Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach
Among the recent efforts to explain away the effects of the ongoing “pause” in temperature rise, there’s an interesting paper by Dr. Anny Cazenave et al entitled “The Rate of Sea Level Rise”, hereinafter Cazenave14. Unfortunately it is paywalled, but the Supplementary Information is quite complete and is available here. I will reproduce the parts of interest.
In Cazenave2014, they note that in parallel with the pause in global warming, the rate of global mean sea level (GMSL) rise has also been slowing. Although they get somewhat different numbers, this is apparent in the results of all five of the groups processing the satellite sea level data, as shown in the upper panel “a” of Figure 1 below

Figure 1. ORIGINAL CAPTION: GMSL rate over five-year-long moving windows. a, Temporal evolution of the GMSL rate computed over five-year-long moving windows shifted by one year (start date: 1994). b, Temporal evolution of the corrected GMSL rate (nominal case) computed over five-year-long moving windows shifted by one year (start date: 1994). GMSL data from each of the five processing groups are shown.
Well, we can’t have the rate of sea level rise slowing, doesn’t fit the desired message. So they decided to subtract out the inter-annual variations in the two components that make up the sea level—the mass component and the “steric” component. The bottom panel shows what they ended up with after they calculated the inter-annual variations, and subtracted that from each of the five sea level processing groups.
So before I go any further … let me pose you a puzzle I’ll answer later. What was it about Figure 1 that encouraged me to look further into their work?
Before I get to that, let me explain in a bit more detail what they did. See the Supplemental Information for further details. They started by taking the average sea level as shown by the five groups. Then they detrended that. Next they used a variety of observations and models to estimate the two components that make up the variations in sea level rise.
The mass component, as you might guess, is the net amount of water either added to or subtracted from the ocean by the vagaries of the hydrological cycle—ice melting and freezing, rainfall patterns shifting from ocean to land, and the like. The steric (density) component of sea level, on the other hand, is the change in sea level due to the changes in the density of the ocean as the temperature and salinity changes. The sum of the changes in these two components gives us the changes in the total sea level.
Next, they subtracted the sum of the mass and steric components from the average of the five groups’ results. This gave them the “correction” that they then applied to each of the five groups’ sea level estimates. They describe the process in the caption to their graphic below:

Figure 2. This is Figure S3 from the Supplemental Information. ORIGINAL CAPTION: Figure S3: Black curve: mean detrended GMSL time series (average of the five satellite altimetry data sets) from January 1994 to December 2011, and associated uncertainty (in grey; based on the dispersion of each time series around the mean). Light blue curve: interannual mass component based on the ISBA/TRIP hydrological model for land water storage plus atmospheric water vapour component over January 1994 to December 2002 and GRACE CSR RL05 ocean mass for January 2003 to December 2011 (hybrid case 1). The red curve is the sum of the interannual mass plus thermosteric components. This is the signal removed to the original GMSL time series. Vertical bars represent the uncertainty of the monthly mass estimate (of 1.5 mm22, 30, S1, S3; light blue bar) and of the monthly total contribution (mass plus thermosteric component) (of 2.2 mm, ref. 22, 30, 28, 29, S1, S3; red bar). Units : mm.
So what are they actually calculating when they subtract the red line from the black line? This is where things started to go wrong. The blue line is said to be the detrended mass fluctuation including inter-annual storage on land as well as in water vapor. The black line is said to be the detrended average of the GMSL The red line is the blue line plus the “steric” change from thermal expansion. Here are the difficulties I see, in increasing order of importance. However, any of the following difficulties are sufficient in and of themselves to falsify their results.
• UNCERTAINTY
I digitized the above graphic so I could see what their correction actually looks like. Figure 3 shows that result in blue, including the 95% confidence interval on the correction.
Figure 3. The correction applied in Cazenave14 to the GMSL data from the five processing groups (blue)
The “correction” that they are applying to each of the five datasets is only statistically different from zero for 10% of the datapoints. This means that 90% of their “correction” is not distinguishable from random noise.
