Jennifer Marohasy

a forum for the discussion of issues concerning the natural environment

Sea-level Rise and Fall Over Recent Decades: Dr Nils-Axel Morner

By

I’ve been invited to speak at the 9th International Conference on Climate Change, sponsored by the Heartland Institute. Its in Las Vegas in July. The speakers list is now available and also a draft schedule. It looks like I will be speaking in a session with Dr Nils-Axel Morner from Stockholm University. I followed a link to his presentation on sea-level rise and fall given at the conference last year in Munich. It’s informative and entertaining…

Reader Interactions

Comments

  1. spangled drongo says

    That’s wonderful, Jen. He’s quite a character.

    What he says about the claimed SLR as compared with the observed [that it is all about data adjustment] is so true.

    There is nothing happening.

    Do you have any more info on GRASP, that is to replace GRACE as the measuring system, because of the faulty reference frame?

    GRACE seems to be the problem with both calculated ice melt awa SLR as claimed:

    http://www.gps.gov/governance/advisory/meetings/2011-06/bar-sever.pdf

  3. Neville says

    All the best for your trip to Las Vegas Jennifer. This latest report from the USA govt has to be seen to be believed, what a load of deceptive nonsense. But their ABC is already peddling and promoting it wildly this morning. Zero regard shown for recent observations, just more junk science and wishful thinking.

    There must be a score of very recent studies on SLR that show a deceleration and yet we still have these deceptive people telling us exactly the opposite. The 1350 PR studies has a number of SL studies that highlights this recent deceleration.

    http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html

  4. Neville says

    Many more studies on SLs at the CO2 science site. http://co2science.org/subject/s/subject_s.php

    Had to laugh when I heard Obama actually claim that the USA could make a difference to his CAGW by investing in more wind and solar energy.
    Pity he didn’t just phone Angela Murkel to learn and be warned about wasting 100s of billions more $ and decades more time wasting as well. And all for zip change to co2 levels and climate for thousands of years.

  5. Debbie says

    Good for you Jen.
    That’s an impressive list of speakers.
    I’m guessing the consensus knives will start stabbing re the Heartland Institute and many of those speakers?
    SLR and attendant alarmism looks like another one of those “same s**t different day”! scenarios.
    What is it with all this flawed and contradictory methodology and the profligate waste of public resources on just about anything to do with NRM politics?
    I’m starting to think that a lot of these ‘experts’ are gobsmackingly clueless (ie NO IDEA AT ALL!!!!) about the difference between popular environmental politics and sensible, achievable NRM policy.

  6. marc says

    Debbie. I bet you have no problem with the expenditure of public money in private and/or cooperative irrigation efficiency infrastructure however, where the private benefit clearly outweighs the public benefit.

  8. spangled drongo says

    @ marc,

    “where the private benefit clearly outweighs the public benefit.”

    Any evidence to prove that it “clearly outweighs”?

  9. Robert says

    marc, I think you’ll find that irrigation efficiency expenditure involves the production of food for large numbers of people by people who pay out lots, not trips to Seaworld or copies of the latest Game of Thrones DVD for Deb’s family. And if Deb gets her part of the investment wrong and nothing grows she doesn’t get paid. Now if that principle was applied to Neville Wran or David Jones…

    And congrats to Jen.

  10. Debbie says

    Marc,
    Your comment indicates to me that you may very well be one of those ‘gobsmackingly clueless’ .
    Try a simple ledger exercise. . .you know. . .assets & liabilities. . .ROI. . .debt & equity . . .long term return to GDP and so on.
    You may also benefit from a clearer understanding about what you see as the dichotomy between private & public benefit when we are discussing POLICY(!) . . .as opposed to silly, misinformed, emotional politics.

  12. Avatar photojennifer says

    I think Marc makes a fair point… huge sums of public money have been paid to irrigators under the Basin Plan. I think calculating dollars for water use efficiency improvements etcetera by number of irrigators worked out at about $170,000 per irrigator… of course most of this money goes to consultants and industry representative bodies. Indeed how much government money does the rice industry pick up each year. Its really payment/bribe for going along with the Basin Plan… its a disgrace… in my opinion agriculture is no better than any of the many other industry that are regularly bought off by big government in Australia.

    That’s not to suggest Debbie wasn’t also making a good point in her original comment or that Debbie personally benefits from any of this. Indeed more than most she has spoken out agains the Basin Plan and its largess.

