The Unbroken Record of Broken Icons

Everyday, another brick is removed from The Warmist Wall.

So finally, SeaGate is surfacing?
Another inconvenient thruth.
Rising sealevels is a scam.

They were caught out by;
“For over 5 years we have been bombarded with images of polar bears, hurricanes, flooded cities, icebergs calving, drought-stricken deserts, and the like. Perhaps the most symbolic representation wasn’t even a picture, but a PowerPoint slide of paleoclimatic temperature reconstructions now famous as the Hockey Stick Chart.”
That’s how they got spotted. Without that hysteria, they might have got away with it!

So what happens if the models are driven backwards?
What I mean is, given the actual sea level rises, apparently being 1.1mm/yr or less, what is the maximum global temperature rise compatible with the figure, going purely by expansion, and assuming ice changes are insignificant?

Anyone remember the name of the Alaskan village that was used as an icon for a long time (debunked in Junk Science)?

In the UK, there is a PR agency called Futerra which seems to have done a lot of work in promoting emotive and sensational scares about climate (but that’s OK, we’re saving the planet!):
‘Futerra is the sustainability communications agency; from green to ethical, climate change to corporate responsibility. For over nine years we’ve helped you save the world.’
For an example of their despicable work, take a look at this pdf: http://www.futerra.co.uk/downloads/Sellthesizzle.pdf
It really is, quite simply, demented.

So just how much influence does the Moon have on the effect of Sea Level rise? I saw a program that posed the question, What would happen if the Moon left us? It answered by indicating that the Moons Effect on the Tidal Bulge in the ocean would cause sea levels to drop dramatically near the equater as the tidal bulge vanished. Then the equatorial ocean water mass would migrate to the poles causing a Sea Level rise in the northern and southern latitudes.
Could the current Lunar Recession of 1.3″ per year cause the net alteration in Seal levels being observed?

Question for Thomas: Thanks for laying it on the line about who’s responsible for creating this mess. Can you also offer any insight about what their motivation would have been?

“The results of scientific work are being hijacked in an attempt to push a scary message at us.”
Correct, but the scientists involved failed to speak up when they saw their work being hijacked by the media.

GeoFlynx says:
September 7, 2010 at 9:55 am
“…Championing the continued dumping of some 30 billion tons of fossil CO2 into the Earth’s atmosphere …”
First of all, Geo, it isn’t 30 billion, it is more like 7 billion (see peer reviewed article –
http://www.theresilientearth.com/?q=content/climate-co2-sensitivity-overestimated)
Next, there is NO scientific support to the proposition that human’s contribution of CO2 to the atmosphere will lead to any of the calamities to which you refer.
So, just relax and enjoy the weather!

Scooper, try google maps (satellite view) – and note you have to zoom out to see the sea.
http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?q=Harlech+Castle,+Harlech,+Gwynedd+LL46,+United+Kingdom&hl=en&cd=1&ei=kHWGTNjQC5O3jAfG3YS7Dg&ie=UTF8&view=map&cid=5417031941500162822&iwloc=A&ved=0CI0BEKUG&sa=X

GeoFlynx says:
September 7, 2010 at 9:55 am
“Like it or not sea levels are rising. No amount of equivocation is likely to change that fact.”
Equivocation?
Levels are rising at what rate, for how long, and more importantly, where?
What hard data do you have for a general rise since the MWP? It would seem that based on the evidence, sea levels have fallen quite a bit.

GeoFlynx,
You obviously accept at face value the alarmist assertions that:
1. CO2 is the dominant driver in the warming observed in the last 150 years and will contine to be the dominant driver in future decades.
2. Earth’s long term climate is sensitive and a modest increase in global temperatures will initiate a cascade of positive feedbacks resulting in certain climate catastrophe.
Given that most visitors to WUWT are not quite ready to accept the above as “settled science”, your previous post is simply another tiresome restatement of the basis of the alarmist position with which we are only too familiar.

I suspect that there is a journolist of collaborating environmental and science journalists somewhere. The trick is to discover it or find a participant or insider with a conscience to become a whistleblower. Direct or indirect links via Soros funding is an excellent indicator. Fenton Communications, Joe Romm and Real Climate come to mind. It is time for all of us to become spies.

Re: Scooper says:
September 7, 2010 at 9:51 am
There is no doubt however that significant sized ships could navigate to the castle when it was built and the sea is now some distance away, but some more accurate photographs should have been used and would still have made the point.
I agree. Maybe these photos will do.
http://www.photogallery-uk.co.uk/resources/Castell-Harlech$2CGwynedd-cop.jpg
http://freepages.history.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~bowen/images/harlech1.jpg
http://ims1.ballofdirt.com/view/264fece8eca7172e99c716168acd1d61d9a717cacb40e9d6e7db0ea94104409a8844bd78c52e2ce2dee8011b131981e5dbbe0ff1219acd66

A danger in offering distance to a seashore from where it once was is that it cannot explain why that movement came to be. My point is, using Google maps to explore the area around Harlech Castle suggests the sea moved on because of deposition, not necessarily because the sea level changed. Or perhaps both are involved, but to what degree remains unknown.
http://maps.google.com/maps?q=harlech+castlehnear=Harlech+Castle,+Harlech,+Gwynedd,+United+Kingdom&ll=52.869959,-4.083824&spn=0.115639,0.260582&t=h&z=12

GeoFlynx says:
September 7, 2010 at 9:55 am
Like it or not sea levels are rising. No amount of equivocation is likely to change that fact.

______________________________
I happen to quite like it. It means I’ll not have to travel so far to get to my boat.
Well here’s the thing. Sea levels are not rising. Not if you look at the last 80 years they are not. The last, heavy industrial, CO2 producing years do not show a net change either way. Not by the best data we have.
What’s your reasoning for your conclusion?
Sea levels have risen, on record, just the same as temperatures have risen, on record. It just depends upon where you start your record and if you explain it as alarming doom or simply recovery from a low point.

GeoFlynx says:
September 7, 2010 at 9:55 am
Championing the continued dumping of some 30 billion tons of fossil CO2 into the Earth’s atmosphere will, of course, require that sea levels do not rise, ice does not melt, thermometers read high, oceans do not acidify etc.

Does it? I’d have thought that championing such measures ( if of course someone is, you don’t make that clear ) requires nothing more than a champion.
Are you suggesting that in order for A to be allowed then B,C,D,E, etc have to be true?
Again, I’ll look forward to the data you have that give you cause for such reasoning.
Do you know that in order for the CO2 levels to become dangerous to human it would have to be (forgive me, I’m going off the top of my head here) in the order of 780 times what it is in ppm today?
CO2 is a trace gas; it has been 18 times current levels during times of life’s greatest species diversity growth. CO2 is only 0.038% of the atmosphere and CO2 is only 3.6% of all the greenhouse gasses. Of that 3.6% man only contributes ( it’s debatable but let’s go with the average accepted figure) 3.4% in all his activities.
Let’s face it only an arrogant man believes that humans are capable of affecting the levels of atmospheric CO2 in any meaningful and measurable way.
I’m not sure who is championing CO2 increases but I do know this: When we have already shown that absorption by CO2 is already at it’s peak and commentators are saying that a doubling of CO2 will have a negligible affect on temperature yet could improve global crop yields by 35% then I know which world I want my kids to live in.

