The Great Global Warming Swindle

[Badjelly]

Sea level, sea level, now where was I. Ah yes, sea level...

Sea level at any particular place can change independently from, or in addition to, the effects of global-mean sea level change or tectonic movement. And these changes can be at surprisingly high rates (well, they surprised me) over a decade or two.

The thing to remember that the sea isn't actually level, even when you average out waves and tides. A level surface is one where if you put an object on it, it doesn't tend to slide or roll sideways. (Imagine a steel ball, but with much lower rolling friction, in fact none.) Another way to say it is a level surface exactly at right angles to the force of gravity. The level surface that wraps around the globe at (roughly) mean sea level is called the geoid. People have gone to a great deal of trouble to map the geoid, and they're still working on it.

But the mean level of the sea doesn't follow the geoid exactly. Why? Ocean currents. Ocean currents are driven by pressure gradients, just as winds are, and as the surface wind tends to blow around the lows and highs of a weather map, so the ocean surface currents flow around lows and highs in the sea level. We can map the sea level relative to the geoid around NZ reasonably accurately, not by mapping either of them exactly, but by seeing what sea level deflections are needed to balance the surface currents. Between North Cape and Bluff there's a difference of about 80 mm, but across the very strong Antarctic Circumpolar Current that wraps around the southern end of the NZ continental shelf there's a difference of something like 1.5 m.

But we don't care about that, we care about changes in sea level. (Well I do. Quasievil just cares about his wallet, which is fair enough I suppose.) Well, the ocean circulation does change, partly driven by natural forcing and partly by human-forced changes. (Yes, really, but I'm not going to explain why people think that right now.) So the mean sea level changes with time. For example, since we first starting getting good data from satellite altimeters in 1992, the sea level in the ocean east of the North Island east coast has risen something like 200 mm (don't quote me on these numbers). Most of this change occurred between 1993 and 2003, so the rate of change during that decade was about 20 mm per year. For comparison, the global average sea level rise over the 20th century is estimated to have been 170 mm (1.7 mm/yr) and the rate of change in the global average since 1992 has been ~ 3 mm/yr.

Why did this change occur? Spin-up of the South Pacific Subtropical Gyre in response to a strengthening of the westerly winds in the Southern Hemisphere, probaly. (References available.)

Now I'm not suggesting sea level changes of the sort I'm describing can continue indefinitely, but on periods of decades they can dominate sea level change at any given place. No-one on the east coast of the North Island noticed the change I described above, to the best of my knowledge, but if you lived on a group of islands like The Maldives, where the highest point is 2.3 metres above sea level (which is a bit of a moving reference, obviously) then you might care a great deal about a change of 200 mm. And it may be part of the picture for this island people have been talking about near PNG. (I believe it was mentioned on the Sunday programme on TV1, which I didn't see.) Near PNG you'd have to think El Nino's would have a significant impact on sea level.

[ghost]

Sea level, sea level, now where was I. Ah yes, sea level...

Sea level at any particular place can change independently from, or in addition to, the effects of global-mean sea level change or tectonic movement. And these changes can be at surprisingly high rates (well, they surprised me) over a decade or two.

The thing to remember that the sea isn't actually level, even when you average out waves and tides. A level surface is one where if you put an object on it, it doesn't tend to slide or roll sideways. (Imagine a steel ball, but with much lower rolling friction, in fact none.) Another way to say it is a level surface exactly at right angles to the force of gravity. The level surface that wraps around the globe at (roughly) mean sea level is called the geoid. People have gone to a great deal of trouble to map the geoid, and they're still working on it.

But the mean level of the sea doesn't follow the geoid exactly. Why? Ocean currents. Ocean currents are driven by pressure gradients, just as winds are, and as the surface wind tends to blow around the lows and highs of a weather map, so the ocean surface currents flow around lows and highs in the sea level. We can map the sea level relative to the geoid around NZ reasonably accurately, not by mapping either of them exactly, but by seeing what sea level deflections are needed to balance the surface currents. Between North Cape and Bluff there's a difference of about 80 mm, but across the very strong Antarctic Circumpolar Current that wraps around the southern end of the NZ continental shelf there's a difference of something like 1.5 m.

But we don't care about that, we care about changes in sea level. (Well I do. Quasievil just cares about his wallet, which is fair enough I suppose.) Well, the ocean circulation does change, partly driven by natural forcing and partly by human-forced changes. (Yes, really, but I'm not going to explain why people think that right now.) So the mean sea level changes with time. For example, since we first starting getting good data from satellite altimeters in 1992, the sea level in the ocean east of the North Island east coast has risen something like 200 mm (don't quote me on these numbers). Most of this change occurred between 1993 and 2003, so the rate of change during that decade was about 20 mm per year. For comparison, the global average sea level rise over the 20th century is estimated to have been 170 mm (1.7 mm/yr) and the rate of change in the global average since 1992 has been ~ 3 mm/yr.

Why did this change occur? Spin-up of the South Pacific Subtropical Gyre in response to a strengthening of the westerly winds in the Southern Hemisphere, probaly. (References available.)

