![Monster_from_the_Ocean_Floor_FilmPoster[1]](http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2014/05/monster_from_the_ocean_floor_filmposter1.jpeg?w=300&resize=300%2C234)
By Christopher Monckton of Brenchley
Willie Soon sends me a fascinating paper by Beenstock et al. on sea-level rise. Beenstock, famous for taking a down-to-earth approach to climate issues, asked the question how much warming the tide gauges show if one does not tamper with them.
The official sea level data are fiddled by an artifice known as the “global isostatic adjustment”. The inconvenient truth that sea level is not changing much must be concealed, so an enormous, bogus addition to the actual trend is made.
The excuse for this overblown addition, which accounts for a very large fraction of the difference between the satellite and tide-gauge records, is that the land is still rising and the sea sinking because of the transfer of miles-thick ice from the land to the oceans that ended 9000 years ago. Therefore, the story goes, sea level would be falling were it not for global warming.
Hey presto! Sea level rise is instantly made to accelerate.
Niklas Mörner calls these tamperings “personal calibrations” – a polite form for what is in essence fiction. After all, in the century to 1950, we could not have had any significant influence on climate or on sea level. Yet sea level rose.
In the past decade or two sea level has not really been rising much, as the Envisat and then the Grace satellites confirmed, suggesting that all of the major global temperature records are correct in showing that global temperature has not been rising recently.
So there is no particular anthropogenic reason for ocean heat content to rise appreciably. Those who say, with the relentlessly wrong-about-everything Kevin Trenberth, that “the ocean ate my global warming” are simply wrong.
Meanwhile, the Pause continues. The RSS satellite data for April 2014 are now available. The updated graph shows no global warming for 17 years 9 months.
Enjoy The Pause while it lasts. A Kelvin wave is galloping across the Pacific, and the usual suspects would be praying for a super El Niño if they had the sense to credit the Old Religion rather than the New Superstition. Already the well-paid extremists are predicting a new record annual mean surface temperature either in 2014 or in 2015.
Their prediction for 2014 will probably not come true. Four months without any warming make it difficult to imagine that this will be a record year for global temperature, though it is barely possible.
The notion of a new record temperature next year is less implausible, particularly if there is a strong or prolonged el Niño followed by a weak la Niña. As Roy Spencer points out on his hard-headed and ever-sensible blog, all things being equal one would expect temperature records to be broken from time to time, for CO2 is accumulating in the atmosphere and some warming – eventually – is to be expected.
However, as the also hard-headed Dick Lindzen points out, the new record, when it happens, will be hundredths of a degree above the old, and it will be well within the natural variability of the climate. When warming eventually resumes, probably towards the end of this year, for El Niño is a seasonal event, it will probably not be much to write home about. And the following La Niña may cancel much of it. But that will not prevent the usual suspects from screeching that It’s Worse Than We Ever Thought.
Beenstock knocks that one on the head. Here is his conclusion about the rate of sea level rise: “Consensus estimates of recent GMSL rise are about 2mm/year. Our estimate is 1mm/year. We suggest that the difference between the two estimates is induced by the widespread use of data reconstructions which inform the consensus estimates.”
In short, They made stuff up. Again. And neither the politicians nor the journalists asked any of the right questions.
When Niklas Mörner was invited a couple of years ago to give a presentation on sea-level rise at an international climate conference in Cambridge, he arranged for a copy of a paper by him for the layman to be circulated. The organizers agreed, but the moment they saw the title, Sea Level Is Not Rising, they not only refused to allow the paper to be circulated – without actually reading it – but went round collecting the few samizdat copies that had already reached the delegates.
This offensive and now routine intolerance of what is now daily being confirmed as the objective truth should not be tolerated for a moment longer.
OK. So they include a factor to account for land rising in their estimates of sea level rise. They can now include the same factor in their estimates of how much we need to worry about sea level rise.
Hey presto, like the 6’s in the division 16/64 they both cancel out and nothing changes.
Except that they have just pocketed another splodge of our wonga and kept their scam alive for another day…
Concur. As Steve Goddard has pointed out here: http://bit.ly/1nfdNxI, 85% of all tide gauges read below the claimed 3.2mm per year. Taking the average of the listed gauges, it is 1.14mm/yr (this includes wildly sinking and rising gauges and is not an area weighted average)
Do you have a link that shows that GRACE disagrees?
we could have had any significant influence on climate or on sea level”
Missing a “not”
[ fixed thx -mod]
Thanks, Lord Monckton. Good article.
See The Great Sealevel Humbug: There Is No Alarming Sea Level Rise! (by Nils-Axel Mörner, 21st Century Science & Technology, Winter 2010/2011, Science and Public Policy Institute Reprint, 27 May 2011), at http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/reprint/the_great_sealevel_humbug.html
See Maldives Will Avoid Extinction (Nils-Axel Mörner, Video 06:20 ClimateClips.com), at http://climateclips.com/archives/117
Chinatown, Broome was built 100 years ago at the high tide mark to service the pearling fleet. If the seas were rising even 2mm a year, this business centre of the town would be underwater at every high spring tide. That just does not happen. http://pindanpost.com/2012/12/07/actually-no-rise-in-100-years/
I spent a long time working in a fish factory here at high tide, with feet getting wet during high king tides, still not higher than a hundred years ago, except for the odd passing cyclone.
Six Grave Scientific Errors and the history of an absurd idea David Kear.
http://joannenova.com.au/2014/05/david-kear-former-director-general-nz-dsir-says-a-non-existent-threat/
Regarding sea level changes:
One only has to look around the Mediterranean basin to see towns that once were once ports and are now inland due to sea levels falling; similarly, there is no shortage of archaeological sites in which the towns and other structures are submerged well under the sea.
There are numerous documentaries which show scantily clad divers swimming amongst submerged Roman statues and structures.
Interestingly enough, there is a conspicuous silence regarding these historical events, and their reflection on natural variations in sea levels; none of which were caused by global warming. Or maybe they were caused by the new physics of heat sneaking into the cold deep ocean?
“The inconvenient truth that sea level is not changing much must be concealed, so an enormous, bogus addition to the actual trend is made.”>
Why no actual numbers quoted anywhere?
It’s about 0.3 mm/year. Maybe 10-15% of the quoted rise.
And it isn’t bogus.
We spent a year sailing the Tonga Islands in the South Pacific. The charts were drawn by none other than William Bligh, when he sailed with Cook on the Resolution 1776-1780. They are a masterpiece of precision, from a time before chronometers were available to calculate longitude.
There is a reef on the charts, in the Vava’u island group. The reef is important because if provides a short cut between two major sailing areas, cutting a day off travel time. The chart shows 1 fathom depth on the reef (at low tide). Our boat also draws 6 feet (1 fathom). At low tide we used to bump across the reef in the slightest waves, as we made our way across the shortcut.
More than 200 years after the charts were drawn, not enough sea level rise to notice.
http://www.vavau.to/index.html
The official sea level data are fiddled by an artifice known as the “global isostatic adjustment”. The inconvenient truth that sea level is not changing much must be concealed, so an enormous, bogus addition to the actual trend is made.
It’s fiddled with more than just that. The Internet Archives WayBack Machine allows us to see what their data said ten years ago:
Here’s Colorado University’s 2004 Release 1.2 which when analysed for the rate of sea level rise comes to 2.6 mm/yr for the period of 1994 to 2004
Here’s CU’s data as it appears today 2014 Release 3 and today the analysis of that same period from 1994 to 2004 yields a rate of 3.5 mm/yr.
That’s nearly a full mm/yr of fiddling.
William yes you are right, although Willis challenged this but around the Med there is evidence of sunken villas, the ones Julius Caesar used to visit. Very volcanic undersea around there including Mt.Vesuvius. And the Firey fields. Still advertised as a tourist attraction as it was in the Roman era. Where if birds flew over they would drop dead from the fumes. No way would I visit Naples or Pompeii, because one day Mt Vesuvius will blow again, like in 79 AD.
“Why no actual numbers quoted anywhere?”
I have to agree with Nick. Christopher’s article is full of assertions, but strangely free of actual science.
Thank you again Lord Monckton – and Andres Valencia (above post: May 3, 2014 at 8:24 pm) for recommending Nils-Axel’s excellent report on “sea-level-gate” – as he often refers to it! A must- read for all WUWT regulars. I’ve absorbed an enormous amount of knowledge from this, particularly the section on the 10mm exaggerated difference between raw data and GIA ‘corrected’ data and the IPCC ‘boy-scouts’ who conveniently removed the tree. Very good.
It is patently and painfully obvious, objectivity has no place in the temple of CAGW.
Gawd, Christopher has actually found a place where people with call him “Lord” with a straight face?
“It’s about 0.3 mm/year. Maybe 10-15% of the quoted rise.
And it isn’t bogus …”
==========================================
Quite so, the models say so:
“Averaged over the global ocean surface, the mean rate of sea level change due to GIA [glacial isostatic adjustment] is independently estimated from models at -0.3 mm/yr …”.
May 3, 2014 at 9:29 pm | Nick Stokes says:
Come now, Nick … here’s Kear’s numbers:
http://joannenova.com.au/2014/05/david-kear-former-director-general-nz-dsir-says-a-non-existent-threat/
Mr. Monckton, I hope that the new study will be useful:
“We report on the existence and nature of Holocene solar and climatic variations on centennial to millennial timescales. We introduce a new solar activity proxy, based on nitrate (NO3−) concentration from the Talos Dome ice core, East Antarctica. We also use a new algorithm for computing multiple-cross wavelet spectra in time–frequency space that is generalized for multiple time series (beyond two). Our results provide a new interpretive framework for relating Holocene solar activity variations on centennial to millennial timescales to co-varying climate proxies drawn from a widespread area around the globe. Climatic proxies used represent variation in the North Atlantic Ocean, Western Pacific Warm Pool, Southern Ocean and the East Asian monsoon regions. Our wavelet analysis identifies fundamental solar modes at 2300-yr (Hallstattzeit), 1000-yr (Eddy), and 500-yr (unnamed) periodicities, leaves open the possibility that the 1500–1800-yr cycle may either be fundamental or derived, and identifies intermediary derived cycles at 700-yr and 300-yr that may mark rectified responses of the Atlantic thermohaline circulation to external solar modulation and pacing. Dating uncertainties suggest that the 1500-yr and 1800-yr cycles described in the literature may represent either the same or two separate cycles, but in either case, and irrespective too of whether it is a fundamental or derived mode in the sense of Dima and Lohmann (2009), the 1500–1800-yr periodicity is widely represented in a large number of paleoclimate proxy records. It is obviously premature to reject possible links between changing solar activity at these multiple scales and the variations that are commonly observed in paleoclimatic records.”
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0012825214000518
May 3, 2014 at 10:02 pm | drumphil says:
Is he not entitled to be addressed according to his title? It may be an English thing but so what. Funny though, I read your name as “dumbphil” … blame it on the ADD.
“relentlessly wrong-about-everything Kevin Trenberth”- you forgot to add Nobel-lareate (shared) which is still blatantly on his CV.
Streetcred says: May 3, 2014 at 10:36 pm
“Come now, Nick … here’s Kear’s numbers”
Well, I see he quotes his 1957 paper, but I can’t see any numbers for Glacial Isostatic Rebound.
Christopher Hanley says: May 3, 2014 at 10:13 pm
“Quite so, the models say so…”
Geo models. But it isn’t a subtle calculation. We measure the land rebound. It’s like unloading a ship in a confined dock. The ship rises, the water drops. How much? Archimedes could have told you.
I want to see that film.
In the meantime, in between time, Lord Monckton, do you have a news report or similar reference for the Niklas Mörner story? I am happy to take you at your word, but I would like to pass this story on to some people who will be less trusting.
The adjustment is not bogus, and it’s not large, amounting to one meter every 3300 years. It is, however, a small overstating of the rise as felt by an observer standing (for a long time) on the seashore and one wonders whether the scientists who compute all this would have made the adjustment if it were running the opposite direction.
Sunday Stupidity . . . .
Alarmist Neighbour to Skeptic GeeJam:
“You know nothing about the world at all GeeJam, despite what you say – sea levels are rising to dangerous levels – especially in the Maldives.”
Skeptic GeeJam to Alarmist Neighbour (after slight pause):
“Does that apply to all the islands in the Pacific Ocean then?”
Alarmist Neighbour to Skeptic GeeJam:
“Yes, all of them are threatened”
Skeptic GeeJam to Alarmist Neighbour:
“I find it fascinating that, on one hand, your neurotic need to ignore my skeptical views are based on what you are led to believe is the truth, and on the other hand, you don’t have an atlas.”
“The excuse for this overblown addition, which accounts for a very large fraction of the difference between the satellite and tide-gauge records, is the land is still rising and the sea sinking because of the transfer of miles-thick ice from the land to the oceans that ended 9000 years ago”
Isn’t there a major flaw here, in that the rate of sea level rise against land rebound from the last ice age shouldn’t have to be recalibrated, since given that the land has been rising since 9000 years ago, any change in sea level rate rise due to global warming should STILL show up as an anomaly against the long term background isostatic rebound from glacial ice.
In other words, the fact that the land has been rising for 9000 years shouldn’t make any difference- the sea level rate of rise should still show up against this background, if present AGW was dominant in causing the sea level rise. The fact that the rate of sea level rise is not increasing shows that AGW is not a dominant factor in sea level rise.
given we are in an interglacial warming period then warming is to be EXPECTED. I would even bet on ‘records’ [ie recent ones] being ‘broken’ given we know the arctic has been 4 deg warmer.
the further you get away from real measured data with adjustments and interpretations the less truth picture there is in them.
i am totally amazed some are basing climate predictions on the last 30 years data. Without contextualising within ice ages frankly all people are looking at is noise from which one can extend 100 year predictions lines and either say we are going to fry or freeze.
Nick Stokes (9:29 and 10:52 pm) doesn’t seem to have read to the end. (I was beginning to wonder myself ‘O ye of little faith?’).
‘ “Consensus estimates of recent GMSL rise are about 2mm/year. Our estimate is 1mm/year. We suggest that the difference between the two estimates is induced by the widespread use of data reconstructions which inform the consensus estimates.” ‘
“Geo models. But it isn’t a subtle calculation. We measure the land rebound. It’s like unloading a ship in a confined dock …” Nick Stokes 10:52.
===================================
But it’s not ships in docks it’s tectonic plates and ice sheets that disappeared thousands of years ago.
To paraphrase Nigel Lawson re global surface temperature record, to ‘estimate’ (roughly calculate) the assumed ‘glacial isostatic adjustment’ to tenths of a mm per year sounds like a pretty heroic task to me if not palpably absurd.
Rahmstorf is Germany’s big alarmist and typical activist, a sea level guy, who also adds water reservoir volume on land to sea level while hand waving away well water pumping. The site on the blogroll here, http://climatesanity.wordpress.com by Tom Moriarty teases though odd claims that the term “sea level” can still be used on plots of *virtual* sea level where “adjustments” no longer act to remove error but to move the plots *away* from real coastline values.
A sense of perspective is needed here since the rabbit hole is so terribly deep in climatology, namely that this sort of deception isn’t allowed in proper science, at all. Actual tide gauges show utterly no trend change in their worldwide average, here extracted in black with added trendline, from Church & White 2011:
http://i51.tinypic.com/25q4pd5.jpg
Nigel S says: May 4, 2014 at 12:24 am
“Consensus estimates of recent GMSL rise are about 2mm/year.”
That’s GMSL rise, not the GIA adjustment.
Christopher Hanley says: May 4, 2014 at 12:32 am
“But it’s not ships in docks it’s tectonic plates and ice sheets that disappeared thousands of years ago”
Isostatic rebound doesn’t change the volume of the Earth. If land rises, magma moves in (underneath) from elsewhere. The solid surface has to drop somewhere else. Basically, GIA is just figuring out the extra volume of land above sea level, from measured isostatic rise.
But if the land is rebounding in the north/south, wouldn’t the water flow to the equator. Thus making it appear that levels are increasing. So if you add the expected land rise to the water level rise in the north/south, then shouldn’t it be subtracted from the rise around equator. At the least some fraction of it (considering the difference in size).
Whoops, where’d the whole trendline go? Here it is:
…and that plot reveals a constant sea level rise of 1.9 mm/yr.
My Dear Lord Monckton, empirical evidence and theory shows there is next to zero CO2-AGW. The mechanism is strong negative feedback and there is good experimental evidence of its operation.