Tom, your integrity and clear thinking show very clearly.

There are more and more candidates for political office, like myself, who recognize the Global Warming movement as a gigantic political hoax. As the AGW camp’s moves toward nonsense such as Cap & Trade falter, those of us who make it into office will help to reverse the trend in Washington. (The MA Primary is next Tuesday, Sept 14th.)
The many wonderful articles on sites like WUWT provide much material that’s quite effective in debates. (Please see: http://www.Shapiro4Congress.org.) Wish me luck.

rbateman, I will go one further and point out some of the “disappearing pacific Islands” who are spreading alarm and claiming hundreds of millions of dollars from the west in compensation. When you examine the coastline on some of these islands, there are several places where the current beach, is lower than an older beach further inland which shows that sea-levels have fallen over the last 80 years.

I live in North Wales in the area of the great castles. I had often wondered why the entrance to the castle in my home town of Beaumaris was so far above sea level. Even at the highest spring tides a boat would not have been able to dock in area of the gate next the sea.Originally it would have enables hips of 40 tons to supply the garrison. I had assumed it was due to Glacial rebound, but most of the castles in this area show a similar issue, Harlech, Conwy, Caernarfon, LLieniog etc. Most of the area around Snowdon ( not Mount Snowdon please!) and Yr Wyddfa seems to have been rising for the last 800 years. By the way the photo of Harlech is not deceptive, I work there and it’s a pretty good indication. There is actually now a large housing complex where the sea bed used to be.
This link shows the Beaumaris castle dock in the 4th photo where ships would have supplied the castle in the 13th century. http://www.photographersresource.co.uk/a_heritage/Castles/LG/Wales/Beaumaris_Castle%20.htm

That should have been “Ships of 40 tons”, not “Hips of 40 tons”. To be honest though, they were pretty well fed at the castle.

GeoFlynx says:
September 7, 2010 at 9:55 am
“Like it or not sea levels are rising.”
Good grief, man, are you totally impervious to contradictory evidence? It’s like what the man in the mediaeval torture chamber – who was having his toes cut off one at a time – said: “All my toes are still there, and I’m only imagining the pain.”
One day you might learn that mere assertion won’t cut it, and only serves to show others what an irrational bunch hard-core CAGWers are. As was rightly pointed out in the article, in the end, you are – ahem – shooting yourself and the movement in the foot. You have only yourselves to blame for the scepticism.
“Championing the continued dumping of some 30 billion tons of fossil CO2…” . Start studying percentages and comparative amounts in different sinks and sources. Start thinking in terms that don’t rely on scary-sounding numbers. You have no idea how naive and prejudiced this makes you sound. To all but other members of the choir, it invites people to wearily just ignore the same old battle hymn.
The record’s got stuck and the world is moving away from crackle-and-pop vinyl.

Are you talking out of your derriere?
“First, it should be obvious that the manipulation of the messages isn’t coming from scientists. It is too professional, too slick and ultimately too wrong.”
Been to Real Climate at all, or don’t you consider Drs Scmidt et al to be scientists?

It’s disingenuous to say this stuff “isn’t coming from scientists”, since large numbers of scientists are very much on board. To take a small example, I recall a commenter on WUWT who noted that the Snow and Ice Data Center in Boulder had a plug for Al Gore’s film on their website. And a lot of the “worse than we thought” stuff of recent years (much of it documented in earlier postings) has come right off the academic/scientific assembly line.
None of this is surprising. For 40 years our universities have helped cultivate a worldview whose core beliefs are anti-industry and even anti-Western-society, and the AGW hypothesis resonates strongly with all of this. For Homo simpliciter, regardless of his intellectual capacities, this is very potent stuff.
REPLY: Your recollection is wrong. It was Cryosphere Today, and I got them to take it off the website.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/08/22/cryosphere-today-makes-changes-improves-product-drops-gore-comment/
– Anthony

Harlech castle base has a surveyed height of 58 meters (190ft). The distance down to the sea gate is ‘almost 200ft’ (your ref). The gate would have been built above storm damage possibilities with a walk to the quay, extending far enough for the draught of the vessels. The reason for the distance to the sea is coastal deposition which has laid the plain, now used as golf links, between it and the sea. Not a good example of sea-level change although good for measuring the rate of deposition in this area. You can’t complain of Warmist misuse of facts (which I agree happens) when you don’t get the counter-argument correct. BTW, the UK is tilting causing the west coast to rise and the east coast to sink.

That the sealevel was higher during the MWP might be true and problably is, but Holland in that time didn’t polder as much land as they do now.
Then again most of the poldered land after the MWP was the old “Zuiderzee” these days known as the “IJsselmeer” poldered around the 12th -14th century. Since that is cut off from the North Sea these days that should not be too much of a problem.

For examples of the “professional, coordinated media strategy” see these Climategate files:
communicating_cc.pdf
RulesOfTheGame.pdf
marooned.jpg

AllenC says:
September 7, 2010 at 10:24 am
GeoFlynx says:
September 7, 2010 at 9:55 am
“…Championing the continued dumping of some 30 billion tons of fossil CO2 into the Earth’s atmosphere …”
First of all, Geo, it isn’t 30 billion, it is more like 7 billion
==========================
While the reference AllenC cites is behind an access restriction, I suspect the difference in your figures is due to measuring CO2 vs. carbon equivalent. The average molecular weight of CO2 is 44, of which 12 is due to carbon; there’s a factor of 44/12 = 3.7 involved here.
The IPCC carbon cycle chart (figure 7.3 at http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-chapter7.pdf ) shows fossil fuel emissions at 6.4 GtonnesCarbon/yr in the 1990s. Perhaps an updated version of that value gives AllenC’s 7 Gt [Carbon]/yr figure. Multiplying that by 3.7 gives 26 GtCO2/yr; this is fairly close to GeoFlynx’s 30 GtCO2/yr.
Just a note to be careful with units!
For the carbon cycle, as illustrated in the IPCC graphic, it’s essential to use gigatonnes of Carbon (or GtC) as the unit, because the carbon is only in CO2 form for a small part of the cycle. Emissions are typically cited in tonnes of CO2 (as in emissions trading certificates), rather than equivalent amount of carbon.

First of all I just want to say it feels good to see a great majority of people on here agreeing this is all a big money making HOAX. They ought to be ashamed of themselves as this is just as bad as terrorism to me. Trying to scare everybody into believing all this crap and their lies. Just glad most people are seeing right through this…

Tom said:
“First, it should be obvious that the manipulation of the messages isn’t coming from scientists.”
=============================================
Tom, I read that a few times to be sure it’s what you were really saying.
Hogwash
Of course they do.
Global warming/climate change has become the lazy scientists ‘go to’ for cause.
You gather up all the papers you can find with no reference to GW/CC,
I’ll gather up all the papers I can find that do.
Scientists are the main cause of this “manipulation of the messages”

Tony, thank you again
Excellent, and I’m still reading and digesting

OT: My sincerest apologies for the double post. I had no indication that the earlier post had even made it into the moderation post. After making the second post and both appearing in the queue I was hoping that a moderator might pick up on that and delete one.
Ah well, the limitations of wordpress can be quite infuriating at times.

