Global Warming is to blame???

Pages

418 posts / 0 new
Last post
TUFFdog's picture
TUFFdog
Offline
Joined: 9/19/06

How ignorant are we to think we can influence or control the climate. Fossil fuels account for 0.3% of the carbon emissions. Just sayin. Not that anyone should care because again man-made climate change is just plain ignorance.

Once a King, Always a King

But once a Knight is never enough

johnr's picture
johnr
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 2/18/04

TUFFdog Said:
How ignorant are we to think we can influence or control the climate. Fossil fuels account for 0.3% of the carbon emissions. Just sayin. Not that anyone should care because again man-made climate change is just plain ignorance.

however if we try real hard we can maybe talk a AGW Lib into rational thought. Maybe we can get them to put down the kool aid.

Neat

fishmahn's picture
fishmahn
Offline
Joined: 12/30/10

Hardwaterman,  When you're talking National academy of Sciences,  Nasa etc.. you are dealing with facts not politics but I'll get to that later.  You didn't care to comment on your previous statement of deforestation?
IN the last 50 years the average fraction of global co2 emissions that remain are over 40% that are not picked up by the earth sink.  AS I stated before from  the last 650000 years till 1950 co2 had never gone above 300 ppm.  I t was in the 180 ppm -300 ppm.  It is now over 390.  This is a fact.  The polar ice sheets are melting.  The land ice is melting.  The earth is warming and oceans are rising.   Previously (going back 650000 years)  the sinks stayed in tune with the excess until  the industrial revolution.   All facts right?  To say we can do nothing because we can't precisely predict  an occurrence to a particular model is silly.  I'm well aware that not everything falls in a distinct purely definable category.  Does the weatherman  always predict  everything 100% correctly?  There are other variables that do and will interject themselves periodically.  This doesn't change the fact of the trends and the larger picture.
Tuffstuff-You aren't trying to equate carbon to co2 on a 1 to 1 basis like fox are you?  IF you are someone is ignorant  I'll agree.  Maybe you need to look at the chemistry and properties on a molecular level of each faction and things will get clearer.
In respect to other gases such as water vapor let's compare the average time it's in the atmosphere which is about 9 days.  How about co2 and methane?  Now we're going to have to go to yrs and centuries.  Another thing, we directly influence co2 concentration but do nothing significant at  this time to the water vapor unless we're talking a small change in the form regional irrigation.
But  to a certain group of people nothing will change their minds until their dug  out of a fossilized river bed.  Maybe we should have just have switched to this thought at the beginning but I guess we chose the long way around.  Climate change is an aggressive move to the right wing ideals period.  Industrial capitalism and freedom from regulation is part of the ideology.  "To grant a statement of truth to climate change would question the freedom of unfettered capitalism".  YOur values are in direct conflict with taking on the problems concerned with climated change..  One of the republican front runners (Romney) made the statement that global warming is occurring and man is indeed playing a major role.  He's has been chastised by the conservatives and told it was political suicide with his party.  So tell me about politics , conspiracy and ignorance.

fishmahn's picture
fishmahn
Offline
Joined: 12/30/10

John r,
I'm impressed. Harvard or Princeton?

johnr's picture
johnr
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 2/18/04

UND, is that not good enough to qualify me for your elite club of Liberal thought

Neat

Hardwaterman's picture
Hardwaterman
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 11/6/02

fish we are not talking facts we are talking theory of what the levels actually mean and if they are the driver or the effect of another driver. You keep dancing around this issue because you cannot argue it from a substance point! Theory is not fact Fish!

Now enough dancing around the issue, the science is incomplete to determine which is which and even if there is the substantial risks that you claim are eminent! The models are the ones that are predicting the end results the models are comprised of incomplete data to make them work. As I have stated before these same models cannot produced the climate conditions we have records for nor the conditions the fossil records are indicating existed.

These are the facts, Fish not your spin!

You can repeat the same stuff over and over and over, and it will not make it fact,!

