Andrew Bolt must have missed the end of the story…

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/OceanCooling/page1.php

See the heat content of the Oceans going up, up, up ?
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/OceanCooling/page4.php

That means the Oceans are getting Warmer.
Josh Willis himself found the errors in some new Argo and old XBT data.

As for “Myth” 2, The Polar Caps are Melting:
I’m sure a clever Australian journalist can explain *this* away after a few pints:
http://www.nsidc.org/images/arcticseaicenews/20090706_Figure3.png
Oh look, much better these last 3 years… crisis averted.

Thanks again and regards,
Jan

Sea levels are notoriously difficult to measure. This anomaly graphic shows that there has been no recent rise, and in fact there are negative anomalies in the past few years: click

Also, Tony, it depends on which iteration one cites from CU. In this case, the rise in sea level is actually less than 3 mm/year: click

And as long time readers of WUWT know, the UC chart is “adjusted” and needs to be taken with a big pinch of salt: click

Before the secret inverse barometer manipulation, recent sea levels are declining significantly. Then after the “adjustment,” *voila!* the sea level rises again.

Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.

[For a fine discussion of historic sea levels, see here: click1 and especially click2].

Finally, here is more sea level info from NASA, covering the past 12 years. No reason for alarm: click

So, Tony, the figure of 3.5mm/year does not appear in any IPCC document that you linked to. You do appear to have invented it, or perhaps misread it. I quoted earlier from the IPCC’s most recent report – it contradicts your claim, which therefore falls.

You failed to understand when you linked to graphs of residuals that they were not showing sea levels. I linked to the actual data, but rather than admit your mistake and thank me for pointing it out, you ignored your error and complained about when the graphs stopped. Your claims that there had been no change in sea level at Newlyn and Helsinki were incorrect, and thus they fall.

You ignored the graph of sea level rise – here it is again. Your claims that sea level has stopped rising, or is falling, are not correct. They fall.

It is now clear that you’re not posting in good faith, and thus I will have no further dialogue with you. After your unprovoked attack on me before we’d even conversed (but which the moderators apparently thought was fine!), I gave you the benefit of the doubt, though I now see I shouldn’t have done.

Reply: I didn’t delete your post (at least I don’t remember), but certainly someone else may have. Certain tones will get an entire post deleted with no notice. Please read policy page if you don’t think things are made clear. FYI I did delete one post today, a personal attack on an AGW proponent.~ charles the moderator

Amazing. Check your 13 29 06

” see for example here” It did not work (try it-DNS error) so I had no idea what you were linking to.

I quoted three references to the 3.5mm. How many do you want? This is the figure being used by the UK Govt and all the others signed up to the Kyoto protocol.

Individual 2008 figures will likely be adjusted (for good reasons) so I calculated the three years as starting in 2005. (if 2008 confirms the trend it will make 4 years) You quoted for some reason data that concluded in 2003-probably because that still showed a rise. I didn’t dispute that there had been a rise as part of the short term cycle.

I comment on sea level temperatures and you then ignore my link and refer to your previous comment as if I hadn’t said anything. (In the meantime completely ignoring the bulk of my email which gave numerous references illustrating the historic background).

It seems to me that I post the links, you then ignore them or make a reference to something else claiming I have misunderstood. So to my list enumerated earlier as to ‘where have we got to?’ we can now add sea level temperatures. THe list now reads;

“Sea levels not rising, let alone at the rate claimed.

Sea level temperatures

Arctic ice melts with surprising regularity.

Global temperatures are an unrealistic construct based on severely flawed and manipulated information gathered since 1850 (or 1880) from a tiny number of ever changing stations.

UHI severely understated in relation to the number of sites situated in urban areas.

Individual Station sites severely flawed (see the current thread on this site)

Hundreds of studies illustrating the extent and nature of the MWP (previously linked but not commented on by you) demonstrate the current climate is not unprecedented (there are numerous studies of the Roman optimum as well)

Computer models inaccurate as admitted by the people promoting them.