• TREND
In theory they are looking at just inter-annual variations. To get these, they describe the processing. The black curve in Figure 2 is described as the “mean detrended GMSL time series” (emphasis mine). They describe the blue curve in Figure 2 by saying (emphasis mine):
As we focus on the interannual variability, the mass time series were detrended.
And the red curve in Figure 2 is the mass and steric component combined. I can’t find anywhere that they have said that they detrended the steric component.
The problem is that in Figure 2, none of the three curves (black:GMSL, blue:mass, red:mass + steric) are detrended, although all of them are close. The black curve trends up and the other two trend down.
The black GMSL curve still has a slight trend, about +0.02 mm/yr. The blue steric curve goes the other way, about -0.6 mm/yr. The red curve exaggerates that a bit, to take the total trend of the two to -0.07 mm yr. And that means that the “correction”, the difference between the red curve showing the mass + steric components and the black GMSL curve, that correction does indeed have a trend as well, which is the sum of the two, or about a tenth of a mm per year.
Like I said, I can’t figure out what’s going on in this one. They talk about using the detrended values for determining the inter-annual differences to remove from the data … but if they did that, then the correction couldn’t have a trend. And according to their graphs, nothing is fully detrended, and the correction most definitely has a trend.
• LOGIC
The paper includes the following description regarding the source of the information on the mass balance:
To estimate the mass component due to global land water storage change, we use the Interaction Soil Biosphere Atmosphere (ISBA)/Total Runoff Integrating Pathways (TRIP) global hydrological model developed at MétéoFrance22. The ISBA land surface scheme calculates time variations of surface energy and water budgets in three soil layers. The soil water content varies with surface infiltration, soil evaporation, plant transpiration and deep drainage. ISBA is coupled with the TRIP module that converts daily runo simulated by ISBA into river discharge on a global river channel network of 1 resolution. In its most recent version, ISBA/TRIP uses, as meteorological forcing, data at 0.5 resolution from the ERA Interim reanalysis of the European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecast (www.ecmwf.int/products/data/d/finder/parameter). Land water storage outputs from ISBA/TRIP are given at monthly intervals from January 1950 to December 2011 on a 1 grid (see ref. 22 for details). The atmospheric water vapour contribution has been estimated from the ERA Interim reanalysis.
OK, fair enough, so they are using the historical reanalysis results to model how much water was being stored each month on the land and even in the air as well.
Now, suppose that their model of the mass balance were perfect. Suppose further that the sea level data were perfect, and that their model of the steric component were perfect. In that case … wouldn’t the “correction” be zero? I mean, the “correction” is nothing but the difference between the modeled sea level and the measured sea level. If the models were perfect the correction would be zero at all times.
Which brings up two difficulties:
1. We have no assurance that the difference between the models and the observations is due to anything but model error, and
2. If the models are accurate, just where is the water coming from and going to? The “correction” that gets us from the modeled to the observed values has to represent a huge amount of water coming and going … but from and to where? Presumably the El Nino effects are included in their model, so what water is moving around?
The authors explain it as follows:
Recent studies have shown that the short-term fluctuations in the altimetry-based GMSL are mainly due to variations in global land water storage (mostly in the tropics), with a tendency for land water deficit (and temporary increase of the GMSL) during El Niño events and the opposite during La Niña. This directly results from rainfall excess over tropical oceans (mostly the Pacific Ocean) and rainfall deficit over land (mostly the tropics) during an El Niño event. The opposite situation prevails during La Niña. The succession of La Niña episodes during recent years has led to temporary negative anomalies of several millimetres in the GMSL, possibly causing the apparent reduction of the GMSL rate of the past decade. This reduction has motivated the present study.
But … but if that’s the case then why isn’t this variation in rainfall being picked up by the whiz-bang “Interaction Soil Biosphere Atmosphere (ISBA)/Total Runoff Integrating Pathways (TRIP) global hydrological model”? I mean, the model is driven by actual rainfall observations, including all the data of the actual El Nino events.
