Try not to go 10 rounds with this guy.Every article he has cited can go back to one place,The Heartland Institute.It is funded by the Kochs,Mercers,Exxon and every other polluting Industry in the country.The tentacles are far,wide and the stakes are high…
But, other people were discussing the Morner article as if it might have some legitimacy. I didn’t want them wandering down some denialist trail of illogic without fair warning.
Finn,
With a quick read I found two glaring errors tells me that either this guy doesn’t know what he’s talking about or is deliberately twisting things:
“There’s another way of checking it, because if the radius of the Earth increases as a result of sea level rise, then immediately the Earth’s rate of rotation would slow down.” - that’s true if the rise is from thermal expansion due to warming oceans. But melting ice caps and glaciers would have the opposite effect - taking frozen water at high elevation and bringing it to sea level when it melts - an effective decrease in radius. This is the first sign that he’s just making stuff up to support his claim.
“In about 1970, the sea fell about 20 cm, for reasons involving probably evaporation or something.” - where did that water go? The atmosphere holds on average about 2.5 cm of water equivalent depth. It increased from just under 2.4 cm in the 80s and 90s to about 2.5 cm today (link). Accounting for the oceans taking up about 70% of the earth’s surface, there is no way for atmospheric storage to account for more than 1.4 mm of sea level drop (and probably < 1 mm) without a huge change in precipitation patterns. The only other place the water could have gone is into ce sheets/glaciers which have been shrinking, or other fresh water. Other fresh water contains the equivalent of about 100 cm of ocean depth (link). It would have to increase by 20% to drop the sea level by 20 cm. And - 70% of this fresh water is ground ice and permafrost, leaving less than 30% of for lakes and rivers after accounting for the atmosphere, living things, etc. His “evaporation or something” claim is clearly total BS.
Old Guy- no doubt we are all caught in the net/web of our making - confirmation biases etc -
and with the Daily combination of google/internet, social media , vested interests anything can (and is) be found and disseminated on the grand World Wide Web , (not to mention Levels of Consciousness /worldviews/Development - Where the “Higher” is Literally Over the heads of The Lower (See Harvard Professor Robert Keegan book Over Their Heads, estimated 65% world , 30% of America at a Pre-Rational level of thinking - Facts/Data literally mean nothing to them - while Facts/Data do have a kosmic address for those with “eyes” (cognition ) to see)
your “man” seems to have a skeptical past
https://www.skepticalscience.com/Nils-Axel-Morner-wrong-about-sea-level-rise.html
again I concur with Charles Eisenstein (& premise of his new book - Climate - a New Story) - focusing overwhelming on Co2/Climate change (and regardless of what is causing it … or not) is too narrow a focus for the vast array of interrelated global predictiments upon us (& even IF under the greatest techno-fantasy we could “solve”/mitigate global warming /co2, it still doesn’t begin to address these other array of issues)
You are sure (like other’s aren’t ) that Nero didn’t drop “the match” and we all argue … as Rome burns
I tried but couldn’t read all the above comments. Too many tangents. I cannot and will not argue about global warming. I do know that the powers that be are convinced that stratospheric aerosol injection can stop it or slow it down. I see evidence of it almost daily with my own eyes. I really don’t know what they are doing or how bad it is.I find it pretty shitty that there has not been a public debate before the all powerful forces decided on what was best for all of us. What chemicals or compounds are they using? What is the possible downside to insects or higher forms of life. But they know best, they are the government right? So back to my said it before, store more food. When you think you have enough, double it. Then do it again. Yep I’m a simpleton.
Old Guy,
It kind of undermines your argument to kick it off with what appears to be a false statement:
UN IPCC Scientist Blows Whistle On Lies About Climate, Sea Level
It’s possible I missed something, but a brief search for Nils-Axel Morner online yields no evidence that he ever was a scientist affiliated with the UN IPCC. I wondered when you mentioned it because I had the pleasure of meeting Robert Watson, who was chair of the IPCC at the time, in 2002. I was curious what Nils-Axel Morner’s involvement was in what time frame, and what caused him to disavow IPCC’s work. But it looks like he’s alway only been a critic - at least, that’s my impression.
