A Few Things Ill Considered

A layman's take on the science of Global Warming featuring a guide on How to Talk to a Climate Sceptic.

Tuesday, May 16, 2006

send this to... Digg it! | Technorati | Del.icio.us | Reddit | Furl | Spurl

A Good Sea Level Rise Mapping Tool

(Be sure to check out the How to Talk to a Climate Sceptic guide)

Thanks to a commenter here, Sam on this thread, I had a look at another one of those google map-sea level rise tools. This one seems quite straightforward to use and can show you anything from 0 to 14 metres.

The executive summary of the chapter on sea level in the last IPCC report had this to say:

For the 35 SRES scenarios, we project a sea level rise of 0.09 to 0.88 m for 1990 to 2100, with a central value of 0.48 m.

There have been a number of recent findings about Greenland melt and Antarctic mass balance changes, so these figures may well be revised upwards.

It is very worth remembering that the year 2100 is not the end of time and ice sheets are one of the slower components of the climate system to respond to warming. We may be soon reaching a warming point that commits the world to many metres of rise. During the Eemian interglacial some 125K years ago, temperatures were 2 or 3 degrees higher and sea levels were 4 to 7 metres higher. There has been talk of irreversible desintegration beginning in the Greenland Icesheet and this mass alone represents 6 or 7 metres of sea level equivalent, but how long that will take is not clear (likely measured in centuries).

All that to say that 14m is not the map to generate if you are trying to guess beachfront property to leave your grandchildren, but it may be a plausible science fiction scenario for AD 2400+.

Guides, by Category

28 Comments:

  • At May 17, 2006 11:56 AM, Anonymous Thomas Palm said…

    It's a nice map but it has some oddities where I live. In Stockholm lake Mälaren has been dammed for a few centuries keeping it at the same level despite the land rising after the ice age. This is something the map doesn't take into account so it show a lot of watery areas as dry land. It's still interesting to look how it would look if the dams burst and the water ran out of Mälaren.

     
  • At May 17, 2006 3:45 PM, Blogger Heiko said…

    I am a little frustrated by the fact that I've seen the IPCC draft chapter on sea level change, but can't comment on it (because I said I wouldn't, when I requested the copy).

    What I will say is that at the moment my feeling is that these papers you are referring to have been hyped well beyond what they are actually indicating, and that they do not imply large changes to the IPCC estimates (frustratingly I can't say anything on what role the IPCC draft report had or didn't have in shaping that view).

    I've got a somewhat different perspective on sea level rise commitment. To get a figure here (based on the IPCC synthesis report) I gather we need to make an assumption about future emissions long in the future, and as far as I remember the way this works is that we assume say constant emissions between now and 2100, and then a drop to zero, or rising emissions to 2100 and then a drop to zero, or emissions falling to zero tommorrow, or something along these lines.

    The key problem I have with this is, why assume that 0 is the limit? We can take carbon out of the atmosphere, through biofuels, or by using solar/nuclear heat to turn CaCO3 into CaO and a pure stream of CO2 (to be sequestered), subsequently allowing the CaO to absorb CO2 from the air and so forth.

    Which leads me on to a related question. Geo-engineering fixes (such as large, but extremely thin aluminium foils in space reducing the amount of sunlight hitting Earth) seem to be getting very little attention, compared to CO2 emissions reductions measures. Why is that?

    Are any and all such schemes completely meritless? To the point of not even deserving research Dollars?

     
  • At May 17, 2006 5:27 PM, Blogger Heiko said…

    http://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0512170

    Google scholar threw up this interesting paper on surface albedo, and how much of a global impact there'd be from whitening of urban structures (about the equivalent of 10 ppm of CO2 it seems).

     
  • At May 17, 2006 9:20 PM, Blogger coby said…

    I finally had a look at the sea level chapter. Interesting that they report projections as mm/yr/K warming. They remain very cautious...oh well, time will tell.

     
  • At May 18, 2006 11:55 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    I seem to recall the 2001 IPCC estimate was 0.2-0.8 meters by 2100.

    and yeah it would be nice if the map thingy would go the whole upper and lower range of possible sea levels. I beleive I read that we have another 80 meters to go over the next 10-20 thousand years; and that we are about 130 meters higher in sea level (or was that 400 meters??).

    -sam

     
  • At May 18, 2006 1:37 PM, Blogger coby said…

    Absent any anthropogenic disturbance such as we are in the midst of, I think sea level had ust about topped out for this interglacial period.

