Bubkes II – RC's "rush hour"

Like Waxman-Markey, where 300+ pages get added at 3:09AM that nobody has time to read or fully evaluate, Real Climate gets on the “hurry up bandwagon” in regards to climate change perception. Dr. Pielke takes them to task again. I ask “What’s the rush?” – Anthony

With sincere apologies to "Big Daddy" Roth

With sincere apologies to "Big Daddy" Roth

Response By Roger A. Pielke Sr. To The Real Climate Weblog “More Bubkes”

Filed under: Climate Science Misconceptions, Climate Science Reporting — Roger Pielke Sr. @ 9:11 am

Real Climate has posted a response titled “More bubkes” to my weblog of July 30 2009 titled  Real Climate’s Misinformation. First, it is clear they are (deliberately?) misinterpreting what I wrote on the weblog. Embedded in the personal attack comments that Real Climate permits be posted, there are several that recognize that the error in the original Real Climate post was their statement

Some aspects of climate change are progressing faster than was expected a few years ago”.

As I documented in my weblog of June 30 2009, their statement is clearly and documentably false (and is not a “wild allegation”).

They present a set of observational evidence regarding the longer term trends, and I have no disagreement with them on this. Indeed, in the past I posted a weblog that supported the retrospective skill of the GISS model in simulating upper ocean heat content increases at least until the last few years;

Comparison of Model and Observations Of Upper Ocean Heat Content.

I wrote in that weblog

“The conclusion that the GISS model is consistent with the observations for the time period in the second figure is clear from this comparison. The absence of a positive radiative imbalance in the last 4 years, however, that is anywhere neat the 0.85 Watts per meter squared value in Hansen et al. 2005, needs to be reconciled.”

More recently, I questioned further their skill for the last several years; see

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

Real Climate is correct that the time period to make conclusions on longer term trends is too short. However, they weaken the confidence in the scientific objectivity when they report that Some aspects of climate change are progressing faster than was expected a few years ago” . Why do they feel they need to do this when this is obviously not true?

By overstating what is actually occurring within the climate system (which they clearly did in their original weblog and perpetuated in their second weblog), they provide fodder for those who conclude that the human intervention in the climate system is minimal. To emphasize my view, it is summarized in my weblogs

Summary Of Roger A. Pielke Sr’s View Of Climate Science

Roger A. Pielke Sr.’s Perspective On The Role Of Humans In Climate Change

Roger A. Pielke Sr.’s Perspective On Adaptation and Mitigation

House Testimony of Roger A. Pielke Sr. “A Broader View of the Role of Humans in the Climate System is Required In the Assessment of Costs and Benefits Effective Climate Policy”

Real Climate could be an important venue to permit the presentation and debate on the diversity of peer reviewed perspectives on climate. However, they need to permit all such viewpoints to be presented, as well as not attack (or permit their commenters to) colleagues with whom they disagree.

Advertisements

134 thoughts on “Bubkes II – RC's "rush hour"

  1. For a heads up, Real Climate filters out critical blog posts. Here is what I attempted to post there during there criticism of Dr. Pielke ;
    Real scientists test a hypothesis and doesn’t just
    disregard it (by saying not enough time or authored
    by 12 leading scientists and “based on the 16 plenary
    talks given at the Congress as well as input of over 80
    chairs and co-chairs of the 58 parallel sessions held at
    the Congress) A propagandist disregards the argument.
    Just because all other studies support the science
    doesn’t make it true. A true scientist tests all counter
    arguments with a scientific method to either affirm
    the model or disprove it with an open mind to the data.
    A propagandist is married to his preconceived conclusions
    and will disregard data that doesn’t fit in his paradigm.
    It seems to me that all the data you are using has to short
    of time in the studies to come to a firm conclusion. We
    have only good ice data from 1979; this is only a drop
    in the bucket of time needed to make any kind of proper
    assessment of the ice. The same goes for our temperature
    measurements and solar studies. To say that the earth is
    warming due to our actions based on this limited data is
    arrogant to say the lest! I suggest that if you want to be
    regarded as a true scientist and not a propagandist that
    you look at all the data, concede that we really don’t have
    all the answers and are all in school learning how it all
    works. To say the debate is over is just plain stupidity.

  2. Their corner is well-painted now. They have to allow dissenting comments because the data supports dissent. However, they cannot allow dissent because they already concluded that the “science is settled.” For them to allow dissent now is admitting that the science wasn’t settled, which means the position taken by so many was actually unsupportable at the time, and hence, the politics that are in motion are based on something that is/was meaningless.
    It’s unfortunate for all of us actually that they did this to themselves, but Pielke is attacking with the correct mantra… “The data doesn’t support these claims, allow dissenting voices into your realm or face the prospect of being ignored.”

  3. Gavin shows what a wimpy political hack he is in the comment section of the RC “More Bubkes” post
    Comment:
    # Ayrdale Says:
    2 July 2009 at 2:59 AM
    Hello, a lurker, or troll here if you like, very interested in your response to Pielke Snr.
    Isn’t it true that we, the general public needs to know the truth about climate change and its impact on us all ?
    Isn’t it true too, that Al Gore and others who preach climate catastrophe have overstated their case ?
    I have not burrowed into your archives, but tend to a sceptical opinion of politicians who warn of disaster, and think that it may be possible that they have political reasons for doing so.
    You perhaps may feel this way too, and may have written and posted about Al Gore’s overstatements, (lies may be a bit harsh), but Sir if you have, I would be most interested to be told.
    In the meantime I remain a sceptic / denier if you like, and would appreciate your comments.
    [Response: Yes. Not really. All politicians have political reasons for what they do. see here. – gavin]
    He wimpily supports Al gore by saying: Not really.
    He then references his bubbly post in support of the Algore movie back in 2006

  4. Jeremy (14:13:50) :
    “The data doesn’t support these claims, allow dissenting voices into your realm or face the prospect of being ignored.”
    So why are we just not ignoring them?

  5. Paul revere (14:00:09) :
    I think we have all been filtered out at RC if we talk good science that did not follow the physics in their part of the 7th dimension. But to fully test your hypothesis regarding their filtering ethics, you should post something that follow their AGW physics and or some other insults directed to Dr. Pielke or Lord Monckton. I bet good money that those will go through.
    Hmmm, that gives an idea… Loto RC, maybe?!

  6. Even some of the warmer’s at realclimate are tiring of the Personal attacks Gavin et al are resorting to in their desperation:
    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/05/how-to-cook-a-graph-in-three-easy-lessons/#comment-87661
    Here’s a statistical observation from those debates: the side employing a relatively higher personal focus in their attacks on the other side’s ideas is eventually proven wrong a higher percentage of the time.
    I didn’t see anything personal in Spencer’s article, nor do I find it on Pielke’s site in general. But I do here, too often. You’re scientists, wage a war of facts and ideas, your readers will figure out for themselves who’s credible and why.
    If I misunderstand the purpose of this site, if it’s just for the faithful to gather and reinforce themselves and have their jollies, please hang a big sign to that effect on your homepage.

    I have incidentally debunked the central plank of Raymond ‘raypierre’ Pierrehumbert’s diatribe against Roy Spencer in this ‘article’.
    Raypierre claims the correct depth for the ocean mixed layer is 50m and accuses Spencer of wrongly using “a kilometer!”.
    By calculating the depth which must be warmed to account for thermal expansion and the measured sea level rise, I have determined Roy Spencer is correct.

  7. climate progress also ripped Dr. Pielke today. I would have posted there but I have been “banned.” Romm and his ilk are reprehensible in all respects.

  8. Leif Svalgaard (14:17:24) :
    So why are we just not ignoring them?
    ? I think you mean, “Why aren’t we?”
    To which I would respond, because you don’t burn bridges. It is particularly bad to do so in the very field in which you aim to make headway. While they may make some claims that are unsupportable by data, they also make claims that are. You don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater if you can avoid it. Besides which, regardless of what they are saying, those people aren’t dumb, they’re just misguided. They’ve let their conclusions drive them more than they should, that’s all.

  9. I assume the ‘stefan’ writing some of the inline replies on RC is ‘Stefan Rahmstorf’… he of the opportunistic endpoint smoothing controversy. Irony so rich it should be mined.

  10. Those sites (RC, Tamino etc..) are the skeptics best friends, leave them alone. I have ignored them for a long time. I certainly visit them when these type of controversies arise, and this reassures me that in the end these sites will be invaluable fodder for skeptics/deniers when “AGW” becomes a joke in mainstream science, and media, and the lawyers start salivating LOL.end…

  11. So why are we just not ignoring them?
    ? I think you mean, “Why aren’t we?”
    aren’t =are not
    So why [are not] we just not ignoring them? Too many nots.

  12. I wonder if they’ll continue chucking around their ad hominems when the tide turns? Some of the comments I’ve read on RC and CP are downright nasty. I tend not to like people telling me that I have no right to life/liberty etc for being a climate heretic. I don’t think I want to pal up with people like that, not even in the name of entente.

  13. I applaud Roger Pielke’s evenhanded response – giving credit to when credit is due. For example, supporting “the retrospective skill of the GISS model in simulating upper ocean heat content increases at least until the last few years.”
    However, the key words are “until the last few years.” If the “last few years” is seven years or less, then Real Climate’s assertion that “Some aspects of climate change are progressing faster than was expected a few years ago” simply cannot be supported.
    Surface temperature rise rate is less, and possibly negative “in the last few years.”
    Sea level rise rate is less “in the last few years.”
    Ocean heat content rise rate is essential zero “in the last few years.”
    I assume the folks at Real Climate expected all of these metrics to me increasing, hence the words “progressing faster than was expected a few years ago.”
    I think people are getting fatigued with ever accelerating predictions of doom. Real Climate is only hurting their own credibility.
    Best Regards,
    ClimateSanity

  14. VG is right, someone needs to start archiving RC , Romm’s and Tammy’s sites before the more embarrassing posts start to ‘disappear’

  15. Off-topic but Anthony, did you pick up Team Svensmark’s latest paper? It’s currently in press.
    Abstract:
    “Close passages of coronal mass ejections from the sun are signaled at the Earth’s surface by Forbush decreases in cosmic ray counts. We find that low clouds contain less liquid water following Forbush decreases (FDs), and for the most influential events the liquid water in the oceanic atmosphere can diminish by as much as 7%. Cloud water content as gauged by the Special Sensor Microwave/Imager (SSM/I) reaches a minimum around 7 days after the Forbush minimum in cosmic rays, and so does the fraction of low clouds seen by the Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS) and in the International Satellite Cloud Climate Project (ISCCP). Parallel observations by the aerosol robotic network AERONET reveal falls in the relative abundance of fine aerosol particles which, in normal circumstances, could have evolved into cloud condensation nuclei (CCN). Thus a link between the sun, cosmic rays, aerosols, and liquid-water clouds appears to exist on a global scale.”
    REPLY: Yes I’m reading it now – Anthony

  16. Tom in Texas (14:47:39) :
    aren’t =are not
    So why [are not] we just not ignoring them? Too many nots.

    (Uh, yeah. Me fail engrish compehenson.)
    —> I interpreted Leif’s post to say, “Why aren’t we ignoring them?”