In my lifetime I have seen fence row to fence row farming and the return of CRP and game to the landscape.Now we face again the prosepect of fence row to fence row again! Sportsman are our own worst enemy in that we fail to look forward and focus to much on the now!

eyexer's picture
eyexer
Offline
Joined: 2/28/07

I thought it was beyond assinine for scientists to try and convince us that looking at temperatures over 150 or so years and coming to a conclusion the earth is warming up.  But now fish is trying to convince us ten years is all that is needed.  any scientist that looks at 150 years worth of data when the earth is millions of years old, and draws a definitive conclusion on those 150 years is beyond moronic.  And it's even worse that people actually buy that BS.

 

fishmahn's picture
fishmahn
Offline
Joined: 12/30/10

Hardwaterman,
No, what I mentioned are facts. Things that can be measured in depth and breadth are facts not a theory. The thing you seem to be constantly missing is the FACT that I agree the models need more data. When have I said that is not necessary? However getting more data would be a corrupt ,money scamming procedure by scientists world wide and should be halted at all costs correct? As I will reiterate the models do need more data and with more data the reproducibility
becomes much better. Just for example take a model from relatively recent history (around 500 years ago ) and consider the time that the Sahara became a dessert. You'll find the actual outcome is much more severe then the model predicts. This is something the climate change nay sayers wouldn't want to believe. It is very possible we are living with a false sense of security isn't it? . I have no spin. I hear enough of that from people that repeat the politics of the matter.

Eyexer-Speak something other then fluff and you may get a response.

Hardwaterman's picture
Hardwaterman
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 11/6/02

You prove my point again fish, the modeling does not work and has not worked. The premise of AGW is based on the outcome of these models. Do you get it????????????????????????

So we go back over and over and over the same ground again and again, currently we do not have enough data to produce a working model. The theory though from the data that we do have along with the created data have produced a theory that we have AGW! Are you following!

AGW is not a FACT, it is a theory!

What is a fact is that our planet, other than a few dips has been on a consistent warming trend since the end of the ice age. Fact is that temps have been warmer in our not so distant history. The time frame leading up to the start of the Little Ice Age. ( Remember Mann on this)

Now what may very well be a fact is that the last 10 years have been the warmest overall globally only since we have been able to keeping global records . What is a fact is that a 10-20-30 year period is not a significant period in time in relationship to our climate shifts!
Those periods are used though by alarmist and people like you to try and shore up a failing argument!

So stop insisting that AGW is a FACT, GW has been occurring for well over 10,000 years !

In my lifetime I have seen fence row to fence row farming and the return of CRP and game to the landscape.Now we face again the prosepect of fence row to fence row again! Sportsman are our own worst enemy in that we fail to look forward and focus to much on the now!

fishmahn's picture
fishmahn
Offline
Joined: 12/30/10

Hardwater,
I'm afraid you don't get it.  Yes I speak recent history or as far back as you want to go.  You seem to be hung up on a definition and can't get past that to actually have an open mind.  I hate to be redundant but on one hand you say there is not enough data but on the other hand  you say looking for more data is nothing but a conspiracy and total corruption, or are you changing your mind on that now?  With that said you seem to be simplistically attempting to compare apples to chimps.  In the life of the earths 4500 million year history there have been changes in the earths climate needless to say.    If you were around then you'd find a different countryside.  It also was not a static environment.  There were things that caused changes such volcanic activity, meteorites and little things like  continental and ocean sea lane changes and variance in configurations.  As far as your warm period your perhaps you should read less from blogs.  (Ie Jason Aslingler. )  The warm period during the middle Holoscene did appear warmer then present day temps.  This WOULD raise the interest of climate scientists.  It is known that the temps were generally warmer but ONLY in the summers in tehe northern hemispere.  This was due to changes in thhe earths orbit that change the am ount of solar radiation reaching different  bands during each month of the Earth.  One must remember it was also colder in  the winter then at present during this time period.
If one is going to compare one must not make generalized statements and forget the other variables.  Compare similar things and the evidence is obvious.    We are compiling excess greenhouse gases and the planet IS experiencing unprecedented warming.  You shouldn't let silly blogs, such as total forest acreage myths and a political agenda of unfettered industrial capitalism cloud your judgement.

Farnorth's picture
Farnorth
Offline
Joined: 5/23/02

You guys are having an interesting conversation.  It won't do any good though.  The whole subject has become 100% political.

I haven't committed a bunch of time to research so I'll let you argue the fine points.