The World is now cooling, the ‘hiatus’ really being the graph peak. The fact that the Sun’s surface magnetic field is to fall below 1500 Gauss, hence no sunspots, means cloud area will increase, reducing SW input into the oceans, the ONLY ocean warming mechanism.
So, we’ll soon see a real fall in OHC. A contributory factor is the ‘Asian Brown Cloud’, first seen in 1999. This gives SW thermalisation in the atmosphere thus reducing direct ocean warming. So, we actually have the reversal of numbskull Trenberth’s proposition, comparative ocean cooling. This is probably the main cause of the fall of ocean level rise rate.
@William Howard Feynman
The geology of some parts of the Mediterranean is interesting.
Crustal extension leads to fracturing and block formation, and the blocks then rotating.
I’ve been to the Pelopponese, where you can see sunken ancient greek villages only tens of meters from
other remains that were previously at sea level and are now meters above.
No sea level rise or fall necessary, it’s all down to crustal movement, with earthquakes of course.
@ferdberple
Reefs are living things. They grow, and where there is a (relative) sea level rise that’s not too fast, they’ll keep up.
That doesn’t mean that I think there has been/is/going to be a run-to-mummy sea level rise.
“Consensus estimates of recent GMSL rise are about 2mm/year. Our estimate is 1mm/year. We suggest that the difference between the two estimates is induced by the widespread use of data reconstructions which inform the consensus estimates.”
A very good illustration of the difference between “consensus science” (science by committee votes) and skeptic science (science based on the facts & Moncktonian reasoning).
Steve Goddard added a sense of above-the-rabbit-hole perspective:
“Saddened by the fact that sea level is barely rising, climate scientists made up a fake upwards sea level adjustment called the Global Isostatic Adjustment. It is based on a theory that sea level rise would be 10% faster if not for glacial rebound.
Using that adjustment, they will eventually virtually drown New York, even if sea level doesn’t rise at all.
I propose an equally valid adjustment – the Glacial Contribution Adjustment – which compensates for the excess water in the oceans due to glacial melt. Sea level rise rates should be adjusted downwards by 1 mm/year to show what the rate would be if not for glacial melt. The logic behind this adjustment is identical to the GIA, except for one problem – it works against funding instead of in favor of it.”
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2013/09/24/understanding-the-global-isostatic-adjustment/
The thing is though, this isostatic adjustment is indeed small and also *constant* over time as so far applied so various up-curving “sea level” plots must be created by other types of “adjustments” in order to afford the properly alarming curvature up, up and away from reality on the ground.
A lack of warming can be dismissed with the incorrect hand waving heat is hiding in the ocean, explaining global cooling will be a tougher problem for the warmists. The sudden increase in sea ice both poles and the observed cooling of the ocean is an indication of what to expect next.
A super El Niño is warmist wishful thinking. The reduction in solar heliospheric pressure of 40% (See AGU 2013 fall presentation solar magnetic cycle 24 changes) is causing the magnetic field strength of solar wind bursts to be reduced. The solar wind bursts remove ions from the atmosphere at high latitudes and at the equator by creating a space charge differential in the ionosphere (mechanism electroscavenging). At the equator the amount of ions affects the number and size of cloud drops which in turn affects the tropical clouds’ reflective/transmission properties in terms of upward long wave radiation.
http://www.ospo.noaa.gov/data/sst/anomaly/2014/anomnight.5.1.2014.gif
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.anomaly.antarctic.png
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/iphone/images/iphone.anomaly.global.png
http://www.forbes.com/sites/warrenmeyer/2012/02/09/understanding-the-global-warming-debate/
“The problem for global warming supporters is they actually need for past warming from CO2 to be higher than 0.7C. If the IPCC is correct that based on their high-feedback models we should expect to see 3C of warming per doubling of CO2, looking backwards this means we should already have seen about 1.5C of CO2-driven warming based on past CO2 increases. But no matter how uncertain our measurements, it’s clear we have seen nothing like this kind of temperature rise. Past warming has in fact been more consistent with low or even negative feedback assumptions.”
Analysis of top of the earth radiation changes to short term changes in ocean temperatures supports the assertion that the planet resists (negative feedback) rather than amplifies (positive feedback) forcing changes. Consequence of negative feedback is a doubling of atmospheric CO2 results in less than 1C warming.
http://www-eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen/236-Lindzen-Choi-2011.pdf
On the Observational Determination of Climate Sensitivity and Its Implications Richard S. Lindzen1 and Yong-Sang Choi2
The observed latitudinal pattern of warming (high latitudinal warming, no net warming in the tropics) does not match the pattern of warming that is predicted to occur if CO2 was the forcing mechanism.
http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0809/0809.0581.pdf
Limits on CO2 Climate Forcing from Recent Temperature Data of Earth
The global atmospheric temperature anomalies of Earth reached a maximum in 1998 which has not been exceeded during the subsequent 10 years (William: 17 years and counting). The global anomalies are calculated from the average of climate effects occurring in the tropical and the extratropical latitude bands. El Niño/La Niña effects in the tropical band are shown to explain the 1998 maximum while variations in the background of the global anomalies largely come from climate effects in the northern extratropics. These effects do not have the signature associated with CO2 climate forcing. (William: This observation indicates something is fundamental incorrect with the IPCC models, likely negative feedback in the tropics due to increased or decreased planetary cloud cover to resist forcing). However, the data show a small underlying positive trend that is consistent with CO2 climate forcing with no-feedback. (William: This indicates a significant portion of the 20th century warming has due to something rather than CO2 forcing.)
The recent atmospheric global temperature anomalies of the Earth have been shown to consist of independent effects in different latitude bands. The tropical latitude band variations are strongly correlated with ENSO effects. The maximum seen in 1998 is due to the El Niño of that year. The effects in the northern extratropics are not consistent with CO2 forcing alone.
An underlying temperature trend of 0.062±0.010ºK/ decade was estimated from data in the tropical latitude band. Corrections to this trend value from solar and aerosols climate forcings are estimated to be a fraction of this value. The trend expected from CO2climate forcing is 0.070g ºC/decade, where g is the gain due to any feedback. If the underlying trend is due to CO2 then g ~1. Models giving values of greater than 1 would need a negative climate forcing to partially cancel that from CO2. This negative forcing cannot be from aerosols.
These conclusions are contrary to the IPCC [2007] statement: “[M]ost of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations.”
Nick Stokes says:
May 3, 2014 at 9:29 pm
“The inconvenient truth that sea level is not changing much must be concealed, so an enormous, bogus addition to the actual trend is made.”>
Why no actual numbers quoted anywhere?
It’s about 0.3 mm/year. Maybe 10-15% of the quoted rise.
And it isn’t bogus.
=====================================
It is bogus, because it is not an observed rise, and it is not indicative of SEA LEVEL. Sea level is what it is, regardless of where the ocean bottom is. It inflates the badly failed sea level projections so common in the alarmist camp, and is in fact a large portion of the actual rise as presented by numerous professional scientist who study this,
LewSkannen says:
May 3, 2014 at 7:57 pm
…
Hey presto, like the 6′s in the division 16/64 they both cancel out and nothing changes.
…
I’m pretty sure you mean the “16’s in the division 16/64 … At least, I hope so.
David A says: May 4, 2014 at 1:53 am
“Sea level is what it is, regardless of where the ocean bottom is.”
It depends on what you want to know. A GIA correction is applied if you want to know about the change in water volume. As the Colorado site says:
“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.”
Nick Stokes says:
May 4, 2014 at 2:14 am
David A says: May 4, 2014 at 1:53 am
“…Sea level is what it is, regardless of where the ocean bottom is….”
;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;
It depends on what you want to know. A GIA correction is applied if you want to know about the change in water volume. As the Colorado site says:
===============================================
Sorry Nick, that just makes them dishonest. They, and YOU know, that SL rise is used to SCARE folk, to lobby for social change which somehow always demands greater power for central goverment. Also they and YOU know that if the threat of SL rise increases, so does grant money.
BTW Nick they should stop callin it Sea Level, and instead start calling it “Sea Volume” chart. Or more like Sea Volume WAG estimate.
Duster says:
May 4, 2014 at 2:03 am
I suppose he means that 16/64 = 1/4, therefore the two sixes can indeed be removed without anything changing.
Nick Stokes says: “It depends on what you want to know. A GIA correction is applied if you want to know about the change in water volume…”
What I’d want to know (1) if I lived near the shore and (2) if my home was 20 feet above sea level was how fast sea level was rising relative to my home. I wouldn’t care about the change in the volume of the oceans.
Regards
Bob Tisdale says: May 4, 2014 at 2:50 am
“What I’d want to know (1) if I lived near the shore and (2) if my home was 20 feet above sea level was how fast sea level was rising relative to my home.”
Then for a start you won’t be thinking about 1 inch per century GIA. Especially as there’s no reason to expect it to change.
You may not be worried much about the current 1 inch/decade GMSL rise either. It’s probably not huge relative to the vertical motion of your land. But it may change – and monitoring ocean volume is the way to track that.
History is an inconvenient thing to the megalomaniac mind-set, which is why they need to “adjust” the past. What many do not understand is that sometimes they themselves wind up erased from the picture, as some who shared power with St*lin discovered, and what the teachers of China discovered after supporting M*o in the “Great Leap Forward,” only to be purged in the “Cultural Revolution.”
Despite all efforts to burn the history books, history is passed on as stories and as lore, and especially as language. People who study language, such as J R R Tolkien, become aware of hints of history, of forgotten events and travels, which cannot be historically verified. (Which is why Tolkien’s trilogy about make-believe “hobbits” seems to “ring true,” [truer than Climate Science], though it is obviously fiction, and there is no such thing as walking trees.) For example, the Finns and Hungarians speak languages that are related to each other, but very different from other European languages, though it is not easy to trace their paths backwards to a common homeland with precision.
I think one reason sea-level-rise has a hold on the psyche of ordinary men is because, back in the dim mists of most people’s collective memory, is the memory of colossal disasters, whether they were raging storms, tsunamis caused by earthquakes, or an Atlantis-drowning rise in sea-levels after the ice age. Even the Navajo and Apache have some odd taboos involving eating fish, which seems odd for people living in a desert, until you trace the roots of their language, and it leads you to other tribes on the Pacific coast and up in Alaska.
However just because there is some echo of past disasters in the subject of sea-level-rise does not make the frettings of worry-wart Climate Scientists any realer than Tolkien’s walking trees. In fact, if I am going to worry, I think it would be more fun to worry about sea-levels rapidly sinking at the onset of a new ice-age. (And a movie about sea-levels sinking would be more interesting and original than the tiresome old theme that forever has the Statue of Liberty poking a torch up through the waves.)
Nick Stokes says:
May 4, 2014 at 3:05 am
Bob Tisdale says: May 4, 2014 at 2:50 am
“What I’d want to know (1) if I lived near the shore and (2) if my home was 20 feet above sea level was how fast sea level was rising relative to my home.”
———————–
Then for a start you won’t be thinking about 1 inch per century GIA. Especially as there’s no reason to expect it to change.
You may not be worried much about the current 1 inch/decade GMSL rise either. It’s probably not huge relative to the vertical motion of your land. But it may change – and monitoring ocean volume is the way to track that.
———————————————————–
Really????, so you are concerned that the rebound from the last Ice Age is going to end real soon??? As I said, instead of calling their graph a Sea Level chart, they should call it an “Ocean Volume WAG”
@Nick Stokes
I was going to reply to your original post but this is just priceless!
“It depends on what you want to know. A GIA correction is applied if you want to know about the change in water volume.”
I call BS on that! Good grief! Talk about global sea level has turned into a discussion on the volume of the oceans? What then is the threat from? More volume with hardly any change in sea level?
This is nonsense. Either the land is threatened by sea levels rising (net) or not. If a change in volume poses no threat to anyone or anything, then it is not a threat. Modest increase, modest concern to be tracked.
The claim, for years now, is that the sea level is rising ‘at an increasing rate’ and going to flood the land and make everyone move out of coastal cities and away from flooded low-lying areas. I don’t think this can be transmuted into a ‘volume problem’ with an alarmist wave-of-convenience.
It is this level of perfidy that drives people out of the alarmist camp. People can put up with a certain amount of noble cause corruption and ‘team playing’ but this is beyond the pale. Humankind is threatened by an increase in the volume of the oceans? Which is not accelerating? Which is not threating land in any significant manner? Which is caused in significant part (40%?) by isostatic rising of the land over huge portions of the dry surface and the deepening of the oceans?
Several contributors have already pointed out that if the sea is not rising relative to the land ‘at an alarming and dangerous rate’ then it is a non-issue. Long may it continue and long may the interglacial last, thank you very much. Long may the oceans deepen. Seal level rise is no threat to Sweden at all, for example, no matter how much they worry about it. Nor Hudson Bay in Canada.
Now, just about the stupidest thing anyone could offer would be to kill the economy to remove CO2 from the atmosphere to ‘counter the effects of isostatic rebound’ but no doubt we will hear tell of it. At least the CO2+greenhouse+alarm story has a shred of believability, even if it is not well supported by data.
>“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.”
Well jolly good for them. But science is calling and they want their metric back. They need it to report Sea Level.
I am confused about sea level measurments after watching this video,
How can people be concerned about Millimetres when this video says (at the end)
that average sea level can only be measured to the nearest Metre?
Crispin in Yogyakarta says: May 4, 2014 at 4:00 am
“But science is calling and they want their metric back. They need it to report Sea Level.”
I’m curious – how would you define “Sea Level”? How should they measure it? Remember, all land is moving up and down in different ways.
But it must be hard to work up this indignation over a correction of 0.3mm/year, with a well-defined basis, that isn’t likely to change.
If you believe in the “global isostatic adjustment” you have to believe that the Earth is growing.
The usual stunningly ignorant cult of warming cult members defending their theology with troll posts. Please highlight using real science, how the 5 % emission by humans of the 400 ppm Co2 trace chemical impacts sea levels ? Like Galileo they will tell me that tides are caused by the earth’s rotation… I have not met a cult of warm troll who can a) explain why the oceans are salty b) explain why and how the planet is 70% water covered or c) explain why Ephesus an important port is now 7 miles inland….In other words they know 0 about oceans/water/sea level history. Anthony has an article here debunking Co2=sea rise b.s. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/12/02/history-falsifies-climate-alarmist-sea-level-claims/
Nick Stokes says:
May 4, 2014 at 12:54 am
Isostatic rebound doesn’t change the volume of the Earth. If land rises, magma moves in (underneath) from elsewhere. The solid surface has to drop somewhere else.
==========
since most of the planet is ocean, the drop will mostly take place under the ocean, lowering the level of the oceans. thus the correction for isostatic rebound should be negative, not positive.
the problem is that climate science does not adjust for the movement of material from under the oceans to the land. they only consider the land, likely because in this fashion the “correction” exaggerates sea level rise.
In any case, the ice age largely only affected the northern half of the northern hemisphere. If a correction was to be applied, it would need to be applied selectively to only those ports. Not to the global average. Or are we now suggesting that Africa and Australia was under a mile of ice 20 thousand years ago?
Nick Stokes says:
May 4, 2014 at 4:21 am
a correction of 0.3mm/year, with a well-defined basis
=============
it isn’t well defined:
1. Rebound is not global, it is regional.
2. if the land is rising the the sea beds (thus oceans) must be sinking due to mantle plasticity.
3. 0.3mm/year is an exaggeration of 24% of the 1.25mm/year calculated by Kear.
The rebound correction is a nonsense correction. If the land is rising due to rebound, say at 1 foot per day to make things obvious, and your tidal gauge is only a 6 inches of drop per day, you could argue that without rebound the oceans would in fact be rising 6 inches per day without rebound.
But why make a correction? In fact at your location sea level is dropping 6 inches per day, and at another location without rebound the tide is showing a rise of 6 inches per day. These two figures already correctly account for what is happening with sea levels, and account for any change in mantle volume under the land and oceans.
To turn around and apply a correction is meaningless of say 1 inch per day is both meaningless and incorrect. It would change the observed tide at your location for dropping 6 inches per day to dropping 5 inches, and the observed tide at another location for rising 6 inches to rising 7 inches. Both of the adjusted figures would then be misleading for planning purposes.
What you have here with this rebound adjustment is nothing short of fruitcake science.
“personal calibrations” Nice one.
My favorite
http://talesfromtheclearancebin.files.wordpress.com/2012/02/creature1.jpg
Nick Stokes says:
May 4, 2014 at 2:14 am
“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.”
