December 3rd, 2010 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.
YR MON GLOBE NH SH TROPICS
2010 1 0.648 0.860 0.436 0.681
2010 2 0.603 0.720 0.486 0.791
2010 3 0.653 0.850 0.455 0.726
2010 4 0.501 0.799 0.203 0.633
2010 5 0.534 0.775 0.292 0.708
2010 6 0.436 0.550 0.323 0.476
2010 7 0.489 0.635 0.342 0.420
2010 8 0.511 0.674 0.347 0.364
2010 9 0.603 0.555 0.650 0.285
2010 10 0.426 0.370 0.482 0.156
2010 11 0.381 0.513 0.249 -0.071
The tropical tropospheric temperature anomaly for November continued its cooling trend, finally falling below the 1979-1998 average…but the global anomaly is still falling slowly:+0.38 deg. C for October, 2010.
2010 is now in a dead heat with 1998 for warmest year.
Read the rest of the story here.
is there any explanation for the step up from 1999 to 2001?
Dec. 1998 Global = +0.277
peterhodges says: “is there any explanation for the step up from 1999 to 2001?”
It’s actually a step up in the North Hemisphere (north of 20N) after the 1997/98 El Nino. I used RSS TLT anomaly data in this June 2009 post because the Hovmoller provided by RSS helps the illustration of the step.
http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2009/06/rss-msu-tlt-time-latitude-plots.html
Coincidentally, I’m working on a post to help explain it. I’m trying to have done in a few days.
And for those interested, I’ve posted the preliminary (Reynolds OI.v2) Global and NINO3.4 SST anomalies for November:
http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2010/11/preliminary-november-2010-sst-anomaly.html
Global SST anomalies dropped about 0.04 deg C.
Not really sure how it matters if 2010 is even 0.01C Warmer than 1998 – surely that shows temperatures have not risen +0.25 over the past 12 years as was supposed to happen? Even if 2010 pips 1998 slightly there has still been no new global warming since 1998. Here on our Hog farm in Devon we are constantly told in this country that we have the warming, but the UK seems to be cooling. This is the 2nd year in a row where my Hogs are are found frozen in the fields and it is so hard for us simple folk in Devon to make a living, never mind understand this complex science which is beyond the education standards in this remote part of the UK.
Kinda O/T,
The deepest point in the ocean, the Mariana Trench (6.8 miles deep) is located near the lower left of the globe as shown, I.E. the oceans greatest depth can not even be depicted at the scale of this view.
Nor the depth our atmosphere.
It makes me wonder.
Peter Hearnden 4:29
In this case, you perhaps understand more about climate from experience than those who may claim to have mastered this complex science. You express more wisdom about the meaning of a fraction of a degree as compared to your hogs freezing to death – you at least have empirical knowledge instead of a worthless mathematical model that says your hogs should be burning up.
The 1997-98 El Nino peaked at +2.80C while the 2009-10 El Nino peaked at +1.82C. The La Ninas which followed these El Ninos have developed in a very similar manner and the AMO seems to have also followed a very similar pattern in the two years following.
So, we should have expected 1998 to be about 0.07C higher than 2010 (just based on the difference in the two El Ninos with no net difference from other ocean cycles). In addition, the CO2-based climate models have also predicted we should have seen about 0.24C of warming in the past twelve years.
Well, 2010 looks like it will be about -0.011C less than 1998 (in UAH). So, we got 0.06C of warming versus the 0.24C the CO2-based climate models expected.
And don’t forget there is a 3 month lag from the La Nina which is yet to come. Temps are still going down for at least the next 3 to 9 months. Another 0.30C of decline to go perhaps.
How is the UHI effect handled in this data?
Well, it took 12 years, but by golly we found some global warming. Now watch those global anomalies anomolize themselves through the roof!
No way is 2010 warmer. Maybe the best measure is crop production. A truer picture of climate.
Peter Hearnden -yep pard, that says it all. I’m the son of a NE Oregon Cowboy
who cried at the sight of a newborn Calf frozen to the earth in a cold spring.
All the warmist theology in the world has no idea of cycles and life on the
farm/ranch…
So when is the CAGW going to start? I thought the atmospheric CO2 concentrations were well above the limits needed to start CAGW. In the pipeline?
Peter Hearnden says:
December 3, 2010 at 4:29 pm
“Not really sure how it matters if 2010 is even 0.01C Warmer than 1998 – surely that shows temperatures have not risen +0.25 over the past 12 years as was supposed to happen? Even if 2010 pips 1998 slightly there has still been no new global warming since 1998. Here on our Hog farm in Devon we are constantly told in this country that we have the warming, but the UK seems to be cooling. This is the 2nd year in a row where my Hogs are are found frozen in the fields and it is so hard for us simple folk in Devon to make a living”, never mind understand this complex science which is beyond the education standards in this remote part of the UK.”
Your admission is honest.
It is clear that you don’t understand the difference between climate and weather. The year 1998 is notable for the most powerful El Nino in modern times. El Nino events have a powerful effect on global average temperatures. So the elevated global temperature of 1998 is weather noise rather than the indication of a peak in a warming trend.
The UK is a tiny part of the globe. The weather in the UK is not an indicator of a global trend. It can be cool in the UK and at the same time, a global average high temperature can occur.
If you recognize that you are “simple folk” , you should listen to what the climate scientists have to say, rather than look at the weather in your own backyard, as the basis for your conclusions.opinion on global warming.
Bill Illis @ http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/12/03/nov-2010-uah-global-temperature-update-0-38-deg-c/#comment-543157 says:
The 1997-98 El Nino peaked at +2.80C while the 2009-10 El Nino peaked at +1.82C. The La Ninas which followed these El Ninos have developed in a very similar manner and the AMO seems to have also followed a very similar pattern in the two years following.
So, we should have expected 1998 to be about 0.07C higher than 2010 (just based on the difference in the two El Ninos with no net difference from other ocean cycles). In addition, the CO2-based climate models have also predicted we should have seen about 0.24C of warming in the past twelve years.
This is all very strange. I was led to believe, in no small part thanks to NASA climatology and other reports that natural processes were holding down temperatures, hence the lack of statistically significant warming. But here, you seem to be saying that there has been no statistically significant warming, and that natural processes have cooled by 1C over the same time period. Doesn’t that mean that there has been 0.75C of warming?
One thing is for sure: the warmest year will be declared, even if they have to redefine what “warmest” is.
Mark my words.
the global anomaly is still falling slowly:+0.38 deg. C for October, 2010.
This evidently should read “for November”. Dr. Spencer has corrected it on his site.
