|
|
| JohnF - 14/10/2006 17:12 This thread reads a bit like those nerdy threads on a film-fans website.  Spot the continuity error!!! 
I have not seen the film so I don't know in what context the shot in question was shown but...
Chances are it was a illustration rather than a dataset presentation done by a CGI team who are not climate or geographical modellers. I suggest that as the curves of the bluring of the edges of the "new coast" graphic look like a CGI bodge job. Another example of this is like the graphics in the current BBC's "Galapagus" show where the "from space birds eye view" of the island show the surrounding ocean currents. These currents are not based on a detailed oceanographic model but a simple intereptation of current direction with a CGI "turbulence plug-in" to represent the current. Maybe, you should remember the phrase "artists impression" when looking at films. I've seen other CGI space based views of the Earth where the clouds were shown moving at what would be faster than the speed of sound! Personally I prefer that any science based show use both actual science data alongside artistic intereptations whilst making clear definitions between the two so as to minimise any possible confusion. (esp when it comes to illustrating situations such as potential flooding) I might add that seeing proper science models also seems more dramatic/impactful.
JohnF Completely aggreeing. I am sure the next, the movie will be blaimed is that it didnt advance our understanding of stratopsheric interactions with the ozone cycle, that the press realeas was not accepted by Science and that it actually used pictures and music. |
|
| |
|
Location: Middle Assendon, S. Oxfordshire, UK. 65m AMSL | NileQueen - 13/10/2006 17:16 I think Hans has discovered a technical error and NV doesn't want to admit there is an error there. It would appear that, and correct me if I am wrong on this, Nick cannot be objective where AGW is concerned. The precision of the datasets NV uses daily has nothing to do with the error others have made on this film. As usual, Nicky, you try the appeal to authority. Because it is this company, they can't possibly have made a mistake. Filmmakers have deadlines, and I think Hans' assessment that it was a rush job is a good one. I challenge you Nick to contact the company and ask them about this discrepancy that you defend so hotly while you sink slowly into a swamp because your arguments are not on solid ground.
I think if you read above I have accepted their is an error, but what i dont accept is Hans' explanation of why. I think i am highly objective about GW and cliamate change, thank you. More so than some members of this forum! |
|
| |
|
Location: The Netherlands, -2,3 m msl | Nick Verge - 15/10/2006 21:48 I think i am highly objective about GW and cliamate change, thank you. More so than some members of this forum! [lol] why is ROFL denied? Anyway, we are so flexible that you can have your new car in any color you like, no matter what, provided that it is black of course. |
|
| |
|
Location: USA | Nick Verge - 15/10/2006 15:48 I think i am highly objective about GW and cliamate change, thank you. More so than some members of this forum! I think you are not objective about yourself now. So give me an example of how reasonable and objective you are. Where is the strongest proof of ACC, and would you mind if others dissect your assertions to see if they hold up? You must promise not to get apoplectic on us.
Edited by NileQueen 15/10/2006 16:35
|
|
| |
|
Location: The Hague, The Netherlands | Nick Verge - 15/10/2006 21:48 I think if you read above I have accepted their is an error, but what i dont accept is Hans' explanation of why. indeed you claim that a sophisticated flooding model could keep the low lying alblasserwaard dry. whereas I have proven that the model used is in fact is a very crude "painting by numbers" exercise, which was also improperly georeferenced on top of the sattelite image. BTW The likelihood that greenland completely melts in this century is as probable as nuclear missiles metamorphosing into sperm whales and bowls of petunias. |
|
| |
|
Location: The Hague, The Netherlands | Georg Hoffmann - 15/10/2006 20:56 Ah yes? Melting rates of more than 20mm/year are documented for the Eem. and although temperatures were 3 degrees higher than present, the Greenland ice cap didn't dissapear during the Eemian. |
|
| |
|
Location: USA | Bowls of petunias? 