    At some point it would be good to get this thread back to sea-level rise and/or Heartland conference…

    Cheers,

  13. Neville says

    More good info from the Hockey Schtick taking the stick to Obama’s latest NCA reports nonsensical SLR exaggerations.

    http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com.au/2014/05/national-climate-assessment-claims-sea.html Incredibly these delusional fools think that observations are wrong and say their modeling will give a rise of perhaps 2 metres by 2100.

    Many more recent SL studies are listed here and needless to say they show zip evidence of CAGW at all. But how much longer can the world’s govts get away with these sorts of con tricks? Surely more responsible journos in the MSM will eventually call out this nonsense?

  14. spangled drongo says

    Jen, you may well be right about govt subsidy of big industry but when it comes to the food we need in an emergency [and we probably haven’t had one yet] what price do you put on self sufficiency?

    I would suggest that it would be peanuts compared with what some countries invest.

    Any’ow, any news on GRASP?

  15. Debbie says

    Thanks Jen.
    No argument from me re the availability of govt money & resulting behaviour.
    The infrastructure money certainly doesn’t land in our pockets. Any that we get MUST BE invested in upgrading our irrigation efficiencies AND MOST IMPORTANTLY we had to hand over asset to access any of this money ( water entitlement and/or water access licence).
    But as you say. . .this thread is about SLR & the speakers at the conference.
    Do you have a specific topic ?

  17. Neville says

    Spangled that Antarctic study just backs up all the models used by IPCC that show that Antarctica will be negative for SLR for the next 300 years. Click on the Royal Society graphs to enlarge. BTW Lomborg covers all this in his book “Cool It.”

    http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/364/1844/1709/F4.expansion.html

    Pity Obama doesn’t understand this, but they all must know his report is BS anyhow.
    But the Pages 2K study found that over the last 2000 years Antarctica was warmest from 149 ad to 1250 ad and coldest in the 20th century and now certainly accumulating more ice in the early 21st century.

  18. Robert says

    Trouble with talking about sea level rise is that there is very little to talk about. A bit of glacial rebound here, a bit of subsidence there, a bit of actual rise like you get after every ice age…and not bloody much of that lately. Bass Strait was dry just ten thousand years ago. If you are so desperate to walk from Melbourne to Launceston, then have another ice age. I’m sure there’s a tax for that.

  19. spangled drongo says

    Neville, ya mean if it cools anymore there’ll be nowhere to float my boat?

    Robert, yes, all this screaming and squandering when there is nothing to talk about at all.

    What would they do if their ar5e was on fire?

  20. Avatar photojennifer says

    Robert,

    Watch the YouTube clip… so much to talk about… and Dr Morner even nearly breaks out in song!

    Debbie,

    The topic for my main presentation is medium-term rainfall forecasting. 🙂

    I’m on a couple of other panels that are about the direction Australia is taking regarding AGW and carbon tax etcetera.

  21. Neville says

    In the video Morner states that a rise of 10mm a year ( one metre in 100 years) is impossible in todays world.
    Does anyone have any other evidence that backs up this claim? Because a number of scientists are now talking about 10 to 20 mm a year, even 2 metres by 2100. How can anyone other than a fairytale make these claims? Just asking.

  23. Neville says

    In his book “Cool It” ( page 78) Lomborg gave the IPCC mid range of SLR as 29cm by 2100. He took the 29cm from the IPCC 4th 2007 report.
    He then explained how they derived that 29cm estimate rise by 2100.

    Thermal expansion would contribute 23cm. That’s about 67% of the rise.

    Melting glaciers and ice caps would contribute 8cm. That’s about 23%

    Greenland contribution would be 3.5cm. Thats about 10%. These add up to 34.5 cm over the century.

    But Antarctica will gain ice and is expected to reduce SLR by 5.5cm. So they then subtract 5.5cm from 34.5cm and the estimate now becomes 29cm SLR over the next 100 years.

    Since that 2007 report there have been many studies showing a deceleration in SLR and yet the 2013 IPCC 5th report now gives a higher estimate for SLR than they did in 2007. I ask,how does that work???

  24. Larry Fields says

    Speaking of the devil . . . Up until today, there had been some nonproductive back-and-forth on this SLR thread at WUWT.

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/05/03/the-ocean-ate-my-global-warming/

    The trolls were attempting to discredit Monckton’s previous peerage claims, which had absolutely nothing to do with Christopher’s article. Christopher is more than capable of defending himself, but he wasted a considerable amount of his precious time in doing so. My guess is that the moderation team did not intervene sooner, because they were enjoying the political theater. I think that the moderation policy has finally been sorted out. Knock on wood! Mock The Monck at your own peril!