    Total potential SLE (sea level equivalent) of all land ice and ice sheets is some 80m

     
  • At May 21, 2006 1:21 AM, Anonymous Steve Bloom said…

    My impression is that the latest stuff on melting came a little too late for inclusion in the AR4, although there's still a chance for changes as this material gets digested. Unfortunately, it appears clear that the biggest missing piece, a good model for dynamical melting that might begin to allow for a reasonable projection of the pace at wehich things will proceed, will definitely be too late for inclusion (unless an exception is made on the deadlines).

    On a related subject, the latest research about a very fast retreat of Arctic sea ice, which would in turn tend to heat things up for the Greenland ice, seems also too late for inclusion. See http://www.climateark.org/articles/reader.asp?linkid=56352 . Note the last paragraph.

    BTW, Coby, somebody may have already mentioned this but I see that the BBC lists only you and RC in the blog section of the resource page for their new Climate Chaos series: http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/hottopics/climatechange/sites1.shtml . Interestingly, I see no skeptic links at all. Anyway, congrats!

     
  • At May 21, 2006 11:57 AM, Blogger coby said…

    Steve,

    Thanks! I saw that bbc link in the referrals at SiteMeter, though RealClimate is still the number one link here.

    I have a feeling ice sheet melting is one of those things that will be explainable after it has happened.

     
  • At May 22, 2006 5:17 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    I am not an environmental skeptic, but I am suspicious of any person, scientist or layman who proclaims that their work/research/belief is the ultimate, unquestionable truth. It ceases to be search for answers and turns into plain old dogma. A certain amount of doubt and skepticism never did science any harm, in fact doubt and skepticism has been the flux for most of the great scientific breakthroughs in history, just ask Galilleo.

    "The first step towards knowledge is to know that we are ignorant."
    Richard Cecil

    Wyn Richards
    Melbourne, Australia

     
  • At May 22, 2006 5:44 AM, Anonymous Peter K. Anderson a.k.a. Hartlod(tm) said…

    Sea levels have been rising in IRREGULAR manner for near 20,000 years; whilst glaciers have been melting for that period also as the Ice point altitude rises through the atmosphere. Presently permanent ice needs to remain above ~2500 metres to remain 'permanent'.

    There is thus little to be actually 'learnt' from IPCC parroting regarding 'rising danger from sea levels', they will be rising anyway and there IS no 'danger, just much parroting.

    Climate is ALWAYS changing, has always been changing and only ever has offered PERSISTENCE of 'situation'.

    Glaciers have been melting for 20,000 years, that is how the last Glaciation was reverted and this process is still proceeding.

    Your's, Peter K. Anderson a.k.a. Hartlod(tm)
    From the PC of Peter K Anderson
    E-Mail: Hartlod@bigpond.com

     
  • At May 22, 2006 7:49 AM, Blogger coby said…

    Hi Peter,

    Sea level rise that started 20K years ago all but stopped by 6000 yrs ago. The recent restarting of that rise is just more evidence of a warming world. I think there is indeed quite a bit you could learn from the IPCC report if you are not aware that permanent ice exists all the way down to sea level depending on the lattitude.

    Re "climate is always changing, please see this post.

    And an answer to your silliness about warming for 20K yrs can be found here.

     
  • At May 22, 2006 10:42 PM, Anonymous Peter K. Anderson a.k.a. Hartlod(tm) said…

    There was only ever been a SLOWING of such rises in relative sea level. Infact Coby, the record shown by alteration in coastline of the Mediterranean (where consistent human settlement has established such records) shows that the situation you present NEVER existed, in that there WAS NOT an 'all but' cessation of rise in relative sea levels. This IS seen in the number of SUBMERGED ancient port facilities lying now 'off the coast'.

    Again it is that 'greenhouse science' simply attempts to overlook what HAS happened and produce misinterpretations based on the preferred opinions, this is a characteristic of PREDETERMINATION, the process where issues are studied in an attempt to produce 'suitable answers', this is most often seen in POLITICAL processes.

    As to 'silliness' Coby, perhaps you should look outside of your 'preferred climate sources', and notice more real SCIENCE.

    There is nothing shown to worry at as 'global warming'...
    Consider again those Glaciers (recently mentioned) within China at a median 13,000 feet (~3900 meters). In comparison Mount Kosciusko in Australia is, at 2228 meters actually 300 meters BELOW the level needed to have permanent snow (as of 'NOW') and has within "its" 50 square kilometer region 9 other peaks above 2100 meters. This region was subjected to glaciation 20,000 to 30,000 years before present and thus at some point of time within the past 20000 to 30000 years these glaciers ALSO melted.

