Open Thread


I don’t normally do mid week open threads, but I’ve not found much of interest to write about tonight, and story submissions have been a dry hole lately.

Either they are too short (like one line descriptions with a URL) or too long (I just rejected two pending manuscripts in MS-word that were formatting nightmares).

Help me out here folks. Submit a story here.


0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
May 7, 2013 11:55 pm

Mann’s entourage is busy distributing the usual lies. Perhaps that’s not news any longer? /sarc
From a Press Release that appeared on the WSJ (May 6):

“Mann and other IPCC authors received the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize”

That would have been useful yesterday or the day before, now after the fact, not so much – Anthony

May 7, 2013 11:56 pm

The new story submit page is confusing.
You have to press a button to make the text fields for the submit story page appear. The first time I tried this I didn’t notice the button.
If you want to say “thank you”, you could allow a quick plug for my Climategate app – free app which contains a fast, searchable database of Climategate emails ;-).

May 8, 2013 12:04 am

Pointing out the issue. Sorry I’m being a bit cheeky :-). I was being a bit serious about the submit story page though – if my experience is anything to go by, a lot of people will be trying to submit a story, and won’t notice the button they have to click to see the text fields. I didn’t when I tried to submit something the other day – and I’m an IT expert.

May 8, 2013 12:06 am

I thought it was a bug with the submit story page, until I revisited it and had a closer look.

May 8, 2013 12:07 am

I think he means the giant button in the middle of the page that says “Click to Submit Your Story”

May 8, 2013 12:19 am

You’re welcome.
REPLY: Thanks for bringing it to my attention, hopefully the small changes I made will help – Anthony

May 8, 2013 12:27 am

How about publishing the climategate 3.0 files?

May 8, 2013 12:33 am

I’d love to – but I’m not on FOIA’s mailing list, so I don’t have the key.
In addition, the sheer size of the CG3 archive presents a problem. My search algorithm should be able to handle the larger archive (maybe), but Apple allegedly reject free apps which are too big – and from my research, the current size of the app, with CG1 and CG2, is brushing the limit.
Finally, FOIA requested that CG3 emails be redacted, to prevent unnecessary release of private information – I don’t have time to do that, given the size of the archive.
What I’m hoping is a “best of” or redacted archive will be published by a trustworthy source. If and when that occurs, I’ll look at including CG3 in the app.

May 8, 2013 12:45 am

So this didn’t give you anything to comment on? Just curious Anthony. Arctic becoming more acidic from CO2

May 8, 2013 12:49 am

Eric Worrall says:
May 8, 2013 at 12:33 am
I’d love to – but I’m not on FOIA’s mailing list, so I don’t have the key.

It wasn’t directed at you.

May 8, 2013 12:51 am

Why are you being such a d*ckhead?

May 8, 2013 12:55 am

CAGW reduced to rhetoric now:
7 May: Globe & Mail: IVAN SEMENIUK: Public Interview
‘No such thing as ethical oil,’ Al Gore tells Toronto audience
Mr. Gore added that he felt action on climate change was possible, indeed inevitable, once it was viewed by enough people as a matter of personal values. “When these kind of issues settle into a choice between right and wrong, then the moral clarity that eventually develops makes it possible to move quickly.”…
When Mr. Stackhouse asked whether Alberta oil was more ethical because it came from a democratic nation with a commitment to human rights, Mr. Gore rejected the term.
“There’s no such thing as ethical oil,” he said. “There’s only dirty oil and dirtier oil.” The remark triggered applause from a nearly full house at a Ryerson University auditorium…
When pressed, he coyly avoided saying he was disappointed in the Obama administration’s failure to produce better results on climate change, adding that Mr. Obama deserved more credit for raising vehicle-emissions standards and using the Environmental Protection Agency to regulate emissions from newly built power plants, with hopes that existing plants would also eventually be addressed.
Noting the fierce opposition Mr. Obama has faced on climate as on other issues, Mr. Gore said, “I still hold out hope that he will be as positively surprising in his policy initiatives this year as he was in his speeches.”…

May 8, 2013 1:06 am

Anthony, it is but the calm before the storm. Of late there has been this rejuvination of “old” stories. The warmlies are simply sticking with an old trick… try, try, try again. Eventually, they hope, you will give up out of sheer boredom. If they are rehashing old stories, perhaps it is time to bring out the old rebuttals. Of course you need to make them new and fresh.
More to the point, I have been watching the news according to Google News. There has been, since late last fall, a slow but steady increase of, essentially rehashed global warming stories. It is very annoying to see, but, it is a clear example of using mass-media to drum an idea until it sticks.
Here is the latest: “California Gov. Jerry Brown blames climate change for early wildfires”, Grist.
C’mon, please stick it to them Anthony!

May 8, 2013 1:06 am

rhetoric isn’t enough for Kloor:
6 May: Discover Magazine Collide-a-Scape Blog: Keith Kloor: Why Al Gore Can’t Be the Face of Climate Activism
In light of Gore’s business riches and opulent lifestyle post-2000 (see this new Bloomberg piece), you also have to wonder if it’s time that he recused himself from a cause he helped kickstart. New York magazine, in a current profile of Gore, paints an image of him puttering around in his Tennessee mansion when he’s not on the Davos circuit. Let’s recall, too, that Gore was recently put on the defensive for selling his cable network to a tiny oil-rich Mideast country. All this suggests that Gore might not be the best face for a climate movement that routinely calls on the world to curtail economic growth and downsize its consumptive ways.
Don’t get me wrong. I have nothing against Al Gore blazing a path to sustainability, so long as we can all follow in his lead…

