A climate denier is apparently someone who says anything that disagrees with the IPCC Assessment Reports. That makes Christine Milne, Al Gore, and my fellow blogger Ronda, climate deniers.
They all assert that climate change is causing more extreme weather, including more tropical cyclones and hurricanes. This is contrary to the most recent IPCC Assessment Report AR5, although some earlier reports did give some comfort to that view.
That the IPCC is right, and the Green deniers wrong, is graphically illustrated below. The graphs are taken from WeatherBell.com, and can be seen in context on this page.
They demonstrate that there is no trend in the number and the total energy of hurricanes over the last 40 years.
John L Casey is a former Space Shuttle Engineer and White House Program Advisor for NASA. http://www.spaceandscience.net/id1.html He like many others say the Sun is the prime driver of climate by far.Casey has written a book called “Cold Sun” which predicts a coming ice age.
The climate debate has beaten itself to a standstill and only reality and time will change opinions.
Comment by Ross — January 14, 2015 @ 6:08 am
Sorry, guys, you will have to better than pundits who frequent Fox News.
Joe Bastardi is the contrarian behind WeatherBell Analytics, and he is a known climate change contrarian.
He has a degree in meteorology, but is out of line with most scientists working in the field, which he is not.
He is a clear example of:
a) the US media’s intense bias towards non-professional commentaries that suit their ideology and
b) endorsing the validity of private vs public opinion.
Would you trust a medical doctor who only completed a basic science degree and who main Fclaim to fame is appearances on corporate talk shows?
see:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Bastardi
Comment by Ronda Jambe — January 14, 2015 @ 8:24 am
There is one piece of evidence that climate change deniers cannot skirt around. That is that carbon dioxide and methane molecules have characteristics that reduce their transparency to radiation that matches the frequency of the radiation that is leaving the earth’s surface. The gases act as an insulating blanket and the more of each gas present the greater the insulation with methane being about 30 times as effective as carbon dioxide.
It is known that permafrost traps methane that has leaked towards the surface from deeper layers of fossil carbonaceous material. Any thawing of the permafrost will release some of that methane.
Climate scientists argue that any significant increase in the earth’s surface may lead to a tipping point.
There are some interesting court cases looming in the USA. Professor Mary C. Wood wrote a book, Nature’s Trust, on the subject. She claims that since Roman Times it has been an accepted principle of law that today’s governments hold the earth and its life supporting abilities on trust for future generations. I expect to start reading the book in a few days.
Efforts to throw out the cases have not met with much success. We live in interesting times.
Comment by John Turner — January 14, 2015 @ 9:34 am
When those on one side of climate science discussion are reduced to using a meteorologist as the spokesperson for their cause, it demonstrates the weakness of their argument.
Where is the supporting comment from qualified climate scientists?
Comment by John B — January 14, 2015 @ 10:57 am
When people can’t look at a graph and let the figures speak for themselves, but instead argue about the credentials of the person whose website they appeared on, you know you have won the debate hands down. You also know you are not dealing with people who care about the truth. They have an indefensible entrenched position and if character assassination is required to defend it, then that is what they are prepared to do. No honest debate for them.
These graphs bear out what the IPCC AR5 says. Going to try to character assassinate them as well?
Comment by Graham — January 14, 2015 @ 2:18 pm
“In January 6, 2014, Mr. Casey founded the Global Cooling Awareness Project (GCAP). The GCAP is an international effort to create a list of scientists and professionals who believe naturally produced global warming has ended and a new cold climate epoch has begun”.
I have just noticed that in the above extract from the appropriate website the claim is that NATURALY PRODUCED global warming has ceased.
The argument is about global warming caused by human activity. One might counteract the other but humans are burning a fossil fuel that is no longer being accumulated by nature and some of that is required for every future generation of Homo sapiens. Maybe we need to remove ‘sapiens’ from our self description.
Comment by John Turner — January 14, 2015 @ 2:34 pm
John Turner, the Earth has had ice ages when the CO2 levels were many times the present.
I think a lot of the science has perverted via money. It has been a case of erring on the side of extreme caution because saving the planet is a noble cause and they’ll still be vindicated if the statistics + assumptions are a tad wrong.
The planet does need remediation and fixing Fukushima is a big one gone under the radar.
