1970 "Erff Day" Predictions

[Traveler]

http://www.aei.org/publication/18-spectacularly-wrong-predictions-made-around-the-time-of-first-earth-day-in-1970-expect-more-this-year/

 

[Mike]

So much for science.

 

[Brad S]

The left masquerades as scientists whenever it's convenient, now they're saying science proves an unborn person isn't a person. Perhaps we should consult the left about racial tolerance also. Their solution for everything is always more restrictive governmert control

 

[Steve]

18. Kenneth Watt warned about a pending Ice Age in a speech. "The world has been chilling sharply for about twenty years," he declared. "If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990, but eleven degrees colder in the year 2000. This is about twice what it would take to put us into an ice age."

well that didn't happen... niether did Al Gore's predictions..

for a bit of reality...

what about sea level data? How accurate is that?

There are some considerable problems and uncertainties regarding the ways we collect that data. To do this we use two different methods, tidal gauges and satellite measurements. Much of my particular expertise involves the latter.

There are about two dozen tidal gauge stations in the world, with data going back to the early 1900s which have been used by international tidal gauge network in Liverpool, England. These stations measure relative sea level with respect to coastal land surface. A big problem is that ever since the melting of glacial ice cover from northern continents over several millennia, the land surface has rebounded in some places…a process called "isostatic adjustment". This is like what a mattress does when you get out of bed, only a whole lot slower. At the same time, many tidal stations have been sinking due to coastal subsidence caused by depletion of groundwater...yes, by humans… that has led to compaction of sediments.

Sea level satellite observations date back only to 1993, which is a very short time to draw trend conclusions. Whereas tidal stations measure the sea level relative to coastal land surface, satellites measure "absolute" sea level independent of vertical coastal surface changes. In this regard, satellites have an inherent advantage over tidal stations, but the figures don't match up.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2013/09/24/alarmists-are-in-way-over-their-heads-on-rising-ocean-claims/#7177de631194

a really good article that separates some hype from the "political/religious liberal" debate.

So then, how does IPCC arrive at its alarmist conclusions?

When in doubt, and they always are, they just make them up


In other words, let's keep our heads above the water line and not get too feverish about what we hear from IPCC. After all, even Al Gore seems to have changed his mind about the threat. In his An Inconvenient Truth film, didn't he feature an animation depicting a sudden global-warming-induced break-up of the Antarctic Peninsula's Larson-B ice shelf in 2002, suggesting that the entire Greenland Ice Sheet might suffer the same fate during this century?

But if he was still really worried, why would he risk making an underwater investment in a big $9 million ocean-view villa in Montecito, California?

 

[Steve]

How NOAA spins it.

What's the difference between global and local sea level?

Global sea level trends and relative sea level trends are different measurements. Just as the surface of the Earth is not flat, the surface of the ocean is also not flat—in other words, the sea surface is not changing at the same rate globally. Sea level rise at specific locations may be more or less than the global average due to many local factors: subsidence, upstream flood control, erosion, regional ocean currents, variations in land height, and whether the land is still rebounding from the compressive weight of Ice Age glaciers.

http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/subsidence.html

Sea level is primarily measured using tide stations and satellite laser altimeters. Tide stations around the globe tell us what is happening at a local level—the height of the water as measured along the coast relative to a specific point on land. Satellite measurements provide us with the average height of the entire ocean. Taken together, these tools tell us how our ocean sea levels are changing over time.

in other words if we "ignore" that the ground is sinking and raising we can "claim" the sea level is rising due to global warming... but the fact is the data is based on land mass tidal measures fro most of the last century and sediment fro the rest... both of which are sinking and rising.

the raw data from the satellites showed no increase in global sea level at all.
The raw data from the TOPEX/POSEIDON sea-level satellites, which operated from 1993-2000, shows a slight uptrend in sea level. However, after exclusion of the distorting effects of the Great El Niño Southern Oscillation of 1997/1998, a naturally-occurring event, the sea-level trend is zero.
The GRACE gravitational-anomaly satellites are able to measure ocean mass, from which sea-level change can be directly calculated. The GRACE data show that sea level fell slightly from 2002-2007.
These two distinct satellite systems, using very different measurement methods, produced raw data reaching identical conclusions: sea level is barely rising, if at all.
http://joannenova.com.au/2012/12/are-sea-levels-rising-nils-axel-morner-documents-a-decided-lack-of-rising-seas/

if you want more on how scientist Ignore important data...

When looking at how SSH changes in time, oceanographers typically assume that the geoid is constant and it is only the dynamic topography which is changing. This is generally a good approximation at periods of a few years or less, but long-term changes in the geoid will eventually become important.

In addition, coastal cities around the world are built upon the Earth's crust. Thus, even if the water volume of the ocean was constant, a city will be inundated if the local region is subsiding. (Tide gauges directly measure this relative sea-level change, whereas an independent measure of the crustal motion is needed to convert a measurement from a satellite to a relative sea-level measurement, as described below.) Therefore, to understand observed long-term sea-level changes, particularly at the vulnerable coastlines, it becomes essential to account for both the crustal motion and geoid changes.

http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/372/2025/20130336

lots more stuff is ignored, but those are a few of the large ones...

 

[burnt]

That's pretty interesting work there Steve. Good info.

 

[Steve]

That's pretty interesting work there Steve. Good info.

Thanks.. I think we all know land sinks and rises, we have likely all saw and dealt with it on small scales, but it is hard to comprehend on a large scale. I was a bit shocked to learn the tide stations are more suspect to this and little is done to calculate that into the factor of sea rise.

I guess when liberal scientists wants an answer they forget about what science is supposed to be. :roll:

for instance.. Glaciers.. they flow,.. it snows, and with a cold or mild season it grows.. a hotter season it shrinks...

