![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.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
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