    The ONLY relevant situation regarding the glaciers within China is that they are melting NOW, and that is ALL that is unique. At some point within the recent past the 'Ice-point Altitude' was around 2000 meters, perhaps even 1500 meters. Now it is rising above 2500 meters, but then CLIMATE is 'rising' from a Glaciation event and has been doing so for ~20,000 years. At that time of around 20,000 years a go the 'Polar adapted' fauna would have had a larger 'habitat range', but 'NOW" as CLIMATE 'rises away' from that Glaciation event, the reversion of 'Polar preferred' habitat will increase in MORE regions also so there WILL be attrition of overly adapted fauna populations.

    This IS an ONGOING natural process.

    Your's, Peter K. Anderson a.k.a. Hartlod(tm)
    From the PC of Peter K Anderson
    E-Mail: Hartlod@bigpond.com

     
  • At May 23, 2006 1:05 AM, Anonymous Famousringo said…

    I want to be persuaded by your argument, Coby, but I'm afraid you'll have to use more ALL CAPS if you want to make an effective ARGUMENT.

     
  • At May 23, 2006 8:35 AM, Blogger coby said…

    [reposted on behalf of john mann]

    Re: "At May 22, 2006 10:42 PM, Peter K. Anderson a.k.a. Hartlod(tm) said…

    ....alteration in coastline of the Mediterranean (where consistent human settlement has established such records) shows that the situation you present NEVER existed"

    I think you're implying that sea levels have continued to rise in the mediterranean. I think you'll find that the mediterranean basin is suffering from isostatic subsidence. I can't remember whether this is due to relaxation of the basin after the halt of africa's collision with the european plate, or due to the weight of the water after the basin re-flooded. But a lot of greek earthquakes are due to a line of east west faults that are subsiding to the south, which is consistent with higher land re-settling after the mountain building force (orogenic?) has relaxed.

    This implies that sea levels are not actually rising, but only apparently so.

    Similary in Scandanavia, but in the opposite sense.

    - comment by john mann

     
  • At May 23, 2006 5:27 PM, Anonymous Peter K. Anderson a.k.a. Hartlod(tm) said…

    As to the attempt again to belittle those who use CAPS for emphasis, read these words as being in 'bold' or 'italic' but in PLAIN text, and grow up a little to avoid continuance of the puerile vilification if you want others to regard you as 'adult'.

    With further regard to sea level however, there has only ever been a SLOWING of rises in relative sea level. Record shown by alteration in coastline of the Mediterranean (where consistent human settlement has established such records) presents this situation. This IS seen in the number of SUBMERGED ancient port facilities lying now 'off the coast' with the 'period sea level' still seen as marks on the collapsed stone work. Archeological reconstruction giving placement of high AND low tide marks at a geographical position within a reasonable time frame.

    Again it is that 'greenhouse science' simply attempts to overlook what HAS happened and produce misinterpretations based on the preferred opinions, this is a characteristic of PREDETERMINATION, the process where issues are studied in an attempt to produce 'suitable answers', this is most often seen in POLITICAL processes.

    So there is known only to have been a general slowing in relative sea level rises, but not cessation and this is NOT open to opinion Coby, you WILL find.

    Recent geological activity has produced some subsidence within the region of the Mediterranean, but this is NOT affecting the Archeological record Coby it has been infact a force in creating such..

    Your's,
    Peter K. Anderson a.k.a. Hartlod(tm)
    From the PC of Peter K Anderson
    E-Mail: Hartlod@bigpond.com

     
  • At May 24, 2006 11:14 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    Peter,

    It is standard cultural practice (roman phonetic) on the Internet to regard typing in all caps as the equivalent to shouting loudly and possibly angrily. It is one of several different types of emphasis; of which this one I encourage you to use sparingly. Otherwise you should not be surprised to be regarded as trollish at worst, or childishly loud at best.

    -sam

     
  • At May 25, 2006 12:42 AM, Blogger Wag the Dog said…

    Peter K. Anderson said:

    read these words as being in 'bold' or 'italic' but in PLAIN text,

    Then use bold or italic. You shall have to put more effort in editing your posts than simply cutting and pasting if you want to avoid puerile vilification and be regarded as an adult.

