Global Sea Level Updated at UC – still flattening

There was a lot of wailing and gnashing of teeth when Dr. Roger Pielke mentioned a couple of weeks ago in a response to Real Climate that “Sea level has actually flattened since 2006″.

Today the University of Colorado updated their sea level graph after months of no updates. Note it says 2009_rel3 in lower left.

Click for larger image

Source here.  Here is the next oldest graph from UC that Pielke Sr. was looking at.

The newest one also looks “flat” to me since 2006, maybe even a slight downtrend since 2006. Let the wailing and gnashing begin anew.

Here is the text file of sea level data for anyone that wants to plot it themselves. In fact I did myself and my graph is below, with no smoothing or trend lines.

Click for a larger image

Click for a larger image

Here’s what UC says about the graph. They also provide an interactive wizard to look at specific areas.

Since August 1992 the satellite altimeters have been measuring sea level on a global basis with unprecedented accuracy. The TOPEX/POSEIDON (T/P) satellite mission provided observations of sea level change from 1992 until 2005. Jason-1, launched in late 2001 as the successor to T/P, continues this record by providing an estimate of global mean sea level every 10 days with an uncertainty of 3-4 mm. The latest mean sea level time series and maps of regional sea level change can be found on this site. Concurrent tide gauge calibrations are used to estimate altimeter drift. Sea level measurements for specific locations can be obtained from our Interactive Wizard.

About these ads
This entry was posted in Sea level. Bookmark the permalink.

198 Responses to Global Sea Level Updated at UC – still flattening

  1. rbateman says:

    How fast do you suppose it will drop now that the data modelers are going crazy dropping Fire Engine Red dots everywhere?

  2. UK Sceptic says:

    This is definately something to watch. I hope that UC update on a more regular basis. The second graph, cleared of all that clutter, certainly seems to indicate a levelling off. The new data is shaping up to be yet another large nail in the AGW coffin. Shame on the politicians who steadfastly refuse to acknowledge the reality of accumulating empirical evidence.

  3. Philip_B says:

    Mean sea level is the best metric we have of whether the Earth’s climate is warming or cooling and it is not subject to ‘weather noise’. While there is some contribution from gain or loss of ice, it is primarily a measure of ocean heat content.

    A flat trend means the Earth’s climate isn’t gaining heat, ie the climate isn’t warming.

    My interpretation is that the oceans have now reached equilibrium with whatever changes occured in the 20th century. Further, the SST data (heat release from the oceans) indicates to me that we will see falling sea levels in the future due to cooling oceans.

  4. Juraj V. says:

    “Worse than WE thought”.

    THEY were right.

  5. Malcolm says:

    The NASA climate change site has updated it’s sea level graph, with the latest figure of 22mm at June 09, but it does not match the graph on the Univ of Colorado site that it notes as the source.

    http://climate.jpl.nasa.gov/keyIndicators/index.cfm#SeaLevel

    The NASA site has left the banner headine saying 3.4mm/yr, but the trend line they show looks more like 2.7mm/yr.

  6. Ecotretas says:

    This data is confirmed by actual measurements done through the GLOSS network of stations. Calculations for the last 9 years of data, from stations referenced in Douglas et al. (1997) show a sharp decline in the last 3 years!
    The United States is an interesting example. The stations show the biggest worldwide downward trends, especially Honolulu, La Jolla and San Diego stations. By the other hand, the Pacific around Indonesia seems to be getting the biggest rises.
    So while Gore et al are trying to pass the catastrophic idea of a global sea level rise, one has to remain calm, as it’s going up in some places, and actually going down in others.
    Ecotretas
    http://ecotretas.blogspot.com/search/label/subida%20dos%20mares

  7. CodeTech says:

    Stop looking at the data! Look at the TREND LINE! That’s why we put it there!

    This is showing some of the standard tools for making factual data appear to represent something other than what it does. The trend line, the extra data points hovering around like a swarm of insects, and the general clutter confusing the portion of the data they want you to not notice.

    Dishonesty is becoming the new face of science.

  8. UK Sceptic says:

    Meanwhile, a satirical taste of how AGW inspired energy policies might shape the future of the UK:

    http://web.me.com/sinfonia1/Clamour_Of_The_Times/Clamour_Of_The_Times/Entries/2009/7/15_Mr_Lemuel_Gulliver_Visits_Milibandia.html

    PS Ed Miliband is Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change. He’s the idiot who rammed the EU driven Carbon Credits and Sequestration Bill (Cap and Trade) through parliament while even bigger idiots accepted it without bothering to actually look at what they were voting on let alone ask the electorate (the people who will actually foot the bill) what they thought about it.

  9. crosspatch says:

    How many years/months smoothing are they using on that trend line? Looks like only two points in the last two years are above the “trend”.

  10. Philip_B says:

    By the other hand, the Pacific around Indonesia seems to be getting the biggest rises.

    In the late 1990s there were massive peat fires in Indonesia. Thick haze covered much of SE Asia for weeks at a time. I lived in Singapore at this time and I can tell you that sunlight was dramatically reduced. It was like dusk all day.

    Since then the region has returned to normal sunlight conditions and this likely explains the sea level rise over the last 10 years.

    Which means the sea level rises around Indonesia due to local events are probably masking a global fall in sea levels.

  11. tallbloke says:

    Good stuff. Just a slight note of caution. The graph in Pielke’s article is the ‘seasonal signals removed’ version, the graph at the top of the thread is the ‘raw’ data.

    Sea level rise is driven by solar input to the oceans. The sun’s output has been below the level where the oceans gain net energy for a few years now.

    Since ocean heat content is not really affected by the atmosphere much, we need to revisit ideas about the sun having been responsible for GW.

    Scafetta’s presentation at the EPA archive is a good summary, whichever side of the ACRIMonious debate on TSI calibration you land on.

    http://yosemite.epa.gov/ee/epa/wkshp.nsf/vwpsw/84E74F1E59E2D3FE852574F100669688/$file/scafetta-epa-2009.pdf

  12. Dave Wendt says:

    A commenter to Dr. Pielke’s post linked to this paper on calibration error in the sat. altimetry record, http://www.ocean-sci.net/5/193/2009/os-5-193-2009.pdf
    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
    1CLS, Ramonville Saint-Agne, France
    2LEGOS, OMP, Toulouse, France

    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.

    The result of their reanalysis stated in their conclusion is a trend of 3.11+/-0.6mm/yr for the whole period and they also state that the 1mm/yr trend of the last 3 years can’t be attributed to altimeter drift error. Evidently the lads at UC aren’t buying it yet, or maybe they just missed it

  13. rbateman says:

    If it’s going up in some place and going down in others, it means the sea levels are NOT rising but staying put. It also means some continents are rising and others are falling.
    Aren’t they supposed to be checking the landmass elevations with lasers?
    I still can’t tell by going down to the beach I visited 50 years ago that anything has changed.

  14. tallbloke says:

    “Sea level rise is driven by solar input to the oceans.”

    Plus of course ice melt and changes in land storage. I’ve been concentrating on ocean heat content and forgot to mention that.

  15. Dodgy Geezer says:

    I think I have the answer to this apparent flattening. We can all see that this is a hugely dangerous trend – otherwise why would the graph be in red? What I think is happening is that the sea has risen rapidly, and is now pouring into low-lying places like the Netherlands, the Dead Sea and the Sahel depression.

    That would explain why there is a temporary lull in the graph, but it will soon begin to rise again, and we only have 100 months to stop it!

    People may claim that there are no reports of flooding in low lying areas, but they are just deniers and are not published in approved peer-reviewed texts, so we won’t listen to them….

  16. tallbloke says:

    Does anyone know where I can download data on greenland ice melt rates?

  17. Gary Turner says:

    That’s scary, a 3.2mm/year rise in sea level. How will mankind ever adapt to a 12½in. rise in the next hundred years?

    gary

  18. Philip_B (00:23:12) :Mean sea level is the best metric we have of whether the Earth’s climate is warming or cooling and it is not subject to ‘weather noise’.

    Definitely, with one proviso. It seems reasonable to me to consider that, even in stable temperatures, sea level will rise overall, for four reasons (a) ongoing very-slow rebound from the last glaciation (land effects with local pluses and minuses) (b) accumulation of silt from rivers (c) accumulation of dust in rain from aerosols, volcanoes, the cosmos, land surfaces, etc (d) ongoing calcification, using newly released / dissolved Ca++ and CO2.

    Has anyone estimated any such “base” rise?

  19. Dave Wendt says:

    Earlier in the week I posted a link on the Tips and Notes thread to another paper I came across related the contribution of geothermal heating to the oceanic heat budget in general and circulation patterns in particular

    http://www.ocean-sci.net/5/203/2009/os-5-203-2009.pdf

    To my layman’s eye read this seems to indicate that the geothermal component has been and probably still is little understood, generally neglected and underestimated in considerations of oceanic heat flux. But, since this was the result I was hoping to find, I’m looking for some feedback from someone with more specific expertise to confirm or deny my gut reaction. Since I didn’t get any bites on the other thread, I thought I’d cast my bait out here and see if I could get a rise.

  20. Pierre Gosselin says:

    We’re having the 2nd hottest year of the instrumental record, ice is melting “faster than ever expected”, the ocean waters are warming up, etc., yet the oceans are not rising.
    So I wonder who is telling us the truth, Hansen or reality?

  21. Pierre Gosselin says:

    Eyeballing since 2005, I see an increase trend of about 5 mm, i.e. 100 mm by 2100.
    There was a similar, though shorter, plateau from 1997 to 2000. I wonder if we will get another jump coming soon.
    IF THE FLATTENING CONTINUES FOR ANOTHER COUPLE OF YEARS, THEN THE AGW ALARMISTS ARE GOING FIND THEMSELVES IN CORNER.
    I doubt La Nina’s and El Ninos play a role as these are more to do with surface temps and are probaly minor when compared with the entire ocean volume.

  22. crosspatch says:

    Anthony: Completely off topic but something you might want to have a look at:

    http://www.anupchurchchrestomathy.com/2009/07/nuclear-reactor-that-nevers-needs-to-be.html

  23. pkatt says:

    Malcolm (00:28:28)

    Nasa data is highly subject to whim:) Love the global temps chart. They managed to smooth out any high temps till the last few years… we need those hottest on record news stories doncha know?

    “The time series shows the combined global land and marine surface temperature record from 1850 to 2007.” Thats a pretty neat trick. I dont know the exact date temps of marine surface started, but Im pretty sure it wasn’t 1850.. do I smell a model.. why yes I do..

  24. Joe Miner says:

    I can understand new data changing the past of the smoothed curve, but why has new data move the actual past data points? If you look at the start of the Jason data points they have been moved higher in the rel_3 graph. Is one of the graphs with the seasonal signals removed and the other one doesn’t have that adjustment?

  25. Joe Miner says:

    I have that backwards, the rel_3 graph has them lower.

  26. rbateman says:

    Dodgy Geezer (01:44:59) :

    I think I have the answer to this apparent flattening.

    I have an answer for it: It has changed enough for the 2 billion people in the world who routinely visit the ocean to notice anything unusual.
    What’s really going flat is this “catastrophic ocean rise” cake.
    The real panic will begin when the ships can’t get into the locks at the Panama & Suez due to dropping oceans.
    It won’t be seawater spray that hits the fan.

  27. Juraj V. says:

    The most funny thing is, that on the places which are going to be flooded soon (at least in newspapers) – Maldives, Venezia, Netherlands or Bangladesh – is the change rate close to zero.
    Flattening trend means thermal expansion has finished as the SST begun to dive in 2003, and polar ice does not comply with scientific consensus as well.
    Anyone studied the Moerner´s claim, that satellite measurements were artificially given a trend as some tide gauge showed, since there was no trend at all?

  28. el gordo says:

    A bit off-topic, Anthony. Saw a refreshing article by David Evans who said the long term climate trend suggests that ‘once the effects of the little ice age have finally passed, the temperature will get back to where it was in he medieval warm period.’

    Evans is a bright fellow and he may be correct in thinking we are on the upside of natural warming, with some distance to travel. Nevertheless, I remain convinced we are on the downside and heading towards a Wolf minimum. Apart from that he was spot on.

    http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s2626711.htm

  29. Carl Chapman says:

    The believers ignore that graph. They look at the “inverse barometer applied” version, which has a mistake in it.

    I’ve pointed that out to the University of Colorado.

    An AGW believer in Australia sent me a graph from the Colorado Uni, showing the sea levels still rising. I checked their graph, which I’ve referred to before and found it shows the sea levels are falling.

    I worked out that they have a graph that adjusts for global barometer readings. But their website says:
    “The inverted barometer does not have much apparent effect on the global mean sea level because the ocean as a whole is not compressible.”

    Their website also gives the adjustment factor:

    Inverted Barometer = -9.948*(1013.3 – global_average_pressure)

    9.948 mm per millibar is 9.948 metres per bar, which is the height of water supported by one atmosphere pressure.

    That’s correct for local adjustments, and it accounts for storm surges. If the pressure is high in one area, the water is pushed away from there. The sea level falls where the pressure is high, and rises somewhere else where the pressure is lower and the water moved to.

    It can’t apply globally. The water has to go somewhere. The only global effect is from compression of the water, which I worked out to be 0.2mm per millibar, or 1/50th of what they used.

    Their adjusted graph is wrong, but it’s what the warmists are using. I’ve sent emails to the staff at the Uni. Would you check this please.

    It destroys the argument, which is still being used, that sea levels are rising.

    This is the site with the formula and explanations:
    http://sealevel.colorado.edu/documents.php
    This is the site with the unadjusted graph:
    http://sealevel.colorado.edu/
    This is the site with the adjusted graph:
    http://sealevel.colorado.edu/current/sl_ib_ns_global.jpg

    Please investigate this.

  30. Dave in Delaware says:

    Charting the slope using 5 year running data tells quite a story.
    For the first 5 years of data, the slope is about 3.4 mm/yr increase.
    Current slope, using the most recent 5 years of data = 1.6 mm/yr.
    The trend in slope is clearly downward since 2002.

    Data from University of Colorado, Inverted barometer not applied.
    The calculation drops off the oldest data point as a new point is added, maintaining 5 years of data in the slope calculation. Data is plotted at the end date for the calculation.

    [IMG]http://i25.tinypic.com/mbl9jd.jpg[/IMG]

    Note that there does appear to be an affect from ENSO when the data is plotted this way. The largest slope (almost 5 mm/yr) is from the post 1997 La Nina to the 2002 El Nino. It looks to me like the 5 peaks since 2002 could be ENSO oscillations.

  31. Bill D says:

    The current flattening looks a lot like the 92-96 flattening.

  32. Dave in Delaware says:

    Update on my post about 5 yr running slope –

    Blue line is the Data from University of Colorado, Inverted barometer not applied (scale on left axis).

    Red line is my calculation of 5 year running slope, mm/yr (right axis)

    Peaks since 2002 should be 4 not 5.

    sorry if the chart is not the best, I am new at posting a chart link.

  33. Curiousgeorge says:

    Water, water everywhere and not a drop to drink. And Hillary apologizes for the bad ol’ USA making it happen. http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5g3lGTbp2KLrD4mzkA_ebmlLJFg7wD99GR47G1 .

  34. Chris says:

    I better stop throwing stones in the ocean.

  35. Lindsay H says:

    Do the satelites monitoring mean sea level also monitor tectonic plate shift for land masses. some of the plates are sinking at rates of 2-3 mm per year others are rising by similar amounts. This will have an effect on Mean Sea levels.

    Ive been looking for data from ARGO bouys of deep ocean sea temps below the thermocline, have they noted any change in the years of operation.

    Given that the average Temp of the total ocean mass is probably near 5-7 deg c, the changes in sst have minimal effect on total ocean heat, ergo little effect on mean sea level.

    With an average depth of 4000m water with coefficient of .00021, a 0. 1deg increase for the total ocean will raise sea levels 84 mm aprox.

    changes in the top 200 + m of the sea are a small part of any change.

    to change total ocean temp .1 deg means heating 1.30 billion cubic Km of water, need a big bunsen burner for that. !!

  36. nofreewind says:

    The paper below on ocean heat goes with the discussion. Over 80% of global heat is stored in the ocean, when the ocean cools, as shown by the argo buoys, the ocean volume contracts and lowers. The sea level change is mostly a measurement of ocean heat!
    http://www-argo.ucsd.edu/nino3_4_atlas.gif
    where can I find pre-Argo temp graphics?

    Even Hansen in a 2005 paper wrote that ocean heat is a robust metric for AGW. “Confirmation of the planetary energy imbalance,” they maintained, “can be obtained by measuring the heat content of the ocean, which must be the principal reservoir for excess energy”.

    The paper states that there is a consensus that ocean heat(sea level) is the best metric to measure global warming, however we are measuring and discussing global surface or troposphere temperature which does not store the heat and is not a long term metric! Water stores heat, not air or land.

    http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/reprint/changes_in_the_ocean.pdf

  37. Nelthon says:

    Shame you didn’t annotate this with the comedy ‘FLAT’ label again.

    Come on guys, this is just a repeat of your last nonsense. Noise. Signal. Trend.

  38. Chris Wright says:

    @ UK Sceptic (01:13:31)
    Unfortunately we in the UK appear to be governed by idiots, and that includes our MP’s. As Christopher Booker reported, when Parliament almost unanimously voted to pass the Climate Bill last October, just one MP (Peter Lilley) asked what it would cost. There was no answer from the government. They didn’t have a clue. So our Parliament voted for this monstrosity without knowing what it would cost the taxpayer.

    Booker reported that the government quietly slipped out the figure a few weeks ago: it was somewhat over 400 billion pounds, obviously a trifling sum if you’re determined to save the planet. A cynic might believe that the government might be understating the costs somewhat.

    A cynic might be right. A few days ago the Daily Telegraph (which is strongly pro-AGW) printed a report in the financial section. According to a study by Inenco, the UK’s largest energy consultancy, the cost of de-carbonising our economy will be – wait for it – 1.2 trillion pounds ( about 2 trillion dollars – if I’m correct that’s 2000000000000 dollars).
    .
    I could almost weep at the sheer lunacy of it. Even if AGW were true it would still be lunacy, because it would reduce the global temperature by a tiny amount, maybe a thousandth of a degree or even less. And it was nodded through Parliament without knowing how much it would cost. Quite possibly this dwarfs the cost to this country of the Second World War. But this nonsense will achieve precisely nothing. Unfortunately the Conservatives are also deluded, so a change of government won’t help.
    Chris

  39. Charlie says:

    (slightly off topic discussion about the JPL NASA sea level graphs on their Global Climate Change, Key Indicators page)

    Malcolm (00:28:28) : “The NASA climate change site has updated it’s sea level graph….. ” http://climate.jpl.nasa.gov/keyIndicators/index.cfm#SeaLevel

    Very strange graphs. The captions don’t seem to match up with the data plotted. As you note, the 1993 to present endpoint-to-endpoint line they drew seems to be more like 2.7mm/yr rather than the 3.4mm caption.

    The historical graph doesn’t match the caption either. The caption says 2mm/year, but it looks like it is closer to 1.5 mm over the whole period, or 1.7mm from 1900 to 1990. Strange. Looks like just some sloppy work, since this error makes recent changes less alarming compared to the historical changes.

    I used the feedback form to send an inquiry to the site manager.

  40. Jack Green says:

    Why do you have to draw a 60 day smoothed fit. Why not use a polynomial or a log normal fit? Mother nature orders things in a lognormal way. I’ll download and do a log normal fit and see what that shows. It is clear however that the last 2 years obviously showing a change in trend.

  41. Jared says:

    Between 1998 and 2000 there was a lull, then it spiked up again until 2006. 2006 to present there has been a lull but I’m seeing signs of an uptick again.

    Guess we’ll have to wait and see if we continue to stay flat or if a rise will occur. Or we can just do as Gore does and ignore the facts and present the worst case scenario (in this case the rise for the rest of the century will be equivalent to the rise from 2000 to 2001).

  42. E.M.Smith says:

    Plus or minus POINT 4 mm error band? Can they really measure the pitching heaving surface of the ocean slopping around with tides and full of ships and whales making waves, with wind driven waves and storm surges to a 4/10 mm accuracy?

    Somehow this just sounds really suspicious to me…

    BTW, in Hawaii the Big Island is growing while the older islands erode and subside. California coastal is still having uplift from subduction. Just how do they sort out “sea level rise” from “land subsides”? So far, every place that has had claimed “sea level rise” has looked to me like a case of subsidence (like those Pacific Islands…) There are ancient Roman docks that are well above water level, and in Turkey, an entire bay is now a housing subdivision (and has been for a few hundred years…). I also saw a place in Greece that was a harbor and is now a chunk of land.

    The earth surface can change by more than a mm or 2 a year (sometimes it rises or falls by feet in seconds… as faults let loose). The notion that sea level changes can be entirely attributed to heating / cooling ignores the dynamic nature of the sea bottom and shores.

    (Yes, it really bugs me when folks have “unprecedented accuracy” that looks one heck of a lot like dancing in the land of False Precision…)

    It looks to me a whole lot more like “nothing much is happening” than it does like we’ve had a lot of sea level rise (that has suddenly stopped). I’d like to know exactly what kind of fudging was done to “calibrate” things before I’d believe the “rise”.

  43. Merrick says:

    Has anyone ever estimated the impact that deep wells may be having on sea level? The water table has been pumped down by tens of feet in some areas

  44. Patrick Davis says:

    Well, I will say this, if you dig through very old Royal Naval (UK) maritime records, hundres of years old, you will see there is *NO* sea level rise of any significance. These records are now lock from public view, which is a shame. Not sure when that happened.

    The whole south coast of England, an old naval nation after all it was ships in “Great Britain’s” time which made it a “suprepower”, and all the records show no significant change in sea levels. Hundreds of years of measurements, not just 30 years of “data”.

