The Unbroken Record of Broken Icons

Apparatus and method for repairing a hockey stick shaft - Freepatentesonline.com

Guest post by Thomas Fuller and Tony Brown
When we separate what scientists have actually said from what messages are carefully prepared and communicated to us through the media, one thing jumps out to the most casual of readers.

Some marketing strategists reduced the information content of the messages given to the public and introduced popular symbols to indicate what they wanted us to believe was threatened by climate change.

For over 5 years we have been bombarded with images of polar bears, hurricanes, flooded cities, icebergs calving, drought-stricken deserts, and the like. Perhaps the most symbolic representation wasn’t even a picture, but a PowerPoint slide of paleoclimatic temperature reconstructions now famous as the Hockey Stick Chart.
Those symbols all have one thing in common. They were mistakenly used. As has been cataloged here and elsewhere, these ‘signature’ issues were either blown out of proportion or presented falsely.

Polar bears, like all large mammals that haven’t had the good fortune to be domesticated, have a shaky status on this planet–but that status does not appear to have very much at all to do with climbing temperatures. They survived higher temperatures in the past, and their population is rising–and would be rising even more quickly if we quit shooting them, that being the major cause of polar bear deaths.

There is no historical trend in either the frequency or intensity of hurricanes, as Roger Pielke Jr. has pointed out in academic publications. And yet global warming has been blamed for specific storms, such as Hurricane Katrina, in a manner that is frankly antithetical to the principles of science.

And so it is with icebergs calving (a completely normal and mechanical reaction to ice accumulation that happens whether temperatures are rising or falling), droughts (which were worse in the past) and all the other symbolic climate porn photography inflicted upon us.

Yesterday I wrote about sea level rise, and attempts to measure ice loss in Antarctica via satellite. And again, it is very clear that the results of scientific work are being hijacked in an attempt to push a scary message at us. The analysis of gravimeter measurements start with guesses and inferences, and the result is presented with a huge margin of error, and amounts to less than 1% of the annual ice loss Antarctica experiences every year.

Commenter TonyB went to the trouble of cataloging the difficulties inherent in sea level measurements. By rights it should be posted here as an article. I’ll paste it in at the bottom of this piece–and I will wager most readers will think it is more informative than my words above it.

But before I turn the stage over to TonyB, I want to make a couple of points:
First, it should be obvious that the manipulation of the messages isn’t coming from scientists. It is too professional, too slick and ultimately too wrong. This is a professional, coordinated media strategy using calendars with press schedules and release dates, a well-stocked photo library and a rapid response team that shoves new releases out the door in response to news events or skeptical messages that seem to be gaining traction.

Second, and really most important, all of the messages have very serious flaws in the narratives that accompany the pictures they ship out. And it is the exposure of these flaws that has crippled the climate change political movement, far more than criticism or political opposition.

If climate change or global warming is now a declining motivation for political and economic action, and it may well be, the reason is not Monckton or Morano. It is not even more measured criticism coming from McIntyre and Watts. Nor is it corrective science administered by both Pielkes.

It is their own butchery of the facts behind the images they decided we needed to see that hamstrung their movement. If they have been defeated in the first series of battles (in what I predict will be a 30-year war), they done it to themselves.

Here’s Tony–read on!

No problem. I was going to work this up into an article on sea levels one of these days although someone must have already posted an article here on this fragile part of a fragile science.

“We are being bamboozled by science which likes to have a nice graph to explain everything, unfortunately the real world is more complicated than that. Global sea levels are -like global temperatures-a nonsensical artifact dreamt up in a computer laboratory where satellite records are tacked on to manufactured and highly incomplete historic records from selected tide gauges.. Modern Sea level rises- where happening- are not being seen in context as another of those regular cycles that stretch back much further than the satellite records or tide gauges into the depths of recorded time.

This is the latest IPCC assessment which confirms sea level calculations from 1993 are by satellite.(page 5 onwards)
Link1
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-spm.pdf

The sea level calculations rely on an enormous number of variable factors including pressure, location, tides, warmth of oceans, structures, storms, wave heights, surges, stasis, location of the gauge/sensor, slope of the underlying strata etc. The accuracy of measurements is said to be 3cm (10 times the level of the alleged annual rise) but in reality is often vaguer than that because of the inherent difficulties of measuring. Observed real world sea levels generally simply do not show the rate of increase suggested by the IPCC (although this varies enormously from place to place for reasons cited above)

Link 2 The document below was written by many of our old friends including Phil Jones and Mike Hulme-page 19 gives the sea level data
http://ukclimateprojections.defra.gov.uk/images/stories/trends_pdfs/Trends_section1&2.pdf

The information for historic sea levels was ‘extended’ from a paper by one of the scientists at Proudman
Link3
http://www.pol.ac.uk/ntslf/products.php

Link 4 This is reconstruction of sea level data from 1700 of three extremely incomplete Northern Hemisphere records from which IPCC extrapolate their figures, take them to be a global figure and splice them on to the satellite records
Link 5 .
http://www.pol.ac.uk/psmsl/author_archive/jevrejeva_etal_1700/

These three are taken to represent global figures since 1700-much data missing and subsequently interpolated.
Amsterdam from 1700 (Van Veen 1945)
Liverpool since 1768 (Woodworth 1999)
Stockholm since 1774 (Ekman 1988)
It says there are differences even in the same ocean basin between tide gauges of up to plus or minus 6cm rendering their use for a global record to be irrelevant

Link 6
http://www.pol.ac.uk/psmsl/author_archive/jevrejeva_etal_1700/2008GL033611.pdf
pdf from 1700 link
6cm margin of error from tide gauges in same ocean basin

Both the following sites give a good description of the satellite process-which is being constantly refined but doesn’t get more extremely accurate as the inherent flaws in measuring capabilities can’t be fully resolved no matter how many satellite passes are made.
Link 7
http://www.tos.org/oceanography/issues/issue_archive/issue_pdfs/15_1/15_1_jacobs_et_al.pdf
Link 8
http://jchemed.chem.wisc.edu/Journal/Issues/1999/dec/abs1635.html

The following sites deals with problems of satellite accuracy and data;
Link 9
http://www.ocean-sci.net/5/193/2009/os-5-193-2009.html
Link 10
This with reliability
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=859
Link 11
http://lightblueline.org/satellite-tracking-sea-levels-set-launch

The UK Environment Agency -where possible like to use physical tide gauges as well when developing flood defence schemes, which are both visually observed or can send data electronically. Best of all is gathering information from local people such as the Harbour master or those who work the fishing boats and who know what is really happening.

The following link leads to a graph produced by the Dutch Govt sea level organisation- and confirm sea levels are stable and are somewhat lower than during the MWP. (This won’t stop them reacting to the IPCC by raising sea defences)
Link 12
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=61

Link 13
We have much observational evidence of historic sea levels (p162 on-including a map in the following link)
http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=0Nucx3udvnoC&pg=PA156&lpg=PA156&dq=romans+in+iceland&source=bl&ots=5k8qGn7VK4&sig=s4aeHlT8Tivz8rVwcHFRVFZjDp0&hl=en&ei=38FJSr2pKpe7jAfu2rRi&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4

Ancient Greek explorer Pytheas traveled to Iceland and not only discovered the frozen seas lying one days journey beyond, but was the first to quantify the moons action as being responsible for tides, and took physical measurements of heights. Sea level heights are generally said to be lower today than back in the Roman warm period and Mwp.

Sea castles in the UK built in the 11th century are now above the sea level entrances which ships used to re-supply them.
This links leads to a 1913 book on Harlech castle-one such building which is now high and dry-nothing to do with stasis or deposition, but that sea levels are lower now than when it was built 1000 years ago. Suggest readers select the b/w pdf
Link 14
http://www.archive.org/details/merionethshire00morr

Extract

“In 1409 an attack was made upon Harlech, led by Gilbert and John Talbot for
the King; the besiegers comprised one thousand well armed soldiers and a big siege train. The besieged were in the advantageous situation of being able to receive their necessary supplies from the sea, for the waves of
Cardigan Bay at that time washed the base of the rock upon which the castle stands. Greater vigilance on the part of the attacking force stopped this and the castle was surrendered in the spring of the year.

A remarkable feature of the castle is a covered staircase cut out of the rock, defended on the seaward side by a looped parapet, and closed above and below by small gatehouses. This was the water-gate of the fortress,
and opened upon a small quay below.”

Link 15 The following pictures show the current location of the sea.
http://westwales.co.uk/graphics/morfaharlech.jpg

Link 16
Sea in far distance from Harlech castle
http://westwales.co.uk/graphics/harlech.jpg
and this

Link 17
http://www.buildmodelcastles.com/html/castle_history.html
very good item about Harlech

Link 18
http://www.walesdirectory.co.uk/Castles/Harlech_Castle.htm

Sea levels AND temperatures were higher in the MWP and the Roman warm periods and presumably other extended warm periods (the period 1700 to 1740 is looking increasingly comparable to today).

The worlds leading sea level expert Professor Morner has called the IPCC figures ‘a lie.’ Google ‘The greatest lie ever told’
Morner says: “The mean eustatic rise in sea level for the period 1850-1930 was in the order of 1.0-1.1 mm/year,” but that “after 1930-40, this rise seems to have stopped (Pirazzoli et al., 1989; Morner, 1973,2000).” This stasis, in his words, “lasted, at least, up to the mid-60s.” Thereafter, “the record can be divided into three parts: (1) 1993-1996 with a clear trend of stability, (2) 1997-1998 with a high-amplitude rise and fall recording the ENSO event of these years and (3) 1998-2000 with an irregular record of no clear tendency.” Most important of all, in his words, “There is a total absence of any recent ‘acceleration in sea level rise’ as often claimed by IPCC and related groups.”
He concludes: “When we consider past records, recorded variability, causational processes involved and the last century’s data, our best estimate of possible future sea-level changes is +10 +/- 10cm in a century, or, maybe, even +5 +/- 15cm.” See also Morner (1995); INQUA (2000).”

I am inclined to agree with Professor Morner that sea level is not really doing very much generally (with exceptions either way in some places)
Link 19
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200506/ldselect/ldeconaf/12/12we18.htm
The above link dissects the data and states that a rise by 2100 of 5cm is possible…. plus or minus 15cm!

Morner stresses (as I do) that observational data contradicts the theoretical interpolated and massaged data that is used by the IPCC.
John Daly also had a good handle on all this.

Link 20
http://www.john-daly.com/deadisle/index.htm

The sea level is not rising at the rate suggested-it has stumbled in recent years according to many local gauges (what is global sea level supposed to mean with a million kilometres of coastline?)

To reach a 1 metre increase by 2100 means an average of nearly 11mm a year (only 90 years remaining). There is simply no evidence to show this is happening.

We must stop looking at just a few years of data as ‘proof’ of rising levels , and instead view things in a historic context, whilst retaining a great deal of scepticism at the notion you can create a highly accurate global figure in the first place, or that tacking dubious satellite data on to even more dubious tide gauge data is any way to create a worthwhile measurement .
I had intended to cover historic sea levels as a companion to my ‘arctic ice variation through the ages’ series.

Thomas Fuller http://www.redbubble.com/people/hfuller

Advertisements

183 thoughts on “The Unbroken Record of Broken Icons

  1. “This is a professional, coordinated media strategy using calendars with press schedules and release dates, a well-stocked photo library…”

    So Michael Crichton was describing reality after all in his novel “State of Fear.”

  2. Really interesting article about rises in sea level with a touch of irony. The initial article talks about the misuse of photographs to sex-up a topic and I’m sad to say this is what has happened with your photographs of Harlech Castle. The pictures which you use to explain how far the see is away from the Castle are taken at an angle which points approximately NNW and includes much salt marsh towards the estuary with Mt Snowdon in the background. Facing due West from the Castle is the shortest route to the sea and much closer that suggested by the photographs linked here. It’s still quite a way from the base of castle rock to the sea these days and it must have been been awesome to have seen the whitewashed castle next to the sea when originally constructed.
    My opinion, as a regular visitor to that part of the world, is that the pictures used here do not fairly represent the proper distance from the castle rock to the current sea limits. There is no doubt however that significant sized ships could navigate to the castle when it was built and the sea is now some distance away, but some more accurate photographs should have been used and would still have made the point. At least we didn’t see any polar bears on icebergs in Cardigan Bay!!!

  3. They were caught out by;

    “For over 5 years we have been bombarded with images of polar bears, hurricanes, flooded cities, icebergs calving, drought-stricken deserts, and the like. Perhaps the most symbolic representation wasn’t even a picture, but a PowerPoint slide of paleoclimatic temperature reconstructions now famous as the Hockey Stick Chart.”

    That’s how they got spotted. Without that hysteria, they might have got away with it!

  4. Like it or not sea levels are rising. No amount of equivocation is likely to change that fact. Yes, sea levels have changed in the past and so has climate. These fluctuations only demonstrate how sensitive the climate system is and how easily it can be perturbed by either natural or artificial forcing. Championing the continued dumping of some 30 billion tons of fossil CO2 into the Earth’s atmosphere will, of course, require that sea levels do not rise, ice does not melt, thermometers read high, oceans do not acidify etc. Hardly a tenable position!

  5. So what happens if the models are driven backwards?

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

  6. Oreskes and Conway describe the process as well in ‘Merchants of Doubt’. Unfortunately they forgot to look in the mirror or at who’s side the ‘Merchants’ are really on. Fear of nukes? There’s a campaign for that. Fear of GMO’s? Got that covered. Fear of the weather? No problem, have a polar bear sticker. Give generously, we’ve got an expensive fleet to run.

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

  8. A minor typo correction to offer. Polar bear populations would be rising even more quickly if we quit shooting them, rather than quite shooting them.

  9. In the UK, there is a PR agency called Futerra which seems to have done a lot of work in promoting emotive and sensational scares about climate (but that’s OK, we’re saving the planet!):

    ‘Futerra is the sustainability communications agency; from green to ethical, climate change to corporate responsibility. For over nine years we’ve helped you save the world.’

    For an example of their despicable work, take a look at this pdf: http://www.futerra.co.uk/downloads/Sellthesizzle.pdf

    It really is, quite simply, demented.

  10. Mr Fuller wrote: “First, it should be obvious that the manipulation of the messages isn’t coming from scientists. It is too professional, too slick and ultimately too wrong. ”

    Painfully so. Yet scientists have been reluctant to step forward and highlight the uncertainties even the IPCC authors admit to in the actual reports. There is a PR game on the go and there has been for decades. The summaries for policy makers are the key to this imo – a digest of alarm taken from a much larger, relatively more speculative report. Cherry picking on top of cherry picking on top of cherry picking.

