Schism on the Left: James Hansen's climatic 'canon' gets fired from a cannon

With apologies to CannonLady Jennifer-Schneider
With apologies to CannonLady Jennifer-Schneider

I never thought the day would come that I’d be reposting something from David Appell. Yet, here I am, in agreement with him. I keep looking over my shoulder for a lurking quantum singularity or some other such rift in the fabric of spacetime. Appell writes on Quark Soup (bold mine, h/t to Dr. Ryan Maue):


Hyping Hansen’s Paper

Eric Holthaus at Slate wrote:

I’m sorry, but this is complete bullshit.

No single paper, by Hansen or anyone else, becomes part of the “canon” a day after it is published. (Nor does it based on the version published in July of last year.)

I haven’t even read the new version of Hansen et al in detail yet. But it is certainly not part of the canon, for the same reason that a play of Shakespeare’s wasn’t part of the literary canon less than a year after it was first published — only time can tell. It takes a good bit of time for scientific papers to be anointed, and this paper’s conclusions are certainly far from the mainsteam.

There are some extreme and improbable scenarios in Hansen et al. Sure, maybe we could pass a tipping point by 2050 — but I think it’s more than likely we will not.

Hansen anymore seems interested in promoting alarmism at all costs. There’s been a whiff of this throughout his entire career, but this latest paper is just too much to take seriously.

Doubling times of 10, 20 or 40 years yield sea level rise of several meters in 50, 100 or 200 years.

But there’s no evidence of a doubling time of 10, 20 or 40 years. The latest Aviso sea level data now shows, over the satellite era, an acceleration of 0.026 mm/yr2 over a sea level rise of 3.36 mm/yr — that’s an acceleration/SLR of 0.72% per year, or a doubling time of 97 years.

Relative to sea level today, that works out to a rise of…16 inches.

(CU’s data is even slower, showing an acceleration/SLR of 0.45%/yr.)

And the reactions Holthaus gets from other scientists, who weren’t co-authors on the paper, aren’t very convincing:

In an email to Slate, Ruth Mottram, a climate scientist who was skeptical of the initial draft, calls the final study “considerably improved.” Mottram, who specializes in studying the Greenland ice sheet, said “the scenario they sketch out is implausible, though perhaps not impossible … it’s frankly terrifying.”

“Perhaps not impossible” isn’t exactly a ringing endorsement that says the paper deserves to be part of any “canon.”

Read his full post, here:

I had originally thought about responding to the Holthaus ‘canon’ declaration, but he’s just so “out there” I didn’t think it mattered much, because most intelligent people could see what it is for themselves. As Appell says, “this is complete bullshit.”

My take on the paper is here.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
March 27, 2016 5:45 am

..There was a time when people like Hansen would be kept in a very special room, for their own protection of course !

Sceptical Sam
Reply to  Marcus
March 27, 2016 6:03 am

Well, yes, Marcus. That’s true.
But the progressives de-institutionalised those places some time ago.
The inmates are now housed in progressive institutions. They call those places “academe” these days. They still have the special rooms though – and the meds are much the same, even if the dosage is voluntary.

Reply to  Sceptical Sam
March 27, 2016 6:13 am

Thanks, my screen is now completely covered in coffee !! LOL

March 27, 2016 5:52 am

Davy apple had to be right ONCE in his life. He picked a good time.

Reply to  ClimateOtter
March 27, 2016 7:24 am

We need to remember that even a stopped clock is right twice a day.

Reply to  Dale Mullen
March 27, 2016 2:27 pm

…and just as useless.

george e. smith
Reply to  Dale Mullen
March 27, 2016 6:42 pm

And if you reverse the order of the numbers on a clock that runs more or less ok, then it can be right 4 times a day.

Reply to  ClimateOtter
March 28, 2016 12:28 pm

Actually Appell is pretty good – when he’s covering anything other than climate science. For some reason that topic has him running to don his rubber nose, big floppy shoes and clown wig every time.

March 27, 2016 6:05 am

So I head over to Quark Soup to give a look, and the thing that stands out to me most is a large quote at the top of the right column ….
“Rule #1: You can never ask too many questions.”
….. yet Mr. Appell is always so caustic towards folks who ask valid questions about AGW and CAGW.
There seems to be a disconnect.

Rick K
Reply to  Jake
March 27, 2016 8:21 am

Perhaps Mr. Appell means “You” only in the “Me only” sense…

Reply to  Jake
March 29, 2016 7:44 pm

Jake: What question did you ask at my blog that did not get an answer?

Reply to  David Appell (@davidappell)
March 30, 2016 7:50 pm

Jake, I didn’t think you had an answer.
You can, therefore, withdraw your complaintr for lack fo evidence. It’s only fair.
In fact, very very few “skeptics” (quote-unquote) comment at my blog, despite all of them apparently so sure that all of what I write it so horribly wrong.
I think they are all much more comfortable in the refuge provided here. And lack the confidence.
What’s the holdup?
PS: Now watch Watts or WUWT moderators censor this comment, as usual.

Reply to  David Appell (@davidappell)
March 30, 2016 9:26 pm

Well, David, you haven’t responded to my comments on your “Hyping Hansen’s Paper” blog post.

Reply to  David Appell (@davidappell)
March 31, 2016 1:41 pm

Mr. Appell-
Let’s review-
Jake said- “Rule #1: You can never ask too many questions.”
….. yet Mr. Appell is always so caustic towards folks who ask valid questions about AGW and CAGW.
There seems to be a disconnect.”
Nowhere does Jake say that he asked a question at your blog and did not get an answer. He doesn’t even imply, hint, or suggest that. He said that when people DO ask valid questions about AGW and CAGW at your blog, you are “always so caustic”. Do you know what the word caustic means?
Let’s define the word caustic-“sarcastic in a scathing and bitter way.”
synonyms: “sarcastic, cutting, biting, mordant, sharp, bitter, scathing, derisive, sardonic, ironic, scornful, trenchant, acerbic, abrasive, vitriolic, acidulous”
So nope, it doesn’t mean “to ignore, avoid, or refuse to answer questions”.
So, when you said “You can, therefore, withdraw your complaintr for lack fo evidence. It’s only fair.”
You are clearly wrong, because not only the evidence there, but your response here, indicates that you do indeed like to respond to people in a derisive, scornful, abrasive way. In fact, by responding here, you pretty much proved Jake’s point for him.
You said “I think they are all much more comfortable in the refuge provided here. And lack the confidence.”
You can think anything you wish to. But logically, just more comfortable in the adult, sincere, and intelligent atmosphere here is more likely. I doubt anyone sees WUWT as a “refuge” from anything other than the opposite-childish, insincere, and ignorant atmosphere’s elsewhere. And logically it is unlikely that it has anything at all to do with people’s confidence either. I suspect it’s far more likely that people prefer effective exchanges rather than wasting time in futile arguments.
You said-“PS: Now watch Watts or WUWT moderators censor this comment, as usual.”
So, I’ve never actually read anything you’ve written prior to this comment, but as I see it, we have an outright misreading of what Jake said, a response that was easily refuted simply by looking at exactly what Jake DID say (which was conveniently located just above your response to him) validations through your own behavior that Jake was correct in his estimation about a disconnect AND you being caustic, a failed illogical fallacy regarding the psychology of why skeptics don’t comment on your blog, and a failed prediction about being censored here at WUWT. I can only imagine how much credibility your blog commands…..

