In a remarkable and entertaining interview, (from June 22, 2007 EIR Economics 33) Dr. Nils-Axel Mörner argues convincingly, and with excellent credentials, that the "Claim that sea level is rising is a total fraud."Anyone involved with the RMA in any way should read this essay and ponder the implications. After all, District and Regional Plans routinely accept as a fact that New Zealand is about to suffer widespread inundation. Decision-makers and submitters use this scenario as an excuse to keep us all well away from the seaside or even from the Coast.If you want to challenge Dr Morner, you will have the opportunity to do so in person because he will be visiting New Zealand (courtesy of the New Zealand Climate Science Coalition) and will be making presentations in Wellington, 1-3 August, and in Auckland 4-7 August. He will be talking specifically about sea levels around the Maldives in the Indian Ocean, and around Tuvalu and Vanuatu in our own South Pacific.The Centre will advise you of details of these lectures as they come to hand.Dr. Nils-Axel Mörner is the head of the Paleogeophysics and Geodynamics department at Stockholm University in Sweden. He is past president (1999-2003) of the INQUA Commission on Sea Level Changes and Coastal Evolution, and leader of the Maldives Sea Level Project. Dr. Mörner has been studying the sea level and its effects on coastal areas for some 35 years.
This quote should whet your appetite: All the true sea level specialists agreed on this figure, that in 100 years, we might have a rise of 10 cm, with an uncertainty of plus or minus 10 cm—that's not very much. And in recent years, I even improved it, by considering also that we're going into a cold phase in 40 years. That gives 5 cm rise, plus or minus a few centimeters. That's our best estimate.
Thursday, 5 July 2007
The claim that sea level is rising "is a total fraud."
Yesterday I promoted an upcoming talk that I'm genuinely looking forward to, London Montessori trainer Cheryl Ferreira talking on 'The Path to Independence' (in Auckland on 16 July). Owen McShane has another date to put in your diary:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
42 comments:
"That gives 5 cm rise, plus or minus a few centimeters. "
Wait, so it has gone up? Pretty mild type of "total fraud" I'd have thought.
It's a little unfortunate that he refers to all 'true' sea level specialists. I wonder if all true sea-level specialists are also in agreement that we are going in to a cold period in 40 years time? I thought we were all pretty much agreed that the world is warming, and that it is just a matter of attribution for that warming... Still, any port in a storm for the anti AGW peoples, eh. Shame that he's Swedish though - vilken jävla lurifax.
DenMT
Furthermore, and I guess this is a little off topic, James Randi has had some words to say about Mörner (http://www.randi.org/hotline/1998/0012.html). Apparently the eminent scientist has magical dowsing powers. He has, thus far however, avoided taking Randi up on the $1,000,000 challenge...
He also has no inferiority-complex problems - one of the opening lines of his infamous 'no sea-level rise' interview reads "There are many good
sea-level people in the world, but let’s put it this way: There’s
no one who’s beaten me."
Awesome!
DenMT
I think by "true sea level specialists" he's excluding the likes of Al Gore, who as I'm sure you'll know has lots of pretty pictures of cities drowning under sea level rises of twenty feet.
Still, any storm in a teacup for warmists, eh?
"I thought we were all pretty much agreed that the world is warming, and that it is just a matter of attribution for that warming..."
We? Are you still insisting that it's been warming since 1998's El Nino high?
I used 'we' as in 'pretty much everyone'. Most skeptics (and I might be wrong to include you PC, but I was sure that you agreed) believe that there is some degree of (possibly natural) warming occurring, but that it was entirely dubious to claim at this stage that it is attributable to mankind. I'm talking of Lindzen, Baliunas, and most of the other climate skeptics. Very few claim that it will be cooler in the future, they merely claim that we can't say it will be CATASTROPHICALLY warmer...
Have you shifted in opinion recently, or have I simply misinterpreted?
And while it has no material bearing on the science he espouses, I have problems accepting the definition of a 'true sea-level scientist' by someone who proclaims himself to be both the world's best sea-level scientist, AND a water witch who can detect the presence of various substances magically.
DenMT
Great work, DenMT! I have to admit to wanting to take Morner at his word. After all, sea level rise is one of the more alarming predictions of global warming, and if it could be shown that the rise is far lower than expected, then I for one would crack open a beer and celebrate.
However, that phrase you locked on ("All the true sea level specialists") seemed a little self-serving for a scientist -- and the dowsing thing is hilarious if true -- it just goes to show that with denialists, this sort of crankery runs in packs.
Anyway, I did some checking to see whether researchers in the field actually agreed with his findings. I was hoping they did, but unfortunately, they don't. His most important paper, on which he bases his reputation among denialists, appears to be "Estimating Future Sea Level Changes from Past Records" (Global and Planetary Change, 2004).
If you plug this paper into Google Scholar,you'll see it's cited only 14 times, almost all of these citations from well-known sceptic sites (e.g., junkscience.com and the Competitive Enterprise Institute) or news outlets. I counted only three academic citations, and one was from Morner citing himself. In other words, only two other scientists felt his work warranted a mention in their papers. This is a sure sign that his ideas have no traction among the scientific community.
Compare that to Cazenave, a leading researcher in the field, who believes that sea level rise may be underestimated by the IPCC. His "Present-Day Sea Level Change: Observations and Causes" (Space Science Reviews, 2003) is cited 92 times, almost all of which are from academic journals. So, he clearly has a good reputation in the community.
The story of this particular denialist canard is not over, though. In a follow-up comment, I'll talk about what the observed data actually indicate, and what Cazenave thinks about Morner.
