So rather than actually read the paper, which certainly shows there has been no increase in the rate of change, worldwide, of sea level rise, we get handwaving and a logical fallacy, that because it was “published by somebody I don’t like” it must be wrong.
Now that is ironic, since you not only were wrong, you simply ignored the evidence completely. Your counter is a NatGeo web that claims " However, the annual rate of rise over the past 20 years has been 0.13 inches (3.2 millimeters) a year, roughly twice the average speed of the preceding 80 years.", which is exactly what the paper was debunking. So you ignore the new evidence, and repeat the old claim.
What this newest analysis suggests, is simply that there has been no increase in the mean rate of global sea level rise. What isn’t in the paper of course, is the claim that this means “there is no evidence of any human influence on sea levels”. That’s the part tacked on as a conclusion to the scientific paper.
That part can of course be debated forever, since facts don’t actually mean anything, it’s what we think they mean that matters.
Point to where anyone has received a Warning for making a similar remark.
As with AGW, you simply post silly stuff and hope that if you post enough it will stick.
As to the rest, it is simply more of your dancing.
First of all if you even got so far as the last two sentences of the abstract of that “new analysis”, you would read the following:
The latest research is summarized in the IPCC WG1 AR5, specifically in sections 3.7, 5.6.3, and 13.2. If you don’t like their conclusions feel free to look up and challenge the citations – each of those three chapters contains hundreds of cited papers that support the statements. The overall summary from the TS:
Two things to note from that.
One is that the 3.2 mm/yr is exactly the figure quoted in the NatGeo article I linked, which is indeed “roughly twice” that of the preceding 80 years.
The other is that you never seem to do well when trying to challenge science. I pointed that out in my summaries of all your mistakes here and again here.
I’m pretty sure the analysis is being used to show sea level rate isn’t increasing real fast, like was predicted. Which was the original point you handwaved away, since you thought it was from some fossil fuel cabal or something.
Reading the paper might help. It’s full of all kinds of science stuff, like “It is debatable whether acceleration of sea level rise in the 20th century is due to anthropogenic climate change”.
I see. So the thing that you claimed was not happening “…So rather than actually read the paper, which certainly shows there has been no increase in the rate of change, worldwide, of sea level rise…” is apparently happening after all!
The quoted statement from the paper is probably true. No one has argued otherwise, and no one who understands the meaning of the statement or who understands the science – which you clearly do not – would be particularly surprised.
My point, again, is that the facts I stated – that you dug up to show how “wrong” I was – were correct and were just recently corroborated by the IPCC AR5 as I showed in the quote. You were wrong again. I’ll add that one to the archives! Good night, Gracie.
You really do not know what acceleration means, the prediction is that the rate will increase. As usual your game and your tap dancing is to concentrate on short periods to make your sorry arguments.
If you look at the graph in the paper, it’s obvious what they are talking about. And then there is the three statements of fact right there on the page.
First, sea level is considered a major indicator of climate change. Warming world, more water in ocean.
Colder, less water, cause more ice stays on land. This is one of those "minor hypothesis"Tom claims aren’t really part of the theory. Except of course rising sea levels is one of the major indicators of global warming.
Second, over the last decade sea level rise slowed. It did not become much larger, as was predicted.
Third, this is thought to be due to “the recent pause in warming”, an exact quote from the paper.
Reading the entire paper, and the 16 other references noted, tells a very interesting story. The take home message from the abstract is more than enough however.
“We find that when correcting for interannual variability, the past decade’s slowdown of the global mean sea level disappears, leading to a similar rate of sea-level rise (of 3.3 ± 0.4 mm yr−1) during the first and second decade of the altimetry era.”
Now your ordinary person might see that and think, “What do you mean by ‘the past decade’s slowdown of the global mean sea level disappears’? What does that mean?”
Because it sounds like “correcting” means they changed something, so that instead of seeing the flat line, which is what the data shows, instead we see no slow down at all. Global warming hasn’t slowed.
You can see how a non climate scientists might be confused. That’s why we have experts to explain to us why we can’t believe our eyes. A graph doesn’t actually mean what it says. It has to be explained.
Now lets say that’s true, that’s exactly what happened. In regards to the topic at hand, can sea level falsify global warming theory?
According to Tom, no, because global warming says nothing about what the oceans will do. So with that reasoning, even if the sea levels started to drop, it would mean nothing to global warming theory. With such a nebulous definition, one could say warming caused the oceans to drop, because after all, the theory says nothing about melting ice and thermal expansion of the oceans.
Or one could declare, “So what?”, the ultimate pseudo-scientific response. So what if the oceans start to drop? That doesn’t mean anything, the theory says nothing about that.