Tom Fuller says:
September 7, 2010 at 11:17 am
That’s what it smells like to me…
Then, was it everything just an innocent mistake?, or is it, instead that that “mistake” was intended for making money out of nothing, like plastic money, “derivatives”, etc.,etc.
That’s “pouring the empty into the void” and making a profit: That’s a remarkable feat!

Here is Dr. Nils-Axel Mörner’s interview where he lays various aspects concerning the alleged sea level ‘rise’. In short he disses the IPCC’s claims.
http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/Articles%202007/MornerInterview.pdf
Dr. Nils-Axel Mörner got his Ph.D in geology in 1969, and has worked with sea level problems for 40 years. He was President of INQUA Commission on Sea Level Changes and Coastal Evolution from 1999-2003.

Just testing a thesus right now; so please endulge me.
What if continents float? Continents move away from each other so that is not a really mad idea; We have a complete floating icecube as a continent nevertheless.
If that were the case the whole discussion about sea levels would be obsolete.
How much water there were added to the pool would not matter; a floating body is a floating body.
Offcourse i know a bag of soal will sink to the bottem of the pool but still the continents are shifting.
Feel free to shoot at this idea and call me a raving lunatic. 😉

Tom Fuller , you’re probably right about media strategists but I suspect that it goes deeper than that . Certainly the media hired by the big environmental lobbies slicked up their apocalyptic ( and mostly unfounded ) warnings , but it wasn’t until the environmentalists managed to invent their own science that the real assault began . I’m not talking about the ecology classes that were becoming popular at the time I was in school (’70s) but what grew out of them . Most of the well known “climate” scientists either helped foment the radical wave of modern environmentalism or were their disciples . They have gone from being a group of obscure academics to leaders of a movement . They have published books , brought in huge grants to their departments and gained tenure . At this point in time , they’re the big cheese at their universities . Some have made personal fortunes , or stand to . Perhaps some have even gotten a dangerous whiff of political power and like it . Sadly , I think that they were well intentioned originally but became misguided and manipulated to the point that they view dissent – no matter how well founded – as threatening and possibly immoral . I don’t mean this as a defence – it’s reprenhensible . And I don’t include Romm . Poor Joe’s had a chip on his shoulder ever since Enron went down the tubes .

GeoFlynx – “The ability to predict what will happen is based on the ability to perceive what is happening. Creation of an alternate reality, in which all inputs contrary to a preset belief are either false or the result of some world wide conspiracy, may be comforting but it is hardly revealing.”
Most participants here make an effort to offer information or opinion related to the original post. You may or may not agree, but you are always free to offer your astoundingly brilliant rebuttal. A condescending tone and thinly veiled insults, however, are not persuasive.

Thomas Fuller, in at least one of your other guest posts, I have not been kind to your contributions. Yes, Anthony welcomes many different points of view here, but he usually asks contributors to back up what they write. I am a fellow non-scientist, regular reader of WUWT. I have read and taught in the humanities/social sciences, cultural studies (the non-marxist variety), and especially enjoy history and economics. I dislike the mushy thinking of so-called “liberals” (“using your and my tax dollars to help the poor afford electricity that comes from natural gas, nuclear and other cleaner solutions….” from “Global Energy Use in the 20th Century” 9/1) who make global statements using selected research to tout your favorite positions. Your ideology is not “liberal” IMHO but warmed-over, watered-down marxism.
In this latest essay you want to identify “some marketing strategists” who are the bully/evil ones most signicant in the AGW campaign (30-year war). Come on. “For over 5 years….” Give us some specific references; give us some specific marketing strategists who are the movers in this propaganda war. When exactly did they start? You don’t do your homework. And you get to write these mammoth platitudes (check Google for what Mammoths did to warm our climate). Then you have the gall to say “manipulating of the messages isn’t coming from the scientists”. Well, of course not (for the most part). They have been manipulating the research and peer-review for many more years than 5 years. The have been substituting their “adjusted temperatures” for the raw data for many more than 5 years. How long were Nature and Science touting the lies and stupidity of AGW? Many more years than five. Did these journals require peer review from a variety of scientific perspectives? Did they require the data and methods to be filed for research papers so that other “scientists” (real scientists) could verify the research.
“…The reason is not Moncton and Morano….not even more measured criticism coming from McIntyre and Watts, etc….” Get over yourself. These are the indispensible workers for truth and the scientific method.
This is what counts.
Many commenters are giving the details of some of the mammoth assertions you have made. (See Gail Coombs, e.g.,) If you had done similar homework, and if you had stated that the marketeers were moving the “war” along, I would have respect for you and your contrbutions. Use Tony Brown as your model.

In addition to post-glacial rebound, tilt (?), and deposition, I would like to posit that the river has migrated to the north (under the influence of deposition?) and perhaps used to scour the bottom of the cliff upon which the castle sits. One can clearly see evidence that the estuary used to meet the sea farther south than it does now. With more snowmelt than it currently receives, the river would have run faster and straighter.
Were it not for the warmist’s sea-level rise, Harlech would be a castle in the sky. /s

Gail Combs says: September 7, 2010 at 11:54 am
“… This is a professional, coordinated media strategy using calendars with press schedules and release dates, a well-stocked photo library and a rapid response team that shoves new releases out the door in response to news events or skeptical messages that seem to be gaining traction.”
__________________________________________________
These excerpts should answer the question of whether or not Global Warming is a professional campaign and a lucrative one at that.
====================================================
Gail. Thanks – I had a read through the references you gave here. It is soul destroying stuff. These weasels have permeated everything with their evil ‘spin’. They operate in the shadows and under rocks. They need bright lights shone upon them so we can see to hunt them out.
Doug

GeoFlynx says:
September 7, 2010 at 9:55 am
“…Championing the continued dumping of some 30 billion tons of fossil CO2 into the Earth’s atmosphere …”
Excuse me as I’m unimpressed. 30 billion tons may sound big and scary to you, but not to me. For your 30 billion tons of CO2 nature puts out about 720 billion tons so what are you going to do about that?
The 30 billion tons of “fossil” CO2, which you complain about would contain about a 28% “fossil” carbon content by mass. The balance being non “fossil” 02.
Funny how the 96 -97% of natural CO2 is innocent as the wind driven snow while so called man made CO2 is of the devil and enough to throw the whole world’s climate out of whack.

“The sea level calculations rely on an enormous number of variable factors including pressure, location, tides, warmth of oceans, structures, storms, wave heights, surges, stasis, location of the gauge/sensor, slope of the underlying strata etc.”
To that you can add “sustained offshore winds” in places such as the Gulf of Mexico.
A large ship broke it’s back off Lake Charles partly because of sustained offshore winds which had reduced local sea levels by 5 feet!