March 27, 2016 6:12 am

more likely Calamity Hansen than Canon Hansen.
Hansen’s ‘science’ pendulum swung from the Ice age cataclysm (in 1970s) to current global inferno, if he lives another 20 or 30 years he may be back where he started, the leading Ice age calamity prophet.

Reply to  vukcevic
March 27, 2016 6:20 am

In 50 years, when the 2nd Little Ice Age is upon us, he will be screaming from his room in the the psycho ward… ” See, I was right all along ” !!

Fly over Bob
Reply to  Marcus
March 27, 2016 9:28 am

What a novel description of Penn State.

Reply to  Marcus
March 27, 2016 1:51 pm

I think Marcus was referring to State Penn……

Pop Piasa
Reply to  Marcus
March 27, 2016 3:36 pm

But still, how did his extreme fringe science get to be so much the norm? Is it all the power of the press?

John Harmsworth
Reply to  vukcevic
March 27, 2016 3:25 pm

I blame his enablers for this b.s. ever seeing the light of day. Holthaus and ass. need to be called out on this. They know it’s garbage but they’re happy to stand in the wings and push this demented egomaniac out in front of the public to inflame the muddle-headed sheep our pathetic “education systems” produce.

Bloke down the pub
March 27, 2016 6:17 am

I don’t know how Appell defines canon, but it is obviously not the same way that others do.

Reply to  Bloke down the pub
March 27, 2016 6:23 am

..Did you mean Eric Holthaus at Slate ??

Stephen Richards
Reply to  Marcus
March 27, 2016 7:11 am

Has Holthaus still got access to his sperm?

Reply to  Marcus
March 27, 2016 7:28 am

…WTF ???

Reply to  Bloke down the pub
March 27, 2016 7:33 pm

Do you mean canon, as in a church decree or law? I think that describes anything written by the church of global warming very well.

March 27, 2016 6:52 am

it’s much worse than that.
the only empirical evidence that fossil fuel emissions cause warming is a correlation between cumulative emissions and surface temperature. this correlation has been shown to be spurious.
i am not sure what sense it makes to argue about the details of a relationship that has not been shown to exist. there is no empirical evidence that warming is related to fossil fuel emissions. it may make sense and there are indeed theoretical considerations that would support such a relationship but we must pay attention to the data if this exercise is to be referred to as science.
i think the bottom line is that uncertainties in natural flows are so large that the effect of fossil fuel emissions cannot be measured or even detected.

Reply to  Chaam Jamal
March 27, 2016 7:51 am

I agree, this is the right approach. Some people are assuming too much.

March 27, 2016 6:54 am

I much prefer Johann Pachelbel’s (1653-1706) Canon in D Major.

Reply to  Allan MacRae
March 27, 2016 11:14 am

Thank you for the link.

Reply to  Allan MacRae
March 27, 2016 12:55 pm

Here in the UK, ‘Classic FM’ radio station plays his music frequently, but of course not all of it in one go.
Amazing, us who live in the peak so called CAGW, enjoy so much the music of a composer who lived in the depths of the Little Ice Age and the Maunder Minimum.

John Harmsworth
Reply to  vukcevic
March 27, 2016 3:28 pm

Looks to me like t was sunny and nice! Lol!

Reply to  Allan MacRae
March 27, 2016 4:23 pm

Very good. Hard to fit on a cd though, perhaps that’s why it’s not often played.

Reply to  Allan MacRae
March 28, 2016 11:01 pm

Thanks, Allan. I was just about to look that up, then I scrolled down the page a little and there was your post!

Gloateus Maximus
March 27, 2016 7:17 am

Schism? Canon?
So Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Alarmism is indeed a religion, complete with false prophets, like Hansen, and deranged converts in need of deprogramming, like Pope Francis.

Reply to  Gloateus Maximus
March 27, 2016 11:38 am

Yes it is why it is so important that those who argue it find out who you are. So they can make a big deal of officially excommunicating you: degrade your name, when they turn out to be bombastic,
lying swine.

Gloateus Maximus
March 27, 2016 at 7:17 am
Schism? Canon?
So Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Alarmism is indeed a religion, complete with false prophets, like Hansen, and deranged converts in need of deprogramming, like Pope Francis.

Reply to  Gloateus Maximus
March 27, 2016 1:19 pm

Canon ? Balls !!

Gunga Din
March 27, 2016 7:27 am

I like the picture. Homer performing before an empty crowd.

Reply to  Gunga Din
March 27, 2016 7:32 am

..D’oh !!

Tom Halla
March 27, 2016 7:29 am

Chicken Little apparently went a bit too far this time.

March 27, 2016 7:32 am

Watching stories like this for so many years has really opened my eyes to the state of “science”. This is a perfect example:
Yet they have no problem immediately accepting any wild claims about CAGW and showing “An Inconvenient Truth” in schools as science.
When will the tide turn and the scientific community finally discredit such poor “science”?

Reply to  spinto
March 27, 2016 12:43 pm

I consider your blind faith in anything labelled a vaccine, to be essentially the same disease as climate alarmists suffer from . .

Reply to  JohnKnight
March 28, 2016 3:54 am

hmm? i took his comment to show that anything NON big biz big gov bribed gets canned
inc the truth re vax n climate
we could add majority of new blockbuster dud pharma meds to that as well
their trials data is a faked n adjusted to sell more as agw science is to sell more fear.

Reply to  JohnKnight
March 28, 2016 1:48 pm

Come on, John. It’s not blind faith. Vaccines and all medicines are put through rigorous testing. While you can very well question whether some medicines are overprescribed or worthwhile, claiming that they are harmful just doesn’t pass reason.
This goes especially true for the mandatory vaccines, for which there is absolutely no evidence that doubts their effectiveness or side-effects.

Reply to  JohnKnight
March 28, 2016 4:46 pm

John, from his one comment above you got “blind faith in anything labelled a vaccine”???.