May 8, 2013 1:11 am

I am still asking for opinions on this article:
I am not sure where to begin my story. I feel a bit like the Joseph of the bible. He was able to correctly predict 7 years of abundance and 7 years of famine, probably by studying the flooding of the Nile (from his prison). Around the time when I heard for the first time of “Climategate” , the e-mail controversy surrounding the Climatic Research Unit of the University of East Anglia, I was led to conduct my own investigations as to the extent of the problem of anthropogenic global warming (AGW) caused by the emission of greenhouse gases (GHG). As a hobby…
I first studied the mechanism by which AGW is supposed to work. I will spare you all the scientific details. I quickly figured that the proposed mechanism implies that more GHG would cause a delay in radiation being able to escape from earth, which then causes a delay in cooling, from earth to space, resulting in a warming effect.
It followed naturally, that if more carbon dioxide (CO2) or more water (H2O) or more other GHG’s were to be blamed for extra warming we should see minimum temperatures (minima) rising faster, pushing up the average temperature (means) on earth.
I subsequently took a sample of 47 weather stations, analysed all daily data, and determined the ratio of the speed in the increase of the maximum temperature (maxima), means and minima. Here you can see the results.
You will find that if we take the speed of warming over the longest period (i.e. from 1973/1974) for which we have very reliable records, we find the results of the speed of warming, maxima : means: minima
0.036 : 0.014 : 0.006 in degrees C/annum.
That is ca. 6:2:1. So it was maxima pushing up minima and means and not the other way around. Anyone can duplicate this experiment and check this trend in their own backyard or at the weather station nearest to you.
Having effectively found little or no real evidence of AGW in the temperature records, I did notice that anyone (like me) now querying the “certainty” of “climate change” being due mostly to AGW, are mocked or vilified in the media and the blogosphere. For the first time I am being censored and called “ a denier” or worse, a liar. However, it also appeared to me that most people do not even understand the very basics of the chemistry involved. Any (good) chemist knows that there are giga tons and giga tons of bi-carbonates dissolved in the oceans and that (any type of) warming would cause it to be released:
HCO3- + heat => CO2 (g) + OH-.
This is the actual reason we are alive today. Cause and effect, get it? There is a causal relationship. More warming naturally causes more CO2. Without warmth and carbon dioxide there would be nothing, really. To make that what we dearly want, i.e. more crops, more trees, lawns and animals and people, nature uses water and carbon dioxide and warmth, mostly.
Anyway, I did decide to take my quest a bit further by trying to predict the future of our temperature development on earth. Indeed, I did find that climate change is happening, because natural global warming is over. I found that from around the start of the new millennium, earth has started to cool globally. My own data set on maxima shows this very clearly. However, even without my own results (in case you do not trust them or me): the four major data sets measuring the average global air- and sea temperatures, also show that we have started cooling down for the past 11 years (this is the equivalent average time of one full solar cycle). Clearly you can see that the trend is negative from 2002:
From the above simple compilation of linear trends in these 4 major global data sets, you can also see that before 2000 we were still warming and that after 2000 we started cooling….
For my own data, I have done a best fit for the drop in global maximum temperatures. Setting the speed of warming/cooling out against time, you get acceleration, or, in this case, deceleration, in degrees C / t2. When looking at that plot for the first time, it was as if God Himself gave me a revelation. The curve exactly looks like the speed of a thrown object plotted against time. My results suggest that earth is most likely on an 88 year A-C wave, the so-called Gleissberg solar/weather cycle, with ca. 44 years of warming followed by 44 years of cooling.
Indeed, I hope that this is the best fit for my data, because any of the other best fits that I could think of, would have us end up in much more global cooling. The results of my plot also suggest that this global cooling already started in 1995 and will last until ca. 2038. Also, from the tables, it looks earth’s energy stores are depleted now and average temperatures on earth will probably fall by as much as what the maxima are falling now. I estimate this is about -0.3K in the next 8 years and a further -0.2 or -0.3K from 2020 until 2038. By that time we will be back to where we were in 1950, more or less…
Just like Joseph probably observed the variation in the flooding of the Nile within one solar cycle (which indeed can sometimes be longer than 12 years), I decided to do the same thing for the 88 year Gleissberg solar/weather cycle…. There are good records of the flooding of the Nile, for example here:
to quote from the above paper:
“A Weather Cycle as observed in the Nile Flood cycle, Max rain followed by Min rain, appears discernible with maximums at 1750, 1860, 1950 and minimums at 1670, 1800, 1900 and a minimum at 1990 predicted.
The range in meters between a plentiful flood and a drought flood seems minor in the numbers but real in consequence….
end quote
According to my table for maxima, I calculate the date where the sun decided to take a nap (that is just a figure of speech, in fact it is probably a “wake-up”), as being around 1995, and not 1990 as William Arnold predicted.
This is looking at energy-in. I think earth reached its maximum output (means) a few years later, around 1998/1999.
Anyway, either way, (a few years error is fine!), look again at my best sine wave plot for my data,
now see:
1900 minimum flooding – end of the warming
1950 maximum flooding – end of cooling
1995 minimum flooding – end of warming.
predicted 2035-2040 – maximum flooding – end of cooling.
There is a clear and pertinent correlation with the best fit sine wave that I proposed for the observed current drop in global maximum temperatures.
I figured that there must be a small window at the top of the atmosphere (TOA) that gets opened and closed a bit, every so often. Chemists know that a lot of incoming radiation is deflected to space by the ozone and the peroxides and nitrous oxides lying at the TOA. These chemicals are manufactured from the UV coming from the sun. Luckily we do have measurements on ozone, from stations in both hemispheres. I looked at these results. Incredibly, I found that ozone started going down around 1951 and started going up again in 1995, both on the NH and the SH. Percentage wise the increase in ozone in the SH since 1995 is much more spectacular.
I had now found three confirmations for the dates of the turning points of my A-C wave for energy-in. The mechanism? We know that there is not much variation in the total solar irradiation (TSI) measured at the TOA. However, there is some variation within TSI, mainly to do with the E-UV. Most likely there is some gravitational- and/or electromagnetic force that gets switched every 44 year, affecting the sun’s output of E-UV. It is part of creation. Otherwise there could be run away warming or runaway cooling, and probably no weather (rain!) at all, making life impossible…..
My A-C wave for the drop in maximum temperatures obviously does not reflect exactly at the same time what happens to temperatures on earth. Earth has an intricate way of storing energy in the oceans. There is also earth’s own volcanic action, lunar interaction, the turning of Earth’s inner iron core, electromagnetic force changes, etc. It seems to me that a delay of about 5 years either way is quite normal. That would place the half cycle time as observed from earth at around 50 years, on average. 50 years of warming followed by 50 years of cooling. It seems to me the ancients knew this. Remember 7 x 7 years + 1 Jubilee year?
As the temperature differential between the poles and equator grows larger due to the cooling from the top, very likely something will also change on earth. Predictably, there would be a small (?) shift of cloud formation and precipitation, more towards the equator, on average. At the equator insolation is 684 W/m2 whereas on average it is 342 W/m2. So, if there are more clouds in and around the equator, this will amplify the cooling effect due to less direct natural insolation of earth (clouds deflect a lot of radiation). Furthermore, assuming equal amounts of water vapour available in the air, less clouds and precipitation will be available for spreading to higher latitudes. So, a natural consequence of global cooling is that at the higher latitudes it will become both cooler and drier.
As the people in Anchorage (Alaska) have noted,
the cold weather in 2012 was so bad there that they did not get much of any harvests. And it seems NOBODY is telling the farmers there that it is not going to get any better.
It looks like all the media and the whole world still believe that somehow global warming will soon be back on track again. Clearly, as shown, this is just wishful thinking. All current results show that global cooling will continue. As pointed out earlier, those that think that we can put more carbon dioxide in the air to stop the cooling are just not being realistic. There really is no hard evidence supporting the notion that (more) CO2 is causing any (more) warming of the planet, whatsoever. On same issue, there are those that argue that it is better to be safe than sorry; but, really, as things are looking now, they are now also beginning to stand in the way of progress. Those still pointing to melting ice and glaciers, as “proof” that it is (still) warming, and not cooling, should remember that there is a lag from energy-in and energy-out. Counting back 88 years i.e. 2013-88= we are in 1925.
Now look at some eye witness reports of the ice back then?
Sounds familiar? Back then, in 1922, they had seen that the arctic ice melt was due to the warmer Gulf Stream waters. However, by 1950 all that same ‘lost” ice had frozen back. I therefore predict that all lost arctic ice will also come back, from 2020-2035 as also happened from 1935-1950. Antarctic ice is already increasing.
To those actively involved in trying to suppress the temperature results as they are available on-line from official sources, I say: Let fools stay fools if they want to be. Fiddling with the data they can, to save their jobs, but people still having to shove snow in late spring, will soon begin to doubt the data…Check the worry in my eyes when they censor me. Under normal circumstances I would have let things rest there and just be happy to know the truth for myself. Indeed, I let things lie a bit. However, chances are that humanity will fall in the pit of global cooling and later me blaming myself for not having done enough to try to safeguard food production for 7 billion people and counting.
It really was very cold in 1940′s….The Dust Bowl drought 1932-1939 was one of the worst environmental disasters of the Twentieth Century anywhere in the world. Three million people left their farms on the Great Plains during the drought and half a million migrated to other states, almost all to the West.
Danger from global cooling is documented and provable. It looks we have only ca. 7 “fat” years left (2013 – 88 = 1925).
1) We urgently need to develop and encourage more agriculture at lower latitudes, like in Africa and/or South America. This is where we can expect to find warmth and more rain during a global cooling period.
2) We need to tell the farmers living at the higher latitudes (>40) who already suffered poor crops due to the cold and/ or due to the droughts that things are not going to get better there for the next few decades. It will only get worse as time goes by.
3) We also have to provide more protection against more precipitation at certain places of lower latitudes (FLOODS!),
There are now many results from skeptical scientists that support my position and results, e.g.
Best wishes

