Here we go again ! OR How liars deceive !

United States
April 15, 2008 9:50pm CST
The headline screams "Forecast for Big Sea Level Rise". In the accompaning article we are warned by the year 2100 the sea will rise maybe 1 1/2 meters, enough to flood many low laying areas of the world. This is nonsense. Let's exaimine exactly what the article says and have a peek at the study making this claim. Here's the url for the article. Notice that it is the BBC? Supposedly this is a reliable source. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7349236.stm First the article explains that the IPCC did not include such a big sea level rise forecast with the following quote. "The IPCC was unable to include the contribution from "accelerated" melting of polar ice sheets as water temperatures warm because the processes involved were not yet understood." This statement completely ignores that the most recent satelite measurements of ocean temperatures dumbfounded the global warming people in that the oceans are cooler than they expected. (LOL...maybe it's all that melting ice?) Next the article concedes the following. "For the past 2,000 years, the [global average] sea level was very stable, it only varied by about 20cm." We are now 10,000 years from an ice age. 2,000 years ago we were only 8,000 years from an ice age. We have experienced global warming overall (compared to previous years) during the entire 2,000 years in which the article says we had 'stable' sea levels. So, why is the normal cycle of global warming going to increase its rate of sea level rise? The article gives this as a reason for the rate increase in sea level rise. "The latest satellite data indicates that the Greenland and West Antarctic ice sheets are losing mass, though the much bigger East Antarctic sheet may be gaining mass." Most Antarctic ice is land ice. If the "Much bigger East Antarctic sheet" is gaining mass that means water is on the balance leaving the ocean, not going into it. To give us more information concerning the scientific study this all comes from we have this. "Dr Jevrejeva's projections have been submitted for publication in the scientific journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences." I hope everyone realizes any stupid thing can be submitted for publication. This study has not been validated as of yet by fellow scientists through publication. It is foolish for this article's author to report on this study when he obviously is unqualified to comment on it before publication. Additionally, the article makes some claims concerning average sea level rise in the 20th century. Those claims are countered here. http://www.waterencyclopedia.com/Re-St/Sea-Level.html Here's a better estimation of past sea level change over the past century from the just mentioned link. "Over the twentieth century, global sea level has risen on the average of 2.0 millimeters (0.08 inches) per year for a total of 10 to 25 centimeters (3.9 to 9.8 inches)." One could safely extrapolate this sea level rise of the last 100 years into the next 100 years and have a much better forecast than Dr Jevrejeva. (That is, predict the next 100 years of change will be about the same as the last 100 years.) That would be 4 to 10 inches. Based on data I've seen and my own extrapolation, I'm predicting 1 to 2 inches. So, what's your opinion concerning unqualified reporters commenting on unpublished studies? Or sea level forecasts in general?
3 responses
@Destiny007 (5820)
• United States
16 Apr 08
This statement kind of jumped out concerning glacial ice melt from this link... http://www.waterencyclopedia.com/Re-St/Sea-Level.html "During the last glacial period, approximately 18,000 years ago, enormous glaciers covered continental areas. The land beneath these glaciers subsided due to the added weight. When the ice melted at the end of this period, the land began to emerge again, and continues to do so today." Now then, I want to know where all of that ice came from. Was it our many factories and automobiles spewing out all of that evil CO2 that caused the last Ice Age? How about the occurrence of icebergs such as the one that took out the Titanic?... Was that caused by man made global warming, or was that an act of nature? We know that forty days and nights of ran can induce world wide flooding, but how big was the world when that happened? Was that the known world... if so then the area was relatively small. The fear mongers are having a field day right now, but they keep using words like "could" and "may cause" and "possibly". This is all theory, and mostly unsubstantiated theory at that. How long have we had satellites up that are capable of these measurements.... and what makes anyone think that small amount of time is sufficient to even make so much as a wild guess? There is real science involved here, because there is not enough data available to even hazard a guess... yet these fear mongers are doing just that. Yet in the midst of all this science fiction, governments all over the world are taking steps as this was all proven fact. This is nothing more than a mere theory, and a bad one at that. If the scientists cannot even come up with the proof of man made global warming and sea level manipulation, then what business does ANY reporter have commenting on any of it? These reporters can't even report the news without screwing up, much less anything about Global Warming or sea levels.
1 person likes this
• United States
16 Apr 08
Another interesting thing at the link you referenced were the different definitions of sea level. How many people know it is possbile to skew and distort any attempt at an honest discussion by using the wrong definition of sea level?
@clrumfelt (5425)
• United States
16 Apr 08
Perhaps this reporter is getting a kickback from Al Gore to try and keep his book on the Best Seller's list. Seriously, I think when someone publishes this kind of outlandish story they are just trying to evoke a strong reaction in people and get attention for themselves. Look at the response Al Gore got by publishing such drivel.
• United States
16 Apr 08
I suspect reporters for organizations like the BBC actually have to write this drivel just to keep their jobs. A serious objective look a sea level figures would probably not be aired by the BBC. As to Al Gore, there have been articles written showing how he is making money off carbon credits.
@theprogamer (10539)
• United States
16 Apr 08
I remember a similar article from LiveScience, and I had shared it as a discussion (more for discussional purposes, but I knew there were flaws in it of course). Anyways, there's not just the 4 to 10 inch increase, there is also a limit to how much the sea would rise with melting glaciers from the poles...about 60 feet or so (meaning those claiming more are innately suspicious). I'm still having my own analysis on this, but its interesting seeing reports on this issue.
1 person likes this
• United States
16 Apr 08
Fortunately, no one is any longer foolish enough to make the really outlandish claims. This study, which I consider outrageous is still mild compared to Al Gore's claims in "Inconvient Truth". So, I guess this is progress that they aren't trying to fool us to the extent they use to. BTW: Something the global warming scare mongers have not dealt with yet is that some scientists claim the poles have never completely melted, even during the hottest periods of earth's history. All that ice is probably never going into the ocean.