Roger Pielke Senior on Real Climate claims: “bubkes”

Pielke_SLR

Real Climate’s Misinformation

From Climate Science — Roger Pielke Sr. @ 7:00 am

Real Climate posted a weblog on June 21 2009 titled “A warning from Copenhagen”.  They report on a Synthesis Report of the Copenhagen Congress which was handed over to the Danish Prime Minister Rasmussen in Brussels the previous week.

Real Climate writes

“So what does it say? Our regular readers will hardly be surprised by the key findings from physical climate science, most of which we have already discussed here. Some aspects of climate change are progressing faster than was expected a few years ago – such as rising sea levels, the increase of heat stored in the ocean and the shrinking Arctic sea ice. “The updated estimates of the future global mean sea level rise are about double the IPCC projections from 2007″, says the new report. And it points out that any warming caused will be virtually irreversible for at least a thousand years – because of the long residence time of CO2 in the atmosphere.”

First, what is “physical climate science”? How is this different from “climate science”. In the past, this terminology has been used when authors ignore the biological components of the climate system.

More importantly, however, the author of the weblog makes the  statement that the following climate metrics “are progressing faster than was expected a few years ago” ;

1. “rising sea levels”

NOT TRUE;  e.g. see the University of Colorado at Boulder Sea Level Change analysis.

Sea level has actually flattened since 2006.

2.  “the increase of heat stored in the ocean”

NOT TRUE; see

Update On A Comparison Of Upper Ocean Heat Content Changes With The GISS Model Predictions.

Their has been no statistically significant warming of the upper ocean since 2003.

3. “shrinking Arctic sea ice”

NOT TRUE; see the Northern Hemisphere Sea Ice Anomaly from the University of Illinois Cyrosphere Today website. Since 2008, the anomalies have actually decreased.

These climate metrics might again start following the predictions of the models. However, until and unless they do, the authors of the Copenhagen Congress Synthesis Report and the author of the Real Climate weblog are erroneously communicating the reality of the how the climate system is actually behaving.

Media and policymakers who blindly accept these claims are either naive or are deliberately slanting the science to promote their particular advocacy position.

About these ads
This entry was posted in Oceans, Science, Sea ice, Sea level. Bookmark the permalink.

180 Responses to Roger Pielke Senior on Real Climate claims: “bubkes”

  1. evanmjones says:

    Good points, Dr. Pielke.

  2. JimB says:

    But…but…wait!…
    How else can we possibly pay for all this….stuff?…if we don’t tax carbon on the basis of saving the world?

    This is going to be the best tax EVAH!

    JimB

  3. woodNfish says:

    I know you may want to hear something different that this Anthony, but I just see no surprise here. While you insist that this can be contributed to incompetence or something equally passive, it is [snip] and nothing less!

  4. gt says:

    For AGW proponents, model predictions are empirical evidences. Any real data and observations contradicting their claims are dismissed as “oh it’s just weather; the long term trend (based on models) is beyond dispute.” And the politicians and medias are buying it. Not that politicians and medias don’t have their agenda anyways.

    What can you do. Really.

  5. ohioholic says:

    Whoops. Someone was actually reading our report? We were just kidding.

  6. Steve says:

    The “truth” is whatever they say it is, if it wasn’t then why would they say it is.

  7. Milwaukee Bob says:

    They’re desperate and they are caught in a hole of their own making. If reality isn’t on your side, you have only 2 choices; acknowledge it and change sides or lie to yourself (and others) by ignoring what you perceive. Self deception is a very common human trait. It reinforces one of the emotional needs of every human, that being “self-approval”. I see a distinct difference therein between here and there. Here, “we” struggle for clarification on subjects as data flows back and forth and most are ultimately “comfortable” wherever that takes us. There “they” struggle to be RIGHT. They NEED to be right – not enlightened.

  8. Jeremy says:

    It makes me sick to watch this kind of outright dishonesty from people who claim to be following the principles of science.

  9. Gary says:

    “a few years ago” – ah, gotta love the precision there. Maybe they mean 1980?

    “virtually irreversible” – whew, good thing the world is literal.

    What about “some aspects of climate change” that aren’t “progressing” faster (see Antarctic ice extent)? Can’t mention those, can we?

  10. imapopulistnow says:

    I honestly think that we need to start teaching honesty and integrity in our school system and hope that some future generation will come along that understands the dangers inherent in deception, and that the end does not justify the means.

    Perhaps the West Point creed should be taught to all; “A Cadet will not lie, cheat or steal, nor tolerate those who do.”

    In the meantime we must live with in a society where manipulation and deceit appear to be the norms. It is very sad and depressing.

  11. Douglas DC says:

    When we have crop failures in Canada and the Northern Tier of states,and a sucession of hard,very hard winters maybe someone might get a clue.
    in the meantime we are converting food to fuel…

  12. Stephen Goldstein says:

    Everybody is familiar with the old saw, “I’ll believe it when I see it.”

    There’s a lesser used corollary, “If you don’t believe it, you can’t see it.”

  13. Smokey says:

    There are lots ‘n’ lots of sea level charts that Colorado U uses. At first glance they all look very similar. But they’re not.

    I sure wish they’d explain which one is right.

    For instance, here’s a blink gif [takes a few seconds to load], based on exactly the same data: click

    If the university would archive on line all of its data and methodologies, we could eventually get at the truth.

  14. Jeremy says:

    @ Smokey (19:20:02)

    That blink image appears to be two different datasets with different conditions applied. One of them stretches to 2008, and the other one to 2009. One has “inverse barometer applied” (whatever that means), and the other does not. They appear to be similar, but one has had noise removal of some kind. That’s just what they look like, doesn’t help us much with what they mean.

    I don’t think Pielke’s point is at all harmed by the different blink images here, in fact the period he is discussing seems to follow the same “flat” track in both. That said, you yourself have a point. The science departments of universities only have enough money/graduate-student-slave-labor to investigate things, and few people motivated enough to make it all make sense to those who access it.

  15. janama says:

    This is very serious IMO. I hear this kind of distortion of facts all the time and the catch phrase is always “are progressing faster than was expected”

    Our scientists say it, our politicians say it yet as you’ve just shown, it’s a lie.
    How much longer do we have to put up with this??

  16. tarpon says:

    The bloated government will not be denied their new taxes … Slavery by debt so huge there is nothing left, that’s the goal.

  17. Jesse says:

    Off Topic

    Today I had a conversation with an engineer who is buying all of this stuff hook, line, and sinker. He believes solar and wind will turn the world into Utopia of cleanliness and it will cost nothing. He believes everything our media prints or puts on the internet. I sort of understand politicians being confused and led like sheep, but an engineer with the background to understand the science?

    We need the media to be more balanced. If not, a future headline will read, “America, Bankrupt.”

  18. DoctorJJ says:

    Does anyone else see a parallel between the AGW’ers and the mortgage derivative traders? The traders really didn’t understand what they were buying and selling but the computers kept spewing out data saying that these investments were good, would make money, and were safe. Then the sub-prime meltdown began to hit and most of them kept trading this garbage and kept thinking the price would always keep going up. I’m sure there was a moment when some of them thought, “wait, this can’t really be happening. The computers say these investments are still valuable”. Suddenly they realized that they have a portfolio full of worthless dog crap. Just like the financial mess, I think the cooling of the earth will eventually be undeniable and these AGW’ers will find themselves holding a bag of poo.

  19. mkurbo says:

    Not the best little summary from a fact standpoint, but it does refer to your work Anthony.

    http://lewrockwell.com/orig9/deming3.html

    Mk

  20. Douglas DC says:

    Doctor JJ-you just quoted Con.Peter DeFazio D. Oregon who said the same thing about the whole bag of Malarkey er, Waxman/Markey …
    It will bring 1929 back…

  21. Donald of S.Australia says:

    This is a mere trickle before the torrent of misinformation which will precede Copenhagen. And the chance of its falsity ever being aired in the MSM is very small.
    Too many egos, too many tenures, too many investment scams, and too many taxing schemes are dependent on the AGW preachers holding sway.

  22. Roger,

    You are actually wrong about the sea level flattening off from 2006. I analysed the data using a glm in R and the result is that the sea level rise declined from the 3.2mm/yr +- 0.4 in the figure to 2.1mm/yr +- 0.4 from 2006. However, the rise remained statistically significant (p<=0.001).

    I think that we have to be careful with terms like "flattening out" when the stats say otherwise. The warmers will jump on such terminology with gusto. I guess we can say with confidence though, that the rate of sea level rise has declined.

    All the best

  23. janama says:

    The other day the letters section of the Sydney Morning Herald lead with a letter saying that the UK government was incompetent with regard to climate change and that the Aussie government (Penny Wong) should look to Germany ‘s actions on climate change.

    So I wrote a rely letter stating that Germany intends to build 26 new coal fired power station over the coming years and should our government follow Germany’s lead as the letter espoused. My letter wasn’t printed – that’s the problem.

  24. Bill Illis says:

    They just added another adjustment procedure to the sea level data – “Glacial Isostatic Adjustment” – I guess the land rebound from the glaciers of the ice age is still contributing another 0.3 mm per year to the measured sea level rise – adjusted that is – Jupiter tides will be next.

  25. Jimmy Haigh says:

    As others have mentioned, it looks as if the AGW side are getting more desperate as time goes on as Mother Nature continues to make a mockery of their claims. (Who knows? Maybe their models actually predicted global cooling by now but they had to ‘adjust’ the results as well! But I jest…)

    I think they are also desperate to see the scam safely through Copenhagen and also to pass the cap and trade tax in The US Senate.

  26. Retired Engineer says:

    IBD has a nice summary of a new government “report”, with a few comments by Dr. Pielke Jr.

    http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=331253421781662

    “The report “misrepresents my own work,” says University of Colorado environmental studies professor Roger Pielke, Jr. It makes claims that aren’t supported by citations provided, relies on analyses that were never peer reviewed, ignores peer-reviewed studies that reach opposite conclusions from those proclaimed by the report, and cites papers that don’t support conclusions.”

    And an indirect reference to the surfacestations project:

    “The report also relies heavily on surface temperature data from monitoring stations located next to parking lots and air conditioning exhaust ports — falsely skewing temperature records upward.”

    A little bit of panic may be setting in.

  27. Pamela Gray says:

    Douglas, are you back at the Lake? You should come by the LT in Lostine. I am there with my BF (who is currently as sick as I am) most Friday evenings. However, we will be up South Fork on the 4th, hobnobbing with William O Douglas’s grandson. My BF has quite a few celebrities who know him. I am just a coattail member of his inner circle. Would love to introduce you and your significant other to the locals.

  28. David Ball says:

    I especially liked the “thousand years” part. Someone mentioned feces, but I do not think that is a fair comparison, as feces contains some nutrients.