View from the Solent
May 8, 2013 1:31 am

A report on the opening salvos at the (UK) Information Tribunal hearing into the refusal of the head of the UK delegation to the IPCC to respond to FOI requests. The head has refused to appear and has sent a spokesweasel from the Met Office. The judge is not best pleased.
“Judge Anisa Dhanji was not impressed by the defence’s refusal to find someone so very germane to the case to stand up to cross-examination, and demanded that a written statement by Warrilow [head of delegation] be included in the record.”
Includes a summary of the background to the case. Could be interesting as it develops.

May 8, 2013 1:53 am

Eric Worrall says:
May 7, 2013 at 11:56 pm

If you want to say “thank you”, you could allow a quick plug for my Climategate app – free app which contains a fast, searchable database of Climategate emails ;-).

Thanks, Eric. I was ready to give you a quick plug, until I saw that you open your app with a disclaimer saying

“The scientists who wrote the emails have been officially cleared of wrongdoing, by several inquiries in both the USA and Great Britain.
For more information about the official reviews and their findings, please visit:
http : // www dot realclimate dot org.”

Cleared of wrongdoing? Have you read the transcripts of the whitewash jobs that passed for official investigations? Not only have none of them been cleared. Not one of them has actually been investigated.
And sending people to realclimate, the mother lode of scientific censorship? I like your app a lot, and you’ve obviously put a lot of work into it, it shows. But that’s a deal-breaker for me. I would never recommend it because you’re sending people to realclimate about climategate.
Of all conceivable websites for true accurate info on climategate, realclimate is hand-down the worst. Part of the problem is that many of the unindicted co-conspirators in Climategate are the principals of realclimate. So when they say something about Climategate, it’s pure CYA, and you’d be a fool to believe it.
But don’t try to dispute anything at realclimate, your words will be “disappeared”, your post will never show up. Vanished, with no sign it ever existed. They are the leaders in high-quality unseen censorship of anything even vaguely disputing their claims.
But the censorship is all invisible, there’s no sign of censorship … so every innocent kid that goes there based on your recommendation is going to get suckered into thinking the realclimate guys must be right … otherwise someone would object, wouldn’t they? And the poor kid doesn’t see any objections, he’s totally fooled.
So why on earth are you assisting realclimate in suckering people in with their censorship and scientific deception?

May 8, 2013 1:58 am

Willis, I’ve been a skeptic a long time mate – I personally think they’re panhandling scum. I even published once on WUWT –
But I cant afford to fend off Mann’s lawyers, and reading the Climategate emails, they seem in some cases to be a bit lawyer happy. This was an especial concern in the early days.
So I put the disclaimer in to cover my @rse.
If you look at the links part of the app, you’ll see a lot of very interesting material, gathered from WUWT and other sites.

May 8, 2013 2:04 am

Eric Worrall says:
May 8, 2013 at 1:58 am

Willis, I’ve been a skeptic a long time mate – I personally think they’re panhandling scum. I even published once on WUWT –
But I cant afford to fend off Mann’s lawyers, and reading the Climategate emails, they seem in some cases to be a bit lawyer happy. This was an especial concern in the early days.
So I put the disclaimer in to cover my @rse.
If you look at the links part of the app, you’ll see a lot of very interesting material, gathered from WUWT and other sites.

Thanks, Eric. I can understand that part about the official disclaimer. It’s the sending of folks to realclimate that bothers me. Since you have the chance, you should send them to climateaudit, perhaps to the categories page for climategate if there is such a thing.
All the best, thanks again for the clarification,

May 8, 2013 2:12 am

Gore should have kept his mouth shut:
7 May: Montreal Gazette: L. Ian MacDonald: Al Gore should know better
L. Ian MacDonald is editor of Policy magazine (
In an interview with the Globe and Mail, former U.S. vice-president Al Gore referred to Canada’s oil and gas riches as a “resource curse” and said the Alberta oilsands add “to the reckless spewing of pollution into the Earth’s atmosphere as if it’s an open sewer.”…
As an environmentalist, Gore is undoubtedly aware that the greenhouse-gas emissions from coal-fired electricity stations in the U.S. are 40 times those from the Canadian oilsands. As for Europe, according to Natural Resources Canada, emissions from electrical installations are nearly 30 times those of the oilsands. This is, for Gore, an inconvenient truth.
According to Energy Alberta, the oilsands are responsible for only 6.8 per cent of emissions in Canada, and only 0.15 per cent of emissions worldwide…
All in, the U.S. accounts for 22 per cent of global greenhouse-gas emissions, according to Natural Resources Canada, while Canada is responsible for 2 per cent. The U.S. population is nine times that of Canada, while its greenhouse-gas emissions are 11 times higher than ours. And Canada is a much colder country, with higher home-heating requirements…
Energy is now far and away the largest segment of Canadian exports, and the U.S. accounts for more than 99 per cent of our exports of oil and gas. Since 1992, according to BMO Economics, Canada’s oil and gas exports to the U.S. have increased from $17 billion to $102 billion, from 11 per cent of Canada’s world exports to 22 per cent…
As he (U.S. Ambassador David Jacobson )noted, Canada supplies the U.S. with 100 per cent of its imported electricity, 85 per cent of its natural-gas imports, and 27 per cent of its oil imports — more than twice as much as the 12 per cent of U.S. oil imports supplied by Saudi Arabia…

May 8, 2013 2:29 am

Thanks, Eric. I can understand that part about the official disclaimer. It’s the sending of folks to realclimate that bothers me. Since you have the chance, you should send them to climateaudit, perhaps to the categories page for climategate if there is such a thing.
All the best, thanks again for the clarification,

Thats a good point – though I would feel uncomfortable about excluding an opportunity for them to put their defence. I will modify the start page in the next version to include a reference to a skeptic site, though I will keep the realclimate reference.
IMO what they have done is indefensible, but it would be wrong not to provide a link for people to see their side of the story.
The theme of the app is very much to try to keep my opinions out of it – IMO the material is damning enough so people should be able to decide for themselves, pretty quickly, unless they are heavily prejudiced. Elmer from M4GW thought the disclaimer was funny :-).
I hope you enjoy the app. Try putting in the word “hide” into the main search, you’ll see some interesting links, maybe a few you haven’t seen before – not just “hide the decline”.