Comment by Ross — January 14, 2015 @ 3:58 pm
Ross,
No one on the Fukushima site has had a substantial dose of radiation. From memory about 35 people have had a dose that will increase there chance of cancer, over their lifetime, by about 2%. And that estimate is based on No Linear Threshold standards which are known to substantially overstate the risk. There is substantial evidence that low levels of radiation improve the performance of the body’s repair mechanisms.
Comment by John Turner — January 14, 2015 @ 4:16 pm
Don’t see where you got that from Graham. Reading IPCC AR5, summary for policymakers, I quote from pg 5:
Changes in many extreme weather and climate events have been observed since about 1950 (see Table SPM.1 for
details).
And Table SPM.1 on Extreme weather and climate events shows that confidence in an increase of such events becomes even higher over the course of this century.
When have I ever disagreed with the IPCC?
Not only that, but the lead author in the articles referred to in your post, RN Maue, is closely associated with WeatherBell Analytics, and that further undermines any assertion of their independence.
Comment by Ronda Jambe — January 14, 2015 @ 4:36 pm
John Turner Fukushima disaster is not being covered.300 tons per of radio active water continues to contaminate the Pacific Ocean.
It is the hot particles such as Caesium 137 and Plutonium which mimic other elements in our bodies which are the danger. They are not easily picked up using Geiger counters.
Prime Minister Abe has brought in laws that will jail journos for 10 yrs if they print uncensored info about Fukushima. They are lying to you again John. http://www.globalresearch.ca/fukushima-a-nuclear-war-without-a-war-the-unspoken-crisis-of-worldwide-nuclear-radiation/28870
Comment by Ross — January 14, 2015 @ 8:55 pm
My comments are based on a close reading of a book by physicist Dr Robert Hargraves, Thorium, Energy Cheaper than Coal.
There are thirteen references to Fukushima in the book. On page 324 Hargraves reports that from Fukushima 71 people received between 10 and 20 mSv and 2 received between 20 and 23 mSv.
On page 307 Hargraves has a table showing fatalities per Gigawatt Year for various sources of electricity. From that table he states. ” Nuclear power is the safest electricity power source by far — nine times safer than natural gas — forty-one times safer than coal.
Comment by John Turner — January 14, 2015 @ 9:56 pm
Hi Ronda, try reading page 216 of http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_Chapter02_FINAL.pdf
“Current datasets indicate no significant observed trends in global tropical cyclone frequency over the past century … No robust trends in annual numbers of tropical storms, hurricanes and major hurricanes counts have been identified over the past 100 years in the North Atlantic basin”
Also some graphs you might want to take account of.
Graham
Comment by Graham — January 15, 2015 @ 12:38 pm
Wait until ocean levels have risen by around three metres, then decide IF there’s a problem?
In the meantime, what is wrong with converting to cheaper than coal thorium, and only because it’s cheaper than coal.
And because we own enough of it if kept exclusively for just that purpose, could power our own industries with it for thousands of years! I kid you not!
In fact if connected to micro-grids, for at least as little as half what we are charged now, by price gouging carpet baggers.
Some of who are foreigners, or horror, gasp, state governments pledged to serve the people!
Perhaps they think its as the main course?
Simply put, even countries with labor costs as low as China, with a wages inflation rate of around a reported 30%, couldn’t compete with us when it comes to energy dependent high tech manufacture; if it was powered by publicly owned and operated indigenous thorium, connected to micro grids or particular industries.
All things considered, high tech manufacture is our only viable future and the only one that includes general prosperity!
And who among us wouldn’t want that?
Ideologues with a born to rule master servant mentality, obviously threatened by just that?
And apparently prepared to effectively destroy general prosperity, to have it and or, the power they think they own?
As they kill of another social program and the social good it used to create far beyond the borders of mindfully created post code poverty traps.
Well, other than enduring rank stupidity, what else could possibly create them?
Serendipity and or good fortune coupled to a genuine Christian ethos, perhaps?
How often must mindless ideologues be told to release the economic handbrake (austerity) before engaging the clutch and the economic engine and stalling it!
Or do they really believe what was demonstrably possible in post war Japan, Singapore and around a dozen or more successful examples, is impossible here. Well?
