JoNova

A science presenter, writer, speaker & former TV host; author of The Skeptic's Handbook (over 200,000 copies distributed & available in 15 languages).


The Skeptics Handbook

Think it has been debunked? See here.

The Skeptics Handbook II

Climate Money Paper


Advertising

micropace


GoldNerds

The nerds have the numbers on precious metals investments on the ASX



Are sea-levels rising? Nils-Axel Mörner documents a decided lack of rising seas

We’ve all heard the dire prophesies: Rising seas will reshape the world’s coastlines, a one meter rise will inundate 7000 sq mi of dry land, and cost over $100 billion in the United States alone. Worse, we thought things were bad before, but now it’s even rising faster than we predicted. (“We” being the unvalidated computer simulations, and “rising”, as it turns out, being one interpretation of some highly adjusted, carefully selected data, all possibly “corrected” by one outlying tide gauge in Hong Kong).

Nils-Axel Mörner is here to point out that the raw satellite data shows barely any rise, and furthermore, the observations from places all over, like the Maldives, Suriname, Tuvalu, India, Bangladesh, Venice, and Germany show not much either. It’s close enough to zero to call it “nothing”. Oh.

But that’s only spots from The Atlantic, The Pacific and The Indian… there are other oceans. ;-)

As we graphed before with Frank Lansner, most of the current “rise” is due to man-made adjustments, not man-made emissions. According to Mörner, it’s not that the sea levels are rising less than expected, it’s more like they aren’t rising much at all, and haven’t been for years . — Jo

———————————————————————————————-

 

Sea level is not rising
Professor Nils-Axel Mörner
Main points

Click to read the full paper at SPPI

  • At most, global average sea level is rising at a rate equivalent to 2-3 inches per century. It is probably not rising at all.
  • Sea level is measured both by tide gauges and, since 1992, by satellite altimetry. One of the keepers of the satellite record told Professor Mörner that the record had been interfered with to show sea level rising, because the raw data from the satellites showed no increase in global sea level at all.
  • The raw data from the TOPEX/POSEIDON sea-level satellites, which operated from 1993-2000, shows a slight uptrend in sea level. However, after exclusion of the distorting effects of the Great El Niño Southern Oscillation of 1997/1998, a naturally-occurring event, the sea-level trend is zero.
  • The GRACE gravitational-anomaly satellites are able to measure ocean mass, from which sea-level change can be directly calculated. The GRACE data show that sea level fell slightly from 2002-2007.
  • These two distinct satellite systems, using very different measurement methods, produced raw data reaching identical conclusions: sea level is barely rising, if at all.
  • Sea level is not rising at all in the Maldives, the Laccadives, Tuvalu, India, Bangladesh, French Guyana, Venice, Cuxhaven, Korsør, Saint Paul Island, Qatar, etc.
  • In the Maldives, a group of Australian environmental scientists uprooted a 50-year-old tree by the shoreline, aiming to conceal the fact that its location indicated that sea level had not been rising. This is a further indication of political tampering with scientific evidence about sea level.
  • Modelling is not a suitable method of determining global sea-level changes, since a proper evaluation depends upon detailed research in multiple locations with widely-differing characteristics. The true facts are to be found in nature itself.
  • Since sea level is not rising, the chief ground of concern at the potential effects of anthropogenic “global warming” – that millions of shore-dwellers the world over may be displaced as the oceans expand – is baseless.
  • We are facing a very grave, unethical “sea-level-gate”.

Monckton writes:

 I first met Professor Mörner at a debate on the climate at the St. Andrews University Union – the oldest undergraduate debating union in Britain – in the spring of 2009. The Professor’s witty, eclectic and relentlessly charming speech captivated the House. It was not difficult to see why the citation for the award to him of the Gold Chondrite of Merit the previous year at an international sea-level conference at the University of the Algarve had spoken not only of his “contribution to understanding of sea level” but also of his “irreverence”. The undergraduates loved it.

When a true-believer in the New Religion of “global warming” got up and sneeringly advised the
Professor to see if he could get his ideas about sea level published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal, his answer won us the debate: “Madame President, I do apologize that in a 40-year career I have only published 530 papers [now 547] in the peer-reviewed literature, most of them about sea level, but in the light of the Hon. Gentleman’s strictures I will undertake to try harder in future.” The House collapsed in helpless laughter…

 The Graphs

The full paper explains the details in a very readable manner, but here is a sample. First — the observations don’t fit the models.

Figure 1. Modelled and observed sea-level changes, 1840-2010. The curve marked “Models” represents the IPCC’s combination of selected tide-gauge records and corrected satellite altimetry data. The curve marked “Observations” represents the observed eustatic sea level changes in the field up to 1960 according to Mörner (1973) and (in this paper) thereafter. After 1965, the two curves start to diverge, presenting two totally different views, separated by the area with the question mark. Which of these views is tenable?

This, amazingly, is the raw satellite data before it was adjusted:

Figure 5. Annual mean sea-level changes observed by TOPEX/POSEIDON in 2000, after technical “corrections” were applied (from Menard, 2000). A slow, long-term rising trend of 1.0 mm/year was identified, but this linear trend may have been largely an artefact of the naturally-occurring El Niño Southern Oscillation event in cycles 175-200.

 

This is the graph after the adjustments:

Figure 7. Sea-level changes after “calibration” in 2003. The satellite altimetry record from the TOPEX/POSEIDON satellites, followed by the JASON satellites. As presented by Aviso (2003), the record suddenly has a new trend representing an inferred sea-level rise of 2.3 ±0.1 mm/year. This means that the original records presented in Figs. 5-6, which showed little or no sea-level rise, must have been tilted to show a rise of as much as 2.3 mm/year. We must now ask: what is the justification for this tilting of the record?

How about some field data?

Cuxhaven is in Germany:

Figure 3. Cuxhaven tide-gauge record (cm), 1843-2003. The gray area gives the actual tide-gauge reading for the German North Sea port of Cuxhaven for 1843-2003—that is, for 160 years. A polynomial curve was fitted by Jörn Herold to this tide-gauge record. Adding the eustatic component of Mörner (1973) for the period 1840-1970, gives a straight line of subsidence with a rate of 1.4 mm/year. The eustatic component (the difference between the polynomial curve and the linear trend) can now be extended up to 2003, and it shows a halt in the sea-level rise at around 1960, followed by a continuous fall until 2003; that is, a trend totally different from that proposed by the IPCC models but in full agreement with the observational facts recorded in Fig. 1.

French Guyana is not in France: (It’s next to Brazil)

Figure 14. Changes in mean high-water level (cm: left axis) measured by tide gauges at the coast of French Guyana and Surinam (Gratiot et al., 2008; Mörner, 2010b). The record is dominated by the 18.6-year tidal cycle, which swings up and down around a long-term zero trend (the arrowed line), indicating that sea level has been quite stable over the last 50 years. However, satellite altimetry in the same region gives a rise of 3.0 mm/year – another revealing example of the difference between recorded facts and “reprocessed” satellite data.

In 2003, the raw records were adjusted (see Fig 7 above). The satellites suddenly “tilted”. What was flat became 2.3mm rise per year. The correction apparently has not been disclosed (see p13 of the SPPI report). It appears the corrections may have come from one outlier tide gauge in Hong Kong:

Originally, it seemed that this extra, unspecified “correction” referred to the global isostatic adjustment, given as 2.4 mm/year (see, for example, Peltier 1998) or 1.8 mm/year (IPCC 2001) The isostatic adjustment is intended to allow for the deformation of the Earth’s crust by tectonic influences. According to Peltier (1998), the zero isobase, which is the reference point for calculating the global isostatic adjustment, passed through Hong Kong, where a single tide gauge gives a sea level rise of 2.3 mm/year relative to the isobase. This is exactly the same as the apparent trend in sea-level rise over the decade 1992-2003 in Fig. 7 . However, this single tide gauge record is an outlier: it is contradicted by the four other records existing in Hong Kong, and obviously represents a site-specific subsidence, a fact well known to local geologists.
Nevertheless, Fig. 7 shows that the keepers of the satellite altimetry record have introduced a new calibration factor – an upward tilt compared with the raw data, which show no real uptrend in sea level. At the Moscow global warming meeting in 2005, in answer to my criticisms about this “correction,” one of the persons in the British IPCC delegation said, “We had to adjust the record, otherwise there would not be any trend.”

 

There are lots of ways to guesstimate the rise, but only one can be right.

Figure 16. Reliability of different proposed rates of sea-level rise. The validity of the spectrum of rates of sea-level rise shown in Fig. 2 can now be assessed. Observational facts suggest 0.0 mm/year to at most 0.7 mm/year (<3 in./century). Values >1.3 to 3.4 mm/year are untenable overestimates. Values close to 1 mm/year represent minor centennial rises and falls. This result agrees with estimates of a possible sea level rise of 5 ±15 cm by 2100 (Mörner, 2004) and 10 ±10 cm (INQUA, 2000), but is well below the 37 ±19 cm projected by IPCC (2007).

..
..
REFERENCES (See the SPPI doc for the full list)_

Mörner, N.-A., 1973, Eustatic changes during the last 300 years.” Palaeogeogr. Palaeoclim. Palaeoecol. 13, 1-14.
Mörner, N.-A., 1995, Earth rotation, ocean circulation and paleoclimate. GeoJournal 37:4, 419-430.
Mörner, N.-A., 1996, Sea Level Variability, Z. Geomorphology N.S. 102, 223-232.
Mörner, N.-A., 2004, Estimating future sea level changes, Global and Planetary Change 40, 49-54.
Mörner, N.-A., M.J. Tooley & G. Possnert, 2004, New perspectives for the future of the Maldives, Global & Planetary Change 40, 177-182.
Mörner, N.-A., 2005, Sea-level changes and crustal movements with special aspects on the Mediterranean, Z. Geomorph. N.F. suppl. vol. 137, 91-102.
Mörner, N.-A., 2007a, The Sun rules climate. There’s no danger of global sea level rise, 21st Century Science and Technology, Fall 2007, 31-34.
Mörner, N.-A., 2007b, Sea Level Changes and Tsunamis: Environmental Stress and Migration over the Seas, Internationales Asienforum 38, 353-374.
Mörner, N.-A., 2007c, The Greatest Lie Ever Told, P&G-print (2nd ed., 2009, 3rd ed., 2010).
Mörner, N.-A., 2008, Comments, Global and Planetary Change 62, 219-220.
Mörner, N.-A., 2009, Open letter to the President of the Maldives, New Concepts in Global Tectonics Newsletter 53, 80-83.
Mörner, N.-A., 2010a, Sea level changes in Bangladesh: new observational facts, Energy and Environment 21:3, 249-263.
Mörner, N.-A., 2010b, Some problems in the reconstruction of mean sea level and its changes with time, Quaternary International 221, 3-8.
Mörner, N.-A., 2010c, Solar minima, Earth’s rotation and Little Ice Ages in the past and in the future: the North  Atlantic/European case, Global and Planetary Change 72, 282-293.
Mörner, N.-A., 2011a, The Maldives as a measure of sea level and sea level ethics: In Evidence-based Climate Science, D.J. Easterbrook, Ed. [in press], Elsevier.
Mörner, N.-A., 2011b, Setting the frames of expected future sea level changes: In Evidence-based Climate Science, D.J.
Easterbrook, Ed. [in press], Elsevier.
Mörner, N.-A., 2011c, The Great Sardinian Sea Level Excursion [submitted].
.
Centre for Democracy and Independence

This is a well written and substantial paper, do read it all…

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 8.9/10 (96 votes cast)
Are sea-levels rising? Nils-Axel Mörner documents a decided lack of rising seas, 8.9 out of 10 based on 96 ratings

Tiny Url for this post: http://tinyurl.com/cdpmfrb

380 comments to Are sea-levels rising? Nils-Axel Mörner documents a decided lack of rising seas

  • #
    Coconutdog

    The government has already committed $599 million in “fast-start” financing from the foreign aid budget to help vulnerable nations adapt to climate change, including work in the Pacific Islands to deal with rising sea levels.

    From The Australian today. Someone is lying to us.


    Report this

    523

  • #
    Manfred

    All about, Christmas pantomime and farce.
    Doha and Christmas, models and empiricism.
    I think I’m about ‘feared-out’ for this year.


    Report this

    190

  • #
    JuerS

    Jo!
    Just for your information: It’s “Nils-Axel Mörner”
    :-)

    Juerg from Switzerland


    Report this

    100

    • #
      Gee Aye

      HI Juer,

      I think you’ll find that they are two different people with very similar names. Axel-Morner has no history of attaching himself to crank theories or claims.


      Report this

      234

    • #

      Thanks Juer. Gee Aye, so you have nothing to say about sea-levels, just the ad hom… Jo


      Report this

      303

      • #
        Gee Aye

        Nope, not really. Who is helping him to get this published?


        Report this

        239

        • #
          ExWarmist

          It would appear to be SPPI?

          Given that the providence of the information does not bear on the content – could you please address any issues of the content that you can find.

          Or do you like shooting messengers?


          Report this

          150

          • #
            Gee Aye

            the latter.

            The guy has a very good publication record in his field. His H-index is high (18 with self-citations excluded is good in the physical sciences as they tend to cite fewer pubs and have fewer authors/pub)) for the last 20 years for this area of science, so he is well credentialed. Also he is still publishing with about 100 of his 150 peer reviewed publications appearing in the last 20 years.

            So he knows about the rigours of peer review and what will get past reviewers, and is able to write well and write coherently, but he chooses not to put this analysis to the same test.

            Why?


            Report this

            423

          • #
            ExWarmist

            Gee Aye says…

            So he knows about the rigours of peer review and what will get past reviewers, and is able to write well and write coherently, but he chooses not to put this analysis to the same test.

            Why?

            It’s a good question, perhaps the content is too hot.


            Report this

            110

        • #
          AndyG55

          Could me MANY of those who he has published with before.

          But only someone with integrity and honesty.


          Report this

          60

        • #
          Bob Malloy

          Gee Aye

          Just wondering, were you at the University of the Algarve in 2008?

          When a true-believer in the New Religion of “global warming” got up and sneeringly advised the Professor to see if he could get his ideas about sea level published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal,

          His reply: “Madame President, I do apologize that in a 40-year career I have only published 530 papers [now 547] in the peer-reviewed literature, most of them about sea level, but in the light of the Hon. Gentleman’s strictures I will undertake to try harder in future.”


          Report this

          110

          • #
            Gee Aye

            hmmm… he doesn’t have >500 peer reviewed and many of the ~150 are not about sea level but his record is very good (although I think it weird to exaggerate to that extent when his record is already excellent without exaggeration).


            Report this

            012

      • #
        Gee Aye

        This is also where I need to say… certain, so called “sceptics” s me off with their self serving, look at my career, peerage, importance so that I might continue to be important – ness.

        Stick to the bloody science and stop making things up for the 6th letter of the alphabet’s sake. I have concerns about the science and this rubbish thread cheapens my concerns, and, unless you are a win the debate at all costs type of person, cheapens yours.


        Report this

        228

        • #
          AndyG55

          “Stick to the bloody science ”

          Seriously ? you ask sceptics to “Stick to the bloody science’

          Look to your home plate first… moron !!!


          Report this

          194

        • #
          ExWarmist

          Your science has falsification criteria???

          Please do share them with us.


          Report this

          100

          • #
            Sonny

            C’mon Exwarmist asking a warmy for falsification criteria is a bit unfair isn’t it?
            I mean really.. Why should their theory need to be able to disproved? Who will keep funding them to rip the rest of us off.

            They are all snake oil salesmen.


            Report this

            70

          • #
            Streetcred

            Let the truth be told, THE WARMISTA TALIBAN HAVE NO SCIENCE !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1


            Report this

            52

        • #
          Gee Aye

          hmmm I wish I had posted that comment in one of the unhinged threads


          Report this

          37

        • #
          KinkyKeith

          Very Disappointing Gee.

          Your posts are starting to take on a very unpleasant tone.

          The armour of impartiality has gone and we see the rampaging warmer underneath.

          Bagging Axel Morner or Nils_Axel Morner is a not too sophisticated trick and reeks of Doha Desperation.

          Maybe it’s time to move on to another blogg; I could suggest SkS, but suspect that the level of

          discussion there may lack scientific rigour and lead to boredom or frustration and eventually self

          mutilation or worse.

          KK :)


          Report this

          70

          • #
            Gee Aye

            hmmm if you could make head or tail of my comment well done.

            My rant was about focus. Get on to the science and not the almost science like this post is about.


            Report this

            05

          • #
            KinkyKeith

            On second thoughts it may be best to stay here until you have settled down.

            It’s not good to aggravate states of heightened irritation so don’t go to SkS it may send you over the edge.

            Give it two weeks or so and if the scratch marks on the inside of your forearms have healed and you

            feel OK, only then might it be safe to go to SkS.

            It’s a very frustrating place to go for intelligent people. Don’t rush the transition.

            KK


            Report this

            20

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    Sea levels may not be rising but they certainly are doing it in a hurry. Why just the other day I saw the sea level staying the same faster than ever before.

    I can’t resist repeating myself. How can they sleep with themselves?


    Report this

    581

  • #
    MadJak

    Being a bit of a penant here, but how come the cirst graphs Models line starts at 1870?


    Report this

    43

  • #
  • #
    shirl

    I have lived by the sea, Played in the sea and worked at sea for most of my life (61) and the only sea level rise I have seen is the high tide twice a day. my observations suggest these idiots are talking –it.Do you have an address so I can send them a much needed roll of dunny wrap so they can clean themselves up.Cheers


    Report this

    400

  • #
  • #
    John F. Hultquist

    When the last glacial advance peaked (pick a date but about 18,000 years ago will do) ocean level was much lower and land ice much greater. Change happened and the ice began to melt and the seas rose. A person might be forgiven for thinking that the ice that could be most easily melted, did. This is John’s “Easy Ice” hypothesis. Low latitude and low elevation ice continued to melt for a few thousand years. Now, being too high latitude or too high altitude, the remaining ice is not so easily melted. There seems to be an interlude.


    Report this

    80

    • #
      Duster

      The “last” glacial advance began in the 16th Century and ended in the 19th – the Little Ice Age – which forced several Alpine villages to move out of the way. If you’re writing of the last glacial “epoch,” then, yes, it peaked between 19 and 18 KYA. Recently an article in the JAMS stated in the abstract:

      “We find a 12% or 86 Gt y-1 increase in ice sheet accumulation rate from the end of the Little Ice Age in ~1840 to the last decade of the reconstruction. This 1840-1996 trend is 30% higher than that of 1600-2009, suggesting an accelerating accumulation rate.”

      Since Antarctica is also gaining mass, that means that the sea levels are very likely dropping. And if the acceleration is accurate, then probably falling.

      The full article can be found here:

      http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI-D-12-00373.1


      Report this

      20

  • #

    Updating my post of 16 July ’12:

    “This has got me wondering what else is being Acorned … [Referring to the temperature records, minima exceeding maxima etc.]

