An informed analysis of IPCC errors

TimBikes · Feb 17, 2010

chogan2 said: ↑

Needless to say, I disagree with pretty much all that you said.

To me, it looks far more like you misunderstand what to expect. If you expect global warming to slap you in the face, all the time, every year, right now, you're never going to see it. If that's your mental model of global warming, then, yeah, it ain'tt happening -- according to you.

But that's because your mental model is wrong.

Take the scorching summers thing. The best picture of what's happening in the US (about 2% of the earth's surface) is this, from a study by NOAA and others:

I mean, that's it. That's the data, deal with it. Uniformly scorching summers, uniformly mild winters? No. Higher likelihood of highs, lower likelihood of lows, yes. If somebody actually told you that, somehow, the weather would stop fluctuating right now, as a consequence of global warming, then they misled you. My earlier point was, if that happened, it wasn't the climate scientists who did it. And in particular, you didn't read that on realclimate.
Click to expand...

More junk science, misinterpreted.

As climatologist Pat Michaels note:

Meehl et al. find that the reason more daily maximum temperature records are being set than daily minimum temperatures records is because there are fewer than expected daily lows records being set, not because there are more daily high records than expected.
In other words, our days are not becoming extremely hotter, but our nights are becoming less extremely cold....

While it is true that an enhanced greenhouse effect should warm nights more than days, so too does the processes of urbanizationâ€”something which has not been accounted for in the results of Meehl et al. (because it is virtually impossible to do so at a daily level), but something that is widely known to be occurring.

Nice try Chogan - but you should know better.

chogan2 · Feb 17, 2010

TimBikes said: ↑

More junk science, misinterpreted.

As climatologist Pat Michaels note:
Meehl et al. find that the reason more daily maximum temperature records are being set than daily minimum temperatures records is because there are fewer than expected daily lows records being set, not because there are more daily high records than expected.
In other words, our days are not becoming extremely hotter, but our nights are becoming less extremely cold....

While it is true that an enhanced greenhouse effect should warm nights more than days, so too does the processes of urbanization—something which has not been accounted for in the results of Meehl et al. (because it is virtually impossible to do so at a daily level), but something that is widely known to be occurring.

Nice try Chogan - but you should know better.
Click to expand...

Well, this is your usual style. You ignored why I showed the graph -- to show that the changes are not abrupt. Which I think this does very nicely.

But more to the point, your cite mis-quotes what the original research said, in a way that materially distorts what the researchers said, and is just plain at odds with the graph in front of your face.

Your cite says (emphasis mine):

"Meehl et al. find that the reason more daily maximum temperature records are being set than daily minimum temperatures records is because there are fewer than expected daily lows records being set, not because there are more daily high records than expected."

So, your cite says that the change occurred solely due to fewer lows, and not due to more highs.

What Meehl et al.'s press release actually said was this: (emphasis mine)

Record High Temperatures Far Outpace Record Lows Across U.S. - News Release

"The study also found that the two-to-one ratio across the country as a whole could be attributed more to a comparatively small number of record lows than to a large number of record highs."

Just look at the !@#$ing graph, for crying out loud. The authors of the research were pointing out, text, that the blue block shrank more than the red block grew. But the red block, in fact, grew.

As to the urban heat island effect, these guys make the best adjustment that they know how to make for it. If you somehow know that they, who work with the data professionally, are incompetent in this regard, based on somebody who knows better, well, bully for you. But what I won't take at face value is that the guy who deliberately mis-quoted the authors to make his point is somehow tapped into a more accurate source of information than the authors of the study. If so, he should by all means present that to Geophysical Research Letters, where the study was published, and get them to retract it.

Since your source for the urban heat island thing is that well-known climate expert Anthony Watts, why don't you move the discussion along a bit by taking Watts' list of stations that he considers good or excellent, replicating the chart, and seeing whether things look any different? All the data are publicly available, and that would be useful. And anything else is speculation.

ufourya · Feb 17, 2010

chogan2 said: ↑

I guess you could not possibly just point to an article, on Realclimate, with a link to that article, so that I can read it.

Nope, you've got to pull friggin' laundry lists off multiple websites and make me chase all that crap down. Typical.

OK, I'll do the first one on your list, sea level, to see who's got their facts straight and who doesn't. But that's as much time as I'm putting into this...
Click to expand...

Let me just point to an article, on Climate Science, with a link, so you can read it.

Yup, it's Pielke again explainging how RealClimate (interesting that no one is questioning the scientific integrity of Dr. Pielke, while Mike Mann undergoes continuing inquiry) continues to mislead. Links to petrinent papers are included. It appears that Dr. Pielke has his facts straight and RealClimate insists on misleading.

Real Climate Permits The Continued Presentation Of Misinformation Climate Science: Roger Pielke Sr.

and:

Real Climate Permits The Continued Presentation Of Misinformation Part II Climate Science: Roger Pielke Sr.

PS. I looked into the 'DutchGate' thingy and found that the IPCC has admitted that it erred, so realclimate's elaborate spin seems a moot point. I withdraw my stipulation.

That's as much time as I'm putting into this, unless you need further assistance. Always happy to help people like you.

ufourya · Feb 17, 2010

A few more kudos (sarcasm alert, Icarus) for the only blog that has a
'real climate scientist' founder under investigation for scientific misconduct):

Atmospheric Physicist James A. Peden, formerly of the Space Research and Coordination Center in Pittsburgh, also critiqued RealClimate.org on June 24, 2008. Peden wrote, “'Real Climate' is a staged and contracted production, which wasn't created by 'scientists,' it was actually created by Environmental Media Services, a company which specializes in spreading environmental junk science on behalf of numerous clients who stand to financially benefit from scare tactics through environmental fear mongering.”
Meteorologist Joe D'Aleo also launched a sharply worded critique of RealClimate.org in January 2009 titled “Response to Gavin Schmidt – Global Data Base Issues Are Real.” “To Gavin [Schmidt] and the other alarmists, it appears, a piece that is fair and balanced can make no mention of any other opinion except that carbon dioxide is causing global warming and action is needed now and will deliver gain and no pain, something the one sided media coverage has gotten them used to over the years,” D'Aleo wrote on January 13, 2009. D'Aleo served as the first Director of Meteorology at The Weather Channel and served as chairman of the American Meteorological Society's Committee on Weather Analysis and Forecasting.
Israeli Astrophysicist Nir Shaviv has also been critical. “The aim of RealClimate.org is not to engage a sincere scientific debate. Their aim is to post a reply full of a straw man so their supporters can claim that your point 'has been refuted by real scientists at RealClimate.org,'” Shaviv's website reported. Shaviv, who calls the website “Wishfulclimate.org,” noted that the “writers (at RealClimaet.org) try again and again to concoct what appears to be deep critiques against skeptic arguments, but end up doing a very shallow job. All in the name of saving the world. How gallant of them.”