I did peruse the NASA site and I'm struck by the graph that shows that CO2 levels have never been over 300 ppm in the last 650,000 years..... Until now.  That gets my attention but I've been told not to worry about it.  By some of the same people that said drilling for oil in the Gulf was perfectly safe.  Any problems could easily be handled.

I also know all about tipping points but we clearly know how to reverse any climatic changes quickly and easily so I won't worry about that either.

Just relax guys, we have zero affect on our environment.  Nothing we do can harm anything.  Live for today.  Balls to the wall.

TUFFdog's picture
TUFFdog
Offline
Joined: 9/19/06

My statements are not made on my values at all. I will only say it one more time. How ignorant are we to think that we can somehow influence a change in our climate. How ignorant are we to think that we can somehow influence the sun. How ignorant are we to think we can influence the solar system. We are just a small insignificant piece of the huge overall puzzle. I am not going to get into a pissing match with a bunch of facts and/or theories because they have no bearing to what I have stated before.

As far as my values go. Yep, you got me there. I sure do believe that a higher power controls everything. How dare me.

I don't care what political affiliation anyone is and no matter what you say fish, it is all based on theory. If anyone here reading this absorbs anything. The climate we have is millions of years old and there is no way we will ever solve it. NEVER. Problem solved. Next subject.

Once a King, Always a King

But once a Knight is never enough

gst's picture
gst
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 3/12/09

fishmahn Said:
I know this is difficult for the desciples of  Fox  silliness  that hang on every word of glen beck, bill oreily nand rush the druggy to accept  but Global Warming is based on facts.  The scientific community that  actually studies weather phenomenon does not dispute these facts.  Right wing pro fossil fuel advocates attempted to  high light a petition  signing by scientists  that have little to do with climatology.  As was stated   "Anyone can have their own opinion but you are not entitled to your own facts."
The data shows the past ten years have been the warmest on record.  The greenhouse effect is real, the more co2 that is present in the upper atmoshpere the hotter it becomes down here.  Denying this cannot undo facts.  Repeating a lie does not make it a fact.  Facts really should trump Fox fueled fairy tales.

Fish, you should really try  to get over this "willie" you have over Fox. It is beginning to sound like the mantra preached on most other "left leaning" "news" sources. You wouldn't be getting your talking points from them would you?

If you are going to come on this site and preach the facts as you know them on Global Warming, perhaps you would get a bet more respect for your "facts" if you used more than a ten year blink in time.

Please get outside of your "left leaning" circles and possibly consider that it may indeed be more than the "right wing" conspirators who are using their "own facts" to further an agenda.   I know, folks like Al Gore and company are purely concerned with the future of this planet and not in making any profits from their idealist driven agendas they cuse to manipulate other zealots to research/create "facts" for thru funding more and more agenda based research. You know all that "useful idiot" stuff.

Nah, that would never happen right? 

scary man's picture
scary man
Offline
Joined: 4/23/11

it could be that co2 levels increase if it were warmer, it is just that some would say that co2 causes "global warming" because they are so close together. just a little chem questian, but dosn't CO2 sink as it is hevier than nitrogen or O2? that would mean that co2 could not cause "global warming"/ "climate change".

free thinker = no thinker

gst's picture
gst
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 3/12/09

fishmahn Said:
 The warm period during the middle Holoscene did appear warmer then present day temps.  This WOULD raise the interest of climate scientists.  It is known that the temps were generally warmer but ONLY in the summers in tehe northern hemispere.  This was due to changes in thhe earths orbit that change the am ount of solar radiation reaching different  bands during each month of the Earth.  One must remember it was also colder in  the winter then at present during this time period.
If one is going to compare one must not make generalized statements and forget the other variables.  judgement.

So fish, how do they know there was a "change" in the earths orbit back then? Fact or Theory?

If indeed this is "fact", how do you know there is not a miniscule change happening beyond what can be measured in the Earths orbit as we debate this subject that is the source of "global warming"? You would surely think in a whole 10 years time  something would be noticeable!

So how much funding would these "scientist" obtain if they were to simply come out and say the Earths orbit is changing as we beleive it has in the past and there is nothing we can do about it?