  17. tallbloke (14:54:23) :
    VG is right, someone needs to start archiving RC , Romm’s and Tammy’s sites before the more embarrassing posts start to ‘disappear’

    I already did. A linux box and wget is your friend.

  18. AGW is falling apart and its true beleivers think it is becuase they have not been harsh enough.

  19. Leif Svalgaard (14:17:24) :
    Jeremy (14:13:50) :
    “The data doesn’t support these claims, allow dissenting voices into your realm or face the prospect of being ignored.”
    So why are we just not ignoring them?

    Exactly! Why not indeed?
    RealKlimate was never about debate. It was and is the HuffPo of the AGW crowd, with a hint of science to give it credibility with the uninformed.

  20. Dr. Pielke,
    Jeremy (14:33:32) :
    Leif and VG are right. We should be just ignoring them – over there and here is why –
    In a situation of danger, i.e., in a threat of oncoming tension, the ego anticipates the latter in the form of anxiety, and this anticipation then becomes the immediate signal which induces the organism to adjust itself so as to avoid the danger—for example, flight, or any other protective measure (including lying) thereby fulfilling a biological function. That being, in this case, the preservation of the organism’s physiologically perceived level of security, social-approval and self-approval. All very natural at the most basic of human levels. However, as I also pointed out previously, most of us here do not comment/blog simply to fulfill or enhance some basic emotional need. Some, including myself, do not have the background(?) to contribute ah, technically on most subjects but are naturally inquisitive and seek information from those of you that do. Most (not all), by my observation, blog on RC to elicit response for self-fulfilling needs, NOT to further the understanding of the subject at hand OR become – more enlightened. This is not to marginalize RC or for that matter any of the commentators. They have their needs – – and we have ours.
    However, it has been my experience over a LONG period of time that any attempt to either solicit a germane response from or engage in reasonable dialogue with those that are primarily focused inwardly (on the “self”) is a waste of time. Unless, of course, you’re a psychologist….. Then it can be quite interesting, even funny. But as I see, and correct me if I’m wrong Doc Watts, that is NOT our or this blogs “job”.
    Dr. Pielke, your points – information – is very valuable to most here and we can use it to counter the miss-information that reverberates around this whole subject. But a bad case of agendaitis is not curable with a few facts.
    BTW, the above is called – “Over-Determination of the ego”. I’m sure there are many reading this that know exactly what I’m referring too….. Flanagan? Are you there?

  21. I have only followed the climate change debate closely for about 2 years now–that being the time when I became aware there even was a debate. I am definitely a skeptic, but with the caveat that I may be wrong. Perhaps it is AGW. But the constant “well it’s worse than we thought folks” drumming going on is really shocking. I sense desperation…these guys know the PDO is in its cool phase, as is the Atlantic counterpart (forgot it’s name). The strange goings on with the sun to boot. Romm is, well, I don’t even bother reading anything with his name attached to it. But RC I held in higher regard until this latest show.

  22. According to Bib Tisdale the preliminary SST readings for June are among the warmest for a monthly reading in the entire SST record, though this is preliminary and the full analysis has yet to be completed, he also said an apparent correction is called part of the official data, plus in the last week or so SST’s have been on their way down again according to the NOAA maps.

  23. I think people are getting fatigued with ever accelerating predictions of doom. Real Climate is only hurting their own credibility.

    Right you are! I hear it from co-workers all the time. They have been bombarded by so much doom, gloom, accelerating, only 5 years, faster than ever before, accelerating faster than we thought, etc… They, including myself, simply laugh anymore. We have heard so much of this rhetoric over the past couple of years, that even if a fraction of it where really true, we should already be half way to the temperature of Venus. The wealth of ignorance is astounding [Ren and Stimpy].

  24. I think to ignore them gives them the impression that they are right and have won the debate. To ignore them gives them an unchallenged position to continue to spread propaganda. The best defense against propaganda is to confront it with factual data. Bad things happen when good men do nothing.

  25. Gavin is going to die a bitter old man. I sent him a note warning him of that (seriously), but he evidently ignored it. I can’t imagine the heap of scorn that is coming his way for the next 5-10 years.

  26. Let’s not ignore RC. Watching them flail is sometimes funny. Besides “Know thy enemy”…

  27. I am confused. It seem like this is an argument in semantics. In this case the semantics argument is ridiculous.
    When the meaning of the quoted statement is in doubt, I think it should be interpreted in the context of how the statement was used. The entire paragraph in RC (that RP Sr took issue with) was addressing the Copenhagen Climate Congress report and it reads:
    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.
    Since the very next sentence addressed “IPCC projections”, it clear from the context, that changes in climate change projections were being discussed. The RC post was addressing how new studies published since the IPCC report deadline showed how projections of sea level rise and ice extent melt, were outpacing the more conservative original projections of the IPCC.
    The alternative interpretation, doesn’t make much sense, because the timeframes are too short, and the uncertainties in the data collection too large, and the influence on the data of the latest La Nina that just ended.
    Dr. Pielke’s whole argument falls to pieces, when one looks at how he took the quoted sentence out of context.

  28. paulK (15:52:07) : How can one justify phrasing something as though it refers to reality-“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.” When one is talking about projections? Who the hell cares if the models are projecting more warming? The statement itself gives the (totally WRONG) impression that this is what the actual system is doing! They use the word ARE. There is no possible way that could refer to anything other than REALITY, unless we suddenly live in Wonderland….

  29. I must disagree with the notion of ignoring them.
    In Science, success isn’t nearly as useful or informative as failure. Since there is failure on both sides in this “debate” (can we use that word now?) to varying degrees, both sides have potential value.
    Do I believe that CO2 will catastrophically warm the planet’s atmosphere and it must be curbed now? No. But I believe the failure of such predictions is/will be ultimately very useful. It’s the politicians who should be ignoring them, and the politicians don’t pay attention to us so our ignoring them doesn’t help there either.

  30. I believe everyone realizes that RC is more about pushing a particular agenda and not really about any science. That is quite obvious in the viewpoints that are suppressed as much as what is allowed to appear. There isn’t any honest debate going on there and it shows. I think that is one of the reasons that so few take that site seriously in the first place. I used to look but haven’t visited the site in a couple of years. I can pretty much predict what is going to be on there before I even go. It is a cheerleader site for an agenda and that is about it.

  31. RC claims that Pielke is engaging in an end point fallacy by choosing a statistical starting point to support his position and ignoring previous data. But RC is engaging in the very same tactic by ignoring or totally minimizing the recent 5+ years of data that might raise questions about their position.
    Schmidt, Hansen, et. al. claimed that a solid decade of rising ocean heat from 1993-2003 was confirmation of their model predictions (“Earth’s Energy Imbalance:Confirmation and Implications”, Science, 2005) and Pielke acknowledged this. But now that ocean heat content has been flat for about 5 years it is written off as natural variability. One has to wonder what they might say if we have a solid decade of ocean cooling or at least no heating.

  32. Ot-I’m a confessing “Rat Fink” love “Big Daddy’s” work he was an Artiste’ with a cutting torch and Bondo….

  33. paulK 15:52:07
    Do you notice how your interpretation just further demolishes the credibility of the IPCC projections? You’ve killed the horse swatting a fly on its ass.
    =======================================

  34. Chris (15:45:37) :
    Gavin is going to die a bitter old man. I sent him a note warning him of that (seriously), but he evidently ignored it. I can’t imagine the heap of scorn that is coming his way for the next 5-10 years.

    I think you are correct Chris. Unfortunately, as the AGW hypothesis crumbles, a large portion of the scientific community will not only lose credibility and the trust of the public, but I believe there will also be very negative backlash at some of the more vocal and prominent people involved (ie: Al Gore, James Hansen, Gavin Schmidt). I am glad I am not either of these gentlemen as I believe life for them in the future is going to be a very sad, dark place. As for Gavin Schmidt, I already regard him as the ultimate hack when it comes to the development of general circulation models (GCM’s), as he, by his own responses and blog posts at RC, has not even the tiniest clue of what software development is about. The lack of foundational software development principals and practices invalidates his models right out of the starting gate. For me, his models are a non-starter period. They are invalidated before they can even be tested as there is no peer review process, quality control, source control management, release management, or any other semblance of the SDLC process. And these necessary things, by his own admission, are not considered to be relevant to the development of software which results are used to drive trillion dollar economic and environmental policy. This is an utterly ridiculous position by someone who claims to be a scientist. Simply put, Gavin Schmidt is a hack, is a mathematician that should NOT be engaged in software development practices of this nature, and in my judgment, completely non-credible. Further, all of this will catch up with him (and the others) at some point, with detrimental effects to their lives. Very thankful to not be them…

  35. Re: ‘Truth’ on RC, #51’More Bupkes’:

    the phrase ‘rising sea levels progressing faster’ is clearly a statement that sea level rise is accelerating.
    [Response: Possibly English is not your first language, but ‘faster’ is a relative term. To understand the sentence you need to know what something was ‘faster’ than. The sentence was actually clear – ‘faster than projections from a few years’ ago. Arguing that it magically meant something else is completely pointless. Misrepresentating (sic) a statement and then giving examples of how that misrepresented statement is wrong might be fun, but it isn’t constructive contribution and simply adds noise. – gavin]

    Apart from an amazingly convoluted answer, Gavin also seems to have some trouble with the Queen’s English. Misrepresentating, for sure. . .