Maybe its because we’re over endowed with resources the aforementioned examples didn’t have, and were consequently forced to engage their brains first?
And what could be wrong with locally made biogas and powering our communities with it, via ceramic fuel cells.
[The even more unaffordable snowy mountains scheme has since paid for itself and now earns increasing profits!]
And biogas>ceramic fuel cells, for around one quarter of what we now pay for power, thus releasing annual billions for the discretionary spending that boosts/supports all western style economies?
It’s the economy stupid!
Perhaps those who believe in only free enterprise solutions don’t like money or healthy vibrant economies; and a wealth of money making opportunities for the entrepreneurs among us?
[And the equally mindless socialism that stifles it, is even worse!]
Even more so, if after creating the world’s cheapest and most sustainable 24/7 power supply, we link that to genuine tax reform that eliminates all the parasitical elements that now feed on it, and in that process, create the world’s lowest costing tax system.
Why the corporations of the world, entrepreneurs and a whole bunch of self funded retirees, would queue to relocate to these shores, bringing their spending patterns, job and wealth creating opportunities; and tax liabilities with them.
Let’s create fair dinkum freedom and the right to chose our futures, rather than simply give eternal lip service to it, in an equally eternal quest to just hold the reins of power!
And totally at odds with the notion of service or even a Christian ethos!
As is adults behaving like squabbling kids arguing like insult hurling spoiled brats, over whose turn it is with the tonka toy in the, expletive deleted, communal sandpit!
It doesn’t matter whether climate change is man-made or sun powered, but rather what practical steps we can take as a cooperating global community to ameliorate against it!
That’s all that really matters!
There is only one lifeboat earth, and we all need to row together (preferably in the same direction) if we would simply survive.
Rather that ague back on forth who is the captain of the craft or who should do all the rowing, ideally, all of us and as a team!
Preferably before we sink not after.
As for leading?
The best way is by practical example and with solutions that literally walk out the door!
As opposed to mindlessly giving away our best ideas or technological advances, as we did Kevvy baby, when we, opps you, gifted pulsed laser light powered uranium enrichment to our American allies!
Wasn’t it enough already, when we, opps, (Captain Goodyear) gave them our locally invented direct reduction method of making steel, which also cuts around half the carbon this essential industry used to make!
What, we don’t sell uranium to half the world Kevvy baby?
And have some impediment apart from the very worst example of rank stupidity, that prevents us selling it, as enriched to power grade fuel?
And wouldn’t solutions that literally walk out the door, make a pleasant change from increasingly unaffordable solutions and BAH HUMBUG, being foisted on us by GREEN ideologues, who would be lucky to share a still functioning brain between them?
And then one so small you could put it in a thimble and you’d still hear it rattle!
Albeit, with a big boom boom.
Who cares what the real cause is, just what we need to do to try and as best we can, deal with it!
Noting else really maters, or indeed, who is right or wrong!
Do you argue over whose match started the fire as it consumes your house?
No of course you don’t, but react with urgent alacrity, with all hands to the pumps; then when the fire is safely out, look for the culprit? Yes?
And immigration as envisaged is not increasing population numbers just relocating some of it; particularly the brightest with the best ideas, and just wanting a place that places a real premium on self starters and entrepreneurs; their own people and their better ideas!
Along with cooperative endeavor; also the only path that offers anything like a prosperous future to the general community, as opposed to eternal servitude to foreign corporations and the end of any notion of economic sovereignty; as we become increasingly dependent on foreign capital; and by design!
No?
Well then, why not wait until ocean levels have risen by around three metres, and destroyed around 70% of our economy/coastal communities?
Hell, we could be even worse off and all of us learning to speak Chinese, the language of our potential new masters?
The result of completely blinkered vision and or, just serving mannon, whoever brings it?
I mean, who cares if climate change is real or imagined, (or just the current Granny killing heat wave) if there are also endless opportunities in it for vastly overhauling our economy, and in so doing, change us into one of the wealthiest nations on earth, owing nothing to anyone!
And consequently, being completely free and powerful enough to chart a truly independent course, as opposed to one handed to us by powerful merchant bankers?
Holding us by the short and curlies, simply because we, opps, (our fearless leaders) WOULDN’T use the brains we, opps, they were born with; but rather, this or that tried and found very wanting Ideology/locked and bolted mindset?