    Australian Baseline Sea Level Monitoring Project perhaps?
    I need to keep an eye on two or three tide gauges up here in NQ for the purpose of checking habitable floor and trench invert levels against AHD and HAT respectively. Haven’t kept any older records unfortunately. Didn’t see the need as the changes were minimal and not always positive. Then I noticed discrepancies creeping in, eg tide predictions issued by Maritime Safety Queensland factoring in a 1.2mm rise, well exceeded by ABSLMP’s 3.8 and 4.8 for the two BoM tide gauges in Queensland. The only coincident site appears to be Rosslyn Bay: MSQ’s short-term sea level rise 2011 = 2.425mm/yr (?!), BoM’s = 3.8mm/yr.

    Ok – there are differences between tide gauges:
    equipment (radar, laser ranging);
    purpose (keel clearance, storm surge calculations, sea-level change)
    Also:
    Land changes (subsidence, uplift);
    Coastal topography – characteristics and changes.

    All differ, none are necessarily “wrong”.

    MSQ lists 44 operational permanent tide gauges in Queensland:
    Ports – 11; MSQ – 2; AMSA (Australian Maritime Safety Authority) – 5; DERM – 24, NTC (BoM) – 2.

    Draft reference list:
    Mörner’s paper: “The great sea-level humbug”
    JCU paper 2008: “Mid-late Holocene sea-level variability in eastern Australia”
    Lansner on Joanne Nova May 2012

    [Adding Mörner's latest paper referenced here]

    How we doing in Queensland?

    Dumping $600+ million in wacky projects was a start, but this stuff is apparently more intractable.

    The Draft Coastal Protection State Planning Regulatory Provision October 2012 states:

    ” …The maps allow for a sea level rise of 0.8 metre and a ten per cent increase in the maximum potential intensity of cyclones at the year 2100…”

    Time for some more forensic investigation? There has to be fingerprints and DNA …


    Report this

    60

  • #
    Bite Back

    Where are you when we need you John Brookes? Come explain all this mystery of the not rising but yet rising sea level to us.

    Are you hiding under Al Gore’s skirt or maybe Gillard’s?


    Report this

    190

    • #
      ExWarmist

      It will be a hard refutation…

      Perhaps the Warmists will provide links to their models of doom, or to their adjusted satellite data – which ever they imagine to be more convincing…


      Report this

      150

    • #
      ExWarmist

      I’m expecting Adhoms such as…

      - It’s got a preface written by Monckton….

      - SPPI is funded by Big Oil…

      - Deniers are nutters…

      Variations on the above, all very convincing, not!


      Report this

      200

      • #
        Otter

        Don’t forget, brooksie is paid to troll, not to convince.


        Report this

        132

      • #
        AndyG55

        And there they are JFC, Maxine.. right on cue, and without a single link to real data, just the Ad Hom attacks.

        Seriously.. they are past a joke, and it shows that they are starting to realise it.

        THEY HAVE NOTHING ELSE TO FALL BACK ON !!!


        Report this

        111

        • #
          ExWarmist

          What is important is that their methods are becoming completely transparent and predictable.

          They can’t hope to be effective if they are not taken seriously.


          Report this

          70

        • #
          JFC

          Just the science that’s all.


          Report this

          119

          • #
            AndyG55

            Then you should be on the anti-GW side.. that’s where the only real science is.

            No data adjustment, no flat earth models, no models that say the sun doesn’t exist…. just what’s REAL !!!

            So, get with the reality , dude !!!

            Free your mind from the Gorean Green overlords !

            You can do it……

            You just have to learn to THINK FOR YOURSELF !!!!

            (but do try to get a basic education first)


            Report this

            131

          • #
            ExWarmist

            Just the science superstitious dogma that’s all.

            Now fixed for JFC…


            Report this

            30

          • #
            Sonny

            Just an inane 5 word reply.
            Oh by the way I’ve completed my JFC commet circulation model.

            shit –> [JFC] –> shit


            Report this

            40

          • #
            Bite Back

            JFC and John Brookes along with a few others,

            Saving the world is like making babies. It’s all fun and games up front. You go at it with wild abandon. Why not? After all it’s your birthright as a human being in both cases. Honestly, it really is. You’re here to reproduce yourself and if you think you can save the world from some mistake, go for that too. Make your babies and have your fun.

            But then comes the time when those babies must be born and suddenly you find out the fun is over and there’s that child to take care of. Suddenly you have a lot of responsibility for what you created and it’s hard work.

            Some parents can handle it and some can’t. Some would-be world savers can handle it and some can’t.

            The carbon baby has been born. It’s lying there in dirty diapers, screaming, hungry and suffering. It needs taking care of. But its parents are nowhere to be seen. It looks like getting their hands dirty isn’t on their agenda. They’ve apparently no stomach for dirty diapers.

            You would-be saviors aren’t handling it. No, now that the fun is over and it’s responsibility time you still want to go on having fun anyway. You can’t address the issues at all and your God damned one line quips aren’t cutting it. It’s as disgusting as the flimsy excuses neglectful parents always make when they’re caught.

            It’s time for plain speaking and I’m not going to pull my punches. Too much is at stake. A lot of the world is hurting badly and getting worse. If you can contribute something to actually fixing problems then do it. Otherwise I condemn you for the bad joke that you are. Get your sorry lives together or get out of the way of those who can actually address the issues and solve problems.


            Report this

            101

          • #
            angry

            “JFC” wouldn’t know “science” if it bit him/her on the arse….


            Report this

            61

  • #
    ExWarmist

    From page 10 of the linked paper above by Nils-Axel Mörner, he writes…

    The IPCC authors take the liberty to select what they call “representative” records for their reconstruction
    of the centennial sea level trend. This implies that their personal view—that is, the IPCC story-line
    prescribed from the beginning of the project—is imposed in the selection and identification of their
    “representative” records.

    This key methodological issue of the pre-determination of the conclusion before the inquiry, shaping the methods of the inquiry, has never been dealt with or explained by any warmist that I am aware of.

    To put it more simply, how do warmists justify a method whereby,

    [1] They start with the conclusion, and then
    [2] Select the data collection methods that allow support of that conclusion, while discarding any methods that refute it, and then
    [3] Select the data instances provided by those data collection methods that support the conclusion.

    while

    [4] Claiming that it is science, and
    [5] Claiming that it is honest.

    … I won’t be holding my breath for a detailed, honest, unambiguous explanation of the above …

    … count the down ticks by commentators without an answer …

    … count the adhom attacks by commentators without an answer …


    Report this

    420

    • #
      ExWarmist

      Interesting – not one rebuttal from the various warmist alarmists that have posted elsewhere on this post.

      I conclude that methodological issues to warmists is like garlic is to vampires…


      Report this

      40

  • #
    ExWarmist

    From page 12 of the linked paper above by Nils-Axel Mörner, he writes…

    From where does the new tilt come? The data that lie flat in Fig. 5 of 2000 are tilted sharply upward in
    Fig. 7 of Aviso (2003): see also Aviso (2000). Obviously, some sort of “correction” has been made, but the
    “correction” has not been disclosed so as to permit independent verification (see Mörner 2007c, 2008).

    In most reproductions of the graph representing the satellite-altimetry sea-level record, on the Internet
    and in journal papers, it is not even stated that the graphs do not represent trends taken from the raw
    data as read by the satellites, but trends only after “corrections.”

    Methodological issue #2. Inability to conduct independent verification of method and data.

    Again – for the warmists.

    [1] Claiming that what Warmists do is science? and
    [2] Claiming that what Warmists do is honest?


    Report this

    290

  • #
    Colin Henderson

    And it turns out that the predicted climate change refugees are not from coastal areas, but people who lost their manufacturing jobs to the third world because of AGW hysteria.


    Report this

    360

    • #
      Dennis

      The socialists are even in denial about manufacturing job losses taking place. Whyalla did not close down the PM’s former partner sang on 1 July 2012 ignoring that the government is paying taxpayer borrowed money subsidies to the steelworks on Whyalla and other electricity intensive businesses. But when the subsidies stop the steelworks will close. They claim that carbon tax con is no longer an issue but people are paying $9 in every $100 for it in their electricity bills and businesses are adding it into their costings for goods and services supplied to other businesses and to consumers, and the businesses add a profit margin to the carbon dioxide tax component in their costings.

      The larger the manufacturing business the longer it takes to make plans to close down and leave Australia, it could take some years before the full impact is assessed.


      Report this

      40

      • #
        ExWarmist

        I suspect that the strategy is to subsidize the steelworks until enough time has passed to disconnect it’s eventual shutdown from the start of the Carbon Tax.

        A cynical political ploy – workers be dammed.


        Report this

        50

        • #
          Dennis

          Businesses have already closed down, yes the A$ is a reason and there are others but carbon dioxide tax converting to emissions trading is a significant factor. Two important employers I can think of are Kandos Cement and Kurri Kurri aluminium smelter NSW but I know of others that went overseas to manufacture goods because of rising electricity prices and the then carbon tax con in the planning.


          Report this

          10

          • #
            ExWarmist

            You are correct Dennis.

            There are more factors than CO2 taxes. For example, the strong $A is hurting the export industry (high technology products) that I work in, by making it more difficult to be cost competitive with our competitors in the world market.


            Report this

            10

  • #
    cohenite

    Slightly OT, but I see serial alarmist at the public expense, Matthew England, has voiced his opinion about a Nature report which says the IPCC predictions have been vindicated; see here at the ABC, of course!

    http://www.abc.net.au/am/content/2012/s3650773.htm

    This is how its going to be folks, about every aspect of the lie of AGW: its believers are now just going to lie and they will not be held to brook by the media especially the abc.


    Report this

    260

    • #

      Tony, we can change that. We don’t have to put up with the ABC lying to us. I’m going to say this again and again in 2013. The media is the problem. It’s time the ABC were called to account. Time too, to embarrass universities with professors who mislead the public.

      But I can’t do it on my own.

      Anyone want to help?

      Jo


      Report this

      393

      • #
        Colin Henderson

        Joanna, we ALL want to help you make the MSM accountable for its complicity in spreading AGW propaganda, and to expose all the fake Nobel Laureate climate “scientists”.


        Report this

        160

      • #
        cohenite

        England says this:

        MATT ENGLAND: Well what it’s done is it’s analysed the very first consensus projections of climate change that were made in the 1990 IPCC report, for the first report of the IPCC. And there’s been 22, 23 years since that report was compiled and it shows that the projections of that report have actually come true.

        We’ve sat back and watched the two decades unfold and warming has progressed at a rate consistent with those projections.

        There are a number of analyses of this, for instance this one which clearly puts the lie to what England says.

        Another one by Shaviv is here.

        Even the Wall Street Journal can show that what England is saying is rot.

        Jo can do a post using these sources or just do a comparison of a graph of the satellites and HadCrut and the 1990 projections.

        Then demand that it be put up at the abc in response to England’s misinformation; I’m sure Chip Rowley, who has replaced Jonathan Green at The Drum will be forthcoming! If he isn’t then perhaps Stewart Franks can add some gravitas.

        The point is the abc has to place an opposing view from a creditable source, creditable in their eyes means an academic of some sort; and Franks seems to be the only one with the fortitude to do that.


        Report this

        130

      • #
        JFC

        But what can we do about you lying to us Jo? That’s the question.


        Report this

        349

        • #
          cohenite

          The fact that Jo has allowed your slur up here says all that needs to be said about her, and all that needs to be said about you, lowlife.


          Report this

          411

        • #
          AndyG55

          IFF she was lying… but she isn’t ! So

          no Problemo. !!!

          ps, you truly are a SLIMY piece of excrement, aren’t you. !


          Report this

          180

        • #
          ExWarmist

          Looks like a baseless accusation.

          Sounds like a baseless accusation.

          Smells like a baseless accusation.

          Is a baseless accusation.


          Report this

          120

        • #
          Bite Back

          Demonstrate the lie. I dare you.


          Report this

          90

        • #
          wayne, s. Job

          JFC I have seen these particular initials used before as in Jesus effing Christ, your modis operandi calling people liars, will gain you few cookie points on any blog.

          The goal of education once was to teach students how to think and learn for themselves, this is how it was. It would appear that you were not part of that education system and came along when students were told what to think and not what to learn, I do feel sorry for your degraded condition. Your name sake JC probably had it right, forgive them for they know not what they do.

          My forgiveness is a little way off as you idiots are destroying the well being of millions, our little blue planet does not follow the foibles of the gullible it has its own agenda that closely follows the music of the spheres. Interglacials are a small respite between very long periods of ice cubes covering much of where our food is grown.

          Regardless of what you have been told the world has been cooling for more than a few thousand years, each cooling period has been worse than the preceding cooling, warm makes more food, CO2 makes more food. Historically civilisations collapse in the cold through reduced rain fall and short growing seasons.

          These are facts and we are now entering a cooling period, I would hope that you would do two things, one is to start thinking and researching properly, and the other would be to apologise to our host Jo for calling her a liar. The third option would be the whopee bird option to disappear up your own fundamental and not return to this blog until you learn some manners.


          Report this

          00

      • #
        Geoff Sherrington

        Patience, Joanne,
        This had already gone off to the ABC before you wrote:
        This is an official complaint that alleges that the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (“ABC”) has been in breach of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation Act (C’wth) 1983, as amended, including but not limited to, s.s (2) (a) (ii) of its Charter, extracted here as
        (iii) the responsibility of the Corporation as the provider of an independent national broadcasting service to provide a balance between broadcasting programs of wide appeal and specialized broadcasting programs
        A second complaint alleges that the ABC used figures attributed to a report that are not in the report in the sense used by the ABC and are therefore inaccurate.
        The ABC TV news reports conveyed an impression that “scientists project that global temperatures could rise to 7 degrees above now, by the end of this century, according to IPCC figures.” This is not verbatim, but it carries the sense to which objection is here made.
        The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, IPCC, released its last formal report, shorthand AR4, in 2007. An update is due in 2013, but preliminary projections for it are informal, unconfirmed and are not agreed by scientists.
        The following table shows the AR4 range of estimates – the only ones that could be official at Doha – to range from a low of 0.3 to a high of 6.4 degrees over the century.
        http://www.geoffstuff.com/Doha_temp_end_of_Century.jpg
        Source: http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/spmsspm-projections-of.html
        BALANCE by the ABC would have noted the range, not a figure outside the range whose provenance is unverified and unofficial – probably a guess. ACCURACY by the ABC would have noted that the present century has started global warming slowly; and that many, many scientists disagree with the IPCC figures as too high.
        Essentially all authorities agree that there has been no global warming in the past 16 years, within tight significance bounds.
        Without global warming for 16 years, why did the ABC mention the item at all?


        Report this

        270

      • #
        Bite Back

        Any way I can. If being from outside of Australia can be useful, let me know.

        BB


        Report this

        30

      • #
        Dennis

        The ALPBC now, and I hope that the Coalition next federal government holds an inquiry into the need for a taxpayer funded public broadcaster that is a partisan political player. Does Australia need two of them, should they be downsized and merged or should they be sold? The journalists and presenters who are denying Australians real news and current affairs presentations without spin should be retired.


        Report this

        40

    • #
      cohenite

      I’m not sure what paper England was even referring to; this one perhaps:

      http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v2/n12/full/nclimate1584.html


      Report this

      50

      • #
        Graeme M

        I wondered that too – I cannot recall any recent paper that he might be referring to. Of course no-one asks for the evidence, he can just cite what he likes and it’s taken as gospel.


        Report this

        60

    • #
      Andrew McRae

      On the ABC last week England was out batting for himself. Maybe he’s trying to get a spot on the Doha First Eleven?

      And who can forget his emphatic performance on Q&A earlier this year, setting Minchin stewing in a warm pork pie.


      Report this

      20

  • #

    As an ex-beancounter (accountant), I like to reconcile figures. Bridging the gap aids understanding. Whilst not totally won over by the argument (I am a skeptic at heart) Axel-Morner does provide reasons for the differences between his figures and those of the consensus.
    Whether Prof Axel-Morner is correct or not, there is another issue. The Grace Satellite is also used to measure the ice-melt. A recent paper, reported at wattupwiththat, estimates that ice-melt contribution to sea-level rise has increased from 0.27 in the 1990s to 0.95mm per annum in recent years. The “official” figures at the University of Colorado plot a constant 3.1mm overall rise. The remainder is mostly the expansion of the water due to Trenberth’s missing heat. If the 3.1 mm sea level rise is correct, then the rate of sea level rise due to the missing heat has declined by over 30%, despite the rise in surface air temperatures having ceased to rise. If Axel-Morner is correct, then there can be no heating of the oceans.


    Report this

    80

    • #
      Otter

      Ex accountant… and here I thought ‘manicbeancounter’ was a cousin to the Mad Hatter on Once Upon a Time…


      Report this

      40

      • #
        Debbie

        Yes manicbeancounter,
        the one thing that seems to remain consistent is that their numbers simply don’t add up!.
        How ‘real time data’ can be ignored or claimed to be wrong beggars disbelief.
        Methinks the projective stat models are probably the problem.
        I know there has been mind boggling amounts of time, energy & tax payer money spent on their glossy production. . . but. . . they are simply NOT adding up correctly or adequately reflecting real time data.


        Report this

        50

        • #

          I agree with you Debbie. When you try to tie numbers in, the “heroic” assumptions all go one way.
          - With the suppression of the Medieval Warm period, data analysis has to conclude that C20th warming is unnatural.
          - More sophisticated ways of measuring surface temperature developed in the last few years have concluded that the early C20th warming was previously overstated and the late C20th warming understated.
          - The raw data of the thermometers often shows zero, or little warming, but after adjustments, they show quite a lot of warming.
          - There is huge uncertainty in measuring the impact of aerosols. But it just so happens in the AR4 report that the median value, almost exactly cancels out the impact of all other greenhouse gases except CO2.

          Along with the sea level adjustments, there appear to be a series of conflicts of interest between data gathering, data analysis and justifying a particular point of view. It is very much like people signing off their own travel receipts, or police validating the evidence they present in court, or pharmaceutical companies verifying the veracity of their drugs, or companies auditing their own accounts.


          Report this

          111

          • #
            Manfred

            It is very much like people signing off their own travel receipts, or police validating the evidence they present in court, or pharmaceutical companies verifying the veracity of their drugs, or companies auditing their own accounts.

            I would agree that all these are necessary places for the prudent to verify, that is, exercise caveat emptor. Statements or claims made require support with evidence and the need to be shown to be demonstrably free from chance, bias and confounding. Furthermore, corroborative evidence from empirical data or repeated studies may also be required.

            To generalise may not only be misleading, it may be misdirection.


            Report this

            90

  • #
    AndyG55

    There is a very old record from China (sorry no link) that shows, like temperatures, that sea level goes up and down and iirc the timing would currently put us near the top of a peak. With the Sun having a siesta, and the small sea level rise most probably decelerating, I suspect we are very near the top of the current warming period and that a quite rapid drop in global warmth could be on the cards.

    I HOPE , big time, that I am wrong, and that the warmist bletheren are correct, otherwise the world is in for a REALLY tough 30-60 years.

    Unfortunately, the chances that the bletheren are correct about anything, have been shown to be very small.

    Time to seriously boost the number of coal fired power stations.. like Germany and China are doing.


    Report this

    191

    • #
      Dennis

      The Chinese delegation at Copenhagen presented that data and referred to the 3,600 years of Chinese civilisation and related records showing three warmer than the last warming period that ended 16 years ago. Those periods brought greater prosperity based on high crop yields, more plant material for animals and other factors.


