“The Last Time Carbon Dioxide Levels In The Atmosphere Were This High Was 3 Million Years Ago, And Sea Levels Were 20 Metres Higher Than Today.�

[Coss]

Comments in green are mine.

 

Poles apart: Climate change at the ends of the earth

 

Wednesday, 24 June 2015, 10:10 am

Press Release: Victoria University of Wellington

24 June 2015

 

“The last time carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere were this high was 3 million years ago, and sea levels were 20 metres higher than today.â€

 

Which begs the question, if all the Global Warming Alarmists are correct, why hasn't the sea risen 20 metres? The warming that's happened, and now stalled, has happened over a long enough period, to allow enough melting to have occurred, to raise the sea levels 20 metres, but curiously, I'm not seeing 20 metres, I went down to the harbour today to check.

 

That’s according to Victoria University of Wellington Professor James Renwick, whose sobering comment comes ahead of his upcoming inaugural lecture­—a public address to mark his professorial promotion.

 

Tempering this stark statistic just slightly, Professor Renwick notes that, unless methods can be found soon to significantly reduce carbon dioxide levels, future generations will likely face several metres of sea level rise—a prospect which will affect billions of people. What happened to 20 metres?

 

By primarily drawing comparisons between the two poles, Professor Renwick’s address, entitled A Tale of Two Hemispheres, will marry the science of man-made climate change with known natural occurrences in earth systems.

 

The focus will be on factors such as polar geography, the ozone hole, wave patterns and natural climate variations to show that, while the planet is warming overall, the impact will affect regions differently.

 

“Climate change doesn’t happen at the same rate everywhere or in the same way,†says Professor Renwick.

 

“We’re already observing obvious changes in climate in some parts of the world. Alaska, for instance, has experienced its warmest May ever, with large tracts of land having no snow­—a remarkable thing for the area at any time of year.

 

“New Zealand, on the other hand, isn’t expected to feel the sharp end of climate change until much later in the century.â€

 

He says the differences are most apparent at the earth’s poles, due primarily to different geographic profiles.

 

“In the case of the Arctic, there is almost no land mass north of latitude 70 degrees, meaning a relatively thin ice layer over the ocean. Antarctica, on the other hand, is a very large land mass, with ice up to 4 kilometres thick in some places.

 

“While the sea ice is very obviously diminishing in the Arctic, what we’re observing around Antarctica are increasing levels of sea ice.

 

“At first glance, this might seem to contradict the global warming story, but our satellite data suggests that this is likely due, in part, to the billions of tonnes of melted continent ice refreezing as sea ice.†So the ice still being ice, you know, frozen, means that it's not contradicting global warming?

 

Global weather systems interacting with each pole’s unique geography also influences ice development, with Professor Renwick particularly interested in the impact of La Niña and El Niño on sea ice.

 

He is also looking at how ocean waves, which are a product of weather, might influence sea ice development.

 

“In understanding future sea levels, it’s the ice sheets on the continent that are important.

 

“What’s worrying is that a lot of land ice is grounded below sea level, inland from the coast. If warming ocean water can penetrate under the ice sheets, there’s the potential to cause massive ice loss at a very rapid rate.â€

 

Professor Renwick’s inaugural lecture is open for the public to attend.

 

Event details:

 

When: 6pm, Tuesday 30 June, 2015.

Where: Memorial Theatre, Student Union Building, Kelburn Campus, Victoria University of Wellington

 

RSVP by Friday 26 June. Phone 04-463 6300 or email rsvp@vuw.ac.nz with ‘Renwick’ in the subject line.

[cavanami]

Who to believe

[StoneSoup]

Well, it looks like the British won't have to worry about Global Warming: http://www.express.co.uk/news/nature/586404/Britain-freezing-winters-slump-solar-activity

 

Cheers!

SS

[Coss]

Well, it looks like the British won't have to worry about Global Warming: http://www.express.c...-solar-activity

 

Cheers!

SS

 

Interesting article, I particularly like - "The Met Office-led study warns although the effect will be offset by recent global warming, Britain faces years of unusually cold winters."

 

They just can't let it go.

 

If we got a full blown ice age, they'd say - "but it would have been here three weeks earlier, but for Global Warming!"

 

​The point is obviously, that 'natural' changes, the 'real' climate changes, are much bigger and badder than Anthropogenic fiddling around at the edges.

 

 

[Guest]

http://www.friendsofscience.org/index.php?id=3

 

 

Myths / Facts

 

 

COMMON MISCONCEPTIONS ABOUT GLOBAL WARMING

 

MYTH 1: Global temperatures are rising at a rapid, unprecedented rate.

