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



Sea level rise slowed from 2004 – Deceleration, not acceleration as CO2 rises.

A new paper shows that sea levels rose faster in the ten years from 1993-2003 than they have since. Sea levels are still rising but the rate has slowed since 2004. This does not suggest that the missing energy from the atmosphere has snuck into the ocean, but rather that the oceans and the atmosphere were both warming faster in the 1990′s, then as coal power ramped up in China and billions of tons of CO2 was released, both the atmosphere and the ocean did not gain more energy per year, but less. That message again — something else appears to be the main driver the climate, not CO2.

Their highlights include:

  • The global mean sea level started decelerated rising since 2004.
  • Deceleration is due to slowdown of ocean thermal expansion during last decade.
  • Recent ENSO events introduce large uncertainty of long-term trend estimation.

This paper discusses and graphs total sea level rise, steric sea level rise and the global mean ocean mass. The Steric Sea Level is the part of the rise due to warming and salinity changes, so it best represents changes in ocean heat content. The total rise also includes water coming or going due to changes in glaciers, run-off, ice,  evaporation and rain. GRACE data measures only the changes in gravity, which is caused by changes in water mass. Jason/Topex altimeter satellites measure the total sea-level changes and the steric component is calculated from the altimitry and GRACE data. I chose only the steric sea level graphs here, but the total sea level graphs and ocean mass graphs are also available in the paper.

All this comes with the caveat that inasmuch as most experts accept that seas were rising by 3mm a year in the 1990′s, the raw satellite data showed next to nothing until it was adjusted. Hence the rate changes discussed in this paper could be an artefact of those adjustments. Sea levels might not have slowed their rate of rise, it may be that it was not rising very quickly in the first place, and is still not rising very fast. Either way, it doesn’t support the theory that pumping out CO2 makes much difference.

That said, the change is most obvious in Figure 1b.

Figure 1b The global mean steric sea level (GMSL) with the ending date changing from 1 to 24 months earlier relative to December 2012 (bottom panel, thin lines end with the color from red to yellow). The IMFs of each time series, corresponding to the high-frequency noise, the annual
cycle, the interannual variability, and the trend function (see text), are given as the colored lines in the panels from top to bottom, respectively. The ensemble mean of the IMFs on the different time scales during 1993-2010 are given as the thick black solid line in each panel. The colored bar in the third panel is the normalized Nino 3.4 index with arbitrary amplitude. The statistical confidence interval of the trend function is given by gray shadow in the bottom panel. The data is in units of cm.

The details of the rate of change:

The intrinsic trend of the [Global Mean Sea Level] GMSL derived by EMD exhibits an accelerated rising period during 1993-2003 with mean rate 3.2±0.4 mm/yr and a decelerated rising period since 2004 with the rate about 1.8±0.9 mm/yr in 2012.

Here’s the clincher… the cause of the change in the rate was mainly due to the shift in the PDO (Pacific Decadal Oscillation):

Comparison between the [Global Mean Sea Level], the global mean steric sea level, and the global mean ocean mass indicates that the decreasing of the rising trend is mainly due to the stalled ocean heat content which started in the early 2000s, when the PDO switched from the warm polarity to cold polarity…

The changes are apparent in figure 5b below — this is the average steric sea level rises before and after 2003. A large section of the central Pacific seems to have shifted from gaining heat before 2003 to losing heat in the last decade.

Figure 5b. Mean trend of the steric sea level rise during (top) Period 1 (1993-2003) and (bottom)
Period 2 (2004-2012).

..

Over the last 20 years the oceans have been gently expanding sometimes at faster rates and sometimes slower. Note this graph is the rate of the change in the rate… not a simple graph of the rate itself.

Figure 2. The instantaneous rate of interannual variability of (b) the global mean
steric sea level, i.e. the first-order time derivative of third IMFs shown in Figure 1.

Of interest:

“The regression of the global sea level and the global steric sea level on their corresponding third IMFs (Figure 3) shows very similar ENSO-like patterns. Notice that the sea level can adjust to changes in the ocean mass within a matter of days through barotropic waves travelling at speeds of order 200 m/s [Lorbacher et al. 2012], the spatial pattern of the ocean mass change on the interannual time scale is nearly homogeneous in the world ocean. This indicates that the spatial pattern of the internanual variability of the GMSL should be attributed to the steric sea level change, while the amplitude is dominated by the change of the ocean mass.”

H/t To The HockeySchtick

REFERENCE

Chen, Feng, Huang (2013)  Global Sea Level Trend during 1993-2012Global and Planetary Change online 13 November 2013. [abstract]

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 10.0/10 (2 votes cast)
Sea level rise slowed from 2004 - Deceleration, not acceleration as CO2 rises., 10.0 out of 10 based on 2 ratings

Tiny Url for this post: http://tinyurl.com/kdg4mfa

105 comments to Sea level rise slowed from 2004 – Deceleration, not acceleration as CO2 rises.

  • #
    scaper...

    I’ve always thought that by supplying extra water (pumping out ground water for irrigation) to the cycle kind of explains sea level rises to me.

    Yeah, land rises and slumps too but if mankind is to utilise groundwater that, in many cases takes thousands of years to replenish, the water cycle is getting bigger and the extra water has to be distributed somewhere.


    Report this

    95

    • #

      Pumping ground water has another interesting effect–sinkholes that swallow houses. Florida is being swallowed up by multiple sink holes. We may need to rethink the water cycle and water usage.


      Report this

      43

      • #
        Eddy Aruda

        The reason Florida has sinkholes has nothing to do with water usage. The land underneath the houses consists of porous carbonate rock. The oxygen in the water causes an acid to form with the limestone and dissolves the rock. If there is enough weight on the rock then it collapses. Nature, not man causes sinkholes.


        Report this

        100

        • #

          http://weather.aol.com/2013/08/13/why-is-florida-prone-to-sinkholes/

          Yes, the limestone is part of the reason. However, all the reports I saw and read say pumping ground water contributes to the sinkholes forming.


          Report this

          10

          • #
            Eddy Aruda

            Sheri,

            i share your concerns about the ecosystem in Florida and particularly the state’s hydrolgy. In fact, I am in Florida on business right now!

            The only time when pumping water out of the ground would exacerbate the problem would be during a severe drought. Florida has a huge system of aquifers. The state manages the water system through local water agencies to ensure that excess well drainage does not occur.

            http://floridaswater.com/watersupply/howsinkholesform.html

            Sinkholes are part of the slow, natural process of erosion in Florida’s limestone terrain that occur over thousands of years

            Many natural sinkholes cannot be prevented. However, those caused by human activity may be avoided, especially those caused by over-pumping groundwater. During dry conditions, water tables drop in the limestone and cavities under Florida’s sand and clay soil. The combination of gravity, loss of buoyancy and water pressure can activate a collapse.

            By keeping water tables high, water conservation rules and drought restrictions are tools to help prevent sinkholes from occurring. The St. Johns River Water Management District promotes year-round water conservation and issues watering restrictions to prevent water shortages and over-pumping during Florida’s inevitable times of drought.

            Florida has a huge system of aquifers.

            http://www.dep.state.fl.us/swapp/aquifer.asp

            The Floridan aquifer is one of the highest producing aquifers in the world.


            Report this

            20

    • #
      Greg Cavanagh

      I’m confident your assumption that “in many cases takes thousands of years to replenish” is over estimated by thousands of years.

      The imediate subterranean water replenishes with a good rain. I don’t know much about the deeper water, but over the years I’ve found most statements on these sorts of subjects are wildly out.

      I don’t believe water percolates through the rocks to get to the deeper reservoirs. Water dissolves its own passage and flows with gravity.


      Report this

      20

  • #
    AndyG55

    I remember seeing an old Chinese, or maybe it was Japanese, sea level chart (a few years ago now).

    It seemed to show a 250-300yr oscillation. A quick eye-balling seemed to indicate that the next peak would be reached around 2020 – 2030.

    If its starting to level out now, it might actually happen. Will be interesting. :-)


    Report this

    102

  • #
    Richard111

    And what happens to the sea bed? Is it rock steady? /sarc


    Report this

    71

    • #
      AndyG55

      We know now that there are definitely volcanic “mountains” growing under the oceans and one only has to look at movements around Yellowstone to realise just how much the Earth’s surface can move. The oceans cover some 70% of that surface.