      Report this

      40

  • #
    shortie of greenbank

    I’d hate to nitpick but Figure 5 and Figure 7 have differing periods. Looking at it objectively the difference between 1992-2000 in both figures is still there but the adding of further data to ONLY the adjusted period creates the optical illusion of adjustment greater than what occured compared to Figure 5.

    Sea-level adjustment, as proposed by warmists, has long been nothing about the actual sea level itself. If it did it would only be relative to shoreline. With ‘GID’ adjustments making up a large part of the supposed ‘increases’ and the requirement to (like temperature) continually tweak it so it ends up ‘worse than we thought’ when the opposite is true it creates a need to continually attack those asking questions and trying to provide greater coverage for the liars.

    ————————————
    Good point Shortie. Thanks, people may not have noticed that. – Jo


    Report this

    80

  • #
    Doug Proctor

    This paper is disturbingly similar in its findings to that of Watts et al in their paper on temperature adjustments by Hansen et al to create the GISTemp series of graphs. Plotted as raw data, both types of information fail to show the (clear!) trends of the adjusted finals.

    With the right motivation, you can convince yourself that the adjustments you make are conscioncable. And then you make more, based on the acceptability of the first set. But it takes no time for you to know that what you are now presenting is not in the original data, but an “idealization” of the data coupled with a mental model. If this has happened, then the factory-floor worker knows this.

    These are the people who need to be brought before Congressional committees. Not the managers, but the actual workers whose fingers input the original data and whose inspiration modified that data.

    Forget Hansen. Get the guys on the line three levels down. The story downstairs is rarely the same as the one being told in the room with the best view of the city.


    Report this

    180

    • #
      AndyG55

      And the amazing thing is that they always seem to “DISAPPEAR” the original data.

      No real scientist ever does that, always back up and save, multiple redundancy.. original data is IMPORTANT .

      But climate science.. its almost as if they purposely avoid backing up original data, like they WANTED to loose it !!!


      Report this

      200

      • #
        Streetcred

        Andy, I’m willing to bet that the original data is still around somewhere out of reach. If it is destroyed then the destruction of so many years of collection of measured scientific data is conceivably a crime against humanity.


        Report this

        40

        • #
          AndyG55

          “is conceivably a crime against humanity.”

          Do you really think they care about that issue ????


          Report this

          40

        • #
          Bite Back

          It might be criminal if there was a statutory responsibility to preserve it. But…

          …a crime against humanity?

          Please! May I suggest we not go there? It’s a bit presumptuous if you’ll pardon my saying it. Determining what is a crime against humanity is not within the province of private citizens.

          But I have another reason. James Hanson got up before the US Senate and dared to demand that oil company executives who disagreed with him be prosecuted for crimes against humanity for making use of their first amendment right to free speech. We must not become what our enemy has become.

          BB


          Report this

          31

          • #
            Streetcred

            We antipodeans are a little different, BB … it’s an isolation thing. But, pray tell, if the CAGW hysteria leads directly to the death of innocent world citizens, for example as a consequence of freezing, is that not a crime perpetrated ?


            Report this

            30

          • #
            Bite Back

            But, pray tell, if the CAGW hysteria leads directly to the death of innocent world citizens, for example as a consequence of freezing, is that not a crime perpetrated ?

            There are no doubt many crimes that can legitimately be prosecuted — and should be.

            I just don’t believe you and I have the right to define crimes against humanity. Otherwise, as I said, we’re daring to try what the likes of Hansen tried to pull off just for his own personal benefit. I was boiling mad when he tried it and I don’t think we should try it either.

            If something is to be punished then honest justice calls for the thing to have been clearly defined as a crime when the offense was committed.

            Crimes against humanity is too ill defined and too easy to get carried away with.

            Wiki’s treatis is pretty vague when it comes to specifics.


            Report this

            10

          • #
            Bite Back

            Streetcred,

            I know this is probably a dead issue. We don’t agree but that’s not a problem to me and I hope not to you either. But I started looking more into this crimes against humanity issue and the farther I went, the more difficult I found it to pin down exactly what is going to be a crime or not.

            We fight every day against ill defined, “whatever someone’s opinion happens to be”, application imposition of “science” by force of government. It bothers me to turn around and apply the same fuzzy definition of things to criminal behavior.

            I just want that on record for whatever it’s worth to anyone.

            BB


            Report this

            00

        • #
          Bite Back

          Beside which, the Nuremburg trials didn’t do much in the end.


          Report this

          10

  • #
    AndyG55

    The assumption that sea level rise will remain linear, when sea level is most probably a long term period, is also a joke against science.

    Very few things in nature are linear.

    Warmists just like to reduce data to “linear” because it is the most complicated they can understand.

    But predictive value = ZERO !!!


    Report this

    110

    • #
      AndyG55

      ps.. and the real scientists try to explain things to climate scientists in terms of linear trends in the vain hope that the climate scientists will understand.


      Report this

      70

  • #
  • #
    Peter Miller

    Ice melt in Antarctica and the Arctic has just been estimated to be currently increasing sea levels by ~0.5mms/year (This increase is now quite a bit more than a couple of decades ago).

    In the areas of the world where there was significant glaciation during the last Ice Age, there is now something called isostatic rebound underway, which has the effect of causing an apparent decline in sea level, which has to be compensated for – perhaps this compensation effect was applied to the whole world?

    Data manipulation is an accepted routine amongst ‘climate scientists’. If the raw data does not give you the scary result you want, then homogenise/torture/manipulate it until it does.

    The University of Colorado states sea level rise is a reasonably constant 3.2mms/year, but that number just does not compute. Not enough ice is being melted, also many areas of ‘sea rise’ are in fact land subsidence caused by the draining of aquifers.

    It all seems very reasonable to assume that the satellite data on rising sea levels – as suggested by Nils Axel-Morner – has been “got at” to provide ‘proof’ for the Global Warming Industry’s paymasters – that’s us – to demonstrate that we need to be very alarmed about what’s happening.

    Scary unfounded predictions of catastrophic rising sea levels are meat and potatoes for politicians wishing to show their gullible supporters just how they are ‘saving the world’, by paying pointless expensive subsidies for ‘renewables’ and imposing economy-busting carbon taxes.


    Report this

    130

  • #
    SaysItAllReally

    Marketing the climate scam:

    One of the persons in the British IPCC delegation said, “We had to adjust the record, otherwise there would not be any trend.”


    Report this

    220

  • #
    scaper...

    I thought the corals were doomed.

    Doesn’t seem than any of the warmists predictions have come to pass.

    If you want to see how low the warmists are getting Google ‘Cafe Whispers’. They have a thread up vilifying one of the regular posters there. Check out some of the names they call El Gordo…EG is a female which looks like a clear case of misogyny to me.


    Report this

    50

  • #
    Matt J

    That fool Matthew England was on ABC radio today calling anyone who questions IPCC predictions liars.


    Report this

    180

  • #
    Bulldust

    Comforting to see that Nils has not gone unmolested by some of the usual suspects at Wikipedia:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nils-Axel_M%C3%B6rner&action=history

    Yes William Connolley jumps out doesn’t he? Notice the completely irrelevant sectoin on dowsing in an attempt to discredit the Professor? wikipedia at it’s best…


    Report this

    100

  • #
  • #
    James

    This is further support for the papers in the Aug. 2010 Journal of Geophysics-Oceans and March 2011 Journal of Coastal Research for their conclusions there has been no acceleration in sea level rise for the past 100+ years, and indeed a deceleration in rise (from the last Ice Age).

    Our jaundiced and head-tilted friend seems remarkably quiet of late..one way of brooking no argument..

    (Incidentally and albeit casually, my family in SA began photographing a particular coastal cliff section of stratified sandstone in 1908; to this day there has been no noticeable change in the level of the sea that laps against it. Strata make quite good gauges!)


    Report this

    120

    • #
      Andrew McRae

      Can you get them scanned? Would you put them online somewhere, or give copies to Jo?

      I mean, I know one wet cliff isn’t the whole ocean, just like one year of hot weather isn’t global climate, but dammit if the greenies can inundate us with images of calving glaciers then we can fight back with rocks!

      There’s just one catch.
      If the photos are not taken at low tide, leaving the tidal range visible as an algae band, then the photos are useless for this purpose. The tidal range in one day will be 3 or 4 times more than total 20th century sea rise.


      Report this

      30

  • #
    KinkyKeith

    The current rise in sea level or absence of same must be looked at with some perspective.

    Go back 20,000 years and the ice age was coming to an end, the big melt was beginning.

    Oceans rose over 125 metres in a period if 13,000 years and have been fluctuating through a 1.5 metres band for the least 7,000 years. The amplitude of this fluctuation is decreasing and may be near zero right now.

    This is what you expect now that almost all of the “meltable” ice is gone.

    Perspective.

    KK :)


    Report this

    40

  • #
    Bruce D Scott

    Thank you Jo, but, when are we going to see this information splashed across the headlines of the major newspapers and TV News programmes.


    Report this

    71

    • #
      JFC

      My guess is you wont Bruce, cos it’s another load of old cobblers as per usual.

      439

      • #
        ExWarmist

        Hi JFC,

        Old cobblers is a bit vague – could you please be a bit more precise…

        Could you please give a good example (or three) from the actual paper where Nils-Axel Mörner gets it wrong, with details as to why he is wrong in fact to write what he has written.

        Please back up your examples with reference to physical, empirical evidence that has been collected using well documented, and independently repeatable methods.

        (PS. Typos don’t count).

        If you are unable to do the above, perhaps you would like to

        [1] Chime in with a succinct statement on the relationship between objective knowledge and independent verifiability, or

        [2] If you like, you could try your hand at describing the clear, measurable events “aka falsification criteria”, that if they were to occur would refute the hypothesis on Catastrophic Man Made Global Warming, or

        [3] Entertain us all with a clear description of the logical issues of starting any inquiry with a predetermined conclusion.

        Looking forward to your response.


        Report this

        160

        • #
          JFC

          Might be quicker if I tell you where he gets it right.
          Ummm, lets see, err no can’t find anywhere.

          P.S. You only make yourselves look silly quoting this discredited old codger. Even his own organisation has disowned him.


          Report this

          037

  • #
    Neville

    Here is the Royal Society’s graphs for SLR.

    http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/364/1844/1709/F4.expansion.html

    This shows all the models used by the IPCC and proves that dangerous SLR for the next 300 years is an impossibility.

    While Greenland is positive Antarctica is negative. END OF STORY. EVEN THEIR MODELS DON’T SUPPORT THEIR NONSENSE.


    Report this

    140

  • #

    Oh wow, a freak reckons oceans haven’t risen so let us ignore boring scientists? With Greenland icesheets melting at ever–accelerating rates, the Arctic having lost so much ice and consequently the Arctic ocean warming up, with Antractica losing net ice—you reckon the oceans haven’t risen? Sounds like a child whistling past a cemetery at night to prove to itself it isn’t afraid.

    And good old Bonkers getting booted out of all future UN climate conferences—about time, eh? Lets leave comedy to entertainers not faux–lords/scientists and full time wankers!


    Report this

    445

    • #
      AndyG55

      A person who can PUBLISH something like 550 papers in 40 years, truly is a freak !!

      And has more knowledge in his little toe that you could EVER hope for in several lifetimes. Spaghetti-for-brains doesn’t hold much knowledge.

      Please show us YOUR publications on sea level. None, nada, zip ………

      Booted out.. gees, the IPCC weren’t even invited !!!! Shows how much this conference was about climate.


      Report this

      242

    • #
      ExWarmist

      Hi Maxine,

      With reference to the comment I put in earlier here

      Let’s have a look at what you have written.

      Oh wow, a freak reckons oceans haven’t risen so let us ignore boring scientists?

      [1] “Deniars are Nutters” x1.

      With Greenland icesheets melting at ever–accelerating rates, the Arctic having lost so much ice and consequently the Arctic ocean warming up, with Antractica losing net ice—you reckon the oceans haven’t risen? Sounds like a child whistling past a cemetery at night to prove to itself it isn’t afraid.

      [2] Well – I didn’t allow for a lot of unproven assertions based on unproven assumptions of climate sensitivity to CO2 concentrations… – you got me there.

      And good old Bonkers getting booted out of all future UN climate conferences—about time, eh? Lets leave comedy to entertainers not faux–lords/scientists and full time wankers!

      [3] “Deniars are Nutters” x2, and “Moncton wrote the preface” x1.

      Maxine – you are predictable.

      Your use of Adhom attacks and baseless assertions to avoid actual engagement with and refutation of the content or the paper leads me to conclude that you are unable to refute the content of the paper.

      Do you have anything of value to add to any conversation on this blog – or are your words utterly without value?

      Why don’t you man up and refute the content of the paper, or is manning up to anything beyond you?


      Report this

      270

    • #
      Streetcred

      Hello maxine the freak … one of the climate Taliban said a couple of days ago that we were going to be 100m underwater in short-time. Do you swim ?


      Report this

      90

    • #
      Graeme No.3

      Maxine:

      a note to those very deficient in knowledge.

      Melting Arctic ice (or any floating ice sheets) makes absolutely ZERO difference to the sea level.
      Try looking up Archimedes Principle. It has been known since 212 B.C.


      Report this

      220

      • #

        I never ever said melting Arctic ocean ice would contribute to sea level rising. I said the radical melts that now occur every NH summer warms the Arctic Ocean. It does this because sunlight now hits lots of dark ocean and is absorbed, warming the water. Previously, white ice and snow bounced the light straight back into space.

        Ocean levels are rising because of:

        1. melting of Greenland and Antarctic ice, and;

        2. warming of the ocean so seawater expands.

        OK? Orthodox physics that.


        Report this

        223

        • #
          AndyG55

          Ocean levels are rising ONLY in the adjusted bias of the warmist agenda.

          But the agenda is coming to light !

          And society WILL rebel ONCE THE TRUTH IS OUT.


          Report this

          110

          • #
            Peter Miller

            Andy

            I have often wondered about Maxine’s point about the expansion factor of oceans in response to temperature change:

            1. The volume of our plant’s oceans is: ~1,370 million cubic kilometres.

            2. The area of our oceans is: 361 square kilometres, so the average depth is: 1,370/361 = 3.8kms.

            3. The coefficient of expansion of water os 0.00024 per degree C.

            4. So if all water in the oceans warmed up by 1.0 degrees C, the increase in sea level would be 0.81 metres.

            5. In reality, only the top one km (Mesopelagic Zone 200-1,000m) would be affected and really only the top 200 metres (Epipelagic) of that by temperature change – the problem here is I could not find any volume statistics for differeing depths of oceans. I found several references to the Epipelagic Zone representing 2% of the ocean by volume, but that seems much too small.

            My guesstimate – apologies for this – is that the Epipelagic Zone makes up around 7% of the volume of the oceans and the Mesopelagic Zone a further 20%.

            So for an apparent increase of 1.0 degrees C in the temperature of the Epipelagic Zone, the increase in sea level would be 0.81 x 0.07 = 0.056 metres, or 5.6cms, or 2.3 inches. The impact of temperature in the underlying Mesopelagic Zone would not only be much slower, but also much more muted.

            Well, the upper parts of the oceans have warmed a little over the last century, but nowhere near 1.0 degree C.

            Well, the glaciers are melting, or so we are told, at an alarming rate.

            http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=bbc%20sea%20levels%20rise%20december%202012&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&sqi=2&ved=0CC4QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.bbc.co.uk%2Fnews%2Fscience-environment-20543483&ei=0xbGUOi5A4e60QW2jYA4&usg=AFQjCNEf0JKQ19QqtgBMs78aRR7UYgFKWg

            This melting contributed a 11mm increase in sea level over the past 20 years, a truly frightening figure of 0.55mms/year.

            So, in reality the two principal causes of supposed increasing sea levels (generally accepted figure of ~3.2mms/year) when combined, are just too small to account for what the official figures state.

            So either the figures are manipulated, as suggested in this article, or there is some mechanism we have not yet realised. As with everything in ‘climate science’, there is almost nothing which is settled.


            Report this

            110

        • #
          Graeme No.3

          Orthodox physics requires you to observe and explain.

          What you claim is that the arctic ice melts because the arctic ocean warms because the arctic ice melts.

          You have also ASSUMED that the arctic melting is in some way unusual, something that the record of the last 150 years refutes. It is not necessary to consider either the MWP when the Vikings noted a good deal less ice around Iceland than at present, nor further back into the Holocene where it appears from drift wood patterns that the Arctic had substantially less ice than at any time in the last 3,000 years.

          You have also ASSUMED that the Antarctic ice is melting, based presumably on the scare stories about the undoubted melting occurring on the Antarctic peninsula, but ignoring all the measurements that show the net amount of ice in Antarctica has been increasing for 30 years. I point out that antarctic sea ice is also increasing in area, since a low mid century. See De la Mare WK (1997) Abrupt mid-twentieth century decline in Antarctic sea-ice extent from whaling records. Nature, 389(6646), 57–60 (doi: 10.1038/37956).

          You have also ASSUMED that the Earth’s albedo has decreased due to global warming, whereas measurements show an increase since 2002.

          It is not orthodox physics (nor other branches of science) to base your theory on what you wish would happen because that would prove your theory. Your theory is supposed to explain the facts, or if it doesn’t then you should change your theory. Unfortunately in (modern) climatology it is commonly assumed that if the facts disprove the theory, then it is necessary to change the facts.


          Report this

          90

          • #
            ExWarmist

            Graeme No.3 says…

            It is not orthodox physics (nor other branches of science) to base your theory on what you wish would happen because that would prove your theory. Your theory is supposed to explain the facts, or if it doesn’t then you should change your theory. Unfortunately in (modern) climatology it is commonly assumed that if the facts disprove the theory, then it is necessary to change the facts.

            Precisely – the method is reversed.

            (Mirrors again…)


            Report this

            20

    • #
      Duster

      Maxine, you might want to read this before rattling on about Greenland’s ice sheets:

      http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI-D-12-00373.1

      It concludes, ” This 1840-1996 trend is 30% higher than that
      of 1600-2009, suggesting an accelerating accumulation rate. ”

      The JAMS is peer reviewed so please don’t haul out sorry old plaints like that.

      Note that what is accumulating is ice on the GIS. In fact, this article pairs perfectly with Morner’s conclusions. That is accumululating ice and stable or receding sea levels are expectable correlated pheonomena. The troubling thing is the remark that Morner makes about why that 0.3cm/yr adjustment appeared. There seems to be no published justification for it. There seems to be no published code. If you know where that information might be, please let us know.


      Report this

      00

  • #
  • #
    KR

    A rather astounding post – but I’m afraid I cannot agree with any of it.

    Recent sea level is rising ~3.1 mm/year, albeit with short term variations. This is seen in satellite observations, including GRACE information showing ENSO related shifts (due to precipitation) between sea water and land water from that precipitation. Longer term, there’s been an upward curve, i.e. acceleration, in rise rate since the Industrial Revolution (Church 2008, see figure 3a), with a “hockey stick” showing for the last few thousand years.