  45. Klem says:

    As Al Gore stated last week, Cap&Tax is the first step toward Global Governance. In other words, cap&Trade will become the worlds first global tax system, with the UN being the governing body utilizing the revenues. Finally the truth comes out. How is Obama in favour of this? Why did I vote for him, I forget.

  46. Mike Monce says:

    Thanks for posting the second graph without the “trendline”. I would fail any of my students in the intro physics course lab if they turned in a graph like the first one with the standard “hit the key for the Excel trendline”. While one could make an argument that there is a more or less linear trend up to about 2006, the data obviously tips over at that point. However, the oscillations are important also: note the “hill” in 1998.

    CU is my alma mater. I have trouble understanding how that institution publishes such a graph that is really an embarrassment with that stupid trendline.

  47. Sandy says:

    The battle of Thermopylae was fought by the sea in 480 BC. The sea is a long way away now.

  48. Tom in Florida says:

    CO2 is the sole cause of global warming, global warming is the sole cause of global sea level rise and the Sun god Ra rides across the sky everyday.
    The science is settled.

  49. peter_ga says:

    Its interesting that the curve doesn’t match say the UAH lower tropospheric temperature record, but “low pass filters” it. There doesn’t seem to be much sign of the 11 year solar cycle, as its dominant characteristic is the trend line.

    I think we need another 40 years of data to make some definite inferences.

  50. Mike Bryant says:

    Dishonesty is becoming the new face of science.- Code Tech

    You can leave out the the word “becoming” and be more accurate.

    The NASA “Key Indicators” graphs are jokes filled with mistakes, misleading graph construction, and spin. The punchline is, “The public is too stupid to realize it.”
    The graphs here are for our childrens edification, put together by NASA PR people with a political agenda.
    The temperature graph was not updated until I complained in May, then instead of using the actual temperature (derived from GISS I suppose), The new year was labeled ‘2008-tenth warmest year on record’… no mention of record drop…
    I am apalled…

  51. Jim Papsdorf says:

    Hillary: We are responsible for most of it !!!!!!

    MUMBAI, India — U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton opened a three-day visit to India on Saturday by urging India not to repeat American mistakes in contributing to global pollution…..”.

    http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5g3lGTbp2KLrD4mzkA_ebmlLJFg7wD99GR47G1

  52. Bruce Cobb says:

    According to Professor Nils-Axel Mörner, Head of Paleogeophysics & Geodynamics, Stockholm University, Sweden President, (1999-2003) of the INQUA Commission on Sea Level Changes and Coastal Evolution, Leader of the Maldives Sea Level Project:
    From: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200506/ldselect/ldeconaf/12/12we18.htm

    “The record from 1992 to early 2000 (Fig 4) lacks any sign of a sea level rise; it records variability around zero plus a major ENSO even in year 1997.”
    According to Morner, a tilt was introduced in 2003 but that tilt “represents an inferred factor from tide-gauge interpretations.”
    Once that tilt is corrected, the 1992 -2003 trend is zero.

    INQUA’s Commission on Sea Level Changes forecast for 2100 is 10 cm +/- 10 cm.
    The rate of rise in recent centuries has been about 10 – 15 cm per century, and there is no reason to think that will change significantly, if at all.
    Unless you are Al Gore, of course, and then it will be 20 feet.

  53. Smokey says:

    The capital, Malé, has a population of ~83,000 — living on an atoll that is only six hundred yards across! Most have no work. Australia provides financial aid, as does the UN.

    The freshwater lens is disappearing due to over pumping/over population. Fresh vegetables only arrive sporadically by ship. The people are being told that global warming will cause the sea to cover their islands. Naturally, they demand financial compensation even though there is no evidence of an unusual sea level rise.

    Sex Lives of Cannibals by J. Maarten Troost is a very funny travelogue of the situation [you can find it used for a few dollars]. Highly recommended for anyone interested in seeing what it’s like being out in the middle of nowhere, living almost on the equator with 80,000 other people, and waiting for the ocean to wipe them off the map.

    Of course, an unusual sea level rise isn’t really happening. And coral atolls are perfectly capable of building up faster than 2 mm a year. But since the country is represented in the UN, they are able to use the threat of “global warming” to extract money for a fictitious problem. The UN gets to pretend it cares about Tuvalu, and it uses the islanders for its alarmist global warming propaganda.

    Win-win… unless you’re a taxpayer footing the bill.

  54. Gary P says:

    Along with the sea levels remaining flat the sun is back to full idle mode with the SOHO MDI magnetogram as calm as I have ever seen it. The Oulu cosmic ray station is still at a 44 year record high after a slight dip from one major sun spot. Last months geomagnetic AP index was at 5 which is up from 2 in December. (Peak of 44 in 1991). I have not yet found a summary source for cloud cover or total albedo that is updated regularly. Despite the NOAA temperature anomaly map showing red over most of the oceans one has to believe the oceans have stopped warming. The Argo data also shows a flattening of heat content:
    http://www.argo.ucsd.edu/global_change_analysis.html

  55. Bob Tisdale says:

    After seeing this post, I scrambled this morning to update my Sea Level data. For those who are interested, it’s broken down by global, Atlantic, Indian, and Pacific datasets. I’ve presented it raw, smoothed and “annualized.”

    http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2009/07/sea-level-update-through-march-2009.html

  56. AnonyMoose says:

    Merrick: Have you compared the amount pumped from wells to the water in the oceans? And where is the pumped water going? Also, if the water table dropped it indicates that the water source is not closely connected to the ocean thus pumped water isn’t being replaced by ocean water. Now please excuse me while I munch on this yummy pond plant.

  57. Craig Moore says:

    With sea levels rising in some areas and falling in others, is it taken into account that the land areas below those measurement points themselves maybe rising and sinking creating part of the effect?

  58. whitty says:

    I love this site. :)

  59. Michael Jankowski says:

    Sea level rise should be viewed in its proper context.

    http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1d/Post-Glacial_Sea_Level.png

    It has been rising for over 20,000 yrs, and at a very slow pace overall for the last 8,000 yrs.

  60. Phil. says:

    Patrick Davis (05:44:58) :
    Well, I will say this, if you dig through very old Royal Naval (UK) maritime records, hundres of years old, you will see there is *NO* sea level rise of any significance. These records are now lock from public view, which is a shame. Not sure when that happened.

    The whole south coast of England, an old naval nation after all it was ships in “Great Britain’s” time which made it a “suprepower”, and all the records show no significant change in sea levels. Hundreds of years of measurements, not just 30 years of “data”.

    And yet the UK saw fit to invest over $1billion in the Thames barrier and had to use it with increasing frequency.

  61. kraster says:

    How is sea level measured with such granularity ?

  62. Ron de Haan says:

    Our oceans don’t lie.
    This in contrast to the UN and the political establishment that is ruthlessly prepared to con us, rob us, shackle us, control us and kill us if they don’t like the numbers.

    But don’t be afraid, they are a minority and many of them still depend on your vote.

  63. the_Butcher says:

    It’s going upwards slowly yes but not flattening…

  64. Mark says:

    It looks like the last part of Anthony’s graph shows a rising sea level.

  65. the_Butcher says:

    Sandy (06:00:30) :

    The battle of Thermopylae was fought by the sea in 480 BC. The sea is a long way away now.

    ———————————————

    Actually the region where the battle took place is covered by sea now…

  66. Steven Hill says:

    How long before we have beach front here in Ky?

  67. Bruce Cobb says:

    Klem: Why did I vote for him, I forget.
    Because it was a choice between Tweedle-Dem and Tweedle-Dumb?

  68. savethesharks says:

    Even though the Atlantic Ocean has not showed much “rise” at all, my region of the Chesapeake Bay, has seen some significant sea level ri….

    Well, rather….er um….

    ….land SUBSIDENCE….not sea level rise.

    You see, the mouth of the Chesapeake Bay and its areal land sits over one of the largest impact craters on Earth, over a mile deep and 50 miles across. And the slow compaction and subsidence in the soft Coastal Plain, continues.

    http://geology.geoscienceworld.org/cgi/content/abstract/26/6/507

    While being close enough to Washington DC where Holdren and his henchmen are saying: “See….I told you so….sea levels are rising….islands are disappearing…..blah blah blah”…

    …the reality is that some parts of the Earth are sinking just a bit….the Chesapeake Bay Impact Crater region notwithstanding.

    Chris
    Norfolk, VA, USA

  69. Roger Sowell says:

    nofreewind, (04:45:44) and Lindsay H,

    The ocean temperature does not appear to have much correlation with sea level, from data measured at Hilo, Hawaii.

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

  70. Sandy (06:00:30) :

    The battle of Thermopylae was fought by the sea in 480 BC. The sea is a long way away now.

    ———————————————
    the_Butcher (08:27:40) :

    Actually the region where the battle took place is covered by sea now…

    ———————————————
    Look again. The site of the battle is now 9km from the shoreline in places. A highway now passes by the area, with a modern monument to King Leonidas I marking the location.

  71. Pierre Gosselin says:

    Steven Hill,
    At 4 inches per century, and if you are located 1000 ft above sea level at some spot in KY, then do the math.
    Answer: about 3000 years.
    Except there isn’t enough ice to push sea levels that high.
    I.e. you don’t have to worry about it.

  72. NickB says:

    the_Butcher (08:27:40) :

    Sandy (06:00:30) :

    The battle of Thermopylae was fought by the sea in 480 BC. The sea is a long way away now.

    ———————————————

    Actually the region where the battle took place is covered by sea now…

    ___________________________________

    Not according to this picture…

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Thermopylae_ancient_coastline_large.jpg

  73. crosspatch says:

    “The battle of Thermopylae was fought by the sea in 480 BC. The sea is a long way away now.”

    The Pacific ocean is about 2 meters lower now than it was at its peak, about 7000 years ago. There are flat-topped micro-atolls in the Pacific that barely protrude above the high tide mark. As sea levels vary, the growth layers of the coral can be sampled at these atolls and it can be determined what the maximum height of coral growth was and when.

    See “Microatoll record for large century-scale sea-level fluctuations in the mid-Holocene ” Ke-Fu Yua, Jian-Xin Zhaob, Terry Donec and Te-Gu Chena

    Coral microatolls have been long used as precise indicators of past sea level, but their use for precise definition of detailed sea-level fluctuations is still rare. Here we report twelve high-precision thermal ionization mass spectrometric 230Th ages for twelve rims of five mid-Holocene microatolls from an emerged reef terrace at Leizhou Peninsula, northern South China Sea. This is a tectonically stable area, enabling us to reconstruct both the timing and trajectory of local sea-level fluctuations accurately. The elevations of these microatoll rims and cores were accurately determined relative to the surface of modern living microatolls at the same site. The results indicate that the sea level during the period of 7050–6600 yr bp (years before AD 1950) was about 171 to 219 cm above the present, with at least four cycles of fluctuations. Over this 450 yr interval, sea level fluctuated by 20–40 cm on century scales.

    So large fluctuations (.2 to .4 meters) over short periods (less than a century) happened before human beings developed agriculture, let along SUVs.

  74. P Walker says:

    I live on a barrier island on the coast of Georgia , and have no plans to leave over sea rise . There has been some beach erosion , but I would think that if the sea were rising it would be evident in the surrounding marshes . It isn’t . Hurricanes are a far more serious threat .

  75. Willis Eschenbach says:

    By chance I had downloaded and analyzed the data yesterday, so my timing was good …

    There are two oddities to me:

    1. The nature and size of the distribution of the changes in measurements. The satellite makes one complete pass every 9.9 days. The RMS average of the difference in sea level between passes is 3.7 mm. Now, in ten days the change in the the global average sea level is vanishingly small … so that would mean that the accuracy of the instrument is about ± 4 mm. This is not far from the calculated annual change of about 3 mm/year … but that’s not the oddity.

    It is tempting to think that the errors would be normally distributed about the mean, but the oddity is that that is not the case. Skew = -0.23, kurtosis = -0.09, Jarque-Bera normalcy test = 181 (wildly non-normal). Clearly, there is some error in the signal which is not simple instrument error. My first guess would be some kind of drift in the instrument itself. The difficulty with measuring sea level this way is that to measure to 1 mm accuracy means that you have to measure to an accuracy of one part per billion in both the short and long term … not an easy task even in the lab.

    Clearly they have been able to do this in the short term, since they have repeatability of about 4 mm. However, the non-normality of the errors indicates that there is some slow drift in the instrument. This brings up an interesting possibility, which is that we may be able to calculate the size of the instrumental drift by adjusting the data until the error is in fact normally distributed … I’ll have to think about that a bit.

    2. The second oddity is the shape of the “seasonal signal”. According to their data, there is no seasonal change for the first half of the year (Jan-June). During the second half of the year, the sea level increases by 10 mm, then goes back down again. This seems unphysical to me.

    Any assistance in the understanding of these oddities would be much appreciated.

    w.

  76. w demisch says:

    at 4 inches per century, 1000 feet will take 3000 centuries, a bit longer than first estimated.

  77. UK Sceptic says:

    I’d like to comment on Hilary Clinton’s new found “honesty” with regard to AGW and the developing countries but I strongly suspect it will be snipped so I won’t.

    I’ll leave it your imaginations instead…

  78. Nasif Nahle says:

    Why to worry? I’ve drawn the last data on the continental flooded area line and it is ridiculous the amount of square kilometers currently flooded compared with the square kilometers of continental flooded area in the geological timescale:

    http://www.biocab.org/Geological_MSL.jpg

    One of the Langmuir Clues for distinguishing Pseudoscience is as follows:

    “Clue No. 6: The number of critics is above an average of 50 percent and subsequently it falls to forgetfulness.”

    Time to send AGW to forgetfulness. As long as we maintain the debate, as long as the solipsist AGW idea will survive.

    Another clue is as follows:

    “Clue No. 2: The magnitude (measurement) of an effect remains close to the limit of detectability or many measurements are necessary because of the low statistical significance of the results.”

    This case of mean sea levels as signals of AGW calamity is a good example on pseudoclimatology.

    Finally, another clue says:

    “Clue No. 5: The disapprovals upon information or reports are deciphered in the precise moment when the criticisms are offered.”

    Isn’t it what AGWists do when natural explanations are disclosed which demonstrate that AGW is not real?

  79. crosspatch says:

    There are two things that impact sea level rise on the scale of these graphs. Barometric pressure is one thing. A region of high or low pressure can have an impact as can the heat content of the water. Water expands when it warms and so a couple of degrees of warming will cause the sea level to rise by an amount that can be detected by satellite. If a system such as the “Bermuda High” is stronger or weaker than normal, sea level change by a detectable amount. Seasonal changes and annual changes are often weather patterns that repeat in cycles. In other words, sea level change in short timescales is often weather, not climate.

  80. Craig Moore says:

    UK Skeptic, looks like India’s Ramesh has given Mrs. Clinton a salute with the middle digit. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07/19/AR2009071900705.html

    >>>>>>>>>>
    As dozens of cameras recorded the scene, Ramesh declared that India would not commit to a deal that would require it to meet targets to reduce emissions. “It is not true that India is running away from mitigation,” he said. But “India’s position, let me be clear, is that we are simply not in the position to take legally binding emissions targets.”
    <<<<<<<<<<<<

  81. Wansbeck says:

    Phil writes at 07:44

    “And yet the UK saw fit to invest over $1billion in the Thames barrier and had to use it with increasing frequency.”

    Recent flood defences for London became popular following the Thames Flood Act of 1879 and gained momentum following the flood in 1953.

    The increased risk of flooding is more to do with sinking land and narrowing of the river due to urbanization than it is to rising sea levels. Also the operating rules have been changed and the barrier is now used to keep water in the Thames at low tide as well as for flood defence.

  82. Smokey says:

    From Craig Moore’s link above:

    “There is simply no case for the pressure that we, who have among the lowest emissions per capita, face to actually reduce emissions,” Ramesh told Clinton.

    The ‘per capita’ argument is completely bogus. There is only one atmosphere. Therefore, what matters is how much emissions are put into that one atmosphere, not how much is emitted ‘per capita.’ India has a billion people. Of course their per capita emissions are going to be lower than ours.

    India’s message is clear: Go ahead and cap your own emissions, USA. We will more than make up for it by ramping up our own industry. We will build all the coal fired power plants that we need. And thank you for hobbling your economy, it will make things much easier for us.

    At the meeting, Clinton responded that she “completely” understood India’s argument about per capita emissions…

    Either Mrs. Clinton is being disingenuous, or she doesn’t understand.

    India is going to do whatever it wants, just like China, Brazil, Russia, and a hundred smaller UN countries. Only the U.S. and a few civilized Western countries will be expected to put up with this emissions nonsense.

    The BRIC countries are laughing at our insistence that they must conform to the West’s Green absolutist demands. As a result, net global emissions will go up, no matter what the U.S. does.

  83. Craig Moore says:

    Smokey, I have never seen anyone like Mrs Clinton go from a position of power to a level of complete, commical empy shell. Her happy talk on climate and her India discussions smack of creating competition with Biden for the role of Squealer to Obama’s Napoleon.

  84. UK Sceptic says:

    Thanks Craig Moore. It’s good to see a common sense politician in action. Shame western politicians don’t understand the we are simply not in a position to take legally binding emissions targets either.

    But then, that would take brains, wouldn’t it. ;)

  85. Brandon Dobson says:

    Climate Doom-ism and Sea level Rise

    A Google search of “worse than we thought” and “global warming” yields a staggering 13,700 hits as of July 19, 2009. In spite of a cooling climate and increasingly skeptical research, the state of climate alarmism may be – LOL – worse than we thought. ;)

    Granted, the list is peppered with the occasional “not as bad as we thought, but bad enough”, but you get the idea. The global warming frenzy peaked in 2006 with calls for de-certification of dissenting meteorologists and so forth, but now we’re entering an era of polarization, with the skeptics emboldened with new climate data, and the warmists frantically clinging to obsolete data, debunked notions, and dog-eared pictures of polar bears. The rhetoric is rising to a fever pitch on the eve of impending legislation.

    Sea level rise is a complex metric. I normally regard Wikipedia with suspicion on climate issues, because at least one of the Wikipedia editors is a climate alarmist who is known for re-editing entries that present a balanced view of climate data. Indeed, some Wikipedia authors have seen their writing disappear before their eyes, to be replaced by slanted, alarmist verbage.

    In this case, I’ll give Wikipedia credit as a convenient compilation of influences of sea level rise. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Current_sea_level_rise

    The articles notes the contribution of thermal expansion. Present cooling of the climate could therefore have a diminishing effect on sea level because of less expansion as well as hydrological influences.

    Several factors are listed under “Short term and periodic changes”, including the Chandler Wobble and lunar node astronomical tides, of 14 month and 18.6 year influence, respectively.

    As I posted previously, at http://www.theresilientearth.com/?q=content/greenlands-ice-armageddon-comes-end
    comes word that Greenland’s melting has slowed considerably.

  86. Mike Monce (05:55:05) : “…CU is my alma mater. I have trouble understanding how that institution publishes such a graph that is really an embarrassment with that stupid trendline.”

    It’s all explicable by hypoxia.

  87. Stephen Brown says:

    Rising sea levels. The PROOF!!!!

    http://www.culture24.org.uk/history/time/roman/art61315

    Two whole miles! Hmmmm.

  88. rbateman says:

    We are in even less shape to take on massive climate change policy than is India.
    Saving the Planet is the stuff of Heroic deeds, yes, but we are not capable of such a feat. We have company. Evel Kneivel wanted to jump the Grand Canyon, but had to settle for the Snake River in Idaho (sic).

  89. Smokey says:

    Stephen Brown,

    From your link above:

    As the debate ebbs and flows about the dangers of coastal erosion to Britain’s shores, archaeologists in Kent have discovered that parts of our Roman coastline lay two miles inland from today’s coast.

    I get it. It’s “coastal erosion” when it debunks AGW.

    I’m not sure how they reckon that ‘erosion’ causes what was on the water to now be 2 miles inland. Maybe they’re smarter than the rest of us.

    Finally, here’s an interesting chart from a previous WUWT article: click

  90. J. Bob says:

    From the global sea ice info

    http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/global.daily.ice.area.withtrend.jpg

    it’s not coming from sea ice.

  91. Stephen Brown says:

    The Thames Barrier, and the reasons for building it in the first place, from a paper written before the AGW thing became popular.

    http://www.jstor.org/pss/634390

    Man built a city weighing billions of tons on a clay and alluvial plain. Man then extracted billions of gallons of water from under that plain. The plain began sinking and it is still sinking and will continue to do so for an indefinite period.

  92. rbateman says:

    The Romans boom mined much of the coastal placer deposits in France.
    I cannot remember what they did in Britain, but extending coastlines was one of the byproducts of their efforts. At least that was the consensus in 1880.
    The book I got this info from has been removed from public access.
    Cowards.

  93. Graeme Rodaughan says:

    Look Mum – No Urban Heat Island Effect…

  94. the_Butcher says:

    Where I live the sea has covered 1-2m of in 50-60 years. It all depends on the location and it’s not the warming that causes the sea levels to rise or shrink.

  95. mack520 says:

    And lance armstrong was unable to follow?

  96. Philip_B says:

    Have you compared the amount pumped from wells to the water in the oceans? And where is the pumped water going?

    Most of it goes into the atmosphere as water vapour, as does most of the water stored in dams. This is because the water is used for irrigation and either evaporates or transpires into the air. A small amount may run off into rivers or back into aquifers.

    Of course, eventually that water vapour will fall as rain somewhere. But the effect of aquifer pumping and daming will have a much greater effect on the water vapour greenhouse effect than on ocean levels.

    In fact, were we serious about ‘global warming’, then irrigation should be banned immediately. Which won’t happen of course, because the result would be mass starvation.