This could of course, actually happen. If winters keep getting snowier, more snow falls, and doesn’t all melt each year, the warming could actually cause the oceans to drop, as ice builds on land. The world warms, but the hydrological cycle increases, leading to great floods, and more snow. So even if the sea levels started dropping, that wouldn’t falsify the theory.
At which point you are deep into a religious POV regarding global warming.
The same thing could occur with increased clouds, if the CO2 causes more rainfall, more clouds, if warming means more rain and snow, and that actually cools the planet, would that falsify the theory?
If our manmade increase of CO2 results in cooling, would that falsify global warming?
Exactly right, and of course I agree on both those points. Plus, there’s nothing new in that recent missive – this is a repeat of what’s already been fully dealt with earlier in this thread and elsewhere. FX is now giving us reruns, apparently anxious to demonstrate that he still fails to understand that in a large heterogenous climate system dominated by chaotic three-dimensional circulation systems at many different scales in atmosphere and ocean, the anticipated effects of increased forcings will, at the very least, also be very heterogenous.
Your comment just prompted me to expand on it a bit further, as these latest harangues from FX – which at this point I’m just going to ignore – are getting really tiring. There are many aspects of climate change that are worthy of intelligent debate, but these aren’t any of them. The latest appeared to be some sort of effort to show that my earlier statement about sea level was wrong, which backfired on him badly as usual, and is apparently now leading to some incoherent rambling that seems to misunderstand the difference between change and rate of change.
Among the most persistent of the recent pronouncements, FX first of all makes the ridiculous assumption that the climate system must respond to GHG forcings with complete homogeneity, and then cites non-homogenous behaviors as “proof” that the basic theory of CO2 induced forcing must be “wrong”. And second, peppering the argument throughout with unscientific absurdities like the claim that “it has been cooling” for some number of years, or that “the oceans have been cooling”, both of which are clearly false: the climate has warmed around 0.05°C per decade in the period 1998-2012 (slower than the 50-year average, partly because it was a period that started at a strong El Nino) and warmed a much faster 0.12°C per decade on average since 1951, and the upper oceans may be warming even faster than we thought.
Yet based on this fatuous pile of gibberish, we are supposed to overlook the basic physics of greenhouse gases and ignore a century of climate change; we are supposed to ignore the 275 Gt/yr of ice mass loss from glaciers, 215 Gt/yr from the Greenland ice sheet, 147 Gt/yr from Antarctica, or that Arctic summer sea ice is declining between 9.4% and 13.6% per year to record low levels; or that there has been a sea level rise of 0.19m between 1901 and 2010. Concentrations of CO2, CH4, and N2O are currently higher than any found in ice cores going back more than 800,000 years, creating a combined net radiative forcing of +3.00 W/m[sup]2[/sup] relative to 1750, of which anthropogenic CO2 alone contributes +1.82 W/m[sup]2[/sup]; these forcings continuously add millions of megawatts of net additional thermal energy to the earth’s energy balance. We are supposed to believe that none of this is happening, and to ignore the consequences of this enormous energy imbalance. This is why I got tired of arguing with FX and just compiled a list of his many previous absurd claims.
As far as this post is concerned, it’s humorous that this is the only time that FX is willing to use 100-year data, in order to show what AGW “should” look like, though sadly it apparently only works in Illinois! But in fact John Cook basically did the same thing using global data, only he did a much better job of it. He shows the warmer nights on average and warmer winters on average that are seen when you look at a reasonable timeframe. Another FX claim bites the dust! And see that little hook at the end of the blue graph in this diagram, where winter temperatures take a brief dip downward? Yeah, that little blip. That is what the cherry-picked chart and repeated over and over again in about 50 posts from FX is showing us – “proof” that winters aren’t warming like they “should” be! Like I said, standard operating procedure.
The funniest thing is that warmer mid-latitude winters or any other particular seasonal phenomena aren’t even a particularly robust or necessary signature of AGW as distinct from the expected warming in general and Arctic amplification – there are many different factors that could drive local seasonal trends in either direction, and predicting which will happen in a given place and time is an exercise in regional modeling and specifically in seasonal weather forecasting, and has no direct connection with AGW, let alone being “required” evidence for it. Climate science has been well past the point of looking for “evidence” for AGW – as if it was something contentious that scientists actually argue about. For probably at least 35 years now such contention has existed only among scientific illiterates, a few fringe crackpots, and more recently in Internet chat rooms. Clearly, if regional and temporal trends are consistent with the overall planetary warming, then no further explanation is required as this is the default expectation, but if they deviate significantly in either direction from the global trend, then we need to look for the circulation-system drivers responsible for creating these regional anomalies.