    As to Pacific Islands, I would suggest reading Church et al 2006, where Mörner’s conclusions are discussed and shown to be wildly incorrect (multiple papers and their data referenced there in just the first two paragraphs). [ Mörner, I'll point out, did not correctly account for ENSO variations. ]

    Sea level rise of any size is quite frankly astounding, since at this point in what should be a slow slide towards an ice age we should be seeing a decline in sea level, not an increasing rise rate.

    Sea level rise will have quite an effect on the Pacific and Indian Ocean atoll islands, which should be quite familiar to Australians reading this blog. To be more exact, they will become uninhabitable. Dickinson 2009 discusses explicitly: see Table 1 for dates. If sea level rise is only 0.5 meter to 2100 and continues at that rate thereafter, all 15 of the island chains in that table will be entirely gone by 2160. If sea level goes up by 1 meter by 2100, all of them will be gone by 2080 – starting with the western Caroline Islands, Cook-Austral chain (Aitutaki), Line Islands (Kiritimati) [2100/2050], and with the southern Tuamotu Archipelago among the last to disappear [2160/2080].

    Seriously – none of Mörner’s claims hold up to the data. Sea levels are rising, at a rate higher than before the Industrial Revolution, much higher than in the early Holocene, and it will have consequences.

    As a side note – if you disagree, I would be interested in why the various data and observations I’ve linked might be (in your view) incorrect, particularly if you can point to data or published works. Besides some wholesale conspiracy theory, that is; I will find that entirely uninteresting.


    Report this

    1027

    • #
      KinkyKeith

      Poor perspective KR.

      Very poor.

      That graph of 3,000 years is a joke.

      Is there some reason why it was truncated to 3,000?

      Why not show the previous few thousand years?

      Was it because the seas DROPPED almost one and a half metres just before his graph started?

      If it had been 7,000 or 20,000 the game would have been given away!

      Wouldn’t it.

      Talk about Eco-nutters, they will do and say anything to further “The Cause”.

      Typical SkS stuff: “Show me your link and I’ll show you mine”. ha ha

      KK :)


      Report this

      203

      • #
        KR

        KinkyKeith - Sea level rise rates are now ~3mm/year. They are higher than that of the last 200 years, and even higher than that of the last few thousand years. The physics of greenhouse gases and warming point to increasing rates in the future.

        Rise rates were indeed quite high coming out of the last ice age, due to smaller forcing changes than we’re currently seeing – but we’re in an interglacial, and that 10K year ago rate is only relevant in regards to looking at how sea levels might rise due to recent forcing changes (such as, for example, GHG changes).

        After all, civilization has only been around for (generously speaking) the last 5K years, during a rather stable Holocene environment. That’s changing now. And (as I noted above) change has costs.

        As to evidence – yes, show me yours. I’ve presented a number of references to observations; I’m not going to take observation-free rhetoric seriously. Your mileage may vary.


        Report this

        725

        • #
          KinkyKeith

          Fact

          Indisputable Fact.

          Since 5,000 BC or the PC term BCE the oceans worldwide have’ Wait for it,

          Yes,

          DROPPED by 1.4 metres that is 140 cms or 1400 mm or one point four metres, to its current level.

          Sorry dude; the ice age is OVER and the next phase to look forward to is the icing up of the poles again

          which could see a repeat drop of 130 metres or one hundred and thirty metres in sea level.

          Yes that’s 130,000 mm.

          Once again it will be possible to walk across from the top of Australia to Papua New Guinea by the land bridge.

          Now I understand you have some concern that the oceans may rise by 300 mm over the next one hundred years

          but there is something to consider; the history of minor fluctuations that have occurred over the last

          7,000 years suggests that the oceans could easily go into a receding phase where seas drop again.

          Fact.

          The oceans move up and down.

          Fact.

          They will continue to do that regardless of what we puny humans do in terms of the sparrow fart of CO2 we produce.

          Fact.

          We are being ripped off by smart people and they are winning.

          KK :)


          Report this

          171

          • #
            KR

            KinkyKeith - Flat sea levels during most of the Holocene are yet another red flag on current sea level rise; we’ve really seen nothing like this rise rate in the last 10,000 years.

            Not incidentally, I would strongly recommend a video by Jerry Mitrovica discussing sea level rise, pointing out evidence ranging from coral heads (Pacific highstand), Roman fish tanks (limiting total change since the Roman era), and changes in solar eclipse timings (changes in Earth’s angular momentum due to the distribution of water between polar ice caps and oceans).

            At this point we’ve likely put off the start of the next ice age by at least 100K years, if not entirely for this part of the Milankovitch cycle.

            “We are being ripped off by smart people and they are winning.”

            And… back to wholesale conspiracy theories. Not interesting.


            Report this

            28

          • #
            KinkyKeith

            KR says:

            “I would strongly recommend a video by Jerry Mitrovica discussing sea level rise”.

            In reply:

            “I would strongly recommend a University Science degree by any Australian University .

            It should include maths physics chemistry and geology. discussing sea level rise”

            KK

            We had a look at Jerry’s movie before.


            Report this

            42

        • #
          KinkyKeith

          Step 1 to check out his “Reference to a relevant paper” go here.

          http://www.cmar.csiro.au/sealevel/sl_hist_intro.html#fewthousand

          See the 3,000 time period.

          OK.

          Now see the change going back those 3,000 years, yes the sea drops an alarming 0.8 metres.

          Now that’s the scam.

          If we went back 20,000 years the drop would be near enough 130 metres but he doesn’t want you to see this:

          here we go get an eyeful, note how the sea level on that scale is almost constant over the last 7,000 years!

          http://www.google.com.au/imgres?imgurl=http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2010/11/post-glacial_sea_level.png%3Fw%3D526%26h%3D359%26h%3D359&imgrefurl=http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/12/01/sea-level-rise-jumpy-after-last-ice-age/&h=359&w=526&sz=20&tbnid=0iFJVviIHy990M:&tbnh=73&tbnw=107&zoom=1&usg=__jvJrNOBo8ERU0enhtITBtbeGEpA=&docid=JWxhJuKVwCdn-M&sa=X&ei=t7HFULeuHub3mAW9uICYDQ&ved=0CGUQ9QEwBQ&dur=3640

          KK :)


          Report this

          111

        • #
          Sonny

          KR 3mm/year?

          You call this scary? Are you counting on the fact that we can’t compute fractions.

          This is

          1m / 333 years!

          Again, you call this scary?

          Oooo I’m shaking in my boots. I honestly don’t think my great great great grandchildren will have the ability to adapt.

          WONT SOMEBODY PLEASE THINK OF THE CHILDREN FOR [snip] SAKE!

          [I am thinking of the children so I snip bad words] ED


          Report this

          93

          • #
            KR

            Sonny - That’s at the current rate. Which is higher than it was mid-century, and even higher than it was 200 years ago, and is still increasing.

            At this point I suspect 1 meter by 2100 is probably a lower bound on the sea level rise that will occur.


            Report this

            28

          • #
            ExWarmist

            KR says…

            and is still increasing.

            Not much lately – can you explain the last 2 years of stalled seal level rising – according to this data?

            sealevel.colorado.edu


            Report this

            20

          • #
            Sonny

            Omg KR predicts a full meter by 2100!!!!?????
            Oh my GOD!!!! Tell the children to get out of the water NOW!
            quickly tax everyone more!!! Give all seaside properties rights to the government.

            We have to do something!!!!!!!!!!


            Report this

            31

          • #
            KR

            ExWarmist“…can you explain the last 2 years of stalled seal level rising…”

            First, two years is an incredibly short time to look at trends, far below statistical significance. You need 10-15 years (sorry, haven’t run exact numbers) to examine trends WRT variance of the observed signal. So that’s a silly question with respect to trends.

            Second, see NASA Satellites Detect Pothole on Road to Higher Seas, where they note that particular joggle in observations appears to be due to recent ENSO changes, with GRACE observations showing the water (temporarily) moved to land via increased precipitation. See the map here – I find it noteworthy that the extra water ended up in Brazil and Australia, which as I recall had a few floods over that period.


            Report this

            04

          • #
            Dave

            .
            KR,
            The Climate Change Risks to Australia’s Coast says on Page 25:

            Sea level around Australia rose by about 17 centimetres
            between 1842 and 2002 – a rise in relative sea level of
            about 1.2 millimetres per year.

            To get the figures for 1842 – they must have used Lempriere and Ross data. There doesn’t seem to be a paper on this?

            So do you agree with this rate of rise by the authors of this publication?


            Report this

            10

          • #
            KR

            Dave - If you read the paragraph you quoted, there is a direct reference to the bibliography. The article (book chapter, actually) linked is Church et al 2008.

            They note the 17cm calculated from rates in Hunter et al 2003 is consistent with other evidence – they state that “The benchmark on the Isle of the Dead indicated the level of the sea at a time near high water; this time and the simultaneous tide gauge reading were recorded on a plaque situated above the benchmark.”

            So according to Hunter et al 2003 the mark was a high water mark, not a mean tide mark. If this is correct, the tectonic activity in the 1880′s had little effect, based on the consistency of that mark placement with other evidence – see Church et al 2008, figure 1.

            The Hunter 2003 and Church 2008 papers appear consistent, and that historic rise in coastal sea level is a reasonable conclusion from the data they present.

            Personally, I have no axe to grind regarding the Lempriere and Ross mark – I consider it a single data point, with its own uncertainties, that adds to the sum of our knowledge along with all of the other data. I would certainly not draw sweeping conclusions from that single data point, though.


            Report this

            04

          • #
            Dave

            .
            KR,
            I did read the (17) link to a paragraph – no actual data in Church either.

            There is another statement in the same Climate Change Risks to Australia Coast –

            Sea-level mark at Port Arthur
            In 1841, a sea level mark of historical
            signifi cance was made by Lempriere and Ross
            at Port Arthur. It is one of the earliest reference
            points in the world against which changes to
            sea level can be scientifi cally measured. Taking
            account of vertical movement of the land, the
            rate of sea-level rise is between 0.8mm/year and
            1mm/year, with approximately 13 centimetres
            of sea level rise since 1841. This is consistent
            with rates of change recorded at Fort Denison
            in Sydney Harbour based on 82 years of data.105

            The point of this endless chasing of information – is that all the sources have different outcomes – in the case of the Dept of Climate Change – two different ones in one report. Plus your sea level rise sources are also different – all for the same marker.

            My original question was – why has CSIRO not investigated this throughly?

            After all you can only argue if your data is correct and its seems Dept of Climate Change have no idea at all – even to the extent of different results for the same place?


            Report this

            31

          • #
            KR

            Dave - You’re going to have to read the references. If you did so on your post here, you shouldn’t have said “There doesn’t seem to be a paper on this?”.

            Any paper worth reading has additional references, a bibliography – science is a constant building upon and evaluation of previous works. Dig down.

            As to the 13cm measurement you just referred to, versus the 17cm earlier discussed, Church 2008 states:

            They [Hunter 2003] indicate that, from 1841 to 2002, local sea level rose about 14 cm relative to the land, or about 17 cm allowing for vertical land motion.

            Again – you need to read the works carefully. Many questions can be resolved if you read all of the references with some care and thoroughness.


            Report this

            04

        • #
          KinkyKeith

          Part of KR’s statement:

          “Rise rates were indeed quite high coming out of the last ice age, due to smaller forcing changes than we’re currently seeing – but we’re in an interglacial, and that 10K year ago rate is only relevant in regards to looking at how sea levels might rise due to recent forcing changes (such as, for example, GHG changes)”.

          It sounds like something out of the university of SkS.

          Could you give us a translation please.

          There is NO SUCH THING as a forcing in science.

          What do you mean by “smaller forcing changes” ?

          KK :)


          Report this

          51

          • #
            KR

            KinkyKeith - You have been actively discussing climate change for some time (based upon seeing your posts). It might be good to learn some of the nomenclature used in the field.

            Forcing change / short form just Forcings - changes in energy entering the climate (sunlight, aerosol affects on albedo) and leaving the climate (greenhouse gases, observed changes in top of atmosphere radiation).

            Normally what is discussed are changes from past forcings, for example the forcing estimates used by GISS (figure 2a, 2b) as inputs to modeling, which are changes in aerosols, greenhouse gases, insolation, snow albedo, land use, etc., since 1750.


            Report this

            38

          • #
            KinkyKeith

            Thanks KR but I think it best to call Sunlight by it’s real name:

            Sunlight , might be best for the moment.

            There are more than adequate terms in Real Science to describe all “Forcings” that climate science wants to identify.

            Calling it a Solar Forcing is a bit of a wank and something only a died in the wool “Climate Scientist” would do.

            KK :)


            Report this

            63

    • #
      ExWarmist

      KR Says…

      A rather astounding post – but I’m afraid I cannot agree with any of it.

      [1] I was astounded as well. I had assumed that the satellite measurements of sea level were accurate, and honest. Now I see that they are subject to the same methodological flaws as the rest of climate science. I am actually quite sad to discover just how much gross incompetence is present in the catastrophist climate science field and I chide myself on once again being fooled by the current set of practitioners.

      Recent sea level is rising ~3.1 mm/year, albeit with short term variations. This is seen in satellite observations, including GRACE information showing ENSO related shifts (due to precipitation) between sea water and land water from that precipitation. Longer term, there’s been an upward curve, i.e. acceleration, in rise rate since the Industrial Revolution (Church 2008, see figure 3a), with a “hockey stick” showing for the last few thousand years.

      [2.a] From page 12, Nils-Axel Mörner writes,

      The fact of this “reinterpretation”, which turned a near-zero trend in sea-level rise to a trend of 2.3
      mm/year (later 3.2), was orally confirmed by a member of the satellite altimetry team in 2005 when I
      attended a meeting on global warming held by the Russian Academy of Sciences in Moscow. Exactly what
      was done remains unclear, as the satellite altimetry groups do not specify the “corrections” they carry out
      .

      [2.b] The problem is that the adjustments are not transparent, hence the results are not repeatable. Perhaps you could offer a refutation of Nils-Axel Mörner on this point by providing a link to a full description of the method used to translate the raw satellite data into the finished published product. This description would enable independent verification of the current results.

      [2.c] If you are unable to track down the above methods, could you please explain your faith in results that you are unable to verify?

      As to Pacific Islands, I would suggest reading Church et al 2006, where Mörner’s conclusions are discussed and shown to be wildly incorrect (multiple papers and their data referenced there in just the first two paragraphs). [ Mörner, I'll point out, did not correctly account for ENSO variations. ]

      [3.a] From page 10,11, Nils-Axel Mörner writes,

      The IPCC authors take the liberty to select what they call “representative” records for their reconstruction of the centennial sea level trend. This implies that their personal view—that is, the IPCC story-line prescribed from the beginning of the project—is imposed in the selection and identification of their
      “representative” records. With this selection methodology, Douglas (1991) chose 25 tide gauges and obtained a rate of sea level rise of 1.8 mm/year; Church et al. (2006) selected 6 tide gauges and obtained a rate of 1.4 mm/ year; and Holgate (2007) selected 9 tide gauges and got a rate of 1.45 mm/year (Fig. 2). The mean of all the 159 NOAA sites is 0.5-0.6 mm/year (Burton 2010). A better approach, however, is to exclude those sites that represent uplifted and subsiding locations (the bottom left and top right zones in Fig. 4). This leaves 68 sites of reasonable stability (still with the possibility of an exaggeration of the rate of change, as discussed above). These sites give a present rate of sea level rise of ~1.0 (± 1.0) mm/year. This is far below the rates given by satellite altimetry.

      [3.b] Church 2006 is addressed, and the issue raised by Nils-Axel Mörner is a methodological issue. The methodology used by Church involves too small a selection of tide gauges whose selection is based on confirming a predetermined conclusion.

      Sea level rise of any size is quite frankly astounding, since at this point in what should be a slow slide towards an ice age we should be seeing a decline in sea level, not an increasing rise rate.

      [4] Do you have detailed information on how the sea level behaved near the end of previous interglacials such that you can make this assertion? The 20th century ended with a Solar maximum coming out of the Little Ice Age – why should not sea levels rise naturally during such a period.

      Sea level rise will have quite an effect on the Pacific and Indian Ocean atoll islands, which should be quite familiar to Australians reading this blog. To be more exact, they will become uninhabitable. Dickinson 2009 discusses explicitly: see Table 1 for dates. If sea level rise is only 0.5 meter to 2100 and continues at that rate thereafter, all 15 of the island chains in that table will be entirely gone by 2160. If sea level goes up by 1 meter by 2100, all of them will be gone by 2080 – starting with the western Caroline Islands, Cook-Austral chain (Aitutaki), Line Islands (Kiritimati) [2100/2050], and with the southern Tuamotu Archipelago among the last to disappear [2160/2080].

      [5] These conclusions are only relevant if sea level is (a) rising as indicated within your sources, (b) the rise continues as per the accepted climate models. However, both points are under question due to the methodological issues associated with the construction of the artefacts that you reference.

      Seriously – none of Mörner’s claims hold up to the data. Sea levels are rising, at a rate higher than before the Industrial Revolution, much higher than in the early Holocene, and it will have consequences.

      [6] Which data set are you comparing Nils-Axel Mörner’s claims too? (a) The opaque adjusted data set, or (b) the unadjusted raw satellite data, (c) the full NOAA tidal gauge data? Which?

      As a side note – if you disagree, I would be interested in why the various data and observations I’ve linked might be (in your view) incorrect, particularly if you can point to data or published works. Besides some wholesale conspiracy theory, that is; I will find that entirely uninteresting.

      [7] I’m on record on this site of not attributing current climate science to conspiracy. A conspiracy by it’s very nature is secret, and ends when it’s operational secrecy is breached. My chief concerns go to methodology which are summarized here and here.

      The upshot is that the claims you are currently making are not warranted given the bastardized methodology being used to construct the published artefacts that you refer to.


      Report this

      183

      • #
        KR

        ExWarmist - Please see Church 2006 as just one reference looking at tide gauge data (not just satellite data) which shows global sea level rise rates.

        Yes, there are glacial isostatic adjustments (GIA) on tide gauges. Confirmed by GPS measurements, I’ll point out, as well as comparisons between the various gauges themselves. Your hypothesis of “adjustment” biases requires that (a) comparison of all these tide gauges and (b) multiple decade GPS altitudes and (c) satellite laser and radar altimetery measures are wrong, all in the same direction. Likewise for ENSO corrections.

        I cannot agree without some evidence.

        As to the computations of sea level rise from satellite altimetery, covering only the last few decades, there are many sources of information. If you disagree, please point out why – pick any of those references and show where they are in error.

        Nils-Axel Mörner has no basis for his claims.


        Report this

        622

        • #
          ExWarmist

          Hi KR,

          I see that you completely failed to answer any of my concerns on methodology? You have ignored them.

          To be crystal clear: I contend that the current practice of climate scientists within the Alarmist, Catastrophist movement is indistinguishable from a superstitious dogma masquerading as science. Your refusal to engage on methodology does nothing to disabuse me of this notion.

          Let’s be clear – if your a scientist – you will be able to tell me what the specific measurable, empirical events – that if they were to occur – would falsify the hypothesis that human emissions of GHG (principally CO2) will cause catastrophic global warming. You will also be able to quantify these events and describe how they would be measured.

          Are you capable of answering this challenge – or will you ignore it as you have ignored all the other methodological questions?