    And on changes in the British coastline. Most of these effects are tectonic as land to the west and north rises and to the east falls as a result of isostatic rebound from the last glaciation. Illustrating that even if sea levels rise at the rate the Warmists predict, most future sea level changes will be from tectonic effects.

  97. Ron de Haan says:

    Some northern parts of the Netherlands are sinking because:
    1. reducing the groundwater level
    2. retracting natural gas

    Some parts have sunk up to 50 cm.

    The Netherlands has a history of transforming land into water.
    (This activity should result in sea level rise)

    These activities have a much bigger effect that the minimal sea level rise.

    It also shows how easy it is to adapt to changes over time.

    From personal observations over a period of 40 years, I can say that sea level rise is is futile and has futile effects.

    If sea level rises, the sand beaches will rise too.

  98. crosspatch says:

    “But the effect of aquifer pumping and daming will have a much greater effect on the water vapour greenhouse effect than on ocean levels.”

    Incorrect. Most waste water is treated and dumped to local waterways. Increasing water pumping will not increase atmospheric water vapor, that is just silly. The relative humidity will remain whatever it wants to be. It doesn’t keep increasing until all the water in a lake is evaporated.

    If you look at all the water pumped from the ground in the Northern Hemisphere over the last century, you are looking at a HUGE amount of additional water dumped into the oceans.

    Waste water has only recently begun being pumped back into the ground for ground water recharge purposes and then mostly only in areas with severe salt water intrusion resulting from pumping. As treated water is much saltier than the original water, ground water is becoming saltier in general.

  99. Purakanui says:

    Smokey and Stephen,
    The whole south-eastern coastline in England is a complex pattern of erosion and deposition. The white cliffs of Dover and Beachy Head indicate long term erosion, while there are many areas of long term accumulation and deposition. A number of ports from Mediaeval times, including some of the Cinque Ports, are now well inland.
    Winchelsea is a case in point; longshore drift has left it well inland, despite its earlier history as a thriving port. On the other hand, Old Winchelsea was drowned around 1250 when the shingle bank on which it was founded was smashed up by a major storm.
    In the same way, there are raised beaches, cliff lines and sea caves well above current sea level a short walk from where I live in NZ. Elsewhere in the South Island the Marlborough Sounds are a region of drowned valleys. Evidence of long term higher and lower sea levels are everywhere. Erosion and deposition continue to go on as beach dynamics change.
    The Otago Harbour is lined with miles of rock walls, built by Maori prisoners in the 1870s; they show no sign of sea level having changed between then and now. The earliest detailed maps of the Harbour go back to the 1850s, they show no change at all except for known patterns of dredging and reclamation. According to the long term trend, we should have seen a sea level rise of around 45 centimetres (around 18 inches); if indeed it happened, then there is no sign of it.
    In the main, this has little to do with sea level change, either way. It encourages me to believe that if we are facing around 3mm a year (and it looks as though it might be less, at the moment) we can probably handle that quite easily.

  100. Nasif Nahle says:

    Ron de Haan (17:26:03):

    Some northern parts of the Netherlands are sinking because:

    1. reducing the groundwater level
    2. retracting natural gas

    Some parts have sunk up to 50 cm.

    Look at this, Ron:

    http://www.wisegeek.com/is-mexico-city-really-sinking.htm

    http://www.greatdreams.com/cities.htm

    Some geologists think the city is sinking due to overexploitation of underground aquifers, but others think it is due to regional plate movements. This year two tremors have taken place near the area where I live, despite the fact that it is not a seismic zone.

  101. henrychance says:

    “A Google search of “worse than we thought” and “global warming” yields a staggering 13,700 hits as of July 19, 2009. In spite of a cooling climate and increasingly skeptical research, the state of climate alarmism may be – LOL – worse than we thought. ;) ”

    No recorded searches on google 50 years ago before all this faster than expected warming flared up.

    also warming is creating severe droughts which call for heavy rains and flooding. This heavy rain and flooding will raise the ocean much more than the several inches predicted by he time it runs to the sea. DO NOT lay on a towel at the beach. Take a chair because the water is rising.

  102. Rick says:

    Hey, look, a hockey stick! Mann was right, he just had it on upsidedown! :)

  103. Tim Channon says:

    An initial response.

    I am shocked they still haven’t released all the data, look at the dates. There must be a long tale behind the just into service Jason 2, perhaps they have major problems.

    The dataset still has an irregular sampling period. (a beware anyone doing detail work) The supplied data does not document this, so don’t assume.

    An offset has appeared from the previous release. (not checked earlier)
    Early data seems untouched apart from the offset (about 1.8mm), later data is different, some by a lot. Seems just noise.

    I’ve been meaning to show the software I am creating the Jason data. This can handle missing data but not irregular sampling yet. Not enough scatter to cause problems though.

    A first result on release 2, leaving 3 for a check produced a surprise.

    It models with no long term, just one strong factor, a 45 year wave. That is familiar and a quick web search finds plenty of references, papers and text books mentioning a 45 year cycle in sea level.

    Ah, background processing has has just completed, a first cut. Still says 45y and R2=0.948 which is reasonable for noisy data.

    Confident in that result? Nope. Looks too party trick to be right. What I don’t like is it forecasting shows a sharp rise to a peak 2010, then down the other side to a low ~2035. Amplitude ~52mm. Last low 1979/80.
    Don’t like it, too off pat, yet nothing else is in there.

    It’s a short dataset, not good for this kind of thing.

    Maybe have more of a look eventually.

  104. Brandon Dobson says:

    “No recorded searches on google 50 years ago before all this faster than expected warming flared up.”

    Henry, that is to be expected since there wasn’t any Google 50 years ago. What’s Up With That?

    “also warming is creating severe droughts which call for heavy rains and flooding.”

    Could this be a new Quote of the Week?

    “This heavy rain and flooding will raise the ocean much more than the several inches predicted by he time it runs to the sea.”

    Only if it somehow manages to melt Greenland’s ice in the process. Not exactly peer-reviewed science, but maybe an outtake from the movie “Bruce Almighty” :)

    “DO NOT lay on a towel at the beach. Take a chair because the water is rising.”

    Are you serious? If you are, it speaks volumes as to why the warmists are so befuddled.

  105. Graeme Rodaughan says:

    Brandon Dobson (21:28:05) :

    It’s parody.

  106. Justin Sane says:

    The flattening is probably the result of cold arctic ice & glaciers melting thus cooling the oceans and therefore reducing their volume and as a result lowering/stabilizing asl values.

    NOT!

  107. iip says:

    is this a sign of climate change doubt?

    or we really need to re-invent good sciences on climate change issue

  108. I dont think in all of these comments anyone has made a reference to the hundreds of miles of Carbon Dioxide that is permanently frozen by permafrost in siberia. I believe when that begins to melt it will be our point of no return.

  109. for those who dont obviously see what i meant in my previous post the heat spike from the gases of so much decayed material will accelerate the melting of glaciers, if there is anything left to melt.

  110. Stoic says:

    @ henrychance (19:45:27) :
    Brandon Dobson (21:28:05) :

    If Brandon will admit to being American, we have confirming evidence of a long-nurtured British hypothesis that Americans don’t do irony!

    Posted anonymously because of fiduciary obligations – Anthony keep up the good work.

  111. Varco says:

    I agree with Joe Miner. The varience in data points between ‘rel2′ and ‘rel3′ is daft. Points are moving so much you could be forgiven for thinking rel2 and rel3 are different datasets. Take for instance the start of the Jason data, in rel2 it falls between 0~10mm but has changed to -5~5mm – thats more than the claimed uncertainty. What gives?

  112. rickM says:

    I’m really not sure how to inerpret this data. All things being equal, sea level rise (or fall) can have other factors that contribute as well, beyond the caps sucking in more to become ice. Localized rebound?

    I still think gross numbers like this are a statistical game, wherer the tables should be by region, not global. This is meaningless pap.

    That trend line they have on the graph is weighted towwards the mean they’ve established, so they can claim that in the long term, sea levels are continuing to rise. More stattistical skewing.

  113. rickM says:

    “henrychance – also warming is creating severe droughts which call for heavy rains and flooding. This heavy rain and flooding will raise the ocean much more than the several inches predicted by he time it runs to the sea. DO NOT lay on a towel at the beach. Take a chair because the water is rising.”

    LOL – I just about spit up my coffee when I read this!

  114. Jim says:

    thealphamonkey (00:59:27) : Show a reference to where this alledged solid CO2 was measured.

  115. Phil. says:

    Frank Lansner (03:05:42) :
    OT:
    Severe error in ice cover data, it appears.

    Hudson Bay, Compare the 2:

    http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/recent365.anom.region.13.html

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

    No you are making the mistake of comparing extent with area.

    http://rapidfire.sci.gsfc.nasa.gov/realtime/single.php?A092001815

  116. Mike McMillan says:

    I went to NASA’s Climate Change Key Indicators site mentioned above, and screen grabbed their chart. I dropped the UofColo sea level chart on top (seasonal barometrically adjusted), scaled it to match, and NASA didn’t even come close. Their boldly stated 3.4 mm/yr is well above the Colorado 3.1, yet their chart’s slope is less than 2.7. Jr high students would do a better job charting. Can’t wait ’til they get their hands on health care.

    I noticed also that the source for their global temperature is HadleyCRU. Apparently even NASA doesn’t trust GISS. And for ice, they have Arctic Ocean and Greenland. I guess Antarctica went the way of the Medieval Warm Period.

  117. Stoic says:

    O/T but here is an extract from Stephen Leacock’s (the great Canadian humorist) story, “Soaked in Seaweed”:

    He went below. In a few minutes he reappeared, his face deadly pale. “Blowhard,” he said, “the ship is sinking. One of the pirates (sheer accident, of course, I blame no one) has kicked a hole in the side. Let us sound the well.”
    We put our ear to the ship’s well. It sounded like water.
    The men were put to the pumps and worked with the frenzied effort which only those who have been drowned in a sinking ship can understand.
    At six p.m. the well marked one half an inch of water, at nightfall three-quarters of an inch, and at daybreak, after a night of unremitting toil, seven-eights of an inch.
    By noon the next day the water had risen to fifteen-sixteenths of an inch, and on the next night the sounding showed thirty-one thirty-seconds of an inch of water in the hold. The situation was desperate. At this rate of increase few, if any, could tell where it would rise to in a few days.
    That night the Captain called me to his cabin. He had a book of mathematical tables in front of him, and great sheets of vulgar fractions littered the floor on all sides.
    “The ship is bound to sink,” he said, “in fact, Blowhard, she is sinking. I can prove it. It may be six months or it may take years, but if it goes on like this, sink she must. There is nothing for it but to abandon her.”
    That night, in the dead of darkness, while the crew were busy at the pumps, the Captain and I built a raft.
    Unobserved we cut down the masts, chopped them into suitable lengths………..

  118. Mark Young says:

    If this were a stock chart, I’d be dumping my longs. I’d not be going short as yet, but I’d call the up trend broken. It would be confirmed by sustained rising again, but it would be a short if it broke ’07’s lows.

    Just MHO,

  119. Brandon Dobson says:

    At least, we hope it’s parody. It did sound pretty strange, but indistinguishable from some of the people at Real Climate. I never underestimate the religous fervor of the warmist camp.

  120. M. Simon says:

    The Great Lakes are rising.

    http://www.9and10news.com/category/story/?id=158871

    LUDINGTON, Mich. (AP) — Great Lakes water levels are rebounding after a decade-long slump.

    A couple of years ago, Lake Superior set a record low while Lakes Michigan and Huron nearly did likewise. But they’ve all recovered to near their long-term average levels, while Lakes Erie and Ontario are above theirs.

    Scientists say the biggest reason for the rising waters is cooler weather and greater precipitation the past couple of years.

    It’s unclear how long the comeback will last. Scientists say global warming may cause the lakes to recede by up to 3 feet this century.

    Will the usual obeisance to global warming.

  121. M. Simon says:

    Re: Great Lakes comment:

    Scientists say the biggest reason for the rising waters is cooler weather and greater precipitation the past couple of years.

    Two years does not a climate make. But it does make the CO2 FORCING harder to sell.

  122. page48 says:

    This is HUGE.

  123. Brandon Dobson says:

    How about this introduction to a best-seller on Global Warming? ;)

    “Seeking the truth about global warming, I journeyed northward across the Canadian border, toward the land of the midnight sun. Who knows what horrors of climate change would be revealed there.

    There was not a polar bear in sight. Driven by relentless waves of CO2, there was little doubt they had stampeded past the Arctic Circle, seeking the comfort of trackless fields of ice. But alas, the climate modelers proclaimed that the ice would be gone, never to return. The polar bears, crazed by polar drought, would pause but briefly on the edge of Amundsen Bay. But the rising sea levels had rendered it unrecognizable, and they plunged over the edge like lemmings at the cliffs of Dover. Ocean acidification would quickly do it’s work, and the bodies would never be found.

    I stood by a riverbank, pondering the catastrophe. The water sped past at unheard-of speed, born of distant glaciers melting in the intense, statistically-adjusted anomalous .2 degree heat of global warming. Where was the ice pack that was here only 15,000 years ago? I had seen enough. Only a slide show, a book, and a lucrative business in carbon trading would prepare the world for what I had witnessed with my own eyes.”

  124. Geoff Sherrington says:

    Carl Chapman (03:47:32) :

    The oceans are on a roughly spherical surface, are shallow compared to the diameter, and change perimeter as they rise or fall.

    If water is in a narrow tube, it will rise in linear manner to temperature, like a thermometer. If it’s on a flat plate with infinitely gently sloping edges, it will rise to about the square root of temperature increase, because of the area change. I’m wondering about the correct power to relate global spherical temperature increase to rise in sea level, because a sphere and a narrow tube are different cases.

    It’s a bit like Mandelbrot’s length of coastline problem, but not the same. I suspect a power with a decimal that some folks might relate to fractal. Except that continental shelves and their extensions do not have similar nor near infinite sloped edges, so the power would change with level.

    BTW, the paper by Ablain et al seems, on first pass, to be excellent.

  125. Richard Mackey says:

    Constant rate of sea level rise of approx 1.9mm pa throughout the last 100 years

    In a definitive paper about sea level change, “Sea level budget over 2003-2008: A re-evaluation from GRACE space gravimetry, satellite altimetry and Argo” (Global and Planetary Change Vo 65, Issues 1 – 2 , January 2009, Pages 83-88 preprint here http://sciences.blogs.liberation.fr/home/files/Cazenave_et_al_GPC_2008.pdf )) Dr Anny Cazenave et al conclude:

    “Over 2003–2008, the GRACE-based ocean mass has increased at an average rate of ∼1.9 mm/yr (if we take the upper range of possible GIA corrections as recommended by Peltier, submitted for publication). Such a rate agrees well with the sum of land ice plus land water contributions (i.e., GRACE-based ice sheet mass balance estimated in this study, GRACE-based land waters plus recently published estimates for the current glacier contribution). These results in turn offer constraints on the ocean mass GIA correction, as well as on the glacier melting contribution.”

    The authors also note that since 2006 the rate of increase seems to have plateauxed, an observation since confirmed by others.

    Twenty years ago in 1990 Trupin and Wahr in a highly rigorous paper (A Trupin and J Wahr “Orthogonal Stack of Global Tide Gauge Sea Level Data” pps 111 to 117 in Dennis D McCarthy and William Carter (eds) Variations in Earth Rotation Geophysical Monograph 59 American Geophysical Union and International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics Vol 9 1990) found:

    “Global averages of tide data, after correcting for the effects of post glacial rebound on individual station records, reveal an increase in sea level over the last 80 years of between 1.1mm/yr and 1.9mm/yr, …. with a preferred value of 1.75mm/yr.”

    The value of approx 1.9mm/yr accords with other estimates published around that time.

    The conclusion from these published papers, both rigorous and definitive, is that the rate of increase of the ocean mass has been constant for over 100 years at approximately 1.9mm/yr.

    If the ocean mass has been increasing at the constant rate of approximately 1.9mm/yr for the last 100 years, its temperature cannot have been increasing at an increasing rate as the IPCC hypothesised. This is because warmer water occupies a greater volume that cooler water, other things being equal. Hence there is no trace of any increased temperature in the total mass of the oceans that could be attributable to AWG as the IPCC hypothesised.

    In response to Senator Fielding question about whther the planet was warming or not, the Australian Government stressed that ocean warming is the best test of the IPCC AWG hypothesis and that time periods of 50 years or longer are required to discern long term trends in climate with confidence.

    Throughout the past 100 years AWG has been increasing but ocean temperatures have been rising at a tiny constant rate of 1.9mm/yr which is entirely attributable to non AWG variables.

    The Australian Government’s nominated test of the basis for the cap and trade bill shows clearly that there is no empirical basis for the bill.

  126. Leland Palmer says:

    It’s really amazing to me how the people on this site can look at that graph, and focus on the last three years, while ignoring the long term trend, which is clearly increasing.

    Three years is not long enough to see if there is a trend or not. Thirty years is long enough.

    People on this site often rely on the possibility of a sun/weather connection to save us. This assumes that the sun will enter a long term quiet phase, similar to the Maunder minimum that occurred several hundred years ago, and that this will save us from forcing from atmospheric increases in CO2.

    The scientists that postulate a sun/weather connection would point out that the sun has been in a very quiet phase, and is at a low spot in its sunspot cycle, right now. But that sunspot cycle has been oscillating through high and low periods with an average period of 11 years for the past several hundred years.

    If we are being protected from CO2 forcing temporarily by a sunspot minimum, what is going to happen 5 or 6 years from now? This is when the next sunspot maximum will probably occur, if the past several hundred years is any guide.

  127. jeez says:

    Leland Palmer:

    Why is 30 years long enough?
    It has no physical significance.
    It is simply an arbitrary number from the days of historical weather averages.
    Why not 70, 250, or 310?

    The reason the last 3 years are of note is the increasing shrill of AGW proponents. THINGS ARE WORSE THAN WE THOUGHT LAST YEAR! or WORSE THAN THE IPCC 2007 PROJECTIONS!. Yet there is no evidence that things are worse.

  128. Smokey says:

    Leland Palmer,

    It’s really amazing how you can assume CO2 forcing, by which you no doubt mean AGW. Are you aware of how very little CO2 is produced by human activity compared with natural CO2 production? : click

    Regarding the sea level, if you don’t want to focus on the past few years, here’s a chart that shows what’s been happening naturally: click.

    The planet has been warming naturally since the Little Ice Age, and from the last great Ice Age before that. The planet is currently in an interglacial period, and a good thing for us that it is. If it weren’t, then Chicago would still be covered by mile thick glacier ice.

    Believers in AGW simply can not seem to accept the fact that the planet warms and cools just the same with or without human emissions, and has done so for millions of years. Natural climate variability explains everything we observe, without the unnecessary explanation of CO2.

  129. Nogw says:

    Leland Palmere:

    Download and read the following paper (made by the same UN of the IPCC). You will see there, a forecast of temperatures until 2100, where there is no global warming at all. At FAO they use this study to forecast temperatures and fish catches all over the world.:
    You can dowload the complete paper from (12 pdf documents):
    ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/005/y2787e/
    Which UN report will you believe?…It is up to you to decide. If armageddon or your happy life.

  130. Stoic says:

    @ Leland Palmer (12:54:42) :

    “People on this site often rely on the possibility of a sun/weather connection to save us.”

    To save us from what, exactly?

  131. Willis Eschenbach says:

    Leland Palmer, thanks for your comment. You say:

    It’s really amazing to me how the people on this site can look at that graph, and focus on the last three years, while ignoring the long term trend, which is clearly increasing.

    The long term trend shows an increase in sea level … but the trend is not “clearly increasing”, it is not increasing at all.

    w.

  132. Jeff Alberts says:

    Three years is not long enough to see if there is a trend or not. Thirty years is long enough.

    Quite true. Go back several thousand years, we haven’t re-reached those “sea levels” yet.

  133. Leland Palmer says:

    Hi all-

    Three years is not long enough, because the noise in the data is great enough to obscure the long term trend.

    A quick and dirty way of determining the signal to noise ratio in data is to visually draw confidence limits. Draw a line roughly through all the high points on the graph. Draw another line roughly through all the low points on the graph. The vertical distance between the two confidence limits gives you a rough figure for the noise.

    Data with a trend greater than three times the noise (a trend that is larger than three times the vertical distance between your visually drawn confidence limits) is generally considered to be significant, and is considered to be showing a statistically significant trend. In this case, the trend in the last three years is within the confidence limits, and so is not generally considered to be significant. Extend the time line long enough, though, and a clear upward trend, greater than three times the noise, clearly exists.

    Like I say, it is amazing to see people on this site look at that graph, which contains a lot of noise from seasonal variations, tidal variations and measurement error, and think that the last three years is significant (it’s not, any trend over this time period is obscured by the noise) while ignoring the long term trend.

    Sea level rise is very strong evidence that global warming is indeed occurring, and is increasing along with greenhouse gas concentrations.

    So, if we can’t agree on anything else, just looking at the long term rise in sea level should convince most of you, if you were being reasonable and rational, that global warming is indeed occurring.

    It’s obvious. Just look at the long term trend.

    How dangerous global warming is, whether it could trigger runaway positive feedback effects that totally destabilize the system, as many scientists fear, can reasonably be debated, perhaps.

    But the fact that warming is occurring seems pretty obvious from the long term trend in sea levels, which, over a long enough period of time, are clearly increasing.

    Ice melts, and increases sea levels.

    Does anyone have an alternate explanation for the clear long term trend in sea levels, other than global warming?

  134. Richard Mackey says:

    Leland Palmer

    Perhaps you might address the empirical finding I reported on my post above (21/07/2009) that the sea level has risen at a constant rate of no more than 1.9mm/for the last 100 years and that this rather small and constant rate is attributable to variables other than those hypothesised by the IPCC et al.