Way back when (a long time ago) when I was a physics grad., I would have deservedly got an “F” for showing results without discussing the measurement errors.
Meanwhile here in Germany we’re having the third hard winter in a row with the temperatures in some places already heading down towards -20C overnight.
I guess if this was the third hot *summer* in a row, the climatologists would be all over the press pushing their narratives.
We can rest assured that any handling of the UHI effect served to accentuate it. The data “handlers” are incapable of principle of lowering values that are less than 50 years old. First off, properly adjusting for UHI is against their religion. Second, everybody knows that you can only add to recent data and subtract from old data. I think they teach that in grade school or such.
There’s also December yet to include. We’ll see . . .
Since so many have experienced long cold spells this year, I assume the global heat has to be explained by a very warm year in largely uninhabited areas, which is plausible since these areas are big. But this makes AGW harder to sell as it makes AGW a kind of “god of gaps”, i.e. warming is happening where hardly anyone around to witness it.
Why is it a 13 month running average doesn’t end at the same point as the data, the average should be from the present to 13 months ago.
Just looking at the graph it looks like a much shorter running average than 13 months, it just appears to be a smoothed version of the raw data over a much shorter period than 13 months, maybe 3 months tops.
1930s was much much warmer, problem is, no satelites. Who cares anyway, warmer is better we should be throwing a party
Eadler, you should put the term “climate scientists” in inverted commas, as I have done here, or use this alternative: ‘climate scientists’.
‘Climate science’ has morphed into a huge self-servicing bureaucracy, where data distortions/manipulations are the bedrock on which the grant and funding troughs are built.
It is a cult in which the concept of the Earth’s natural climate cycles are a heresy.
In the world of real science, today’s normal practices of ‘climate scientists’ would not be tolerated.
Sorry you guys are having a cold nasty winter. We are having a fantastic spring in New Zealand right now with predictions of a beautiful warm La Nina summer to follow.
eadler says:
December 3, 2010 at 8:27 pm
If you recognize that you are “simple folk” , you should listen to what the climate scientists have to say, rather than look at the weather in your own backyard, as the basis for your conclusions.opinion on global warming.
Being a mongrel American, I’m not used to hearing language like that, except maybe occasionally around MIT. In stark contrast to the AGW elite, Peter Hearnden (December 3, 2010 at 4:29 pm) is doing something valuable and important for other people on this planet. There is deep wisdom in those who work in the real world. People locked in ivory towers never get out to see it. Perhaps you should get out more often.
Sorry, numbers like 0.38 degrees just get my BS meter going. So would 0.37 or 0.39.
Confounders, measurement errors etc etc. Nothing to see here, folks.
Why does it matter if 2010 is measured insignificantly warmer than 1998?
James Hansen, GISS, NASA, Global Temperature Trends: 2007 Summation
James Hansen, GISS, NASA, Global Temperature Trends: 2008 Annual Summation, 16 Dec 2008 (No summation was not made in 2009)
Dave F (8:51 pm)
‘….This is all very strange. I was led to believe, in no small part thanks to NASA climatology and other reports that natural processes were holding down temperatures, hence the lack of statistically significant warming….’
According to ‘IPCC Science’, no natural processes can hold down temperatures because the ever increasing anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentration (which is likely to continue indefinitely) is the overwhelming climate forcing factor (ref. IPCC report AR4).
They dismiss all other factors including solar:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/bb/Radiative-forcings.svg
To Peter Hearnden December 3, 2010 at 4:29 pm
The United Kingdom IS cooling down. If you take a running 10-year average of temps then you can see it. 2008 was cooler by 0.49 C and 2009 was cooler by 0.30 C. 2010 will also be cooler. There’s a guy doing a watch on it here: http://www.scalgon.co.uk/page10.html
eadler says: December 3, 2010 at 8:27 pm “The year 1998 is notable for the most powerful El Nino in modern times. El Nino events have a powerful effect on global average temperatures.”
I’m a simple farm lad too. Can you expertly explain to me
(a) what was the source of the global extra temperatures attributed to 1998? Please, do not say that it was El Nino, and a good El Nino will do that.
(b) did the higher temperatures start in one location and spread, or was there lockstep all over the globe?
(c) are there weather records that do not show the temperature anomaly of 1998? If so, how did they avoid it?
(d) where did the excess 1998 temperature anomaly go once it headed for 1999?
(e) as you describe the 1998 effect as global, was it an event confined within the outer limits of the atmosphere (closed system) or was it related to events outside the atmosphere, such as TSI?
So far as my work has taken me, I can provide tentative answers.
(a) the extra high temperatures came from the movement of global entities (such as warm water currents) closer to the temperature recording devices.
(b) the temperature was quite spotty in distribution. There is faint evidence that it moved from the Equator polewards, but there is a lot of noise in this effect. One cannot discount that there was a statistical freak component that caused more global stations to show warming than in other years, thus raising the global average.
(c) There are many stations that showed little or no 1998 high average temperatures (try Antarctica). Some show cooling cf. adjacent years.
(d) where did the inferred extra heat go? Perhaps in a greater incidence of cold ocean upwellings than in 1998. Remember that the solid earth a few metres below surface would not have shown detectable temperature change and that the oceans did not show a confident change before during or after 1998 at depths below 300m.
(e) the system shows more evidence of being closed and no evidence consistent with an annual global effect from GHG.
On top of all this, you have to remember that we are looking at global variations within a large enclosing error envelope, so there is a probability that the effect was simply noise. There is inadequate sampling of 90% of the ocean mass.
@Eadler
Yes, and if all the simple folk around the globe all felt that (in their humble experience) the globe was not warming up, while the illustrious climate scientists keep on insisting it is, would you still keep bleating that we should trust the scientists? Climate is merely the longer term aggregation of weather. Thus, while short term weather may not be climate, climate certainly is weather, averaged out. The mantra that weather and climate are not to be confused is a misleading half-truth. And scientists get it wrong all the time in all fields, even when they are not manipulating the data. So do kindly get off your high horse.
eadler says:
If recognize that you are “simple folk” , you should listen to what the climate scientists have to say, rather than look at the weather in your own backyard, as the basis for your conclusions.opinion on global warming.
Sadly these Climate scientists should be putting their head out of the window sometimes to check their models are reflecting real life and not pre conceived results.
You sound less than simple yourself.
So what! 0.38C is well inside the error bands. Temperature measurements in the SH are not as well covered as the NH, and even those miss out on the coldest areas, so any idea that this data set is both totally correct or showing any tipping point is ludicrous.