Reply to  spinto
March 28, 2016 4:45 pm

The movie was written by a man whose medical license was revoked and whose work was debunked and retracted. He claims to be a whistleblower who wrote a documentary, and his movie had vast appeal to the tribecca nutjob folks who campaign against vaccines for various reasons.
But the board and Robert DeNiro were approached by other medical professionals to hear the other side of the story, they agreed to, and after talking to them, they pulled the idiotic film from the venue. It was only going to be viewed once anyway.
So in this particular case, the scientific community DID stand up to and discredit the “poor science” conducted by Andrew Wakefield, and his movie.

March 27, 2016 8:03 am

Hansen has consistently shown a propensity to exaggerate sometimes to the extreme, sometimes not so extreme.
The best predictor of the future is the past. Indicating he will continue to get more fanciful as time goes on.
But is the best predictor of the past, the current. Hansen established many of the parameters and assumptions that this theory is based on.
What if he was exaggerating right from the beginning and all these followers just decided get on the bandwagon and keep the exaggeration going. Once they were in, there was no way out and it just accelerated from there. The madness of the crowd, political-correctness run amok. It is even extending into the base data now. This is climate science in a nutshell.

Reply to  Bill Illis
March 27, 2016 8:31 am

The question one needs to ask is, “Is it an election year?”
If it is, sing along:
Gimme Some Money – Spinal Tap
Stop wasting my time
You know what I want
You know what I need
Or maybe you don’t
Do I have to come right
Flat out and tell you everything?
Gimme some money
Gimme some money
Don’t get me wrong
Try getting me right
Your face is okay
But your purse is too tight
I’m looking for pound notes
Loose change, bad checks, anything
(Gimme some money)
(Gimme some money)

March 27, 2016 8:17 am

Appell is my house troll . He makes some attempt at disparagement on almost any comment I post anywhere on anything . Here’s a most recent example on :

DTS623 MarkinGermany
Progressive keep telling conservatives that they are ‘science deniers’ when it comes to their fake Climate Change argument, yet when it comes to sexuality they ignore reality, this truly is CHILD ABUSE
/\ 31
Bob Armstrong -> DTS623
Their rejection of reality in their AlGoreWarming nonscience is on a par . They will manufacture any excuse to employ the FORCE of the State to subject their rational fellow citizens to their warped will .
/\ 9
DavidAppell -> Bob Armstrong
Armstrong’s reply is useful: he reveals his actual reasons for opposing manmade climate change — reasons he has tried to couch in scientific terms, but for which he has failed miserably.
He should just be honest in the first place instead of making up weird and bizarre s “science.”
/\ 3

I used to waste a lot of time , even going so far a to try to confirm he actually has a PhD in physics under George Sterman at Stony Brook because his ignorance of and inability at the most basic physics seems beyond the intentional to the actual .
For instance , he seems to be incapable of understanding the interchange of space , eg : radiant energy density , and time , eg : radiant power or energy flow , thru division by the light*second . I got that even in intro Astronomy for non-majors by Allen Hynek ( the professor in Close Encounters ) at Northwestern U in the late 1960s . ( Willis had an interesting ( to me ) post a while ago considering the light*second cube . Big sucker . )

Reply to  Bob Armstrong
March 27, 2016 11:33 am

That’s what you get for using your own name. There’s only ONE reason to identify yourself in a scientific argument. Character and reputation assassination.
Never identify yourself to someone who INSISTS you have to identify yourself. Never.
It’s shakedown technique NUMBER ONE. Make you associate yourself with the slimy fake in public.
Never identify yourself to speak somewhere. If they care WHO you are
WHAT you say

Bob Armstrong
March 27, 2016 at 8:17 am
Appell is my house troll . He makes some attempt at disparagement on almost any comment I post anywhere on anything . Here’s a most recent example on

I beat Dave down so bad on Discus he left multiple times. All you have to do is tell the truth about the atmosphere and he doesn’t have any more choices.
The atmosphere blocks double digits energy to the planet never to warm it’s surface.
The atmosphere/planet complex then emit
less energy
from an overall colder, larger, total mass combined.
That’s the definition of cooling multiple times: not warming.
Just learn that way and that way alone and go beat him down with it. It can’t fail because you never even need to crack a book. People don’t even need to crack a book.
Then you start describing the planet atmospheric complex as what it really is: a round rock warmed by a fire,
covered 70% in chilled water
the rest whipped by cold winds
That’s not a heater. It’s immersing a warm rock 70% in freezing cold water,
blowing the rest of the surface with frigid winds many degrees colder than that rock.
You have a choice in climate: your reputation or scientific reality. You can’t have both with these slime factory basement floor scrubbers.
All you have to do to know if the character assassination game is THE game is find out if they believe in the story about the m@jick gais.
If they do then they insist you identify yourself so they can turn on your reputation and ruin it when what they say once again gets revealed as sewer.

Bruce Cobb
March 27, 2016 8:18 am

It hasn’t been sanctified by the Climate Brethren yet.

March 27, 2016 8:39 am

I just don’t get this sea-level fantasy.
I genuinely don’t understand how scientifically educated people can maintain their assumption that something concerning is happening.
You take the longest and most reliable set of measurements that we have from coastal gauges – and we can simply note that every single coastal gauge shows a long term LINEAR trend with no acceleration.
So, surely that’s it.
It doesn’t actually matter what the summed rate is. It’s the fact that it hasn’t changed is the critical point.
Can anyone explain to me why that analysis is not the end of the story.
IF the sea level rise was accelerating then the tidal gauges would in general show acceleration, i.e. a rate change.
Like I say – i just don’t get how the fantasy is kept alive in spite of this simply observable fact.

Reply to  indefatigablefrog
March 28, 2016 8:41 am

You are exactly right, indefatigablefrog. The Emperor Has No Sea-Level Rise Acceleration.