The Morner paper has been pretty soundly rejected by scientists in the field, as I've already shown. It also drew several comments in the journals exposing its shoddy methodology.
I''ll quote extensively from one of these, which appeared in the original journal's "Discussion" section (1):
We feel compelled to respond to the recent article by Mörner (2004) because he makes several major errors in his analysis, and as a result completely misinterprets the record of sea level change from the TOPEX/Poseidon (T/P) satellite altimeter mission. One major criticism we have with the paper is that Mörner does not include a single reference to any altimeter study, all of which refute his claim that there is no apparent change in global mean sea level (GMSL).
...
Mörner gives no details for the source of the data or processing strategy he used to produce Fig. 2, other than to say it is based on “raw data”. Because the details of the analysis are not presented in his paper, we are left to speculate on how this result could have been obtained, based on our years of experience as members of the T/P and Jason-1 Science Working Team. Mörner was apparently oblivious to the corrections that must be made to the “raw” altimeter data in order to make correct use of the data.
...
When care is taken to make these corrections, the rate of sea level change over the entire T/P mission is 3.0 ±0.4 mm/year (http://sealevel.colorado.edu), 3.3 mm/year when corrected for the change in ocean volume due to glacial isostatic adjustment (Tamisiea et al., 2005). In light of this, the statement by Mörner that “This means that this data set does not record any general trend (rising or falling) in sea level, just variability around zero plus the temporary ENSO perturbations” is completely false and is based on his erroneous data processing. Mörner's paper completely misrepresents the results from the T/P mission, and does discredit to the tremendous amount of work that has been expended by the Science Working Team to create a precise, validated, and calibrated sea level data set suitable for studies of climate variations. Finally, Mörner ignores substantial other oceanographic (e.g. Levitus et al., 2001, Antonov et al., 2002, Munk, 2003 and Willis et al., 2004) and cryospheric (e.g. Dyurgerov and Meier, 2000, Rignot et al., 2003, Krabill et al., 2004 and Thomas et al., 2004) evidence of sea level rise which corroborate the altimeter observations.
[Emphasis added in bold]
A list of more debunkings of Morner in the scientific literature can be found in this comment at ClimateAudit:
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=923#comment-70040
By the way, I've highlighted the bit about Morner completely ignoring contradictory evidence because that's what denialists do all the time, even as it's clear that Nerem, Cazenave et al. took the time to examine Morner's paper in detail. Sure, they rejected it, but they did so based on sound science. Morner didn't even bother to engage with their research.
You see the same with sites such as PC's. He merrily links to other denialist sites, but when has he ever actually looked at evidence that contradicts the way he wants the world to be?
Next comment: What does the data actually say?
REFERENCE
(1) Nerem, R.S., Cazenave, A., Chambers, D.P., Fu, L.L., Leuliette, E.W. and Mitchum, G.T., 2007. Comment on "Estimating future sea level change from past records" by Nils-Axel Mörner. Global and Planetary Change, 55(4): 358-360.
Eddie: Yes, the dowsing stuff is all true - Google his name and 'dowsing' for a laugh at some of the outlandish papeers and books he has written on the subject of psi-lines, sensing water and metals, and much more. Comedy plus.
PC: On a second scan, Owen McShane's article is fairly disingenuous. It states that Mörner is "the head of the Paleogeophysics and Geodynamics department at Stockholm University in Sweden." In fact, the University closed down the department in early 2005 when he retired, taking with it the departments schools of 'paleomagnetism' and 'geophilosophy' - his wacky dowsing theories (Link for the interested http://www.sasnet.lu.se/palgeosth.html)
He has apparently expressed interest in setting up a private research institution to continue his work and replace the now-defunct institute. Perhaps he should jump on the 'warmist's' wagon - after all, there'll never be a greater need for magical dowsers than widespread drought!
DenMT
I've shown that Mörner's reputation among scientists studying sea level changes is abysmal. (On a side note, this is how denialism works: While scientists know that Mörner produces questionable research, non-scientists like PC don't, and if their poor research is hyped up, then the rubes fall for every time.)
I've also shown that there are sound scientific reasons for rejecting his research.
But what is the current state of the science? Well, as it turns out, there's cause for concern. In a paper published this year (and too late to be incorporated into the IPCC AR4), Rahmstorf and Caznenave et al. indicate that the observed data is worse than the IPCC predicted (1).
The data available for the period since 1990 raise concerns that the climate system, in particular sea level, may be responding more quickly to climate change than our current generation of models indicates.
Now, because these are real scientists, they add caveats against too much alarmism:
Again, we caution that the time interval of overlap is short, so that internal decadal climate variability could cause much of the discrepancy; it would be premature to conclude that sea level will continue to follow this "upper limit" line in future.
Of course, this should in no way be interpreted as evidence that humans are not largely responsible for the recent warming trend, as the IPCC shows.
The final paragraph is important:
Overall, these observational data underscore the concerns about global climate change. Previous projections, as summarized by IPCC, have not exaggerated but may in some respects even have underestimated the change, in particular for sea level.
(Note that James Hansen was a co-author of this paper; that ought to bring the conspiracy theorists out in droves.)
(1) Rahmstorf S., Cazenave A., Church J.A., Hansen J.E., Keeling R F., Parker D.E., and Somerville C.J. (2007) Recent Climate Observations Compared to Projections. Science.
DenMT: Thanks for the link -- pure crank comedy.
I didn't realise Mörner was an aging scientist. Why is it that so many sceptic scientists are old cranks? And after they retire, is there any guarantee they'll keep up with their reading?
By the way, I'm glad to see PC is back into his denialism rut. I worried for a while that he might have realised he was just embarrassing himself, but as long he kept the graphic and link to Lubos Motl on the front page, I knew it would only be a matter of time before he renewed his energy.
