The wording of the Synthesis Report is: “Recent observations show that greenhouse gas emissions and many aspects of the climate are changing near the upper boundary of the IPCC range of projections.”

In the case of the Greenland ice sheet, for example, the report says:

“Observations of the area of the Greenland ice sheet that has been at the melting point temperature at least one day during the summer period shows a 50% increase during the period 1979 to 2008…The Greenland region experienced an extremely warm summer in 2007. The whole area of south Greenland reached the melting temperatures during that summer, and the melt season began 10-20 days earlier and lasted up to 60 days longer in south Greenland.”

And:

“The second figure shows that the Greenland ice sheet has been losing mass at a rate of 179 Gt/ yr since 2003.”

The figure in question shows a continuing – and in the case of 2007, a sharp – decrease in the mass of the Greenland ice sheet.

“I don’t think so. The projections are being compared with observations, not other projections.”

===

Please note any measurements (since – say – 2005) that indicate ANY measure of this supposed global warming is actually “worse.”

What measure – use a real nuimber or value or datum point please – that indicates global warming is
(1) “worse” in any way, shape or form than any previous propaganda
(2) actually has a negative outcome,
(3) is actually present or has an increasing trend towrds warmth.

Probably both. The most recent observations show a continuation of the upward trend, so in that sense are significant.

“It can all be summarised thus: In 1990 our estimates were low, by 2007 they were higher…”

I don’t think so. The projections are being compared with observations, not other projections.

“…hasn’t this bill got to pass your Senate before it becomes law?” I always enjoy your comments, so I’ll try to answer your question:

Yes, the U.S. upper house – the Senate – must also pass or defeat the Cap & Trade bill. That is the next battle ground.

If the Senate passes anything, anything at all, it will be resolved with the House of Representatives [lower house] version by a Senate-House committee, which will offer a compromise resolution to be voted on by both houses.

If the Senate passes any version of the bill, that is very bad news, because votes will be bought outright [witness the Ohio Representative's $3+ billion payoff for her vote; there are 435 Representatives, but only 100 Senators. So the payoff for the necessary Senate votes could easily be higher].

The only satisfactory outcome is for the Senate to reject the bill. But that doesn’t necessarily require 51 out of 100 Senators to vote against the bill. If the anti-AGW forces can get just 41 votes, the bill can be killed by a filibuster, where it is incessantly talked to death without a vote.

Since the Senate has just got a new senator [the former clown Al Franken, who was 'elected' by the state's refusal to count thousands of votes, including many from overseas military], the Democrats now have 60 votes, which theoretically provides them with a filibuster-proof majority.

But there’s more to it than the numbers indicate. Many Democrat senators understand that the Cap & Trade bill will seriously harm their state economically, so even Democrat votes are not assured.

The other side of the coin is the sad fact that a handful of Republican senators can be bought; they are for sale. And this Administration is on record as openly buying votes. It should be illegal, it is highly unethical, but if Obama and Reid are willing to take $3 billion in taxpayer’s money and buy a single House vote with it, you can be sure they will do the same thing in the Senate. Getting thirty pieces of silver will give some senators temporary bragging rights. But the long term destruction of the wealth of their state’s citizens’ will be much more expensive than any kind of personal payoff for their C&T vote.

No matter what happens, the dynamics will be interesting. Whose interests will be represented by each state’s Senators — their state’s citizens? Or the Obama administration back in Washington, DC?

Money has corrupted politics more than usual in the C&T bill. There is blatant vote buying going on, at the expense of most of the U.S. states, which stand to lose a lot if C&T passes.

In the final analysis, most Senators will probably vote against C&T — if their citizens make enough noise by writing, emailing and calling their offices. The Senate tends to be more conservative than the House. But it will probably be a close vote. And if the citizens don’t rise up and make sufficient noise, then the current Democrat thugocracy will prevail.

So to summarize: if any kind of C&T bill passes the Senate, then some kind of C&T legislation will result. And it won’t be any less drastic than the current House version. These folks know how to play the system, and they will get pretty much everything they want. Our country will dodge a bullet only by defeating the proposed bill in the Senate. So it’s not too early for Americans to start contacting their state’s two senators: click. Tell them: “If you vote for Cap & Trade, I will not vote for you again.” To a politician, nothing is scarier than not getting re-elected.