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

  12. When are you guys going to get this dubious about JAXA and other sea ice measurements? Given the large swing in computations based on methodology, they need to be audited, yet, you accept them as authoritative. I’d love to help, but, I can’t find their raw data… not the miniscule thumbnails they post, but, the actual data. (Those tiny images aren’t the raw data are they?)

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

  14. Sea-level rise is a joke.
    I can find no physical evidence for it in California coastal before/after pictures.
    Nothing has changed in 50 years at Shelter Cove on the Lost Coast.
    Somebody posted a set from San Diego area that showed nothing happening in over 100 years.
    I’m sure there are more pictures out there showing the same thing: Sea-level rise is a big dud.

  15. “The results of scientific work are being hijacked in an attempt to push a scary message at us.”

    Correct, but the scientists involved failed to speak up when they saw their work being hijacked by the media.

  16. steveta_uk says:
    September 7, 2010 at 9:56 am
    So what happens if the models are driven backwards?

    You get Vikings settling in Greenland in the MWP and the Romans growing grapes in England, which is the opposite of what the IPCC is peddaling.

  17. GeoFlynx says:
    September 7, 2010 at 9:55 am
    “…Championing the continued dumping of some 30 billion tons of fossil CO2 into the Earth’s atmosphere …”

    First of all, Geo, it isn’t 30 billion, it is more like 7 billion (see peer reviewed article –
    http://www.theresilientearth.com/?q=content/climate-co2-sensitivity-overestimated)

    Next, there is NO scientific support to the proposition that human’s contribution of CO2 to the atmosphere will lead to any of the calamities to which you refer.

    So, just relax and enjoy the weather!

  18. Between now and November the “green industries” will increase their efforts to use all forms of media to protect their interests. They are already using political issue ads supporting candidates that favor “Cap and Trade” and EPA regulations, and attack ads against those who don’t. You can expect more doom type press releases from researchers who have tied their careers to CAGW because they fear that grants and contracts may be cut off. They will use fear tactics because they are desparate. The November elections in the US may well be a tipping point in international climate science and energy use policy. How will you vote?

  19. GeoFlynx,

    What, in your opinion, is the current rate of sea level rise? What is the temperature sensitivity to 30bn tonnes of CO2? What is the expected effect on ocean ph?

    Enquiring minds want to know.

  20. GeoFlynx says:
    September 7, 2010 at 9:55 am

    “Like it or not sea levels are rising. No amount of equivocation is likely to change that fact.”

    Equivocation?

    Levels are rising at what rate, for how long, and more importantly, where?

    What hard data do you have for a general rise since the MWP? It would seem that based on the evidence, sea levels have fallen quite a bit.

  21. Bad Ways to measure sea level:

    The location of this castle is also on the area where post ice age glacial rebound is occurring

    In this case, this mitigates against using this castle and any type of proof of higher seas during the MWP.

    That’s not to take away from the statement that sea levels were higher in the MWP and RWP, just to use this castle as any type of proof of sea levels one way or the other is just as un-scientific as what the Warmest Alarmists are doing with their out of context statements.

    Sea level is particularly difficult to measure because the coastlines where this can be measured are themselves not stable.

    On a side note, do you think during the next ice age when all the Canadians are relocated onto our new continental shelf shorelines, that we will find while digging new subways, etc, older human settlements from the last ice age?

  22. GeoFlynx,
    You obviously accept at face value the alarmist assertions that:
    1. CO2 is the dominant driver in the warming observed in the last 150 years and will contine to be the dominant driver in future decades.
    2. Earth’s long term climate is sensitive and a modest increase in global temperatures will initiate a cascade of positive feedbacks resulting in certain climate catastrophe.

    Given that most visitors to WUWT are not quite ready to accept the above as “settled science”, your previous post is simply another tiresome restatement of the basis of the alarmist position with which we are only too familiar.

  23. I am sorry but this article seems to me to be an attempt to throw the media “under the bus” to get the spotlight of scientist who abandoned any notion of objectivity to become advocates of a political policy.

    Yes, the media deserves credit for creating the glossy presentation layer; however the meat of the presentation is served up by complicit scientist who long ago abandoned any sense of objectivity to push a political agenda.

    At minimum these scientist were complicit when they failed to speak up and denounce the misrepresentation of their work. More likely the work was created with the specific intent of enabling the creation of these glossy, scare mongering, presentations. The dedicated work of Watts, McEntire and Pelke has shown a spotlight on these “scientist” enablers and forced them to be held accountable.

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

  25. Geoflynx — like it or not, the past changes are indicative of “orthogonality” of AGG to climate, sea level, sea ice, et. al. If a system exhibits the same behavior to wildly differing values of a given input, it is likely independent of that input (i.e. the inner product of the input vector to the response matrix is a null vector, it is thus orthogonal).

    Now it is possible that a series of confounding variables are involved and have varied in such a way as to make the system *seem* orthgonal w.r.t. AGG, or that the response matrix has changed significantly between the to state vector samples. However, that seems to be Occam-baiting unless these elements can be identified as specific physical processes, and their presence and influence (or reasonable proxies thereof) measured.

    Hand waving that “this time it’s different because of the AGG” is just that, handwaving.

  26. Re: Scooper says:
    September 7, 2010 at 9:51 am

    There is no doubt however that significant sized ships could navigate to the castle when it was built and the sea is now some distance away, but some more accurate photographs should have been used and would still have made the point.

    I agree. Maybe these photos will do.

    http://ims1.ballofdirt.com/view/264fece8eca7172e99c716168acd1d61d9a717cacb40e9d6e7db0ea94104409a8844bd78c52e2ce2dee8011b131981e5dbbe0ff1219acd66

  27. As the Warmist lobby has no empirical evidence whatsoever to state their claims, the propagandistic scare stories is all that’s left to further their agenda.

    If it wasn’t for the skeptic blog sphere and some tireless and courageous people determined to get the science “right”, who knows what killer legislation would have taken control over our societies.

    Slowly but surely the “Merchants of Doubt” are pushed into retreat.

    Mother Nature will take care of the rest.

    By 2012 AGW/Climate Change will be a thing of the past.

  28. A danger in offering distance to a seashore from where it once was is that it cannot explain why that movement came to be. My point is, using Google maps to explore the area around Harlech Castle suggests the sea moved on because of deposition, not necessarily because the sea level changed. Or perhaps both are involved, but to what degree remains unknown.

    http://maps.google.com/maps?q=harlech+castlehnear=Harlech+Castle,+Harlech,+Gwynedd,+United+Kingdom&ll=52.869959,-4.083824&spn=0.115639,0.260582&t=h&z=12

  29. “Bamboozled”, hogwash. No disinterested, sentient lay observer has ever granted the Green Gang of Briffa, Hansen, Jones, Mann, Trenberth et al. (never mind Railroad Bill Pachauri and his merry band of coprophagic proctocranials) the slightest credibility. Gobblerones from Monbiot to Romm and Schmidt ascend to new Munchausen heights with every passing season… if it weren’t for a few tens of trillion dollars, no-one in their right mind would give a cuckoo’s call.

  30. GeoFlynx says:
    September 7, 2010 at 9:55 am

    Like it or not sea levels are rising. No amount of equivocation is likely to change that fact.

    ______________________________

    I happen to quite like it. It means I’ll not have to travel so far to get to my boat.

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

    GeoFlynx says:
    September 7, 2010 at 9:55 am

    Championing the continued dumping of some 30 billion tons of fossil CO2 into the Earth’s atmosphere will, of course, require that sea levels do not rise, ice does not melt, thermometers read high, oceans do not acidify etc.

    Does it? I’d have thought that championing such measures ( if of course someone is, you don’t make that clear ) requires nothing more than a champion.
    Are you suggesting that in order for A to be allowed then B,C,D,E, etc have to be true?
    Again, I’ll look forward to the data you have that give you cause for such reasoning.

    Do you know that in order for the CO2 levels to become dangerous to human it would have to be (forgive me, I’m going off the top of my head here) in the order of 780 times what it is in ppm today?
    CO2 is a trace gas; it has been 18 times current levels during times of life’s greatest species diversity growth. CO2 is only 0.038% of the atmosphere and CO2 is only 3.6% of all the greenhouse gasses. Of that 3.6% man only contributes ( it’s debatable but let’s go with the average accepted figure) 3.4% in all his activities.
    Let’s face it only an arrogant man believes that humans are capable of affecting the levels of atmospheric CO2 in any meaningful and measurable way.

    I’m not sure who is championing CO2 increases but I do know this: When we have already shown that absorption by CO2 is already at it’s peak and commentators are saying that a doubling of CO2 will have a negligible affect on temperature yet could improve global crop yields by 35% then I know which world I want my kids to live in.

  31. GeoFlynx, Nobody is claiming that sea-levels generally are not rising, just that in some localised areas that sea gauges have not recorded a rise, whilst others have and that there is no evidence whatsoever that sea-levels are going to rise in the next century by the extreme of 20 feet that alarmists have predicted, let alone the extremely extreme 20 meters Al gore gave as his worst case.

    All the evidence suggests that IF warming continues that the rise will be between 1 foot and 1 yard over the next 90 years.

    Hardly disastrous.

  32. Cool. Amazon once home of vast civilization, numbering millions. Forest that appears pristine is in fact remnants of agricultural practices.
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/09/03/AR2010090302302_pf.html
    This reminds me very much of the early anthropological beliefs concerning California Indians when first come upon by Europeans. Easily among the most primitive in all of North and central America, Southern California was thought to be an archeological dead end. Until years later it was determined all of those oak trees were planted and were remnants of vast orchards. They were come upon during a very bad phase, likely a combination of epidemics, drought, and war.

  33. There are more and more candidates for political office, like myself, who recognize the Global Warming movement as a gigantic political hoax. As the AGW camp’s moves toward nonsense such as Cap & Trade falter, those of us who make it into office will help to reverse the trend in Washington. (The MA Primary is next Tuesday, Sept 14th.)

    The many wonderful articles on sites like WUWT provide much material that’s quite effective in debates. (Please see: http://www.Shapiro4Congress.org.) Wish me luck.

  34. “Like it or not sea levels are rising. No amount of equivocation is likely to change that fact. Yes, sea levels have changed in the past and so has climate. These fluctuations only demonstrate how sensitive the climate system is and how easily it can be perturbed by either natural or artificial forcing. Championing the continued dumping of some 30 billion tons of fossil CO2 into the Earth’s atmosphere will, of course, require that sea levels do not rise, ice does not melt, thermometers read high, oceans do not acidify etc. Hardly a tenable position!”

    GeoFlynx, since the article clearly contradicted your hypothiesis that sea levels are indeed rising, I would say that your position is the untenable one. You just saw page after page of actual hard EVIDENCE that sea level rise has been statistically nil since 1900, and yet you persist in saying “sea level is indeed rising”. Raise your head out of the sand and look at the actual evidence!

    Furthermore, I do not think you will find ANYONE here that is supportive of polluting the earth merely for the sake of polluting it. Anthony quite regularly posts articles on ways in which we can all save energy, take care of the environment more, and PROPERLY promote the development of “cleaner” forms of energy. If you think that this is some shill site for an oil company you are sadly mistaken.

    This site promotes HARD science, backed up by HARD evidence. This site also works hard to discredit shoddy science based upon weak, or non-existent evidence. As such, I will take the hard evidence presented in this article over your completely un-backed assertion that “sea level is indeed rising” any day. If you would care to present actual evidence to support your assertion, feel free to do so.

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

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

  37. “This is a professional, coordinated media strategy using calendars with press schedules and release dates, a well-stocked photo library…”

    So … there’s a conspiracy afoot?

    Or is it that as it’s practiced, Journalism is just professional lying?

  38. Philip at 10:15 a.m.

    My money is on media strategists hired by large environmental organisations. The environmental lobby successfully used highly emotional photography in previous environmental campaigns, so it is logical to assume they would repeat what had worked in the past.

    There may have been coordination between them, but it’s just as likely that there was a ‘bandwagon’ effect, where a series of print ads with polar bears on ice floes got a good and measurable response (clicks on websites, tracked donations) so others would give it a try.

    And what I think got them in trouble is that Account Executives in these media strategy companies tried to cobble together the narratives under the pictures, cherry-picking quotes from papers and speeches, and didn’t take the time to vet them–or if they did, found the proper expressions of uncertainty either too cumbersome or mixing up the message.

    So notice here–I don’t really think it was politicians (although many behaved poorly). I don’t think it was the scientists (although too many were happy to go along for the ride and became temporary C list celebrities). I don’t really even think it was the environmental organisations, who ceded power to the ad agencies and consultants they hired.

    This many levels of moving away from the expertise ruined any chance for truth telling or effective communications.

    That’s what it smells like to me…

  39. GeoFlynx says:
    September 7, 2010 at 9:55 am

    Like it or not sea levels are rising. No amount of equivocation is likely to change that fact.

    ______________________________

    I happen to quite like it. It means I’ll not have to travel so far to get to my boat.

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

    GeoFlynx says:
    September 7, 2010 at 9:55 am

    Championing the continued dumping of some 30 billion tons of fossil CO2 into the Earth’s atmosphere will, of course, require that sea levels do not rise, ice does not melt, thermometers read high, oceans do not acidify etc.

    _________________________________

    Does it? I’d have thought that championing such measures ( if of course someone is, you don’t make that clear ) requires nothing more than a champion.
    Are you suggesting that in order for A to be allowed then B,C,D,E, etc have to be true?
    Again, I’ll look forward to the data you have that give you cause for such reasoning.

    Do you know that in order for the CO2 levels to become dangerous to human it would have to be (forgive me, I’m going off the top of my head here) in the order of 780 times what it is in ppm today?
    CO2 is a trace gas; it has been 18 times current levels during times of life’s greatest species diversity growth. CO2 is only 0.038% of the atmosphere and CO2 is only 3.6% of all the greenhouse gasses. Of that 3.6% man only contributes ( it’s debatable but let’s go with the average accepted figure) 3.4% in all his activities.
    Let’s face it only an arrogant man believes that humans are capable of affecting the levels of atmospheric CO2 in any meaningful and measurable way.

    I’m not sure who is championing CO2 increases but I do know this: When we have already shown that absorption by CO2 is already at it’s peak and commentators are saying that a doubling of CO2 will have a negligible affect on temperature yet could improve global crop yields by 35% then I know which world I want my kids to live in.

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

  41. D Caldwell says:
    September 7, 2010 at 10:40 am
    GeoFlynx,
    You obviously accept at face value the alarmist assertions that:
    1. CO2 is the dominant driver in the warming observed in the last 150 years and will contine to be the dominant driver in future decades.
    2. Earth’s long term climate is sensitive and a modest increase in global temperatures will initiate a cascade of positive feedbacks resulting in certain climate catastrophe.