  25. Neville says

    The Uni Bolder Colorado still claims that SL is rising at 3.2 mm a year and that gives a rise of 320 mm over 100 years or 32cm or 12.8 inches rise by 2114.

    http://sealevel.colorado.edu/ CSIRO has exactly the same SLR as the above as do all other data bases using satellite measurement. But of course many of the recent tidal gauge studies show a decelerating trend in SLR.

  26. spangled drongo says

    SLR for the vulnerable in the real world works like this: the greatest part of the year when the normal tides occur nothing happens because any SLR is well within the tide boundaries but when the highest tides of the year arrive and they coincide with big storm winds, the resultant sea surge can flood the local countryside.

    This has always happened and is nothing new.

    With SLR however, it has the capacity to increase the height of the surge but if increases in GAT have the effect of reducing the energy of these extreme storms, which many scientists believe, then the net effect will not be a problem and could even cause a reduction in the height of sea surges.

  27. Neville says

    This response to the USA NCA report from Chip Knappenberger is about as accurate as you could ask for and picks apart the silly conclusions of this ridiculous report.

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/05/08/national-climate-assessment-frequently-confuses-climate-with-climate-change/#more-108814

    He repeats the conclusions of other genuine scientists that there is nothing the USA could do to make any measurable difference to AGW by 2100. And that includes shutting down all US human co2 emissions today.
    He points out that Obama knew all about the conclusions of this political report well before it was finished. Just more proof that this report is as big a con and fraud as the mitigation of their imagined CAGW by the reduction of human co2 emissions.
    Just read the latest RS and NAS report that clearly states that co2 will not drop for thousands of years, even if we stop all human co2 emissions today.

  28. Neville says

    I just did a quick count of the more recent PR studies on SLR from the 1350 site. I counted 17 studies from 2007 to show that the IPCC had no excuse for not including these findings in their 2013 5th reoprt.
    But instead the IPCC chose to actually increase their estimate of SLR in their latest 2013 report. And now we have all sorts of pseudo scientists claiming a one to two metre rise by 2100. The recent evidence and observations some how diverge from the wild ramblings of these delusional political ratbags.

    http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html#Sea

  29. Neville says

    Here is an interesting 2004 SL study from Church et al covering the period 1950 to 2000. This is from the CO2 Science site.
    They could find no overall change in the rate of SLR over that 50 year period or for the entire 20th century. And that rate in their 2004 study from both tide gauges and satellite was 1.8mm year, about the upper limit quoted by Morner.
    They also note that this backed up the previous Douglas and Woodworth studies. Don’t forget this zero change in SLR rate coincides exactly with the period chosen by the alarmists ( post 1950) to try and show the impact from human co2 emissions.
    On all available evidence they have failed miserably, to put it mildly. There is zip evidence of human co2 emission impact at all.

    Global Sea Level: 1950-2000
    ——————————————————————————–
    Reference
    Church, J.A., White, N.J., Coleman, R., Lambeck, K. and Mitrovica, J.X. 2004. Estimates of the regional distribution of sea level rise over the 1950-2000 period. Journal of Climate 17: 2609-2625.
    What was done
    Building on the work of Chambers et al. (2002), the authors used TOPEX/Poseidon satellite altimeter data to estimate global empirical orthogonal functions, which they combined with historical tide gauge data to estimate monthly distributions of large-scale sea level variability and change over the period 1950-2000.

    What was learned
    Church et al.’s “best estimate” of the rate of globally-averaged sea level rise over the last half of the 20th century is 1.8 � 0.3 mm yr-1. They further note that “decadal variability in sea level is observed, but to date there is no detectable secular increase in the rate of sea level rise over the period 1950-2000.” They also report that no increase in the rate of sea level rise has been detected for the entire 20th century, citing the work of Woodworth (1990) and Douglas (1992).”

    What it means
    In spite of the fact that the most significant segment of the historical increase in the air’s CO2 concentration took place over the last half of the 20th century, and the climate-alarmist claim that the global warming of the latter half of this period was unprecedented over the past two millennia, there was no discernable increase in the rate of sea level rise over either of these periods or even the entire 20th century. These observations pretty much prove that either the climate alarmists’ claim of unprecedented global warming is bogus or that their claim about such a warming greatly accelerating sea level rise is false or that both of these claims are wrong.

    References
    Chambers, D.P., Melhaff, C.A., Urban, T.J., Fuji, D. and Nerem, R.S. 2002. Low-frequency variations in global mean sea level: 1950-2000. Journal of Geophysical Research 107: 10.1029/2001JC001089.