  135. NS says:

    Leland Palmer (19:25:49) :
    Does anyone have an alternate explanation for the clear long term trend in sea levels, other than global warming?

    No I believe it IS due to warming seen since LIA at around 20cm per century, with warming at 0.7C per century, over the last 2-300 years.
    And yes, even some CO2 impact in there, maybe as much as 20%.

  136. Phil. says:

    Richard Mackey (04:04:48) :
    Leland Palmer

    Perhaps you might address the empirical finding I reported on my post above (21/07/2009) that the sea level has risen at a constant rate of no more than 1.9mm/for the last 100 years and that this rather small and constant rate is attributable to variables other than those hypothesised by the IPCC et al.

    The GRACE results you referred to showed that the ocean mass increased by 1.9mm/yr, the sea level as shown above has been increasing at 3.2mm/yr which leaves 1.3mm/yr due to temperature change.

  137. Willis Eschenbach says:

    Leland Palmer, you advise a “quick and dirty” method of determining errors, which apparently involves looking at the data and drawing some confidence interval lines where you think they should be.

    Here on this site, we prefer the scientific method over homespun “just draw a line somewhere” methods. For example, the excellent paper by Anny Cazenave et al referred to above, which says:

    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.

    So you are free go ahead and draw your lines where you wish, and try to convince the credulous that yours is a valuable, accurate, and valid procedure for determining errors. Me, I’ll put my trust in science and mathematics …

    w.

    PS … you do note the part where she says the recent reduction in sea level rates is real?

  138. Jamie says:

    In Central California where the coast line is west of the San Andreas Fault, wave cut terraces have been measured with elevations above sea level ranging from zero to 900 feet. Near Santa Cruz, CA, a wave cut terrace measuring 210 meters above sea level has been age dated using radio activity methods and determined to be 100,000 years old. That is an average rise of 2.1 mm per year of the coastline along with an unknown extent of sea floor. With all the recent seismic activity around the Pacific Ring of Fire, the sea floor must be writhing like a tread upon serpent. Who is to say if it is the land or the sea elevations that are changing and how much of it is attributable to what?

  139. George E. Smith says:

    “”” Leland Palmer (19:25:49) :

    Hi all-

    Three years is not long enough, because the noise in the data is great enough to obscure the long term trend.

    A quick and dirty way of determining the signal to noise ratio in data is to visually draw confidence limits. Draw a line roughly through all the high points on the graph. Draw another line roughly through all the low points on the graph. The vertical distance between the two confidence limits gives you a rough figure for the noise. “”

    So; under whose authority do you claim this is “noise” ?

    It actually IS the data. The whole climate/weather system is chaotic, and of such a nature that regardless of what variable you are measuring; temperature, sea level, ice area, etc; at no point is it possible to predict what the result of the very next measurement will be; it is not even possible to predict, whether the next value will be higher or lower than the most recent value.

    If there is any “noise” or fictitious value, it is the mathematically extracted so-called “trend” that is a noise; it is a complete fiction generated by mathematics; and it has no physical significance whatsoever.

    Whatever tomorrow’s climate/weather will be; we can be certain that it will be the result of adding the result of the operating physical effects to whatever today’s climate/weather is. You will not get any meaningful prediction for tomorrow, by starting from some fictional point of global mean; because the real physical processes that determine the climate/weather are functions of what the present values are not some mathematical abstract value that can be observed nowhere in the system.

  140. Leland Palmer says:

    Hi Willis –

    Your quote seems to come to the conclusion that the rate of increase has declined, and according to an error analysis the person quoted says that this decline in the rate of increase is real.

    But even if the rate of increase slows down, the overall sea levels continue to rise – just not as fast as before. And of course, year-to-year variations in the rate of increase don’t really mean anything, and are a normal part of noisy data. Certainly any decline in the rate of increase is not big news compared to the overall, long-term, obvious upward trend in sea levels.

    There seems to be a very large amount of wishful thinking in these posts. Jamie, for example, seems to think that land levels all over the world, pretty uniformly, are sinking rather than sea level rising. This seems almost infinitely unlikely, and this very unlikely assertion went unchallenged.

    Anybody have a reasonable physical explanation of why land levels all over the world should simultaneously sink like this?

    Isn’t the simplest explanation – ice melts, water expands, sea level rises – as supported by multiple measurements from many different sources, the best explanation?

    Regarding separating out the contribution in sea level rise according to cause, and attributing only 20 percent of it to CO2 forcing, if a real scientist – and most of us aren’t – were to make that claim, I would wonder how he claimed to be able to be able to do this?

    What we do know is that the long term trend in sea levels is upward. The most likely, obvious physical explanation for that is that the atmosphere and upper levels of the oceans are warming. Ice melts, water expands upon heating – this is not rocket science.

    Regarding simply drawing in confidence levels, this is a reasonable quick and dirty way to do this, based on sound underlying mathematics.

  141. Smokey says:

    Leland Palmer (10:05:06):

    But even if the rate of increase slows down, the overall sea levels continue to rise – just not as fast as before.

    So the long term trend line is, in fact, flattening. But, but…

    What we do know is that the long term trend in sea levels is upward. The most likely, obvious physical explanation for that is that the atmosphere and upper levels of the oceans are warming. Ice melts, water expands upon heating – this is not rocket science.

    It’s not AGW, either.

    What you’re observing is the natural trend line of sea level rise that can be traced back to the LIA, before the industrial revolution. And since that trend line is not increasing [and is, in fact, flattening], the alarmist argument that sea level rise is caused by human CO2 emissions is effectively demolished.

  142. Leland Palmer says:

    Hi George-

    If there is any “noise” or fictitious value, it is the mathematically extracted so-called “trend” that is a noise; it is a complete fiction generated by mathematics; and it has no physical significance whatsoever.

    So, now we’re challenging the validity of the science of statistics, apparently in order to deny a conclusion that global warming is real. Scientists would not do this. Scientists would keep the statistics, and question the conclusion.

    Most of us, if we are being logical and reasonable, would admit that many statistical concepts are useful and help us understand the real world. If I were to say that “adults are taller than children” most of us would admit that this is generally true, and is a valid statistical observation, although there are certainly exceptions to this rule.

    Scientists use statistics because statistics is very useful, and helps us understand the behavior and characteristics of whole populations of things.

    If you want to live in a personal reality that denies any statistical concepts, go ahead.

    But you won’t be as successful in understanding and predicting phenomena in the real world as people who do admit the reality of statistical concepts, if history is any guide.

  143. Ron de Haan says:

    Phil. (07:44:24) :

    Patrick Davis (05:44:58) :
    Well, I will say this, if you dig through very old Royal Naval (UK) maritime records, hundres of years old, you will see there is *NO* sea level rise of any significance. These records are now lock from public view, which is a shame. Not sure when that happened.

    The whole south coast of England, an old naval nation after all it was ships in “Great Britain’s” time which made it a “suprepower”, and all the records show no significant change in sea levels. Hundreds of years of measurements, not just 30 years of “data”.

    “And yet the UK saw fit to invest over $1billion in the Thames barrier and had to use it with increasing frequency”.

    Phil, the closing of the Thames Barrier has nothing to do with sea level rise.
    It has everything to do with the track of storm depressions and the fact that the surge they cause is pushed into a funnel.

    Just have a look at the map and you see what is causing this problem.

  144. Leland Palmer says:

    Hi Smokey-

    What you’re observing is the natural trend line of sea level rise that can be traced back to the LIA, before the industrial revolution. And since that trend line is not increasing [and is, in fact, flattening], the alarmist argument that sea level rise is caused by human CO2 emissions is effectively demolished.

    So based on three years of data, you’re willing to say that the rate of increase is declining, when the increases have been going on for hundreds or thousands of years?

    Isn’t it more likely that your time-line is too short, and the noise in the signal over this short time period is obscuring the long term trend?

  145. Ron de Haan says:

    Another alarmist story, 12 meter sea level rise!
    http://www.canada.com/technology/Climate+clock+ticking/1462485/story.html

  146. Willis Eschenbach says:

    Leland, thanks for your response.

    As you point out, if the global sea levels are rising, it’s due to increasing temperatures. According to Jevrejeva et al., Nonlinear trends and multiyear cycles in sea level records, http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2006/2005JC003229.shtml, the sea level has both risen and fallen over the course of the 20th century.

    Regarding your statement that

    And of course, year-to-year variations in the rate of increase don’t really mean anything, and are a normal part of noisy data. Certainly any decline in the rate of increase is not big news compared to the overall, long-term, obvious upward trend in sea levels.

    If the trend of sea level rise were to have increased by 2 mm/yr, to 5 mm/yr, it would be all over the news reports, “Sea level rise increases by 60%, EVERYONE PANIC” … so I fail to see why the sea level rise decreasing by 60% is “not big news” in the current climate. Yes, it is short-term, but as Anny Cazenave points out, it is statistically significant.

    Finally, there is no “long-term, obvious upward trend in sea levels”. Like temperatures, you only have two choices — rising and falling. It’s always doing one or the other, and we shouldn’t read anything significant into it.

    Read Jevrejeva.

    w.

  147. Smokey says:

    Howdy yourself, Leland.

    What you’re trying to do is re-frame the argument so you can win it. Those word games don’t work here. For example:

    So, now we’re challenging the validity of the science of statistics, apparently in order to deny a conclusion that global warming is real.

    No one is trying to “deny… that global warming is real.” [And BTW, are you still beating your wife?]

    By admitting that “even if the rate of increase slows down, the overall sea levels continue to rise – just not as fast as before.” [my emphasis]

    You are acknowledging that the rate of increase has been flattening. And you’re right, the trend has been flattening.

    We can also see that steadily rising CO2 concentrations are not the driver of sea level rise: click

    So, to recap [please sit up straight and pay attention this time] :

    No one is claiming there is no global warming. That is a strawman argument, which you’ve used several times now. Please stop it.

    We are saying that global warming is natural; any warming caused by human activity is so small that it can effectively be disregarded.

    Recently the rise in sea level has been flattening. It is a cyclical process that has nothing to do with AGW or CO2. If you disagree, present your evidence [but please, no computer model "evidence"].

    The trend of sea level rise predates the industrial revolution, therefore human activity can not be the cause. QED.

    Finally, I am skeptical of any organization that receives large dollops of taxpayer loot [UC comes to mind]. “Who pays the piper calls the tune” and all that. So let’s skip the UC graph, which is routinely “adjusted,” and look at some other sea level records:

    Click1

    Click2

    Click3

    It bears repeating that the alarmist claim that sea level rise is caused by human CO2 emissions has been effectively demolished by those pesky facts.

  148. Leland Palmer says:

    Hi all-

    It’s a shame, it’s all very sad.

    So much brain power going into [snip], because you’ve swallowed some commercially motivated propaganda, with the money originating ultimately from the fossil fuel corporations, I am convinced.

    Comments are often made about “taxpayer loot” being made by the “alarmists” and so on, but I doubt that Rush Limbaugh’s 400 million dollar contract to continue being “[snip] in chief” is mentioned very much at all, on this site.

    Rush Limbaugh says the he is a “friend to corporate America”.

    Oh, who knew?

    Really, all this exultation over a what may or may not be a decline in the rate of increase in very noisy data, over a three year period, which may or may not be significant, is pretty hard to take seriously.

    Really, ignoring the long-term trend to focus upon that supposed decline in very noisy data, is simply not scientific, nor is it reasonable or logical.

    All of the skepticism, and assumption of bad motives, and demonizing of the “alarmists” or “warmists” who have committed the crime of trying to tell you all something you really don’t want to hear, is discouraging.

    I’ll leave you to it, mostly.

    Visiting this site, looking at all the unreason and [snip], is very depressing, and I’m depressed enough already over what I believe to be runaway global warming.

    I’ll come back, to try to argue you all out of your commercially sparked [snip], triggered by propaganda from paid propagandists, once in a while.

    But I won’t waste my time on people whose minds are closed.

    Really, even if the “alarmists” are wrong (they’re not), they are still right. Even if the [snip] are right, they are still wrong.

    Risks are commonly assessed by multiplying the probability of an event by the consequences of the event. In this case, the probability of runaway global warming is looking pretty high, but the consequences are absolutely huge.

    In the words of Stephen Hawking – “the risk is that the temperature increases could become self-sustaining”. In other words, a series of vicious cycle positive feedback events could be initiated, which would be hard or impossible to stop.

    Even a small probability of the end of the world as we know it should trigger emergency, drastic action.

    Reply: Further use of this word as an insult will be cause for unannounced deletion of post. ~ charles the moderator

  149. Willis Eschenbach says:

    Leland, in the midst of a variety of insults directed at I don’t know who, you say:

    In the words of Stephen Hawking – “the risk is that the temperature increases could become self-sustaining”. In other words, a series of vicious cycle positive feedback events could be initiated, which would be hard or impossible to stop.

    I know Hawking is brilliant … but so is Steven Chu, and he seems to be equally clueless about climate.

    First, perhaps you might comment on why such a thermal runaway has (as far as we can determine) never happened in the history of the planet, and what that means for our ability to estimate the odds of such a runaway …

    Second, saying that “X might happen, and although the probability is low, the probable cost is high” is meaningless. Nor can we get from that to a expected cost by multiplying the two.

    For example, the sun might go nova tomorrow. Probable cost? Trillions and trillions and trillions. Multiply that by any conceivable probability of nova, and you end up with a huge number. Does that mean that we should begin studying ways to prevent the nova?

    Out at the fringes of probability, such calculations are … well, not to put too fine a point on it, meaningless. You might profit by a look at Michael Crichton’s speech on the Drake Equation to understand why a small probability of the end of the world as we know it should not trigger emergency, drastic action.

    w.

  150. Smokey says:

    Leland Palmer,

    Sorry about your tantrum, but OTOH, it’s fun to deconstruct it:

    First of all, you did not address a single one of my points, or refute any of my links. That’s a sure sign of having no credible facts to back up your [repeatedly falsified] runaway globaloney conjecture. Talk about a closed mind, yours is actually somewhat of a classic.

    OK, on to the fun deconstruction…

    1. About those ee-e-evil “fossil fuel corporations.” To avoid charges of hypocrisy, please assure us that you don’t use their products, and that you have no mutual funds or other investments in any provider of fossil fuels.

    2. This Rush Limbaugh person of whom you speak… was his contract entered into freely, without coercion? Or did this Limbaugh hold a gun to the heads of everyone, and force them to sign contracts? Clearly you are opposed to his right to free speech; why is that trait so widespread among the warmists?

    3. Point out the “exultation” over the facts presented. It is not ‘exultation’ to point out that the alarmist contingent has been absolutely wrong about almost everything: CO2=AGW, coral bleaching, ocean acidification, sea levels, sea ice, the ozone hole, climate sensitivity, drowning polar bears, etc., etc. They are wrong about everything! But even a stopped clock is right on occasion, and the first time the alarmist crowd is right about something, THEN you’ll understand what “exultation” means. But until then, the AGW crowd’s batting average is 0.000.

    4. You only hate the “supposed decline in very noisy data” because it’s just one more thing that the AGW crowd got wrong. They — and you — absolutely crave a rapidly rising sea level. Sorry about that.

    5. The “assumption of bad motives” is entirely justified: click

    6. You say, “…what I believe to be runaway global warming.” Please provide empirical evidence [and computer models are certainly not real world "evidence"] of “runaway global warming.” I challenge you on this. Put up or shut up.

    7. You accuse us of using “propaganda from paid propagandists.” That is pure psychological projection on your part; you are imputing your faults onto others. Are you unaware of the recent articles about the $7 billion+ that has been funneled almost exclusively into the pockets of the climate alarmists? Are you unaware of the almost $1 million that has flowed into James Hansen’s pockets from individuals like the convicted felon George Soros [who also funds realclimate], and similar organizations with a heavy AGW agenda? And you claim skeptics have closed minds! Look at your astonishing comment: “Really, even if the “alarmists” are wrong (they’re not), they are still right. Even if the deniers are right, they are still wrong.” Yet you provide absolutely zero facts to back up that closed-minded True Believer statement.

    8. The probability of a large asteroid hitting the Earth is much, much more likely than your baseless “what if there is runaway global warming” fear mongering. A large asteroid just smashed into Jupiter within the past few days. Yet almost no funds have been allocated to address the high probability asteroid threat. Instead, the demonization of a minor trace gas has people like you totally terrified to the point of wearing Depends, when you should be concerned instead about actual, verifiable threats to this planet. It would take considerably less than $7 billion to address the asteroid threat. Unfortunately, that scientific endeavor, and many others like it, have been starved of funds that were sidetracked into the AGW racket instead.

    You say, “Risks are commonly assessed by multiplying the probability of an event by the consequences of the event.” Since “runaway global warming” due to increased CO2 has never happened in the past 4.6 billion years, and the Earth has routinely been struck over and over by large asteroids, sane people should be advocating that the funds now being completely wasted on AGW should be used instead for addressing real problems.

    9. Steven Hawking is an astronomer. The head of M.I.T.’s Atmospheric Sciences department, Prof. Richard Lindzen, is not impressed. Betting on Hawking over Lindzen is a fool’s wager.

    10. “Even a small probability of the end of the world as we know it should trigger emergency, drastic action.” Not when the probability of runaway global warming from increased CO2 is 0.000000000001. If you disagree, don’t be a hypocrite by driving your car, or riding your bike, or even stepping outside. Compared with the imagined AGW threat, those activities are dangerous. Stay in your mom’s basement, where you’re totally safe. Just pray that an asteroid doesn’t hit you.

    This was fun, Leland. Let’s do it again soon.

  151. Leland Palmer says:

    Hi Smokey-

    First, perhaps you might comment on why such a thermal runaway has (as far as we can determine) never happened in the history of the planet, and what that means for our ability to estimate the odds of such a runaway …

    Not so, sad to say. It’s looking more and more like both the Paleocene/Eocene thermal maximum and the Permian/Triassic mass extinction were caused by runaway global warming leading to the release of a couple trillion tons of isotopically light methane from the methane hydrates. It’s looking in fact like the “clathrate gun” or “methane catastrophe” hypothesis is in fact the correct explanation for these extinction events, and possibly several mass extinction events.

    The Permaian/Triassic mass extinction killed 95 percent of all species on earth, roughly.

    From Wikipedia:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clathrate_gun_hypothesis

    he sudden release of large amounts of natural gas from methane clathrate deposits in runaway climate change could be a cause of past, future, and present climate changes. The release of this trapped methane is a potential major outcome of a rise in temperature; it is thought that this is a main factor in the global warming of 6°C that happened during the end-Permian extinction,[8] as methane is much more powerful as a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide (despite its atmospheric lifetime of around 12 years, it has a global warming potential of 62 over 20 years and 23 over 100 years). The theory also predicts this will greatly affect available oxygen content of the atmosphere.

    Possible release events

    Two events possibly linked in this way are the Permian-Triassic extinction event and the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum. It may also have had a role in the sudden warm-up of “Snowball Earth”, 630 million years ago.[9] However, warming at the end of the last ice age is thought not to be due to methane release.

    Methane from hydrates is depleted in C13, relative to methane or CO2 not from hydrates. So, if a large amount of methane is released from these hydates, you would expect that there would be a sudden drop in the C12/C13 isotope ratios, in rocks laid down during these past extinction events.

    Exactly that sort of signature is seen, for each of the extinction events mentioned above.

    So, it looks like past runaway warming events, leading to mass extinctions, have indeed occurred.

    We can hope that the triggering event for the Permian/Triassic extinction event was the Siberian Traps volcanism, which might have heated the deep ocean fast enough to trigger the catastrophe.

    We can hope that outgassing from the Arctic tundra, as the frozen plant material in permafrost decays into methane will not trigger another methane catastrophe, and that the methane hydrates will stay stable.

    We can hope that as tropical and boreal forests burn in huge firestorms, that this is insufficient CO2 forcing to trigger widespread dissociation of the methane hydrates.

    We can hope that Chris Field, one of the IPCC group leaders, who talked about “vicious cycle” feedbacks on Democracy Now! on February 26,2009, was wrong when he worried that melting of the permafrost, the ice/albedo feedback, tropical forests burning, boreal forests burning, outgassing of CO2 from the oceans as they warm, and so on, was wrong when he worried about these positive feedback processes leading to runaway global heating.

    We can hope.

  152. Leland Palmer says:

    Whoops, I guess the above post should be addressed to Willis, not to Smokey.

    Sorry about that.

    By the way, my mood on the above post was not anger, nor was it any sort of tantrum.

    I’m more depressed than angry or frustrated, dealing with the skeptics on this site.

    The climate alarmists are right, even if they are wrong, because all we alarmists want is reasonable caution, and willingness to change when change appears to be necessary.

    The climate skeptics are wrong, even if they are right, because we have all of our eggs in one basket that is looking increasingly fragile.

    Risks are commonly assessed by multiplying the probability of an event by the consequences of an event.

    The risks of runaway global heating are simply too great, and the consequences too immense, in my opinion, to be ignored.

  153. Sandy says:

    “The risks of runaway global heating are simply too great, and the consequences too immense, in my opinion, to be ignored.”

    The risks of runaway global heating are non-existent as the fossil record shows. Wiki is simply lying if it tries to ascribe those extinctions to CO2 warming while forgetting to mention flood basalts that would be destroying the atmosphere at the time.

    The World is getting colder and government funded scientists are deliberately lying to hide it.
    The idea that Man could tune the climate to order is actually extremely funny, apart from the number of people who believe it.

  154. Smokey says:

    Leland, you are a classic case study in Cognitive Dissonance [CD] Keep an eye out for the flying saucers. And if they don’t arrive on schedule, it’s not because your beliefs are wrong. No. It’s because of something else; I know you’ll come up with an explanation.

