Real Climate posted a weblog on June 21 2009 titled “A warning from Copenhagen”. They report on a Synthesis Report of the Copenhagen Congress which was handed over to the Danish Prime Minister Rasmussen in Brussels the previous week.
Real Climate writes
“So what does it say? Our regular readers will hardly be surprised by the key findings from physical climate science, most of which we have already discussed here. Some aspects of climate change are progressing faster than was expected a few years ago – such as rising sea levels, the increase of heat stored in the ocean and the shrinking Arctic sea ice. “The updated estimates of the future global mean sea level rise are about double the IPCC projections from 2007″, says the new report. And it points out that any warming caused will be virtually irreversible for at least a thousand years – because of the long residence time of CO2 in the atmosphere.”
First, what is “physical climate science”? How is this different from “climate science”. In the past, this terminology has been used when authors ignore the biological components of the climate system.
More importantly, however, the author of the weblog makes the statement that the following climate metrics “are progressing faster than was expected a few years ago” ;
1. “rising sea levels”
NOT TRUE; e.g. see the University of Colorado at Boulder Sea Level Change analysis.
Sea level has actually flattened since 2006.
2. “the increase of heat stored in the ocean”
NOT TRUE; see
Update On A Comparison Of Upper Ocean Heat Content Changes With The GISS Model Predictions.
Their has been no statistically significant warming of the upper ocean since 2003.
3. “shrinking Arctic sea ice”
NOT TRUE; see the Northern Hemisphere Sea Ice Anomaly from the University of Illinois Cyrosphere Today website. Since 2008, the anomalies have actually decreased.
These climate metrics might again start following the predictions of the models. However, until and unless they do, the authors of the Copenhagen Congress Synthesis Report and the author of the Real Climate weblog are erroneously communicating the reality of the how the climate system is actually behaving.
Media and policymakers who blindly accept these claims are either naive or are deliberately slanting the science to promote their particular advocacy position.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Dave Middleton (09:30:07) :
I don’t see how overdetermined would apply to my example. Are you referring to statistical overfitting? Even then, I don’t see how it applies.
What he is likely referring to is an over sampled time series. This sort of lack of knowledge of proper terminology is not uncommon among Wiki-experts. I’m guessing he’s making some sort of strained assertion that if a sinewave is critically sampled (sampled at exactly twice the frequency), there is no issue with the trend as you highlighted. He’d be wrong, of course, and it is not hard to construct plots that would show why. It gets even stickier when the data has bandwidth greater than zero, the entire bandwidth is oversampled (assuming there is no aliasing). One could make an argument that the highest frequency could be critically sampled, but a single sinusoid has zero bandwidth so the entire bandwidth is still over sampled.
Either way, his point is immaterial.
Mark
Dr Reese (10:03:14) :
Are we not able to move forward and solve real problems instead of finger pointing?
If the extremely oppressive solutions to the faux climate change mess are implemented, we won’t even be able to point fingers, let alone solve real problems.
Mark
“are progressing faster than was expected”
Yes dot forward. If their models were reliable, this would not have happened.
Admitting models are worthless is obvious.
time to adjust the data to fit the models.
smallz79 (10:01:19) :
In total Gavin is indeed committing fraud while on the government payroll.
Doesn’t your sensitivity to anonymous accusations extend to accusations of fraud? If not why not?
REPLY: It does, and the comment is deleted, thanks for pointing it out. I missed it. Feel free to point out any that I may have missed. I’ll continue to point out that accusations of legal wrongdoing, fraud, plagiarism, etc really have n place coming from anonymous cowards.
If you want to make such accusations here – put your name on it. Otherwise it will be deleted. Phil. gets held to a higher stamd than most because as an academic you should know better than average Joe. Feel free to be upset about that. – Anthony
Sea level rise looks flat from 1998 to 2000 as well…
As for sea ice does anyone care about thickness?
Ben
“Here’s another nail in the AGW coffin: ”
It’s getting hard to find the room for any more nails….
and on a second look…sea level rise was ‘flat’ from 93 to 96 too.
Really, you can find a lot of “flat” times when you look at just 2-3 year segments.
Dr Reese (10:03:14) :
It is normal for species to come and go. That does not mean I want dirty air or water, I do. I don’t want to wipe out species, within reason. We have to realize there are some things beyond our control and even for some things that are, we might make a choice to lose a species here or there. But often, when we think we’ve wiped one out, we find it’s somewhere else.
Species are but ripples upon the pond of DNA. (The DNA’s the thing!)
I wrote to two senators of Florida telling them not to vate for the Cap and Trade bill, they both replied with an explanation of why they are voting “Yes”. Are they dumb, they are basically saying in thier replies they do not care what the voters think. Instead, they insist this is the best action to take. I have written to them a second time warning them of the consequences they are so desparately ignoring. Florida will have all new Senators come election day. I can not wait.
Clearly new scientist did not get the memo
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20327151.300-sea-level-rise-its-worse-than-we-thought.html
<blockquote.Jim (08:33:05) :
smallz79 (08:02:20) : and Mr. Lynn:
It does not matter that no one seemed to pay attention or that the media are taking sides. The fight is still worth the effort. With an attitude like “why fight it, the battle is over,” you might as well just go over to the warmist side becuase you are helping them win!!
I did not say climate realists should give up.
What I said was: “The only way to stop them is to educate the public at large, and those in the Congresses and Parliaments who will listen, to pull the financial plug. Once the public starts to complain about spending billions to combat a mythical ‘climate change’, and once they start to vote the spenders out, we might have a chance. . .”
In other words, it’s going to take education, lots of it. The message has to be taken to the schools, the colleges, the press, and the legislatures: “There is no ‘global warming’. The climate always changes, naturally. CO2 is not a problem. CO2 is good for plants, good for the Earth, and good for you.”
