Guest post by Thomas Fuller and Tony Brown
When we separate what scientists have actually said from what messages are carefully prepared and communicated to us through the media, one thing jumps out to the most casual of readers.
Some marketing strategists reduced the information content of the messages given to the public and introduced popular symbols to indicate what they wanted us to believe was threatened by climate change.
For over 5 years we have been bombarded with images of polar bears, hurricanes, flooded cities, icebergs calving, drought-stricken deserts, and the like. Perhaps the most symbolic representation wasn’t even a picture, but a PowerPoint slide of paleoclimatic temperature reconstructions now famous as the Hockey Stick Chart.
Those symbols all have one thing in common. They were mistakenly used. As has been cataloged here and elsewhere, these ‘signature’ issues were either blown out of proportion or presented falsely.
Polar bears, like all large mammals that haven’t had the good fortune to be domesticated, have a shaky status on this planet–but that status does not appear to have very much at all to do with climbing temperatures. They survived higher temperatures in the past, and their population is rising–and would be rising even more quickly if we quit shooting them, that being the major cause of polar bear deaths.
There is no historical trend in either the frequency or intensity of hurricanes, as Roger Pielke Jr. has pointed out in academic publications. And yet global warming has been blamed for specific storms, such as Hurricane Katrina, in a manner that is frankly antithetical to the principles of science.
And so it is with icebergs calving (a completely normal and mechanical reaction to ice accumulation that happens whether temperatures are rising or falling), droughts (which were worse in the past) and all the other symbolic climate porn photography inflicted upon us.
Yesterday I wrote about sea level rise, and attempts to measure ice loss in Antarctica via satellite. And again, it is very clear that the results of scientific work are being hijacked in an attempt to push a scary message at us. The analysis of gravimeter measurements start with guesses and inferences, and the result is presented with a huge margin of error, and amounts to less than 1% of the annual ice loss Antarctica experiences every year.
Commenter TonyB went to the trouble of cataloging the difficulties inherent in sea level measurements. By rights it should be posted here as an article. I’ll paste it in at the bottom of this piece–and I will wager most readers will think it is more informative than my words above it.
But before I turn the stage over to TonyB, I want to make a couple of points:
First, it should be obvious that the manipulation of the messages isn’t coming from scientists. It is too professional, too slick and ultimately too wrong. This is a professional, coordinated media strategy using calendars with press schedules and release dates, a well-stocked photo library and a rapid response team that shoves new releases out the door in response to news events or skeptical messages that seem to be gaining traction.
Second, and really most important, all of the messages have very serious flaws in the narratives that accompany the pictures they ship out. And it is the exposure of these flaws that has crippled the climate change political movement, far more than criticism or political opposition.
If climate change or global warming is now a declining motivation for political and economic action, and it may well be, the reason is not Monckton or Morano. It is not even more measured criticism coming from McIntyre and Watts. Nor is it corrective science administered by both Pielkes.
It is their own butchery of the facts behind the images they decided we needed to see that hamstrung their movement. If they have been defeated in the first series of battles (in what I predict will be a 30-year war), they done it to themselves.
Here’s Tony–read on!
No problem. I was going to work this up into an article on sea levels one of these days although someone must have already posted an article here on this fragile part of a fragile science.
“We are being bamboozled by science which likes to have a nice graph to explain everything, unfortunately the real world is more complicated than that. Global sea levels are -like global temperatures-a nonsensical artifact dreamt up in a computer laboratory where satellite records are tacked on to manufactured and highly incomplete historic records from selected tide gauges.. Modern Sea level rises- where happening- are not being seen in context as another of those regular cycles that stretch back much further than the satellite records or tide gauges into the depths of recorded time.