Reply to  indefatigablefrog
March 28, 2016 9:37 am

David Appell wrote, “The latest Aviso sea level data now shows, over the satellite era, an acceleration of 0.026 mm/yr² over a sea level rise of 3.36 mm/yr… a doubling time of 97 years… Relative to sea level today, that works out to a rise of…16 inches.”
There are a few problems with that.
First of all, it’s not clear from what he wrote what time period his “16 inches” figure is over. It sounds like he meant 97 years (i.e., to year 2113), but if that’s what he meant then he made a slight error. Using his figures for current SLR and acceleration, 16″ of rise would be reached in 90 years, not 97.
Second, it’s not clear from what he wrote that the “16 inches” is not due to acceleration. An acceleration of 0.026 mm/yr² for 97 years works out to:
0.5 × 0.026 × (97²) = 122 mm = only 4.8 inches of additional sea level rise over 97 years, not 16 inches.
The supposed “current” rate of SLR of 3.36 mm/yr accounts for 3.36 × 97 years = 326 mm = 12.8 inches.
The sum of those two parts (due to linear SLR + acceleration) comes to 448 mm = 17.65″ over 97 years, but 72% of that total is due to linear SLR, not acceleration.
Third, that supposed 3.36 mm/yr “current” rate of sea-level rise is more than twice the actual, averaged, measured current rate of SLR, at the best coastal tide gauges, and those coastal tide gauge measurements are vastly more trustworthy than the satellite measurements.
Satellite measurements are distorted by factors which don’t affect the coasts, like thermal expansion in the upper layer of the open ocean, plus the satellite data has severe quality problems. To address some of the quality problems, in 2011 NASA proposed (and re-proposed in 2014
/ 2015) a new mission called the Geodetic Reference Antenna in SPace (GRASP). The proposal was discussed on WUWT here, and its implications for measuring sea-level were discussed here.
Fourth, none of the best tide gauge measurement records have detected any sustained, statistically significant acceleration in SLR since the 1920s. Not even one.
Here are all 91 high-quality tide gauge records with data from 1930 to present, or nearly to present, with the longest records first. Click on the location names to see NOAA’s graphs and regression analyses for all of them:
If you bother to do that for all 91 locations, you’ll see that none of them have measured statistically significant sea-level rise acceleration since the 1920s. Not even one. Seven decades of heavy GHG emissions have caused no increase at all in the rate of sea-level rise.
When atmospheric CO2 was under 0.031%, globally averaged sea-level rise at the coasts was just under +1.5 mm/year.
With CO2 at 0.040%, SLR is still just under +1.5 mm/year.
Even President Obama’s former Undersecretary for Science, physicist Steven Koonin, wrote that:
“Even though the human influence on climate was much smaller in the past, the models do not account for the fact that the rate of global sea-level rise 70 years ago was as large as what we observe today.”
Here’re some relevant papers:

Reply to  indefatigablefrog
March 28, 2016 11:07 am

Or these dolts can look at actual ground photos of the same big rock in the same place surrounded by water at the same height at high tide over 50 years. Or they can inspect the many air photos of Pacific islands from WWII with current air photos. Or they can watch the poor drowning islands building new hotels and airports a meter above SL.

Reply to  R2Dtoo
March 28, 2016 11:24 am

I like Marc Morano’s as an obvious disproof .
If check the Disqus archives I remember it being Appell who argued that was just one place . That’s the determined stupidity we are facing . And when it’s by governmental agencies , it’s criminal malfeasance .

March 27, 2016 8:41 am

Liars Dice – Pirates of the Caribbean ….each player up bids the others.
In this case, a trade for a soul.

Retired Kit P
Reply to  empiresentry
March 27, 2016 9:10 am

Cleaned out the XO playing liars dice when our ship pulled into Gitmo. Beer was involved. He assumed that a junior officer was inexperienced. I had been a first class petty before being commissioned. One way to pass the time is a harmless con.
The captain knew me better. He gave me the keys to a storeroom full of coffee and a list of repairs that were not getting done using the system.

Walt D.
March 27, 2016 8:41 am

Remember the anecdote of the grains of rice on the chess board – 1 on the first square, 2 on the second, 4 on the third, on the fourth … etc. What happens eventually?
We have the same thing going on today – the amount of global warming drivel is doubling every year. The run off is going to cause ocean levels to rise, slowly at first, but eventually catastrophically.
James Hanson is right we are all going to drown in a tsunami of Global warming drivel.
Time to invest is a new Noah’s Ark.

John Harmsworth
Reply to  Walt D.
March 27, 2016 3:43 pm

NOAA’s ark is a government project running 7B over budget and way off course.

Reply to  Walt D.
March 28, 2016 8:13 am

Except Walt, it’s going the other direction. Warming isn’t exponential. It’s Logarithmic. Any Freshman knows absorption is logarithmic with respect to concentration.
In very simplified terms
dT = A ln (CO2 current / CO2 starting).
Where A is the famed “CO2 sensitivity”, in units of degrees per doubling of CO2.
This means that each molecule of CO2 is weaker than the last. Going from 250 ppm to 500 ppm has the same effect as going from 500 ppm to 1000 ppm. Not even the IPCC disagrees with this function. They just claim that A is astronomically high, when having it above 1C is questionable at best, and above 2C would mean that the 20th century “should” have been strongly cooling.

March 27, 2016 8:48 am

Source data studies for recent years indicate 1.6 mm/year sea level rise with no acceleration
According to the IPCC (2013), sea levels rose at a rate of 1.7 mm/year (6.7 inches per century) for the 1901 to 2010 period, but 3.2 mm/year (12.6 inches per century) during the 18-year period between 1993 to 2010, a rate similar to that obtained from 1920 to 1950.
“It is very likely that the global mean rate was 1.7 mm yr–1 between 1901 and 2010 for a total sea level rise of 0.19 m. Between 1993 and 2010, the rate was very likely higher at 3.2 mm yr–1; similarly high rates likely occurred between 1920 and 1950.”

In recent decades the source contribution estimates for recent decades from published studies add up to half of this claimed rate for 1993 to 2010, For example, the contribution to sea level rise from thermal expansion was 0.64 mm/yr (2.5 inches per century) for the period between 2005-2013 (Llovel et al., 2014, see below). The contribution from the Greenland (GIS) and Antarctic (AIS) ice sheets was 0.59 mm/yr (2.3 inches per century) for the 1992-2011 period (Shepherd et al., 2012). The contribution from global glaciers and ice caps that are not the GIS or AIS was 0.41 mm/yr (1.6 inches per century) for 2003-2010 (Jacob et al., 2012).

Llovel et al., 2014
“Over the entire water column, independent estimates of ocean warming yield a contribution of 0.77 ± 0.28 mm yr−1 in sea-level rise … the deep ocean (below 2,000 m) contributes −0.13 ± 0.72 mm yr−1 to global sea-level rise” [0.64 mm/yr total].

Shepherd et al., 2012
“Since 1992, the polar ice sheets [Antarctica and Greenland] have contributed, on average, 0.59 ± 0.20 millimeter year−1 to the rate of global sea-level rise.”

Jacob et al., 2012
“Here we show that GICs [glaciers and ice caps], excluding the Greenland and Antarctic peripheral GICs, lost mass at a rate of 148 ± 30 Gt yr−1 from January 2003 to December 2010, contributing 0.41 ± 0.08 mm yr−1 to sea level rise.”

These sources add up to about 1.6 mm/year, which is the equivalent of a little over 6 inches per century. Interestingly, this is the same or slightly less than the rate for the entire 1901 to 2010 period (1.7 mm/year, IPCC), meaning that sea level rise has not accelerated in recent decades according to the summation of source estimates.