I think PC does a valuable service, since he draws a lot of people who might be on the fence about global warming. As long as he gives us a venue to reach these people, he does his cause more harm than good.
Eddie said...
Anyway, I did some checking to see whether researchers in the field actually agreed with his findings. I was hoping they did, but unfortunately, they don't. His most important paper, on which he bases his reputation among denialists, appears to be "Estimating Future Sea Level Changes from Past Records" (Global and Planetary Change, 2004).
Eddie, I can see that your method of quoting citation from Google Scholar as your ultimate confirmation of the acceptance of any scientific theory that is being proposed. You must love consensus science.
You do love Google Scholar, don't you?
Now, I don't know your background in whatever field that you specialize in, but obviously you don't come from a natural physical science . Because if you do, then you would have already known that citation is important but is irrelevant when it comes to determine if the verdict on a scientific theory is the final one or not.
Wake up Eddie, this is how science work. It is not like a popularity contest, to see how many out there are referencing your paper. It is not like that. In all the academic disciplines that I am interested in, I have seen theories that are put forward by others and I have also seen the opponents arguing against the validity of those proposals. The cycle goes on and on, until one theory is consistently agree with the observation, then that one is adopted, while the other one is being relegated to the bottom or even rejected completely.
I can quote you this historical Physics example here, but there are many such examples in Physics.
In 1924 , Einstein came up with a revolutionary theory where in his paper, he proposed that it is possible in nature that when an ensemble of boson particles (particles with integral or integer spin number - 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, ...) are cooled towards absolute zero, they collapse (wave-function) into one huge super quantum state (or super-atom entity). Einstein's theory was an extension of Bose's work to include particles with mass, was then called Bose-Einstein Condensation (BEC).
Bose-Einstein Condensation
BEC was mothballed for almost 70 years, that is NOT CITED at all in any other Physics journals or publication by any researchers, until Prof. Carl Wieman and colleagues first reproduced BEC in their lab in 1995 at University of Colorado . Amazing. This is the first time since the Big Bang, that the temperature anywhere in the Universe has gone as close to 10^-6 (millionth) of a Kelvin degree from absolute zero. Carl Wieman shared the Physics Nobel Prize of 2001 for his effort in producing the first BEC. Now, there is a new branch of Physics that is added to condensed-matter-physics field based on BEC.
I attended the free public Sir Douglas Robb Lectures on BEC at Auckland University , in 2005.
He did mention in his first lecture, of how BEC was mothballed for that long (around 70 years), because no Physicist thought that it is something possible in nature , meaning the validity of the theory is questionable.
Had Einstein still around in 1995, he would share the Nobel Prize with Cornell, Wieman and Ketterle, because that is how Physics prize are usually awarded. The guy who first proposed the theory wins and also the guy who experimentally confirms such theory also wins.
Why was BEC mothballed for 70 years? Was it because , it wasn't widely cited, therefore it must be questionable, or perhaps, there was no consensus, meaning the theory was simply sitting idle until someone can test it?
Take your pick Eddie, which one? Would you get off your fixation with Google Scholar for a minute?
Eddie, have you read the paper you quoted as shown below?
"PRESENT-DAY SEA LEVEL RISE: OBSERVATIONS AND CAUSES"
I can't seem to find a free copy on Google to read. I am amazed at how you quote refutation of Mörner's paper, if all you had was reading other scientists negative comment about Mörner's work. If you have a copy of this, then I am interested to take a look.
Falafulu: you don't seem to get it. Google Scholar helps the non-scientists among us to observe what scientists deem worthy of study. That only two other scientists saw fit to reference Mörner is an indictment of the uselessness of his work; that 92 papers cited Cazenave means other scientists see value in his work. That's consensus science, and it's valuable.
What would non-scientists use other than Google Scholar? Your criticism is astounding.
Your distrust of consensus science is also transparently political. There is a huge consensus behind evolutionary science, but creationists and IDists have for years been railing against the "consensus". Would you be as willing to apply your arguments on consensus in the fight against evolution? Or HIV/AIDS denialism? How about aromatherapy? These are all areas in which the consensus is settled, but under attack by cranks.
You also seem to be confused about who uses judgments about consensus. Scientists don't, since they should know enough about their field and be intimate enough about the important papers to make judgments based solely on the science. And we can use Google Scholar to see what decisions they've made in terms of the papers they've cited. (That's the point I've been making about Mörner's and Cazenave's papers in Google Scholar.)
No, judgments about consensus are used by the public, the media, and policymakers -- none of whom can be expected to know all the ins and outs of the science, but need some useful measure of the current state of the science.
Your criticism of my use of Google Scholar is clearly nonsense, and rather defensive in tone.
As for the location of the Cazenave paper I mentioned, take a look in the university libraries, because I don't think there's an electronic version. Note it's been published in various journals, including:
Reviews of Geophysics 42(3), 2004;
and
Space Science Reviews 108 (1-2): 131-144, 2003.
It's also referenced in ISI; next time you're in the Auckland University library, look through the databases.
A final point: Your example about Bose-Einstein condensation is not only beside the point, it's also a bad analogy. Einstein was a theorist; Mörner is an experimentalist. In other words, Enstein was pointing to possible areas of research; Mörner was engaged in the actual research.
Furthermore, Einstein's BEC theory was not rejected by the scientific community before 1995 but actively talked about: Google Scholar flags 1,280 hits for "bose-einstein condensation" pre-1995:
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?as_q=+condensation&num=10&btnG=Search+Scholar&as_epq=bose+einstein+&as_oq=&as_eq=&as_occt=any&as_sauthors=&as_publication=&as_ylo=&as_yhi=1994&as_allsubj=all&hl=en&lr=
Your statement that BEC was not cited in physics journals is thus untrue.