==========
then the time series should be called “sea volume” not “sea level”.
honest science begins by applying the correct labels. dishonesty in climate science began with the relabeling of Global Warming as Climate Change.
I’m curious as to why sedimentation is never mentioned as another cause of sea level rise….
I mean if you can claim that the rains/floods in Australia put so much water on land…that sea levels fell….
or adjust .3 for whatever
Mississippi, Amazon, Congo, Orinoco, Yangtze…etc etc
Why aren’t all those rivers and dead zones contributing to sedimentation which is also causing sea levels to rise?…I mean they are pumping massive amounts of sediments into the oceans every minute…..
Steve Case says: May 4, 2014 at 4:37 am
“If you believe in the “global isostatic adjustment” you have to believe that the Earth is growing.”
No, the isostatic correction restores to the constant volume Earth/ocean.
ferdberple says:May 4, 2014 at 4:44 am
“since most of the planet is ocean, the drop will mostly take place under the ocean, lowering the level of the oceans. thus the correction for isostatic rebound should be negative, not positive.”
The first part is right. But the intent of the correction is to restore to the case where a constant volume ocean shows constant GMSL. A positive correction brings change to zero.
“If a correction was to be applied, it would need to be applied selectively to only those ports. Not to the global average. “
No. The sea levels out the effect of volume change.
‘then the time series should be called “sea volume” not “sea level”’
OK, how do you think GMSL should be defined?
In essence, we would like our GMSL time series to be a proxy for ocean water volume changes.
===========
this is a nonsense ambition. the volume of the oceans makes no sense for planning purposes. you want to know if sea levels are going up or down at your location, not if the volume is changing.
sedimentation and plate tectonics tells us that the volume of the ocean basins themselves is not constant. much of this is unmeasured and unknown. what is the correction for sea floor spreading or subduction? How much water is carried into the earth along with the sub-ducting sea floor? How much does the spreading raise the bottom of the newly created oceans relative to old oceans? How much does continental rebound cause the ocean floor to sink (to maintain constant volume of mantle/core)?
Nick Stokes says:
May 4, 2014 at 5:42 am
OK, how do you think GMSL should be defined?
========
GMSL stand for what? Global Means Sea Level. It should be defined as what it says. The average Level of the oceans globally (using WGS84 as the reference metric).
if someone wants to create a new measure for ocean volume, no problem. That should be called GMSV – Global Mean Sea Volume.
The problem is the use of the wrong terms to define what we are talking about. Why do we call Global Warming “Climate Change”? Why do we call Sea Volume “Sea Level”?. We don’t do that in any other branch of science because we know it will lead to confusion and wrong decisions.
The obvious reference for Sea Level is with respect to WGS84, which is the basis for GPS and Nautical Charts. We have high quality nautical charts of the world going back 200+ years. It is quite a straight forward matter from these to determine if there has in fact been any sea level rise. We need not rely on a few spotty tidal gauges.
ferdberple says: May 4, 2014 at 5:45 am
“this is a nonsense ambition. the volume of the oceans makes no sense for planning purposes. you want to know if sea levels are going up or down at your location, not if the volume is changing.”
For planning you need to know:
1. How fast the land is rising or falling just where you are
2. How fast the volume of water in the ocean is changing
3. How fast the volume capacity of the ocean is changing.
1. is often at present most important, but won’t change in the medium term
3. is very small and also won’t change. That’s the GIA component. Forget it.
2. is the one that has been changing as the ocean warms, and may change faster if the land ice melts rapidly. It’s the one to focus on. And the GIA helps, in a very small way, to do that.
@Nick….
Again… the data shows what it shows. The fact that it shows 1mm a year…. shows just that.
just like in temperature measurements, there isn’t really the case for adjusting the data.
For example… the temperature adjustments happen to “Cool” the past and warm the present.
the Sea Level adjustments have the addition of making an almost insignificant rise into a significan’t rise.
Without adjusting the temperature, using Post hoc selection of proxies, adding adjustments to sea level rise.. the data wouldn’t show anything alarmist at all.
Skeptics don’t see a conspiracy in climate science.. they see shoddy work and crap science harming human civilisation.
If there were no adjustments to temperature data or sea level data, climate alarmism would be a busted flush as a science.
There just isn’t the evidence for worry at all in any temperature records, any rainfall records, any drought records, any hurricane records any tornado records.
In fact there isn’t a single piece of credible data showing we have anything to worry about.
the rebound from the little ice age at plus or minus about 0.1 degrees per decade has been going on since about 1880….
Nothing scary in that either
All of the tide gauges are now having GPS stations co-located with them. It will only be a year or two when we can directly measure how 400 tide gauges are changing compared to local land uplift/subsidence.
Then we can directly measure the glacial isostatic adjustment with very high precision. Again, it is not how much sea level is rising, it is actually the opposite. It is how much sea level would be rising if there was not a glacial isostatic adjustment.
Just noting that ocean bedrock is sinking in places which had no glaciers. There is now 150 metres of ocean on the continental shelves which is pushing them down and causing the near-by land to rise. It is a smaller number but even countries like Australia have this adjustment.
Nick Stokes says:
May 4, 2014 at 6:07 am
2. is the one that has been changing as the ocean warms
============
warming is only part of the story. it ignores the effects of ground water pumping for agriculture and human consumption.
the only metric that make sense is the net change in sea level with respect to an agreed, international reference point. WGS84 defines the agreed reference.
in any case there is no global warming, it is now called climate change. which means it may be warming or it may be cooling. if it is truly was global warming the name would have stuck. it didn’t, so we can thus be confident global warming no longer exists.
Bill Illis says:
May 4, 2014 at 6:10 am
Again, it is not how much sea level is rising, it is actually the opposite. It is how much sea level would be rising if there was not a glacial isostatic adjustment.
============
If the ocean is rising a 12 inches a year, and the land on which I’m located is rising 5 inches a year, then the net rise at my location if 7 inches per year. My planning needs to be for 7 inches a year, not for 12 inches a year.
Thus adding a rebound adjustment of 5 inches to the 7 inches recorded at my location makes no sense. I end up planning for 12 inches of sea level rise, when in fact what I will see is only 7 inches. I end up wasting money needlessly.
By all means measure sea level. Don’t measure sea volume and call it sea level.
What warming,
a list of headlines for April1st – May 3rd.
April-May3rd –
May 3rd- Cars rescued from heavy snow in Argentina
May 3rd – Ice piled 12-feet deep on shores of Lake Superior
May 3rd – Snowfall warnings continue – and expand – in British Columbia
Romania – “It’s as if we were preparing for Christmas – not Easter”
“This year is maybe a record-breaking year,” says expert on Great Lakes ice.
As of May 1st, ships were still being escorted with ice breakers on Lake Superior, says the Duluth News Tribune.
Unexpected snowfall destroys 2,000 hectares of crops in Adjara
Snowfall warnings for Banff and southward
Snowfall to hit Petrozavodsk
Antarctic Sea Ice 50% Above Previous Record
Gangtok, India – Army rescues 2,000 stranded by snowfall
Blizzard paralyzes daily life in many parts of Russia’s Urals region
Heavy Snowfall in the Alps
Snow and Wind Hit Los Alamos, NM
Up to 14 inches of snow for Colorado
China – Xinjiang hit hard by blizzard
8 to 11 inches of snow forecast for Minnesota
Rhinelander – Hasn’t snowed this much in 106 years
Record low temperatures across Manitoba – 17 Apr
Record Mid-April Hard Freezes Kill Great Plains Wheat
Back-to-back record lows in Marquette
Winnipeg water pipes could stay frozen until July
Heavy snowfall blocks roads in Afghanistan
Snowfall warnings for Banff and southward
Gangtok, India – Army rescues 2,000 stranded by snowfall
Global Warming is “Nonsense,” says former NASA scientist
Another big winter storm for Thunder Bay
Russia’s Urals – Most severe springtime snowstorm in 123 years
Snowfall in the Urals leaves 70,000 without power
Snow and Wind Hit Los Alamos, NM
Up to 14 inches of snow for Colorado
Too Much Spring Ice Threatens Alaskan Polar Bears
Heavy snowfall for parts of Ontario and NW Lake Superior
Ice Moves Bridge In New Brunswick
8 to 11 inches of snow forecast for Minnesota
Snowfall warnings for northeastern British Columbia
Most Atlantic ice in decades, warns Coast Guard
More than a foot of new snowfall in Minnesota and Wisconsin
Record low temperatures across Manitoba – 17 Apr
More than 40 ships lined up waiting to get through Soo Locks due to ice.
Another record low obliterated Pellston, Michigan, shatters its old low temp record by 16 degrees!
Great Lakes ice coverage FAR exceeds anything since satellite monitoring began
Detroit – Snowiest winter on record – Hundreds of thousands lose power
Record lows in Wyoming shatter last year’s record lows on same date
Mackinac Island ferries delayed – Too much ice on Great Lakes
Up to 16 inches (40 cm) of snow in Wyoming 14 April
Nine blue whales “probably crushed to death by ice”
Nova Scotia – Snowmobilers beware! Snow almost to the tops of power poles
US Steel idles mill due to “unprecedented ice conditions on the Great Lakes”
Early April Snowstorm Buries Wisconisn and Minnesota
Coldest winter in Winnipeg since 1898
Record snowfall in Nebraska
Record snowfall in Grand Forks, North Dakota
Ice breakers “challenged” on Lake Superior
Record snowfall in Ontario
Billings, Montana, breaks all-time snowfall record
Armenia – Heavy snowfall kills up to 95% of apricot harvest
Chicago – Coldest Four-Month Period In City History
Doğubayazıt, Turkey – 900 sheep perish in snowstorm
Record snowfall paralyzes Moscow
Interesting about Broome. Given it’s regularly at 40C I don’t think it was troubled by a lot of glaciation in the most recent ice age (don’t recall seeing a lot of fjords in the North-west Shelf). So I don’t think they have the excuse that the land is rebounding without the weight of ice sheets.
My standing question to the warmies is, if the HEAT is hiding in the ocean, and the CO2 is hiding there (causing “acidification”) then why is the atmosphere allegedly warming if you look back far enough? Surely even Magicgas can’t fulfill all 3 roles?
ferdberple says: May 4, 2014 at 6:17 am
“the only metric that make sense is the net change in sea level with respect to an agreed, international reference point. WGS84 defines the agreed reference.”
WGS84 isn’t a point. It’s a geoid. And everything is moving relative to it. Why do you think it’s a better principle than ocean water volume?
Nick Stokes says:
May 4, 2014 at 6:42 am
WGS84 isn’t a point. It’s a geoid. And everything is moving relative to it. Why do you think it’s a better principle than ocean water volume?
========
because WGS84 is a fixed, agreed, international reference used by GPS and nautical charts. And nautical charts show where the land and oceans meet, worldwide.
By all means, if you want to measure ocean volume, that is fine. But call it Sea Volume, don’t call it Sea Level. Volume is a cubic measure, Sea Level is a linear measure.
note: While Nautical Charts show a datum correction for WGS84, the reader may be interested to know that Nautical Charts do not show a datum correction for “sea level rise”. These charts are used by shipping worldwide with billions of dollars of commerce and thousands of lives dependent on their accuracy. A change in sea levels of 1 foot would have huge implications for worldwide commerce in areas like the Malacca Straights, so if it was truly happening in a measurable fashion, the charts would show it. They don’t.
Nick Stokes says:
May 4, 2014 at 6:42 am
WGS84 isn’t a point. It’s a geoid.
====
WGS84 uses the earth’s center of mass as its point of origin. From this the height of any point can be determined, relative to the geoid at that specific latitude and longitude. If the land or sea is is rising or falling at any given point, WGS84 provides a fixed point of references for this measurement. The point of reference is the intersection of latitude, longitude and the WGS geoid.
Nick Stokes says:
May 4, 2014 at 6:07 am
3. How fast the volume capacity of the ocean is changing.
============
this in itself is a nonsense concept. the oceans are not like a swimming pool, where there is some sort of “container” around them. The oceans sit on top of the hot interior of the earth, held up by the steam pressure of water boiling under high pressure within the earth. If the earth had a cold core the water would have long ago migrated from the surface towards the interior, to fill the minute cracks in the rocks.
Held up by the heat of the earth’s interior, the water spreads out around the globe, under the sea beds and under the continents. What we perceive as the oceans is simply where the height of this water is higher than the bottom of the ocean floor. To think of the ocean basins as containers is incorrect. They do not “contain” the oceans. The ocean basis and the continent are porous to water. The heat of the earth’s interior causes the oceans to “float” above the hot rock, held in place by high pressure steam.
But ferdbrple, the center of mass of the earth is not stationary with relation to the surface. Or do you think it is?
All of the tide gauges are now having GPS stations co-located with them.
===========
It is beyond me why we would rely on tidal gauges to measure sea level if accuracy is the issue. There are thousands and thousands of rocks charted worldwide. Their height relative to sea level is charted, along with the year they were surveyed. A systematic survey of these rocks would conclusively show what has happened in the past 200 years. Of course it would involve going out in the field. Much simpler to download tidal data from a tidal gauge.
The problem for climate science is that the charts don’t support global sea level rise. If the charts show a rock awash at MLLW from a survey 200 years ago, that pesky rock is still awash today. You would think with all that sea level rise the rock should be covered at low tide. But there it remains, a thorn in the side of climate science. High tide, the rock is gone. Low tide the rock is back. 200 years. Over and over again as you sail the globe, rock after rock.
j ferguson says:
May 4, 2014 at 7:26 am
But ferdbrple, the center of mass of the earth is not stationary with relation to the surface. Or do you think it is?
________________________
If the dimensions of a sphere were estimated to encompass the center of mass of the earth, what would be the radius of that sphere?
Ferdberple,
encompass its excursion?
j ferguson says:
May 4, 2014 at 7:26 am
But ferdbrple, the center of mass of the earth is not stationary with relation to the surface. Or do you think it is?
==========
the surface of the earth moves, which is why it is not a good reference to establish anything. WGS84 does not move relative to the earth. It rotates with the earth, such that it proves a fixed reference from which to measure the latitude, longitude and height of any point on earth. And it is an international recognized standard widely used in existing measurement of the ocean depths and ocean/land boundary.
If the dimensions of a sphere were estimated to encompass the center of mass of the earth, what would be the radius of that sphere?
============
the center of mass is a point. a point has no radius.
Having been on board an aircraft carrier off the coast of Norway in a force11 storm with waves breaking over the flight deck (80ft above nominal water level) , I find a few millimetres here or there are, frankly, irrelevant.
David Chappell says:
May 4, 2014 at 7:52 am
off the coast of Norway in a force11 storm
=============
The true origin of the Fear of God. Being on the ocean in a storm. In a small boat you pray you have sea room, lash everything down, wedge yourself into the smallest bunk you can find and go to sleep. if you wake up, you have survived the storm.
ferd,
But you need to know where the point of center of mass is, especially when you use gps or other satellite based measurement systems (techniques) to resolve the elevation of a position on earth to say a tenth of a MM.
ferdberple says:
May 4, 2014 at 7:50 am
If the dimensions of a sphere were estimated to encompass the center of mass of the earth, what would be the radius of that sphere?
============
the center of mass is a point. a point has no radius.
_________________________
Encompassing excursions…
The powers that mis-inform realize the rising ocean meme is dead(or almost dead) so on to “Acidification of the oceans will kill EVERYTHING” meme
Bill Illis:
The problem with GPS is accuracy. Or lack of it.. Altitude measurements have a standard deviation of about 10 meters. Hard to measure a few mm/yr with that. (This based on actual experience.) A matter of geometry, satellites 12,000 miles up, and positions not known quite that well. Same with horizontal location. Some folks claim centimeter precision (a paper stated this back in the 70’s), experience shows a few meters at best, even with WAAS or DGPS. Raw, 3-5 meter standard deviation. Good for finding a favorite fishing spot, not so good for millimeter changes.
Of course, with proper “adjustment”, they can prove anything.
No amount of mental masturbation will make it “not bogus”.
No real time to weigh in on all the points brought up, so let me just say that I agree with Nick Stokes pretty much across the board in his comments. Well, except one. His metaphor for the adjustment isn’t so much like unloading a boat (a problem I’m fond of assigning my students, BTW:-) and more like me heating up my beer wort in a pot that expands. If the base area of the pot increases at the same rate that volume of the beer thermally expands, I would observe no rise in beer level even though the beer is, in fact, measurably increasing in volume and decreasing in density (as my hydrometer would, and in fact does, tell me).