What’s wrong with you people?
Don’t you like money/general prosperity?
Given that’s what follows as day follows night, if you just use what we have right now right here, to create the world’s lowest tax system, coupled to the worlds cheapest energy.
[Forget that it also just happens to conveniently, be carbon negative or carbon neutral!]
Or are you so mired in your preferred ideology, (blue, green or red) that you simply cannot see that?
But rather just want to impose it on all others, or win the argument?
Well haven’t you got your priorities sorted!
(Row, row your boat gently down the stream, life is but a dream.) TIME TO WAKE UP!
Alan B. Goulding.
Comment by Alan B. Goulding — January 16, 2015 @ 10:46 am
Graham,
There are several statements in in the executive summary that pour doubt on your conclusions. Where this report is not prepared to make definitive statements that support the view that the climate has changed significantly towards warmer weather and more intense storms and droughts the reports say that the data is not adequately available from some parts of the world to allow an overall conclusion to be reached.
The following is a collation of such comments that I noted;
It is very likely that the numbers of cold days and nights have decreased and the numbers of warm days and nights have increased globally since about 1950. There is only medium confidence that the length and frequency of warm spells, including heat waves, has increased since the middle of the 20th century mostly owing
to lack of data or of studies in Africa and South America. However, it is likely that heatwave frequency has increased during this period in large
parts of Europe, Asia and Australia. {2.6.1}
It is likely that since about 1950 the number of heavy precipitation events over land has increased in more regions than it has decreased. Confidence is highest for North America and Europe where there have been likely increases in either the frequency or intensity of
heavy precipitation with some seasonal and/or regional variation. It is very likely that there have been trends towards heavier precipitation events in central North America. {2.6.2.1}
……..it is virtually certain that the frequency
and intensity of the strongest tropical cyclones in the North Atlantic has increased since the 1970s. {2.6.3}
Comment by John Turner — January 16, 2015 @ 1:22 pm
This site needs some way to edit posts. There were no disjointed lines in my last comment before it was posted.
Comment by John Turner — January 16, 2015 @ 1:27 pm
Alan Goulding “Wait until ocean levels have risen by around three metres, then decide if there’s a problem?”
Alan this notion of Ocean levels rising is absolute BS. In many of the Islands in the Pacific the land was subsiding due to tectonic plate movements. Ignoring the movement of tides, oceans cannot rise in one region of the planet and be the same in other regions. Try keeping the level of water in your bath tub permanently higher at one end. Water finds an equilibrium whether it be on a sphere or a flat surface. You cannot have oceans rising on one area of the planet and not in another.
I have lived near the ocean for the last 50 yrs and I have not seen the water levels change in all these years. Queenscliff pool still has the same all tidal marks on it as 50 yrs ago.
What happened to the fears of Ocean acidification? How can extreme weather now = global warming. We had ice ages when CO2 was many times the present.
The Sun by far is the greatest influence on our climate and the Sun’s energy has cycles.
Comment by Ross — January 17, 2015 @ 5:48 pm
Ross, you are falling for the myth of the individual observer. Don’t you accept any science? Is it not possible that your particular part of the world is one of those where the land is rising?
This has been in the news lately:
Correcting estimates of sea level rise
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/01/150114140517.htm
I really think you should do a bit more reading, as ocean acidification is one of the most clearly documented impacts of climate change.
Ocean acidity and CO2
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/indicators/oceans/acidity.html
Comment by Ronda Jambe — January 17, 2015 @ 7:39 pm
Ross,
There are sixteen calibrated sea level measuring stations around the Australian coast. These stations are calibrated and checked readily by accurate GPS and by normal surveying methods. The stations automatically correct readings for atmospheric pressure. For several years I read each BOM annual report. Those reports, abbreviated, are now published monthly, much to my disappointment.
Over 22 years the average sea level height at the east coast stations, from Bass Strait to North Queensland has increased by an average of 3.6mm per year. On the west coast, from Groote Eylant to Cape Lewellin the increase has been much greater. I have lived on the foreshore of Lake Macquarie since 1987 and am certain that the average water level on my waterfront has risen in accord with The BOM measured results.