|
|
| |
|
Location: Warrington, Cheshire, 12m ASL | andre - 15/10/2006 21:23 Nick Verge - 15/10/2006 21:48 I think i am highly objective about GW and cliamate change, thank you. More so than some members of this forum! [lol] why is ROFL denied? Anyway, we are so flexible that you can have your new car in any color you like, no matter what, provided that it is black of course. [lol] why is ROFL denied? This is because that sort of contmept to anothers ideas is derogatory and people in this forum are belived to be above such petty behavour. Si
Edited by Si Taylor 15/10/2006 17:06
|
|
| |
|
Location: Middle Assendon, S. Oxfordshire, UK. 65m AMSL | NileQueen - 14/10/2006 21:34 Nick Verge - 15/10/2006 15:48 I think i am highly objective about GW and cliamate change, thank you. More so than some members of this forum! I think you are not objective about yourself now. So give me an example of how reasonable and objective you are. Where is the strongest proof of ACC, and would you mind if others dissect your assertions to see if they hold up? You must promise not to get apoplectic on us.
Go read the peer reviewed literature on the subject - i dont have any significant problems with most of it. I am content to accept the findings of my peers. The strongest evidence of ACC is that the recent history of increasing global average temperatue can not be explained as the result of changes to the magnitude of natural forcings. Instead, it can only be explained unless the radiative forcing contribution of rising greenhouse gas concentrations are included in the global heat budget. NOONE of any repute working in the field disagrees with this conclusion.
Edited by Nick Verge 15/10/2006 17:10
|
|
| |
|
| coolhansnl - 15/10/2006 21:47 Georg Hoffmann - 15/10/2006 20:56 Ah yes? Melting rates of more than 20mm/year are documented for the Eem. and although temperatures were 3 degrees higher than present, the Greenland ice cap didn't dissapear during the Eemian. So we know now that you accept that there is no glaciological obstacle for much faster melting rates, all what we need are temperatures as high that +3C. That reduces the problem of strong Greenland melting accoring to you to how much polar amplification there is. +3C is in fact no problem. I start really worrying about Greenland.
|
|
| |
|
Location: Middle Assendon, S. Oxfordshire, UK. 65m AMSL | coolhansnl - 14/10/2006 21:38 Nick Verge - 15/10/2006 21:48 I think if you read above I have accepted their is an error, but what i dont accept is Hans' explanation of why. indeed you claim that a sophisticated flooding model could keep the low lying alblasserwaard dry. whereas I have proven that the model used is in fact is a very crude "painting by numbers" exercise, which was also improperly georeferenced on top of the sattelite image. BTW The likelihood that greenland completely melts in this century is as probable as nuclear missiles metamorphosing into sperm whales and bowls of petunias. This is the problem. you keep claiming that at the image is improperly georeferenced. The term georeferencing and georeferenced respectively refer to a very specific procedure and property of a dataset in geographic information technology. As I have explained to you, unless the creators of the animation (a frame of whcih you have posted) were completely incompetant, georeferencing is not an issue, We know they were not because other parts of the world are shown being flooded correctly. If you have seen the documentary you will have seen that the sequence shown of the Netherlands being flooded by rising sea level, is part is just a zoom-in on a global-scale simulation. As i have also explained to you the problem probably lies in the assumptions made about which areas of the world that are low lying would flood if sea level rose. They likley did not go round the world do this manually, but would have used a set of logical expressions included in the flooding simulation algorithm. As usual you are making a huge mountain out of an absolute molehill because you cant refute the science on which the underlying message is based. A clear case of shooting the messenger!
Edited by Nick Verge 15/10/2006 17:24
|
|
| |
|
Location: The Hague, The Netherlands | then you probably also know that, when you zoom in with a gis, you need to change image resolution, and thus change dataset.
Nick I showed the picture at my work, and they all burst out laughing at the error any undergraduate in GIS could make (and recognise and correct). No the dutch are not afraid that the greenland icecap will melt.
Fortunately we are more concerned about the next winter storm season, and luckily, global warming is associated with less violent storm depressions.
I listen to Hans Oerlemans who also says that the whole greenland story is one big blown up hype. And he is the dutch leading glaciologist who has enough of the IPCC politics.