And assuming that such a large and widespread effect isn’t being picked up by the model, in that case why would we assume that the model is valid?
The only way that we can make their logic work is IF the hydrologic model is perfectly accurate except it somehow manages to totally ignore the atmospheric changes resulting from El Nino … but the model is fed with observational data, so how would it know what to ignore?
• OVERALL EFFECT
At the end of the day, what have they done? Well, they’ve measured the difference between the models and the average of the observations from the five processing groups.
Then they have applied that difference between the two to the individual results from the five processing groups.
In other words, they subtracted the data from the models … and then they added that amount to the data. Lets do the math …
Data + “Correction” = Data + (Models – Data) = Models
How is that different from simply declaring that the models are correct, the data is wrong, and moving on?
CONCLUSIONS
1. Even if the models are accurate and the corrections are real, the size doesn’t rise above the noise.
2. Despite a claim that they used detrended data for their calculations for their corrections, their graphic display of that data shows that all three datasets (GMSL, mass component, and mass + steric components) contain trends.
3. We have no assurance that “correction”, which is nothing more than the difference between observations and models, is anything more than model error.
4. The net effect of their procedure is to transform observational results into modeled results. Remember that when you apply their “correction” to the average mean sea level, you get the red line showing the modeled results. So applying that same correction to the five individual datasets that make up the average mean sea level is … well … the word that comes to mind is meaningless. They’ve used a very roundabout way to get there, but at the end they are merely asserting is that the models are right and the data is wrong …
Regards to all,
w.
PS—As is customary, let me ask anyone who disagrees with me or someone else to quote the exact words that you disagree with in your reply. That way, we can all be clear about what you object to.
PPS—I asked up top what was the oddity about the graphs in Figure 1 that made me look deeper? Well, in their paper they say that the same correction was applied to the data of each of the processing groups. Unless I’m mistaken (always possible), this should result in a linear transformation of each month’s worth of data. In other words, the adjustment for each month for all datasets was the same, whether it was +0.1 or -1.2 or whatever. It was added equally to that particular month in the datasets from all five groups.
Now, there’s an oddity about that kind of transformation, of adding or subtracting some amount from each month. It can’t uncross lines on the graph if they start out crossed, and vice versa. If they start out uncrossed, their kind of “correction” can’t cross them.
With that in mind, here’s Figure 1 again:
Figure 1 redux …
I still haven’t figured out how they did that one, so any assistance would be gratefully accepted.
DATA AND CODE: Done in Excel, it’s here.
And we’re given this from the International New York Times:
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/29/world/asia/facing-rising-seas-bangladesh-confronts-the-consequences-of-climate-change.html?ref=world&_r=0
Has the world gone insane?
This global warming thing is the equivalent of the Salem Witch Trials, only more people are being killed as a result (e.g., winter deaths in GB due to expensive power caused by….).
Deep sea heat? Well there is a bit of proof that deep sea vents do throw out hotter water, and the life around them exists on chemosynthesis, rather than photosynthesis. Anyway that is restricted to around volcanic vents and trenches. But the volume of the cold water soon cools it down.
I have often wondered what a persistent high pressure system does to sea levels when over the water for an extended period of time.
Just a thought.
Nice read Willis!
” Global averages for sea levels are as nonsensical as global averages for land temperature”
both averages make perfect sense.
Gamecock says:
March 29, 2014 at 12:39 pm
Fair enough …
Fair enough.
Thanks for the information and the links, Gamecock. The question is not whether the ocean basin size varies. Everyone knows it varies. The question is, does it vary enough to make a difference?
For this analysis, the question is whether the variation in basin size will make a visible difference over the 18 years of the record. Or even over the hundred years or so of the tide gauge record.