From my own experience in Scotland, the Greens were just bumbling amateurs who played host to highly paid con men from the renewables industry who worked 24/7/365 to con the politicians about the dire consequences of “global warming”.
The real money was (paradoxically) coming from big corps like oil companies who were funding the renewable lobby organisations who were in turn taking third rate scientific “research” and sexing it up like a prostitute on viagra. Obviously there were also the NGOs who used global warming to frighten the public into giving the NGOs contributions, but there was no one quite like the renewables lobbyists and their zeal for making money through the billions being diverted to fund renewables.

I always understood that Harlech has been cut off from the sea by the Morfa, the dune system, which is caused by longshore drift from another nearby formation along the coast ( a long beach I think). I assume that doesn’t necessarily mean that the sea level here is significantly lower than in medieval times. Just a point, for which I have no immediate references. Though there is the legend of Cantref Y Gwaelod, the lost land beyond the mouth of the Dyfi that the sea reclaimed when, despite warnings, the drunken lord of the area failed to maintain the levees and was drowned with his equally drunk followers .

D Caldwell says: September 7, 2010 at 10:40 am
GeoFlynx,
You obviously accept at face value the alarmist assertions that:
1. CO2 is the dominant driver in the warming observed in the last 150 years and will contine to be the dominant driver in future decades.
2. Earth’s long term climate is sensitive and a modest increase in global temperatures will initiate a cascade of positive feedbacks resulting in certain climate catastrophe.
The earth’s climate sensitivity to a doubling of CO2 is around +3C (+/-1C). For a partial list of papers (up to 2006) supporting this proposition read below. Global tempatures at or near record highs, melting of ice globally and mulitple species migrations are all consistent with AGW. There is no rug big enough to sweep these under. Note that the sensitivity estimates do not specify the trajectory by which warming takes place. They just note that it happens (whatever the feedbacks in play).
For what +3C might be like, please read Mark Lynas “Six Degrees” and feel free to stop reading at the “3C” chapter. I regularly post this recommendation as the book is entertaining and well researched and many posters seem unsure where the boundary is between environmental hyperbole and scientifically informed judgment.
Augustsson T. and Ramanathan V. 1977. “A Radiative-Convective Model Study of the CO2 Climate Problem.” J. Atmos. Sci. 34, 448-451.
Arrhenius, Svante 1896. “On the Influence of Carbonic Acid in the Air Upon the Temperature of the Ground.” Philosophical Magazine 41, 237-76.
Bertrand, C. 1998. “Climate simulation at the secular time scale.” Thèse de doctorat, Université catholique de Louvain, 208 pp.
Boer, G. J., G. Flato, M. C. Reader, and D. Ramsden 2000. “A transient climate change simulation with greenhouse gas and aerosol forcing: Experimental design and comparison with the instrumental record for the twentieth century.” Climate Dynamics 16, 405–425.
Boer, G.J., N.A. McFarlane, and M. Lazare, 1992. “Greenhouse Gas-induced Climate Change Simulated with the CCC Second-Generation General Circulation Model.” J. Climate, 5, 1045-1077.
Boer George G. and Yu Bin 2003. “Dynamical aspects of climate sensitivity” Geophys. Res. Lett. 30(3), 35-1 – 35-4.
Callendar, G.S. 1938. “The Artificial Production of Carbon Dioxide and Its Influence on Climate.” Quarterly J. Royal Meteorological Society 64, 223-40.
Chen C.-T. and Ramaswamy V. 1996. “Sensitivity of Simulated Global Climate to Perturbations in Low-Cloud Microphysical Processes. Part I. Globally Uniform Perturbations.” J. Climate 9, 1385-1402.
Chou Ming-Dah, Peng Li, Arking Albert 1982. “Climate Studies with a Multi-Layer Energy Balance Model. Part II: The Role of Feedback Mechanisms in the CO2 Problem.” J. Atmos. Sci. 39, 2657-2666.
Dai A., Wigley T. M. L., Boville B. A., Kiehl J. T., Buja L. E. 2001. “Climates of the 20th and 21st centuries simulated by the NCAR Climate System Model.” J. Climate 14, 485– 519.
Delworth Thomas L., Broccoli Anthony J., Dixon Keith; Held Isaac; Knutson Thomas R., Kushner Paul J., Spelman Michael J., Stouffer Ronald J., Vinnikov, Konstantin Y., Wetherald, Richard E. 1999. “Couple Climate Modelling at GFDL: Recent Accomplishments and Future Plans.” CLIVAR Exchanges 4(4), 15-20.
Gilliland, Ronald L. and Schneider, Stephen H. 1984. “Volcanic, CO2 and solar forcing of Northern and Southern Hemisphere surface air temperatures.” Nature 310, 38-41.
Goosse H., Arzel O., Luterbacher J., Mann M.E., Renssen H., Riedwyl N., Timmermann A., Xoplaki E., Wanner H. 2006. “The Origin of the European ‘Medieval Warm Period’.” Clim. Past, 2, 99–113.
Gordon, H. B., and S. P. O’Farrell 1997. “Transient climate change in the CSIRO coupled model with dynamic sea ice, Mon. Weather Rev. 125, 875–907.
Hall C.G. and Cacuci Dan G. 1982. “Sensitivity Analysis of a Radiative-Convective Model by the Adjoint Method. J. Atmos. Sci. 39, 2038-2050.
Hansen, James, Lacis A., Rind D., Russel G., Stone P., Fung I., Ruedy R., Lerner J. 1984. “Climate Sensitivity: Analysis of Feedback Mechanisms.” Climate Processes and Climate Sensitivity, Geophys. Mono. 29, 130-163. Am. Geophys. Union.
Hegerl, G. C., K. Hasselmann, U. Cubasch, J. F. B. Mitchell, E. Roeckner, R. Voss, and J. Waszkewitz 1997. “Multi-fingerprint detection and attribution analysis of greenhouse gas-plus-aerosol and solar forced climate change.” Climate Dynamics 13, 613–634.
Hegerl Gabriele C., Crowley Thomas J., Hyde William T., Frame David J. 2006. “Climate Sensitivity Constrained by Temperature Reconstructions over the Past Seven Centuries.” Nature 440, 1029-1032 (letter).
Hoffert, Martin I., Covey, Curt 1992. “Deriving Global Climate Sensitivity from Palaeoclimate Reconstructions.” Nature 360, 573-576.
Hulburt, E.O. 1931. “The Temperature of the Lower Atmosphere of the Earth.” Physical Review 38, 1876-1890.
Idso, Sherwood B. 1980. “The Climatological Significance of a Doubling of Earth’s Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Concentration The Climatological Significance of a Doubling of Earth’s Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Concentration.” Science 207(4438), 1462-1463.
Lambert Stephen J. 1995. “The Effect of Enhanced Greenhouse Warming on Winter Cyclone Frequencies and Strengths.” J. Climate 8, 1347-1452.
