Jason is dead . . . Long live Jason-2

Can someone explain why NOAA give a figure of 1.1-1.3 mm annual sea level rise (2005-12),while U of Colorado gives 3.2mm ?
NOAA report refers to Jason.
"The sum of steric sea level rise and the ocean mass component has a trend of 1.1 ± 0.8 mm/a over the period when the Paulson GIA mass correction is applied, well overlapping total sea level rise observed by Jason-1 and Jason-2 (1.3 ± 0.9 mm/a) within a 95% confidence interval."
http://ibis.grdl.noaa.gov/SAT/SeaLevelRise/documents/NOAA_NESDIS_Sea_Level_Rise_Budget_Report_2012.pdf

 

Interesting misconception .
I wonder if you could provide some examples of facts being misrepresented by serious scientific skeptics?
Ive been following the arguments for years and have yet to see any lies from the skeptic side.
Whereas the AGW side is lies, exaggerations ,cherry picked data,fraudulent adjustments,inept measurements,conspiratorial blocking of peer review and funding.
You better pray that your "noble cause" is valid,otherwise all your BS is only "pure evil".

 

Hey if you want to refer to skeptics as "deniers"
making an association with Holocost Deniers,
I should refer to AGW BELIEVERS as brainwashed idiots who never present facts nor can accept them

Im quoting from the NOAA report.
University of Colorado will surely be in the next IPCC report.
But why ?
Is it justified or pure fantasy?
Please provide some justification for exaggerating sea level rise figures by 300%.

 

Im an Atheist unless I need help ,then I like Buddha.
Dude you are the religious fanatic here.
Church of AGW.
Not a joke BTW.

 

#5 "I wonder if you could provide some examples of facts being misrepresented by serious scientific skeptics?"

​

This is something that we do from time to time here. Most recently Dr. Spencer's choice of which T records to compare to global models. Temperature are falling since 1998, atmospheric humidity is going down, CO2 increases don't come from fossil fuel burning, the sunspot cycle is ending... Honestly I can't remember them all.​

​

Bad on me to not remember them all. But not remembering any... that's not a good sign.​

​

Some of the most dramatic are T predictions (by Lindzen, and others), vs. instrumental records. But alas, those appear at the Skeptical Science website, and Mojo has roped that off. We are not allowed to go there.​

 

Along those lines (but not really related to sea-level dynamics) is this:

Climate change deniers using dirty tricks from 'Tobacco Wars'

The name of the Journal (Index on Censorship) is intriguing all by itself. Did not know that such a thing existed.

Pop over to the Journal and see that Sauven works for Greenpeace, so it might not be the most objective treatment. Just sayin'. Still we should maintain a big tent, consider what all voices are saying, and try to arrive at our own conclusions.

Next time I 'stop by the library' I will try to get a copy of this.

"Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense" -Buddha

 

That is about the lamest article Ive ever read.
Seriously ,there is no intellectual content.

 

So you only believe the science which you are predisposed to believe.
Any science which doesnt fit your paradigm is lies?
What kind of scientist can ignore facts he doesnt agree with.
Do you think that makes you a competent scientist?

 

Learning from mistakes...well, it can be done

ESDD - Abstract - Agnotology: learning from mistakes

To read the entire paper, click the pdf box on the right side. Free access journal

I find few analyses that go into so much detail. I find no analyses that examine 'pro-climate-change', publications in the same way, so that ought to be worth somebody's time.

Really there is tons that could be done, all aside from calling out 'liar'

Meanwhile, hats off to Mojo for going to the library to read the Sauven paper. The publisher (Sage) is not one for free-access journals. If others make the same trip, they could see if Mojo's assessment is a reasonable one. That's all me (and Buddha) are looking for...reasonable.

Speaking more specifically about carbon-cycling studies, nothing makes me happier than finding some conclusion that is not reasonable or not well supported by data. Believe me, they exist, I am working on two at the moment. It is correct though to say that one can meet resistance in correcting such errors. There is more than a little truth in Mojo's idea that people (even some scientists) take some things on faith.

 

A list of 101 websites providing information about climate science

101 Top Web Resources on Climate Change » Environmental Science Degree

There is something for everyone there. From Skeptical Science and 350.org, all the way to Climate audit and CO2Science. So load up on your reasonableness and check them out.

Sea level had risen 2 meters (2000 millimeters) in the most recent 6000 years. That average is o.33 mm/year. Current rate is 3 mm/year, +/- something. I don't know if I would call that the gold standard of current climate change, there being others candidates. But it certainly belongs on the top 10 list.

 

What the hell are you citing?Please provide a link.
Sounds like total bs to me.
2 meters in 6000 years?
The total rise for this interglacial is well over 100 meters.
While your at it,
Please show how the current 3mm per year is derived.