May 8, 2013 2:53 am

Not much happening…
well lots pending with Lewandowsky and Cook etc.. ‘Moon Hoax’ paper (LOG12) and ‘Recursive Fury’ paper… am getting mildly irritated with th eofficial ‘fob off’, so as Lewandowsky sought press publicity, it seems only fair to respond in kind with the criticisms of his work.
I’m inclined towards publishing all my correspondence with UWA and the journals..

May 8, 2013 3:28 am

I am writing a blog post and am looking for good information about exectly how CO2 stores energy. What goes on in the molecule when hit by long wave radiation. Why is not as much affected by short wave? Why are some molecules able to store heat while others are not?
Have these things been established once and for all, if so when and by who, and are there any landmark enlightening papers on this?
Would appreciate any input on these matters.

May 8, 2013 4:37 am

CO2 does not ‘store energy’. It simply delays the transmisssion of energy, like an insulating blanket.
There is a difference, although it may not be apparent at first…

Martin Mason
May 8, 2013 4:50 am

that is a very interesting post

May 8, 2013 4:59 am

bathes says:
May 8, 2013 at 3:28 am

I am writing a blog post and am looking for good information about exectly how CO2 stores energy.

The basics are extremely well understood, the details are (IMHO) not so well.
Energy from the IR photon causes the atoms in CO2 to vibrate – think weights connected by springs. Soon thereafter the molecule either emits a new photon or transfers kinetic energy to another atmospheric molecule in a collision, there by raising the temperature of both as the bounce away.
N2 and O2, being diatomic, have different energy states and hence are affected by different wavelengths. Ar, being monatomic, doesn’t have anything to vibrate.
WUWT is not a search engine. However, I don’t know of any page that describes CO2 interactions at all levels and temperatures in the atmosphere. It will take months for someone to write a good one starting from no understanding of the processes involved.

May 8, 2013 5:06 am

Willis Eschenbach says:
May 8, 2013 at 2:04 am

It’s the sending of folks to realclimate that bothers me. Since you have the chance, you should send them to climateaudit, perhaps to the categories page for climategate if there is such a thing.

Here are two:
I could make a good case for not using the second….
There’s also a Climategate 3.0 category, but I assume not relevant.

May 8, 2013 5:07 am
Bill from Pittsburgh
May 8, 2013 5:17 am

While perhaps only indicative of how cold a winter Alaska has had, the Tanana River is poised for the lastest breakup this century and among the latest in the history of the Nenana Ice Classic which has been reported upon here before. The last update on ice conditions for the Classic came out yesterday where they reported that the Nenana River is showing no signs of breakup as yet which apparently precedes the breakup of the Tanana River by 7-10 days. However, the temperatures are forecast to rise ultimately into the 70s over the next several days so my complete unscientific guess for the Tanana River to break loose is 7:05pm May 16th.

May 8, 2013 5:24 am

I am looking for some detail about the UK case where Gore’s Inconvenient Truth was taken to court. What I need most is a copy of the “booklet” that apparently must be reviewed if the movie is shown at schools. Is this material on-line? Thanks

May 8, 2013 5:24 am

which one did you mean there?
(I had two posts up)

May 8, 2013 5:26 am

Thanks Ric

Richard M
May 8, 2013 5:26 am

Isn’t it about time for a Arctic sea ice article. Maybe I missed it. Are we doing predictions this year?

May 8, 2013 5:32 am
Paul Vaughan
May 8, 2013 5:39 am

“story submissions have been a dry hole lately”
This observation appears important.

May 8, 2013 5:53 am

Ricahrd M: What arctic ice? It is all gone. Replaced by kayak rental companies.

David Ball
May 8, 2013 5:56 am
May 8, 2013 6:37 am

‘And now for something completely different’ – been watching this lately and it has been very enjoyable and informative. My new hero’s Wallace.

May 8, 2013 6:46 am

One of the biggest issues there is for trying to control climate is sea level rise. It is said that coastal areas are in danger of being inundated with rising seas unless something is done. A big concern regarding this issue is the truthfulness of the data portrayed by the various scientific outlets. For example, what’s been going on at Colorado University’s Sea Level Research Group over the years:
If you query the Internet Archive WaybackMachine:
CU’s 2004 Release #1 shows the rate of sea level rise (slope) to the end of 2003 as 2.8 mm/yr
Today, The data
from CU’s 2013 Release #3
shows that the rate of sea level rise (Slope) to the end of 2003 is 3.5 mm/yr
Here’s what that looks like
That’s a jump of 0.7 mm/yr. But we know that the rate of sea level rise over the last 20 years is not accelerating as stated by this CU presentation:
“Why has an acceleration of sea level rise not been observed during the altimeter era?”
That presentation is a few years old now, but an analysis of the data
still shows it to be true.
When asked about these events, Colorado University responded:
“The sea level time series release from 2004 is over eight years old, and in that time many parts of the TOPEX and Jason-1 processing have been updated to reflect instrument and ancillary data improvements. Without recreating each processing change over the last eight years, I cannot point to any specific update that is the main cause of the differences between the 2004 and the current release. But a partial list of the more influential updates include:
– updated orbits
– updated radiometer corrections
– updated tide models
– updated sea state bias models
– updated dynamic atmosphere
A review of the release notes
shows how we continually apply what the altimeter science community considers to be the most up-to-date set of processing parameters. In fact, the Jason-2 data is currently being re-released and updated to the GDR-D standard, and this will most likely affect the altimeter time series due to these improvements.”
Well, what the altimeter science community considers as up-to-date adds up to an increase of 0.7 mm/yr over the last decade.