  29. FatBigot says:

    This piece from RC shows something that is a peculiar trait of extreme dedication to the catastrophic global warming hypothesis; as far as I know it is not displayed in relation to any other scientific hypothesis. To what do I refer? Certainty, that’s what.

    Some practitioners of an infant science might say “this is our hypothesis, now we’re going to study what actually happens and make any necessary adjustments”. But not, it seems, those wedded to this particular idea.

    They like to say “the science is settled” but it seems to me that they really mean “our minds are closed”.

    On hearing that some measures suggest global average cooling within the last decade rather than global average warming, they reply in two ways and adopt both replies, mindless to the conflict between the two. On the one hand they assert that measured cooling is not cooling at all. This is just legerdemain, by selecting particular starting and finishing points they create trend lines on graphs to argue that lower readings from thermometers actually display continuing upward movements in average temperatures. Yet you only need to adopt different start and end points to show something different. On the other hand they say “this is what should be expected because warming causes cooling” (we had this one yet again from our friend Mr Flanagan last week). No. Warming means temperatures going up, cooling means temperatures going down. You cannot create ice by applying heat to a pan of water.

    These two positions are wholly contradictory. There is a credible explanation available to them but it involves a concession of uncertainty, so they will not propose it. They could say “temporary blips are only to be expected because we are dealing with a vastly complex interaction of factors and we do not fully understand them all”. That would stand alongside their hypothesis and would not cause the batting of a single eyelid. But it would require them to accept that they do not know everything and, therefore, that their hypothesis has not yet been proved. Such a position appears to be unacceptable to them because they have pinned their colours unequivocally to the “the science is settled” mast.

    Acceptance of uncertainty lies behind all honest scientific, economic and political analyses until such time, if ever, that all the evidence points in one direction and nothing that is observed in real life is inconsistent with the position being advanced.

    Unjustified certainty requires dissenting voices to be dismissed rather than challenged on the merits of the points they put forward. Debate and challenge are the tools of those with open minds. Scoffing, sneering dismissal is the tool of those unprepared to accept that their belief in a hypothesis might not be well-founded. It is also the tool of those who know their hypothesis can be subjected to legitimate challenge but are not prepared to risk the personal loss (whether financial, reputational or both) that would result from such a challenge being successful.

  30. Jim G says:

    Virtually Irreversable:

    Sounds like the programmers have spent a wee bit too much time hanging out in cyberspace.

  31. Mike McMillan says:

    Smokey (19:20:02) :
    There are lots ‘n’ lots of sea level charts that Colorado U uses. At first glance they all look very similar. I sure wish they’d explain which one is right.

    Jeremy (19:31:40) :
    That blink image appears to be two different datasets with different conditions applied. . . . One has “inverse barometer applied” (whatever that means), and the other does not. They appear to be similar, but one has had noise removal of some kind. That’s just what they look like, doesn’t help us much with what they mean.

    I’ve been watching the sea level charts for a while. Sea level is affected by atmospheric pressure (we’re talking about millimeter-scale changes after all), and the “inverse barometer” corrects for that. The seasonal signal correction tends to reduce the scatter of the points. To glean “meaning” from the charts, it doesn’t really matter which data set you use, as long as you stick with one. I’ve always seen “seasonal signal removed and inverse barometer not applied” posted at WUWT, so we’re not getting any sleight-of-hand.

    If you download the charts from U of Colorado in .eps format into Photoshop, you can make crisp charts of any dimensions you want.

  32. rbateman says:

    It’s very interesting what an afternoon at the historians can turn up.
    Very hot 105+ summertime temps in the late 1850′s for starters.
    Then in the mid 1870′s began the cold winds in April & May that always led to killing frosts.
    Then in 1881 began the 60 degree or larger diurnal from DayMax to NightLow.
    The summertime temps rarely got to 100 degrees, but the lows were about 10 degrees below what we know for today. The Instrumental record shows the last shadows of that time. The diurals shrank after the early 1930′s to what we know today. The year 1933 and those around it take the cake for even today’s temps.
    So, all this fuss about Global Warming being unprecedented is found to be clutching at the trace of C02 in thin air.
    California was founded in a warm period, suffered through a cold period, and when agriculture really got going in the 30′s it found another modern warm period.
    Some people just don’t appreciate the good times they lived in.
    Disaster Worship.

  33. Leon Brozyna says:

    The mantra is:
    “The oceans are rising, sea temperatures are rising, the ice is melting…”

    Repeat this mantra until you believe, until it is an article of faith (or religious-style dogma), and then every data point you see will confirm your belief. And anything that falls outside this belief is discarded as erroneous data. And anyone that disputes this belief system is a heretic. No wonder talk in the climate arena is so nasty – it’s like a religious war – repent, convert, or die!

    Scientists are people too (no, really – they are) and they have as many foibles as the next person. Trouble is, these foibles are being fed by massive amounts of research grants. Once, welfare was simple (almost innocent when we see what’s happened since). Then came corporate welfare. Now we’ve got science welfare running in the tens of billions of dollars.

    And Hollywood keeps on attacking greedy businessmen. *hmph* Hard-working, productive businessmen are rank amateurs next to their blood-sucking cousins who pretend to be in business but are only in the business of skimming tax dollars along with other luminaries such as research hungry scientists. Cut a little corner here and there – keep repeating the mantra – and keep those research dollars flowing.

    And at some point, scientists will join the ranks of politicians and lawyers in joke punch lines. And then what happens when the grant funding gravy train is not just cut, but cut off… “Would you like coke & fries with your burger?”

  34. evanmjones says:

    FatBigot (20:35:37) :

    Har! Har!

  35. Still waiting for something resembling summer, here in northern MN. If “some aspects of climate change are progressing faster”, why is it so cold here? Why do I have to have the furnace running in the summer to keep the house warm? Why was the spring growth spurt delayed for weeks? These people who claim it’s warming up need to get away from the computer and step outside the concrete bunker they live/work in and see what it’s like in the great outdoors. Somebody’s been drugging their coffee, methinks.

  36. mr.artday says:

    Their minds are not closed, their brains are welded shut.

  37. Wondering Aloud says:

    If it wasn’t for the fact that some of them actually seem to believe that crap reading real climate would be very similar to the onion or other humor site. I think it is hilarious to watdh them accuse Pielke of “cherry picking” when their entire case is cherry picking and fudged data. (hmm think I need a snack)

    I wonder what planet they are living on?

  38. BarryW says:

    As far as I can tell, U of Col has not updated the sealevel data since Jan of this year? What gives? Not going up fast enough for them or is it a Sat problem?

  39. hunter says:

    Google this:
    “much faster than expected” – nothing about climate. There are ~8.8 *million* hits. The hits are mostly about AGW or other catastrophic predictions.
    Check it out:
    http://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&channel=s&hl=en&q=much+faster+than+expected&btnG=Google+Search
    So this technique obviously works, even though it events have disproven the claim each and ever time.
    My favorite is from some AGW promotion site that makes the blatantly false claim that Antarctic ice is shrinking “much faster than expected”.
    Maybe people do like being fooled all of the time?

  40. Brendan H says:

    “More importantly, however, the author of the weblog makes the statement that the following climate metrics “are progressing faster than was expected a few years ago”

    The comment from Real Climate appears to be in line with the Copenhagen Congress Synthesis Report. For example, the graph for sea-level rise on page 8 of the report compares actual with projected rises for the period 1993-2008. The actual rises are higher than the projected.

    The graph covers the period 1970-2008, with projections from 1993.

    So as far as I can see, in the case of sea levels, the Real Climate website has accurately reported what the Copenhagen report is saying.

  41. rbateman says:

    “And it points out that any warming caused will be virtually irreversible for at least a thousand years – because of the long residence time of CO2 in the atmosphere.”

    I believe they have mistaken cooling for warming. It takes longer to climb out of cooling than it does to sink into it. Figures they would do that.

  42. rbateman says:

    RJ Hendrickson (21:10:14) :

    There was a forecast warning that some ‘northern tier’ state might not have a summer. You might just fit that bill, but it cannot be anything but Globyll Waarmeeng.

  43. Graeme Rodaughan says:

    Milwaukee Bob (18:50:06) :

    They’re desperate and they are caught in a hole of their own making. If reality isn’t on your side, you have only 2 choices; acknowledge it and change sides or lie to yourself (and others) by ignoring what you perceive. Self deception is a very common human trait. It reinforces one of the emotional needs of every human, that being “self-approval”. I see a distinct difference therein between here and there. Here, “we” struggle for clarification on subjects as data flows back and forth and most are ultimately “comfortable” wherever that takes us. There “they” struggle to be RIGHT. They NEED to be right – not enlightened.

    Milwaukee Bob – Agreed. I think this is one of the barriers true believers face that block their ability to disentangle themselves from the reason sucking incubus of AGW belief.

    I would suggest that the mature approach is to not ascribe ones “Self Confidence, Self Belief, Self Approval… etc” to belief and participation in a group dogma.

    Instead one could establish these qualities on the firm ground of lived experience, created from within by self driven choice and action.

    That way, these qualities are not dependent on the whims of circumstance, and group membership.

  44. Nasif Nahle says:

    I would wish to point to this Pielke’s significant statement:

    “First, what is “physical climate science”? How is this different from “climate science”. In the past, this terminology has been used when authors ignore the biological components of the climate system.”

    1. There is no difference. We use to call it “Physics of Climate”, though by saying “Climatology” is more than enough.

    2. The real Physics of Climate does not ignore the biological component, the “Biosphere”. The evolution of any ecosystem follows a well known ecological process identified as Ecological Succession, which implies drastic natural changes of biotic and abiotic resources of a given ecosystem. Ecological Succession has been deliberately ignored by AGWers because it would set their “climate change” definitely as one more of natural processes. If a boreal forest would end like a desert, they would blame to human beings, although biologists know very well that it is a quite natural and unavoidable phenomenon.

    On the other hand, if the warming of the Earth lasts for more than 1000 years, it would be because the alternating cycles of warmhouses-icehoses can last millions of years, as it has happened throughout the geological eras. All is natural, except their obsession for impose taxes on the air we breathe. Guess what… Here in Monterrey we pay 15% of taxes over our monthly bill from using water.

  45. Graeme Rodaughan says:

    FatBigot (20:35:37) :

    This piece from RC shows something that is a peculiar trait of extreme dedication to the catastrophic global warming hypothesis; as far as I know it is not displayed in relation to any other scientific hypothesis. To what do I refer? Certainty, that’s what.
    … (rest above)

    FatBigot – An excellent summary. Very well said. Thank You.

  46. John F. Hultquist says:

    Jim G (20:40:22) :

    Virtually Irreversable: (irreversible)

    Sounds like the programmers have spent a wee bit too much time hanging out in cyberspace.
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    Within the overall climate dialog which includes models and related digital things the use of “virtually irreversible” is ironic and funny. However the meaning of the phrase is clearly meant to be, and generally acknowledge to be, “very likely irreversible.” It is easy when writing comments to take a shot at these things but it doesn’t advance the cause much.

