• Please use real names.

    Greetings to all who have registered to OPF and those guests taking a look around. Please use real names. Registrations with fictitious names will not be processed. REAL NAMES ONLY will be processed

    Firstname Lastname

    Register

    We are a courteous and supportive community. No need to hide behind an alia. If you have a genuine need for privacy/secrecy then let me know!
  • Welcome to the new site. Here's a thread about the update where you can post your feedback, ask questions or spot those nasty bugs!

In Perspective, Planet: Loss of Billions of Birds in North America!

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
The United States has flood maps available online for homeowners to review. Flood maps indicate which areas generally flood if water rises to a certain level. They allow both homeowners and policymakers to make informed decisions about asset management, urban planning, and flood risk management.
....and what about inundated islands flooded by the rising seas?

Where do they go and with what money?

Likely as not they are indigenous for the past 3,000 to 10,000 years! Do you give them an Internet link for real estate planning?

Seriously, how to we address it, or it’s not our concern?

Asher
 

James Lemon

Well-known member
....and what about inundated islands flooded by the rising seas?

Where do they go and with what money?

Likely as not they are indigenous for the past 3,000 to 10,000 years! Do you give them an Internet link for real estate planning?

Seriously, how to we address it, or it’s not our concern?

Asher

Asher you should free yourself from the horror issue that low-lying coasts and islands will become seriously flooded in this century.

Up to the present, there has been no convincing recording of any acceleration in sea level, rather

the opposite: a total lack of any sign of an accelerating trend.

3075
 
Last edited:

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
What does this have to do with rising sea levels? Melting sea ice can't cause sea levels to rise.

James
It’s not just the sea melting but the ice on land too! Glaciers are disappearing!

As massive stores of frozen water in land ice melts there is more water in the ocean to be heated in the current heating cycle. This increases the level the the waters worldwide.

Opening of the Arctic sea lanes is a symptom of the warming of global water masses.

Read more here!

Asher
 

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
Global sea level trends and relative sea level trends are different measurements. Just as the surface of the Earth is not flat, the surface of the ocean is also not flat—in other words, the sea surface is not changing at the same rate globally. Sea level rise at specific locations may be more or less than the global average due to many local factors: subsidence, upstream flood control, erosion, regional ocean currents, variations in land height, and whether the land is still rebounding from the compressive weight of Ice Age glaciers.
Sea level is primarily measured using tide stations and satellite laser altimeters. Tide stations around the globe tell us what is happening at a local level—the height of the water as measured along the coast relative to a specific point on land. Satellite measurements provide us with the average height of the entire ocean. Taken together, these tools tell us how our ocean sea levels are changing over time.
shadow1.png

Global sea level has been rising over the past century, and the rate has increased in recent decades. In 2014, global sea level was 2.6 inches above the 1993 average—the highest annual average in the satellite record (1993-present).

Sea level continues to rise at a rate of about one-eighth of an inch per year.

Higher sea levels mean that deadly and destructive storm surges push farther inland than they once did, which also means more frequent nuisance flooding. Disruptive and expensive, nuisance flooding is estimated to be from 300 percent to 900 percent more frequent within U.S. coastal communities than it was just 50 years ago.

The two major causes of global sea level rise are thermal expansion caused by warming of the ocean (since water expands as it warms) and increased melting of land-based ice, such as glaciers and ice sheets. The oceans are absorbing more than 90 percent of the increased atmospheric heat associated with emissions from human activity.

With continued ocean and atmospheric warming, sea levels will likely rise for many centuries at rates higher than that of the current century. In the United States, almost 40 percent of the population lives in relatively high-population-density coastal areas, where sea level plays a role in flooding, shoreline erosion, and hazards from storms. Globally, eight of the world's 10 largest cities are near a coast, according to the U.N. Atlas of the Oceans.

Sea level rise at specific locations may be more or less than the global average due to local factors such as land subsidence from natural processes and withdrawal of groundwater and fossil fuels, changes in regional ocean currents, and whether the land is still rebounding from the compressive weight of Ice Age glaciers. In urban settings, rising seas threaten infrastructure necessary for local jobs and regional industries. Roads, bridges, subways, water supplies, oil and gas wells, power plants, sewage treatment plants, landfills—virtually all human infrastructure—is at risk from sea level rise.

Source
 

James Lemon

Well-known member
Global sea level trends and relative sea level trends are different measurements. Just as the surface of the Earth is not flat, the surface of the ocean is also not flat—in other words, the sea surface is not changing at the same rate globally. Sea level rise at specific locations may be more or less than the global average due to many local factors: subsidence, upstream flood control, erosion, regional ocean currents, variations in land height, and whether the land is still rebounding from the compressive weight of Ice Age glaciers.
Sea level is primarily measured using tide stations and satellite laser altimeters. Tide stations around the globe tell us what is happening at a local level—the height of the water as measured along the coast relative to a specific point on land. Satellite measurements provide us with the average height of the entire ocean. Taken together, these tools tell us how our ocean sea levels are changing over time.
shadow1.png

Global sea level has been rising over the past century, and the rate has increased in recent decades. In 2014, global sea level was 2.6 inches above the 1993 average—the highest annual average in the satellite record (1993-present).

Sea level continues to rise at a rate of about one-eighth of an inch per year.

Higher sea levels mean that deadly and destructive storm surges push farther inland than they once did, which also means more frequent nuisance flooding. Disruptive and expensive, nuisance flooding is estimated to be from 300 percent to 900 percent more frequent within U.S. coastal communities than it was just 50 years ago.

The two major causes of global sea level rise are thermal expansion caused by warming of the ocean (since water expands as it warms) and increased melting of land-based ice, such as glaciers and ice sheets. The oceans are absorbing more than 90 percent of the increased atmospheric heat associated with emissions from human activity.

With continued ocean and atmospheric warming, sea levels will likely rise for many centuries at rates higher than that of the current century. In the United States, almost 40 percent of the population lives in relatively high-population-density coastal areas, where sea level plays a role in flooding, shoreline erosion, and hazards from storms. Globally, eight of the world's 10 largest cities are near a coast, according to the U.N. Atlas of the Oceans.

Sea level rise at specific locations may be more or less than the global average due to local factors such as land subsidence from natural processes and withdrawal of groundwater and fossil fuels, changes in regional ocean currents, and whether the land is still rebounding from the compressive weight of Ice Age glaciers. In urban settings, rising seas threaten infrastructure necessary for local jobs and regional industries. Roads, bridges, subways, water supplies, oil and gas wells, power plants, sewage treatment plants, landfills—virtually all human infrastructure—is at risk from sea level rise.

Source

Nothing is constant with time Asher. This is more cultural marxist kindergarten political pseudo-science... I would argue on many points but I am growing tired of the doomsday scenario propaganda. You should walk down to the beach and have a look for yourself to see if there is any evidence of water levels rising.

James
 
Last edited:

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
Nothing is constant with time Asher. This is more cultural marxist kindergarten political pseudo-science... I would argue on many points but I am growing tired of the doomsday scenario propaganda. You should walk down to the beach and have a look for yourself to see if there is any evidence of water levels rising.

James
James,
Do you have some issue with the US Government weather and atmospheric agency and their buoys and satellites instruments.

Why on earth would folk alter instrument reports over the past 20 years from our orbiting ocean level measuring laser instruments or the thousands of buoys deployed around the world?

You might want to interpret the causes or the consequences but to question the veracity of scientific measurements without cause is unacceptable. So retract your statement and focus on causality and consequence if you so choose.

But the government scientists automated measurements, so far have not been seen as assailable!

Asher
 

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
Nothing is constant with time Asher. This is more cultural marxist kindergarten political pseudo-science...
So the data from the laser instruments in US satellites and buoys on ocean levels is “pseudo science”, so there is no persistent ocean level rise, after all?

Are you really claiming that the data is false?

Explain your reasoning just on that. It would suffice.


Asher
 

James Lemon

Well-known member
James,
Do you have some issue with the US Government weather and atmospheric agency and their buoys and satellites instruments.

Why on earth would folk alter instrument reports over the past 20 years from our orbiting ocean level measuring laser instruments or the thousands of buoys deployed around the world?

You might want to interpret the causes or the consequences but to question the veracity of scientific measurements without cause is unacceptable. So retract your statement and focus on causality and consequence if you so choose.

But the government scientists automated measurements, so far have not been seen as assailable!

Asher

Asher my issue is the outrageous lies being peddled to our children about climate change. I will address some of your other points later. For now have a look at a satellite picture used for Al Gores book "Our Choice" you may well know that it as been manipulated with hurricanes painted in. However on the right hand side off the coast of North Carolina the hurricane is rotating in the wrong direction? LoL Is this acceptable for a Vice President of the United States? What do you call this " a personal calibration" to prove that global warming is man made? A "Nobel Peace Prize" for this?

3080
 

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
James,

What has that to do with post#99

If something is nonsense, don't even bother showing it to us just to declare “It’s nonsense!

We aren’t interested in such foolishness here.

Focus on the serious statements you made that the science is hogwash.

Just answer the question in post # 99

If not, there is no point in discussion.

I put aside obvious politics and grandstanding. Please do the same.

It’s a very serious charge you make that the US Government Agency on the Environment with its data from satellite laser instruments and ocean buoys showing ocean level rise is NOT true.

Was this just an outburst or do you stand by your assertions as true?

Explain.

You think they are liars?

They have faulty instruments?

They are unqualified to analyze the data?

They are political hacks?

Whatever your choice, provide your reasons.

Asher
 

James Lemon

Well-known member
James,

What has that to do with post#99

If something is nonsense, don't even bother showing it to us just to declare “It’s nonsense!

We aren’t interested in such foolishness here.

Focus on the serious statements you made that the science is hogwash.

Just answer the question in post # 99

If not, there is no point in discussion.

I put aside obvious politics and grandstanding. Please do the same.

It’s a very serious charge you make that the US Government Agency on the Environment with its data from satellite laser instruments and ocean buoys showing ocean level rise is NOT true.

Was this just an outburst or do you stand by your assertions as true?

Explain.

You think they are liars?

They have faulty instruments?

They are unqualified to analyze the data?

They are political hacks?

Whatever your choice, provide your reasons.

Asher

Asher
I love fossil fuels & C02! Yes to all of the above.
Political agenda yes, instrument complications yes, unqualified to analyze data yes, political hacks yes. Physically observing nature produces reliable facts. "To prove sea level changes over the past 500 years, scientists have dated sand deposits to see when they came into being. In addition, they have researched the spread of coral in recent centuries. Typically, coral reefs grow in height when sea levels rise and in width when they remain constant. If the level drops, corals die off. Corals do not lie; they are a reliable indicator – much more reliable than tidal measurements".

https://www.thegwpf.com/nils-axel-morner-these-researchers-have-a-political-agenda/
 
Last edited:

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
Asher
I love fossil fuels & C02! Yes to all of the above.
Political agenda yes, instrument complications yes, unqualified to analyze data yes, political hacks yes. Physically observing nature produces reliable facts. "To prove sea level changes over the past 500 years, scientists have dated sand deposits to see when they came into being. In addition, they have researched the spread of coral in recent centuries. Typically, coral reefs grow in height when sea levels rise and in width when they remain constant. If the level drops, corals die off. Corals do not lie; they are a reliable indicator – much more reliable than tidal measurements".

https://www.thegwpf.com/nils-axel-morner-these-researchers-have-a-political-agenda/
Divide your arguments into two parts.

1. Those related to post #99

2. New subjects.

For now, please address with evidence your answers to just the points in post #99

I myself am not attempting to prove anything. I am open to learning. That is only feasible I’d you stay on topic. Just for now it’s only the methodology, instrumentation, mode of analysis, qualifications and honesty of the US Government scientist studies of ocean height from buoy data recording instruments and satellite laser studies.

For the moment, anything not related to answering the current question will be OFF Topic and moved in order to allow our brains to not lose track of the logic presented.