However, the main point is that as he pointed out very clearly the isostatic correction is 0.3 mm/year. That is, nobody cares. They really don’t care if the same correction is uniformly applied across the entire tide gauge data, because it has no effect whatsoever on acceleration. It is the equivalent of a frame change in physics — adding a constant velocity to all velocities does not affect any accelerations, which is the whole point of the requirement of an inertial reference frame for Newton’s Second Law (predicting the acceleration) to work.
Note that this has nothing to do with whether or not the tide gauge data or satellite data accurately reflects either the rate that water level will rise “on average” everywhere, or whether it will rise or fall at all on any given coast. It is simply one part — and not the only part — of dealing with “sea level” on a non-spherical, rotating, tipped, tidally stressed, planet with a rather inhomogeneous mass distribution in its surface layer. As I pointed out in another thread, because warming water floats, the question of whether or not coastal water levels will rise due to thermal expansion depends strictly on the location-specific coastal water temperature (plus some dynamic effects and relaxation times) and not on what the water is doing somewhere else.
And that is due to Archimedes Principle and Nick’s example. If you take a boat loaded with balsa wood and throw the wood overboard, you don’t change the water level in a finite reservoir at all. When an ice cube melts in a glass of water, it doesn’t change the water level at all. If you put 100 grams of styrofoam and 100 grams of ice into a fixed volume glass, the change in the displacement of the water at the boundaries will be the same. Similarly, if the mass of ENSO warming water in the mid-Pacific is floating before it warms and after it warms, it doesn’t cause the sea level on the NC coast to change at all unless it incidentally raises the actual temperature of the water off of the NC coast. It might change the overall average sea level by any amount you like and not cause tide gauge data to change anywhere — except due to associated local sea surface warming.
Only melting land ice can substantively and globally increase the volume of the oceans. Without melting land ice the predictions of 21st century SLR — especially Hansen’s 5 meter TED talks crack — are complete bullshit. Tide gauge data will continue to reflect a nontrivial mix of local uplift or subsidence and local sea surface temperature (withOUT the 0.3mm isostatic correction) with a tiny, tiny bit due to e.g. net Greenland or Antarctica land ice melt or other sources of variation in land vs ocean total water mass.
In the meantime, no matter how you slice it, SLR is proceeding at a literally negligible rate everywhere except the few specific sites where, due to the local conditions (subsidence/uplift, water temperature, changes in tidal pattern) it isn’t negligible — either way. Nobody cares about 2-3mm/year, or even 3-4 mm/year. The places that need to worry are the specific places where it is proceeding much faster than that, for reasons that have nothing to do with anthropogenic global warming.
rgb
So as I read the back and forth about sea level / volume / height / rebound / whatever in all of the above, and “corrections to those.
What they (y’alls) are saying, is :
Here’s what would be happening, if what is not happening , was happening.
So if we turn on the mitigating switch to compensate for what is not happening, will we then have to make a correction for what happens, when what is not happening, stops not happening because of our mitigation ??
“””””…..from rgb…And that is due to Archimedes Principle and Nick’s example. If you take a boat loaded with balsa wood and throw the wood overboard, you don’t change the water level in a finite reservoir at all. …….”””””
Well the balsa wood on the boat is dry; so when you throw it overboard, it will soak up some of the water in the reservoir, instead of displacing it.
So why dontcha switch from balsa wood to Mylar balloons full of SF6 Professor, so your students have a chance to get an A ??
In support of:
richard says:
May 4, 2014 at 6:29 am
What warming,
a list of headlines for April1st – May 3rd.
A) Warming
William: Impressive list of 60 recent news worthy items/observations that appear to support the assertion the planet is cooling. Record cold weather events precede cooling climate change. The cause of the majority of the warming in the last 70 years was solar magnetic cycle changes which is reversible. The interesting questions is why the delay in cooling? The solar magnetic cycle has been in decline for 6 years. How much cooling will occur? Roughly 0.5C to 0.7C, the solar magnetic cycle is changing to Maunder minimum. If there was no CO2 forcing the drop in temperature would be 0.7C to 1C.
B) Ocean levels, mid-Ocean levels are falling:
William: Old comment concerning mid-ocean level anomaly.
There are multiple unexplained sea level anomalies (the data and analysis is not consistent) if one starts to look for mass and volume changes to explain the sea level rise and constraints the analysis with rotational changes. Significant unexplained anomalies often indicate that there is either a fundamental error in the analysis/theory or there is missing parameter/mechanism. I believe in this case there is a missing parameter/mechanism that affects both ocean level and satellite altitude (this missing mechanism/parameter explains the GRACE anomalies). If that belief is correct ocean level will fall more than predicted if and when the planet cools.
The satellite give sea level rise of 3.2 mm/yr is not correct and is due to adjustments. I believe the tidal gauge analysis gives 1.5 to 2.0 mm/yr (no change in rate of increase).
Mass and volume changes based on temperature changes and ice sheet melting give 0.5 mm so there is an unexplained the 1.0 mm/yr to 2.0 mm/yr.
ftp://www.grdl.noaa.gov/pub/laury/nature.pdf
Mass and volume contributions to twentieth-century global sea level rise
The rate of twentieth-century global sea level rise and its causes are the subjects of intense controversy1–7. Most direct estimates from tide gauges give 1.5–2.0mmyr21, whereas indirect estimates based on the two processes responsible for global sea level rise, namely mass and volume change, fall far below this range.
Estimates of the volume increase due to ocean warming give a rate of about 0.5 mm yr (ref. 8) and the rate due to mass increase, primarily from the melting of continental ice, is thought to be even smaller. Therefore, either the tide gauge estimates are too high, as has been suggested recently, or one (or both) of the mass and volume estimates is too low.
Here we present an analysis of sea level measurements at tide gauges combined with observations of temperature and salinity in the Pacific and Atlantic oceans close to the gauges. We find that gauge-determined rates of sea level rise, which encompass both mass and volume changes, are two to three times higher than the rates due to volume change derived from temperature and salinity data. Our analysis supports earlier studies that put the twentieth-century rate in the 1.5–2.0 mm yr range, but more importantly it suggests that mass increase plays a larger role than ocean warming in twentieth-century global sea level rise. (William: The authors of this paper have not solved the ocean level paradox, support for that assertion is mid-ocean level is suddenly and unexplained falled.)
William: New comment:
Ocean levels are falling.
Europe’s Envisat satellite measured a drop in sea level of almost 20 mm since the beginning of 2010, and is now lower than at the start of their record eight years ago.
http://www.aviso.oceanobs.com/fileadmin/images/news/indic/msl/MSL_Serie_ALL_Global_IB_RWT_NoGIA_Adjust.gif
The warmists try to hand wave the fact that mid-ocean level is falling by appealing to La Niña, however, the drop in the mid-ocean level is multiple times greater than past La Niña events .
http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/graphs/rainfall/sea-level-rise-cazenave-s3.gif
RGB,
==============
sea level and sea volume are two different things. It is that simple.
“Beenstock et al.”
Jack Beenstock?
Sorry. Couldn’t resist. As far as GIA goes, it seems odd that both the sea level and the land are rising. (and underneath, it’s turtles all the way down). As has been pointed out, GIA makes the sea level numbers about something other than sea level, say 90% sea level and 10% sea volume, except volume isn’t measured in millimeters unless you have a straight walled container. Sea levolume, maybe. Not useful in any case.
The point of sea level rise is the catastrophe about to befall us. Bangladesh, the Maldives, Venice,
polar bears, Algore’s Malibu beach house. So a little perspective might help.Algore’s place is probably up on pilings, so he’s cool. Venice has been sinking ever since they moved out to the lagoon to avoid the Lombards. Mörner showed us that the Maldives are higher than they used to be, and they could use some of that billion dollars they’re investing in new seaside resorts to move if they were really worried.
Bangladesh is all mudflats where it meets the sea. If the sea rises, the river dumps the mud earlier and eventually pushes the mudflats out again. The floods they sustain are from the river and rains, not the sea. Typhoon storm surges depend on the strength of the typhoon, not the couple inches of sea level rise.
And what does a couple inches of sea rise over the decades do? I buy a property on Galveston Bay. Twenty years later, I sell it, having lost about ten feet of front yard. The buyer buys a property with ten less feet. He sells it after fifteen years with another few feet gone. Nobody is taking a big hit, because the market adjusts much more rapidly than the sea level rises. And if anybody thinks that NYC is going under a hundred years from now, I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell.
William: New comment:
Ocean levels are falling.
Europe’s Envisat satellite measured a drop in sea level of almost 20 mm since the beginning of 2010, and is now lower than at the start of their record eight years ago.
====
William, Envisat showed sea levels falling from day one…..they adjusted up…tuned to Jason…and it still showed sea levels falling…They kept believing sea levels were rising, so didn’t question it, just kept adjusting up…
They did every thing in their power to make it show sea levels rising……….
http://www.aviso.oceanobs.com/fileadmin/documents/calval/validation_report/EN/annual_report_en_2009.pdf
We know the land is constantly washing into the sea…..so are they adjusting for that mud and silt too?
..that displaces water and makes it rise also
“Thou foolishe Elfe (said then the Gyant wroth)
Seest not, how badly all things present bee,
And each estate quite out of order go’th?
The sea it selfe doest thou not plainely see
Encroch vppon the land there vnder thee;
And th’earth it selfe how daily its increast,
By all that dying to it turned be?
Were it not good that wrong were then surceast,
And from the most, that some were giuen to the least?”
Hey, thank you Nick Stokes and rgt for your additions to the discussion.
Going on a different tack . . . . . .
Which of the following (if any) apply to exaggerated SLR research that is solely informed by the incorrect theory of significant AGW from fossil fuel?
John
John Whitman says:
May 4, 2014 at 11:19 am
——————————————
r) fr@udulent science
s) bogus science
t) sh!t science
u) incompetence
v) conclusion-based conclusion-drawing science
When I put trash in a compactor and start the compaction cycle, the trash compacts. If I open the compactor after the cycle finishes, I sometimes see a raise in the level as the trash expands. Most of the raise occurs in the first 20 seconds or so and after that I can not see any perciptable rise in the trash so I throw mure in the compactor.
So how is the raise in land measured? If it is not measured by satellite how is the raise in different geological features calculated?
Lord Monckton’s most important point here is the intolerance of any but the “consensus’ view of climate change, by the alarmist cabal. That is the real inconvenient truth that skeptics have to deal with, that honest science is having to contend with a firm commitment to witchcraft on the part of academics, the media and policymakers. This problem is made the more difficult because these people cannot be made to listen to reason without violating the first tenet of their religious belief, namely that thou shalt not recognize the existence of, let alone listen to, let alone accept, evidence that conflicts with your dogma. They can be expected to cling to their fantasies and superstitions no matter how long or how strong the present cooling tend continues, and no matter how much physical evidence refuting their assumptions about carbon dioxide comes to light. They will still be claiming the globe is warming as the ice sheets of the next glaciation are grinding over them.
The monster in that old movie poster looks a helluva lot like Kang, half the alien pair Kang and Kodos on “the Simpsons”.
Kang’s best line comes when Homer tries to grab him:
“Keep your slimeless hands off me!”
Are they also adjusting for water abstraction which is “contributing a considerable amount of 0.8 (±0.1) mm a−1 to current sea-level rise”?
Here is what I am trying to understand. We have been told that without a doubt that Greenland is losing ice very badly, the glaciers are melting very badly, mass balance is terrible in Antarctica, the hottest decade on the record has just been crossed, the heat went deep sea diving, thermal expansion is certain, water abstraction is underway AND YET there is no credible evidence of an acceleration in the rate of sea level rise. Is it possible that the con is about to be exposed? The rate of sea level rise is one of our other kinds of thermometer.
This isn’t bogus either. See my referenced paper on water abstraction contributing a quarter to the rate of sea level rise.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2010GL044571/abstract
Nick Stokes is fighting desperately to keep the great scare alive. Sea level rise is the LEAST worrying climate sign of the lot. Even less worrying that the temperature standstill. Find some other scare old boy.
This interesting discussion reveals how little awareness there is of just how large are the “personal calibrations” and satellite intercalibration anomalies in the sea level data. I shall work on this with Willie Soon, and shall hope to report back before too long. But one or two pointers may be useful.
First, one should not be disingenuous enough to think that the global isostatic adjustment is merely an adjustment in the reference frame that makes no difference to the rates of change in sea level. For the “adjustment” was introduced just at the moment that the satellite altimetry data were about to show sea level rising at less than 3 mm/year. Bingo – up went the headline rate of sea-level rise.
Secondly, there is a very clear discrepancy, underlined by the Beenstock paper, between the tide-gauge record (1 mm/year) and the satellite record (3 mm/year). Envisat, though, agreed more closely with the tide-gauge record, and GRACE actually showed sea-level dropping in the years preceding 2009. Both these records, however, were subject to some very startling “personal calibrations”, which wrenched these inconvenient satellites into line with the alarmist official satellite record (Jason/Topex/Poseidon).
The “personal calibrations” – which were additional to the relatively small and purely technical adjustments that were made before the raw data were published – were very considerably greater than the 0.3 mm/year for the global isostatic adjustment alone.
And if anyone tries to tell you his hydrometer tells him sea level is rising, remind him of the logical fallacy of inappropriate argument from the particular to the general, and demand a sufficiently-resolved global sea-level dataset free of “personal calibrations”. None such exists.
In the meantime, enjoy the fact that the RSS data show no global warming at all for 17 years 9 months. Inexorably, the temperature record fails to perform as ordered, and it is that record – now far less easier to fiddle than the sea-level record – that will gradually bring the scam down.
This isn’t bogus either. See my referenced paper on water abstraction contributing a quarter to the rate of sea level rise.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2010GL044571/abstract
======
Jimbo, have you seen anything on coastal erosion, sedimentation from rivers, subsidence, etc?
If just pumping water is adding almost a mm a year to sea level rise…..the rest of it is adding a lot more………
In answer to RoHa, I was present at the conference in Cambridge, organized by the Howard Foundation at Downing College. I had arranged for Professor Moerner, and one or two other distinguished speakers, to attend the conference, and he had specifically requested that his paper for the layman should be circulated to all the delegates to assist them in understanding his talk. The organizers agreed. But then, when the saw the title of the paper, they forbade its circulation.
I had already given out several copies to delegates and had a bunch of the papers in my hand when I was approached by the organizers, who said they needed a few copies. They thus prevented those copies from being distributed, and spirited away the box of 1000 copies that were available, only giving them back to the Professor at the end of the conference.
Professor Moerner was rightly furious. I would not have invited him if I had thought for a moment that, as an invited speaker, he would be treated in so insultingly dishonest a fashion. But that is global-warming extremism for you – viciously intolerant of any viewpoint but its own.
Moral: have nothing whatever to do with the Howard Foundation.
rgbatduke
plainly speaking what is your opinion of this?
“The official sea level data are fiddled by an artifice known as the “global isostatic adjustment”. The inconvenient truth that sea level is not changing much must be concealed, so an enormous, bogus addition to the actual trend is made”
a physicist and an honest man.
If your students said such a thing what would say?
directly,
pull no punches.
@Tom Harley:
Chinatown, Broome was built 100 years ago at the high tide mark to service the pearling fleet. If the seas were rising even 2mm a year, this business centre of the town would be underwater at every high spring tide.
—————————-
No isostatic rebound here – not for any of the many glaciations of the last 10 million years. Are some tide gauges better than others in recording a non-glacial affected record?
Australian mainland was joined to PNG and Tasmania during the last glacial period. I asked a geologist at UNE was there any glaciers. He said No, only in Tasmania. Maybe some on the higher peaks, as the tree line was much lower than today, and little rain forests. The tree cover increased gradually until Europeans started cutting the trees down.
Where is this paper by Beenstock et.al. ?
A link would be useful, as would some actual numbers.
jimmi_the_dalek says: May 4, 2014 at 6:06 pm
“Where is this paper by Beenstock et.al. ?”
It’s not a Journal publication. They have it on their website, marked in bold: “Preliminary draft. Please do not distribute.”
OK, I only linked.
Nick Stokes quotes Colorado: May 4, 2014 at 2:14 am
“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.”
What proxy is used for changes in the deeper 50 % of the global oceans which are so undermapped that a variable heat source worth considering could exist?
It’s school level physics that if you want to understand the thermal expansion of a liquid body by measuring surface level change, you have to consider the whole body, not just the 50% about which you have more data.