This is the latest IPCC assessment which confirms sea level calculations from 1993 are by satellite.(page 5 onwards)
Link1
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-spm.pdf
The sea level calculations rely on an enormous number of variable factors including pressure, location, tides, warmth of oceans, structures, storms, wave heights, surges, stasis, location of the gauge/sensor, slope of the underlying strata etc. The accuracy of measurements is said to be 3cm (10 times the level of the alleged annual rise) but in reality is often vaguer than that because of the inherent difficulties of measuring. Observed real world sea levels generally simply do not show the rate of increase suggested by the IPCC (although this varies enormously from place to place for reasons cited above)
Link 2 The document below was written by many of our old friends including Phil Jones and Mike Hulme-page 19 gives the sea level data
http://ukclimateprojections.defra.gov.uk/images/stories/trends_pdfs/Trends_section1&2.pdf
The information for historic sea levels was ‘extended’ from a paper by one of the scientists at Proudman
Link3
http://www.pol.ac.uk/ntslf/products.php
Link 4 This is reconstruction of sea level data from 1700 of three extremely incomplete Northern Hemisphere records from which IPCC extrapolate their figures, take them to be a global figure and splice them on to the satellite records
Link 5 .
http://www.pol.ac.uk/psmsl/author_archive/jevrejeva_etal_1700/
These three are taken to represent global figures since 1700-much data missing and subsequently interpolated.
Amsterdam from 1700 (Van Veen 1945)
Liverpool since 1768 (Woodworth 1999)
Stockholm since 1774 (Ekman 1988)
It says there are differences even in the same ocean basin between tide gauges of up to plus or minus 6cm rendering their use for a global record to be irrelevant
Link 6
http://www.pol.ac.uk/psmsl/author_archive/jevrejeva_etal_1700/2008GL033611.pdf
pdf from 1700 link
6cm margin of error from tide gauges in same ocean basin
Both the following sites give a good description of the satellite process-which is being constantly refined but doesn’t get more extremely accurate as the inherent flaws in measuring capabilities can’t be fully resolved no matter how many satellite passes are made.
Link 7
http://www.tos.org/oceanography/issues/issue_archive/issue_pdfs/15_1/15_1_jacobs_et_al.pdf
Link 8
http://jchemed.chem.wisc.edu/Journal/Issues/1999/dec/abs1635.html
The following sites deals with problems of satellite accuracy and data;
Link 9
http://www.ocean-sci.net/5/193/2009/os-5-193-2009.html
Link 10
This with reliability
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=859
Link 11
http://lightblueline.org/satellite-tracking-sea-levels-set-launch
The UK Environment Agency -where possible like to use physical tide gauges as well when developing flood defence schemes, which are both visually observed or can send data electronically. Best of all is gathering information from local people such as the Harbour master or those who work the fishing boats and who know what is really happening.
The following link leads to a graph produced by the Dutch Govt sea level organisation- and confirm sea levels are stable and are somewhat lower than during the MWP. (This won’t stop them reacting to the IPCC by raising sea defences)
Link 12
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=61
Link 13
We have much observational evidence of historic sea levels (p162 on-including a map in the following link)
Ancient Greek explorer Pytheas traveled to Iceland and not only discovered the frozen seas lying one days journey beyond, but was the first to quantify the moons action as being responsible for tides, and took physical measurements of heights. Sea level heights are generally said to be lower today than back in the Roman warm period and Mwp.
Sea castles in the UK built in the 11th century are now above the sea level entrances which ships used to re-supply them.
This links leads to a 1913 book on Harlech castle-one such building which is now high and dry-nothing to do with stasis or deposition, but that sea levels are lower now than when it was built 1000 years ago. Suggest readers select the b/w pdf
Link 14
http://www.archive.org/details/merionethshire00morr
Extract
“In 1409 an attack was made upon Harlech, led by Gilbert and John Talbot for
the King; the besiegers comprised one thousand well armed soldiers and a big siege train. The besieged were in the advantageous situation of being able to receive their necessary supplies from the sea, for the waves of
Cardigan Bay at that time washed the base of the rock upon which the castle stands. Greater vigilance on the part of the attacking force stopped this and the castle was surrendered in the spring of the year.
A remarkable feature of the castle is a covered staircase cut out of the rock, defended on the seaward side by a looped parapet, and closed above and below by small gatehouses. This was the water-gate of the fortress,
and opened upon a small quay below.”
Link 15 The following pictures show the current location of the sea.
http://westwales.co.uk/graphics/morfaharlech.jpg
Link 16
Sea in far distance from Harlech castle
http://westwales.co.uk/graphics/harlech.jpg
and this
Link 17
http://www.buildmodelcastles.com/html/castle_history.html
very good item about Harlech
Link 18
http://www.walesdirectory.co.uk/Castles/Harlech_Castle.htm
Sea levels AND temperatures were higher in the MWP and the Roman warm periods and presumably other extended warm periods (the period 1700 to 1740 is looking increasingly comparable to today).
