Re: OT: sea level 'rise' hmmmmm....

On Fri, 11 Jul 2008 14:49:23 -0700, Joerg
<notthisjoergsch@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Jonathan Kirwan wrote:
On Fri, 11 Jul 2008 13:28:22 -0700, Joerg
<notthisjoergsch@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Jonathan Kirwan wrote:
On Fri, 11 Jul 2008 12:06:38 -0700, Joerg
<notthisjoergsch@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Jonathan Kirwan wrote:
On Fri, 11 Jul 2008 10:23:21 +0100, Eeyore
<rabbitsfriendsandrelations@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

<snip of dozens of germane science papers refuting Graham's selective view>
So why isn't Tuvalu sinking ?
Are you this daft? I don't even need to research or answer this
question, it is so manifestly idiotic to ask.

If you are willing to be so selective, Graham, in the 'facts' you
choose to consider, you might easily and rationally conclude the Earth
is flat. You are a continuing example of why scientists work to
attain comprehensive views within the scope of their work.

...

Back on topic, I remain simply unaware of where Dr. Mörner gets his
data. I'm pretty sure you also have no idea, too. He doesn't present
his case and the proposal that altimetry shows no increase is simply
bald-faced nonsense. ...
So do you think this is nonsense as well?

http://www.john-daly.com/deadisle/hobart-msl.htm
Not knowing what you wanted to bring my attention to, it's hard for me
attempt an answer. I could guess by glancing over it, but why should
I? I'd have to know specifically what you wanted to suggest and then
I'd need to discuss the details with those I then find who _do_ have a
more comprehensive view within the scope of your specific question.
All I wanted to point out is that a serious rise in sea level (and other
things AGWers claim) may not necessarily be true. That's all.

But to do that, Joerg, you need to be informed. Some folks imagine
that they don't have to be informed to make meaningful points about
what may or may not be "necessarily true." But the fact is, you do
need to be informed to do that. That's part of the problem here, I
suspect. The TOPEX/POSEIDEN JASON data is pretty darned good, after
correction for drift errors and calibration, ...

That is where I have become very suspicious over the last few years. For
good reason, I believe.

Well, I think a healthy suspicion is VERY WELL PLACED. I completely
agree with you about this point. Which is why you should ask for more
information.

Luckily, EE degrees at the B.Sc. level are reasonable in getting an
engineer a significant leg-up on physics and design errors in
instrumentation don't happen nearly as often as they might otherwise,
if there were a wider gap in training. The overlap helps a lot to
avoid error through miscommunication or unnoticed assumptions. At
Portland State University, here near where I live for example, the
difference between a B.Sc. in EE and a B.Sc. in physics is just two 4
CR classes. An EE student can go for a double-major by just adding
those two. It's even suggested explicitly in the department pub.

But yes, I agree with your skepticism here. Well taken.

... and taken as a whole
makes a firm case. Your dismissal of the work of so many scientists
seems a bit personal, to me. But that is your choice.


And the Australian data I posted is wrong? Why?

WRT to dismissal, there have been too many cases of data finagling when
it comes to AGW. Such as the hockey stick which is now gradually
vanishing even from some IPCC reports. That destroys trust.

The problem here is that you have the wrong impression of things.

Consider:
http://www.clim-past.net/3/591/2007/cp-3-591-2007.pdf
http://dels.nas.edu/dels/rpt_briefs/Surface_Temps_final.pdf

For a nice, readable discussion by Roger Pielke, see:
http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/archives/climate_change/000859quick_reaction_to_th.html

Naturally, folks like me then become suspicious.

Of course. But you are responding to public wrangling, much of it
instigated by folks with the money to get your attention and a desire
to circumvent the usual processes of science and instead reach out to
propagandize the public, directly.

Just like I was when the Fed eased
money too much and, to say it arrogantly, I saw the real estate bubble
coming and the Fed didn't. Or maybe didn't want to. A banker said I was
foolish not to be in the market back then. "You don't know all the
facts, yada, yada, yada". He is very quiet about it now. And friends of
ours lost their shirts, and houses.

Actually, my wife was WAY AHEAD of this. We did VERY WELL because of
anticipating this two years ago, in detail. I could share with you
copies of our emails to each other, but the specific demise of Fannie
Mae and Freddy mac has long been obvious -- they were for more than a
decade (not early on, though) leveraging the underlying assets by
crazy factors (20:1 in some cases) for totally unsound and very
dangerous reasons (a quick buck.) In kiting paper around like they
did, they placed everything in serious jeopardy if a small shock were
to take place. Very unwise.

We anticipated all this two years ago and took immediate steps which
have, in 20/20 hindsight now, the appearances to our financial advisor
of near prescience. He's a little bit in awe, I think. Not deserved,
to be honest. We just took note of the right signs at the right time.
Happens _even by pure luck_ to some people, nothing special there.

The property pyramid game that existed in the bay area market was
similarly leveraged on profoundly wrong assumptions. I'm very glad to
hear that you lacked the greed that might have led you to go out too
far on some limb. Many let their visions of $ signs override their
good sense.

I'd better just recommend that you ask the appropriate folks, though.
If you aren't sure who they are, I'd recommend writing to the people
at:

http://sealevel.colorado.edu/

with your specific question and ask them who are the lead scientists
in that area and how you might contact them (email or phone -- I use
both, depending.) Which is the process you or anyone else should
follow, when wondering about questions posed by web pages on science.

If I were doing this, I'd listen to your thoughts and then recall some
of the related reviewed science papers I'd read, go look for some of
them and pick out the lead authors, google for their contact info, and
start a conversation. I'd probably reread their papers, first. (It's
always a good idea to do in order to let them know you care about what
they have to say, if for no other reason.) But I'd also include folks
at the above web site and start a conversation with them, as well.
Phone works well, sometimes faster and better than email. So use both
methods where appropriate.

You are a smart guy, Joerg, and I've no doubt that others active in
this area of science will openly enjoy the chance to share what they
know with you and suggest some important thoughts for you to consider.
I've made quite a few excellent contacts this way, too.

Sure, but to be honest I am not really interested in AGW issues. Partly
because I do not believe there is a human-induced AGW.

Well, perhaps better stated would be that you "aren't yet convinced."
I'll take it as that and just leave it there in good spirits.

True. I am not convinced. That can change when I see credible data, one
must remain flexible and also be able to admit having been wrong. So far
I haven't seen such data.

Well, all in good time.

I just wanted to
point out some information that I think may be credible that counters a
rise in sea level.

Cherry picking isn't useful and I'm not sure you are in a position, in
any case, to suggest what makes a credible argument against rather
comprehensive views on the subject. The As I've said before, if you
are allowed to be selective, you might just as well rationally
conclude the Earth is flat.

I did have some discussions with other scientists and, to be quite frank
here, I found the whole AGW topic rather partisan. Depending on which
group they belonged to they almost fought tooth and nail to drive their
agenda home. Not my cuppa tea ;-)

Well, all I can say here is that our experiences differ. But I work
at contacting many scientists in this area and having ongoing
conversations to help inform myself so that I can arrive at my own
conclusions. Perhaps this is the explanatory difference between us --
I work hard at resolving my misunderstandings when I feel they
disagree with general conclusions.

So do I, if they really bother me. And I did write to the University of
Colorado. Will report when they answer.

Thanks! It is very heartening to hear.

Jon
.