You do not appear to want to engage on UHI and merely answer my questions with other questions or accuse me of not backing up my statements (which I continually do with links.)

Lets add another to the list as well, ” The science is not settled.”

You obviously believe the science is settled and that the only facts are ones that have graced the pages of realclimate or similar and will not look at the latest evidence, whether it is sea levels, ice, temperatures etc.

Even the Met office are admitting they dont know as much as they thought they did;

Current Advert

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/recruitment/vacancies/001758.html

“A significant uncertainty in future projections of sea level is associated with dynamical changes in the Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets and a key aspect of this uncertainty is the role of ice shelves, how they might respond to climate change, and the effect this could have on the ice sheets. The goal of the post is to contribute to improved scenarios of sea-level rise, which is an important aspect of climate change, with large coastal impacts.”

I have no idea what will happen in the near future-I would have expected the long term LIA would be replaced by a period of considerable warming. If it then exceeded the MWP or other warm period then certainly that would be a cause for concern. However that was my original point-the current circumstance are not unprecedented as is so often claimed.

I will reluctantly concede that Smokey is right with his16 45 39 so I will take his advice that it is pointless in continuing a one sided debate where the only facts are those that emanate from your side and you appear reluctant to accept any other information. As the Royal Socety motto says ‘Nobody’s word is final.’

I am away from my computer for a few days and when I return I will rejoin the party in one of the other threads and hope to meet up with you there.

With best regards

Tonyb

In 2007, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change forecast a rise of 18 cm to 59 cm by 2100. But the numbers came with a heavy caveat that often went unnoticed by the popular press.

So, let me see, 180mm to 590mm in almost 100 years (93, say). Seems close to 3.5mm/yr as the mid-point of the range. (Quick, someone check the numbers.)

Probably wrong since NS is a notoriously unreliable rag. Where is that IPCC source document?

Next, you demand “Why are you linking to sea level graphs that finish in 2003?”

First, you didn’t understand the graphs you linked to for Newlyn and Helsinki. They showed residuals – that is, data with trend removed. Now it seems that you didn’t understand that the graphs I linked to were the actual data. You badly misunderstood what you posted, and now you’ve badly misunderstood my attempt to correct you. I think you have to try quite hard to misunderstand so badly, so often.

“I clearly said that sea levels have been falling over the last three years i.e to 2005. Please recheck your figures and use current data.”

It’s 2009 so I’m not sure what you mean, exactly, by “the last three years i.e to 2005″, but yet again you seem to have misunderstood. I already posted a link to sea level data, right up to date, which does not support your claims. Look again, here.

As for urban heat islands, I did think I’d been quite clear. Everyone knows they exist. However, it is obvious that they do not strongly bias the surface temperature record, because

1. the greatest warming is seen in northern polar regions, and on the Antarctic Peninsula, both of which are very sparsely populated;
2. the oceans are warming by about 0.1°c/decade;
3. the satellite and ground-based temperature records agree very closely.

As you clearly believe that they do strongly bias the surface records, I’d like to hear what you make of these three observations.

RW

You keep querying what my sources are even when I provide a link! Why would I invent a figure that is so easy to check?

Tony, your reasoning is flawless, and can not be refuted. However, you must understand that you’re feeding a species of troll who always demands answers — and then when answers are provided, it instantly moves the goal posts and demands different answers to new questions. It is a one-way street with him. He snipes from the sidelines while convincing no one.

This guy in particular always hides out from answering any questions himself, while making statements that are trivial to refute, as you did above. IMO he’s got mental problems, but I’m not a psychologist, only a retired metrologist.

So I would advise not feeding that particular troll, you’ll never get any straight answers… unless, of course, you’re having fun showing everyone how wrong he is. In that case, then by all means, fire away!

forgot this link showing oceans are cooling

http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/2009/03/the-ocean-really-is-cooling/?cp=all

Tonyb

You have a very dry British sense of humour that I think some of our American Friends here misinterpret (but I enjoy!) It is often said that Americans don’t do irony or sarcasm-I am not sure I agree with that, nevertheless it is striking how often you see someone making a comment here then finish with ‘sark off” in order to illustrate they were joking.

