount of carbon emitted, we can find ways to scrub the emissions to get the carbon out and sequester it, and some of these methods will be big money makers. Freeman Dyson points out that healthy soils sequester a lot of carbon — so making sure the soil is healthy is a big step — hello, organic farming? We can plant trees, improve the soil, make the planet look nicer, be more hospitable to wild things, and reduce carbon in the atmosphere all at once. Win-win-win.

    . . . the answer lies in controlling the growth of the world’s population, as well as wiser and more conservative resource management. In my opinion, these are the most effective tools for stemming the destruction of our planet.

    The most effective check on population growth is money. Non-poverty people have fewer children than people in poverty. Economic growth, equitable growth, and fair distribution of income from products can go a long way to fixing the problems.

    Paul Ehrlich warned in the 1970s that if nothing was done, if then-current population and emission trends continued, there would be mass starvation, riots and revolution by 2000.

    The Green Revolution and a lot of automation helped make the world capable of sustaining a much larger human population; use of fossil fuels in increased amounts also contributed. In short, the trends did not continue, but were changed by technology and politics.

    We need more such change, but much smarter. It’s probably not impossible.

    Like

  21. Marshall Bennett says:

    The release of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere is only partially responsible for the melting of the polar ice caps and other bodies of ice. The true problem lies in the ever increasing population in the world. A larger population requires more resources, more resources means more factories, more factories means more trucks to transport resources, which ultimately means more emissions of carbon dioxide; see where I’m going with this? With the lifestyle we live in our modern society, it may be impossible to completely halt the emission of Carbon Dioxide; the answer lies in controlling the growth of the world’s population, as well as wiser and more conservative resource managment. In my opinion, these are the most effictive tools for stemming the destrucion of our planet.

    Like

  22. Ed Darrell says:

    People were predicting that ocean levels would rise by 20 ft. it turns out that no, its actually only half that.

    Who predicted 20-foot rises? Where?

    Like

  23. enviralment says:

    I think people have a problem when people make claims of unimaginable future destruction and then it turns out not to be that bad. People were predicting that ocean levels would rise by 20 ft. it turns out that no, its actually only half that. Still scary but it feeds the flames of opposition towards changing our energy mix and lifestyles. For those fellow Canadians go and sign the petition to keep Canadian nuclear development domestic with CANDU here.

    Like

  24. Ed Darrell says:

    There are plenty of people who deny that there is any warming, plenty who deny that there are any effects of warming, and plenty who deny that anything should be done.

    Whether warming is human caused or not, it is human-aided. Whether humans play a significant role or not, the damage is real, the costs tremendous, and it’s foolish to deny that we need to act.

    As a mindful AGW follower — I was doing serious air pollution research probably before you were born — I think I am obligated to point out the facts and especially to point out the anti-science foggers and the fog they spread.

    If you really think coral bleaching is made up, there is little anyone can do to help you. If you think that spring’s coming 8 hours earlier each year is a crock, we can thank God you’re not in agriculture.

    If you think we need to do nothing, you’re the cause of our higher insurance rates. Get out of the way, you’re killing our bank accounts.

    You didn’t even bother to click on the link to Pat Frank’s work. People who do half-gluteal research often come up with half-cocked beliefs. This is science: Stick to the facts.

    Like

  25. ken says:

    The Crock in this blog is the clear straw-man deceit. The straw-man here is that skeptics deny the oceans are rising. I have yet to hear an AGW skeptic ever say such a thing. They deny that humans are causing the continuous rise and fall of ocean levels. As a mindless AGW follower, it is your responsibility to show that humans are causing it (good luck with that- LOL).

    Like

Please play nice in the Bathtub -- splash no soap in anyone's eyes. While your e-mail will not show with comments, note that it is our policy not to allow false e-mail addresses. Comments with non-working e-mail addresses may be deleted.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: