Nixon was told: sea level would rise by 10 feet in 31 years
Eric Gisin
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iOFcb8sd3JqfxYwXV1OeI9TijfgQD9GNB5MO0
Richard Nixon was a Republican and he had to leave his office.
But you can see that he's being worshiped by some environmentalists (and by Jon Stewart during a
recent show about the failed energy-independence promises of the latest 8 U.S. presidents) as their
patron. After all, it was him who founded the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and introduced
many other green laws. And he has also endorsed the first Earth Day in 1970.
Daniel Patrick Moynihan was a top Democrat, a Senator and the U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. and
India. However, in the Nixon administration, he served as an influential advisor for Urban Affairs.
MSNBC and The Huffington Post, among others, reveal that Moynihan wrote a freshly unclassified memo
to Nixon (via his assistant John Ehrlichman, a key initiator of Watergate) in September 1969, long
before the issue became popular (and even years before the new ice age became fashionable), where
he urged him (and NATO) to introduce a global CO2 monitoring system.
He talked about "projects of apocalyptic change" going mainstream and the possibility to conceive
"fairly mammoth man-made efforts to countervail the CO2 rise, e.g. stop burning fossil fuels". And
he described the quantitative consensus of his time as follows:
There is widespread agreement that carbon dioxide content will rise 25 percent by 2000.
This could increase the average temperature near the earth's surface by 7 degrees Fahrenheit.
This in turn could raise the level of the sea by 10 feet. Goodbye New York. Goodbye Washington, for
that matter.
By now, we know what has actually happened by 2000 and we can compare the 1969 and 2000 values of
the three quantities: CO2 concentration, surface temperature, and sea level. The CO2 concentration
grew from 324 ppm to 369 ppm, global surface temperatures increased by 0.3 °C, and sea level rose
by 10 cm.
How did Moynihan's "widely agreed" figures succeed in describing the actual changes from 1969 to
2000?
Predicted increase Actual increase Overestimate by (in pct)
CO2 conc. 81 ppm 45 ppm 80%
Temperature 3.9 °C 0.3 °C 1200%
Sea level 305 cm 10 cm 2950%
Well, Moynihan's "widely agreed" predictions didn't succeed too well. The overestimates go from 80%
in the case of CO2 concentrations to 2950% in the case of sea level. You know, predicting the sea
level change that is exaggerated by a factor of 30 is not a terribly accurate prediction. ;-)
You may also note that the "fundamental physical" processes - such as the increase of CO2 - were
being guessed more accurately than their "convoluted indirect consequences". The more links you
have to include in the chain of reasoning, the more space you have to hide exaggerations into each
step.
So you may see that the "temperature increase per CO2 increase" - a linearized version of climate
sensitivity - was only overestimated by the factor of 13/1.8 = 7.2, i.e. by 620%, less than 1200%
for the temperature increase itself.
And the sea level rise per temperature increase was only overestimated by a factor of 30.5/13 =
2.35 i.e. by 135%, well below 2950% of the sea level itself.
By this comment I want to emphasize how deeply correct was Michael Crichton in his Caltech lecture,
Aliens cause global warming, where he traced the rise of global warming alarmism to the Drake
formula to calculate the number of extraterrestrial aliens.
In both cases, the "quantity we're really interested in" is written as a product of many factors.
If each factor is pushed just by "a few dozens of percent" in the desirable direction, the product
may change substantially. But it is really the final result we care about - the number of aliens or
the sea level rise (and other impacts of the "threat") - and these things end up hugely
exaggerated. The sea level rise was overestimated by a factor of 30 and the number of aliens is
probably overestimated by much bigger factors still (but these overestimates have a smaller impact
on the world economy than the AGW hysteria).
In reality, many of the factors in the product are small. And the product is therefore small, too.
If one divides "cheating" to many steps, each step may contain a "less striking" amount of
cheating - if expressed as a relative exaggeration - but it is still the "total cheating" or "total
mistake" that matters.
And that's the memo.
Angelo Campanella
"Eric Gisin" <er...@nospammail.net> wrote in message
news:i0nh7f$bs0$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
> http://motls.blogspot.com/2010/07/nixon-was-told-sea-level-would-rise-by.html
> (Lubos Motl)
> http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iOFcb8sd3JqfxYwXV1OeI9TijfgQD9GNB5MO0
>
> Richard Nixon was a Republican and he had to leave his office.
Those two facts have nothing to do with science. If anything they
demonstrate that whatever is said by any public official always deserves
unbiased scrutiny. That world has not changed.
> But you can see that he's being worshiped by some environmentalists
Worship those that agree with you; weak logic.
> (and by Jon Stewart during a
> recent show about the failed energy-independence promises of the latest 8
> U.S. presidents) as their
> patron. After all, it was him who founded the Environmental Protection
> Agency (EPA) and introduced
> many other green laws. And he has also endorsed the first Earth Day in
> 1970.
That's the big mystery; why energy independence has not had priority. I
think that the environmentalists have had too much priority since 1970. Why?
Is it the educational system: "Save the Whales!". (Note that John D.
Rockerfeller was the first to save the whales in the 19th century because he
promoted the use of kerosene in place of whale oil for nocturnal lighting
nationwide.)
> Daniel Patrick Moynihan was a top Democrat, a Senator and the U.S.
> Ambassador to the U.N. and
> India. However, in the Nixon administration, he served as an influential
> advisor for Urban Affairs.
How did Moynahan interact with environmentalism?