Moreover, you fail to note that the main reason BEC literature jumped in 1995 is because physicists were finally able to reproduce temperatures cold enough to look for BEC.
Just because it took 70-odd years for experimental physics to catch up with Einstein's theories doesn't mean scientists thought those theories were hogwash (as they clearly do about Mörner's experimental work).
By the way, you wrote two comments without mentioning how much smarter you are than the IPCC. Are you feeling alright today?
Eddie said...
Google Scholar helps the non-scientists among us to observe what scientists deem worthy of study.
So, Google Scholar is there solely for non-scientists like you to use, am I correct? So, it means that you don't have to know the specific science at all to understand the argument, all there is there for the likes of you , is just count how many references shown at Google Scholar. Argument is more valid if it is above a certain number and it is dismissed if it is below that cut-off.
As for the location of the Cazenave paper I mentioned,
So, you haven't read the paper after all? How can yo adopt the view of the author ,when you haven't read it. You're truely a sucker, aren't you?
By the way, you wrote two comments without mentioning how much smarter you are than the IPCC.
I had challenged you before, to find out how many scientists at the IPCC panel who understand State Space Modeling in its application in climate feedback system and you haven't come back with some names. The reason I challenged you about State Space, is because modeling of multi-coupling feedback climate system is the hardest of all climate models. Now, that was the reason why I called you names in the past, since you still don't get your head around that there is descriptive climate science and numerical modeling climate science. Which is more difficult? If you don't know the answer, I tell you that it is numerical modeling climate science. Now, this is what I do everyday, eat, drink, shit numerical modeling from sunrise to sunset. The vast majority of scientists who are involved in the IPCC are doing descriptive climate science research, and you only have to look at the majority of references that is cited in the IPCC. My God, those reports could have easily read & understood by some All Blacks such as Rico Gear, Luke McCalister or Joe Rococo? Even the likes of you, would understand, because they don't involve any equations at all. Just pure English language. Of course some terminology might be new, but they are fuck'n English words. Differential calculus are not English words at all, and only people who understand them (including myself) can read those papers more like reading the Herald. Meaning , no difficulty in understanding the content of the document even though there is foreign language in there (Differential Calculus). There is a small number of pointers at IPCC reports that use sophisticated models, and this means that the average Joe Public has no problem in understanding this so called scientific document.
The paper you quoted:
"PRESENT-DAY SEA LEVEL RISE: OBSERVATIONS AND CAUSES"
I bet you, based on my reading of the abstract only, that the full version of this paper, Joe Rocococo from the All Blacks can understand this or even DenMT? If lay people can understand that paper, then why do you think that the author has any chance of understanding complex numerical modeling? The chance is very little.
The IPCC report is full of simplistic models, and unless suckers like you think otherwise, just point out which model(s) in the IPCC report that is(are) complex enough that perhaps they're near complete to capture each and every possible climate state variables?
Furthermore, Einstein's BEC theory was not rejected by the scientific community before 1995 but actively talked about:
How many references are enough to regard a scientific publication as credible? See, it wouldn't change the fact that using Google Scholar is meaningless in deciding if a theory is credible or not?
Are you feeling alright today?
Eddie, this sort of remark & tone, was exactly the reason I called you the last time as the guy with a PhD in rubbish collection. If you want to argue, then argue, stop trying piss me off, since I don't come to this blog to make friends. I get involved in this blog to debate. So, you should stick to the argument.
FF: All smoke and no fire.
You have completely ignored the substance of Cazenave's criticisms of Morner's work, instead waving your hands about to distract attention.
You have also failed to grasp that policymakers are non-scientists and cannot be expected to become experts on climate change -- yet they decide climate change policy! Are you seriously demanding they become as educated as you are on math modelling?
Finally, I repeat my challenge to you of several weeks ago: Stop screwing around in blog comment areas and submit a paper to a journal. If you think that the vast majority of climate scientists are off on the wrong tack and if you think you can do better -- which you clearly do -- then it's up to you to do something about it that's more meaningful than commenting in a blog.
In fact, considering your views on climate change, I would have to say you have a strong responsibility to do so. After all, governments around the world, including ours, are gearing up policies to deal with climate change, and you apparently think they're all basing their policies on unsound science. If you think they're wrong and that you can do better then it's up to you to change it.
Otherwise, you're just a crank.
Tell you what, I'll keep looking for you in Google Scholar:
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&lr=&q=author%3Af-fisi&btnG=Search
but something tells me I won't find you there.
Eddie said...
You have also failed to grasp that policymakers are non-scientists and cannot be expected to become experts on climate change -- yet they decide climate change policy!
No, you failed to recognize that policymakers are heavily relied on expert scientific opinions. You must be stupid not to recognize this. It is such people at NIWA like as Dr David Wratt who advises the government are ones that I blamed. They know that the most complex issues in climate change such as multi-coupling feedback system are not yet fully understood but they choose to go with the majority consensus rather than doing their own independent modeling. Now, that is what I call independent advise and not one that just simply follow what others are doing or agreeing to. Who is failing to grasp reality here? Falafulu or Edie?
After all, governments around the world, including ours, are gearing up policies to deal with climate change, and you apparently think they're all basing their policies on unsound science.
Do you understand the difference between incomplete science and unsound science? Obviously , it looks like that you lump them together? Oh, boy.
then it's up to you to do something about it that's more meaningful than commenting in a blog.