    Given that most visitors to WUWT are not quite ready to accept the above as “settled science”, your previous post is simply another tiresome restatement of the basis of the alarmist position with which we are only too familiar.

    GeoFlynx – The ability to predict what will happen is based on the ability to perceive what is happening. Creation of an alternate reality, in which all inputs contrary to a preset belief are either false or the result of some world wide conspiracy, may be comforting but it is hardly revealing.

  42. GeoFlynx says:
    September 7, 2010 at 9:55 am

    “Like it or not sea levels are rising.”

    Good grief, man, are you totally impervious to contradictory evidence? It’s like what the man in the mediaeval torture chamber – who was having his toes cut off one at a time – said: “All my toes are still there, and I’m only imagining the pain.”

    One day you might learn that mere assertion won’t cut it, and only serves to show others what an irrational bunch hard-core CAGWers are. As was rightly pointed out in the article, in the end, you are – ahem – shooting yourself and the movement in the foot. You have only yourselves to blame for the scepticism.

    “Championing the continued dumping of some 30 billion tons of fossil CO2…” . Start studying percentages and comparative amounts in different sinks and sources. Start thinking in terms that don’t rely on scary-sounding numbers. You have no idea how naive and prejudiced this makes you sound. To all but other members of the choir, it invites people to wearily just ignore the same old battle hymn.

    The record’s got stuck and the world is moving away from crackle-and-pop vinyl.

  43. Re: dp says:
    September 7, 2010 at 10:49 am

    My point is, using Google maps to explore the area around Harlech Castle suggests the sea moved on because of deposition, not necessarily because the sea level changed.

    It appears you are correct. Long shore drift is bringing in sand from further south and depositing it along Harlech beach, creating an actively growing dune system.

    “In fairly recent times the sea lapped at the base of the cliff on which Harlech Castle stands, but the accumulation of sand and the development of the dunes gradually pushed the shoreline westward.”

    http://www.ccw.gov.uk/landscape–wildlife/protecting-our-landscape/special-landscapes–sites/protected-landscapes/national-nature-reserves/morfa-harlech.aspx

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

  45. Scooper, I agree to to an extent about Harlech.

    I’m guessing when the castle was built, the coast line followed roughly the route of the B4573. Partly due to the highest feature between Harlech and the river being a place called ‘Ynys’, which is Welsh for Island, and it currently isn’t. Challenge for this evening I guess is seeing if I can find out if it was when Harlech castle was built.

  46. It’s disingenuous to say this stuff “isn’t coming from scientists”, since large numbers of scientists are very much on board. To take a small example, I recall a commenter on WUWT who noted that the Snow and Ice Data Center in Boulder had a plug for Al Gore’s film on their website. And a lot of the “worse than we thought” stuff of recent years (much of it documented in earlier postings) has come right off the academic/scientific assembly line.

    None of this is surprising. For 40 years our universities have helped cultivate a worldview whose core beliefs are anti-industry and even anti-Western-society, and the AGW hypothesis resonates strongly with all of this. For Homo simpliciter, regardless of his intellectual capacities, this is very potent stuff.

    REPLY: Your recollection is wrong. It was Cryosphere Today, and I got them to take it off the website.

    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/08/22/cryosphere-today-makes-changes-improves-product-drops-gore-comment/

    – Anthony

  47. unfortunately the real world is more complicated than that

    Or it is much, much more simple and it has been unecessarily complicated by accumulated errors forming thousand of layers of dirt being constantly increased by self indulgement, self conceit and all the psychological delicacies of a reberberating wiseacring of a self bragging crowd of child/scientists who through the mutual caressing xxx massaging called “peer review” has managed to confound the innocent. That fenomenal strata is waiting to be dug up and removed by new and brave and real human beings.

  48. When you say the message isn’t coming from scientists, great, but they are just as guilty by not standing against it, and actually I see scientists actually saying “death trains” and promoting violence and destruction of property. I don’t see other scientists (more than a few) saying that is over the top or horribly wrong, so they must agree. So I really don’t buy this agrument very much, the scientists behind these climate data are fully aware and knowing in what is going on, and thus equally guilty.

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

  50. One has to be a bit careful in assigning causes to RELATIVE sea level change. The reason is that there are many causes for shorelines to advance and recede. Land can rise, especially if glaciers once weighed down upon the land and depressed it relative to sea level. This is what has happened in northern Europe and may have accounted for the change in RELATIVE sea level at Harlech Castle. When the glaciers melted the land started to rise and may still be rising.

    Similarly, some deltas of rivers are sinking under the weight of sediment, especially because forests have been and are still being removed in the catchment areas upstream. RELATIVE sea level is rising because the land is being depressed by the weight of silt and clay.

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

  52. “… This is a professional, coordinated media strategy using calendars with press schedules and release dates, a well-stocked photo library and a rapid response team that shoves new releases out the door in response to news events or skeptical messages that seem to be gaining traction.”
    __________________________________________________
    These excerpts should answer the question of whether or not Global Warming is a professional campaign and a lucrative one at that.

    “He was also a strategic consultant to the Climate Center of the Natural Resources Defense Council on its multi-year campaign on global warming……NGO board memberships include the American Museum of Natural History, the National Endowment for Democracy, The Africa-America Institute, the Citizens Committee for New York City, the Council on Foreign Relations, and Refugees International…….Republican pollster Frank Luntz says “Stan Greenberg scares the hell out of me. He doesn’t just have a finger on the people’s pulse; he’s got an IV injected into it.” source

    Well that answers the question of WHO is responsible for the “professional, coordinated media strategy” Stan Greenberg is husband of Rep. (D) Rosa Delauro. He is part of Greenberg Quinlan Rosner and also the company Greenberg Carville Shrum. Greenberg’s work for private sector organizations – including major corporations, trade associations and public interest organizations – focuses on managing change and reform.”

    “Whether you want to win your election, lead your country, increase your bottom line, or change the world, Greenberg Quinlan Rosner can help you find the answer,” GQRR states on its website

    ”Stan Greenberg provides strategic advice and research for leaders, companies, campaigns, and NGOs trying to advance their issues in tumultuous times…. a strategic consultant to the Climate Center of the Natural Resources Defense Council on its multi-year campaign on global warming. ” source

    Greenberg Carville Shrum directed Campaigns in 60 countries (including Tony Blair in the UK) and was responsible for the Bolivia fiasco. Stan Greenberg “…specializes in research on globalization, international trade…” source

    Greenberg writes for the Democratic Strategist and also formed Democracy Corps

    Even the Democratic Underground doesn’t like Greenberg, Carville, Shrum “Regarding Carville and dirty politics “

    Here is more on Rosa Delauro and hubby – sort of reminds me of vampires…

    Weathiest Members Of Congress

    “…But the entry that really sent my Democratic strategist friend ballistic was the one for Rep. Rosa DeLauro, the Connecticut Democrat. La Rosa–tied for #48 on the Richest list–gets the lion’s share of her wealth from her husband–Clintonista pollster and campaign strategist Stan Greenberg. Says Roll Call, “DeLauro’s primary asset is a 67-percent stake in Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research Inc., a Washington-based firm run by her husband, Democratic pollster Stan Greenberg. Her share in the company nets the Representative $5 million to $25 million. She has a partial stake in two other polling/consulting firms. The first is Greenberg Research, of which she and her husband own 100 percent, and Sun Surveys, in which she owns a 60 percent stake. Neither of these is as lucrative as Greenberg Quinlan Rosner, however.”

    My bud the political warhorse snorted, “Hell, she first ran for Congress she didn’t have a dime–I was one of her biggest contributors. And Stan Greenberg, who worked for me back when he was starting out, used to have holes in his socks!” Noting that Congressional wealth is usually closer to the higher than to the lower estimates on the disclosure forms, my dour Democrat gasped, “That means they’re making around $50 million! These people shouldn’t be running Democratic campaigns!”

    So, if you want to know why the national Democrats seem, in this campaign, to have a tin ear where touching the hearts and minds of the working stiffs is concerned, think about this: the three partners in the Democracy Corps–Greenberg, James Carville, and Kerry’s chief message-shaper Bob Shrum–are all multimillionaires. And yet their counsel–proferred in an endless series of free Democracy Corps memos distributed to the party elite well before and during the presidential primaries, whose content (or lack of it) they helped shape–is taken as gospel by Democratic liberals feverish for victory. Well, as the old Texas populist Maury Maverick Jr. used to say, “a liberal is a power junkie without the power.” 

    Congratulations to Anthony, Steve McIntyre and the rest for going up against professionals backed by millions of dollars in funds and holding their own. When you think about it it is incredible.

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

  54. Rising sea levels translates to shrinking island areas (discounting other variables), which should be measurable during the satellite era. Has anything been published on this?

  55. AllenC says:
    September 7, 2010 at 10:24 am
    GeoFlynx says:
    September 7, 2010 at 9:55 am
    “…Championing the continued dumping of some 30 billion tons of fossil CO2 into the Earth’s atmosphere …”

    First of all, Geo, it isn’t 30 billion, it is more like 7 billion
    ==========================
    While the reference AllenC cites is behind an access restriction, I suspect the difference in your figures is due to measuring CO2 vs. carbon equivalent. The average molecular weight of CO2 is 44, of which 12 is due to carbon; there’s a factor of 44/12 = 3.7 involved here.

    The IPCC carbon cycle chart (figure 7.3 at http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-chapter7.pdf ) shows fossil fuel emissions at 6.4 GtonnesCarbon/yr in the 1990s. Perhaps an updated version of that value gives AllenC’s 7 Gt [Carbon]/yr figure. Multiplying that by 3.7 gives 26 GtCO2/yr; this is fairly close to GeoFlynx’s 30 GtCO2/yr.

    Just a note to be careful with units!

    For the carbon cycle, as illustrated in the IPCC graphic, it’s essential to use gigatonnes of Carbon (or GtC) as the unit, because the carbon is only in CO2 form for a small part of the cycle. Emissions are typically cited in tonnes of CO2 (as in emissions trading certificates), rather than equivalent amount of carbon.

  56. As near as I can find out no ocean going vessels have lately made it up the Mississippi to my home state so I don’t think I’ll worry too much about sea level rise. Mr. Gore does not seem to be too worried either given his recent housing purchase.

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

  58. Further to my post of 11:37. The tidal range at spring tides is around 5 metres (16ft). Sea level is complicated and those engaged in bathymetry chart using Mean Low Water Springs (MLWS) as base, 0.

  59. Tom said:
    “First, it should be obvious that the manipulation of the messages isn’t coming from scientists.”
    =============================================
    Tom, I read that a few times to be sure it’s what you were really saying.

    Hogwash

    Of course they do.
    Global warming/climate change has become the lazy scientists ‘go to’ for cause.

    You gather up all the papers you can find with no reference to GW/CC,
    I’ll gather up all the papers I can find that do.

    Scientists are the main cause of this “manipulation of the messages”

  60. University media departments are just as guilty – note the amount of science communicated via university-issued press releases. Much of the hype contained in these is not supported by the papers/studies they report. University scientists could take more responsibility for what their PR departments issue on their behalf. Better yet, shut down all the PR departments and see how fast the media hype declines….SC

  61. steveta_uk says:
    September 7, 2010 at 9:56 am

    1.1mm on the surface of the Earths oceans ( 361 000 000 km^2 ) is 397.1 km^3.

    The volume of the Earths oceans is 1 300 000 000 km^3 ( average depth 3.6km).

    The coefficient of expansion of water at 10 deg C is 88 and at 20 deg 207 ( 10^-6 K^-1)

    So using the change in volume equation for water as dV=Beta*V*dT

    Rearranging we get dT=dV/(Beta*V)

    In our case dV=397.1 km^3

    V= 1 300 000 000 km^3

    So for water at a 10 deg average Beta= 80 . . . giving a change in temperature of 0.0038 Deg K per year.

    For 20 degree water it would give us 0.0016 Deg K per year.

    Pretty much exactly what we are told are the best bounds for global warming estimates. If that were true we would have no need to look any further for the proof of AGW. This rather smacks of a circular argument which really means that the search is on for proof that the ocean is rising at 1.1mm a year, anything that doesn’t prove that is simply wrong which is why Dr Morner isn’t very fashionable with the believers.

    My own personal experience at Harlech Castle which I have mentioned here before indicates that the oceans aren’t rising much there. Other studies show the Maldives aren’t in need of a water proof Cabinet table just yet and in fact even the Antarctic continent is rising out of the ocean , albeit a very small amount for isn’t that what the satellites are actually saying? The ice is thinning so the land must be rising as a consequence.

    Oh, and please check my arithmetic lots of zero’s bopping around in there.

    At 4 deg C

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

  63. GeoFlynx,

    “Creation of an alternate reality, in which all inputs contrary to a preset belief are either false or the result of some world wide conspiracy, may be comforting but it is hardly revealing.”

    GeoFlynx, you need to raise your game on this site. Using sarcasm and witty dersions may tickle your ego, but does nothing to win arguments.

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

  65. I cannot help thinking that this article, while dismissive of much of the GW propaganda, was written just to try and exonerate the scientists and blame somebody else.
    Coupled with your previous posts in which you suggest that the CO2 problem is real, I believe you are making a trade; sacrificing a lot of the GW hoo-ha but asking us to buy the fact that the scientists and their CO2 theories are solid and should not or do not need to be questioned.

    “First, it should be obvious that the manipulation of the messages isn’t coming from scientists. It is too professional, too slick and ultimately too wrong. This is a professional, coordinated media strategy using calendars with press schedules and release dates, a well-stocked photo library and a rapid response team that shoves new releases out the door in response to news events or skeptical messages that seem to be gaining traction.”

    I put it to you, Thomas Fuller, that your series of posts themselves are part of a ‘coordinated media strategy using calenders’. An evolved stategy, carefully planned, with the intention of increasing the reputation of the scientists and their carbon theories before implementing taxations.

  66. Just testing a thesus right now; so please endulge me.

    What if continents float? Continents move away from each other so that is not a really mad idea; We have a complete floating icecube as a continent nevertheless.
    If that were the case the whole discussion about sea levels would be obsolete.

    How much water there were added to the pool would not matter; a floating body is a floating body.
    Offcourse i know a bag of soal will sink to the bottem of the pool but still the continents are shifting.