Perhaps we ought to arm ourselves with emoticon symbols. :)

Tonyb

You keep querying what my sources are even when I provide a link! Why would I invent a figure that is so easy to check? Perhaps you think I also invented the quotes about the unreliability of computer models? You must be aware of the official concern that models are being used instead of observations?

Are you also unaware that the IPCC use six sea level scenarios?

” The IPCC have six sea level rise scenarios

The fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel
on Climate Change (IPCC) projects global SLR over the
course of this century to be between 18 and 38 cm (7-15”) for
their lowest emissions scenario, and between 26 and 59 cm
(10-23”) for their highest emissions scenario.”

“Sea-level rise
There is much debate over quantifying potential sea-level rise scenarios. The IPCC has estimated six sea-level rise scenarios, which predict a range of sea levels from 0.1 – 0.88 m by 2100 (based on data and various climate models). Rahmstorf (2007) estimates sea-level scenarios of 0.5 – 1.4 m by 2100 (based on a fit of global temperature to sea-level and the projection of IPCC temperature predictions). Church & White (2006) found global sea-level to rise almost 20 cm between 1870 and 2004 based on data from tide gauges, and estimated 0.28 – 0.34 m of sea-level rise by 2100 based on a constant acceleration rate of 0.013 mm/yr2 from the historical data. Beckley et al. (2007) found global sea-level rise rates increased from ~2.75 mm/yr (during 1993-2000) to ~3.75 mm/yr (during 2000-2007) using satellite altimetry.”

http://www.defra.gov.uk/environ/fcd/pubs/pagn/climatechangeupdate.pdf

These are the figures that Defra use in order to calculate the necessary flood defence heights around the UK coast. These figures are part of Govt policy that then uses Govt money to build the defences. If they are wrong they need to be told.

Why are you linking to sea level graphs that finish in 2003? I clearly said that sea levels have been falling over the last three years, i.e to 2005. Please recheck your figures and use current data.

You said:

“If you believe that the effect of urban heat islands on the temperature record is much larger than scientists find it to be, could you explain these things:”

I merely asked for your comments on the UHI study, for example in 14 39 09 and I then gave a number of supplementary references in 02 09 41. There are a disproportionate number of stations in urban areas and it appears the impact of UHi is greater than had been thought. Consequently I was hoping you might actually make some sort of reference to the report I quoted even if it was to say you disagreed with the findings.

Best regards

Tonyb

Likewise.

“It is good we can have a exchange of views without degenerating into the unpleasant vitriol exhibited on certain other sites.”

In my view, civility of exchange is a matter of horses for courses. And of course what one considers to be “unpleasant vitriol” often depends on which side of the fence one sits.

“Global mean sea level has been rising… For the 20th century, the average rate was 1.7 ± 0.5 mm/yr…For the period 1993 to 2003, the rate
of sea level rise is estimated from observations with satellite altimetry as 3.
1 ± 0.7 mm/yr, significantly higher than the average rate”

The data does not support your claim that sea level is ‘more likely
slightly falling’. See for example here.

As for Newlyn and Helsinki, unfortunately you have completely misunderstood the graphs you linked to. They are residuals – the variation left over once the long term trend has been removed. You need to look at the actual data, which shows an upward trend in Newlyn and a downward trend in Helsinki.

http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_global_station.shtml?stnid=170-161
http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_global_station.shtml?stnid=060-351

If you believe that the effect of urban heat islands on the temperature record is much larger than scientists find it to be, could you explain these things:

1. the greatest warming is seen in northern polar regions, and on the Antarctic Peninsula, both of which are very sparsely populated;
2. the oceans are warming by about 0.1°c/decade;
3. the satellite and ground-based temperature records agree very closely.

I’m short of time so can’t respond to the rest of your post at the moment.