Do you want to pay me to do such work? If you can, then post back your contact here, so I we can proceed. If you're not willing then, how, about you can contact NIWA and ask if they have a numerical modeling position over there? I have a pretty good idea on what algorithms NIWA are using and what they lack. I can cover all sides of numerical computing development.
Otherwise, you're just a crank.
Eddie, it is time for you to visit the toilet. I have pointed out to you many times in the past that the debate about AGW is about the numerical computer modeling and you still don't get it.
FF: In an effort to engage in clean debate, I am not going to indulge in name-calling. I hope you'll grant me enough respect to do the same.
I have a pretty good idea on what algorithms NIWA are using and what they lack. I can cover all sides of numerical computing development.
Then why don't you? It's not up to me to pay you or put you in contact with NIWA, it's up to you. In fact, you should feel a moral imperative to do so, and here's why:
Let's try a little experiment. Let's assume that you have the expertise to make a world-changing contribution to the area of climate science.
Those scientists in a position to effect change in the field lack, according to you, a sophisticated understanding of math modelling. Yet they're the ones who, through the IPCC, are informing public policy. Meanwhile, you're on the outside, without any power to affect policy at all.
Something's wrong here, obviously. And it's up to you to change it. Now, you can either spend your time commenting on blogs, or you can call up NIWA yourself and arrange a meeting with its modellers. Or you can get someone at Auckland University interested. Or you can contribute a paper to a journal (or even the NZ Climate Science Coalition). Or you could drum up support within your own field. Or you could get in contact with climate scientists the world over and submit your ideas to them. Or you could at least contact those few scientists you believe have got the modelling right.
In fact, not only can you do this, but you should feel a moral imperative to do this. Otherwise, you are like a surgeon who, seeing a man hit by a car and bleeding profusely on the street just metres from where he stands, decides to do nothing but criticise the nurse who rushes to the dying man's aid.
Yet here you are, commenting on a blog, doing nothing to save the world from a science that you feel is undeveloped in its understanding. For me, that says it all.
Eddie said...
Meanwhile, you're on the outside, without any power to affect policy at all.
Tell me why would I want to do that? (see my next comment).
Yet here you are, commenting on a blog, doing nothing to save the world from a science that you feel is undeveloped in its understanding. For me, that says it all
Let me get this straight. I am not commenting in this blog or any other blogs regarding any subject, just so that I can jump in every chance and publish a scientific paper on that subject simply because I want to save the world. Don't you think that what you're suggesting is stupid? I had mentioned to you in the past of what are the area of technology that I am interested in. My area of interest is so huge that it is impossible for me to do just that.
Finance/Economics, is just one of the many areas that I am interested in doing numerical modeling. Are you suggesting that I should also jumped in here, to publish an economic paper of how to solve our current problem or perhaps help out Dr. Bollard in modeling of the exchange rate in order to save our industry because of the high value of our dollar? Don't you see that your suggestion is so stupid? I posted a message on my opinion about why Dr. Bollard is doing what he has been doing recently in the other thread here. According to you, I should also get involve with the Reserve Bank. No, problem, I can do that easily, but the idea that I am only doing it to save the country is absurd. I will do it for money first and foremost and not to save the country.
It is more like me asking you, if you walk to work (& everywhere), because I assume you want to save the planet by not polluting the environment in choosing to walk and not drive? Your debate here, is irrelevant whether you walk to work or whether I want to get involve with NIWA to save the world. Sure, I will take an offer from NIWA to get involve, but not for the reason to saving the planet, but simply to get paid and buy a loaf of bread for myself and this is the reality. All the greenies like yourself are just spewing out hot air all the time. If you love to save the planet, then you must have shut down your computer and never turn it on, in order to save the planet by not polluting the environment. This means that I wouldn't expect to see Eddie again posting messages in the blogosphere.
Finally, would you tell me if you want to invest a huge amount of your money in prediction made by this software system developed by econo-physicists at Oxford Center for Computational Finance (OCCF). This software can predict market crash according to those scientists who designed the system?
I am sure that if you're so certain about the climate computer modeling projection drafted for the IPCC report, in which you regarded as a holy bible, then it follows that you must also be so certain about the market prediction produced by the OCCF software system? Here is a fact, the mathematics developed into the OCCF system is almost the same as the type of mathematics that are described in some chapters of the IPCC report.
If you accept the IPCC but reject the OCCF algorithm, then obviously you're self contradicting there, since 2 different domains shared common algorithms (almost the same), however you accept one model (IPCC) but reject the other (OCCF).
FF: So, you won't do anything about what you allege is a lack of sophisticated modelling in climate science unless funders beat a path to your door. A useful position, since it allows you to bloviate in comment threads. Good to know.
In the meantime, we've strayed from the original topic, which is Morner and his soundly debunked sea level study. I notice you haven't defended it.
FF is the surgeon standing off to the side. He could save the life of the man dying in front of him, but no one's offering to pay him, so why bother?
In any case, he's more of a nose and throat specialist than an ER specialist.
Den, Eddie, agree with you on the dowsing. That's as worrying as being a Christian.
But to judge a paper ONLY on Google Scholar cites is less than credible, as is claiming that you've "shown" it has been "pretty soundly rejected." You haven't.
Frankly, I haven't read his paper, but neither it seems have you.
But given your passion for truth, I assume you've written to Al Gore excoriating him for his claims that sea levels will rise twenty feet in the coming century rather than the twenty-three inches predicted by your IPCC (a claim giving Al his most photogenic scare stories -- watch Florida disappear!) and to Al and others for their claims of "climate refugees" -- up to "twenty five million" according to a recent Time Magazine scare story -- due to seal level rises, rises which are more attributable to sinking islands rather than sea level rises, and refugees that just don't exist.
