Friday Funny: Will the World Drown as Greenland Ice Melts? (w/ Dr. Michael Mann)

From the “Manntastic claims require Manntastic evidence” department.

From the description:

The human eye could see the rise in sea level as the ice sheets in Greenland melt. Measurements also show a change in gravity as the ice melts. A new study has climate models showing the variation in ice sheet melts and how sea levels will rise so much, that low land across the globe is at risk.

Dr. Michael Mann joined Thom [Hartmann] to discuss how serious the rate of melt in Greenland and the evidence that the planet is in danger.

You’ll need a barf bag to watch.

h/t to CTM, who is recovering from surgery. We wish him the best.

112 thoughts on “Friday Funny: Will the World Drown as Greenland Ice Melts? (w/ Dr. Michael Mann)

  1. Such a shame to think that the Obamas have wasted so many tens-of-millions of dollars on beachfront property.

    • All,

      I guess that Dr Mann hasn’t kept up on the literature. My peer reviewed manuscript in the September
      issue of the journal Dynamics of Atmospheres and Oceans mathematically proves that all current
      global climate models are based on the wrong atmospheric dynamical system of equations and therefore cannot be relied on too produce any meaningful results. I repost my previous comment.

      The only way any results from a climate model could be trusted are:

      The continuum errors in both the dynamical and physical equations approximated by the model are smaller than the truncation errors of an accurate (almost convergent) numerical solution.

      Now let us discuss each of these requirements in detail.

      1. All current global climate models are approximating the wrong dynamical system (the hydrostatic system) of equations. This has been mathematically proved in my peer reviewed manuscript that appears in the September issue of the journal Dynamics of Atmospheres and Oceans and in another thread on this site (Structural Errors in Global Climate Models).

      2. The physical equations are approximated by discontinuous parameterizations that have large continuum errors and that violate the necessary requirements that the continuum solution be expandable into a Tayor series. The necessary unrealistically large
      dissipation needed to prevent the model from blowing up due to these discontinuities leads to a large continuum error and destroys the numerical accuracy as shown by the Browning, Hack, and Swarztrauber cited in the above manuscript.

      3. As the requirements for a numerical method to converge to an accurate approximation of the continuum equations are violated,
      the numerical solution will never be close to the true solution.

      Jerry

      • Thanks, Jerry, fascinating stuff as usual. One small point. You say:

        3. As the requirements for a numerical method to converge to an accurate approximation of the continuum equations are violated, the numerical solution will never be close to the true solution.

        As my dad used to say, “Even a blind hog will find an acorn once in a while.” I would say:

        “.. the numerical solution will only accidentally ever be close to the true solution.”

        w.

        (As a kid I thought my dad said “Even a blind hawk will find an acorn once in a while.” As a result, I spent a good chunk of my youth puzzled as to why a hawk would want to find an acorn, and what it would do if it did.)

        • Willis,

          I had to wait 18 years to publish the manuscript until the “scientists” that kept gate keeping our manuscripts either retired or died. I was fortunate to find an Editor who is objective and honest and has no vested interests in climate modeling. The reviewers were open minded enough to see that the mathematical arguments are sound even though they prove that there have been major logical errors in the atmospheric sciences.

          The IPCC can no longer making any claims based on climate models and if so, anyone can just point to the manuscript and have them state how they can obtain the “right” answer
          when they have violated the basic principles of the Bounded Derivative Theory (BDT) and numerical analysis.

          My only regret is that Heinz is not alive to be a coauthor on the manuscript given that the BDT he introduced was developed to resolve the mathematical issues with the hydrostatic
          system used in all current global climate and weather models.

          Jerry

    • As a former Commander in Chief of the US Navy, I would have thought Obama might has asked one of his admirable Admirals about the state of the oceans before purchase.

    • I notice mann has his fiction books behind him in camera view….no, he’s not interested in money….he’s trying to save the planet. Hockey Puck needs to get his science correct first….CO2 is not a pollutant – it is a wonderful gas that plants need and we love plants because the plants make O2. Hockey Puck does not seem to understand simple things like there is no US climate – climate is worldwide. The US does not control worldwide CO2 – China, India, Indonesia, and many other countries control CO2 emissions. And, Hockey Puck, your cure is far worse than the alleged disease.