Our views on climate - at least mine, anyway - aren’t formed by reading one article or hearing from one person like Nils-Axel Morner or Robert Watson. For me, it’s formed by decades now of various experiences - including gradual changes in weather patterns over the course of my lifetime in California, many time lapse videos of melting ice over years, reading endless articles, discussion, hearing from a lot of different people about their personal experiences, and so on.
And importantly, for me, it involves making judgements about the character and motivations of people who express their views, present studies, or relate their own experiences on climate, or any issue. Robert Watson, for example, was quite kind, extremely intelligent and down to Earth. I also heard descriptions (at the same conference where I met Watson) from an Eskimo elder who described how areas now were starting to thaw where he lived that had been permafrost since he was small.
Nothing is certain in this world, and so we all have to make judgements about almost everything based on the ‘perpondance of evidence’. As far as climate change goes, for me, it’s not even close.
People that are denialists, it seems to me, often have a strong characterological or philosophical reason not to believe in man made climate change. I’ve noticed that libertarians and others with strong anti-government feelings are (like yourself, Old Guy) very concerned about what urgent climate action implies about the need for synchronized global government action, intervention or control. It’s pretty clear to me those folks would really like that urgent need for mass collaboration to go away and be found unreal. It doesn’t compute with the more ideal world they would like to move toward.
Well, facts are facts - at least, as well as 97% of relevant scientists can determine, whether anyone organizes to do anything about them or not - and I’m not particularly optimistic that humans can organize to field an response that fends off the major climate disruptions that we already see ramping up. You can find the occasional denialist like Nils Axel, and some of their points may be plausible, but overall, the amount of documentation and data out there supporting human caused climate change is staggering, it seems to me.
Lousiana Prepares to Abandon Its Coastal Flood Plain (Larger than Delaware to Climate Change)
http://350marin.org/louisiana-floodplain/
Antarctic Is Melting Faster Than any Time in History
http://350marin.org/antarctic-melting-faster/
etc., etc.
Glaciers time-lapse melting
Old Guy,
yesterday I chose to set a little experimenthoney trap into play here at Peak Prosperity, and it came out exactly as expected within hours.
Above me you’ll find - in the most part - free thinking adults who chose the longer, harder path of researching the marrow out of their subject’. This is why I wander within the walls of this little oasis, this font of knowledge, and why people without the ability to think for themselves, don’t last long.
My thanks to - in order of appearance: - Michael_Rudmin, Doug, Edwardelinski, Belmontl, Quercus Bicolor, Barnbuilder, and Kelvinator, who, in quick succession, mopped the floor with you, tipped your turgid detritous down the toilet, and flushed …
Finn
fionnbharr wrote:
"tipped your turgid detritous down the toilet, and flushed ..."
Finn,
If you’re going to be at the seminar, I’m buying you a beer (or beverage of choice) for using turgid and detritous together, in context no less! 
On a more serious note, I noticed your honey trap for Old Guy, but I realize now that it’s pointless. Old Guy is likey a coroporate shiv whose sole purpose is to foment confusion and distract us from focusing on the scientific data (and anecdotal evidence), and he neither listens to nor truly discusses anything with anyone directly. Life is so much better with him on the /ignore list. He will not acknowledge that the sources he draws from are evidently connected with corporate interests, as well as considered outliers by most experts in the field at best, and outright quacks at worst.
Still, it’s fun watching many PPers rip apart his thin veil of untruth and obfuscation.
- I don’t think Old Guy is a paid corporate shill. Or if he is, his hourly rate is dismal and/or the company’s ROI on his efforts is really unfortunate. He’s far too wordy and ineffective to be a shill. Of course, I could be wrong. The shills I’ve seen that visit us here put about 1% of his effort into their responses, and they achieve much the same outcome. He has triggered the Backfire Effect on perhaps 50% of the people here.