    Douglas, B.C. 1992. Global sea level acceleration. Journal of Geophysical Research 97: 12,699-12,706.

    Woodworth, P.L. 1990. A search for accelerations in records of European mean sea level. International Journal of Climatology 10: 129-143.

    Reviewed 20 April 2005

  32. Neville says

    Roy Spencer looks at 12 points from the US NCA report and isn’t impressed at all with any of them.

    http://www.drroyspencer.com/2014/05/my-initial-comments-on-the-national-climate-assessment/#comments

    This is just guess work and supposition on the part of the alarmists and observations over the last 100 years doesn’t support that alarmism at all.
    But needless to say there is ZIP the USA can do about the imagined CAGW just ask the RS, NAS and the booming super co2 emitters China and India.

  36. Larry Fields says

    I’d like to ask my stooopid question of the day. But first some background.

    I learn best from doing and from reading. When I listen to an oral presentation, the main thing that I get is the emotional status of the speaker. I absorb the information being presented less efficiently than most people. So I may have misunderstood parts of the Mörner video. That said . . .

    One point that Mörner made was that even at the end of the last Ice Age, Sea Level Rise was only 10 mm/yr. And that the current SLR is either zero or maybe 0.5 mm/yr. Of course, alarmists are claiming much more than that. Mörner’s response: That’s impossible.

    What about SLR immediately after the Lesser Dryas cold snap? Here’s one popular hypothesis about how it ended.

    During the big thaw at the end of the Younger Dryas, there was a humongous lake in the Western part of Nth America. It was bounded on all sides by ice. Somehow the walls were breached. (Comet impact?) Then the water quickly drained into the ocean. Does Mörners theoretical maximum of 10 mm/yr apply in this scenario?

    And while we’re at it, where did that figure come from? Which proxies were used?

  37. John F. Hultquist says

    My view is that the easy ice has been melted. There are lots of other contributions but most don’t account for much in terms of the Global Ocean. Even the steric (no new mass) or thermal expansion idea seems over blown because to have much effect the entire column of water has to warm. Warming or cooling the top few hundred meters doesn’t accomplish much.
    So, back to the easy ice. I live in Washington State and during the last glacial advance ice (The Puget Lobe) covered and depressed the region wherein the city of Seattle now exists. See this map:
    http://www.burkemuseum.org/static/geo_history_wa/Cascade%20Episode_files/image020.jpg

    Unfortunately the map shows the current Pacific shore rather than where it was back then – about 120 meters lower. Northwest of Seattle the ice filled what is now called the Strait of Juan de Fuca and thus blocked (what is now) the outlet of waters to the Ocean. The melt water found an exit farther south near the present day City of Aberdeen at Grays Harbor.

    Note that this glacial ice and related activity happened at or about today’s sea level and at a relatively southern latitude (47th Parallel). As the glacial period waned and the temperature, winds, and related aspects changed, this ice could, and did, melt rapidly. Likewise for the lower elevation ice in the Cascades of B.C., Washington, and Oregon. Correspondingly, the sea level rose rapidly.

    Once all this easy ice (low elevation, low latitude) turned back into liquid and entered the Ocean the rate of change (rise) in sea level slowed and has nearly stalled. Arctic Ocean floating ice makes very little difference. Greenland and Antarctica ice is mostly high elevation and high latitude and below freezing. That ice is going to melt slowly. Even when large masses of ice break away they melt slowly. See
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ice_Island_Calves_off_Petermann_Glacier.jpg

    Further, while one of these ice masses appears large to humans (one headline reads “iceberg 6X the size of Manhattan”) the mass of ice in Greenland and Antarctica is massively large by comparison – and new snow falls regularly. One headline grabber was Berg B31 breaking away from Antarctica’s Pine Island Glacier in November of 2013.
    http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/NaturalHazards/view.php?id=82388

    Use, say Google Earth, and find this location – then back off (zoom out) until you can see all of Antarctica. This ice break-away will appear about as scary as the bits removed when you trim your fingernails. And the iceberg still doesn’t melt rapidly – or maybe not at all.

    Anyway, the easy ice is gone.