May 8, 2013 6:51 am

HenryP sez: “I feel a bit like the Joseph of the bible. He was able to correctly predict 7 years of abundance and 7 years of famine, probably by studying the flooding of the Nile (from his prison).”
Joseph would have had 13 years to observe flooding cycles of the Nile. Unlikely.
Gen 41:46 says Joseph was 30 years old when Pharoah was so pleased with Joseph’s interpretation of Pharoah’s dream, that Joseph was apppointed as some sort of lieutenant governor over Egypt.
Gen 37:2 says that Joseph was 17 when his brothers became jealous enough of him that they faked his death. It is not clear how rapidly his brothers abandoned Joseph, leading to his being taken down to Egypt. It could have been quickly, leading Joseph to end up in Egypt at the earliest at the age of 17. It could have been a year or mor elater, though. But 17 at the earliest.
Gen 37: 1 notes that Joseph was living in Canaan at that time. It would be far-fetched to think that Joseph, a young man, was paying attention to Nile levels for many years, if at all, before he ended up in Egypt. Once in Egypt, however, everyone would pay attention to the annual lower Nile floods, and the extent of this flooding. It is possible that Egypt’s agricltural seasonality would have had an impact on international trade, which would definitely include Canaan.
Assuming Joseph began paying attention to Nile flood levels at the age of 17, he had 13 years to observe up to the point of being asked to interpret the seven-cows dream of Pharoah.
It seems quite unlikely that Joseph discerned a cyclical 7-year pattern in seasonal flood extent from observing one and a half cycles.
Biblically, the handful of dream interpretations are accredited to a God-given talent, similar to the gift of prophecy. People may or may not believe God can do this, but the explanation of Joseph discerning a weather cycle does not seem a likely explanation, due to the limited time span.

May 8, 2013 7:02 am
May 8, 2013 7:38 am

@ stacase says:
May 8, 2013 at 6:46 am
Hallelujah! This is the first time – although I might have missed it obviously – that I have seen the issue of the legitimacy of this outfit raised. There were lifted eyebrows at the “adjustment” described below, but that’s all.
Is this bogus?
Why? Because these people have blatantly REDEFINED what sea level is by “adjusting” it for supposed changes in the land.
That is, “sea level” is according to them no longer “level of the sea against the land” it has become “the level of the sea against the land if what we claim has occurred hadn’t occurred”.
“Sea level” is not sea volume, not sea area, not sea depth, not sea anything else. It is not a “technical” term to be “adjusted” in the light of new “knowledge”.
If I’ve somehow got this commonplace for children for time immemorial terribly wrong would someone please put me out of my misery.
It has been incomprehensible to me that they could even dare to do this and THEN that it is simply allowed to stand.
The next “adjustment” will be to the effect that “sea level” has risen 10 metres and that everyone in NY is in fact drowned. Consultant: Hansen.
This is the single most obvious and brazen fraud in the whole cesspool.

May 8, 2013 8:02 am

, HenryP, Ric, thanks for input.
Henry: Thanks. Interesting to see the radiation budgets of each gas. Do you have any info on the mechanism by which each molecule reacts to certain wavelengths? Is there some type of resonance? And the mirroring effect as you write in your post – why does it vary between different gas molecules?
Ric: So more complex molecules will store more energy having “more springs and weights” or are there other factors involved as well?
It is probably tempting tp tell me to just google it, but I have been looking around and seen some different explanations and gotten a little confused. It is hard to know where to find reliable information in this area. Don’t have much trust in Wikipedia when it comes to disputed issues.

May 8, 2013 8:04 am

What is your recommended story/thread length?
How do recommend “testing” the format (for form, fit, and function) and the data or equations that we (me) would be discussing?
Yes, I have several “developed” ideas that would likely be interesting to you – to your readers – but I am by absolutely no means a html-savy writer nor column-and-table formatter nor graphics artist at presenting equations and graphs.
(Now – in a blatant request for help – would anyone care to assist a non-typist? )

May 8, 2013 8:59 am

Next time a Warmist accuses you of being funded by fossil fuel industry point out to them that we are also partly green funded. 😉 Did I mention the BBC Pension funds invested partly in oil and tobacco companies? I’ll leave that for another day.
Recent articles on green groups investing in fossil fuel companies.

Neil Jordan
May 8, 2013 10:06 am

More sea level rise. This morning’s Department of Water Resources California Water News carries a link to sea level rise around the Caribbean island of Grenada:
Encroaching sea already a threat in Caribbean
The people along this vulnerable stretch of eastern Grenada have been watching the sea eat away at their shoreline in recent decades, a result of destructive practices such as the extraction of sand for construction and ferocious storm surges made worse by climate change, according to researchers with the U.S.-based Nature Conservancy, who have helped locals map the extent of coastal erosion.
In eastern Grenada, people living in degraded coastal areas once protected by mangrove thickets say greater tidal fluctuations have produced unusually high tides that send seawater rushing up rivers. Farmers complain that crops are getting damaged by the intrusion of the salty water.
Two clues that something other than sea level rise might be the culprit:
1. “…destructive practices such as the extraction of sand for construction…”
2. “…degraded coastal areas once protected by mangrove thickets…”

May 8, 2013 10:17 am

jc says:
May 8, 2013 at 7:38 am
This [Colorado University Sea Level Research Unit] is the single most obvious and brazen fraud in the whole cesspool.
Personally I think the Church & White sea level papers deserve that title, but let’s not quibble.

May 8, 2013 11:22 am

henry@the lastdemocrate
Thanks for that comment. It made me look again at the original story.
In both Gen. 41:23 and 41:27 a change in direction of the wind is specifically suggested, from west to east. I will make a correction to my article.
Nevertheless, the Egyptians knew that their food came from the Nile. And they kept records. Perhaps Joseph had access to- or saw those records. And put one and one together.
Either way,
the Dust Bowl drought was also due to a change in the direction of the wind
I am saying same drought will start again. In about seven years time, give or take a few years.
What do you sat about that?

Chad Wozniak
May 8, 2013 11:52 am

Here’s a thought on what to do about government funding for global warming “research”:
Since AGW is a religion, funding its proponents amounts to creating an official state religion at government and taxpayer expense, with nonbelievers forced to subsidize a belief system they may not share. How would this differ from say, if the government said, All right, we are going to esablish and fund Buddhism as the state religion? (No offense to Buddhsim intended.)
The Constitution (First Amendment) says, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion”, but isn’t that what it is doing when it authorizes funding for AGWers?
Not sarc, but probably not going anywhere . . . .

May 8, 2013 12:51 pm

@ bathes etc
I was not interested to investigate that further,
Seeing as I discovered there was no AGW and there never will be …..
See my recent previous comment.
Rather be worried about GC…..

Chuck Nolan
May 8, 2013 4:09 pm

pat says:
May 8, 2013 at 2:12 am
Gore should have kept his mouth shut:……….
Just goes to show you, Gore is a has been in the US. Most people I know think he’s a joke. Al Gore does not speak for the US people or the real policy makers here.
But I do believe that Gore should stop telling fabulous stories.

A. Scott
May 8, 2013 4:33 pm

Who cares about sea ice?
In Minnesota its lake ice we’re concerned about … the big lakes in the southern half of the state just went out a few days ago – some 6 weeks later than last year.
This years May 2 ice out on Lake Minnetonka, on the West edge of the Mpls. metro area, was nearly a record late ice out. With records as far back as 1855, and ice out dates known for 134 of that 158 year period, there were just 3 years with ice out dates later than May 2 … May 4 in 1859, May 5 in 1857 and May 8 in 1856.
And on many of the lakes in the northern half of the state, the most important equipment to have on hand for the state fishing opener this weekend will be an ice auger.