(Brendan H)
So now the mystery has been bottomed out. Apparantly they aren’t talking about subsequent observations since AR4, but observations since 1990. This is really a pointless and missleading statement. Why pick 1990? Was that a time when estimates were extremely low? Why not pick 1970? It can all be summarised thus: In 1990 our estimates were low, by 2007 they were higher, but now latest data places it somewhere in between. Conclusion: our estimates go up and down faster than Bill Clintons pants.

I suspect the rush might be part of something larger – though hasn’t this bill got to pass your Senate before it becomes law?

The caption to the graph begins: “Change in sea level from 1970 to 2008…”

Brian Klappstein (quoting Copenhagen Synthesis Report): “Recent observations show that greenhouse gas emissions and many aspects of the climate are changing near the upper boundary of the IPCC range of projections.”

…So the report is comparing 1990 projections with subsequent observations, hence the claim that sea levels are rising faster than expected.

The current transgression phase is quite small and it is progressing so slowly that it is hard to take it into consideration for a serious assessment on climate change from a paleobiological viewpoint. This transgression phase can shift at any moment and become into a regression phase. The increase of the concentration of “greenhouse” gases in the atmosphere is due to many factors, including deserts’ sand degasification.

(Brendan H.)

You didn’t answer my question. Where in the Copenhagen Synthesis report do you find evidence that recent observations show sea level is rising faster than expected. It’s been rising faster than expected since 1990 according to the graph in the report. So what? Where is the recent evidence (since 2007)?

This is a general, introductory comment that covers a number of factors, so the “recent observations” covers both emissions and aspects of climate change. A general comment by nature cannot relate precisely to individual factors.

“Since 2007, reports comparing the IPCC projections of 1990 with observations show that some climate indicators are changing near the upper end of the range.”

This comment clearly refers to reports that have been published since 2007. For example, the Rahmstorf report on sea levels was published in 2007.

“Where on this graph do you see any evidence that recent observations show the situation progressing worse than was previously thought?”

The text above the graph explains the context: “Since 2007, reports comparing the IPCC projections of 1990 with observations show that some climate indicators are changing near the upper end of the range indicated by the projections or, as in the case of sea level rise (Figure 1)…”

So the report is comparing 1990 projections with subsequent observations, hence the claim that sea levels are rising faster than expected.

Climate scientists do look at paleoclimate issues. Whether they address your specific questions or provide answers that would satisfy you I can’t say. Probably the best approach would be to do some research on the subject and see what you can find.

Robert A Cook PE (10:31:43) :

We have been in an ice age for millions o years.. we are still in an ice age, just an interglacial at the present. Obviously Antarctica is still over the south pole. But has there been enough movement in the northern latitudes? Or possibly has the Alaskan Siberian land bridge been eroded/subsided enough over past interglacial s that its sufficiently deepened the bearing strait allowing far greater hydrological exchange than during previous interglacial s. But to understand the mechanisms of the why on this era is necessary to understand where its going.

Indeed, we have been in an icehouse for about 45 million years and starting a warmhouse, which has nothing to do with human activities. Those relatively-small climate changes, like the Little Ice Age and the Medieval Warming Period, are arranged along larger oscillating climate changes.

So, to address specifically sea level rise factors:
The AGW community is using (in every hourly newcast!) the recent (and always forecasted rise in global temperature -> will melt the glaciers and icecaps -> will cause massive flooding (Gore claims 20 to 60 feet, the rest try to use his exaggerated fears but admit to only 80 cm’s in a century) and kill everybody and destroy the world, etc.

Those are AGWers lies. It is probable that the continental flood gets longer up to 20 centimeters in specific areas, but it hardly will happen upper from there or that will be a global flood.

Real world:
From 1910 through 1940, temp’s rose 4/10 of one degree.
From 1940 through 1970, temperatures dropped 3/10 of one degree.
From 1970 through 1998, temp’s rose 1/5 of one degree.
From 1998 through June 2009, temp’s dropped 4/10 of one degree.