  36. paulK, it is about the data and what kind of statement can you make from the data. It isn’t about how someone can perform a new analysis that keeps their theory limping along despite what the data does or doesn’t say.
    Read this http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=6454 about the new “studies” and then you let me know what you think.
    Climate scientist appears to like to twist, massage, duplicate, interpolate, and ignore data and then make grand pronouncements..
    If you got crap data, then you got crap data. Crap in equals crap out.
    Personally, I think Gavin, Mann, Hansen and others have moved beyond being scientists. They are in the political arena now. They will cause their field to implode in a few years if temperatures continue to fall. I predict it will be the biggest scientific screwup in a hundred years. They need to start to examining exit strategies to soften the blow to their field.
    Oh, it didn’t take me long to sense that RC wasn’t what it was supposed to be. It is heavily moderated and censored. It is decaying from the inside out and smart people can detect that something isn’t right about RC.

  37. The hurry up/we must act quickly bandwagon is what is killing their credibility in the public’s eye. A steady leaking of news that what they predicted is not what is happening.
    More precisely, what is happening is what the focus will eventually shift to.
    And it should.
    But, there is a catch. A catch 22 of the Hale variety.
    The Waxman/Markey bill.
    That makes ignoring them costly, as the bill before Congress is heading in the direction diametrically opposed to what is happening.

  38. I know this is only somewhat related but is important as it deals with whether the IPCC predictions are shaky or accurate.
    I found a new toy at the NOAA NOMADS page showing monthly SST’s if you select to view the monthly data and the time series. Apparently the trend from 1998 is still down and it shows an interesting dual peak pattern before SST’s take a plunge every year. We’re now in the second peak of the current iteration of the pattern and could result in a sharp downturn if the pattern holds.
    http://nomad3.ncep.noaa.gov/cgi-bin/pdisp_sst.sh?ctlfile=monoiv2.ctl&ptype=ts&var=sst&level=1&month=nov&year=1996&fmonth=jun&fyear=2009&lat0=-90&lat1=90&lon0=-180&lon1=180&plotsize=800×600&dir=

  39. My issue with model projections is they can never be falsified because they are adjusted and re-run each year.They simply absordb the past and then extrapolate the last short data trends (1-2 yrs) and claim that things have changed (ex. Ice loss has accelerated), that is NOT SCIENCE that is reactionary rationalizations.
    I say we take the IPCC AR4 Model runs and compare them to observations, the past is not relevant because they are predictions. Backcasting is a modelling parameter test not a guarantee of future accurracy. This Copenhagen report claims that models where too low, others say they are too high, but both agee on one point, THE MODELS ARE WRONG.
    If the models are wrong the theory that is based on physics and physical interactions in the climate system and the relevant values of the forcings and feedbacks applied ARE WRONG. Once a theory in science is proven incorrect nothing can change that, not re-running the models every year to hide the misses, not sliding predictions out on the timescale citing unusual natural variations. Wrong is WRONG!
    When does the science return to being conducted and evaluated based on the Scientific Method? OR am I missing something here, a rule change I did not get the memo on?

  40. Leif Svalgaard (14:17:24) :
    Jeremy (14:13:50) :
    “The data doesn’t support these claims, allow dissenting voices into your realm or face the prospect of being ignored.”
    So why are we just not ignoring them?

    Excellent question.

  41. I’ve been around a bit; banned at Pharyngula and Climate Progress and Benen’s and Yglesia’s places and others I’ve since forgotten. Edited and deleted by Tamino at his ‘Open Mind’. Trashed for unappreciated prophecy at DotEarth. I believe that Hansen, and many of the alarmists, started out with the best of intentions, and simply failed to watch the road signs carefully enough to note that their destination was no longer Heaven, but rather was Hell. I’ve noticed in between the showers of insults that many of the true believers have great and good hearts, which has allowed me to persevere somewhat in the spirit of a missionary. But it’s all beginning to get beyond kind hearts and good intentions. These alarmist advocates are now thoroughly aware that there is a legitimate and growing skeptical movement and the inability to re-examine assumptions and wonder anew is starting to tell. It’s becoming deliberate misbehaviour, and the coming holocaust of cooling, to which we should be adapting rather than mitigating a chimera, is going to bring chickens home to roost. It is going to be very difficult, though, except in the most egregious cases, to separate the evil ones from the merely duped.
    Speaking of egregious, I told Dano last year that he had a chance of becoming a famous fool; all he had to do was stop restraining himself as the CO2=AGW paradigm falls apart.
    ===========================================

  42. Oops, I forgot snipped and deleted at Climate Audit, too, for which I’m proud. All my best stuff gets deleted everywhere.
    ===============================================
    [REPLY – I’ve even had the honor of snipping you on occasion, myself! ~ Evan]

  43. Perhaps there is little point in trying debate with the “scientific consensus, but I was heartened by a more down to earth side of these issues. Having a Rickard’s Red and plate of Thursday special hot chicken wings at my local, my server, a young lady with no college aspirations said, ” Gee, this is July already and I’m having to wear a light sweater to serve out here on the patio. I thought global warming was going to be cooking us by now!” These are the folks that make up most of the voters and they go by their own temperature sensors.

  44. kim (17:21:42) :
    banned at Pharyngula and Climate Progress and Benen’s and Yglesia’s places and others I’ve since forgotten. Edited and deleted by Tamino at his ‘Open Mind’. Trashed for unappreciated prophecy at DotEarth. […] snipped and deleted at Climate Audit, too
    You have a very distinguished record. indeed.

  45. [Response: Possibly English is not your first language, but ‘faster’ is a relative term. To understand the sentence you need to know what something was ‘faster’ than. The sentence was actually clear – ‘faster than projections from a few years’ ago. Arguing that it magically meant something else is completely pointless. Misrepresentating (sic) a statement and then giving examples of how that misrepresented statement is wrong might be fun, but it isn’t constructive contribution and simply adds noise. – gavin]

    So gavin and paulK agree that the IPCC projections are being quickly proven wrong. If they’re wrong after just a few years, they’re claiming that it doesn’ t matter whether they’re too low or too high. Claiming that an unexpected rise indicates a crisis implies projecting the rise into the future, and that the projected rise shows that the IPCC projections are critically wrong. If the IPCC projections are critically wrong, then you can’ t use them.

  46. Sorry Roger, I can’t agree. The problem is that you are inappropriately using unadjusted data, when the real climate boys prefer to use data they have adjusted to match their hypothesis. Get it together man, you just don’t understand how climate science is done!

  47. One difference between us of the sceptical side and those that read and accept RealClimate’s analysis is that we actually look at what the data is showing.
    The pro-RC folks just accept the spoon-fed manipulated charts and distorted Science journal studies without double-checking.
    Every time I have double-checked the data, I have found it does not support the RC chart or the Science pro-AGW study. There is always a little room for interpretation which is why there is this debate in the first place, but data is data and facts is facts.

  48. I have read posts from years ago over at Real Climate, as well as more recent ones.
    What stands out is the difference in tone between several years ago (say 2005) and more recent posts. Most everything posted of late, and especially the replies to comments following posts, is pretty shrill compared to years past (though in fairness to Gavin I should point out that he usually seems more calm than the others). This change in tone is probably a result of the increasingly obvious discrepancies between the dire climate predictions of the past decade and the not-so-dire reality of current climate data. I find it both sad and bit comical that the group at RC consistently pointed out how large the earth’s energy imbalance was in the decade before 2003 (eg. Hansen, et al, 2005) based mainly on a rapid increase in ocean heat content, but now dismiss 6 years of little or no increase, or even a slight decrease (depending on which analysis you believe), as “sort term variation” that remains “consistent with” the IPCC’s projected warming.
    RC would do well to step back a bit and be more consistent with analysis of all kinds of climate data, including data that appear to conflict with catastrophic projections of global warming. My observation over many years is that scientists who spend much of their time trying to discredit data which conflict with their theories usually end up looking quite silly. Scientists ought not fall into the movie stars’ trap of believing their own press releases.

  49. AnonyMoose: So gavin and paulK agree that the IPCC projections are being quickly proven wrong. If they’re wrong after just a few years, they’re claiming that it doesn’ t matter whether they’re too low or too high.
    Lets fill in the argument you are advancing with the actual factual observations. RC was summarizing the Copenhagen Climate Congress report, much of which is based on peer reviewed research published since the last IPCC report, and on the IPCC projections, which from the report, some seem to date back to 1990. So saying IPCC projections are being proven wrong after just a few years, do you mean 18 years? And are debating the integrity of the Copenhagen report? Did you bother to look at the graphs of IPCC projections versus the actual observed data in the report, which are shown in the RC post? Why is it that after thousands of posts and comments on WUWT, that these critical forecasts versus observed data, seems so surprising?
    Secondly, you say it doesn’t matter if they were too low or too high, but I think there is a world of difference… the fact is that some of the most important IPCC projections, which have been used by some people to call climate scientists “alarmists”, are proving to have been conservatively low. The actual data in sea level rise and Arctic ice melt is outstripping the IPCC projections. This could lead credence to the climate scientists concerned about tipping points.
    The data are clearly showing global warming is proceeding faster and stronger than the conservative IPCC reports.
    I am an engineer, and I want to engineer solutions, not argue about semantics. I think we need to begin engineering solutions now, especially since much of the engineering work will need to be done at some point under any climate scenario, because we will eventually run our fossil fuel resources down. The longer we have to do the engineering work, and the more engineering resources we have to work with, the better the solutions we can design.
    The technology I am working on now, suffered from a collapse of funding in the early years of the Bush presidency, and so we lost over six years. I want to work on this, and I want to start now. I have lost patience with people who are delaying this effort, (mostly Republican congressmen). We engineers need to get on with our work!

  50. I, like others here, have also been denied posts at RC and similar blogs. What I find interesting about this is, although WUWT will occasionally see a troll pop in and out, and other than Flanagan, there are very few alarmists that blog or debate here. WUWT doesn’t censor like RC does. If alarmists, and especially those at RC, if they REALLY were that strongly convinced of their beliefs, why do they not debate on this blog? Although I have seen it, it seems to be rather rare and especially rare during the past several months. Could it be perhaps that they have no leg to stand on? Perhaps, deep down, they have some doubts about their beliefs? Or simply they have NO credible empirical data and FACTS to backup their assertions? Me thinks it is a combination of all of the above.
    [REPLY – Perhaps, perhaps not. But I wish to emphasize that ALL points of view are welcome here. ~ Evan]

  51. …then you can’t use them.
    Yes you can, in the same way we use actuarial tables to “predict” future insurance losses. We accept that predictions in noisy systems are not always perfict. But we do continue to adjust them as we collect more information, just as the scientists are doing with climate models.
    Pete

  52. There are so many people who have been stifled over at RC(including myself, under a net name). I wonder if the idea of creating a section on this site( like the “tips and notes section”) for dissenting voices that are shouted down, censored or banned at RC. A place for rebuttal without fear of deletion on AWG BS(bad science).
    Not a place for personal attacks and personal grudges, just real science for the public community. Some of us(me :P)take days to work on links and putting our duck in order before posting.
    It’s really frustrating to be bottled up for no reason and very divisive of RC to control contrary opinion in their comments. You might as well not even have a comment section.