John Harmsworth
Reply to  kennethrichards
March 27, 2016 3:51 pm

This is wishfull thinking. There is no definitively measured sea level rise, no measured deep ocean temp. increase and best estimates show Antarctica gaining 80 gigatonnes of ice per year.

Reply to  kennethrichards
March 27, 2016 8:08 pm

Good to see you Kenneth !!

Reply to  dalyplanet2
March 28, 2016 11:49 am

Observing your apparent interest in scientific papers on WaPo (I’ve just had my account disabled by the censors there), you may find this interesting, daly:

Reply to  kennethrichards
March 27, 2016 8:53 pm

The latest analysis which takes into account satellite drift does show that the rate of sea level rise is accelerating.

Patrick MJD
Reply to  Luke
March 27, 2016 9:07 pm

From the article…
“Applying the bias drift corrections has two implications.”
Meaning garbage!

Reply to  Luke
March 27, 2016 9:22 pm

Sorry Luke, but that’s not the “latest analysis” any more.
Earth is soaking up water, and slowing the rate of sea level rise according to the newest NASA data.

Reply to  Luke
March 27, 2016 9:47 pm

Alphan, I read a claim about earth soaking up moisture but then another that contradicted that claim with soil data to show no change or saturated soils. It sems for every claim there are counter claims.

Reply to  Macha
March 28, 2016 9:07 am

Indeed, and pretty much what Luke needs to accept…that we are far from understanding all of the nuances of this planet. We don’t know enough about how it works on it’s own to be able to determine what, if any, influence we might have on it. For every scientific published paper that he agrees with, there is one or more that says the opposite or something different. We simply do not KNOW, and I’m fine with waiting until we do.

Reply to  Luke
March 28, 2016 6:53 am

Read the article, the ground is only slowing THE RATE OF SEA LEVEL RISE BY 20%. The rate of sea level rise is still going up (i. e. still increasing over time), just not quite as fast.
From the article “This has temporarily slowed the rate of sea level rise by about 20 percent, it said.”

Reply to  Luke
March 28, 2016 9:03 am

Luke: “The latest analysis which takes into account satellite drift does show that the rate of sea level rise is accelerating.”
The latest analysis from source estimates do not indicate sea level rise is accelerating, but rising at a rate of 1.6 mm/yr or less. Nor do tide gauges show acceleration. Only the heavily manipulated satellite data shows acceleration – especially when one cherry-picks short-term start and end points.
Tide gauges provide the most reliable measurements, and best data to assess the rate of change. We show as the naïve averaging of all the tide gauges included in the PSMSL surveys show “relative” rates of rise about +1.04 mm/year (570 tide gauges of any length). If we consider only 100 tide gauges with more than 80 years of recording the rise is only +0.25 mm/year. This naïve averaging has been stable and shows that the sea levels are slowly rising but not accelerating. …The satellite altimetry returns a noisy signal so that a +3.2 mm/year trend is only achieved by arbitrary “corrections”. We conclude that if the sea levels are only oscillating about constant trends everywhere as suggested by the tide gauges, then the effects of climate change are negligible, and the local patterns may be used for local coastal planning without any need of purely speculative global trends based on emission scenarios.
The worldwide average tide gauge data show that sea level is consistently slowly rising, without any acceleration component over the last decades as it is in North Carolina. Here, we review the relevant data, both worldwide and for the specific area of North Carolina. The acceleration-free long-term tide gauge results reported here show that relative sea levels are only oscillating worldwide. … If we want to study the changes in the rate of sea levels over the satellite altimeter era, we have to consider only the tide gauges that were already satisfying the minimum 60 years length requirement 20 years ago. There are 100 tide gauges of PSMSL [Permanent Service for Mean Sea Level] having length more than 80 years at the present time, and the average rate of rise for them is 0.24 ± 0.15 mm/year [~1 inch per century]. For these 100 tide gauges, the rate of rise has been moving up and down over the last 20 years without any sign of positive or negative accelerations. If the ice caps are melting at an increased rate and the ocean waters are expanding because they are warming at a faster rate, then the sea level rise should be accelerating, but this is not the case.

Reply to  kennethrichards
March 28, 2016 10:34 am

I was quite surprised when Tom Wysmuller , after showing a semiannual ( perhaps ap- vs peri-helion ? ) variation in sea level , noted that the satellite ocean height measurements of these 10th of a millimeter variations in sea level are computed from 20 to 30 centimeter wavelength microwaves . I’d like to see an explication of that bit of math .

Reply to  Luke
March 28, 2016 9:10 am
We add our observational estimate of upper-ocean thermal expansion to other contributions to sea-level rise and find that the sum of contributions from 1961 to 2003 is about 1.5 ± 0.4 mm yr-1, in good agreement with our updated estimate of near-global mean sea-level rise (using techniques established in earlier studies) of 1.6 ± 0.2 mm yr-1.
“the absolute global sea level rise is believed to be 1.7-1.8 millimeters/year” It is found that the GMSL [Global Mean Sea Level] rises with the rate of 3.2 ± 0.4 mm/yr during 1993–2003 and started decelerating since 2004 to a rate of 1.8 ± 0.9 mm/yr in 2012.
“Improved observational estimates of all these terms have helped to clarify the budget of GMSLR in recent decades. In the analysis of Church et al. (2011) for 1972–2008, the linear trend in GMSLR from tide gauge data of 1.8 ± 0.2 mm yr−1 is compared with a linear trend from the sum of the contributions of 1.8 ± 0.4 mm yr−1, among which thermal expansion and glaciers are the largest.”

Reply to  Luke
March 28, 2016 9:16 am

Luke, the point here being, you started by claiming that sea level rise was accelerating, I showed you a study saying it had slowed by 20%. Something cannot be slowing AND speeding up at the same time.
But it really does not matter what the satellites SAY is happening, what matters is whether or not they match what IS actually happening. The tide gauge network measures what is, or is not happening physically. If the satellite data is interpreted to show something different, either the satellite data is wrong, or the way it is being interpreted is wrong. The Earth itself is not lying.

Reply to  Luke
March 28, 2016 12:46 pm

Bob Armstrong wrote, “I was quite surprised when Tom Wysmuller… noted that the satellite ocean height measurements of these 10th of a millimeter variations in sea level are computed from 20 to 30 centimeter wavelength microwaves. I’d like to see an explication of that bit of math.”
You’re not alone. Here’s Dr. Willie Soon discussing it starting at 17:37 in this very informative hour-long lecture.

Reply to  Luke
March 31, 2016 1:22 pm

Yes, Luke…it does say that. But I never said that the sea levels aren’t rising, or shouldn’t be rising. We’re in in an interglacial period, sea level should be rising incrementally, just like it always has during interglacial periods. But, it is not rising at the rate that scientists predicted it would be. How weird is that? If more CO2 in the air=more melting ice and more warming oceans (which then expand and and that increases the rate of rise) then we should be seeing larger and larger increases in sea level rises above and beyond the normally expected rate of rise….we aren’t.