The worlds leading sea level expert Professor Morner has called the IPCC figures ‘a lie.’ Google ‘The greatest lie ever told’
Morner says: “The mean eustatic rise in sea level for the period 1850-1930 was in the order of 1.0-1.1 mm/year,” but that “after 1930-40, this rise seems to have stopped (Pirazzoli et al., 1989; Morner, 1973,2000).” This stasis, in his words, “lasted, at least, up to the mid-60s.” Thereafter, “the record can be divided into three parts: (1) 1993-1996 with a clear trend of stability, (2) 1997-1998 with a high-amplitude rise and fall recording the ENSO event of these years and (3) 1998-2000 with an irregular record of no clear tendency.” Most important of all, in his words, “There is a total absence of any recent ‘acceleration in sea level rise’ as often claimed by IPCC and related groups.”
He concludes: “When we consider past records, recorded variability, causational processes involved and the last century’s data, our best estimate of possible future sea-level changes is +10 +/- 10cm in a century, or, maybe, even +5 +/- 15cm.” See also Morner (1995); INQUA (2000).”
I am inclined to agree with Professor Morner that sea level is not really doing very much generally (with exceptions either way in some places)
Link 19
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200506/ldselect/ldeconaf/12/12we18.htm
The above link dissects the data and states that a rise by 2100 of 5cm is possible…. plus or minus 15cm!
Morner stresses (as I do) that observational data contradicts the theoretical interpolated and massaged data that is used by the IPCC.
John Daly also had a good handle on all this.
Link 20
http://www.john-daly.com/deadisle/index.htm
The sea level is not rising at the rate suggested-it has stumbled in recent years according to many local gauges (what is global sea level supposed to mean with a million kilometres of coastline?)
To reach a 1 metre increase by 2100 means an average of nearly 11mm a year (only 90 years remaining). There is simply no evidence to show this is happening.
We must stop looking at just a few years of data as ‘proof’ of rising levels , and instead view things in a historic context, whilst retaining a great deal of scepticism at the notion you can create a highly accurate global figure in the first place, or that tacking dubious satellite data on to even more dubious tide gauge data is any way to create a worthwhile measurement .
I had intended to cover historic sea levels as a companion to my ‘arctic ice variation through the ages’ series.
Thomas Fuller http://www.redbubble.com/people/hfuller
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
It’s disingenuous to say this stuff “isn’t coming from scientists”, since large numbers of scientists are very much on board. To take a small example, I recall a commenter on WUWT who noted that the Snow and Ice Data Center in Boulder had a plug for Al Gore’s film on their website. And a lot of the “worse than we thought” stuff of recent years (much of it documented in earlier postings) has come right off the academic/scientific assembly line.
None of this is surprising. For 40 years our universities have helped cultivate a worldview whose core beliefs are anti-industry and even anti-Western-society, and the AGW hypothesis resonates strongly with all of this. For Homo simpliciter, regardless of his intellectual capacities, this is very potent stuff.
REPLY: Your recollection is wrong. It was Cryosphere Today, and I got them to take it off the website.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/08/22/cryosphere-today-makes-changes-improves-product-drops-gore-comment/
– Anthony
unfortunately the real world is more complicated than that
Or it is much, much more simple and it has been unecessarily complicated by accumulated errors forming thousand of layers of dirt being constantly increased by self indulgement, self conceit and all the psychological delicacies of a reberberating wiseacring of a self bragging crowd of child/scientists who through the mutual caressing xxx massaging called “peer review” has managed to confound the innocent. That fenomenal strata is waiting to be dug up and removed by new and brave and real human beings.
Adam,
RC doesn’t communicate messages to the general public. Although I’m sure they wish they could…
When you say the message isn’t coming from scientists, great, but they are just as guilty by not standing against it, and actually I see scientists actually saying “death trains” and promoting violence and destruction of property. I don’t see other scientists (more than a few) saying that is over the top or horribly wrong, so they must agree. So I really don’t buy this agrument very much, the scientists behind these climate data are fully aware and knowing in what is going on, and thus equally guilty.