More Real Scientists Rebuke Real Climate:
'Scientist adjusts data -- presto, Antarctic cooling disappears' - December 21, 2008
Excerpt: The analysis concluded, “Looks like [study author] Steig 'got rid of' Antarctic cooling the same way [Michael] Mann got rid of medieval warming. Why not just look at the station data instead of 'adjusting' it (graph above)? It shows a 50-year cooling trend,” the analysis concluded.
Pielke Jr.: 'Gavin Schmidt admits to stealing a scientific idea from his arch-nemesis, Steve McIntyre' – February 4, 2009 - Excerpt: This is not a hypothetical example, but a caricature of real goings on with our friends over at Real Climate ... Due to an inadvertent release of information, NASA's Gavin Schmidt (a “real scientist” of the Real Climate blog) admits to stealing a scientific idea from his arch-nemesis, Steve McIntyre (not a “real scientist” of the Climate Audit blog) and then representing it as his own idea, and getting credit for it. In his explanation why this is OK, Gavin explains that he did some work on his own after getting the idea from Steve's blog, and so it was OK to take full credit for the idea. [...] Gavin's outing is remarkable because it shows him not only stealing an idea, but stealing from someone who he and his colleagues routinely criticize as being wrong, corrupt, and a fraud. Does anyone wonder why skepticism flourishes? When evaluations of expertise hinge on trust, stealing someone's ideas and taking credit for them does not help.
Gavin Schmidt's Antics Prompts Laughter From Scientist '“How am I supposed to get any work done when I am laughing so hard?” - Feb. 2009 - Excerpt: Reaction By Climate researcher Dr. Craig Loehle, formerly of the department of Energy Laboratories and currently with the National Council for Air and Stream Improvements, who has published more than 100 peer-reviewed scientific papers.
'Is Gavin Schmidt The Best Thing Ever Happened To AGW Skeptics?'
Gavin's "Mystery Man" Revealed - by Climate Audit's Steve McIntyre on February 4th, 2009 –Gavin Schmidt demands Pielke Jr. Pull Critical Blog
Real Climate's Schmidt 'anti-science exposed' 'Using an image of Lake Powell to indicate anything about climate change is perverse' - June 4, 2009 - Excerpt: As with so many other products generated by the AGW industry, Schmidt's book Climate Change: Picturing the Science is part of an ongoing effort to frighten the credulous. Its messages include: weather will kill you; our moment on Earth is unique; and climate did not used to change. Had you wanted to fulfill the responsibilities of an objective and hard-hitting journalist, you might have asked Schmidt about the image of Lake Powell on his book's cover. [...] Were you aware, may I ask, of the controversial nature of the damming of the Colorado River that led to Lake Powell? Environmentalists were and are appalled by this particular dam. It has changed an important piece of the American natural landscape. [...] Group-think has affected many societies negatively, and it has not disappeared during our own time. The fact that neither Mr. Schmidt's editor, nor his publisher, nor you, nor the photographer, nor Mr. Schmidt himself would stop to reflect on the oddity of this cover is enough to give one pause.
Schmidt issues 'Correction and apology' for incorrectly claiming permafrost melt was cause of collapse - June 2, 2009 - Excerpt: the cause of the collapse was the 1964 Earthquake rather than permafrost melt. We take complete responsibility for the mix-up in captioning and the erroneous attribution and we'd like to fully apologize.
AP reporter Borenstein calls out 'Real Climate' activists' Mann and Schmidt for 'misrepresenting interviews he did with each of them'- June 15, 2009
Real Climate touted Steig et al 'Antarctica is warming' study 'falsified' - May 29, 2009
Excerpt: After reading this latest statistical analysis, I think it is fair to conclude that the paper's premise has been falsified. [...] It is my view that all Steig and Michael Mann have done with their application of RegEm to the station data is to smear the temperature around much like an artist would smear red and white paint on a pallete board to get a new color “pink” and then paint the entire continent with it. It is a lot like “spin art” you see at the county fair.
Scientists, Data Challenge Real Climate Touted Antarctic 'Warming' Study - 'It is hard to make data where none exist' - January 21, 2009
The Truth about RealClimate.org - July 6, 2009
Excerpt: Essentially the site exists to promote global warming alarm-ism and attack anyone who does not agree with their declaration of doomsday (proven of course by their own computer climate models) and the need for government intervention against the life supporting, atmospheric trace gas, carbon dioxide. Standard operating procedure is to post "rebuttals" to everything they disagree with and then declare victory, making sure to censor comments challenging their position. It doesn't matter if they actual rebutted any of the science or facts just so long as they provide the existence of a criticism. This gives their fanboys "ammunition" to further promote alarmist propaganda across the Internet (and of course declare victory). Their resident propagandist William Connolley's job is to edit dissent and smear skeptical scientists on Wikipedia. In the world of global warming alarmist "science" pretending you win is apparently all that matters because in real debates they lose. The truth is that RealClimate.org is an environmentalist shill site directly connected to an eco-activist group, Environmental Media Services and Al Gore but they don't want you to know that.
Schmidt Admits Defeat in Climate Debate! Tough New York City crowd reverses view on man-made warming and converts to skepticism following debate featuring RealClimate.org's Schmidt– March 2007
RealClimate.org's Michael Mann incorrectly Cites Mt. Kilimanjaro as evidence of man-made global warming - Providence Journal - September 25, 2008
Reality Check: Mann's using years old Mt. Kilimanjaro talking points. Mann's “facts” on Kilimanjaro are outdated.
2008: Studies and scientists debunk Mann's 'new hockey stick' - Comprehensive report exposing Mann's research
UK Spectator: 'Hysterical' Real Climate's Michael Mann's Hockey Stick 'most discredited study in history of Science – February 7, 2009 – By Melanie Phillips
Pielke Jr.: Details RealClimate.org's & Others Engage in 'Character Assassination' of Skeptical Scientists'
Real Climate 'has clearly aligned itself squarely with one political position on climate change' - January 14, 2005 - Excerpt: The site's focus has been exclusively on attacking those who invoke science as the basis for their opposition to action on climate change, folks such as George Will, Senator James Inhofe, Michael Crichton, McIntyre and McKitrick, Fox News, and Myron Ebell. Whether intended or not, the site has clearly aligned itself squarely with one political position on climate change.
Real Climate's Schmidt attempts to 'explain why skeptics are simplistic' - June 1, 2009
Not again! Antarctic 'warming' author Steig claims Steve McIntyre has accused him of 'thinly-veiled accusations of scientific fraud' - June 3, 2009
Perhaps a Complex? Real Climate's Steig claimed Morano 'accuses him of scientific fraud'- Morano Responds - January 29, 2009
History of Real Cilmate's activism and funding - Newsbusters.org - June 28, 2008
UN IPCC Scientist Richard Courtney Rips Real Climate Touted Antarctic Study - January 29, 2009
Excerpt: I am not surprised at Steig's behaviour that attempts to deflect attention from his paper and its content. I have written a letter to Nature complaining that Steig's paper contains a flaw so severe that Steig's paper should not have been published, and I suspect that others have written complaints to Nature concerning other errors in that paper, too.

The above is a laundry list taken from the site of a known and stridcnt denialist.
Climatologist slams RealClimate.org for 'erroneously communicating the reality of the how climate system is actually behaving' | Climate Depot

ufourya · Feb 18, 2010

Uh, oh. Another RealClimate co-founder and 'real climate scientist' falls under suspicion.