Crispin in Waterloo but really in Muizenberg
Reply to  kennethrichards
March 27, 2016 10:28 pm

Kenneth Richards
Thanks. It shows that the claim for a higher rate of rise is based entirely on the isostatic rebound adjustments, not an actual rise. It is not even a clever fiddle, just a fiddle.
Sea level rise seems to plod along ignoring everything and everybody. I expect it will continue for centuries until Greenland is bare and Florida is under water, as are their natural conditions. The real catastrophe is troughers trying to make money out of the the inevitable.

Gunga Din
March 27, 2016 8:51 am

Remember the anecdote of the grains of rice on the chess board – 1 on the first square, 2 on the second, 4 on the third, on the fourth … etc. What happens eventually?

People got sick of rice?

March 27, 2016 8:51 am

As Appell says, “this is complete bullshit.”

The very fact that James Hansen wrote it makes it highly probable that it is “complete bullshit”. I can not recall any prediction that Hansen has made that came true. I can not recall him being correct on any matter of physics or thermodynamics either, but I could have missed something over the years.
The biggest thing that Hansen ever did was introduce faking adjusting the data into mainstream climate science. This is the reason they call him the “Godfather of Climate Science”.

Reply to  markstoval
March 27, 2016 9:24 am

I am partial to “The Climate Chiropractor” myself.

Greg Woods
Reply to  markstoval
March 27, 2016 10:09 am

He, and Paul Krugman make a great pair…

Reply to  Greg Woods
March 27, 2016 10:43 am

I SO want to make Bad jokes with that line…

Reply to  markstoval
March 27, 2016 10:30 am

The biggest thing that Hansen ever did was introduce faking adjusting the data into mainstream climate science. This is the reason they call him the “Godfather of Climate Science”.

To me , he earns the title for convincing everybody that Venus is a “runaway” GHG example , , without ever presenting quantitative equations or experimental demonstration of his purported “trapping” of thermal energy in excess of the input by spectral phenomena .
Kick starting a branch of applied physics without demonstrating its quantitative foundations in century settled classical physics is perhaps unparalleled in its destructiveness in the history of science .

Reply to  Bob Armstrong
March 27, 2016 10:41 am

I’m tellin’ ya’, even the Venusians object, but, you see, there’s a communications problem or we’d hear about it.

gary turner
Reply to  Bob Armstrong
March 27, 2016 1:08 pm

I was not aware of Hansen authoring that idiocy; I thought it was Carl Sagan’s hallucination. Did one quote the other or did they share an opium dream?

Reply to  gary turner
March 27, 2016 2:07 pm

I think in one form or another the GHG hypothesis goes back a long way . It’s Hansen specifically making the claim about Venus as in the clip , and his notoriety as Al Gore’s chief witch doctor and the one who took it to congress — all w/o equations or experiment — which earns him godfather status to me .
( you either believe god acts w/o equations — or is equations . Those are the 2 major religions to me . )

Bill H
Reply to  markstoval
March 27, 2016 10:31 am

“Schism on the Left” is a rather unfortunate title, implying that people take views on scientific topics simply according to their ideological preferences.It’s a shame that Anthony is encouraging such politicisation, and it undermines his status as a “disinterested seeker after truth”.

Reply to  Bill H
March 27, 2016 10:39 am

‘Schism amongst Alarmists’ is more apt, though that term is considered offensive by some, apt though it be. Antnee makes a greater effort than most to be disinterested, it’s a side effect of his wholesome unholy curiosity.

Reply to  Bill H
March 27, 2016 11:52 am

99.99999999999999999999999 % of ” Alarmists ” are from the left . That is a reality…

Chip Javert
Reply to  Bill H
March 27, 2016 4:13 pm

Bill H
Regarding the political split on “climate science”, are you willfully ignorant or just not paying attention?

Reply to  Bill H
March 27, 2016 6:29 pm

The assumption that anyone who believes that AGW is exaggerated has to be of a certain political ideology just weakens the argument. Science should have no leaning either way. Unfortunately some on this board use disagreement with alarmist rhetoric to pontificate on all sorts of issues. I am glad to see that others have noticed.

Reply to  Hornblower
March 28, 2016 7:15 am

The determined ignorance and outright chronic dishonesty of the global statist CAGW “movement” should make one question their belief in the superiority of the collectivist State . I think “Movement” is a better term than “conspiracy” or “cabal” or whatever because it is a collectivist zeitgeist like previous statisms such as communism . Its a herd mentality subjugating independent thought to the greater wisdom and morality of their political priesthood .

Reply to  Bill H
March 28, 2016 8:47 pm

99.99999999999999999999999 % of ” Alarmists ” are from the left . That is a reality…

I believe the incidence of bi-polar disorder in the general population (alone) belies the precision of this claim…

March 27, 2016 9:28 am

Quite mad, a career of it, but only because it’s so contagious, this madness.
We’ll get herd immunity out of it yet.

Michael Jankowski
March 27, 2016 9:36 am

Years from now, Hansen’s outlook will be revised and claims will be made that his conclusions were “taken out of context,” as will the statements of the critics who called him on his BS.

John Harmsworth
Reply to  Michael Jankowski
March 27, 2016 4:01 pm

I hope you’re wrong but I often wonder how this baloney will be dealt with in the future when the truth comes out. I’m a forgive and forget kind of guy myself. After we hang a few to set an example for the future that is. Those who have deliberately fiddled with the truth must pay a price.

Reply to  John Harmsworth
March 27, 2016 6:31 pm

The truth is out. No one is listening

March 27, 2016 10:18 am

All the empirical evidence shows SLR has only been about 6″ per century for the past 215 years, and this century will be the same, if not less.
Hansen is one of the primary culprits for world governments wasting $trillions on the failed CAGW hypothesis and will go down as the most expensive scientific boondoggle in human history…
When CAGW is eventually disconfirmed and Congressional hearing are held to determine why $trillions were wasted on CAGW, I hope Hansen is the first scientist to be subpoenaed for testimony.

Reply to  SAMURAI
March 27, 2016 9:52 pm

Because of moving goal posts, Hansen will be long gone.

March 27, 2016 10:33 am

The Catastrophism has been a scientific error, a political mistake, a social caricature, and an economic fiasco, all typical behaviours of bubbles, you know, the destructive ones which pop.

March 27, 2016 10:38 am

Latest picture from the North Pole, taken while searching for the Igloo Motor Lodge on day one of Polar Bear Safari Fest 2016. Disappointed that the motel seemed to have become one with the ocean, and that our polar bear quarry were last seen swimming southward (setting a course for Spitzbergen,) we decided instead to snorkel the prodigious coral reefs which are now forming at the Pole.