    As a confirmed true True Believer, you live your life according to the Precautionary Principle. No real scientist would say:

    “The climate alarmists are right, even if they are wrong, because all we alarmists want is reasonable caution, and willingness to change when change appears to be necessary. The climate skeptics are wrong, even if they are right, because we have all of our eggs in one basket that is looking increasingly fragile.”

    The only CD-enabling backup you have is your calthate hypothesis conjecture picked from Wikipedia. And here we always thought the long-accepted, mainstream theory was a meteorite strike that smashed into the Earth 65 million years ago, killing off the dinosaurs and leaving a residue of iridium as its calling card.

    Meteors routinely strike the Earth, and we are overdue. But don’t worry about that, worry instead that an increase in a minor trace gas, from 4 parts in ten thousand to 5 parts in ten thousand, will improbably cause the climate to hit a mysterious, fabricated “tipping point” and cause runaway global warming. Tell us, exactly where is that mythical tipping point? Or is it’s location a secret, known only to the Bovine Fecal Purveyance Specialists prognosticating about globaloney?

    As I explained to you, there is no evidence — NONE — that a rise in CO2 has ever caused a rise in temperature, much less runaway global warming. [Keep in mind that pesky scientific word 'evidence'].

    Of course, the pro-globaloney Wikipedia, heavily censored by the agenda-driven propagandist William Connolley [who was so threatened by the "Gore Effect" page that he completely deleted the entire page], can not accept an extinction event that doesn’t blame CO2. So he waves through the calthate hypothesis conjecture, and picks it as his scenario because it fingers CO2. Could this be any less scientific? No. Because it’s pure politics, not science. Big, big money is involved in the globaloney scam, my friend. You just seem a little naive about its corrupting effect.

    Your constant repitition of “we can hope…” indicates a non-rigorous intellect. I suspect that if Malthusian Luddites like you get in charge, we will be heading back to the days before Ignaz Semelweis.

    The last Dark Ages occurred during a time of exceptional cold. It appears that with the current declining temperatures, we may be heading into a similar Dark Age scientifically. But hey, in a few more centuries there will be a new warm period, followed by a second Enlightenment.

    In the mean time, you might as well go looking for some witches to burn. Don’t forget your torch and pitchfork.

  155. Willis Eschenbach says:

    Leland, thanks for your response.

    I can find nothing in the geological history of the world where a slight rise in CO2 has caused any catastrophes. In fact, the CO2 level is currently at the low end of its historical range over geological time. See e.g.

    Science 21 September 1990:
    Vol. 249. no. 4975, pp. 1382 – 1386
    DOI: 10.1126/science.249.4975.1382
    Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Levels Over Phanerozoic Time
    Robert A. Berner (requires subscription)

    which shows that the CO2 levels in the last 500 million years have been 5-10 times what they are now for millions of years at a stretch.

    The cause of the PETM warming some 55 million years BP is the subject of ongoing scientific debate and uncertainty. It is hypothesized that an unknown event caused a huge loss of methane from clathrates, poisoning the ocean and raising the temperature. There were mass extinctions in the ocean, but not on land, indicating an oceanic origin.

    However, the high CO2 levels (up to 10x the present) in the last half-billion years have not caused any other such event, despite the presence of clathrates … which makes it unlikely that CO2 caused the PETM warming.

    So do I think a doubling or even a tripling of CO2 will cause thermal runaway? Absolutely not, we’ve seen much, much more than that in the last hundred million years or so without thermal meltdown.

    Now, if you want to worry about that, it’s up to you. But there is no scientific case to be made that the projected worst case CO2 rise will cause thermal runaway.

    Next, you say:

    Risks are commonly assessed by multiplying the probability of an event by the consequences of an event.

    Well, you know … I actually knew that. And discussed it above. And recommended that you read Crichton’s speech on that very subject before you made yourself look more uninformed than I suspect you actually are.

    However, you’ve obviously not done so … so let me recommend it again.

    Next, quoting Wikipedia on a scientific site such as WUWT will not gain you any traction at all, it simply calls your credibility into question. Some things Wikipedia is good for, but climate science is not one of them. See this article for a good explanation of why it absolutely cannot be trusted in re climate.

    Next, enough with the accusations of bad faith, please. Speculations on people’s motives and the like go nowhere. I’ll assume that you are trying to learn more about the relatively new science of the climate, which we’ve only been really seriously and intensively studying for about a quarter century or so. As such, there are many more questions than answers. Most of us are trying to discuss and find answers here on this site, not looking to get into food fights or pretend that we understand why others believe what they believe. Please do us the courtesy of assuming that we, like you, are looking to gain further scientific understanding of the climate.

    And finally, citations are your friend. If you want to make a claim, back it up with some science or at least a citation to further support for your ideas.

    My best to you,

    w.

  156. Leland Palmer says:

    So, the general consensus among the people that post on this site appears to be that the chances of runaway global warming are zero.

    This would mean that the majority of climate scientists are wrong.

    The majority of climate scientists believe that there is a significant probability of runaway global warming.

    And some of the people that post on this site are so sure that they are right, that they are willing to bet the entire biosphere on it.

    This does not seem to be reasonable, to me.

    Some of you are so sure that you’re right, and thousands of climate scientists are wrong, that you’re willing to bet the entire future of the human race on it? Even if you were right (and you’re not) how could you be that sure?

    Let’s try again:

    The dinosaur killer extinction 65 million years ago is generally acknowledged to have been due to a large meteor or asteroid striking the earth. The methane catastrophe hypothesis has no argument with that. That was the

    What the methane catastrophe hypothesis tries to explain are the other significant mass extinctions, including the Paleocene/Eocene thermal maximum, and the Permian/Triassic mass extinction, and a couple more including a really huge event back in the Precambrian, which apparently changed a completely glaciated earth into a tropical one.

    By the way, notice the “/” in the above names. That “/” represents the end of one geological era, and the beginning of another. Not only are there apparent methane catastrophes in the fossil record, they are apparently big enough to kill enough species so that paleontologists have been noticing these huge changes in the fossil record for hundreds of years, and in fact have based their classification system on them.

    The literature is full of scientific papers on the methane catastrophe or clathrate gun hypothesis, and on the scientific evidence for that hypothesis.

    Here’s one, about the Paleocene/Eocene thermal maximum:

    http://www.es.ucsc.edu/~jzachos/pubs/TZBTB_02.pdf

    Warming the fuel for the fire: Evidence for the thermal dissociation of methane hydrate during the Paleocene-Eocene thermal maximum.

    Deborah J. Thomas Department of Geological Sciences, University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina 27599-3315, USA
    James C. Zachos Earth Sciences Department, University of California Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz, California 95064, USA
    Timothy J. Bralower Department of Geological Sciences, University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina 27599-3315, USA
    Ellen Thomas Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences, Wesleyan University, Middletown, Connecticut 06549-0139,
    USA and Center for the Study of Global Change, Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut 06520-8109, USA
    Steven Bohaty Earth Sciences Department, University of California Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz, California 95064, USA

    ABSTRACT
    Dramatic warming and upheaval of the carbon system at the end of the Paleocene Epoch have been linked to massive dissociation of sedimentary methane hydrate. However, testing the Paleocene-Eocene thermal maximum hydrate dissociation hypothesis has been hindered by the inability of available proxy records to resolve the initial sequence of events.

    The cause of the Paleocene-Eocene thermal maximum carbon isotope excursion remains speculative, primarily due to uncertainties in the timing and duration of the Paleocene- Eocene thermal maximum. We present new high-resolution stable isotope records based on analyses of single planktonic and benthic foraminiferal shells from Ocean Drilling Program Site 690 (Weddell Sea, Southern Ocean), demonstrating that the initial carbon isotope excursion was geologically instantaneous and was preceded by a brief period of gradual surface-water warming. Both of these findings support the thermal dissociation of methane hydrate as the cause of the Paleocene-Eocene thermal maximum carbon isotope excursion. Furthermore, the data reveal that the methane-derived carbon was mixed from the surface ocean downward, suggesting that a significant fraction of the initial dissociated hydrate methane reached the atmosphere prior to oxidation.

  157. Leland Palmer says:

    Oh, on edit –

    The dinosaur killer extinction was the Cretaceous/Tertiary extinction event, and that extinction is indeed generally thought to be caused by an asteroid hitting the earth.

    Another reference for the methane catastrophe hypothesis, this one for the Permian/Triassic mass extinction:

    How to kill (almost) all life:
    the end-Permian extinction event

    Michael J. Benton and Richard J. Twitchett

    Department of Earth Sciences, University of Bristol, Bristol, BS8 1RJ, UK

    The biggest mass extinction of the past 600 million
    years (My), the end-Permian event (251 My ago), witnessed
    the loss of as much as 95% of all species on
    Earth. Key questions for biologists concern what combination
    of environmental changes could possibly have
    had such a devastating effect, the scale and pattern of
    species loss, and the nature of the recovery. New
    studies on dating the event, contemporary volcanic
    activity, and the anatomy of the environmental crisis
    have changed our perspectives dramatically in the past
    five years. Evidence on causation is equivocal, with support
    for either an asteroid impact or mass volcanism,
    but the latter seems most probable. The extinction
    model involves global warming by 68C and huge input
    of light carbon into the ocean-atmosphere system
    from the eruptions, but especially from gas hydrates,
    leading to an ever-worsening positive-feedback loop,
    the ‘runaway greenhouse’.

  158. Leland Palmer says:

    Oh, on edit-

    When I copied the above abstract, from here:
    http://palaeo.gly.bris.ac.uk/Benton/reprints/2003TREEPTr.pdf ,
    the “6 (degrees) C” in the original paper copied itself as “68C” for some unknown reason. That’s just the way it copied, sorry, the “degree” symbol transposed itself into an “8”

    I never meant to suggest that the global warming in the Permian/Triassic mass extinction was 68 degrees!

    Although, for us, we are dumping CO2 into the atmosphere hundreds of times faster than natural processes, and may soon ignite the mother of all methane catastropes, sufficient, perhaps, to totally destabilize the climate system. If we totally destabilize the climate system, we could indeed see these sorts of temperature increases, in my opinion.

  159. Smokey says:

    Leland, you continue to throw out wild ‘n’ crazy statements like…

    “So, the general consensus among the people that post on this site appears to be that the chances of runaway global warming are zero. This would mean that the majority of climate scientists are wrong. The majority of climate scientists believe that there is a significant probability of runaway global warming.”

    …without any citation or reference. Maybe because that statement is totally wrong, eh? If not, name those scientists in the ‘majority.’

    In fact, over 31,000 scientists [all in the hard sciences; no English Lit or Sociology majors allowed, and all are from the U.S.] have signed the following statement:

    We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan in December, 1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind.

    There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth. [my emphasis]

    That signed statement completely contradicts your beliefs. Compare those 31,000 scientists with the fewer than 100 UN scientists from around the world who issued the widely discredited UN/IPCC assessment reports. And keep in mind that those UN/IPCC folks are political appointees; they have their marching orders. Even so, a significant number have refused to go along with the “consensus,” and have resigned in protest or submitted papers contradicting the UN/IPCC’s conclusions.

    You claim that “…we are dumping CO2 into the atmosphere hundreds of times faster than natural processes, and may soon ignite the mother of all methane catastropes…”

    Do you just invent these figures, and hope no one will notice? Even the UN admits that human CO2 emissions are a very tiny fraction of the total: click.

    In fact, the annual fluctuation of natural CO2 emissions from year to year is greater than the annual total emitted by human activity. Yet you appear to be terrified that CO2 is gonna getcha.

    The elephant in the room is this: as beneficial CO2 continues to rise, the planet’s temperature continues to fall — proving that CO2 has little if any effect on temperature. That fact also debunks the CO2=AGW conjecture. So it’s back to the drawing board, because the AGW conjecture is DOA.

    This is fun, Leland. Keep ‘em coming.

  160. Leland Palmer says:

    Hi Smokey-
    That 31,000 scientist list was the result of a kind of scam or myth.

    Watch the video:

    It’s also a very old list. Major events, such as accelerated melting of the Arctic icecap, have occurred since then.

    It also appears that anyone can sign this list, and claim to be a scientist, because no effort was made to check the list for accuracy.

    This scientific paper is not a scam. It might be wrong, but it was an honest paper, and like most scientific papers, is an honest attempt to understand what actually happened, IMO:

    Snowball Earth termination by destabilization of
    equatorial permafrost methane clathrate

    Martin Kennedy1, David Mrofka1 & Chris von der Borch2

    The start of the Ediacaran period is defined by one of the most
    severe climate change events recorded in Earth history—the recovery
    from the Marinoan ‘snowball’ ice age, ,635 Myr ago (ref. 1).
    Marinoan glacial-marine deposits occur at equatorial palaeolatitudes2,
    and are sharply overlain by a thin interval of carbonate that
    preserves marine carbon and sulphur isotopic excursions of about
    25 and 115 parts per thousand, respectively3–5; these deposits are
    thought to record widespread oceanic carbonate precipitation
    during postglacial sea level rise1,3,4. This abrupt transition records
    a climate system in profound disequilibrium3,6 and contrasts sharply
    with the cyclical stratigraphic signal imparted by the balanced
    feedbacks modulating Phanerozoic deglaciation. Hypotheses
    accounting for the abruptness of deglaciation include ice albedo
    feedback3, deep-ocean out-gassing during post-glacial oceanic
    overturn7 or methane hydrate destabilization8–10. Here we report
    the broadest range of oxygen isotope values yet measured in marine
    sediments (225% to 112%) in methane seeps in Marinoan
    deglacial sediments underlying the cap carbonate. This range of
    values is likely to be the result of mixing between ice-sheet-derived
    meteoric waters and clathrate-derived fluids during the flushing
    and destabilization of a clathrate field by glacial meltwater. The
    equatorial palaeolatitude implies a highly volatile shelf permafrost
    pool that is an order of magnitude larger than that of the present
    day. A pool of this size could have provided a massive biogeochemical
    feedback capable of triggering deglaciation and accounting for
    the global postglacial marine carbon and sulphur isotopic excursions,
    abrupt unidirectional warming, cap carbonate deposition,
    and a marine oxygen crisis. Our findings suggest that methane
    released from low-latitude permafrost clathrates therefore acted
    as a trigger and/or strong positive feedback for deglaciation and
    warming. Methane hydrate destabilization is increasingly suspected
    as an important positive feedback to climate change11–13
    that coincides with critical boundaries in the geological record14,15
    and may represent one particularly important mechanism active
    during conditions of strong climate forcing.

    With regard to the statement that most climate scientists admit at least the possibility of runaway global heating, I stand by that statement.

    From Wikipedia: Scientific opinon on climate change

    National and international science academies and professional societies have assessed the current scientific opinion, in particular recent global warming. These assessments have largely followed or endorsed the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) position of January 2001 that states:

    An increasing body of observations gives a collective picture of a warming world and other changes in the climate system… There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities.[1]

    Since 2007, no scientific body of national or international standing has maintained a dissenting opinion. A few organisations hold non-committal positions. </b?

  161. Leland Palmer says:

    With regard to your link, that shows human sources to be a small fraction of the total, this is true but taken out of context.

    Yes, of course, human caused carbon entering the atmosphere is a small fraction of that contained in the oceans and other carbon reservoirs.

    What that link does not tell you is that natural carbon fluxes are in balance, while human caused sources are almost entirely one way, taking carbon from the ground in the form of fossil fuels, and putting it in the air as CO2 from combustion of those fossil fuels.

    This is in fact one of the scary things about runaway global warming. Once initiated, it appears to have the ability to “become self-sustaining”, in the words of Stephen Hawking. And the quantities of carbon are so huge that we might not be able to do anything about it, once the process starts running away.

    Regarding humans adding carbon to the atmosphere hundreds or thousands of times faster than natural process, that is simply factually true. CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere are increasing at about one percent per year, which is a huge, unprecedented rate of change, much higher than the very slow rates of change that have occurred in the geological record.

    Increases of 100 ppm of CO2 in the fossil record would generally take tens of millions of years, not two centuries. The only comparable rates of change of CO2 concentration we know of were during the extinction events that are referred to above, and generally, the rates of change during those extinction events appear to be slower than our current huge rate of one percent per year.

    It’s all very sad, and I mean that sincerely, not angrily. You appear to have internalized a lot of climate skeptic talking points, and will simply not change your predetermined conclusion, ever, no matter what the evidence.

  162. Willis Eschenbach says:

    Leland, you seem kind of confused about how this “science” thing works.

    You said, without any citation of any kind:

    So, the general consensus among the people that post on this site appears to be that the chances of runaway global warming are zero.

    This would mean that the majority of climate scientists are wrong.

    The majority of climate scientists believe that there is a significant probability of runaway global warming.

    When you were questioned about this, the scientific response would have been to provide a citation for your claim. You made the claim, it is your obligation to back it up.

    Instead, you’ve gone on the attack. This is not science. If you want us to believe your claim, provide a citation for your claim.

    It’s not that difficult. You’ve made a strong claim, that the “majority of climate scientists believe that there is a significant probability of runaway global warming.” I have seen very few climate scientists making that claim. Many claim that the warming in the next century will be 2°C. Fewer claim that it will be 4°C. Some say there is a slight chance of an 8°C warming.

    But I’ve never seen a claim like yours. It’s an unbelievable claim, that the majority of climate scientists say that there is a significant chance of runaway warming. Note that runaway warming did not happen even during the PETM. There was a spike, but it was not notable for how high it got. It was notable for how fast it went up and then back down, but it was no warmer than it was for millions of years during the “Eocene Optimum”.

    Now if you want to retain your credibility you have two choices. Either retract your claim, or provide a citation for your claim.

    Don’t bother with attacking me or anyone else. Don’t bother telling us how sad you are, we don’t care about your emotional state, this is science. Either admit that you were wrong, or provide a citation for your claim.

    Is there an echo in here?

    w.

  163. Charlie says:

    Leland, you should read the links people have provided. Ill formed arguments do nobody any good.

    It is clear that you misunderstand many very basic things. For example, there was a link that compared anthropogenic and natural sources of CO2. In your reponse “Yes, of course, human caused carbon entering the atmosphere is a small fraction of that contained in the oceans and other carbon reservoirs.” you seem to confuse natural sources and total CO2. Quite different.

    Another simple example of how far out of touch you are. You state above “Increases of 100 ppm of CO2 in the fossil record would generally take tens of millions of years, not two centuries.”

    Please look at http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/CarbonCycle/carbon_cycle4.php . This chart from NASA shows atmospheric CO2 rising more than 100ppm in about 15,000 years. (Please note, 15,000 years is much shorter than tens of millions of years).

    Why are you so worried about potential runaway heating, but seem unperturbed by the very real, although small, risk of an asteroid hitting the earth?

  164. Leland Palmer says:

    Hi Willis-

    When you were questioned about this, the scientific response would have been to provide a citation for your claim. You made the claim, it is your obligation to back it up.

    Instead, you’ve gone on the attack. This is not science. If you want us to believe your claim, provide a citation for your claim.

    Nothing easier, I have already provided one. Here’s a summary of several:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_changed

    Surveys of scientists and scientific literature

    Various surveys have been conducted to determine a scientific consensus on global warming.

    [edit] Doran and Kendall Zimmerman, 2009

    A poll performed by Peter Doran and Maggie Kendall Zimmerman at Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Illinois at Chicago received replies from 3,146 of the 10,257 polled Earth scientists. Results were analyzed globally and by specialization. 96.2% of climatologists who are active in climate research believe that mean global temperatures have risen compared to pre-1800s levels, and 97.4% believe that human activity is a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures. Among all respondents, 90% agreed that temperatures have risen compared to pre-1800 levels, and 80% agreed that humans significantly influence the global temperature. Petroleum geologists and meteorologists were among the biggest doubters, with only 47 percent and 64 percent, respectively, believing in human involvement. A summary from the survey states that:

    “It seems that the debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific basis of long-term climate processes.”[82]

    [edit] STATS, 2007

    In 2007, Harris Interactive surveyed 489 randomly selected members of either the American Meteorological Society or the American Geophysical Union for the Statistical Assessment Service (STATS) at George Mason University. The survey found 97% agreed that global temperatures have increased during the past 100 years; 84% say they personally believe human-induced warming is occurring, and 74% agree that “currently available scientific evidence” substantiates its occurrence. Only 5% believe that that human activity does not contribute to greenhouse warming; and 84% believe global climate change poses a moderate to very great danger.[83][84]

    [edit] Oreskes, 2004

    A 2004 article by geologist and historian of science Naomi Oreskes summarized a study of the scientific literature on climate change.[85] The essay concluded that there is a scientific consensus on the reality of anthropogenic climate change. The author analyzed 928 abstracts of papers from refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, listed with the keywords “global climate change”. Oreskes divided the abstracts into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. 75% of the abstracts were placed in the first three categories, thus either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, thus taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change; none of the abstracts disagreed with the consensus position, which the author found to be “remarkable”. According to the report, “authors evaluating impacts, developing methods, or studying paleoclimatic change might believe that current climate change is natural. However, none of these papers argued that point.”

    [edit] Bray and von Storch, 2003

    A survey was conducted in 2003 by Dennis Bray and Hans von Storch.[86][87] Bray’s submission to Science on December 22, 2004 was rejected, but the survey’s results were reported through non-scientific venues.[88][89] The survey received 530 responses from 27 different countries. One of the questions asked was “To what extent do you agree or disagree that climate change is mostly the result of anthropogenic causes?”, with a value of 1 indicating strongly agree and a value of 7 indicating strongly disagree. The results showed a mean of 3.62, with 50 responses (9.4%) indicating “strongly agree” and 54 responses (9.7%) indicating “strongly disagree”. The same survey indicates a 72% to 20% endorsement of the IPCC reports as accurate, and a 15% to 80% rejection of the thesis that “there is enough uncertainty about the phenomenon of global warming that there is no need for immediate policy decisions.”