For example. You point out that the Amazon puts call it 9e+8 tonnes of suspended sediment into the ocean annually. Globally, the total sediment added is estimated to be on the order of 15e+9 tonnes. Density of the silt is on the order of 2 tonnes/km3, so that is about 7.5e9 cubic metres, or 7.5 cubic kilometres of ground-up rock and soil.
Now, the ocean area is about 3.5e+8 square kilometres … so the 7.5 cubic km of rock and soil added by all the worlds rivers and all the floods and all will raise the ocean by about
7.5 / 3.5e+8 * 1e+6 mm/km = 0.02 mm per year …
Like I said, the question is not whether, but how much …
All the best,
w.
ossqss says:
March 29, 2014 at 6:59 pm
Your intuition is good. In some cases, when studying sea levels researchers use an “inverse barometer” correction to account for exactly that effect, where high pressure pushes down on the ocean surface.
Here’s a back-of-the-envelope estimate. Total weight of the atmosphere is about 10 metres of water or so. Normal range of barometric pressure is about 980 to 1050 mbar (hPa), or about a ± 3.5% swing. Typical pressure moves are more on the order of ±1%, and 1% of 10 metres is 10 cm, or about 4″. So yes, pressure variations definitely move the surface of the ocean up and down, a 1% change in pressure is equivalent to a change in weight of 4″ of water.
w.
Wills
Another factor that I don’t see mentioned is how much water is bound up in plants? Since, according to several studies, the planet has greened by 30% due to carbon fertilization since the 1960’s, that would imply greater water storage in the floral system.
The question of the contribution of erosion and tectonics to SLR could use a philosophical perspective. One consideration: how much water is rained down on the earth from space? How much space dust? Both are surely trivial, but space dust is not only trivial but irrelevant, since it should be spread evenly over the planet, raising ocean and land evenly. Space water, on the other hand, would only raise sea level.
Ignoring ice and thermal expansion, that is, considering only depth and elevation distribution, it should at least be noted that the continents have always floated on the mantle, and while subduction of the continents does occur, it is reasonable to assume that they resurface at an approximately equivalent rate. Likewise the same plate tectonics that alter the width and depth of ocean basins simultaneously build mountain ranges, and the same sedimentation that builds the continental shelves results in uplift of the plateaus and river basins from which the sediment is removed.
In other words there is little reason to believe that over the long run geological processes make much difference in SLR, let alone over decades. The earth has never been flat, mountains are always growing, and gravity and erosion limit their height.
The separate question as to SLR serving as a thermometer is complicated by a few factors that need mentioning. For one thing, it takes about two orders of magnitude more energy to raise SL through expansion than through melting land ice, so that the relative contribution of each must be known before we can calibrate. Also, since thermal expansion of seawater varies by temperature, pressure, and salinity–significantly–we have to know at what depth and temperature the expansion is taking place before we can calculate energy input from steric SLR. Obviously with ARGO it’s easier to calculate in the other direction.
Through the Pleistocene there has been obvious correlation between SLR and T, but it is not a case of cause and effect with T as cause. Rather the reverse is closer to the truth, since SLR is a function of ice volume, and T is a function of albedo, or ice area. Therefore T/SLR corresponds to ice area/ice volume, on a Pleistocene secular scale. –AGF
Willis Eschenbach says:
March 29, 2014 at 7:24 pm
A couple of papers along these lines
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2007GL030862/abstract
Gyre-scale atmospheric pressure variations and their relation to 19th and 20th century sea level rise
Laury Miller1 andBruce C. Douglas2
http://www.ocean-sci.net/6/185/2010/os-6-185-2010.pdf
The gyre-scale circulation of the North Atlantic and sea level at
Brest
P. L. Woodworth1 , N. Pouvreau2, and G. Woppelmann ¨
mosh said in reply to me
” Global averages for sea levels are as nonsensical as global averages for land temperature”
He said ‘both averages make perfect sense.”
In that case it should be very easy for you to explain them.