    • Never fear. The sea will not rise around the houses of the climate-savers. Surely, what Moses accomplished, Obama must be able to do also. There will be vertical walls of water, which will of course make the sea rise even more where the climate-wreckers live. This is climate justice, aye. By the time our emissions have caused all the ice to melt, Obama’s home will be surrounded by a waterwall hundreds of feet high. Grateful whales will lovingly look down on his roof terrace. Penguins will swim all the way from the Antarctic to shower him with votive gifts, small dead fish that they have caught all by themselves. Polar bears will come and offer their furs as rugs and doormats, with not even an envious glance at his icecube-machine. And sunshading will not be an issue anymore.

  2. First time I’ve seen Mann speaking to camera as I missed the BBC’s travesty ‘Climate Change – The Facts’ . Blundering and unconvincing, even to believers.

    • Is he really wearing a little Adolf trimmed mustache there?

      It’s funny, I was down at the sea this weekend and I said to myself: gee it seems a bit higher than last time I was here. Now I know why !!

    • Whew! I am one mile from the Gulf of Mexico at an elevation of 13 feet so that means I won’t have to drive so far to go to the beach. Save on gas, or rather electricity.

      • I’m 200 miles from the Pacific Ocean and 1500 feet above sea level.
        So even if I live longer than Methuselah I’m not worried.
        And if I do go to the beach… I don’t like to boast about my athletic prowess, but I’m willing to bet that for as long as my toenails continue to grow faster than sea level rise… I can outrun it.

    • NOAA documents that global SLR has been in a LINEAR trend of 3.0 +/- 0.4 mm/year since 1993, based on satellite altimetry data from the TOPEX, Jason-1, Jason-2 and Jason-3 satellites.
      Ref: https://www.star.nesdis.noaa.gov/socd/lsa/SeaLevelRise/LSA_SLR_timeseries.php

      As you allude to, Mann’s absurd claim would require a 8-10 times higher rate of SLR if linearized over the next 80 years. Ain’t gonna happen . . . but then again, Mann won’t be around to apologize.

  3. “The human eye could see the rise in sea level as the ice sheets in Greenland melt.” Just looked at sea level, went the wrong way, maybe hasn’t reached the Gulf of Mexico yet. Maybe subliminal rise?

    • I dare anyone to stand by the water and claim they can see a 1/2 cm difference in the water level. Especially water that has surface movement.
      But then I doubt that Mann has ever been to the waters edge.

    • Humans, with a 30 year life span 8,000 years ago were able to watch Doggerland submerge to form the North Sea.

    • I thing it may depend on the tidal. Sometime you can see that the sea is rising up, sometime it is the opposite. But in all cases it is alarming.

  4. Anthony writes, “You’ll need a barf bag to watch.”

    I’ll skip watching it because I prefer not to barf…though I did enjoy the character Barf in “Spaceballs”

    Stay safe and healthy, all.

    Regards,
    Bob

  5. From the hungry polar bears department. A couple of days ago there was a news report from Newfoundland.
    Seems during an ‘exercise’ the army left their shiny orange search and rescue helicopter unattended. A polar bear tried to get in and broke windows and scratched it up.

  6. Mann, if you look close enough (not pleasant of course)- seems to have a 2 day old Hitler mustache.

  7. Good Lord. The constant scaremongering about, ooowww, scary sea-level(!), is so tiring. Find something else that at least would be plausibly scary. How ’bout a coming marxist takeover of world governments and subsequent loss of freedom? That’s actually very scary…..

    • Yes indeed. Is the Marxist takeover that really scares me. Waffling along about Mann’s duff comments dressed up as science is just a waste of time.

  8. Sounds just like the guests on “coast to coast” warning us about hostile UFOs, Fukushima killing the ocean, viruses killing us, planet Niburu on kollision course with earth etc, etc. Climate conspiracy stuff.

  9. Mann: “…decades ahead of what we were predicting…”

    1 – So you admit climate models don’t work?
    2 – I thought models were scenarios not predictions, so what you are saying is climate model predictions are wrong

  10. “They use climate models to estimate…” And there it is, models all the way down. “It’s another hockey stick…” Bwahahahah! At least he’s consistent. 😉

    • Astronomers don’t use model to determine how far away a star is- or how big it is- or how old- or how fast it’s moving- they use SCIENCE.

  11. Mann: “The human eye could see the rise in sea level as the ice sheets in Greenland melt.”

    In certain areas of the coast, particularly during the new or full moon, sea level can rise or fall by 2 meters or more in 6 hours between high and low tide (a rate of about 5.6 mm per minute). On top of that, how is anyone supposed to notice with the naked eye a sea level rise rate of 2 millimeters per year (about 3.8 * 10^-6 mm per minute)?