          WRT to your more recent points I will deal with them separately when I have time.


          Report this

          142

          • #
            Otter

            I don’t think he hears you, he keeps repeating the same snippet, over and over and over and over…. you know what they say about repeating a lie!


            Report this

            90

          • #
            Mark

            Hey ExWarmist.

            You commented:

            Let’s be clear – if your a scientist – you will be able to tell me what the specific measurable, empirical events – that if they were to occur – would falsify the hypothesis that human emissions of GHG (principally CO2) will cause catastrophic global warming. You will also be able to quantify these events and describe how they would be measured.

            You’ve probably read that it’s impossible for anything to exceed the speed of light. I dispute this. Nothing will recede into the horizon faster than a warmist asked to provide the sort of information that you asked for.


            Report this

            61

          • #
            KR

            ExWarmist

            “…tell me what the specific measurable, empirical events – that if they were to occur – would falsify the hypothesis that human emissions of GHG (principally CO2) will cause catastrophic global warming.”

            * You could show that the changes in greenhouse gas concentration did not change the outgoing infrared spectra of the Earth (see Harries et al 2001) in the fashion expected by basic spectroscopy.

            * You could show that there was a forcing change other than greenhouse gases that explained temperature changes over the last 150 years (see Meehl et al 2004).

            * You could determine another reason for nights warming faster than days, winters warming faster than summers (solar increases, for example, would show the opposite).

            In other words, you could in some fashion explain the set of observed changes in the climate that are fingerprints of increased greenhouse gases. While, I’ll note, explaining how increased CO2 somehow violates physics by not producing those effects.


            Report this

            210

          • #
            KR

            ExWarmist:

            I contend that the current practice of climate scientists within the Alarmist, Catastrophist movement is indistinguishable from a superstitious dogma masquerading as science.

            So – you think that everyone in the field is a deluded idiot? Sorry, I find that about as interesting as claims of wholesale conspiracy. Which is to say, not at all.


            Report this

            210

          • #
            ExWarmist

            KR says…

            So – you think that everyone in the field is a deluded idiot? Sorry, I find that about as interesting as claims of wholesale conspiracy. Which is to say, not at all.

            You can have honest, earnest, educated people working within a bastardised process framework to produce garbage – without realizing it, or if they do realise it, not caring, or not being in a position to effect change to the process framework that governs their actions.


            Report this

            72

          • #
            ExWarmist

            KR says,

            * You could show that the changes in greenhouse gas concentration did not change the outgoing infrared spectra of the Earth (see Harries et al 2001) in the fashion expected by basic spectroscopy.

            [1] Check Lindzen & Choi 2011 here

            [2] Lindzen and Choi find that

            We again find that the outgoing radiation resulting from SST fluctuations exceeds the zerofeedback response thus implying negative feedback. In contrast to this, the calculated TOA outgoing radiation fluxes from 11 atmospheric models forced by the observed SST are less than the zerofeedback response, consistent with the positive feedbacks that characterize these models. The results imply that the models are exaggerating climate sensitivity.

            KR further says…

            * You could show that there was a forcing change other than greenhouse gases that explained temperature changes over the last 150 years (see Meehl et al 2004).

            [3] Assuming that the temperature changes over the last 150 years are what has been reported and not exaggerated by a factor of 2. If the actual warming over the last 150 years is in fact exaggerated by a factor of 2, then there is a lot less to explain isn’t there?

            [4] Could you please explain the evidential status of climate models – you seem to be assuming that they are tests?

            * You could determine another reason for nights warming faster than days, winters warming faster than summers (solar increases, for example, would show the opposite).

            [5] Your assuming that this has happened? Have you got data that can be independently analyzed and verified that this is what has happened.

            In other words, you could in some fashion explain the set of observed changes in the climate that are fingerprints of increased greenhouse gases. While, I’ll note, explaining how increased CO2 somehow violates physics by not producing those effects.

            Let me expand my position.

            [1] CO2 is a GHG.

            [2] Human emissions of CO2 are most likely (although not certain) the direct cause of the current increase in the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere over the period of instrumental record, however residence time and long term impacts are very uncertain.

            [3] There is no empirical evidence that the climate system is governed by a net positive feedback to increasing concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere.

            [4] The available empirical evidence suggests that the climate system is governed by a net negative feedback to increasing concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere and hence there can be no catastrophe – at most we will see a mild warming that could be swamped by other environmental forces (such as new solar minima) beyond our control.

            The fact is that you cannot address the methodological issues at the heart of your profession – because you have too much of your own life invested in it to be objective about it.

            Your points above do not provide empirical, quantitative expressions of tests that would refute your central hypothesis, one of your points (Meehl et al 2004) is all about using models – as if – a computer model is a test of anything beyond the assumptions that it has been programmed with.

            Go to your methodology and look at that before you come back with artefacts produced by it.


            Report this

            81

          • #
            ExWarmist

            In Addition…

            KR Says …

            So – you think that everyone in the field is a deluded idiot? Sorry, I find that about as interesting as claims of wholesale conspiracy. Which is to say, not at all.

            Those are your words not mine.

            I contend that the field of climate science as practiced by the alarmist, warmist movement is indistinguishable from superstitious dogma precisely because it adheres to a bastardized version of the scientific method.

            Background reading Crighton and Feynman

            How is the process bastardised.

            [1] Entry into the inquiry with a pre-determined conclusion – that human emissions of GHGs are catastrophically changing the climate.

            [2] Adoption of computer models as evidence.

            [3] Rejection of falsificationism.

            [4] Theory rendered impervious to refuting data – refuting data is deprecated, such as is exampled here where models and proxies are substituted for direct measurements.

            [5] Monopsony of funding, where funding is all directed to “proving” the pre-determined conclusion, and nothing is spent researching alternatives.

            [6] No restrictions on the effects of Confirmation Bias – no double blind activities.

            [7] No restrictions on the effects of Conflict of Interest (UN IPCC has no conflict of Interest Policy, etc)

            The scientific method like any cultural artefact is always subject to the forces of decay, and like any cultural artefact requires constant vigilance, intelligence, honesty, hard work and personal sacrifice to be kept in a high state of operational quality.

            Climate science as it is currently conducted by KR is an example of such decay.


            Report this

            91

          • #
            ExWarmist

            In Addition…

            KR says…

            In other words, you could in some fashion explain the set of observed changes in the climate that are fingerprints of increased greenhouse gases. While, I’ll note, explaining how increased CO2 somehow violates physics by not producing those effects.

            Your still not getting it – it not about proving or explaining, it’s about refuting.

            For example,

            The hypothesis that human emissions of GHGs (principally CO2) will cause increased concentrations of GHGs in the atmosphere which in turn will cause catastrophic global warming would be refuted if,

            [1] It can be shown that the climate sensitivity to an increasing CO2 concentration in the atmosphere is < 1.

            [2] It can be shown that CO2 concentrations can continue to increase by at least 2 ppm per year for 30 years while atmospheric temperatures remain flat or decline.

            [3] There is an absence of a tropospheric hot spot.

            [4] It can be shown that the residence time for human CO2 emissions is less than 10 years, as those emissions are consumed by sinks in the Carbon Cycle.

            You then set up tests to see if these statements are true – if they are true – your original hypothesis is false.

            There are an infinite number of ways to explain any phenomena, all but one will be false. The trick is to refute theories so that we can identify what is false and narrow down to a "Truth", along the way we will discover many operationally useful explanations, which will later prove to be false.

            E.g. Newtonian mechanics is useful, but false, Einstenian mechanics is more useful than Newtons, but is also false.

            Do you get it now?


            Report this

            71

          • #
            ExWarmist

            In Addition…

            @KR.

            It is not surprising that you are focused on explaining and proving – that is precisely what I would expect from someone enmeshed in a governing process framework where falsificationism has been rejected.

            Yours sincerely – ExWarmist


            Report this

            61

          • #
            KR

            ExWarmist - If you want to argue basics of spectroscopy, forcings, temperature observations, etc., I would suggest doing so on an appropriate thread. This thread concerns Mörner’s unsupported (and rebutted) assertions.

            That is to say, sea level changes, observations, accelerations, etc. I have no intention of wandering off after that (IMO) Gish Gallop.


            Report this

            09

          • #
            ExWarmist

            KR says…

            ExWarmist – If you want to argue basics of spectroscopy, forcings, temperature observations, etc., I would suggest doing so on an appropriate thread. This thread concerns Mörner’s unsupported (and rebutted) assertions.

            [1] I have commented directly on 2 assertions by Nils-Axel Mörner here and here which go directly to methodology and which you have definitely not rebutted.

            That is to say, sea level changes, observations, accelerations, etc. I have no intention of wandering off after that (IMO) Gish Gallop.

            [2.a] Claiming that my pointing out the methodological challenges of your position is a Gish Gallop is simply a rhetorical tactic on your part to avoid engaging with those challenges.

            [2.b] As the comments linked to above demonstrate, methodological issues within current climate science practices are at the heart of Nils-Axel Mörners stated argument.

            [3] The bottom line is that you are unable to deal with a thorough and pointed dissection of your methods, as it leaves you with no where to stand – so now you are reverting to Ad-hominen attacks.


            Report this

            80

          • #
            KR

            ExWarmist - Regarding your issues with methodology:

            * Mörner has claimed both a recent 30cm drop in Maldive sea levels (see again Church 2006 for a discussion) and zero change over the 1990′s. The 30cm drop has been rebutted by multiple authors, the zero rise claim as well. They just don’t agree with the data.

            * From Church 2006:

            Mörner (2004) shows a plot (his Fig. 2) of sea-level variations from October 1992 to April 2000, based on TOPEX/Poseidon data, ostensibly showing that there is no rise in GMSL. This is described as being “raw data”, and appears to be cycle-by-cycle (10 day) averages of global mean sea-level. Unfortunately, there is neither a description of the data that were used to produce this figure, nor a reference to its source. In order to be a meaningful estimate of global mean sea-level, a number of corrections would have been necessary, including wet tropospheric path delay, dry tropospheric path delay, ionospheric path delay, sea-state bias and tides, but it is unclear which, if any, of these well-known and understood corrections have been applied.

            You might claim that “raw data” is better than correcting for known and measurable distortions of the data that are well understood by people in the field. You might as well claim that you can see more stars through a telescope if you don’t clean the dust and oils off the lenses and mirrors. I would disagree with both statements.

            Mörner is the person using a tiny subset of data (see Cherry Picking), discarding methods that might refute his claims, and coming to conclusions that are not supported by the full set of data. With, I’ll note, ad hominem attacks on those he disagree with:

            “The IPCC authors take the liberty to select what they call “representative” records for their reconstruction of the centennial sea level trend. This implies that their personal view—that is, the IPCC story-line prescribed from the beginning of the project—is imposed in the selection and identification of their “representative” records.”

            to use your quote from his writing. Definitely a case of the pot calling the kettle black.

            * Regarding corrections:

            From where does the new tilt come? The data that lie flat in Fig. 5 of 2000 are tilted sharply upward in Fig. 7 of Aviso (2003): see also Aviso (2000). Obviously, some sort of “correction” has been made, but the “correction” has not been disclosed so as to permit independent verification (see Mörner 2007c, 2008).

            Perhaps Mörner or anyone else could look it up? For example, from the AVISO “Processing and Corrections” link on their webpage? Claiming these corrections and methods are not disclosed is easily established as false.

            I believe that fully addresses the methodology issues – if anyone is exhibiting poor methodology, it’s Mörner.


            Report this

            03

          • #
            ExWarmist

            Thanks KR for your comment, it is good to see that you have got past the Gish Gallop statement and made a reply.

            This comment of yours is quite good, I will read the AVISO link in detail. However, by the time that I get back – this thread will be somewhat “past”, so please don’t expect a direct reply.

            I hope to see you again on this blog in future, you seem willing to provide worthy opposition.


            Report this

            40

          • #
            KR

            ExWarmist – I’m afraid I still consider raising issues of climate sensitivity, CO2 residence times, tropospheric temperatures, and insinuations about the practice of science (“bastardised”?) in a discussion of sea levels to be an off topic shotgun approach.

            In regards to the methodology questions (my apologies on any delay in addressing them, rather buried in the rest of this thread), I’ll stand by my stated opinion – Mörner is the person exhibiting poor methodology, confirmation bias, and cherry picking. Which does extremely little to support his case…


            Report this

            03

          • #
            ExWarmist

            KR says…

            I’m afraid I still consider raising issues of climate sensitivity, CO2 residence times, tropospheric temperatures, and insinuations about the practice of science (“bastardised”?) in a discussion of sea levels to be an off topic shotgun approach.

            To be clear, I have referenced climate sensitivity, CO2 residence times, tropospheric temperatures etc, as examples, of metrics that could be used in falsification criteria. Not as some shotgun approach to this thread. Nils-Axel Mörner clearly makes points wrt methodology within his paper, and hence discussion of methodology is on point within this post.

            With regard to your examples of falsification criteria, what do you have to say wrt…

            * You could show that there was a forcing change other than greenhouse gases that explained temperature changes over the last 150 years (see Meehl et al 2004).

            In the light of this post.


            Report this

            00

      • #
        KR

        ExWarmist – “Church et al. (2006) selected 6 tide gauges”

        That very Church 2006 paper notes:

        The number of sea-level records available for each year is a maximum in the 1980s (Figure 1 [approximately 300]) but decreases rapidly in the 1990s as a result of late submission of data sets. Running back in time, the number of gauges drops to about 140 in 1950, to just under 50 in 1900, with the majority of gauges in the northern hemisphere. By the 1870s, there are only 10 gauges (none in the southern hemisphere) and by 1860 there are only five gauges available, too few to extend the reconstruction back past 1870.

        I’m afraid I’m going to have to call “BS” on your claim. Pull the other leg, it’s got bells on.


        Report this

        722

        • #
          wayne, s. Job

          KR, way back the British Admiralty took on a task that could be considered in todays light as difficult as landing a man on the moon. They measured the ocean height world wide by finding rock out crops they called dry at neap low tide.

          These they engraved with latitude and logitude and height, from memory some seven of these are on the east coast of OZ. They have of recent times been looked at and guess what , they are still there and still dry so in the odd century or two since the ocean is still in about the same place, unless of course the rocks are growing taller. Mr Morner I would believe as he is one of only a few that receive all the unadulterated data from various imputs. Look at all information and your view of possibilities can change.


          Report this

          212

        • #
          ExWarmist

          KR says…

          I’m afraid I’m going to have to call “BS” on your claim. Pull the other leg, it’s got bells on.

          [1] Actually, the claim was Nils-Axel Mörners from pg 10 of his paper. You seem to be getting confused as to who is who on this thread.

          [2] However you are quite right, Nils-Axel Morner was wrong, it was 10 tide gauges – not 6. From page 2 of Church, et al, 2006

          By the 1870s, there are only 10 gauges (none in the southern hemisphere) and by 1860 there are only five gauges available, too few to extend the reconstruction back past 1870. The number of records limits our ability to reconstruct GMSL to January1870 to December 2001.

          [3] These 10 gauges are used to form the reconstruction…as implied by the 1870 start date, also on page 2 of Church.

          Figure 2. Global mean sea level from the reconstruction for January 1870 to December 2001. (a) The monthly global average, the yearly average with the quadratic fit to the yearly values and the yearly averages with the satellite altimeter data superimposed are offset by 150 mm. The one (dark shading) and two (light shading) standard deviation error estimates are shown. (b) Departures of the GMSL from the quadratic fit to the data. (c) Linear trends in sea level from the reconstruction for overlapping 10 year periods. The trend for each period is plotted at the centre time of the period.

          [4] Even Church begins by pointing out the obvious – that there are few high quality gauges… from page 1.

          Most estimates of 20th century sea-level rise have depended on averaging the rates of rise from the few, long, high-quality tide-gauge records that are available

          Are you sure that Church actually defends your basic point that Nils-Axel Mörner is wrong about the current state of sea level research?


          Report this

          41

          • #
            KR

            ExWarmist - Church drew a line in the 1870′s, where only 10 tide gauges were available. I understand that decision – he didn’t want to overextrapolate from too little data. That, however, is the tail end of a set of data that peaks at 300 tide gauges in the 1980′s, as discussed above. With the widening uncertainty bounds Church presented based upon the amount of available data.

            So no, it is not true that only 6/10 tide gauges were used for centennial sea level rise rates. 300 at peak, tapering down on both sides, lots of data. Mörner’s statement is a distortion of the data used.

            Now, as to some of the data used in determining past sea level, I would point to Church and White 2006 (20th century acceleration), Jevrejeva et al 2008 (recent acceleration started 200 years ago), and Grinsted et al 2010 (sea level 200-2100, from the 150 year observed relationships of temperature and sea level).

            Look at the video I referenced here – coral heads (recording the Pacific highstand that led to atoll islands), Roman fish tanks (limiting total change since the Roman era), changes in solar eclipse timings (changes in Earth’s angular momentum due to the distribution of water between polar ice caps and oceans), changing distances to the Moon driven by tide levels, etc.

            There are in addition multiple papers using proxies such as foraminifera analysis (changes in biota directly related to depth, examined from mud-core samples), which extend sea level data back 5-8000 years, such as Gehrels et al 2008. Not to mention shoreline analysis, of modern and prehistoric beaches. There is a huge deal of data out there – and Mörner’s claims agree with basically none of it.

            As just one example of what I would consider nonsensical, look at Figure 1 of Mörner’s article, the “Modelled and observed sea-level changes, 1840-2010″. Mörner claims zero sea level change since 1970, with a drop in global sea level 1950-1970, that sea level hasn’t changed a bit in the last 50 years. Which means that he’s disagreeing not only with the satellite observations (if he disagrees, he should support that with some arguments regarding calibration and measurement), but he’s disagreeing with tide gauges, GPS data, observed changes in shorelines, on and on and on – an extraordinary claim, requiring extraordinary evidence. And that’s lacking.

            After 1965, the two curves start to diverge, presenting two totally different views, separated by the area with the question mark. Which of these views is tenable?

            Based on the available evidence? Not Mörner’s. His evidence is a cherry-picked subset, not corrected for known issues, and is in complete disagreement with the full set of data.

            Are you sure that Church actually defends your basic point that Nils-Axel Mörner is wrong about the current state of sea level research?

            As noted above – it’s not just Church. Mörner’s claims are in conflict with just about everything in the literature.

            Enough said. Mörner has an extreme position that is contradicted by the full set of evidence, by multiple lines of evidence with independent support, and by basic physics. While there are always a few scientists who disagree with everyone else, you shouldn’t take their opinions as gospel because, perhaps, they agree with your opinions and preferences. That’s just confirmation bias.

            Adieu


            Report this

            20

      • #
        Streetcred

        Sea level rise will have quite an effect on the Pacific and Indian Ocean atoll islands, which should be quite familiar to Australians reading this blog

        Indeed we are familiar, atolls are built by coral and reef-building corals grow to the light. The simple conclusion is that the atolls will not become submerged even if there is a rise in sea levels. PS, reef-building coral grows very fast.


        Report this

        172

        • #
          KR

          Once awash (and thus growing) there won’t be any topsoil, sand, or islands to speak of. The Pacific atoll islands only became habitable about 1000 years ago after considerable Pacific sea level drop (greatly due to glacial isostatic adjustments) and the accumulation of material on top of the then exposed coral.