The question of veracity of data here is a lynchpin for all other discussion on climate change and apparent loss of species populations and species extinctions.

Please stay on topic addressing only post #99 until that issue has been addressed to satisfaction.

If indeed we have no idea about measurements then all discussion is mute!
 

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
James,

Above I said the following:

“It’s a very serious charge you make that the US Government Agency on the Environment with its data from satellite laser instruments and ocean buoys showing ocean level rise is NOT true.

Was this just an outburst or do you stand by your assertions as true?

Explain.

You think they are liars?

They have faulty instruments?

They are unqualified to analyze the data?

They are political hacks?


Whatever your choice, provide your reasons.

Asher”

You answered that all these charges applied!


Asher

....... Yes to all of the above.
Political agenda yes, instrument complications yes, unqualified to analyze data yes, political hacks yes.

So you really do dismiss our Government scientists, their instruments and data!

Could be you are correct. I want to learn what is so unreliable about our science that it can be dismissed on every account?

Now provide the evidence!

Thanks,

Asher
 

James Lemon

Well-known member
James,

Above I said the following:

“It’s a very serious charge you make that the US Government Agency on the Environment with its data from satellite laser instruments and ocean buoys showing ocean level rise is NOT true.

Was this just an outburst or do you stand by your assertions as true?

Explain.

You think they are liars?

They have faulty instruments?

They are unqualified to analyze the data?

They are political hacks?


Whatever your choice, provide your reasons.

Asher”

You answered that all these charges applied!




So you really do dismiss our Government scientists, their instruments and data!

Could be you are correct. I want to learn what is so unreliable about our science that it can be dismissed on every account?

Now provide the evidence!

Thanks,

Asher
Asher

The complications, manipulation ,and inaccuracies of compiled climate data, are well documented. Here are some examples.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/science...rs-duped-manipulated-global-warming-data.html

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/03...dives-is-not-being-overrun-by-sea-level-rise/

James
 
Last edited:

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
Asher

The complications, manipulation ,and inaccuracies of compiled climate data, are well documented. Here are some examples.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/science...rs-duped-manipulated-global-warming-data.html

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/03...dives-is-not-being-overrun-by-sea-level-rise/

James
Your reference to the Daily Mail is a forced retraction for false information not a criticism of the US agency!

Again this is a distraction.

You claimed instruments were no good.

Data analysis was flawed.

Scientist were not qualified.

Nothing you have linked to supports any of your claims.

Asher
 

James Lemon

Well-known member
Your reference to the Daily Mail is a forced retraction for false information not a criticism of the US agency!

Again this is a distraction.

You claimed instruments were no good.

Data analysis was flawed.

Scientist were not qualified.

Nothing you have linked to supports any of your claims.

Asher
Asher

No distraction Asher but you should do your own research yourself it is well documented among many top scientists of the world. I guess you missed the pictures of the tide gauges too. BTW the Maldives are supposed to be under water by now according to their predictions some thirty years ago. What happened, population has doubled and they still haven't sunk into the sea. I guess the tide instruments must not have been placed well, did they get broken, lost, or what. I hope they have some new updated calibrated gauges for there new predictions.

The Mail on Sunday today reveals astonishing evidence that the organisation that is the world's leading source of climate data rushed to publish a landmark paper that exaggerated global warming and was timed to influence the historic Paris Agreement on climate change.
A high-level whistleblower has told this newspaper that America's National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) breached its own rules on scientific integrity when it published the sensational but flawed report, aimed at making the maximum possible impact on world leaders including Barack Obama and David Cameron at the UN climate conference in Paris in 2015.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/science...rs-duped-manipulated-global-warming-data.html
 
Last edited:

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
The measurements from satellites would appear to be the most objective. You have yet to address that!

The daily mail article is just a self correction forced on them for misreporting what you quoted to be true!
 

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
James,

If you do get factual reports as to how the satellite instruments measuring sea height need to be dismissed as reliable sources or the qualifications of the scientists or their analysis should be questioned, share it with us.