Comment by John Turner — January 17, 2015 @ 8:56 pm
John Turner you have supported my argument “Over 22 years the average sea level height at the east coast stations, from Bass Strait to North Queensland has increased by an average of 3.6mm per year. On the west coast, from Groote Eylant to Cape Lewellin the increase has been much greater” So over 22 yrs the total increase in Ocean levels is 3.6 x 22 = 79.2 mm.
How can water levels be much greater in one region and not another? Gravity pulls equally around the planet and like water in your bathtub cannot be higher on average than another region.(excluding tides created by the moon).I suggest what is happening over 22 years is the change in the height of tectonic plates and not sea levels. This explains why there is a difference in Tasmania as opposed to Queensland. The whole of the north pole could melt and not influence sea levels because 90% of the floating ice is already in the ocean. The South Pole is actually expanding and most of its ice is on land, so it is very unlikely that the oceans are rising.
Most of you AGW high priests quote popular opinion and lack good analytical skills to question their flawed assumptions.
Comment by Ross — January 17, 2015 @ 10:22 pm
Ross,
Grasping at variations in the degree of sea level at different stations is a poor contradictory argument. For a satisfactory contradictory argument you would need to produce an equivalent number of accurately calibrated measuring stations where the sea level has fallen by about the same amount.
I have read one explanation for the higher average rises along the NT/WA coast that involved the moons tracking.
You need to look at the records of many glaciers. The terminal faces of many have retracted many kilometres over the last 100 years.
There was an excellent chart of the five year moving average of global temperature in the latest Columbia University report by Dr James Hansen. The email arrived in my in-box yesterday. I would like to see any argument that shows that Dr Hansen has faked that very convincing evidence. Fourteen of the warmest years since weather data has been collected have occurred in the last fifteen years.
Comment by John Turner — January 18, 2015 @ 7:04 am
Yes Ross, all correct to a point.
Water expands a little with heat, so in places the levels in particular bodies can seem higher.
Moreover, our planet follows an elliptical path around the sun, which affects gravitational forces, as does moon tracking, which also varies along with our planets wobble.
And yes the sun does wax and wane in regular cycles, but none the less grows hotter over the millennium.
And yes there are normal variations and cycles! So what!
All I’m suggesting as action, is choosing better lower costing longer term or endlessly sustainable energy options for the sake of the healthiest economy, we can produce.
And yes, any melt in arctic ice, may even lower water levels ever so slightly, given sea ice has slightly more volume than water.
Nobody is arguing that point, even as in yours you infer they are!
Why?
Obfuscation perhaps, and to redirect the conversation to where you would like it to head?
Endless to and fro froth and bubble, that avoids the real issues?
That’s why I say, wait until the oceans have risen by around 3 metres. If only to remove all doubt that we as a species need to take some action.
And while we wait; ocean temperatures have continued to rise and by as much as 2C in some places.
And Antarctic waters are reportedly higher by as much as ice melting 4C, since we started collecting records.
I take it a 3 metre increase in ocean levels would wipe you out, along with huge chunks of Darwin Cains Townsville Brisbane Melbourne, Adelaide and Perth; and any almost too many to mention, coastal towns and villages all points between.
Reportedly, as appeared on a relatively recent ABC doco, there is a body of fresh Antarctic water trapped behind a thin and growing thinner ice wall.
Which when eventually released, could raise ocean levels by around 3 metres and virtually overnight. Don’t worry it won’t happen tomorrow or next year; I hope, but water 4C higher is a worry.
Inuits living in Greenland, (according to a very recent SBS doco) who live or die by their hunting skills and seasonal certainties, have noted many changes, like spring time ice, now too thin to safely walk on as they hunt traditional food!
And as you may have guessed there’s just not much gathering possible that far north.
Alaskan people have noted also, that their permanently frozen permafrost is melting, creating hundreds of new lakes and releasing billions of tons of methane in the process!
And that summer sea ice has seemingly disappeared.
Sure it could all be due to natural cycles, as that which occurred previously.
But if I personally were in the market for a new home, I’d choose high ground.
Not because I believe the climate change alarmists are right, but on the body of evidence, that they could be?
Now if someone tells me that the heat wave conditions has created tinder dry conditions in our district; do I allow my grass to continue to grow, along with the woody weeds that infest it?