MacKay Robert M., Ko Malcolm K.W., Shia Run-Lie, Yang Yajaing, Zhou Shuntai, Molnar Gyula 1997. “An Estimation of the Climatic Effects of Stratospheric Ozone Losses during the 1980s.” J. Climate 10(4), 774-788.
Mahfouf J.F., Cariolle D., Royer J.F., Geleyn J.F., Timbal B. 1993. “Response of the Meteo-France Climate Model to Changes in CO2 and Sea Surface Temperature.” Climate Dynamics 9(7), 345-362.
Manabe, Syukuro 1971. “Estimates of future change of climate due to the increase of carbon dioxide concentration in the air.” Man’s Impact on the Climate, W. I-I. Matthews, W. W. Kellogg, and G. D. Robinson, Eds., Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 249-264.
Manabe Syukuro 1975. “The dependence of atmospheric temperature on the concentration of carbon dioxide” 73-77 in The Changing Global Environment, Dordrecht, D. Reidel Publishing Co.
Manabe, Syukuro, and Stouffer, Ronald J. 1979. “A CO2-Sensitivity Climate Study with a Mathematical Model of the Global Climate.” Nature, 282, 491-493.
Manabe, Syukuro, and Stouffer, Ronald J. 1993. “Century-scale effects of increased atmospheric CO2 on the ocean-atmosphere system.” Nature 364, 215-218.
Manabe, Syukuro, and Wetherald, Richard T. 1967. “Thermal Equilibrium of the Atmosphere with a Given Distribution of Relative Humidity.” J. Atmospheric Sciences 24, 241-59.
Manabe, Syukuro, and Wetherald, Richard T. 1980. “On the Distribution of Climate Change Resulting from an Increase of CO2 Content of the Atmosphere.”
Manabe, Syukuro, and Wetherald, Richard T. 1975. “The effects of doubling the CO2 concentration on the climate of a general circulation model.” J. Atmos Sci. 32, 3–15
McAvaney, B.J., Colman. R., Fraser, J.F., and Dahni, R.R. 1991. “The response of the BMRC AGCM to a doubling of CO2.” BMRC Technical Memorandum No. 3 (in preparation).
Mitchell, J.F.B., Senior, C.A., and Ingram, W. J. 1989. “CO2 and climate: A missing feedback?.” Nature, 341, 132-134.
Möller, Fritz 1963. “On the Influence of Changes in the CO2 Concentration in Air on the Radiation Balance of the Earth’s Surface and on the Climate.” J. Geophysical Research 68, 3877-3886.
Nicoli Maria Pia and Visconti Guido 1982. “Impact of Coupled Perturbations of Atmospheric Trace Gases on Earth’s Climate and Ozone” Pure Appl. Geophys. 120(4), 626-641.
Noda, A., and Tokoika, T. 1989. “The effect of doubling CO2 concentration on convective and nonconvective precipitation in a general circulation model coupled with a simple mixed layer ocean.” J. Met. Soc. Japan, 67, 95-110.
Oglesby, R.J., and Saltzman, B., 1990. “Sensitivity of the equilibrium surface temperature of a GCM to systematic changes in atmospheric carbon dioxide.” Geophysical Research Letters, 17(8), 1089-1092.
Ohring George and Adler Shoshana 1978. “Some Experiments with a Zonally Averaged Climate Model.” J. Atmos. Sci. 35(2), 186-205.
Plass, Gilbert N. 1956. “The carbon dioxide theory of climatic change.” Tellus 8, 140-154.
Ramanathan, V. 1981. “The Role of Ocean-Atmosphere Interactions in the CO2 Climate Problem.” J. Atmos. Sci. 38, 918-930.
Rasool, S.I. and Schneider H.I. 1971. “Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide and Aerosols: Effects of Large Increases on Global Climate.” Science 173, 138-141.
Roeckner, E., L. Bengtsson, J. Feichter, J. Lelieveld, and H. Rodhe 1999. “Transient climate change simulations with a coupled atmosphere-ocean GCM including the tropospheric sulfur cycle” J. Climate, 12, 3004–3032.
Schlesinger Michael E., Zhao Zong-Ci, Vickers Dean 1989. “Design and Critical Appraisal of an Accelerated Integration Procedure for Atmospheric GCM/Mixed-Layer Ocean Models.” J. Climate 2, 641-655.
Schlesinger, M.E., N. Andronova, A. Ghanem, S. Malyshev, T. Reichler, E. Rozanov, W. Wang and F. Yangi 1997. “Geophysical Scenarios of Greenhouse_Gas and Anthropogenic Sulfate Aerosol Induced Climate Changes.” Climate Research Group Report, Department of Atmospheric Sciences, University of illinois at Urbana Champaign, Urbana, IL, USA.
Sellers, William D. 1973. “A New Global Climatic Model.” J. Appl. Meteorol. 12, 241-254.
Sellers, William D. 1974. “A Reassessment of the Effect of CO2 Variations On a Simple Global Climatic Model.” J. Appl. Meteorol. 13, 831-833.
Shaviv, N., Veizer, J. 2003. “Celestial driver of Phanerozoic climate?” GSA Today 13(7), 4-10.
Stern, David I. 2005. “An atmosphere–ocean time series model of global climate change.” Computational Statistics & Data Analysis uncorrected proof — http://www.rpi.edu/~sternd/CSDA_inpress.pdf, accessed 1/31/2007
Sumi, Akimasa 2005. “Global Warming Simulation due to the High Resolution Climate Model by Using the Earth Simulator.” Annual Report of the Earth Simulator Center April 2004 – March 2005.
Temkin Richard L. and Snell Fred M. 1976. “An Annual Zonally Averaged Hemispherical Climatic Model with Diffuse Cloudiness Feedback.” J. Atmos. Sci. 33(9), 1671-1685.
Thompson, S.L. and Pollard, D. 1995. “A global climate model (GENESIS) with a Land-Surface-Transfer Scheme (LSX). Part 2: CO2 sensitivity.” J. Climate, 8, 1104-1121.
Washington, W.M., and Meehl, G.A. 1984. “Seasonal cycle experiments on the climate sensitivity due to a doubling of CO2 with an atmospheric GCM Coupled to a simple mixed layer ocean model.” J. Geophys. Res., 89, 9475-9503.
Washington, W.M., and Meehl, G.A. 1989. “Climate sensitivity due to increased CO2: experiments with a coupled atmosphere and ocean general circulation model.” Climate Dynamics, 4, 1-38.
Washington, W. M., J. W. Weatherly, G. A. Meehl, A. J. Semtner, T. W. Bettge, A. P. Craig, W. G. Strand, J. Arblaster, V. B. Wayland, R. James, and Y. Zhang 2000. “Parallel climate model (PCM) control and transient simulations” Climate Dynamics 16, 755– 774.
Weare B.C. and Snell F.M. 1974. “A Diffuse Thin Cloud Structure as a Feedback Mechanism in Global Climatic Modeling.” J. Atmos. Sci. 31, 1725-1734.
Wetherald, R.T., and Manabe, S. 1986. “An investigation of cloud cover change in response to thermal forcing.” Climatic Change, 10, 11-42.
Wetherald, R.T., and Manabe, S. 1989. “Cloud feedback processes in a general circulation model.” J. Atmos. Sci., 45, 1397-1415.
Wetherald, Richard T., Stouffer, Ronald J., Dixon, Keith W. 2001. “Committed Warming and its Implications for Climate Change.” Geophys. Res. Lett. 28(8), 1535-1538.
Wilson, C.A., and Mitchell, J.F.B. 1987. “Simulated climate and CO2 induced climate change over western Europe.” Climatic Change, 19, 11-42.
Wolbarst, Anthony B. 1999. “Effective thermal conduction model for estimating global warming.” American Journal of Physics 67(10), 885–890.