There are for more important problems on this planet than to work towards some goal that is not possible. Leave geoengineering alone and find something useful to do.
I think “the warmist year ever” will be about right.
In 1976 the UK experienced a very hot dry summer. We had two similar summers in the 1990s which suggested that our climate was warming up but in the past 10 years our summers have been average or poor. We have also had a couple of winters more like those of the 1950s and 1960s and if the weather of the past 10 days or so is any indication this one will also be a severe one.
Of course, as one commentator pointed out, Britain is only a tiny part of the global land mass but if the world really is warming up it should not be difficult for scientists to say exactly where this warming is taking place.
Well then, where is it? We have heard a lot about polar ice melting. Is all the warming taking place there? If not, where are the other places?
eadler says: December 3, 2010 at 8:27 pm
If you recognize that you are “simple folk” , you should listen to what the climate scientists have to say, rather than look at the weather in your own backyard, as the basis for your conclusions.opinion on global warming.
–
That’s where the Greenland Vikings went wrong. If they’d have listened to the climate modelling experts a thousand years ago, they’d have known not to farm under glaciers.
Peter Miller says,
“In the world of real science, today’s normal practices of ‘climate scientists’ would not be tolerated.”
That’s because most of the people working in climate science are not real scientists (i.e. chemists and physicists who study pure fundamental science) – instead the climate ‘scientists’ have first degrees in geography and environmental science – subjects I am acutely aware of the lack of firm foundations those studying them have of the fundamentals, having myself an A-level in Geography. Basically geography is an applied science which generally doesn’t do any fundamental research. You learn about chemical weathering processes such as chelation without knowing anything about chemistry or how the reaction happens – a geographer certainly couldn’t have come up with it by themselves. It’s the same with climate science. Physicists do a bit of applied research and start the field of meteorology and write text books on it. Then geographers read those books without understand the fundamental physics, and think they know how to model climate change (i.e. they hear about the Swedish chemist Arrhenius’ experiment with CO2 and think it could drive climate). These people are jokes. And it is these people which fill the UEA CRU department.
“It is clear that you don’t understand the difference between climate and weather. ”
This is a very relevant comment. Over what period does a series of weather events become climate?
If we take a 2000 year period it can be argued that we are in a cooling phase. For instance there is some evidence that in the Northern hemisphere we are cooler than those periods when the Vikings buried their dead in Greenland, when the Romans were growing grapes more northerly than now and of probably not quite as hot as the Medieval warming period. Much is made of the threat of sea level rises, but again, in the UK, we now have towns that were once ports and are now cut off from the sea as sea levels have dropped. Therefore if we get enough warming to bring those sea level rises back to what they were in Medieval times, we would then only be where we were.
The pro carbon scientists seem to be focussing on a very limited time period to support their arguments and some wish to try and prove past events did not occur, e.g. the MWP. The fact that we are not warming as much as the computer models have predicted surely is evidence that the science is far from settled.
@eadler
‘The UK is a tiny part of the globe. The weather in the UK is not an indicator of a global trend.’
Neither is the weather anywhere an indicator of global trends. UK might be a tiny country but the current cold snap reaches from the british isles to eastern siberia across northern China all the way around Alaska and Canada and Greenland and back to Norway. But that is just weather, which of course the heat stroke suffered by the rest of the planet are as well.
‘If you recognize that you are “simple folk” , you should listen to what the climate scientists have to say,’
ROFL, that was what the “simple folk” did, they listened to the Met Office, and look what happened, the religious hippie scientist were wrong yet again.
In Greece we are a the lower part of the globe, contributing to the rise in temperatures. In the astronomical records of Athens, temperatures kept since 1890 the only November that was this warm was in 1926.
It is 30C degrees in Crete, and 23C in the Athens area, with warm dusty winds from Africa. Up north there are floods, but here only cloudy, no rains.
My tangerine tree which still has ripening fruit, is blooming :(.
Adrian Kerton says:
December 4, 2010 at 3:01 am
Some sweeping, simplistic, claims there of very dubious merit and accuracy..wine, is it such a good climate indicator anyway (despite you being probably wrong)? http://www.eh-resources.org/climate1.html
Sea levels? Try discussing your lack of concern with the Dutch for starters.
http://www.wur.nl/UK/newsagenda/archive/news/2008/Second_Delta_Committee_features.htm
http://ec.europa.eu/maritimeaffairs/climate_change/netherlands_en.pdf
“Moreover, the
current standards are out of date and must be raised, the climate is changing
rapidly, the sea level is probably rising faster than has been assumed, and more
extreme variations in river discharge are expected”
http://www.deltacommissie.com/doc/deltareport_full.pdf
150 – 400million people may have reason to more worried than you are within 60 years.
http://www.oecd.org/document/4/0,3343,en_2649_201185_39727650_1_1_1_1,00.html
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/gornitz_04/
As this pretends to be a science website I’d appreciate some supporting evidence, from competent sources to illustrate your points. Thanks.
‘If you recognize that you are “simple folk” , you should listen to what the climate scientists have to say, rather than look at the weather in your own backyard, as the basis for your conclusions.opinion on global warming.’
The arrogance emanating from that sentence is astounding.
Maybe these so called climate scientists should revert back to doing simple science rather than complex mathematical modelling. Basic stuff like checking if actual temperatures match up with satellite and proxy measurements. Or is that too simple and not grand enough?
@eadler
In my experience, arrogance is a very poor substitute for competence.
And the warmist climate “scientists” show plenty of the former. Precious little of the latter.
And the UK may be a tiny country but we pay a lot of AGW scientists salaries…!
2010 UAH Global Temperature of lower atmosphere.
? Lower atmosphere, what elevation? and how do satelites consistently pick the same elevation?
Peter Hearnden says:
December 3, 2010 at 4:29 pm
“hard for us simple folk in Devon to make a living, never mind understand this complex science which is beyond the education standards in this remote part of the UK.”
Never a truer word spoken! The Met office on the outskirts of Exeter and the adjacent eponymous University, are incapable of deciphering the complex science, which is indeed beyond their educational standards.
Yet hubris is a well developed trait amongst the ignorant, and they display it in spadefuls with the baleful prognoses that they feed to the equally ignorant and increasingly venal political classes.
Perhaps it is fitting that Nemesis, a daughter of Oceanus, is approaching, although unfortunately not with the rapidity with which mythologically she was ascribed.
Is there a relationship between Roy Spencer’s satellite temperature numbers and the real weather and temps we experience here on the surface? Seems I have seen discussions in the past that there is a relationship but it is not direct.
