![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.
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?