      It would not take much upward movement of some part of the Pacific Ocean floor to cause a continued rise in the world’s general sea level.

      It is naively stupid and ignorant to blame all sea level rise on warming, but these are climate scientists, so this trait can be expected.


      Report this

      40

    • #

      There is also displacement to consider. The great rivers of the Earth transport a lot of silt into the oceans.


      Report this

      10

      • #
        AndyG55

        Yes.. Basic geologic FACT is that the Earth is always trying to level its surface.

        Its based on a little thing called Gravity !!

        This means eroding the high parts.. the mountains, land etc,
        and filling the low parts… the ocean.

        One should also not that many of the thin parts of the crust are below the oceans.
        I would be very surprised if these were not very gradually rising in places.


        Report this

        10

  • #

    Didn’t sea level rise, which started in the late 1700s, begin to slow after the 1860s, so that the biggest decadal rises were before that?

    If the president did preside over the slowing of the rise of the oceans, it was President Lincoln, not President Obama.


    Report this

    101

  • #
    Graeme No.3

    Al Gore, Tim Flannery, Kevin Rudd and Julia Gillard have all bought houses by the sea side. If the sea dares rise any further they will send some “peaceful” Greenpeace protesters round.


    Report this

    142

    • #
      Eddie Sharpe

      To form a boarding party and let them in through the a first floor window ?
      How far can it rise in the 7 years before they’ll be free for thief next gig ?


      Report this

      50

    • #
      Dave

      .

      These GREEN idiots put the problem in the water that caused all sea level rises since 2011.

      Now Tony Abbott has removed this problem, sea level will resume to normal levels. :)


      Report this

      81

    • #
      AndyG55

      Flannery’s problems are more likely to come from the new Warragamba spillway being operated.

      I would sooooo love to see that happen :-)

      “never fill the dams”, and all that :-)


      Report this

      122

  • #
    Jaymez

    This takes me back to your excellent post on Sea Levels back here Jo:http://joannenova.com.au/2011/07/global-sea-levels-started-rising-before-1800-jevrejeva/

    I recommend anyone who hasn’t read it go back and read it. From this latest paper, and the longer term sea level data you discussed in the previous post, it is pretty clear climate alarmists are clutching at straws when blaming any rise in sea levels on CO2 emissions.

    The UN IPCC claim they are 95% certain that humans have caused most of the global warming since 1950 yet the rise in sea level since 1950 is indiscernible from the natural trends well before human greenhouse gas emissions could have had an influence.

    http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/graphs/sea-level/jevrejeva-sea-levels-1700-1800-1900-2000-global-2.gif

    This simply shows yet again that the UN IPCC and climate alarmists in general are way too fixated on CO2 and are deliberately blind to natural climate variables. Until this wilful ignorance is broken, and the only way that will happen is by breaking the funding model for climate science, it will continue!


    Report this

    162

  • #
    ROM

    Every now and then I have to go back and delve into the entrails of the now closed Weatherzone Climate Forum to find stuff that we discussed at length there even some quite a few years ago. The WZ Climate Forum was closed of course due to the actiities of a few fanatical global warming zealot trolls and we suspect that perhaps a well known Queensland university person who runs a n alarmist web site might have also been placing considerable pressure on Fairfax who now owns WZ to shut the forum down as I suspect it was quite damaging to the warmist cause.

    And boy did those climate alarmist trolls boast about their getting the WZ climate forum shut on their very strident Hotwhoppers zealot’s site or what ever they call it.

    There were also a couple of other notorious [ask Anthony Watts ] warmist fanatics involved plus a fanatical zealot green who is still posting and has now totally destroyed the agricultural thread there with his truly crazy green conspiracy beliefs and tried to do the same to anything that dared question any aspect of the green religion.
    Saw somewhere recently where somebody called ROM as well as somebody called JoNova got an honorable mention in Lewendowsky’s polemics.
    Of such is great honor bestowed

    The WZ climate forum archives are still getting a heck of a lot of traffic for there is a power of research and information in there that some very, very bright and switched on contributors made to that climate forum.
    Anyway got that bit of spleen off my back.

    I had to go back into the WZ climate forum archived Sea Level thread to find this particular NASA satellite presentation which unfortunately I can’t illustrate here .

    The PPT is called Geodetic Reference Antenna in Space (GRASP):
    It was presented at a 2011 NASA conference which was all about correcting the discrepancies in satellite height analysis and I will just quote the relevant sea levels comments off that PPT which you can if you wish look up and check for yourselves

    I quote from slide 4 of the PPT

    Is sea level accelerating?

    Impact of TRF Error on Global Mean Sea Level (GMSL) Record from Space borne Altimetry:

    [ TRF ; Terrestrial Frame of Reference ]
    [ GMSL ; Global Mean Sea Level ]

    The money quote
    Impact of TRF on GMSL Record from Tide Gauges; : competing approaches for TRF realization yield estimates for sea-level rise ranging from 1.2 to 1.6 mm/yr.

    So NASA satellite researchers, note not sea level researchers, back in 2011 from their satellite data which they were trying to improve the already very good spatial accuracy of gives sea level rises of between 1.2 to 1.6 mms / year.

    A long way from and about half of the claimed 3.2 mms / year that the global warming alarmists of the CSIRO and the Colorado University sea level specialists are claiming after of course, all those so essential to accuracy adjustments are made to the data tables
    Frankly a couple of those adjustments to the sea level data tables are quite bizarre and bear no reality to the actual real seal level change measurements .
    Naturally those adjustments, al of them, increase the supposed official sea level rise and so we get that 3.2 mm repeated ad nauseum plus where they can get away with it somewhat more than that is proclaimed.
    Even the IPCC only comes in at about a maximum of 30 cms or so of sea level rise over the next century. A bit down on their AR4 claim of closer to 65 cms by the end of this century
    .
    The actual official global tide gauge readings from around the world, some of them very long term and others with short period or very broken period data can be found here ;
    Permanent Service for Mean sea Level
    Just click through the station ID number and lots of other information about the site listed can be clicked through.

    To make it easier to follow, the stations / locations are grouped roughly in their countries and the data follows a rough longitudinal sequence around the globe

    For instance FUNAFUTI, station ID 1452 Tuvali, the one the usual alarmists claim is sinking below the sea due to rising sea levels from global warming hasn’t had any perceptible long term changes in it’s seal levels from the FUNAFUTI tide gauge since about 1978.
    What is very obvious in the FUNAFUTI gauge data is the large rise and fall in sea levels that coincide with the Pacific’s ENSO phases.
    So if you want to check out the real sea level data for yourself, there’s a couple of sources to look at.


    Report this

    202

  • #
    Ian

    I wonder if this paper will be mentioned in Real Climate or Skeptical Science or The Guardian.


    Report this

    70

    • #
      Peter Miller

      Of course not, this is real science, not scary ‘science’.


      Report this

      50

    • #
      Philip Shehan

      Here’s the clincher… the cause of the change in the rate was mainly due to the shift in the PDO (Pacific Decadal Oscillation):

      If the “clincher” is that the variation in sea level rises is due to PDO, it means that CO2 is not having any less influence on the global temperature. Its simply another modulation of the AGW caused temperature and sea level rises by “natural” processes. And yes skeptical science has covered this.

      http://www.skepticalscience.com/The-Pacific-Decadal-Oscillation-and-global-warming.html

      As figure 2 shows, PDO causes a slowdown in rising temperatures, and thus sea levels due to thermal expansion at some periods and an increase at others.

      We are currently in a low pahase of the cycle.


      Report this

      13

      • #
        AndyG55

        “it means that CO2 is not having any less influence on the global temperature”

        Nothing less than ZERO .

        Same as ALWAYS.


        Report this

        51

      • #
        Philip Shehan

        Even respectable skeptics recognise that CO2 causes a rise in atmospheric temperature. They disagree on the magnitude of the effect caused by an anthropogenic contribution.

        AndyG55 is denying almost two centuries of the findings of basic physics, not to mention the experience of any chemistry student who has ever used a standard analytical tool, infrared spectroscopy, to dentify the C=O bond in organic compounds due to its ability to absorb infra red radiation.