Perhaps it is the Sun itself that is changing over what it was 100,000 years ago and releasing more solar radiation that is adding to global warming that has occured over the last 10 years.
.

Naw, Al Gore must be right about all this, after all he did 'invent" the internet!

You would have thought that in inventing it he would have left out all the sources of scientific infromation that contradict his claims. Apparently he is simply counting on people like  fish to convince us all they are merely right wing conspiracies.

fisherman25's picture
fisherman25
Offline
Joined: 11/26/10

Al Gore is a fricken genius.  After getting totally crushed in his pathetic presidential run, he created the most profitable hoax to ever hit the United States.  Not to mention, it was a huge part of why we are now in a recession.  Thanks to no thinking deciples like fish, most of the country struggles every day. 

Hardwaterman's picture
Hardwaterman
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 11/6/02

So your saying the most recent reports on the Holocene period out of Norway is bogus but Mann claim of regional bias for the northern hemisphere is gospel?

This stuff keeps getting better and better with you! To defend Mann Hockey stick and use the excuse you did tells it all!

So to be clear, I am for more studies, and these studies need to be done without the bias influence. Simply report the data as it is, not as you want it to be and include the items that do not favor your position regarding AGW...

I think a lot of people in this field would and could do this! It is evident in the statements and lack of confidence in the so called gate keepers from the actual field researchers!

In my lifetime I have seen fence row to fence row farming and the return of CRP and game to the landscape.Now we face again the prosepect of fence row to fence row again! Sportsman are our own worst enemy in that we fail to look forward and focus to much on the now!

Storm Rider's picture
Storm Rider
Offline
Joined: 11/15/10

Does it really matter when the continents will be back together in 200-250k years and we will kill each other?

I just hope my ancestors still have their guns.


Storm Rider's picture
Storm Rider
Offline
Joined: 11/15/10

The Earth was flat for around 4.5 billion years and became round in the past "few" years.

How many years did it take for humans to believe that the world was round when someone said it?

Just remember this Farnorth,  along time ago, money was not involved in science.

Einstein did his thing working in a patent office and that was recent. 

Farnorth Said:
You guys are having an interesting conversation.  It won't do any good though.  The whole subject has become 100% political.

I haven't committed a bunch of time to research so I'll let you argue the fine points.

I did peruse the NASA site and I'm struck by the graph that shows that CO2 levels have never been over 300 ppm in the last 650,000 years..... Until now.  That gets my attention but I've been told not to worry about it.  By some of the same people that said drilling for oil in the Gulf was perfectly safe.  Any problems could easily be handled.

I also know all about tipping points but we clearly know how to reverse any climatic changes quickly and easily so I won't worry about that either.

Just relax guys, we have zero affect on our environment.  Nothing we do can harm anything.  Live for today.  Balls to the wall.


Farnorth's picture
Farnorth
Offline
Joined: 5/23/02

Big Rack Said:
The Earth was flat for around 4.5 billion years and became round in the past "few" years.

How many years did it take for humans to believe that the world was round when someone said it?

Just remember this Farnorth,  along time ago, money was not involved in science.

Einstein did his thing working in a patent office and that was recent. 

You're serious right?  Money was ALWAYS involved in science and research.

Why do you think Columbus (an Italian) was financed by Spain?  WTF?  Do you think ANY of our technological advances would have been possible without either monetary funding up front or the potential to get it later.  Get a clue.

I'm not arguing the whole Global Warming thing.  There is plenty more data to collect and studies to be done.  To say it is all a hoax is retarded. 

I simply looked at the section of the NASA website.  So, do you think NASA is some massive Left Wing conspiracy?

 

simmsjs's picture
simmsjs
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 1/8/04

 

TUFFdog Said:

My statements are not made on my values at all. I will only say it one more time. How ignorant are we to think that we can somehow influence a change in our climate. How ignorant are we to think that we can somehow influence the sun. How ignorant are we to think we can influence the solar system. We are just a small insignificant piece of the huge overall puzzle. I am not going to get into a pissing match with a bunch of facts and/or theories because they have no bearing to what I have stated before.

As far as my values go. Yep, you got me there. I sure do believe that a higher power controls everything. How dare me.

