"Rise of sea levels is 'the greatest lie ever told' "

Many of these statements are factually incorrect.
For an analysis of Dr. Mörner's (why you would call him the world's formost expert i am unsure, the organization he was a part of disagrees with him as well) statements see Nils-Axel Mörner is Wrong About Sea Level Rise

 

Good for him, is his name Canute? I remain entertained by folks who believe they can command the tide to not rise. Still, I prefer objective measurements:

• CU Sea Level Research Group | University of Colorado
• Sea Level

Satellite measurement of sea levels is not a trivial problem and improvements in the data analysis continue. But the known record is beyond any likely 'calibration' change. Add to that the loss of land based ice, again satellite measured, the die is pretty well cast.

A more interesting question is permafrost thawing and the release of methane. Doug probably has a better handle on the quantities but I suspect we're likely to see these natural sinks releasing easily enough to equal current man-made, carbon burning sources. You strike a match to light a fire and initially it can be blown out. But once it catches, blowing has the opposite effect.

Bob Wilson

 

OK permafrost. These are not the only high-latitude, high-carbon soils but they appear to be the largest pools. Very inadequately studied, although the US global change research program has started a major effort in that direction.

I don't know the full story and would be so bold as to claim that no one else does either. Every published study (or media piece) concerning methane bubbling up, one can find new evidence of microbial activity opposing.

In this case, an unknown (and perhaps large) group of bacteria

New peatland bacteria feed on greenhouse gas and excess fertilizer

As is always the case methanotrophs, most of the carbon still exits as CO2. So, from the perspective of atmospheric energy balance, they just do the work that the hydroxyl radical would have done in the atmosphere, faster. I hope that is not too jargony. More to the point, I think we are far from confidently knowing how the various soils will go. If they cause a large positive feedback on atmos energy balance thence climate, I fear the gloomy prospects.

I do not think that it is beyond hope that the feedbacks will be smaller, or neutral. We won't know, without the research, or without waiting for the decades to do what they'll do.

When you look at glacial/interglacial transitions though, it really looks like some strong amplifiers are needed in going either direction. The Milankovich (orbital) variations on solar energy input are small compared to the changes that happen.

Just like now, just like always, the oceans have vast thermal inertia. At max ice, the thermal inertia of that may be comparable in magnitude. Though I don't know if it has been measured/modeled. Anyway, it takes a lot of gigawatts to transition from one extreme to the other. the range of solar forcing would need a multiplier.

I hope that we don't experimentally demonstrate, on earth this century, exactly what that is...

 

Undersea Landscapes | The Geology

even simpler

Georges Bank Brief History of the Past 26,000 Years: Page 1 of 4

 

Well guess we'll just have to agree to disagree:

Satellite data calibration is an on-going effort as local boy, John Christy discovered to his regret. But even your source admits the sea levels are raising even though they tried to call it zero.

The reason for your interest comes from an announcement a couple of weeks ago:

Source: CU Sea Level Research Group | University of Colorado

The GDR-D standard addresses:

Source: [Jason-2 GDRs]: Information about the new altimetric standard version "D": Aviso

Ahh, notice only one satellite, Jason-2, is being calibrated leaving the two earlier satellites untouched:


So the calibration efforts on Jason-2 will not change the measurements of Jason-1 nor TOPEX. The Jason-1 and TOPEX data already follows the straight-line average. Regardless, we're looking at a meter of sea level change taking ~300 years.

So if you have some facts and data about specific calibration changes, trot them out. Here is the detailed calibration description:
http://www.aviso.oceanobs.com/fileadmin/documents/data/tools/JA2_GDR_D_release_note.pdf

Bob Wilson

 

Let's take the quote in context

He is saying it is not rising in catastropic ways. This agrees with all the satellites and other earth bound measurements.

His measure not more than 90mm-110mm this century of rise. This is far from the 6 meters some have said will come in the Apocalypse. IMHO it would have been clearer if he said that sea level has risen less than 11cm.