  53. Bill Illis (18:07:01) : Datum is datum, data are data, and a fact is a fact but facts are facts.
    Pedant out…

  54. PaulK (18:23:10) :

    The actual data in sea level rise and Arctic ice melt is outstripping the IPCC projections. This could lead credence to the climate scientists concerned about tipping points.

    Where exactly is that “tipping point”? Other than in the fevered imaginings of climate alarmists? Show me that mysterious tipping point, please, I’ve never seen one. [Of course, I’ve never seen Bigfoot, either.]
    And pointing to only the Arctic is pure cherry-picking. What about the Antarctic?
    Finally, what sea level rise? The world’s most knowledgeable sea level expert, Dr. Morner, does not agree.
    Three comments, three errors. For an engineer, it looks like your train has derailed.

  55. You people are gluttons for abuse.
    It is quite clear that these individuals at RC are just plain dishonest.
    That said, their modus operandi becomes quite clear. They are just an unprincipled lot who must win at all costs. They, like their movement are totally political. Science never enters the picture.

  56. Steve in SC,
    AGW is a social movement that uses a veneer of science to accomplish its goals.
    AGW is to climate science what eugenics was to Evolution.

  57. Paul K, The Copenhagen document is scientific or accurate only by accident.
    You are working from a flawed premise.
    That is a bad place for an engineer to work from.

  58. Squidly (18:28:13): “…other than Flanagan, there are very few alarmists that blog or debate here.”
    Then the very next comment by Pete w…
    There’s also Joel (Shore?), Bill and others.
    They are debated here, but not insulted with “English must be your 2nd language” and such.

  59. Yeah, the simpler days of the late 50’s and early 60’s…. Ed Roth’s automotive monstrosities, Rube Goldberg’s ingeniously intricate inventions to automate simple tasks, and Jimmy Hatlo’s fiendishly clever eternal “rewards” for everday miscreants. I wonder if there is a chamber in Hatlo’s Inferno for AGW trolls? Something like being frozen into a glacier that is calving off icebergs into a steaming ocean and being forced to meet a quota of calls, letters and blogs decrying global warming…..

  60. “Paul K (18:23:10) :
    The data are clearly showing global warming is proceeding faster and stronger than the conservative IPCC reports.”
    Really? Is that according to the IPCC and Al Gore? If so, then you are sadly very wrong.

  61. PaulK “The technology I am working on now, suffered from a collapse of funding in the early years of the Bush presidency, and so we lost over six years. I want to work on this, and I want to start now. I have lost patience with people who are delaying this effort, (mostly Republican congressmen). We engineers need to get on with our work!”
    Hey if its so dire get off your butt and get private funding. Must you always rely on government for everything? I guees that makes it easier to lay blame.. Look in the mirror for who to blame and the one you should have lost patience with.

  62. timetochooseagain…
    The word `data’, in English, is a singular mass noun. It is thus a deliberate archaism and a grammatical and stylistic error to use it as a plural.
    The Latin word data is the neuter plural past participle of the first conjugation verb dare, `to give’.
    The Latin word ‘data’ appears to have made its way into English in the mid 17th century making its first appearance in the 1646 sentence `From all this heap of data it would not follow that it was necessary.’
    Note that this very first appearance of the word in English refers to a quantity of data, a `heap’, rather than a number.
    The English word `data’ is therefore a noun referring variously to measurements, observations, images, and the other raw materials of scientific enquiry.
    `Data’ now refers to a mass of raw information, which is measure rather than counted, and this is as true now as it was when the word made its 1646 debut.
    ‘Data’ is naturally and consistently used as a mass noun in conversation: the question is asked how much data an instrument produces, not how many; it is asked how data is archived, not how they are archived; there is talk of less data rather than fewer; and talk of data having units, saying they have a megabyte of data, or 10 CDs, or three nights, and never saying `I have 1000 data’ and expecting to be understood.
    The universal perception of data as measured rather than counted puts the word firmly and unambiguously in the same grammatical category as `coal’, `wheat’ and `ore’, which is that of the mass, or aggregate, noun.
    As such, it is always and unavoidably grammatically singular. No one would ask `how many wheat do you have?’ or say that `the ore are in the train’ if one wished to be thought a competent speaker of English; in the same way, and to the same extent, we may not ask `how many data do you have?’ or say `the data are in the file’ without committing a grammatical error.
    As a footnote; isn’t it lucky English is now genderless, making `data’ neuter, else we’d have to memorise masculine dati (dati dati datos datorum datis datis) and feminine datae, too?
    It’s much simpler just to speak and write English.
    Note deprecated tags 🙂

  63. Guys, we cannot ignore the AGW alarmists. They are slowly strangling themselves with their silly reactions to their failing predictions, and to those who challenge their beliefs. However, well before that happens, the politicians who are listening to them will have legislated us all into a taxation nightmare. It would be nice to ignore them, but unless real scientists, (I am not one), who can prove the AGW hypothesis wrong, stand up & make as much noise as possible, we will all be sold down the gurgler. It is the politicians who must be made aware that they have been misled by well intentioned people who jumped the gun. The politicians are the key to it.

  64. How’s this response from Gavin! Sounds like Clinton’s trying to describe the meaning of what “is” is. Come on, these guys are making such silly rebuttals that its embarassing. The blog states:
    The phrase ‘rising sea levels progressing faster’ is clearly a statement that sea level rise is accelerating.
    [Response: Possibly English is not your first language, but ‘faster’ is a relative term. To understand the sentence you need to know what something was ‘faster’ than. The sentence was actually clear – ‘faster than projections from a few years’ ago. Arguing that it magically meant something else is completely pointless. Misrepresentating a statement and then giving examples of how that misrepresented statement is wrong might be fun, but it isn’t constructive contribution and simply adds noise. – gavin]
    Sorry, but I find RC nothing but a bunch of “noise”. It’s a shame that the AGW folks won’t admit that these kinds of statements that Peilke Sr. is rebutting are false exclamation marks.

  65. Paul K (18:23:10) :
    Paul, if you are carefully reading the recent posts on this site, or other posts at the Blackboard or Climate Audit with an open mind, then you certainly have to question the “faster than expected” conclusions in the Copenhagen document. Of course, if “as expected” is defined post facto, rather arbitraty conclusions can be reached. If the more recent IPCC AR4 expectations aren’t met, just change your expectations to the AR3 era for a more favorable comparison. If you can’t see the implicit spin, I think you are being a trifle naive.
    As a now-retired engineer and project manager myself, I understand your desire to be involved in an important energy project. But this country had a world leading position in an energy field that could have totally changed the current energy landscape. As I’ve been insisting to all my friends and relatives for over thirty years, If nuclear energy hadn’t been stifled on political, non-scientific grounds, we’d probably now be producing a substantial proportion of our electricity from nuclear, have a reasonably economic source for producing hydrogen for fuel, and who knows, possibly be much closer to using fusion energy. Political influences stifled that opportunity, and I doubt that we can even considered among the leading nations in the nuclear energy field (and it wasn’t Bush that did it; all recent administrations, and a technically naive citizenry can share the blame).
    I hope the energy field you are pursuing isn’t wind, which was found not to be competitive when the clipper ships were scuttled, or solar, which doesn’t work when it’s dark. Both have non-baseload applications, but are naive as economic energy solutions. But don’t count on the government to pick the correct solution. Just hope that the government doesn’t prevent the correct solution from arising and being adopted.

  66. Leif Svalgaard (14:17:24) :
    Jeremy (14:13:50) :
    “The data doesn’t support these claims, allow dissenting voices into your realm or face the prospect of being ignored.”
    So why are we just not ignoring them?
    Leif Svalgaard (14:17:24) :
    So why are we just not ignoring them?
    ? I think you mean, “Why aren’t we?”
    Tom in Texas (14:47:39) :
    So why are we just not ignoring them?
    ? I think you mean, “Why aren’t we?”
    aren’t =are not
    So why [are not] we just not ignoring them? Too many nots.
    Jeremy (15:01:48) :
    Tom in Texas (14:47:39) :
    aren’t =are not
    So why [are not] we just not ignoring them? Too many nots.
    (Uh, yeah. Me fail engrish compehenson.)
    —> I interpreted Leif’s post to say, “Why aren’t we ignoring them?”
    paulK (15:52:07) :
    I am confused. It seem like this is an argument in semantics. In this case the semantics argument is ridiculous.
    Indiana Bones (17:16:49) :
    Leif Svalgaard (14:17:24) :
    Jeremy (14:13:50) :
    “The data doesn’t support these claims, allow dissenting voices into your realm or face the prospect of being ignored.”
    So why are we just not ignoring them?

    and then we get
    PeterW (19:49:26) :
    It’s much simpler just to speak and write English.

    .
    Well, I’m not going to debate, because the grammar is settled.
    Mike
    humble grammar n*zi

  67. Jeremy (15:03:08) :
    I already did. A linux box and wget is your friend.
    Excellent work! This is one of the great things about the internet, it makes the type of historical revision suggested in the novel 1984 almost imposible. If politicians, journalists and scientists with an agenda think they can walk away from this mess, they would do well to consider the power of “Little Brother.”

  68. Squidly (17:17:16):
    From your link:
    Evolution favors the development of large sheep, which can more easily survive harsh winters, Coulson explained. So the researchers became curious about the overall decline in size of the animals on Hirta.
    They are saying lies. Nobody on this world knows the evolving patterns of any species. We can guess as much that bacteria or viruses could develop resistance to a given drug, but the way is blocked by excessive uncertainties. That’s because evolution is a non Markov process. From our standpoint (as humans that we are) evolution of species is stochastic, i.e. we know that each clade or individual has a memory of the past states which have given origin to the current organism, but we do not know what those states worked neither which extrinsic or intrinsic factors triggered the changes to new states. Markov processes have fixed states which can produce fixed states for each one of the original states or one new state for all the original states; nevertheless, we absolutely ignore the future states that the current states of a clade or an individual will derive. What is more, the current evolution patterns seem to produce reduced in size species, more than gigantic individuals. On the other hand, any species has its own prototypes of activation or deactivation of evolving units which are unknown for us until now.
    Something that is quite fascinating is that if humans knew which species will displace them from Earth’s face… well, humans would already have destroyed that “usurper” species. Surely, that species is still wandering out there, waiting for proper physicochemical conditions to emerge as a new species, something like the planet of the apes, without fiction, of course.