  38. John F. Hultquist says

    Larry,
    In western North America there was impounded melt water in Montana. Here is a link:
    http://www.iafi.org/floods.html

    . . . and in Utah one called Lake Bonneville:
    http://vulcan.wr.usgs.gov/Glossary/Glaciers/IceSheets/description_lake_bonneville.html

    For the rest of North America, see
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lake_Agassiz
    and
    http://web2.geo.msu.edu/geogmich/glacial.html

    Drainage from some lakes came to the Gulf of Mexico and to the Atlantic Ocean at NYC – from Lakes Erie and Ontario an outlet carved the Mohawk River, whose valley was used when the Erie Canal was constructed.

    I hope the above is enough for you to find additional reports.

  39. Neville says

    John that’s very interesting and I think we all understand that the easy ice melt has gone. But what rate of SLR do you think IS possible. Was it 10mm year max or higher during the earlier Holocene?
    I would have thought it was higher in the past but I’m not a SL expert. And if dangerous SLR is due by 2100 where is it to come from?
    And how come we can have recent studies that show zip difference in todays SLR compared to pre 1950s? Of course this is also found glacier retreat in the first half of the 20th century than post 1950s. Exactly the opposite to increased co2 causing dangerous SLR.

  42. Debbie says

    I visited Yosemite and Hetch Hetchy in 2008.
    As well as being suitably awestruck by the place. . .I clearly remember thinking (somewhat cynically) . . .OK, so what happened to those big mothers of glaciers? . . was that somehow attributable to and the fault of humankind too?

  43. John F. Hultquist says

    Neville,
    Here is a post about Holocene sea levels:
    http://notrickszone.com/2014/05/05/data-show-holocene-sea-levels-trending-downwards-2-meters-higher-4000-and-8000-years-ago/

    Using a WAG, I vote for it getting colder and snow will begin accumulating. Sea level should drop.
    –—————————-

    Debbie asks if the Yosemite area glaciers disappeared because of humankind. We visited there many years ago in a big V8 Ford Station Wagon. The glaciers left and haven’t been back since.
    But the truth (from the link below) is somewhat different: “Today we correlate that glaciation with the Sherwin glaciation, defined from studies along the east side of the Sierra Nevada, and which name is now in general use. The Sherwin was the most extensive, and longest-lived, glaciation documented in the Sierra. It may have lasted almost 300 thousand years and ended about 1 million years ago. A Sherwin-age glacier was almost surely responsible for the major excavation and shaping of Yosemite Valley within the Merced River canyon.”
    http://geomaps.wr.usgs.gov/parks/yos/topobk.html

  44. spangled drongo says

    Larry, if the melting at the end of the last glaciation raised SLs ~ 120 meters [12,000 cms] at Morner’s rate of 10mm [1cm] per year that would take 12,000 years but from the ice cores it seems like it took possibly less than a quarter of that time so one would think the rate should be higher x4.

    Interesting that some coral growth must have kept pace with that rate.

  45. handjive of climatefraud.inc says

    Gratz to Ms. Jen.
    A good dose of aussie common sense will blow those yanks away!

    a link related to SLR-
    13,500-Year-Old Tool-Making Site Uncovered in Idaho Forest

    http://westerndigs.org/13500-year-old-tool-making-site-uncovered-in-idaho-forest/

    “On a remote forest riverbank in northern Idaho, archaeologists have uncovered evidence of human occupation going back more than 13,500 years, adding to the signs of an increasingly ancient human presence in the Northwest, and fueling the debate about how the region’s earliest settlers got there.

    The prevalence of Western Stemmed Tradition artifacts in the Northwest, known locally as Windust, also suggests that its members may represent a separate wave of human migration to this part of North America, she said, with migrants having come from the north **not by ice-free corridors near the middle of the continent, as some models maintain,** but by way of the Pacific coast.
    . . .
    Ice free corridors. Go figure.

  46. Neville says

    Thanks for the holocene SL info John. I was aware of higher SLs just 4,000 years and 7,000 years ago. The RS graphs certainly show that Antarctica will be gaining more ice for the next 300 years and will of course be a negative factor in future SLR. And other new studies seem to back this up. So I ask again, where is this dangerous SLR to come from by 2100?

  49. Robert says

    Priceless, Deb. A “science” article which “informs” about Antarctic ice but doesn’t mention the currently soaring levels of Antarctic sea ice. That’s not just ignoring the elephant in the room. More like ignoring the woolly mammoth in the phone booth.

    The poor lambs will have to manufacture their sea level rise from something I suppose, now that the Maldives have gone over to ultra-posh tourism. Nice and flat for lots more new airports, too. No more underwater cabinet meetings for that lot!