    Record shown by alteration in coastline of the Mediterranean ... the number of submerged ancient port facilities lying now 'off the coast'

    Repeatedly posting the exact same point even after it has been dealt with is not very convincing that you have a valid point to make. The broken record strategy does not work in real science.

    geological activity has produced some subsidence within the region of the Mediterranean, but this is not affecting the Archeological record

    Simply stating what you believe without giving any proof is also not very convincing in matters of science.

     
  • At May 25, 2006 6:56 AM, Anonymous john mann said…

    OK, Point taken. A discussion of NNE-SSW oriented stress fields containing quaternary (which I belive is the right geologic age) faults is given here: http://www.gein.noa.gr/Ganas/Parnitha.pdf

    This discusses mainland (not peleponnese) greek faults, and I still think this is consistent with relaxation after mountain building.

     
  • At May 25, 2006 8:46 PM, Anonymous Peter K. Anderson a.k.a. Hartlod(tm) said…

    Greetings Sam, and with all courtesy and politeness but perhaps you confuse use of the internet with that of a 'chat room'. Discussion in 'discussion groups' is by short essay. That is how adults produce a discourse, and is how SCIENCE is discussed (even by letter in passed 'ages'), as expressed in 'Standard English', and generally such short essay was around 1000 words. This post has only 757 words being counted.

    There is no reason to give CO2 any 'impact' ability as the 'greenhouse theory' tries. The entire production of even the 'temperature link' is best described as being a classic 'false positive'. Temperature is rising naturally in response to natural climate processes that are actually present. Presently permanent ice needs to remain above ~2500 metres to remain 'permanent'; ~20,000 years ago this altitude could have been as low as 1500 metres. As such there is little point in SCIENCE to be made by quoting any reference to 'greenhouse effects' (IPCC included)

    If you notice the plot of atmospheric absorbance within the link (*): -
    http://www.ucimc.org/newswire/display/113579/index.php#comments
    -: you will see that the supposed 'greenhouse radiation' is not even seen being surface incident. So there cannot be even 'amplification of warming' in ANY real and VALID manner seen.

    To example SCIENCE again, to notice the REAL atmospheric absorbance of energy(*), you will see how relevant the behavior of atmospheric water actually is in shaping the scavenging of (Microwave Spectrum) energy BEFORE surface incidence is achieved. The very existence of Humanity indicates that 'Infra red energy' is NOT surface incident, to further highlight the OBVIOUS flaws in 'greenhouse theory', nor has been at any time at least within the last ~5 Million years (to allow for the advancement of species to become "Humanity'). (As an aside, the reality might be that such energy has NOT been surface incident since the Atmosphere was established.)

    Why? Realise that most surface life is made of over 90% saline WATER. The microwave energy (within the IR REGION) will not produce 'sun burn' (a mild radiation burn from UV-A and UV-B) but would produce too much intrinsic heat in outer cellular structures, stopping internal cellular processes and most likely the formation of 'life as we know it'. (**)

    AS to posting a point and SCIENCE, I will do so until those attempting to ignore such begin to realise the obvious errors in the 'position' they attempt to fabricate. There is NOT any correlation to claims that 'sea levels' have been constant, any more with the puerile assertions that climate has been such, with the actual physical records, well known as common knowledge in many fields of SCIENCE.

    It is simple 'wag the dog', the Mediterranean is always jostled with tremors, the non mortared 'port walls' often collapsed. The blocks fell into the ocean and where not retrieved, but replaced. AS such there are enough of these blocks to be located.

    It is that seeming it is not I that am in need of a widening of their education (or further maturity). As I have suggested already to Coby, there IS a need for the more 'focused' to look further "afield" than from within their preferred 'climate belief' system, and notice the width AND depth of all SCIENCE, common knowledge as it is to those of us who ARE adult, 'wag the dog'. This is also inclusive of over attention to Political Lobby and Committee opinions, as exampled by the IPCC 'sources' for instance...

    There is no need to use bold or italic 'wag the dog', as these are not available in all my used devices, nor is 'standard' html or other 'standard' internet protocol. I post in plain text, even from my mobile phone on occasion, and I have given notice sufficiently of what CAPS signifies, you (and others) will need to find something different to attempt ridicule or preferably desist in such juvenile pouting.

    AS to the cut and paste, your again 'wag the dog' attempt belittlement to avoid discussion, you should try using your name, and most certainly cease attempting to be 'adult' whilst using the title 'wag the dog'......

    What is not SCIENCE is for people to attempt to ridicule others from behind labels such as "wag the dog", most certainly 'wag the dog' they should not attempt such whilst attempting pretense of being 'adult', 'wag the dog'. Did I stress the label 'wag the dog' enough to supply the message (without CAPS) 'wag the dog'?