Certainly, massive temperature changes drive out gasses – we see that every day. But do these very minor actual atmospheric temperature changes create the measured changes in CO2?

Definitely, I do not know, although I would add the outgassing from the sand of deserts.

For the sea, sea level changes (not caused by land movement!) can only come from a few sources:

1)The crust is shrinking and getting smaller in radius. (Not likely!)

Agreed…

2)The oceans are gaining water from the comets. (Well, yes, but by how much and what is this rate?)

It’s supposed the amount of water gained by the Earth from small comets is 2.5 centimeters per each 20000 years; however, this quantity is a guess, not a precise measurement. We suppose an increase of some 10 tons of carbon dioxide per decade added to the atmosphere by this means. Do not try to explain that to AGWers; they will not understand it.

3) The ocean is getting hotter and expanding. (Well maybe – see above question – but what is the temperature change over what dates, what depth of the ocean is getting hotter (if only parts of the ocean are getting hotter) and over what area is it getting hotter by how much?)

Irresolvable questions at this moment.

4) The glciers and icecaps are melting and this new fresh water is causing the ocean gain. (Well, if so, then the imbalanced freezing at the northand south poles should show a definite sine wave change in real sea change each spring and fall when both caps are partially melted, partially frozen. The levels should be changing due to Antarctic and Arctic polar chages in snow and ice cover (note that the ice floats over more surface in the Arctic, but the ice surrounding the Antarctic is also mainly on the oceans. Some falls/melts on Greenland and central Antarctic land masses – where do the AGW extremists actually get Gore’s 60 foot water level increase?) Based on what htey claim are ice and glacier changes since 1970, what is the actual sea level change from melted glacial ice that has actually been measured?

From their imagination. Their goal is to maintain terrorized people.

4) Regardless, we are told sea levels increases between 3 mm/yr from 1970 through 2001 (or maybe 2003 or 2004 …) – an increase now lowered to about 2 mm/yr for several years in a row. How much is this water (in volume) and where was that water before 1970?

But what are the actual amounts of of SLR if you strip away the AGW propaganda? Why is the sea level rising – since it appears to be rising by a little bit?

Definitely, we cannot rely on propaganda. I agree with you on that actually it is a slight SLR. The explanation resides on the actual nature of the phenomenon. The Earth is leaving the lowstand phase for restarting a transgression phase. The cycle will continue to the highstand phase and will pass for all the subsequent phases.

We have been in an ice age for millions o years.. we are still in an ice age, just an interglacial at the present. Obviously Antarctica is still over the south pole. But has there been enough movement in the northern latitudes? Or possibly has the Alaskan Siberian land bridge been eroded/subsided enough over past interglacial s that its sufficiently deepened the bearing strait allowing far greater hydrological exchange than during previous interglacial s. But to understand the mechanisms of the why on this era is necessary to understand where its going.

Nasif Nahle: You mentioned Ice Age and SLR relationship: Didn’t you mean that the most recent Ice Age ended about 12,000 years ago, and that we way overdue for re-entering a life-threatening Ice Age, not a Warm Age?

I would like I had meant that, although I would not like a devastating Ice Age. Those cooling cycles of 10000 to 12000 years intervals are short term climate changes which occur over the long term trends I’m referring to. For example, the Roman Warming Period and the Medieval Warming Period happened over a long-term icehouse period which started about 40 million years ago and is finishing in modern times. SLR sets the standard, i.e. SL is recovering from the last Lowstand phase. Thus, the next phase after the icehouse is a long-term warmhouse and the subsequent highstand phase. The arriving warmhouse will not be exempt of alternating short-term cooling events, which will cause short-term regressions.

Nonetheless, I do not think the next warmhouse will be catastrophic as it is pictured by the IPCC, but something similar to the climate at the Ypresian and Lutetian Stages during the Eocene, when anthropoids appeared on Earth.

I do not think either that the Transgression Phase will reach the same levels that it reached during the Eocene because the Earth has been cooling through the geological timescale, that is, the current SLR is far smaller than at other epochs and the possibility of having a completely defrosted planet with more than 10% of flooded continental areas is excessively low (0.03%).