On Aug 22, 3:21*pm, BDR529 wrote:
On 8/21/2010 3:04 PM, Last Post wrote:

Greenland Glacial Calving and Sea Level
by Nils-Axel Mörner, Sea level specialist,
Paleogeophysics& *Geodynamics

Nils-Axel Morner is a pathetic liar and an AGW denier. So I skipped the
rest of this trash.

Nevertheless, a simple contemplation of the amount of heat needed to
melt the ice-cap, and the rate at which this heat can be transferred
to the ice at a gradient of say 15 K, does lead one to suspect that
even a thousand years might not do it. Only unprecedented rates of
calving by glaciers, with rapid transport south once the bergs are in
the ocean, could bring us close to a 100 year time-scale.

On 8/22/2010 6:22 PM, JohnM wrote:
On Aug 22, 3:21 pm, wrote:
On 8/21/2010 3:04 PM, Last Post wrote:

Greenland Glacial Calving and Sea Level
by Nils-Axel Mörner, Sea level specialist,
Paleogeophysics& Geodynamics

Nils-Axel Morner is a pathetic liar and an AGW denier. So I skipped the
rest of this trash.

Nevertheless, a simple contemplation of the amount of heat needed to
melt the ice-cap, and the rate at which this heat can be transferred
to the ice at a gradient of say 15 K, does lead one to suspect that
even a thousand years might not do it. Only unprecedented rates of
calving by glaciers, with rapid transport south once the bergs are in
the ocean, could bring us close to a 100 year time-scale.

What about the present day negative mass balance of nearly 240 km^3/yr
and an acceleration of -25 km^3/yr^2 observed by satellites? Just try to
estimate yourself how long it will take before we really lose Greenland?

Axel Morner denies these facts, he denies that the sea level accelerated
to presently 3.3 mm/yr which is more than twice the value up to the
start of the industrial revolution.

Real scientists don't deny facts and raise confusion all the time with
crappy hard to verify and sometimes even misleading statements.

Axel Morner does it all the time, and that is why he is a serial liar
and a AGW denier.

Q

On Sun, 22 Aug 2010 19:01:34 +0200
BDR529 wrote:

Axel Morner denies these facts, he denies that the sea level
accelerated to presently 3.3 mm/yr which is more than twice the value
up to the start of the industrial revolution.

Last time I looked satellite measurements showed 3.2 mm/year, while
historical tide gage measurements averaged 1.7 mm/year. These are
subject to long term drift because the land rises and
falls. The satellites were calibrated with only a subset of the
tide gage data. This means that the long term drift in the
satellite data is different from the long term drift in the tide
gages.

It is wrong to plot the earlier tide gage measurements on the same chart
with the satellite data without making this clear, but this kind of
misrepresentation seems to be usual for the AGW crowd. Neither
satellite data nor tide gage measurements show any acceleration in themselves.
It is only when you plot them on the same graph that the appearance of
acceleration is given.

The satellite rate of 3.2 mm per year seems to be holding steady or
even declining a bit. This works out to be one foot per century. In
2000 years we could have a real problem.

Please refer to http://sealevel.colorado.edu

On Aug 22, 7:01*pm, BDR529 wrote:
On 8/22/2010 6:22 PM, JohnM wrote:



On Aug 22, 3:21 pm, *wrote:
On 8/21/2010 3:04 PM, Last Post wrote:

Greenland Glacial Calving and Sea Level
by Nils-Axel Mörner, Sea level specialist,
Paleogeophysics& * *Geodynamics

Nils-Axel Morner is a pathetic liar and an AGW denier. So I skipped the
rest of this trash.

Nevertheless, a simple contemplation of the amount of heat needed to
melt the ice-cap, and the rate at which this heat can be transferred
to the ice at a gradient of say 15 K, does lead one to suspect that
even a thousand years might not do it. Only unprecedented rates of
calving by glaciers, with rapid transport south once the bergs are in
the ocean, could bring us close to a 100 year time-scale.

What about the present day negative mass balance of nearly 240 km^3/yr
and an acceleration of -25 km^3/yr^2 observed by satellites?