All of these estimates are junk science unless they have an explicit caveat that notes the lack of data in the lower 50%. There is a probability that no expansion processes exist there, but if that is an assumption, it should be noted prominently.
As I’ve said elsewhere, long ago, even my old Mum used to stir her cup of soup so she would eliminate the surprise of an unwanted hot spot at the bottom.
It’s best to disregard all these papers linking ghg global warming to sea level change until we can comprehend the lower 50% of the oceans, n’est ce pas?
It may be of interest, but several years ago, after tim flannery started spouting about sea level rises encroaching on valuable water front homes, although he lives on the Hawkesbury River himself. That the BOM replied to my MP, that sea levels around Australia would only increase by 177 mm by 2050. Not CM! That’s around 6 inches.
Geoff Sherrington says: May 4, 2014 at 7:01 pm
“even my old Mum used to stir her cup of soup”
The GIA correction is about capacity, not volume of water. If your Mum’s cup expanded in the heat, the level would go down. But she would know, by applying a GIA, that she still had the same amount of soup.
Thank you , Lord Monckton.
Nick Stokes says:
May 4, 2014 at 7:09 pm
Geoff Sherrington says: May 4, 2014 at 7:01 pm
“even my old Mum used to stir her cup of soup”
The GIA correction is about capacity, not volume of water. If your Mum’s cup expanded in the heat, the level would go down. But she would know, by applying a GIA, that she still had the same amount of soup.
———————————
No she wouldn’t, because it would take someone like you to go round to Geoff’s Mum’s house and explain to her the soup level and GIA in her flexible cup, and she would look at you like you were a f-kin idiot.
Streetcred said:
“Is he not entitled to be addressed according to his title? It may be an English thing but so what. Funny though, I read your name as “dumbphil” … blame it on the ADD.”
Well, let me know when the people who call Christopher “Lord”, start calling Nick Stokes “Doctor”.
At least that title is relevant to his scientific expertise.
philincalifornia said:
“No she wouldn’t, because it would take someone like you to go round to Geoff’s Mum’s house and explain to her the soup level and GIA in her flexible cup, and she would look at you like you were a f-kin idiot.”
Translation: You are correct, but I’m going to find a way to have a go at you anyway”
Well, IMHO, we have about as much ‘clue’ about sea level change as we have about land temperatures in the GHCN:
https://chiefio.wordpress.com/2014/02/15/gee-siting-problems-and-intrument-error-in-sea-level-gauges/
But then again, what is “mean sea level” anyway? Nothing but a fictional construct:
https://chiefio.wordpress.com/2013/01/29/is-there-a-sea-level/
The crust moves so much, and the ocean floor too, that any supposed “isostatic adjustment” is just a flat out fudge factor. New Zealand was once ocean bottom. In California you find shark teeth at high elevation in the mountains. Heck, even the Himalaya have sea salt deposits and sea shells in them. It is the notion that the land and ocean floor are predictable and in some sense stable that is bogus. A several hundred mile chunk of sea floor moved up several feet in one go in the Indonesia quake a few years back. Then we have the fact that the entire Grand Canon got dumped into the ocean. Think that had any effect?
https://chiefio.wordpress.com/2011/04/01/where-did-the-grand-canyon-go/
All you can really measure is where the water touches the land at a place. Averaging many of those together may be amusing, but not very useful. Trying to guess ocean volume-rise composites from fudging that gives a useless number.
In many ways the most useful thing to realize is that Arctic ice is just not relevant since it floats on the water. Northern Hemisphere land ice is not relevant since it sits on land, and has little volume anyway (and little change too). Greenland did not melt in the last interglacial, nor in this one even though it was much warmer 7000 years ago; so it isn’t going to melt now. That leaves Antarctica, where the ice is building up. Everything else is hand waving.
Sea Level Change was a big risk and issue 12000 years ago. That all ended about 7000 years ago. Since then it’s been a big “nothing” in terms of impact on humanity. It will continue to be “nothing of interest” until the next glacial makes sea level drop an issue due to the ice covering the northern hemisphere down to Denmark and New Amsterdam (New York).
https://chiefio.wordpress.com/2014/05/04/arctic-flushing-and-interglacial-melt-pulses/
Has a wiki graph in it of sea level rise down at the bottom. It shows the “issue” ends about 7,000 years BP. The present rate of change is not different from the last 7000 years, and we did OK then…
Now if the sea level starts to FALL, and the Arctic stays iced over in summer, that’s when you have a major problem. When that happens, you are in the entry to the next glacial (ice age) and there is no turning back. The only ‘tipping point’ is to the downside. We already had the warm ‘tip’ 12000 years ago and it has run its course. (Really. Milankovitch found that only when specific conditions happen that cause the Arctic to melt do we have an interglacial. When it stops melting, we go back into the freezer. Folks who wail for a ‘multi year ice cap’ in the Arctic have no idea what they are wishing to get. It’s the signal for the plunge into frozen for 100,000 years… )
Streetcred and drumphil, Sorry for waving the Union Jack but English protocol extends outside UK, One wouldn’t call Queen Elizabeth 11, ‘Liz’. I am sure some have done, mind you! Sir Christopher would be acceptable. But if Nick has a doctorate, or Ph.D, usually that address is not used outside the university. It is often not used in scientific essays published in some form of professional paper, as some just put a Ph.D., behind the name. One usually maintains some decorum and respect for rank in public. Unless he/she is a medical physician to Address a doctorate is a bit over the top. Because most of us who address a person as Doctor, we think they are medical practitioners or MD’s not Ph.D’s.
E.M.Smith said:
” Northern Hemisphere land ice is not relevant since it sits on land, and has little volume anyway (and little change too). Greenland did not melt in the last interglacial, nor in this one even though it was much warmer 7000 years ago; so it isn’t going to melt now. That leaves Antarctica, where the ice is building up. Everything else is hand waving.”
Where does the Antarctic land ice volume fit into that? What has been happening there? As you point out, it is the land ice that is important for sea level, so how it is that you don’t include that in your reasoning?
“The letter, sent by David Beamish, clerk of the parliaments, to Monckton last Friday and now published on the Lords’ website, states: “You are not and have never been a member of the House of Lords. Your assertion that you are a member, but without the right to sit or vote, is a contradiction in terms. No one denies that you are, by virtue of your letters patent, a peer. That is an entirely separate issue to membership of the House. This is borne out by the recent judgement in Baron Mereworth v Ministry of Justice (Crown Office).”
Membership was once a birthright of hereditary peers, but that is no longer the case, and Christopher is not a Lord. Why do you think he had to change his emblem, or coat of arms, or whatever it was called?
Anyway, this is suppose to be a scientific discussion, and the title Doctor is much more relevant in this environment than “Lord”.
“Buckingham Palace was drawn into the dispute when it was revealed that Pownall had sought advice from the Lord Chamberlain, a key officer in the royal household, on the potential misuse of the portcullis emblem due to it being the property of the Queen. The Buckingham Palace website states that any misuse of the emblem is prohibited by the Trade Marks Act 1994, meaning Monckton could potentially be liable for fines and a six-month prison term if the palace pursues the matter and successfully prosecutes him.”
“Monckton has since been using a slightly altered portcullis emblem on his lecture slides. The two chains hanging either side of portcullis are now kinked instead of straight. It is not known whether the Lord Chamberlain is content with the change. A spokesperson told the Guardian that the palace was “aware of the issue”, but it had a policy of not commenting on private correspondence between it and an individual.”
Well the Arctic North Pole has no land, the Arctic circle has, and lower daylight hours part of the year. They measure when there is a king, spring or Ebb tide? LOL. My insurance company wanted to put my insurance up by hundreds one year. I rang up and told I was covered for flood, bush fires and tsunamis. I don’t mind paying a bush fire levy. Even though the house is not in the bush but a kerb and guttered middle class area. But I objected for to a flood and tsunami levy. Let those building on flood plains pay extra. I told the lady, ‘Hey I don’t live near a river, only a creek and that’s 3 km away down the hill. But tsunami!
I live 200 kms from the sea, and 3,500 ft absl. Unless a huge Asteroid splashed down in the Tasman sea, well we wouldn’t need any insurance if it got this high, we’d be dead. She hung up.
I complained and the insurance was reduced.
Translation: You are correct, but I’m going to find a way to have a go at you anyway.
=============================================================
Nick is plain silly. SL is just that, an effort to determine how much the mean top of the oceans are changing.. Do you really want me to link 100 alarmist scare stories from MSM folk quoting already failed predictions of SL rise? CAGW is all about the “C”. CATASTOROPHY in AGW. (By the way, the CGW are all currently MIA.) Because the veracity of the C is dependent on how much the oceans are rising, you do not add in fudge factors that have nothing to do with the sea level.
As noted many times, this is just one of the questionable ad-hoc SL adjustments. It is a desperate attempt to keep the failing narrative alive. Sea Level, means just that, the mean elevation of the oceans? Sea Volume is something else entirely. If they were honest they would do two charts. One would be SL, the other SV., and they would put error bars on their charts, with a detailed explanation.
Hell scientist, in a less politicized field, have been arguing for decades about the level of a desert. That’s right; Google “Palmdale Bulge” So you see, and we are debating a sily MM per year, other scientist are debating inches and feet in a desert which clearly should be far easier to determi
Viscount is technically correct, although also completely irrelevant for scientific discussion.
Drumphil, that letter was sent years ago. One can’t de-peer a person with the appropriate credentials and appointment that is granted by her Majesty. If Nick wishes to be addressed as Doctor I would assume he was a medical practitioner. Don’t be so bloody minded and pedantic.
“One can’t de-peer a person with the appropriate credentials and appointment”
He hasn’t been de-peered. That is a separate issue to being a member of the house of lords. Pedantic? Yeah, who cares about honesty. If you can’t be honest about that, how are you going to hold the feet of others to the fires of accountability?
“Nick is plain silly.”
Yet he manages to provide many useful corrections and improvements to the work of the most technically capable submitters on this site. Stuff that is beyond my capabilities, and those of most people here. But of course, he is just plain silly because you disagree with him on something.
Drumphil, I know, but I said that letter was sent some years ago. But if I remember rightly, Lord Monckton argued that being a Viscount entitled him to be a ‘member’ or associate just because he was the son of an Earl, and was accordingly was acceptable as part of the House of Lords, without voting rights.
Anyway, I’ll leave Lord Monckton to answer this himself, because it could have been an update of what was written about years ago.
Anyway I don’t know why this arose as you brought it up, and quite honestly I think it was plain rude and disrespectful after Lord M has done so much for this site, now and years before. I certainly am not detracting from Nick’s input either.
Christopher has his own answer to those questions, which are in disagreement with all the relevant authorities, and the decision of the courts. Will you start calling me “Lord” if I claim that I am regardless of what the law says? This is no small matter. It goes directly to the issue of his honesty and integrity.
I find it hard to believe that he would get such latitude from people here if he was arguing against them.
Rude and disrespectful? Right, so we should just let such dishonesty go unchallenged because you value other things he has done? I don’t see much of that attitude applied to the scientists who are attacked here regularly.
“I certainly am not detracting from Nick’s input either.”
Well, that is good, especially as he has never attempted to claim titles or standing that he is not entitled to.
I’ll certainly give Christopher credit for understand this important point:
“Latine dictum, sit altum videtur”
I mean, I know what it does to me when my girlfriend says “Estne volumen in toga, an solum tibi libet me videre?
Thinking some more, I guess I just find it rather un-egalitarain that we should honor the titles of “Lord” and “Viscount” in a scientific discussion, but not refer to those who have done the necessary work to earn a PHD in science with the title “doctor”.
Now, I can do without the titles altogether, but one is “earned” by having the right parents, and the other is earned by studying and performing scientific research. When the subject is science, on a site created for the discussion of science, it seems a strange choice to use hereditary titles, but not academic titles.
drumphil, I think we are talking at cross purposes. You a republican? Years ago, and I can’t remember when but definitely in the 60s. The house of Lords was filled by only peers of the realm. These were hereditary peers, were Dukes, Marquess, Earls, Viscounts, Barons but not Baronets, they could sit in the House of Lords and got paid for it. A lot didn’t turn up regularly and they have to vote 3 times to pass any legislation coming from the House of Commons. But they changed it in ? and they were then voted in by the people, like the MPs.
Since Charles the first disgrace and execution, no peer or nobility can enter the House of Commons, not even the Queen. When she opens parliament it is done in the House of Lords chamber.
Now life peers can sit in the House of Lords and they can advertise which political party they belong too, and whether they are hereditary or life peers. You know the difference I presume?
The Queen grants a change in peerage, with a letter patent and seal. Lord Monckton has that.
He’s a fair dinkum Lord and Viscount.
Completely outside the jurisdiction or control of parliament and both sides.chambers.
High court judges are precluded from being members or sitting in the House and they are addressed in court as either My Lord or My Lady and in private too. It is a honorary title for them but generally they are also knights or dames too.
Just because you are not a sitting and elected ‘member’ of the House of Lords, does not prevent you from being addressed as Lord that is their rite of passage and a traditional address for various ranks of nobility. Not all a Duke is addressed as ‘Your Grace’
So if I were you I would apologize to Lord Monckton of Brenchley and pull your forelock three times,(humbly, no you don’t have to bow and crawl) you have accused a member of the British aristocracy and nobility of being dishonest. And that spat you quoted was years ago, and keeps cropping up now and again, when people like you grasp the wrong end of the stick. Or to discredit Sir Christopher and are generally alarmists.
PS. Reading the time in the US have you been sipping too much grape juice?
“you have accused a member of the British aristocracy and nobility of being dishonest.”
How the f–k does being a member of the British aristocracy have anything to do with anything?
“Monckton asserts that the House of Lords Act 1999, that deprived him of a hereditary seat, is flawed and unconstitutional. In 2006 he referred to himself as “a member of the Upper House of the United Kingdom legislature” in a letter to US Senators,[48] and has also claimed to be “a member of the Upper House but without the right to sit or vote.”[49] The House of Lords authorities have said Monckton is not and never has been a member and that there is no such thing as a non-voting or honorary member of the House.[6][34]
In July 2011 the House of Lords took the “unprecedented step” of publishing online a cease and desist letter to Monckton from the Clerk of the Parliaments, which concluded, “I am publishing this letter on the parliamentary website so that anybody who wishes to check whether you are a Member of the House of Lords can view this official confirmation that you are not.”
And republican? I’m Australian.
george e. smith says:
” …What they (y’alls) are saying, is …”
A small point, but I thought that the plural of “y’all” is “all y’all”. 😉
Nick is plain silly.
=====================
Yet he manages to provide many useful corrections and improvements to the work of the most technically capable submitters on this site. Stuff that is beyond my capabilities, and those of most people here. But of course, he is just plain silly because you disagree with him on something.
=====================================
It has zero to do with me. Nick earns that title by his justification of the incorrect labeling of a scientific graph. The Colorado graph claims it is a sea level graph depicting the rise of the ocean surface. They add in a volume adjustment, which has zero to do with the altitude of the ocean surface. Nick demonstrates that an intelligent mind can sometimes more readily digest a flawed perspective.
First of all the WAG of increased volume is not relevant to public policy, which is dependent on the change in ocean level, not volume. (That alone is a simple fact you and Nick should comprehend,)
Next, how did they determine this useless metric with regard to sea surface level, called volume increase? Is it measured, or is it a guesstimate? Is land surface increasing or decreasing? How much does the steady stream of dead bio life snowing to the ocean floor, plus all the rivers depositing sediment make up for this WAG? Is the sub-duction and uplift tectonic rates within the ocean equal, or does that fluctuate? Show me the observed math!! (By the way, please add in some error bars for your estimate)
As already said many times, even if you did show me the observations of this volume adjustment, and you cannot, this is not relevant to the sea level with regard to public policy regarding the mitigation of catastrophic sea level rise.
I called Nick silly for defending the mislabeling of two different metrics, volume and level, on a scientific graphic which is labeled Sea Level. However it is actually, in my view, evil, due to the influence on public policy of such graphs.
Nick and drumphil can prove that deception is not their agenda, by publically proclaiming that the President and his men are simply wrong to do the following…
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/05/05/houston-we-have-a-dumbass-problem/
David A said:
“Nick and drumphil can prove that deception is not their agenda,”
Are you f–king serious?
I did indeed comment that one shouldn’t make too much of a local fluctuation in snow and ice. Yes, really, one shouldn’t.