I don't care what political affiliation anyone is and no matter what you say fish, it is all based on theory. If anyone here reading this absorbs anything. The climate we have is millions of years old and there is no way we will ever solve it. NEVER. Problem solved. Next subject.

IT IS BETTER TO ASK FOR FORGIVENESS THAN ASK FOR PERMISSION!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

fishmahn's picture
fishmahn
Offline
Joined: 12/30/10

The logic by some here is convoluted to say the least.  We as a specie are incapable of changing our environment?  Wake up people and look around.  Who do you suppose is responsible for things like the Great Pacific garbage patch?  It's size is immense and is presently affecting the marine ecosystem.  The plastics types that do degenerate more quickly release bispenol A,  pcb's and derivatives of polystryin  This is ultimately ingested and  passes down the food chain.   How about the way we're playing with antibiotics?  We've developed new super bacteria that are neither gram positive or negative but gram variable.  Are you people saying we don't have the capability to blow this planet to hell??  We seem to be painting ourselves into a corner.  The reason most of this is  happening has to do with money and political agenda's. How disgusting can it get??  Some are getting rich but it's a small minority.  The rest that follow  are just lemmings without a clue.  I hate to be so blunt but it seems quite straight forward.  Those of you who claim we have no control of anything encourage the repeated past mistakes.
I believe God gave a brain to use.  We are capable of change.  If  one is so simple and lazy as to accept our own insignificance because it's convenient for us at this time,  I really don't think he will  step in an attempt to save us.  IF we don't make an effort to change, we truly are not a specie worth saving.  We're merely a parasite that had a brief ride on this planet.

cynical's picture
cynical
Offline
Joined: 10/27/04

fishmahn Said:
The logic by some here is convoluted to say the least.  We as a specie are incapable of changing our environment?  Wake up people and look around.  Who do you suppose is responsible for things like the Great Pacific garbage patch?  It's size is immense and is presently affecting the marine ecosystem.  The plastics types that do degenerate more quickly release bispenol A,  pcb's and derivatives of polystryin  This is ultimately ingested and  passes down the food chain.   How about the way we're playing with antibiotics?  We've developed new super bacteria that are neither gram positive or negative but gram variable.  Are you people saying we don't have the capability to blow this planet to hell??  We seem to be painting ourselves into a corner.  The reason most of this is  happening has to do with money and political agenda's. How disgusting can it get??  Some are getting rich but it's a small minority.  The rest that follow  are just lemmings without a clue.  I hate to be so blunt but it seems quite straight forward.  Those of you who claim we have no control of anything encourage the repeated past mistakes.
I believe God gave a brain to use.  We are capable of change.  If  one is so simple and lazy as to accept our own insignificance because it's convenient for us at this time,  I really don't think he will  step in an attempt to save us.  IF we don't make an effort to change, we truly are not a specie worth saving.  We're merely a parasite that had a brief ride on this planet.

Some use their brains to try and defraud people of huge sums of money by playing on emotions.

"The only enemy of guns is rust and politicians."

"The best defense against usurpatory government is an assertive citizenry."

William F. Buckley, Jr.
"Unarmed helplessness is for sheep and the French."  Ted Nugent

"The beauty of the second amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it."
 -Thomas Jefferson

The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.
-Thomas Jefferson

 

 

fisherman25's picture
fisherman25
Offline
Joined: 11/26/10

Farnorth Said:

Big Rack Said:
The Earth was flat for around 4.5 billion years and became round in the past "few" years.

How many years did it take for humans to believe that the world was round when someone said it?

Just remember this Farnorth,  along time ago, money was not involved in science.

Einstein did his thing working in a patent office and that was recent. 

You're serious right?  Money was ALWAYS involved in science and research.

Why do you think Columbus (an Italian) was financed by Spain?  WTF?  Do you think ANY of our technological advances would have been possible without either monetary funding up front or the potential to get it later.  Get a clue.

I'm not arguing the whole Global Warming thing.  There is plenty more data to collect and studies to be done.  To say it is all a hoax is retarded. 

I simply looked at the section of the NASA website.  So, do you think NASA is some massive Left Wing conspiracy?

 

Thanks for the name calling!    Your good at that! 
I'll remember that statement. 

gst's picture
gst
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 3/12/09

So fish, you thought it best to convince people of their affects on this planet and effect change in how they veiw things by coming on here and making one condescending statement after another towards these very people and others that simply questiopn your source of "facts"?