PC: The number of citations a paper garners is only one data point, but it's a useful one. In the case of Morner, only two other research teams felt his study warranted inclusion in their subsequent studies of sea levels. In the case of Cazenave, 92 further papers cited his team's research. (To be fair, some of those 92 papers could be authored by Cazenave himself, I haven't checked every single reference.)
Those are the facts. Sure, Morner could turn out to be a Galileo, but a bookie wouldn't give you great odds on that.
As for Gore, I'm not interested in defending him to the wall. However, I should point out that his warning of a huge rise in sea levels was predicated on melting of the Greenland and Antarctica ice sheets. The IPCC was quite explicit in stating it did not take such melting into account, therefore their projection is much lower.
(I'm surprised you didn't know this, since I remember you saying you were reading ClimateAudit a lot. Have they not mentioned this there or in any of the other sites you visit?)
What's the likelihood of an ice sheet collapse? From what I've heard from what climate scientists say on their blogs and discussion groups, things are still uncertain and it could go both ways. This makes Gore guilty of hyping up one side of the argument, and it's not something I would have done, but just so you know there are sound data to back up his interpretation.
He also should have attached a time span with his graphic of the flooding of cities; if the ice sheets melted it would mean a huge sea level rise by 2100, not in the hours that most people believed would happen from watching his movie.
So, you shouldn't hit Gore with this particular talking point without acknowledging that he and the IPCC are describing two different scenarios in their predictions of sea level rise.
PC: I had intended to note this, but forgot.
Despite what you've stated, I'm not basing my rejection of Morner only on his paucity of citations. As I said, that's just one data point. I also focused on criticism of his work in Science and elsewhere. I excerpted a large chunk from one of these criticisms in an earlier comment; perhaps you didn't read it? Here it is again (cut and pasted):
We feel compelled to respond to the recent article by Mörner (2004) because he makes several major errors in his analysis, and as a result completely misinterprets the record of sea level change from the TOPEX/Poseidon (T/P) satellite altimeter mission. One major criticism we have with the paper is that Mörner does not include a single reference to any altimeter study, all of which refute his claim that there is no apparent change in global mean sea level (GMSL).
...
Mörner gives no details for the source of the data or processing strategy he used to produce Fig. 2, other than to say it is based on “raw data”. Because the details of the analysis are not presented in his paper, we are left to speculate on how this result could have been obtained, based on our years of experience as members of the T/P and Jason-1 Science Working Team. Mörner was apparently oblivious to the corrections that must be made to the “raw” altimeter data in order to make correct use of the data.
...
When care is taken to make these corrections, the rate of sea level change over the entire T/P mission is 3.0 ±0.4 mm/year (http://sealevel.colorado.edu) 3.3 mm/year when corrected for the change in ocean volume due to glacial isostatic adjustment (Tamisiea et al., 2005). In light of this, the statement by Mörner that “This means that this data set does not record any general trend (rising or falling) in sea level, just variability around zero plus the temporary ENSO perturbations” is completely false and is based on his erroneous data processing. Mörner's paper completely misrepresents the results from the T/P mission, and does discredit to the tremendous amount of work that has been expended by the Science Working Team to create a precise, validated, and calibrated sea level data set suitable for studies of climate variations. Finally, Mörner ignores substantial other oceanographic (e.g. Levitus et al., 2001, Antonov et al., 2002, Munk, 2003 and Willis et al., 2004) and cryospheric (e.g. Dyurgerov and Meier, 2000, Rignot et al., 2003, Krabill et al., 2004 and Thomas et al., 2004) evidence of sea level rise which corroborate the altimeter observations.
A list of more debunkings of Morner in the scientific literature can be found in this comment at ClimateAudit:
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=923#comment-70040
As far as I know, Morner has not addressed these criticisms, though I may have missed this in my search.
Eddie, before we continue, can you answer these questions for me please? Just pure Yes/No (boolean logic) answer.
#1) Is the main evidence for AGW come from computer mathematical models ? (if answer 'YES' --> continue to #2 , else 'STOP' here.)
#2) If you answer 'YES' to #1, then would you trust the models (mathematics) if they are applied in a different domain other than climate science such as economics, where you wholeheartedly put all your money into it, since they sound convincing in their application in other fields? (if answer 'YES' --> continue to #3 , else 'STOP' here.)
#3) If you answer 'YES' to #2, then make contact with Prof. Howison, because he and his team at Oxford Center for Computational Finance are looking for investors. (if answer 'YES' --> continue to #4 , else 'STOP' here.)
#4) If you answer 'NO' to #3 and reached this step, then I think I am wasting my time in arguing with you, since I have consistently pointed out to you many many times, that the disputes are largely centered on the climate mathematical modeling and less on physical observations, but you still refused to accept that.
FF: That car accident victim in front of you is still dying. What are you doing about it? Playing silly games, and proving with each comment how morally empty your position is.
Eddie, the onus of proof that there even IS a "car accident victim," ie., that AGW exists and that it's going to be catastrophic, is on you.
And that's still to do, isn't it.
FF: By the way, you made a dumb mistake in your "boolean logic" in #4. If I chose 'No' for #3 I would have stopped and not gone on to #4. Pretty sloppy work, don't you think, FF?
And the evidence for AGW is from observations. D'uh.
Ah, you and PC always bring sunlight to my day. Thanks for playing! I never knew you were such a proponent of the little-appreciated Unintentional Comedy genre.
Speaking of sunlight:
http://environment.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,,2119695,00.html
So much for The Great Global Warming Swindle.