They make as much sense as the average for global economic growth which ignores that some areas remain in recession whilst others are powering ahead. You will set economic policy according to what is happening in your own country/region not what is happening elsewhere
Surely it is more useful to look at what is actually happening in the real world rather than at some averaged one which doesn’t exist?
But look forward to your detailed article. A good title would be ‘One size does fit all.’
tonyb
Willis Eschenbach says:
March 29, 2014 at 7:10 pm
The question is not whether the ocean basin size varies. Everyone knows it varies. The question is, does it vary enough to make a difference?
=======================
I have never, ever heard anyone mention variability of the ocean basin. All discussions of sea level are about water only.
Does it vary enough to make a difference? We simply don’t know.
rgbatduke says:March 29, 2014 at 9:57 am
Thank you for your expansion of my thought. Although TonyB responded to your query of ancient harbor’s sea level, he didn’t point to his sites post @ur momisugly http://climatereason.com/Articles/
Third article down, entitled ‘A Look at Historic Sea Levels’, by Tony Brown, with links.
Gamecock says:
March 30, 2014 at 8:59 am
I have never, ever heard anyone mention variability of the ocean basin. All discussions of sea level are about water only.
===============================================================
Three years ago UofC adjusted SLR 10% upwards for GIA, which is vertical change in ocean basin. Where were you?
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/05/05/new-sea-level-page-from-university-of-colorado-now-up/
–AGF
Gamecock says:
March 30, 2014 at 8:59 am
Dang, I wouldn’t boast about not doing your homework … so you missed e.g. the big furor when the radar satellite guys decided to add 0.3 mm/yr to account for that very change? See here for details.
I must say, people making this kind of statement without the simplest Google search are a scientific nuisance. You seem to think scientists are all idiots. The changes in the volume of the basins have been studied for years, see e.g. here, a document from a course by Judith Curry at the University of Georgia. There’s a whole section in that paper entitled “Sea Level Change due to Changing Volume of the Ocean Basin” … your claim, that you’ve discovered some new unstudied phenomena, doesn’t withstand even the slightest scrutiny.
w.
tonyb says:
March 30, 2014 at 12:03 am
I would disagree with mosh entirely. Sea level is an extensive property (a property which changes with the amount of material involved), while temperature is an intensive property. The averages of the two are quite different in both theory and practice.
However, I’d agree with him that there are many purposes for which such averages do indeed make perfect sense.
I don’t understand this objection. While it is true that averages don’t exist, that doesn’t mean that they are useless. Consider for example the grade-point-average (GPA) for a student. How is that not useful in measuring how well a student is learning? And how is that GPA not “what is actually happening in the real world”?
Look, tonyb, I’m one of the researchers who dislikes averages the most, they are often misused and can hide lots of interesting phenomena.
But that doesn’t mean that they are not useful when properly used.
w.
Willis
Of course averages are useful in some cases.
I was particularly concerned with the worth of global averages for something as local as sea temperatures, and land temperatures and sea levels. By averaging we are missing out on useful nuances whereby for example not all the world is warming and not all the sea in its various basins is rising, indeed in some areas sea level is falling whilst in others it is rising much faster than ‘average,’
Tonyb
Willis, if you want to explore bounds on thermal gain using steric expansion, I recommend this reference: http://publishing.cdlib.org/ucpressebooks/view?docId=kt167nb66r&chunk.id=d3_4_ch03&toc.id=ch03&toc.depth=1&brand=eschol&anchor.id=tab009#X. I also checked my numbers against Levitus et al [GRL 2012].
Levitus et al [GRL 2012] estimate the 55 year trend of ocean thermal gain (1955-2010) to be 0.4W/m2 over the entire ocean volume, which is much less than 1.5W/m2, but theoretically could have increased in the last 16 years of flat lower tropospheric temperatures. They correspondingly estimate less of a thermosteric component of sea level rise, at 0.54mm/y which means that my back-of-the-envelope upper bound of 2mm/y sea level per 1 – 2 W/m2 heat storage (1-2mm/W/m2) agrees with Levitus et al’s number of 0.54mm/y/0.4W/m2 (1.35mm/W/m2).
