Maldives sea level not risen for 30-40 years

[shaunbhoy]

Dear Dr. Osipov:

It has come to my attention that Dr. Nils-Axel Mörner gave presentations at the seminar on climate change organized by the Russian Academy of Sciences at the request of President Vladimir Putin earlier this month. Dr. Mörner attacked the science of climate change, while claiming that he is President of the Commission on Sea Level Change of INQUA.

I am writing to inform you that Dr. Mörner has misrepresented his position with INQUA. Dr. Mörner was President of the Commission on Sea Level Change right up to the point where he stopped toeing the Party line and put all of our future "investigative budget" in jeopardy. At this point we decided to blackball him, and all put our hands over our ears and went lalalalalalala until he left the building!

FTFY

[DimPrawn]

Post some comparison photographs, there must be loads of them demonstrating sea level rises.

Before:



After:

[sasguru]

Post some comparison photographs, there must be loads of them demonstrating sea level rises.

FTFY

Before:

After:

You know the reason why people go to good universities?
It's so they don't end up like you brain-dead morons.
FFS What a bunch of losers.

[BlasterBates]

Can I be bovvered? Anyone with Google and Wiki can check this stuff and discover it is the usual tulipe.

As SASGuru points out, Morner's Maldives sea level study was found to be 'implausible' by followup work.
So that leaves me to do the ad hominem. Morner was indeed an authority a decade ago, but now is a seventy-something Grade A nutter. He lies and misrepresents his ex-colleagues:



and spends his retirement years with his water-divining rods and defacing ancient monuments .

But one has to admire his creativity. There are 2 schools of thought on recent trends in sea level. On one hand the satellite record and every other authority show us that global mean sea level is rising. Apparently in a minority of one, Morner believes it is not. Faced with this challenge, he devised a novel and ingenious solution - he TILTED THE GRAPH ON THE PAGE, rendering the trend flat and enabling him to label it 'No long term trend'. See Fig 5 in this submission.

Sadly, I am not making this up. This is what qualifies as an 'expert' in the deny-o-sphere.

Any questions?

Yeah we went through an asertion (complete lie) on Easterbrook, and you said you can only analyse isotopes from ice at least 150 years old . The paper I posted showed they can go fetch values up to the present day.

Oh you'll argue that was from the bore hole, so are you saying that you can fetch the values from the ice in the borehole next to where the ice was but not from the ice core itself? Come on pull the other one.


hmm I think we know who was right in that argument.

[pjclarke]

Yeah we went through an asertion (complete lie) on Easterbrook, and you said you can only analyse isotopes from ice at least 150 years old . The paper I posted showed they can go fetch values up to the present day.

Oh you'll argue that was from the bore hole, so are you saying that you can fetch the values from the ice in the borehole next to where the ice was but not from the ice core itself? Come on pull the other one.

OMG You're yanking my chain, right?

No BB. You cannot retrieve samples for analysis from a borehole. This is because it is a hole. Holes are empty. There is nothing in a hole. When in a hole, best practice is to stop digging.

Here is the paper

Try and find the word 'isotope' in it. You cannot. This is because the study measured temperatures. They can do this up to recent times, with a resolution of a few decades. They did not measure isotopes because there are no isotopes in a bore hole. This is because it is a hole. Holes are empty.

The GISP2 data cited by Easterbrook is from an ice core. It has isotopes and everything. But the first data point is at 95BP. This is something called a 'fact'.

George Monbiot was right.

It is hard to convey just how selective you have to be to dismiss the evidence for climate change. You must climb over a mountain of evidence to pick up a crumb: a crumb which then disintegrates in your palm. You must ignore an entire canon of science, the statements of the world’s most eminent scientific institutions, and thousands of papers published in the foremost scientific journals. ... And you must do all this while calling yourself a scientist.

[BlasterBates]

OK I was mistaken on the scientific technique used in the bore hole, but their graph as Easterbrook's shows the same basic conclusion that temperatures are signifcantly lower now than they were a 1000 years ago. Now we won't resolve who's lying from that paper, suffice to say though Easterbrook's basic thesis, is corroborated in this paper, so it is in any case immaterial to the debate. The question why would he lie when he could simply have cited this paper instead?

[d000hg]

Post some comparison photographs, there must be loads of them demonstrating sea level rises.

Come on now, you're not seriously that stupid? I hope it was sarcasm?

[BlasterBates]

Come on now, you're not seriously that stupid? I hope it was sarcasm?

I think what you mean is it's stupid to suggest that the affects of a sea level rise over a 50 year period would be visible to the naked eye.

I would agree on that and I think that is exactly what Morner was saying.

[BlasterBates]

Now who is moving the goalposts? Medieval warmth in Greenland is not news, as I've pointed out. At the same time the Pacific and the Antarctic seem to have been cooler. But widespread, global warming, in the sense of temperatures rising on every continent, is a new thing.

With your newfound expertise, you should now be aware that using a borehole proxy to corroborate an ice core is not legitimate. Going back to medieval times the resolution of the borehole is measured in centuries, so the idea that it can pinpoint the Greenland MWP is nonsense.

hmm medieval warm period was local to Greenland.

I don't think so.

What about this evidence from the Swiss Alps.

CO2 Science

Distance from Switzerland to Greenland

...and how do you explain why this glacier in Chile both advanced and receded over the last one thousand years. A thousand years ago it was roughly where it is today.

http://www.clim-past-discuss.net/7/3...-3131-2011.pdf

Distance from Chile to Greenland

Was Asia cold?

apparently not

...not very local really.

It also seems that Antarctica cooling during a period of global warming isn't unusual

http://www.scienceagogo.com/news/200...runc_sys.shtml

[BlasterBates]

Yawn. Click.

Your link shows a map with links to a list of peer reviewed papers all demonstrating the MWP in different regions of the world and a rebuttal.

And the rebuttal of a multitude of peer reviewed papers all showing a MWP from these scientists is a blogger.

The only paper he can cite is:

Mann et al. 2008

So what you are saying is that 20 or 30 scientists are talking rubbish and Michael Mann is the only one who's got it right.

Not very convincing. What happened to the idea of "Consensus".

But thx for posting even more evidence of an MWP from a number of sources.

I also find it interesting that you implicitly suggest the rebuttal applies to papers not on the list that you have never read.

Interesting scientific approach to come up with a standard rebuttal and apply to anything that haven't even seen.