    The survey has been criticized on the grounds that it was performed on the web with no means to verify that the respondents were climate scientists or to prevent multiple submissions. The survey required entry of a username and password, but the username and password were circulated to a climate skeptics mailing list and elsewhere on the internet.[90][91] Bray and von Storch defended their results[92] and accused climate change skeptics of interpreting the results with bias.

    Bray and von Storch distributed an updated version of their survey in August 2008, sent to 1842 selected scientists drawn from authors in ISI listed climate related journals for the past 10 years, as well as lists used in previously published analyses. This survey contains a web link with a unique identifier for each respondent. Results of this survey are not yet available.

    [edit] Survey of U.S. state climatologists, 1997

    In 1997, the conservative think tank Citizens for a Sound Economy surveyed America’s 48 state climatologists on questions related to climate change.[93] Of the 36 respondents, 44% considered global warming to be a largely natural phenomenon, compared to 17% who considered warming to be largely man-made. The survey further found that 58% disagreed or somewhat disagreed with then-President Clinton’s assertion that “the overwhelming balance of evidence and scientific opinion is that it is no longer a theory, but now fact, that global warming is for real”. Eighty-nine percent agreed that “current science is unable to isolate and measure variations in global temperatures caused ONLY by man-made factors,” and 61% said that historical data do not indicate “that fluctuations in global temperatures are attributable to human influences such as burning fossil fuels.”

    Sixty percent of the respondents said that reducing man-made CO2 emissions in the US by 15% below 1990 levels would not prevent global temperatures from rising, and 86% said that reducing emissions in the US to 1990 levels would not prevent rising temperatures. Thirty nine percent agreed and 33% disagreed that “evidence exists to suggest that the earth is headed for another glacial period,”[94] though the time scale for the next glacial period was not specified.

    [edit] Bray and von Storch, 1996

    In 1996, Dennis Bray and Hans von Storch undertook a survey of climate scientists on attitudes towards global warming and related matters. The results were subsequently published in the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society.[95] The paper addressed the views of climate scientists, with a response rate of 40% from a mail survey questionnaire to 1000 scientists in Germany, the USA and Canada. Most of the scientists believed that global warming was occurring and appropriate policy action should be taken, but there was wide disagreement about the likely effects on society and almost all agreed that the predictive ability of currently existing models was limited.

    The abstract says:

    The international consensus was, however, apparent regarding the utility of the knowledge to date: climate science has provided enough knowledge so that the initiation of abatement measures is warranted. However, consensus also existed regarding the current inability to explicitly specify detrimental effects that might result from climate change. This incompatibility between the state of knowledge and the calls for action suggests that, to some degree at least, scientific advice is a product of both scientific knowledge and normative judgment, suggesting a socioscientific construction of the climate change issue.

    The survey was extensive, and asked numerous questions on many aspects of climate science, model formulation, and utility, and science/public/policy interactions. To pick out some of the more vital topics, from the body of the paper:

    The resulting questionnaire, consisting of 74 questions, was pre-tested in a German institution and after revisions, distributed to a total of 1,000 scientists in North America and Germany… The number of completed returns was as follows: USA 149, Canada 35, and Germany 228, a response rate of approximately 40%….

    …With a value of 1 indicating the highest level of belief that predictions are possible and a value of 7 expressing the least faith in the predictive capabilities of the current state of climate science knowledge, the mean of the entire sample of 4.6 for the ability to make reasonable predictions of inter-annual variability tends to indicate that scientists feel that reasonable prediction is not yet a possibility… mean of 4.8 for reasonable predictions of 10 years… mean of 5.2 for periods of 100 years…

    …a response of a value of 1 indicates a strong level of agreement with the statement of certainty that global warming is already underway or will occur without modification to human behavior… the mean response for the entire sample was 3.3 indicating a slight tendency towards the position that global warming has indeed been detected and is underway…. Regarding global warming as being a possible future event, there is a higher expression of confidence as indicated by the mean of 2.6.

  165. Leland Palmer says:

    Hi Charlie-

    Please look at http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/CarbonCycle/carbon_cycle4.php . This chart from NASA shows atmospheric CO2 rising more than 100ppm in about 15,000 years. (Please note, 15,000 years is much shorter than tens of millions of years).

    OK, ya got me, I didn’t know this. I thought that CO2 variations were slower. The last 20,000 years is an atypical period, though, as we were coming out of an ice age, and so according to the text underneath the graph:

    Periods of low carbon dioxide concentration correspond to ice ages, while higher carbon dioxide concentrations are linked to warmer periods. The last ice age ended 10,000 to 20,000 years ago, as carbon dioxide levels rose from below 200 parts per million to about 280 parts per million. Current atmospheric carbon dioxide levels are above 370 parts per million because of the burning of fossil fuels.

    Even on the graph from NASA, though, which shows an atypical period with multiple ice ages during the past 160,000 years, the last 200 years would show up as a vertical spike, extending approximately 2/3 the height of the graph, on the right hand side of the graph. This spike would be almost totally vertical, “geologically instantaneous” in the words of some of the scientific papers I quoted, similar to spikes seen during mass extinction events.

    If we go up to 450 ppm CO2, that would be an almost vertical line on the right hand side of the of the graph, extending past the top of the graph, extending an additional 150 ppm (the height of the graph) above the top of the graph.

    If we go to 1000 ppm, which is looking pretty likely by the end of the century, that would be an almost totally vertical line on the right hand side of the graph extending about 5 times the height of the graph.

    Suppose we were to plot total greenhouse gas equivalents, and include methane in the graph. If we see a methane catastrophe, that would equal an almost totally vertical line of the right side of the graph that is perhaps 10 to 50 times taller than the graph, or even more.

    So, perhaps you see my point about rates of change.

    The huge rate of change of our current CO2 increase appears to be totally unsustainable and could trigger a methane catastrophe – which would be much, much worse that a simple CO2 increase.

  166. Smokey says:

    Leland me boy, keep settin’ ‘em up, and I’ll keep knockin’ ‘em down. But first, may I point out that you come across as a badly frightened child who is worrying about the monster under his bed? As you’ve said repeatedly, you’re scared. Fear is a good thing… when there is a rational basis for it. But since there is no evidence for runaway AGW outside of always-inaccurate computer models, and since the planet itself is contradicting AGW [CO2 is rising, as the planet's temperature steadily declines], you need to get a grip. Now, on to deconstructing your latest fantastic claims:

    You state that since the OISM petition was started: “Major events, such as accelerated melting of the Arctic icecap, have occurred…”.

    First off, that’s not a “major event,” Leland. Your reading comprehension appears selective, since I’ve already explained to you, with several links like this, that global ice is substantially increasing. But you adamantly refuse to acknowledge that fact. Your Cognitive Dissonance prevents you from understanding anything except that which confirms your belief system — which is that the Arctic is all that matters. We must never mention the Antarctic, or global ice cover. The Arctic confirms your beliefs, so you only mention the Arctic. For someone afflicted with severe CD, the Antarctic doesn’t even exist.

    Next, you say: “It also appears that anyone can sign this [OISM petition] list, and claim to be a scientist, because no effort was made to check the list for accuracy.” Did you simply fabricate that? If so, this link will correct your false claim that “no effort was made to check the list for accuracy”: click

    Your assertions here are even more ridiculous:

    “Regarding humans adding carbon to the atmosphere hundreds or thousands of times faster than natural process, that is simply factually true…. we are dumping CO2 into the atmosphere hundreds of times faster than natural processes, and may soon ignite the mother of all methane catastropes, sufficient, perhaps, to totally destabilize the climate system.”

    Your CD affliction prevents you from accepting the established fact that for every one molecule of beneficial CO2 emitted by human activity, the Earth emits 34 molecules of CO2 naturally. [Note that one thirty-fourth is not the same as saying humans are “adding carbon to the atmosphere hundreds or thousands of times faster than natural process,” as you incorrectly stated without any citation. And based on the very tiny amount of human produced CO2 [which is smaller than the annual natural variability of the planet's year to year CO2 output], you believe that ‘climate catastrophe’ will result. [Leland! Don't look under the bed!! There might be a carbon dioxide monster down there!]

    Finally, a word about Cognitive Dissonance, a mental disorder recognized throughout the psychological community:

    Everyone suffers from CD on occasion in various minor ways, such as a cigarette smoker rationalizing his habit even though he knows it’s not good for him. But in some extreme cases CD gets so completely out of control that it borders on psychosis.

    The famous social psychologist Dr. Leon Festinger, developer of the concept of Cognitive Dissonance, conducted early studies of the phenomenon. The psychological model is that their belief system becomes part of their identity, their self, and therefore information that is at odds with their belief system becomes an attack on the self. This helps to explain why such people can be extremely resistant to unbiased information that would be judged positive on a rational basis.

    Dr. Festinger’s book, When Prophecy Fails, tells of a group of doomsday believers led by a Mrs. Keech, who predicted the imminent arrival of space aliens who would save only her and her group of believers from the planet’s destruction.

    When the flying saucers didn’t arrive as predicted, rather than admit they were wrong, Mrs. Keech’s group of true believers became even more determined that they were right. They became even louder, and proselytized even more aggressively following the disconfirmation of their beliefs. The following is an account of that:

    …but no aliens arrived on the given date. Rather than admit they were wrong and disband, the group instead adamantly insisted that the aliens really existed, but due to the group’s extreme goodness, the aliens had decided to save the entire Earth instead.

    AGW catastrophe believers follow exactly the same psychological script. As contrary evidence to their belief continues to pile up, proponents of AGW catastrophe have begun to display clear signs of Cognitive Dissonance. So we can expect ever more extreme, opaque, and strange defenses from AGW proponents, as more and more evidence against their belief system accumulates. For example, we are now told, in all seriousness, that global warming causes global cooling.

    Don’t look under the bed, Leland. Look in the mirror.

  167. Willis Eschenbach says:

    Leland, to review the bidding, you had said

    The majority of climate scientists believe that there is a significant probability of runaway global warming.

    I asked for a cite. You replied:

    Nothing easier, I have already provided one. Here’s a summary of several:

    Either my writing skill are slipping, or you’ve forgotten what you said. They were good cites, and I learned inter alia that of the 36 state meteorologists who answered one poll, 44% considered global warming to be a largely natural phenomenon, compared to 17% who considered warming to be largely man-made … which hardly supports the idea that GW is A, much less running away … and a host of other interesting things

    But not one of your cites mentions a single word about runaway global warming.

    You do understand that a citation to support a claim that “The majority of climate scientists believe that there is a significant probability of runaway global warming” should have the word “runaway” in it somewhere, don’t you?

    w.

  168. Smokey says:

    I don’t think that any poll that is taken with people who are currently employed has much validity. When the AGW establishment agrees through its deafening silence with James Hansen, that those who disagree with AGW should be treated as criminals, then it’s wise to keep quiet rather than risking one’s carreer.

    OTOH, I would accept the results of a poll taken of retired meteorologists and climatologists, who can answer questions freely without a threat to their employment.

    Even so, as Willis points out, the poll results claimed by Leland don’t say what he believes they say. When 61% of respondents said that historical data do not indicate “that fluctuations in global temperatures are attributable to human influences such as burning fossil fuels,” that puts AGW believers in a distinct minority.

    But of course, that is a poll — and polls are frequently used for propaganda by both sides of the debate. The real elephant in the room is the fact that even as Earth’s temperature continues to decline, CO2 levels continue to rise. That simple fact drives a stake through the heart of the repeatedly falsified CO2=AGW conjecture.

  169. Charlie says:

    Leland, here’s something else for you to worry about. The very high energy particle accelerator at CERN might make a black hole that would grow, and grow, and grow until it devours the earth.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/2650665/Legal-bid-to-stop-CERN-atom-smasher-from-destroying-the-world.html

    Of course, a more rational person would realize that the experiment that CERN is doing has been going on in nature for millions of years and the resultant black holes, if any, have not gone on to devour the earth. See http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/21/science/21cernw.html?_r=1

    A similar argument in regards to CO2 and runaway temperature rise makes such a runaway rise extremely, extremely unlikely category by using the same sort of logic.

    Are you also afraid of a mini black hole consuming the earth? If not, why not? Do you understand the logic of those that say nature has already run the experiment billions of times?

  170. jeez says:

    Leland, you’re consensus post is meaningless without mention of Peiser’s analysis of Oreskes

  171. Leland Palmer says:

    Hi Smokey-

    It’s a very strange value system displayed on this site, I think.

    Normal caution with the fate of the planet and the welfare of present and future generations becomes craven, irrational fear, for example.

    I’m sure that future generations will congratulate some of you on your courage.

    Your CD affliction prevents you from accepting the established fact that for every one molecule of beneficial CO2 emitted by human activity, the Earth emits 34 molecules of CO2 naturally.

    Which is no doubt why we have an almost vertical spike in atmospheric CO2 concentrations, when these increases are plotted on a geological timescale.

    Something is happening to very, very rapidly increase CO2 in the atmosphere, in the biomass, and in the oceans.

    I’ll leave it as an exercise for you, Smokey, to tell us what that is.

    Cognitive Dissonance in fact seems to be part of your problem. Try, for example, to reconcile your statement about the earth emitting 34 times as much CO2 as humans do, with the almost vertical spike in CO2 concentrations we have been seeing.

    Regarding modeling, normal scientific caution has in fact made them too conservative, as climate scientists like Chris Field, one of the IPCC group leaders, admitted on Democracy Now on February 26, 2009. Uniformly, as the Arctic continues to melt at a pace far faster than predicted, and wildfires around the world increase to unprecedented levels, the warming is happening far faster than the models predicted.

    Regarding the Antarctic, it appears that the whole glacier creation and destruction process has sped up down there. I’ll find out more about this, and report back.

    Like I said, though, it’s a strange value system displayed on this site.

    In a way, it appears to be a class issue. People on this site have internalized and now advocate positions that are very important to the hugely rich coal power plant owners and super rich families that control major oil companies, but which are not in their own self interest. Really, there is no class issue that is more fundamental than threatening the stability of the earth’s climate system itself.

    There’s a very interesting science fiction story called The Marching Morons, by C. M. Kornbluth, I think. In that story, a conman from the past helps future genius level people con the general population into cooperating with their own destruction.

    More and more, the behavior of people on this site is reminding me of the behavior of the victims in that story. People in this site have swallowed commercially motivated propaganda, and internalized it, so much so that they are advocating policies that are not in their own self-interest, I think.

  172. Willis Eschenbach says:

    Leland, while your musings on our value system and cognitive dissonance and class warfare would likely have value on some site where people care about such things, this is a science site. Here, we don’t give a shit about your deep philosophy. Please take it somewhere else, it is not welcome here.

    If you wish to discuss science, we’re happy to do so. For example, I’m still waiting for a single citation to your ridiculous claim that the majority of climate scientists think there is a “significant chance of runaway global warming”.

    On the other hand, if you want to continue your inane drivel about “commercially motivated propaganda” and the like, I would ask everyone to simply reply:

    “That’s OK, dear, after you provide your citations you can play with the other kids”.

    Because you see, we don’t give a rat’s ass about your ideas about class warfare and commercially motivated propaganda. Those musings have no place on a scientific website. We care if you have valid scientific contributions to make to the discussion.

    There are plenty of sites out there where people do care about such things, and would be glad to discuss them with you.

    This is not one of those sites. Here, we discuss science and scientific ideas, not Marxism and people’s behavior.

    I’m not saying that discussing science fiction and class warfare is a bad thing. It is not. And your ideas on the subject may be true and insightful and valuable.

    I’m just saying, please do it somewhere else. Here, pushing those ideas just makes you look like a clueless college freshman who has wandered into the wrong classroom, and insists on taking up valuable class time trying to argue art history with the mathematics professor. Doing that does not make you look wise or thoughtful, it does not contribute to the discussion.

    It just makes you look like you don’t care that you are in the wrong classroom.

    As I said, if you want to discuss science, fine … but put up or shut up.

  173. Leland Palmer says:

    Hi Willis-
    Oh, do you set the rules by which people are allowed to post on this site?

  174. Willis Eschenbach says:

    Leland Palmer (12:29:42), you ask:

    Hi Willis-
    Oh, do you set the rules by which people are allowed to post on this site?

    Heck, no. No rules, just commonsense suggestions. If you want to look like a petulant child in a room full of adults, you are free to ignore them.

    w.

  175. Smokey says:

    Leland said:

    If we go up to 450 ppm CO2, that would be an almost vertical line on the right hand side of the of the graph, extending past the top of the graph, extending an additional 150 ppm (the height of the graph) above the top of the graph.

    Leland, I can make a graph of any x,y function go straight up. All the way to the moon, if you like.

    Since you’re an Al Gore true believer, look at Al’s graph: click. Gore is amazing, isn’t he? His graph can only work if he can make time go backwards. Believe his swill if you like.

    Now let’s look at an honest graph of atmospheric CO2: click [look close, or you'll miss it].

    You claim that: “Something is happening to very, very rapidly increase CO2 in the atmosphere, in the biomass, and in the oceans. I’ll leave it as an exercise for you, Smokey, to tell us what that is.”

    Well, Leland, CO2 is not increasing in the biomass, as you incorrectly assert. Carbon is increasing in the biomass, as the O2 is stripped from the CO2 and emitted for us to breathe. And even if we doubled beneficial atmospheric carbon dioxide, there would be no ill effects because of the log response. The only downside to doubling CO2 would be that you’d be even more frightened.

    You also claim that “as the Arctic continues to melt at a pace far faster than predicted, and wildfires around the world increase to unprecedented levels, the warming is happening far faster than the models predicted.” Wrong on all counts.

    You don’t listen, do you, Leland? Every statement you’ve made has been thoroughly debunked. Every single one [and if you want the links, just ask; I've already given you the link - twice - showing you that global ice cover is increasing]. But of course, your belief is all that matters to you. Black is white, down is up, war is peace, evil is good… and CO2 is gonna getcha!

    Keep posting, Leland. This is fun, and you are a really great example of runaway Cognitive Dissonance in action.

  176. Leland Palmer says:

    Hi Willis-

    I guess we’ve established that you have no power to enforce your demands, and I (and the moderator, of course) determine what I do and do not post.

    Also, I think I have established that I am not afraid to admit error, nor am I intimidated by any sort of bullying behavior, nor do I care what some of the the very closed minded and heavily propagandized people on this site think.

    I post here because what many of the people on this site say and think is factually wrong, IMO. I post here in the hope that there are a few people who visit this site who might not be totally closed minded on this subject. I post here because regardless of the pretensions to science or scientific behavior among many of the people that post on this site, many of the posts (and just about all of the articles) violate very basic scientific principles. I post here because I think that we are at a very critical time in history, when telling the truth and discovering the truth is absolutely essential to prevent a terrible catastrophe.

    The heart of being scientific is the willingness to admit error, when experimental data shows that you are wrong.

    So, having established that I respond to your questions out of courtesy, and out of sympathy for someone who is apparently “Google challenged” and unable to use a search engine himself, here are some surveys of climate scientists who think that runaway global warming is possible:

    Note that this is an old survey, and the numbers today are likely higher:

    MANY SCIENTISTS BELIEVE RUNAWAY GREENHOUSE POSSIBLE.

    A Greenpeace poll shows that a worryingly high proportion of climate scientists believe it possible that continuing emissions of greenhouse gases can awaken synergistic feedbacks capable of generating a runaway greenhouse effect.

    Bad though the best- estimate of the future, as portrayed by the IPCC would be, there is a worst-case view, which is that the IPCC estimates will prove to be underestimates, and that natural amplifications of warming (positive feedbacks) will be awakened, potentially even generating a point of no return beyond which might lie unstoppable heating of the planet, no matter how deeply anthropogenic emissions might ultimately be cut.

    The results of an opinion survey on this subject, published by Greenpeace at the 1992 American Association for the Advancement of Science annual meeting in Chicago, show that almost half of surveyed world climate scientists believe that a runaway greenhouse effect is possible if action is not taken to cut greenhouse gas emissions. More than one-in-ten of those polled believe this worst-case analysis – a point of no return beyond which lies unstoppable heating of the atmosphere – to be probable.

    Greenpeace International polled 400 climate scientists during December 1991 and January ’92. The sample included all scientists involved in the 1990 study of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and others who have published on issues relevant to climate change in `Science’ or `Nature’ during 1991. Scientists were asked whether they thought there would be a point of no return at some time in the future, if emissions continued at their present rate. By the end of January 1992, 113 had replied, in the following way: probably – 15 (13%), possibly – 36 (32%), probably not – 53 (47%). In other words, 45% believe the runaway greenhouse effect to be possible.

    (“Fear expressed of runaway greenhouse effect,” Boston Globe, 10 February 1992; and for further details see: J.K.Leggett, “Global warming: the worst- case,” Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, v. 85, p. 28-32, June 1992; and “Running down to Rio,” New Scientist, p. 38-41, 2 May 1992).

    NOTES: This survey was misreported on a number of occasions in the US media as showing that only 13% of scientists thought global warming itself was probable. The Greenpeace press release was specific about what a runaway greenhouse effect was: it talked about “a point of no return beyond which lies unstoppable heating of the atmosphere,” and the risk of “unleashing global warming at a rate which threatens the future of the human species, and indeed most life forms.”

    Here’s a more recent poll, from this year:

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/apr/14/global-warming-target-2c

    Almost nine out of 10 climate scientists do not believe political efforts to restrict global warming to 2C will succeed, a Guardian poll reveals today. An average rise of 4-5C by the end of this century is more likely, they say, given soaring carbon emissions and political constraints.

    Such a change would disrupt food and water supplies, exterminate thousands of species of plants and animals and trigger massive sea level rises that would swamp the homes of hundreds of millions of people.

    The poll of those who follow global warming most closely exposes a widening gulf between political rhetoric and scientific opinions on climate change. While policymakers and campaigners focus on the 2C target, 86% of the experts told the survey they did not think it would be achieved. A continued focus on an unrealistic 2C rise, which the EU defines as dangerous, could even undermine essential efforts to adapt to inevitable higher temperature rises in the coming decades, they warned.