I also wonder if some of the claims that this will be the warmest year on record use NASA’s trick of extrapolating surface temps as far as 1200 kilometers, mostly in the polar regions. That is another discussion that has gone around here. I too would like to see error bars or error estimates for all averaged temperatures. Might put things in a little more perspective.
I note that in my own location, the fall temperature average was 2.6 degrees above normal, but it was only the 61st (out of 123) warmest fall. that helps with the perspective too.
Bill Illis says:
December 3, 2010 at 5:03 pm
“…And don’t forget there is a 3 month lag from the La Nina which is yet to come. Temps are still going down for at least the next 3 to 9 months. Another 0.30C of decline to go perhaps.
Thanks for the information, Bill. I agree that temperature will continue to fall, but think it will last much longer that your estimate. Once the ocean starts to cool it takes a lot of sunlight to bring it back up to temperature. Currently our orbit is taking us ever further from the quiet sun and I conjecture that we are going to get more cooling than we’ve seen for over the last century – wrap up warm!
I have 1998 at .535 through November, and 2010 at .526. Dec 98 was coolest of the year, so we need a cold month to not break the record. Fortunately from the looks of AMSU, it looks like we are starting off cold…
Eadler’s attitude to us ‘simple folk’ demonstrates his elitism and arrogance. I have worked with ‘scientists’ who were absolutely flummoxed by the simplest practical demands on their incredibly advanced intelligence and had no right to the enormous self-regard they exhibited, as does Eadler. I have also worked with scientists who were down-to-earth and supremely practical, so to put all of one occupational grouping into the same basket is fallacious thinking in the extreme.
I began my working life grubbing out thistles in Southerly gales at the bottom end of Polynesia with onlythe great Southern Ocean between me and Antarctica, removing wool from dags in Winter-struck, freezing and draughty shearing sheds and milking a relative’s herd of cows in Winter, which entailed being up to my ankles in a thin and icy mix of mud and cow-shit while getting the beasts to the milking shed, so I know the often miserable conditions farmers in so-called temperate climates spend their working lives.
I was a simple countryman once, like Peter Hearnden, and I know it has made me very aware of weather and climate for the balance of my life. Trust a climate scientist? Yeah, right… I trust people who divine the future from examining chook guts, too.
From my calculations, if Dec ’10 is over .394 anomaly, we’ll have a new record….
+0.38 deg. C plus or minus what now?
eadler says:
December 3, 2010 at 8:27 pm
If Hearnden listens to the climate scientists his hogs will be wearing sundresses when they freeze in the fields. I’m sure he will instead rely, as farmers always have, on his personal weather eye and ignore the expensive hullabaloo about climate change. Anyway, I suspect he was taking the mick, in a Devonshire kind of way.
Despite the solar minimum, the decade from 2000 to 2009 has been by far the warmest decade of the modern record. Not sure how anyone would conclude that warming has stopped, based on 1998 being a warm year. As a scientist, my inclination is to look at trends, rather than focusing on outlier years, such as 1998.
Here is an NASA analysis for the decade of 2000-2009.
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/temp-analysis-2009.html
The idea that the earth right now is at the “perfect” temperature is rubbish.
There is not a spot on earth on the equator that is too hot for human beings to live. Life thrives on the equator. Contrast this to the poles.
The “average” temperature of the earth is about 14 C according to the official measurements. However, the minimum temperature at which a human being can survive long term on food alone, without clothing and shelter is 27 C.
That means, on average, the earth is too cold for human beings to survive unless we had developed clothing and fire. Without clothing and fire we would still be living in Africa near the equator.
If you have any doubt about this, go outside where you live today in a bathing suit and see how long you can last. Maybe, in summer you will be OK until the sun goes down. If you life near the equator. Otherwise, without clothing and shelter you will die, no matter how much you eat.
The earth has been much warmer in the past, and we survived with stone age tools. How pitiful are we today if we cannot survive with all our technology.
As others have said, this could be the warmest year in the satellite record, which started in 1979 near the bottom of a cool period. Not impressive.
eadler says:
December 3, 2010 at 8:27 pm
@Peter Hearnden
December 3, 2010 at 4:29 pm
Your admission is honest.
If you recognize that you are “simple folk” , you should listen to what the climate scientists have to say, rather than look at the weather in your own backyard, as the basis for your conclusions.opinion on global warming.
======================================
Eadler,
Your admission is arrogant.
If you recognize (you don’t) that you are part of the CAGW Mass Groupthink Religious Cult, you should listen to what the people who actually are out in the the weather and climate, have to say, rather than rely on flawed model projections, as the basis for your conclusions.opinion [sic] on global warming.
Rely on climate scientists, like the ones at the UK Met, eh, Eadler?
The ones who have caused Britain to get caught with their pants down over several severe winters and the ones who in about 2000 said that snowfalls will become a thing of the past for the UK???
I think Mr. Hearnden’s “back yard” opinion carries more weight than yours ever will, and probably more weight than some climate “scientists” who are stupidly barking up the CO2 tree even as the snow starts to fall around them, turning their paws blue.
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA
anna v says:
December 4, 2010 at 3:34 am
In Greece we are a the lower part of the globe, contributing to the rise in temperatures. In the astronomical records of Athens, temperatures kept since 1890 the only November that was this warm was in 1926.
It is 30C degrees in Crete, and 23C in the Athens area, with warm dusty winds from Africa. Up north there are floods, but here only cloudy, no rains.
My tangerine tree which still has ripening fruit, is blooming :(.
=============================
That huge block which has NW Europe in the icy grip right now, with the jet stream just not migrating, is pumping the subtropical ridge in your part of the world.
Bastardi pointed out a couple of years ago that we were headed into more extremes of climate, where weather systems get locked into place for a longer time, and he was right.
Well for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction, and Bastardi (who is quite good in the long range) is bullish on southern Europe getting into the winter act as time wears on, especially beginning in January and into the spring….so we shall see.
The core of the cold, led by the polar jet, should collapse toward the southeast, getting Greece into some of the action.
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA
eadler says:
December 3, 2010 at 8:27 pm
“have a powerful effect on global average temperatures. So the elevated global temperature of 1998 is weather noise rather than the indication of a peak in a warming trend.”
So the globally high temperature of 2010 must be the same, as it follows an El Nino.
Thanks for clearing this up, eadler, i supposed so. Good to hear a warmist confirming it. Finally we can agree on something.
So, no warming trend. Just a blip.
Eadler, are you referring to the guys who said: “the dog ate/we lost/it’s here somewhere/it takes too long to compile/just say no to requests for” the original raw data? Yes sir. They do seem like trusting folks after all.