No greenland is not considered a threat in particular not from people that can't make proper maps, but play colour by numbers to push an agenda. |
|
| |
|
| coolhansnl - 15/10/2006 23:14 then you probably also know that, when you zoom in with a gis, you need to change image resolution, and thus change dataset. Nick I showed the picture at my work, and they all burst out laughing at the error any undergraduate in GIS could make (and recognise and correct). No the dutch are not afraid that the greenland icecap will melt. Fortunately we are more concerned about the next winter storm season, and luckily, global warming is associated with less violent storm depressions. I listen to Hans Oerlemans who also says that the whole greenland story is one big blown up hype. And he is the dutch leading glaciologist who has enough of the IPCC politics. No greenland is not considered a threat in particular not from people that can't make proper maps, but play colour by numbers to push an agenda. Cant remember when you posted so many words at once (in particularly when it would be needed to explain your slighly cryptic figures sometimes). Can I summarize then that Greenland melting will not take place since Oerlemans told you so and that your number of 3000 years for a complete melting is also based on that. Concerning storms in the North Sea again you dont know what you are talking about. As you happily prefer to ignore the studies of Hans von Storch (I gave you the links allready several times) indicating 40cm sea level rise in the North Sea (due to global warming) and 40 cm due to wind shear changes (equally due to global warming) both estimates for sturm surges and for the end of the 21'th century. In the Netherlands, you better start now to economise for a bit better thought out adaptation plans (dikes and things) than yours which consists basically in shooting the messenger.
|
|
| |
|
Location: The Netherlands, -2,3 m msl | Yet, it keeps to be puzzling why the Greenland ice sheet refused to melt when it was 2-4 degrees warmer than today during some three millenia during the Holocene Thermal Optimum (9-6ka bp).
Shooting the messenger is indeed not done. One should shoot the spindoctor. |
|
| |
|
Location: The Hague, The Netherlands | NileQueen - 15/10/2006 22:48 Bowls of petunias? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinite_Improbability_Drive  |
|
| |
|
| andre - 16/10/2006 09:00 Shooting the messenger is indeed not done. One should shoot the spindoctor. Martin (North)
I just try to get a feeling what the new master of the web thinks is still correct. Is this accepted? Georg |
|
| |
|
Location: The Hague, The Netherlands | Georg Hoffmann - 16/10/2006 09:51 coolhansnl - 15/10/2006 23:14 then you probably also know that, when you zoom in with a gis, you need to change image resolution, and thus change dataset. Nick I showed the picture at my work, and they all burst out laughing at the error any undergraduate in GIS could make (and recognise and correct). No the dutch are not afraid that the greenland icecap will melt. Fortunately we are more concerned about the next winter storm season, and luckily, global warming is associated with less violent storm depressions. I listen to Hans Oerlemans who also says that the whole greenland story is one big blown up hype. And he is the dutch leading glaciologist who has enough of the IPCC politics. No greenland is not considered a threat in particular not from people that can't make proper maps, but play colour by numbers to push an agenda. Cant remember when you posted so many words at once (in particularly when it would be needed to explain your slighly cryptic figures sometimes). Can I summarize then that Greenland melting will not take place since Oerlemans told you so and that your number of 3000 years for a complete melting is also based on that. Concerning storms in the North Sea again you dont know what you are talking about. As you happily prefer to ignore the studies of Hans von Storch (I gave you the links allready several times) indicating 40cm sea level rise in the North Sea (due to global warming) and 40 cm due to wind shear changes (equally due to global warming) both estimates for sturm surges and for the end of the 21'th century. In the Netherlands, you better start now to economise for a bit better thought out adaptation plans (dikes and things) than yours which consists basically in shooting the messenger.