    Now, as “bubkes” = goat droppings, that’s another matter. In the title, drop the word claims, and now we have a quotable truth:

    Roger Pielke Senior on: Real Climate = goat droppings

    Ridicule may be useful when the listener isn’t paying attention to facts.

  47. Darell C. Phillips says:

    BarryW (21:22:44) :

    Maybe they are not in a particular hurry because they are 5400 feet above sea level. 8^)

  48. ohioholic says:

    Nasif Nahle (21:44:40) :

    15%?! Wow, all those taxes and CA still can’t balance the budget? Sad, really. Let me guess, fighting crime has drained the state of money?

  49. maksimovich says:

    A new assessment of the error budget of global mean sea level rate
    estimated by satellite altimetry over 1993–2008
    M. Ablain1, A. Cazenave2, G. Valladeau1, and S. Guinehut1

    Abstract. A new error budget assessment of the global
    Mean Sea Level (MSL) determined by TOPEX/Poseidon and
    Jason-1 altimeter satellites between January 1993 and June
    2008 is presented using last altimeter standards. We discuss
    all potential errors affecting the calculation of the global
    MSL rate. We also compare altimetry-based sea level with
    tide gauge measurements over the altimetric period. Applying
    a statistical approach, this allows us to provide a realistic
    error budget of the MSL rise measured by satellite altimetry.
    These new calculations highlight a reduction in the rate of sea
    level rise since 2005, by 2 mm/yr. This represents a 60%
    reduction compared to the 3.3 mm/yr sea level rise (glacial
    isostatic adjustment correction applied) measured between
    1993 and 2005. Since November 2005, MSL is accurately
    measured by a single satellite, Jason-1. However the error
    analysis performed here indicates that the recent reduction in
    MSL rate is real.

    http://www.ocean-sci.net/5/193/2009/

  50. TerryBixler says:

    Not to be repetitive but in Chicago politics it is not about right or wrong it is about who is in charge. AGW as science is a hoax, but as a political agenda a terrific success. We will all pay a huge price in a lower standard of living, jobs lost and turmoil due to this madness that is now out of control in our government and its agencies. It makes no difference that the sea levels are declining or the temperatures are falling, our government is stealing control of our country and now act, one and all, like royalty.

  51. anna v says:

    Correct repetition:

    My mother witnessed while in college back in the 1930′s a scene that she transmitted to me so vividly that it is as if I had been present.

    A young fellow student and she were at the Dean’s office for some discussion. There was a metal bust on a stand next to where the other girl was standing that somehow lost its balance and fell on the girl’s head.

    The girl stood there, blood streaming down her face reciting in a strong voice:
    I am not hurting, I am not hurting, I am not hurting”.

    She was the first Christian Scientist my mother ever met.

    I tell this story because it illustrates strongly for me that to the indoctrinated willingly, facts really do not matter.

    We, as the west, are in the unfortunate position to have not only the public and some “scientists” in a cult like self indoctrination, but politicians in power too. And circling the scene are the vultures and opportunists each with his/her own agenda: some for money, some for glory, some for security, some from pusillanimity.

    Κοινή γαρ η τύχη το δε μέλλον αόρατον

    Our fate is common and the future opaque.

  52. Terry says:

    So as far as I can see, in the case of sea levels, the Real Climate website has accurately reported what the Copenhagen report is saying.

    That seems a bit circular, sorry. My question is: Have the predictions matched the observations? How many people have been displaced by rising sea levels? And given the prediction/observation/whatever that the sea level is rising faster than expected – how many more will be displaced by this time next year?

  53. pkatt says:

    Gary (19:00:25) :
    “virtually irreversible” – whew, good thing the world is literal.

    Virtually irreversible is what you get when you cant get your climate model to cool back down because you didnt include any negative forcings:)

  54. Flanagan says:

    [snip]

    I mean, even considering such short trends as 3 years, the sea level by Boulder ARE increasing since 2006: writing a big fat FLAT won’t change the slope of the linear regression. Moreover, what the report says is that sea levels are increasing faster than predicted: please take a look at Fig. 1 in the report
    http://www.pik-potsdam.de/news/press-releases/files/synthesis-report-web.pdf

    The statement on “increasing” Arctic sea ice is so incredible it doesn’t even deserve further comments… The trend speaks for itself

  55. DennisA says:

    The claim about sea level rising faster than ever seems to relate to a paper by Rahmstorf, but it looks like he did a bit of jiggery-pokery:

    Niche Modelling
    http://landshape.org/enm/recent-climate-observations-disagreement-with-projections/?dsq=11906160#comment-11906160

    This what Niche Modelling say in conclusion:

    “1. What is to be done with the many sources that already reference Rahmstorf et al 2007, and will in the future, to justify faster actions on controlling emissions, including Australia’s Garnaut Report?

    2. Why were the obvious shortcomings of the original article, by a number of lead chapter authors of the IPCC, not pointed out (and defended even) by other members of the climate science community (with a comment in Science say), and only skeptical bloggers noticed or were concerned by it?

    3. As Jan Pompe remarks, if temperatures continue to stay flat, is it justified to keep increasing the smoothing period of the trend lines to ensure the appearance of an increasing trend, as Stefan appears to think?

    Call me a conspiracy theorist, but when a short smoothing gave a high warming, Rahmstorf and his coauthors were quick to cry ‘the sky is falling’. But when the trend turned down due to random fluctuations, he changed the parameters to stay on message. As Marcellus said, “Something is rotten in the State of Denmark” (Hamlet).”

  56. James Allison says:

    Real Climate refer to trends over the last 100 or so years. Weather or seal level changes during the last few years isn’t climate change. Check their mantra.

    Arguing the toss with these people is a waste of space. Getting good climate science regularly in front of MSM will get you traction. Friendly MSM journo anyone?

  57. TonyB says:

    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 artefact dreamt up in a computer laboratory.

    The sea level calculations rely on an enormous number of variable factors including pressure, location, 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 far vaguer than that because of the inherent difficulties of measuring.

    Both the following two sites give a good description of the process-which is being constantly refined but doesn’t get more accurate as the inherent flaws in measuring capabilities can’t be resolved.

    http://www.tos.org/oceanography/issues/issue_archive/issue_pdfs/15_1/15_1_jacobs_et_al.pdf

    http://jchemed.chem.wisc.edu/Journal/Issues/1999/dec/abs1635.html

    The following site deals with problems of the data;
    http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=859

    This with reliability;
    http://lightblueline.org/satellite-tracking-sea-levels-set-launch

    The UK Environment Agency (with whom I work) -where possible like to use physical tide gauges as well, 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.

    Sea level rises are not being seen in context as one of those regular cycles that stretch back much further than the satellite records into the depths of recorded time.

    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)
    http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=61

    We have much observational evidence of historic sea levels (p162 on-including a map in the following link)

    http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=0Nucx3udvnoC&pg=PA156&lpg=PA156&dq=romans+in+iceland&source=bl&ots=5k8qGn7VK4&sig=s4aeHlT8Tivz8rVwcHFRVFZjDp0&hl=en&ei=38FJSr2pKpe7jAfu2rRi&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4

    Ancient Greek explorer Pytheas travelled 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.

    The worlds leading sea level expert Professor Morner has called the IPCC figures ‘a lie.’ Google ‘The greatest lie ever told’

    I had intended to cover historic sea levels as a companion to my ‘arctic ice variation through the ages’ series.

    We must stop looking at just a few years of data as ‘proof’ of rising levels especially as they have ‘stumbled’ since 2006, 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.

    Tonyb

  58. J.Hansford says:

    You left out the best one…. Residence time of CO2 in the Atmosphere… According to Prof. Ian Plimer, there is plenty of evidence that shows CO2 has a short residence time in the atmosphere…. Certainly less then the AGW proponents would like it to be.

    Here’s a link to a talk Prof. Plimer did recently. It’s about 40 mins, so grab a coffee and put yer feet up.

    http://www.thesydneyinstitutepodcast.com/2009/06/23/IanPlimerTheTheologyOfClimateChange.aspx

    Plimer is currently Professor of Mining Geology at the University of Adelaide and has written the book, ‘Heaven and Earth: The missing Science.’, for those who don’t know who he is.

  59. UK Sceptic says:

    Why does the MSM continue to gleefully force feed this AGW garbage to it’s international readership? Nothing sells newpapers better than disaster. If there was no disaster you’d have to invent it.

    Oh wait…

  60. Robert Dammers says:

    Surely “Physical Climate Science” is needed to distinguish between observational science and the running of over-stimulated video games.

  61. UK Sceptic says:

    Someone asked for a climate realist journo. The UK has one in the shape of Christopher Booker of the Daily Telegraph. He’s familiar to regular WUWT readers:

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/

    I’ve seen WUWT articles/links to other journos who do not swallow the AGW line.

    And then there are people like this who are also familiar to regular WUWT readers:

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/profile/georgemonbiot

    One journo quietly states his opinion and sticks (mostly) to facts while the other resorts to childish ad hominem attacks. Guess which one Her Maj’s government pay heed to…

  62. Tenuc says:

    Looks like we are going to get ever more ludicrous disaster claims from the IPCC AGW brigade. These people are becoming a joke as one prediction after another fails to happen.

    Did you hear the one about the newly-wed IPCC climate scientist who sat up all night on his honeymoon waiting for the predicted sexual relations to arrive?

    Perhaps we should use viral marketing to combat what the media are doing at the moment – just need some good jokes to put up on the web and to text around the world.

    Anyone got any good stuff???

  63. Jack Green says:

    I wonder if anyone has tried to estimate how much money worldwide is spent on study of the weather and climate? Just think how many people we could feed in Africa if we diverted half of it to food for the hungry.

  64. Molon Labe says:

    My current favorite trending chart: http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php

    Talk about “unprecedented”!

  65. Pierre Gosselin says:

    These scoundrels are nothing more than [snip] out to rob the working taxpayer – just my opinion. Snip it if you want.

    If a used car salesman says a car has got 100,000 miles knowing full well it has really got 150,000, then it makes him a swindler. Pure and simple.
    High time we start defending our property rights.

  66. kerryMcC says:

    Typo under item 2 comment “Their” instead of “there”

  67. Alan the Brit says:

    Have I spotted something others have missed? I am extremely impressed with the Copenhagen Congress Synthesis Report, you chaps & chapesses are getting hot under ther collar for nothing. “Synthesis”, has several meanings, from which the term “synthetic” is derived, one of which is,………..wait for it………..”artificial”. So perhaps they have been either dumber than I thought, or more clever than I thought.

    Another thing, isn’t this climate science so clever as to produce the desired result providing the desired conclusion at the desired time for the desired conference? Why can’t all science be this accurate & clever, the LHC crowd & the Space guys, & the Solar Cycle predicting chaps ought to take a leaf out of the climate science book & save a few bucks! Also, insn’t a conference supposed to involve an “exchange of views” as opposed to stating an opinion?

