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.
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/.Certai)nly 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.