Now I'm not suggesting sea level changes of the sort I'm describing can continue indefinitely, but on periods of decades they can dominate sea level change at any given place. No-one on the east coast of the North Island noticed the change I described above, to the best of my knowledge, but if you lived on a group of islands like The Maldives, where the highest point is 2.3 metres above sea level (which is a bit of a moving reference, obviously) then you might care a great deal about a change of 200 mm. And it may be part of the picture for this island people have been talking about near PNG. (I believe it was mentioned on the Sunday programme on TV1, which I didn't see.) Near PNG you'd have to think El Nino's would have a significant impact on sea level.

So sea level changes have little if anything to do with global warming and more do do with plate movement, current, and cyclical weather patterns? So there will be times when there are rising sea levels and falling sea level depending on location?

So where does carbon tax come into this?

[Skyryder]

So sea level changes have little if anything to do with global warming and more do do with plate movement, current, and cyclical weather patterns? So there will be times when there are rising sea levels and falling sea level depending on location?

So where does carbon tax come into this?

Sea levels have changed at a mean rate of 1.8mm per year for the past 100 years. Recent measurements from 1993-2003 have sea levels at 2.8±0.4 to 3.1±0.7mm.
These changes are attributed to ‘global warming.’ Contrary to your statement that sea levels have nothing to do with global warming it is precisely due to global warming that sea levels have changed due to 'thermal expansion' of the oceans.


Skyryder

[ghost]

Sea levels have changed at a mean rate of 1.8mm per year for the past 100 years. Recent measurements from 1993-2003 have sea levels at 2.8±0.4 to 3.1±0.7mm.
These changes are attributed to ‘global warming.’ Contrary to your statement that sea levels have nothing to do with global warming it is precisely due to global warming that sea levels have changed due to 'thermal expansion' of the oceans.


Skyryder

Contrary to nothing, I didnt make a statement, questions. So sea levels changing 1.8 mm per year over 100 years, with "recent measurements" (fuck, were going to die) at 2.8±0.4 to 3.1±0.7mm. So. Were does it say that man made carbon emision has any impact on a this. When the IPCC says there is a scientific consensus that global warming is caused by man then you know it is a big pile of shit.
There is no consensus to science. There is what is proved and disproved.
There are so many factors influencing natural warming and cooling, that to pass it all onto carbon dioxide, and then pass legislation and tax emisions to curb any increases is another pile of shit. Big pile.

If you really thought that man made carbon dioxide emission were to blame for so called global warming, and you really feel that strongly about it then there is one thing that you could do for the betterment of the planet.

Stop breathing.

[Badjelly]

So sea level changes have little if anything to do with global warming and more do do with plate movement, current, and cyclical weather patterns? So there will be times when there are rising sea levels and falling sea level depending on location?

Sea levels have changed at a mean rate of 1.8mm per year for the past 100 years. Recent measurements from 1993-2003 have sea levels at 2.8±0.4 to 3.1±0.7mm.
These changes are attributed to ‘global warming.’ Contrary to your statement that sea levels have nothing to do with global warming it is precisely due to global warming that sea levels have changed due to 'thermal expansion' of the oceans.

Plus some melting of ice caps.

Yes, ghost, there will be times when there are rising and falling sea levels depending on location, just as there is with temperature. This does not mean the global-average trend is unimportant. The IPCC has estimated sea level rise over the 21st century will be 0.18-0.59 m plus an unknown contribution from any future rapid dynamical changes in ice flow. I don't think anyone seriously thinks it will be at the low end of that range. At the upper end of that range it would be a big deal for low-lying coastal areas and islands. (Do you feel lucky, punk? Huh, do you?)

And I certainly didn't say "sea level changes have little if anything to do with global warming".

[Pixie]

Climate change is good.
It killed off the Dinosaurs and allowed mammals to become dominant.
It motivated Modern Humans to migrate out of Africa.
The Bering Land Bridge allowed Humans To migrate into the Americas.
Plus countless other effects.

And,hopefully,it will reduce the extent of the Human Plague on the Earth


-see,I'm a REAL conservationist.

[Badjelly]

So. Were does it say that man made carbon emision has any impact on a this.

The case is laid out in the latest IPCC report.

When the IPCC says there is a scientific consensus that global warming is caused by man then you know it is a big pile of shit. There is no consensus to science. There is what is proved and disproved.

Indeed. And that is why the IPCC doesn't just issue a report saying "99 out of 100 scientists think this". They lay out the reasoning behind the conclusion in excruciating details. They come up with estimates with real numbers, uncertainties and estimates of confidence. If there's something they don't think they've got a handle on, they say so (future rapid dynamical changes in ice flow).

Then if 1 out of 100 (or whatever) scientists disagree, they get to put forward their reasoning, precisely, in scientific papers, where it can be considered and criticised by other scientists. And the other scientist are still fucking waiting for the self-proclaimed sceptics to do this.