    Feel free to shoot at this idea and call me a raving lunatic. ;)

  67. Generally good stuff. However, in the case of Harlech Castle and the west coast of the UK in general, the land has risen in isostatic adjustment following the departure of the ice cap over Ireland and Cumbria (not to mention a smaller one on Snowdonia). As a rough picture, Great Britain (the island, not anything to do with politics) is tilting down towards the south east and rising in the north west. There are some rather splendid raised beaches in County Donegal up near Malin head.
    A more apposite illustration is in the Blackwater estuary (just north of the Thames), where the land is currently sinking at about 5mm/year. The Romans evaporated salt from the sea water near Maldon by boiling off the water (they still do it today) and left a lot of burnt clay behind which they threw into the water. That clay layer is now some four feet above MSL. There are other Roman remains all up the east coast including harbour works and locks, all of which so far as I know are now well above current sea levels despite the isostatic ‘rise’ in sea level.

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

  69. Remember one of the Climategate documents:

    The Rules of the Game – Futerra.

    Well where do the ‘labels’ come from….

    New Rules;New Game

    “22. Label people
    If someone undertakes a climate-friendly behaviour (whether they intended to or not), you should say “thanks, you’re clearly someone who cares about the climate”. Next time you want something, say “if you care about the climate you should…”. They’ll be more likely to pay attention, because they’ve started wearing a mental badge that says ‘I care about the climate’.”

    These guys, advice, United Nations Energy Programme, DEFRA, GreenPeace, BBC and the UK Government…… (lots of big business, Microsoft, HP, Shell) and Cru..

    Last page of the New Rules;New Game

    “The original Rules were developed as a guide
    for communication which could
    change attitudes towards climate
    change. They formed the evidence
    base that underpins the ongoing
    UK Government campaign,
    ‘Tomorrow’s Climate,
    Today’s Challenge’

    http://www.climatechallenge.gov.uk.

    That evidence base is still very
    relevant, and the following Rules
    from that document apply just as
    much to behaviour as attitude:
    • Everyone must use a clear and
    consistent explanation of climate
    change
    • The communications must be
    sustained over time
    • Partnered delivery of messages
    will be more effective
    • Government policy and
    communications must be
    consistent
    But, in many cases, the tactics
    needed to change attitude
    are different to those needed
    to change behaviour.

    http://www.futerra.co.uk/downloads/NewRules:NewGame.pdf

    http://www.futerra.co.uk/downloads/RulesOfTheGame.pdf

    How the BBC funds climate change ‘revolutionaries’
    http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/damianthompson/100018294/how-the-bbc-funds-climate-change-revolutionaries/

  70. Where did ‘Carbon Footprint’ come from?

    “Words that Sell” – Futerra… 2007
    http://www.futerra.co.uk/downloads/Words-That-Sell.pdf

    Focus grouped – lots of ‘climate’ ‘words’, in 2007…
    From the link:

    “CARBON FOOTPRINT
    This term was generally liked and has clear imagery.
    “What you leave behind”
    “It’s not about blame, it’s about responsibility”
    “It says it clearly”
    However, few had ever heard the term, while one observed that “carbon – you
    get that everywhere, don’t you?”
    An associated term that was also liked was the idea of a ‘positive footprint’.
    So much of the green footprint terminology deals with mitigating negative
    impacts that it ignores the desire of many people to make a good impression.
    “We all leave a trail behind us. We’d like the world to be a nice place when
    they grow up”
    “If we could all make our footprints a bit more positive, we could really do
    something”
    This association of footprint with positive impacts as well as negative ones is
    a useful development in the sustainable development terminology.
    —————————————
    From the Intro:

    “The use of common words connects members of a community into a network
    with formidable collective powers. If sustainability is to become a persuasive
    vision, it needs a persuasive language.
    We hope this report is a first step in developing that language.”

  71. @Adam Gallon says: September 7, 2010 at 11:23 am

    “Been to Real Climate at all, or don’t you consider Drs Scmidt et al to be scientists?”

    No, not unless your definition of “Scientist” includes phrenologists, homeopaths and old fashioned Snake Oil Salesmen.

  72. From Futerra:

    “Sell the Sizzle” – (YES, they are talking about manmade global warming – CAGW)
    http://www.futerra.co.uk/downloads/Sellthesizzle.pdf

    “Climate change sounds like hell,so where is heaven?

    Climate change itself isn’t the sizzle, it’s the sausage. That’s where our second metaphor comes in. The most common message on climate change is that we’re all going to hell. That’s what climate change looks like when you get right down to it; rising seas, scorched earth, failing food supplies, billions of starving refugees tormented by wild weather.
    But contrary to every expectation, hell doesn’t actually sizzle. Hell doesn’t sell. Although these Armageddon climate scenarios might be accurate and eye-catching, they haven’t changed attitudes or behaviours nearly enough. Threats of climate hell haven’t seemed to hold us back from running headlong towards it.”
    —————-

    Nice to be manipulated isn’t it… Uk government all departments seem to use these guy, and the BBC, and Greenpeace…. and, etc

  73. An excellent post, although the Welsh sea-level examples are a bit dodgy as that coast is retreating from the sea. There is enough global evidence for the MWP and other warmings to put Mann’s mad hockey stick to rest forever.
    I am convinced there are very powerful and incredibly well-funded individuals and groups pushing CAGW, but the possibility of the whole thing being a well-conceived plot is highly unlikely as the room for cock-ups is too great. The lack of ethics, sheer greed and cupidity of many politicians, journalists and some scientists works in tandem with the desperate desire of rabid arch-Greens for the control of humankind and those factors are, to me, the real and present danger to the developed world.

  74. GeoFlynx – “The ability to predict what will happen is based on the ability to perceive what is happening. Creation of an alternate reality, in which all inputs contrary to a preset belief are either false or the result of some world wide conspiracy, may be comforting but it is hardly revealing.”

    Most participants here make an effort to offer information or opinion related to the original post. You may or may not agree, but you are always free to offer your astoundingly brilliant rebuttal. A condescending tone and thinly veiled insults, however, are not persuasive.

  75. Who has been telling us that 2010 would be the warmest year on record ? WHo is relaying this propaganda already since the begiinning of the year ? Are these people so stupid that they are thinking that their pr can fool the man in the street forever ?
    What is reality visible to any man in the street ? That both in the southern and in the northern hemisphere of all agricultural crops harvesting was delayed and nearly all crops showed a lower than average yield . What is really the only cause for this ?
    LOWER TEMPERATURES ! And the man in the street is noticing what is happening in front of his eyes , so what will be his reaction to the orchestrated stories ? Probably the same strong belief as there was in communism in the past ……..

  76. Thomas Fuller, in at least one of your other guest posts, I have not been kind to your contributions. Yes, Anthony welcomes many different points of view here, but he usually asks contributors to back up what they write. I am a fellow non-scientist, regular reader of WUWT. I have read and taught in the humanities/social sciences, cultural studies (the non-marxist variety), and especially enjoy history and economics. I dislike the mushy thinking of so-called “liberals” (“using your and my tax dollars to help the poor afford electricity that comes from natural gas, nuclear and other cleaner solutions….” from “Global Energy Use in the 20th Century” 9/1) who make global statements using selected research to tout your favorite positions. Your ideology is not “liberal” IMHO but warmed-over, watered-down marxism.

    In this latest essay you want to identify “some marketing strategists” who are the bully/evil ones most signicant in the AGW campaign (30-year war). Come on. “For over 5 years….” Give us some specific references; give us some specific marketing strategists who are the movers in this propaganda war. When exactly did they start? You don’t do your homework. And you get to write these mammoth platitudes (check Google for what Mammoths did to warm our climate). Then you have the gall to say “manipulating of the messages isn’t coming from the scientists”. Well, of course not (for the most part). They have been manipulating the research and peer-review for many more years than 5 years. The have been substituting their “adjusted temperatures” for the raw data for many more than 5 years. How long were Nature and Science touting the lies and stupidity of AGW? Many more years than five. Did these journals require peer review from a variety of scientific perspectives? Did they require the data and methods to be filed for research papers so that other “scientists” (real scientists) could verify the research.

    “…The reason is not Moncton and Morano….not even more measured criticism coming from McIntyre and Watts, etc….” Get over yourself. These are the indispensible workers for truth and the scientific method.
    This is what counts.

    Many commenters are giving the details of some of the mammoth assertions you have made. (See Gail Coombs, e.g.,) If you had done similar homework, and if you had stated that the marketeers were moving the “war” along, I would have respect for you and your contrbutions. Use Tony Brown as your model.

  77. A few years back I wrote a number of times to “RealClimate” pointing out that CSIRO, the Australian national government body for scientific research, stated that the errors involved in estimating sea level rise were greater than the yearly rise James Hansen and others were at that time projecting in a scientific paper which they said would have disastrous consequences.

    Needless to say, none of my posts were published.

  78. In addition to post-glacial rebound, tilt (?), and deposition, I would like to posit that the river has migrated to the north (under the influence of deposition?) and perhaps used to scour the bottom of the cliff upon which the castle sits. One can clearly see evidence that the estuary used to meet the sea farther south than it does now. With more snowmelt than it currently receives, the river would have run faster and straighter.

    Were it not for the warmist’s sea-level rise, Harlech would be a castle in the sky. /s

  79. We know sea levels were lower in the past. Many of the natural bays and harbors in North America were created by erosion during the last great ice age. So naturally since we are still coming out of that ice age, one would expect the sea levels to be rising slightly. And indeed, the data for the 19 and early 20th centuries confirm that. However, the data since then indicates the sea levels have stabilized. The forecast for the next 90 years is “guess”.

    While there may be evidence of global warming, and perhaps some for AGW, rising sea levels does not seem to be part of that evidence.

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

  81. More information on global sea level changes can be gleaned from Google Earth.
    Find the Cape Town Castle in Cape Town, and see the difference between the current harbour in Cape Town and the Castle. The Castle was built by the VOIC (Vereeningde Oos Indiese Companjie (?) the Dutch company that settled the Cape of Good Hope in the 16th century. The construction of the Castle was started in the 17th century when the first wooden fort that the Dutch built started to rot. Ships used to anchor right next to the Castle. In the Golden Acre shopping centre remants of clay water pipes that were used to replenish the supply of ships at anchor is on display.

    Lastly, am I the only one that have read about the adventures of the 19th century German treasure hunter Schliemann that discovered the ruins of Troy and the gold of Troy? He suspected a shift of the sea front and hit the jackpot miles away from the present day sea shore.

  82. GeoFlynx says:
    September 7, 2010 at 9:55 am
    “…Championing the continued dumping of some 30 billion tons of fossil CO2 into the Earth’s atmosphere …”

    Excuse me as I’m unimpressed. 30 billion tons may sound big and scary to you, but not to me. For your 30 billion tons of CO2 nature puts out about 720 billion tons so what are you going to do about that?

    The 30 billion tons of “fossil” CO2, which you complain about would contain about a 28% “fossil” carbon content by mass. The balance being non “fossil” 02.

    Funny how the 96 -97% of natural CO2 is innocent as the wind driven snow while so called man made CO2 is of the devil and enough to throw the whole world’s climate out of whack.

  83. Philip, 10:13 am

    Thanks for the heads-up to that Newark Star Ledger editorial. The article itself was quite entertaining (the warmists are getting even lazier in their presentations), but some of the comments are pretty classic. Here’s my favorite excerpt, a true gem. It was in response to claims about how it is scary so many “right-wing Americans” don’t buy the theory with examples of prior events:

    “Sahara Desert too. Humans deforested that thousands of years ago simply by overgrazing.”

  84. From – Sell the Sizzle – Futerra. Media PR communication.
    http://www.futerra.co.uk/downloads/Sellthesizzle.pdf

    CHOICE
    Introduce hell
    You’ve sold the sizzle so now
    show the alternative. If you lead with a positive
    vision, you don’t then have to pull your punches
    on climate chaos.
    The choice is now Make clear that change won’t
    wait, and that the decision moment is now
    ———————————————–
    Personal hell
    Climate change doesn’t just affect
    weather patterns and polar bears. Lay out the impacts
    on hospitals, schools, and the local environment.
    Hit lifestyles and aspirations. The more powerful
    and compelling your vision, the more hard-hitting
    you can make the threat of climate chaos.
    ——————-

    Sounds funny, take a long look at their client list….. (BBC, UK government,etc
    http://www.futerra.co.uk/clients/

    “sell the Sizzle” – Futerra

    Climate Change Deniers
    Unfortunately, these guys are back (if they
    ever went away). The edge of this group are
    the conspiracy theorists who are sure that
    climate science is an excuse for either (a) the
    environmentalists to curtail consumption or
    undermine our way of life, or (b) for the developed
    world to hold back the developing world.

    ———————————–
    http://www.futerra.co.uk/revolution/leading_thinking

    Futerra and The UK Department for Environment published the Rules of the Game on 7 March 2005. The game is communicating climate change; the Rules will help us win it. The document was created as part of the UK Climate Change Communications Strategy.

  85. About Harlech Castle. The UK is tilting slightly, with the south eastern side sinking and the north western side rising. Harlech is on the west coast.

    [Tongue-in cheek] It’s probably because of the concentration of people and resources in the south east.

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

  87. Justa Joe says:
    September 7, 2010 at 1:35 pm
    GeoFlynx says:
    September 7, 2010 at 9:55 am
    “…Championing the continued dumping of some 30 billion tons of fossil CO2 into the Earth’s atmosphere …”

    Excuse me as I’m unimpressed. 30 billion tons may sound big and scary to you, but not to me. For your 30 billion tons of CO2 nature puts out about 720 billion tons so what are you going to do about that?

    Nothing, nature takes care of that itself by absorbing 735 billion tons, so it’s net effect is to remove ~15 billion tons from the atmosphere!

  88. From my own experience in Scotland, the Greens were just bumbling amateurs who played host to highly paid con men from the renewables industry who worked 24/7/365 to con the politicians about the dire consequences of “global warming”.

    The real money was (paradoxically) coming from big corps like oil companies who were funding the renewable lobby organisations who were in turn taking third rate scientific “research” and sexing it up like a prostitute on viagra. Obviously there were also the NGOs who used global warming to frighten the public into giving the NGOs contributions, but there was no one quite like the renewables lobbyists and their zeal for making money through the billions being diverted to fund renewables.

  89. Ken Hall says:
    September 7, 2010 at 10:57 am
    GeoFlynx, Nobody is claiming that sea-levels generally are not rising, just that in some localised areas that sea gauges have not recorded a rise, whilst others have and that there is no evidence whatsoever that sea-levels are going to rise in the next century by the extreme of 20 feet that alarmists have predicted, let alone the extremely extreme 20 meters Al gore gave as his worst case.

    GeoFlynx – Al Gore did not predict a 20 meter rise in sea level in the next century – he invented the internet!