Pajamas Media Climategate 2.0 ? The NASA Files: U.S. Climate Science as Corrupt as CRU (PJM Exclusive ? Part One)

First of a four part series.
Opening snippet:
In August 2007, I submitted two Freedom of Information Act requests to NASA and its Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), headed by long-time Gore advisor James Hansen and his right-hand man Gavin Schmidt (and RealClimate.org co-founder).
I did this because Canadian businessman Steve McIntyre — a man with professional experience investigating suspect statistical claims in the mining industry and elsewhere, including his exposure of the now-infamous “hockey stick” graph — noticed something unusual with NASA’s claims of an ever-warming first decade of this century. NASA appeared to have inflated its U.S. temperatures beginning in the year 2000. My FOIA request asked NASA about their internal discussions regarding whether and how to correct the temperature error caught by McIntyre.
NASA stonewalled my request for more than two years, until Climategate prompted me to offer notice of intent to sue if NASA did not comply immediately.
On New Year’s Eve, NASA finally provided the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) with the documents I requested in August 2007.
The emails show the hypocrisy, dishonesty, and suspect data management and integrity of NASA, wildly spinning in defense of their enterprise...

finman · Feb 18, 2010

it's so easy to ignore the deniers. thanks!

ufourya · Feb 18, 2010

It's easy to ignore anything if one is incapable of paying attention.

TimBikes · Feb 18, 2010

chogan2 said: ↑

Since your source for the urban heat island thing is that well-known climate expert Anthony Watts, why don't you move the discussion along a bit by taking Watts' list of stations that he considers good or excellent, replicating the chart, and seeing whether things look any different? All the data are publicly available, and that would be useful. And anything else is speculation.
Click to expand...

Well since 90% of the US surface stations audited have been found to have upward temperature biases of more than 1 degree C, it might be difficult to find a sufficient number of good/excellent stations to conduct the analysis that you suggest. But it is an interesting question.

However, I doubt the more reliable stations are going to support the case for dramatic warming that you suppose. Poor siting of many temperature stations is well documented and "urban heat island" is real - it is not just Anthony Watts who has noticed. From the EPA:

The term "heat island" describes built up areas that are hotter than nearby rural areas. The annual mean air temperature of a city with 1 million people or more can be 1.8–5.4Â°F (1–3Â°C) warmer than its surroundings. In the evening, the difference can be as high as 22Â°F (12Â°C).
In addition...

Goodrich (1996) showed the importance of urbanization to temperatures in his study of California counties in 1996. He found for counties with a million or more population the warming from 1910 to 1995 was 4F, for counties with 100,000 to 1 million it was 1F and for counties with less than 100,000 there was no change (0.1F).

chogan2 · Feb 18, 2010

Well, TimBikes/Ufourya, this is the same old crap.

To recap: You each offered up an article on why Realclimate was biased/propaganda/etc, or why my posting of a graph from a peer-reviewed journal was "junk science".

I took the time to show that each of your articles was in error, in serious substantive ways.

Your response: You ignore that ... and come back with an even bigger laundry list of stuff.

How many times have we seen that before, from you two?

I'll grant that you have very polished, even professional, rhetorical skills. Uniformly, your response to being proven wrong is never to mention your error again, but to try to bury it under an ever-large mound of additional materials. TimBikes is the old master fo that, Uforya the presumably new one. You all might be twins for all I can tell any difference in the way you post.

But I'm not going to respond to it. There's an infinite pile of crap out there from which you can cut-and-paste. You want to keep cutting and pasting from it, bravo.

The fact that you can find more stuff to post doesn't change the fact the the first items you posted were, in fact, wrong. Pielke simply misread the realclimate posting, and the commentary on the study of highs to lows mis-stated the authors' conclusions to make his point.

So, one final time, in this thread, in response to my request, you posted material that was clearly incorrect. I took the time to show that.

Yes, you can in fact post more stuff than I have the time or inclination to investigate. That's a wonderful and extremely professional rhetorical approach. But it's not even close to being a reasoned discussion of the facts.

In short, once you've proudly and, might I say, disdainfully posted materials that have turned out to be materially wrong, there's no more reason to pay attention to whatever additional laundry lists of materials you can dredge up.

tochatihu · Feb 18, 2010

I'd say there is a lot to be learned from the scientific studies referenced at both realclimate and pielkeclimatesci. It is unfortunate that disagreements persist between these two. Human nature I guess, and not susceptible to change.

For those willing to invest in reading the science and trying to understand it, some of those differences can be resolved (or at least better understood). Others will choose to get their science second- or third-hand, and then I'd say you are at the mercy of interpretations that have been made upstream.

Can't make that choice for anyone else though.

ufourya · Feb 19, 2010

Chogan, it is your prerogative to characterize your response as proving Pielke's comments 'wrong', but that does not make them wrong.

RealClimate is not the last word in climate science. The truth is there for all to see; some refuse to look. In time the truth will prevail. At least four of the co-founders of RealClimate are under scrutiny for various abuses of accepted scientific and legal standards and methods. The same cannot be said of Pielke Sr., Steve McIntyre, Richard Lindzen, Roy Spencer, John Christy, and any number of others who are skeptical of catastrophic AGW due to CO2.

Many of these skeptics freely admit that science simply does not know enough to support the broad claims that AGWers are prone to make and proffer as 'settled science', '95 percent probable', or 'fact'.

The real 'fact' at the moment is that there exists NO EMPIRICAL evidence that man's contribution of CO2 to the atmosphere is responsible for significant warming. Sorry, it just is not there. The posters at RealClimate seem unable to admit they might be wrong in their assessments and have performed more as advocates rather than truth seekers.

chogan2 · Feb 19, 2010

ufourya said: ↑

Chogan, it is your prerogative to characterize your response as proving Pielke's comments 'wrong', but that does not make them wrong. ...
Click to expand...

This is again typical of your posting style.

You posted Pielke's article, as post 12 above.

In post 13, I grudgingly agreed to look at the first point in your usual laundry-list approach to posting.

I showed that Pielke's own graph did not support his empirical point. Based on the data to which he himself referred, there is no current slowdown in sea level increase. Sea level was at the trend line, not below it, based on the link that he gave in his response.

In post 13, I showed that his discussion did not actually address what realclimate or the original article discussed. They said: sea level has risen faster than the IPCC 1990 projection. Pielke's response was: That's wrong because sea level increase has slowed down in the past two years. That's a non-sequitur. He did not compare current sea level to the IPCC 1990 projections. He apparently did not understand what they (realclimate) said and or check what the underlying report said.

I admire the professionalism of your approach to argument. Pielke was clearly wrong, for the first point in that lengthy article. You said nothing to try to demonstrate that Pielke was right. You have still said nothing to try to demonstrate that he was right.

Instead, you waited for, what, 20 posts, then made this Kafka-eseque assertion that just because I said Peilke was wrong doesn't mean he was.

No, I didn't say he was wrong, as in, hey, it's my opinion that he was wrong. I assembled the evidence and I showed that he was wrong, as a matter of evidence and logic, for the first point in that article. Which, as I said at the time, was all I was going to take the time to look at. If you don't understand the difference, well, it would explain a lot about your posts.

If you want to engage on the facts, then you'd need to explain why sea level at the trend line in Pielke's graph actually does mean a slowdown, and why the last two years' trend in sea level really does show that sea level is below the 1990 IPCC projection. Because only if those two statement were true, would Pielke's criticism of that point be correct. And if, as matters of fact, they are not true, then Pielke's answer is wrong.

On the other hand, if your point is that I did not address the rest of the laundry list, and some of those points might be right, then you are technically correct. But as I posted above, there's an infinite supply of crap out there from which you can cut and paste. I gave it a fair and reasonable test, given the constraints on my time: I worked through the first one on the list. The first one was clearly wrong. You have offered neither evidence or nor argument to show that it is right. But if you now want to claim some sort of victory because I didn't bother to read through the 2nd through Nth ones, mazel tov.

tochatihu · Feb 19, 2010

Recent pubs on sea level, its past, and projections:

Rahmstorf, S. 2007. A semi-empirical approach to projecting future sea level rise. Science 315:368-370.

