Comments on: Morning Morgantown

By: samv

samv — Wed, 27 May 2009 05:05:13 +0000

another hint: sea level rise is not consistent all over the world. Water flows, but differences of 2mm here or there take a long time to distribute everywhere. I don’t have the exact figures handy, but even a metre of sea level rise in the Antarctic might take 20 years to reach the Pacific..

By: Laurence

Laurence — Tue, 26 May 2009 10:17:00 +0000

Information on sea level and related parameters at various locations in the South Pacific.
http://www.bom.gov.au/oceanography/projects/spslcmp/reports.shtml
The information collected supports scientific reports on sea level variations from climatic and gravitational influences, as well as geographic variations through tectonic movement and atoll decay.

The South Pacific Sea Level and Climate Monitoring Project home page here
http://www.bom.gov.au/pacificsealevel/index.shtml

By: John Hudon

John Hudon — Tue, 26 May 2009 08:02:19 +0000

Calm down Steve your bias is showing. We didn’t mention tectonic plates because they have nothing to do with what is happening on Takuu Island. Have you considered the western Pacific warm pool, La Nina, thermal expansion, spring tides coinciding with storms? Perhaps you should get up there and find out like the aussies have.

By: John Hudon

John Hudon — Tue, 26 May 2009 07:55:18 +0000

Apart from reading Wikipedia what makes you think Takuu Island is sinking?

By: John Hudon

John Hudon — Tue, 26 May 2009 07:48:55 +0000

Takuu Island is not sinking. Yes it lies in an area where two tectonic plates meet but the geological evidence gathered at the time of the flooding last year shows there are ancient reef fossils just off the Island that are up to a metre above sea level. New coral has formed below sea level. This shows that the Island is not subsiding. Perhaps you would like to tell this to Wikipedia.

By: Andrew W

Andrew W — Tue, 05 May 2009 23:03:51 +0000

From the Listener article:

Morgan: “People have very emotive, very predetermined views, and that typifies both sides”…”If I had one message, it is, ‘For God’s sake, stay objective, don’t get wound up by either sides polemics and emotion”

Morgan: “Are we satisfied as jurors that it has been proved beyond reasonable doubt that the cause of the warming is anthropogenic?” asks Morgan. “No, we’re not. But if we rephrase the question and ask, if, on the weight of the evidence presented, we think the cause of the warming is anthropogenic or natural, then we would say anthropogenic.”

Listener: “…the two authors seem to conclude” (that the IPCC) “is as willing as any other participant in the debate to play politics”.

Morgan: “The position we reached is that the science of anthropogenic global warming is almost impossible to argue with. Sceptics are light on coherent propositions that stack up against the coherent propositionon the other side”.

Listener: “But McCrystal says what gives the debate its urgency is that no one can wait for absolute certainty because the stakes are too high.
Indeed, because the book is devoted to exploring whether global warming is man-made, it ends just when it is getting interesting. If global warming is man-made, what can be done to stop it?”

Morgan: “if you ask by how much do we have to reduce emissions in order to [make a difference], I look at the numbers that are required and there’s not a show, not a shit-show of that happening. My first pass at it is, ‘You’ve got to be joking’.”

Listener: “Morgan says serious efforts to reduce emissions have to include China and India.”

By: StephenR

StephenR — Tue, 05 May 2009 10:01:20 +0000

Andrew W, in lieu of a free Listener, what were Mogan’s conclusions that you so happen to agree with?

By: stuey

stuey — Tue, 05 May 2009 06:30:17 +0000

Steve, no it is not at all peculiar that in a single news report that all the “bad science” should be in a particular “direction”. There are plenty of examples of news media articles that contain “bad science” in the opposite “direction”, i.e. anti-AGW and it is not peculiar that they exist either.

Now if all the media reports in all the media organisations were in one direction that would be peculiar.

By: Andrew W

Andrew W — Tue, 05 May 2009 06:21:58 +0000

There’s a good article on Morgan’s perspective in the latest Listener (of all places) no mention of disappearing islands in it. Morgan seems to reached the same conclusions as me – he’s a brilliant man!

By: fragment

fragment — Tue, 05 May 2009 03:00:08 +0000

Steve, here's a graphic of rates of sea level rise 1993-2003, showing linear trends of up to 15mm per year near PNG. I do not call 15mm near to 2mm. Also, you missed the assumption that the 20cm per year figure cited by wiki is in fact correct. I question that, for reasons stated above. Despite looking at the refs wiki cites and a quick google I can't get a reliable source for it. I actually suspect the real figure to be 20mm per year and unit error has been propagated through various news sources without adequate fact-checking. "...the vast majority of any observed ocean intrusion is due to its location in a zone of subduction" is your conclusion, not an assumption. Or at least it should be. So, one assumption is false, and another is questionable and requires a reliable source. BTW I'm not demanding you disprove anything. On the other hand you have, in fact, made claims here that depend on positive assertions. You should be willing to defend or retract those. The fact is that 20cm per year vertical change strikes me as a pretty extraordinary claim, and requires at least proof better than an interview with an anthropologist (which appears to be where wiki got it from). Finally, Alaska has rainforest. I'm not sure that Greenland having the same is so far-fetched.