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

  91. simpleseekeraftertruth says:
    September 7, 2010 at 12:03 pm

    “Further to my post of 11:37. The tidal range at spring tides is around 5 metres (16ft). Sea level is complicated and those engaged in bathymetry chart using Mean Low Water Springs (MLWS) as base, 0.”

    Round here the datum (Chart Datum) is usually the Lowest Astronomical Tide (LAT) which is significantly below Mean Low Water Springs (MLWS).

    None of which detracts from your points but it is difficult to grasp how a change of a few inches is significant when the tidal range is up to 10 metres in the Channel Islands or 6 Metres at Dover and the normal changes of airpressure can account for another foot (plus or minus).

  92. D Caldwell says: September 7, 2010 at 10:40 am
    GeoFlynx,
    You obviously accept at face value the alarmist assertions that:
    1. CO2 is the dominant driver in the warming observed in the last 150 years and will contine to be the dominant driver in future decades.
    2. Earth’s long term climate is sensitive and a modest increase in global temperatures will initiate a cascade of positive feedbacks resulting in certain climate catastrophe.

    The earth’s climate sensitivity to a doubling of CO2 is around +3C (+/-1C). For a partial list of papers (up to 2006) supporting this proposition read below. Global tempatures at or near record highs, melting of ice globally and mulitple species migrations are all consistent with AGW. There is no rug big enough to sweep these under. Note that the sensitivity estimates do not specify the trajectory by which warming takes place. They just note that it happens (whatever the feedbacks in play).

    For what +3C might be like, please read Mark Lynas “Six Degrees” and feel free to stop reading at the “3C” chapter. I regularly post this recommendation as the book is entertaining and well researched and many posters seem unsure where the boundary is between environmental hyperbole and scientifically informed judgment.

    Augustsson T. and Ramanathan V. 1977. “A Radiative-Convective Model Study of the CO2 Climate Problem.” J. Atmos. Sci. 34, 448-451.

    Arrhenius, Svante 1896. “On the Influence of Carbonic Acid in the Air Upon the Temperature of the Ground.” Philosophical Magazine 41, 237-76.

    Bertrand, C. 1998. “Climate simulation at the secular time scale.” Thèse de doctorat, Université catholique de Louvain, 208 pp.

    Boer, G. J., G. Flato, M. C. Reader, and D. Ramsden 2000. “A transient climate change simulation with greenhouse gas and aerosol forcing: Experimental design and comparison with the instrumental record for the twentieth century.” Climate Dynamics 16, 405–425.

    Boer, G.J., N.A. McFarlane, and M. Lazare, 1992. “Greenhouse Gas-induced Climate Change Simulated with the CCC Second-Generation General Circulation Model.” J. Climate, 5, 1045-1077.

    Boer George G. and Yu Bin 2003. “Dynamical aspects of climate sensitivity” Geophys. Res. Lett. 30(3), 35-1 – 35-4.

    Callendar, G.S. 1938. “The Artificial Production of Carbon Dioxide and Its Influence on Climate.” Quarterly J. Royal Meteorological Society 64, 223-40.

    Chen C.-T. and Ramaswamy V. 1996. “Sensitivity of Simulated Global Climate to Perturbations in Low-Cloud Microphysical Processes. Part I. Globally Uniform Perturbations.” J. Climate 9, 1385-1402.

    Chou Ming-Dah, Peng Li, Arking Albert 1982. “Climate Studies with a Multi-Layer Energy Balance Model. Part II: The Role of Feedback Mechanisms in the CO2 Problem.” J. Atmos. Sci. 39, 2657-2666.

    Dai A., Wigley T. M. L., Boville B. A., Kiehl J. T., Buja L. E. 2001. “Climates of the 20th and 21st centuries simulated by the NCAR Climate System Model.” J. Climate 14, 485– 519.

    Delworth Thomas L., Broccoli Anthony J., Dixon Keith; Held Isaac; Knutson Thomas R., Kushner Paul J., Spelman Michael J., Stouffer Ronald J., Vinnikov, Konstantin Y., Wetherald, Richard E. 1999. “Couple Climate Modelling at GFDL: Recent Accomplishments and Future Plans.” CLIVAR Exchanges 4(4), 15-20.

    Gilliland, Ronald L. and Schneider, Stephen H. 1984. “Volcanic, CO2 and solar forcing of Northern and Southern Hemisphere surface air temperatures.” Nature 310, 38-41.

    Goosse H., Arzel O., Luterbacher J., Mann M.E., Renssen H., Riedwyl N., Timmermann A., Xoplaki E., Wanner H. 2006. “The Origin of the European ‘Medieval Warm Period’.” Clim. Past, 2, 99–113.

    Gordon, H. B., and S. P. O’Farrell 1997. “Transient climate change in the CSIRO coupled model with dynamic sea ice, Mon. Weather Rev. 125, 875–907.

    Hall C.G. and Cacuci Dan G. 1982. “Sensitivity Analysis of a Radiative-Convective Model by the Adjoint Method. J. Atmos. Sci. 39, 2038-2050.

    Hansen, James, Lacis A., Rind D., Russel G., Stone P., Fung I., Ruedy R., Lerner J. 1984. “Climate Sensitivity: Analysis of Feedback Mechanisms.” Climate Processes and Climate Sensitivity, Geophys. Mono. 29, 130-163. Am. Geophys. Union.

    Hegerl, G. C., K. Hasselmann, U. Cubasch, J. F. B. Mitchell, E. Roeckner, R. Voss, and J. Waszkewitz 1997. “Multi-fingerprint detection and attribution analysis of greenhouse gas-plus-aerosol and solar forced climate change.” Climate Dynamics 13, 613–634.

    Hegerl Gabriele C., Crowley Thomas J., Hyde William T., Frame David J. 2006. “Climate Sensitivity Constrained by Temperature Reconstructions over the Past Seven Centuries.” Nature 440, 1029-1032 (letter).

    Hoffert, Martin I., Covey, Curt 1992. “Deriving Global Climate Sensitivity from Palaeoclimate Reconstructions.” Nature 360, 573-576.

    Hulburt, E.O. 1931. “The Temperature of the Lower Atmosphere of the Earth.” Physical Review 38, 1876-1890.

    Idso, Sherwood B. 1980. “The Climatological Significance of a Doubling of Earth’s Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Concentration The Climatological Significance of a Doubling of Earth’s Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Concentration.” Science 207(4438), 1462-1463.

    Lambert Stephen J. 1995. “The Effect of Enhanced Greenhouse Warming on Winter Cyclone Frequencies and Strengths.” J. Climate 8, 1347-1452.

    MacKay Robert M., Ko Malcolm K.W., Shia Run-Lie, Yang Yajaing, Zhou Shuntai, Molnar Gyula 1997. “An Estimation of the Climatic Effects of Stratospheric Ozone Losses during the 1980s.” J. Climate 10(4), 774-788.

    Mahfouf J.F., Cariolle D., Royer J.F., Geleyn J.F., Timbal B. 1993. “Response of the Meteo-France Climate Model to Changes in CO2 and Sea Surface Temperature.” Climate Dynamics 9(7), 345-362.

    Manabe, Syukuro 1971. “Estimates of future change of climate due to the increase of carbon dioxide concentration in the air.” Man’s Impact on the Climate, W. I-I. Matthews, W. W. Kellogg, and G. D. Robinson, Eds., Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 249-264.

    Manabe Syukuro 1975. “The dependence of atmospheric temperature on the concentration of carbon dioxide” 73-77 in The Changing Global Environment, Dordrecht, D. Reidel Publishing Co.

    Manabe, Syukuro, and Stouffer, Ronald J. 1979. “A CO2-Sensitivity Climate Study with a Mathematical Model of the Global Climate.” Nature, 282, 491-493.

    Manabe, Syukuro, and Stouffer, Ronald J. 1993. “Century-scale effects of increased atmospheric CO2 on the ocean-atmosphere system.” Nature 364, 215-218.

    Manabe, Syukuro, and Wetherald, Richard T. 1967. “Thermal Equilibrium of the Atmosphere with a Given Distribution of Relative Humidity.” J. Atmospheric Sciences 24, 241-59.

    Manabe, Syukuro, and Wetherald, Richard T. 1980. “On the Distribution of Climate Change Resulting from an Increase of CO2 Content of the Atmosphere.”

    Manabe, Syukuro, and Wetherald, Richard T. 1975. “The effects of doubling the CO2 concentration on the climate of a general circulation model.” J. Atmos Sci. 32, 3–15

    McAvaney, B.J., Colman. R., Fraser, J.F., and Dahni, R.R. 1991. “The response of the BMRC AGCM to a doubling of CO2.” BMRC Technical Memorandum No. 3 (in preparation).

    Mitchell, J.F.B., Senior, C.A., and Ingram, W. J. 1989. “CO2 and climate: A missing feedback?.” Nature, 341, 132-134.

    Möller, Fritz 1963. “On the Influence of Changes in the CO2 Concentration in Air on the Radiation Balance of the Earth’s Surface and on the Climate.” J. Geophysical Research 68, 3877-3886.

    Nicoli Maria Pia and Visconti Guido 1982. “Impact of Coupled Perturbations of Atmospheric Trace Gases on Earth’s Climate and Ozone” Pure Appl. Geophys. 120(4), 626-641.

    Noda, A., and Tokoika, T. 1989. “The effect of doubling CO2 concentration on convective and nonconvective precipitation in a general circulation model coupled with a simple mixed layer ocean.” J. Met. Soc. Japan, 67, 95-110.

    Oglesby, R.J., and Saltzman, B., 1990. “Sensitivity of the equilibrium surface temperature of a GCM to systematic changes in atmospheric carbon dioxide.” Geophysical Research Letters, 17(8), 1089-1092.

    Ohring George and Adler Shoshana 1978. “Some Experiments with a Zonally Averaged Climate Model.” J. Atmos. Sci. 35(2), 186-205.

    Plass, Gilbert N. 1956. “The carbon dioxide theory of climatic change.” Tellus 8, 140-154.

    Ramanathan, V. 1981. “The Role of Ocean-Atmosphere Interactions in the CO2 Climate Problem.” J. Atmos. Sci. 38, 918-930.

    Rasool, S.I. and Schneider H.I. 1971. “Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide and Aerosols: Effects of Large Increases on Global Climate.” Science 173, 138-141.

    Roeckner, E., L. Bengtsson, J. Feichter, J. Lelieveld, and H. Rodhe 1999. “Transient climate change simulations with a coupled atmosphere-ocean GCM including the tropospheric sulfur cycle” J. Climate, 12, 3004–3032.

    Schlesinger Michael E., Zhao Zong-Ci, Vickers Dean 1989. “Design and Critical Appraisal of an Accelerated Integration Procedure for Atmospheric GCM/Mixed-Layer Ocean Models.” J. Climate 2, 641-655.

    Schlesinger, M.E., N. Andronova, A. Ghanem, S. Malyshev, T. Reichler, E. Rozanov, W. Wang and F. Yangi 1997. “Geophysical Scenarios of Greenhouse_Gas and Anthropogenic Sulfate Aerosol Induced Climate Changes.” Climate Research Group Report, Department of Atmospheric Sciences, University of illinois at Urbana Champaign, Urbana, IL, USA.

    Sellers, William D. 1973. “A New Global Climatic Model.” J. Appl. Meteorol. 12, 241-254.

    Sellers, William D. 1974. “A Reassessment of the Effect of CO2 Variations On a Simple Global Climatic Model.” J. Appl. Meteorol. 13, 831-833.

    Shaviv, N., Veizer, J. 2003. “Celestial driver of Phanerozoic climate?” GSA Today 13(7), 4-10.

    Stern, David I. 2005. “An atmosphere–ocean time series model of global climate change.” Computational Statistics & Data Analysis uncorrected proof — http://www.rpi.edu/~sternd/CSDA_inpress.pdf, accessed 1/31/2007

    Sumi, Akimasa 2005. “Global Warming Simulation due to the High Resolution Climate Model by Using the Earth Simulator.” Annual Report of the Earth Simulator Center April 2004 – March 2005.

    Temkin Richard L. and Snell Fred M. 1976. “An Annual Zonally Averaged Hemispherical Climatic Model with Diffuse Cloudiness Feedback.” J. Atmos. Sci. 33(9), 1671-1685.

    Thompson, S.L. and Pollard, D. 1995. “A global climate model (GENESIS) with a Land-Surface-Transfer Scheme (LSX). Part 2: CO2 sensitivity.” J. Climate, 8, 1104-1121.

    Washington, W.M., and Meehl, G.A. 1984. “Seasonal cycle experiments on the climate sensitivity due to a doubling of CO2 with an atmospheric GCM Coupled to a simple mixed layer ocean model.” J. Geophys. Res., 89, 9475-9503.

    Washington, W.M., and Meehl, G.A. 1989. “Climate sensitivity due to increased CO2: experiments with a coupled atmosphere and ocean general circulation model.” Climate Dynamics, 4, 1-38.

    Washington, W. M., J. W. Weatherly, G. A. Meehl, A. J. Semtner, T. W. Bettge, A. P. Craig, W. G. Strand, J. Arblaster, V. B. Wayland, R. James, and Y. Zhang 2000. “Parallel climate model (PCM) control and transient simulations” Climate Dynamics 16, 755– 774.

    Weare B.C. and Snell F.M. 1974. “A Diffuse Thin Cloud Structure as a Feedback Mechanism in Global Climatic Modeling.” J. Atmos. Sci. 31, 1725-1734.

    Wetherald, R.T., and Manabe, S. 1986. “An investigation of cloud cover change in response to thermal forcing.” Climatic Change, 10, 11-42.

    Wetherald, R.T., and Manabe, S. 1989. “Cloud feedback processes in a general circulation model.” J. Atmos. Sci., 45, 1397-1415.

    Wetherald, Richard T., Stouffer, Ronald J., Dixon, Keith W. 2001. “Committed Warming and its Implications for Climate Change.” Geophys. Res. Lett. 28(8), 1535-1538.

    Wilson, C.A., and Mitchell, J.F.B. 1987. “Simulated climate and CO2 induced climate change over western Europe.” Climatic Change, 19, 11-42.

    Wolbarst, Anthony B. 1999. “Effective thermal conduction model for estimating global warming.” American Journal of Physics 67(10), 885–890.

  93. “First, it should be obvious that the manipulation of the messages isn’t coming from scientists.”
    To the contrary, it is not obvious at all. I was amazed how Judith Curry was able to continue to insinuate – through these very pages – her AGW message by appearing heroically to turn on her own party, and vaguely put blame on poor “communication”. In your two previous posts, Thomas, you did a similar thing, each time managing to tippy-toe a little further away from the AGW position while at no point admitting error on your part. The manipulation of the messages has obviously been by scientists. I’m bothered by media distortion, but I’m most bothered by scientific incompetence and/or fraud.