    Your's, Peter K. Anderson a.k.a. Hartlod(tm)
    From the PC of Peter K Anderson
    E-Mail: Hartlod@bigpond.com

     
  • At May 26, 2006 11:05 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    peter,

    for soem reason, your link to usimc is not working for me. Their site is up, but the link is not.

    Also if you can show that a molecule of CO2 cannot possible interact with wavelengths of infrared radiation, contrary to all science so far, I might give your claims some credence.

    sam

     
  • At May 26, 2006 8:56 PM, Anonymous Peter K. Anderson a.k.a. Hartlod(tm) said…

    Why Sam would I have any need to try to 'prove' that 'CO2' cannot ["interact with wavelengths of infrared radiation"]? I have already clearly stated the style of interaction CO2 undergoes, and the slide of atmospheric absorbance shows clearly what is happening for the 5 or so molecules it lists.

    I infact wonder why you would require me to do such, and also have replaced my last post that seemed to disappear for no validly explainable reason.

    I just looked at the link, and it is all fine so here it is again with some others:-

    http://www.ucimc.org/newswire/display/113579/index.php#comments

    http://www.climateimc.org/?q=node/348

    http://www.climateimc.org/?q=node/312

    Words: 116

    Your's,
    Peter K. Anderson a.k.a. Hartlod(tm)
    From the PC of Peter K Anderson
    E-Mail: Hartlod@bigpond.com

     
  • At May 27, 2006 2:00 AM, Blogger Wag the Dog said…

    Hartlod(tm),

    All your links simply point to articles you wrote. If you are looking to convince people that you are correct and all climate scientists are wrong, then referencing yourself is an extremely poor way of doing it.

    Furthermore, the broken record strategy does not work among rational thinkers. Simply paraphrasing the same opinion in different ways and reposting over and over ad infinitum, without seeking to incorporate other evidence other than your own flawed interpretations of that which you've cherry picked, does little to win anyone over to your side of the argument. For instance, I linked to several studies confirming that recent sea level rises are occuring at a faster rate than that in the past, including studies of the Mediterranean. You ignored this.

    And with regard to Your own comments you cited, if you are really trying to deny anthropogenic global warming you are going about in a really horrible way. According to you, the atmosphere absorbs 90% of the radiation passing through it, and the warming coincides with population increase. Due to your unconventional writing style, any other points your were trying to make were completely obscured by your pretentious attempt to sound knowledgeable and scientific. Give me McIntyre and McKitrick over your verbal diarrhea, any day.

     
  • At May 27, 2006 2:50 AM, Anonymous Peter K. Anderson a.k.a. Hartlod(tm) said…

    Well 'wag', I have given links to material, links contained in the articles also, in this site (Coby seems intent only to delete however) and all I am doing is explaining to the less informed (that includes you 'wag') what this well understood and widely known SCIENCE is telling all, from the MAJORIY position that you ignorantly and intently avoid to notice 'wag'.

    I give a slide showing what the Atmosphere does along with a selection of molecules 'broken out' to isolate their affect. This slide shows how much energy can be seen incident to the surface through the Atmosphere.

    I also give a slide for the geographic density and distribution of Human population as at 1994 as if you also notice the slide of MEDIAN SURFACE temperature you WILL see that there is a 15 years DELAY form Land to Ocean surface, and that the Land surface rise is unerringly plotting a profile the SAME as that of Human Population.

    These slides are sourced through the United Nations services, NOT however the IPCC.

    I was also actually taught to produce correspondence reports, hence the 1000 word short essay, the minimum SCIENCE expects to allow the elucidation of concept, used to produce a précis outline of 'papers' also.

    I have shown that 'anthropogenic GREENHOUSE global warming' is not only not shown but non existent being an impossible process due to the REAL properties of the materials involved.

    You linked to sites 'wag' but did not comment at all into relevance, and the material is irrelevant. You should have realised that the irregularity of sea level rises makes these claims superfluous, suffering of PREDETMINATION in that the studies are being obviously fitted into a belief system.

    This same belief system is used to produce 'models' of 'greenhouse warming' by simply plugging in 'greenhouse quantities', but not noticing what is ACTUALLY possible with the real materials, and even ignoring that is already KNOWN to be happening.

    I know you are aware of my correctness also, due to your behaviors 'wag', including the vapid attempts to paraphrase, to wit:- According to YOU 'wag' you try to relate something that the 'atmosphere absorbs 90%...'.