Does this mean sea levels will not rise greatly? No. They did in the last 2 interglacials. It just means it is unlikely in the next century. Recent papers have said less than 2 meters, with it likely to be between 320 mm- 1000 mm depending on ice melt.

 

It's an old story: an elderly scientist, well past his prime, left behind by developments. Nothing to see here. Oh, and did you notice that he is also a self-proclaimed expert on dowsing?

 

If Antarctica continues to 'hold' as it has been, sea-level rise by 2100 will be a meter or less. That would have large impacts on Bangladesh, Vietnam, a few tiny island nations, and the 'moneyed coastal' in Florida. Among a few others.

If we learn anything from Sandy in NY and NJ, it should be that a few centimeters can make a big difference if you are at sea level, heavily invested, and poorly protected. It seems appropriate to consider investing in protection, because those tens of centimeters are are headed your way.

The hundreds of centimeters? The 3 to 5 meters of sea-level rise the last time we had +3 oC happened. But the paleo record does not say that it happened fast (100 years).

It would be most pleasing if Antarctica scientists would tell us which big chunks look a bit threatening, and how many cm of sea level they represent. Do the GPS work work, or whatever is required, to monitor. Knowledge is power, but knowledge costs money. Somebody has to pay, and Antarctica is a very expensive place to work.

Any ideas? The idea that we should immediately defund Earth-system science has already been advanced. Any others?

 

Sea level rise is 3 mm/year now, and recently increasing, as evidenced by the satellites and global tide gauges. So that would appear a weak contender for the greatest lie ever told. In keeping with the thread topic, we need to look for another 'greatest lie'. What would that be? We need to constrain ourselves to environmental matters here, but what other contenders might we consider right here in Mojo's greatest lie thread. 100% on topic. No A holes. What are these lies and how to know whether they are true or false?

 

The biggest lie in the area of melting ice had to be that the Himalayas were going to quickly melt, causing disaster for those in India. The lie was compounded by the attitude by the IPCC that criticism needed to be peer reviewed, really? But somehow if it was in the IPCC it did not.

At least the lie in the ice melt has been corrected The process we shall see.

 

Errors need not be lies.

 

How about the land sinking due to overpopulation?

DBCassidy

 

I blame National Geographic hoarders for the land sinking.

 

I take the point on errors/lies. I think the criteria are that there is an intention to deceive, and that substantial harm has been done.

Something along the lines of leaded gasoline, Bhopal, Love Canal...the list of candidates could be quite long. It might be too much of a stretch to include tobacco smoking health effects in 'environmental'. But that too could be open to discussion.

Realistically, I don't see that anybody is spending big money (or taking your money) to protect against 20 feet of sea level rise in a century. Lacking any other substantial harm, I don't see how this one gets to first base.

If we spend big bucks to defend NYC/NJ against 100 cm of sea-level rise and only get 50 cm, then we clearly overspent on the time scale. But it might look like a good decision in the subsequent century. Underpreparing, or legislating against using the science supporting seal level rise could be costly. All of that ultimately is policy decisions that haven't been made yet. I hope they are made with some regard towards science. Just one voice.

 

Paper hoarders keep trees from decaying back into CO2 Jimbo. I think there may have been a 'Journal of Irreproducible Results' study on that.

 

Completely agree, did the tobacco institute really lie on the safety of tobacco? I mean they only got caught not publishing reports, when they turned out to go against tobacco. Not publishing reports isn't the same as lieing, but we all know thy did it with intent to deceive. I may be a little too cynical for this group though.

Who gains? In my specific example it was an environmental group that used said information to raise money. Their are groups that make money from say the cap and trade in Europe These happen to be utilities, investment banks, and insurance companies in Europe.

In the US insurance companies and tax payers are harmed by underestimates of sea level rise. Insurance companies can not make money, because of federal insurance with rates artificially lowered because the government wants to build inspite of the risks.

If we plan for 100 cm rise, and build a sea wall that seems like a science based risk mitigation strategy. If we plan for a 5 meter rise in the next hundred years, and clear everyone out of areas less than 4 meters above sea level, its not only unscientific, but incredibly bad governance.