    “It is their own butchery of the facts behind the images they decided we needed to see that hamstrung their movement. If they have been defeated…”
    You say “they” and “their”. Thomas, when you use a plural personal pronoun and plural personal adjective, it needs to refer to some people recently mentioned. The only people mentioned in a text full of passive voice and impersonal subjects are “some marketing strategists”…mentioned at the other end of your essay, eleven paragraphs before! Please be very specific about which people and movement you are talking about. If you really think that scientists are innocent of imposing climate alarmism you’ll need to do a bit more than manipulate language to get your case across. Are you nervous about something you’ve said or done in the past? Are you, in fact, in favour of carbon taxation, ETS, expensive energy alternatives etc? Who are you and what are you?

    “The worlds leading sea level expert Professor Morner has called the IPCC figures ‘a lie.’ Google ‘The greatest lie ever told’…”
    Tony B.’s interesting article, like so many pieces published on Anthony’s invaluable site, points to something far more serious than naughty marketing. I really can’t see how Thomas Fuller’s peculiar exoneration of “scientists” has anything at all to do with Tony B’s contribution. It’s very strange.

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

  95. RichieP says:
    September 7, 2010 at 2:03 pm
    I always understood that Harlech has been cut off from the sea by the Morfa, the dune system, which is caused by longshore drift from another nearby formation along the coast ( a long beach I think). I assume that doesn’t necessarily mean that the sea level here is significantly lower than in medieval times. Just a point, for which I have no immediate references. Though there is the legend of Cantref Y Gwaelod, the lost land beyond the mouth of the Dyfi that the sea reclaimed when, despite warnings, the drunken lord of the area failed to maintain the levees and was drowned with his equally drunk followers .

    Inspired no doubt by the fossilised forest at Ynyslas:

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/wales/mid/sites/coast/pages/5.shtml

  96. Atomic Hairdryer says:
    September 7, 2010 at 11:25 am
    “ ‘Ynys’, which is Welsh for Island, and it currently isn’t.”

    A.H., While you are about it, see if you can find a map or two that would show the area way back when. It looks to me as though there has been a great deal of sedimentation that has been reworked into a recurved spit. So perhaps the lands upstream were ‘opened and cultivated’ after the Castle was constructed. In-filling of the bay in this manner might be a result of an agricultural revolution in the region following significant settlement following an historical development of some sort. I know nothing of this area but such processes have been documented in other places.

    This is a fascinating sidetrip.

  97. Thanks for this, Tom and Tony, you are absolutely right. IPCC and the various commenters, including scientists, are off in their projections. Here’s a good summary of what the future really looks like, from a comprehensive analysis done at MIT:

    http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2009/roulette-0519.html

    Oops, I forgot to tell you: it’s actually going to be worse than what IPCC and typical scientists are telling us.

    REPLY: readers, Mike Roddy’s MO is a “drive by troll”. His history is that he posts potshots like this, then runs from debate. My advice is that you simply ignore him – Anthony

  98. Harlech Castle

    I think we all agree that much has changed in the environs of this mighty fortress and that the sea is actually rather closer to the castle than the article suggests.

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

  99. The Link 2 paper from Jones and etc seems to be somewhat at odds with the British history of climate and weather covering the last 2000 years as collected by a British meteorologist from historical records and writings.
    This climate and weather history record can be found at the Booty / Metindex site.

    http://booty.org.uk/booty.weather/metindex.htm

  100. Adam Gallon says:
    September 7, 2010 at 11:23 am
    “Are you talking out of your derriere?
    “First, it should be obvious that the manipulation of the messages isn’t coming from scientists. It is too professional, too slick and ultimately too wrong.”
    Been to Real Climate at all, or don’t you consider Drs Scmidt et al to be scientists?”

    Ahemm… RealClimate SLICK??? Repeat that for me. Wait.
    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/01/peer-review-ii/
    A typical arbitrary post by M. Mann. No picture. Desert of text. Slickness zero.
    Now some typical slickness.
    http://www.wwf.co.uk/
    Yeah, Whatley Weston & Fox… wait, i meant to say:
    http://www.wwf.org/
    Cute mammals! See! SLICK!

  101. Richard says:
    September 7, 2010 at 12:33 pm

    Just testing a thesus right now; so please endulge me.

    What if continents float?….
    _________________________
    You are half right, continents do float, but it is on magma (molten rock) not water. That is why you have a “ring of fire” or volcanoes at the edges of the continental plates. It is the molten rock coming through the weak spots in the earth’s crust.

  102. I don’t know if you guys are reading all of the links.
    It doesn’t matter what the pictures look like,
    link 18 says the sea is presently about a 1/2 mile away.

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

  104. John Shade (above at 10:06) refers to an “ethical” public relations company which he claims sexes up climate scare reports. It is interesting that, for a good cause, they consider this “ethical”. I wonder if sexing up weapons of mass destruction reports in order to galvanise a move against a dictator would be regarded as “ethical”? Or perhaps the police fabricating evidence against a known criminal that is too hard to catch. Is that “ethical”? What a wonderful moving feast ethics is.

    With respect to sea level change – a huge percentage of the world’s population lives near the sea. You might think that they would have noticed if there was a significant or perhaps even an insignificant rise in sea level. You’d think that there would be one place on the globe where someone would have noticed a sea level change and reported it quick sticks to the local AGW community to turn into another scare. Another polar bear standing on an ice berg photo. I dont think Ive seen anything in the press at all. On the contrary I see more and more housing developments right down to the sea front. There seems to be a mismatch between rhetoric and action that tells its own story.

  105. Doug says:
    September 7, 2010 at 1:26 pm
    …..Gail. Thanks – I had a read through the references you gave here. It is soul destroying stuff. These weasels have permeated everything with their evil ‘spin’. They operate in the shadows and under rocks. They need bright lights shone upon them so we can see to hunt them out.
    Doug
    ____________________________________________________________
    Yes the light of day needs to be shown on these people.

    Did you note that one of the funding groups was the Council on Foreign Relations? David Rockefeller of Standard Oil is an honorary chairman and its earlier origins included Paul Warburg, a German, who was responsible for the Federal Reserve Act of 1913. (And the rape of the American public ever since.) Warburg was director of the Council on Foreign Relations at its founding in 1921, remaining on the board until his death.

    The more you read about the people and the politics, the more difficult it becomes not to believe it is all planned. Dave Rockefeller even states in his Autobiography “Memoirs”:

    “For more than a century, ideological extremists at either end of the political spectrum have seized upon well-publicized incidents such as my encounter with Castro to attack the Rockefeller family for the inordinate influence they claim we wield over American political and economic institutions. Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as ‘internationalists’ and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure — one world, if you will. If that is the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it.” Page 405 of Rockefeller’s autobiography, “Memoirs”, ISBN-13: 978-0812969733.

    UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan, at a book signing for “Memoirs” at the UN headquarters in New York, in 2002 — Will Banyan, 2006, (p.2).
    “I think without internationalists like you, the international system we have been trying to build, the international system we have today, wouldn’t be here.”

    At a meeting of the Trilateral Commission (June 1991); as quoted in Matrix of Power: How the World Has Been Controlled by Powerful Men Without Your Knowledge (2000) by Jordan Maxwell pp. 15-16
    “We are grateful to The Washington Post, The New York Times, Time Magazine and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected their promises of discretion for almost forty years. It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subject to the bright lights of publicity during those years. But, the world is now much more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world government. The supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national auto-determination practiced in past centuries.”

    There is just too much information like the above out there to ignore. Here is well referenced information onthe CRF’s sister organization and their attack on US agriculture for example.

  106. GeoFlynx says:
    September 7, 2010 at 9:55 am

    “Championing the continued dumping of some 30 billion tons of fossil CO2 into the Earth’s atmosphere will, of course, require that sea levels do not rise, ice does not melt, thermometers read high, oceans do not acidify etc.”

    30 billion sounds like a lot doesn’t it? How about this: Your president has spent that much, and way , way more. I’d post the number, but with each passing second that number increases by another mind blowing amount. 30 billion don’t seem like so much no-more… On a serious note however, 30 billion tons is a piffle when the entirety of the atmosphere is taken into account. Now go back to your crib before your mommy gets worried.

  107. I was flattered and surprised to see my reply to Tom Fuller elevated to a full post. Had I known, I would have topped and tailed it, as generally I like my articles to have a narrative. Had I written it as an article I would have added much more about the other castles and landmarks of Britain affected by changing sea levels since Roman times and before. Hopefully this piece -written after the event in response to posters- will be acceptable as a postscript.

    Firstly, I agree that when examining sea levels we have to be careful in separating out glacial rebound, tilt, deposition etc.

    To put our constantly fluctuating sea levels into context may I quote from Brian Fagan, Professor of Archaeology at the University of California and author of ‘The Little Ice Age’ from which this short excerpt is taken.

    “Ten thousand years ago the southern North sea was a marshy plain where elk and deer wandered…England was part of the continent until as recently as 6000 BC when rising sea levels caused by post ice age warming filled the North sea. By 3000 BC the ocean was at near modern levels. Sea levels fluctuated continually through late prehistoric and Roman times but rose significantly after 1000 AD. Over the next two centuries the North sea rose as much as 40-50 cms above today’s height in the low countries then slowly retreated again as temperature fell gradually in the north” (arctic)

    We can usefully take up the story with this book-it’s all interesting, but on page 552 (halfway down the left column then continue on to the right) it talks of ‘innundation’ around 1200AD of many parts of low land coastal Europe including Holland and Britain. This displaced thousands of coastal dwellers and caused conflict with those whose land they tried to move on to, further inland. Sea levels were about 0.50cm higher than today

    http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=yRMgYc-8mTIC&pg=PA552&lpg=PA552&dq=sea+level+height+britain+viking+times&source=bl&ots=OCN9aJt2PG&sig=2lMDcr4rE7WegGy1okZyqyEWJU4&hl=en&ei=UqWGTO2hIIuOjAeUopybCQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CBsQ6AEwAjgU#v=onepage&q&f=false

    Harlech castle was built around 1283 and would of course have reflected the ocean height they saw at the time at around 50cm higher than today, which is why there was a sea gate that enabled small ships to provision the garrison.

    We can usefully backtrack to Roman times when sea levels started rising rapidly around 350 AD and coastal areas became flooded.

    http://www.lundyisleofavalon.co.uk/history/sealevels.htm

    And here;

    “Even so, the North Sea had a nasty little jump between 350 and 550AD, flooding the coasts of northern Europe with an extra 2 feet of water and sending its inhabitants — folk known as Angles and Saxons — fleeing (although “conquering” might be the better word) into ill-prepared Roman territories. At the start of this rise, the areas we know as the Fens were a well-settled part of Roman Britain ruled from the town of Duroliponte (Cambridge) by its native people, the Christianized Romano-Celtic Iceni. Then the sea level rose, and history’s curtain went down for two centuries.”
    http://www.historynet.com/the-fens-england-below-sea-level.htm

    So we can trace two warming eras during Roman and MWP times, which caused sea levels to rise, and the people directly affected to flee from the effects. The changing climate was said to be a major factor in the demise of Rome as the people affected by such events as described here took over previously peaceful prosperous farmland needed to feed Rome’s armies, and of course many ended up in Britain, hence ‘Anglo Saxons’.

    For the sake of completeness, here is a little more about ‘post ice age warming which filled the North Sea.’ ‘Doggerland’ -an inhabited area in what is now the North Sea- was swamped by rising sea levels around 8000 years ago when Britain was separated from Europe and became an island.
    http://humanities.exeter.ac.uk/archaeology/research/rdoggerland.shtml

    The sea level rise at the end of the ice ages is documented here with a good graph, although it is better at showing generality rather than specific events.
    http://www.sustainableoregon.com/oceanlevel.html

    To get the specifics of today it is worth turning to Dr Morner who is an acknowledged expert on sea levels. Here is his article on his denunciation of the science used by IPCC to calculate sea levels

    http://www.climatechangefacts.info/ClimateChangeDocuments/NilsAxelMornerinterview.pdf

    A number of people here seem astonished at the notion that sea level rise is not confined to the modern era. Why should we be surprised that previous eras of warmth-such as the Roman or MWP-should cause temperatures and sea levels to rise, or that they should fall when water was locked back in during the little ice age?

    The current rise is historically very limited in extent and should be seen in the context of the far more dramatic events that have happened before..
    ****
    PS; Note to Scooper. The pictures were what were available from internet sources. I suggest you visit Harlech Castle in the rain then walk to the sea and you will realise just how far it is. The pictures are reasonably representative. :)

    Final note re deposition. The Morfa sand dune systen undoubtedly has a effect on deposition and as sea levels dropped and open water became marsh, deposition would subsequently have taken place as the pattern of currents changed. I would also suggest you look across the vast sandy estuary of the afon glaslyn to Porthmadog for additional cause and effect, as a massive sea wall was built there in the 19th century to carry the railway that went to the slate mines,
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Porthmadog

    Up to this time the estuary stretched as far inland as Llanfrothen where there was some shipbuilding.

    Tonyb

  108. Ammonite,
    Many thanks for the extensive article list, but once again, I already know the mainstream position on CO2 and climate sensitivity – no need to restate it for me.

    Given that there is no way to construct a reproducible experiment in the lab to test for actual climate sensitivity, we are left with paleoclimatic educated guessing and computer simulation. All very interesting, but despite the volume of “peer reviewed” papers, the (amazingly consistent) conclusions are still speculative in nature. Forgive me if I am not willing to assign a high level of certainty to it as you apparently have.

    The public presentation of all this with a high degree of certainty is simply dishonest.

  109. Tom said:

    “First, it should be obvious that the manipulation of the messages isn’t coming from scientists.”

    I haven’t read all the comments but certainly support any who have said that this above comment is a load of tosh. WUWT is full of “climate craziness of the week” type posts where “scientists” have manipulated reality to suit their own agendas.

    Agendas to ensure continued funding based on scaremongering.

    And the MSM knows that a scary story sells and if a little extra spin increases the scare then all the better. Agreed Tom?

  110. Tom Fuller says:- “First, it should be obvious that the manipulation of the messages isn’t coming from scientists.”

    Tom, you really do need to read the Climategate emails. They clearly show that scientists both in the US and here in the UK are working with the MSM to push an alarmist message to further there own misguided ‘green agenda’. As can be seen from the Climategate white wash, the government in the UK is also involved.

  111. tonyb says:
    September 7, 2010 at 4:08 pm

    Thanks for the additions! Now you’ll know better than to submit a “raw” dataset story to anyone! ;)

    Good work!