        Report this

        13

        • #
          MemoryVault

          Even respectable skeptics recognise that CO2 causes a rise in atmospheric temperature in questionable lab experiments that have never been shown to be duplicated in real life.

          There, fixed it for you, Philip. Now for a dose of reality. CAGW “theory” dictates:
          CO2 UP => temperature UP

          Observed data shows:
          CO2 UP => temperature UP, and DOWN, and UP, and DOWN . . . .

          Therefore CO2 “theory” falsified.
          End of story.
          QED


          Report this

          31

          • #
            Philip Shehan

            Memory vault. CO2 UP => temperature UP

            Correct. NO-ONE with a scintilla of knowledge of the subject says that CO2 is the only factor affecting temperatures.

            The rise due to CO2 is superimposed on variations due to natural and other man made forcings. These modulations do not prevent data since 1850 showing the theoretically expected dependence of temperature on log CO2 concentration with a correlation coefficient r = 0.91 of a maximum possible value of 1.

            http://oi46.tinypic.com/29faz45.jpg

            The data since the operation of the Muana Loa site in 1958 is in agreement with the longer term data for the temperature increase observed with a doubling of CO2 concentration 1.9 +/- 0.03 C vs 2.04 +/- 0.07 C.

            http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1958/mean:12/plot/esrl-co2/from:1958/normalise/scale:0.75/offset:0.2


            Report this

            04

            • #
              Richard C (NZ)

              >”…the theoretically expected dependence of temperature on log CO2 concentration with a correlation coefficient r = 0.91 of a maximum possible value of 1.”

              Heh, what’s the actual CO2/Temp correlation coefficient Philip? Isn’t it R²=.43 for HadCRUT3 and MSU?

              On the other hand, PDO+AMO+sunspot integral R² = .96


              Report this

              20

            • #
              MemoryVault

              NO-ONE with a scintilla of knowledge of the subject says that CO2 is the only factor affecting temperatures.

              That’s funny, Philip,’cos it’s certainly not the way I remember it. As recently as 2010, in an interview with Roger Harrabin of the BBC, Professor Phil Jones, Director of the CRU at the UEA, confirmed not once, but twice, that “natural factors” had been ruled out in accounting for the preceding warming.

              If “natural (cyclical) factors” are too weak to account for the warming, then logic dictates that the same “natural factors” cycling the other way, cannot account for the cooling. You can’t have it both ways, Philip. And yet Professor Jones’ views were the predominant meme at the time, shared by Hansen, Mann, Schmidt, Steffen, Karoly, Chubb, Flannery and all the other usual suspects. The same people, coincidentally, now claiming the exact opposite.

              .
              You also can’t rely on the “CO2 warming is still happening but is being masked” “theory”, without accounting for all the “missing” CO2-induced atmospheric heat. Originally it was claimed to be in the tropical tropospheric hot spot, but it turns out there isn’t one.

              Next it was somehow magically “seeping” into the oceans from the atmosphere, in defiance of several known physical properties, not to mention observable fact, and then even more magically descending undetected to the ocean deeps.

              A third problem with this delightful fairy story is, even if it were somehow true, the dastardly, dangerous “missing heat” would now have dissipated towards entropy (around 3 deg C), from whence it could never return as sensible heat (energy) to do any damage.

              .
              As for your graphs – repeat after me – correlation does not prove causation. Here is a graph showing a much better correlation than CO2, between rising temperatures and the cost of US postage stamps.
              Here is another graph clearly showing an inverse relationship between global temperatures and the number of pirates.

              .
              Give it up Philip. It warms for about thirty years, and then it cools for about thirty years, in line with the PDO 60 year cycle. These cycles in turn fit into longer cycles of warming and cooling, as evidenced by the MWP and the LIA.

              Your prophets and their prophecies have failed you, Philip.
              Time to get a new religion.


              Report this

              50

          • #
            AndyG55

            thanks MV..

            This brainless turkey really has NO IDEA, does he.

            A lab experiment in a close container.. somehow equates to the Earth’s atmosphere….. DOH !

            WAKE UP, SHELDON !!!!

            And yes.. we KNOW all this supposed extra heat is playing “hide and seek” with the warmists.. and WINNING easily !!!! :-)

            That is because the “hidey heat” is way more intelligent, even though it has no brains.


            Report this

            31

        • #
          Richard C (NZ)

          Philip Shehan, you say:

          Even respectable skeptics recognise that CO2 causes a rise in atmospheric temperature. They disagree on the magnitude of the effect caused by an anthropogenic contribution.

          Quite right. Just what is the effect of added CO2 whether natural or anthropogenic?

          The IPCC have adopted Myhre et al’s dF = 5.35ln(C/Co) and extrapolated to accommodate the 2xCO2 scenario but the extrapolation has never been verified. Only the initial 200ppm is effective as verified for combustion engineering e.g Lallemant, Sayret and Weber (1996). Not saying that CO2 performs in exactly the same way in a furnace as it does in the atmosphere but where is the verification of the IPCC forcing expression? A simplified expression that was verified in Lallemant, Sayret and Weber is the Hottel/Leckner curve which is log-log rather the IPCC’s log expression. A comparison between the two is here:

          http://tallbloke.files.wordpress.com/2010/07/eggert-co2.png

          The Leckner curve is valid for 279K i.e. mid-lower troposphere. For what temperature is the IPCC forcing curve valid for (citation and quote please)?

          Additional concentration past about 200ppm has no effect according to a verified forcing curve (Leckner).

          Then you say:

          AndyG55 is denying almost two centuries of the findings of basic physics, not to mention the experience of any chemistry student who has ever used a standard analytical tool, infrared spectroscopy, to dentify the C=O bond in organic compounds due to its ability to absorb infra red radiation.

          I very much doubt that AndyG55 is denying anything of the sort but the issue is not that CO2 absorbs IR. I think we all know it does and that the molecule is thermalized when intercepted by a photon ray but what happens then?

          CO2 re-emits i.e. it is an efficient energy transfer medium, in fact a coolant, refrigerant code R744. This works to good effect in the thermosphere in conjunction with the other major coolant to eject dollops of energy to space that reach earth from CMEs.

          But more importantly, how effective as a heating agent is the re-emitted LWIR that is directed down to the surface of the earth (land and ocean). Where is the IPCCs empirical proof that LWIR is a surface heating agent at all?

          Measured downwelling LWIR (DLR) is actually from GHSs+clouds and does not exhibit the same trend as rising aGHGs globally or regionally (there are papers I can cite e.g. Wild, Stephans).

          Now here’s the thing Philip, DLR does not penetrate water beyond about 10 microns (Hale and Querry 1973 and others) therefore DLR is not an ocean heating agent. All it does is aid evaporation i.e. ocean cooling. Solar SW on the other hand IS an efficient bulk ocean heating agent penetrating down around 100m in the tropics.

          And good luck finding studies showing DLR heats land above what solar does. There have been studies in the Swiss Alps on the sunlit side and dark (diffuse sunlight/DLR) side of mountains. Only on rare occasions was DLR a warming factor but even then the effect was not solely due to GHGs but in combination with diffuse sunlight in the day and clouds day and night.

          There is a lot more work to be done in climate science to prove DLR from GHGs is actually a heating agent. The IPCC AR5 report (a culmination of 25 years of investigation) only “expects” “air-sea fluxes” (they don’t distinguish between radiative or sensible heat but lets assume they mean radiative) but they cannot and do not cite any supporting scientific evidence (See Chapter 8: Radiative Forcing).

          In short, “almost two centuries of the findings of basic physics” is immaterial if the advanced physics is missing.


          Report this

          41

          • #
            Richard C (NZ)

            Should read”

            The IPCC AR5 report (a culmination of 25 years of investigation) only “expects” “air-sea fluxes” [to be the anthropogenic ocean heating mechanism]


            Report this

            11

          • #
            Philip Shehan

            Richard, see my reply to Memory vault regarding empirical confirmation of the temperature log CO2 concentration hypothesis.

            It is true that CO2 reradiates the energy it absorbs but it does not all go back into space. It is also radiated downward toward the surface. And infra red radiation is not heat directly. It is the conversion of the radiant energy into kinetic energy of gas molecules and moleculse and atoms in solid objects they strike on the surface which is observed as a temperature rise.