    • Steve Z
      That will happen when Johanna and Johnny Polar Bear can fly helicopters for example from Aéroport de Nice to St Tropez…(Swedish upper class lingo: “Ta helin till Troppan…”) First time I left Nice by plane end of March 2016, there were a couple of V22 Osprey at the end of the airport. Great machines….
      Not being one of DJT:s most ardent supporters I hope gets well…soon…

  12. Best wishes to Charles the Moderator (CtM) to get well soon. But Charles, please don’t watch this video. You need to rest, not aggravate yourself. Unless watching Michael Mann practice his sophistry amuses you, of course.

  13. This is the first time I’ve seen this clown in action. Wow!

    Where’s his data that says natural factors cannot account for the warming.

    How does he explain NASA and NOAA fudging number to make the past look cooler?

    Where’s the source code and raw data for his Commodore 64 models?

  14. The problem with using changes in gravity to measure changes in ice amounts, is that ice isn’t the only thing that changes. Isostatic rebound influences gravity. Magma moves around, influencing gravity.

    They claim that they are adjusting for such factors. However, as I have always said, when your changes are larger, much less 10 times larger, than the signal you claim to have found, then you haven’t really found anything.

    • The weight I gained over the ‘rona house arrest increased my gravitational field – which increased the pull between my mass and the moon.

      The moon now has a greater gravitational pull to me – and oceans – so I’m partly to blame.

      Not 20 ft, not 2-3 mm ,probably something like 2*10^-37m

  15. Micky Mann is a pathological liar. And one of his many ways of lying, a favorite of many of his ilk, is to use a meaningless factoid, which on the surface, sounds good, but is actually pure junk science meant to persuade, mainly by using fear. Take for example, his factoid about the amount of ice melting in July two summers ago. Anyone with half a brain could quickly figure out that if you wanted to pick a month to showcase melting ice, you probably couldn’t do much better than July. He then uses a trick, another form of lying, using a red herring: that the amount of ice which melted (and we’ll assume the amount is true, although with PantsonFire, you never know) would raise SL by 1/2 cm, or about 3/16 inch. And yes, of course the human eye can see 3/16 inch. But so what? How much of that icemelt actually wound up in the ocean? I would wager that much of it stayed in place, and simply re-froze. And when ice rebuilds in colder months, there are likely times when the amount of ice forming during that month would equal that which melted that July. Using his idiotic red herring, we could also see that 3/16 inch subsequent drop in SL.

  16. Michael Mann can make any claim he likes about the Greenland Ice Sheets and what sea level will be 80 years from now because, he’ll be long dead and most of the people who watched his dumb-ass interview will be dead as well, and no one will give a crap what he said and when he said it. He knows his claims are BS, but, he has to keep making BS claims in order to satisfy his need to feel important.

    Max P

  17. Mikey is in disguise.He has swapped his signature Homer Simpson – ish goatee and moustache for Hitler Tache

  18. Maybe Weight Watchers could make use of this video. Whenever you want to barf…should mean less calories get digested. This is a low tech version of yelling fire in a crowed theatre. Michael Mann et al should be prosecuted under the Data Quality Act for lying about all his antics to whip up panic about human caused climate change. This latest claim could be shown to be patently false, just like his hockey stick. Really disgusting that other academics don’t call him out for his outrageous behaviour.

  19. The “Planet” is in danger? REALLY? I am pretty sure that if 100 feet of brand new water from outer space rained down upon the Earth that the planet would survive just fine. The Planet doesn’t care if it’s dry or wet. How careless can a PhD. be in the use of their language?

    Worst case is that people living in low areas would have to adapt over 100 years. Humans have been adapting foe at least tens of thousands of years – more depending on what you call Human. Much of the City of New Orleans is already under sea level, but lo and behold people still live there! (Not arguing they should be living there, just observing they do).

  20. Attention –

    I am looking to buy your beachfront property now. As you can see from this article your beachfront will be worthless soon. I am willing to buy it at the ridiculously high price of a $1 foot. Act now, operators are standing by.

  21. Models…

    We don’t have measurements…

    Models tell us it’s all manmade..

    Well. Mann’s convinced.

  22. As always, Mann is factually challenged and easily proven wrong. He dissembles stupidly.

    IF over one summer two years ago—as he clearly asserted—enough Greenland ice melted to raise sea level 1 cm, then that 1 cm rise would have been recorded by that summer’s measurements from tide gauges and easily verified at http://www.PSMSL.org. But it wasn’t. So it didn’t.