  112. Justa Joe says:
    September 7, 2010 at 1:35 pm

    GeoFlynx says:
    September 7, 2010 at 9:55 am
    “…Championing the continued dumping of some 30 billion tons of fossil CO2 into the Earth’s atmosphere …”

    Excuse me as I’m unimpressed….

    Funny how the 96 -97% of natural CO2 is innocent as the wind driven snow while so called man made CO2 is of the devil and enough to throw the whole world’s climate out of whack.
    ________________________________________________________________________
    Yes and isn’t it interesting how the establishment scientists always neglect the much higher CO2 was in the geologic past. They neglect the fact commercial greenhouses have found plants much prefer 1000ppm of CO2 thanks to their genetic history. Given that 180ppm is the lower threshold, below which we kill off most of the planet, I for one are very glad the earth did not continue sequestering the available CO2. I am glad mankind is returning much needed carbon to the life cycle. After all we and all the plants and animals are made of carbon water but everyone seems to forget that.

    Instead of vilifying skeptics people should thank us for keeping idiots from sequestering a much needed element – carbon.

    Please do not bring up the CO2 in ice cores, I have read:
    Segalstad, T. V. 1998: Carbon cycle modelling and the residence time of natural and anthropogenic atmospheric CO2: on the construction of the “Greenhouse Effect Global Warming” dogma. In Bate, R. (Ed.): Global warming: the continuing debate. ESEF, Cambridge, U.K. (ISBN 0952773422), pp. 184-219.
    http://www.co2web.info/ESEF3VO2.pdf

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

  114. John Shade (10:06): You mentioned an agency called Futerra. I never heard of them before, but with a little digging you can find links to a vast, vast, green advocacy industry. A few examples: Sandbag (an AGW ‘campaigning organization), Education Action International, the Refugee Council, Friends of the Earth, Stop Climate Chaos, the UN Sustainable Lifestyles Taskforce, Tomorrow’s Company (an ‘agenda-setting think and do tank’), Green Energy Scheme, Climate Care, etc etc etc.

    Question: Do these people do any work? Next question: Where does all the money come from to feed this army of windbags?

    Or, approach the question from the opposite direction: With all these thousands of educated and intelligent people occupying these NGO non-jobs, is it any surprise that they latch on to a non-problem like Global Warming and develop it with sophisticated propaganda skills? We never ‘ad all this palaver when the grandparents of these chatterboxes worked in the docks and steelworks!

  115. Mike Roddy says:
    September 7, 2010 at 2:58 pm
    …Here’s a good summary of what the future really looks like, from a comprehensive analysis done at MIT:

    http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2009/roulette-0519.html

    REPLY: readers, Mike Roddy’s MO is a “drive by troll”. His history is that he posts potshots like this, then runs from debate. My advice is that you simply ignore him – Anthony
    ______________________________________________________
    Actually I thought a glance at the article about MIT’s “revised model” was pretty funny. When you quickly glance at it you see what looks like a roulette wheel in the upper right corner, no doubt representing their “model”

    Do they throw darts at it, spin it or do a “pin the tail on the donkey”? I figure any of those three options are as accurate as their “new improved” computer model.

    REPLY: yeah we covered that here: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/10/02/wheel-of-silly/

    All the more reason to ignore Mike Roddy – Anthony

  116. Philip Thomas says:
    September 7, 2010 at 12:28 pm

    I cannot help thinking that this article, while dismissive of much of the GW propaganda, was written just to try and exonerate the scientists and blame somebody else…..
    ___________________________________________________
    Actually given the climategate e-mails and the slick hype, I see it as collusion and a well orchestrated media campaign.

    Here are the most obvious examples:
    Consider Real Climate
    “It should be foremost on the minds of many that the RealClimate.org webserver domain is funded by Fenton Communications, an eco media group.” https://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/20/a-telling-omission-by-real-climate/

    Consider Wikipedia
    “The editor who takes issue with this event writes:

    On Sunday night, I went to the William Connolley wiki page and entered:

    Additional criticism appeared on December 19, 2009, in nationalpost.com, as “How Wikipedia’s green doctor rewrote 5,428 climate articles.” This alleges that Connolley removed more than 500 wiki articles of which he disapproved; that he published inaccurate information on the controversial “hockey stick” graph; that he specifically opposed scientists from the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics.”

    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/22/william-connolley-and-wikipedia-turborevisionism/

    The scientist were all part of the slick media hype because they provided the fuel as well as crossed the line between science and advocacy. My first post was only to show that there was a professionally organized media campaign and not to let the scientists off the hook. They are guilty as He!! and I have no sympathy for them. If you want to look at yourself in the mirror without cringing you do not compromise your scientific integrity. As a scientist I have walked from more than one job for just that reason.

  117. latitude says: “. . . the sea is presently about a 1/2 mile away.”
    September 7, 2010 at 3:24 pm

    The report you cite is from 2006 and seems to be just someone’s quick estimate.

    52.861259, -4.110437
    Use Google Earth. Go to the above Lat./Long.
    The Google image shows a date of March 5, 2006.
    Use the ruler – make a direct line to the thin ‘almost white’ or dry beach.
    I went to the dark/white divide, probably the recent tide line.

    0.61 miles or 1 km.

    However, as I doubt this has much to do with sea level rise (or fall) it is of little importance in the great cosmic question – “Are we all going to drown?”

    Repeat this: John F. Hultquist says at 2:42 pm

  118. barry woods says:

    “Futerra and The UK Department for Environment published the Rules of the Game on 7 March 2005” which included the term “Climate Change Deniers”.

    related?

    21 March 2005: Independent: David Nicholson-Lord: The biggest challenge of our time
    When the definitive history of climate change is written, it may well include a chapter on denial. A new study from the Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) shows that while people acknowledge the threat posed by climate change, they tend to see it as remote – a problem for the developing world, for future generations, for industry and Government rather than individuals. ..
    Last month, following a report from the communications consultancy Futerra, Defra announced a £12m climate communications initiative aimed at what Margaret Beckett, the secretary of state, called engaging people “close to home”. …
    http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/the-biggest-challenge-of-our-time-529294.html

    another of the Independent newspaper’s CAGW zealots, Johann Hari, had the following published in UK Independent and the US Seattle Post-Intelligencer just weeks later. of course, no-one – sceptic or otherwise – doubts the climate changes but asking/demanding the scientists and media to stop using this UN-sanctioned false equivalent for CAGW has failed to date. btw, if anyone has evidence of the use of “climate change deniers” earlier than Futerra and the articles here, please post it.

    24 April 2005: UK Independent: Johann Hari: The shame of the climate change deniers
    More than 10,000 reputable scientists believe in man-made global warming; seven doubt it
    The climate-change deniers are rapidly ending up with as much intellectual credibility as creationists and Flat Earthers. Indeed, given that 25,000 people died in Europe in the 2003 heatwave caused by anthropogenic climate change, given that the genocide unfolding in Darfur has been exacerbated by the stresses of climate change, given that Bangladesh may disappear beneath the rising seas in the next century, they are nudging close to having the moral credibility of Holocaust deniers. They are denying the reality of a force that – unless we change the way we live pretty fast – will kill millions.
    http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/johann-hari/the-shame-of-the-climatechange-deniers-508762.html

    same story, different headline:

    29 May 2005: Seattle Post-Intelligencer: Johann Hari: Global warming? A small few non-believers say no
    http://www.seattlepi.com/opinion/226175_climate29.html

  119. Tony B., Thanks for stepping into this. Your extensive reading is obvious and the links and references are outstanding.

  120. I was on Banks Isl and, Northwest Territories two summers ago. I`m a geologist, so wandering the beaches of the Arctic I observed that the 3 to 5 m high, eroding cliffs of silt, mud and (lesser amounts) sand were offshore deposits, deltaic in origin but truncated at a point more seaward than landward. The deposits result from stream-fed erosion and washing of the interior of the island and post-date the loss of glacial ice. I asked a couple of government geologists studying exposed, ancient permafrost beds about this and they explained that work has suggested that the entire Banks Island (i.e. regional Arctic) is now 26m higher than it was during the end of the ice age. In this area the ice age ended something like 8 or 10, 000 years ago. The land has risen a minimum of 26 m since then, and is actually rising. This rise was clear to me when I drove the Dempster Highway to Inuvik (a 700 km dirt road) that hit the Mackenzie River about 125 km south of its Arctic terminus, but it was already a delta. You can get lost in the deltaic tributaries 125km from the ocean. The delta has infilled 125km since the Arctic Ocean became ice-free (although permafrost still underlies its entire length). This is a classic transgressiver shoreline, created this time not by sediment load overwheming the coastline, but by the rise of the northern continent.

    Last summer I was on the shores of Hudson Bay, at Churchill. Hudson Bay is still rising, and causing, to the south, the growth of Lake Winnipeg as a flexure exists between Hudson Bay and Lake Winnipeg. Lake Winnipeg is about 4X the size it was 7000 years ago as a result. And if you want to find paleo-Inuit campspots of 4000 years ago, you have to go 100 km inland.

    We hear of the Arctic being inundated by rising sea levels. It will have to do so in a hurry to move faster than the land, and even at that we will be way above what it was a few thousand years ago. The warmists who believe in a static planet must have aproblem with the northern part of our continent.

    This rising sea level business is another project for hair-splitters, statisticians and computer models. None of which is a warmist, come to think of it.

  121. Perhaps the repair kit shown at the top of the page should include a number of special McShane and Wyner angle section inserts…

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

  123. Maybe next time I drop by the responses to my post will include legitimate scientific rebuttals of the MIT study, not descriptions of the “roulette wheel” or references to my unproduced screenplay. Or, maybe not.

    REPLY: Maybe next time you’ll post something substantial and drop the snark in your drive by trolling. So far your MO doesn’t lend itself to that happening though. – Anthony

  124. D Caldwell says: September 7, 2010 at 4:11 pm
    “All very interesting, but despite the volume of “peer reviewed” papers, the (amazingly consistent) conclusions are still speculative in nature”

    I am unsure why “peer reviewed” deserves its double quotes. Anybody is free to examine the papers in question and, if found deficient, publish accordingly. “Amazingly consistent” is also a bit of a stretch. The papers, published across many decades, cover a range of estimates from +0.1C to +9.6C. Each one has its deficiencies to be sure, but in aggregate they send a coherent message. Every single paper shows a positive response of temperature to CO2 increase. What is the chance that that all these positive responses have happened by random coincidence? What is that chance that the direction lines up with the known physical properties of CO2?

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

  126. Ammonite says:

    “Every single paper shows a positive response of temperature to CO2 increase.”

    Stand and deliver. Produce every single paper.

    While we’re waiting, folks can click here to see that rises in temperature always precede rises in CO2 over the past 400,000 years.

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

  128. The Cinque Ports along the South East Coast of England, were originated during Henry ll reign in the 12th. Century, being first mentioned in the Royal Charter of 1155.
    They were started with five ports: Dover, Sandwich, New Romney, Hythe and Hastings, originally to provide the Crown with a “ships service” of 57 ships, each with a crew of 21 men and a boy, for 15 days each year.
    The main five Cinque Ports (pronounced SINK, not SANK) weren’t always able to provide the needs of the King, so two more main ports were added – Rye and Winchelsea
    The Cinque Ports reached the peak of their powers in the 13th Century, acting on many occasions for the King, but earning some disgrace by their acts of robbery, pillage and smuggling.
    The cause of their decline however, was due to the coastline changes that were taking place; some ports were no longer navigable and in some cases actually landlocked.
    Dover is now the only Head Port to retain an important Harbour. Much of Hastings was in the 13th century washed away by the sea.
    New Romney is now about a mile and a half from the seafront
    Hythe is still on the coast. However, although it is beside a broad bay, its natural harbour has been removed by centuries of silting.
    Sandwich is now 3 km (2 miles) from the sea and no longer a port.
    Rye stands approximately two miles from the open sea.
    Winchelsea retains its medieval setting on a hill surrounded by largely empty marsh

  129. Ammonite,
    It is the perception of some (including me) that the peer review process is not working as it should in the climate science community. Most papers are from a relative few in the “club” who review each other’s work and, to put it nicely, are very “mutually supportive”. There is also evidence in certain e-mail traffic that they try to exclude those with whom they disagree from publishing.

    You said, “…but in aggregate they send a coherent message. Every single paper shows a positive response of temperature to CO2 increase.”

    Yes, yes, I am aware of the great number of papers in support of CO2 warming and a sensitive climate, but try to remember that good science is not a matter of a consensus of opinion. There have been many times in the past when the majority have been wrong and a small minority were eventually proved correct.

    Consensus is not scientific proof and the results of computer simulations are not the same as actual observed data.

  130. A rant.

    Forcing as used in climate “science” is not a physics term.
    Force in physics is clearly and well defined:

    F=ma where m is the mass and a is the acceleration a body undergoes when interacting.

    As a verb in physics it has no defined meaning .

    In everyday language, force and forcing has many meanings, and climate “science” is using an ad hoc definition, “anything that changes climate is a forcing”, and mainly with units of energy per second.

    The units are wrong too.

    Force=mdv/dt units: mass velocity/time
    forcing= d(1/2*mv^2)/dt units:mass (velocity squared)/time

    Some forcing broke the icons.

    It is bad to utilize confusing terminology, unless one wants to confuse. The terminology “force” carries with it a number of physical consequences that by no means are provable for “forcing”.

    rant/off

  131. Does the apparatus to correct broken sticks work for floorball sticks, too? I (or my co-players, to be more precise) have already broken two… There could be at least some application of demagogic Mannian attempts to fix the unfixable. :-)

    Apologies for having played this left-wing sport. ;-)

  132. @Anna V. Please please please rant like that some more 8-)

    Every time I hear “forcing” used my skin crawls. It just ISN’T a term of science. It has no defined units and it just not “real”. It’s mush for “I want to believe things will be moved by the animal spirits”…

    Very early on, I learned from my chemistry teacher, Mr. McGuire, to solve the units first, and only then do the arithmetic. If you don’t have the units right, the arithmetic is just a fools errand resulting in a trash answer. And with the use of unit-less “forcing” every answer must be trash. If you can’t do the physics in proper physics units, then your approach is just dreams and fantasy.

    I am very happy to hear a kindred spirit with the same belief about this “sand in the teeth”…

  133. Verity Jones and E.M Smith

    We seem to be the exception. Look at the last entry in wattsup

    It is forcing forcing forcing all the way.

    Yes, I get itchy and break out in hives with all this forcing terminology, which means I cannot judge the merits of the article :( . Merits there may be, as there were merits in the calculations of epicycles when principles and units were fuzzy long ago.