I presume you meant +25 km^3 yr^-2

Just try to
estimate yourself how long it will take before we really lose Greenland?

Not too difficult. Greenland has an estimated 2,850,000 km^3 of ice.

Loss in yr 1 = 240
....
Loss in yr 500 =240 + 25*499
....
Loss in year 1000 = 240 +25*999

Summing gives the 1,000 year loss = ca.2,500,000 in round figures.
There will still be around 350,000 km^3 left in 3010 but with the rate
of loss then being about 25,000 km^3 yr^-1 (assuming acceleration
remains +25 km^3 yr^-2 for 1000 years) it'll be gone by 3025.

Axel Morner denies these facts, he denies that the sea level accelerated
to presently 3.3 mm/yr which is more than twice the value up to the
start of the industrial revolution.

Real scientists don't deny facts and raise confusion all the time with
crappy hard to verify and sometimes even misleading statements.

Axel Morner does it all the time, and that is why he is a serial liar
and a AGW denier.

So try not to be like him, eh?

On Aug 22, 10:18*pm, JohnM wrote:
On Aug 22, 7:01*pm, BDR529 wrote:



On 8/22/2010 6:22 PM, JohnM wrote:

On Aug 22, 3:21 pm, *wrote:
On 8/21/2010 3:04 PM, Last Post wrote:

Greenland Glacial Calving and Sea Level
by Nils-Axel Mörner, Sea level specialist,
Paleogeophysics& * *Geodynamics

Nils-Axel Morner is a pathetic liar and an AGW denier. So I skipped the
rest of this trash.

Nevertheless, a simple contemplation of the amount of heat needed to
melt the ice-cap, and the rate at which this heat can be transferred
to the ice at a gradient of say 15 K, does lead one to suspect that
even a thousand years might not do it. Only unprecedented rates of
calving by glaciers, with rapid transport south once the bergs are in
the ocean, could bring us close to a 100 year time-scale.

What about the present day negative mass balance of nearly 240 km^3/yr
and an acceleration of -25 km^3/yr^2 observed by satellites?

I presume you meant +25 km^3 yr^-2

Just try to
estimate yourself how long it will take before we really lose Greenland?

Not too difficult. Greenland has an estimated 2,850,000 km^3 of ice.

Loss in yr 1 = 240
...
Loss in yr 500 =240 + 25*499
...
Loss in year 1000 = 240 +25*999

Summing gives the 1,000 year loss = ca.2,500,000 in round figures.

Sorry. Too late in the day to think quickly. That should be 1,250,000
in round figures, leaving ca. 1,600,000 to melt, about another 3 to
400 years worth if the acceleration keeps going.

snip of error

Axel Morner denies these facts, he denies that the sea level accelerated
to presently 3.3 mm/yr which is more than twice the value up to the
start of the industrial revolution.

Real scientists don't deny facts and raise confusion all the time with
crappy hard to verify and sometimes even misleading statements.

Axel Morner does it all the time, and that is why he is a serial liar
and a AGW denier.

So try not to be like him, eh?

On 8/22/2010 9:58 PM, Trawley Trash wrote:
On Sun, 22 Aug 2010 19:01:34 +0200
wrote:

Axel Morner denies these facts, he denies that the sea level
accelerated to presently 3.3 mm/yr which is more than twice the value
up to the start of the industrial revolution.

Last time I looked satellite measurements showed 3.2 mm/year, while
historical tide gage measurements averaged 1.7 mm/year. These are
subject to long term drift because the land rises and
falls. The satellites were calibrated with only a subset of the
tide gage data. This means that the long term drift in the
satellite data is different from the long term drift in the tide
gages.

It is wrong to plot the earlier tide gage measurements on the same chart
with the satellite data without making this clear, but this kind of
misrepresentation seems to be usual for the AGW crowd. Neither
satellite data nor tide gage measurements show any acceleration in themselves.
It is only when you plot them on the same graph that the appearance of
acceleration is given.