No, I get on the ride on and knock it into shape; or failing that, hopefully, occasionally, get someone else to do it for me.
I don’t sit on the front porch downing iced mint juleps, and say, it’ll never happen.
Just, well they could be right and a wise man just doesn’t refuse to listen to carefully collected and evaluated information?
Because it might lower the value of my holdings?
Well, what would they be worth under around 3 metres of salt water?
Maybe the traditionally generous south sea Islanders could come to your rescue, with their traditional charity, if you’re ever unlucky enough to witness a permanent overnight rise of 3 metres in ocean levels.
Which is what would happen globally, (not it’s not malevolent and only eyes off our Australian coastline) if the land locked lake referenced ever were released by melting ice?
And no, I don’t see much of Antarctica melting away anytime soon, just significant parts of it that are largely sea ice, and what they in turn trap as Continental fresh water.
I don’t know why there is fresh water way down there, except to note, there is evidence of volcanic activity, and consequently, possible thermal melt water and the like.
None of this says your wrong.
However, if my bath were long enough, various gravitational effects, could see the water mark higher at one end.
And as you say, the is tectonic plate movement, with some countries winning some additional land and others losing some of theirs.
And, Co2 Levels have been higher in the past, when we had ice ages. That is not what we’re arguing here!
Also, the paleontological record shows, that around 90 million years ago, when ambient temps rose by just 2C, that caused a melt down of the permafrost and the release of billions of tons of methane, which then caused a further temperature rise of 3C or 5C in total.
5C apparently was enough according to that record, or as sometimes put, mother Hubbard cupboard, enough to all but wipe out all life.
But you’ll be okay mate, it’ll never happen in your lifetime, even as you read how the worst heat waves in living memory, have killed more Melbornians, than the worst bush fires in living memory!
Makes you think doesn’t? Or it should!
And what can we do about it?
Create a huge aluminum sunshade and put it into permanent solar blocking orbit, to reduce the radiant heat reaching us?
And well within the scope of we intelligent apes, if we but learn to cooperate as our only survival mechanism!
Perhaps a tsunami like event, that permanently raises our ocean levels the world over is the kind of wake up call we need!?
And more’s the pity, that such a catastrophe is what is what it might take to end the complacency, or decide who is right?
Personally, if I saw a fire approaching my house, I’d at least turn a hose on and start wetting the joint down.
And long before I worried whose match started it!
However, I’m not asking for any sacrifice from the majority of Australians, just the very opposite!
And unprecedented wealth and wealth creation into the bargain.
Perhaps you could tell me the problem with that?
Oh you have coastal holdings and maybe shares in fossil fuel companies?
Why didn’t you say so Ross, instead of creating all these straw-man arguments?
Well, and if that’s so, how about learning from the best business brains in the world, and simply cutting your loses and getting out, while there’s still an opportunity to do so?
And no, I don’t own any large inland holdings or wish to sell my current Home.
It just happens to be in the mountain, where the humidity is a little less intense!
Cheers, Alan.
Comment by Alan B. Goulding — January 18, 2015 @ 10:52 am
Ross, You really should expand your reading.
Sea level rise is not uniform around this huge planet, but varies depending on whether the local land is rising or falling. This in turn can be due to several factors, subsidence or rising due to tectonic activity.
What counts is the overall trend, and the amound of land ice going into the sea.
Ten years ago thermal expansion was expected to account for most of the sea level rise this century. No scientist is saying that anymore.
We are in for more surprises, failure to take into account the precautionary principle will do us in.
I suggest you do some googling to fill in the gaps in your understanding.
You cuold try the NASA climate chante quizzes to get you started.
Of course, if you don’t accept science, then good luck should you need medical advice. Witch doctors may be more to your temperament.
Comment by Ronda Jambe — January 18, 2015 @ 11:12 am
Ross,
You wrote; “How can water levels be much greater in one region and not another? Gravity pulls equally around the planet.”
That just shows what you don’t know. Gravity varies significantly around the world. For example the North pole is about 20km closer to the centre of the earth than positions on the equator. Gravity varies inversely with the square of the distance from the centre of the earth and even depends on how close the point of measurement is to any significant large mass such as an mountain, particularly an iron mountain. Such a phenomena means that the sea level is higher close to any volcanic island.