[Quasievil]

Contrary to nothing, I didnt make a statement, questions. So sea levels changing 1.8 mm per year over 100 years, with "recent measurements" (fuck, were going to die) at 2.8±0.4 to 3.1±0.7mm. So. Were does it say that man made carbon emision has any impact on a this. When the IPCC says there is a scientific consensus that global warming is caused by man then you know it is a big pile of shit.
There is no consensus to science. There is what is proved and disproved.
There are so many factors influencing natural warming and cooling, that to pass it all onto carbon dioxide, and then pass legislation and tax emisions to curb any increases is another pile of shit. Big pile.

If you really thought that man made carbon dioxide emission were to blame for so called global warming, and you really feel that strongly about it then there is one thing that you could do for the betterment of the planet.

Stop breathing.

Yeah Bad Jelly !!

This is tag team debating, loving it lol

Anyway I aint seen no evidence to encourage me to part with my hard earned cash yet.

[Skyryder]

Contrary to nothing, I didnt make a statement, questions. So sea levels changing 1.8 mm per year over 100 years, with "recent measurements" (fuck, were going to die) at 2.8±0.4 to 3.1±0.7mm. So. Were does it say that man made carbon emision has any impact on a this. When the IPCC says there is a scientific consensus that global warming is caused by man then you know it is a big pile of shit.
There is no consensus to science. There is what is proved and disproved.
There are so many factors influencing natural warming and cooling, that to pass it all onto carbon dioxide, and then pass legislation and tax emisions to curb any increases is another pile of shit. Big pile.

If you really thought that man made carbon dioxide emission were to blame for so called global warming, and you really feel that strongly about it then there is one thing that you could do for the betterment of the planet.

Stop breathing.

I made no comment on carbon credits taxes or associated ideas. However I have stated that I have little knowledge of Carbon credits, trading etc so perhaps you can give me a detailed explanation of how it works.



Skyryder

[Badjelly]

Anyway I ain't seen no evidence to encourage me to part with my hard earned cash yet.

You've seen it, you just didn't believe it.

[ghost]

The case is laid out in the latest IPCC report.



Indeed. And that is why the IPCC doesn't just issue a report saying "99 out of 100 scientists think this". They lay out the reasoning behind the conclusion in excruciating details. They come up with estimates with real numbers, uncertainties and estimates of confidence. If there's something they don't think they've got a handle on, they say so (future rapid dynamical changes in ice flow).

Then if 1 out of 100 (or whatever) scientists disagree, they get to put forward their reasoning, precisely, in scientific papers, where it can be considered and criticised by other scientists. And the other scientist are still fucking waiting for the self-proclaimed sceptics to do this.

For every rational, reasoning pro warming scientist there appears to be a growing number of scientists around the world that global warming / cooling has very little to do with human emmisions. Remember the the Intergovermental Panel on Climate Change was set up to study the impact of man made climate change. Without scientific papers confirming man made climate change, without scientist prepared to write these papers, without funding for the scientists to write these papers there would be fuck all for them do to. Sound like a self perpetuating buerocracy to you?

Aside from that what has carbon tax got to do with global warming, it is another means of gathering and distributing funds on a global means, the end result will have little if any effect on man made carbon emision.

If you would like something to worry about how about the sun spot activity. If it remains as low has it has been, warming may be the last of your worries, you may even wonder why you are paying so much tax for freezing your arse off in a so call global warming enviroment......

[Badjelly]

This is tag team debating, loving it lol

Who are you? Conan the Cruncher? Gorgeous George?

[Badjelly]

For every rational, reasoning pro warming scientist there appears to be a growing number of scientists around the world that global warming / cooling has very little to do with human emmisions.

So who's trying to settle scientific questions by counting scientists now?

And "appears" is the operative word.

Remember the the Intergovermental Panel on Climate Change was set up to study the impact of man made climate change. Without scientific papers confirming man made climate change, without scientist prepared to write these papers, without funding for the scientists to write these papers there would be fuck all for them do to. Sound like a self perpetuating buerocracy to you?

The IPCC bureaucracy is not large at all. The contributors to the reports all have day jobs.

[Magua]

I made no comment on carbon credits taxes or associated ideas. However I have stated that I have little knowledge of Carbon credits, trading etc so perhaps you can give me a detailed explanation of how it works.



Skyryder

Emissions trading schemes work by setting a max level of emissions. Every industry that's emitting carbon is allocated 'credits', which equal a certain amount they can emmit. If one industry is emitting more than they are entitled to, say a coal power plant, they can buy credits from someone who is emitting less than they are entitled to. It's a financial insentive to reduce emissions.

[ghost]

When you write something with you name or KB signature on it it becomes a statement. You claimed (wrote, posted, call it what you will) that sea temperture has nothing to do with sea levels.I made no comment on carbon credits taxes or associated ideas. However I have stated that I have little knowledge of Carbon credits, trading etc so perhaps you can give me a detailed explanation of how it works.



Skyryder

When you write/post on KB with your name and end the sentance with a ? That is a question. Questions generally end with a ? Statements end with a .

My point was how can mean sea temperture solely contribute to rising / lowering when tectonic plate movement both above and below, thermal dymamics, current flow, atomosperic pressure has a long term localized effect on sea level. I was asking this as a question. but feel free to cloud the issues when some one ask a question were the tax issue sits with this and how taxing ourelves will somehow fix these issues...