If you wish to have a serious debate where by people can be influenced, start by answering questions asked directly of you even if you beleive they will not impact favorably on your position in the debate rather than trying to overwhelm and baffle with your self deduced superior knowledge you try to demonstrate in your posts. You know all that "useful idiot" kind of posturing that was discussed in an earlier thread. 

 Remember all the knowledge you beleive you have over others is avalible to everyone else simply by typing a few key search words on the internet. All thanks to Al Gore.

espringers's picture
espringers
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 7/25/07

heck of a discussion. talk about a group of rams butting their heads together. lol. anyone got a headache yet?  i ain't about to get into the debate about the merits of AGW again cause its pointless.  but, i've got to respond to the idea that we couldn't possibly influence our environment... that is just plain silly!  maybe we are maybe we aren't... you guys can work that out amongst yourself and your god.  but, i really can't see how there can be any doubt that our actions on this earth have the potential to affect its climate.  imnsho, we are much more than an insignificant piece to the puzzle. 

Born to hunt and fish... Forced to work!

Farnorth's picture
Farnorth
Offline
Joined: 5/23/02

fisherman25 Said:

Farnorth Said:

Big Rack Said:
The Earth was flat for around 4.5 billion years and became round in the past "few" years.

How many years did it take for humans to believe that the world was round when someone said it?

Just remember this Farnorth,  along time ago, money was not involved in science.

Einstein did his thing working in a patent office and that was recent. 

You're serious right?  Money was ALWAYS involved in science and research.

Why do you think Columbus (an Italian) was financed by Spain?  WTF?  Do you think ANY of our technological advances would have been possible without either monetary funding up front or the potential to get it later.  Get a clue.

I'm not arguing the whole Global Warming thing.  There is plenty more data to collect and studies to be done.  To say it is all a hoax is retarded. 

I simply looked at the section of the NASA website.  So, do you think NASA is some massive Left Wing conspiracy?

 

Thanks for the name calling!    Your good at that! 
I'll remember that statement. 

Namecalling?  Apparently you can't read?  Point it out.

Harleyyukon's picture
Harleyyukon
Offline
Joined: 12/25/07

fisherman25 Said:
Al Gore is a fricken genius.  After getting totally crushed in his pathetic presidential run

Hmmmm 
I must have missed that election the one I remember he ran in Al Gore had the most votes

bigguy1's picture
bigguy1
Offline
Joined: 12/12/06

June 28, 2011

Warmist Cargo Cult Science Returns

By Timothy Birdnow

Michael Mann, Pennsylvania State University climate Svengali, a member of the CRU (he figured prominently in the e-mail scandals at East Anglia), and great Pittsburgh Penguins fan (he created the famed "hockey stick graph" that was so influential on the 2007 IPCC Climate Change report) has stepped in it again, this time co-authoring a new study (Kemp et. al) that claims to show a massive acceleration in sea level rise in North Carolina that coincides with the industrial era.

This study claims to reconstruct 2,000 years of sea levels. (It actually extrapolates from a study of shallow salt marshes with an historical reconstruction going back 300 years and based on the prevalence of foraminifera fossils to reconstruct the past sea levels. These reside in the very shallow, sandy pools and die in deeper waters, so theoretically we can see where sea levels were in the past.) They used tide gauge data to calibrate. By observing agreement between direct observations and this proxy reconstruction they can estimate the rate of rise and extrapolate into the past. Or so they claim.

They were exhaustive in their methodology; choosing a whopping two points (Sand Point and Tump Point) to study the fossils and calibrating from data from two other points (Wilmington and Hampton Roads). Their conclusion? Sea level rise has accelerated, and this "correlates" to the industrial era.

According to the abstract:

Sea level was stable from at least BC 100 until AD 950. Sea level then increased for 400 y at a rate of 0.6 mm/y, followed by a further period of stable, or slightly falling, sea level that persisted until the late 19th century. Since then, sea level has risen at an average rate of 2.1 mm/y, representing the steepest century-scale increase of the past two millennia. This rate was initiated between AD 1865 and 1892.

Louisiana comes to mind.