  134. D Caldwell says: September 7, 2010 at 9:47 pm
    “…good science is not a matter of a consensus of opinion… Consensus is not scientific proof and the results of computer simulations are not the same as actual observed data.

    Ok D, apologies if I have belaboured a point with you. I agree that computer simulations of climate represent an ambitious project.

    Consensus has been wrong is not the same as consensus is wrong. If consensus is built upon dogma regardless of contrary evidence you have a point. If consensus is developed through a rigorous examination of evidence by multiple parties it is probably robust. Suppose I were to accept that a tiny cabal of evil scientists had hijacked the entire process in recent years. How should I treat the many paleo papers that pre-date 1980? They still point to the same overall conclusion. As does radiative physics from the turn of the previous century. As does analysis from many disparate fields well removed from East Anglia. It may be worth considering.

  135. I think Thomas has it about right. The NGOs certainly have the motivation to push AGW no matter what – their worldview and funding are at stake – and their media types would have the wherewithal to do that pushing. No doubt some scientists (and journos and politicians) have colluded. No doubt others have seen benefits for themselves, and been happy to go with the flow. Result is distortion and exaggeration, disastrous for all sorts of reasons. Let’s face it: there is only a little doubt that there is some measure of human-caused climate change. Obviously, no one knows quite what this will mean in the future. Even if there really were no human factors at all, natural changes will still create problems for someone, somewhere. On the other hand, the potential results of ambitious reactions to the scare stories as are scary as the stories themselves – and most likely ineffectual. Many people – from all sides of the argument – have suggested that the best thing to aim for is small-scale initiatives that will have benefits irrespective of how things eventually pan out. I think it’s difficult to disagree with this. Trouble is, such a low-key message easily gets lost in the fog created by the spin merchants. In short, darn those NGOs for unleashing a monster (out of a molehill).

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

  137. Don B says:
    September 7, 2010 at 11:55 am

    Rising sea levels translates to shrinking island areas (discounting other variables), which should be measurable during the satellite era. Has anything been published on this?

    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/06/02/tuvalu-and-many-other-south-pacific-islands-are-not-sinking-claims-they-are-due-to-global-warming-driven-sea-level-rise-are-opportunistic/

    For more, click on Categories in the sidebar, then on Sea Level.

  138. HR says:
    September 8, 2010 at 2:21 am
    “If Professor Morner is the “worlds leading sea level expert” he’s hiding the fact well because I don’t see much evidence of a strong publication record.”

    Presumably you were being ironic?

    Even wikipedia acknowledges his publication rcord and expertise despite intervention by William Connely.

    tonyb

  139. AnnaV

    I also fully agree with you and it irritates me too .
    Those distinctions between “forcings” and “feedbacks” only confuse matters more .
    The units are wrong , the concepts feel wrong , the distinctions feel artificial .
    Why those people don’t use a consistent and simple vocabulary that has imposed itself in physics during more than 300 years is beyond me .

    The right vocabulary should speak of internal and external forces and of flows (of energy , momentum , mass) through boundaries .
    Does one talk about gravitational “forcings” and rotational “feedbacks” ? No .
    Neither “forcings” nor “feedbacks” are necessary .

  140. Ammonite says:
    September 7, 2010 at 8:18 pm

    The papers, published across many decades, cover a range of estimates from +0.1C to +9.6C. Each one has its deficiencies to be sure, but in aggregate they send a coherent message. Every single paper shows a positive response of temperature to CO2 increase. What is the chance that that all these positive responses have happened by random coincidence? What is that chance that the direction lines up with the known physical properties of CO2?

    Roy Spencer explains it in his book, The Great Global Warming Blunder. The consensus has mixed up forcings with feedbacks and cause with effect. Here’s a recent WUWT thread on his paper on the matter:
    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/08/28/congratulations-finally-to-spencer-and-braswell-on-getting-their-new-paper-published/

    Suppose I were to accept that a tiny cabal of evil scientists had hijacked the entire process in recent years. How should I treat the many paleo papers that pre-date 1980? They still point to the same overall conclusion. As does radiative physics from the turn of the previous century. As does analysis from many disparate fields well removed from East Anglia.

    Suppose I were to accept that a tiny cabal of evil scientists had hijacked the entire process in recent years.

    “Tiny cabal.” It’s a go-along/get-along mass movement (greenism), with a tiny cabal of zealots at its core. I.e., persons who entered the field of climate science in recent decades tended to do so because they wanted to “make a difference” along the lines of regulating CFCs, acid rain, air pollution in general, and (post 1985 or so) global warming. If that wasn’t their initial motivation, they were indoctrinated in “right thinking” in school. It would never occur to 80% of them to produce anything that might be used to defend any producer of “industrial emissions”; he is their designated Black Hat whom it is their mission to control.

    Their policy-driven mindset is evident from comments they make in private when pressed on the weakness of the scientific case for CAWG: They say (according to Christy, I think it was) things like, “Well, we have to move away from fossil fuels eventually anyway and we need to move to renewables” or “We need to conserve energy and reduce our dependence on foreign oil” or “Shouldn’t we reduce all of mankind’s emissions-impact on the planet?”

    “Evil.” They aren’t cartoon-character villains–that’s a strawman. They’re noble-cause corruptionists.

    How should I treat the many paleo papers that pre-date 1980? They still point to the same overall conclusion.

    Rising temperatures, yes, but not to positive feedbacks (aka climate sensitivity); so they don’t point to the same thing at all.

    As does radiative physics from the turn of the previous century.

    Are you talking 1896 or 1906?

    As does analysis from many disparate fields well removed from East Anglia.

    These analyses are often flawed or unjustified, as has been argued on many skeptic sites. The retreat of glaciers isn’t a phenomenon of recent origin, for instance, and they had retreated even further in earlier warm periods.

  141. The term I was familiar with prior to encountering climatology was “drivers,” not “forcings.” The term was evidently chosen for its emotional impact; i.e., its use is evidence of a propagandistic motivation in “climate science.”

  142. Surely there must be some ocean facing sheer rock cliffs that were marked or staked for tide levels during the great age of exploration? Perhaps Columbus, Magellan, Vespucci etc. I would be stunned to learn that there is not a single reliable mark that has survived somewhere.

    How about the Rock of Gilbraltar? The awesome amount of history that sailed passed it through the ages, did anyone leave anything there remotely useful?

  143. I don’t have links to 1600s, Blade, but there’s a link in this article, Link 20, that shows a sea level marker cut into rock at Port Arthur, Tasmania in 1841.

  144. If the truth be known, scientists are a rather selfish and cowardly lot. They do not take unpopular positions on much of anything. So if it’s ‘popular’ to be green, or warmist, or anti-this, or anti-that, or pro-X, or pro-Y, one should not be surprised to hear a few of the less intelligent ones are on the chicken-dinner circuit with the ultra-liberal elite (and their adoring Hollywood Supper Stars), or that most of the others are hiding in their labs and offices –under a table or desk– and busy doing something nobel-worthy for their Alma Mater and the kids they are trying so hard to brainwash to the “CAUSE”.

  145. Scooper says:
    September 7, 2010 at 9:51 am
    Really interesting article about rises in sea level with a touch of irony. The initial article talks about the misuse of photographs to sex-up a topic and I’m sad to say this is what has happened with your photographs of Harlech Castle. The pictures which you use to explain how far the see is away from the Castle are taken at an angle which points approximately NNW and includes much salt marsh towards the estuary with Mt Snowdon in the background. Facing due West from the Castle is the shortest route to the sea and much closer that suggested by the photographs linked here. It’s still quite a way from the base of castle rock to the sea these days and it must have been been awesome to have seen the whitewashed castle next to the sea when originally constructed.

    Cherry-picked pictures, eh?

    Well give the level of sea level rise in mm that it would take to raise the level to where it was.

  146. I live by the sea half the time, and the coast is rocky.

    There are promontories that show water level marks up 6 meters from where the sea is now. Unfortunately the area is earthquake prone. The last earthquake sank the earth in places a meter or so. How could one disentangle all these? Maybe an older earthquake had raised the land for all I know.

    One thing for sure though, the sea lake side was opened by the Corinthians around 500BC, and a queue was built where the ships could tie . Ships at the time were like boats now. The queue rocks still survive in part of the periphery, and they are still above water . In high tides and wind drives they get covered. One can live with this 2500 year change, earthquakes and all.

  147. Tim Clark

    Please see my reply to scooper at 4.08.

    Looking at my large scale ordnance survey map I would say the sea is getting on for close to three quarters of a mile away, but the exact point would depend on whether the tide is in or out. Its a very big beach.

    When I selected it I thought I was writing an article not judging a photo competition. :)

    tonyb

  148. Tim Clark
    tonyb says:
    September 8, 2010 at 8:03 am
    When I selected it I thought I was writing an article not judging a photo competition. :)

    Scooper is a pretty demanding art critic. I was satiring Scooper quibbling over a few mm. ;~D

  149. Tidal records for Liverpool, UK from 1768 to 1996 can be found here;

    http://www.psmsl.org/data/longrecords/lpool.annual.mhw.fig1.grl

    The site is the UK organisation for ‘The Permanent Service for Mean Sea Level’

    Other interesting info on their main site + links. However, remember the uk is tilting, west up & east down. Looks like they are supplier of data to IPCC. Are there any surveyors out there who have looked at SL changes over time? What adjustments, if any, are made when surveying? The benchmark is located at Newlyn UK and can be seen here;
    http://www.pol.ac.uk/ntslf/tgi/ntobs.html

  150. Roger Knights says: September 8, 2010 at 4:00 am
    Roy Spencer explains it in his book, The Great Global Warming Blunder. The consensus has mixed up forcings with feedbacks and cause with effect.

    Hi Roger. I can only hope that Dr Spencer is correct and that climate sensitivty is at the lower end of the scale. I have my doubts. This post is about unfairly representing the significance and meaning of scientific endeavour. As his most recent paper (2010) is relatively new, lets await some critical scrutiny before throwing out the scores of papers before it.

    Skepticism needs to cut both ways. I oppose the use of routine bear footage to falsely portray environmental “catastrophe” too. From a previous post I spoke of the “boundary between environmental hyperbole and scientifically informed judgment”. It interests me that Thomas Fuller states “their population is rising–and would be rising even more quickly if we quit shooting them, that being the major cause of polar bear deaths” without any attempt at attribution. The reader is left to assume that AGW is not a factor in their survival, but perhaps the bear population is rising because of recently enforced hunting restrictions, or better census methods are counting more of a stable population, or more are observed near human habitat as food sources elsewhere decline? I wouldn’t know and I wouldn’t assume any of the above without checking a number of sources first.

  151. Thanks to anna v, Tom Vonk, E.M.Smith and Verity Jones about the use of the words forcing and feedback. The warmist scientists prefer people to accept this “scientific” terminology because it actually captures you into their way of thinking. I thought I would add my thoughts on a related issue – the global average temperature.

    There are many locations where warming has not occurred. These are constantly reported for America, UK and in New Zealand where I live. Chiefio can probably quote hundreds. I am told by warmistas that I cannot look at individual sites and must look at the global average data. This is what I want to take issue with. Why must I only look at the global average?

    If CO2 is a well mixed gas, and IPCC tells me it is, then if the physics are correct every site must show warming without exception. How can CO2 heat some locations and not others. We are not talking weather here because it is the long term record for these sites – in other words the site specific climate.

    Gravity works at that site. If CO2 “forcing” is a physical law, it would also work at that site. So if there are sites of cooling (or constant temperature), what is the physical law operating there? If scientists cannot explain this, then they actually don’t know what they are talking about. And I think skeptics are letting the “climate scientists” off too lightly by agreeing to an average of 1.2F per doubling without identifying the laws which dictate this and the exceptions. If the explanation is to be sulphates (or something similar) which cancel out warming, then I expect research to be undertaken to establish the local source of sulphates at those sites which are not availbale at other sites.

    I compare this to a hospital ward which asks nurses to report only on the average temperature of the patients as being more important than reporting those over 100F. Reporting the average conceals the important data.

    Alan

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

  153. Beth Cooper [September 8, 2010 at 5:14 am] says:

    I don’t have links to 1600s, Blade, but there’s a link in this article, Link 20, that shows a sea level marker cut into rock at Port Arthur, Tasmania in 1841.

    Philip Thomas [September 8, 2010 at 5:17 am] says:

    This one is in Tasmania
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/467007.stm

    Yeah, I’ve seen the John Daly research into these and it is excellent. What I think we need though is something pre-dating the LIA if possible like Columbus/Magellan, but failing that maybe as recent as Henry Hudson. Stakes from this era could be compared with the LIA-ending Tasmania markers. This way we just might be able to see both a small sea level fall then rise.

    It’s just intuition really, but my gut feeling is that sea level would have been a tad higher in the 15th/16th centuries. This timeframe precedes all the know cooler ‘bottoms’ of the LIA era. So finding a surviving tidal guage remnant from one of those most-reputable explorers would carry a lot of credibility. Something older from the actual MWP of course would be better, but worldwide datapoints probably just won’t be found :-(

  154. Mike Roddy says:
    September 7, 2010 at 2:58 pm

    From his Link: Climate change odds much worse than thought

    I have always wondered what the odds on thought are. Anyone give me 2-1?

  155. Blade

    The period 1560 to 1600 was a particularly cold era (perhaps the coldest in the pre instrumental records) after perhaps nearly a century of mostly rising temperatures following the climate deterioration from around 1300 to 1450. There were then notable periods of cold from 1560 until around 1700 when the LIA semed to abruptly end. This does not mean to say there were no further cold episodes-there certainly were-but generally there has been a rising trend of temperature since 1698.

    Again that does not mean EVERYWHERE warmed. Even today we have some areas of the world thatr are cooling as illustrated in our article last week

    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/09/04/in-search-of-cooling-trends/

    Intriguingly both Columbus and Magellan were explorers during this very period of known warmth (mid 1400’s onwards) during what we mistakenly believe was an uninterrupted period of cold. Whether it was warm for long enough for sea levels to cut new bench marks I couldnt comment.

    tonyb

  156. PhilJourdan says:
    September 9, 2010 at 6:27 am

    Mike Roddy says:
    September 7, 2010 at 2:58 pm

    From his Link: Climate change odds much worse than thought

    I have always wondered what the odds on thought are. Anyone give me 2-1?

    There’s real-money betting available on the topic at https://www.intrade.com

  157. AllenC,

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

  158. AllenC,

    You’re quibbling about GeoFlynx’s figure of 30 billion tonnes of CO2 emitted into the atmosphere annually? Ok It is a little on the high side. It should be 29.3 billion tonnes.

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

Comments are closed.