Harlech castle base has a surveyed height of 58 meters (190ft). The distance down to the sea gate is ‘almost 200ft’ (your ref). The gate would have been built above storm damage possibilities with a walk to the quay, extending far enough for the draught of the vessels. The reason for the distance to the sea is coastal deposition which has laid the plain, now used as golf links, between it and the sea. Not a good example of sea-level change although good for measuring the rate of deposition in this area. You can’t complain of Warmist misuse of facts (which I agree happens) when you don’t get the counter-argument correct. BTW, the UK is tilting causing the west coast to rise and the east coast to sink.
One has to be a bit careful in assigning causes to RELATIVE sea level change. The reason is that there are many causes for shorelines to advance and recede. Land can rise, especially if glaciers once weighed down upon the land and depressed it relative to sea level. This is what has happened in northern Europe and may have accounted for the change in RELATIVE sea level at Harlech Castle. When the glaciers melted the land started to rise and may still be rising.
Similarly, some deltas of rivers are sinking under the weight of sediment, especially because forests have been and are still being removed in the catchment areas upstream. RELATIVE sea level is rising because the land is being depressed by the weight of silt and clay.
That the sealevel was higher during the MWP might be true and problably is, but Holland in that time didn’t polder as much land as they do now.
Then again most of the poldered land after the MWP was the old “Zuiderzee” these days known as the “IJsselmeer” poldered around the 12th -14th century. Since that is cut off from the North Sea these days that should not be too much of a problem.
“… This is a professional, coordinated media strategy using calendars with press schedules and release dates, a well-stocked photo library and a rapid response team that shoves new releases out the door in response to news events or skeptical messages that seem to be gaining traction.”
__________________________________________________
These excerpts should answer the question of whether or not Global Warming is a professional campaign and a lucrative one at that.
“He was also a strategic consultant to the Climate Center of the Natural Resources Defense Council on its multi-year campaign on global warming……NGO board memberships include the American Museum of Natural History, the National Endowment for Democracy, The Africa-America Institute, the Citizens Committee for New York City, the Council on Foreign Relations, and Refugees International…….Republican pollster Frank Luntz says “Stan Greenberg scares the hell out of me. He doesn’t just have a finger on the people’s pulse; he’s got an IV injected into it.” source
Well that answers the question of WHO is responsible for the “professional, coordinated media strategy” Stan Greenberg is husband of Rep. (D) Rosa Delauro. He is part of Greenberg Quinlan Rosner and also the company Greenberg Carville Shrum. “ Greenberg’s work for private sector organizations – including major corporations, trade associations and public interest organizations – focuses on managing change and reform.”
“Whether you want to win your election, lead your country, increase your bottom line, or change the world, Greenberg Quinlan Rosner can help you find the answer,” GQRR states on its website
”Stan Greenberg provides strategic advice and research for leaders, companies, campaigns, and NGOs trying to advance their issues in tumultuous times…. a strategic consultant to the Climate Center of the Natural Resources Defense Council on its multi-year campaign on global warming. ” source
Greenberg Carville Shrum directed Campaigns in 60 countries (including Tony Blair in the UK) and was responsible for the Bolivia fiasco. Stan Greenberg “…specializes in research on globalization, international trade…” source
Greenberg writes for the Democratic Strategist and also formed Democracy Corps
Even the Democratic Underground doesn’t like Greenberg, Carville, Shrum “Regarding Carville and dirty politics “
Here is more on Rosa Delauro and hubby – sort of reminds me of vampires…
Weathiest Members Of Congress
“…But the entry that really sent my Democratic strategist friend ballistic was the one for Rep. Rosa DeLauro, the Connecticut Democrat. La Rosa–tied for #48 on the Richest list–gets the lion’s share of her wealth from her husband–Clintonista pollster and campaign strategist Stan Greenberg. Says Roll Call, “DeLauro’s primary asset is a 67-percent stake in Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research Inc., a Washington-based firm run by her husband, Democratic pollster Stan Greenberg. Her share in the company nets the Representative $5 million to $25 million. She has a partial stake in two other polling/consulting firms. The first is Greenberg Research, of which she and her husband own 100 percent, and Sun Surveys, in which she owns a 60 percent stake. Neither of these is as lucrative as Greenberg Quinlan Rosner, however.”