Hmm. Something comes to mind. Perhaps he’s a Climate Change Reinforcer, whose job it is to run around the net triggering the backfire effect on all the True Believers, further nailing their strongly held beliefs in place. Might he be just that good? - I am reminded of a comic that a friend of mine once posted that I never forgot. I can’t say I always take it to heart, but I think it might apply here:
-
A valid possibility. Very sneaky!
-
I often fail at that. Like, daily.
Here’s a post I just saw on a friend’s timeline that I thought was pretty funny and pertinent:
Quercus bicolor wrote:
"There’s another way of checking it, because if the radius of the Earth increases as a result of sea level rise, then immediately the Earth’s rate of rotation would slow down." - that's true if the rise is from thermal expansion due to warming oceans. But melting ice caps and glaciers would have the opposite effect - taking frozen water at high elevation and bringing it to sea level when it melts - an effective decrease in radius. This is the first sign that he's just making stuff up to support his claim.
Oy.
If the seas aren’t rising, then there’s no explanation for why Miami is now flooding all the time except mass hallucinations by everyone, cameras included.
And, no, this is not due to land subsidence which is a contributing factor in places like Norfolk VA which is being doubly swamped by higher seas and lower land.
Miami just floods regularly now and the local sewage and water treatment agencies are busy installing massive pumps to try and push all that sea water back out.
Perhaps the sea-rise sceptics should give them a call and let them know that the tens of millions of dollars they are spending are due to a massive fraud being perpetrated on them by sceintists with conflicts of interest at work, and not because there’s sea water all over their streets and infiltrating their drainage systems?
/s
There comes a time when you either trust your own experiences or you have to rely on the increasingly bizarre and strident proclamations of those who would pretend that business-as-usual is still a workable proposition.
cmartenson wrote:
There comes a time when you either trust your own experiences or you have to rely on the increasingly bizarre and strident proclamations of those who would pretend that business-as-usual is still a workable proposition.
It’s definitely a consideration.
Peop!e who post overt exaggerations and then blast those that challenge them for evidence has the hallmarks of a classic disorder, which at its extreme is incurable and destructive to those around them.
Maybe I’ll just consciously ignore anyone displaying characteristics of a misleading energy vampire, certainly expect to be more content as a result.
Kudos to those of you above that support the scientific spirit of PP, i.e. evidenced based arguements that welcome requests for more explanation.
I can do this now, Chris. I was wrong the first time because the important variable is radial distance from the earth’s axis. We have:
Initial location: ice sheets at high latitudes and high elevation, but overall close to the axis of rotation.
Final location: distributed more-or-less evenly throughout the oceans. Yes, water tends towards the equator, but that has already been happening, so the surface of the ocean is at equilibrium between the dominant gravitational force and the minor centrifugal force. On the net, it has moved farther from the equator. Since the centroid of the oceans is much closer to the equator than that of the melting ice sheets.
Result: rotation slows. Of course, there’s melting glaciers in the Andes and the few other high equatorial mountains, but that’s only a tiny amount of the total ice melt.
This problem has nothing whatever to do with sea level rise. It is a civil engineering problem of almost unimaginable magnitude. This city has been built – for all intents and purposes – almost precisely at predictable, recurring sea levels. It is already inescapably flooding from normal predicted tides and it will continue to flood unless sea level drops a foot or two, which is not going to happen during this millennium.—
Miami Beach is at such grave risk of sea water flooding today that it should preemptively be declared a disaster zone – not because of global-warming-driven sea level rise but due to a seeming total lack of sensible civil engineering standards and sensible building codes.—
Much of the above-ground infrastructure of Miami Beach was originally built on land in areas known to be below historical highest water levels (Maximum), and some of it built below normal highest tide levels (HAT and MHHW) – to make matters much worse, much of it is intentionally connected to the sea by canals cut for this purpose.
Almost all of the underground infrastructure is below Mean Sea Level – this means utility cables, water lines, sewer lines, basements and storm drains. All subject to sea water intrusion and the resulting corrosion. Most of these features of a modern city have to be protected by pumps – which must have electrical power to continue to operate. Sewage must be pumped up into sewage treatment plants – storm drain water must be pumped up and back into the sea — it will not move when the power is out.