    I provide a slide to outline such and NOONE has complained of its veracity, even Coby (in between deleting my posts). There is nothing unconventional about my writing style either 'wag' (see above),

    You are completely ignorable 'wag the dog'. But then with a label of 'wag the dog' there cannot be an adult hiding behind there so we should not be expecting too much should we. If the IPCC closed tomorrow, no one would miss it...

    Word count: 455

    Your's,
    Peter K. Anderson a.k.a. Hartlod(tm)
    From the PC of Peter K Anderson
    E-Mail: Hartlod@bigpond.com

     
  • At May 29, 2006 4:29 AM, Blogger Lab Lemming said…

    Do these models include isostatic adjustments due to hydrostatic loading?

     
  • At May 29, 2006 6:37 AM, Blogger coby said…

    Good question, I didn't investigate very much, but it seems not. I don't see how it could either, as there is no temporal component. Though I suppose it would be possible to just present the "equilibrium" rise, after any settling of earth's crust.

    14m of rise clearly involves alot of Greenland and Antarctic melting, so one would expect some rebounding there, which might change things too.

     
  • At May 29, 2006 11:03 PM, Blogger Peter K. Anderson said…

    The question would seem to be whether the 'models of sea level' attempt to correlate regional variation in water depth/mass in production of pressure variation in a 'water column', if it is to be understood the limited outline of the question as placed, with relation to regional 'surface level' displacement.

    'Isostatic':- (adj.) a state of equilibrium between forces, such as accumulated ice pushing down on a section of the Earth’s surface, and those pushing up from below.

    You can also consider Bulk Elastic Properties and from
    http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/
    I would extract:-
    ["The bulk elastic properties of a material determine how much it will compress under a given amount of external pressure. The ratio of the change in pressure to the fractional volume compression is called the bulk modulus of the material.
    The reciprocal of the bulk modulus is called the compressibility of the substance. The amount of compression of solids and liquids is seen to be very small.

    A common statement is that water is an incompressible fluid. This is not strictly true, as indicated by its finite bulk modulus, but the amount of compression is very small. At the bottom of the Pacific Ocean at a depth of about 4000 meters, the pressure is about 4 x 107 N/m2. Even under this enormous pressure, the fractional volume compression is only about 1.8% and that for steel would be only about 0.025%. So it is fair to say that water is nearly incompressible. Reference: Halliday, Resnick, Walker, 5th Ed. Extended."]

    This is of course commonly known SCIENCE only just into undergraduate level, little more imposing that mention of the Boltzmann constant, in reality.

    The situation is that sea level will, as is the ability of liquids, flow way in any reaction to upward motion in the sea floor, however the small relative area so involved, relative to the total sea floor as a region, makes any real rise in relative 'total' sea level overall appear to fit within the statistical Error of the models as produced. This is NOT at all relevant to any consideration of 'resolution', a term so often heard in 'climate science'.

    In statistical terms, if the effect is unable to be discerned from the Error, or as an output of the Error Function in more advanced methodologies, then it is NOT worth inclusion as a separate parameter, it will NOT aid in the Experiment (as designed) so would only result in added EXPENSE in data acquisition.

    That is the potential for sea level 'rise' will NOT be seen outside of expected model fluctuations due to the attached Error Function output. This is the statistical PROCESS involved in EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN, which is equally relevant to the creation of a 'model' as it is in design of a seeding for a field plot study.

    This does not mean that some wouldn't attempt to incorporate such an 'estimate'; it would simply be an obvious invalidity seemingly present to justify a budget expense, most likely. This is part of the investigative process into fiscal accounting within Academic Departments and their expenditure.

    The short answer is that these 'climate models' and those that create them would do better to notice actual Climate processes than to continue to contrive reasons to avoid notice of the actual non-correlation of the 'greenhouse component' that the 'models creators' attempt to prolong use of.

    Being an 'academic' is not about wearing a lab coat whilst trying to vocalise dialogue in the manner and style of a 1950's Sci-Fi actor.

    Your's,
    Peter K. Anderson a.k.a. Hartlod(tm)
    From the PC of Peter K Anderson
    E-Mail: Hartlod@bigpond.com

     
  • At June 08, 2006 8:28 PM, Blogger coby said…

    DJEB, I got your comment, thanks, but the email situation you described is showing signs of developing for me and I don't want to provoke anybody unnecessarily.

    Cheers,

     
  • At September 19, 2006 3:43 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    There's another tool at www.speculator3000.com

     

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home