  68. Pierre Gosselin says:

    Molon Labe,
    I wouldn’t put too much stock in this small summer trend. We are only talking about a degree celsius summertime difference. Instead, look at the first and last 100 days of each year. Over the last 10 years the first 100 days and last 100 days have been on the warm side – especially when compared to earlier decades. From this I would surmise that there has been far less ice formation during the winter months during the current decade – when compared to earlier decades. That’s one reason why there was so much melt in 2007.
    It will be interesting to see what this temp curve does in September to November – 2009.

  69. Adam Soereg says:

    While I could absolutely agree with Dr. Pielke, all of us have to admit that a 3 year period is just too short for an acceptable trend analysis. At the moment we can’t be sure that the global sea level trend has been flattened recently, but no one can see the acceleration projected by the IPCC.

    See this graph about post-glacial see level rise, and this one from the last 60 years as measured by tide gauges. Nothing unusual, nothing unprecedented.

    Global sea level had been started to increase long time ago, at the end of the last ice age. Altough the rate of increase was slower in the last 10.000 years than before, it means an almost steady increase of about 15-20 cm in every 100 years. Current sea level is a few meters higher than thousands of years before, in ancient times. Along the Mediterranean coast, for example in Turkey or even in Croatia you can find some ancient ruins which are flooded by shallow seawater. Sea level has been increasing since Sumerians founded their first city states 5500 years ago… This fact is well-known among historians, but it remained unnoticed by most of the people in the world. Then the IPCC has come to life, and with it all the things have changed. Something really unprecedented happened: an attempt has been made to rewrite history, more exactly a part of our global history. The history of climate. Altering local historical events and misinforming people were quite common in totalitarian regimes, but it has never happened before (in pre-IPCC times) on a global level.

    One thing is clear: the members of the hockey team in Coppenhagen got it wrong again.

  70. Adam Gallon says:

    By heavens, it’s cold up north! Nice chart from our Spartan correspondant.
    I did put a reply in to one of the “Unreal Climate” threads, where the “Great Gavsby” (sic) noted he was a bit busy preparing computer models for the 2010 IPCC beanfeast, I cheekily wished him well in getting a model to reconcile the last 10 years of increasing CO2 combined with the last 10 years of no warming.
    A number of other replies noted the ARGO data showing no “hidden warmth” in the oceans, no response to that from the esteemed moderators.
    I’ve not seen any predictions of doom & gloom come from the Catlin lot either, maybe their measurements don’t support their predetermined results?

  71. Ron de Haan says:

    Why don’t we offer this posting to Rasmussen.
    It is short, to the point and effective.

    Politicians love that, unless they don’t like the content because it does not serve their agenda!

    So let’s finf the “honest” polticians.

  72. Ed H says:

    Yet another example of up is down and down is up. Fits right in with the way the AGWers would likely view the local weather in June here in NH this year. It’s been a cold June according to anyone you ask on the street. Lots of rain, no hot days. The recorded daily highs for Manchester NH averaged more than 5 degree F below average.

    But in AGW speak, we probably have had a warmer than normal June. Easy if you use the data to your advantage. With all the clouds the day/night temperature difference was only about 10 degrees F, with average low at night being about 7 degrees above average. So voila, this June that was more like late april was warmer than average, even though long sleeves and coats have many days continued to be the rule in a month that usually calls for short sleeves and frequent air conditioning.

  73. brazil84 says:

    I first saw one of these “it’s warming faster than expected” claims a year or two ago. Upon closer scrutiny, it turned out that the prediction was being made retrospectively. What I mean is this:

    The prediction was made in, say 2001. It predicted a rate of warming of X between 1979 and 2020. The actual rate of warming between 1979 and 2001 was higher than X. So even if temperatures are flat or declining between 2001 and 2008, the predictor can claim that temperatures having been rising faster than his prediction.

    Of course, you don’t have to be a scientist to see that this is a dishonest way of doing things.

    In any other discipline, such a prediction would be laughed at. For example, what if a stock market analyst predicted today that Microsoft stock will increase dramatically in price between 1981 and 2011?

    Anyway, my guess is that these Copenhagen predictions, as reported by RC, fall into the category of non-prediction predictions.

  74. Robert Wood says:

    erroneously communicating the reality

    A phrase worthy of a politician :-)

  75. Sam the Skeptic says:

    I read the IBD report and came to the quote:
    ‘As one climate activist group put it: … The strategy is to treat “climate-friendly activity as a brand that can be sold. This is the route to mass behavior change.” ‘
    I then spent some time trawling Google and I cannot find that statement attributed directly to any climate activist group though the skeptical blogs have picked it up and disseminated it in the last 24 hours.
    I’m afraid being a skeptic cuts both ways. Unless we know what “climate activist group” has actually used these words and we can challenge them directly on their plans for “mass behavior change” and their reasons and justifications for their own behavior then we are really just scratching each others backs while gazing at our own navels (if you’ll pardon the mixed metaphor!)
    I have learnt a lot of science since I started reading this blog and I thank all of you (Anthony especially) for that. But it is not the minutiae of the science that is going to convince the media to change tack or the people to rise up in revolt. It is the evidence that they are being delberately lied to and manipulated by …… by who?
    Here, it seems to me, was an ideal opportunity to blow the whistle on at least one of the eco-fascist groups and we’ve blown it, just as Demming persistently refuses to name the scientist who said to him “We must get rid of the Medieval Warm Period.”
    Time to put up or shut up, surely.

  76. Richard Steckis

    Thank you for your feedback. With respect to sea level, it is clear that i) over recent years, the sea level is not rising (“progressing”) faster than “was expected a few years ago”, and ii) since 2006 the rate of rise has even flattened. Over the last 100 years it has risen, but the Real Climate article indicates the sea level rise is accelerating. This is inaccurate and the observations are misrepresented by Real Climate.

  77. hunter says:

    Dr. Pielke is going to be the target for particularly high levels and low class of personal attacks from the AGW community. I hope he and the group of scientists who works with him are well prepared for what is coming.
    The fabric AGW is stretched so tightly that any tear in the basis of its fear mongering must be dealt with by attacking the ones who point out the flaw.
    AGW cannot sustain its level fear, which is the only strength of the movement, after the public in general perceives properly the actual credibility of what the AGW promotion industry is selling.
    As AGW falls apart, the level of hysterical claims and rhetoric, which the RC claims and Krugman’s shameful column are recent examples of, will only increase.

  78. hunter says:

    UK Skeptic,
    “If there was no disaster you’d have to invent it.”
    Nail. Hammer. Head.

  79. Wade says:

    An animal is most dangerous when it is cornered. When it is backed into a corner it has only one option left to survive, to fight.

    The climate change crowd has been backed into a corner but blog exposing the truth of the situation. Of course, for some, they are protecting their easy $money$. Others are trying to protect their influence. Still others are blind worshipers who cannot accept any reality contrary to what they believe. All are most dangerous now. The only thing they have left is to keep on keeping on and ramp up the rhetoric to save what they hold dear.

  80. Tommy says:

    I read that article on RC, and commented on those things….mostly I asked questions as to why they came to those conclusions when there was a lot of data, as far as I could tell, that indicated the opposite. Mostly I got lectured, referred to manuals on “how to talk to a skeptic”, etc., but no answers–until today!
    Most of the RC readers absolutely rely on that blog for their information. They’re a pretty smart bunch for the most part, you’ve got to back up what you say, and I’m no scientist, so if I get in too deep, I’m pretty easy to pick off, or at least overwhelm. And they moderate the dissenting opinions (me) so that those responding to you look like they’ve proven something, then they’ll insert your comment making it look irrelevant, or long since explained–I definitely felt like they were trying to slow me down.

  81. Jim says:

    The alarmists like to paint us “deniers” as paranoid. After all, how else but conspiracy could all these scientists and governments be saying global warming is man-induced and is bad if it really isn’t true? Actually, that is a good question. I see many factors that have contributed to the illusion.

    1.Hubris – some scientists really believe their models are better than the data.
    2.Monetary interest – I can get 20 million for my supercomputer project!
    3.Conflict of interest – some want to advance their environmental agenda.
    4.A combination of 2 and 3: The scientist works for a politically-driven government agency or gets the bulk of funding from the government and has to toe the line.

    Then there is just the sheer momentum of warmist propaganda in society at large, fed by the government and media. It truly sucks.

  82. Rob says:

    “Adam Soereg (03:37:06) :
    While I could absolutely agree with Dr. Pielke, all of us have to admit that a 3 year period is just too short for an acceptable trend analysis. At the moment we can’t be sure that the global sea level trend has been flattened recently, but no one can see the acceleration projected by the IPCC.

    See this graph about post-glacial see level rise, and this one from the last 60 years as measured by tide gauges. Nothing unusual, nothing unprecedented.”

    Using the graphs you provided, I calculate a delta SL of 1.67 mm/yr for the past ~30 yrs, 1.33 mm/yr for the 30 years before that, both of which are well above the 0.33 mm/yr for the past 6 kyr. Don’t those suggest accelerating sea level rise?

  83. Imran says:

    Does anyone know why the University of Colorado sea level data has not been updated since very early 2009 ?

  84. Jim says:

    Sam the Skeptic (04:28:42) :

    Here is the report. Don’t be too quick to judge the skeptic community. IBD should have given a reference.

    http://www.ippr.org.uk/pressreleases/?id=2240

  85. Dr. Pielke,

    Thankyou for your feedback. I thoroughly agree that the Real Climate people are misrepresenting sea level rise if they contend that it is accelerating (which it is not). I think this decline in the rate of sea level rise since 2006 fits well with Loehle’s data that shows ocean heat content has declined since 2003.

    http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/mscp/ene/2009/00000020/F0020001/art00008

  86. PaulM says:

    One of the most interesting things to come out of that RC thread is the discovery (comments 255, 363) by Jean S that Stefan Rahmstorf increased the length of the smoothing interval for fig 3 to get the required result (continued warming). But this was not acknowledged in the caption, something that Rahmstorf implausibly claims not to have noticed. See much discussion of fishiness at Lucia’s blackboard.

    Roger P did you notice that and what do you think?

    The irony is that some of the RC fanatics are now accusing Roger of cherry-picking (and worse)!

  87. OceanTwo says:

    Edit note: ‘There’ instead of “Their has been no statistically…”?

    But even so, as the AGWers grasp at straws – and the truth will set us free – it appears we are destined to enter financial destitution and government slavery before that will happen.

    It’s infuriating that science today is bastardized into voodoo psychology, specifically designed for political gain at the expense of the educated and hard-working populace.