Hurricanes, the biggest natural disaster threat to the area, in addition to the terrific damage caused by the forces of high winds and surf, can dump inches-to-feet of rain causing fresh-water flooding, raise sea level with storm surge causing sea water flooding and knock out power transmission lines thus stopping or destroying most of the pumps that keep Miami Beach’s infrastructure going. Auxiliary generators can only keep going for so long before running out of fuel; fuel which cannot be delivered across flooded causeways and through flooded streets.—
Some areas of Miami Beach (and other seaside cities built on barrier islands, sandbars and/or built on fill in tidal zones) will suffer higher rates of subsidence as soil is slowly washed out from under the buildings and roads by the coming and going of the tides in nearby waterways – a process that can be abated only at great expense.—
Miami Beach was once a pleasant seaside resort and agricultural community on the sandy barrier island off of Florida’s southern coast. It should have been left that way. If development was imperative it should have been subjected to long-term realistic planning that would have prevented the present-day disaster-in-waiting.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/12/07/miamis-vice/
…as those who will not see.
My retired meteorologist tells me that he refuses to engage with trolls because they argue on the basis of little or no real knowledge of the topic they’re addressing. To argue is totally futile.
In spite of its manifest defects, science is still largely a self-checking, self-correcting, peer-review process. As sea levels rise, one might enter into a pier-review process, to find the best haven for one’s boat. (Hey, that was a good pun, wasn’t it!) It is beyond belief that thousands of professional scientists are all duped and in the same manner. Is it not the goal of all scientists to find flaws in established theory and to enhance their reputation by bringing forward a new and better one? Why in the name of logic would they manufacture and cling to falsehoods?
As I said earlier, it seems that the CC deniers constitute an increasingly desperate set of outliers who for whatever reasons cannot confront reality. This includes politicians and the business community who must be suffering from severe cognitive dissonance as they see their world failing.
You mean your retired meteorologist friend that worked for the Australian Bureau of Meteorology?
This corrupt and scandal-ridden BOM?
THE BOM LIST grows — Scandal after scandal
BOM Scandal: One second records in Australia — how “noise” creates history and a warming trend
Another BOM scandal: Australian climate data is being destroyed as routine practice
BOM scandal: “smart cards” filter out coldest temperatures. Full audit needed ASAP!
BOM scandal heats up: Kininmonth, Watts, Nova quoted in The Australian “We audit banks, why not BOM?”
Scandal: Australian Bureau of Meteorology caught erasing cold temperatures
On Sunday, Goulburn got colder than the BOM thought was possible (and a raw data record was “adjusted”).
Two-thirds of Australias warming due to “adjustments” — according to 84 historic stations
The mysterious BOM disinterest in hot historic Australian Stevenson screen temperatures
The lost climate knowledge of Deacon 1952: hot dry summers from 1880-1910
1953 Headline: Melbourne’s weather is changing! Summers getting colder and wetter
The mysterious lost hot Sunday in Bourke, did it really happen?
Wow, look at those BOM adjustments – trends up by two degrees C!
Australian BOM “neutral” adjustments increase minima trends up 50%
Was the Hottest Day Ever in Australia not in a desert, but in far south Albany?!
Hottest summer record in Australia? Not so, says UAH satellite data
Mystery black-box method used to make all new Australian “hottest” ever records
BOMs new data set, ACORN, so bad it should be withdrawn (954 min temps larger than the max!)
Threat of ANAO Audit means Australia’s BOM throws out temperature set, starts again, gets same results
Australian Temperatures in cities adjusted up by 70%!?
Hi Dave,
I think you are on the right track, but maybe used the wrong term. Since we now have “social media influencers” and many other types of “influencers” I think it would be apt to say Old Guy is a “Climate Change Influencer” seeking to sway things in ways that are beneficial to him, in whatever capacity. Not much else makes sense to me.
Jan