Thank you for admitting that the President and his men are simply wrong to do this. And yes, Mr. drumphil, I am serious.
It would be one thing to debate the weather if it was simply an academic debate. But global energy policies are, IMV, as responsible as any other factor for our global economic ills, and extremely painful to the poor in particular. So, just as I object to what the Obama admin just said with regard to Calif, I object to mislabeling a scientific graph for the same reason. It will be used to justify what is very destructive public policy. it is more then a strictly academic debate. There is no excuse for mislabeling a sea level graph with a metric not related to the sea level.
“Thank you for admitting that the President and his men are simply wrong to do this.”
I find this sort of behavior to be pretty juvenile. Why would you even bother with 5th grade stuff like that?
” And yes, Mr. drumphil, I am serious.”
About what? Constructing statements that you demand we agree with lest we be shown to be deliberate liars and deceivers? Get over yourself.
What right do you have to demand that I make statements about the US President till you are satisfied?
David A says: May 5, 2014 at 5:18 am
“So, just as I object to what the Obama admin just said with regard to Calif, I object to mislabeling a scientific graph… with a metric not related to the sea level”
Their metric is certainly related to sea level. I still haven’t heard how you think they should be defining GMSL, and why aiming for a measure of sea water volume is so outrageous.
And I wonder how universally you condemn overstating the significance of a local fluctuation in snow and ice?
Nick says…
Their metric is certainly related to sea level. I still haven’t heard how you think they should be defining GMSL, and why aiming for a measure of sea water volume is so outrageous.
======================================================================
The volume metric is not related to sea level. Ocean volume could increase and Sea level could go up, stay the same, or go down. With regard to the theory of CAGW, only the rate at which the surface rises matters. Falsely conflating volume and level, and then adding in a theoretical increase in volume, to a graph showing sea level, when we know that the sea level did not rise .3 mm, but we label the graph showing a .3 mm rise, is scientifically outrageous, manifestly distorting the actual rise by 10% to 30% depending on how much you think the level is actually rising.
Then using that graphic to project the dangers of AGW, which is what politicians do, is amplification of poor science, just like the article on California drought I linked to is doing.
The metric should be how much is sea level rising or lowering verses land that is doing neither, and how much of that rise is due to human activity. I suppose we measure it against the best reference we have, which is likely satellites. Since the volume increase got the level no closer to the satellites, then volume should not be used in a Sea LEVEL graph. If you want to theorize on ocean volume, do an ocean volume graph.
BTW, aiming for a measure of sea volume is fine science, and I never said that was outrageous. Converting that three dimensional volume measure, to a vertical two dimensional graph depicting level, and using that knowingly false projection, (because een though the volume increased, the sea level actually did not rise) for political reasons is outrageous.
————————————————————————————-
Nick asks,
And I wonder how universally you condemn overstating the significance of a local fluctuation in snow and ice?
========================================================
Not sure what you mean. Over stating it for the purpose of “skyrocketing energy prices” is, well what can I say, I condemn 100 percent of that.
drumphil says:
May 5, 2014 at 5:27 am
David A says, to Nick, “Thank you for admitting that the President and his men are simply wrong to do this.”
===================
I find this sort of behavior to be pretty juvenile. Why would you even bother with 5th grade stuff like that?….” And yes, Mr. drumphil, I am serious.”
About what? Constructing statements that you demand we agree with lest we be shown to be deliberate liars and deceivers? Get over yourself.
========================================
What right do you have to demand that I make statements about the US President till you are satisfied?
——————————————————————–
I, like you, have every right to be satisfied or not, with whatever I choose. My demand was that if you were sincere in your debate, you would condemn the POTUS relating a local drought in Calif.
to CAGW. I related the presidential misuse of the theory of CAGW, to your willingness to misuse
a scientific graphic showing ocean level, by adding in a volume metric which, whatever you reference level to, does not change that level.
That is such a clear misuse of a graph that I did not think it possible to defend, but you and Nick chose to. So, for myself to test your sincerity, I wanted to see if you would condemn another misuse (even,if possible,more clearly wrong then the SL graph) of the theory of CAGW.
I, and other reasonable folk, may find the fact that your unwillingness to admit this,
indicative of an inability on your part for rational deductive logic or simply oversensitive emotionally.
So correct, you do not have to answer, and yes, I have every right to form my own perspective of your logical deductive capacity based on your comments, or lack of.
I must again ask the moderators to be careful not to allow these threads to be derailed by trolls who lurk behind pseudonyms and make libelous personal attacks on authors of head postings that do not fit the tenets of the new superstition to which they so dutifully but misguidedly subscribe.
A troll has accused me of being “dishonest” about my peerage. The facts are well known to most here, but now need to be repeated. In Australia some years ago, a hard-Left journalist asked me, live on air, “Are you a member of the House of Lords?” I answered, “Yes, but without the right to sit or vote.” That is the exact constitutional position. The journalist (or others of the hard Left) contacted a functionary at the House of Lords and mischaracterized my remarks, The functionary, without having bothered to check with me, put up a remarkably stupid and ignorant letter saying I was not to call myself a member of the House.
On returning from Australia, I consulted learned counsel specializing in peerage law, who delivered an 11-page written opinion that makes it entirely plain that I have not misled anyone, and that I am indeed, as I say I am, a member of the House but without the right to sit or vote, and that I was fully entitled to say so. The enormous, widespread and remarkably vicious campaign on the hard Left to suggest otherwise is part of a wider (and failed) attempt to discredit me and those like me who have dared to question the New Superstition.
The sheer nastiness of such attacks, though it can be uncomfortable to be on the wrong end of them, has proven to be self-defeating. All but the very stupidest can see through these attacks and recognize them for what they are – an increasingly desperate attempt to avoid talking about the failed science of global warming.
Oh, and on the matter of my logo, I insisted that the silly, over-politicized, under-informed, custard-faced Beamish, clerk of not a lot, should check with Garter King of Arms to find out whether I am allowed to use my logo – in all its variants. Custard-face found out, to his horror and dismay, that my not inelegant device, a vicecomital coronet superimposed upon the generic heraldic device of a portcullis, was not registered to anyone else and that I was fully entitled to use it. So I still do use it. How interesting it is that the troll who has so childishly tried to pick holes in both my peerage and my logo has no more checked the facts about these matters than he has the facts about global warming. Would the moderators please, please, stop allow people writing under pseudonyms to derail threads in this way, particularly by making what are very serious and libelous allegations? This must really stop.
Monckton of Brenchley says:
May 5, 2014 at 1:07 pm
On returning from Australia, I consulted learned counsel specializing in peerage law, who delivered an 11-page written opinion that makes it entirely plain that I have not misled anyone, and that I am indeed, as I say I am, a member of the House but without the right to sit or vote, and that I was fully entitled to say so.
Which remains an opinion and untested in court, it is the HoL’s opinion that you are not entitled to make that claim. Perhaps you should test your claim by trying to avail yourself of the members’ library or dining room?
Nick Stokes or drumphil,
By reading every comment in this thread, I was hoping to discover what the human CO2 contribution to the 0.3mm rise in sea level was/is. Do either of you know that? In % would be great.
Thanks,
Ron Richey
More off-topic rubbish about the House of Lords. The House has only expressed one opinion on this matter, and that is to the effect that I have satisfactorily demonstrated to the Privileges Committee that I am indeed the successor of my late father. The fact is recorded in the official proceedings of the House.
There is nothing whatsoever in the official proceedings of the House about whether I am entitled to say I am a member but without the right to sit or vote. There is a single letter from a politicized clerk, who is not learned in peerage law. The barrister whom I consulted is learned in peerage law. The worst that can be said is that there is a difference of opinion on the matter – a difference on which House itself and its authorities have been utterly silent. The clerk is a functionary, not an authority.
So “Phil”, yet another anonymous troll who has not the faintest idea what it is talking about, is incorrect to say that the House of Lords has expressed an opinion on the matter. It has not done so, and, if it ever did so, it would have to admit that its hapless functionary has made an idiot of himself.
Monckton of Brenchley says:
May 5, 2014 at 2:48 pm
More off-topic rubbish about the House of Lords. The House has only expressed one opinion on this matter, and that is to the effect that I have satisfactorily demonstrated to the Privileges Committee that I am indeed the successor of my late father. The fact is recorded in the official proceedings of the House.
There is nothing whatsoever in the official proceedings of the House about whether I am entitled to say I am a member but without the right to sit or vote. There is a single letter from a politicized clerk, who is not learned in peerage law. The barrister whom I consulted is learned in peerage law. The worst that can be said is that there is a difference of opinion on the matter – a difference on which House itself and its authorities have been utterly silent. The clerk is a functionary, not an authority.
On the contrary the House of Lords Act 1999 explicitly states:
“No-one shall be a member of the House of Lords by virtue of a hereditary peerage.”
Further, section 2 (6) says: “Any question whether a person is excepted from section 1 shall be decided by the Clerk of the Parliaments, whose certificate shall be conclusive.”
Therefore as far as the HOL is concerned the Clerk of the Parliaments is indeed the authority on the matter of your membership and he has said: “you are not and have never been a Member of the House of Lords”.
So “Phil”, yet another anonymous troll who has not the faintest idea what it is talking about, is incorrect to say that the House of Lords has expressed an opinion on the matter. It has not done so, and, if it ever did so, it would have to admit that its hapless functionary has made an idiot of himself.
Neither anonymous nor a troll, I post under my own name. I also have an email from the HOL which states that you are not a member.
I can understand you now but if you look above you will see he has dropped his titles. Not a member means you are not elected to the chamber. Where as before any hereditary peer could sit and vote. As he was not elected, under the new scheme, he is not a member as far as this functionary is concerned But outside his titles remain the same.
Oh it’s all clear to me now. Christopher and his lawyers say everyone else is wrong, so that settles it!
Do let us know how your constitutional challenge to the House of Lords Act 1999, or your appeal of Baron Mereworth v Ministry of Justice work out for you. Please let us know in detail.
I wait with bated breath.
Meh, I think you’ll try and hang on to the title “Lord” for the exact same reason you run the “baffle ’em with latin” trick at your shows. You certainly are a capable showman who knows his audience, so credit where credit is due 😛
As I said before Phil apologize for the misunderstanding, particularly the part of being dishonest. Christopher Monckton (if you like to call him) has done more for the fight against alarmism and the IPCC hidden agendas than anyone I know, and prepared to do it in public.
“he is not a member as far as this functionary is concerned But outside his titles remain the same.”
How do you figure that exactly?
Just because you do not believe in hereditary titles in the British Islands, is showing your social and political bias and prejudice. What! you don’t believe in 1000s of years of British history. Cum on mate, it’s there to stay, and Rule Britannia! Forgive him my Lord, he doesn’t know what he does.
What the hell are you on about. The law says what it does. My prejudice has nothing to do with the truth of the contents of the law, and the decision of the courts.
British law, and British courts that is Mr Patriotic.
drumphil, drop it. Being Australian and a republican anti constitutional belief the Queen should not be Queen of Australia is your right. But don’t comment on British traditions, we are worlds apart. But remember the 1999 referendum? The republicans stated they would elect the president, and could depose of him/her too. No one wanted a politicians republic. Her majesty has no influence on political dealings in Australia, and I have a letter to prove it too. The PM elects the GG who like her Majesty remains apolitical. And he/she must be an Australian citizen.
Seriously, what the hell does any of that have to do with anything I said?
drumphil, because the Republican mentality, is anti British and I am British (now also an Australian citizen) and your comments are slighted and incorrect in your assumptions and statements in order to discredit a worthwhile contributor.. This site is about AGW and not about making ignorant statements and biased (being impolite) about the contributors. So kindly shut up! If you were man enough you would apologize, forthwith, or ……
You really don’t have any idea what you’re on about do you? You keep mixing up a bunch of different ideas but you can’t explain exactly what they have to do with anything I said. Please, do demonstrate with quotes from me, how any of that is relevant to what I said…
I don’t hold out much hope at this point, given the emotive rubbish you have repeated so far.
How exactly does calling someone out on their false claims of title equate to any form of attack on British institutions? I support the house of lords, and do not take kindly to people falsely claiming membership.
I do not know whether “Phil” and “drumphil” are both the same person, for they both lurk furtively behind pseudonyms, so that their identities cannot be determined. “Phil” even goes so far as to say “Phil” is his own name, as though that were some how sufficient to identify him.
However, as I have explained, I answered “Yes, but without the right to sit or vote” to a question about whether I was a member of the House of Lords and, therefore, did not mislead anyone about whether I was a “member” as narrowly defined by the 1999 Act. I am, however, a member of the House to the extent, for instance, of having the right to attend Coronations and having the right to use the title “Viscount Monckton of Brenchley” or “Lord Monckton”. And that is an end of the matter.
Well, my real name is Philip Ashley Schaeffer … [trimmed]
[Yes, it is probably your name, address, & id. But it is also off topic. Mod]
I am amazed that someone in the 21st century would actually call another person a Lord. It is so medieval-ish.
John
Careful Nick,
the present SL trend is flat and has been some sixteen years or so, according to the NOAA mean SL trend.
Aside from that, the .3mm due to glacial rebound is theory, not fact.
In reply to Mr Whitman, I continue to be intrigued at why so many citizens of a supposedly democratic republic that extinguished all titles of nobility in its Constitution remain so mesmerized by aristocracy that they maunder on about the arcana of peerage law, and pretend to be more fascinated by that than by the failure of global temperature or sea level to rise as ordered.
Could it be that the real purpose of these persons is to try to discredit me, and so to frighten off anyone else who might otherwise, as I do, stand up in public and denounce this childish but immoral and damaging scare for what it is?
John Whitman says:
I don’t know John. It’s an accident of birth but still, Lord Monckton gives every appearance to me at least of living up to the title. Remember this? There are plenty of other examples. What are Lords for, if not this?
Don’t want to descend to the Monty Python level, but I’d vote for him. 😉
– – – – – – – – – –
Christopher Monckton,
Why are you addressing me with that comment of yours?
Discredit you, you say? What? Your comment did not discover my comment, yet.
Christopher Monckton, I remind you that this was my comment (John Whitman on May 6, 2014 at 7:12 am) I am amazed that someone in the 21st century would actually call another person a Lord. It is so medieval-ish.
I am now even more amazed that someone who is involved with medieval-ish Lord titling has taken issue with my amazement that someone in the 21st century would actually call another person a Lord. Truly amazing.
John
John, I don’t want to disrupt the thread any worse than it’s already been, but I think you’re being unreasonable here. Put yourself in Lord M’s shoes. Say you’re born Viscount of Brenchly. What exactly would you do with that?
Silence of the Lambs.
See climate audit for the meaning of it.
short version:
when scientists refuse to comment on a mistake made by someone in their tribe
i repeat calling all LAMBS, willis? rgbatduke? Anthony? roy spencer?
##################################
“rgbatduke
plainly speaking what is your opinion of this?
“The official sea level data are fiddled by an artifice known as the “global isostatic adjustment”. The inconvenient truth that sea level is not changing much must be concealed, so an enormous, bogus addition to the actual trend is made”
a physicist and an honest man.
If your students said such a thing what would say?
directly,
pull no punches.
########################
come on now, don’t be intimidated by a mere Lord.
Judge:
“The official sea level data are fiddled by an artifice known as the “global isostatic adjustment”. The inconvenient truth that sea level is not changing much must be concealed, so an enormous, bogus addition to the actual trend is made”
Now of course the physicists in the room know that the Lord is wrong.
Einstein told us to never stop questioning. That’s a good policy.
Question the Lord.
@Mosher, the effect is small. Sealevel@colorado.edu says:
“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.”
From my viewpoint the real issue is the trend divergence from tide gauges. Claims of accelerating SLR don’t seem to be in that data set.
– – – – – – – – –
Mark Bofill,
I am not Monckton, so no response to your comment is possible for me. Sorry.
My initial amazement has grown into uber-amazement.
John
Hi moderators,
I think that Christopher Monckton is one of several people who have contributed to making WUWT the outstanding blog that it is. The Ocean Ate My Global Warming is a prime example.
Moreover I have no doubt that our guest author is exactly who he says he is. I’m slightly miffed that certain Warmist trolls have been allowed to post personal attacks against Christopher.
These ad homs do not contribute anything to our discussion of whatever the original topic was. Oh yes, now I remember. It was about Sea Level Rise. Is staying on-topic too much to ask?