  23. Mann is well past being funny.Past being a”disgrace to the profession”-and past being noticed ,even by his quasi-religious “Extinction Revolting “It may take a while yet,but his fall is coming and he will not be alone.

  24. It’s going to be really dangerous when these critters start flooding the lowlands! Wait until these guys actually have some ocean experience. Long list of horrors. Caution, not for young children, known fatalities.
    Sulawesi, Indonesia (Jan 2020 – very graphic pictures of a very large needlefish in his neck)
    https://www.news.com.au/technology/science/animals/teens-horror-injury-after-being-speared-through-the-neck-by-needlefish/news-story/e23ef759b92be54ae1b90fcf31e5330d

  25. Mr Mann is certain that the models have calcualted natural variations correctly in the last decades and that they offset som of the warming that should have happened. Enquiring minds want to know if it is the very same model that can’t reproduce the natural warming occuring 1910-1940.

  26. “The human eye could see the rise in sea level…”

    As far as this could go, in what human eye could see;

    Only mentioning one single occasion, many humans, multiple human eyes could clearly see, as strongly claimed, the face of the virgin Mary on the glass facade of a big building, in the middle of the day.

    What about it!

    And there is many more and even more bizarre situations concerning what the human eye could or not see!

    By the way, if “climate change” sounds silly or stupid,
    “change of gravity” is even more stupid than beyond what human eye could see as stupid.

    cheers

    • Yeah, I was wondering where on earth the oceans are still enough that you could see a half centimetre rise, or any rise for that matter. What a buffoon.

  27. is Mickey Mann just griff’s altered ego ?

    They both live a life of lies through ignorance.

    Griff is probably the least non-intelligent of the pair.

    • No because Griff doesn’t claim he won a nobel prize, we have awarded him idiot of the week a few times.

  28. D’you know, if my young Grandson’s school decided to show this film to the children in their charge I would threaten them with charges of child abuse. I am incandescent that, because of the direction of education in my country (UK – where they teach children to say ‘Haitch’, FFS) my Grandson could be exposed to the sight of an AH lookalike in a dirty T-shirt, looking like he’s a few bricks short of a load having just surfaced from a reeking public convenience, and ranting at the camera to scare the crap out of them: ‘You’ll be able to see sea-level rise’!!! The Mann in certifiable and should be stopped – with a well-aimed hockey stick if poss.

  29. I am not a smartypants, but can someone explain math and volume calculations? If the oceans surface area is 5.1 billion Km2 and the volume of Greenland ice is 2.6 million Km3 a little division and converting to meters I get 0.5 meters of total depth added to the ocean. Am I stupid?

    • Maybe a hair daft…and lazy. Where did you get 5.1 billion Km2 for the ocean surface?

      “The area of the World Ocean is about 361.9 million square kilometers (139.7 million square miles), which covers about 70.9% of Earth’s surface, and its volume is approximately 1.335 billion cubic kilometers (320.3 million cubic miles).”

    • Your constants are off. I did the math (and gave confirming references) in essay Tipping Points in ebook Blowing Smoke. First of three examples (the other two are WAIS and EAIS). IF ever Greenland melted completely it would raise Sea level by about 6.7 meters. It never has. Mann’s claim of 6-8 feet by 2100 is patently absurd.

  30. I got distracted by Hartmann’s blinking – might have been Morse Code for “TORTURE” – but my Morse is pretty rusty and I could stand to watch it a second time.

    • That’s all right, Mr Ryan. My Morse is so rusty, I could be sending him dimensions on Playmate of the Month.

      Capt. Bart Mancuso: Hunt for Red October

  31. Worse is – as I always point out – that the ice is displacing its own mass in magma… so the tectonic and volcanic repercussions of the Greenland melt could be more catastrophic than a simple small sea level rise.

    As the ice melts and drains out, the rock below will start rising up causing magma under the surrounding ocean to flow in the direction of Greenland to fill the suction beneath it.

  32. Nice touch with the product placement of his book in the background. Grifters gonna grift.

  33. I live 100′ above the ocean and have been counting on SLR to increase my property values so I can retire early. But this is the height of buffoonery. My hopes have been dashed. (sarc. in case you weren’t sure)

  34. “The climate dogma lives strongly within you Mike Mann.”
    – said by Me

    While that might be compliment to the climate priesthood where catastrophic man-made climate change is now a faith-based religion, it is a slamming rebuke to someone who is supposed to be a scientist. When scientists turn to public advocacy, as the AAAS and NAS now pushes for, it means we end up with politicized science and scientists. Those scientists then are unable to self-correct when faced with glaring inconsistencies in observation versus claims. So the push ever onward spewing ever bigger whoppers like this one from Monsignor Mann.

