Comments on: Royal Society gives us nightmare without the terror

By: Richard C

Richard C — Thu, 14 Oct 2010 02:01:05 +0000

Jo Nova has a new post on this:

“Shock! Climate models can’t even predict a linear rise”

http://joannenova.com.au/2010/10/shock-climate-models-cant-even-predict-linear-rise/

By: Quentin F

Quentin F — Wed, 06 Oct 2010 00:01:49 +0000

They (RSNZ) should read this from C3
“Working with stalagmite SV1 from Grotta Savi — a cave located at the southeast margin of the European Alps in Italy…..This work revealed — among several other things — the occurrence of the Roman Warm Period and a Medieval Warm Period…..the five researchers say they were “characterized by temperatures that were similar to the present,” while with respect to the Roman Warm Period, they say its “temperatures were similar to those of today or even slightly warmer…..we have here yet another example of the millennial-scale oscillation of climate that has characterized the earth throughout glacial and interglacial periods alike; and we note that it provides three good examples of times when temperatures were equally as warm as they are presently, or even warmer, in spite of the fact that the air’s CO2 content was much lower at those earlier times than it is today.”

By: Australis

Australis — Tue, 05 Oct 2010 12:27:39 +0000

The Royal Society is dead unlucky in its timing. Profs Manning and Hunter have slogged away for weeks preparing a theoretical paper that says nothing new but manages to impart an ominous feeling. But, at exactly the same time, NASA put out a media release (dealing with real observed phenomena) declaring that ice sheets are melting at only half the rate the Royal society thought!

http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.cfm?release=2010-298

“Using the new methodology, the researchers, led by Xiaoping Wu of JPL, calculated new estimates of ice loss in Greenland and Antarctica that are significantly smaller than previous estimates.

According to the team’s estimates, mass losses between 2002 and 2008 measured 104 (plus or minus 23) gigatonnes a year in Greenland, 101 (plus or minus 23) gigatonnes a year in Alaska/Yukon, and 64 (plus or minus 32) gigatonnes a year in West Antarctica. A gigatonne is one billion metric tons, or more than 2.2 trillion pounds.

The smaller but significant ice loss estimates reflect the revised role that post-glacial rebound was found to play in relation to current ice mass loss in Greenland and Antarctica. Post-glacial rebound (known as glacial isostatic adjustment) is the response of the solid Earth to the retreat of glaciers following the last Ice Age. After the weight of ice from the land surface was removed, the land under the ice rose and continues to slowly rise.”

By: Australis

Australis — Tue, 05 Oct 2010 12:15:10 +0000

The 3.xx mm/yr sea-level increase that the Royal Socity speaks of is a NOTIONAL global average based on recent satellite radar altimetry.

It has no application in NZ at all, where coastal policy needs to be based on the ACTUAL tide gauge records from ports like Auckland, Napier and Dunedin – which show a steady, UNACCELERATING rise through the 20th century at about 1.5 mm/yr – this is close to the worldwide average from tide gauges.

If the local sea level rise hasn’t accelerated during the last 110 years, what is the Royal Society evidence that all the trends will reverse themselves during the next 90 years? Is this science or feng shui?

By: Clarence

Clarence — Tue, 05 Oct 2010 12:05:12 +0000

You’d think that spending $180 million of NZ taxpayer’s meagre funds on climate change research over the past 10 years might have knocked off a few “mays” and “coulds” and produced at least one hard fact!

The Royal Society paper reminds me of Peter Sellars’ masterly account of political speech in “Balham”. Something like:

“All things being equal, and taking one consideration with another, I do think on balance that one could say, without any fear of contradiction, that existing conditions are likely.”

By: Richard C

Richard C — Sat, 02 Oct 2010 22:59:27 +0000

This is an eye opener. I had not given groundwater extraction any thought until reading that report and your comment triggered some clarity in my normally befuddled thinking.

The groundwater extraction in combination with increased run-off from massive urbanisation (plus the other factors) is probably overtaking the rate of evaporation from the ocean, so inevitably MSL will rise. O.8mm from groundwater extraction alone is 50% of the 1.6mm per yr MSL rise that Hannah 2004 found around NZ; what is the contribution from increased run-off due to anthro activities?.

Urbanisation decreases the run-off coefficient significantly (roofs, sealed surfaces, stormwater systems) so that rainwater is transported to the rivers and ocean far more quickly than from a rainforest say. Even grassed farmland has a faster run-off than forest.

And, as you say:

Nothing to do – with C O 2.

[BTW, worked on stormwater system design years ago, most of which I had forgotten - until it all came flooding back (Ha!)]

By: Richard

Richard — Sat, 02 Oct 2010 04:29:03 +0000

I compared the mass of extracted groundwater thought to be contributing to rising sea levels with the estimated mass from melting of the West Antarctic ice sheet and the Greenland ice sheet. The groundwater totals about 78% of the ice caps’ contribution.

That’s a significant proportion — and although it’s anthropogenic, it won’t be reduced by penalising CO2 emissions.

By: Richard C

Richard C — Sat, 02 Oct 2010 03:01:21 +0000

Sea Level Falling In 2010

http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2010/10/01/sea-level-falling-in-2010/

Okay, it’s only one third of the year but…….

By: Richard

Richard — Fri, 01 Oct 2010 22:39:14 +0000

Form 4 = Year 10

Fixed, thanks.

By: Richard Treadgold

Richard Treadgold — Fri, 01 Oct 2010 22:34:03 +0000

This comment, as so many of yours are, is excellent. You’re well informed and generous in telling us what you know, thanks. I look forward to your conclusions from Chapter 2.

The AUI: I think you should use a weighting, because, if a passage of 300 words scores 12, it indicates a far higher level of alarm uncertainty than a passage of 3000 words that scores 12. Do you agree?