Pfeffer, W. T., J. T. Harper, and S. O'Neel. 2008. Kinematic Constraints on Glacier Contributions to 21st-Century Sea-Level Rise. Science 321:1340.

[COLOR=#231f20][FONT=GaramondLitITCTT][COLOR=#231f20]Bamber, J. L., R. E. M. Riva, B. L. A. Vermeersen, A. M. LeBrocq. 2009. [/COLOR][/FONT][FONT=GaramondLitITCTT][COLOR=#231f20]Reassessment of the potential sea-level rise from a collapse of the [/COLOR][/FONT][FONT=GaramondLitITCTT][COLOR=#231f20]West Antarctic Ice Sheet. Science 324:901-903.[/COLOR][/FONT][/COLOR]

[COLOR=#231f20][FONT=GaramondLitITCTT][COLOR=#231f20][FONT=GaramondLitITCTT][COLOR=#231f20][FONT=GaramondLitITCTT][COLOR=#231f20][FONT=GaramondLitITCTT][COLOR=#231f20][FONT=GaramondLitITCTT][COLOR=#231f20]Yin, J., M. E. Schlesinger, and R. J. Stouffer. 2009. Model projections of [/COLOR][/FONT][FONT=GaramondLitITCTT][COLOR=#231f20]rapid sea-level rise on the northeast coast of the United States. [/COLOR][/FONT][FONT=GaramondLitITCTT][COLOR=#231f20]Nature Geoscience 2:262-266.[/COLOR][/FONT][/COLOR][/FONT][/COLOR][/FONT][/COLOR][/FONT][/COLOR][/FONT][/COLOR]

[LEFT][FONT=GaramondLitITCTT][COLOR=#231f20][SIZE=1][FONT=GaramondLitITCTT][COLOR=#231f20][SIZE=2][FONT=GaramondLitITCTT][COLOR=#231f20][FONT=GaramondLitITCTT][COLOR=#231f20][FONT=GaramondLitITCTT][COLOR=#231f20][FONT=GaramondLitITCTT][COLOR=#231f20][FONT=GaramondLitITCTT][COLOR=#231f20][FONT=GaramondLitITCTT][COLOR=#231f20]Rohling, E. J., K. Grant, C. Hemleben, M. Siddall, B. A. A. Hoogakker, M. [/COLOR][/FONT][FONT=GaramondLitITCTT][COLOR=#231f20]Bolshaw, and M. Kucera. 2008. High rates of sea-level rise during [/COLOR][/FONT][/COLOR][/FONT][/COLOR][/FONT][/COLOR][/FONT][FONT=GaramondLitITCTT][COLOR=#231f20][FONT=GaramondLitITCTT][COLOR=#231f20][FONT=GaramondLitITCTT][COLOR=#231f20][FONT=GaramondLitITCTT][COLOR=#231f20]the last interglacial period. Nature Geoscience 1:38-42.[/COLOR][/FONT][/COLOR][/FONT][/COLOR][/FONT][/COLOR][/FONT][/COLOR][/FONT][/COLOR][/FONT][/SIZE][/COLOR][/FONT][/SIZE][SIZE=1][FONT=GaramondLitITCTT][COLOR=#231f20][FONT=GaramondLitITCTT][COLOR=#231f20][SIZE=1][FONT=GaramondLitITCTT][COLOR=#231f20][/COLOR][/FONT][/SIZE][/COLOR][/FONT][/COLOR][/FONT][/SIZE][/COLOR][/FONT][/LEFT][FONT=GaramondLitITCTT][COLOR=#231f20][SIZE=1][FONT=GaramondLitITCTT][COLOR=#231f20][FONT=GaramondLitITCTT][COLOR=#231f20][SIZE=1][FONT=GaramondLitITCTT][COLOR=#231f20]
[SIZE=1]
[LEFT][FONT=GaramondLitITCTT][COLOR=#231f20][SIZE=1][FONT=GaramondLitITCTT][COLOR=#231f20][SIZE=2][FONT=GaramondLitITCTT][COLOR=#231f20][FONT=GaramondLitITCTT][COLOR=#231f20][FONT=GaramondLitITCTT][COLOR=#231f20][FONT=GaramondLitITCTT][COLOR=#231f20][FONT=GaramondLitITCTT][COLOR=#231f20]Blanchon, P., A. Eisenhauer, J. Fietzke, and V. Liebetrau. 2009. Rapid sea level [/COLOR][/FONT][FONT=GaramondLitITCTT][COLOR=#231f20]rise and reef back-stepping at the close of the last interglacial [/COLOR][/FONT][FONT=GaramondLitITCTT][COLOR=#231f20]highstand. Nature 458:881-884.[/COLOR][/FONT][/COLOR][/FONT][/COLOR][/FONT][/COLOR][/FONT][/COLOR][/FONT][/SIZE][/COLOR][/FONT][/SIZE][SIZE=1][FONT=GaramondLitITCTT][COLOR=#231f20][/COLOR][/FONT][/SIZE][/COLOR][/FONT][/LEFT][FONT=GaramondLitITCTT][COLOR=#231f20][SIZE=1][FONT=GaramondLitITCTT][COLOR=#231f20]