Since implicit in Levitus is 1.35mm of sea level rise per W/m2 of ocean-stored global forcing, and the IPCC estimates net anthropogenic forcing to be 1.5W/m2. That comes out to just about exactly 2mm/y of sea level rise if it all goes into the ocean. If the current rate is 3mm/y, that leaves only 1mm/y for the natural post LIA rise plus all the anthropogenically melted glaciers.
Willis writes “Consider for example the grade-point-average (GPA) for a student. How is that not useful in measuring how well a student is learning?”
I think you missed the point. Consider for example the grade-point-average (GPA) for all students. How is that useful in measuring how well a student is learning?
I’ve subtly rewrittewn your statement so you can see his point.
TimTheToolMan says:
March 30, 2014 at 7:24 pm
Recall that his comment to which I was responding was in reference to sea level measurements:
I was simply point out that looking at sea level averages can be valuable, just as looking at individual sea levels can be valuable.
Next, you ask:
He said that averages of sea levels are not useful, and that it’s more valuable to look at “what is actually happening” … as though averages weren’t part of what is happening …
I gave a simple example to show that averages are useful.
You’ve twisted my words around so that they mean something totally different, ostensibly so I can “see his point” … sorry, but that doesn’t make sense. I have no clue what you are getting at. Likely my mistake, my lack of understanding, but I’m just not getting it. Far too roundabout for me.
If you’d just stand up and say “Willis, here is his point that you missed” that might be useful.
w.
Willis writes “Recall that his comment to which I was responding was in reference to sea level measurements:”
Because you ignored his argument.which was “You will set economic policy according to what is happening in your own country/region not what is happening elsewhere. Surely it is more useful to look at what is actually happening in the real world rather than at some averaged one which doesn’t exist?”
I dont think you understood. His point was about the importance of local effects not whether there was any use for a global average at all. Your example specifically didn’t address what I would consider his main point.
TimTheToolMan says:
March 30, 2014 at 11:34 pm
I “ignored” it? So you know what I’ve looked at and noticed, and what I haven’t noticed and what I’ve ignored? Your claims about your grandiose omniscience are risible—how on earth would you know what I’ve seen and what I haven’t seen?
I didn’t ignore a damn thing. I didn’t understand his point the way you understood it. So sue me.
Oh, now I didn’t “ignore his argument”, now I didn’t understand it? If you’re going to be a jerkwagon, at least be consistent.
Tim, his point was clear and succinct. He said:
I thought then that he was wrong about that. I still think so. If you think he is right, then please explain why.
Now his explanation (as you point out) was that averages are nonsensical because some areas are going up and some areas are going down … do you really believe that? To be specific, his claim was that an economic average is “nonsensical” because “some areas remain in recession whilst others are powering ahead” … seriously Tim, do you believe his explanation that averages are “nonsensical” because of the things being averaged, some are high and some are low?
Does that explanation really work for you?
Because it makes no sense to me at all, and that was assuredly his claim. Didn’t make sense then, doesn’t now.
w.
Willies writes “If you’re going to be a jerkwagon, at least be consistent.”
Thanks for the abuse Willis.
Willis writes “Now his explanation (as you point out) was that averages are nonsensical because some areas are going up and some areas are going down … do you really believe that?”
I dont know about “going down” but certainly its very well known that sea level rise differs regionally and so it makes sense for local authorities to be looking at their regional changes when considering policy rather than focussing on the global average. He made that point and its a fair one.
You ignored it entirely and instead focussed on your own interest area. Fine. I expect nothing less from you actually.
TimTheToolMan says:
March 31, 2014 at 3:36 am
Tim, re-read the thread. Things were going quite nicely until you accused me of malfeasance, saying that I deliberately was ignoring what someone was saying. You might get away with that kind of bs with your friends, but I can guarantee that when you try it on me, it will blow up in your face every time.