40 cm? Using which climate sensitivity on which SRES scenario? I thought te warming would be arctic? How can storms increase with a lower pole-equator temperature gradient. Warming and increased arctic storms are mutal exclusive. You can't have it all with global warming. Unlike Louisiana, dikes in The Netherlands are assesses every five years and reported to paliament, which is adequate. By the time sea level has observably risen another 20 cm at the dutch coast I'll let you know, howver, don't wait for it, as it is most likely in the year 2100. |
|
| |
|
Location: Middle Assendon, S. Oxfordshire, UK. 65m AMSL | coolhansnl - 14/10/2006 23:14 then you probably also know that, when you zoom in with a gis, you need to change image resolution, and thus change dataset. Nick I showed the picture at my work, and they all burst out laughing at the error any undergraduate in GIS could make (and recognise and correct). You can only correct something when you know it incorrect. I dont know why this small part of the Netherlands was shown as being dry when it should have been underwater, but what i sure about it s that it has absolutely nothing to do with georeferencing! Perhaps you would like to tell us how high the sea defenses are aound this region for a start. If they are >7m high this would explain why the region is not shown as flooding. |
|
| |
|
Location: The Netherlands, -2,3 m msl | Georg Hoffmann - 16/10/2006 10:38 andre - 16/10/2006 09:00 Shooting the messenger is indeed not done. One should shoot the spindoctor. Martin (North)
I just try to get a feeling what the new master of the web thinks is still correct. Is this accepted? Georg Hey You have finally done it! A post without a fallacy Incredible.!!! Stop the presses. In the mean time. Did I identify any spindoctor? |
|
| |
|
| coolhansnl - 16/10/2006 09:40 Georg Hoffmann - 16/10/2006 09:51 coolhansnl - 15/10/2006 23:14 then you probably also know that, when you zoom in with a gis, you need to change image resolution, and thus change dataset. Nick I showed the picture at my work, and they all burst out laughing at the error any undergraduate in GIS could make (and recognise and correct). No the dutch are not afraid that the greenland icecap will melt. Fortunately we are more concerned about the next winter storm season, and luckily, global warming is associated with less violent storm depressions. I listen to Hans Oerlemans who also says that the whole greenland story is one big blown up hype. And he is the dutch leading glaciologist who has enough of the IPCC politics. No greenland is not considered a threat in particular not from people that can't make proper maps, but play colour by numbers to push an agenda. Cant remember when you posted so many words at once (in particularly when it would be needed to explain your slighly cryptic figures sometimes). Can I summarize then that Greenland melting will not take place since Oerlemans told you so and that your number of 3000 years for a complete melting is also based on that. Concerning storms in the North Sea again you dont know what you are talking about. As you happily prefer to ignore the studies of Hans von Storch (I gave you the links allready several times) indicating 40cm sea level rise in the North Sea (due to global warming) and 40 cm due to wind shear changes (equally due to global warming) both estimates for sturm surges and for the end of the 21'th century. In the Netherlands, you better start now to economise for a bit better thought out adaptation plans (dikes and things) than yours which consists basically in shooting the messenger.
40 cm? Using which climate sensitivity on which SRES scenario? I thought te warming would be arctic? How can storms increase with a lower pole-equator temperature gradient. Warming and increased arctic storms are mutal exclusive. You can't have it all with global warming. Unlike Louisiana, dikes in The Netherlands are assesses every five years and reported to paliament, which is adequate. By the time sea level has observably risen another 20 cm at the dutch coast I'll let you know, howver, don't wait for it, as it is most likely in the year 2100. I gave you allready the references. Here is the press release: http://w3g.gkss.de/G/Mitarbeiter/storch/Media/sturmflut0510/GKSS.PM_storm-surge.pdf and here the application of the regional sturm surge model to Hamburg: http://w3g.gkss.de/G/Mitarbeiter/storch/pdf/Localization-of-global-climate-change.pdf Baroclinicity (and so the temperature gradient) is only one factor for midlatitude storms, one could also argue that a warmer world has more energy in general available to produce more intense events. I have actually no particular strong opinion on any of these hypotheses. Also I dont knwo what Artic storms have to do with all that. Are you sure we are talking about the same thing?
Edited by Georg Hoffmann 16/10/2006 05:17
|
|
| |
an unconvenient error