          Please take a look at Dickinson 2009. Atoll formation and expected submergence are discussed there.


          Report this

          27

      • #
        Andrew McRae

        ExWarmist, further to point [2b].

        In Church2006 they say of Morner’s satellite treatment:

        In direct contrast, Mörner (2004) shows a plot (his Fig. 2) of sea-level variations from October 1992 to April 2000, based on TOPEX/Poseidon data, ostensibly showing that there is no rise in GMSL. This is described as being “raw data”, and appears to be cycle-by-cycle (10 day) averages of global mean sea-level. Unfortunately, there is neither a description of the data that were used to produce this figure, nor a reference to its source. In order to be a meaningful estimate of global mean sea-level, a number of corrections would have been necessary, including wet tropospheric path delay, dry tropospheric path delay, ionospheric path delay, sea-state bias and tides, but it is unclear which, if any, of these well-known and understood corrections have been applied.

        On first glance this looks like Morner has been the pot calling the kettle black. I think this irrelevent though.
        By breaking down the raw satellite technical adjustment into 5 different adjustments they are only revealing how much room for error (and bias??) there is in obtaining sea level from satellite. Perhaps Morner is wrong to stray into this area.
        By contrast, when Morner focuses on actual in-situ measurements (ie tide gauges) there are still a few factors to correct for but at least the whole process begins at sea level. If the argument can be made based on tide gauges that there is little to no recent sea level rise, this should take priority over anything inexplicable Morner has said about the satellite… erm… “data products”.

        Even with tide gauge “corrections”, perhaps isostatic adjustments are a fundigenous™ process.


        Report this

        50

        • #
          ExWarmist

          Hi Andrew,

          My apologies for not getting back to your comment sooner.

          I don’t see any problems with the points you make, something else to throw into the mix is this article over at WUWT

          Regards issues with current Satellite measurements of sea level rise, so perhaps the tide gauges are our current best metric.


          Report this

          10

    • #
      handjive

      Many links to the CSIRO there, KR.

      “As a side note – if you disagree, I would be interested in why the various data and observations I’ve linked might be (in your view) incorrect, particularly if you can point to data or published works.”

      Sea levels rising, and so is the CSIRO’s margin for error

      “The second CSIRO and Bureau of Meteorology State of the Climate report found ocean levels had risen 210mm around the world on average since 1880. But the study also acknowledged that the margin of error for the average result was plus or minus 30mm.

      RECORDS of global sea level rises may be out by as much as 14 per cent on official findings, a climate change study released shows.”
      .

      Or, howsabout this collection of FAILED predictions (It’s worse than we predicted) from 2004 by ‘your’ CSIRO:

      “Kevin Hennessy, senior research scientist at CSIRO, says the CSIRO stands by the long-range forecasts for Australia – based upon a dozen or so computer models.”

      “Besides some wholesale conspiracy theory, that is; I will find that entirely uninteresting.”

      Look no further than the CSIRO, who are now advocating UN-IPCC taxes instead of science.
      .

      But, the killer blow for the compromised govt. funded CSIRO and it’s litany of failed ‘highest ever cO2 levels, it’s worse than we predicted’ UN-IPCC propaganda is the empirical evidence:

      April 2012 – It’s official: Australia no longer in drought.

      If Australia is ‘the canary in the coalmine’ when it comes to ‘man made global warming’, what does being drought free say about the ‘canary’?

      Can you explain how that is possible?
      .

      *Of course, “As a side note – if you disagree, I would be interested in why the various data and observations I’ve linked might be (in your view) incorrect, particularly if you can point to data or published works.”


      Report this

      111

      • #

        You do realise AGW means atmospheric moisture content is higher? That is why, while AGW is causing glacier retreat all over the place some glaciers favorably placed in relation to prevailing winds are increasing.

        So the moisture content of the atmosphere is going to change weather patterns.


        Report this

        429

        • #
          Dave

          .
          Max you said:

          You do realise AGW means atmospheric moisture content is higher?

          But that would be AMCIH.

          AGW is:
          Anthropogenic (man-made) Global Warming.

          Then again you say:

          So the moisture content of the atmosphere is going to change weather patterns.

          Not CO2.

          Good dog Max.


          Report this

          181

          • #
            shirl

            A.G.W.-Apoplectic Garbled Whining-sounds about right.The excess moisture comes from hyperventilation (co2 emissions) brought on by the failure of G.I.=G.O. computer models.Or something.


            Report this

            120

        • #
          AndyG55

          Ignorant Twit !!!!!!

          If there is more loisture in the atmosphere, it means MORE condensation of ice in the cold regions, ie and INCREASE in global ice.

          Learn some BASIC physics FCS !!!!!


          Report this

          100

        • #
          ExWarmist

          So what happened to all the predictions of endless drought that were the basis for multi billion dollar investments in Desal plants???


          Report this

          90

        • #
          Sonny

          Maxine you should consider replacing your picture of a dog with a picture of a derranged lunatic with their fingers in their ears screaming “Lalalalalalslslalalala”
          over and over again while rocking back and forth on the floor in the foetal position.

          Your posts are demeaning not just to yourself but to all humanity.
          You are PRECISELY what is wrong in this world.


          Report this

          90

        • #
          Streetcred

          I nearly pee’d myself laughing at you, Maxi … increase in airborne moisture (humidity) leads to more precipitation (rain) which leads to less moisture in the air but more rain on the land which defeats the drought and fills the dams so the crops can grow and feed the people producing the economic growth which results in prosperity for the nation … except that this is negated by ju-LIAR. ju-LIAR and CAGW must be the same thing.


          Report this

          40

        • #
          KR

          Maxine – “You do realise AGW means atmospheric moisture content is higher?”

          Indeed it is. Relative humidity averaged over the world has remained about the same, but warming air holds more moisture, more in terms of absolute humidity, more water vapor in the atmospheric column.

          That increased water vapor (see the Clausius-Clapeyron relationship) by itself roughly doubles the warming effect of CO2.


          Report this

          27

        • #
          ExWarmist

          Maxine says…

          You do realise AGW means atmospheric moisture content is higher?

          So there should be a tropospheric hotspot! Got one of those have you?


          Report this

          30

      • #
        KR

        handjive - Did you read the link you provided?

        “The CSIRO yesterday said that while there was a margin of error, it was important to note that it was not so big that sea levels may be falling as they clearly showed levels were rising.”


        Report this

        27

        • #
          handjive

          Too right I read that line.

          I’m still laughing at the logic of the CSIRO.

          Don’t tell me, let me guess- “it’s worse than what we first predicted.”
          .

          I would direct you to the excellent comment below from Dave (December 10, 2012 at 8:49 pm) re:
          The Lempriere-Ross mark. Refute that with that stupid, illogical line from the CSIRO that you highlight.
          .

          But, lets look further at your beloved CSIRO & it’s FAILED SLR predictions*:

          The once exalted CSIRO is reduced to publishing half-baked hypotheticals:

          October 06, 2008:
          And the retreat of mangrove forests and seagrass beds could leave commercially farmed banana prawns, mud crabs and barramundi without their habitats, the study found.

          Even if it were true, why on earth would mangroves retreat?
          If the ocean temperature did increase by 2-3 degrees as the CSIRO predicts, with all the credibility of a country trots tipster, the mangroves and their inhabitants would expand in area and number.
          .

          * Via slattsnews, who brought you the devastating observation:

          “In 2005, the United Nations Environment Programme predicted that climate change would create 50 million climate refugees by 2010.

          These people, it was said, would flee a range of disasters including sea level rise, increases in the numbers and severity of hurricanes, and disruption to food production.

          50 million? Egad. From the UN, whom the CSIRO quotes!
          .

          Now, thats almost as funny as the joke, “what do you call a monkey with a banana in each ear?

          What ever you want because he can’t hear you!


          Report this

          41

    • #
      cohenite

      KR, Church? Why don’t you read Houston and Dean? H&D link to an Australian study by Watson which confirms their work.

      Morner is right.


      Report this

      143

      • #
        KR

        cohenite - See the discussion of Watson 2011 here. That paper is a very poor analysis.


        Report this

        38

        • #
          ExWarmist

          KR.

          Perhaps you would like to deal with Daves comment below wrt the The Lempriere-Ross mark

          If you dare?


          Report this

          31

          • #
            KR

            ExWarmist - The Lempriere-Ross mark is a fascinating and laudable work in long term measurements. It’s unfortunate that there was serious tectonic activity and observed resulting uplifts in the region during the 1880′s (see John Daly’s discussion here). That alone introduces considerable uncertainty as to the original mark placement.

            Pugh 2002 estimated 1841-1842 height of the mark at 0.445m above mean sea level, 1999-2001 height at 0.315m above mean sea level. This gives a roughly 1mm/year rise rate, on the low side of IPCC estimates, but again tectonic activity is an issue.

            More importantly, this single mark has to be viewed in the context of global data from tide gauges, proxy data, and now satellite altimetry. And that data shows global rises in sea level.

            [ Side note: Tasmania has seen much lower rise rates than the Pacific atolls over the last 30 years (map here, from this NASA page); over that period Tasmania has seen perhaps 5cm of sea level rise where the Pacific islands have seen as much as 20cm. They are not directly comparable. ]

            Choosing a single data point such as that mark, and claiming it represents everything is again a cherry picking fallacy.


            Report this

            04

          • #
            Dave

            .
            KR.

            See my questions here KR

            Do you agree with the Dept of Climate Change in thier report Climate Change Risk to Australias Coast:

            Sea level around Australia rose by about 17 centimetres
            between 1842 and 2002 – a rise in relative sea level of
            about 1.2 millimetres per year.

            Where is the data from for your guesstimate of 5 cm and over what period?

            Why hasn’t CSIRO done further research into this old MSL mark?


            Report this

            11

  • #
    Dave

    .
    These are the finalists in the Biggest Bulshitt*rs of the CAGW crew for 2012.

    1. Maxine says: the ice is melting, the ice is melting – nearly all gone.

    2. ABC’s chief science presenter, Adjunct Professor Robyn Williams, claims man-made warming could cause the seas to rise this century by up to 100m.

    3. Climate Commissioner Tim Flannery claims man-made warming had made the soil too hot, “so even the rain that falls isn’t actually going to fill our dams and river systems”.

    4. Tim Flannery says “Geothermal Energy Could Provide All the Energy the World Will Ever Need” – Geodynamics (Tims taxpayer subsidised company) fails to produce one watt of electricity?

    5. CSIRO estimates that if 10% of the incident near-shore energy in this region SW Aust, which is an ambitious target when conversion efficiency is considered, were converted to electricity, approximately 130 TWh/yr (one-half of Australia’s total present-day electricity consumption) would be produced.

    Prize is one iceblock from Al Gores’ diesel powered freezer.


    Report this

    211

    • #
      shirl

      I think our Tim should put his money into Anal Methane probably more reliable than Geodynamics because the government is just about broke.Collectively they have all the brains of a flea circus.


      Report this

      91

  • #
    RoHa

    There was a bit of debate on WUWT about Mörner. (Not Morner.) Two points are raised against him. One is questioning the number of papers he has published. The other is an accusation that he runs course on dowsing, and is thus lacking in scientific judgement.

    You can find it in the comments section of

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/12/04/skeptical-science-gets-it-all-wrong-yet-again/#more-75253


    Report this

    37

    • #
      ExWarmist

      And Isaac Newton spent 20 years studying Alchemy…

      So what specifically is wrong with the contents of the paper as presented?


      Report this

      171

      • #
        RoHa

        If you take the trouble to read the comments, you will see that I argue, in English and Swedish, that Mörner’s expertise in sea-level depends on the quality of his research and is not diminished by his ideas about dowsing.

        I mentioned it here so that readers would not be taken by surprise if the warmists try to use it as an argumentum ad hominem against him.


        Report this

        120

        • #
          janama

          where I live the local farmers regularly consult a dowser to find where to drill for water. He lives in Tenterfield and is usually booked up for months. It’s not as mumbo jumbo as people would like you to believe.


          Report this

          70

          • #
            Otter

            Two years ago we built an addition to the greenhouse I work in. At one point, we had to find the locations of water pipes, buried about three feet down.

            We took two pieces of wire, bent them into ‘L’ shapes. Held the short piece loosely in the hands, and started walking down the main aisle… I didn’t quite believe it until then, but damned if it doesn’t work! When lined up with water pipes, the wires swung straight out to the sides. There was a pipeline at each point this happened. (why they don’t have charts of where the pipes are, is beyond me… Just recently on new construction, they cut grooves in the concrete floor near my work station. They turned one close-to-the-surface pipe, into sushi).


            Report this

            50

          • #
            Geoff Sherrington

            The Australian Skeptics Inc for decades have offered a prize to any contender who shows that water divining works. Despite numerous supervised, well designed experimental attempts, with conditions agreed to be fair to all, the money is still in the piggy bank.
            One does not generally opt for a theory that seems to have no logical basis; one tests it; and if it repeatedly fails the test, one abandons it and leaves the distraction to others. A very small number of ideas have slipped through this regime, to their credit and advancement (or discredit through incorrect original description) but it remains the best system we have for new ideas.
            So, janama & otter, while I think you are stirring, look up the Skeptics and submit a plan for a test. Should success greet you, the fame would outlast the money, but the World would would have gained a new concept. Science progresses via validation of new concepts – and rejection of failed ones.


            Report this

            20

        • #
          KinkyKeith

          We all have hobbies; at least sane people do.

          So Morner is into dowsing as a bit of light relief – big deal

          My brother plays lawn bowls but I don’t make anything of it.

          KK :)


          Report this

          30

        • #
          ExWarmist

          Hi RoHa,

          My sincere apologies – I misinterpreted your comment.

          Cheers and Best Wishes ExWarmist


          Report this

          30

    • #
      wayne, s. Job

      I found out very early in my life that I could dowse for water, it is some thing that some people can do with alarming accuracy in a natural environment.


      Report this

      50

  • #
    Mark D.

    I have a question: According to Levitus (etal) there is a bunch of heat hidden in the deep oceans. Where is the corresponding sea level rise? Nils suggests there is virtually no sea level rise. Would someone tell Levitus about this?


    Report this

    131

    • #
      memoryvault

      .
      Aah – That would be “Trenberth’s Travesty” missing heat.

      They seek it here, they seek it there.
      They seek that dammed heat everywhere.
      Is it in the atmosphere or lurking in the oceans deep?
      That damned elusive missing heat.


      Report this

      140

      • #
        memoryvault

        .
        With full apologies to Baroness Emmuska Orczy


        Report this

        70

        • #
          AndyG55

          So you should.

          That was b*****y awful !! :-)

          I mean,…… deep, and heat… they don’t even rhyme propply !!

          And the “Is it” doesn’t appear to be be the correct timing ! The old abbreviation “Is’t” would have work better , methinks, and leave the “the” out

          Now , how to fix that yucky rhyming !!!

          needs work !!!


          Report this

          31

      • #
        Mark D.

        I gave my question further thought. I’ve concluded that Maxine is right except it isn’t that oceans are rising, it’s that the low tides are not as low……

        The missing heat gets down there (in violation of physics) by back radiation just the same as in the atmosphere except that there is more CO2 dissolved in the oceans. (bet you didn’t see that coming!)
        .
        This has to be true because there’s a correlating rise in ocean humidity.
        .
        Lastly, ocean VOLUME is increasing and pressing the crust down. This is why the sea level rise is ALSO hidden.
        .
        P.S. My sarc button has been changed out for a “Maxine button”


        Report this

        50

        • #
          Streetcred

          Mmmmm … the earth is rising and falling with the tides, but not falling as much because of CO2 … that’s a Maxine (name given to an illiterate warmista theory).


          Report this

          30

  • #
    JayTYee

    all possibly “corrected” by one outlying tide gauge in Hong Kong).

    Is that the one with the float that resembles a hockey stick…?


    Report this

    60

  • #
    Dave

    .
    The Lempriere-Ross mark

    This Ordnance Survey Bench Mark engraved into a rock face on a little island near Port Arthur, Tasmania out there in 1841 by the famous Antarctic explorer Captain Sir James Clark Ross and amateur meteorologist Thomas Lempriere to mark mean sea level is still there today.

    CSIRO promised a report out by 2000 – nothing to date in 2012 and still waiting – because this mark is still only 350mm above mean sea level – Dr Pugh says:

    “technical problems have prevented CSIRO from recording reliable data until just the last few months and, because mean sea level can change over the course of a year through seasonal water temperature changes, no results will be published until the year 2000″

    Why?
    1. They can’t alter the data that much to prove it wrong.
    2. Too many people have recorded over the 171 years.
    3. That particular land mass is stable – so they can’t even add 50mm on the land rise.
    4. Because on the “Isle of the Dead”, the mark made in 1841 (171 years ago) is still only 350mm above mean sea level.
    5. Because they’re running out of time for the BullSh*L.
    6. The BBC ran an article in 1999 with Dr. Pughs excuses that it is wrong.
    7. The ABC doesn’t even know it exists and are not capbale of an unbiased review.

    The “Isle of the Dead” Ordnance Survey Bench Mark is there now, today – KR, Maxcaine, KFC et al – go and have a look. This has not been peer reviewed, it is carved in STONE not melting ICE.


    Report this

    240

  • #
    Nice One

    Jason-1 & 2 data also show the sea level rising. Are they also manipulating the data?


    Report this

    79

    • #
      Debbie

      Gee whiz Nice One,
      You are having a serious comprehension fail.
      No one is claiming SL is static.


      Report this

      42

      • #

        They are saying that sea level rise is not happening. But they fail to explain why.

        They note a difference between the 2000 and 2003 paper with regard to the T/P data. But they have no idea whether the earlier plot or the later plot is incorrect. Nor do they even state whether the methods used were the same.

        They have no clue when it comes to the Jason1 & 2 data. To assume that a previous (possible) error by one paper is still being made now by multiple different teams is rather stupid.

        But that’s the basis for your argument.


        Report this

        12

    • #
      ExWarmist

      Nice One says…

      Jason-1 & 2 data also show the sea level rising. Are they also manipulating the data?

      Well that is the question isn’t it?

      The manipulation doesn’t have to be deliberate malfeasance, but can accumulate from a number of subtle biases that need to be explicitly handled to be removed, such as confirmation bias.

      This is the same issue raised at page 12 of the linked paper above by Nils-Axel Mörner, he writes…

      From where does the new tilt come? The data that lie flat in Fig. 5 of 2000 are tilted sharply upward in Fig. 7 of Aviso (2003): see also Aviso (2000). Obviously, some sort of “correction” has been made, but the “correction” has not been disclosed so as to permit independent verification (see Mörner 2007c, 2008). In most reproductions of the graph representing the satellite-altimetry sea-level record, on the Internet and in journal papers, it is not even stated that the graphs do not represent trends taken from the raw data as read by the satellites, but trends only after “corrections.”

      The issue goes to an inability to conduct independent verification of method and data to check to see if the adjustments are or are not warranted. In the absence of transparency, you should assume the presence of bias, until independent examination and analysis of data and methods have proven otherwise.