My bud the political warhorse snorted, “Hell, she first ran for Congress she didn’t have a dime–I was one of her biggest contributors. And Stan Greenberg, who worked for me back when he was starting out, used to have holes in his socks!” Noting that Congressional wealth is usually closer to the higher than to the lower estimates on the disclosure forms, my dour Democrat gasped, “That means they’re making around $50 million! These people shouldn’t be running Democratic campaigns!”
So, if you want to know why the national Democrats seem, in this campaign, to have a tin ear where touching the hearts and minds of the working stiffs is concerned, think about this: the three partners in the Democracy Corps–Greenberg, James Carville, and Kerry’s chief message-shaper Bob Shrum–are all multimillionaires. And yet their counsel–proferred in an endless series of free Democracy Corps memos distributed to the party elite well before and during the presidential primaries, whose content (or lack of it) they helped shape–is taken as gospel by Democratic liberals feverish for victory. Well, as the old Texas populist Maury Maverick Jr. used to say, “a liberal is a power junkie without the power.”
Congratulations to Anthony, Steve McIntyre and the rest for going up against professionals backed by millions of dollars in funds and holding their own. When you think about it it is incredible.
For examples of the “professional, coordinated media strategy” see these Climategate files:
communicating_cc.pdf
RulesOfTheGame.pdf
marooned.jpg
Rising sea levels translates to shrinking island areas (discounting other variables), which should be measurable during the satellite era. Has anything been published on this?
AllenC says:
September 7, 2010 at 10:24 am
GeoFlynx says:
September 7, 2010 at 9:55 am
“…Championing the continued dumping of some 30 billion tons of fossil CO2 into the Earth’s atmosphere …”
First of all, Geo, it isn’t 30 billion, it is more like 7 billion
==========================
While the reference AllenC cites is behind an access restriction, I suspect the difference in your figures is due to measuring CO2 vs. carbon equivalent. The average molecular weight of CO2 is 44, of which 12 is due to carbon; there’s a factor of 44/12 = 3.7 involved here.
The IPCC carbon cycle chart (figure 7.3 at http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-chapter7.pdf ) shows fossil fuel emissions at 6.4 GtonnesCarbon/yr in the 1990s. Perhaps an updated version of that value gives AllenC’s 7 Gt [Carbon]/yr figure. Multiplying that by 3.7 gives 26 GtCO2/yr; this is fairly close to GeoFlynx’s 30 GtCO2/yr.
Just a note to be careful with units!
For the carbon cycle, as illustrated in the IPCC graphic, it’s essential to use gigatonnes of Carbon (or GtC) as the unit, because the carbon is only in CO2 form for a small part of the cycle. Emissions are typically cited in tonnes of CO2 (as in emissions trading certificates), rather than equivalent amount of carbon.
As near as I can find out no ocean going vessels have lately made it up the Mississippi to my home state so I don’t think I’ll worry too much about sea level rise. Mr. Gore does not seem to be too worried either given his recent housing purchase.
First of all I just want to say it feels good to see a great majority of people on here agreeing this is all a big money making HOAX. They ought to be ashamed of themselves as this is just as bad as terrorism to me. Trying to scare everybody into believing all this crap and their lies. Just glad most people are seeing right through this…
Further to my post of 11:37. The tidal range at spring tides is around 5 metres (16ft). Sea level is complicated and those engaged in bathymetry chart using Mean Low Water Springs (MLWS) as base, 0.
Tom said:
“First, it should be obvious that the manipulation of the messages isn’t coming from scientists.”
=============================================
Tom, I read that a few times to be sure it’s what you were really saying.
Hogwash
Of course they do.
Global warming/climate change has become the lazy scientists ‘go to’ for cause.
You gather up all the papers you can find with no reference to GW/CC,
I’ll gather up all the papers I can find that do.
Scientists are the main cause of this “manipulation of the messages”
University media departments are just as guilty – note the amount of science communicated via university-issued press releases. Much of the hype contained in these is not supported by the papers/studies they report. University scientists could take more responsibility for what their PR departments issue on their behalf. Better yet, shut down all the PR departments and see how fast the media hype declines….SC
Tony, thank you again
Excellent, and I’m still reading and digesting
steveta_uk says:
September 7, 2010 at 9:56 am
1.1mm on the surface of the Earths oceans ( 361 000 000 km^2 ) is 397.1 km^3.