[FONT=GaramondLitITCTT][COLOR=#231f20][SIZE=1][FONT=GaramondLitITCTT][COLOR=#231f20][FONT=GaramondLitITCTT][COLOR=#231f20][FONT=GaramondLitITCTT][COLOR=#231f20][FONT=GaramondLitITCTT][COLOR=#231f20][FONT=AdvTT5235d5a9][COLOR=#231f20][FONT=AdvTT5235d5a9][COLOR=#231f20][FONT=AdvTT5235d5a9][COLOR=#231f20][SIZE=2]Cazenave, A. et al. 2009. [FONT=AdvTT5235d5a9][COLOR=#231f20][FONT=AdvTT5235d5a9][COLOR=#231f20][FONT=GaramondLitITCTT][COLOR=#231f20]Sea level budget over 2003[/COLOR][/FONT][/COLOR][/FONT][/COLOR][/FONT][FONT=AdvTT5235d5a9+20][COLOR=#231f20][FONT=AdvTT5235d5a9+20][COLOR=#231f20][FONT=AdvTT5235d5a9+20][COLOR=#231f20]â€“[/COLOR][/COLOR][/COLOR][/SIZE][/COLOR][/FONT][COLOR=#231f20][SIZE=2][COLOR=#231f20][COLOR=#231f20][/COLOR][/color][/size][/color][/COLOR][/FONT][COLOR=#231f20][COLOR=#231f20][SIZE=2][COLOR=#231f20][/COLOR][/size][/color][/color][/COLOR][/FONT][COLOR=#231f20][COLOR=#231f20][COLOR=#231f20][SIZE=2][FONT=AdvTT5235d5a9][COLOR=#231f20][FONT=AdvTT5235d5a9][COLOR=#231f20][FONT=AdvTT5235d5a9][COLOR=#231f20]2008: A reevaluation from GRACE space gravimetry, satellite altimetry and Argo. [/COLOR][/FONT][/COLOR][/FONT][/COLOR][/FONT][FONT=AdvTT5235d5a9][COLOR=#231f20][FONT=AdvTT5235d5a9][COLOR=#231f20][FONT=AdvTT5235d5a9][COLOR=#231f20][FONT=AdvTT5235d5a9][COLOR=#231f20][FONT=AdvTT5235d5a9][COLOR=#231f20][FONT=AdvTT5235d5a9][COLOR=#231f20]Global and Planetary Change 65: 83[/COLOR][/FONT][/COLOR][/FONT][/COLOR][/FONT][FONT=AdvTT5235d5a9+20][COLOR=#231f20][FONT=AdvTT5235d5a9+20][COLOR=#231f20][FONT=AdvTT5235d5a9+20][COLOR=#231f20]â€“[/COLOR][/COLOR][/COLOR][/COLOR][/FONT][COLOR=#231f20][COLOR=#231f20][COLOR=#231f20][/COLOR][/color][/color][/COLOR][/FONT][COLOR=#231f20][COLOR=#231f20][COLOR=#231f20][/COLOR][/color][/color][/COLOR][/FONT][COLOR=#231f20][COLOR=#231f20][COLOR=#231f20][FONT=AdvTT5235d5a9][COLOR=#231f20][FONT=AdvTT5235d5a9][COLOR=#231f20][FONT=AdvTT5235d5a9][COLOR=#231f20]88.[/COLOR][/FONT][/COLOR][/FONT][/COLOR][/FONT][/COLOR][/color][/color][/size][/color][/color][/color][/COLOR][/FONT][COLOR=#231f20][COLOR=#231f20][COLOR=#231f20][COLOR=#231f20][SIZE=2][COLOR=#231f20][COLOR=#231f20][/COLOR][/color][/size][/color][/color][/color][/color][/COLOR][/FONT][COLOR=#231f20][COLOR=#231f20][COLOR=#231f20][COLOR=#231f20][COLOR=#231f20][SIZE=2][COLOR=#231f20][/COLOR][/size][/color][/color][/color][/color][/color][/COLOR][/FONT][COLOR=#231f20][COLOR=#231f20][COLOR=#231f20][COLOR=#231f20][COLOR=#231f20][COLOR=#231f20][SIZE=2][/SIZE][/COLOR][/color][/color][/color][/color][/color][/COLOR][/FONT][COLOR=#231f20][COLOR=#231f20][COLOR=#231f20][COLOR=#231f20][COLOR=#231f20][COLOR=#231f20][/COLOR][/color][/color][/color][/color][/color][/SIZE][/COLOR][/FONT][COLOR=#231f20][SIZE=1][COLOR=#231f20][COLOR=#231f20][COLOR=#231f20][COLOR=#231f20][COLOR=#231f20][/COLOR][/color][/color][/color][/color][/size][/color][/color][/FONT][COLOR=#231f20][COLOR=#231f20][SIZE=1][COLOR=#231f20][COLOR=#231f20][COLOR=#231f20][COLOR=#231f20][/COLOR][/color][/color][/color][/size][/color][/color][/size][/color][/FONT][COLOR=#231f20][SIZE=1][COLOR=#231f20][COLOR=#231f20][SIZE=1][COLOR=#231f20][COLOR=#231f20][COLOR=#231f20][/COLOR][/color][/color][/size][/color][/color][/size][/color][/SIZE][/color][/FONT][COLOR=#231f20][SIZE=1][COLOR=#231f20][SIZE=1][COLOR=#231f20][COLOR=#231f20][SIZE=1][COLOR=#231f20][COLOR=#231f20][/COLOR][/color][/size][/color][/color][/size][/color][/size][/color][/size][/color][/FONT][COLOR=#231f20][SIZE=1][COLOR=#231f20][SIZE=1][COLOR=#231f20][SIZE=1][COLOR=#231f20][COLOR=#231f20][SIZE=1][COLOR=#231f20][/COLOR][/size][/color][/color][/size][/color][/size][/color][/size][/color][/color][/FONT][COLOR=#231f20][COLOR=#231f20][SIZE=1][COLOR=#231f20][SIZE=1][COLOR=#231f20][SIZE=1][COLOR=#231f20][COLOR=#231f20][SIZE=1][/SIZE]
[SIZE=1]

[FONT=GaramondLitITCTT][COLOR=#231f20][SIZE=1][FONT=GaramondLitITCTT][COLOR=#231f20][SIZE=1][FONT=GaramondLitITCTT][COLOR=#231f20][SIZE=2][FONT=AdvTT5843c571][FONT=AdvTT5843c571]Church,[/FONT][/FONT][FONT=AdvTT5843c571][FONT=AdvTT5843c571] JA,[/FONT][/FONT][FONT=AdvTT5843c571][FONT=AdvTT5843c571] White, NJ. 2006. [FONT=AdvTT2cba4af3.B][FONT=AdvTT2cba4af3.B]A 20th century acceleration in global sea-level rise. Geophysical Research Letters [FONT=AdvTT5843c571][FONT=AdvTT5843c571]33: L01602, doi:10.1029/2005GL024826[/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/SIZE][/COLOR][/FONT][COLOR=#231f20][SIZE=2][/size][/color][/SIZE][/COLOR][/FONT][COLOR=#231f20][SIZE=1][COLOR=#231f20][SIZE=2][/SIZE][/COLOR][/size][/color][/SIZE][/COLOR][/FONT][COLOR=#231f20][SIZE=1][COLOR=#231f20][SIZE=1][/SIZE][/COLOR][/size][/color][/SIZE][/color][/color][/size][/color][/size][/color][/size][/color][/color][/size][/color][/FONT][COLOR=#231f20][SIZE=1][COLOR=#231f20][COLOR=#231f20][SIZE=1][COLOR=#231f20][SIZE=1][COLOR=#231f20][SIZE=1][COLOR=#231f20][COLOR=#231f20][SIZE=1][COLOR=#231f20][SIZE=1][/SIZE]
[SIZE=1][FONT=GaramondLitITCTT][FONT=GaramondLitITCTT][FONT=AdvTT5843c571][FONT=AdvTT5843c571][FONT=AdvTT2cba4af3.B][FONT=AdvTT2cba4af3.B]
[/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][SIZE=1]
[COLOR=#231f20][COLOR=#231f20][FONT=GaramondLitITCTT][COLOR=#231f20][FONT=AdvTT5235d5a9][COLOR=#231f20][FONT=AdvTT5235d5a9][COLOR=#231f20][FONT=AdvTT5235d5a9][COLOR=#231f20][FONT=AdvTT5235d5a9][COLOR=#231f20][FONT=AdvTT5235d5a9][COLOR=#231f20][FONT=AdvTT5235d5a9][COLOR=#231f20][FONT=AdvTT5235d5a9][COLOR=#231f20][FONT=AdvTT5235d5a9][SIZE=2][COLOR=#231f20]Probably not complete, but that's what I have on hand. We have previously discussed where the sea-level data are maintained.[/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT][/COLOR][/FONT][/COLOR][/FONT][/COLOR][/FONT][/COLOR][/FONT][/COLOR][/FONT][/COLOR][/FONT][/COLOR][/FONT][/COLOR][/FONT]

[FONT=GaramondLitITCTT][COLOR=#231f20][FONT=AdvTT5235d5a9][COLOR=#231f20][FONT=AdvTT5235d5a9][COLOR=#231f20][FONT=AdvTT5235d5a9][COLOR=#231f20][FONT=AdvTT5235d5a9][COLOR=#231f20][FONT=AdvTT5235d5a9][COLOR=#231f20][FONT=AdvTT5235d5a9][COLOR=#231f20][FONT=AdvTT5235d5a9][COLOR=#231f20][FONT=AdvTT5235d5a9][SIZE=2][COLOR=#231f20]As usual this is not your reading assignment. There will be no test.[/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT][/COLOR][/FONT][/COLOR][/FONT][/COLOR][/FONT][/COLOR][/FONT][/COLOR][/FONT][/COLOR][/FONT][/COLOR][/FONT][/COLOR][/FONT]