From the article:
Mike Lockwood, a physicist at the Rutherford Appleton Laboratory in the UK [and author of a new study to be published in a Royal Society journal on Tuesday], said: "It is absolutely clear that the sun is nothing to do with the recent warming.
"This doesn't rely on models, it uses real data and it shows that all the solar trends have been going in the opposite direction for the last 20 years."
(Paying attention, PC? You might want to rethink that graphic on your front page.)
Remember the donnybrook you and I had, FF, over at Adolf Fiinkelstein's about the gap in that graph in TGGWS, and you covered yourself in stupidity? Good times.
It's a shame it's no longer on the web so I can show my kids what denialist idiocy looks like.
PC: Two words -- reading comprehension.
The car accident victim is not AGW but industry and the economy, and the car is governments' focus on mitigating GHG emissions.
FF thinks the models used by climate scientists are not sophisticated enough to make valid predictions, and that he can do a better job.
I say he has a moral imperative to work towards that. His choice is clear: leave his cave to save Western industry with the soft warm glow of his genius (and make a pile of money out of it), or let Western industry be destroyed at the hands of greenies.
Egads! What would Ayn Rand do?
Eddie,
That car accident victim in front of you is still dying. What are you doing about it? Playing silly games, and proving with each comment how morally empty your position is.
This is the most dumbest comment I've ever seen. So, who is the car accident victim here? The earth or illiterate suckers like you? Are you serious here. Are we bleeding to death? Where is the evidence? Are you hungry or run out of food? Are the citizens of the world, running out of water?
You're a Dumb fuck Eddie, c'mon come out with a better realistic example than the car accident victim . Are you bleeding as a victim Eddie and if so, in what way?
Eddie, that is a minor technicality and not a big deal, so don't try to make a mountain out of a molehill in my mistake, because you know kids, blog is not a business proposal that things are checked and re-checked again to make sure that is no errors, do you see that kids? Ok, the lesson for today are for you to answer these questions?
#1) Is the main evidence for AGW come from computer mathematical models ? (if answer 'YES' --> continue to #2 , else 'STOP' here.)
#2) If you answer 'YES' to #1, then would you trust the models (mathematics) if they are applied in a different domain other than climate science such as economics, where you wholeheartedly put all your money into it, since they sound convincing in their application in other fields? (if answer 'YES' --> continue to #3 , else 'STOP' here.)
#3) If you answer 'YES' to #2, then make contact with Prof. Howison, because he and his team at Oxford Center for Computational Finance are looking for investors. (if answer 'YES' --> continue to #4 , else 'STOP' here.)
#4) If you answer 'YES' to #4 and reached this step, then I think I am wasting my time in arguing with you, since I have consistently pointed out to you many many times, that the disputes are largely centered on the climate mathematical modeling and less on physical observations, but you still refused to accept that.
Remember the donnybrook you and I had, FF, over at Adolf Fiinkelstein's about the gap in that graph in TGGWS, and you covered yourself in stupidity? Good times.
No. It was you that covered in stupidity. I said to you that the Mann hockey stick data, there were many holes everywhere (missing data) in the dataset, and you still think that Mann's work didn't involve missing data imputation? Because if you thought otherwise, then you would have brought up that Mann himself fudged his data, but you didn't, did you? Didn't you realize, your bias to criticize only the opposing views but not the pro-AGW Mann's publication?
Eddie said...
Morner and his soundly debunked sea level study. I notice you haven't defended it.
I haven't defended Morner because I haven't read his work and also his work is non-mathematics. My area of specialty is mathematical computing and my debate is about the mathematical modeling involved in climate change. Since the first time, I have got involved in AGW debate it has always been about mathematics and not descriptive climate science.
You mentioned in one of your post at Sir Humphries that you frequently use imputation to fill in missing data in your type of work? Would you mind telling me, what sort of data analysis that your're doing? Perhaps that its good to know which angle of the debate you're coming from, because I pointed out a climate modeling paper by Prof. Tapio Schneider where he used Expectation Maximization (EM), but you seemed not to know anything about that method, although you claimed that it is something (imputation) you frequently do at work.
Before you jump back with your idiotic comment, I urged you to read Prof. Tapio Schneider's paper, where he mentions there that Mann used some form of imputations in his hockey stick paper, although he , didn't state what algorithm that Mann used for that.
BTW, I can consult to you & your company about using state-of-the-art imputation algorithms, just to make sure that your analysis is sophisticated and more robust. I assume that probably, you won't like such idea, since if I get involved with your company, then your job might be made redundant.
FF: You're starting to get a little too frothy and shrill even for my tastes in wingnuttery; I hope you have a towel handy to wipe the spit from your keyboard.
For the car accident analogy (which you have seriously misunderstood), read my previous comment. (Hint: the victim is Western industry and I'm driving the car. Gadzooks!)
For my answer to your cute little algorithm, read my previous comment. (Hint: I say 'Yes' to #1. Zounds!)
For my take on the Fiinkenstein stoush, read ... oh, right, there's no archive of that. But you know as well as I do that "imputing" a 100-year empty hole in a time series only 400 years long (which is what Durkin did for a solar vs temperature graph that was central to the argument in TGGWS) is a no-no. Heavens to Murgatroyd!
Game, set, and match.
It's been fun working the indignation buttons on you and PC, but I think I've wrung all the entertainment value out of you I can for one day. I leave the last word to you; feel free to insult me (I know you will), but try to keep it clean and above waist between the two of you.
Eddie said...