The volume of the Earths oceans is 1 300 000 000 km^3 ( average depth 3.6km).
The coefficient of expansion of water at 10 deg C is 88 and at 20 deg 207 ( 10^-6 K^-1)
So using the change in volume equation for water as dV=Beta*V*dT
Rearranging we get dT=dV/(Beta*V)
In our case dV=397.1 km^3
V= 1 300 000 000 km^3
So for water at a 10 deg average Beta= 80 . . . giving a change in temperature of 0.0038 Deg K per year.
For 20 degree water it would give us 0.0016 Deg K per year.
Pretty much exactly what we are told are the best bounds for global warming estimates. If that were true we would have no need to look any further for the proof of AGW. This rather smacks of a circular argument which really means that the search is on for proof that the ocean is rising at 1.1mm a year, anything that doesn’t prove that is simply wrong which is why Dr Morner isn’t very fashionable with the believers.
My own personal experience at Harlech Castle which I have mentioned here before indicates that the oceans aren’t rising much there. Other studies show the Maldives aren’t in need of a water proof Cabinet table just yet and in fact even the Antarctic continent is rising out of the ocean , albeit a very small amount for isn’t that what the satellites are actually saying? The ice is thinning so the land must be rising as a consequence.
Oh, and please check my arithmetic lots of zero’s bopping around in there.
At 4 deg C
OT: My sincerest apologies for the double post. I had no indication that the earlier post had even made it into the moderation post. After making the second post and both appearing in the queue I was hoping that a moderator might pick up on that and delete one.
Ah well, the limitations of wordpress can be quite infuriating at times.
GeoFlynx,
“Creation of an alternate reality, in which all inputs contrary to a preset belief are either false or the result of some world wide conspiracy, may be comforting but it is hardly revealing.”
GeoFlynx, you need to raise your game on this site. Using sarcasm and witty dersions may tickle your ego, but does nothing to win arguments.
Tom Fuller says:
September 7, 2010 at 11:17 am
That’s what it smells like to me…
Then, was it everything just an innocent mistake?, or is it, instead that that “mistake” was intended for making money out of nothing, like plastic money, “derivatives”, etc.,etc.
That’s “pouring the empty into the void” and making a profit: That’s a remarkable feat!
Don B says (September 7, 2010 at 11:55 am): “Rising sea levels translates to shrinking island areas (discounting other variables), which should be measurable during the satellite era. Has anything been published on this?”
Check out this WUWT article by Willis Eschenbach:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/06/03/the-irony-it-burns/
Here is Dr. Nils-Axel Mörner’s interview where he lays various aspects concerning the alleged sea level ‘rise’. In short he disses the IPCC’s claims.
http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/Articles%202007/MornerInterview.pdf
Dr. Nils-Axel Mörner got his Ph.D in geology in 1969, and has worked with sea level problems for 40 years. He was President of INQUA Commission on Sea Level Changes and Coastal Evolution from 1999-2003.
I cannot help thinking that this article, while dismissive of much of the GW propaganda, was written just to try and exonerate the scientists and blame somebody else.
Coupled with your previous posts in which you suggest that the CO2 problem is real, I believe you are making a trade; sacrificing a lot of the GW hoo-ha but asking us to buy the fact that the scientists and their CO2 theories are solid and should not or do not need to be questioned.
“First, it should be obvious that the manipulation of the messages isn’t coming from scientists. It is too professional, too slick and ultimately too wrong. This is a professional, coordinated media strategy using calendars with press schedules and release dates, a well-stocked photo library and a rapid response team that shoves new releases out the door in response to news events or skeptical messages that seem to be gaining traction.”
I put it to you, Thomas Fuller, that your series of posts themselves are part of a ‘coordinated media strategy using calenders’. An evolved stategy, carefully planned, with the intention of increasing the reputation of the scientists and their carbon theories before implementing taxations.
Just testing a thesus right now; so please endulge me.
What if continents float? Continents move away from each other so that is not a really mad idea; We have a complete floating icecube as a continent nevertheless.
If that were the case the whole discussion about sea levels would be obsolete.
How much water there were added to the pool would not matter; a floating body is a floating body.
Offcourse i know a bag of soal will sink to the bottem of the pool but still the continents are shifting.
Feel free to shoot at this idea and call me a raving lunatic. 😉