  69. Konrad (21:57:11) :
    Jeremy (15:03:08) :
    I already did. A linux box and wget is your friend.
    Excellent work!

    Seconded. Jeremy, what is the possibility of putting it online, with a big disclaimer on the home page, and opening the comments section to an uncensored debate?
    Maybe there are copyright issues on fiction as opposed to science though?
    🙂

  70. Jeremy (14:33:32) :
    Besides which, regardless of what they are saying, those people aren’t dumb, they’re just misguided. They’ve let their conclusions drive them more than they should, that’s all

    You jump all over Leif for a sentence that made perfect sense and then come out with this? Besides which.. lolz. I frankly am tired of discussions that end up in discussions of what the author really meant. Unless the author is dead, then he knows what he meant. When in doubt ask. The definition of is IS is. Sites which don’t allow open discussion from both sides of an argument must be boiled down to opinion sites, not science sites. I’m with Leif, why are we not just ignoring them?
    Paul K (18:23:10) :
    The data are clearly showing global warming is proceeding faster and stronger than the conservative IPCC reports.

    Please be so kind as to cite the data you are saying clearly shows stronger, faster global warming. Just to be kind, try and find something that is dated past the year 2000 and includes both the little ice age and the midevil warming period.

  71. Hang about a bit! If the new projection shows “faster” sea level rise than the old (IPCC) projection did, but the observed sea level rise is actually slowing, then Schmidt must be admitting that the new projection is even more erroneous than the old one was.

  72. The pro-RC folks just accept the spoon-fed manipulated charts and distorted Science journal studies without double-checking.

    This is normal Human Psychology. You tend to seek out confirmation of opinions you already hold. This is why you read Watts; it’s certainly how I found Watts (I had a “this can’t be right” feeling) and it’s why those who agree with AGW follow RC.

  73. Peter– My Webster’s says “data” is a plural noun; the singular of “datum”– but when referring to a certain set of measurements is commonly singular in construction. E.g., both “the sunspot data is plentiful” and “comprehensive data have been published” are both correct.
    You say it’s day-ta, and I say it’s da-ta….
    So why don’t we just ignore them (syntactical quirks, I mean; not RC)?

  74. From my layman’s perspective (an astrophysicist by qualification and an IT geek by trade, wait up… maybe I could grow up to be a climate scientist one day?) I find the most frustrating aspects of Gavin et al on RC are the following:
    1. Complete refusal to acknowledge that MSM/Political doomsday warnings, based primarily upon their work, are both over the top and potentially misleading.
    2. The ivory-tower mentality that then dismisses, out of hand, the view that the general public’s (and I include myself here) take on any such messages will, by necessity, not focus on the probabalistic element of any message content and will, by dint of human nature and the style of journalism, home in on the eye catching headline and overall tone.
    3. When such MSM/Political scaremongering fails to come true, or at least be held off for at least a decade, the cop-out fallback to semantics regarding the original messages. (i.e. focusing on the “may”, “could” and “if” parts.)
    Points [1-3] above are not science, not the way to do science and a barrier to progress.
    As a side note, I find it interesting that both sides of the debate sees the other side as ‘in the grip of religious fervour’. Whenever this occurs, regardless of the subject, it is hard to have rational discourse.
    From my perspective, being in the sceptical camp with regard to CAGW, I have to say that it seems that the RC crowd are shriller, quicker to anger, closed in rank and more prone to hostile ad-homs than people here. (This site has it’s ad-homs but they, as a general rule, seem to be light hearted and certainly don’t advocate people going and trying a Sarin experiment on themselves.)
    Of course the irony is that the RC literati probably see the world in exactly the same way, only 180 deg about.
    It always amuses me how the RC mindset often associates the sceptic with views such as young-earth, religous right-wing zealotry and so on. It’d be an interesting poll (anonymous if needs be) to do on this site with regard to such matters. I for one have no qualms in admitting that I am an atheist and a Darwinian.
    Cheers
    Mark

  75. Those guys at RC have a real thing about Monkton. I saw one regular there (RC) has a whole website devoted to attacking him. It is creepy, probably illegal too.

  76. “PeterW
    As such, it is always and unavoidably grammatically singular. No one would ask `how many wheat do you have?’ or say that `the ore are in the train’ if one wished to be thought a competent speaker of English; in the same way, and to the same extent, we may not ask `how many data do you have?’ or say `the data are in the file’ without committing a grammatical error”
    But one does say: “England have lost again” when they play for the ashes.

  77. The blog statistics speak for themselves it wasnt too long ago wuwt was level pegging with real climate with 7 million hits today wtwt approaching 16 million hits and real climate languishes with 7.9 million hits in other words WTWT is out blogging Real climate 10 to 1 now, and that pattern of hits is happening across the web and it must must be creating a real feeling of desperation in the pro AGW sites.
    a detailed analysis of web activity would prove enlightening. People are voting with their mouse to great effect !!

  78. I got an unusual block from wordpress saying fhe following is duplicate commment ? I dont think so!
    The blog statistics speak for themselves it wasnt too long ago wuwt was level pegging with real climate with 7 million hits today wtwt approaching 16 million hits and real climate languishes with 7.9 million hits in other words WTWT is out blogging Real climate 10 to 1 now, and that pattern of hits is happening across the web and it must must be creating a real feeling of desperation in the pro AGW sites.
    a detailed analysis of web activity would prove enlightening. People are voting with their mouse to great effect !!

  79. The fact that RC is claiming “warming increasing faster than expected” in 2009 is interesting. If they had posted this view in 2003 it would have carried far more weight since it was only after this point of time that the warming noticably levelled off. So why run the story now ?
    Is this the beginning of a desperate last stand !
    Perhaps Gavin should rename his site to “Real Modelled Climate” ?.

  80. Seriously, I do not understand why you guys even *bother* trying to post at RC. You think you’re going to change anyone’s mind over there? It does not matter what you say, your comments will be rationalized away. Remember: EVERYTHING is consistent with manmade CO2 warming…..

  81. Nit: “July 30, 2009”? What’s the temperature? Never mind that, what’s the Dow? Uh… Red Sox?
    Best,
    Frank

  82. MattN (07:23:05) :
    Seriously, I do not understand why you guys even *bother* trying to post at RC. You think you’re going to change anyone’s mind over there? It does not matter what you say, your comments will be rationalized away. Remember: EVERYTHING is consistent with manmade CO2 warming…
    Matt… Many of us are not allowed even to post there!!! Anthony, I, and probably 20 of readers of this blog have experienced censorship at RC. One of my articles was attacked with nonsensical and ad-hominem arguments; I tried to answer the accusations and my posts were never published. Besides, any further attempt of posting there was automatically rejected. For RC fanatics, I’m still a person devoid of credentials, paid by OC, a false scientist, etc.

  83. Sea level is actually not rising faster on a geological timescale. A paper titled “Holocene evolution of a drowned melt-water valley in the Danish Wadden Sea” gives a pretty good history of sea level rise. Figure 6 to be exact. Sea levels rise at a rapid pace from about 8500 ya to about 6000 ya. Then there is a drop followed by a return of sea level rise at a slightly lower rate leveling off about 4500ya. Then there is a very steep drop followed by a rapid rise until about 1500 ya. That is followed by a drop until about 1000 ya followed till today by the slowest sea level rate of rise in the entire Holocene.
    Those numbers are from me eyeballing the graph in fig. 6 and the abstract says “The sea level has been rising from − 12 m below the present level at c. 8400 cal yr BP, interrupted by two minor drops of < 0.5 m at c. 5500 cal yr BP and 1200 cal yr BP, and one major drop of not, vert, similar 1.5 m at c. 3300 cal yr BP:
    But the rate of rise as not been consistent and the current rate of rise is the lowest of the Holocene. So any "increase" in rate of sea level rise would simply put us back to where we were say 2000 years ago when sea levels were rising much faster than they are today.

  84. “It’s the observations that are showing a faster sea level rise than projections” University of Colorado’s satellite data show no trend in sea level rise since 2006. Sea level “rise” has been flat for the past 3 years.

  85. Deadwood: “University of Colorado’s satellite data show no trend in sea level rise since 2006. Sea level “rise” has been flat for the past 3 years.”
    But the university’s graph also shows that sea-levels have been rising since the beginning of 2007. Or 2008. Take your cherry-pick.
    http://sealevel.colorado.edu/current/sl_noib_ns_global.pdf
    Anyone can play the short-term, cherry-pick game. The Copenhagen report deals with longer-term projections against observations, because climate is a long-run phenomenon.

  86. NS (02:15:32) : Those guys at RC have a real thing about Monkton.
    That’s because Monckton is an able mathematician, perhaps the only soul alive who has worsted Gavin in straight maths concerning the IPCC physics of the CO2 GHG supposed effect. See details here. But Gavin would never admit it.

  87. If I recall, RC said the old IPCC prediction for sea level rise was 1.9 mm/yr. Now since the University of Colorado record of sea level rise shows a very steady rate of 3.2 mm/yr since 1994, the IPCC would seem to have leeway to raise their prediction by simply projecting the current ACTUAL sea level rise. But, this is expressed as “worse than imagined”.

  88. Brendan H (14:53:04) :
    Anyone can play the short-term, cherry-pick game. The Copenhagen report deals with longer-term projections against observations, because climate is a long-run phenomenon.
    Indeed, this is something ive often thought myself… The sea level has basically been rising for the past 10k years (punctuated with the odd sea level decrease) At this stage this interglacial has been the longest in recent geological time scale. So why? Why is this interglacial different than the others? The co2 rise is too late in history to explain this. What has been the mechanisms of the dramatic climate events earlier in the Holocene era? Should we be expecting this era to be behaving the same as previous interglacial’s considering the contrasts? Why didnt the elevated levels of atmospheric co2 and ch4 of past interglacial s prevent the globe plummeting back into glaciation? Is it possible that the length of this interglacial is a result of incremental Continental drift altering ocean circulation? Why was the global temperature warmer earlier in this interglacial, and past inter glaciations than present in spite of considerably lower greenhouse gas concentrations? Has nuclear testing effected upper atmosphere elemental concentrations? Why is the majority of the warming in the NH when the greenhouse gases are so well mixed(probably something to do with land mass)
    Yes, i think there are many many things that need a hard look at in the GW debate.