    I’m reminded of the “Office Space” board game: spin a wheel and “jump” to a conclusion but with only one square. Sea levels rising? Man is to blame. Ice melting? Man did it. More hurricanes? Man again. Oceans heating up? Yup. Fundamentally, when questioning and asking for the reasons for this conclusion been drawn, it’s always an appeal to a higher authority (Someone at MIT said so). These are smart intelligent people who refuse to even look at the data – that they are fully capable of analyzing and understanding (excel, anybody?) – and see how that conclusion was made.

  88. hareynolds says:

    I am afraid that the battle is already lost.
    http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/01/opinion/01friedman.html?_r=1&hpw

    My prediction: the Left will expend all its remaining political capital to win this “war”, and we will get some weird, conviluted, perverted “Climate Bill”.
    This isn’t about Reality anymore, people, it’s hubris, plain and simple.

    Passage of the “Climate” Bill will be followed by several winters of increasing severity, and Carter-Era-like stagflation (exacerbated by food shortages and a declinging dollar). Within five years, “Climate” will be off the table, but the bureaucracy and taxation will remain. We are fixin’ to become a very large version of the UK in the 60′s and 70′s, and it likely won’t be fixed for a generation, or until we get our own version of the Iron Lady, Maggie Thatcher.

    I am urging my children to polish their language skills, add to their technical resumes (both are engineers), and keep their passports warm. The only folks who prosper in the next generation will be “internationalist” technocrats who can skim the cream whereever they light.

  89. Pierre Gosselin says:

    It’s the latest cultural indicator:
    Our politicians have progressed from being just simple liars, to being swindlers, and soon to be untouchable thieves and tyrants. Just an opinion.

  90. Arn Riewe says:

    Thank you Dr. Pielke for calling BS when you see it! RC picked a fight when the published this anti-scientific opinion. I can’t think other than they are badly discrediting themselves with anyone who can read a graph.

  91. smallz79 says:

    OT, but I was watching Glenn Beck on Fox he had a special guest, The Mr. Carlin of the EPA report that got suppressed.

  92. Michael D Smith says:

    Tenuc (02:43:08) :

    Anyone got any good stuff???

    Yeah – A Rap Video called “Don’t Cap me Bro”. Sung to the tune of…?
    The backstabber?
    Smiling faces?

    Each passage in the video can start with the average alarmist “sea level risin’”, then show a chart of sea level not rising, with a link to the correct webite shown…

    Polar bears dyin
    Sea level risin
    Temperatures risin’
    Sea acidifyin’

    End of each refrain is “Don’t Cap me Bro”

    So what is the tune, and what are the lyrics? We all know where to find the charts…

    That could go viral and I’ll do what I can, but I’m not much with video editing (or rapping)

  93. Vincent says:

    The ocean heat accumulation (or lack thereof) is a pivotal component of the argument. Roger Pielke’s link explains that there has been no accumulation, yet these end-of-the-worlders are claiming the exact opposite. For laypeople like myself, this all get’s confusing. Who’s right and why?

  94. dkemp says:

    At what point can the lawyers be brought in. Are we not being victimized? my wife would be pissed if I sent off some $$ to fight this nonsense but, I’m way passed being amused by all this.

  95. fredlightfoot says:

    Good one Fatbigot

  96. J. Bob says:

    There MUST be some mistake. The only REAL climate scientists (whatever that means) are at RC. All others are not qualified to speak (RC knows what’s best ). After all, RC treats all views with respect (as long as you have the right view).

  97. Robinson says:

    Thank you Dr. Pielke for calling BS when you see it! RC picked a fight when the published this anti-scientific opinion. I can’t think other than they are badly discrediting themselves with anyone who can read a graph.

    If you read their discussion, Schmidt is accusing PIelke of cherry picking:

    [Lying is too strong. “Careless” is reasonable and perhaps “over-eager in search of critique” is fair. But since there is still a strong significant positive trend in sea level over the period he selected, it does seem a little odd. And of course the trend from Jan 2008 is even more positive - one might ask him why that isn’t just as important as his cherry picked period? - gavin]

    Three things to note here: apparently cherry picking is bad, which means you’re probably better off throwing out a few thousand of the most recent `Climate Science’ papers that have been published. Secondly, it’s apparently ok to draw conclusions from very short term measurements (the familiar refrain on RealClimate, “you can’t draw any conclusions from 10 years of data”) seems to have been thrown out of the window) and (3) the increase in sea level is only relevant if its cause is an increasing amount of water, rather than other possible causes (of which I’m sure there are many).

    In any case, is it significant? The PDO hasn’t long been negative. I’m sure there’s quite some inertia in the system.

  98. Jimmy Haigh says:

    smallz79 (06:57:42) :

    OT, but I was watching Glenn Beck on Fox he had a special guest, The Mr. Carlin of the EPA report that got suppressed

    I never saw that but out here in Thailand I’ve just seen the tail end of a live interview on Fow with Megan Kelly and Bill Hemmer. They had a congressman on and he reckons they’ll get Dr Carlin to testify in the congress.

    We can hope that this snowball is gathering momentum…

  99. John Galt says:

    No crisis = no funding.

    ’nuff said

  100. Jim says:

    hareynolds (06:38:51) :
    That “all is lost” attitude will get you and more importantly – us – nowhere. You and we all have to fight this. Remind all those young people this guy talks about that their properity and freedom is being ripped from under them in the name of a bogus cause. Tell them to get on facebook and get in a warmists face! Get a million people to call on their representatives to NOT pass this travesty of all that is good – the global warming farce, enslave and suck-the-life-out-of-Amercia bill.

  101. mbabbitt says:

    When the truth is sacrificed so easily for wishes, desires, and imaginings (in this case. climate models), you know that as a society something has gone terribly wrong. I find it frightening that we no longer have even the semblance of a rigorous, challenging press (unless it is to undermine someone with an opposing opinion/policy to the left-leaning elitist consensus). When you are already that unhinged from reality (and proud of it) , it’s only a matter of time before greater delusions are accepted as fact. That can only lead to a great deal of human suffering. History is replete with such examples. Unfortunately, we are in for another round unless those in the scientific community who believe otherwise and yet are keeping quiet for the sake of their careers get some guts and perform some serious informational correction.

  102. J. D. Lindskog says:

    As long as we are descussing sience fiction, what are the possibilities that enhanced cosmic radiation diminishes the ablity for rational thought in humans? The historical incidence of armed conflict seems to increase during periods of reduced solar activity.

    OK… yes I’m having trouble keeping a strait face but, what the heck.

  103. Grumbler says:

    Sam the Skeptic (04:28:42) :
    “just scratching each others backs while gazing at our own navels (if you’ll pardon the mixed metaphor!)”

    Just to point out Sam that you have NOT mixed metaphors. Both same [body parts]

    I may be on a ‘sticky wicket’ but errors like this ‘make me boil’! [which IS a mixed metaphor] :-)

    cheers David

  104. Douglas DC says:

    “J. D. Lindskog (07:48:38) :

    As long as we are discussing science fiction, what are the possibilities that enhanced cosmic radiation diminishes the ability for rational thought in humans? The historical incidence of armed conflict seems to increase during periods of reduced solar activity.”

    May also have something to do with crop failure and starvation._But given the current
    AGW hysteria-you may be on to something.Put a cloud chamber in say,a congressperson’s office and do a GCN count and the ratio of Irrational decisions…

  105. Flanagan (00:00:25) :

    [snip]

    I mean, even considering such short trends as 3 years, the sea level by Boulder ARE increasing since 2006: writing a big fat FLAT won’t change the slope of the linear regression. Moreover, what the report says is that sea levels are increasing faster than predicted: please take a look at Fig. 1 in the report
    [...]

    The statement on “increasing” Arctic sea ice is so incredible it doesn’t even deserve further comments… The trend speaks for itself

    Linear regressions are about as useful as “bubkes” when they are applied to non-linear functions…

    “Having a 30-year trend is probably better than not having one, but bear in mind that a linear trend can’t show accelerating changes, nor oscillations longer than the trend period.”

    –Wood For Trees

    A linear regression of an incomplete SIN wave will have a very steep slope and be totally meaningless…SIN wave

    As would a linear regression through any warming or cooling sequence on any of these charts.

    If I drew a linear regression from the start of the maximum phase wavelet in Fig. 2-15 to the green arrow just past the second peak, I’d get a very steep and very meaningless upward secular trend for an oscillating function.

    The “short trend” from the second peak of the maximum phase wavelet above is far more relevant to understanding the function of the wavelet than the linear regression could ever be.

  106. smallz79 says:

    Jim (07:35:12) :

    hareynolds (06:38:51) :
    That “all is lost” attitude will get you and more importantly – us – nowhere. You and we all have to fight this. Remind all those young people this guy talks about that their properity and freedom is being ripped from under them in the name of a bogus cause. Tell them to get on facebook and get in a warmists face! Get a million people to call on their representatives to NOT pass this travesty of all that is good – the global warming farce, enslave and suck-the-life-out-of-Amercia bill.

    I posted the Cap and trade being passed in the house with all the “highlights” government controls and agencies that will be put in place just to regulate your housing requirements (The what, when, and how to’s they will enforce upon us) all the while making the cost of electricity and the cost of owning/selling a home sky rocket therefore dictating your profits from the sell of a home. I even put a challenge on there “What were you doing while this bill passed in the house?” “What will you do to keep it from passing in the Senate?”. Did any of my over 1 hundred friends and friends of friends reply or post anything in response? No, instead they continued talking about what their plans for the weekend were, complaining about work, Ohh and this is the best one complaining about there bills!!! I could not believe it. Most of all my friends are conservatives, this day in age it seems people are more concerned about not being concerned.??????….

  107. Mr Lynn says:

    On the one hand we have,

    Wade (05:41:37) :
    An animal is most dangerous when it is cornered. When it is backed into a corner it has only one option left to survive, to fight.

    The climate change crowd has been backed into a corner but blog exposing the truth of the situation. Of course, for some, they are protecting their easy $money$. Others are trying to protect their influence. Still others are blind worshipers who cannot accept any reality contrary to what they believe. All are most dangerous now. The only thing they have left is to keep on keeping on and ramp up the rhetoric to save what they hold dear.

    On the other,

    hareynolds (06:38:51) :
    I am afraid that the battle is already lost.
    http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/01/opinion/01friedman.html?_r=1&hpw

    My prediction: the Left will expend all its remaining political capital to win this “war”, and we will get some weird, convoluted, perverted “Climate Bill”.
    This isn’t about Reality anymore, people, it’s hubris, plain and simple. . .

    While I hope that Wade is right, and the Alarmists are cornered rats desperately fighting to survive, reading the Tom Friedman column that Hareynolds links, with its uncritical assumptions about “the reality and urgency of climate change,” leaves me pessimistic.

    “The reality and urgency of climate change” is the operating mantra of almost all the political, governmental, scientific, and media establishments of the Western world. It is an unquestioned truth, on the order of “the sky is blue,” or “pollution is bad.” One has only to look at the conference report that Flanagan linked, “CLIMATE CHANGE: Global Risks, Challenges, and Decisions,” to get an idea of how deeply the ideological belief in “the reality and urgency of climate change” has permeated, and how much money and institutional impetus it has generated.