Asher
 

James Lemon

Well-known member
James,

If you do get factual reports as to how the satellite instruments measuring sea height need to be dismissed as reliable sources or the qualifications of the scientists or their analysis should be questioned, share it with us.


Asher

Asher

Some of the information that you have causally dismissed as misreporting are about the mishandling and archiving of information. My mother-in- law kept better better weather records in her daily journal. The whole idea about predicting weather patterns far into the future with computer generated models is riddled with problems. This is nothing new, many of the worlds renowned scientists have commented on the problems associated with these concepts.

Albert Einstein used to say, “Not everything that can be counted counts, and not everything that counts can be counted.” We might add some things that count should be counted.

You might want to review the following paper that address some of the issues associated with instruments and the mishandling of information. The weather information gathering system is not as sophisticated as some might suggest.

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/surface_temp.pdf

James
 
Last edited:

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
Totally valid and articulate.

Also Einstein is one of my role models, (working so hard in a modest position in a patent office), so am happy to receive the quote!

However I would so appreciate going back in steps, one at a time to address these points where you categorically dismiss:

  1. Measuring Instruments in buoys and satellites.
  2. Qualifications of the scientists.
  3. Methodology of analysis.
  4. Political bias.
I have no “sides. I only wish to learn where we can or cannot trust with reasonable certainty the 4 steps above.

Now we need not merely that “famous scientist agree with me” but instead actual evidence for each of the 4 parts you have categorically dismissed.

If at least the data is good, it can be independently reprocessed.

Do this methodically and report whichever you complete first.

Asher
 

James Lemon

Well-known member
Totally valid and articulate.

Also Einstein is one of my role models, (working so hard in a modest position in a patent office), so am happy to receive the quote!

However I would so appreciate going back in steps, one at a time to address these points where you categorically dismiss:

  1. Measuring Instruments in buoys and satellites.
  2. Qualifications of the scientists.
  3. Methodology of analysis.
  4. Political bias.
I have no “sides. I only wish to learn where we can or cannot trust with reasonable certainty the 4 steps above.

Now we need not merely that “famous scientist agree with me” but instead actual evidence for each of the 4 parts you have categorically dismissed.

If at least the data is good, it can be independently reprocessed.

Do this methodically and report whichever you complete first.

Asher

Asher

What will be the purpose ,objective in utilizing the data? Are we going to try and predict the sea level for the year 2100? Are we going to Compile the information to somehow predict and protect ourselves from natural natural disasters such as earthquakes floods etc? Or improved weather prediction in general.Let me know the scenario and I will address your points .



James
 
Last edited:

Jerome Marot

Well-known member

James Lemon

Well-known member
This is from the Science and Public Policy Institute, an organization which promotes climate change denial.

Regardless nobody has the ability to predict long term weather conditions with any degree of accuracy. The article address some of the issues with weather data. However there is interesting new technology using saildrones with hope of improving long term weather forecasts. You can read about the mission at the link below.

https://www.pmel.noaa.gov/ocs/ocs-saildrone-mission-blog-tpos-mission-2

James
 
Last edited:

Jerome Marot

Well-known member
Regardless nobody has the ability to predict long term weather conditions with any degree of accuracy.

Predicting the future is notoriously difficult, which is why I prefer concerning myself with observations about the past, like the observation that CO2 increase has always been linked with raise of sea levels in past geological times.
 

James Lemon

Well-known member
Predicting the future is notoriously difficult, which is why I prefer concerning myself with observations about the past, like the observation that CO2 increase has always been linked with raise of sea levels in past geological times.

Jerome

I am not aware of any such link or claim. But if you like, reliable observation of nature then Coral Microatoll Based Sea Level Records may be of interest to you.The detailed record of sea level change preserved in fossil microatolls, combined with precise dating of individual annual rings using the Uranium-thorium dating method, allows them to be used to determine past relative sea-level change with uncertainties of about 20 centimeters (7.9 in) in level and a few years to a few decades in time.[4] They have been used to map the rupture areas of great to giant earthquakes and to estimate the recurrence interval of such events before historic records are available.[6]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microatoll
 
Last edited:

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
James,

Thanks!