Monckton of Brenchley says:
May 6, 2014 at 5:22 am
I do not know whether “Phil” and “drumphil” are both the same person, for they both lurk furtively behind pseudonyms, so that their identities cannot be determined. “Phil” even goes so far as to say “Phil” is his own name, as though that were some how sufficient to identify him.
Clearly you don’t know what a pseudonym is!
If I were posting under two names you can be sure that the Mods would not allow me to post as it is a breach of the blog rules.
Not everyone’s name is sufficient to identify him, the year I applied to college in the UK it was stated on the form that in a previous year over 400 John Smiths applied. My full name is the same as my grandfather’s and my name and title is the same as one of my nephews.
However, as I have explained, I answered “Yes, but without the right to sit or vote” to a question about whether I was a member of the House of Lords and, therefore, did not mislead anyone about whether I was a “member” as narrowly defined by the 1999 Act.
Well that narrow definition is the actual definition used by Parliament, you do not get to make up your own definition!
I am, however, a member of the House to the extent, for instance, of having the right to attend Coronations and having the right to use the title “Viscount Monckton of Brenchley” or “Lord Monckton”.
No you’re a peer of the realm and those are privileges of that status, you are not a member of the House.
And that is an end of the matter.
No the end of the matter is that the designated Parliamentary authority has ruled that you are not and never have been a Member of the HOL (both the current Clerk of the Parliaments and his predecessor). He has told you to desist from making such claims. That should be the end of it unless you appeal to the Committee for Privileges and Conduct for a writ of summons, as indicated by the Mereworth decision separation of powers precludes your taking it to court.
Steven Mosher says:
May 6, 2014 at 10:58 am
– – – – – –
Steven Mosher,
I think that there was a substantive disagreement with Christopher Monckton by rgbatduke at May 4, 2014 at 9:17 am.
Also, Nick Stokes was likewise in disagreement with CM.
So at least one lamb was vocal . . . . baaaa baaaa : )
John
John Whitman says:
May 6, 2014 at 11:05 am
Seriously? You’ve got no comment on anybody born to circumstances that differ from yours? I’m a little amazed too John.
Steven,
Thanks for the flag. No disrespect intended to you Lord Monckton. Clearly something I ought to learn more about.
– – – – – – – –
Mark Bofill,
Seriously. For me to do what you asked of me it is not possible for I have insufficient knowledge of Monckton’s life. Sorry. And I respect him way too much to speculate.
John
John,
Just being my usual dense self, I guess. I don’t see what Christopher Monckton specifically had to do with my question. Imagine you were born Earl Whitman of wherever you like…
Oh never mind. It just seems to me that you’re beating up on the guy because he happened to be born a lord and hasn’t ?? what? renounced the title or whatever it is you’d do to avoid being medieval-ish. Don’t see why he should, and don’t see why it’s such a travesty that he use the title in the 21rst century, that’s all.
Sorry for the thread interruption, I’ll drop this now.
“Phil”, whoever it is, continues to be spiteful. Britain, unlike whichever Communist country “Phil” inferentially inhabits, allows freedom of speech. If I, as a peer, choose to say I am a member of the House of Lords but without the right to sit or vote, I am entitled to my opinion, and indeed to the learned legal Opinion that confirms in all respects my understanding of the position.
The fool who is Cluck of the Parliaments, the useless Beamish, had been misinformed by fellow leftists, had failed to check the position before he acted, and put up his silly letter on the House of Lords’ website. He is now stuck with his stupidity. And he is not “the designated authority”. The designated authority is the House itself, or in some circumstances the Privileges Committee. As I have previously pointed out in this thread, the House and the Privileges Committee have remained silent on this matter. The “designated authority”, therefore, has not spoken, whether “Phil” – who is clearly no expert – likes it or not.
Meanwhile, global temperatures are not rising as predicted (or, recently, at all); sea level is not rising as predicted; the sea is not warming as predicted; the ice is not melting as predicted; the deserts are not growing as predicted; hurricanes and tornadoes are not increasing as predicted; droughts and floods are not increasing as predicted; and just about every major point on which we were told the science is settled and the debate is over the science is not settled and the debate is raging.
One day, when “Phil” gets out of its diapers, it will no doubt learn that, although it may think it is championing the Communist cause by talking ignorantly and maliciously about my peerage, it is merely serving to confirm the pathetic intellectual bankruptcy of the paid trolls who waste their time here. In one respect, however, the pettiness and viciousness of these twerps is helpful. For any third party looking in – and perhaps 100,000 a day do just that – can see perfectly well that anyone who bangs on and on and on about irrelevancies when confronted with scientific facts is becoming terrified that the facts are gradually proving the climate extremist superstition to be wrong.
If you can’t stick to the point of the head posting, then you advertise not my inadequacy but your own. Go and play in someone else’s sandpit until you are adult enough to participate here.
Oh, and I have discovered that the reason why the moderators allow things like the furtive “Phil” to spit and spew their incoherent venom here is that they enjoy my replies. However, I shall be talking with Anthony about this next month, for I am not sure that – however entertaining to the moderators my replies to such stupidities may be – the diversionary tactics of the now rapidly retreating trolls are more of a help (in advertising the cretinous feeble-mindedness of the Branch Warmingian Cult) than a hindrance (in deflecting or preventing proper scientific discussion).
Now that was genuinely hilarious.
“If you can’t stick to the point of the head posting, then you advertise not my inadequacy but your own. Go and play in someone else’s sandpit until you are adult enough to participate here.”
Pot, meet kettle. You’ve had plenty to say about others.
Mr Monckton, does the House of Lords Act 1999 state:
“No-one shall be a member of the House of Lords by virtue of a hereditary peerage.”
??
Are you claiming membership by virtue of hereditary peerage?
Are you claiming that the House of Lords Act 1999 is unconstitutional?
Lord Monckton, I agree with you. They are not British, they do not know what polite society involves, where one recognizes titles and birth right. In fact I have known a lot of titled people in Britain, and between friends and associates usually they don’t expect the formality to be maintained, but in public they are addressed formally. All but for the HRH’s and her Majesty Queen Elizabeth, who remains Queen of Australia and many other states. She is not head of State of Australia, and has no influence or even can comment on any political decision. I have a letter to prove it when the last GG reckoned Australia would one day be a Republic. Our head of State is Sir Peter Cosgrove who will not involve himself and can’t into the Republican issue.
No better person could represent the Queen in our Country. And he is Australian a point that republicans miss. No foreigner can hold the GG position. The comments are so Anti-British and spiteful, detracting this thread from the real issues, that one wonders what mentality is involved here? Just to snipe at you personally, with what in mind I can’t say, other than discredit you and use this thread to bring in republican (Australian) nonsense. Do you understand now, Phil or drumphil! Just as well that we are not in the Medieval mode as one commented or you would be beheaded. Read your British history, dorks. And Australian too, from and before 1901. Republicans don’t realise before Federation Aborigines had the vote, but somehow were missed out when the 1901 constitution was compiled.
Have you no respect for British law bushbunny?
Does the House of Lords Act 1999 state “No-one shall be a member of the House of Lords by virtue of a hereditary peerage.” or not?
All the rest of what you say is irrelevant, because you have no idea what I think about any of those things. How do you think I voted in the referendum? Go on, take a guess..
Monckton of Brenchley says:
May 6, 2014 at 3:09 pm
“Phil”, whoever it is, continues to be spiteful.
As anyone who reads this will see I continue to be polite whereas you are rude and abusive and revert to your stock in trade, the ad hominem.
Britain, unlike whichever Communist country “Phil” inferentially inhabits, allows freedom of speech.
As a British citizen I’m well aware of that, why is it that everyone who disagrees with you gets labelled a ‘communist, or ‘leftist’ or ‘troll’?
If I, as a peer, choose to say I am a member of the House of Lords but without the right to sit or vote, I am entitled to my opinion, and indeed to the learned legal Opinion that confirms in all respects my understanding of the position.
You’re entitled to your opinion, but not your own facts!
The fool who is Cluck of the Parliaments, the useless Beamish, had been misinformed by fellow leftists, had failed to check the position before he acted, and put up his silly letter on the House of Lords’ website. He is now stuck with his stupidity.
More ad hominem, he quoted your statements from the Australian radio broadcast, how is that being misinformed? His predecessor had also written to you on the matter of your claims.
And he is not “the designated authority”.
According to the House of Lords Act, 1999, he is indeed, as in section 2(6) which I quoted above:
“Any question whether a person is excepted from section 1 shall be decided by the Clerk of the Parliaments, whose certificate shall be conclusive.”
And he has decided that you are not a member of the House of Lords.
The designated authority is the House itself, or in some circumstances the Privileges Committee. As I have previously pointed out in this thread, the House and the Privileges Committee have remained silent on this matter. The “designated authority”, therefore, has not spoken, whether “Phil” – who is clearly no expert – likes it or not.
Their ‘designated authority’ has decided the matter so there is no need for them to rule, unless you apply to the Committee for Privileges and Conduct.
One day, when “Phil” gets out of its diapers, it will no doubt learn that, although it may think it is championing the Communist cause by talking ignorantly and maliciously about my peerage, it is merely serving to confirm the pathetic intellectual bankruptcy of the paid trolls who waste their time here. In one respect, however, the pettiness and viciousness of these twerps is helpful. For any third party looking in – and perhaps 100,000 a day do just that – can see perfectly well that anyone who bangs on and on and on about irrelevancies when confronted with scientific facts is becoming terrified that the facts are gradually proving the climate extremist superstition to be wrong.
You made a false statement concerning your membership of the House of Lords, which I corrected, anyone reading the paragraph above can see who’s being petty and vicious.
If you can’t stick to the point of the head posting, then you advertise not my inadequacy but your own. Go and play in someone else’s sandpit until you are adult enough to participate here.
I didn’t raise the issue of your status, you did
Oh, and I have discovered that the reason why the moderators allow things like the furtive “Phil” to spit and spew their incoherent venom here is that they enjoy my replies.
The venom is all yours, as this post clearly illustrates.
However, I shall be talking with Anthony about this next month, for I am not sure that – however entertaining to the moderators my replies to such stupidities may be – the diversionary tactics of the now rapidly retreating trolls are more of a help (in advertising the cretinous feeble-mindedness of the Branch Warmingian Cult) than a hindrance (in deflecting or preventing proper scientific discussion).
By all means let’s have a proper scientific discussion, that is greatly facilitated by not calling people who disagree with you: ‘trolls’ and not using abusive, ad hominem rhetoric.
You are continually misinterpretating what they mean by ‘member’ of the House of Lords who have voting rights and is elected.
Maybe it would be easier for you to understand, when we refer to members of the senate and House of Representatives in Australia. They are elected to sit in the two chambers.
They changed it (in UK) that hereditary peers that had previously an automatic right to sit in the House of Lords chamber to those to being elected only. But as Lord Monckton has tried to explain and you have conveniently dismissed, he is allowed to retain his title and attend coronations etc., as a peer of the realm. That can not be taken away from him ever. But can no longer vote in the house of Lords. I have great respect for British law but what you mention is political regulations regarding who is entitled to sit and vote in the House of Lords. Not British law at all.
How do you think I voted in the 1999 referendum! I only became an Australian citizen when the consensus and result supported a constitutional monarchy and not a politician’s republic, where politicians would rule us and nominate a president of their choosing, then dismiss them if they didn’t toe the line. I still maintain a British passport too. Although I could get an Australian passport as I was once married to an Australian who hated the British too.
You’ve already admitted you are a Republican mate. But to turn this into a political thread when more important contributions on sea level rises are more appropriate. Let’s get back to WUWT, as it is getting boring, that includes you.
There is no such thing as a non voting member of the house of lords. While Christopher may be entitled to his title for ceremonial occasions, this does not make him a member of the house.
Oh crumbs, drumphil, you go on and on. You’ve backed down now, before you said he was dishonest using the title of Lord. Go away for GS, I must admit mod. I have not seen any contribution from this poster on other threads. Maybe I am wrong.
He was never just claiming the title of lord. He was also claiming membership of the house.
And I go on and on? Look at all the irrelevant drivel you have posted about royalty, and republicanism.
You brought it up drumphil, all I was commenting I have heard similar uneducated comments before all from republicans and trolls. If you persist in arguing about what LM means by member, why don’t you stop fiddling with your own. (Sorry mod he deserved it!) I think I have made my points quite clear, so buzz off.
Still on with the irrelevant republican rubbish I see.. Whatever.
Frankly, I could be the world leader of the movement to have all royals everywhere put up against the wall, and it still wouldn’t make the damnedest difference to the issue.
Steven Mosher asks…plainly speaking what is your opinion of this?
“The official sea level data are fiddled by an artifice known as the “global isostatic adjustment”. The inconvenient truth that sea level is not changing much must be concealed, so an enormous, bogus addition to the actual trend is made”
==================================
Steven, despite the sarcastic nature of your “silence of the lambs” question, I will give you a concise answer, followed by a more detailed one. The concise answer is that Monckton’s statement has a dual answer, that is it appllies to both the science, and the polotics behind the science. The adustment is enormous, relative to the trend. It’s about 0.3 mm/year. Maybe 10-30% of the SL increase, depending on what study you quote. That, in itself, is quite large, but read other resons it is “enormus and bogus” below…
The volume metric is not related to sea level. Ocean volume could increase and Sea level could go up, stay the same, or go down. With regard to the theory of CAGW, only the rate at which the surface rises matters. Falsely conflating volume and level, and then adding in a theoretical increase in volume, to a graph showing sea level, when we know that the sea level DID NOT RISE AN ADDITIONAL .3 mm, but we label the graph “Sea Level” showing a .3 mm rise, is scientifically outrageous, manifestly distorting the actual rise by 10% to 30% depending on how much you think the level is actually rising.
Then using that graphic to project the dangers of AGW, which is what politicians do, is amplification of poor science, just like the article on California drought I linked to is doing. This political factor is the dual aspect of why Mockton’s comment is spot on.
The metric should be how much is sea level rising or lowering verses land that is doing neither, and how much of that rise is due to human activity. I suppose we measure it against the best reference we have, which is likely satellites. Since the volume increase got the level NO CLOSER TO THE SATELITES, or any vertical reference you choose, then volume should not be used in a Sea LEVEL graph. If you want to theorize on ocean volume, do an ocean volume graph.
I am awaiting your non “silence of the Lambs” response to my clear attempt to dialogue.
dunphil says…
Frankly, I could be the world leader of the movement to have all royals everywhere put up against the wall, and it still wouldn’t make the damnedest difference to the issue.
=========================================
Yes indeed, and yet your second comment n this thread, completly not related to the thread was drumphil says:
May 3, 2014 at 10:02 pm
Gawd, Christopher has actually found a place where people with call him “Lord” with a straight face?
===============================================
This form of delection, which you have continued with troll like persistence above, is indeed unrelated to the post. However my post just above yours, addresses the issue head on. Will you also have a “silence of the Lambs” response? Or perhaps another fit that I have no right to demand anything from you. I only demand my own honest apprasial of the quality of your comments being a reflection of your capacity for genuine dialogue.
I do find it funny given given his record of deception on the issue of being a member of the house of lords. Especially given his vitriol directed against others he accuses of dishonesty.
And I don’t believe for a second that he would get the same “never mind the titles or honesty, what about the science!” treatment if he was arguing for “the other side”.
Thank goodness,David keep going. Cheers folks got to feed the dogs. Look forward to returning to this blog tomorrow and more interesting ‘on topic’ comments. As far as sea levels, there is erosion of course, when people build houses on the top of cliffs, because in UK some of our tidal movements are quite nasty, usually they build breaks and sea walls. Particularly on and near popular sandy beaches down South. (Bournemouth) However, after living in Bermuda and Australia, I don’t bathe in the English seas, too bleedin’ cold. Have a good night.
bushbunny says:May 7, 2014 at 12:15 am
Thank goodness,David keep going
====================================
I keep trying to get drumphil to stay on topic. I hoped he would respond to my post here… David A says:May 6, 2014 at 11:49 pm, . I regret that with regard to staying on topic, he choose, “silence of the lambs”
yes, earlier in this post I talked about the WAG that makes the volume ajustment. I do not know if they estimate runoff, ocean bio-life snow, or what kind of handle they have on ocean tectonic and volcanism with regard to ocean volume.
“Phil”, whoever it is, continues to be spiteful, petty, wrong, and, above all, entirely off topic. The same for the equally furtive “drumphil”.