The satellite rate of 3.2 mm per year seems to be holding steady or
even declining a bit. This works out to be one foot per century. In
2000 years we could have a real problem.

Please refer to http://sealevel.colorado.edu



You don't know what you are talking about, no cites.

There are also geologic sea level records, they proof that in the last
2000 years the sea level changed by about 10 cm/century up to 1850.

The IPCC report has a section on this.

Q

On 8/22/2010 10:18 PM, JohnM wrote:
On Aug 22, 7:01 pm, wrote:
On 8/22/2010 6:22 PM, JohnM wrote:



On Aug 22, 3:21 pm, wrote:
On 8/21/2010 3:04 PM, Last Post wrote:

Greenland Glacial Calving and Sea Level
by Nils-Axel Mörner, Sea level specialist,
Paleogeophysics& Geodynamics

Nils-Axel Morner is a pathetic liar and an AGW denier. So I skipped the
rest of this trash.

Nevertheless, a simple contemplation of the amount of heat needed to
melt the ice-cap, and the rate at which this heat can be transferred
to the ice at a gradient of say 15 K, does lead one to suspect that
even a thousand years might not do it. Only unprecedented rates of
calving by glaciers, with rapid transport south once the bergs are in
the ocean, could bring us close to a 100 year time-scale.

What about the present day negative mass balance of nearly 240 km^3/yr
and an acceleration of -25 km^3/yr^2 observed by satellites?

I presume you meant +25 km^3 yr^-2

These are indeed melt rates.


Just try to
estimate yourself how long it will take before we really lose Greenland?

Not too difficult. Greenland has an estimated 2,850,000 km^3 of ice.

Loss in yr 1 = 240
...
Loss in yr 500 =240 + 25*499
...
Loss in year 1000 = 240 +25*999

Summing gives the 1,000 year loss = ca.2,500,000 in round figures.
There will still be around 350,000 km^3 left in 3010 but with the rate
of loss then being about 25,000 km^3 yr^-1 (assuming acceleration
remains +25 km^3 yr^-2 for 1000 years) it'll be gone by 3025.

While greenland itself at least 500 thousand years old. So, within 1000
years civilization is going to see that 7 meters of water, to which you
can add another 7 meters or so from western antarctica.

So Al Gore is right, in 1 millennium from now the shore line database
needs to be updated.

Not a very pretty prospect.

Q


Axel Morner denies these facts, he denies that the sea level accelerated
to presently 3.3 mm/yr which is more than twice the value up to the
start of the industrial revolution.

Real scientists don't deny facts and raise confusion all the time with
crappy hard to verify and sometimes even misleading statements.

Axel Morner does it all the time, and that is why he is a serial liar
and a AGW denier.

So try not to be like him, eh?

On 8/22/2010 10:26 PM, JohnM wrote:
On Aug 22, 10:18 pm, wrote:
On Aug 22, 7:01 pm, wrote:



On 8/22/2010 6:22 PM, JohnM wrote:

On Aug 22, 3:21 pm, wrote:
On 8/21/2010 3:04 PM, Last Post wrote:

Greenland Glacial Calving and Sea Level
by Nils-Axel Mörner, Sea level specialist,
Paleogeophysics& Geodynamics

Nils-Axel Morner is a pathetic liar and an AGW denier. So I skipped the
rest of this trash.

Nevertheless, a simple contemplation of the amount of heat needed to
melt the ice-cap, and the rate at which this heat can be transferred
to the ice at a gradient of say 15 K, does lead one to suspect that
even a thousand years might not do it. Only unprecedented rates of
calving by glaciers, with rapid transport south once the bergs are in
the ocean, could bring us close to a 100 year time-scale.

What about the present day negative mass balance of nearly 240 km^3/yr
and an acceleration of -25 km^3/yr^2 observed by satellites?

I presume you meant +25 km^3 yr^-2

Just try to
estimate yourself how long it will take before we really lose Greenland?

Not too difficult. Greenland has an estimated 2,850,000 km^3 of ice.