[SIZE=1][FONT=GaramondLitITCTT][COLOR=#231f20][FONT=AdvTT5235d5a9][SIZE=3][COLOR=#231f20][FONT=AdvTT5235d5a9][SIZE=3][COLOR=#231f20][FONT=AdvTT5235d5a9][SIZE=3][COLOR=#231f20][FONT=AdvTT5235d5a9][SIZE=4][COLOR=#231f20][FONT=AdvTT5235d5a9][SIZE=4][COLOR=#231f20][FONT=AdvTT5235d5a9][SIZE=4][COLOR=#231f20][FONT=AdvTT5235d5a9][SIZE=1][COLOR=#231f20][FONT=AdvTT5235d5a9][SIZE=2][COLOR=#231f20]Or, perhaps in a broad philosophical way, we are all being tested.[/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT][SIZE=1][SIZE=1][SIZE=1]
[/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT][/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT][/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT][/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT][/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT][/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT][/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT][/COLOR][/FONT][/SIZE][/COLOR][/COLOR][/SIZE][/SIZE][/color][/size][/color][/color][/size][/color][/size][/color][/size][/color][/color][/size][/color][SIZE=1][COLOR=#231f20][COLOR=#231f20][SIZE=1][COLOR=#231f20][SIZE=1][COLOR=#231f20][SIZE=1][COLOR=#231f20][COLOR=#231f20][SIZE=1][COLOR=#231f20][SIZE=1][/size][/color][/size][/color][/color][/size][/color][/size][/color][/size][/color][/color][/size][COLOR=#231f20][COLOR=#231f20][SIZE=1][COLOR=#231f20][SIZE=1][COLOR=#231f20][SIZE=1][COLOR=#231f20][COLOR=#231f20][SIZE=1][COLOR=#231f20][SIZE=1][/SIZE][/COLOR][/size][/color][/color][/size][/color][/size][/color][/size][/color][/color][COLOR=#231f20][SIZE=1][COLOR=#231f20][SIZE=1][COLOR=#231f20][SIZE=1][COLOR=#231f20][COLOR=#231f20][SIZE=1][/SIZE][/COLOR][/color][/size][/color][/size][/color][/size][/color][SIZE=1][COLOR=#231f20][SIZE=1][COLOR=#231f20][SIZE=1][COLOR=#231f20][/COLOR][/size][/color][/size][/color][/size][COLOR=#231f20][SIZE=1][COLOR=#231f20][SIZE=1][/SIZE][/COLOR][/size][/color][SIZE=1][/SIZE][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT]

ufourya · Feb 21, 2010

chogan2 said: ↑

This is again typical of your posting style.

You posted Pielke's article, as post 12 above.

In post 13, I grudgingly agreed to look at the first point in your usual laundry-list approach to posting.

I showed that Pielke's own graph did not support his empirical point. Based on the data to which he himself referred, there is no current slowdown in sea level increase. Sea level was at the trend line, not below it, based on the link that he gave in his response.

In post 13, I showed that his discussion did not actually address what realclimate or the original article discussed. They said: sea level has risen faster than the IPCC 1990 projection. Pielke's response was: That's wrong because sea level increase has slowed down in the past two years. That's a non-sequitur. He did not compare current sea level to the IPCC 1990 projections. He apparently did not understand what they (realclimate) said and or check what the underlying report said.

I admire the professionalism of your approach to argument. Pielke was clearly wrong, for the first point in that lengthy article. You said nothing to try to demonstrate that Pielke was right. You have still said nothing to try to demonstrate that he was right.

Instead, you waited for, what, 20 posts, then made this Kafka-eseque assertion that just because I said Peilke was wrong doesn't mean he was.

No, I didn't say he was wrong, as in, hey, it's my opinion that he was wrong. I assembled the evidence and I showed that he was wrong, as a matter of evidence and logic, for the first point in that article. Which, as I said at the time, was all I was going to take the time to look at. If you don't understand the difference, well, it would explain a lot about your posts.

If you want to engage on the facts, then you'd need to explain why sea level at the trend line in Pielke's graph actually does mean a slowdown, and why the last two years' trend in sea level really does show that sea level is below the 1990 IPCC projection. Because only if those two statement were true, would Pielke's criticism of that point be correct. And if, as matters of fact, they are not true, then Pielke's answer is wrong.

On the other hand, if your point is that I did not address the rest of the laundry list, and some of those points might be right, then you are technically correct. But as I posted above, there's an infinite supply of crap out there from which you can cut and paste. I gave it a fair and reasonable test, given the constraints on my time: I worked through the first one on the list. The first one was clearly wrong. You have offered neither evidence or nor argument to show that it is right. But if you now want to claim some sort of victory because I didn't bother to read through the 2nd through Nth ones, mazel tov.
Click to expand...

Typical of your posting style, you fail to follow the links I provided and insist you (and the thoroughly discredited 'real climate scientists' at realclimate) are correct in the face of contrary evidence. If you had followed a link, this is what you would have encountered:

...In this weblog, I will correct two of the major errors made in a number of the comments on the Real Climate website.
One of the commentators on Real Climate list three papers that purportedly refute the finding of no recent upper ocean warming and that the sea level rise has flattened since 2006 . These papers are
Levitus S. et al. (2009) Global ocean heat content 1955â€“2008 in light of recently revealed instrumentation problems Geophys. Res. Lett. 36, L07608
Cazenave A. et al. (2009) Sea level budget over 2003-2008: A reevaluation from GRACE space gravimetry, satellite altimetry and Argo Glob. Planet. Change 65, 83-88
Leuliette E.W. and Miller L. (2009) Closing the sea level rise budget with altimetry, Argo, and GRACE Geophys Res. Lett. 36, art # L0406
I have already weblogged on two of these papers:
Sea Level Budget over 2003â€“2008: A Reevaluation from GRACE Space Gravimetry, Satellite Altimetry and Argo by Cazenave et al. 2008
This paper includes the text
â€œFrom the results presented in this study, we see that confronting independent estimates of ocean and land contributions to sea level with altimetry results leads to a rather coherent picture for recent years variations. This can be summarized as follows: since 2003, sea level has continued to rise but with a rate (of 2.5 +/-0.4 mm/yr) somewhat reduced compared to the 1993-2003 decade (3.1+/-0.4 mm/yr). â€œ
â€œThe steric sea level estimated from the difference between altimetric (total) sea level and ocean mass displays increase over 2003-2006 and decrease since 2006. On average over the 5 year period (2003-2008), the steric contribution has been small (on the order of 0.3+/-0.15 mm/yr), confirming recent Argo results (this study and Willis et al., 2008).â€
This paper supports both conclusions in my recent weblogs (see and see) that the sea level rise has flattened and that the upper ocean heat content changes have been essentially flat since 2004.
On the Levitus et al paper, I weblogged on this in
Comments On A New Paper â€œGlobal Ocean Heat Content 1955â€“2008 In Light Of Recently Revealed Instrumentation Problemsâ€ By Levitus Et Al. 2009
Even a causal view of the Levitus et al figure, which is reproduced in my weblog, shows that upper ocean heat content has been flat in their data for the last 4 years. The large rise just before than is suspicious (as I am told by colleagues working of this subject), and, moreover, is not consistent with the sea surface temperature trends for this time period (see the GISS data on the ocean surface temperature trends at http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2008/Fig2b.gif). Thus even the group that Gavin Schmidt works for (GISS) presents data with no sharp spike that is at all consistent with the Levitus et al analysis and, moreover, the GISS analysis shows that the global average sea surface temperature has been essentially flat since 2002!
All of these analyses are consistent with no significant heating in the upper ocean and a flattening of sea level rise, and even more clearly, that these climate metrics are not â€œprogressing faster than was expected a few years agoâ€.
Real Climate has it backwards; these climate metrics are changing less than was expected a few years ago!
The Leuliette et al paper states
â€œAn analysis of the steric and ocean mass components of sea level shows that the sea level rise budget for the period January 2004 to December 2007 can be closedâ€¦â€¦.we find that the sum of steric sea level and the ocean mass component has a trend of 1.5 Â± 1.0 mm/a over the period.â€
This finding is not flat, but it is not still does not support the claim by Real Climate that this climate metric â€œis progressing faster than was expected a few years agoâ€. In fact, this rate of sea level rise is even less than reported in Cazenave et al 2009!
Here is what I propose to Real Climate in an attempt to move to a constructive dialog. I request that they answer these questions:
1. Using the upper ocean heat data from 2004 to the present, what is the Real Climate best estimate of the accumulation of heat in Joules?
2. Using that value of heat accumulation, what is the diagnosed global average radiative imbalance over the time period? How does this compare with Jim Hansenâ€™s value of an imbalance of 0.85 W/m2 for the end of the 1990s?
These are well defined scientific questions. If Real Climate provides clear answers to them, we have moved forward to a more constructive scientific debate. I will keep you posted.