    Glancing over this snazzy, expensive report, nowhere did I see even a hint that any of the assumptions, predictions, conclusions, or speculations of the IPCC about ‘climate change’ might be questioned; nowhere was there any suggestion that the data might be faulty or the analyses off the mark.

    The President of the United States, and all of his ‘science’ advisors are ardent adherents of the belief that anthropogenic CO2 is causing the Earth to warm, with catastrophic consequences likely unless we stop producing ‘carbon’. The Congress goes along, for the most part in blithe ignorance.

    The media, evidenced by columnists like Friedman and Krugman, simply repeat the party line, and brook no contrary views. While Fox News and publications like the IBD have been spilling a few ‘skeptical’ beans, they are distinctly on the margins.

    As long as the financial and institutional impetus for ‘climate change’ goes unchecked, there won’t be much that underfunded and scattered realists can do to stop it. The Alarmists aren’t cornered at all; they are scampering all over the kitchen in broad daylight, raiding the fridge and the pantry, totally ignoring any suggestion that their cause is foolish and ill-founded.

    The only way to stop them is to educate the public at large, and those in the Congresses and Parliaments who will listen, to pull the financial plug. Once the public starts to complain about spending billions to combat a mythical ‘climate change’, and once they start to vote the spenders out, we might have a chance. Take away some of that grant money that sends smug academics to conferences in Copenhagen to hobnob with other ‘climate change’ elites, and they’ll change their tunes pretty quickly.

    /Mr Lynn

  108. Flanagan says:

    Dave: ever heard of over-determination of time series?

  109. John H says:

    Gavin Schmidt’s approach to comments has been so egregious that he has actually edited my comments in addition to blocking some. He’s manipulated entire discussions in doing so. After team responses posted questions and criticism of my comments Gavin disallowed my replies. Then the team declared that I had lost the points and left in fear of being further “embarrassed”.

    I am very experienced in blogging and Gavin is the absolute worst offender of hosts manipulating discussions and content.
    Add to this reality that Gavin et al view their approach as justified their integrity is is as lacking as their science.

    [snip]

    [snip]

    How does our government get so distorted that it insulates from consequences a Gavin et al behavior?

    REPLY: Save screencaps of these things, before and after. – Anthony

    REPLY2:I missed this the first time around. As I’ve said in several recent threads, please don’t use the word “fraud” as it has not been proven. Continued use of that term will get you a time out or a ban. – Anthony

  110. Bill Illis says:

    I had a look at last year’s NSIDC chart from this time of year and discovered they have increased the 1979-2000 sea ice average line (it shouldn’t have changed – the 1979 to 2000 data is 8 years old and the 2007 line has not been changed).

    They did switch to a new f17 sensor from the f13 sensor but at the time they said it produced data that was very, very close to the previous dataset. The chart they produced shows no visible change between the two satellites for the data from May 2008 to May 2009. So, why would that have visibly increased the 1979 – 2000 average.

    http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/2009/060209.html

    Here are the two charts – open them both in a new Tab and click back and forth to see what I mean. There is no change in the X or Y axis scaling. Anyone want to make a blink comparator / animated GIF.

    Last year’s chart.

    http://nsidc.org/images/arcticseaicenews/200807_Figure2.png

    This year’s chart.

    http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_timeseries.png

  111. Mark T says:

    Flanagan (08:08:56) :

    Dave: ever heard of over-determination of time series?

    The phrase “over determined” refers to a linear system that has more equations than unknowns. Therefore, the “over-determination of time series” that you mention in reference to Dave’s comment is, well, idiocy. I’m not sure how that applies to what Dave is talking about even if I allow your tortured use of the phrase.

    Dave’s point about using linear regressions to model non-linear systems is correct. More importantly, any system that is non-stationary with a true state that has time variable slope cannot be accurately modeled by a linear regression, period. Dave’s sinewave example is a perfect illustration of this.

    Mark

  112. P Walker says:

    hareynolds ,
    Did you read the comments following the piece ? They were largely negative – at least the first several . This surprised me , coming from readers of the NYT . I’m beginning to think the tide might actually be turning .

  113. Jim says:

    smallz79 (08:02:20) : and Mr. Lynn:

    It does not matter that no one seemed to pay attention or that the media are taking sides. The fight is still worth the effort. With an attitude like “why fight it, the battle is over,” you might as well just go over to the warmist side becuase you are helping them win!!

  114. smallz79 says:

    Jim (08:33:05) :

    smallz79 (08:02:20) : and Mr. Lynn:

    It does not matter that no one seemed to pay attention or that the media are taking sides. The fight is still worth the effort. With an attitude like “why fight it, the battle is over,” you might as well just go over to the warmist side becuase you are helping them win!!

    I did not say I was giving up. I just can not believe that no body is saying anything, and I am talking about those people that I grew up with and that raised me. I know they believe and feel the same way I do, but why not let me know they are on board. I would like to share my burden, which happens to be everyones especially if it passes the senate, so that I can get a decent nights sleep. Not to hard of a request I think. However, I am not in any way discouraged. I will keep fighting this Freedom Breaker Tax for as long as it takes.

  115. Flanagan (08:08:56) :

    Dave: ever heard of over-determination of time series?

    I don’t see how overdetermined would apply to my example. Are you referring to statistical overfitting? Even then, I don’t see how it applies.

    If you have a high frequency signal embedded in a low frequency carrier wave…A linear regression through a segment of the high frequency signal won’t tell you very much about the amplitude and frequency of the carrier wave. If your linear regression captures less than one full cycle of the carrier wave it will give you a very false impression of a secular trend.

  116. Andrew says:

    jim,

    “The fight is still worth the effort.”

    I wholeheartedly agree. What better way to spend your time than engaged in discovering and exposing the truth of a matter? I mean, that’s what science is. Anyone scientifically minded knows this. No one ever said or should pretend science is always easy and the day’s work is just too much. A scientist will always continue his pursuit despite the obstacles. Obviously, we have quite a few obstacles in our path. The scientist puts his brain to work, and learns how to get around or over or under them. (or blow them up! ;) )

    Andrew

  117. Sam the Skeptic says:

    Jim (06:32:31)
    Thanks for that link.
    I assure you I am a fully paid-up skeptic and almost always have been. It is becoming increasingly frustrating to see the climate alarmists trotting out ever more spurious statistics while “climate activists” are allowed to pursue their agenda apparently without being held to account.
    I know the media have been taken in by all this rubbish (with a few honourable exceptions) but this has to be almost the only major subject in the world where the media do not cast their own skeptical eye over the pronouncements of vested-interest pressure groups. I can understand their taking the science at face value but not the sort of totalitarian tripe that the IPPR is putting out.

  118. dot forward says:

    Seems to me they just admitted their climate models are worthless.

  119. smallz79 says:

    John H (08:09:56) :

    Gavin Schmidt’s approach to comments has been so egregious that he has actually edited my comments in addition to blocking some. He’s manipulated entire discussions in doing so. After team responses posted questions and criticism of my comments Gavin disallowed my replies. Then the team declared that I had lost the points and left in fear of being further “embarrassed”.

    I am very experienced in blogging and Gavin is the absolute worst offender of hosts manipulating discussions and content.
    Add to this reality that Gavin et al view their approach as justified their integrity is is as lacking as their science.

    [ snip ]

    This should not be allowed in any government arena. There is something very wrong that Gavin can so easily perpetrate his assault on the truth and use his position to defraud public officials and the taxpaying public at large.

    How does our government get so distorted that it insulates from consequences a Gavin et al behavior?

    REPLY: Save screencaps of these things, before and after. – Anthony

    YEah the same thing happens to me anytime I post on “The Denial crock of the week” on U-tube run by a person named greenman that is a good buddy of gavin scmidt. They hound me and other poster for references I basically cut and past them they never get posted. Then they attack me and others for not posting references. It is pure rubbish and down right un becomming of any mature and supposedly upright “learned” peoples. Unlike this site that allows and in fact welcomes any persons view so long as they keep it clean and do not personally be little people.

  120. Dr Reese says:

    While some folks continue to argue about how many angles are dancing on the head of a pin — bees are dying, pollen is sterile and our agriculture system is big-time ailing. Are we not able to move forward and solve real problems instead of finger pointing?
    Dr Reese
    http://DrReese.wordpress.com

  121. smallz79 says:

    How do create a “fan of” link on Face Book? Better yet how do I creat a Layout on Face Book or default??? something that wil automatically show every time I create a comment or somebody looks at my profile?

    REPLY: I don’t know and I don’t care, Facebook isn’t something we discuss here. – Anthony

  122. Jim says:

    But don’t let Inhofe’s comments stop you from telling everyone you know the truth about “climate change” !!!

  123. Mark T says:

    Dave Middleton (09:30:07) :

    I don’t see how overdetermined would apply to my example. Are you referring to statistical overfitting? Even then, I don’t see how it applies.

    What he is likely referring to is an over sampled time series. This sort of lack of knowledge of proper terminology is not uncommon among Wiki-experts. I’m guessing he’s making some sort of strained assertion that if a sinewave is critically sampled (sampled at exactly twice the frequency), there is no issue with the trend as you highlighted. He’d be wrong, of course, and it is not hard to construct plots that would show why. It gets even stickier when the data has bandwidth greater than zero, the entire bandwidth is oversampled (assuming there is no aliasing). One could make an argument that the highest frequency could be critically sampled, but a single sinusoid has zero bandwidth so the entire bandwidth is still over sampled.

    Either way, his point is immaterial.

    Mark

  124. Mark T says:

    Dr Reese (10:03:14) :

    Are we not able to move forward and solve real problems instead of finger pointing?

    If the extremely oppressive solutions to the faux climate change mess are implemented, we won’t even be able to point fingers, let alone solve real problems.

    Mark

  125. Henry chance says:

    “are progressing faster than was expected”

    Yes dot forward. If their models were reliable, this would not have happened.
    Admitting models are worthless is obvious.

    time to adjust the data to fit the models.

  126. Phil. says:

    smallz79 (10:01:19) :
    In total Gavin is indeed committing fraud while on the government payroll.

    Doesn’t your sensitivity to anonymous accusations extend to accusations of fraud? If not why not?

    REPLY: It does, and the comment is deleted, thanks for pointing it out. I missed it. Feel free to point out any that I may have missed. I’ll continue to point out that accusations of legal wrongdoing, fraud, plagiarism, etc really have n place coming from anonymous cowards.

    If you want to make such accusations here – put your name on it. Otherwise it will be deleted. Phil. gets held to a higher stamd than most because as an academic you should know better than average Joe. Feel free to be upset about that. – Anthony

  127. Benjamin P. says:

    Sea level rise looks flat from 1998 to 2000 as well…

    As for sea ice does anyone care about thickness?