March 27, 2016 10:53 am

Might be a good time to revisit Popper. From here:
These considerations led me in the winter of 1919-20 to conclusions which I may now reformulate as follows.
It is easy to obtain confirmations, or verifications, for nearly every theory — if we look for confirmations.
Confirmations should count only if they are the result of risky predictions; that is to say, if, unenlightened by the theory in question, we should have expected an event which was incompatible with the theory — an event which would have refuted the theory.
Every “good” scientific theory is a prohibition: it forbids certain things to happen. The more a theory forbids, the better it is.
A theory which is not refutable by any conceivable event is non-scientific. Irrefutability is not a virtue of a theory (as people often think) but a vice.
Every genuine test of a theory is an attempt to falsify it, or to refute it. Testability is falsifiability; but there are degrees of testability: some theories are more testable, more exposed to refutation, than others; they take, as it were, greater risks.
Confirming evidence should not count except when it is the result of a genuine test of the theory; and this means that it can be presented as a serious but unsuccessful attempt to falsify the theory. (I now speak in such cases of “corroborating evidence.”)
Some genuinely testable theories, when found to be false, are still upheld by their admirers — for example by introducing ad hoc some auxiliary assumption, or by reinterpreting the theory ad hoc in such a way that it escapes refutation. Such a procedure is always possible, but it rescues the theory from refutation only at the price of destroying, or at least lowering, its scientific status. (I later described such a rescuing operation as a “conventionalist twist” or a “conventionalist stratagem.”)
One can sum up all this by saying that the criterion of the scientific status of a theory is its falsifiability, or refutability, or testability.

Crispin in Waterloo but really in Muizenberg
Reply to  Notanist
March 28, 2016 8:34 pm

Great quote from Popper.
One does not, however, have to be skeptical per se to make observations. They can just be made and considered. I hope the mods will indulge me with a digression that has more to do with Popper and risky predictions than Hansen and his faulty ones.
If you get up early this morning and train your unaided lying eyes on the sky between Mars and Saturn you can locate the comet 252P/LINEAR. This comet passed the Earth on the 21st, a Naw Ruz comet you could call it. It switched on like a light bulb recently and as your lying eyes can confirm, is glowing a beautiful shade of green. Your lying eyes can also see that it is larger in diameter than the moon though very faint. Still, it is visible without a telescope.
“You’ll have to be out at least 90 minutes before sunrise and in a location as free of light pollution as possible. Once you have managed that, locate the constellations Sagittarius and Scorpius low in the southern part of the sky. The comet is expected to move between those two constellations.”
What your lying eyes are seeing is confirmation of a risky prediction, as described by Popper, made by the EU Theory that the glow from comets is a Corona discharge (and that is why it is emitting xrays). If there ever was a consensus >99% it is the Standard Model and this is your chance for your lying eyes to provide ‘other evidence’. If a circle of glowing green plasma larger in diameter than the moon and visible to the unaided lying eye is not enough to make one skeptical about the Standard Model, nothing will.
A conceivable, conventional alternative, that there is a diesel powered generator inside the comet lighting up the corona, is shaky at best because of the well-established fact that there is no air in space. Unless my lying eyes are lying about that too.

Reply to  Notanist
March 28, 2016 9:15 pm

It is easy to obtain confirmations, or verifications, for nearly every theory — if we look for confirmations.

A point lost on so very many.
It’s important in fields other than climate science too. For example, we’ve suffered under the delusions promoted by Einstein’s General Relativity Theory for decades, over a century now, mostly because it’s so well supported by confirmation, even though one of its central tenants, that nothing can travel faster than light, is inherently impossible to falsify since it would require us to disprove a negative. How exactly does one design an experiment that disproves the existence of faster than light communications? Quantum experiments are dancing around the edge of that one even now, and the results so far aren’t looking too good for GRT.
That we can’t perceive things that travel faster than light doesn’t mean nothing can, that’s observer bias plain and simple, what Dicke and Weinberg called the Anthropic Principal (which’ by coincidence. also isn’t falsifiable).

Reply to  Bartleby
March 29, 2016 7:34 am

It’s special relativity which points out there is no other measure of distance or time than electromagnetic phenomena . And neither time nor distance can be measured independently . The simple trigonometric Lorentz transformations fall out of that observation and the metric of space-time can be express by the simple matrix where c is taken to be 1 and all actual “speeds” a fraction of it .
1 0 0 0
0 1 0 0
0 0 1 0
0 0 0 i
It’s hard to argue against something with such profound simplicity . Furthermore , and this is something I wish I understood better , it is deeply implied by Maxwell’s equations so is deeply entangled with virtually all of classical physics . It is not some sort of separable add-on .
And it must be pointed out that if something were found to propagate faster than electromagnetic interactions , then that would largely take em’s place and the essential relationships would remain unchanged .
Of course , it’s not the whole story as quantum entanglement shows arbitrarily separated events can be “instantaneously” interdependent .
But there is no barrier to disconfirming special relativity . In fact it explicitly states that the observation of a causal action faster than light would falsify it .

March 27, 2016 11:26 am

Note to scientists who are skeptics about global warming / climate change. Good for you, but remember — this alarm-ism has never been about global warming, or climate change, of scientific inquiry. It is about the justifications needed to support a redistribution of national wealth and the implementation of global control.

Walt D.
Reply to  TCE
March 27, 2016 12:03 pm

Redistribution = Theft
Going to be a lot easier when there is no more paper money and the possession of gold or any other commodity hoarding is outlawed.