...

Then, you continue to ignore the elephant in the room which renders all these petty nitpickings moot, the huge pile of dung that is catastrophic AGW. You have no response to the fact that there exists ZERO empirical evidence man's contriburion of CO2
causes any catastrophic warming. Neither you nor the realclimate hockey team can produce it. PERIOD. Show it to me and I'll shut up and go away. That's all.

chogan2 · Feb 21, 2010

ufourya said: ↑

Typical of your posting style, you fail to follow the links I provided and insist you (and the thoroughly discredited 'real climate scientists' at realclimate) are correct in the face of contrary evidence. If you had followed a link, this is what you would have encountered:

...In this weblog, I will correct two of the major errors made in a number of the comments on the Real Climate website.
One of the commentators on Real Climate list three papers that purportedly refute the finding of no recent upper ocean warming and that the sea level rise has flattened since 2006 . These papers are
Levitus S. et al. (2009) Global ocean heat content 1955–2008 in light of recently revealed instrumentation problems Geophys. Res. Lett. 36, L07608
Cazenave A. et al. (2009) Sea level budget over 2003-2008: A reevaluation from GRACE space gravimetry, satellite altimetry and Argo Glob. Planet. Change 65, 83-88
Leuliette E.W. and Miller L. (2009) Closing the sea level rise budget with altimetry, Argo, and GRACE Geophys Res. Lett. 36, art # L0406
I have already weblogged on two of these papers:
Sea Level Budget over 2003–2008: A Reevaluation from GRACE Space Gravimetry, Satellite Altimetry and Argo by Cazenave et al. 2008
This paper includes the text
“From the results presented in this study, we see that confronting independent estimates of ocean and land contributions to sea level with altimetry results leads to a rather coherent picture for recent years variations. This can be summarized as follows: since 2003, sea level has continued to rise but with a rate (of 2.5 +/-0.4 mm/yr) somewhat reduced compared to the 1993-2003 decade (3.1+/-0.4 mm/yr). “
“The steric sea level estimated from the difference between altimetric (total) sea level and ocean mass displays increase over 2003-2006 and decrease since 2006. On average over the 5 year period (2003-2008), the steric contribution has been small (on the order of 0.3+/-0.15 mm/yr), confirming recent Argo results (this study and Willis et al., 2008).”
This paper supports both conclusions in my recent weblogs (see and see) that the sea level rise has flattened and that the upper ocean heat content changes have been essentially flat since 2004.
On the Levitus et al paper, I weblogged on this in
Comments On A New Paper “Global Ocean Heat Content 1955–2008 In Light Of Recently Revealed Instrumentation Problems” By Levitus Et Al. 2009
Even a causal view of the Levitus et al figure, which is reproduced in my weblog, shows that upper ocean heat content has been flat in their data for the last 4 years. The large rise just before than is suspicious (as I am told by colleagues working of this subject), and, moreover, is not consistent with the sea surface temperature trends for this time period (see the GISS data on the ocean surface temperature trends at http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2008/Fig2b.gif). Thus even the group that Gavin Schmidt works for (GISS) presents data with no sharp spike that is at all consistent with the Levitus et al analysis and, moreover, the GISS analysis shows that the global average sea surface temperature has been essentially flat since 2002!
All of these analyses are consistent with no significant heating in the upper ocean and a flattening of sea level rise, and even more clearly, that these climate metrics are not “progressing faster than was expected a few years ago”.
Real Climate has it backwards; these climate metrics are changing less than was expected a few years ago!
The Leuliette et al paper states
“An analysis of the steric and ocean mass components of sea level shows that the sea level rise budget for the period January 2004 to December 2007 can be closed…….we find that the sum of steric sea level and the ocean mass component has a trend of 1.5 Â± 1.0 mm/a over the period.”
This finding is not flat, but it is not still does not support the claim by Real Climate that this climate metric “is progressing faster than was expected a few years ago”. In fact, this rate of sea level rise is even less than reported in Cazenave et al 2009!
Here is what I propose to Real Climate in an attempt to move to a constructive dialog. I request that they answer these questions:
1. Using the upper ocean heat data from 2004 to the present, what is the Real Climate best estimate of the accumulation of heat in Joules?
2. Using that value of heat accumulation, what is the diagnosed global average radiative imbalance over the time period? How does this compare with Jim Hansen’s value of an imbalance of 0.85 W/m2 for the end of the 1990s?
These are well defined scientific questions. If Real Climate provides clear answers to them, we have moved forward to a more constructive scientific debate. I will keep you posted.

...

Then, you continue to ignore the elephant in the room which renders all these petty nitpickings moot, the huge pile of dung that is catastrophic AGW. You have no response to the fact that there exists ZERO empirical evidence man's contriburion of CO2
causes any catastrophic warming. Neither you nor the realclimate hockey team can produce it. PERIOD. Show it to me and I'll shut up and go away. That's all.
Click to expand...

First, I did what I said I'd do. You posted your usual laundry list, I thoroughly checked out the first listed item. It was, without a doubt, unambiguously wrong. Pielke's data contradicted Pielke's statement, Pielke's statement was completely unrelated to the actual discussion on realclimate.

There are two ways I could proceed.

One, I could spend my time tracking down every item on every laundry list you post. But I'm not going to do that.

I mean, look at this last one. The proximal issue was Pielke's comment. You pointed me to Pielke's comment. I looked at Pielke's own data. Pielke's own data contradicted his comment. Now you want to point me to people who contradict Pielke's data, ... so that ... you can say Pielke was right in the first place, he just ... was right even though his data didn't show it? What?