Where did my post go?
Lie, Lie, that something remains
The “Satellite-Gate” explains all differences:
http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=6144&linkbox=true&position=2
Steinar Midtskogen says:
December 3, 2010 at 10:23 pm
“Since so many have experienced long cold spells this year, I assume the global heat has to be explained by a very warm year in largely uninhabited areas, which is plausible since these areas are big. ”
…and typically lack thermometers… how very, very convenient…
“Despite the solar minimum, the decade from 2000 to 2009 has been by far the warmest decade of the modern record.”
BillD, why do you (and others like you) think it’s a light switch? Ever heard of thermal inertia of the ocean? We just had 2 STRONG cycles back to back (#22 and #23). That heat went somewhere, and it doesn’t disappear the instant the sun goes to sleep….
savethesharks says:
December 4, 2010 at 7:56 am
“The ones who have caused Britain to get caught with their pants down over several severe winters and the ones who in about 2000 said that snowfalls will become a thing of the past for the UK???”
Is this the BBC report you cite? http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/1951784.stm
The Met office statement made in 2002 that suggested some parts of Scotland could have snow free winters within the next 80years?…Having stressed that they couldn’t be completely confident in those predictions anyway.
Has Peter Hearnden had a Damascene conversion or is someone pretending to be him while writing sensibly?
BillD says:
December 4, 2010 at 7:12 am
“Here is an NASA analysis for the decade of 2000-2009.
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/temp-analysis-2009.html
”
Oh, data adjusted by GISS. Does anyone still take Hansen seriously? Constantly re-adjusting the past to become colder is not science, it’s a technique right out of 1984 to achieve the goals that the activist Hansen wants to achieve.
For a southeast USA who just had one of the hottest summers ever, check out the “rubber band effect” in action in the mountains (you west coast people would call them hills) of North Carolina.
http://www.highcountrywebcams.com/webcameras_BeechSlopeside2.htm
http://www.highcountrywebcams.com/webcameras_Beech_Charlies.htm
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA
Do we talk about the average day and night temperature or only average day temperature. This because we know that in the cities it´s much warmer during the night than in the countryside. Because our cities are getting bigger average temperatures are getting higher. This has nothing to do with CO2.
example De Bilt Netherlands
http://www.klimaatfraude.info/images/de-bilt.gif
http://www.klimaatfraude.info/ is like Watts Up With That but in Dutch
2010 is now in a dead heat with 1998 for warmest year.
Temperature went slightly up at the end of 1998. Temperature should continue down at the end of 2010. 2010 should end up slightly cooler than 1998.
end of 1998:
http://img401.imageshack.us/img401/2496/uahlt1979thrunov10cropz.gif
Tim Williams says:
December 4, 2010 at 9:02 am
Is this the BBC report you cite? http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/1951784.stm
The Met office statement made in 2002 that suggested some parts of Scotland could have snow free winters within the next 80years?…Having stressed that they couldn’t be completely confident in those predictions anyway.
===================================
Thanks for that. Hadley / East Anglia / Met at their finest LOL.
As far as confidence….that last quote by Professor Curran seemed pretty confident to me.
Professor Curran to the BBC in 2002:
“Some people say they see the climate changing already. But certainly within the next 10-20 years we are really going to start noticing it.”
I’m sorry, but cue the Charlie Brown laugh: HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.
Mother Nature and her poetic justice.
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA
Pamela Gray says: “Where did my post go?”
Errrr. I hate when that happens.
[Reply: It is frustrating. Pamela’s post was in the spam folder. Rescued & posted now. WordPress doesn’t disclose the words/phrases that cause this action. They only say that multiple links put a post into spam. ~dbs, mod.]
eadler says: December 3, 2010 at 8:27 pm
“If you recognize that you are “simple folk” , you should listen to what the climate scientists have to say, rather than look at the weather in your own backyard, as the basis for your conclusions.opinion on global warming.”
And therein lies the rub. Should we listen to Hansen, Jones and Santer or Lindzen, Christy, Spencer and Pielke sr.?
Incidently, the claim that since 2010 temps are a tie with 1998 indicates co2 forcing because the El Nino in 2010 was smaller than the one in 1998 is, in fact, an argumentium ignoratium. It is identical in form to the argument that co2 forcing is responsible for 20th warming because models cannot hindcast the climate without co2 forcing. The fallacy is that it is built on the implicit assumption that only co2 forcings and enso events are responsible for global average temperatures. Therefore, by simple arithmetic: Temp(Big el nino + small co2 forcing) = Temp(small el nino + big co2 forcing).
Utter nonsense.
I have no doubt that the argument is being trotted out as a propaganda exercise to convince the gullible that no warming actually means warming.
“Temperature went slightly up at the end of 1998. ”
UAH data does not really agree with this. November and Dec 1998 were the 2 coolest months of that year at .19C and .29C anomaly.
Unless you mean Dec was slightly warmer than November. But that’s kinda picking nits…
“For a southeast USA who just had one of the hottest summers ever, check out the “rubber band effect” in action in the mountains (you west coast people would call them hills) of North Carolina.”
It was an odd summer here. In the Charlotte area where I am, we broke 1 (one) daily high record and broke 1 (one) daily LOW record (early July).
This next week is going to be “old-time” cold in NC. Forecast is 40/20 all week. Very cold for this part of the country this time of year. The mountains (hills) likely will not get above freezing this week.
savethesharks says:
December 4, 2010 at 9:23 am
I’m sorry, what exactly don’t you understand about the term “within the next 10-20 years” in the context of a quote dating from 2002?
“Tenuc says:
December 4, 2010 at 6:14 am
Currently our orbit is taking us ever further from the quiet sun.”
The reverse is actually true. See:
http://earthsky.org/tonight/earth-comes-closest-to-sun-every-year-in-early-january
“In 2011, Earth will be closest to the sun on Monday, January 3 at 19 hours Universal Time (1 p.m. Central Time).
Earth is closest to the sun every year in early January, when it’s winter for the northern hemisphere. We’re farthest away from the sun in early July, during our northern hemisphere summer.
Earth is about 5 million kilometers – or 3 million miles – closer to the sun in early January than it will be in early July.”
It is not the distance to the sun that is most important. It is the angle that the sun’s rays strike various parts of Earth and the albedo of those parts.