FF thinks the models used by climate scientists are not sophisticated enough to make valid predictions
Eddie, I wondered if you just put forward stupid argument for the sake of it. I don't think, it is the knowledge of real climate scientists (numerical modeling scientists) who attended the workshop shown below:
WORKSHOP ON CLIMATE SYSTEM FEEDBACKS
Let me ask you a question. Are those scientists wrong in their statement that models are not sophisticated enough? I recalled from a previous debate, that I have already pointed out the concerned raised at the workshop shown above, but you seemed not to remember that, this really makes you very dull to debate with.
In the IPCC report, there was no update to the section on feedback since the 2001 report. WHY? As I have mentioned time & time again in this debate, that this is the MOST difficult of all topics in climate science because of the multi-coupling of feedback systems, plus the added complication of non-linearity in those feedback systems. This is the reason that the feedback report from 2001 is reprinted again in 2007, because there has been slow progression for research in this area due to the difficulty in the mathematical modeling of such very complex system .Could you pay attention to the debate and stop trying to argue like a toilet cleaner. Debate like someone like who professes to do imputation of missing data at work.
FF: Sorry if I mistook your position in my previous comment. What exactly is your position on AGW and models? I know you think the models they're using aren't very sophisticated, but what do you think that means for policy setting? Are the projections made by the IPCC radically wrong or do they just need fine-tuning? You've never actually said.
Do please try to reply without ad hominem.
yo Bro!
Shit-oh-dear!
Man oh dear all wees get to hear these days is the climate cult and their "sky is fallin down" ideology. They jus keep a'squealing like little pigs about to get their throats stuck. Dammn they be a pack of piggy turds they be.
Criss almighty, they been selling that bad-climate-bad-weather-gonna-git-us snake oil since my Dad was a young'un. First it was tha the Earth was a gettin' coolder, then a few years on the Earth was a getting hotter, then a few years after that they changed it to the Earth be a getting colder and now it be supposed to be a getting hotter agin.
The story was always the same. Man and his industry was causing hell with the weather. We all better stop using petrol and stuff or else the sky will fall down and the climate will be all dead and we be dead millions of times s day or some such mumbo. Then they pray how we all better let the government take over everything and git right up onto our backs to save us from ourselves. We all better pay more money to the high priests of climate cult as well (ones like special mystical "scientists" and "academics" what have never done no productive work in their no good lives and who go around telling everyone else how they must pay to have more "research" done, also ones like government bosses and insiders and pressure group acolytes and heavies). They always want to tell you how you should live and what you shall do.
Waal, it's all a con, the whole shootin' match. Lies, the whole mess.
Here be some questions to answer before you come polluting this blog with your charmless cultist faith in the sky-is-a-fallin' religo nutter stuff.
1/. Prove that the Earth's climate is really getting warmer and warmer and warmer and that it aint goin' to stop
2/. prove that is not a natural event
3/. Prove that increasing levels of CO2 are the cause
4/. prove that Man and his industry and activities are the cause of the CO2 and that Man is driving the change
5/. Prove that the results are necessarily bad for Man.
6/. Prove that the solution is collectivisation of all men under a government operated system of CO2 rationing and energy rationing etc. (this last bit be the hardest bit as it is akin to proving communism is good).
- acknowledgement to the late Matai Vatu for these questions (he fight the good fight he done did)
Now I be knwing that you'll can't answer these with proofs. So what youse got aint facts but faith. Hell yes, you'll got the mark of blind cult believers about ya!
Now no more jibbering and jabbering. Go 'way now and work on your proofs. When you'll can't find any then have the balls to admit it.
Until then "you aint goit anything."
Go away and find your own site to tell fibs on.
Cleetus
Cleetus: Lol! Awesome satire, dude!
While most of the debate focuses on Morner's theoretical work what interests the NZCC is his work on actual measurement in real places.
Some time ago Freeman Dyson said we need less computer modelling and more measurement.
This is critically so now that we are going to pay indulgences based on computer generated parameters.
Are you aware of the work by Lincoln researchers on Nitrous Oxide emissions from NZ waterways? It turns out the measured levels are MUCH lower than the IPCC assessments and yet we are calculating our indulgences on the models. Wouldn't you think Govt would actually do the meausurements before making the cost/benefit assumptions? Similarly it may well be that cutting down pine forests and turning them into well managed pasture is a GHG plus, according to other Lincoln research. But we don't know and Landcare is selling indulgences as though we do. If I did that I would go to jail.
The fact is that in most locations tectonic plate movements up and down are more important than the sea level rises recorded over the last hundred years. So you actually need to measure on site - its called ground-proofing.
Economists learned some time ago that we cannot model financial futures. The IPCC seems to be taking some time to wake up to their similar limitations. In the end good science is about measurement, measurement, measurement.
I should also point out that Morner is an exhuberant Swede being interviewed in his second language.
The notes were from a transcript of the interview.
Before criticising his use of language I suggest you all read a direct transcript of your own spoken prose before you do it next time.
Dr. Nils-Axel Mörner STATED THAT THE SEA LEVEL HAD DROPPED AT THE MALDIVES, IF YOU HAVE WATCHED CBC`S DOOMSDAY CALLED OFF DR MORNER CLEARLY SHOWS THE DIFFERENT LEVELS OF THE BEACH ON THE MALDIVES, THE HIGHER LEVEL IS MADE OF OLD DARK CORAL, THE PRESENT LOWER LEVEL IS LIGHT NEWER CORAL, THIS CLEARLY SHOWS THE SEA LEVEL HAS DROPPED BY SOME 20 CM.
Eddie says
Mörner gives no details for the source of the data or processing strategy he used to produce Fig. 2.
Does this ring a bell regarding Dr Mann et al and there hockey Stick data and method.
I wonder why the screptics are always wrong.
Post a Comment