      You could solve this question for us all, by supplying the raw Jason-1 & 2 data and a full and complete description of the data management and data adjustment processes used on the raw data to produced the published products.

      All I’m asking for is open, transparent, rigourous, testable, independent, objective science – why is that so difficult for the warmist, alarmist climate science community to do?


      Report this

      50

  • #
    Dave

    .
    Ross Garnaut causes sea level rise.

    Prof Ross is a director of Highlands Pacific and with MCC own Ramu Nickel in PNG.
    Prof Ross was heavily involved in OK Tedi in PNG.
    Prof Ross was heavily involved with Lihir Gold in PNG.
    Prof Ross headed the PNGSDP that has not looked after the people of Western Province.
    Prof Ross should think about the several women who had died from “abnormal bleeding”. (Fly river)
    Prof Ross should think about other people who had developed large lumps and ulcers. (Fly River)

    Collectively over the last 20 years and for the next 20 years these mines will dump over 200 million tonnes of tailings or waste into rivers or directly in the seas surrounding PNG.

    Prof Ross thinks that CO2 causes sea level rise.
    Prof Ross doesn’t think when he dumps this waste into the environment of PNG.
    Prof Ross is only in it for the money.
    Prof Ross has profited greatly through environmental vandalism.
    Prof Ross tells Australia & Julia Gullible to charge us for CO2 emmissions.
    Prof Ross causes sea level rise.

    Gees – and people wonder why I get cranky sometimes. :(

    Maybe the ABC could do a report on this and then apologise the next day. Would at least give them a start toward balance. But Prof Ross has already bitten the head of the ABCs head greenies once before and will never report on Prof Ross again.

    Gutless self serving group of journos.


    Report this

    60

  • #
    c.kracknell

    Nils-Axel Mörner published this rubbish back in The Spectator in 2011 and he was wrong , he got debunked by nearly all major scientific organisation … So i will listen to REAL science from NASA , NOAA , CSIRO and many others not some one who has been proven false or manipulates his data


    Report this

    519

    • #
      AndyG55

      “NASA , NOAA , CSIRO and many others who have been proven false and shown to be manipulating data

      ————————————————————————————————–

      There, Fixed for you…


      Report this

      141

  • #
    Adam Gallon

    http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2012/12/09/big-science-at-the-new-york-times/

    New York’s tidal guage started in 1856, since then, there’s been a steady rise of sea level of ~4mm/year.
    Rate of change over that period is ~0.
    Since a proportion of this rise, is glacial isostatic rebound, either by sheer fluke, the rate of rebound is deccelerating at exactly the same rate that “Global Warming” is causing it to accelerate, or there’s no acceleration.


    Report this

    111

    • #
      c.kracknell

      Well that is actually wrong NY tidal gauge was up and Superstorm Sandy showed exactly by how much … Emergency Plans for NYC , NJ etc.. never took into account the extra storm surge into subways and electrical substations … So Adam instead of speaking utter shite research FACTS .. i have a far bit of direct family and many friends in NY and they do not appreciate BS coming out of the mouths of people like you ….


      Report this

      323

      • #
        Mark D.

        C krack,

        just so I know what to argue about, are you claiming that Sandy was “Super” because of her sub-hurricane (only tropical storm) wind speeds when she came ashore? Or was it the highly usual track she took? or was it the perfectly normal ocean temperatures that made her “super”? Or are you claiming that global warming caused a full moon high tide?

        So, for Hurricane Sandy, the higher-than-normal tides that threaten to add to an 11-foot storm surge feared for lower Manhattan are simply a matter of bad timing.

        So look at the real evidence one more time (from the link provided above):
        New York rate of change in sea level rise Note the really really really flat line.

        And New York sea level measurements
        Look at the graph (real measurements since way before humans were supposed to have created the problem. Tell me this isn’t perfectly natural, non-anthropogenic?

        So it seems you don’t know BS even when it is leaking out of your own mouth……


        Report this

        151

        • #
          AndyG55

          “i have a far bit of direct family and many friends in NY and they do not appreciate BS coming out of the mouths of people like you ….”
          .
          .
          .

          But they are probably well used to it coming out of yours.
          A veritable storm surge of it. A tsunami.
          And what have you been eating #??? because it seriously stinks.


          Report this

          71

        • #
          c.kracknell

          No i wont look at your crap links from FAKE SCIENCE i know exactly what would happen to NYC as it has been talked about for many many years due to the dangers of how NY was built … University of Amsterdam in the Netherlands was hired by New York in 2009 to assess flood risks and protections as they knew what was happening … Even back as far a 2006 Plan NYC was formed by the nyc govt to deal with the effects from climate change events and to prepare NY…

          Sea barriers , Sea gates in and around NY have been talked about they would on cost between $10 – $15 billion but hey Sandy cost in damage alone $18 + billion in NYC alone…

          Clowns like Nils-Axel Mörner keeps publishing rubbish but they are the same people who refuse to spend any money to prevent events like Sandy from costing more $$$$ … Maybe he and his supporters should go tell the NY , NJ residents who have lost everything this BS


          Report this

          314

        • #
          c.kracknell

          Mark D….While you just cut and paste from the first link you find in google to show your point , that does not mean a FOX news article is FACT … NOAA have confirmed it was not a matter of bad timing at all and NY will get more of these type events… They have over 17 state of the art computer models showing how this and future events will occur … So unusual it is not it is the new normal even insurance companies have factored this in … what used to be a once in 100 year event is now once in 5 – 10


          Report this

          211

          • #

            @C.Kracknell:

            ” … over 17 state of the art computer models … ”
            All of them based on the same massive “correlation = causation” error, being it is CO2 did it. A much bigger mistake than “eating ice cream causes drowning”.
            First time I worked on a mathematical model was back in 1973-4. I knew better than to make the same mistake. Around that time there was also the overwhelming evidence that potato blight was the cause of spina bifida. Also wrong, unfortunately.

            You prefer to believe cobbled-up modelling rather than real world observations?


            Report this

            92

          • #
            Mark D.

            You’re right C. Krack, one shouldn’t rely on Google to confirm what science has observed. So Krack, are you denying that tides are higher during a full moon?

            17 state of the art computer models! WOW. I can’t imagine how that could be much better than actual OBSERVATION!……..I should ask: Why 17 models? Couldn’t get it right with say 10?

            Insurance companies do what makes them a profit. I don’t think they’d care too much if some one scared customers into paying more for their insurance. Getting people to pay more for things…..Hmmmm where have I heard that before…….


            Report this

            103

          • #
            c.kracknell

            Martin things have changed since the 70′s but your mind set hasn’t are you saying NASA , NOAA , BOM , CSIRO , MET are all wrong and some insignificant people on some forum have it right .. i do doubt that .. Your BS assume models stayed the same when in fact they were checked , updated yearly in some cases more often .. The only models that are cobbled up are from the non believers who FAKE charts , report mistruths and distort science … Just like Mark D did below

            Even he cant get something as simple as the correct area in NY where tides are measured eg.. where they want to build sea gates is a hint not in the middle of a river and he thinks he knows more then NOAA .. spare me the BS


            Report this

            210

          • #

            Look several studies have come out in the last couple of weeks. The predictions made from models in the 1990s are spot on or understated the temperature rise. The models obviously were much more sophisticated than correlation ≠ causation.

            The world IS warming and we need to work out how to prevent floods, secure food and try and maintain biodiversity, clean up the environment and so on.

            The methane clathrates under the Arctic ocean and the melting tundra—global warming is accelerating!


            Report this

            113

          • #
            Heywood

            “Look several studies have come out in the last couple of weeks”

            Have you read them? Or are you just parroting what SkS is spouting?

            Did any of these papers explain why there has been no statistically significant warming in 16 years?

            Oh… And have you seen the latest Newspoll?


            Report this

            80

          • #
            Mark D.

            C. Krack, you’re not very good at this. You don’t get very far just slinging mud (poorly at that).

            You are in denial. You deny tides are higher during full moon, you deny that a blogger has used data from an official record, you deny the veracity of that data. You offer no counter evidence.

            Then you follow all that brilliant comment with a complete lie about what I said.

            I predict you’ll have a very short tenure here. Now run along back to year 10 school eh.


            Report this

            81

          • #
            AndyG55

            “secure food and try and maintain biodiversity”

            easy .. allow CO2 to go up to its NATURAL level of about 600-800 ppm.

            NATURE WILL FLOURISH !!!

            And get rid of avian munching wind turbines !!


            Report this

            70

          • #
            ExWarmist

            It goes like this.

            [1] Testable hypothesis -> well documented empirical test using calibrated instrument. RESULT: Contact with Reality, hypothesis is subject to, and may be refuted by the test. (This sort of activity can attract a nobel prize for science).

            or

            [2] Untestable (dogma) hypothesis -> model simulation of how the theory is assumed to work. RESULT: Contact with Fantasy, hypothesis passes with flying colours, next years grants in the bag. (This sort of activity can attract a nobel prize for peace).


            Report this

            40

          • #
            ExWarmist

            Maxine says…

            The methane clathrates under the Arctic ocean and the melting tundra—global warming is accelerating!

            Maxine is a wonderful contrarian indicator – Methane Clathrates will become a future fuel source.


            Report this

            30

      • #
        Geoff Sherrington

        IIRC, the extra rise in water level during Sandy might have been about 6 inches. This represents the rise promoted by the IPCC roughly expressed over the time New York has been a major city with planning processes. One can mount a fairly watertight case that sea level rise from global warming had immeasurable consequences with regard to flooding and Sandy. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/11/05/did-global-warming-reduce-the-impacts-of-sandy/


        Report this

        10

  • #
    janama

    I was talking with a person who spent a lot of time in Cape York fishing and he said the difference between the Pacific Ocean and the Indian Ocean was around 1 ft. If you were travelling around the Thursday Islands you needed a powerful motor because the currents were very strong as the Pacific water flowed to the Indian Ocean.

    Can anyone confirm this?


    Report this

    51

    • #
      Dennis

      That is correct and when you go to Western Australia there are massive tidal flows that it is best to keep well away from in a boat.


      Report this

      30

    • #
      John Brookes

      It seems kind of weird, but the water around the globe is not all at the same level. When the Greenland ice sheet melts, sea levels near Greenland won’t change much at all. Why? Because without the massive ice sheet pulling the ocean towards it (by gravitation), the ocean near Greenland will fall, compensating for the increased amount of water in it.


      Report this

      02

  • #
    Sonny

    A haiku for Maxine

    AGW means Maxine farted.
    The moisture rose on high,
    causing sea to rise.


    Report this

    92

  • #
    Drapetomania

    Nice One
    December 10, 2012 at 9:10 pm · Reply
    Jason-1 & 2 data also show the sea level rising. Are they also manipulating the data?

    Weep..you know we are in an interglacial right.?
    The sea level is rising..no matter what we do or dont do..you understand that right.????????
    Argue with the CSIRO then.
    Any source for Jo`s quote at the top

    In the Maldives, a group of Australian environmental scientists uprooted a 50-year-old tree by the shoreline, aiming to conceal the fact that its location indicated that sea level had not been rising. This is a further indication of political tampering with scientific evidence about sea level.


    Report this

    60

  • #
    Dennis

    Tony Abbott just commented on 2GB that the first task of the next Coalition government is to abandon the carbon dioxide tax. He also said that securing the borders is another top priority. And outlined an impressive new policy framework, detail to be tabled when the next election date is announced.


    Report this

    61

    • #
      AndyG55

      Now if only he could also be persuaded to dump the RET (Renewable energy target) and get rid of alternate energy subsidies, and allow lectricty providers to pay real commercial rates for solar and other feed-in, the cost of electrity could be bought down very significantly, and the country and business could start to prosper again.

      Couple of new coal power stations so we contribute our fair share of the beneficial CO2 plant gas would be a big plus as well.


      Report this

      60

      • #

        Actually, the extra CO2 in the atmosphere is not beneficial to broad range plants not bred in hothouses.

        You need to get out more.


        Report this

        312

        • #
          Dave

          .
          Max,

          I’m going to get out more after this.
          You STATE:

          the extra CO2 in the atmosphere is not beneficial to broad range plants not bred in hothouses

          Are you referring to Australian natives, dicots, monocots, angiosperms, algae – I need help to locate this broad range of plants not grown in hothouses?

          This must be a thesis you are working on Max, as this is the most stupid stunning statement regarding the plant world to date. And amazing that the CO2 ONLY affects (NOT beneficial) the Plants NOT grown in hothouses.

          Max. Quick – give me some examples of this please.


          Report this

          60

          • #

            I mean plants growing outside “on the range” and I posted a link further down.

            CO2 is plant food—at higher levels it reduces moisture and nitrogen uptake with consequent reduction in protein levels.


            Report this

            09

          • #
            KinkyKeith

            Relax Dave.

            It’s OK.

            She has a LINK.

            Problem solved.

            Whether she/he understands the contents of the link is another matter but what the hell another warmer

            would be very impressed that she had put up a link.

            Now.

            I have done a calculation, and if all of the links thrown up by the Warmer Cognoscenti were “linked”

            together, tail to tail, or should that be nose ring to nose ring, as in being led by farmer Garnaut,

            or should that be PNG Despoiler Garnaut, then, all of that would encircle the world three times from

            Sydney harbour going against the Sun and there would be enough left over to cross the rising oceans to

            the West Coast of the USA then across the continent to the shore of Manhattan island and right up to

            the front door of the United Nations Building where all this crap started.

            That calculation has 90% certainty of any error being within one standard deviation from the mean link

            length of 86.7 characters: ie. + or _ 356 km.

            KK :)


            Report this

            20

        • #
          Dave

          .
          Oh Oh – forgot to ask also Max.

          So in theory this covers all the plant Carbon pathways C3, C4 and CAM. How did you get these results Max.

          Amazing stuff Max. I await your reply.

          This is really exciting Max.


          Report this

          50

          • #
            AndyG55

            If the Greens wanted to green the world, the single fastest way to do it, is to raise carbon dioxide levels. :-)

            But they don’t want to green the world.. they are ACTIVELY FIGHTING AGAINST IT !!!

            Doesn’t make sense ?? Illogical.

            Around 600-800 ppm CO2 would be nice.

            Keep going China and India :-)


            Report this

            40

          • #
            AndyG55

            C3′s and Cams love the stuff, go berserk :-) .. (assuming other nutrients are kept up to them)

            C4′s don’t mind extra CO2, helps a bit especially in dry conditions, allows lower amounts of crop irrigation because of higher efficiency of water use, this is a big plus for agriculture and the environmental flows in irrigation areas.
            C4 plants evolved to cope with lower CO2 levels, so you would expect them not to respond as much.


            Report this

            20

        • #
          AndyG55

          Gees, you missed out on biology at high school too..

          Did you even get past year 8 ??????


          Report this

          40

        • #
          AndyG55

          You truly do live in an alternate world, devoid of any basic reality, Amazingly STUPID !!!


          Report this

          20

        • #
          ExWarmist

          Maxine says…

          Actually, the extra CO2 in the atmosphere is not beneficial to broad range plants not bred in hothouses.

          You need to get out more.

          However, the official climate science of the United Nations Environment program which states…

          Increased concentrations of CO2 may boost crop productivity. In principle, higher levels of CO2 should stimulate photosynthesis in certain plants; a doubling of CO2 may increase photosynthesis rates by as much as30-100%. Laboratory experiments confirm that when plants absorb more carbon they grow bigger and more quickly. This is particularly true for C3 plants (so called because the product of their first biochemical reactions during photosynthesis has three carbon atoms). Increased carbon dioxide tends to suppress photo-respiration in these plants, making them more water-efficient. C3 plants include such major mid-latitude food staples as wheat, rice, and soybean. The response of C4 plants, on the other hand, would not be as dramatic (although at current CO2 levels these plants photosynthesize more efficiently than do C3 plants). C4 plants include such low-latitude crops as maize, sorghum, sugar-cane, and millet, plus many pasture and forage grasses.

          Do you study any of the official climate science? Do you actually know anything about the actual CAGW position?


          Report this

          40

        • #
          Sonny

          FART OH MY GOD MAXINE THAT FART WAS TERRIBLE.
          ITS A BRAIN FART!


          Report this

          30

      • #
        Dennis

        The alternative energy subsidies are being dropped in NSW and I understand the federal “renewable energy” levy that has been imposed for a few years on electricity bills is another Abbott Coalition target.


        Report this

        31

        • #
          AndyG55

          “federal “renewable energy” levy that has been imposed for a few years on electricity bills is another Abbott Coalition target.”

          oh.. I’m really really happy if that is true !!! :-)


          Report this

          21

    • #
      Catamon

      Yup, but you have to work out if it was something considered, or said in the heat of the moment, and assess its believability on that basis. Remember, this is a bloke with a history of outright lies when speaking on the national media. Lots of porkies out there on the record, particularly about “Australians for Honest Politics”. Oh, and meeting prominent Catholics before formulating policy.
      And really, if its on 2GB……


      Report this

      211

  • #
    sophocles

    This year, the Artic ice’s melt apparently set a new record, beating out 1939. Antarctica also set a new record for the largest pack-ice field yet and Antarctica’s ice cap has been increasing, not melting. We may actually be poised on the brink of great changes …

    According to some solar scientists, the present quiescence of the sun may be the preliminary to it plunging into another Maunder minimum (the original was 1645-1715 with the 1690s the
    coldest period). Solar Cycle 24 (due to peak in a few months) is already well below the
    predicted intensity, and learned observers are muttering about sun-spots disappearing
    completely (as they did in the Maunder minimum) any time soon.

    Should old Sol fall into another Grand Minimum, then don’t sell your shares in wool.
    The change to cold could be quite rapid if a recent paper is correct (“North Atlantic Ocean has been cooling for last 70 years”) as the recent warming may have been all Urban Heat
    Island effect, meaning there won’t be as much heat stored in the oceans as some think.

    Rising sea levels will therefore not even be moot as water is locked up in growing glaciers
    and ice caps … the next 30 years are promising to be very interesting.


    Report this

    52

    • #

      You have your fingers in your ears going “La la la la l can’t hear you!” Dear god the wishfulfillment, the escapism is over the top. The world is warming and it is our fault. Now we have to deal with it.


      Report this

      416

      • #
        Dennis

        There has been a new cooling period for 16 years to date, a number of sources confirm this including NASA satellite data. Warming and cooling is a natural part of Earth Cycles that alarmists attempt to exploit for political agenda purposes.


        Report this

        71

      • #
        memoryvault

        The world is warming and it is our fault.

        No it’s not, and no it isn’t.

        Point 1

        The world is warming . . .

        Not for the last decade and a half it hasn’t. Meanwhile . . .

        . . . and it is our fault.

        Point 2

        CO2 continues to go up, proving beyond doubt a lack of causation between increased CO2 and increased atmospheric temperatures. Since there is obviously no relation between CO2 and temperature, we can in no way be responsible for the non-warming we aren’t having at the moment.

        Please spare us the “natural forces temporarily overwhelming CAGW”, or the “global warming causes global cooling” hysteria. Only an imbecile or a climate scientist would mouth such unscientific, illogical crap and expect to be taken seriously.


        Report this

        110

      • #
        AndyG55

        “The world is warming and it is our fault”

        Ahh.. so you are a member of the GISS or HadCrud team.. makes sense now !