  35. It escapes my understanding how a so-called “scientist” can say so many incorrect things (not confirmed by the data) for so long and yet there are those who want to hear it.

  36. From Wipikedia

    Thomas Carl Hartmann is an American radio personality, author, former psychotherapist, businessman, and progressive political commentator.

    That’s all you need to know.
    progressives are liars!

  37. Stopped listening at “half a centimeter of sea level rise from Greenland ice melt in one month”. It would be disastrous if it were true, but it isn’t. Do the math (which Mann apparently can’t).

    Say 3 months a year of that kind of ice melt, so 15mm or more of sea level rise per year. That’s 5 TIMES the rate of sea level rise measured by satellite (3.1 mm/yr). Even if it was only 1 month per year, that’s almost double the annual rate of sea level rise. Back to reality. Several studies estimate annual sea level rise from BOTH Greenland and Antarctica at 0.5 to 0.9 mm PER YEAR, which is…wait for it…one fifth to one tenth the amount that Mann claims from Greenland alone for one month.

    I guess when you get tenure, your brain stops working.

    • If you’d met him, you wouldn’t call him Moderate but yes, totally agree. Get well soon mate.

  38. Thank you for this wonderful op-ed article that fails to identify the precise cause of the “human caused ” climate change. Now that we know what, can you tell us why. Exactly why is the Greenland Ice-sheet melting?
    !2,000 years ago the Bering Sea was frozen over. It also melted. Did the American Indians, who crossed from Asia, cause that?
    Now I know why Trump offered to buy Greenland from the Danes. I’m voting for Trump.

  39. So … Mann controls the weather (or at least the narrative).
    Yet he, like Hansen, have been so wrong about what they said should have already happened but didn’t.
    Mann seems to have a history of claiming a current condition (with a few Storm Channel-ish exaggerations) is just what he said would happen (absent the time and severity and sometimes even the event).

  40. I am a snoop about what books people keep handy on their shelves. Besides Mann’s copy of the Hockey Stick and Climate Wars, there is some special set of Feynman’s Lectures on Physics that includes Feynman’s Tips on Physics — looks to be unopened.

  41. Based on Michael’s comment i just wonder if he ever been to the arctic for any period of time in the summer or winter. I have previously spent a reasonable amount of time in the Canadian arctic islands years ago on geological field parties and also on drilling sites. the climate change that may be happening in the last few years may not be unusual over a longer period of time. go up there and try it in the winter or summer. be prepared for some unusual weather. good luck.

  42. How can anyone take Mann seriously when he has been exposed as a total fraudster?

    And a joke and a clown, with his home made fake Nobel Prize.

  43. Apologies If someone made this comment above. I have not read them all. BUT, why is Greenland called Greenland? Because when the Vikings from Norway settled there, the land was not covered in ice and they were able to grow crops – green crops. Hence Greenland!
    Professor Mann thinks nothing like this happened, which is why he wanted to lose the Medieval Warming Period to validate his hockey stick theory. I put the point to Sir John Houghton, former chief scientist in the UK, and he said that was just local, not global. I think not…

    • I thought they called it Greenland because it was covered in ice, where as Iceland was not and it was a ruse to throw off anyone from trying to conquer the new found farm lands?

      Maybe just a funny story, but I could see the Vikings doing that, they were well traveled and conquerors themselves.

    • I remember in elementary school in the 50s we were told they were confused about island which was which and misnamed them.

      • It was actually called Greenland as a PR exercise by Eirik the Red who discovered the place in 986.

        Source: Islendingabok written c. 1125 by Are Frode (incidentally the second oldest book ever written in a Scandinavian language, the oldest being the Icelandic law code Grágás from 1121).

  44. I will not put the electrons of my new monitor through the torture of playing a video in which a PhD seriously just labeled TIDES as watching the sea level rise with his own eyes. Did he not see it fall as well?

    LOL.

    The man is a joke. A total joke. To coin an old favorite of my mother’s, “he can’t find his way out of a wet paper bag with a knife”.

  45. This fraudulent hoaxter should be in State Pen. There is no sea level rise. His climate models are bull[snip], and he has absolutely no authority on sea level science. He is as informed as Joe Biden, Barack Obama and Al Gore.

Comments are closed.