Tim Williams says:
December 4, 2010 at 4:07 am
Sea levels? Try discussing your lack of concern with the Dutch for starters.
http://www.wur.nl/UK/newsagenda/archive/news/2008/Second_Delta_Committee_features.htm
http://ec.europa.eu/maritimeaffairs/climate_change/netherlands_en.pdf
Too funny. Coming on WUWT and citing some bureaucrats as a data source.
Hate to spoil your party, so don’t let actual data get in your way.
http://www.rijksoverheid.nl/#ref-verkeerenwaterstaat Tim Clar
When the GLOBAL food supply runs dry the last MAN(N) standing will cry…I am cold, why?
Bob Tisdale
Have a pre-christmas gift laptop here and couldn’t post on your website.
Just wanted to thank you for the compilations you do on your website.
Thanks for the invitation Eadler but no, this ‘simple’ person will remain a skeptic.
Tim Williams says:
December 4, 2010 at 9:59 am
savethesharks says:
December 4, 2010 at 9:23 am
I’m sorry, what exactly don’t you understand about the term “within the next 10-20 years” in the context of a quote dating from 2002?
=====================================
Hmmm lets see: 2011 – 2002 = 9
Now class, “9” is almost “10”. Right?
Let me put it another way:
It has almost been a decade, or “10 years” since that quote was made by Professor Curran….his 10 to 20 years.
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA
???
Since when does Peter Hearnden EVER post anything that would even remotely challenge CAGW dogma? Either we have another Peter Hearnden (which is clearly possible,) or this is the same old same old pulling everybody’s collective legs with a bit of snark having a laugh at the expense of all those that keep quoting him.
Read through the old CA posts and you’ll see what I mean.
Mark
James Allison says:
December 4, 2010 at 11:02 am
eadler just doesn’t want to admit directly that he/she is a simple person too requiring others to join in the same bandwagon to justify his/her position on the basis of sheer numbers. The more people that join in, obviously, the more likely his/her position is correct. This also solves the nasty insomnia problem when a person is unsure of him/herself regarding such a major life choice, one that requires a willingness to accept anything that supports the bandwagon.
It is not “simple” to wish to be a skeptic. On the contrary, it is wise.
Mark
Tim Clark says:
December 4, 2010 at 10:29 am
Well, the point is, some ‘bureaucrats’ from a country that faces the very real concern about sea level rises have been persuaded enough by the science to recommended their government invest 1.6€ per year every year until 2050 to protect its land.
This is what’s known as putting money where your mouth is and I believe its entirely pertinent to point out how Holland views the state of the science about sea level rise.
Thanks for your link but as my Dutch isn’t up to much I find it incomprehensible.
The IPCC were it seems far too conservative in their senarios….
http://planetsave.com/2008/09/10/new-studies-conclude-the-ipcc-sea-level-rise-projections-are-too-conservative/
http://www.pik-potsdam.de/~stefan/Publications/Nature/rahmstorf_science_2007.pdf
savethesharks says:
December 4, 2010 at 11:26 am
“Some people say they see the climate changing already. But certainly within the next 10-20 years we are really going to start noticing it.”
So, snow in Europe nine years after this statement and you’re triumphantly Charlie Brown laughing in the belief that Prof Curran has been proven to be wrong? Strange.
That should of course read 1.6 Billion Euros p.a.
1.6€ will no doubt cause much merriment in the peanut gallery.
Where, I wonder, were those early ‘temperature measuring stations’ located? Their recorded readings are, after all, the base upon which the claim that ‘global temperature between the years 1850 & 1998 went up by (approx.) 0.8 °C is built.
The UK, somebody thought, was my little back yard out from which I could not see the wider picture. -Just because, they went on, the UK is freezing now did not mean that the rest of the world was. -That, of course may be true, but if this (the UK) is one of the major places where the temperatures were measured from the year of our Lord 1850 onwards and is sited for global warming, then this is one of the places that should be taken into consideration when the Globe is cooling is looming.
I mean to claim now that the UK, USA, Europe and Russia (which are a bit too cold for comfort just now, and were last year) do not count as they are “only our small back yards” seems a bit odd to say the least
.
Oh and, by the way, who can measure 0.39 °C on a mercury thermometer?
Sssssssssssorry for the gremlins above.- is looming – must be adjusted to mean something else, or, maybe nothing
What is the difference between the methodologies of the UAH index and the RSS one, as the first went down Oct-> Nov and the latter went up? Are they measuring different areas? Or does this just show that one month’s figure does not matter?
Tim Williams says:
December 4, 2010 at 1:04 pm
Well, the point is, some ‘bureaucrats’ from a country that faces the very real concern about sea level rises have been persuaded enough by the science to recommended their government invest 1.6€ per year every year until 2050 to protect its land.
How much do they spend every year now to protect a country with 25% below sea level? And how long will it take at currently estimated 1mm/yr to cause problems?
Are you going to come back here and inform us how much is actually spent. Is your thesis really based on promises from a bureacrat? Do you see how foolish that is? Did you vote for Obama? His promises working out for ya?
eadler says:
December 3, 2010 at 8:27 pm
DonS says:
December 4, 2010 at 6:41 am
DonS in my estimation has it. For all your arrogance & your superiority complex, you’re too frickin’ stupid to recognise when someone’s taking the pee.
DaveE.
“2010 is now in a dead heat with 1998 for warmest year.”
Correction;
“2010 is now in a dead heat with 1998 for warmest year of the past 31 yrs”.
There, that’s better.
DirkH says:
December 4, 2010 at 8:30 am
it is mainly the effect of ocean losing heat. When oceans lose heat they heat the lower atmosphere. When the sun gives off less radiation the oceans emit heat, as opposed to absorbing heat during an active solar period.
That means, for example, in the UK at the moment, ground temperatures are very cold but the lower troposphere is fairly normal in the temperature range.
That means that the coming years will be cooler than this El Nino year
Poor old Eadler. Like so many of the faithful he can only exhort us simpletons to ‘listen to the Climate Scientists’. His basic position is, ‘I believe, so should you’.
And it’s not just Eadler. Has anyone else noticed how the Skeptical sites are filled with information: graphs, data, maps, photos, theories, open discussion, conflicting positions etc whilst the Warmist sites (at least the ones I’ve checked) tend to simply ‘loudly agree with the Climate scientists’?
Aside from making these sites rather boring I think this tells us something about the warmist mindset. In my experience the most strident believers tend to come from non science backgrounds.
I am very much reminded of the historical difference between Catholicism, with its Dogma and Infallible Priesthood who interpret the Sacred Texts for the masses (i.e. passive acceptance of the Word); and Protestantism with its emphasis on direct access to Sacred Texts, personal study, Biblical Exegesis etc.