    Ben

  128. MattN says:

    “Here’s another nail in the AGW coffin: ”

    It’s getting hard to find the room for any more nails….

  129. Benjamin P. says:

    and on a second look…sea level rise was ‘flat’ from 93 to 96 too.

    Really, you can find a lot of “flat” times when you look at just 2-3 year segments.

  130. Jim says:

    Dr Reese (10:03:14) :
    It is normal for species to come and go. That does not mean I want dirty air or water, I do. I don’t want to wipe out species, within reason. We have to realize there are some things beyond our control and even for some things that are, we might make a choice to lose a species here or there. But often, when we think we’ve wiped one out, we find it’s somewhere else.

    Species are but ripples upon the pond of DNA. (The DNA’s the thing!)

  131. smallz79 says:

    I wrote to two senators of Florida telling them not to vate for the Cap and Trade bill, they both replied with an explanation of why they are voting “Yes”. Are they dumb, they are basically saying in thier replies they do not care what the voters think. Instead, they insist this is the best action to take. I have written to them a second time warning them of the consequences they are so desparately ignoring. Florida will have all new Senators come election day. I can not wait.

  132. Mr Lynn says:

    <blockquote.Jim (08:33:05) :
    smallz79 (08:02:20) : and Mr. Lynn:

    It does not matter that no one seemed to pay attention or that the media are taking sides. The fight is still worth the effort. With an attitude like “why fight it, the battle is over,” you might as well just go over to the warmist side becuase you are helping them win!!

    I did not say climate realists should give up.

    What I said was: “The only way to stop them is to educate the public at large, and those in the Congresses and Parliaments who will listen, to pull the financial plug. Once the public starts to complain about spending billions to combat a mythical ‘climate change’, and once they start to vote the spenders out, we might have a chance. . .”

    In other words, it’s going to take education, lots of it. The message has to be taken to the schools, the colleges, the press, and the legislatures: “There is no ‘global warming’. The climate always changes, naturally. CO2 is not a problem. CO2 is good for plants, good for the Earth, and good for you.”

    /Mr Lynn

  133. Mr Lynn says:

    Dang! Messed up the quote. If you can’t figure it out, the first paragraph is Jim’s. Maybe if we contribute more to Anthony, he could upgrade to editable comments. . . /Mr L

  134. Adam Soereg says:

    Rob (06:23:59) :

    Using the graphs you provided, I calculate a delta SL of 1.67 mm/yr for the past ~30 yrs, 1.33 mm/yr for the 30 years before that, both of which are well above the 0.33 mm/yr for the past 6 kyr. Don’t those suggest accelerating sea level rise?

    Global sea level according to tide gauges: http://www.worldclimatereport.com/wp-images/sea_level_update_fig2.JPG

    Maybe it is my fault, but I can’t see any acceleration here. Between 1950 and 1980, the amount of increase was about 45mm. This chart ends in 2008, but anyone can easily extrapolate it for the remaining 2 years to 2010. We will get the very same amount of sea level rise (45mm) for the second 30-year period.

    Firstly, I have to ask again: where is the recent acceleration? The word ‘recent’ is very important here, because even the IPCC admit that any temperature increase (or in this case sea level rise) before 1950 must have been caused by natural variation. Only a recent acceleration can be used as ‘supporting evidence’ for the AGW theory, and it would be only an evidence of warming, nothing about its origin.

    Secondly, the global sea level chart for the last 60 years uses instrumental (tide gauge) data, while the another one which you mentioned is a reconstruction entirely relying on sea level proxies. The two data sets are inconsistent, and comparing a 6000 year trend to a 30 year one doesn’t make much sense. RAW data from proxies contain a huge amount of noise in almost all cases. The resulting graph is a severely smoothed one, which can’t show the magnitude of short-term variations in the past.

    Finally, the rate of sea level increase in the past 6000 years is quite uncertain. Independent studies show an amount of increase between 4 and 10 meters, and I’m sure that each of them has a wide margin of error.
    This chart compares different sea level reconstructions: http://geology.uprm.edu/Morelock/3_image/holsm.gif

  135. Phil. says:

    REPLY: It does, and the comment is deleted, thanks for pointing it out. I missed it. Feel free to point out any that I may have missed.

    I will, also it doesn’t do much good if you delete the original but leave the quote in my complaint.

    You missed it this time too.

    John H (08:09:56) :

    REPLY: Save screencaps of these things, before and after. – Anthony

  136. Ecotretas says:

    It makes me wonder why there is no data for the last 6 months. The data goes down in the beginning of every year, and all the snow still unmelted this year on land…
    Might it be an inconvenient truth?
    Ecotretas

  137. Roger Sowell says:

    Sea level has some surprises, as these measurements from Hilo, Hawaii show:

    http://energyguysmusings.blogspot.com/2009/05/sea-level-surprises-at-hilo.html

  138. TonyB says:

    Dr Reese

    I enjoy your blog and share your concern about bees.

    Anthony likes to use articles that interest him-they don’t have to be about AGW-as you rightly say there are far more important things to worry about and I would put the slow demise of the bees to be right up there.

    If you have an article on Bees that might be of interest here why not let Anthony know by mentioning it in ‘tips and notes to WUWT’ at the top of this blog.

    Good luck.

    tonyb

  139. jeez says:

    Phil.

    Since a few on the moderation team, including Anthony himself have been subject to Gavin et al’s selective censorship and post editing, I think you’ll find there may be a bit of tolerance for those who also report it. In fact, calling RC’s moderation team petty, childish, and intellectually dishonest is being polite. You may not see it as having not been subject to it.

    Perhaps accusations of “fraud” may be out of line since they rise to legal levels.

    jeez aka charles the moderator.

  140. P-Dog says:

    Yeah,

    If you just ignore all the other data for sea levels before 2006, it’s all flat! No warming in the upper oceans since 2003… just forget all the previous years and studies. Anomalies have decreased in the last year!… just pay no attention to all the previous years.

    Pielke’s analysis is absolutely bullet proof, except for bullets that is. Just ignore that part.

    [snip] are a joke.

  141. kurt says:

    Anthony snipped the fraud comment out of the wrong post. Phil was simply referencing an original comment by John H (08:09:56) and quoted by smallz79 (10:01:19). The latter post was edited but not the former.

  142. TJA says:

    Re: Marxist Wacky: I am thinking of driving around taking pictures of businesses around here that depend on tourists who pull their boats behind large SUVs and send them to my senators. I can’t imagine what they are thinking. People who like to sail are already sailing. It is way cheaper already. People who like to kayak are young and don’t spend the same money in restaurants and tackle shops. This place will become a ghost town and lower income people will suffer the most as their properties become worthless, and they have no funds to leave.

  143. Dennis Wingo says:

    HEY ANTHONY

    A poster above, (maksimovich)

    http://www.ocean-sci.net/5/193/2009/os-5-193-2009.pdf

    This is the nail in the ocean level rise coffin. The graph above needs to be redone to properly correspond to this data.

    There needs to be an entire article on this paper. It is great.

  144. Reed Coray says:

    AGW alarmist logic:

    (a) We have models that predict the average global temperature rise resulting from anthropogenic release of CO2 into the atmosphere.

    (b) Average global temperature is rising faster than our models predicted.

    (c) OK, our models are obviously incorrect, but don’t let that stop you from buying our product.

    These guys should be selling lightening rods, or gas masks to prevent cyanide poisoning when the earth passes through the tail of Halley’s comet, or “Pet Rocks”, or some other bull****.

    Reed Coray

  145. Dr Reese says:

    Thanks Tony. Book is out 30 Sept and as we get closer I will release a couple articles. Cheers!!! Dr Reese

  146. smallz79(Brandon Sheffield) says:

    There my name is now known, I was just using my nickname with my birth year at the end…
    Relax people.

    REPLY: Welcome to the light. – Anthony

  147. Ozzie John says:

    I notice that Gavin has posted “More Bubkes” on his site in response to Roger Pielke Sr’s response.

    When will this end ? How much more Bubkes (Goat dropping) must the world endure from RC ?

    If Gavin keeps this up he will become known as Gavin “Goat-Schmidt”

  148. Brendan H says:

    Terry: “Have the predictions matched the observations?”

    As noted in the article above, the quote from Real Climate includes the comment: “Some aspects of climate change are progressing faster than was expected a few years ago…”

    This comment is in reference to the Synthesis Report of the Copenhagen Congress, which shows that observations of some metrics, including sea levels, have progressed faster than model projections.

    http://www.pik-potsdam.de/news/press-releases/files/synthesis-report-web.pdf

    Where Roger Pielke is mistaken is in assuming that Real Climate is referring to the past few years, when they, and the Synthesis Report, are referring to longer periods. Hence, Real Climate has more accurately portrayed the contents of the report than has Pielke.

  149. DaveH says:

    The link I use for sea level rise is from Colorado but only has one new record in 2009. Is there a more current source anyone can suggest?

    I use…
    http://sealevel.colorado.edu/current/sl_noib_ns_global.txt

    Thanks for any help.

  150. Jim says:

    Brendan H (04:07:51) : Anyone is welcomed to correct me if I’m wrong, but it seems Roger Pielke and the Copenhagen report authors might be talking past each other. The CR authors are comparing a long term trend to model predictions. Roger Pielke is pointing out that in the last few years, some climate metrics have “levelled” off. The CR people claim that the last few years is too short a period to be relied upon as a trend.

    I would have to side with Roger Pielke since the RC people have not posited a cause for metrics like temperature, sea level, and sea ice extent to level off or even change direction. If their models are correct, where do we see them reflecting this change, even if just a matter of a few, or 10, years.

  151. Bill Illis says:

    Earlier in the thread I noted the NSIDC has changed the 1979-2000 average sea ice extent line in their most recent chart verses last year’s version.

    A poster named foxfire on another board built a blink comparator animated GIF of the change and I guess the difference is less than I originally thought and it could be explained by the switch from the F13 satellite to the F17 satellite.

    http://i40.tinypic.com/1zqgie9.gif

  152. John H says:

    Of course I get the concept of limiting the making of charges, BUT
    Part of this thread demonstrates a big part of the problem.
    It has come to be that an accurate description of what Gavin and the Team are doing is out of line. How convenient for the perpetrators.
    So a softer imaginary substitute must be used to convey what is happening.
    IMO the egregious behavior of Gavin et al demands an agressive counter attack with an accurate portrayal of their “work”.

    The severity of the Team’s lack of integrity knows no bounds. As we approach the adoption and implementation of horrific public policies we are told to behave as if the policies are civil and the accurate criticizing lables are misbehavior?
    IMO we need only stop short of violence in stopping the Team’s assualt on our citizenry, economy and country.
    In effect we are in a civil war with only the AGW side fully engaged.