But why do liberal scientists ignore one key factor,.. snow or precipitation levels? If the snow is not replaced it will shrink eventually.. but my understanding is past snow accumulations as well as current are all but ignored in factoring their rate of decline..

so next time a liberal says the ocean is rising, ask how much the land is sinking... and watch them squirm to figure out the answer.

 

[Steve]

The key issue is whether the sea level rise during the past 50 years reflect an acceleration in sea level rise. The IPCC figure 3.14 suggests that there is no acceleration, given the large rates of sea level rise in the first half of the 20th century. Until we have an understanding of variations in decadal and multi-decadal sea level rise, we can't make a convincing argument as to acceleration.

With regards to coastal planning, I absolutely agree with the paper linked to above. Locations where sea level rise is a problem invariably have rates of sea level rise that are much greater than even the altimeter values of 3.2 mm/yr are caused by local geologic processes, land use, and or coastal/river engineering. Global values of sea level rise have essentially no use in coastal planning.

Sea level will continue to rise, no matter what we do about CO2 emissions.

https://judithcurry.com/2016/02/23/is-sea-level-rise-accelerating/

the land in coastal areas are constantly changing, and using them as a place to sit tidal stations subjects them to the same changes... now with satellite data manipulated to show an increase we should start really questioning all the data based assumptions coming out..

 

[Traveler]

That's pretty interesting work there Steve. Good info.

:agree:

 

[burnt]

That's pretty interesting work there Steve. Good info.

Thanks.. I think we all know land sinks and rises, we have likely all saw and dealt with it on small scales, but it is hard to comprehend on a large scale. I was a bit shocked to learn the tide stations are more suspect to this and little is done to calculate that into the factor of sea rise.

I guess when liberal scientists wants an answer they forget about what science is supposed to be. :roll:

for instance.. Glaciers.. they flow,.. it snows, and with a cold or mild season it grows.. a hotter season it shrinks...

But why do liberal scientists ignore one key factor,.. snow or precipitation levels? If the snow is not replaced it will shrink eventually.. but my understanding is past snow accumulations as well as current are all but ignored in factoring their rate of decline..

so next time a liberal says the ocean is rising, ask how much the land is sinking... and watch them squirm to figure out the answer.

I always thought of land levels as being static so that is an entirely new concept to me. And it makes sense now that you mention it. Like my wife just said when we were discussing this, "There's likely quite a bit more that we don't know..." LOL!

It made for some interesting reading - which left me feeling like a very small piece in a very complex creation!

And as far as "...liberal scientists want an answer...", you touch on one of the sadder facts of science today - the critical need for unbiased position sadly seems to have been lost. Even in a more innocent time, that was a difficult goal.

The problem is, then, that it casts a cloud of doubt over all scientific effort. And the outcome is driven by the preconception/ideology rather than pure discovery.

A product, I guess, of our post-modern, post-Christian age.

 

[Steve]

A product, I guess, of our post-modern, post-Christian age.

yep us flat earthers sure were draconian...

For the last 200 years or so, many anti-Christians have resorted to a scurrilous lie (acting consistently with their worldview1): that the early and medieval Christian Church taught that the earth is flat.

the leading church theologian and philosopher of the Middle Ages, Thomas Aquinas (1225–1274), wrote in his greatest work Summa Theologica/Theologiae:

"The physicist proves the earth to be round by one means, the astronomer by another: for the latter proves this by means of mathematics, e.g. by the shapes of eclipses, or something of the sort; while the former proves it by means of physics, e.g. by the movement of heavy bodies towards the centre, and so forth."

Columbus was trying to reach India by sea, the 'long way' around the earth. But to do that, his ships had to carry enough provisions for the length of the journey. He had learned that the 9th-century Persian astronomer Alfraganus had estimated each degree of latitude spanned "56⅔ miles". But Columbus thought Alfraganus meant the Roman mile (1,480 m, 4,856 ft), whereas he was using the Arabic mile (1,830 m, 6,004 ft). Thus Columbus thought that the earth's circumference was only about ¾ of its actual length of about 40,000 km (25,000 miles). Columbus also greatly underestimated the distance between Japan and the Canary Islands as 3,000 Italian miles (3,700 km or 2,300 miles), whereas the distance by sea is more like 19,600 km (12,200 miles).

It was thus the size of the earth, not the shape, that was under dispute. His critics argued that ships of his day (1492) could not carry enough fresh water and food for such a huge journey. And they were right! Columbus was just lucky that an enormous continent was in the way.

The much-parroted flat-earth myth about him comes not from history but from the tales of Washington Irving (1783–1859), The Life and Voyages of Christopher Columbus (1828). He admitted that he was "apt to indulge in the imagination." It was bad enough that this myth entered the public perception thanks to Irving's wide readership. But it became worse when it acquired the veneer of scholarship, so it could be used as a club with which to bash Christianity.

most take the symbols of a flat circular disk throughout the ages and only see the flat... how is it the circular disc is ignored?

Christianity allows me to imagine more then I can comprehend. Liberal progressives on the other hand can't seem to accept any view other then their own.

 

[Brad S]

lots of excellent scholarship Steve. obviously not as convincing as a poll. A poll of scientists. You know, real scientists - not Christians.

Your point about the religion of the left is perfect.

 

[Steve]

I am sure he didn't fly commercial,.. but the do as I say crowd sure fussed over him and the other celebrities.

Gore asked a security officer, "You want me here?" before stepping into the SUV, which appears to be a Suburban LT model, as seen in a logo behind the passenger door Gore entered. It is unknown if the large Chevy SUV was a flex fuel vehicle.

His latest film uses super-storm sandy footage,.. a total crock, it was an onshore wind from two storms colliding, not sea level rise. dramatic yes,.. but an inconvenient twist of the truth.