Let’s hope that no-one gets ‘burnt at the stake’ over any of this eh?
Tim Williams says:
December 4, 2010 at 1:04 pm
So, snow in Europe nine years after this statement and you’re triumphantly Charlie Brown laughing in the belief that Prof Curran has been proven to be wrong? Strange.
===========================================
You can manipulate my point and recreate it in your own design all you want my friend. I could really care less. The irony is not lost for all who care to look at the actual facts.
And no, two or three severe winters in a row for Europe since he confidently announced we would be feeling the effects of “climate change” in 10 to 20 years, does not prove poor Curran and his ilk wrong.
Its just funny. Damn funny.
Like I said….Mother Nature has a banging sense of humor.
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA
im Williams says:
December 4, 2010 at 1:04 pm
Well, the point is, some ‘bureaucrats’ from a country that faces the very real concern about sea level rises have been persuaded enough by the science to recommended their government invest 1.6€ per year every year until 2050 to protect its land.
This is what’s known as putting money where your mouth is and I believe its entirely pertinent to point out how Holland views the state of the science about sea level rise.
===============================
Wrong term. Not “sea level rise”. 1
More correctly: “Land level sink.”
The Netherlands is subsiding as the land to their north is rebounding from the last glaciation. The Dutch have been geo-engineering this problem for 1000 years.
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA
Tim Clark says:
December 4, 2010 at 1:44 pm
How much do they spend every year now to protect a country with 25% below sea level? And how long will it take at currently estimated 1mm/yr to cause problems?
Are you going to come back here and inform us how much is actually spent. Is your thesis really based on promises from a bureacrat? Do you see how foolish that is? Did you vote for Obama? His promises working out for ya?
Well they think you’re wrong about the 1mm/yr. Very wrong in fact.
They believe that “Rising sea levels
Since 1900, the sea level of the North Sea has risen by 19 cm,
an average of 1.9 mm a year (see figure 3). This is comparable
to the global average.”
Whats more they believe “• In the long term, the KNMI expects a sea level rise between
35 and 85 cm by 2100 (compared with 1990). This is the
most likely range.” http://www.deltacommissaris.nl/english/Images/Deltaprogramma_ENG1_tcm310-286802.pdf
So they braodly agree with Rharmsdorfs assessment (which you haven’t read or seem to reject) .http://www.pik-potsdam.de/~stefan/Publications/Nature/rahmstorf_science_2007.pdf
They are counting on spending “at least 1 billion euros every year from 2020 onward”. It’s not my thesis at all by the way, instead it’s real money being spent by real ‘bureacrats’ as a sensible response to the best science available.
Tim Williams. Why don’t you contact the world’s preeminent sea level expert, Nils-Axel Mörner?
I’ve got his email, and he is great about replying.
He will set the record straight for you. The 1 mm/year rise was in the first half of the 2oth century. Then it fell a bit. And now it is essentially stable.
The issues are with subsiding and sinking land, the glacial “forebulge” regions, such as those around the North Sea, and those where I live on the east coast of the USA.
If you have an issue with the subject….you should take it up with him. I dare ya.
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA
Does anybody have an up-to-date link to an 11 year running average of global temperatures? This would help cut out all the noise of El Ninos and La Ninas, etc.
savethesharks says:
December 4, 2010 at 7:17 pm
Gosh; I’m surprised that the Dutch government don’t take him more seriously, it could save them a small fortune at what is a very difficult time . To waste that amount of money on dams and things, money that could equally be spent on tax sweeteners, hospitals and education. Could it possibly be because Morners maverick views haven’t actually gained any at all traction within the scientific community?
Eadler;
If you recognize that you are “simple folk” , you should listen to what the climate scientists have to say, rather than look at the weather in your own backyard, as the basis for your conclusions.opinion on global warming.>>
So what you’re saying Eadler is don’t bother asking questions, don’t bother getting educated, don’t bother learning anything, don’t bother thinking for yourself, just take the word of the climate scientists whose only response to “my livestock is freezing to death and its been getting worse for several years now” is “trust us, that’s just weather”?
Anthony, I am pleading with you. Can you please find a better quality of troll?
Tim Williams:
You ask:
“Could it possibly be because Morners maverick views haven’t actually gained any at all traction within the scientific community?”
No, that is not possible. Niils Axel Morner is the foremost and most honoured living authority on sea level change.
The idea that his views on sea level change are “maverick” is surreal.
Richard
Apples and Oranges!
Tim Williams says:
December 5, 2010 at 1:10 am
Gosh. I dunno. What does your groupthink-tarnished mind tell you?
As for Mörner, well lets just say why don’t you take your statements directly to him. I dare ya. He is the Lief Svalgaard of sea level physics and will eat you for breakfast.
For a titan in his field who has published more than 270 PEER REVIEWED papers…I think Mörner can hold his own in the “scientific community”, just fine.
And at the risk of you trying to manipulate what I am saying here (again) let me set this record straight:
There are severe problems in these glacial forebulge regions….with subsiding land. I live in one of these areas on the east coast of the USA and they are great cause for concern. They certainly need to be geo-engineered.
But they are NOT…due to “sea level rise”. Rather, “land level sink.”
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA
Bob Tisdale
Dec 3, 3:56
A video you posted recently showed the warm anomaly SST region in the west Pacific to be apparently shrinking. Is this a real current trend?
savethesharks / Richard S Courtney says:
How do you define maverick?
Maverick:”an independent individual who does not go along with a group or party ”
http://www.edf.org/documents/3868_morner_exposed.pdf
“Further, INQUA (International Union for Quaternary Research), which is an umbrella organization for hundreds of researchers knowledgeable about past climate, does not subscribe to Mörner’s position on climate change. Nearly all of these researchers agree that humans are modifying Earth’s climate, a position diametrically opposed to Dr. Mörner’s point of view.”
He sounds like a maverick to me….Nothing wrong with being an independent thinker, indeed it’s to be applauded. Even more so if that independent thought has managed to be clearly enough expressed through proper peer reviewed journals and taken up by scientists as a valuable contribution to work in the field.
Unfortunately, the Dutch government at least, has not thought his independent views on sea level rise warrant the saving of the tens of billions of public money that they’ve committed to protecting thier nation from predicted rises in sea level.
Tim Williams says:
December 5, 2010 at 8:41 am
==============================
From your (and theirs….yes I am talking about INQUA) groupthink perspective I suppose Mörner could be defined as a “maverick”…in the same vein that Lindzen, Soon, Baliunas, Spencer, et al. and among many brilliant others, are “mavericks”.