Certainly sea level differs regionally. However, any local authority that thinks that they can make decisions based solely on the local changes and ignore the overall average changes is an idiot. Why? Because eventually all of the local areas are likely to revert to the mean … and if you don’t know what that mean is, how can you prepare for it?
You need both local and global knowledge to make an informed decision, not just one or the other.
And in any case, even if you don’t need average sea levels for some given task, it doesn’t make average sea levels “nonsensical” as he fatuously claimed. Since when have averages become “nonsensical”, and why didn’t I get the memo?
Look, Tim, unless you’ve suddenly developed ESP you don’t have a clue what I am “ignoring”, you have no way to tell what I ignored from what I didn’t notice, and you have no means to distinguish either of those from what I simply decided was not important enough to comment on. That means you’re just making this stuff up to cause trouble. Have you always been like that, or is it a skill that you’ve developed and honed over time?
I objected strongly last time you falsely accused me of “ignoring” things. Like I said, it will blow up in your face every single time you try those false accusation.
It was a sleazy underhanded move the first time you failed to run it past me. Now, the second time you blindly accuse me of ignoring something, it has all the hallmarks of a deliberate insult.
Let me invite you to gently place your ugly insinuations where the total solar irradiance (TSI) is zero …
w.
Willis writes “Tim, re-read the thread. Things were going quite nicely until you accused me of malfeasance, saying that I deliberately was ignoring what someone was saying. ”
Good idea.
Tim writes “I think you missed the point.”
Well there’s a hateful comment telling you you were ignoring something. That was bound to start an abusive argument from you. And it did.
And then you wrote _rant_ including calls of omniscience and ESP regarding my “understanding” of what you ignored. Well what you ignored was what you didn’t reply to…otherwise, yes ESP would have to be involved. Followed by “I have no clue what you are getting at. Likely my mistake, my lack of understanding, but I’m just not getting it. Far too roundabout for me.”
And you wonder why I said I thought you didn’t understand?
I do love your rants though. This… “You might get away with that kind of bs with your friends, but I can guarantee that when you try it on me, it will blow up in your face every time.” …is gold.
The long tail of the Great Melt would be expected to go asymptotic to a 0 slope. And at some point it will go negative as the Continental Ice builds back up at the end of the Interglacial.
TimTheToolMan says:
March 31, 2014 at 4:58 am (Edit)
Tim, I think you missed my point.
It is not a neutral act to accuse a man of ignoring something, particularly in your case, because you do not have a clue whether I even read what you are accusing me of ignoring.
I might have read it and not understood it. I might have overlooked it entirely, I might have read it and not had any answer. I might have read it and been unclear on the main points. I’m juggling a lot of comments at any given instant, and no, I don’t read or understand everything, Tim. So sue me … but don’t blindly and falsely accuse me of ignoring something. Doing that is not “hateful”, as you claim. It is simply very insulting. I’m an honest man, Tim. I don’t play those kinds of childish games, and I don’t appreciate being accused of doing so.
Now, like I said, perhaps your friends don’t object when you try this kind of an insult out on them. I said that because you don’t even seem to realize that it is an insult to some people. So that would imply that your friends either don’t object or don’t notice when you make that kind of unsupported accusation.
Or perhaps you only try running this kind of insult past me, and you don’t do it with your friends.
For whatever reason, you seem to think that it is perfectly fine to accuse a man of deliberately ignoring something, without the slightest scrap of evidence to back up that nasty claim. It is not perfectly fine to do that anywhere I’ve ever been …
And yes, Tim, every time you try to do it to me, it will bite you back. And it seems that you know that, since you said “That was bound to start an abusive argument from you. And it did.”
Charming. You deliberately did something, knowing that I would slap your face for it … I give up, Tim. No more for me, that’s all I can take of TimTheTool. I don’t deal with folks who deliberately do things that they admit they knew were bound to start trouble, as you just have.
w.