“First, it should be obvious that the manipulation of the messages isn’t coming from scientists.”
To the contrary, it is not obvious at all. I was amazed how Judith Curry was able to continue to insinuate – through these very pages – her AGW message by appearing heroically to turn on her own party, and vaguely put blame on poor “communication”. In your two previous posts, Thomas, you did a similar thing, each time managing to tippy-toe a little further away from the AGW position while at no point admitting error on your part. The manipulation of the messages has obviously been by scientists. I’m bothered by media distortion, but I’m most bothered by scientific incompetence and/or fraud.
“It is their own butchery of the facts behind the images they decided we needed to see that hamstrung their movement. If they have been defeated…”
You say “they” and “their”. Thomas, when you use a plural personal pronoun and plural personal adjective, it needs to refer to some people recently mentioned. The only people mentioned in a text full of passive voice and impersonal subjects are “some marketing strategists”…mentioned at the other end of your essay, eleven paragraphs before! Please be very specific about which people and movement you are talking about. If you really think that scientists are innocent of imposing climate alarmism you’ll need to do a bit more than manipulate language to get your case across. Are you nervous about something you’ve said or done in the past? Are you, in fact, in favour of carbon taxation, ETS, expensive energy alternatives etc? Who are you and what are you?
“The worlds leading sea level expert Professor Morner has called the IPCC figures ‘a lie.’ Google ‘The greatest lie ever told’…”
Tony B.’s interesting article, like so many pieces published on Anthony’s invaluable site, points to something far more serious than naughty marketing. I really can’t see how Thomas Fuller’s peculiar exoneration of “scientists” has anything at all to do with Tony B’s contribution. It’s very strange.

pyromancer76 – check out Fenton Communications for a start . You can google it . Their list of clients and related clients is quite interesting .

Queensland University calculations put sea level rise at 0.3mm per year – that is about an inch a century
http://www.twawki.com/?p=8534

Harlech Castle
I think we all agree that much has changed in the environs of this mighty fortress and that the sea is actually rather closer to the castle than the article suggests.
My main point though was that the photographic evidence used to support the sea level rise article exaggerated the distance from the castle to the sea. This may well have been unintentional and these were the only pictures available to the author. The preceding text on this page highlighted how the media have misused images in order forward the warmist agenda and I suspect that we are all familiar with examples. If sceptics use the same tactics then we are no better and I really feel that the good work included in the article has been let down by a lack of diligence is selecting some of the supporting material. Credibility is lost quickly when we see this lack of attention to detail.

Adam Gallon says:
September 7, 2010 at 11:23 am
“Are you talking out of your derriere?
“First, it should be obvious that the manipulation of the messages isn’t coming from scientists. It is too professional, too slick and ultimately too wrong.”
Been to Real Climate at all, or don’t you consider Drs Scmidt et al to be scientists?”
Ahemm… RealClimate SLICK??? Repeat that for me. Wait.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/01/peer-review-ii/
A typical arbitrary post by M. Mann. No picture. Desert of text. Slickness zero.
Now some typical slickness.
http://www.wwf.co.uk/
Yeah, Whatley Weston & Fox… wait, i meant to say:
http://www.wwf.org/
Cute mammals! See! SLICK!

Ammonite says:
September 7, 2010 at 2:11 pm
“[…]The earth’s climate sensitivity to a doubling of CO2 is around +3C (+/-1C). For a partial list of papers (up to 2006) supporting this proposition read below. ”
The complete list can be found here.
http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm

@Rom – the booty.org site is a nice site for historians too, thank you. And tells of a “major storm surge in Cardigan Bay” in 520, a date which fits well with the story of the lost lands.

John Shade (above at 10:06) refers to an “ethical” public relations company which he claims sexes up climate scare reports. It is interesting that, for a good cause, they consider this “ethical”. I wonder if sexing up weapons of mass destruction reports in order to galvanise a move against a dictator would be regarded as “ethical”? Or perhaps the police fabricating evidence against a known criminal that is too hard to catch. Is that “ethical”? What a wonderful moving feast ethics is.
With respect to sea level change – a huge percentage of the world’s population lives near the sea. You might think that they would have noticed if there was a significant or perhaps even an insignificant rise in sea level. You’d think that there would be one place on the globe where someone would have noticed a sea level change and reported it quick sticks to the local AGW community to turn into another scare. Another polar bear standing on an ice berg photo. I dont think Ive seen anything in the press at all. On the contrary I see more and more housing developments right down to the sea front. There seems to be a mismatch between rhetoric and action that tells its own story.

GeoFlynx says:
September 7, 2010 at 9:55 am
“Championing the continued dumping of some 30 billion tons of fossil CO2 into the Earth’s atmosphere will, of course, require that sea levels do not rise, ice does not melt, thermometers read high, oceans do not acidify etc.”
30 billion sounds like a lot doesn’t it? How about this: Your president has spent that much, and way , way more. I’d post the number, but with each passing second that number increases by another mind blowing amount. 30 billion don’t seem like so much no-more… On a serious note however, 30 billion tons is a piffle when the entirety of the atmosphere is taken into account. Now go back to your crib before your mommy gets worried.

Ammonite,
Many thanks for the extensive article list, but once again, I already know the mainstream position on CO2 and climate sensitivity – no need to restate it for me.
Given that there is no way to construct a reproducible experiment in the lab to test for actual climate sensitivity, we are left with paleoclimatic educated guessing and computer simulation. All very interesting, but despite the volume of “peer reviewed” papers, the (amazingly consistent) conclusions are still speculative in nature. Forgive me if I am not willing to assign a high level of certainty to it as you apparently have.
The public presentation of all this with a high degree of certainty is simply dishonest.

Tom Fuller says:- “First, it should be obvious that the manipulation of the messages isn’t coming from scientists.”
Tom, you really do need to read the Climategate emails. They clearly show that scientists both in the US and here in the UK are working with the MSM to push an alarmist message to further there own misguided ‘green agenda’. As can be seen from the Climategate white wash, the government in the UK is also involved.

tonyb says:
September 7, 2010 at 4:08 pm
Thanks for the additions! Now you’ll know better than to submit a “raw” dataset story to anyone! 😉
Good work!