Loss in yr 1 = 240
...
Loss in yr 500 =240 + 25*499
...
Loss in year 1000 = 240 +25*999

Summing gives the 1,000 year loss = ca.2,500,000 in round figures.

Sorry. Too late in the day to think quickly. That should be 1,250,000
in round figures, leaving ca. 1,600,000 to melt, about another 3 to
400 years worth if the acceleration keeps going.


So not a millennium then, but 3 to 4 centuries from now. OUCH!

snip of error

Axel Morner denies these facts, he denies that the sea level accelerated
to presently 3.3 mm/yr which is more than twice the value up to the
start of the industrial revolution.

Real scientists don't deny facts and raise confusion all the time with
crappy hard to verify and sometimes even misleading statements.

Axel Morner does it all the time, and that is why he is a serial liar
and a AGW denier.

So try not to be like him, eh?

On Aug 22, 4:18*pm, JohnM wrote:
On Aug 22, 7:01*pm, BDR529 wrote:



On 8/22/2010 6:22 PM, JohnM wrote:

On Aug 22, 3:21 pm, *wrote:
On 8/21/2010 3:04 PM, Last Post wrote:

Greenland Glacial Calving and Sea Level
by Nils-Axel Mörner, Sea level specialist,
Paleogeophysics& * *Geodynamics

Nevertheless, a simple contemplation of the amount of heat needed to
melt the ice-cap, and the rate at which this heat can be transferred
to the ice at a gradient of say 15 K, does lead one to suspect that
even a thousand years might not do it. Only unprecedented rates of
calving by glaciers, with rapid transport south once the bergs are in
the ocean, could bring us close to a 100 year time-scale.

ø In one paragraph Morgan and BDR lay
themselves open to criticism from Junior High
school students. They have no data to start with
just guestimates and lots of ifs.

2- The summer melting season is only 4 months
long — much of the rest of the year the snow
piles up. Satellites have proved ineffective
measuring snow and ice, even to describing a
"lake the size of California" that was just ice.

3- The iceberg that broke off dates back
perhaps 1,500 years and had been floating
for hundreds of years and thus has no effect
on sea levels.
What made it break? It extended too far into
the ocean and the rising and falling tides
broke it

I presume you meant +25 km^3 yr^-2

ø Stupid data.

Axel Morner denies these facts,

ø They are not 'facts'

he denies that the sea level accelerated
to presently 3.3 mm/yr which is

ø He is the guy who measures sea levels so
he should know.

more than twice the value up to the
start of the industrial revolution.

ø Before 1850 was the little ice age
At that turn of events one might expect
some rising but it has not continued.

Real scientists don't deny facts and raise confusion all the time with
crappy hard to verify and sometimes even misleading statements.

ø You two do not have "facts" to deny and
are perpetually confused?

On Sun, 22 Aug 2010 22:49:50 +0200
BDR529 wrote:

Please refer to http://sealevel.colorado.edu

You don't know what you are talking about, no cites.

That is a cite. You did not read it. That is a
respected university that plots the standard sea level
data as it comes from the satellites. It also has links
to the tide gage data. Very informative. Totally scientific.

There are also geologic sea level records, they proof that in the
last 2000 years the sea level changed by about 10 cm/century up to
1850.

They can only tell us sea level at a limited number of places.
They are interesting science, but they do not provide mm of
accuracy for global sea level.

There is an uncertainty on the order of mm/year in our measured
data. One mm/year is 10 cm/century. So we have
different ways of measuring with different answers, but they
agree within the error of the measurements. The sea level
could rise by a foot in the next century. That is all the
measurements tell us. There is nothing in the satellite
or tide gage data to say that the current rise is more
than 10 cm/century.

None of the methods of measuring sea level show acceleration
alone. The illusion of acceleration comes from comparing different
data sets that have different long term drift. The sea level has
been rising since the end of the last glacial. No doubt
about it.

The IPCC report has a section on this.

The IPCC report is an insult. Give me something technical
on the order of the university of colorado web page or the
noaa data I have also mentioned here. To date there is no clear
acceleration in CO2 or sea level rise.

Show me data, or shut up.