> MSNBC and The Huffington Post, among others, reveal that Moynihan wrote a
> freshly unclassified memo
> to Nixon (via his assistant John Ehrlichman, a key initiator of Watergate)
> in September 1969, long
> before the issue became popular (and even years before the new ice age
> became fashionable), where
> he urged him (and NATO) to introduce a global CO2 monitoring system.
That shows his scientific naiveté: Air mixing is so complete that
monitoring it anywhere is a fair measure of what it is everywhere. Now,
temperature varies all over the map, humidity also. But O2, N2 and CO2 vary
little.
> He talked about "projects of apocalyptic change" going mainstream and the
> possibility to conceive
> "fairly mammoth man-made efforts to countervail the CO2 rise, e.g. stop
> burning fossil fuels". And
> he described the quantitative consensus of his time as follows:
For some reason, he allowed certain scientific advisors to sway him
disproportionately....
> There is widespread agreement that carbon dioxide content will rise 25
> percent by 2000.
OK, that stars the process, so far, so good....
> This could increase the average temperature near the earth's surface by 7
> degrees Fahrenheit.
There goes the first radical extrapolation. "Could" is the operative
word; the approaching radicalization.
> This in turn could raise the level of the sea by 10 feet. Goodbye New
> York. Goodbye Washington, for
> that matter.
Could squared!
> By now, we know what has actually happened by 2000 and we can compare the
> 1969 and 2000 values of
> the three quantities: CO2 concentration, surface temperature, and sea
> level. The CO2 concentration
> grew from 324 ppm to 369 ppm, global surface temperatures increased by 0.3
> °C, and sea level rose
> by 10 cm.
OK it's quantitative - to your credit - from here on.
> How did Moynihan's "widely agreed" figures succeed in describing the
> actual changes from 1969 to
> 2000?
>
> Predicted increase Actual increase Overestimate by (in pct)
> CO2 conc. 81 ppm 45 ppm 80%
Only a factor of 2, not bad for a guess!
> Temperature 3.9 °C 0.3 °C 1200%
Guess * Could = 13
> Sea level 305 cm 10 cm 2950%
Guess * Could * Could = 30.5
Could^2=15.5, Could = 3.94
So when listening to "earnest" political-speak, divide every guess by 2,
and every "could" by 4. (or multiply when they are minimizing rather than
maximizing).
Now, apply that to budgetary estimates.... Is it accurate? Social
security? Annual deficit?
(I leave the rest of your memo here because of its veracity)
Desertphile
<er...@nospammail.net> wrote:
> Subject: Nixon was told: sea level would rise by 10 feet in 31 years
No, he was not. The "Jasons" (including Dr. Richard Feynman) told
President Nixon that sea level would rise by another 2 inches by
year 2000---- and it did.
--
http://desertphile.org
Desertphile's Desert Soliloquy. WARNING: view with plenty of water
"Why aren't resurrections from the dead noteworthy?" -- Jim Rutz
George
wrote:
> On Sat, 3 Jul 2010 07:24:15 -0700, "Eric Gisin"
>
> <er...@nospammail.net> wrote:
> > Subject: Nixon was told: sea level would rise by 10 feet in 31 years
>
> No, he was not. The "Jasons" (including Dr. Richard Feynman) told
> President Nixon that sea level would rise by another 2 inches by
> year 2000---- and it did.
Denial isn't a pretty thing especially when its deliberate and wrong!
Southern Man
Noah was told that there would be a big flood and was sucked into
building an Ark, and stealing people's animals.
And denailists think the Bible is a history book.
Must be "The Gay Gene"
Well Done
inches, and the only "denial" going on is among you AGW freaks,
pretending your sorry-ass little pseudo-religious bullshit hasn't been
debunked. You're clueless!
---
--> "I may make you feel, but I can't make you think" <--
--> Off the monitor, through the modem, nothing but net <--
Desertphile
wrote:
Indeed, 100% true. But you clowns hate the facts too musg to
abandon your political agenda.
Desertphile
<Well...@WellHoned.com> wrote:
> George <gbl...@hnpl.net> wrote:
> >On Mar 7, 6:59 am, Desertphile <desertph...@invalid-address.net>
> >wrote:
> >> On Sat, 3 Jul 2010 07:24:15 -0700, "Eric Gisin"
> >> <er...@nospammail.net> wrote:
> >> > Subject: Nixon was told: sea level would rise by 10 feet in 31 years
> >>
> >> No, he was not. The "Jasons" (including Dr. Richard Feynman) told
> >> President Nixon that sea level would rise by another 2 inches by
> >> year 2000---- and it did.
> >
> >Denial isn't a pretty thing especially when its deliberate and wrong!
> Excuse me, assholes, but the oceans have NOT risen by anything like 2
> inches
More than six inches in the past 100 years. Close to two inches
since 1972.
> and the only "denial" going on is among you AGW freaks,
> pretending your sorry-ass little pseudo-religious bullshit hasn't been
> debunked. You're clueless!
JohnM
> George <gbl...@hnpl.net> wrote:
> >On Mar 7, 6:59 am, Desertphile <desertph...@invalid-address.net>
> >wrote:
> >> On Sat, 3 Jul 2010 07:24:15 -0700, "Eric Gisin"
> >> <er...@nospammail.net> wrote:
> >> > Subject: Nixon was told: sea level would rise by 10 feet in 31 years
>
> >> No, he was not. The "Jasons" (including Dr. Richard Feynman) told
> >> President Nixon that sea level would rise by another 2 inches by
> >> year 2000---- and it did.
>
> >Denial isn't a pretty thing especially when its deliberate and wrong!
>
> Excuse me, assholes, but the oceans have NOT risen by anything like 2
> inches
The OP gave 10 cm as the actual measured amount, which is around 4
inches