/Mr Lynn
Dang! Messed up the quote. If you can’t figure it out, the first paragraph is Jim’s. Maybe if we contribute more to Anthony, he could upgrade to editable comments. . . /Mr L
Rob (06:23:59) :
Using the graphs you provided, I calculate a delta SL of 1.67 mm/yr for the past ~30 yrs, 1.33 mm/yr for the 30 years before that, both of which are well above the 0.33 mm/yr for the past 6 kyr. Don’t those suggest accelerating sea level rise?
Global sea level according to tide gauges: http://www.worldclimatereport.com/wp-images/sea_level_update_fig2.JPG
Maybe it is my fault, but I can’t see any acceleration here. Between 1950 and 1980, the amount of increase was about 45mm. This chart ends in 2008, but anyone can easily extrapolate it for the remaining 2 years to 2010. We will get the very same amount of sea level rise (45mm) for the second 30-year period.
Firstly, I have to ask again: where is the recent acceleration? The word ‘recent’ is very important here, because even the IPCC admit that any temperature increase (or in this case sea level rise) before 1950 must have been caused by natural variation. Only a recent acceleration can be used as ‘supporting evidence’ for the AGW theory, and it would be only an evidence of warming, nothing about its origin.
Secondly, the global sea level chart for the last 60 years uses instrumental (tide gauge) data, while the another one which you mentioned is a reconstruction entirely relying on sea level proxies. The two data sets are inconsistent, and comparing a 6000 year trend to a 30 year one doesn’t make much sense. RAW data from proxies contain a huge amount of noise in almost all cases. The resulting graph is a severely smoothed one, which can’t show the magnitude of short-term variations in the past.
Finally, the rate of sea level increase in the past 6000 years is quite uncertain. Independent studies show an amount of increase between 4 and 10 meters, and I’m sure that each of them has a wide margin of error.
This chart compares different sea level reconstructions: http://geology.uprm.edu/Morelock/3_image/holsm.gif
REPLY: It does, and the comment is deleted, thanks for pointing it out. I missed it. Feel free to point out any that I may have missed.
I will, also it doesn’t do much good if you delete the original but leave the quote in my complaint.
You missed it this time too.
John H (08:09:56) :
REPLY: Save screencaps of these things, before and after. – Anthony
Phil.
Since a few on the moderation team, including Anthony himself have been subject to Gavin et al’s selective censorship and post editing, I think you’ll find there may be a bit of tolerance for those who also report it. In fact, calling RC’s moderation team petty, childish, and intellectually dishonest is being polite. You may not see it as having not been subject to it.
Perhaps accusations of “fraud” may be out of line since they rise to legal levels.
jeez aka charles the moderator.
It makes me wonder why there is no data for the last 6 months. The data goes down in the beginning of every year, and all the snow still unmelted this year on land…
Might it be an inconvenient truth?
Ecotretas
Sea level has some surprises, as these measurements from Hilo, Hawaii show:
http://energyguysmusings.blogspot.com/2009/05/sea-level-surprises-at-hilo.html
Dr Reese
I enjoy your blog and share your concern about bees.
Anthony likes to use articles that interest him-they don’t have to be about AGW-as you rightly say there are far more important things to worry about and I would put the slow demise of the bees to be right up there.
If you have an article on Bees that might be of interest here why not let Anthony know by mentioning it in ‘tips and notes to WUWT’ at the top of this blog.
Good luck.
tonyb
Yeah,
If you just ignore all the other data for sea levels before 2006, it’s all flat! No warming in the upper oceans since 2003… just forget all the previous years and studies. Anomalies have decreased in the last year!… just pay no attention to all the previous years.
Pielke’s analysis is absolutely bullet proof, except for bullets that is. Just ignore that part.
[snip] are a joke.
Anthony snipped the fraud comment out of the wrong post. Phil was simply referencing an original comment by John H (08:09:56) and quoted by smallz79 (10:01:19). The latter post was edited but not the former.
Re: Marxist Wacky: I am thinking of driving around taking pictures of businesses around here that depend on tourists who pull their boats behind large SUVs and send them to my senators. I can’t imagine what they are thinking. People who like to sail are already sailing. It is way cheaper already. People who like to kayak are young and don’t spend the same money in restaurants and tackle shops. This place will become a ghost town and lower income people will suffer the most as their properties become worthless, and they have no funds to leave.
HEY ANTHONY
A poster above, (maksimovich)
http://www.ocean-sci.net/5/193/2009/os-5-193-2009.pdf
This is the nail in the ocean level rise coffin. The graph above needs to be redone to properly correspond to this data.
There needs to be an entire article on this paper. It is great.
AGW alarmist logic:
(a) We have models that predict the average global temperature rise resulting from anthropogenic release of CO2 into the atmosphere.
(b) Average global temperature is rising faster than our models predicted.
(c) OK, our models are obviously incorrect, but don’t let that stop you from buying our product.
These guys should be selling lightening rods, or gas masks to prevent cyanide poisoning when the earth passes through the tail of Halley’s comet, or “Pet Rocks”, or some other bull****.
Reed Coray
Thanks Tony. Book is out 30 Sept and as we get closer I will release a couple articles. Cheers!!! Dr Reese
There my name is now known, I was just using my nickname with my birth year at the end…
Relax people.
REPLY: Welcome to the light. – Anthony
I notice that Gavin has posted “More Bubkes” on his site in response to Roger Pielke Sr’s response.
When will this end ? How much more Bubkes (Goat dropping) must the world endure from RC ?
If Gavin keeps this up he will become known as Gavin “Goat-Schmidt”