    The survey follows a scientific conference last month in Copenhagen, where a series of studies were presented that suggested global warming could strike harder and faster than realised.

    The Guardian contacted all 1,756 people who registered to attend the conference and asked for their opinions on the likely course of global warming. Of 261 experts who responded, 200 were researchers in climate science and related fields. The rest were drawn from industry or worked in areas such as economics and social and political science.

    The 261 respondents represented 26 countries and included dozens of senior figures, including laboratory directors, heads of university departments and authors of the 2007 report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

    Really, Willis, don’t be so “Google challenged”. I’m sure I’ve barely scratched the surface.

    Google it yourself :)

  177. Leland Palmer says:

    Hi Smokey-

    Your “honest graph” with the scales modified so that the vertical axis represented CO2 in percent, with the values going from zero to one hundred thousand percent, was funny, for maybe a fraction of second. It was meant, no doubt, to illustrate a standard climate skeptic talking point, that CO2 has to be present in large percent concentrations to be important. No, it doesn’t. A few hundred years ago it was at about 280 ppm, and now its at something like 385 ppm. And yes, ppm means “parts per million”, and no, CO2 does not have to be present in large concentrations to have a large greenhouse effect. Methane has a much greater effect on warming on a molecule per molecule basis, and it is present in the atmosphere at approximately 1700 ppb, which means parts per billion. Although methane concentrations are currently only 1.7 ppm (1700 ppb) the real climate scientists say that it is responsible for about 30 percent of global warming.

    Your “honest graph” is an example of a standard propaganda technique to try to invoke the scorn or ridicule response in the victim of the propaganda, to make the victim of the propaganda scornful of the truth. Many people apparently do not understand that empty ridicule or a scornful attitude are meaningless, and in fact get in the way of scientific analysis.

    Science is just a quantitative extension of common sense. Scientists are ideally reasonable, logical, quantitative, experimental, and willing to admit error when error occurs. Scorn or ridicule are monkey responses, and have absolutely nothing to do with science.

    Well, Leland, CO2 is not increasing in the biomass, as you incorrectly assert. Carbon is increasing in the biomass, as the O2 is stripped from the CO2 and emitted for us to breathe. And even if we doubled beneficial atmospheric carbon dioxide, there would be no ill effects because of the log response. The only downside to doubling CO2 would be that you’d be even more frightened.

    Yep, I’m frightened, for future generations mostly, and not afraid to admit it. If the runaway positive feedback does make the climate accelerate out of control, I’m sure the maybe one or two future generations of human beings will congratulate you on your “courage”.

    Yes, I misspoke about the CO2 in the biomass, sorry. Yes, of course it is carbon in biomass, not CO2. I’m an analytical chemist by profession, so I realy do understand this. Carbon in biomass, though, has increased, I seem to remember reading somewhere. This is a concern because much of that standing carbon is vulnerable to wildfires.

    Regarding wildfires, we had 1.2 million acres of California burn last year, when a couple of hundred thousand acres is normal, except that we really have no normal years any more.

    Here’s a study from Science in 2006, which shows that with only a one degree centigrade increase in temperature, wildfires in the Western U.S. increased by 600 percent. Most of those wildfires happened at high altitudes, in very isolated areas, and are not considered to be caused by humans.

    http://secure.ntsg.umt.edu/publications/2006/Run06/SRunningScienceAug18.pdf

    If a one degree C increase leads to a sixfold increase in wildfires, does this mean that a 3 degree C increase would lead to a 216 (6x6x6) fold increase?

    If you won’t believe the scientists, how about listening to the firefighters?

    Watch the video: 60 Minutes: The age of Megafires

    http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/10/18/60minutes/main3380176.shtml

    You don’t really think that I would fall for the log response line, did you? This is based on a logarithmic curve fit approximation equation for radiative forcing, with a incorrect number used for C0:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiative_forcing

    For instance, the simplified first-order approximation expression for carbon dioxide is:

    Incremental change in forcing (delta F) = 5.35 x ln [C/C0] (watts per square meter)
    where C is the CO2 concentration in parts per million by volume and C0 is the reference concentration[1]. The relationship between carbon dioxide and radiative forcing is logarithmic so that increased concentrations have a progressively smaller warming effect.

    The only way to get the sort of steep logarithmic decline your graph shows is if you use a value for the reference concentration (C0) which is close to zero. The correct reference concentration is approximately 280 ppm – roughly what CO2 levels were a few hundred years ago. If you pick a value for C0 of one, for example, it makes the logarithmic decline 280 times faster than it should be.

    The graph claims to be from the University of Chicago. What was this? A student exercise? They picked a wrong, unrealistic number for C0. Plug in 280 ppm or so for the reference concentration of CO2, as the equation was designed to do, and you get a very slow decline in radiative forcing, not the sort of steep decline the graph shows.

    Is their case so weak that the climate skeptics need to take a student mistake on his homework, and turn it into a major climate skeptic talking point?

    Yes, I think climate skeptics are just about that desperate.

  178. Willis Eschenbach says:

    The Guardian contacted all 1,756 people who registered to attend the conference and asked for their opinions on the likely course of global warming. Of 261 experts who responded, 200 were researchers in climate science and related fields. The rest were drawn from industry or worked in areas such as economics and social and political science.

    Since only AGW supporters attended the conference, and the response rate to the questionnaire was only 15%, the idea that this poll says anything about what “climate scientists” believe is a sad commentary on your understanding of polls.

    To illustrate the idiocy of the Guardian’s idea of a poll, if I go to a meeting of the “Physicians Crusade Against Abortion” and take a poll of the doctors at the meeting regarding abortion, and only 15% of them feel strongly enough about the issue to respond to the poll … do you truly think the poll results would mean anything about how physicians in general feel about abortion? Really?

    Even the Greenpeace poll (which is an oxymoron in this context) did not support your claim that “The majority of climate scientists believe that there is a significant probability of runaway global warming.”

    “Google challenged”? Lovely term.

    It’s a wonderful tool, I use it constantly … but unlike you, I actually think critically about what I find, rather than just blindly accept it as gospel truth. I would suggest you do the same. In particular, don’t accept polls from those who have axes to grind, like Greenpeace and the Grauniad. That’s why polling companies (Pew Trust, Gallup, etc.) exist … because everyone knows (except you, I guess) that a poll by a group with an agenda can’t be trusted. Here’s a headline about a recent example:

    Fooling Americans: G.O.P. Cites Polling Company Owned By Health Insurance Company

    I’m sure you see the problem …

    w.

  179. Leland Palmer says:

    Hi Willis-

    Yes, certainly it is difficult to poll scientists, because most of them fail to respond. This is a problem. Regardless of this, most climate scientists do indeed acknowledge the possibility of runaway global warming.

    Why?

    Because there is a real possibility of global warming.

    One of the things you skeptics need to worry about is that the more scientists know about this problem, the more likely they are to be worried.

    Possibly the foremost expert in the world on the climate as a self-regulating system is James Lovelock. Here’s what Lovelock has to say:

    http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/16956300/the_prophet_of_climate_change_james_lovelock

    The Prophet of Climate Change: James Lovelock

    One of the most eminent scientists of our time says that global warming is irreversible — and that more than 6 billion people will perish by the end of the century

    At the age of eighty-eight, after four children and a long and respected career as one of the twentieth century’s most influential scientists, James Lovelock has come to an unsettling conclusion: The human race is doomed. “I wish I could be more hopeful,” he tells me one sunny morning as we walk through a park in Oslo, where he is giving a talk at a university. Lovelock is a small man, unfailingly polite, with white hair and round, owlish glasses. His step is jaunty, his mind lively, his manner anything but gloomy. In fact, the coming of the Four Horsemen — war, famine, pestilence and death — seems to perk him up. “It will be a dark time,” Lovelock admits. “But for those who survive, I suspect it will be rather exciting.”

    In Lovelock’s view, the scale of the catastrophe that awaits us will soon become obvious. By 2020, droughts and other extreme weather will be commonplace. By 2040, the Sahara will be moving into Europe, and Berlin will be as hot as Baghdad. Atlanta will end up a kudzu jungle. Phoenix will become uninhabitable, as will parts of Beijing (desert), Miami (rising seas) and London (floods). Food shortages will drive millions of people north, raising political tensions. “The Chinese have nowhere to go but up into Siberia,” Lovelock says. “How will the Russians feel about that? I fear that war between Russia and China is probably inevitable.” With hardship and mass migrations will come epidemics, which are likely to kill millions. By 2100, Lovelock believes, the Earth’s population will be culled from today’s 6.6 billion to as few as 500 million, with most of the survivors living in the far latitudes — Canada, Iceland, Scandinavia, the Arctic Basin.

    By the end of the century, according to Lovelock, global warming will cause temperate zones like North America and Europe to heat up by fourteen degrees Fahrenheit, nearly double the likeliest predictions of the latest report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the United Nations-sanctioned body that includes the world’s top scientists. “Our future,” Lovelock writes, “is like that of the passengers on a small pleasure boat sailing quietly above the Niagara Falls, not knowing that the engines are about to fail.” And switching to energy-efficient light bulbs won’t save us.

    Until recently, Lovelock thought that global warming would be just like his half-assed forest — something the planet would correct for. Then, in 2004, Lovelock’s friend Richard Betts, a researcher at the Hadley Centre for Climate Change — England’s top climate institute — invited him to stop by and talk with the scientists there. Lovelock went from meeting to meeting, hearing the latest data about melting ice at the poles, shrinking rain forests, the carbon cycle in the oceans. “It was terrifying,” he recalls. “We were shown five separate scenes of positive feedback in regional climates — polar, glacial, boreal forest, tropical forest and oceans — but no one seemed to be working on whole-planet consequences.” Equally chilling, he says, was the tone in which the scientists talked about the changes they were witnessing, “as if they were discussing some distant planet or a model universe, instead of the place where we all live.”

    As Lovelock was driving home that evening, it hit him. The resiliency of the system was gone. The forgiveness had been used up. “The whole system,” he decided, “is in failure mode.” A few weeks later, he began work on his latest and gloomiest book, The Revenge of Gaia, which was published in the U.S. in 2006.

    And Lovelock is right about this, I am convinced. If we ignite a methane catastrophe, his predictions will actually turn out to be conservative, in my opinion.

  180. Smokey says:

    Leland Palmer,

    In the novel 1984, Orwell’s protagonist, Winston Smith, wonders if the State might declare “two plus two equals five” as a fact; he ponders whether, if everybody Leland believes it, does that make it true?

    Don’t worry, the space aliens will arrive in their flying saucers and save both you and James Lovelock ["Possibly the foremost expert in the world on the climate" *snicker*], whom you quote as saying:

    The human race is doomed… the Sahara will be moving into Europe, and Berlin will be as hot as Baghdad. Atlanta will end up a kudzu jungle. Phoenix will become uninhabitable, as will parts of Beijing (desert), Miami (rising seas) and London (floods). Food shortages will drive millions of people north… the Earth’s population will be culled from today’s 6.6 billion to as few as 500 million… global warming will cause temperate zones like North America and Europe to heat up by fourteen degrees Fahrenheit, nearly double the likeliest predictions of the latest report from the IPCC.

    Lovelock went from meeting to meeting, hearing the latest data about melting ice at the poles, shrinking rain forests, the carbon cycle in the oceans. “It was terrifying,” he recalls… As Lovelock was driving home that evening…

    Leland the True Believer says: “Lovelock is right about this, I am convinced.”

    So Jimmy Lovelock is afflicted with Cognitive Dissonance [CD] to the same extent as Leland Palmer. And they both belong to the same wacky AGW cult.

    How does Lovelock explain away his driving a CO2-spewing car, when according to his own stated beliefs, by driving he is personally contributing to what he believes are these looming disasters? And his four kids? How does he justify contributing to over population?

    Maybe Lovelock is buying carbon indulgences credits from Al Gore? Yeah, that would make driving and having lots of kids A-OK. Ri-i-i-i-i-ght.

    CD arises when someone tries to reconcile two mutually contradictory ideas. No doubt Lovelock believes that his CO2-emitting driving can somehow be explained away without seeing himself as an ordinary hypocrite, or worse, as a traitor to the human race.

    Lovelock and Leland should immediately stop driving or accepting the use of others’ vehicles. No electricity use, either, because the largest part of electric power is generated by coal. Bicycles, tricycles and horses, OK. But cars?? Since only those who are trying to destroy the human race drive cars, that’s where Cognitive Dissonance comes into play. It gives them an out; a free pass to emit all the CO2 they want.

    So, Mr. Palmer, do you drive anything that uses fossil fuel? Do you heat your house with anything that emits CO2? And while you’re pondering a CD-based explanation, tell us how you arrived at your astonishing belief that human activity is putting hundreds to thousands of times as much CO2 into the atmosphere as natural emissions.

    I eagerly await your response. Debunking the wacked out statements of CD afflicted gorons is just too much fun. The beliefs of Scientologists make the warmist contingent look absolutely rational by comparison.

  181. Willis Eschenbach says:

    Leland, I personally don’t care about Lovelock’s fantasies any more than I care about yours. You say:

    Yes, certainly it is difficult to poll scientists, because most of them fail to respond. This is a problem. Regardless of this, most climate scientists do indeed acknowledge the possibility of runaway global warming.

    I sihope you are just pretending to be as thick as two short planks, because if not, you’re in bad trouble.

    The problem is your carefully chosen poll takers are slanted, they are trying to prove something, they have an axe to grind. You have no evidence that “most climate scientists do indeed acknowledge the possibility of runaway global warming.” Do you truly think that repeating it one more time will make up for your total lack of evidence?

    I understand you care passionately about the world. Curiously, so do I … but that’s not enough. You have to think about what you are saying.

    Lovelock is a guru and a visionary, and it’s great that you respect him. But he is not the “foremost expert in the world on the climate as a self regulating system.” He’s published some books, and was co-author on one paper. Now he’s getting old and depressed, and he has become a doomsday proponent … OK, fine, but why should we believe him? He presents no new evidence that there will be a thermal meltdown. He says

    In Lovelock’s view, the scale of the catastrophe that awaits us will soon become obvious. By 2020, droughts and other extreme weather will be commonplace

    Obviously, he hasn’t even noticed that there has been absolutely no increase in extreme weather events … hardly a recommendation for his use of the scientific method. He’s been taken in by the AGW stories of death and destruction.

    I’m one of the people on this list who has actually written about the climate as a self regulating system. I have presented evidence to substantiate my view.

    As far as we know, the self regulation is so good that in millions and millions of years, it has not failed once. There’s a name for thinking that we might break a million year old system based on the unchanging physics of wind, wave, and water.

    Hubris.

    Look it up.

  182. Leland Palmer says:

    Yes, I drive a car. Yes, I own a house. Yes, I use electricity, and so does my family.

    This is a very strange, irrelevant argument on your part, Smokey. That you would fall back on such an emotional “moral” argument seems to show that you have given up arguing your case on the facts.

    Perhaps you should tell me about the logarithmic decline again, with the wrong value plugged in for C0, meaning that there is actually noting to worry about.

    Nonetheless, since you asked, I do consume fossil fuels. I am working to minimize fossil fuel use, as much as possible.

    My Japanese made small pickup truck gets almost 30 mpg, but I am looking around for a used Prius, to see if I can get higher mileage. I drive about 15 miles to work, and the approximately 45-50 mpg that a Prius gets should cut my gasoline use almost in half. I also drive 55, to cut energy use, and I suggest that we all start doing the same, just in case the thousands of climate scientists that collaborated on the IPCC report do happen to be right, and the skeptics are wrong.

    Sonoma county, California, has a new program in which energy saving improvements can be done on a house, and these improvements mostly added onto a property tax bill. With interest rates as low as they are, we are attempting to refinance, and our plan is to add this money onto energy saving improvements on the house. So, the house is in for some double pane windows, weather stripping, and perhaps a solar thermal heating system. I’ve also crawled around under the house and have taped up the old ductwork, and am replacing the old ducts with new flexible insulated ducts. The windows should be professionally installed, but I will be doing the caulking and weatherstripping myself.

    I also intend to add rock bed heat storage to the cooling system and experiment with chilling the rock bed with a swamp cooler at night to cut energy use from the air conditioner.

    Really, though, individual action will not stop global warming. I invite you to download a database for Google Earth called CARMA (climate and resource monitoring for action) which contains a database of all the large power plants in the world. Take a look at the hundreds of coal fired power plants in the U.S., and the note how many of them put 20-30 million tons of CO2 per year into the atmosphere. You can get the .kml file for Google Earth by following links from the CARMA website, and Google Earth is free.

    Then come back here, and tell me my individual energy use, or Lovelock’s, will make a difference. Nonetheless, we all need to conserve, and reduce energy consumption as much as is practically possible.

    The main thing we have to do is change the technology, IMO. We need massive polictical corrective action to deal with this problem, and force the coal fired power plants to go to Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS).

    I believe it may be possible to increase the thermal efficiency of our current coal plants, for example, by adding oxyfuel combustion and an IFCC (Indirectly fired combined cycle) topping cycle to the plants. These are both ‘bolt on” retrofittable technologies. The increased thermal efficiency of the oxyfuel / IFCC conversion could pay for the parasitic energy costs of carbon capture and storage, IMO.

    Take such a retrofitted coal plant, and burn biochar in it. If the CO2 is captured and deep injected into the earth, what results is a “carbon negative” power plant, capable of generating useful electricity and simultaneously taking carbon out of the biomass (and so ultimately the atmosphere) and storing it underground as supercritical CO2.

    So, yes, I’m working on it, on a personal level as well as a mass political and technologial level.

    Other than blocking the development of a social consensus and preventing the necessary technological change to deal with this problem, what are you doing to help?

  183. Smokey says:

    You are a wonderful person, a true protector of the Earth. Our mother earth. Gaia… *sniff*

  184. Willis Eschenbach says:

    Leland, you ask:

    Other than blocking the development of a social consensus and preventing the necessary technological change to deal with this problem, what are you doing to help?

    Umm … that would be trying to keep clue-free folks from ruining the economy in pursuit of a failed solution to a non-existent problem.

  185. Leland Palmer says:

    Hi Willis-

    As far as James Lovelock goes, he really is the author of the standard model of climate science, these days. His Gaia hypothesis, at first ridiculed, has become the standard model, although it is called climate system science, or something equally bland, rather than “Gaia”. He really is one of the 20th century’s most influential scientists, and has a truly nasty habit of being both first and right.

    I believe that the self-regulating properties of the climate system are good, but not infallible. In fact, I think that most of the major mass extinction events are due to runaway global heating during massive methane release events from the methane hydrates.

    There are quite a few mainstream peer reviewed papers on this “clathrate gun” or “methane catastrophe” model of mass extinctions. There appears to be a telltale isotope signature left in the rocks when trillions of tons of isotopically light (C13 depleted) methane is dumped into the atmosphere – a sharp simultaneous drop in C12/C13 and O16/O18 isotope ratios deposited in the rocks laid down at those times.

    Here is a list of links, from the Wikipedia article on the clathrate gun hypothesis, some of which I provided before:

    Martin Kennedy, David Mrofka and Chris von der Borch (2008), Snowball Earth termination by destabilization of equatorial permafrost methane clathrate, Nature 453 (29 May), 642-645
    http://earthscience.ucr.edu/gcec_pages/Kennedy%20et%20al%202008-Nature-Methane.pdf

    Benton, Michael J.; Richard J. Twitchett (July 2003). “How to kill (almost) all life: the end-Permian extinction event” (PDF). TRENDS in Ecology and Evolution 18 (7): 358–365. doi:10.1016/S0169-5347(03)00093-4. http://palaeo.gly.bris.ac.uk/Benton/reprints/2003TREEPTr.pdf. , cited by 21 other articles.

    Thomas, Deborah J.; James C. Zachos, Timothy J. Bralower, Ellen Thomas and Steven Bohaty (December 2002). “Warming the fuel for the fire: Evidence for the thermal dissociation of methane hydrate during the Paleocene-Eocene thermal maximum” (PDF). Geology 30 (12): 1067–1070. doi:10.1130/0091-7613(2002)0302.0.CO;2. http://www.es.ucsc.edu/~jzachos/pubs/TZBTB_02.pdf.

    Notice that the peer reviewed scientific papers are talking about three different mass extinction events – the Paleocene/Eocene thermal maximum, the Permian/Triassic mass extinction (the greatest mass extinction of them all), and the Precambrian “Snowball Earth” termination . Each of these events has a similar isotope ratio signature, fully consistent with the release of a few trillion tons of C13 depleted methane from methane hydrates into the atmosphere, resulting in a methane catastrophe.

    So, yes the self-regulation of the Earth’s climate is good. No, it does not appear to be perfect.

    Our atmosphere is not in thermodynamic equilibrium, as Lovelock, in his work for NASA pointed out to them. Life has left its signature on our atmosphere, which is full of highly reactive oxygen which would have long since combined with carbon and metals to form CO2, carbonates, and metal oxides if there was no life. Our atmosphere is far from thermodynamic equilibrium, kept there by life itself, Lovelock pointed out to NASA in many years ago, a huge anomaly potentially detectable at astronomical distances.

    What would happen if we return to thermodynamic equilibrium, the true lowest energy state of our Earth’s climate, and therefore the preferred state of the climate in the absence of life?

    Think Venus.

  186. Leland Palmer says:

    Additional links:

    Archer, D. (2007). “Methane hydrate stability and anthropogenic climate change” (PDF). Biogeosciences 4 (4): 521–544. http://geosci.uchicago.edu/~archer/reprints/archer.2007.hydrate_rev.pdf. See also blog summary.

    Connor, Steve (September 23, 2008). “Exclusive: The methane time bomb”. The Independent. http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/exclusive-the-methane-time-bomb-938932.html. Retrieved on 2008-10-03.