  89. Yes, the sea level is rising and… What? It’s quite normal and cyclical. I have said until dropping tears that we are starting a completely natural warmhouse since the last icehouse which ended ~11500 years ago. During warmhouses the sea level goes off the rails; during icehouses sea level retreats. I don’t know why you fire my graphs and articles. At least blink once at this graph:
    http://www.biocab.org/Geological_TS_SL_and_CO2.jpg
    In that graph the higher sea levels generally correspond with periods of warming while lower sea levels tie the knot generally with periods of cooling. The lower sea levels are explained by a reduction of sea liquid water as the oceans ice up at the poles. We notice also that the sea level response is sometimes negative with respect to warming or cooling of the atmosphere. For example, at the end of the Silurian Period the warming remained stable while the continental flooded area (CFA) diminished.
    Please, notice how the sea level was ~50% higher during the Ordovician than at present, so six centimeters in 100 years is nothing. The sea level will never arise to higher levels than during the Eocene, when the flooded of continental area was ~20%.
    The remainder AGW scaring arguments are plain lies.

  90. No, no… I wrote: “Please, notice how the sea level was ~50% higher during the Ordovician than at present, so six centimeters in 100 years is nothing. The sea level will never arise to higher levels than during the Eocene, when the flooded of continental area was ~20%.”
    It should have said:
    “Please, notice how about 50% of the continents were flooded areas during the Ordovician, so six centimeters in 100 years is nothing. The sea level will never arise to higher levels than during the Eocene, when the flooded of continental area was ~20%.”

  91. MikeE: “Why is this interglacial different than the others?”
    Pass. The longer term to which I was referring is the period 1970 to the present, which is the period covered in the relevant graph in the Synthesis Report from the recent Copenhagen Congress.
    Otherwise, you ask many questions, to which I do not have any answers, except:
    “Why is the majority of the warming in the NH when the greenhouse gases are so well mixed(probably something to do with land mass)”
    And ocean inertia.

  92. Nasif Nahle (17:37:01) :
    Ive got a sneaking suspicion when theyre referring to long term climate theyre meaning a cherry picked century out of the hundreds o millions of years this planet has supported life 😉
    Im interested if youre of the opinion that continental drift is the main cause of warm house cool house climates? Or if there is evidence of other mechanisms having impact?

  93. “…Anyone can play the short-term, cherry-pick game. The Copenhagen report deals with longer-term projections against observations, because climate is a long-run phenomenon….”
    (Brendan H)
    The satellite data for sea level start in 1993. The trend from 1993 to the start of 2006 was about 3.46 mm / year. The trend from 1993 to the end of 2008 is 3.24. So by adding 3 years the trend dropped slightly due to the recent slowing of the sea level growth rate. You have to live in come kind of Orwellian Alice in Wonderland to manage to twist that drop in the longer term sea level trend over the last couple of years into a “progressing worse than expected….” statement.
    As for the “short term cherry pick game” isn’t that what the Copenhagen synthesis report is doing when it notes an acceleration of ice loss in the Arctic. The big jump down occurred in 2007 and 2008. In this case they are correct in that the last couple of years seemed to “progress worse than expected….”.
    So if climate is a long term phenomenon, maybe 2 years in the arctic ice decline doesn’t mean that much. Or if it does, then maybe the last couple years of ocean heat and sea level growth mean something too.

  94. Brendan H (17:50:54) :
    I think the answers to some of those questions are relevant to the how and why and where we are going with current climate…. id put it too you that warming will be a lot less adverse on civilization and life on this planet as a whole than if the globe plummets back into a full blown ice age… and if the reason this glaciation has lasted as long as it has due to continental drift(big assumption!) It wont matter one iota what we do, the globe is going to get warmer, a lot warmer! Which would still be preferable to ice sheets covering europe and the northern states… which would be the “normal”.
    There are far to many unknowns, and it at least appears at face value that the “climate scientists” arnt interested in looking for these answers.

  95. Evan, yesterday.
    Yes, but I’ve started trying to restrain myself.
    Leif, yesterday.
    Thanks. Remember when I said if I seem out of place at Climate Audit it’s because I’m just auditing the class?
    ==========================================

  96. MikeE (18:08:11) :
    Nasif Nahle (17:37:01) :
    Ive got a sneaking suspicion when theyre referring to long term climate theyre meaning a cherry picked century out of the hundreds o millions of years this planet has supported life 😉
    Im interested if youre of the opinion that continental drift is the main cause of warm house cool house climates? Or if there is evidence of other mechanisms having impact?

    Yes, you’re correct. I think they (AGWers) are led a very short period of time included within a well known phenomenon in Paleoclimatology, which is the alternate succession of warmhouses and icehouses. It’s easy to know the long trends of the climate by examining the stratigraphic records. Long periods of warmhouses followed by long periods of icehouses. We have left an icehouse and are entering to a warmhouse, thus the possibility of an imminent Ice Age is very, very low. AGWers know this, so we should be careful when talking about a near-term little ice age; we could get surprised by the following warmhouse.
    On the second part of your question, there are many factors that contribute to the succession of transgression-regression phases of the ocean; however, the main factor is the expansion retraction of the polar ice caps that follows the pattern of warmhouses-icehouses, respectively.
    Very important successive orogenic phases occurred during the late Cretaceous and continued until the Danian stage in the Paleocene (approximately 60 million years ago); the Mesozoic warmhouse had been interrupted by a short glacial period which occurred near the transition from the Early to the Late Cretaceous Period, after which, important Paleogeographic changes started. The Thanetian Stage was when the Earth started cooling slowly. We could consider that the climate during the Eocene was similar to the current climate.
    When we analyze short or abrupt climate changes that happen as if they were “riding” on the great waves of long-term climate changes, we must take into consideration factors that contribute, mixed or alone, to those short-term changes; for example, continental drift, orogenic phases, volcanism, fluctuations of the total solar radiation, the photoautotrophic cover of the planet, the intensity of the ICR, etc. Nevertheless, the long-term periods of warmhouses and icehouses are attributed, almost completely, to planetary dynamics (orbital, axis tilt, rotation, etc.) combined with Lunar and Solar Newtonian mechanics (synodic and/or sidereal periods).

  97. Thank you Brian K. My point, exactly. Actual sea levels are NOT rising faster– as observed within the 16-year satellite data set– contrary to IPCC projections for the same period.
    So what else could the folks in Copenhagen be talking about, except another projection? And logically, what else but a “new” projection could explain the claim by RC that “rising sea levels” are “progressing faster than was expected [read projected] a few years ago.”
    I grow tired of those who think that observed data and the output of computer models are somehow equivalent.

  98. Alexej Buergin (03:16:46) :
    But one does say: “England have lost again” when they play for the ashes.
    I don’t Alexej – I say “fantastic, the bloody poms have been flogged again…”
    Or, if in polite company, “England has lost again” – a team is an ‘it’.

  99. Brian Klappstein: “The satellite data for sea level start in 1993.”
    Yes, but the Synthesis Report graph shows a period beginning in 1970, ie the earlier data was gathered by other means. Regardless, the graph on page 8 clearly shows observations of sea levels diverging upwards from projections from the early 1990s, ie sea levels are rising faster than expected.
    “You have to live in come kind of Orwellian Alice in Wonderland to manage to twist that drop in the longer term sea level trend over the last couple of years into a “progressing worse than expected….” statement.”
    Exactly my argument, but it’s what Pielke is trying to do.
    “As for the “short term cherry pick game” isn’t that what the Copenhagen synthesis report is doing when it notes an acceleration of ice loss in the Arctic. The big jump down occurred in 2007 and 2008.”
    I’m not sure what you’re referring to here. There is a discussion on page 9 of the Greenland ice sheet, and a graph showing ice reduction since 2003, with the sharp reduction in 2007. But this graph is placed within the context of the longer-term reduction since 1978.

  100. I have read the RC thread and the original Roger Pielke Sr’s post and his point is correct and subtle. It is not about a grand stand-off but purely a question as to the reason, if anybody has one, as to why the ocean heat content has leveled off for the past four years. Is it natural variability or is it hinting at a different process rather than the heat in the pipeline scenario? With regards to the erport then: saying that things are progressing faster is some areas is a bit too bold. They just should have said, new data are always interesting and we are continually learning and refining our understanding of the climate.

  101. SLR is NOT increasing faster than cited in the AR4. You should take a look at the paper by Cazenave et al. http://sciences.blogs.liberation.fr/home/files/Cazenave_et_al_GPC_2008.pdf
    The abstract begins with the AR4 figures of 3.1 mm/yr for the period 1993 to 2003. The more recent mearsurements based on Gravitmetry (GRACE), altimetry and ARGO have shown a REDUCED sea level rise of 2.5mm/yr. Of this value, 2mm is due to the gravimetric component (mass increase) and the rest due to steric changes (salinity and thermal expansion). Compared with the 1993 – 2003 values, the former were assigned as 50% to each of gravimetric and steric while the later measurements were assigned more like 80% and 20%. What this seems to suggest is that whilst total SLR is less, the gravimetric part is slightly more, whilst the thermal part is a lot less.
    I fail to understand how one can conclude from this that SLR is getting worse.

  102. “…Yes, but the Synthesis Report graph shows a period beginning in 1970,…”
    (Brendan H)
    So what? We’re talking about recent observations. The gist of the argument in the Copenhagen synthesis is this:
    “Recent observations show that greenhouse gas emissions and many aspects of the climate are changing near the upper boundary of the IPCC range of projections.”
    and:
    “Since 2007, reports comparing the IPCC projections of 1990 with observations
    show that some climate indicators are changing near the upper end of the range.”
    If you look at the Figure 1 graph in the synthesis report, the “smoothed” sea level is hovers about the upper “envelope” of IPCC predictions where it has been since the mid-1990s. If anything, since 2005 the smoothed sea level trend has dropped slightly relative to the prediction envelope. Where on this graph do you see any evidence that recent observations show the situation progressing worse than was previously thought?
    I assume by the wording of the synthesis report that they mean by recent observations: “since 2007” (see the quotes above). The report is correct in that some key indicators are changing according to recent observations, just wrong in the direction that they are deviating.