Gail Combs says: September 7, 2010 at 4:02 pm
Doug says:
September 7, 2010 at 1:26 pm
…..Gail. Thanks
—————————————————————————————Did you note that one of the funding groups was the Council on Foreign Relations? David Rockefeller of Standard Oil is an honorary chairman and its earlier origins included Paul Warburg, a German, who was responsible for the Federal Reserve.
============================================================
Gail Yes I did. I have also read a lot of your references concerning this whole matter which is quite alarming to contemplate. The problem as I see it is that there are very strong indications that the building blocks for this are already being placed. For some time now, I have noticed the demise of the European states and the rise of the undemocratic EU which (IMO)has emasculated them as well as the say of individuals within them. I see the UN trying to do this on a global scale. I had thought that the U.S. with its political background would not be caught up in this – but ???
Anyway, thanks for your posts – I always read these!
Doug

Mike Roddy says:
September 7, 2010 at 2:58 pm
…Here’s a good summary of what the future really looks like, from a comprehensive analysis done at MIT:
http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2009/roulette-0519.html
REPLY: readers, Mike Roddy’s MO is a “drive by troll”. His history is that he posts potshots like this, then runs from debate. My advice is that you simply ignore him – Anthony
______________________________________________________
Actually I thought a glance at the article about MIT’s “revised model” was pretty funny. When you quickly glance at it you see what looks like a roulette wheel in the upper right corner, no doubt representing their “model”
Do they throw darts at it, spin it or do a “pin the tail on the donkey”? I figure any of those three options are as accurate as their “new improved” computer model.
REPLY: yeah we covered that here: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/10/02/wheel-of-silly/
All the more reason to ignore Mike Roddy – Anthony

Philip Thomas says:
September 7, 2010 at 12:28 pm
I cannot help thinking that this article, while dismissive of much of the GW propaganda, was written just to try and exonerate the scientists and blame somebody else…..
___________________________________________________
Actually given the climategate e-mails and the slick hype, I see it as collusion and a well orchestrated media campaign.
Here are the most obvious examples:
Consider Real Climate
“It should be foremost on the minds of many that the RealClimate.org webserver domain is funded by Fenton Communications, an eco media group.” http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/20/a-telling-omission-by-real-climate/
Consider Wikipedia
“The editor who takes issue with this event writes:
On Sunday night, I went to the William Connolley wiki page and entered:
Additional criticism appeared on December 19, 2009, in nationalpost.com, as “How Wikipedia’s green doctor rewrote 5,428 climate articles.” This alleges that Connolley removed more than 500 wiki articles of which he disapproved; that he published inaccurate information on the controversial “hockey stick” graph; that he specifically opposed scientists from the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics.”
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/22/william-connolley-and-wikipedia-turborevisionism/
The scientist were all part of the slick media hype because they provided the fuel as well as crossed the line between science and advocacy. My first post was only to show that there was a professionally organized media campaign and not to let the scientists off the hook. They are guilty as He!! and I have no sympathy for them. If you want to look at yourself in the mirror without cringing you do not compromise your scientific integrity. As a scientist I have walked from more than one job for just that reason.

barry woods says:
“Futerra and The UK Department for Environment published the Rules of the Game on 7 March 2005” which included the term “Climate Change Deniers”.
related?
21 March 2005: Independent: David Nicholson-Lord: The biggest challenge of our time
When the definitive history of climate change is written, it may well include a chapter on denial. A new study from the Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) shows that while people acknowledge the threat posed by climate change, they tend to see it as remote – a problem for the developing world, for future generations, for industry and Government rather than individuals. ..
Last month, following a report from the communications consultancy Futerra, Defra announced a £12m climate communications initiative aimed at what Margaret Beckett, the secretary of state, called engaging people “close to home”. …
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/the-biggest-challenge-of-our-time-529294.html
another of the Independent newspaper’s CAGW zealots, Johann Hari, had the following published in UK Independent and the US Seattle Post-Intelligencer just weeks later. of course, no-one – sceptic or otherwise – doubts the climate changes but asking/demanding the scientists and media to stop using this UN-sanctioned false equivalent for CAGW has failed to date. btw, if anyone has evidence of the use of “climate change deniers” earlier than Futerra and the articles here, please post it.
24 April 2005: UK Independent: Johann Hari: The shame of the climate change deniers
More than 10,000 reputable scientists believe in man-made global warming; seven doubt it
The climate-change deniers are rapidly ending up with as much intellectual credibility as creationists and Flat Earthers. Indeed, given that 25,000 people died in Europe in the 2003 heatwave caused by anthropogenic climate change, given that the genocide unfolding in Darfur has been exacerbated by the stresses of climate change, given that Bangladesh may disappear beneath the rising seas in the next century, they are nudging close to having the moral credibility of Holocaust deniers. They are denying the reality of a force that – unless we change the way we live pretty fast – will kill millions.
http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/johann-hari/the-shame-of-the-climatechange-deniers-508762.html
same story, different headline:
29 May 2005: Seattle Post-Intelligencer: Johann Hari: Global warming? A small few non-believers say no
http://www.seattlepi.com/opinion/226175_climate29.html

Oh right the CRU emails were between PR hacks, no scientists were involved. Thankyou Mr Fuller that explains everything. Just as environment canada is fully staffed by PR nitwit. Oh wait thats true.Its getting so I can’t see any science in climate science, so you might be right. Or is this part of the negotiation phase of AWG? Your accumlative posts are forming a pattern. I have already bought enough BS involuntarily(think tax dollar) I doubt I’m buying what you are trying to sell. I value science not sciency feelings.Think the UN team has any to offer?

D Caldwell says: September 7, 2010 at 4:11 pm
“All very interesting, but despite the volume of “peer reviewed” papers, the (amazingly consistent) conclusions are still speculative in nature”
I am unsure why “peer reviewed” deserves its double quotes. Anybody is free to examine the papers in question and, if found deficient, publish accordingly. “Amazingly consistent” is also a bit of a stretch. The papers, published across many decades, cover a range of estimates from +0.1C to +9.6C. Each one has its deficiencies to be sure, but in aggregate they send a coherent message. Every single paper shows a positive response of temperature to CO2 increase. What is the chance that that all these positive responses have happened by random coincidence? What is that chance that the direction lines up with the known physical properties of CO2?

“Each one has its deficiencies” should read “Each one has its uncertainties” in my previous post.

Hi Smokey. Please see a list earlier in this blog. Note that CO2 is not the only forcing driving temperatures. A rise in temperature will generally cause a rise in CO2 and vice-versa. The two effects are coupled. Orbital forcing leads the earth out of glaciation causing CO2 to rise, which in turn causes temperatures to rise further. Fortunately the process does not cause runaway…

Ammonite,
It is the perception of some (including me) that the peer review process is not working as it should in the climate science community. Most papers are from a relative few in the “club” who review each other’s work and, to put it nicely, are very “mutually supportive”. There is also evidence in certain e-mail traffic that they try to exclude those with whom they disagree from publishing.
You said, “…but in aggregate they send a coherent message. Every single paper shows a positive response of temperature to CO2 increase.”
Yes, yes, I am aware of the great number of papers in support of CO2 warming and a sensitive climate, but try to remember that good science is not a matter of a consensus of opinion. There have been many times in the past when the majority have been wrong and a small minority were eventually proved correct.
Consensus is not scientific proof and the results of computer simulations are not the same as actual observed data.