In today’s highly, HIGHLY politicized scientific climate, any scientist who goes on record as skeptical of CAGW and dares to speak out against the scam….is labeled a “maverick.”
In other words….the term is a compliment.
It is meant derogatory by your religion the same way a similar type of religion used the term “heretic” in the Middle Ages.
In this case “maverick” actually means: “good, uncorrupted scientist.”
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA
Tim Williams says:
December 5, 2010 at 8:41 am
====================
You are still either accidentally (or deliberately, I can’t be sure) conflating the difference between “sea level rise” and “land level sink”.
In reality, the Dutch have the latter as the main problem….and have been trying to engineer against it for 1000 years.
Really? So when the Delta comission says “In the long term, the KNMI expects a sea level rise between 35 and 85 cm by 2100 (compared with 1990). This is the most likely range”. http://www.deltacommissaris.nl/english/Images/Deltaprogramma_ENG1_tcm310-286802.pdf
They actually mean to say “In the long term, the KNMI expects the land to sink between 35 and 85 cm by 2100 (compared with 1990).”
Or when the German advisory council on Global change (WBGU) boldly state in yet another good read that “The threats posed to coastal populations and infrastructure by rising sea levels and extreme events such as storm surges or hurricanes will mount in coming
decades.” http://www.wbgu.de/wbgu_sn2006_en.pdf
They actually mean…. “the threats posed to coastal populations and infrastructures by land level sinking and extreme events such as storm surges or hurricances will mount in coming decades ”
Or “Two conclusions can be drawn from this discussion. Firstly, rates for sea-level rise of up to 5 m per century are documented, and these probably do not represent an upper limit. Thus climate history shows that a much more rapid rise than that expected by the IPCC for the 21st century is possible. ” They actually mean rates of land level sinking…….
Bizarre.
phlogiston says: “A video you posted recently showed the warm anomaly SST region in the west Pacific to be apparently shrinking. Is this a real current trend?”
My most recent video was based on 30-year differences in SST anomalies as determined by the GISS map-making webpage. This one?:
The animations start at about 2:00. It shows SST anomalies cooling over the past few years in the eastern tropical Pacific and working their way west.
Tim Williams says:
December 5, 2010 at 1:06 pm
====================
As usual, you are twisting, conflating, and confusing.
And you obviously have not the slightest idea about which you are speaking, because if you did you would take the time to cross-check your claims with the preeminent expert in the field.
But I doubt you will do that. In case you find the courage to contact him, email me at sharkhearted@gmail and I will send you his email address. Better yet, just google him….you will find his email.
Also the reports you cite…rely upon model projections (garbage in, garbage out)…AND NOT REAL WORLD OBSERVATIONS.
There IS no catastrophic sea level rise.
However, the subsidence of certain coastlines, such as areas around the North Sea, and the middle Atlantic of the USA, are INDEED causes for concern.
But nothing we can’t geo-engineer against and try to adapt.
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA
savethesharks says:
December 5, 2010 at 6:21 pm
“As usual, you are twisting, conflating, and confusing.”
Sorry, try and keep up.
“And you obviously have not the slightest idea about which you are speaking, because if you did you would take the time to cross-check your claims with the pre-eminent expert in the field.”
Would that be the same pre-eminent expert in the field that doesn’t like satellite altimetry measurements, because of an ill defined complaint about calibration that, as far as I’m aware, he’s yet to publish in the scientific literature? The pre-eminent expert in the field that has moved his former employers (INQUA) to publicly distance themselves from his views? (http://www.edf.org/documents/3868_morner_exposed.pdf ) The same pre-eminent expert in his field who’s relatively few papers on specifically on sea levels are relatively rarely cited in comparison with some lesser eminent experts in the field? The pre-eminent expert in the field who calls other supposedly lesser experts in the field ‘boy scouts’(http://www.climatechangefacts.info/ClimateChangeDocuments/NilsAxelMornerinterview.pdf )? The pre-eminent expert in the field and veritable titan who I’ve only ever heard called a titan on here?
“Also the reports you cite…rely upon model projections (garbage in, garbage out)…AND NOT REAL WORLD OBSERVATIONS.”
If you’d read any of them, you’d find plenty of references to actual observed sea level rise in the references.
Real world observations? Well it’s patchy, isn’t it? There are plenty of increasing sea level trends in the tide gauge data (http://www.psmsl.org/data/obtaining/).Certainly the satellite altimetry observations, ( that Morner poo poos), aren’t agreeing with him in many parts of the world. http://www.aviso.oceanobs.com/en/news/ocean-indicators/mean-sea-level/
Take your pre-eminent expert’s claim that sea level hasn’t risen in Tuvalu…Guess what? Lots of other , less eminent, experts disagree… a disagreement based on, brand spanking new, observations from the South Pacific Sea Level and climate monitoring project
“Based upon the 15½ years of sea level data from the
project, the sea level rise rate in Tuvalu as at September 2008 was 5.9 mM year1. This was about four
times higher than the global average of 1-2 mm year1. Sea level in the Tuvalu area had risen
approximately 9.14 cm since the inception of the project 15½ years ago. However, it was to be noted that the land is quite stable and the rate of land sinking is -0.06 mM year1 only.”
http://www.scipub.org/fulltext/ajas/ajas661169-1174.pdf
http://docs.tuvaluislands.com/2004_Sea_Level_Report_TV.pdf
Now because some scientists are actually quite hard working, honest individuals, they go out of their way to express the caveats, the doubts, the uncertainties of extrapolating trends from such a short data series, but their observational findings ,so far, are in stark contrast to Morners claim that sea levels haven’t risen in Tuvalu for thirty years.
http://www.tnr.com/blog/the-vine/75348/pacific-islands-defying-sea-level-rise-least-now
Vanuatu: Trend from 1993 “The sea level trend to date is +6.5 mm/year but the magnitude of the trend continues to vary widely from month to month as the data set grows. Accounting for the precise levelling results and inverted barometric pressure effect, the trend is +5.6 mm/year. http://www.bom.gov.au/ntc/IDO60034/IDO60034.2009.pdf
“There IS no catastrophic sea level rise”.
Huzzah we can agree! But you forgot the a bit at the end.. yet (unless of course you happen to live on Tuvalu: http://tuvalu.pacificweather.org/ …go on and click you’ll enjoy this one).
“However, the subsidence of certain coastlines, such as areas around the North Sea, and the middle Atlantic of the USA, are INDEED causes for concern.”
Huzzah we agree again!
“But nothing we can’t geo-engineer against and try to adapt”….aah.