Comment by John Turner — January 18, 2015 @ 2:33 pm
John Turner the radius of the Earth is some 6371 kms. With a variation of 22kms this is a variation of 0.35% which not going to alter sea levels greatly from on point to another. So 0.0035 of 80mm change in sea levels you quoted is 0.28 of a mm. Even their margin for error would be greater than 0.28 mm. It is more likely that the land is moving than sea levels rising.
They are making this up as they go along because they won’t have jobs with the IPCC or the CSIRO if they do not conform to the official policy directives of these organisations.
Comment by Ross — January 18, 2015 @ 7:36 pm
Ross,
Your calculations are wrong because you neglected the fact that gravity is inversely related to the distance from the centre of the earth to the power of two (squared). The gravity at any one spot on the earth’s surface has an effect at that spot and its near surrounds only. The scientist are measuring the changes at a multitude of individual points on the earth’s surface although from the satellite the whole surface is being measured. They satellite actually reports hills and valleys in the seas surface due to gravity effects.
Ronda Jambe suggested that you do some of the quizzes at NASA’s climate change site. That was good advice.
I just did the quizz for sea levels and obtained a perfect score but then, when I did second year university physics fifty years ago, I also did well.
Comment by John Turner — January 18, 2015 @ 8:32 pm
Ross,
You ignored the fact that gravity varies inversely with the square of the distance between two masses. Your calculations in regard to the 80mm change on the Australian east coast are of no relevance.
The scientists on the ground use sea level measuring stations all around the world and they relate to changes at a specific location and no where else. The significance is that all the changes are in the same direction – the ocean level has been rising. The satellite measures the water and land elevations virtually everywhere. The satellite actually finds small valleys and troughs in the ocean surface due to gravitational effects. Significantly top dress a lawn and the satellite would report the change if anyone cared to look.
I suggest you look at the quizzes on the NASA site suggested by Ronda Jambe.
Comment by John Turner — January 18, 2015 @ 10:12 pm
John the difference of 0.28% in diameter squared,is still minute. CO2 is not the big issue, the destruction of the Oceans is.http://rt.com/news/223631-ocean-sea-damage-extinction/ They say the oceans will be beyond repair in 150 yrs if we do not act by reducing what we put into them in terms of plastics and poisons.
The disaster of Fukushima is being covered up. Why are the Greens so silent on this? Are they the controlled opposition owned also by our bankers also? That I believe is true and not this AGW nonsense that is being used to bring a new share market derivative of enslavement called the ETS.
Our financial oligarchs want this ETS for money and power over us, that’s why they push the lie of AGW that is not happening. Global warming does not equal extreme weather. This is the new lie they push since warming is not happening.
Comment by Ross — January 19, 2015 @ 5:06 am
Ross, you are absolutely right about the dangers to our oceans.
Increasing acidity due to dissolved
CO2 is one of them.
We need to start tackling these issues holistically.
Comment by Ronda Jambe — January 19, 2015 @ 11:13 am
Rhonda CO2 levels have been 14 times present levels and life thrived. The oceans then must have been extremely acidic according to our high priests of science.
Comment by Ross — January 19, 2015 @ 4:11 pm
Yes, and what epoch was that? Were there even animals with shells in the seas then?
And was there a human population at all, and did hundreds of millions of them live at sea level?
If you really think that humans have not or are not capable of changing the climate along with all the other parameters we are messing around with, then hubris awaits you.
Comment by Ronda Jambe — January 19, 2015 @ 6:20 pm
Scroll down Rhonda and study the chart over billions of years of CO2 concentrations in relation to global mean temps. Temps do not follow the concentrations of CO2.In fact CO2 concentrations follow temp increases which is the reverse of popular theory.
During the Jurassic period when the Dinosaurs thrived CO2 concentrations were 2000 ppm compared to 400 ppm today. Who is in denial Rhonda ?http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Carboniferous_climate.html
Comment by Ross — January 21, 2015 @ 7:46 pm
BOM admits false info on extreme temps at Alice Springs.
http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2015-01-21/bom-withdraws-alice-springs-hottest-day-record-advice/6030090
Comment by Ross — January 21, 2015 @ 8:11 pm