            The fact that UV rays do not penetrate sea water by more than 10 microns does not lessen the effect of temperature rise due to kinetic energy.


            Report this

            14

            • #
              Richard C (NZ)

              Philip

              see my reply to Memory vault regarding empirical confirmation of the temperature log CO2 concentration hypothesis.

              Yes seen it and replied with links to actual empirical CO2/Temp correlations for HadCRUT3 and MSU (0.44) and the PDO+AMO+sunspot integral correlation (0.96)

              It is true that CO2 reradiates the energy it absorbs but it does not all go back into space. It is also radiated downward toward the surface.

              Yes we know, two networks, BSRN and SURFRAD, measure it.

              And infra red radiation is not heat directly. It is the conversion of the radiant energy into kinetic energy of gas molecules and moleculse and atoms in solid objects they strike on the surface which is observed as a temperature rise.

              What temperature rise (evidence please)? Sure LWIR re-radiates in all directions (only a fraction goes directly down) but there is no evidence that downwelling LWIR (DLR) is actually a heating agent (greater than solar, even after a nights cooling) at the surface on either land or ocean surface enough to cause a measurable temperature rise.

              If say, the measured DLR at Darwin is around 400 W.m2 24/7 (which it is), there’s a major energy source going untapped that could be harnessed with collectors at night but no-one is silly enough to bother because the energy is only apparent i.e. no real power effect to heat.

              The fact that UV rays do not penetrate sea water by more than 10 microns does not lessen the effect of temperature rise due to kinetic energy.

              Wrong here Philip. UV is in the solar spectrum and what reaches the surface certainly does penetrate the ocean to depth (about the same as IR-A and IR-B in the solar spectrum i.e. LESS than the 3/4 micron wavelength where energy-per-photon is relatively high (see the Electro Magnetic spectrum).

              DLR is IR-C GREATER than 3/4 microns where energy-per-photon is relatively low hence the lack of water or land penetration and the absence of measurable temperature rise.

              I’m calling your bluff here Philip. If you’re still of a mind that DLR from GHGs+clouds in the 3/4 – 16 micron band of the EM spectrum actually has any heating effect on land and ocean (beyond evaporative cooling of the ocean surface) then prodiuce scientific evidence and stop waving your hands like Marcel Marceau i.e. citations to literature, IPCC report quotes, or anything credible that can be reproduced. In other words, put up or shut up.


              Report this

              40

            • #
              MemoryVault

              regarding empirical confirmation of the temperature log CO2 concentration hypothesis.

              I see. So now correlation is not only causation, but is also confirmation. And of itself, no less.

              Fair enough, Philip. In that case you may take the two graphs I posted in reply as confirmation that increasing global temperatures were caused by the increasing cost of US postage stamps, and the dwindling supply of pirates.

              .
              Twit.


              Report this

              31

            • #
              AndyG55

              You do of course realise that CO2 energy absorption is only logarithmic to about 200ppm.. then it becomes saturated? ie.. that’s all there is, we canna get any more…

              So since the atmospheric concentration is and has been above 200ppm for a very long time, there is NO EXTRA FORCING from any rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration.

              Strange that this 200ppm mark is also around the point at which plants cease to be able to carry out photosynthesis. Even 400ppm is still quite dangerously low for a hopefully expanding biosphere.
              If we ever allow it to drop back down the subsistence level of 280 or below, the world is in deep do-do !!!

              If we want to continue to feed the world, we really need to push this up to 800ppm or above , and STOP using food crops for fuel. This is total insanity when we have such large reserves of perfectly usable gas and oil. As is wasting land and destroying avian life with munching wind turbines and roasting solar towers.

              The pseudo-environmentalists have a LOT of destruction of nature to answer for.
              And now you want to stop the plants from feeding as well.

              Totally despicable and unconscionable behaviour.

              And you Sheldon.. are one of them.


              Report this

              20

        • #
          ColdinOz

          I think it would be more correct to say that CAGW sceptics accept that the atmospheric concentration of CO2 could be expected to influence global temperature. However we still await Empirical evidence that demonstrates if that s correct and if so by how much. And that is a very reasonable scientific position to adopt.


          Report this

          10

  • #
    ROM

    Ok! Off topic but man o’ man, this hits the mark dead center and the CSIRO is right in the gun sights

    http://www.stevehunterillustrations.com.au/Political%20cartoons_files/Gravy%20train.jpg


    Report this

    60

  • #
    Geoff Sherrington

    The lack of change in raw data can perhaps be seen in this paper, which Wu referred me to when I asked him if there was any evidence of the Carey postulate of the Expanding Earth.
    Accuracy of the International Terrestrial Reference Frame
    origin and Earth expansion
    X. Wu,1 X. Collilieux,2 Z. Altamimi,2 B. L. A. Vermeersen,3 R. S. Gross,1
    and I. Fukumori1
    Received 11 March 2011; revised 22 May 2011; accepted 23 May 2011; published 8 July 2011.
    GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 38, L13304, doi:10.1029/2011GL047450, 2011


    Report this

    50

    • #
      Andrew McRae

      They can locate the center of mass of the earth so accurately that they can track it moving at 0.5mm/yr?? It’s delusion or magic, I don’t know which, but bloody amazing either way.

      That’s fascinating from a climate perspective because if European glaciers were melting and the oceans were warming you’d get movement of the CM towards the Pacific ocean. That assumes the mantle is completely homogeneous and not full of giant floating blobs of different density rock, so you would never be able to reason in the reverse direction by estimating the CM movement, but I’m sure someone will try.


      Report this

      10

    • #
      ROM

      Could only access the abstract but still very interesting and a subject I hadn’t really come across before . Thanks Geoff


      Report this

      00

  • #

    ROM is quite correct apropos Weatherzone. Much to be dealt with ! Armidale has a climate day on Sunday:carnival atmosphere with crystal-gazers and fire breathers in attendance- organisers tell people to dress in orange or red to exemplify the dire straits we are in! I hope it rains.


    Report this

    60

    • #
      Andrew McRae

      Isn’t tomorrow supposed to be GetUp!’s national day of face painting and noise pollution?

      Brisbane Forecast for Sunday 17 November. Cloudy. Scattered showers, increasing to rain in the late afternoon. Isolated thunderstorms.

      Well clearly our sacrifices under the RuGillarddd™ government came too late, the weather gods are already angry and raining on GetUp for their laziness in protecting the Home Tree from the intergalactic Abbott mining corporation or wot eva.

      I see one of the things they needed to organise was on-site electricity generators.

      No.

      No they wouldn’t, would they?? ;)


      Report this

      61

  • #
    Neville

    Thought I’d just link to a post of mine earlier this year (at Jennifer Marohasy’s blog) about SLR from Greenland and Antarctica until 2300.

    Comment from: Neville April 8th, 2013 at 9:17 am

    I was just re-reading Lomborg’s book and especially his section on SLR and looking at the Royal Society’s graphs again on Antarctica and Greenland. These are the models used by the IPCC.

    http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/364/1844/1709/F4.large.jpg Of course the Antarctic ice mass ( all models negative for SLR) is about nine times the size of Greenland’s ice mass. ( all models positive for SLR )

    But the rate of the negative SLR trend from Antarctica is also greater than the positive trend from Greenland, particularly as the graphs extend towards 2300 or another 300 years.

    But the Gore Hansen SLR trend until 2100 is about 6 metres or 20 feet, while the IPCC expects Greenland to contribute just 3.5 cm by 2100, or about 1.4 inches.

    So how do Gore and Hansen have any credibility at all and why do they have so much influence ,support and promotion in the MSM?

    Remember also that the IPCC 4th report states that about 29 cm ( about 1 foot) of SLR would be expected by 2100, but 21cm ( 8.5 inches) of that rise would be due to thermal expansion.

    So what does all this really tell you about the claims of impending dangerous SLR and the ongoing CAGW scare as well?


