Thanks for straightening out Flanagan — who, based on his ‘homogenous’ comment — apparently thinks that water doesn’t flow downhill.

I would provide more graphs refuting Flanagan [easily done], but his mind is shut tight. His ‘graphs from some blog’ comment is simple ad hominem; attack the messenger to distract from the message. And the message is clear: CO2 doesn’t cause noticeable global warming, and can therefore be entirely disregarded.

Look guys, I gave a link to measurements – I can also give another one if you like, about sea levels
http://sealevel.colorado.edu/current/sl_noib_ns_global.jpg
please show me the decreasing trend, based on these graphs…”

If this were true, and assuming no land level changes other than sedimentation, then Cairo would become a sea port again, the Nile delta would not exist, all the several hundred year old ports, like Exeter and Portsmouth etc, along the coast of England would be swamped. They are not. Go see Old Portsmouth/Gosport with many hundreds of years of costal life.

Check out this place…

http://www.thecoalexchange.co.uk/

It’s been there a while, in the village of Emsworth, practically right on the estuary. This area is hundreds of years old. No sea level rise there, unless you class the incoming tide as a level rise (You can’t drive the bay road unless you have a decent 4×4, like a LandRover.

Same holds for Myke – do you really say there’s no recent rise ? Can you please give some details about your starting date ? Moreover, I really doubt a Colorado Univ plot from 2009 is “out of date” – hey guys, that’s just measurements, simply admit it: the sea is rising and warming.

I’m still hoping to participate, health permitting. Seems that Missouri, Kansas, Oklahoma, and Southern Colorado could use some attention. I finally have GPS installed on the laptop.

Flanagan (12:22:50),

Rising sea levels, as we know, are a favourite of the AGW brigade. Surely this assumes a steady baseline? Due to a number of geological factors, every point on the land surface of the earth, above and below the present day sea level, is either rising or falling at a different rate. For example, the north west of Scotland and Norway are both rising due to isostatic rebound after the last ice age. The south east of England and the low countries are subsiding due to ongoing basin formation in front of the rising Alpine mountain range.

Admittedly the rates of land level rise and fall are generally pretty low but in certain areas I’m sure they are of the same magnitude as the ‘sea level rise’ being measured (?) and predicted by the said brigade.

http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/HadCRUT3_accepted.pdf

…which forms the basis of the errors shown in IPCC reports, claims “… So the error in the monthly average will be at most 0.2/SQRT(60) = 0.03 deg C ”

Is there a detailed analysis of this paper ?

Thank you for that sanitized, adjusted version of sea level rise — which still doesn’t show any recent rise, does it?

Actually, the sea level may be falling: click

Of course, you could cherry-pick certain locations in order to claim a rise in sea level. But looking at the entire planet, you can see that there is no discernible sea level rise: click

And longer term, it appears that the sea level is declining: click

Finally, this blink gif shows the raw data vs the “adjusted” data: click
[Takes a few seconds to load.]

So you see, there is no evidence that the sea level is rising any more than than it has during the past millennium. And there is recent evidence that the sea level is declining.

We all know why you’re so desperate to show a rising sea level: because that would be at least flimsy, roundabout evidence that CO2 causes global warming. Sorry, but that conjecture fails. The sea level is not rising any more than it has for many centuries. There is nothing out of the ordinary occurring.

Since CO2 has been steadily rising, that makes the current, routine sea level changes another falsification of the conjecture that CO2 caused global warming; if it does at all, its effect is so minuscule that it can be safely disregarded as irrelevant.

“Also for the many that have asked me privately, yes we are working on the analysis of the data. But, I’m not in a position to share details at the moment”

And;

“The study is about instrumentation, quality control, and siting. I’m not going to venture into speculative areas not related to the premise of the study”

I hope I’m reading this wrong. To my mind, the money shot, the giant-killer that will go far beyond this board, would be a nice clear graphic of the temperature series derived from the best sites overlaid on the ‘official’ temperature record.

That will have the most profound impact on the greatest number of people.

Anthony, I know I’ve mentioned it before, but if such work is being done, what prevents it from being done in real time like before (at climateaudit)? What’s the difference this time?

To my mind, the comparitive time series is the final straw. How else can we clearly and simply show that the ‘adjustments’ for UHI etc are false? We can say, “these sites showed a warm bias X”, but until it’s simply shown that the adjustments are at odds with the ‘clean’ record, won’t the buggers just say, “yes, we know there is a warm bias – we have accounted for that”.

Don’t mean to come off like a wet blanket. This is a proud achivement, and I’m barracking to see it rolled out to the fullest extent. Bravo to all that put in the legwork and the headwork. Hell of a team effort.

No such thing as 1024 “IN BINARY”. The binary equivalent of the DECIMAL 1024 is: 00000000001 :)

Actually, 10000000000