May 8, 2013 5:16 pm

bathes says:
May 8, 2013 at 3:28 am
“I am writing a blog post and am looking for good information about exectly how CO2 stores energy. What goes on in the molecule when hit by long wave radiation. Why is not as much affected by short wave? Why are some molecules able to store heat while others are not? ”
LTE, Kirchhoff’s Law, absorptivity = emissivity

May 8, 2013 5:18 pm

Playing with google trends:
Global Warming, Gold, Climate Change, Unemployment, Twilight:

May 8, 2013 5:21 pm

…and in 2012, “My Little Pony” bested “Global Warming”….

May 8, 2013 5:29 pm

@stacase says:
May 8, 2013 at 10:17 am
OK, no quibbling. But I just DO NOT understand how ANYONE can see that and not immediately KNOW that this is an unbelievable – literally – level of deceit. As so as that appeared the FBI, the CIA, every journalist in the world, every scientist, every person who heard it should have immediately swung into action.
To know this for what it is requires only that someone be 5 or 7 yo. It has nothing at all to do with science. What has happened to human beings?
Or, please, you or anyone, am I being unbelievably stupid? Have I missed something?. I would rather that than the alternative, which is proof positive that civilization is dead and humanity finished.

May 8, 2013 5:56 pm

@ DirkH says:
May 8, 2013 at 5:21 pm
“…and in 2012, “My Little Pony” bested “Global Warming”….”
I feel humiliated. I thought I was at least a little bit aware of the issues and currents in the world. But I don’t even know what “My Little Pony” is. I have completely missed one of the most important issues facing humanity.
Google trends is interesting. I looked at “Climate Change” and “Global Warming” myself just yesterday. My impression is that this issue actually died in about AUGUST 2011. There had previously been a strongly seasonal infuence, with July/August the low. In 2011, there was no recovery from that. It has just dribbled along since.
Interestingly, there has just been a large spike in “Global Warming”. Could it be that this reflects the mood of just the past few weeks which has discernibly changed? Is this an indication not of concern but of the opposite?
I am increasingly of the opinion that this issue actually had its greatest resonance with the public in about 2001. And that since then what we have seen is the product of a strategic campaign almost in entirety. And it has now failed.
What is very very obvious is that there is only a tiny group committed to this, and that the great majority of “public support” is now held together by the absence of reason to think differently and social conformity. This can disappear almost overnight. Which is, I think, the point we are now at.

May 8, 2013 6:03 pm

@ DirkH
Oh, and please please do me a favor. I realize English is not your first tongue. But you obviously have facility in it. You may wonder if there are strange nuances unseen to you in “sea level”, but all I can say is there are not. Tell me, in the no nonsense way you have shown in other threads, after looking at my comments above. Am I mad?

May 8, 2013 7:21 pm

Ugh, anyone seen this one?
99 One-Liners Rebutting Denier Talking Points — With Links To The Full Climate Science
By Joe Romm and Climate Guest Blogger on May 7, 2013 at 12:37 pm
Progressives should know the disinformers’ most commonly used arguments — and how to answer them crisply. Those arguments have been repeated so many times by the fossil-fuel-funded disinformation campaign that almost everyone has heard them — and that means you’ll have to deal with them in almost any setting, from a public talk to a dinner party.
You should also know as much of the science behind those rebuttals as possible, and a great place to start is
BUT most of the time your best response is to give the pithiest response possible, and then refer people to a specific website that has a more detailed scientific explanation with links to the original science. That’s because usually those you are talking to are rarely in a position to adjudicate scientific arguments. Indeed, they would probably tune out. Also, unless you know the science cold, you are as likely as not to make a misstatement.
Physicist John Cook has done us a great service by posting good one-line responses and then updating them as the science evolves and as people offer better ways of phrasing. Below I have reposted the top 99 with links to the science. You can find even more here. Everybody should know the first 20 or so.
For instance, if somebody raises the standard talking point (#1 on the list) that the “climate’s changed before,” you can say, “Climate reacts to whatever forces it to change at the time; humans are now the dominant forcing.” That is actually quite similar to what was my standard response, “The climate changes when it is forced to change, and now humans are forcing it to change far more rapidly than it did in the past” (see “Humans boosting CO2 14,000 times faster than nature, overwhelming slow negative feedbacks” and “New Science Study Confirms ‘Hockey Stick’: The Rate Of Warming Since 1900 Is 50 Times Greater Than The Rate Of Cooling In Previous 5000 Years“). Working in the “humans are now the dominant forcing” part is a good idea.
Cook explains the origin of these one-liners in a 2010 post, “Rebutting skeptic arguments in a single line.” I have included the longer ‘paragraph’ rebuttals, which any CP reader who plans to speak out on this subject — in public or just with friends and associates — should also be familiar with.

John Parsons
May 8, 2013 8:09 pm

Does anyone know the disposition of Watts, et al (2012)? There hasn’t been a comment on the discussion thread for nine months. JP

May 8, 2013 8:10 pm

Any update on the Climategate 3 emails? JP

May 8, 2013 8:12 pm

WordPress strikes again. John Parsons=atarsinc. JP

May 8, 2013 8:13 pm

jc says:
May 8, 2013 at 6:03 pm
“@ DirkH
Oh, and please please do me a favor. I realize English is not your first tongue. But you obviously have facility in it. You may wonder if there are strange nuances unseen to you in “sea level”, but all I can say is there are not. Tell me, in the no nonsense way you have shown in other threads, after looking at my comments above. Am I mad?”
I don’t think so. Satellite altimetry is improbably difficult and subject to adjustments. Tide gauge measurements at the North Sea coast show no rise. Our tide gauges are not subsiding ones. Germany’s coast is neither rising nor subsiding to any great extent, different from Scandinavia or Italy.
See also
There Is No Alarming Sea Level Rise!
by Nils-Axel Mörner
Satellite altimetry only shows a sea level rise after the IPCC “scientists” applied a correction of 2.3 mm/year.
They took the 2.3 mm/year from the infamous subsiding gauge in Hong Kong.
Nils Axel Mörner interview

May 8, 2013 8:33 pm

jc says:
“I am increasingly of the opinion that this issue actually had its greatest resonance with the public in about 2001.”
Gallop polling suggests that the public was most concerned about AGW around 2007-2008. They also said this:
“U.S. worry about global warming is heading back up after several years of expanded public skepticism. Views on the subject are now near the midpoint in Gallup trends, exemplified by the 58% of Americans who say they worry a great deal or fair amount about global warming. This is up from 51% in 2011…” JP

May 8, 2013 8:54 pm

Well if they worry a lot they sure don’t look for it on the Internet.

Janice Moore
May 8, 2013 9:00 pm

“Since AGW is a religion, funding its proponents amounts to creating an official state religion at government and taxpayer expense, … .”[Chad Wozniak, 5/8/13 @ 1152]
Good point, Mr. Wozniak. For the true believers, it is, indeed, a religion in which they believe with all their hearts. Mostly, however, I think it is largely a political and money-making scam whose leader know very well they are pedaling lies.
I like your idea, and, it can be proven that AGW is, for SOME, truly a religion. Overall, the “Cult” wouldn’t satisfy the 2nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution’s definition of “religion.”
I’m with you, Chad. Truly, “we wrestle not with flesh and blood…” — Good v. Evil. Spiritual warfare is at the bottom of it all. Can’t address that via the law. Just pray.
I pray for you, sometimes, Chad. Hope all is well.