    Report this

    60

  • #
    Neville

    Matt Ridley will appear on the Bolt Report on sunday 10 am channel 10. Repeated 4pm.
    His talk at last nights IPA meeting can be seen at the link. Absolutely brilliant, I hope Jo and David have the time to watch.

    http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/the_bolt_report_on_sunday33/#commentsmore


    Report this

    41

  • #
    Fox from Melbourne

    Jo said it again since China ramped up its coal power plants and released billions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere the Green theory’s just haven’t stacked up. The temperature stopped increasing the level of storms decreased and the sea level has stopped increasing too. But why? How can this all be. CO2 is a greenhouse gas but a weak one. Yes its levels are increasing but the temperature isn’t. Could it be that something else in the emissions is stronger and more powerful than CO2. Well dirty coal power stations emit Aerosols which are powerful globe cooling gases. Penny dropping anyone? Hot and cold water mixed together in your sink equal what? Run away boiling if your a true green believer but for the rest of us more skeptical minded of us neutral temperature. Could china using dirty old Coal power technology have caused the hiatus? Well the true believers don’t want to know that because their leaders from way back in the Seventies and eighties lobbied for us to stop using and end the use of dirty coal power technology. Go figure. Aerosols cooling effect lasts for 3 to 5 years. Check the dates of the anti pollution laws they got introduce and the levels of the Aerosols in the atmosphere. Cross check that against the temperature and the claims from green group that the world is about to warm up and we’re all about to die. The time lines look like they knew something was about to happen and the science hints at who is to blame. Not us. Don’t think so great explain this Aerosols (Cooling gases) are taken away warming gases left behind 3-5 years later temperature raises. 2-4 years later Green groups start telling us we’re all about to die because the worlds going to warm up. Volcano erupts in 93 Aerosols up Temperature goes down. Aerosol level falls temperature goes up again. China starts build one or more dirty Coal power stations a week for a decade and Aerosol way up and guess what we end up with 15-17 years of Hiatus. As simple us hot and cold water in the sink. Me think the Greens should stop playing with the taps. Oh ya just one think since the Greens are blaming Tony Abbott for the Bush fires in N.S.W. and the Typhoon in the Philippines for his plans to repeal the Carbon Tax. Why isn’t anyone blaming them for it. After all their Carbon Tax was meant to effect the Climate and change the weather and since it was in effect when these events happened could it be to blame? Well I know the people that read Joanne nova’s blog need evidence of such things but when was the last time the media really looked at the evidence? Please spread the word that Carbon Tax was meant to change the weather and maybe it did and just maybe it coursed the bush fires and the Typhoon and what ever else comes along. See how long they point their greens finger tips around when fingers get pointed back at them. Try it and see.


    Report this

    10

  • #
    ROM

    One of the great alarmist myths perpetrated by the alarmists and greens is that sea level rise will lead to the drowning ["drowning" compared to "submerging" has a far more sinister tone to it and the blame that comes with "drowning" something is quite transferable to some preferably "skeptic low life" [ sarc/].] of numerous low lying tropical islands across the oceans of the world.

    It makes for some pretty devastating reading and confirms the claims of millions of climate refugees from those island lands appearing off our shores at any moment which fills the intentions of the climate alarmists very well indeed.

    Trouble is for the alarmists that all their claims in this direction just ain’t true.
    Or worse are grossly misleading and plain lying.

    What seems to be the seminal paper on this is from a couple of New Zealand researchers [ Australia's eastern inhabited Islands ]
    The paper
    ;The Dynamic Response of Reef Islands to Sea Level Rise: Evidence from Multi-Decadal Analysis of Island Change in the Central Pacific

    It goes on to show that the those low lying tropical islands are quite capable of adapting to rising sea levels through a number of previously unsuspected mechanisms .
    Coral growth in the lagoon barriers and reefs and islands are one compensating factor
    Another is the way sediments are swept away in one part of the island [s] and deposited in another .
    The full abstract as below on this important paper which has undercut and falsified all those alarmists and green catastrophist claims that rising sea levels mean the end of numerous islands as human habitations and the end of the islands themselves.

    Again I had aerial and satellite photos on the WZ climate forum from some other research on the coral islands which had been taken over a few decades and showed very well how the islands had moved over time and adapted to the rise in sea levels and how many of those islands had over a couple of decades actually increased in area as described in this paper below

    Abstract;
    Low-lying atoll islands are widely perceived to erode in response to measured and future sea level rise. Using historical aerial photography and satellite images this study presents the first quantitative analysis of physical changes in 27 atoll islands in the central Pacific over a 19 to 61 year period.
    This period of analysis corresponds with instrumental records that show a rate of sea level rise of 2.0 mm.y-1 in the Pacific.

    Results show that 86% of islands remained stable (43%) or increased in area (43%) over the timeframe of analysis.
    Largest decadal rates of increase in island area range between 0.1 to 5.6 hectares.
    Only 14% of study islands exhibited a net reduction in island area. Despite small net changes in area, islands exhibited larger gross changes. This was expressed as changes in the planform configuration and position of islands on reef platforms.

    Modes of island change included: ocean shoreline displacement toward the lagoon; lagoon shoreline progradation; and, extension of the ends of elongate islands.
    Collectively these adjustments represent net lagoonward migration of islands in 65% of cases.

    Results contradict existing paradigms of island response and have significant implications for the consideration of island stability under ongoing sea level rise in the central Pacific.
    First, islands are geomorphologically persistent features on atoll reef platforms and can increase in island area despite sea level change.
    Second; islands are dynamic landforms that undergo a range of physical adjustments in responses to changing boundary conditions, of which sea level is just one factor.
    Third, erosion of island shorelines must be reconsidered in the context of physical adjustments of the entire island shoreline as erosion may be balanced by progradation on other sectors of shorelines.
    Results indicate that the style and magnitude of geomorphic change will vary between islands.
    Therefore, Island nations must place a high priority on resolving the precise styles and rates of change that will occur over the next century and reconsider the implications for adaption.


    Report this

    40

    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      ROM,

      As was pointed out to me, by a Green politician, there is a distinct difference between drowning and submerging. Submerging is when an object sinks under the surface, apparently. Like a submarine. Drowning, is when the water surface rises to cover the object.

      “Right, so that means that all of the unplanned deaths in water, are caused by a spontaneous increase in the volume of water present”? “I am glad I now understand the distinction, and the logic behind it.”


      Report this

      41

  • #
    blackadderthe4th

    New map pinpoints cities to avoid as sea levels rise

    ‘SYDNEY, Tokyo and Buenos Aires watch out. These cities will experience some of the greatest sea level rises by 2100, according to one of the most comprehensive predictions to date…Sea levels have been rising for over 100 years – not evenly, though. Several processes are at work, says Mahé Perrette of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research in Germany. Some land is sinking, some is rising. Stronger currents create slopes in sea surface, and since all things with mass exert a gravitation pull, disappearing ice sheets lead to a fall in sea levels in their surrounding areas.

    Perrette has modelled all of these effects and calculated local sea level rises in 2100 for the entire planet. While the global average rise is predicted to be between 30 and 106 centimetres, he says tropical seas will rise 10 or 20 per cent more, while polar seas will see a below-average rise. Coasts around the Indian Ocean will be hard hit, as will Japan, south-east AUSTRALIA and Argentina (Earth System Dynamics, doi.org/kbf)’

    http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21729034.900-new-map-pinpoints-cities-to-avoid-as-sea-levels-rise.html


    Report this

    111

    • #
      Eddie Sharpe

      “one of the most comprehensive predictions to date.”

      but no less speculative for that.

      From New Fantasist. Need I say more ?


      Report this

      81

    • #
      Backslider

      disappearing ice sheets lead to a fall in sea levels in their surrounding areas

      LMAO!!!


      Report this

      70

    • #
      Eddy Aruda

      Do you read the links that are contained in the articles that you link to?

      From Perrette, et al which was linked to by the the New Scientist article you linked to:

      Here, we present an alternative approach to derive regional sea level changes for a range of emission and land ice melt scenarios, combining probabilistic forecasts of a simple climate model (MAGICC6) with the new CMIP5 general circulation models.

      By using models as the basis of his papers his credibility is zip. The models failed miserabley when it came to forecasting the current hiatus in warming. Perrette’s reasoning is circular, at best!

      You are the kind of useful idiot I was referring to at comment #18


      Report this

      91

      • #
        blackadderthe4th

        ‘By using models as the basis of his papers his credibility is zip’, I think not!

        The IPCC climate change computers are doing a good job!

        ‘put them into a computer and you get something that comes out and looks really something that looks like the real atmosphere…how good is the physics in the models that you can actually tweak it, and get out something that is really realistic, so you can test that in various ways, you can do historical runs where you put in changes in GHG, changes in the Sun that you know have taken place over the past decades and compare the results…and we can do those pretty well too…if you look to very small scales…if you looking at large regions just north , mid latitudes , trpical sort of regions it does a pretty good job. You think there must be something right about the physics in that we are doing that and that gives us some faith in what we are predicting in the future…[…do you think the IPCC on the whole is doing a good job?]…I think it is doing a fantastic job…it is there to review work that has been published in peer reviewed scientific journals, so it is not doing any of its own work…collating all the information…producing this report and it is then reviewed more heavily than any scientific paper you can imagine…hundred and hundreds of referees, it is a huge amount of work…you know if you put a load of scientists in a group together they are not going to decide to agree with each other…they are all going to disagree with each other, so consensus is very, very hard to achieve…means you can be pretty sure that has been worked through…I object to the use of the term sceptic because there is absolutely nothing wrong with being sceptical, like all good scientists…[…are we doing enough to prevent the potential disaster in years to come].. No not at all, precious little…temperatures are going to carry on increasing…because the increasing trend has flattened off recently so that has given succour to the CC deniers…it’s all gone away, but I don’t think that’s the case at all!’ Joanne Haigh.

        Now watch for yourself!

        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2KHCX4NNa0Iis


        Report this

        19

        • #
          Rereke Whakaaro

          … you get something that comes out and looks really something that looks like the real atmosphere …

          Well there is some clear thinking for a start. Not.

          … how good is the physics in the models that you can actually tweak it, and get out something that is really realistic

          Really realistic, or just something that is not real, but looks plausible, in that it might be real, if only it were true?

          … you can do historical runs where you put in changes in GHG, changes in the Sun that you know have taken place over the past decades and compare the results …

          Ah, something sensible, except it describes a simulation (which is not the same as a predictive model).

          You think there must be something right about the physics in that we are doing that …

          There is nothing wrong with the physics, it is your understanding of the physics which is in question.

          … and that gives us some faith in what we are predicting in the future.

          I never question a person’s religeous beliefs, but in regard to modelling (as opposed to simulations), you can never know, what it is, that you don’t know, so their “having faith” in their ability to accurately predict anything over any reasonably long time frame, is probably unjustified.

          It [the IPCC] is there to review work that has been published in peer reviewed scientific journals, so it is not doing any of its own work…collating all the information…producing this report and it is then reviewed more heavily than any scientific paper you can imagine … if you put a load of scientists in a group together they are not going to decide to agree with each other…they are all going to disagree with each other, so consensus is very, very hard to achieve…

          So, the process is all about compromise – reaching a position where the least number of people violently disagree. Either that, or you find people who are totally unqualified to have an informed opinion on anything.

          Whatever happened to the much vaunted “concensus”, I wonder?


          Report this

          60

        • #
          Eddy Aruda

          Blackadderthe4th, I suspect you are a defective clone. Were your three predecessors as inept and illogical as you? Were they also incapable of deductive reasoning or rational thought?

          Since Rereke has already done a thorough and impressive job of eviscerating your comment I will simply add that your comment begins with a false premise, The IPCC climate change computers are doing a good job! The IPCC does not run computer simulations. That is done by the rent seeking cabal of climate scientists crooks that are determined to milk the taxpayer for every dime they can. The rest of your reasoning is circular because it is based upon a false premise and you are using the same to make your case.

          The rest of your drivel is non sequitur.

          In the interst of entertaining our readers and regulars and since you obviously relish playing the part of site jester I will ask you a few questions that a knowledgeable warmist with a towering intellect such as yourself should have no problem answering.

          1.. Why is it that the ensemble of models cited by the IPCC in their recent assessment report failed to forecast the current pause in warming?

          2. Why don’t the models agree with each other?

          3. What is the statistical basis for giving an average for the ensemble of GIGO models that the IPCC cites?

          Watching you debase yourself trying to answer these questions should be analogous to putting you in a round room and asking you to,umm sit in a corner!


          Report this

          72

          • #
            blackadderthe4th

            [Almost the entire comment has been posted before and only a week or so ago. I thought it was too boring to publish (especially since it disagrees with even BA's own experts. But for the sake of Eddy knowing that BA is trying to converse... and as evidence that BA's technique is simply to repeat poor arguments with a cut and paste, here is the conversation mods and I are having with BA as we SNIP... - Jo]

            ’1.. Why is it that the ensemble of models cited by the IPCC in their recent assessment report failed to forecast the current pause in warming?’ define pause?

            [SNIP "Zombies" - BA repeated the whole cut-n-paste inane paragraph and the youtube link here too, and at WUWT. - Jo]
            As can be seen here!

            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t5sxBSa6Tck
            [That hoary old biography is starting to grow grey whiskers. Temperatures go up and down - wow, who-da thunk it? Correlation with CO2? Not so much.] -Fly

            [BA Thinks it's worth posting this youtube -- but to refute the "warming has paused" theme, all Alley does is pretend that warming from 1950 - 1996 proves that warming from 1996-2013 is "real". It's not just boring, overly long, but irrelevant too. - Jo]


            Report this

            02

          • #
            blackadderthe4th

            ‘Correlation with CO2? Not so much’ just 500 million years, yip not so much!

            Only 500 million years of evidence that CO2 is a GHG and therefore currently heating up the planet!

            ‘looking back at the effect co2 had in the past and these estimates should show a doubling in co2 we should see rise in global temperatures between 2 and 4.5 degrees, now that’s all basic physics…if basic physics is correct we should see a good correlation between temperatures and co2 over the past 500 million years. Well here is the data for temperatures and we get a very clear, oh dear…but it’s the climate science critics, politicians, the bloggers, amateurs, who showcase this graph that completely ignore the role of Sun and it is the climate researchers who factor it in. Over the last 500 million years solar output has being getting slowly stronger, but of course on its own it doesn’t show any better correlation with global temperature than co2 on its own. But if the co2 temperature levels link is correct then when we factor in both co2 and solar radiants which are the long time drivers of climate we should get a good correlation with global temperatures and we do! And the third piece of evidence from our geological past are the so called snowball Earth conditions…Earth should have being covered in ice and it was, several times…the only thing that changed during the snowball period was the co2 levels rose dramatically due to volcanic activity. The thawing of the planet fits perfectly with the role of co2 as being a powerful GHG…but during snowball Earth that kind of weathering did not happen…yes even with the Sun being about 6% weaker than today but with co2 level 25 times higher, the earth was much hotter than today. His amounts to our fourth piece of evidence that co2 is a powerful GHG…and the process repeated itself…so when I hear the argument the climate always changes and this is perfectly natural…then of course it is. There is absolutely no difference of the co2 bring added to the atmosphere now and the co2 that was added to the atmosphere in the past, it‘s the same stuff. Coming to the recent past climatologist agree that the amount of forcing from the Earth’s change in orbit though to be the initial trigger for deglacierization had no where near enough…I covered this in my video the 800 year lag unravelled…so before you claim co2 only lags temperature…so we have now seen how basic physics should warm the earth and we have seen…consistent with co2 as a powerful GHG…then there is no reason to believe co2 has reformed its behaviour because it has come from burning fossil fuels… Is there any evidence that co2 is causing any warming now. Back in the 1950s, 60s, 70s scientists saw no reason why co2 should change its properties and they predicted as co2 levels rose and aerosols cleared we would start to see warming. Over the last 35 years the atmosphere has being warming…of course not all of the heat goes into the atmosphere. Most of it goes into the oceans and evidence shows the deep oceans are absorbing a lot of the extra heat…’ Potholer54.

            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XbUnp0QDaRo


            Report this

            02

            • #

              Basic physics only warms by 1.1C per doubling – ask James Hansen and the IPCC. So all the talk of “if basic physics is right” is the usual potholer deceit. (And you keep falling for it BA?)

              Henrys Law means global temp causes CO2 to rise and fall so it’s utterly predictable that we find a correlation. .
              What you can’t find is a clear example of CO2 causing a temp rise, or any evidence it causes much amplification either.


              Report this

              20

            • #
              Richard C (NZ)

              blackadderthe4th, you say:

              Over the last 35 years the atmosphere has being warming…of course not all of the heat goes into the atmosphere. Most of it goes into the oceans and evidence shows the deep oceans are absorbing a lot of the extra heat…’

              What makes you think OHC accumulation, which in turn does the bulk of atmospheric heating, is necessarily the result of rising aGHGs?

              From about 1950 to around 2008/9 was the Modern Grand Solar Maximum i.e. solar input to the planetary climate system has been the highest its been for at least 1000 years and temperature (Moberg Lundqvist etc) now is similar to what it was last Grand Maximum.

              Calculation of planetary thermal inertia (lag) by Abdussamatov (14 years), Scafetta (12 years) and Trenberth’s oceanic lag (10 – 100 years) means the effects of maximum solar input will be with us after the end of the maximum in 2008/9. But note that the 2nd decade of the 21st century is already tracking cooler on average than the 1st decade (that the IPCC highlights in their SPM Figure 1a).

              The problem you face if you want to posit a shift from atmospheric heat accumulation (the “pause”) to ocean heat accumulation is to come up with an anthropogenic mechanism that kicked in around 2000 so that the ocean started sucking up heat that was previously accumulating in the atmosphere – good luck with that.

              There’s already enough recent papers that explain the “pause” in terms of natural cyclicity (e.g. Kosalka and Xie, Curry and Wyatt) without having to invoke some mysterious new phenomenon operating since 2000 (but just what is it BTW out of interest?).


              Report this

              20

            • #

              Nice try blackadderthe4th (aka getcarter on James Delingpole’s blogs).

              I notice you get treated with as much contempt down under as you do in the NH.

              Stupid is as stupid does. We keep explaining that to you but still you plow on proving that old saying correct.


              Report this

              21

            • #
              blackadderthe4th

              @Jo Nova

              ‘global temp causes CO2 to rise and fall’ but co2 also causes temperature to rise and fall! Because if it wasn’t for GHG the temperature on Earth would not be very pleasant!


              Report this

              03

        • #
          AndyG55

          Oh dear, poor little BA4 has gone into a completely incoherent mental breakdown.

          Again…


          Report this

          20

    • #
      AndyG55

      As soon as you see that its from Potsdam.. you know its akin to science fiction. !

      And only for the most totally non-thinking gullible fool.


      Report this

      61

    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      Don’t you just love it, when the timeframe is sooooo long that the majority of people who read it today will no longer be around to comment on the lack of eventuation in the future.

      In response, I will state that by 2100, mankind will have developed the mental abilities to project themselves across time and space, to other planets, rendering the projections of sea level rises as merely of academic interest to historians. And if anybody wants proof, I can show you the outputs of my computer model.


      Report this

      50

      • #

        Rereke,

        You need to re-jig your model. 2100 will be too late, as the planet will have been drowned but then, and sea level could be half-way to the moon by then according to a modeller and blogger who is widely revered with the climate community.
        A couple of years ago Joanne Nova blogged about a short paper showing that Australian sea levels rise showed no acceleration. In fact there was a sharp deceleration in the rate of rise around 1960, just as CO2 increases started accelerating.
        This was too much for Tamino, that revered model and blogger. He got out his magic flute computer model-maker and produced a quadratic curve of the rate of acceleration for Fremantle. The rate of acceleration in mm/yr/yr declined until 1960, then took off. There is no limit to this acceleration in the acceleration of the rate of sea level rise. And there was huge amazement and much praise at this feat of trickery.
        So Rereke, no matter what you may jokingly fantasize, somebody will have got there before you and gone beyond.


        Report this

        20

  • #
    GregS

    One rarely hears about the role of aquifer depletion when reading about sea level rise. Fully a third of the increase is attributable to the drainage of aquifers, most significantly in the U.S., Russia, India and Pakistan.

    (See link below.)

    Now here is an interesting twist on the issue… The IPCC does not account for this factor – because of the “uncertainty” surrounding the issue.

    It is amazing how they can make wild leaps into uncertainty when it supports their message then timidly hold back when uncertainty detracts from their message.

    Even more amazing… I have followed this issue for years and have noticed that the literature strongly suggests a major role for aquifer depletion in sea level rise between IPCC reports -but just prior to the cut off for the working groups, a study comes along that casts “uncertainty” into what has been certain for the intervening years..

    Funny how that works

    http://www.waterworld.com/articles/wwi/print/volume-25/issue-5/groundwater-development-flow-modeling/groundwater-depletion-linked-to-rising.html


    Report this

    40

  • #
    Eddy Aruda

    You can lead a warmist to water but you can’t make him drink (apologies to the south end of a north bound horse.)

    A warmist’s reasoning is primarily based on an appeal to pity, Save the environment!

    No amount of peer reviewed literature will convince most hardened deadender warmists. The reality is, a high percentage of the peer reviewed literature is about as reliable as the horoscope.

    An interesting article in The Economist made several salient points.

    http://www.economist.com/news/briefing/21588057-scientists-think-science-self-correcting-alarming-degree-it-not-trouble

    A few years ago scientists at Amgen, an American drug company, tried to replicate 53 studies that they considered landmarks in the basic science of cancer, often co-operating closely with the original researchers to ensure that their experimental technique matched the one used first time round. According to a piece they wrote last year in Nature, a leading scientific journal, they were able to reproduce the original results in just six. Months earlier Florian Prinz and his colleagues at Bayer HealthCare, a German pharmaceutical giant, reported in Nature Reviews Drug Discovery, a sister journal, that they had successfully reproduced the published results in just a quarter of 67 seminal studies.

    John Bohannon, a biologist at Harvard, recently submitted a pseudonymous paper on the effects of a chemical derived from lichen on cancer cells to 304 journals describing themselves as using peer review. An unusual move; but it was an unusual paper, concocted wholesale and stuffed with clangers in study design, analysis and interpretation of results. Receiving this dog’s dinner from a fictitious researcher at a made up university, 157 of the journals accepted it for publication.

    Dr Bohannon’s sting was directed at the lower tier of academic journals. But in a classic 1998 study Fiona Godlee, editor of the prestigious British Medical Journal, sent an article containing eight deliberate mistakes in study design, analysis and interpretation to more than 200 of the BMJ’s regular reviewers. Not one picked out all the mistakes. On average, they reported fewer than two; some did not spot any.

    There needs to be a scientific reformation. I hope I live to see it.

    In the meantime, warmists will discount any paper like the ones Jo posts about. They view life like an old western movie. Their guys where the white hats and consists of the marshal, his deputies and the law abiding citizenry whereas the skeptics are the small minority of outlaws that wear the back hats and that won’t conform.

    It makes sense when you think about it. CAGW, like any religion, is based upon a simple creed (evil humans are destroying the planet by adding a little plant food to the atmosphere) that is supported by a complex theology (IPCC assessment reports) that the faithful accept as a matter of dogma.


    Report this

    51

  • #

    Deceleration, not acceleration in sea level rise? That can’t be right, because Margot said so earlier this week.

    Current sea level rise of 3.2mm is not the only thing you have to consider – the acceleration in that rise is also a fairly important factor.


    Report this

    70

    • #
      Safetyguy66

      Good pickup. The study must be wrong then because Margot is always right.


      Report this

      30

      • #
        Rereke Whakaaro

        Yep,

        It has gotten to the stage now, where I now always assume that everything I read is wrong, including what you have just written, which means that Margot must always be wrong because you stated that she must always be right.


        Report this

        50

  • #
    john robertson

    Climate Science of the IPCC trade mark is so refreshing.
    It frees the “researcher” of any need for data, hypothesis and falsification.
    The new way, chose your conclusion, create lists of correlating information, myth and speculation, publish in the “proper” journals.
    Never mind accuracy, actual data and correlation not being causation.

    The torture of data unfit for the premature conclusions of CAGW, has led to corruption of national databases of our weather.
    History has been inconvenient, making it necessary to rewrite the record.
    Mannian Statistics will live in infamy.
    We cannot currently say if our planet has warmed,cooled or stayed the same of late.
    Ditto for sea level rise or fall.
    The stunning precision of the catastrophics claims beggars the imagination.
    Now whenever a sceptic, uses the data as provided by team IPCC, to show that their conclusions are doubtful, that data is no longer significant(according to the team)
    as in sceptics are doing science, the team was using science as cover,for their anti humanist beliefs, now the cover is blown.
    CO2 emissions continue to rise, estimations of “Global Temperature” and Sea level continue to shrink.(Again using their metrics)
    Reaction from team IPCC…. Invent new data from unmeasured areas.
    Or in english, keep on making up “data” to support the belief.


    Report this

    40

    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      The new way, chose your conclusion [outcome], create lists of correlating information, myth and speculation, publish in the “proper” journals [Green papers].
      Never mind accuracy, actual data and correlation not being causation.

      That pretty well sums up how most political policy is derived.


      Report this

      00

  • #

    [...] Sea level rise slowed from 2004 – Deceleration, not acceleration as CO2 rises. (joannenova.com.au) [...]


    Report this

    00

  • #
    blouis79

    The graphs look pretty. The time scale of under 20 years is too short. Shorter than a single climate data point on the defined 30 years of data for a climate measurement.

    But how does that graph fit in with the paleclimate timescales as shown in IPCC AR5 paeg 5-111 figure 5.3 which shows temperature cycles and sea level over 800,000 years. Over that time scale, we are close to a peak and looking to be headed for a 100m drop in sea level over the next 100,000 years.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Safetyguy66

    One factor I became aware of recently that I have never seen included in the calculations for sea level rise (maybe I just havnt read the right information) is the effect of silt from rivers entering the ocean. The numbers for tons of silt leaving the land and entering the ocean in the study I listened to on the radio were staggering, yet I had never heard it mentioned in relation to what may affect sea levels.


    Report this

    10

  • #
    ROM

    Erosion is countered and compensated for by the rising of mountain chains and isostasy rebound still on going from the melting of the great ice sheets after the end of the last ice age some 20,000 years ago,
    The Himalayas as an example are rising by some 5 mms or more per year as the Indian plate rams it’s way under the Tibetan -Persia- Burma plate in a north bound rate of about 3 cms a year.
    But erosion mostly by water but also the breaking down of rock through stress created by constant changes in temprature plus rampant biological attacks of rock structure by biologically active means just keeps on removing about as much land mass in the form of sediments as the land rise from the tectonic plate movements driving and ramming up against each other creates land surfaces above sea level.
    Without that erosion some of our mountains here on this planet would be larger and higher than Olympus Mons, the Mars Volcano that stands 22 kms high and is 600 kms wide .


    Report this

    10

  • #
    Rereke Whakaaro

    But erosion mostly by water but also the breaking down of rock through stress created by constant changes in temprature …

    Not to mention all the tourist climbers …


    Report this

    10

  • #
    RoHa

    “The global mean sea level started decelerated rising since 2004.’

    This could have been phrased a little more felicitously.

    “Since 2004, the sea has been rising more slowly than before.”


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Andrew McRae

    Jo, `scuse me, m’lady, but here is a belated nitpick.

    “Note this graph is the rate of the change in the rate… not a simple graph of the rate itself.”

    A rate is a time derivative. A rate is a speed.
    A rate of change of a rate is the 2nd derivative. A rate of change in the rate is an acceleration.
    The graph has a vertical axis labelled “rising rate” in units of mm/year, not in mm/year/year. That means it is showing a speed, or a rate of sea level rise.
    Therefore the Note should say “Note this graph is the speed of sea level rise… not a simple graph of the sea level itself.”


    Report this

    10

  • #

    [...] A new paper shows that sea levels rose faster in the ten years from 1993-2003 than they have since. Sea levels are still rising but the rate has slowed since 2004.  [...]


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Richard C (NZ)

    The paper uses Empirical Mode Decomposition (EMD), the use of which is growing among data analysts in the climate arena. I’ve used EMD simply by running HadSST2 and other series through the software available here:

    http://sidstation.loudet.org/emd-en.xhtml

    EMD is an intrinsic signal extraction method (IMFs and residual signal trends are extracted rather than imposed extrinsically) and far more sensitive than an extrinsically imposed polynomial for example.

    A few years ago the HadSST2 EMD residual resembled the accelerating quadratic identified by Dr Nicola Scafetta in HadCRUT3 and used by him in his papers but recent additional data created a new EMD IMF (the old residual became the new last IMF) and residual, the latter resembling the decelerating curve in Figure 1b bottom panel in the above post but leading by a decade or two as I recall without checking i.e. Scafetta’s quadratic is now invalid but that cannot be determined by applying a polynomial alone.

    I have not seen Dr Scafetta acknowledging that anywhere even though Loehle and Scafetta published a paper recently using EMD with HadCRUT4.

    Possibly the reason the EMD technique was employed in this particular paper is that one of the co-authors is Dr Norden Huang, an expert in EMD and the Hilbert-Huang transform (HHT), and previously with NASA GSFC:

    Hilbert-Huang transform

    * Dr. Norden E. Huang, NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, Maryland

    * Dr. Zhaohua Wu, Center for Ocean-Land-Atmosphere Studies, Calverton, MD, USA

    * Dr. Steven R. Long, NASA GSFC / Wallops Flight Facility, Wallops Island, VA, USA; research oceanographer, Code 614.2

    The Hilbert-Huang transform (HHT) is NASA’s designated name for the combination of the empirical mode decomposition (EMD) and the Hilbert spectral analysis (HSA). It is an adaptive data analysis method designed specifically for analyzing data from nonlinear and nonstationary processes.

    http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Hilbert-Huang_transform

    But now when we look at the authors of the paper, Norden Huang is at State Oceanic Administration, China:

    ‘Global Sea Level Trend during 1993-2012′

    * Xianyao Chen a, b,
    * Ying Feng a, b,
    * Norden E. Huang a, b

    * a Key Laboratory of Data Analysis and Applications, State Oceanic Administration, China

    * b The First Institute of Oceanography, State Oceanic Administration, China

    One wonders whether Dr Norden Huang would have been able to co-author a similar paper if still at NASA GSFC? And what were the reasons for his move from US NASA GSFC to State Oceanic Administration, China?

    Also presents some problems for the NASA GISS guys at Real Climate who will not be happy with this paper.


    Report this

    10

  • #
    Heywood

    Troll Warning Amber!

    Brian Philip Shehan (Aka “Dr Brian”) has had a sook about this thread on Bolt’s blog this morning. Stand by for him to jump over here and tell us we are all wrong.


    Report this

    10

  • #
  • #

    The CO2 has no / a marginal effect…..
    Thce climate and the sea level rise is governed by 5 macrodrivers, as calculated in http://www.knowledgeminer.eu/eoo_paper.html
    The AMO and the PDO as well, are both not cause, but effects of those 5 macrodrivers
    of climate. The paper provides the proof for a 20,000 year time span. JS


    Report this

    00

  • #

    [...] NEW PAPER : Sea level rise slowed from 2004 – Deceleration, not acceleration as CO2 rises. [...]


    Report this

    00

  • #

    [...] NEW PAPER : Sea level rise slowed from 2004 – Deceleration, not acceleration as CO2 rises. [...]


    Report this

    00

  • #
  • #
    Peter C

    Bob Carter, in his latest book “Taxing Air” discusses sea level rise. He seems happy to go along with an average sea level rise of 1-2mm/year, although he does talk about unceratianties of taide gauge and satellite measurements.

    One thing he does mention is rising land levels, particularly in Scandinavia, which he attributes to gradual rebound of the continent after millenia of heavy ice cover, which has now gone (10,000 years).

    Thing thing which he does not mention, is that continents also have a continently shelf, which can extend hundred of miles out from the coast beneath the sea. If the whole shelf is rising then the water above it has to go somewhere else, which would give the impression of sea level rise, even though the total volume of water had remained constant.

    One could also add sea floor rise dure to silt deposition where rivers enter the sea.

    That may be more than enough to explain sea level rise and it has nothing to do with CO2 or any currrent supposed global warming.


    Report this

    00

    • #
      The Griss

      There is nothing to say that the sea floor in the middle of the oceans isn’t moving slowly either.

      Its much closer to the mantle, so I would actually be very surprised if it wasn’t moving a bit…
      .. and how would be know if it was say rising by a cm or so year in a big dome someone down deep?

      I read somewhere that the Chinese or maybe Japanese have records that could indicate a cyclic rise and fall of sea level.

      Trying to slate sea level rise down to anthropogenic global warming has way too many “ifs and maybes” attached to it.


      Report this

      00

  • #
  • #