I'm not going to do that any more. As I said before, if you want to claim some type of victory because you can cut-and-paste more crap than I can track down, mazel tov.

But in fact, I'm just not going to do this any more, period. This, being this open-ended, laundry-list, dozens of references, oh-you-disproved-that-now-look-at-this approach. It's a waste of time. It's worse than useless.

Instead, if I continue to post on this forum, which at this point I'm starting to doubt, because I get close to nothing out of this, I'm going to start threads on single, well-defined, narrow topics. Not news, not the latest in character assassination, not the usual junk.

Instead, I find that (e.g.) there are posters here who doubt that the recent increase in C02 is manmade. Just saw that in another thread. OK, well, that's boring but that seems like a reasonable thread topic, and an OK place to start: Is the recent increase in atmospheric C02 manmade.

Then I'll assemble the data that says yes ("we've got receipts"), and if someone wants to take equal care in assembling the evidence against, that would be great. We could then discuss and I'll learn something. It's good to get challenged by someone who can engage under constructive rules of debate. I have to do that in my job all the time, and I've learned that it's seldom pleasant, but typically good, to see a different point of view from another smart person. As long as both parties are have a common goal of getting a better understanding, and not just scoring points.

But not "100 reasons why this or that" or "Evil Scientists Sent to Hell for Lying" or, even, here's my second reference that contradicts my first reference so I don't have to say that my first reference was wrong, and you're a bad person for not now chasing after my Nth reference instead of the first one I posted.

This is, what, the 5th time I've said it in this thread: I'm not doing that any more. Deal with it, not by bitching at me, but by taking time to post unimpeachable material the first time, instead of just cutting and pasting whatever comes to hand without checking out the accuracy of what you're posting. When you do that, I end up doing the homework you should have done in the first place, as with the first item in your first laundry list. I clicked on the link given in the material from Pielke that you posted, and I studied the material in the link from your posting, but you clearly did not even bother to click the link given in your own posting. If you had, you wouldn't have posted it. And I'm tired of it. I'm tired of doing the homework that you ought to do up front.

I mean, just scan what you just posted: For sea level, Pielke's graph from NASA via U CO showed a short-term dip then a return to trend in 2010. You just posted discussion of papers on short-term trends through 2007 and 2008. They are out of date now. How do I know. Because I, unlike you, actually took the time to click the link in your original post by Pielke and look at the data he presented, and then, I scanned what you posted. Apparently you have done neither.

At the minimum, if you're going to cut-and-paste lengthy listings, you could, at least click and read the links in your own postings. Better yet, if your first link refers to 2010 data, then weed out all the stuff that's now out-of-date before you post it. Instead if leaving it up to me to spot it by scanning your post.

From my perspective, if you would take the time to check out what you're posting before you cut-and-paste it here, then you couldn't do these massive posts, you'd actually have to focus on an item or two. And those items would be more likely not to be wrong on their face, and they would be more likely to be worth investigating. And I'd see that as a benefit.

ufourya · Feb 22, 2010

You're stuck; convinced of your own rectitude, unable to move beyond the spoon-fed spin of the RealClimate collaborators. The site was formed for one purpose (revealed in the CRU E-mails you won't read) - to refute and counter at all costs any viewpoint counter to their own. The pursuit of scientific truth is not of any concern to these men. Their ideology reigns supreme, as does yours, apparently.

And the steaming pile still exudes its suffocating aroma. There is no catastrophic AGW - no evidence. THAT is unimpeachable. Live with it.

There's a short list for ya.

ufourya · Feb 22, 2010

Since Dr. Pielke's statement met with your disapproval (and that of your heros), perhaps a sea-level expert carries more weight:
http://www.climatechangefacts.info/ClimateChangeDocuments/NilsAxelMornerinterview.pdf

chogan2 · Feb 22, 2010

ufourya said: ↑

Since Dr. Pielke's statement met with your disapproval (and that of your heros), perhaps a sea-level expert carries more weight:
http://www.climatechangefacts.info/ClimateChangeDocuments/NilsAxelMornerinterview.pdf
Click to expand...

OK, at this point, I'm sitting here laughing. I could not possibly have thought up a more fitting ending for this thread.

Your reference is from Lyndon LaRouche's website.

EIR Volume 34, No. 25, June 22, 2007

Are you a fan or follower of Lyndon LaRouche? That would explain a lot.

ufourya · Feb 23, 2010

Do you have a problem with Dr. Moerner? If you have problems with the science, attack it. He could have been interviewed by RealClimate (if they allowed a viewpoint contrary to their own) or XOM Quarterly and it would still have validity. The man has published HUNDREDS of papers on the subject.

Tyoical of warmers, you prefer the ad hominem to discussion of the science.

And, no, I am not a fan of LaRouche.

I am a fan of Anthony Watts, however, and Steve McIntyre who both allow postings from scientists and others who disagree, very UNLIKE RealClimate blog.

A fitting end indeed - and there remains no empirical evidence of A(C)GW. NONE.

chogan2 · Feb 23, 2010

ufourya said: ↑

Do you have a problem with Dr. Moerner? If you have problems with the science, attack it. He could have been interviewed by RealClimate (if they allowed a viewpoint contrary to their own) or XOM Quarterly and it would still have validity. The man has published HUNDREDS of papers on the subject.

Tyoical of warmers, you prefer the ad hominem to discussion of the science.

And, no, I am not a fan of LaRouche.

I am a fan of Anthony Watts, however, and Steve McIntyre who both allow postings from scientists and others who disagree, very UNLIKE RealClimate blog.

A fitting end indeed - and there remains no empirical evidence of A(C)GW. NONE.
Click to expand...

The first reference you pointed me to showed steady sea level rise. The intermediate references talked about variations in the rate of rise. This last one is titled: "Claim That Sea Level Is Rising Is a Total Fraud", and, consistent with the title, the author believes that there is no rise in sea level whatsoever -- it's all a hoax. I don't have to tell you this last one is wrong, it's already been contradicted by all of your other references.

Either you were wrong before, with your references about rising sea levels, or you are wrong now, with your reference claiming that sea level rise is zero. I've reached the point where I don't care.

Me, I think I'd go with the stuff that wasn't published on the Lyndon LaRouche website, but it's your call.

Well, this long ago degenerated into being a total waste of time. The Lyndon LaRouche thing was worth a laugh. But I'm done.

An informed analysis of IPCC errors

TimBikes New Member

chogan2 Senior Member

ufourya We the People

ufourya We the People

ufourya We the People

finman Senior Member

ufourya We the People

TimBikes New Member

chogan2 Senior Member

tochatihu Senior Member

ufourya We the People

chogan2 Senior Member

tochatihu Senior Member

ufourya We the People

chogan2 Senior Member

ufourya We the People

ufourya We the People

chogan2 Senior Member

ufourya We the People

chogan2 Senior Member

About PriusChat

Quick Navigation

Like us on Facebook

Buy us a beer!

Useful Searches

An informed analysis of IPCC errors

TimBikes New Member

chogan2 Senior Member

ufourya We the People

ufourya We the People

ufourya We the People

finman Senior Member

ufourya We the People

TimBikes New Member

chogan2 Senior Member

tochatihu Senior Member

ufourya We the People

chogan2 Senior Member

tochatihu Senior Member

ufourya We the People

chogan2 Senior Member

ufourya We the People

ufourya We the People

chogan2 Senior Member

ufourya We the People

chogan2 Senior Member