Louisiana has lost considerable coastal marshland as a result of human intervention. Flood control dams and levees prevent swollen rivers from picking up silt, and dredging to keep the coastal waterways open move the silt from its natural place, leading to erosion of the coastal shallows. According to this Tulane.edu paper:

The main forms of human disturbance are the river-control structures such as dams and levees, the dredging of canals, and draining and filling.

[...]

A large part of the sediment gathered by existing marshes is accumulated during seasonal flooding. Flood overtopping and overbank sedimentation, both vital to the survival of existing marshes, were dramatically reduced as large areas ceased to be flooded. River water also helped to reduce marsh salinity and provide nutrients, and its loss has resulted in the breakup and dispersal of large amounts of nutrient-starved marshlands.

And without the extra silt brought from floodwaters, the shallows are subject to erosion and breakup. This would clearly warp the fossil record, but would also warp the tidal gauge record as well; the sea would appear to be rising when in fact the land is sinking, being washed away.

Writing in Wattsupwiththat, Willis Eschenbach provides us with a map of the North Carolina sites from 1733 juxtaposed with a satellite photo from 1990. Notice the radical difference between the two.

Clearly, erosion is a problem here, yet the authors of the paper fail to give it any credence. Of course the fossil record will show sea level rise!

As to the "correlation" between the industrial era and this increase in rise rate, well, the rate increase appears to begin around 1880, well before the rise in industrial emissions. It would not be before increases in land-use change that would contribute to erosion.

The only plus in this work is that Mann signs off on the Medieval Warming Period and Little Ice Age -- something he steadfastly refused to do while defending his "hockey stick graph." This paper admits that both occurred, and the authors should have realized that this also explains why there was sea-level rise increase during the 19th century, but it seems to go over their heads.

Of course, older tide gauge data is likely to be poor, too, and the older data is suspect.

And it's not even consistent with itself. According to Willis Eschenbach:

The first conclusion is that as is not uncommon with sea level records, nearby tide gauges give very different changes in sea level. In this case, the Wilmington rise is 2.0 mm per year, while the Hampton Roads rise is more than twice that, 4.5 mm per year. In addition, the much shorter satellite records show only half a mm per year average rise for the last twenty years.

So they have taken two, count them, two records and averaged them!

This also contradicts all other studies that show a far lower sea-level rise.

This is in no way, shape, or form science; it is advocacy in costume. It's a play with sets, props, actors pretending to be a work of science. There was a predetermined outcome, the sites of study were chosen with that outcome in mind, and the authors issued a big, glossy press release before the publication of the paper in order to make a splash with the salivating dogs of the mainstream media. They knew this would be analyzed to death, but wanted it to get before the public first. Likely the public would hear that, yes, sea levels are rising faster and would get little of the rebuttal.

Despite this, people like Mann continue their climatological malpractice, and are even accorded respect. Such shoddy workmanship in any other field would put the principal into another line of work.

But not in climatology; being a charlatan hack seems to be de rigueur.

During the Second World War Allied airfields brought wonderful treasures to New Guinea, and when the war ended the natives, believing the airplanes were from the gods, built their own airports, hoping to use sympathetic magic to bring back the planes and their wondrous treasures. Richard Feynman coined the phrase "cargo cult science" to illustrate a form of pseudo-science, something that looked like science but was not -- like the "airports" of the islanders.

This is cargo cult science at its most onerous.

Timothy Birdnow is a St. Louis-based writer. He blogs at www.tbirdnow.mee.nu.

Db's picture
Db
Offline
AMATEUR
Joined: 9/11/09

fishmahn:
As I said it can get rough on this site. no, yes 

Espinger:
I agree.  I do not have the knowledge that the two of those on here have.  But a little common sense tells me there are enough people on this earth that our action will have reactions.  To what degree and how I do not know.
Along time ago my dad had a discussion with me about what effect the garrison dam and that body of water will have on whatever.  Long before the al gore line of ideals.
He felt, as the saying goes, water attracts water and that body of water will help us out with our rainfall if not in the ground water and ground streams.  No ideal but that man made dam has had some kind of affect on something.
And so.
Have another beer, protect the rights granted us, preserve our environment, plant a tree and do not piss in the ocean.  db

Db

Pages