        Report this

        30

      • #
        Ross

        Maxine
        If it is so “cut and dried’ for you I hope you are taking up Tony from Oz’s challenge and are lobbying very hard for the Government to close all coal fired power stations immediately.
        The situation is so critical according to you so there is no alternative –if you are not up to the challenge then I suggest you think about your real motives.


        Report this

        30

      • #
        sophocles

        You have your fingers in your ears going “La la la la l can’t hear you!

        Really? My post was a distillation of research wisdom from a stack of recently (November
        and December this year) published scientific papers I’ve been reading. If you wish to read them too, you can find some of them on the Internet and I see some of them are listed and summarised on the hockeyschtick blog (linked here) so I won’t waste Jo’s valuable disk real-estate republishing links, titles and abstracts you can obtain for yourself. However, I will make one exception:
        The paper is:

        Polynomial Integration Tests on Anthropogenic Impact on Global Warming.
        Authors: M Beenstock 1, Y. Reingewertze 2, and N. Paldor 3

        1. Department of economics, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Mount Scopus Campus,
        Jerusalem, Israel
        2. Department of economics, George Washington University, 2115 G St., Washington DC, USA
        3. Fredy and Nadine Herrmann Institute of Earth Sciences, the Hebrew University of
        Jerusalem, Edmond J Safra
        Campus, Givat Ram, Jerusalem, Israel.

        From the abstract:

        “We have shown that anthropogenic forcings do not polynomially cointegrate with global
        temperature and solar irradiance. Therefore, data for 1880–2007 do not support the
        anthropogenic interpretation of global warming during this period …
        … there is no relationship between temperature and the anthropogenic anomaly, once the
        warming effect of solar irradiance is taken into consideration.”

        The full paper can be downloaded from:
        http://www.earth-syst-dynam.net/3/173/2012/esd-3-173-2012.pdf

        Be careful reading it, Maxine, it has maffs in it, but you should be able to enjoy the tables and the pretty charts.

        The world is warming and it is our fault. Now we have to deal with it.

        As there has been no net warming over the last 15 years, we can deduce the world is not warming, so what is there to deal with? Whichever way temperatures go from now, it’s not our fault, nor is there anything we can do about it, but we do have to adapt to them. If you want something to blame, look at (but not directly!) the big yellow nuclear reactor which crosses the sky every day…without it, we wouldn’t have a climate.


        Report this

        61

        • #
          John Brookes

          Ahh yes. The paper that, like so many others, searches for some, any, statistic that might possibly show that CO2 didn’t do it. It finds some vaguely related statistic that does the job, and away it goes. Mathturbation is what it is called.


          Report this

          02

        • #
          KR

          sophocles – I don’t know if this thread is at all active anymore, but:

          The polynomial cointegration technique is not appropriate for climate data. If the data are “stationary”, ie return to the underlying trends after a disturbance, and retain the same mean/variance around the underlying trends, then you should use regression to analyze linkages, not polynomial cointegration.

          The Beenstock et al paper is essentially a claim that temperatures are performing a random walk, based upon a basic misuse of the tests for non-stationary data, as is described in some detail here, and especially here. There is also a discussion of the Beenstock paper here.

          Proper use of those tests for non-stationary behavior clearly show that temperature data is trend stationary (returning to underlying trends if perturbed), that the climate is not on a random walk, and not incidentally that “ratcheting” step changes such as those Tisdale proposes from the ENSO are not possible (again, returning to the trends after ENSO extremas).

          Which is only to be expected, as the climate changes based on physics, not random walks, upon conservation of energy. Beenstock et al is a lousy paper, and that should have been caught in review.


          Report this

          00

  • #
    KR

    As a repeat of something that might be buried in the various exchanges:

    I would strongly recommend a video by Jerry Mitrovica discussing sea level rise, discussing evidence ranging from coral heads (recording the Pacific highstand that led to atoll islands), Roman fish tanks (limiting total change since the Roman era), changes in solar eclipse timings (changes in Earth’s angular momentum due to the distribution of water between polar ice caps and oceans), changing distances to the Moon driven by tide levels, etc. The currently observed sea level rise rates (and acceleration) are unlike anything seen in about the last 10,000 years.

    It’s about half an hour – a bit long – but if you are interested in what support there is for discussing changing sea levels, it’s well worth the time.

    [Geek notes] He also discusses some very interesting aspects of gravitational effects from melting ice – if the entire Greenland ice sheet melted (which isn’t going to happen any time soon!) sea level at the Greenland shore would drop 100 meters because of the decreased gravitational attraction from the ice, with a zero point about 2000km out, and sea level rise past that. Basic Newtonian gravitation. There’s some ongoing research looking at whether deep ice age distribution of the ice sheets can be calculated back from regional patterns of sea level changes due to gravitational shifts.


    Report this

    511

    • #
      JFC

      Thanks KR, I just did and found it fascinating. Real science by a real scientist, not some washed up old codger with an ideology axe to grind.


      Report this

      411

      • #
        angry

        I’m sure the both of you (JFC & KR) will have a nice time tonight together ……….


        Report this

        72

      • #
        ExWarmist

        Looks like a budding bromance…


        Report this

        31

      • #
        Andrew McRae

        Nils-Axel Mörner has a superlative publication record and he is now nearing the end of his career.

        Did it never occur to you that these two facts imply that he A) knows what he’s talking about, and B) is now free to call a spade a spade? There can be few other scientists who meet both of those criteria in sea level dynamics.

        People should accept what the tide gauges show because they are a direct measurement of the quantity in question, they show the SLR that people will actually have to deal with on their own coast, and they do not all come from a single bottlenecked source of dubious operations.
        People should additionally place importance on what Dr Mörner says about published sea level data.


        Report this

        61

      • #
        Sonny

        You too could cuddle up watching documentaries about the alarming 3mm / year and rising sea levels [snip]. That’s government academia for you.

        [Enough! act you age] ED


        Report this

        21

  • #
    Bulldust

    ZOMGZ … stop the presses, Bulldust is going to be on topic!

    Phew, it seems the CAGW fantasy is taking another leap into the unknown at the ABC with a blog at The Drum today expounding on the issue of “climate refugees” that will undoubtedly come in the next few decades:

    http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/4418898.html

    It is the confluence of two hot topics in “right thinkingland” … if only they could have worked misogyny into the story as well… oh well, missed opprtunity I guess…


    Report this

    74

  • #
    Drapetomania

    Nice One
    December 11, 2012 at 6:32 am · Reply

    The sea level is rising..no matter what we do or dont do.

    So you think Nils-Axel Mörner is wrong. I agree with you.

    I have no idea who Morner is….the link I showed..was showing nothing out of the ordinary.
    The “argument” is not if it is rising..but if the rising is “out of control”/human induced…and rising everywhere at the same rough rates.
    Glad I could help you. :)
    OT
    RE “maxine”
    I just read “Maxines” posts…Its one of the regulars here doing those posts impersonating a $CAGW$ fan..
    How obvious is it..”she” is making really mad claims..then backing them with nothing…
    ITS A FAKE PERSON trying to make all of them look mad.
    The give away was the plants comment..
    Game over..I dont think thats fair..!!!


    Report this

    50

    • #

      http://www.nature.com/scitable/knowledge/library/effects-of-rising-atmospheric-concentrations-of-carbon-13254108

      There you go little fellow, read the above—will make your pretty head hurt I am afraid, they use long words!

      Summary—less nitrogen in the plants which means less protein. CO2 emissions need to be curbed!


      Report this

      114

      • #
        AndyG55

        No, you just feed them more nitrogen. If you do this, the normal balance is maintained.

        You do this by rotating with legumes which respond incredibly well to increased CO2 but massively increased root structures and greatly increased nitrogen fixing.

        and if you are truly worried about a small drop in protein percentage in plants grown in nitrogen deficient soils, then
        .
        .
        .
        .

        EAT MORE MEAT !!


        Report this

        60

        • #
          ExWarmist

          Correct AndyG55.

          The study also fails to take into account that the actual plants are in fact bigger.

          The end result is that plant eaters will simply consume more plants, and get both more total calories and more total protein.

          Maxine has the belief that CO2 is inherently bad and can’t cope with the idea that it could be good for anything. He is a successful test subject in the process of propaganda/indoctrination that CO2 is a poison.

          He needs deprogramming – there is no other method that can help – he is impervious to reason.


          Report this

          30

      • #
        AndyG55

        And just to keep you occupied.

        http://www.co2science.org/data/plant_growth/dry/dry_subject.php

        Thousands of studies showing massive gains in plant matter for nearly all plants studied. Enjoy :-)


        Report this

        20

        • #
          AndyG55

          And just an excerpt from elsewhere

          quote start

          This study was conducted at the SoyFACE facility located at the Experimental Research Station of the University of Illinois in Urbana-Champaign, where the air of four plots was enriched with CO2 to approximately 200 ppm above what was measured in four ambient-treatment plots. And what did the U.S. and Australian researchers learn?

          Rosenthal et al. report that after three and a half months of growth at elevated CO2, the above-ground biomass of cassava was 30% greater, while cassava tuber dry mass was over 100% greater than it was in plants grown in ambient air. This result, in their words, “surpasses all other C3 crops and thus exceeds expectations.” And they add that in contrast to the greenhouse study they cited, they found “no evidence” of increased leaf or total cyanide concentrations in the plants grown in the elevated CO2 plots. Thus, it would appear that the ongoing rise in the air’s CO2 content will likely play a major positive role in helping to provide the doubled global food needs of mankind that will prevail at the turn of the century, which is but a mere 38 years from now.

          ” end


          Report this

          30

        • #
      • #
        Dave

        .
        Thanks Max,

        Looks like you’re not doing your thesis in Plant Physiology eh.
        That paper is about Year 10, if that. But if you had even bothered to read the article you may not have shown your gross ignorance.

        You said:

        “Summary—less nitrogen in the plants which means less protein”

        I’ll leave you to figure that one out.
        Bye Max – you’re a dag and a fool. Useless in this debate.


        Report this

        40

      • #
        AndyG55

        Here’s another little snippet for you

        Seems CO2 increases antioxidants in citrus as well..

        Gees I’m looking forward such a BOUNTIFUL, HEALTHY planet. :-)


        Report this

        30

      • #
        AndyG55

        Let me guess.. inner city latte set.

        Never grown a thing in your life, except an indoor plastic plant.


        Report this

        30

      • #

        Cheeses Max!

        If I want protein I’ll eat some (bits of) animal and/or it’s produce.
        If I want carbo-hydrate, I’ll eat some bits of plant.

        Plants are poor dietary sources of protein. Humans were able to evolve because they realized and exploited the benefits of eating meat and other animal produce.


        Report this

        10

      • #
        angry

        “Maxine”,
        Obviously you have never been inside a greenhouse !
        The levels of carbon DIOXIDE, PLANT FOOD, inside are far far higher than they will ever reach in the atmosphere.
        What the hell do you think happens to the plants inside ?
        THEY THRIVE !
        Go back to primary school and learn some basic science and grow a brain !!!!!!!!

        @@##%&^$%%!


        Report this

        32

        • #
          Nice One

          THEY THRIVE !
          Go back to primary school and learn some basic science and grow a brain !!!!!!!!

          @@##%&^$%%!

          I suspect the at the University of Gothenburg are a little bit better than primary school children when it comes to figuring out the impact of elevated CO2.

          http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/12/121210080631.htm

          Elevated levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide stimulate the photosynthesis and growth of most plants. However, unless plants increase their uptake of nutrients to a corresponding degree, their yields will have a lower nutritional value. A lower level of the nutrient nitrogen results in a lower protein content, and thus poorer nutritional quality.

          Perhaps you should leave primary school and go to University?


          Report this

          23

          • #
            Debbie

            Good work in totally missing the point Nice One.
            Awesome!


            Report this

            22

          • #
            Nice One

            The point that the real world doesn’t protect plants from other affects of a warming planet in the same way as a controlled greenhouse does? That the success of one species and the decline of another species means greater displacement of native species and less biodiversity?

            Yeah, I got that point. Was there anything else of interest you wish to say?


            Report this

            33

    • #
      Mark D.

      Oooooh Maxine, someone is challenging you. The gauntlet has been thrown. Quick get the pistols! Can I be a Second? Please pretty please?

      Drapetomania, It is sad but Maxine really does believe the crap he/she posts. Always the same M.O. toss comments around like cat turds but never ever take up and argue a point.


      Report this

      40

    • #
      Nice One

      Drapetomania says:

      I have no idea who Morner is

      LOL. Scroll to top of page.


      Report this

      21

  • #
    Bulldust

    In somewhat related good news, it appears that the people handling our pension funds are by-and-large ignoring the CAGW alarmism much to the chagrin of Mr poulter in th elinked article:

    http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/business/a/-/national/15607740/worlds-pension-funds-ignoring-climate-risk-survey/

    Mr Poulter bleats that the pension funds are ignoring the dire warnings and few have placed their investments to account for the awful impacts which are sure to happen.

    You wonder why people are turning away from the traditional media when entertaining material like this is published ad naseum…

    Yes, that’s rhetorical.


    Report this

    50

  • #
    Geoff Sherrington

    Maxine,
    You are promoting an article that is summarised in tight terms using a mixture of bases of expression (area, volume, mass, density) that are non-traditional and not needed to tell a straight story. I mention in passing that I spent nearly a decade conducting experiments of just this type, dissecting plants into major parts such as roots, leaves, stems etc, chemically analysing the constituents after the plants had been treated to numerous combinations of food, factorial experiments with interpretation by analysis of variance.
    Take a quote from your source “Leaf nitrogen concentrations in plant tissues typically decrease in FACE under elevated CO2, with nitrogen per unit leaf mass decreasing on average by 13% (Ainsworth & Long 2005).” Let’s say that is correct. We then have to ask if it is a harm or a benefit or has no consequence. The reference is lessened without an explanation.
    There are quite a few examples in you favoured paper that do not explain observations properly. The available literature that I have read on CO2 enhancement of growth points to many more advantages than disadvantages; but then, one major disadvantage can be discoverd that ruins the whole concept. So while you are correct to read the literature, unless you are prepared to get your hands dirty actually doing the work, you don’t get down to the levels of comprehension needed to fully understand the papers and to find any fatal flaws that might exist.
    But, one can only plough through so much in a lifetime. Better to go in deep than dabble if you have the choice. Also, remember that Mauna Loa CO2 levels are not usually all that relevant to crops at ground level, in case you see counter claims.


    Report this

    111

    • #
      Dave

      .
      Geoff,
      It’s sad to see such generalisations in reference to the production of amino acids in plant physiology and the effect of CO2 levels have, such as Maxine has given. The fact that the majority of amino acids are contained in legumes, grains, nuts, fruits and seeds seem to be overlooked by many.

      As you pointed out so easily, the complexities of the different food sources, natural flora and even landscaping plants are not understood by many in relation to different environmental factors.

      It worries me greatly that this concentration by the likes of the CAGW crowd on effects of CO2 on everything while totally ignoring the real environmental concerns, botanical research, zoological research etc etc. Their main aim is renewables and finding any thread of evidence for an unknown cause to gain the media spotlight in order to raise money.

      With some of the above CAGW crowd and their comments, I now feel better because of their exhibited total lack of knowledge in these areas.

      Unfortunately – they are in positions they shouldn’t be.
      Bring back the old QLD DPI. They had real scientists, real work, real research, real results.


      Report this

      60

  • #
    Drapetomania

    Mark D.
    December 11, 2012 at 4:02 pm · Reply
    Drapetomania, It is sad but Maxine really does believe the crap he/she posts.

    Hi Mark

    So its not one of you winding up people with inane twaddle..and it even just attempted some lame sarcasm.. :)
    Fair cop..Okay..I was wrong.
    I just saw it post something about “co2 must be curbed”..
    Does that mean it doesnt use any form of motor vehicle or..public transport and is off the grid 100%. and grows its own food.
    Or is it oblivious to using these things and just gets off on a pseudo guilt trip by lecturing that other people should “do somefink”
    I would have some respect for some of these mindless halfwits if they were even mildly consistent and asked how the environment was helped by these sort of rorts..here here here..
    But they stay silent..thats what truly frightens me..if this sort of thing happens..and their moral compass is so damaged..what else will they stand by and watch happen..without saying anything..


    Report this

    60

  • #
    Beowulf

    Well he does that all the time on all the sites he visits. Whether he’s “Maxine” or Monk or some other id. He has his own website and spouts Labor rhetoric ad nauseam ad infinitum. that is where he comes from not the sciences. He’s been bragging how Maxine has destroyed your arguments so I thought i’d drop in and see for myself. :-)


    Report this

    50

  • #
    RoHa

    Hockey Schtick has this:

    NOAA 2012 report finds sea levels rising at less than half the rate claimed by the IPCC

    They come up with a figure of 1.1 – 1.3 mm/year from 2005-2012. I find the idea of measuring the sea level to such precision hard to believe, but if that is the rate of sea level rise, the solution is simple. Don’t pee in the sea when you are at the beach.

    http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com.au/2012/12/noaa-2012-report-finds-sea-levels.html


    Report this

    30

  • #
    Duster

    The following abstract is well worth a glance. The article itelf, published this year in the Journal of Climate published by the American Meteorological Society, is pay-walled. The abstract however is quite explicit, “…We find a 12% or 86 Gt y-1 increase in ice sheet accumulation rate from the end of the Little Ice Age in ~1840 to the last decade of the reconstruction. This 1840-1996 trend is 30% higher than that of 1600-2009, suggesting an accelerating accumulation rate. …” The authors do find a positive correlation with temperature to a point, but see inconsistency on local to regional scales, and suggested that there are hemishperic couplings. The key take away is that the GIS is not melting; it is growing (potentially consistent btw with increased iceberg calving). A corrolary would be that if the growth is positively correlated with temperature, then it follows that as long as temperatures remain below freezing, some warming may actually enhance ice sheet growth.


    Report this

    30

    • #
      KinkyKeith

      Brilliant piece Duster.

      Many would find it counter intuitive that rising temperatures at the equator could lead to increased ice at the poles.

      The increased evaporation at the equator that deposits rain, sleet and snow on the poles is real.

      KK :)


      Report this

      20

    • #
      John Brookes

      Yes, Duster, that makes perfect sense, and maybe the total ice in the antarctic is increasing, but it definitely appears to be reducing in the NH. If you are a farmer in the US, you’d have to hope that low north polar sea ice doesn’t correlate with the hot weather last year and in the 1930′s.


      Report this

      01

  • #
    Maniks Read

    [ Hi thanks for sharing the information.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    [...] think the strongest point is the one Nils Axel Morner has made about the extraordinary adjustments in the raw satellite data, which Willie Soon refers too soon after the 20 minute [...]


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Carbon500

    I rather like Nils-Axel Morner’s comment about science in his pamphlet ‘The Greatest Lie Ever Told’:
    “In human history, we have built up a common way of handling scientific questions which is based on three fundamental steps: observation – interpretation – conclusion.”
    He goes on to say:
    “The IPCC have introduced a new way of handling a serious question, which has a totally different base: idea – modelling to prove the scenario – lobbying to endorse the scenario. It also includes the choice of loyal persons instead of relevant experts.”


    Report this

    00