  153. Indiana Bones says:

    Tenuc (02:43:08) :

    “They’ve discovered gold in hell… or how the lie of global warming became the most powerful political force in human history,” June 23, 2009

    http://anhonestclimatedebate.wordpress.com/category/humour/

    mod. clip if too OT

  154. J. Bob says:

    John H. – I got the same treatment this week at RC. Seems my posts on using Fourier convolution to long term data was a bit much for them. That’s OK, I have more time to write our 2 Senators.

  155. FatBigot says:

    “When will this end ? How much more Bubkes (Goat dropping) must the world endure from RC ?
    If Gavin keeps this up he will become known as Gavin “Goat-Schmidt””

    Possibly omitting the “m”.

  156. kim says:

    You know, Anthony, they want to try us ‘anonymous cowards’ for treason against the planet. I’ve spent a lot of time on adversarial boards, and I’ve been subjected to enough threats that I cheerfully don the ‘anonymous coward’ label.

    Here’s lookin’ at you, Oh Brave Soul.
    ======================

  157. Phil. says:

    I have extended Pielke’s analysis to the full period, it’s amazing how while most of the period was ‘Flat’ the sea level still managed to grow by ~50mm.

    http://i302.photobucket.com/albums/nn107/Sprintstar400/pielke_slr.gif

    REPLY: ah more snark from Princeton’s leading intellectual coward. Can’t meet Pielke on equal terms eh? – Anthony

  158. HiHo says:

    Phil, that’s a good point: it is hard to demonstrate a trend in a small subset of the total data se, simply because noise will overwhelm signal.

    But on the same line of thinking, it makes it hard to say that the rate in seal level rise is INCREASING though, doesn’t it? Hm?

  159. timetochooseagain says:

    Phil. (13:04:35) : It looks like the latest is the most prolonged such period…and it certainly seems, er, interesting that sea level doesn’t so much rise steadily as “jump” suddenly now and then….

  160. Phil. says:

    Phil. (13:04:35) :
    I have extended Pielke’s analysis to the full period, it’s amazing how while most of the period was ‘Flat’ the sea level still managed to grow by ~50mm.

    http://i302.photobucket.com/albums/nn107/Sprintstar400/pielke_slr.gif

    REPLY: ah more snark from Princeton’s leading intellectual coward. Can’t meet Pielke on equal terms eh? – Anthony

    Not that difficult based on that graph! Not exactly snark showing the weakness of his point, of course Pielke snr doesn’t allow comments on his blog, how would you characterize that?

    By the way when are you going to keep your word and eliminate the accusations of fraud that I complained about. When I made an assertion of plagiarism you snipped it immediately and banned me for a day. The statement I complained about is still present and the poster wasn’t banned for a day. We even have a post from one of the moderators saying that they don’t take accusations against RC seriously!

    jeez (15:25:07) :
    Phil.

    Since a few on the moderation team, including Anthony himself have been subject to Gavin et al’s selective censorship and post editing, I think you’ll find there may be a bit of tolerance for those who also report it.

    REPLY: I edited the comment when you mentioned it last, unless there’s another one you are are speaking of? Happy to delete it if you’ll point out. Point out any comments that I and moderators have missed.

    As I’ve said before, you get held to a higher standard as an academic than just the average Joe spouting off. The type of behavior you exhibit here would not be tolerated in scientific journals, departmental reviews, seminars, etc. If you want to accuse another person of similar stature in the scientific and professional community of plagiasim, I expect you to put your name on it, just as your department head would. Plagiarism in professional circles is a serious charge and I won’t let you make it here without putting your name to it.

    This blog is by no means perfect, and by virtue of the volume of comments I don’t get to inspect every single one so occasionally some slip through. Compared to many other blogs WUWT is fairly free of such stuff. Witness Climate Progress for example where comments such as “strangling skeptics in their beds” and one from dhoghaza about “trying out sarin gas experiments” on oneself get though regularly.

    Those kind of people get the boot here. That includes both sides of the aisle. I’ve had a few on the WUWT side that have been booted, for example Adolpha Giurfa who was warned more than once to stop using the Nazi comparisons. He persisted, he’s gone now. There are some others that are skeptics that are no longer welcome. You probably don’t note those since they don’t concern you. I often send a direct email saying “sayonara” which you aren’t privy too.

    You’ve gotten two warnings from me now not to charge professionals with damaging accusations without putting your name on it. There won’t be a third. You often have insightful comments, try to keep that up and lose the dark side.

    If the policies here don’ suit you, then don’t visit.

    - Anthony

  161. jeez says:

    Phil.

    It’s not that we don’t take accusations against RC seriously, it’s that we have personally experienced that they have credibility.

    If person x lies to me, then person y tells me x lied to them as well, I am inclined to believe person y’s description of the event.

    Your point is?

  162. jeez says:

    And by the way, not one of the regions you defined as flat in your attempt to contradict Pielke appear to be actually be flat.

  163. Phil. says:

    jeez (13:55:48) :
    Phil.

    It’s not that we don’t take accusations against RC seriously, it’s that we have personally experienced that they have credibility.

    If person x lies to me, then person y tells me x lied to them as well, I am inclined to believe person y’s description of the event.

    Your point is?

    That accusations of fraud and plagiarism on here are treated differently depending on who is being accused and despite Anthony’s promise to me that the posts accusing fraud would be dealt with, 24 hours later they’re still here. My recent post addressing this, which you’ve obviously seen based on your comment has mysteriously disappeared.

  164. Phil. says:

    jeez (14:05:39) :
    And by the way, not one of the regions you defined as flat in your attempt to contradict Pielke appear to be actually be flat.

    Neither was the one chosen by Pielke, that’s the point, they are certainly comparable with his choice. He chose the ‘statistic’ not I. It amounts to saying that a staircase is flat because the treads are all flat!

  165. Joel Shore says:

    HiHo:

    Phil, that’s a good point: it is hard to demonstrate a trend in a small subset of the total data se, simply because noise will overwhelm signal.

    But on the same line of thinking, it makes it hard to say that the rate in seal level rise is INCREASING though, doesn’t it? Hm?

    It doesn’t make it at all difficult if you look over a long enough period. If you look over too short a period where the noise overwhelms the signal, then yes, it makes it difficult. However, there is a very simple solution to this: Don’t look over too short a period! That is one of the major points re-iterated over and over again in the latest RealClimate post responding to Roger Pielke Sr.: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=692

  166. charles the moderator says:

    Phil.

    I haven’t followed all the back and forth between you and Anthony on all this.

    I’ve stated my opinions on the subject, that is all.

    I’m leaving your latest post embargoed until Anthony decides what to do.

  167. Phil. says:

    REPLY: I edited the comment when you mentioned it last, unless there’s another one you are are speaking of? Happy to delete it if you’ll point out. Point out any comments that I and moderators have missed.

    I pointed it out yesterday and it’s still there, including your comment to the originator(John H (08:09:56)) a few lines below encouraging him to keep screen shots, how you missed it I don’t know? I also pointed out yesterday that it’s rather pointless my pointing out an accusation if you leave my report of it on the board! Does he get a 24hr time out?

    REPLY: Yes I sure did miss that, I was focusing on my reply. Fixed now. You got a 24 hour time out because you’ve been warned before. Again if you don’t like the policies here, nobody is forcing you to keep posting comments. – Anthony

  168. TonyB says:

    Joel 14 26 23

    I agree with you that we should not look at short term sea level records.

    Way back on 01 30 44 I posted up a pile of links showing sea levels back to the MWP. Levels rise and fall and currently they are doing very little-certainly not enough to warrant scaring everyone to death.

    I also think that because of the complexity of taking sea level measurements the idea of a single global one is as bizarre as a single global temperature. It would help everyone if the satellites were more accurate than they currently are.

    Tonyb

  169. M. Simon says:

    It would help everyone if the satellites were more accurate than they currently are.

    3 cm out of some 200,000,000,000 is not too shabby. If you believe it.

  170. Brendan H says:

    Jim: “…it seems Roger Pielke and the Copenhagen report authors might be talking past each other.”

    That might be the case if Pielke had not referred to the Synthesis Report of the Copenhagen Congress and quoted RC: “So what does it say?” The “it” in this case obviously refers to the report, which contains the claim that observations have outstripped projections for some aspects of climate.

    As for the “few years”, the reference is to the fourth IPCC report.

    “I would have to side with Roger Pielke since the RC people have not posited a cause for metrics like temperature, sea level, and sea ice extent to level off or even change direction.”

    But that’s not the issue. The issue is the accuracy of Pielke’s claims.

  171. TonyB says:

    M simon

    It is shabby when the measurement of change being promoted is 3.2mm and the error is 3cm. In reality the error marghin is much greater than that as measuring to the top of a constantly moving target is problematic.

    Tonyb

  172. Benjamin P. says:

    jeez (14:05:39) :

    “And by the way, not one of the regions you defined as flat in your attempt to contradict Pielke appear to be actually be flat.”

    But neither is the segment Pielke chose! That’s the whole point, something I mentioned above too. Calling a 2-3 year segment of a noisy data set as “flat” is ludicrous. I could cherry pick many different segments from that sea level data add a trend line and get it to be “flat” but its not meaningful at all.

  173. jeez says:

    Benjamin P.

    You and Phil. are very amusing when you refuse to see the obvious.

    Ok, the trend during the period Pielke identified was flat or negative, short as it was. The trends on the shorter periods marked by Phil. were positive.

    The problem is, when realclimatescientists are screaming “it’s worse than we thought just a year ago”, and the data shows it’s not worse than it was a year ago, then trends of three years become worthy of note.

    Really, is that so hard to understand? Was that not the point of Pielke’s article/post?

  174. Benjamin P. says:

    jeez (00:28:59) :

    Okay, lets look at 1995-1996? FLAT!

    Jeez, I think that the IPCC models predicted sea level rise that is lower than what is occurring today (even with the “Flatness” of the last couple of years). And its the actual data vs. what the model predicted when then said “faster than expected”. And I don’t think anyone at RC used what you are quoting as “Its worse than we thought a year ago” so that is a bit dishonest. Even more so when the RC folks where commenting on the findings of the Synthesis Report of the Copenhagen Climate Congress.

    Regardless though, you should not draw conclusions based on something that is not statistically meaningful. Well, at least I would think you shouldn’t from a scientific stand point, but hey, its been since my undergraduate days since I took statistics!

    Really, is that so hard to understand?

    Ben

  175. HiHo says:

    Uh, Joel?

    You can’t say that overall the rate of X is INCREASING if the additional data shows NO INCREASE in rate.

    This is real basic: doesn’t matter how long term you want to take it, you can’t say a rate is increasing faster than you expected if the additional data doesn’t trend to an increase. Try it. Make up a data set with a trend. Add some data that do not show any trend (note: not no significant trend: no trend at all). See if you can make your rate of increase speed up.

    Of just consult your trend fitting maths and see why it won’t work. Either way should convince you.

Comments are closed.