  103. timetochooseagain (18:48:42) wrote:
    Bill Illis (18:07:01) : Datum is datum, data are data, and a fact is a fact but facts are facts. Pedant out.

    Here’s an earlier exchange on this matter:
    PeterW (14:35:34) :
    DanD (12:30:25) : Data ARE, Walt. Data ARE.
    No Walt data is; data is an English word. English includes many words originally press-ganged from Latin, which have changed their grammatical type.
    As has been pointed out far more eloquently than I can:
    “The majority of writers who would dutifully pluralise `data’ in writing naturally and consistently use it as a mass noun in conversation: they ask how much data an instrument produces, not how many; they talk of how data is archived, not how they are archived; they talk of less data rather than fewer; and they talk of data with units, saying they have a megabyte of data, or 10 CDs, or three nights, and never saying `I have 1000 data’ and expecting to be understood.
    If challenged, they will respond that `data is a Latin plural’. Agree to this, for the sake of professional harmony, and carry on the conversation, making sure to mention that `the telescope has data many odd images tonight’ (it’s a past participle after all), suggest looking at the data raw images (…or an adjective) and that you both examine the datorum variance (surely they recall the genitive plural); suggest they give you the datis (…the dative), so that you can redo the analysis with their datis (…and the ablative). If they object ask them to explain their sentimental attachment to the nominative plural, that they would use that in all cases, in brute defiance of good Latin grammar.
    Isn’t it lucky English is now genderless, making `data’ neuter, else we’d have to memorise masculine dati (dati dati datos datorum datis datis) and feminine datae, too? Isn’t it simpler just to speak and write English?”
    It’s as bad as affecting “an historical” and pronouncing the ‘h’.

    ==========
    Data is a collective singular, in ordinary usage. Even writers who pinky-lift by using “data are” will use collective phrases like “the voluminous data” or “the quantity of data.” If we’re going to use that way of speaking, and we are, we should be consistent and use “data is.”

  104. “It always amuses me how the RC mindset often associates the sceptic with views such as young-earth, religious right-wing zealotry and so on.”
    This is a clue to their own inner dynamics. By touting AGW, they signal that they are distant from pre-modern thinking. AGW = being advanced, with-it, cutting edge, etc. It’s a way of being one-up, IOW. And they signal to wobbling members of their flock that they will be perceived as backward if they don’t stick with the AGW script.

  105. Leif Svalgaard (14:17:24) :
    So why are we just not ignoring them?

    I would reply that, in addition to the “Know thy enemy” comments above, it is critical that we study them intently because the enemy (the AGW thought police in academia and the scientific press and scientific funding and paper review pipelines, the AGW politicians who empower these thought police, and the mainstream media in ABCNNBCBS who promote their agenda use ONLY those politically-corrupt and AGW-corrupted sound bites for their policies and goals.
    Already, here on the US, Pelosi used the AGW propaganda to restrict US oil and gas production from early 2007 (when she came into power in the House of Representatives) through Sept 2008 to drive up the price of energy by nearly double: the result was the recession that killed the housing, finiance and insurance, construction and fabrication industries, and the car and transporation industries.
    With that economic destruction, she created the political environment that (with the collaboration of the same ABCNNBCBS and international media) led to Obama’s economic and energy policies and today’s Tax and Trade bill costing over 1.3 trillioin dollars.
    ALL of that havoc worldwide was based on the (unanswered) AGW propaganda deliberately spewed daily from these organizations.

  106. MikeE (18:08:11) :
    Nasif Nahle (17:37:01) :
    “Ive got a sneaking suspicion when theyre referring to long term climate theyre meaning a cherry picked century out of the hundreds o millions of years this planet has supported life 😉
    I’m interested if you’re of the opinion that continental drift is the main cause of warm house cool house climates? Or if there is evidence of other mechanisms having impact?”
    ===
    Please note that continental drift requires tens of millions of years to move continents far enough that ocean currents, solar irradiation, and atmosphere circulation patters are affected: Africa, South America, and North America were already separated by huge distances 65 million years with close to today’s locations when the comet/asteroid that killed the dinosaurs hit north of Mexico in today’s Caribbean Sea.
    Ice ages cycle at 10,000 to 12,000 year intervals. Much, much shorter than what continental drift can affect.
    ===
    Nasif Nahle: You mentioned Ice Age and SLR relationship: Didn’t you mean that the most recent Ice Age ended about 12,000 years ago, and that we way overdue for re-entering a life-threatening Ice Age, not a Warm Age?

  107. Nasif Nahle (17:32:15) :
    Yes, the sea level is rising and… What? It’s quite normal and cyclical. I have said until dropping tears that we are starting a completely natural warmhouse since the last icehouse which ended ~11500 years ago. During warmhouses the sea level goes off the rails; during icehouses sea level retreats. I don’t know why you fire my graphs and articles. At least blink once at this graph:
    http://www.biocab.org/Geological_TS_SL_and_CO2.jpg
    (trimmed)
    Please, notice how the sea level was ~50% higher during the Ordovician than at present, so six centimeters in 100 years is nothing. The sea level will never arise to higher levels than during the Eocene, when the flooded of continental area was ~20%.
    The remainder AGW scaring arguments are plain lies.
    ===
    So, to address specifically sea level rise factors:
    The AGW community is using (in every hourly newcast!) the recent (and always forecasted rise in global temperature -> will melt the glaciers and icecaps -> will cause massive flooding (Gore claims 20 to 60 feet, the rest try to use his exaggerated fears but admit to only 80 cm’s in a century) and kill everybody and destroy the world, etc.
    Real world:
    From 1910 through 1940, temp’s rose 4/10 of one degree.
    From 1940 through 1970, temperatures dropped 3/10 of one degree.
    From 1970 through 1998, temp’s rose 1/5 of one degree.
    From 1998 through June 2009, temp’s dropped 4/10 of one degree.
    Using those dates and the actual temperature changes, what did sea level do? (If there is a lag value for atmospheric heat to some ocean depth, what is the assumed depth and what is the (assumed) temperature lag value in time?
    If there is an ocean temperature-affected zone, is that zone deep enough, and the temperature change large enough, to account for any or most or all of the measured CO2 changes due to outgassing from the water?
    Certainly, massive temperature changes drive out gasses – we see that every day. But do these very minor actual atmospheric temperature changes create the measured changes in CO2?
    For the sea, sea level changes (not caused by land movement!) can only come from a few sources:
    1)The crust is shrinking and getting smaller in radius. (Not likely!)
    2)The oceans are gaining water from the comets. (Well, yes, but by how much and what is this rate?)
    3) The ocean is getting hotter and expanding. (Well maybe – see above question – but what is the temperature change over what dates, what depth of the ocean is getting hotter (if only parts of the ocean are getting hotter) and over what area is it getting hotter by how much?)
    4) The glciers and icecaps are melting and this new fresh water is causing the ocean gain. (Well, if so, then the imbalanced freezing at the northand south poles should show a definite sine wave change in real sea change each spring and fall when both caps are partially melted, partially frozen. The levels should be changing due to Antarctic and Arctic polar chages in snow and ice cover (note that the ice floats over more surface in the Arctic, but the ice surrounding the Antarctic is also mainly on the oceans. Some falls/melts on Greenland and central Antarctic land masses – where do the AGW extremists actually get Gore’s 60 foot water level increase?) Based on what htey claim are ice and glacier changes since 1970, what is the actual sea level change from melted glacial ice that has actually been measured?
    4) Regardless, we are told sea levels increases between 3 mm/yr from 1970 through 2001 (or maybe 2003 or 2004 …) – an increase now lowered to about 2 mm/yr for several years in a row. How much is this water (in volume) and where was that water before 1970?

    We cannot rely on ANY AGW-provided values: they are consistently being proven wrong, false, and manipulated to foment the AGW economic agenda – and to provide the “green energy” job our engineer above so desperately wants funded by the democrats! (But it is we skeptics who are bribed and funded by the evil oil money!)
    But what are the actual amounts of of SLR if you strip away the AGW propaganda? Why is the sea level rising – since it appears to be rising by a little bit?

  108. Robert A Cook PE (10:31:43):
    Nasif Nahle: You mentioned Ice Age and SLR relationship: Didn’t you mean that the most recent Ice Age ended about 12,000 years ago, and that we way overdue for re-entering a life-threatening Ice Age, not a Warm Age?
    I would like I had meant that, although I would not like a devastating Ice Age. Those cooling cycles of 10000 to 12000 years intervals are short term climate changes which occur over the long term trends I’m referring to. For example, the Roman Warming Period and the Medieval Warming Period happened over a long-term icehouse period which started about 40 million years ago and is finishing in modern times. SLR sets the standard, i.e. SL is recovering from the last Lowstand phase. Thus, the next phase after the icehouse is a long-term warmhouse and the subsequent highstand phase. The arriving warmhouse will not be exempt of alternating short-term cooling events, which will cause short-term regressions.
    Nonetheless, I do not think the next warmhouse will be catastrophic as it is pictured by the IPCC, but something similar to the climate at the Ypresian and Lutetian Stages during the Eocene, when anthropoids appeared on Earth.
    I do not think either that the Transgression Phase will reach the same levels that it reached during the Eocene because the Earth has been cooling through the geological timescale, that is, the current SLR is far smaller than at other epochs and the possibility of having a completely defrosted planet with more than 10% of flooded continental areas is excessively low (0.03%).

  109. Robert A Cook PE (10:31:43) :
    We have been in an ice age for millions o years.. we are still in an ice age, just an interglacial at the present. Obviously Antarctica is still over the south pole. But has there been enough movement in the northern latitudes? Or possibly has the Alaskan Siberian land bridge been eroded/subsided enough over past interglacial s that its sufficiently deepened the bearing strait allowing far greater hydrological exchange than during previous interglacial s. But to understand the mechanisms of the why on this era is necessary to understand where its going.

  110. Robert A Cook PE (11:00:56) :
    So, to address specifically sea level rise factors:
    The AGW community is using (in every hourly newcast!) the recent (and always forecasted rise in global temperature -> will melt the glaciers and icecaps -> will cause massive flooding (Gore claims 20 to 60 feet, the rest try to use his exaggerated fears but admit to only 80 cm’s in a century) and kill everybody and destroy the world, etc.