But let us again get some facts straight. In saying I was a member of the House but without the right to sit and vote I was stating the exact constitutional position, as the legal advice (a copy of which is available on this site) makes clear. Peerage is membership of the House. The 1999 Act recognized this by denying membership in the narrow sense of the right to sit and vote to hereditary peers, who were, however, permitted to continue to use the facilities of the House, to retain their titles and to enjoy all other rights, obligations and privileges of membership of the House.
The Clerk of the Parliaments is not the designated authority to determine membership of the House outside the narrow definition in s. 1 of the 1999 Act. Nor was he acting with the authority either of the House or of the Privileges Committee when he wrote his remarkably stupid and uninformed letter. The Clerk had no need to “decide” in my case whether I was a “member of the House” in the sense of having the right to sit or vote, since I had made the fact that I had no such right explicit. The Clerk intervened at the initiative of political Leftists in Australia, and in breach of his duty of impartiality.
He is as entitled to his opinion as I am to mine, but it is not appropriate venomously to accuse me of dishonesty or of making a “false statement” when all I had done was to express my honest opinion, particularly since I had made it plain that my membership of the House did not entail the right to sit or vote. The legal Opinion that I obtained explicitly addressed the question whether I had been dishonest. It would be fair to say that the Clerk was dishonest in a number of respects, but not that I was.
The intent of such postings by trolls, which crop up from time to time, is plainly to try to discredit those who, like me, dare to challenge the received unwisdom on the climate question. Ad-hominem but pathetically implausible allegations of dishonesty seem to be intended not so much to silence us as to frighten off others who might otherwise dare to stand up and oppose the exaggerated and extreme claims of the climate extremists. Most of these are on the far Left in political terms, which is perhaps no coincidence, since the Communist agitator Saul Alinsky, in his Rules for Radicals, recommends precisely this technique.
“Phil”, a habitual whiner, whinges that I have called it a “troll”. Well, it has persisted in making outrageously false allegations that are entirely irrelevant to the subject matter of the head posting. If it walks like a troll and whines off topic like a troll, it is a troll and I shall call it a troll.
Meanwhile, the science continues to collapse. A devastating new paper published by the Global Warming Policy Foundation raises much the same concerns about the reliability of the satellite sea-level record as I have done in the head posting, and raises several more concerns, such as the fact that the rate of change in sea level varies from place to place, and that the global uptrend seems not to have accelerated much in recent decades, notwithstanding what the official record shows.
So the trolls are wasting their time trying to shoot me down. The facts are moving inexorably against them. They are no more expert in climate science than they are in peerage law, and the co-ordinated campaign against me and others by the climate extremist faction is gradually being seen by all for what it is – a hate-filled, politically and financially motivated campaign of lies, of which the lies of “Phil”, “drumphil” and suchlike trolls are an insignificant example.
Perhaps the best way to deal with these trolls would be to get their names and addresses and then sue them. One can’t sue the Clerk of the Parliaments, but one can sue those who make libelous allegations that I have been “dishonest” or have made “false statements” when I have not. Then the court could look at the legal opinion, and the Clerk’s letter, and the law, and could decide whether those who have accused me of “dishonesty” have gone too far.
Well, go on then.
In fact, why haven’t you challenged the House of Lords Act, 1999 or Baron Mereworth v Ministry in the courts?
– – – – – – – –
Mark Bofill,
Sorry, I am a little late in getting back to your comment.
I was responding in my previous comment to you to your suggestion that I try to step into Monckton’s shoes and look at things from his perspective. Therefore my response to you was I do not know Moncktons life details, so it is not possible for me to. And I won’t try to publically speculate as to his life, because in several ways I do hold some high respect for him.
I am still amazed a 21st century person would call another person a Lord. : )
On another subject not addressed by you in your comment to me . . . . . .
As to the discussion addressed by ‘Phil’ on Monckton’s status wrt the HOL and replies to him, I pay close attention because it lends valuable insight to me as an American into the status culture of nobility/royalty of Britain and more broadly of old pre-modern Europe. Seems to me to be a fascinating real life situation and dialog that reflects a famous long since bygone era. I hope it continues in that regard, it seems a way to help understand old pre-modern Europe and Britain.
John
And, for the record, I did state my name and address here in this thread, but Anthony chose to redact it.
Was is “anthony” that time that sent it to moderation? It’s fun to guess.
[yes it was . . . mod]
John,
(emphasis added)
I would have let this go, except that you continue to reiterate the part I emphasized.
Yes John. I have read and understood your response. You have said twice now that you do not know Lord Monckton’s life details and therefore, in essence it is impossible for you to look at things from his perspective. While it remains somewhat astonishing to me that you would argue this, there is no further need to reiterate this point, since it isn’t responsive to the issue I’m raising.
Forget about Christopher Monckton. You do not need to know anything about him to answer this. Suppose for a moment that due to accident of birth you were born Earl John Whitman of Derby, or Viscount John Whitman of Halifax. Understand that the specific title and honorary fiefdom is irrelevant, the point is merely that we are supposing you were born a lord. This is your title. What would you do about this? You repeatedly express your amazement that a 21st century person would call another person a Lord, so it seems to me that the burden is yours to explain how the situation should properly be handled by those who by virtue of an accident of birth are born with the title. If you are unwilling or unable to do this, perhaps your astonishment is misplaced.
drumphil = relentlessy off topic and irrelvant to the post.
And me too, I must admit. It just seems like bad manners to me not to give people their titles. Rabbi, Reverend, sensei, colonel, judge, representative, Dr., Sister, what have you. I don’t understand why it’s an issue and it bugs me. But I will do my level best to shut up now.
Monckton of Brenchley says:
May 7, 2014 at 5:17 am
“Phil”, whoever it is, continues to be spiteful, petty, wrong, and, above all, entirely off topic. The same for the equally furtive “drumphil”.
No spite or pettiness on my part, if it’s off topic you shouldn’t have raised it, I’ve only responded to your posts on the subject!
But let us again get some facts straight. In saying I was a member of the House but without the right to sit and vote I was stating the exact constitutional position, as the legal advice (a copy of which is available on this site) makes clear. Peerage is membership of the House.
Only according to you, not by the law of the land, in the judgement Mereworth case Mr Justice Lewison stated:
“In my judgment, the reference [in the House of Lords Act 1999] to ‘a member of the House of Lords’ is simply a reference to the right to sit and vote in that House … In a nutshell, membership of the House of Lords means the right to sit and vote in that House. It does not mean entitlement to the dignity of a peerage.”
That’s not my opinion, it’s the opinion of a Lord Justice of Appeal, and member of the Privy Council.
Perhaps the best way to deal with these trolls would be to get their names and addresses and then sue them. One can’t sue the Clerk of the Parliaments, but one can sue those who make libelous allegations that I have been “dishonest” or have made “false statements” when I have not.
When two Clerks of the Parliaments and a Lord Justice of Appeal disagree with your personal definition of Membership of the HOL and you persist in claiming that you are, I call that a ‘false statement’. As I said before you could settle the whole matter once and for all by appealing to the Committee for Privileges and Conduct, but for some reason you prefer to threaten to sue people who quote the present legal definition to you.
a hate-filled, politically and financially motivated campaign of lies, of which the lies of “Phil”, “drumphil” and suchlike trolls are an insignificant example.
I am unaware of such a campaign and I certainly haven’t lied about anything.
Phil, any reference to Monckton’s peerage is trolling, and 100% entirely not relevant to the post.
Anthony would be doing a huge favor to have any future discussion of this off limits, as it is 100% irrelevant to the purpose of this blog.
bushbunny says:
May 6, 2014 at 7:56 pm
Do you understand now, Phil or drumphil! Just as well that we are not in the Medieval mode as one commented or you would be beheaded.
No beheading was reserved for the nobility, we’d be hung. Even if you were nobility you could be hung, drawn and quartered if you really p****ed off the monarch, as one of my family was under Elizabeth I.
Mark Bofill says:
May 7, 2014 at 7:12 am
@John Whitman on May 7, 2014 at 6:28 am
– – – – – – – –
Mark Bofill,
What premises could I have had when I made the below statement?
That is the question. N’est ce pas?
Mark, we can take this conversation elsewhere, since you seem to think it is not a natural derivative of the thread. Where shall we take it?
John
Thanks John. How about your place?
Mark Bofill says:
May 7, 2014 at 8:52 am
– – – – – – – –
: )
John
David A says:
May 7, 2014 at 7:51 am
Phil, any reference to Monckton’s peerage is trolling, and 100% entirely not relevant to the post.
Anthony would be doing a huge favor to have any future discussion of this off limits, as it is 100% irrelevant to the purpose of this blog.
No problem as long as that includes Monckton since it was his statement that I was responding to.
REPLY: Phil, Monckton at least has the courage to put his name to his opinions. We’ve been over this before, you are an academic at a major University, too timid to do so for fear that it might affect your tenured gravy train.
I suggest kindly, that you STFU on this issue, or put your name to it if you want to continue, because if you want to continue, I’ll do it for you if you don’t. Feel free to be as upset as you wish. – Anthony
I am most grateful to Anthony for his intervention.
There is a P & A Schaeffer in NSW. His address was noticed by me before it was clipped by mod. Yamba is a lovely spot too, good fishing.
Yep, I’m real alright.
And, Chrisopher Monckton can attempt to sue me any time he likes. He can also appeal to the privileges committee, or challenge the constitutionality of the House of Lords act 1999, or launch a legal challenge against Baron Mereworth v Ministry.
But he wont. He’d much rather stay away from the legal system with this matter.
Hilarious that he will threaten to sue anyone who points out the legal definitions and decisions, but he won’t actually challenge those things directly in court., or with the privileges committee.
Just remember defamation and libel apply to emails too. He could complain to your server. But you could be banned from the site, although Anthony is very good here, few have.
Have a beer and calm down, obviously you don’t work at this time of day 2.20 pm in Australia and NSW. But I doubt Lord Monckton would bother, he has more important issues to deal with. And as they say, we British are not easily insulted, we are so self confident, (comes with our upbringing) as you most probably have gathered. Now where were we?
“Yamba is a lovely spot too, good fishing.”
Yeah, it’s a very nice place. Beautiful river and coastline. Comfortable climate.
I used to work with my father on his prawn trawler off the coast here.
Anyone mod who openly puts his name and address on the web, when accusing someone of dishonesty etc., must be mad. (Sorry mod, he deserves that)
“Just remember defamation and libel apply to emails too. He could complain to your server.”
He can do what he likes. Good luck to him.
“But you could be banned from the site, although Anthony is very good here, few have.”
Oh damn, I’m so sorry. I’ll get right back to “Singing songs and carrying signs
Mostly say, hooray for our side”
Well do it, and stop complaining. You’ve proven you are a bigot and misguided and hilariously had the stupidity to publish it on a international site. I’m not interested in your agenda, the truth will out.
Lol, whatever. Sorry if I interrupted your cheer-leading.
Phillip, a bit of advice, do you remember a passage from the ‘Godfather’, a hit man caused a road accident, and immediately got out and started attacking the not at fault driver. He picked on the police commissioner! Many of the posters on this site, have back grounds and experience you obviously are unaware of. For example, I have worked for politicians, hold two degrees, and a diploma in organic agriculture production, plus more certificates in organic production and horticulture. I’ve worked for the media, published a book on life in the bush from a city slicker’s point of view.
I don’t hold with anti British republican nonsense, that is ill informed. So be a nice guy, and sensible one and shut up! I’m not interested in your rambling on and attacks on me and others. They are like water off a ducks back.
But being a female I would like the last word. Thanks Anthony for your patience.
Lol, are you still trying to intimidate me? Good luck with that…. How about some more legal threats on behalf of other people. That might do the trick.
Phil. says:
May 7, 2014 at 10:13 am
David A says:
May 7, 2014 at 7:51 am
Phil, any reference to Monckton’s peerage is trolling, and 100% entirely not relevant to the post.
Anthony would be doing a huge favor to have any future discussion of this off limits, as it is 100% irrelevant to the purpose of this blog.
No problem as long as that includes Monckton since it was his statement that I was responding to.
REPLY: Phil, Monckton at least has the courage to put his name to his opinions. We’ve been over this before, you are an academic at a major University, too timid to do so for fear that it might affect your tenured gravy train.
As I’ve told you before the reason for not using my full name is because I have had problems in the past due to spam attacks which disrupted communications with my students etc. It has nothing to do with a hypothetical ‘tenured gravy train’!
As I said above I have no problem with this subject being off limits
REPLY: Right, sure, whatever. But I don’t buy it. Putting your name on a comment doesn’t link to your email, so there is NO POSSIBILITY of it being the source of a SPAM attack. If this was a problem, the millions of WordPress users who DO use their own names with comments would be up in arms and demanding a change…but in the decade that WordPress has been running, that has not happened.
So, what will be your excuse now?
-Anthony
Phil. says:
May 8, 2014 at 7:54 am
REPLY: Right, sure, whatever. But I don’t buy it. Putting your name on a comment doesn’t link to your email, so there is NO POSSIBILITY of it being the source of a SPAM attack. If this was a problem, the millions of WordPress users who DO use their own names with comments would be up in arms and demanding a change…but in the decade that WordPress has been running, that has not happened.
So, what will be your excuse now?
I was surprised that it could happen that way but the person and subject were unequivocally linked to posting on a certain website (not this one). Subsequently I have followed the advice of the IT department and not given my full name on any site. Some names are more easily found on engines such as Google I guess.
And the white pages.
Is it so hard to believe Anthony? Why did you redact my home address earlier in this thread unless you thought it could be used to cause me problems? Phil is a more likely target that I am, and you definitely have more than enough nutcases frequent this site. I find your extreme skepticism a little hard to fathom regarding this matter.
Don’t worry Phillip, when I received the initial email, your address was not retracted, I often get them before they appear on the site. I’m not a nut case, thank you very much. If you were egotistical enough and stupid to put in your address on an international site, that is read my thousands around the world, you are inviting dissent closer to home. There are somethings one must be careful not to reveal. Because cyber space goes on for ever. Anthony did the right thing. Simply, you made yourself a target knowingly. I’ve had threats not recently though, because letters to the editor/s always prints ones name and suburb, then all people have to do is look in the white pages to get my address. One really threatening letter was reported to the police and the man was mentally disturbed, and was warned by the cops to desist. It was not about the climate change either, but defending a gay man who committed suicide.
Back to the thread, land does drop. But generally nature has the 70% factor. I can’t remember what though, so much water kept in ice, so much in the atmosphere, and so much in surface water and so much in the oceans, and humans have 70% of water too in their bodies. Ironically the evaporation rate in Australia during the last glacial period was that surface water did not evaporate and sea levels were much lower than today. South Australia had lake Mungo, and plenty of billabongs. But 5,000 years ago it had volcanic eruptions and Aborigines note this in the dream time history and geological evidence proved it. And they also had tsunamis.
What was that equation about proportions of water on our planet. If sea levels have reached their peak, there is only one way to go now, down.
[trimmed. language, off-topic, irrelevent. Mod]
And, what exactly do you think I was trying to say in the post you were responding to?
“Don’t worry Phillip, when I received the initial email, your address was not retracted, I often get them before they appear on the site. I’m not a nut case, thank you very much. If you were egotistical enough and stupid to put in your address on an international site, that is read my thousands around the world, you are inviting dissent closer to home. There are somethings one must be careful not to reveal. Because cyber space goes on for ever. Anthony did the right thing. Simply, you made yourself a target knowingly. I’ve had threats not recently though, because letters to the editor/s always prints ones name and suburb, then all people have to do is look in the white pages to get my address. One really threatening letter was reported to the police and the man was mentally disturbed, and was warned by the cops to desist. It was not about the climate change either, but defending a gay man who committed suicide.”
Seriously, what are you on about? What is your point exactly? This makes about as much sense as it did when you were rambling on about royalty and republicanism.
LOL, is English your second language? Thanks for repeating what I said again, gee this man is a negative attention seeker..
Oh you talk word good, just it is impossible to figure out what you point is. Seriously, what exactly is your point. If you can’t say it in a couple of lines, you probably haven’t got a clue what it is yourself. What meaning was I suppose to take from that post exactly?
Well that’s your problem Phillip, don’t try to get me into another argument, I’ve seen and heard it all before. You are antagonizing and bloody boring. This is becoming just a personal attack on me too. So buzz off, so can you understand that? Maybe Anthony can translate?
“This is becoming just a personal attack on me too.”
Get over yourself. You’ve had a lot more to say about my character than I have you. Have you forgotten everything you posted already?
Anthony and mod. His comments are becoming argumentative and irrelevant to this thread.