Does the apparatus to correct broken sticks work for floorball sticks, too? I (or my co-players, to be more precise) have already broken two… There could be at least some application of demagogic Mannian attempts to fix the unfixable. 🙂
Apologies for having played this left-wing sport. 😉

D Caldwell says: September 7, 2010 at 9:47 pm
“…good science is not a matter of a consensus of opinion… Consensus is not scientific proof and the results of computer simulations are not the same as actual observed data.
Ok D, apologies if I have belaboured a point with you. I agree that computer simulations of climate represent an ambitious project.
Consensus has been wrong is not the same as consensus is wrong. If consensus is built upon dogma regardless of contrary evidence you have a point. If consensus is developed through a rigorous examination of evidence by multiple parties it is probably robust. Suppose I were to accept that a tiny cabal of evil scientists had hijacked the entire process in recent years. How should I treat the many paleo papers that pre-date 1980? They still point to the same overall conclusion. As does radiative physics from the turn of the previous century. As does analysis from many disparate fields well removed from East Anglia. It may be worth considering.

If Professor Morner is the “worlds leading sea level expert” he’s hiding the fact well because I don’t see much evidence of a strong publication record.

Surely there must be some ocean facing sheer rock cliffs that were marked or staked for tide levels during the great age of exploration? Perhaps Columbus, Magellan, Vespucci etc. I would be stunned to learn that there is not a single reliable mark that has survived somewhere.
How about the Rock of Gilbraltar? The awesome amount of history that sailed passed it through the ages, did anyone leave anything there remotely useful?

Blade says:
September 8, 2010 at 4:42 am
“Surely there must be some ocean facing sheer rock cliffs that were marked or staked for tide levels during the great age of exploration?”
This one is in Tasmania
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/467007.stm

@tonyb says:
September 8, 2010 at 3:15 am
“Sorry, omitted the link ref Prof Morner
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nils-Axel_M%C3%B6rner
tonyb”
Ah, another of Connelly’s smearing articles? Does anyone expect us to believe a word in Wikipedia on such topics?

I live by the sea half the time, and the coast is rocky.
There are promontories that show water level marks up 6 meters from where the sea is now. Unfortunately the area is earthquake prone. The last earthquake sank the earth in places a meter or so. How could one disentangle all these? Maybe an older earthquake had raised the land for all I know.
One thing for sure though, the sea lake side was opened by the Corinthians around 500BC, and a queue was built where the ships could tie . Ships at the time were like boats now. The queue rocks still survive in part of the periphery, and they are still above water . In high tides and wind drives they get covered. One can live with this 2500 year change, earthquakes and all.

Tim Clark
tonyb says:
September 8, 2010 at 8:03 am
When I selected it I thought I was writing an article not judging a photo competition. 🙂
Scooper is a pretty demanding art critic. I was satiring Scooper quibbling over a few mm. ;~D

Roger Knights says: September 8, 2010 at 4:00 am
Roy Spencer explains it in his book, The Great Global Warming Blunder. The consensus has mixed up forcings with feedbacks and cause with effect.
Hi Roger. I can only hope that Dr Spencer is correct and that climate sensitivty is at the lower end of the scale. I have my doubts. This post is about unfairly representing the significance and meaning of scientific endeavour. As his most recent paper (2010) is relatively new, lets await some critical scrutiny before throwing out the scores of papers before it.
Skepticism needs to cut both ways. I oppose the use of routine bear footage to falsely portray environmental “catastrophe” too. From a previous post I spoke of the “boundary between environmental hyperbole and scientifically informed judgment”. It interests me that Thomas Fuller states “their population is rising–and would be rising even more quickly if we quit shooting them, that being the major cause of polar bear deaths” without any attempt at attribution. The reader is left to assume that AGW is not a factor in their survival, but perhaps the bear population is rising because of recently enforced hunting restrictions, or better census methods are counting more of a stable population, or more are observed near human habitat as food sources elsewhere decline? I wouldn’t know and I wouldn’t assume any of the above without checking a number of sources first.

1. Tom Fuller says:
September 7, 2010 at 11:17 am
Tom, I have no knowledge of these groups but I have lived long enough to realize that our culture has evolved from one that everyone read printed works and were people were exposed to ideas in great depth in print form; into a culture that mostly relies on visual icons and video and sound bites for information. The problem is that visual images have no content. Our minds cannot retain a large array of visual images compared to what we remember from what we have read or have written. By choosing the icons carefully the environmental groups or the mainstream media sources can tell their simplistic stories with pictures based on the notion that one picture is worth a 1000 words. Unfortunately, 1000 words are a “drop in the bucket” compared to what is the real depth and weight of the issue including both sides of the issue. Quick answers substitute for complete and detailed answers to nagging problems. For example congress passed a major medical plan before anyone read the bill. Has any read it since? We had assurances that they could vote for the plan before it was written or read by anyone. No one read it!
The icons and video and sound bites are all that is left of journalism. Now the media competition depends upon pictures rather than words. Get the pictures first! Words mean something but pictures don’t have meaning because the content of the message is missing. The 1000 words are missing. As a result political action groups or the mass media can use the images to mean what they say it means. A stranded polar bear symbolizes rising oceans when polar bears can swim. Pictures can be changed in their meaning depending upon the interpreter or can be doctored. The meanings of words are less apt to be changed although the context can alter meaning when combined with other words. Unfortunately the shading of the meaning can be used to hide the real message. If enough is written, the issue becomes clearer. An issue like climate change cannot be explained with a picture of a polar bear on an ice floe. If we were able to tally the words presented on WUWT over the last year by both primary authors, links to other written sources, and comments by contributors to a given BLOG, 1000 words is orders of magnitude too low. As yet there is no agreement on the issue but over the last 3 three year it is becoming clearer.

Beth Cooper [September 8, 2010 at 5:14 am] says:
I don’t have links to 1600s, Blade, but there’s a link in this article, Link 20, that shows a sea level marker cut into rock at Port Arthur, Tasmania in 1841.

Philip Thomas [September 8, 2010 at 5:17 am] says:
This one is in Tasmania
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/467007.stm

Yeah, I’ve seen the John Daly research into these and it is excellent. What I think we need though is something pre-dating the LIA if possible like Columbus/Magellan, but failing that maybe as recent as Henry Hudson. Stakes from this era could be compared with the LIA-ending Tasmania markers. This way we just might be able to see both a small sea level fall then rise.
It’s just intuition really, but my gut feeling is that sea level would have been a tad higher in the 15th/16th centuries. This timeframe precedes all the know cooler ‘bottoms’ of the LIA era. So finding a surviving tidal guage remnant from one of those most-reputable explorers would carry a lot of credibility. Something older from the actual MWP of course would be better, but worldwide datapoints probably just won’t be found 🙁

AllenC,
You’re quibbling about GeoFlynx’s figure of 30 billion tonnes of CO2 emitted into the atmosphere annually? Ok It is a little on the high side. It should be 29.3 billion tonnes.
a href=”http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions” title=”http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions”>

Mann and other ‘scientists’ have decided to have a go at Lord Monckton
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/sep/21/climate-scientists-christopher-monckton
Obviously this is because they regard him as an easy target – though this is better than when Mann chose Sarah Palin as his contestant in scientific debate (Wall St. Journal)
The Guardian are completely uncritical of the claims of Mann, Hansen et al. but at least it says the emails from the CRU were ‘taken’ rather than ‘stolen’ like it used to
It tries to discredit Monckton on some obscure piece of medieval law about lords