May 8, 2013 9:07 pm

@ atarsinc says:
May 8, 2013 at 8:33 pm
I expressed that poorly. What I meant was that the greatest level of “natural” interest or concern may have occurred then. What has happened subsequently, observable to anyone, is an unrelenting campaign – and that is the appropriate word – to achieve a specific effect, and this has been targeted not only only public but on public figures including politicians.
It has been a campaign of persuasion or propaganda depending on your view, with all the attendant intent of deliberate influence or manipulation depending on viewpoint. Based very heavily on claims to morality and the creation of fear and hysteria. Not science. Not rationality.
What I mean by “natural” interest and concern is that which is a response to the basic (supposed) facts of the physical implications of this.
It is hardly surprising that such a campaign, being successful, elicited the hysteria shown in 2007. The continuation of that, which seeks very obviously to try to maintain its waning impact is now focused on weather. There is however a limit to how long people can be maintained at that pitch. That limit seems now to have been reached.
Peak Hysteria was likely achieved in April 2007 in my opinion. We are now 6 years on. People start to “forget” the associations they have had, those things that seemed important, and their level of involvement after about 4 years. It exists in memory but not as an activating element in current life after that. Over the course of the next 18 months, all of that will be, in peoples response, just general history. It will not be “them”.
Your quoted survey is at odds with a recent Pew survey which indicated that the % of people who think a policy response is important falling from 37% to 34%. A minority. And a minority of Democrats as well as independents and Republicans.
By the time of the 2014 Congressional Elections, this will be a vote loser and all politicians will be aware of that. The only people who will take it seriously will be those who will vote for the same party anyway. It is on the way out. Terminal.

May 8, 2013 9:15 pm

However, all fine that there is no AGW and GW was natural, but what about GC and the coming drought?

Janice Moore
May 8, 2013 9:21 pm

Chad W — I responded to you at 9PM — as of 9:20PM, still in moderation.

May 8, 2013 10:48 pm

@DirkH says:
May 8, 2013 at 8:13 pm
What I mean is the DEFINITION of the simple words “sea level”. NOT measurements.
DOES “sea level” mean: “the level of the sea against the land” or NOT.
ANYONE who can tell me why it does not PLEASE do so. Be scathing about my stupidity. Ridicule me and treat me with complete contempt. But SHOW ME how it does not.
Or if someone on this planet actually agrees that it does, and that this is immutable, invariable, absolute, please take a moment to say so and join an exclusive club currently only apparently consisting of one.

Roger Knights
May 9, 2013 12:50 am

Sea level will rise due to thermal expansion, ice sheet melt and river sedimentation. All river sediment ends up eventually on the sea floor displacing water.

Say, does the U. of Colo. deduct this sedimentation increase from its GIA? If not, why not?

Monckton of Brenchley says:
July 23, 2012 at 4:49 pm
Fourthly, when it became apparent to the Colorado team that, as a result of the stasis in “global warming”, their post-1993 rate of sea level rise was about to fall below the psychological threshold of 3 mm/year (or 30 cm/century), it was decided to add a so-called “global isostatic adjustment” to the sea-level rise as a way of demonstrating that, were it not for “global warming”, the natural recovery of land altitudes by isostatic rebound following the melting of the great glaciers that once covered much of the northern hemisphere would show a fall in sea level.

Two years ago there was a controversy about this readjustment. Here is a link to an article about it:
A quote from the article said:

“’We have to account for the fact that the ocean basins are actually getting slightly bigger… water volume is expanding,’ he [Steve Nerem, the director ] said, a phenomenon they call glacial isostatic adjustment (GIA).”

To which I responded:

Let’s say the ocean basins were shrinking. Would he have reduced the rate of sea level rise to compensate? To ask the question is to know the answer.

A WUWT thread a month earlier, with some good comments, can be found here:
One objection I have to this readjustment is that it unjustifiably and misleadingly redefined “sea level” for propagandistic purposes (as my jibe above implied). Here are the standard definitions of “sea level”:
Mean sea level (MSL) is a measure of the average height of the ocean’s surface (such as the halfway point between the mean high tide and the mean low tide); used as a standard in reckoning land elevation.[1]
Sea level, average height of the ocean” [NB, “height,” not “volume.”]
(My dictionaries define sea level similarly.)

Glacial isostatic adjustment [GIA] and sea-level change
State of the art report – Technical Report TR-09-11
Pippa Whitehouse, Durham University, April 2009
“Relative sea-level is a height which is defined by the position of the interface between the ocean and the land (Figure 1-1). A rise in relative sea-level can occur due to an increase in the height of the ocean surface (for example, due to a change in the shape of the geoid, an increase in the volume of water in the oceans, or a decrease in the storage capacity of the oceans) and/or a drop in the height of the land (for example due to ice sheet loading, or tectonic activity).”
“4.9.4 Sea-level change
GIA is a major contributor to sea-level change. The geometry of ice-loading and the timing and source of melting produce a unique pattern of sea-level change following perturbations to the geoid and solid surfaces.”

The boldfaced portion above implies that the sea level changes as the ocean floors sink or rise. Steve Nerem’s interpretation is that the sea level should remain constant as the ocean floors sink or rise, by applying a correction factor to ensure that it does so on paper, regardless of what’s happening in the real world, and in defiance of what the conventions in his field prescribe.
A few months ago I visited the U. Colo. site. I read some of their material, which I’ve posted below. I was amazed at this sentence in their last paragraph. “this [GIA] correction is now scientifically well-understood and is applied to GMSL estimates by nearly all research groups around the world.” Is it really true, or are they being disingenuous? I.e., do the other research groups “apply” it, but not call the result “sea level”? (Or have they all recently acted in concert to support the warmist narrative?) This question deserves critical attention from WUWTers, and a thread devoted to the topic titled “On the Level?” First, here are some links:
Home page:
raw data (with GIA correction):
chart with GIA correction
Under “Similar plots” there is only a chart and data set for “Seasonal signals Retained.” There’s nothing showing one with GIA correction removed.
Chart through July without GIA (from WUWT, not available from UC itself via home page)