FACT: The HadCRUT3 surface temperature index, produced by the Hadley Centre of the UK Met Office and the Climate Research Unit of the University of East Anglia, shows warming to 1878, cooling to 1911, warming to 1941, cooling to 1964, warming to 1998 and cooling through 2011. The warming rate from 1964 to 1998 was the same as the previous warming from 1911 to 1941. Satellites, weather balloons and ground stations all show cooling since 2001. The mild warming of 0.6 to 0.8 C over the 20th century is well within the natural variations recorded in the last millennium. The ground station network suffers from an uneven distribution across the globe; the stations are preferentially located in growing urban and industrial areas ("heat islands"), which show substantially higher readings than adjacent rural areas ("land use effects"). Two science teams have shown that correcting the surface temperature record for the effects of urban development would reduce the reported warming trend over land from 1980 by half.

There has been no catastrophic warming recorded.

 

 

MYTH 2: The "hockey stick" graph proves that the earth has experienced a steady, very gradual temperature decrease for 1000 years, then recently began a sudden increase.

FACT: Significant changes in climate have continually occurred throughout geologic time. For instance, the Medieval Warm Period, from around 1000 to1200 AD (when the Vikings farmed on Greenland) was followed by a period known as the Little Ice Age. Since the end of the 17^th Century the "average global temperature" has been rising at the low steady rate mentioned above; although from 1940 – 1970 temperatures actually dropped, leading to a Global Cooling scare.

The "hockey stick", a poster boy of both the UN's IPCC and Canada's Environment Department, ignores historical recorded climatic swings, and has now also been proven to be flawed and statistically unreliable as well. It is a computer construct and a faulty one at that.

 

MYTH 3: Human produced carbon dioxide has increased over the last 100 years, adding to the Greenhouse effect, thus causing most of the earth's warming of the last 100 years.

FACT: Carbon dioxide levels have indeed changed for various reasons, human and otherwise, just as they have throughout geologic time. Since the beginning of the industrial revolution, the CO₂ content of the atmosphere has increased. The RATE of growth during this period has also increased from about 0.2% per year to the present rate of about 0.4% per year,which growth rate has now been constant for the past 25 years. However, there is no proof that CO₂ is the main driver of global warming. As measured in ice cores dated over many thousands of years, CO₂ levels move up and down AFTER the temperature has done so, and thus are the RESULT OF, NOT THE CAUSE of warming. Geological field work in recent sediments confirms this causal relationship. There is solid evidence that, as temperatures move up and down naturally and cyclically through solar radiation, orbital and galactic influences, the warming surface layers of the earth's oceans expel more CO₂ as a result.

 

MYTH 4: CO2 is the most common greenhouse gas.

FACT: Greenhouse gases form about 3% of the atmosphere by volume. They consist of varying amounts, (about 97%) of water vapour and clouds, with the remainder being gases like CO₂, CH₄, Ozone and N₂O, of which carbon dioxide is the largest amount. Hence, CO₂ constitutes about 0.04% of the atmosphere. While the minor gases are more effective as "greenhouse agents" than water vapour and clouds, the latter are overwhelming the effect by their sheer volume and – in the end – are thought to be responsible for 75% of the "Greenhouse effect". (See here) At current concentrations, a 3% change of water vapour in the atmosphere would have the same effect as a 100% change in CO2.

Those attributing climate change to CO₂ rarely mention these important facts.

 

MYTH 5: Computer models verify that CO2 increases will cause significant global warming.

FACT: The computer models assume that CO2 is the primary climate driver, and that the Sun has an insignificant effect on climate. Using the output of a model to verify its initial assumption is committing the logical fallacy of circular reasoning. Computer models can be made to roughly match the 20th century temperature rise by adjusting many input parameters and using strong positive feedbacks. They do not "prove" anything. Also, computer models predicting global warming are incapable of properly including the effects of the sun, cosmic rays and the clouds. The sun is a major cause of temperature variation on the earth surface as its received radiation changes all the time, This happens largely in cyclical fashion. The number and the lengths in time of sunspots can be correlated very closely with average temperatures on earth, e.g. the Little Ice Age and the Medieval Warm Period. Varying intensity of solar heat radiation affects the surface temperature of the oceans and the currents. Warmer ocean water expels gases, some of which are CO2. Solar radiation interferes with the cosmic ray flux, thus influencing the amount ionized nuclei which control cloud cover.

 

MYTH 6: The United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has proven that man–made CO2 causes global warming.

FACT: In a 1996 report by the UN on global warming, two statements were deleted from the final draft approved and accepted by a panel of scientists. Here they are:

1) “None of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can attribute the observed climate changes to increases in greenhouse gases.â€

2) “No study to date has positively attributed all or part of the climate change to man–made causesâ€

To the present day there is still no scientific proof that man-made CO2 causes significant global warming.

 

MYTH 7: CO2 is a pollutant.