    Connor, Steve (September 25, 2008). “Hundreds of methane ‘plumes’ discovered”. The Independent. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/hundreds-of-methane-plumes-discovered-941456.html. Retrieved on 2008-10-03.

  187. Leland Palmer says:

    Hi Smokey-

    Coming from you, Smokey, that really means a lot. Yes, I am wonderful, thank you for confirming it. Thanks a lot. :)

    Hi Willis-

    Umm … that would be trying to keep clue-free folks from ruining the economy in pursuit of a failed solution to a non-existent problem.

    Considering the huge number of free goods and services that we receive from the biosphere, including clean air, clean water, sunlight for food and fuel production, a limitless supply of clean energy from sunlight, huge biomass production, and so on, the economic arguments against taking action on climate change have a touch of insanity to them, IMO.

    Without the economically valuable goods and services we receive from the biosphere, we are paupers. Not to mention dead, if it gets bad enough, and it’s looking pretty grim at the moment, IMO.

    A little reasonable caution is in order.

    And no, it won’t ruin the economy.

    General Motors did not go broke producing hybrid cars, for example.

    The Prius really has economically ruined Toyota, hasn’t it?

    You sound kind of like a scared child, cowering in a corner, afraid of space aliens, when you talk about the economic disaster that tapping into an almost limitless supply of clean energy would create, Willis.

  188. Willis Eschenbach says:

    Whoa, whoa, whoa, Leland my friend.

    I’ve been a practicing environmentalist since I read Rachel Carsons book … when she first published it, likely before you were born. You know nothing of my life or my motives, and your assumption that you do is puerile. You have a habit of ascribing motives to others that does not serve you well. I’m not a “scared child cowering in a corner”, that’s a projection of your own fear.

    For example, you say “… the economic arguments against taking action on climate change have a touch of insanity to them, IMO.” But that’s your own fear talking. For a man who is not worried about say a meteor strike (which has happened many times in earth’s history), you seem terrified about the infinitesimal chance of a runaway temperature.

    Next, you have this fantasy that I don’t think we should take action regarding the climate. That’s on you, bro’, I’ve never said that, nor do I believe it. I do think we should take action.

    What action should we take? I prescribe “No Regrets” action, that is to say, action which will have beneficial effects whether or not the climate warms. The key is to understand that every single predicted disaster from a warming world is with us already. All of them.

    We already have a surfeit of storms, and droughts, and floods. Sea level has been rising for a hundred years. We have insect borne disease, and tornados, and cyclones. We have late frosts and early winters, we have dry springtimes and wet harvest times. We have all the biblical plagues that climate brings, and they’ve been here as long as humans have been on the planet.

    The action we should take is action to lessen the effects of those climate catastrophes. If they get worse we’re better prepared, and if they don’t … we’re better prepared.

    Reducing carbon emissions, on the other hand, will not make any measurable difference even if the AGW supporters are right (which grows less and less likely as our understanding of the climate increases).

    So no, I’m not afraid of an economic disaster, find one place that I’ve said that.

    What I am concerned about is that every dollar spent on reducing CO2 is a dollar not available to spend on helping Africans fight drought or people along the Indus fight floods. As a man who has spent a large chunk of his life working on village level development in some of the world’s poorest countries, that’s a tragedy.

    You can sit in your nice home with plenty of food, and gas to warm you when it gets cold, comfortably insulated from almost all climate disasters, and talk about how you want to spend billions on some infinitesimal chance of future disaster … but many, many people out there don’t have your layer of monetary fat to sustain them. They need the money to face the real daily threats to their kid’s lives, while you want to piss it away on imaginary threats that might happen in 50 years … and you have the balls to lecture us on your great compassion and economic brilliance?

    In Africa they have a saying, “You have to be white to be green”, and it could have been invented for you. Your profligacy in a futile quest for an improved tomorrow is killing people today, and you want to lecture us on morality? Really?

    Your arrogant and uncaring attitude about real problems today, masked in a cloak of purest shining green, turns my stomach. Go spend a half a year with the poorest of the poor if you have the balls. I guarantee you’ll come away with a much more realistic set of priorities regarding how we should spend money fighting the dangers that climate brings, the dangers that are with us today and every day.

  189. Pamela Gray says:

    I agree with Willis completely. I’m a life long democrat who regrettably voted for Obama. There is the thinking man and woman’s anti-establishment and pro-green stance and then there is what we have today for protesters. I have protested against unequal treatment and funding for women in sports, healthcare, insurance coverage, and university glass ceilings, and have protested loudly against uninformed selection of human study subjects before mandatory informed patient rights became the law. My votes against the moral majority stance on abortion and gay/lesbian rights has and will stand the test of time. I leave no footprint behind when I am out in the forest and tread lightly on the flora and fauna around my house. Given that stance of being someone who protested before most of these green wannabe’s were born, their current loud screams against CO2 are as hollow as a rotten stump and should be recycled by Earth worms, their screams devoured and removed from the land. For God’s sake man, Gandhi is rolling over in his ashes listening to this nonsense against CO2 while 16,000 babies still die every day from lack of food. You know, that stuff that requires CO2 in abundance in order to grow and fuel in order to distribute. Why are you not protesting against the tankers sitting off shore, loaded with fuel, and locked and idle store houses filled to the brim with food while these babies die?

  190. Leland Palmer says:

    Hi Willis-

    Reducing carbon emissions, on the other hand, will not make any measurable difference even if the AGW supporters are right (which grows less and less likely as our understanding of the climate increases).

    Not so, Kimosabe. Renewables will certainly help reduce the growth rate in carbon emissions, which I agree is not enough at this point. But the Waxman/Markey bill does take some preliminary steps in the right direction, IMO, and cap and trade was much more successful for reducing sulfur based pollution than was originally predicted.

    Industries lie. Corporations have whole departments called public relations departments, that routinely lie about how good their products are and how minimal their environmental impact is. Institutionalized lying to Congress is a multimillion dollar lobbying industry. Part of the lies that corporations routinely tell Congress are encoded in biased studies that project huge costs for any substantive change. So, cap and trade is likely much more effective than its opponents claim.

    While wind and solar are still small parts of our electricity production, the growth rate is tremendous. If I was working for a fossil fuel company, I would look at the growth rate of wind energy, for example, as a threat to my company profits.

    So, Waxman/Markey will help, but is not the complete answer.

    There are, however a group of “carbon negative” ideas that would take the technology of “clean coal” and combine it with biomass or biochar fuel, resulting in carbon negative power plants.

    The problem with carbon emissions now is that they are all one way. Carbon negative energy ideas seek to put carbon back underground, and do so in a cost competitive way:

    http://www.etsap.org/worksh_6_2003/2003P_read.pdf

    Bio-Energy with Carbon Storage (BECS):
    a Sequential Decision Approach to the threat of Abrupt Climate Change

    Peter Read and Jonathan Lermit

    Abstract
    Abrupt Climate Change (ACC – NAS, 2001) is an issue that ‘haunts the climate change problem’ (IPCC, 2001) but has been neglected by policy makers up to now, maybe for want of practicable measures for effective response, save for risky geo-engineering. A portfolio of Bio-Energy with
    Carbon Storage (BECS) technologies, yielding negative emissions energy, may be seen as benign, low risk, geo-engineering that is the key to being prepared for ACC. The nature of sequential decisions, taken in response to the evolution of currently unknown events, is discussed. The impact of such
    decisions on land use change is related to a specific bio-energy conversion technology. The effects of a precautionary strategy, possibly leading to eventual land use change on a large scale, is modeled, using FLAMES. Under strong assumptions appropriate to imminent ACC, pre-industrial CO2
    levels can be restored by mid-century using BECS.

    The ability to put carbon back underground while generating electricity has a huge, synergistic effect on whole problem. Combining biomass, or biochar, with carbon capture and sequestration (CCS), is an effective way to fight climate change.

    What I advocate is converting existing coal plants to oxyfuel combustion and CCS, as has been done by the Jupiter Oxygen Corporation and Vattenfall, with their German oxyfuel/CCS pilot plant. I then propose burning biochar (charcoal) in the coal plants to make them carbon negative.

    There is also a technology called HIPPS or IFCC (Indirectly Fired Combined Cycle) that has been developed by United Technologies and NETL (the National Energy Technology Laboratory). I propose adding a HIPPS or IFCC topping cycle onto these converted coal plants, to increase their efficiency enough to pay for the conversion and the parasitic efficiency losses due to the CCS. IFCC (aka HIPPS) alone can convert a 35 percent thermally efficient power plant into a 50 percent thermally efficient power plant, and it can be retrofitted onto existing power plants.

    We have a lot to do, and we don’t have any choice, IMO. Business as usual is pointing us directly at a methane catastrophe, with a high probability, IMO.

    We have coal fired power plant to convert into carbon negative power plants. We have solar thermal power plants with heat storage to build. We have wind turbines to build, biofuels to make, geothermal energy to develop.

    Since we don’t really have any choice, commercially motivated propaganda sniveling aside, can’t we for Christ’s sake get on with it?

  191. Willis Eschenbach says:

    Pamela Gray, thanks for your thoughts. People like you and myself, who have actually seen the world’s misery up close, people who have spent a lifetime in the real environmental movement, often have a clear sense of what is important and what is not.

    Leland, you still want to dick around with carbon and make energy even more expensive than it is, the following quote could have been written specifically for you.

    The average African life span is lower than it was in the United States and Europe 100 years ago. But Africans are being told we shouldn’t develop, or have electricity or cars because, now that those countries are rich beyond anything Africans can imagine, they’re worried about global warming. Al Gore and UN climate boss Yvo de Boer tell us the world needs to go on an energy diet. Well, I have news for them.

    Africans are already on an energy diet. We’re starving!

    Al Gore uses more electricity in a week than 28 million Ugandans together use in a year. And those anti-electricity policies are keeping us impoverished. […] Not having electricity also means disease and death. It means millions die from lung infections, because they have to cook and heat with open fires; from intestinal diseases caused by spoiled food and unsafe drinking water; from malaria, TB, cholera, measles and other diseases that we could prevent or treat if we had proper medical facilities. Hypothetical global warming a hundred years from now is worse than this? Telling Africans they can’t have electricity and economic development – except what can be produced with some wind turbines or little solar panels – is immoral. It is a crime against humanity.

    Fiona Kobusingye, a coordinator of Congress of Racial Equality Uganda and the Kill Malarial Mosquitoes Now Brigade.

    According to me, and Pamela, and the Africans themselves, you are condemning Africans and poor people around the world to death through your asinine policies.

    Now, that’s your choice … but lecturing us while you are killing people, spouting platitudes about how moral your path is while spending billions on failed policies, accusing us of “commercially motivated propaganda sniveling” while your hero Al consumes a nation’s worth of energy, and telling us how we don’t care about the earth and you do, is pitiful, pathetic, and deeply offensive.

    As you pointed out, I don’t make the rules here. I suspect it’s a good thing I don’t. So you have two choices here. 1) Keep your electronic pen capped and your ears open, and have people suspect that you’re a petulant, whining, unpleasant fool … or keep on writing and remove all doubts forever.

  192. Smokey says:

    Leland Palmer,

    You seem impatient to burn mountains of money for the very silliest of reasons: carbon sequestration.

    Since we don’t really have any choice, commercially motivated propaganda sniveling aside, can’t we for Christ’s sake get on with it?

    No. Carbon sequestration [except when used to economically extract more oil from the ground] is the most preposterously stupid idea to ever come along in the whole history of stupid AGW ideas.

    It takes huge amounts of energy to strip CO2 from the air, then liquify it, then pump it underground under pressure — and the only efficient energy source [outside of nuclear] is the burning of even more very expensive fossil fuel. [Forget windmills and other ridiculous greenie power generation schemes; they produce far too little energy for such a monstrous undertaking.]

    So we burn fossil fuel — which emits beneficial and completely harmless CO2 — then we burn lots more fossil fuel for the energy necessary to strip the CO2 out of the air, liquify it and pump it underground under pressure. Then, we burn even more fossil fuel to take that CO2 out of the air… and all the while, the BRIC countries [Brazil, Russia, India, China] are pouring several times as much CO2 into the air as the entire U.S. emits, laughing at us the whole time, knowing CO2 sequestration is a fool’s errand that will hobble us economically, for no benefit whatever.

    Could there be a more stupid idea in creation than carbon dioxide sequestration??

    Collecting necessary and beneficial carbon dioxide, and storing it underground at enormous financial and energy expense for no good reason, makes every bit as much sense as digging a 10X10X10 foot hole in your back yard, then moving it twenty feet away every six weeks. You feel like you’re accomplishing something, but normal people look at you like you’re completely nuts [but you and I know it's just a manifestation of your crazy cognitive dissonance].

    A couple of things would happen if we actually passed a law requiring the underground storage of CO2: we would end up sequestering for the most part CO2 produced by the BRIC countries, for no sane reason at all. And it would give true conservationists a good reason to visit the well heads at night to liberate that CO2 for the good of planet Earth — which you personally seem intent on sabotaging based on the deluded, completely unproven idea that more CO2 is harmful in trace amounts. It’s not. CO2 is entirely beneficial, no matter what your fevered imagination tells you.

    Why not start digging those holes in your back yard? While you’re digging you won’t be driving your fossil fuel burning car, and you can feel just a little less like a hypocrite for badmouthing CO2 while you’re emitting it by burning fossil fuels. [One of the benefits of cognitive dissonance is that it lets you rationalize your glaring hypocrisy.]

    For my part, I’ll be daydreaming about the best way to liberate that sequestered CO2. Because more CO2 is better; and a lot more CO2 is a lot better for life on a planet starved of beneficial and necessary carbon dioxide.

  193. Leland Palmer says:

    Hi Willis-

    It takes huge amounts of energy to strip CO2 from the air, then liquify it, then pump it underground under pressure — and the only efficient energy source [outside of nuclear] is the burning of even more very expensive fossil fuel. [Forget windmills and other ridiculous greenie power generation schemes; they produce far too little energy for such a monstrous undertaking.]

    Simply untrue. By the way, my “fevered imagination” seems to be producing scientific papers and links to them, that back up my position, too. :)

    Yes, if you want to strip CO2 from the air, this is difficult because CO2 is only present in very small amounts, in the 380 ppm range, right now.

    But oxyfuel combustion of biomass or biochar produces a stream of exhaust gas that is 70 percent (700,000 ppm) CO2, and all it requires is cleanup, stripping out the water, and compression to be ready for deep injection.

    Many other sources of CO2, including oil refineries and ethanol plants, produce almost pure streams of CO2, approaching 100 percent pure, certainly pure enough for deep injection.

    Vattenfall, the Swedish owned utility that has a lot of coal fired power plants, plans to reduce their CO2 emissions by 50 percent by 2030. And they plan to do it mostly by using oxyfuel combustion and CCS. Here is a link to Vattenfall’s next step, following the construction of their oxyfuel pilot plant, they are planning a 250 MW demonstration oxyfuel/CCS power plant:

    http://www.vattenfall.com/www/co2_en/co2_en/879177tbd/879231demon/879320demon/index.jsp

    Demonstration plant in Jänschwalde

    The first demonstration plant on Oxyfuel capture technology is investigated at Jänschwalde in Germany. The scale-up from the size of the 30 MW pilot plant at Schwarze Pumpe is the last development step before the technology could be commercially introduced. The new Oxyfuel boiler at Jänschwalde would be of 650 MW thermal (around 250 MW electric), which is about 20 times more than Vattenfall’s 30 MW pilot plant under construction and compares to today’s largest Oxyfuel test rigs of 0.5 MW. With this milestone, Vattenfall is taking another step towards development of commercial CCS concepts. Also Postcombustion capture technology will be demonstrated at Jänschwalde.

    The existing lignite fired 3000 MWe power plant at Jänschwalde was taken into operation in the 1980-ies and was modernised in the 1990’s. At each of the six blocks two 250 MW boilers produce steam to one joint steam turbine. This makes the site excellent for conversion into a double CCS demonstration plant.

    So, the Swedes and the Germans can do this, but we can’t.

    By the way, I think that Vattenfall could do better, and increase the efficiency of their oxyfuel process, if they were willing to add the National Energy Technology Lab’s IFCC process to their new oxyfuel plants. Once the demonstration plants are open, they will need to do something with their 30 MW pilot plant. Why not add NETL’s IFCC process onto it, and increase its thermal efficiency from roughly 35 percent or less to 50% or more? This should be enough extra efficiency to compensate for the parasitic CCS energy loss, and give them essentially free CCS:

    TESTING OF A VERY HIGH-TEMPERATURE HEAT EXCHANGER FOR IFCC
    POWER SYSTEMS
    John P. Hurley
    University of North Dakota, Energy & Environmental Research Center
    PO Box 9018, Grand Forks, ND 58202-9018
    jhurley@undeerc.org
    Nathan J. Kadrmas
    University of North Dakota, Energy & Environmental Research Center
    PO Box 9018, Grand Forks, ND 58202-9018
    nkadrmas@undeerc.org
    Fred Robson
    kraftWorks Systems, Inc., PO Box 115, Amston, CT 06231

    ABSTRACT
    Laboratory and pilot-scale tests of a very high-temperature heat exchanger (HTHX) that could be used to produce pressurized air at up to 2000°F for an indirectly fired combined-cycle (IFCC) power plant were performed while three coal–biomass blends were fired. An IFCC using this type of heat exchanger has the potential to reach efficiencies of 45% when firing coal and over 50% when a duct burner is used to additionally heat the gas entering the turbine. Because of its high efficiency, an IFCC system is the most appropriate power concept for employing oxygen enriched combustion in order to make carbon dioxide removal more economical.

    In this paper, we summarize economic analyses of IFCC systems operated under an oxygenblown near-zero-emission scenario. The calculations show that the cost of electricity is similar to that of an emissionless integrated gasification combined cycle, whereas the operation of an IFCC is much better understood since it is essentially the same as current pulverized coal (pc)-fired systems. In addition, we summarize the results from initial joining tests of MA956, an aluminascale-forming oxide dispersion-strengthened alloy that is a candidate for construction of an HTHX.

    If we don’t hurry up, we will be buying this technology from the Swedes and Germans, and so will the rest of the world, even though we invented all of this stuff here in the U.S.

  194. Willis Eschenbach says:

    Leland, you say:

    Leland Palmer (13:06:35) :
    Hi Willis- …

    and then go off about something I never said. Given how wrong you are about other things, I guess this is no surprise.

    For example, you seem to think we don’t believe in your solutions, aluminascale-forming oxide and CCS and the like, so you think you need to send citations on those. That’s not the issue.

    We don’t believe in your underlying claim, that CO2 is a problem.

    w.

  195. Smokey says:

    Leland me boy, Willis is right. You go off on tangents. By sidetracking the issue and nitpicking the amount of [wasted] energy and expense needed for sequestration, you avoided answering the central question: why should we go through the make-work effort to sequester CO2, when the BRIC countries [and plenty of others] are ramping up their CO2 emissions, and have told us in no uncertain terms that they will not agree to any emission limits? Not to mention the fact that CO2 is completely harmless.

    China alone is currently emitting 30% more CO2 than the U.S. They have made no secret of the fact that they are constructing an average of 1 – 2 new coal-fired power plants every week — and that they intend to continue building coal-fired power plants at that pace through at least 2024.

    In only seven more years China will be emitting double the amount of CO2 than the entire U.S. emits. They won’t stop there, either, they will keep ramping up their CO2 emissions as they continue to industrialize.

    India is doing exactly the same thing. As are Russia, Brazil, and most of the 100+ countries in the UN. Only the U.S., because of misguided people who believe the sky is falling, is seriously considering doing something so incredibly stupid.

    Seriously hobbling our economy by the pointless and utterly stupid burying of a completely harmless, beneficial trace gas, while the rest of the world pours many times the U.S.’s total annual CO2 emissions into the atmosphere each year, is a fool’s errand. It will make no measurable difference whatever, and it will cost $Trillions. How stupid is that?

    Why are you so insistent on the U.S. shooting ourselves in the foot? That makes you appear to hate the U.S. Why the hatred? I can not find one comment out of all your posts where you show the slightest bit of concern over the completely unchecked emissions by the rest of the world. That means you have an unstated agenda [or you really are nuts]. Otherwise, you would express concern about the global situation, and use your energy trying to convince China, India, and other countries to adopt your swell ideas. You probably don’t, because you know they would laugh in your face before walking away. Most international leaders don’t tolerate fools. Only the U.S. seems to put up with them.

    The rest of the world knows that carbon sequestration [except when used to economically extract more oil from the ground] is the most preposterously stupid idea to ever come along in the whole history of stupid AGW ideas. That’s why none of them will do anything to bury their own CO2 emissions. Why should we commit economic suicide for no legitimate reason?

    Nothing you have written changes the fact that our CO2 emissions are becoming an ever smaller part of the global total. Why should we go to the enormous expense and effort of burying a completely harmless, beneficial plant food? It’s insane. You might find a lower cost way to dig that 10X10X10 foot hole, but it’s still completely wasted effort, no matter what the cost.

  196. Willis Eschenbach says:

    Leland, the Editor-in-Chief of the American Chemical Society recently wrote an article claiming the science was settled and global warming was real.

    Many members of the ACS were outraged, and a large number of them wrote letters expressing their disgust at his actions.

    In addition, the American Physical Society has decided to revisit their stance on global warming, after fifty-four of their members protested the statement.

    The lessons from this are:

    1) “Official” statements by a scientific organization often only reflect the views of a few of the members.

    2) The “consensus” is not falling apart … it is simply being revealed that the “consensus” never existed.

    3) Your claims that we need to act now, right now, to make a meaningless dent in CO2 production are not supported by the science. The truth is that, as in many young sciences, we don’t know the truth …

    w.

Comments are closed.