    Those are AGWers lies. It is probable that the continental flood gets longer up to 20 centimeters in specific areas, but it hardly will happen upper from there or that will be a global flood.
    Real world:
    From 1910 through 1940, temp’s rose 4/10 of one degree.
    From 1940 through 1970, temperatures dropped 3/10 of one degree.
    From 1970 through 1998, temp’s rose 1/5 of one degree.
    From 1998 through June 2009, temp’s dropped 4/10 of one degree.
    Using those dates and the actual temperature changes, what did sea level do? (If there is a lag value for atmospheric heat to some ocean depth, what is the assumed depth and what is the (assumed) temperature lag value in time?
    If there is an ocean temperature-affected zone, is that zone deep enough, and the temperature change large enough, to account for any or most or all of the measured CO2 changes due to outgassing from the water?
    Certainly, massive temperature changes drive out gasses – we see that every day. But do these very minor actual atmospheric temperature changes create the measured changes in CO2?

    Definitely, I do not know, although I would add the outgassing from the sand of deserts.
    For the sea, sea level changes (not caused by land movement!) can only come from a few sources:
    1)The crust is shrinking and getting smaller in radius. (Not likely!)

    Agreed…
    2)The oceans are gaining water from the comets. (Well, yes, but by how much and what is this rate?)
    It’s supposed the amount of water gained by the Earth from small comets is 2.5 centimeters per each 20000 years; however, this quantity is a guess, not a precise measurement. We suppose an increase of some 10 tons of carbon dioxide per decade added to the atmosphere by this means. Do not try to explain that to AGWers; they will not understand it.
    3) The ocean is getting hotter and expanding. (Well maybe – see above question – but what is the temperature change over what dates, what depth of the ocean is getting hotter (if only parts of the ocean are getting hotter) and over what area is it getting hotter by how much?)
    Irresolvable questions at this moment.
    4) The glciers and icecaps are melting and this new fresh water is causing the ocean gain. (Well, if so, then the imbalanced freezing at the northand south poles should show a definite sine wave change in real sea change each spring and fall when both caps are partially melted, partially frozen. The levels should be changing due to Antarctic and Arctic polar chages in snow and ice cover (note that the ice floats over more surface in the Arctic, but the ice surrounding the Antarctic is also mainly on the oceans. Some falls/melts on Greenland and central Antarctic land masses – where do the AGW extremists actually get Gore’s 60 foot water level increase?) Based on what htey claim are ice and glacier changes since 1970, what is the actual sea level change from melted glacial ice that has actually been measured?
    From their imagination. Their goal is to maintain terrorized people.
    4) Regardless, we are told sea levels increases between 3 mm/yr from 1970 through 2001 (or maybe 2003 or 2004 …) – an increase now lowered to about 2 mm/yr for several years in a row. How much is this water (in volume) and where was that water before 1970?
    We cannot rely on ANY AGW-provided values: they are consistently being proven wrong, false, and manipulated to foment the AGW economic agenda – and to provide the “green energy” job our engineer above so desperately wants funded by the democrats! (But it is we skeptics who are bribed and funded by the evil oil money!)
    But what are the actual amounts of of SLR if you strip away the AGW propaganda? Why is the sea level rising – since it appears to be rising by a little bit?

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

  111. MikeE (13:04:50) :
    Robert A Cook PE (10:31:43) :
    We have been in an ice age for millions o years.. we are still in an ice age, just an interglacial at the present. Obviously Antarctica is still over the south pole. But has there been enough movement in the northern latitudes? Or possibly has the Alaskan Siberian land bridge been eroded/subsided enough over past interglacial s that its sufficiently deepened the bearing strait allowing far greater hydrological exchange than during previous interglacial s. But to understand the mechanisms of the why on this era is necessary to understand where its going.

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

  112. MikeE: “There are far to many unknowns, and it at least appears at face value that the “climate scientists” arnt interested in looking for these answers”
    Climate scientists do look at paleoclimate issues. Whether they address your specific questions or provide answers that would satisfy you I can’t say. Probably the best approach would be to do some research on the subject and see what you can find.

  113. Brian Klappstein (quoting Copenhagen Synthesis Report): “Recent observations show that greenhouse gas emissions and many aspects of the climate are changing near the upper boundary of the IPCC range of projections.”
    This is a general, introductory comment that covers a number of factors, so the “recent observations” covers both emissions and aspects of climate change. A general comment by nature cannot relate precisely to individual factors.
    “Since 2007, reports comparing the IPCC projections of 1990 with observations show that some climate indicators are changing near the upper end of the range.”
    This comment clearly refers to reports that have been published since 2007. For example, the Rahmstorf report on sea levels was published in 2007.
    “Where on this graph do you see any evidence that recent observations show the situation progressing worse than was previously thought?”
    The text above the graph explains the context: “Since 2007, reports comparing the IPCC projections of 1990 with observations show that some climate indicators are changing near the upper end of the range indicated by the projections or, as in the case of sea level rise (Figure 1)…”
    So the report is comparing 1990 projections with subsequent observations, hence the claim that sea levels are rising faster than expected.

  114. “…So the report is comparing 1990 projections with subsequent observations, hence the claim that sea levels are rising faster than expected…”
    (Brendan H.)
    You didn’t answer my question. Where in the Copenhagen Synthesis report do you find evidence that recent observations show sea level is rising faster than expected. It’s been rising faster than expected since 1990 according to the graph in the report. So what? Where is the recent evidence (since 2007)?

  115. Brendan H (15:27:06) :
    Brian Klappstein (quoting Copenhagen Synthesis Report): “Recent observations show that greenhouse gas emissions and many aspects of the climate are changing near the upper boundary of the IPCC range of projections.”
    …So the report is comparing 1990 projections with subsequent observations, hence the claim that sea levels are rising faster than expected.

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

  116. Brain Klappstein: “[Sea level has] been rising faster than expected since 1990 according to the graph in the report. So what? Where is the recent evidence (since 2007)?”
    The caption to the graph begins: “Change in sea level from 1970 to 2008…”

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

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

  119. Louis Hissink,
    “…hasn’t this bill got to pass your Senate before it becomes law?” I always enjoy your comments, so I’ll try to answer your question:
    Yes, the U.S. upper house – the Senate – must also pass or defeat the Cap & Trade bill. That is the next battle ground.
    If the Senate passes anything, anything at all, it will be resolved with the House of Representatives [lower house] version by a Senate-House committee, which will offer a compromise resolution to be voted on by both houses.
    If the Senate passes any version of the bill, that is very bad news, because votes will be bought outright [witness the Ohio Representative’s $3+ billion payoff for her vote; there are 435 Representatives, but only 100 Senators. So the payoff for the necessary Senate votes could easily be higher].
    The only satisfactory outcome is for the Senate to reject the bill. But that doesn’t necessarily require 51 out of 100 Senators to vote against the bill. If the anti-AGW forces can get just 41 votes, the bill can be killed by a filibuster, where it is incessantly talked to death without a vote.
    Since the Senate has just got a new senator [the former clown Al Franken, who was ‘elected’ by the state’s refusal to count thousands of votes, including many from overseas military], the Democrats now have 60 votes, which theoretically provides them with a filibuster-proof majority.
    But there’s more to it than the numbers indicate. Many Democrat senators understand that the Cap & Trade bill will seriously harm their state economically, so even Democrat votes are not assured.
    The other side of the coin is the sad fact that a handful of Republican senators can be bought; they are for sale. And this Administration is on record as openly buying votes. It should be illegal, it is highly unethical, but if Obama and Reid are willing to take $3 billion in taxpayer’s money and buy a single House vote with it, you can be sure they will do the same thing in the Senate. Getting thirty pieces of silver will give some senators temporary bragging rights. But the long term destruction of the wealth of their state’s citizens’ will be much more expensive than any kind of personal payoff for their C&T vote.
    No matter what happens, the dynamics will be interesting. Whose interests will be represented by each state’s Senators — their state’s citizens? Or the Obama administration back in Washington, DC?
    Money has corrupted politics more than usual in the C&T bill. There is blatant vote buying going on, at the expense of most of the U.S. states, which stand to lose a lot if C&T passes.
    In the final analysis, most Senators will probably vote against C&T — if their citizens make enough noise by writing, emailing and calling their offices. The Senate tends to be more conservative than the House. But it will probably be a close vote. And if the citizens don’t rise up and make sufficient noise, then the current Democrat thugocracy will prevail.
    So to summarize: if any kind of C&T bill passes the Senate, then some kind of C&T legislation will result. And it won’t be any less drastic than the current House version. These folks know how to play the system, and they will get pretty much everything they want. Our country will dodge a bullet only by defeating the proposed bill in the Senate. So it’s not too early for Americans to start contacting their state’s two senators: click. Tell them: “If you vote for Cap & Trade, I will not vote for you again.” To a politician, nothing is scarier than not getting re-elected.

  120. Vincent: “Apparantly they aren’t talking about subsequent observations since AR4, but observations since 1990.”
    Probably both. The most recent observations show a continuation of the upward trend, so in that sense are significant.
    “It can all be summarised thus: In 1990 our estimates were low, by 2007 they were higher…”
    I don’t think so. The projections are being compared with observations, not other projections.

  121. Brendan H (00:34:21) :
    “I don’t think so. The projections are being compared with observations, not other projections.”
    ===
    Please note any measurements (since – say – 2005) that indicate ANY measure of this supposed global warming is actually “worse.”
    What measure – use a real nuimber or value or datum point please – that indicates global warming is
    (1) “worse” in any way, shape or form than any previous propaganda
    (2) actually has a negative outcome,
    (3) is actually present or has an increasing trend towrds warmth.

  122. Robert A Cooke: “Please note any measurements (since – say – 2005) that indicate ANY measure of this supposed global warming is actually “worse.”
    The wording of the Synthesis Report is: “Recent observations show that greenhouse gas emissions and many aspects of the climate are changing near the upper boundary of the IPCC range of projections.”
    In the case of the Greenland ice sheet, for example, the report says:
    “Observations of the area of the Greenland ice sheet that has been at the melting point temperature at least one day during the summer period shows a 50% increase during the period 1979 to 2008…The Greenland region experienced an extremely warm summer in 2007. The whole area of south Greenland reached the melting temperatures during that summer, and the melt season began 10-20 days earlier and lasted up to 60 days longer in south Greenland.”
    And:
    “The second figure shows that the Greenland ice sheet has been losing mass at a rate of 179 Gt/ yr since 2003.”
    The figure in question shows a continuing – and in the case of 2007, a sharp – decrease in the mass of the Greenland ice sheet.

Comments are closed.