FACT: This is absolutely not true. Nitrogen forms 80% of our atmosphere. We could not live in 100% nitrogen either. Carbon dioxide is no more a pollutant than nitrogen is. CO2 is essential to life on earth. It is necessary for plant growth since increased CO2 intake as a result of increased atmospheric concentration causes many trees and other plants to grow more vigorously. Unfortunately, the Canadian Government has included CO2 with a number of truly toxic and noxious substances listed by the Environmental Protection Act, only as their means to politically control it.

 

MYTH 8: Global warming will cause more storms and other weather extremes.

FACT: There is no scientific or statistical evidence whatsoever that supports such claims on a global scale. Regional variations may occur. Growing insurance and infrastructure repair costs, particularly in coastal areas, are sometimes claimed to be the result of increasing frequency and severity of storms, whereas in reality they are a function of increasing population density, escalating development value, and ever more media reporting.

 

MYTH 9: Receding glaciers and the calving of ice shelves are proof of global warming.

FACT: Glaciers have been receding and growing cyclically for hundreds of years. Recent glacier melting is a consequence of coming out of the very cool period of the Little Ice Age. Ice shelves have been breaking off for centuries. Scientists know of at least 33 periods of glaciers growing and then retreating. It’s normal. Besides, changes to glacier's extent is dependent as much on precipitation as on temperature.

 

MYTH 10: The earth’s poles are warming; polar ice caps are breaking up and melting and the sea level rising.

FACT: The earth is variable. The Arctic Region had warmed from 1966 to 2005, due to cyclic events in the Pacific Ocean and soot from Asia darkening the ice, but there has been no warming since 2005. Current temperatures are the same as in 1943. The small Palmer Peninsula of Antarctica is getting warmer, while the main Antarctic continent is actually cooling. Ice cap thicknesses in both Greenland and Antarctica are increasing.

Sea level monitoring in the Pacific (Tuvalu) and Indian Oceans (Maldives) has shown no sign of any sea level rise.

[StoneSoup]

For a good laugh, go to https://stevengoddar...polar-meltdown/ and scroll down the page - to see dozens of press clippings going back to the early 1800's, reporting - in almost every decade for the past 200 years - the ongoing and urgent catastrophe of current "unprecedented" warming of the Arctic.

 

Cheers!

SS

[cavanami]

So what do "they" want to do about this "meltdown"...institute the carbon tax....it's all about $$$

[baa99]

http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2014/06/12/global_warming_denial_calgary_billboard_is_laughably_wrong.html

 

But then, these “friends†of science are flat-out refusniks when it comes to global warming science; they deny the Earth is warming, they deny modern temperatures are spiking upward, they deny carbon dioxide is the main driver of global warming, they deny sea level rise is a problem, they deny deny deny. Perusing their website is fascinating; it could be used as a wiki set up specifically to collect all the ridiculous long-debunked anti-science denial claptrap in one place. I mean, c’mon, they even promote Christopher Monckton with a straight face!

 

http://billmoyers.com/2014/05/16/eight-pseudo-scientific-climate-claims-debunked-by-real-scientists/

 

But there’s a more sophisticated set of climate “skeptics†who make arguments that, at least to the lay ear, sound like they’re grounded in scientific evidence. And because most of us lack the background to evaluate their claims, they can muddy the waters around an issue that’s been settled in the scientific community.

 

So, as a public service, we gathered eight of the most common of these pseudoscientific arguments and asked some serious climate scientists — all working climatologists who have been widely published — to help us understand what makes these claims so misleading.

[Guest]

I take notice of someone that has been studying sea levels in the field for the past 35 years, and not some loud mouthed American politician.

 

There is one scientist who knows more about sea levels than anyone else in the world and that is the Swedish geologist and physicist Nils-Axel Mörner, formerly chairman of the INQUA International Commission on Sea Level Change.

 

http://www.telegraph...-ever-told.html

 

He has been studying sea levels all ove the world for 35 years his version is all this talk about the sea rising is nothing but a colossal scare story. Despite fluctuations down as well as up, "the sea is not rising," he says. " It hasn't risen in 50 years ." If there is any rise this century it will "not be more than 10cm (four inches), with an uncertainty of plus or minus 10cm". And quite apart from examining the hard evidence, he says, the elementary laws of physics (latent heat needed to melt ice) tell us that the apocalypse conjured up by Al Gore and Co could not possibly come about.

 

The reason why Dr Mörner, formerly a Stockholm professor, is so certain that these claims about sea level rise are 100 per cent wrong is that they are all based on computer model predictions, whereas his findings are based on "going into the field to observe what is actually happening in the real world".

[Guest]

Note :

 

He said this six years ago, has Al Gore or for that matter anyone proved him wrong, I don't think so, unless any board member knows different ....