  50. John F. Hultquist says

    Regarding handjive’s comment:

    About the northern Idaho tool makers: I lived in Troy, ID – about 50 miles from that site and both of us were associated with the Univ. of Idaho. I’ve been in the area of this find on old logging roads in the National Forests. Anyway, for the past 25 years we have lived in central Washington State and have neighbors that are members of the Yakama Nation. Oral tradition within the tribe suggests ancestors were here when the Great Floods near the end of the last glaciation swept out of Montana and across the eastern and central parts of Washington. Most origin stories of the western tribes claim a beginning in the region where they now are and dates are non-existing. Modern dating techniques and migration accounts are of little interest to the Natives. Read the story of Kennewick Man to understand these issues.
    http://archaeology.about.com/od/kennewickman/a/introduction.htm

    The phrase “ice free corridors” is reference to the first (?) hypothesis about how people entered North America – existing on the plants and animals between the ice sheet to the east and the mountain ice to the west. See the discussion here (dated April 2011):
    http://whyfiles.org/2011/peopling-the-americas-new-evidence/

  51. Neville says

    Here is the 2012 Hannah et al SLR study showing four NZ ports. It shows that SLR is 1.7mm a year and thats 17cm by 2114 or 6.8 inches. That’s 14.6 cm by 2100 or 5.8 inches.
    Port Denison (Sydney) has been rising at 1.1mm year from 1940 to 2000. And that’s 11cm by 2114 or 4.4 inches. That’s 9.5cm by 2100 or 3.8 inches.

    Biggggg difference to Gore and Hansen’s 6 metres ( Pearman as well???) or Flannerys 8 metres or ABC Science Guru William’s 100 metres.
    Gore and H estimate is 60 mm a year or about 35 times the current rate. Flannery is about 59 times and ABC’s Robyn Williams is about 588 times the current rate. That’s using the 1.7mm year from NZ study not the 1.1mm year from Sydney.
    But boy have they got some catching up to do. I think the Bolter should ask Robyn back for another interview and find out if he’s changed his mind? Probably not, but that 1000mm a year estimate is a record. Certainly the type of science advisor that’s well suited to advise their ABC.

    Here’s the NZ 2012 study. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2011JC007591/pdf

  52. handjive of climatefraud.inc says

    Hey John.
    Thank you very much for that amazing information.
    My attempt to stay ‘on topic’ with melting ice & sea level rise leads to a most controversial topic.
    And most interesting. And the bonus of someone involved!

    The mystery Kennewick man reminds me of the myth of Quetzalcoatl, ignoring timescales.
    I’m sure you are aware –

    “On the other hand, according to some historians, the representations of Quetzalcoatl depict him as a tall and bearded white male. That’s why it is assured that this notable personage may have been, in fact, genuine: a Viking who reached the shores of the Gulf of Mexico to later become the god of the Toltecs, because of all the new knowledge that he instilled.

    The most remarkable thing about this story is that it was precisely because of these physical characteristics and the golden glow of his armor and clothing, that the Spanish conquistador, Hernan Cortes, was mistaken for this god.”

    http://www.inside-mexico.com/legends/quetzalcoatl.htm
    . . .
    But, to get on-topic for Ms J, here is a link to notrickszone post, and reference to one of her fellow speakers:

    Sebastian Lüning will be one of the speakers at the upcoming 9th International Conference on Climate Change in Las Vegas July 7-9. See following 30-second video for more information:

    http://notrickszone.com/2014/05/10/flurry-of-scientists-recent-peer-reviewed-papers-warning-of-approaching-little-ice-age/

  56. Neville says

    Greenland is always quoted as THE big future problem and will drive dangerous SLR. But the Chylek et al 2006 study found that the 1920 to 1930 warming rate in Greenland was 50% higher than 1995 to 2005 warming.
    So the warming rate was higher at low co2 levels yet 50% lower 45 years after 1950. So much for enhanced warming from higher co2 levels.

    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2006GL026510/pdf

  59. Ian Thomson says

    Interesting that Kennewick man was mentioned. I have a life-long interest in ancient peoples and have found some interesting , relevant to the topic, theories about early migrations.
    Hopi creation myths have been interpreted by some as having them walk to America from the Pacific.
    Kennewick man’s closest cranial matches are NZ Moriori and Japanese Ainu. NZ Maori also have genetic ties to indigenous Japanese and Taiwanese people.
    There is a lot more to it , but walking to America would have been much more possible back then.

    Much we may never know because of the vested interests of ” discovery time natives ” Who for some reason seem to think any ancient people will affect their land rights.
    This applies to more places than USA.