March 27, 2016 12:48 pm

I have some hope that David may one day recover from his delusions.
Here is a reply I made to a David Appell post concerning my recent guest post at .
You are being ,shall we charitably say, disingenuous ,in presenting the GISS data as a proof that my 2012 forecast was wrong. You are in fact acting as a propagandist for the Orwellian gate-keepers of the Land /Sea data who have steadily
manipulated the past to the point that their outputs no longer provide any basis for intelligent discussion of climate.( See also comment 2 to your post). The actual situation shows that my forecast is alive and well in the real world. See Fig 5 at
Obviously the current El Nino peak is a short term interruption of the decadal trend.
However I am happy and surprised that you agree with me about climate models. You need to draw the logical conclusions which derive from that agreement which again surprisingly the IPCC does but then ignores. Here is what my post said.
“Section IPCC AR4 WG1 8.6 deals with forcings,feedbacks and climate sensitivity.It recognizes the short comings of the models. The conclusions are in section 8.6.4 which concludes:
“Moreover it is not yet clear which tests are critical for constraining the future projections, consequently a set of model metrics that might be used to narrow the range of plausible climate change feedbacks and climate sensitivity has yet to be developed”
What could be clearer. The IPCC in 2007 said itself that it doesn’t even know what metrics to put into the models to test their reliability (i.e., we don’t know what future temperatures will be and we can’t calculate the climate sensitivity to CO2). This also begs a further question of what erroneous assumptions (e.g., that CO2 is the main climate driver) went into the “plausible” models to be tested any way.
Even the IPCC itself has now given up on estimating CS – the AR5 SPM says ( hidden away in a footnote)
“No best estimate for equilibrium climate sensitivity can now be given because of a lack of agreement on values across assessed lines of evidence and studies”
Paradoxically they still claim that UNFCCC can dial up a desired temperature by controlling CO2 levels .This is cognitive dissonance so extreme as to be irrational. There is no empirical evidence which proves that CO2 has anything more than a negligible effect on temperatures. ”
As to the thousand year cycle you say ”
“A thousand-year cycle? Based on what? Page doesn’t say. Instead he is stuck in the past, not realizing that manmade forcings have changed everything.”
This is entirely false – I presented evidence of the millennial cycle and its peak in 2003 +/- in Figs 3,4,5 and 6.The fact is that man made CO2 emission forcings have changed very little with regard to temperature but have substantially enhanced food production.

March 27, 2016 1:18 pm

Are you certain you won’t find Appell jumping out from behind a plastic palm tree yelling “Candid Camera!”

March 27, 2016 2:13 pm


March 27, 2016 2:41 pm

The title “Schism on the Left” is completely misleading. It is a schism among scientists.

Reply to  Luke
March 27, 2016 3:11 pm

When climategate revealed they were lying about every tenth degree warming since 1998 in Phil Jones’ July 2005 email to John Christy (“The scientific community would come down on me in no uncertain terms if I said the world cooled since 1998. Ok it has but it isn’t but seven years’ data and it isn’t statistically signficant.”
Then admitted he added every tenth to the data he built in his disastrous Feb 2010 BBC don’t go to jail interview-
When Homer Rowboat Hansen told the world for thirty years – even educators – there was a ‘runaway green house gas effect on Venus” when simplest of calculations proves there isn’t,
When Angry Bird Mike Mann lied to Congress telling them bore holes from trees whispered to him the world is going to end through a magic computer program he wrote,
and he subsequently accidentally released it to the public on an FTP and people who downloaded it showed the world it made
and hundreds,
and hundreds of hockey sticks,
they ceased to be scientists and proceeded to be f r a u d u l e n c e peddling Left-Wing political activists.
Honest people all know this.
It’s why when you bleat authority worship it sounds like another con man who had his intellectual reputation demolished
when people found out you think the sky is a giant, magic heater; and all your ”scientist” leadership admitted and were caught practicing ZILCH but

March 27, 2016 at 2:41 pm
The title “Schism on the Left” is completely misleading. It is a schism among scientists.

John Harmsworth
Reply to  D.G.Hughes
March 27, 2016 4:13 pm

Hallelujah! When honesty left the building it took those guys with it. They knew they lied and stopped being scientists.

Reply to  Luke
March 27, 2016 3:34 pm

Luke says:
It is a schism among scientists.
In that we agree. And the schism can easily be identified: there are skeptical scientists, which comprise all honest scientists. Then there are the alarmist scientists, who have sold out to Mammon. The self-serving alarmists have no skepticism.
Skeptics are honest. The others aren’t.

March 27, 2016 3:10 pm

I hope Hanson keeps howling in the wind to himself.
The global warmies are out of puff .They have been generously paid but are no longer of useful service because they were merely props in a play called the Global Warming Caper . Global cooling can’t be far behind . Think of the movie possibilities . Lions freezing in central Africa . The horror . Polar Bears too cold to
go out of their dens ,whales unable to surface . There is no end to the fear potential .
Of course with no trees the few remaining newspapers will shrivel up and die . So sad .

March 27, 2016 3:18 pm

Just more BS, payed by taxpayers, from Hanson and his clowns having a Merry-Merry in their clown-car.
Ha ha

Berényi Péter
March 27, 2016 3:23 pm

1. For which tide gauges do we have station elevation history relative to a global frame or reference?
2. How long is this time series for each location where it is available?
3. What is their accuracy?
4. What method was used to obtain them?
5. Is this database accessible online?

John Harmsworth
Reply to  Berényi Péter
March 27, 2016 4:22 pm

Those sound like reasonable, intelligent questions. Better not let them loose in climate science polite company.

March 27, 2016 5:45 pm

An acceleration of .026mm/year squared, no doubt determined by averaging, is extraordinarily difficult to measure in real life. There are few constants. The continents move, islands rise and fall. CA is crumbling which may manifests itself as a rising, the eastern seaboard sinking. Hawaii sinks, Kauai rises. likewise the satellite data shows regional ocean rise one year merely to diminish a few years later.
And then there is the extraordinarily suspect figures and “research’ from the leftwing, highly politicized Univ. of Colorado which should be ignored in their entirety.
All in all, this individual virtually conceded that even if one believes in AGW, the word ‘Catastrophic’ is misplaced in the phrase.

March 27, 2016 10:58 pm

According to the paleoclimatic reconstruction of the Earth’s atmosphere, Hanson’s “tipping point” has been exceed for millions of years on end. Obviously, no cataclysm. And then there is the “minor” detail that Venus has about 92 times as much atmosphere as the Earth has had for 100s of millions of years.

johann wundersamer
March 28, 2016 3:26 am

Whenever it comes to that unbased lefties / socialist claims I’m wondering; let me try:
1. Socialists care about people
2. Greens care about wood
3. People ain’t made of wood
4. Greens are not Socialists
What the greens want is leadership,
unauthorized, putschist commanding even states – they are fascists.
They want to comand what we
eat, buy, think …
vote, engage in …
our jobs – are they ‘ethical’ or should they get transferred / outsorced abroad.
Think a Lot of people able to elongate the list.

March 28, 2016 4:35 am

Dr Doom strikes again, give him a sandwich board and he would be happen walking around the street with a ‘repeat you sinners ‘ poster.
He long ago stop doing any science , its bout self promote and ideology all the way . Hence way climate ‘science’ is such a good home for him, he simply does not need to do any ‘science’ .

johann wundersamer
March 28, 2016 5:22 am

So besides all politic rants. Me belongs to the Elite.
As Munic Re stats: 20 % over 62, still living and having a Job is avantgarde.
Don’t know how much of my cohort’s still living.
and my Job is outsourced to Czech Republik.

March 29, 2016 9:40 am

“a whiff of this throughout his entire career” — ah understatement about the man who predicted the Hudson Expressway would be underwater

Verified by MonsterInsights