Let’s not get so far ahead.

First just the buoy and satellite instruments, only those depended on by US Oceanic and Environmental Agency.

What is it that disqualifies them? What is the hard evidence that made you state they are not up to being trusted as instruments?

If the instruments are indeed poor quality or unreliable, as you indicated, we have no data to consider!

So please address only this as our critical first step

Thanks,

Asher
 

James Lemon

Well-known member
James,

Thanks!

Let’s not get so far ahead.

First just the buoy and satellite instruments, only those depended on by US Oceanic and Environmental Agency.

What is it that disqualifies them? What is the hard evidence that made you state they are not up to being trusted as instruments?

If the instruments are indeed poor quality or unreliable, as you indicated, we have no data to consider!

So please address only this as our critical first step

Thanks,

Asher

Asher

In spite of recent advances in remote sensing technologies such as satellite altimetry, sealevel measurements for tidal applications and other sea level variation studies related to climate change still rely highly on local measurements using tide gauges.

A major limitation for altimetry is the contamination of the radar signal near the coast when the reflection of the radar pulse is partly due to the ocean surface and partly to land. As a consequence, standard altimetry data are unreliable at distances closer than 40 km to the coast.

The satellite altimetry records (NOAA, 2015a; UC, 2015) offer problems because of subjective adjustments (Mörner, 2010d, 2013, 2015f). The first records of 1993–2000 lacked a rising component (MEDIAS, 2000; Mörner, 2004). Later, rising trends were introduced in order to cope with loading models and GIA corrections (Mörner, 2010d, 2013).

A special analysis has been devoted to the reestablishment of the original values of the satellite altimetry records (Mörner, 2015f). When this is done, the NOAA (2015a) record changes from 2.9 ± 0.4 mm/year to a mean value of 0.45 mm/year for the period 1993–2015, and the UC (2015) from 3.3 ± 0.4 mm/year to a mean value of 0.65 mm/year for the period 1992–2015 (for graphs and calculations, see Mörner, 2015f).

Suddenly, there is a general agreement among all the different sources of information for the establishment of present regional-to-global sea-level changes (Mörner, 2015f) as illustrated in Fig. 12.7.

3089



Figure 12.7. The new spectrum of sea-level changes after removal of erroneous “corrections” applied to the satellite altimetry records. Yellow zone gives the peak values of recorded tide gauge rates. Blue arrow indicates that several of those sites refer to subsiding sites overestimating the eustatic factor. Now the different records of sea-level changes (ie, tide gauges, coastal morphology, and satellite altimetry) give a congruent picture of a mean global sea-level rise within the zone ranging from ±0.0 to +1.0 mm/year. The IPCC estimates alone is now hanging “in the air” above all the other records.

From Mörner, N.-A., 2015f. Glacial isostasy: regional – not global. International Journal of Geosciences 6, 577–592.

Dr. Nils Axel Morner is a sea level expert and retired 2005. In 2000 he launched an international sea level research project in the Maldives which claims to demonstrate an absence of signs of any on-going sea level rise. Despite President Gayoom having spoken in the past about the impending dangers to his country,[17] the Maldives, Mörner concluded that the people of the Maldives have in the past survived a higher sea level about 50–60 cm (1.6–2.0 ft), and there is evidence of a significant sea level fall in the last 30 years in that Indian Ocean area.[18][19] However, these conclusions were disputed by due to lack of known mechanism for a fall in sea level and lack of supporting evidence.[20

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nils-Axel_Mörner

What is interesting is that the Maldives is at the lowest part of the planet some 180 meters below New Guinea if the sea level was rising this would be the place for it to happen... no? The population has experienced substantial growth and is a major tourist destination.

Analyzing tide data would require a geologist to interpret according to Dr Morner he also speaks of the IPCC bias toward man made global warming. He mentions of them reporting glaring errors despite what the science says. He is on record for bringing errors to there attention. He also speaks of poor installations of tide gauges and misrepresentations.