Addressing Questions Regarding the Recent GIA Correction
Edited: 2011-07-18
[Update, 2011/06/20: Media Matters has published a story on the attention our GIA correction has received.]
Regarding the Fox News article by Maxim Lott (derived from previous blogs, e.g., Heartland Institute/Forbes) that questions our application of the glacial isostatic adjustment (GIA) correction to the altimeter-based global mean sea level (GMSL) time series and rate estimates, we would like to direct interest to our Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) page that discusses the GIA effect and also the differences between our global mean sea level estimates from altimetry and regional/local relative sea level measured by tide gauges. These FAQs were updated in May with content partially derived from the discussion with Mr. Maxim, but much of this important content unfortunately did not get published in the Fox News article or in recent blogs.
We would also suggest consulting the other unaffiliated sea level research groups around the world that independently estimate global mean sea level from altimetry and also apply the scientifically well-understood GIA correction. Their current GMSL rate estimates are listed on the left sidebar of our site for reference. Note that our current rate estimate is actually the lowest of the groups, which does not support the claim that we “doctor the sea level data” to artificially support pro-climate change opinions. Instead, we strive to produce estimates of the global mean sea level time series and rate using the best available information to address the following questions:
How is the volume of the ocean changing?
How much of this is due to thermal expansion?
How much of this is due to addition of water that was previously stored as ice on land?
As the science of sea level change becomes better understood through peer-reviewed research, we include these advances in our global mean sea level estimates. This includes continuously improving some our applied altimetry corrections, such as better satellite orbits, ocean tides, and sea state bias models (all of which, along with the GIA correction, were updated and documented in our last 2011_1 release). For further study, we encourage interested parties to consult the references supplied in the FAQs and cataloged in our library and to also contact other research groups and scientists specifically studying global and regional sea level change.
What is glacial isostatic adjustment (GIA), and why do you correct for it?
The correction for glacial isostatic adjustment (GIA) accounts for the fact that the ocean basins are getting slightly larger since the end of the last glacial cycle. GIA is not caused by current glacier melt, but by the rebound of the Earth from the several kilometer thick ice sheets that covered much of North America and Europe around 20,000 years ago. Mantle material is still moving from under the oceans into previously glaciated regions on land. The effect is that currently some land surfaces are rising and some ocean bottoms are falling relative to the center of the Earth (the center of the reference frame of the satellite altimeter). Averaged over the global ocean surface, the mean rate of sea level change due to GIA is independently estimated from models at -0.3 mm/yr (Peltier, 2001, 2002, 2009; Peltier & Luthcke, 2009). The magnitude of this correction is small (smaller than the ±0.4 mm/yr uncertainty of the estimated GMSL rate), but the GIA uncertainty is at least 50 percent. However, since the ocean basins are getting larger due to GIA, this will reduce by a very small amount the relative sea level rise that is seen along the coasts. To understand the relative sea level effects of global oceanic volume changes (as estimated by the GMSL) at a specific location, issues such as GIA, tectonic uplift, and self attraction and loading (SAL, e.g., Tamisiea et al., 2010), must also be considered. For more discussion on the GMSL and how it relates to tide gauges, see the GMSL and tide gauge FAQs.
There are many different scientific questions that are being asked where GMSL measurements can contribute. We are focused on just a few of these:
How is the volume of the ocean changing?
How much of this is due to thermal expansion?
How much of this is due to addition of water that was previously stored as ice on land?
In order to answer these questions, we have to account for the fact that the ocean is actually getting bigger due to GIA at the same time as the water volume is expanding. This means that if we measure a change in GMSL of 3 mm/yr, the volume change is actually closer to 3.3 mm/yr because of GIA. Removing known components of sea level change, such as GIA or the solid earth and ocean tides, reveals the remaining signals contained in the altimetry measurement. These can include water volume changes, steric effects, and the interannual variability caused by events such as the ENSO. We apply a correction for GIA because we want our sea level time series to reflect purely oceanographic phenomena. In essence, we would like our GMSL time series to be a proxy for ocean water volume changes. This is what is needed for comparisons to global climate models, for example, and other oceanographic datasets.
There are other science questions that researchers are investigating, such as the effect of ocean volume change on local sea level rates, but this is not the focus of our research. When studying local sea level rates, which is important for policy planning, one definitely needs to account for the fact that in areas where GIA is causing an uplift, this somewhat mitigates the ocean volume change. This is being taken into account in these investigations. Also note that GIA can cause subsidence far away from the source of the old ice sheet, and that there are even larger cases of uplift and subsidence unconnected to GIA that are 10-20 times larger. For example, large parts of New Orleans are subsiding more than 10 mm/year—three times the current rate of GMSL—and so they see a much higher rate of sea level rise that has nothing to do with climate change.
Prior to release 2011_rel1, we did not account for GIA in estimates of the global mean sea level rate, but this correction is now scientifically well-understood and is applied to GMSL estimates by nearly all research groups around the world. Including the GIA correction has the effect of increasing previous estimates of the global mean sea level rate by 0.3 mm/yr.
See also:
Addressing Questions Regarding the Recent GIA Correction
GIA FAQ Updated with Peltier Reference

May 9, 2013 4:51 am

we use artificial construct called the sea level or der Meeresspiegel for a ling time now; and we use it so that the two ends of a tunnel can be started in such a way that the tunnel is level when the two boring machines meet.
For cartographers this artificial sea level construct is helpful. As far as I know, they don’t move it by 2.3 mm a year upwards, though.
This is the only practical use of “the sea level” as a non-local thing I know of.

Roger Knights
May 9, 2013 7:44 am

By Joe Romm and Climate Guest Blogger on May 7, 2013 at 12:37 pm
For instance, if somebody raises the standard talking point (#1 on the list) that the “climate’s changed before,” you can say, “Climate reacts to whatever forces it to change at the time; humans are now the dominant forcing.” That is actually quite similar to what was my standard response, “The climate changes when it is forced to change, and now humans are forcing it to change far more rapidly than it did in the past” … Working in the “humans are now the dominant forcing” part is a good idea.

That assumes the climate system can’t generate its own internal forcings, which it can as a result of the peaks or valleys of its internal oscillations coinciding. Analogously, a double pendulum (a pendulum with a second pendulum attached to its end) will swing erratically if released from a ten o’clock position, and even unexpectedly loop over the 12 o’clock position if the lower pendulum kicks in at the top of an upswing, even though no external forcing has been applied. (A youTube video of such a pendulum was posted here on WUWT within the past ten days.) The climate system probably has lots of internal oscillations, some unknown.

Roger Knights
May 9, 2013 8:39 am

PS: In addition, Romm’s point implies that the “forcings” of past perturbations in the global climate are known, which they mostly aren’t.

May 10, 2013 10:11 am

@ Roger Knights says:
May 9, 2013 at 12:50 am
Thanks for the background. And something of the current progress of this offence.
I think my directed attention to AGW probably dates from about the tail-end of this perversion, so I missed some of the commentary you provided. What still disturbs me is that this did not provoke the only response warranted expressed with the brevity demanded: this is BULLSHIT.
This leaves Orwell in the shade. “Orwellian” is normally used in referring to social or sociological terms or expressions, which are by nature more inclined to nuance and variation, or can at least be made to be so, through manipulation, more easily.
This is a simple physical reality. To destroy its meaning is breathtaking.
This is the ultimate in Big Lies, where it is so stupendously inconceivable that no one dares to even see it for what it is, and is reduced to thinking there MUST be some justification for it, and if they can’t see it, there must be something wrong with them. And so they say nothing for fear of looking stupid.
This is the most profoundly disturbing thing I have come across in AGW.

May 10, 2013 5:47 pm
%d bloggers like this: