[Al_U_Card]

There is also the cry of "The rate is accelerating!". The question is: "Which way?"

From: Army Corps Of Engineers : Sea Level Rise Rates Have Slowed


There is almost a balance with 30 gauge records showing deceleration and 27 showing acceleration, clustering around 0.0 mm/y2. The mean is a slight deceleration of -0.0014 +/- 0.0161 mm/y2 (95%)

[PassedOut]

Al_U_Card, on 2011-April-22, 07:07, said:

There is almost a balance with 30 gauge records showing deceleration and 27 showing acceleration, clustering around 0.0 mm/y2. The mean is a slight deceleration of -0.0014 +/- 0.0161 mm/y2 (95%)

Or, to put it another way: sea levels continue to rise.

[Al_U_Card]

PassedOut, on 2011-April-22, 08:30, said:

Or, to put it another way: sea levels continue to rise.

We ARE in an interglacial. Sea-level rise at such a minute rate is a good thing.(It is warmer than it was when ice-sheets covered the northern hemisphere.) When sea-level starts to drop, get your snow-shovels ready!

Seriously, the only question at issue is what [CO2] has to do with climate and what we can do about it. Hansen and the CAGW alarmists use their tweaked models to show catastrophic temperature rises that continue to be wrong. With time, we are seeing that rising [CO2] is beneficial to agriculture (as plant food as well as a minute greenhouse effect) and a non-issue as far as climate "control" is concerned. (Now there is an oxymoron, climate control.... ;-)

[PassedOut]

Al_U_Card, on 2011-April-23, 07:57, said:

We ARE in an interglacial. Sea-level rise at such a minute rate is a good thing.

Or, to put it another way: sea levels continue to rise because of global warming.

Al_U_Card, on 2011-April-23, 07:57, said:

With time, we are seeing that rising [CO2] is beneficial to agriculture (as plant food as well as a minute greenhouse effect) and a non-issue as far as climate "control" is concerned.

And who would "we" be?

[Winstonm]

Quote

And who would "we" be?

Seems obvious "we" refers to non-alarmists who use their tweaks to show positive effects from temperature rises.

[PassedOut]

Winstonm, on 2011-April-23, 11:44, said:

Seems obvious "we" refers to non-alarmists who use their tweaks to show positive effects from temperature rises.

I want the names and addresses! (For a marketing venture.)

[Al_U_Card]

Al_U_Card, on 2011-April-23, 07:57, said:

We ARE in an interglacial. Sea-level rise at such a minute rate is a good thing.(It is warmer than it was when ice-sheets covered the northern hemisphere.) When sea-level starts to drop, get your snow-shovels ready!

Seriously, the only question at issue is what [CO2] has to do with climate and what we can do about it. Hansen and the CAGW alarmists use their tweaked models to show catastrophic temperature rises that continue to be wrong. With time, we are seeing that rising [CO2] is beneficial to agriculture (as plant food as well as a minute greenhouse effect) and a non-issue as far as climate "control" is concerned. (Now there is an oxymoron, climate control.... ;-)

The first "we" is everyone.

The second "we" is everyone that can look at the data with a skeptical, open mind.

They are definitely not the people that hid the decline, refused to release publicly-funded data and continue to prevaricate, exaggerate and obfuscate concerning all manner of things climatic.

Good luck with the marketing thing, from the polls, with each day that passes, there are more and more people taking a clear-eyed look for themselves.

[Al_U_Card]

An interesting summary and analysis of the "hokey shtick" and why there was so much controversy about modern "catastrophic" warming before climategate...


Willis doesn't just do FOAs, he makes sure that bad data is DOA

[Al_U_Card]

Calling Dr. Hansen, report to the reality room....stat.

[hotShot]

Some people made an effort to visualize the papers published on AGW. IT gives an impression on how important the septics are compared to the scientific commutiny.
Just move the slider.

Number of Articles on AGW

[Al_U_Card]

Where the gravy-train of funding is concerned, perhaps quality should take precedence to quantity?

Yesterday, Kemp et al. 2011 was published in PNAS, relating sea-level variation to climate over the past 1,600 years (UPenn press release). Among the authors is Prof. Mann. (Kemp11 is downloadable from WUWT.) Figs. 2A and 4A are “Composite EIV global land plus ocean global temperature reconstruction, smoothed with a 30-year LOESS low-pass filter”. This is one of the multiproxy reconstructions in Mann et al. (2008, PNAS). The unsmoothed tracing appears as the black line labelled “Composite (with uncertainties)” in panel F of Fig. S6 of the “Supporting Information” supplement to Mann08 (dowonloadable from pnas.org).
This is one of the Mann08 reconstructions that made use of the four (actually three) uncalibratable Tiljander data series.
As scientist/blogger Gavin Schmidt has indicated, the early years of the EIV Global reconstruction rely heavily on Tiljander to pass its “validation” test: “…it’s worth pointing out that validation for the no-dendro/no-Tilj is quite sensitive to the required significance, for EIV NH Land+Ocean it goes back to 1500 for 95%, but 1300 for 94% and 1100 AD for 90%” (link). Also see RealClimate here (Gavin’s responses to comments 525, 529, and 531).
The dependence of the first two-thirds of the EIV recon on the inclusion of Tiljander’s data series isn’t mentioned in the text of Kemp11. Nor is it discussed in the SI, although it is an obvious and trivial explanation for the pre-1100 divergence noted in the SI’s Figures S3, S4, and S5.
Peer review appears to have been missing in action on this glaring shortcoming in Kemp11′s methodology.
More than anything, I am surprised by this zombie-like re-appearance of the Tiljander data series — nearly three years after the eruption of the controversy over their misuse as temperature proxies!

One amongst many.
Typical

[phil_20686]

Al_U_Card, on 2011-April-21, 23:22, said:

In keeping with the rise since pre-industrial times when [CO2] was around 300 ppm. So how will carbon offsets help stop the rise? Maybe only the rise in our bank accounts, lol.

Lol. So you think changing by 3mm per year is "normal". That would mean that the sea levels two thousand years ago would be, what, 6 meters below todays levels. So what do we find:



Oh, thats a discrepancy of about....six meters.

PS, yes I know, I should not feed the fish, but I feel like this....

[Al_U_Card]

What is clear is that since the end of the last ice-age, sea-level has risen. It is now in a flatline (more or less) that varies in the mm/yr range. When we get excited about short term trends, the larger context shows it to be neither catastrophic nor unprecedented.

Land is still rising from the removal of the glaciers. Subsidence is occurring at various places. Shorelines and river deltas are constantly changing. We are now into a shorter-term cooling phase on the long-haul temperature rise after the ice-age. Mitigation is straightforward. Is this even an issue?

[phil_20686]

Al_U_Card, on 2011-June-24, 07:02, said:

What is clear is that since the end of the last ice-age, sea-level has risen. It is now in a flatline (more or less) that varies in the mm/yr range. When we get excited about short term trends, the larger context shows it to be neither catastrophic nor unprecedented.

Land is still rising from the removal of the glaciers. Subsidence is occurring at various places. Shorelines and river deltas are constantly changing. We are now into a shorter-term cooling phase on the long-haul temperature rise after the ice-age. Mitigation is straightforward. Is this even an issue?

You said that the above graph was inline with pre-industrial changes in sea level. It self evidently is not. Now you say that we shouldnt worry anyway because the graph is too shortranged? The basic fact is that sea levels now are rising extremely fast. They are now rising by some 3 meters per millenia. They have not risen that fast for thousands of years. The rapid change seen about 8 millenia ago is not well understood, but is probably caused by some disruption to the climate. Either a massive volcanic eruption, or a break up of the last remnants of an ice sheet on NA are the most likely causes.

Climate skeptics still fail to understand the most basic models. You claim, for example, that because in the past CO2 has followed warming then that provided evidence against global warming. The reverse is true. The simplist models are of a pair of coupled differential equations that relate CO2 and temperature. The fact that forcibly rising the temperature, increases CO2 (eg solar forcing), makes it essentially certain that forcibly raising CO2 will raise the temperature. Of course. The details are messy.

Historic climate evidence cannot have a direct bearing on what will happen due to increased C02, because never before in climate history has changing CO2 been the driver of change, it has always been a response to other driving forces. Thus models, despite their imperfections, are really the only sensible way to study the effect of CO2 change on the climate.

[Al_U_Card]

While 3mm/yr does translate to 3 meters in a thousand years, (doesn't seem too catastrophic as far as time to mitigate goes) it has to remain at 3mm/yr...

Sea-level changes at the beginning of the holocene are pretty much normal for the interglacial periods that we have seen over the last several million years. What is germane (to this particular discussion) is the relationship of [CO2] to those temperatures and other factors that the climate models have tried to estimate and predict.



The above should help to illustrate just how unimportant [CO2] is in this particular scheme of things.

Now, looking at the model results, they have not been successful in any of their predictions when compared to actual results. Dr. Hansen had to cherry-pick his time frame to get an even reasonable fit with facts and he is now hemming and hawing about a "delayed Pinataubo rebound effect" to allow for recent discrepancies...honestly, it sounds more and more like epicycles every day.

As far as the models go, they are super-charged with [CO2] influence and more and more scientific information is becoming available about the two words that need to be considered: climate sensitivity.

The model's A, B and C scenarios are way off of the actual measured temperatures and we are only 20 years in. Not an impressive result for something that we should cast our lot with and empty our pockets for.

[phil_20686]

All this graph shows is that in the last 600 million years, CO2 is not the only driver of climate change.

Over the order of hundreds of millions of years both solar changes and orbital changes are significant. Not to mention the emergence of life as a CO2 sinks, the mass extinctions, asteroud strikes etc etc etc. Such minor details as the emergence of plant life 450mya caused massive changes in the earths climate. They dropped CO2 levels, but probably also increased the temperature by changing the reflectivity, and changing the humidity of the atmosphere. You cannot just plot CO2 temeraptures vs temperature while ignoring minor things like the evolution of life.

Despite that: Your graph shows the biggest change as 5000ppm over 50,000,000 years, which is about 0.0001 ppm, per year. This is the level of change expected from orbital and solar forcing. The current change is O(10ppm) per year. The most rapid change on your graph is 6 degrees over fifty million years. we are looking at O(0.1) degree per decade. That is to say the climate is currently changing about one million times faster than at any time in the geological record. In what way is that evidence against anthropogenic climate change?

[Al_U_Card]

As with your statements concerning other factors than [CO2], it is just an example of the scope of the issue.

Of concern here is, as you say, anthropogenic climate change, of which there is some, urban heat island effect being one. Sulfate aerosols and CO2 production are much more questionable, less easily shown and harder to predict. The problem lies with the magnitude of the effect as well as the reliance on models to quantify and project, based on their current abilities.

What is so great about our current global temperature? It is certainly warmer than the little ice age and certainly cooler than the medieval warm period or the Roman warm period or the Holocene optimum and so on. Cold and dryer climates are bad for human civilizations. Warm and wetter are generally better. (Even if we only have a 5,000 year window of experience.)

Clouds are an issue for the models. They don't do clouds....so solar changes that impact cosmic ray flux that affect cloud nucleation are important. That we don't know is an admission that should spur further research as well as preparation. That we don't know is not a reason to scream "The sky is falling!" and give all our taxes to attempting to control (poorly) something that can only be shown to have a very minor role in climate change.

I don't often agree with politicians, but this time they appear to have made the correct decision, for the time being.

[hrothgar]

phil_20686, on 2011-June-25, 06:08, said:

All this graph shows is that in the last 600 million years, CO2 is not the only driver of climate change.

Over the order of hundreds of millions of years both solar changes and orbital changes are significant. Not to mention the emergence of life as a CO2 sinks, the mass extinctions, asteroud strikes etc etc etc. Such minor details as the emergence of plant life 450mya caused massive changes in the earths climate. They dropped CO2 levels, but probably also increased the temperature by changing the reflectivity, and changing the humidity of the atmosphere. You cannot just plot CO2 temeraptures vs temperature while ignoring minor things like the evolution of life.

Despite that: Your graph shows the biggest change as 5000ppm over 50,000,000 years, which is about 0.0001 ppm, per year. This is the level of change expected from orbital and solar forcing. The current change is O(10ppm) per year. The most rapid change on your graph is 6 degrees over fifty million years. we are looking at O(0.1) degree per decade. That is to say the climate is currently changing about one million times faster than at any time in the geological record. In what way is that evidence against anthropogenic climate change?

Hi Phil

Al_U_Card is a troll (probably a paid one given his persistence)

His only contribution to this site is an endless series of global warming rants...
Prior to jumping on the global warming band wagon, he was peddling 911 conspiracy theories.

It's impossible to conduct any kind of rational discussion with him. He will simple shift the topic around [global warming is GOOD. CO2 causes trees to grow!] or disappear for a couple weeks before posting the same discredited crap.

The best option would be to ban his sorry ass for posting commercial posts.
Absent this, its probably best to ignore the *****tard and think wistfully back to the good old days when idiots like him were isolated on AOL.

[Al_U_Card]

The ICO has ruled that UEA must release the CRUTEM data that they have tried to keep under wraps for the last 3 years.

While the UEA is able to appeal the ruling, the ICO is pretty definite in its reasons and reasoning.

The truth will out...eventually

[phil_20686]

Al_U_Card, on 2011-June-28, 14:31, said:

The ICO has ruled that UEA must release the CRUTEM data that they have tried to keep under wraps for the last 3 years.

While the UEA is able to appeal the ruling, the ICO is pretty definite in its reasons and reasoning.

The truth will out...eventually

CERN used to release its data, but then they stopped, mostly because lots of theoretical physcists were doing terrible statistical analysis that introduced all kinds of bias and produced "results" that weren't really there. If the (pretty elite imo) field of theoretical physicists cannot as a rule to sensible algorithmic searches on vast reams of data, the chance that non speicialists are going to be able to do the same to climate data is essentially zero.