It would appear that protection of the integrity of data is a huge responsibility requiring numerous safe guards to keep from being compromised, corrupted from bugs, viruses, data manipulation etc. This is where block chain technology might play a significant role in keeping dubious data manipulations from happening.

So what was the cause of sea level drop here in the Madives? There is more than enough physical evidence to show a substantial sea level drop. Where did all the water go? According to Dr. Morner it evaporated and came down as snow or rain somewhere else but he did not have enough documentation to support this theory.

Dr. Morner and his team spent a number of years here drilling sand samples, coral samples, photographs of the receding shoreline etc, and carbon dating of the "Reef Woman of Lhosfushi" her feet had been cut off.

The skeleton lies embedded at the interface between cemented sand and covering coral
rubble. The dead corpse was left on a former beach, soon covered by coral rubble, now
cemented into a beach-rock. This beach-rock goes in under the sand body of the present
island. This sand has a quite strong black soil at the surface. A former sea level in the order of
+60 cm can be postulated (post-dating the “reef woman”). The beach-rock was later cut into a
rock-cut platform at a sea level +20-30 m. Subsequently, and quite recently, sea level fell and
the platform started to become eroded into a second platform in level with the present sea.

Osteological studies by Torstein Sjövold confirmed that it was a woman, not young, not old,
but in the age-range of 19-45 years. Good teeth. No signs of health problems.

C14-dating (AMS) by Göran Possnert gave an age of 1200 +60 years BP (uncalibrated age).
The bone had a C13-value of –14.3 %o, implying that the woman fed on marine biota (if she
wasn’t a mermaid) and hence should be subjected to “sea correction”. A “sea correction” of
350 years would date the bones at 850 BP or 1100 AD.

Sea level implications:
The “reef woman” died, was killed or was washed-ashore at a beach with a sea level close to
present zero.
Soon after (some 800 BP), sea level rose to about +60 cm.
Later it fell probably below +30 cm.
A new “high” level at about +20-30 cm was established with strong rock-platform cutting
In sub-recent time sea level fell to its present level, eroding the old platform, by that exposing
the skeleton, and staring cutting a second rock-cut platform.

The secret message
The remarkable message of the “Reef Woman” is that sea level in not rising (as stated in the
IPCC “green house” scenario), that it even fell in recent times, and that it has been even some
60 cm higher without wiping out the population. Consequently, the “Reef Woman” can
free the world from the condemnation to become flooded in the near future. This
conclusion is in full agreement with the general findings by the Commission on Sea Level
Changes and Coastal Evolution (as being clearly expressed at the 16th congress of the
International Association of Quaternary Research, INQUA, in Reno, Nevada, in July 2003)

https://www.researchgate.net/public...Woman_of_the_Maldives_and_her_secrete_message

What evidence carries more weight...reliable observations of nature, or computer model projections based on some tide gauges?

James
 
Last edited:

Jerome Marot

Well-known member
But if you like, reliable observation of nature then Coral Microatoll Based Sea Level Records may be of interest to you.The detailed record of sea level change preserved in fossil microatolls, combined with precise dating of individual annual rings using the Uranium-thorium dating method, allows them to be used to determine past relative sea-level change with uncertainties of about 20 centimeters (7.9 in) in level and a few years to a few decades in time.[4] They have been used to map the rupture areas of great to giant earthquakes and to estimate the recurrence interval of such events before historic records are available.[6]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microatoll

Uranium–thorium dating has an upper age limit of about half a million years, so that method only goes back so much in time while the carboniferous era was 350 millions years ago.
 

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
James,

The one person, Dr Morber, you have chosen, is one of the principal driving figures in climate change denial.

Just describe instruments: make models and information on the technical problems but without reference to inferences about the data supporting any conclusions.

You have leaped ahead beyond any ability to grasp the multitude of extra claims your scientist delivers.

Go back to basics.

Just the instruments as if we were about to purchase them!

Can you limit yourself to that?

....but I do admit that you chosen champion is a colorful fellow indeed!

Asher
 
Top