These are the kinds of things climate science does – refining our understanding and building better general circulation models and earth system models and fine-grained regional models, developing more accurate estimates of climate sensitivity, and generally refining our predictions and expectations to finer degrees of detail. I don’t know who FX is trying to convince otherwise, but it could only be persuasive to those who, like him, don’t understand the science. I suggest that such folks first read those two entertaining posts here and here where I expose a few of his many, many misconceptions about the basic science.
Many times this was mentioned in past discussions, and this bit from the 50’s was linked many, many times before:
Dr. Frank C. Baxter: “Well, it’s been calculated a few degrees rise in the earths temperature would melt the polar ice caps. And if this happens, an inland sea would fill a good portion of the Mississippi valley. Tourists in glass bottom boats would be viewing the drowned towers of Miami through 150 feet of tropical water. For in weather, were not only dealing with forces of a far greater variety than even the atomic physicist encounters, but with life itself.”
The fact that you are not aware of this after all the past discussions is enough to demonstrate to all that you are not paying attention, very damming for one that claims to follow the science.
And to make your question even more silly, the conclusion the American Geophysical Union that based on many recent papers was posted already and pointed in the last quote I made.
And getting back to your theory, again, you are trying to debunk a few that are related to the piece of the puzzle that deals with extreme weather regarding cold winters.
Your limited issue does not deal with the ocean rise that is one of the most likely results of the currently human caused global warming, and so there are many other pieces of the puzzle already well understood.
Just like in evolution: there is a theory about punctuated equilibrium, it may turn out to be wrong, but even in that case it would be really silly to claim that the whole theory of evolution is false.
And so it is with your flawed idea that the piece in question about winters based on short time periods. It ignores all the other pieces already found and explained. Omitting all other seasons and ignoring all other regions is not valid one, as experts mentioned it is a very dishonest thing that deniers out there are feeding many who are gullible; and not finding any scientists at NASA/GISS supporting your position is clear evidence that you are not going to debunk all the scientists that explained how warming is messing with the jet stream and causing the cold winters in some regions anytime soon.
If you ask somebody who claims to know about global warming that question, the answer is “Yes, basic global warming theory predicts both sea level rise, and an increasing rate of rise.”
Avoiding answering direct questions isn’t science, it’s politics, or religion.
Which goes both ways of course. If a drastic warming trend is observed, it doesn’t mean it’s AGW, especially when the trend reverses, and a drastic trend the other way occurs.
Jumping in to claim “look at the warming! It’s our fault!”, then when the opposite happens, claiming “look at the cooling, that’s our fault!”, isn’t scientific.
That is my line too, but then again we are already aware (and I called it early too) of your game of ignoring that what me and many others already accept, we do accept the definitions you point at and the answer you have here, it is just that your game is to ignore them too from this point too.
And anyone can see that in my previous reply I just about did claim that “Yes, basic global warming theory predicts both sea level rise, and an increasing rate of rise.” And I do accept it. So by your own logic you should not ignore it, but we know you will and the rest:
The games you are playing are clear, you will ignore from now on that the theory is not just your pet cherry pick of the winters in specific regions and from short time periods, it includes much more and it is silly to say that what you claim discredits the main theories.
Thanks for the tip on how to be scientific. If I ever hear anyone actually say any of those things, I’ll let them know.
Let’s see – first you told us that AGW is disproven because climate is driven by solar variations, then it was specifically UV variations, then when that was all blown out of the water you moved on to tell us that AGW is disproven because the last few winters haven’t been warm enough. Something tells me we’ll soon be hearing from you that AGW is definitely disproven because sea level isn’t behaving correctly. As Roseanne Roseannadanna used to say, “it’s always something – if it’s not one thing, it’s another!”
It’s ironic that now it’s being argued that winter trends aren’t even that important, which is just priceless, as anyone paying attention knows full well it was a constant message during the warming trend. It’s a main point of the first IPCC report, as well as one of the main alarm points, especially concerning the lack of snow and ice to replenish mountain sources of water each year. Reduced snowpack was trumpeted as not only a danger to water supplies, but the ski industry, the Maple syrup industry, winter wheat and pests moving northward, due to the lack of cold, all were constant refrains from the fear factories. And for good reasons.
These basic things aren’t even in doubt, it’s a key part of the CO2 theory.
“They found that winters have been warming faster than summers.”
It’s even considered a key piece of evidence for the man made changes to the global climate.
“In the latter 20th century, man-made forcing accounts for nearly all the observed temperature changes”
Why anyone would either deny it’s part of the theory, or claim now that it’s not important, at least that isn’t a mystery.
In fact, it’s that the boreal winter is supposed to be showing clear evidence for AGW, that Cohen et al mentions the specific trend that we need to explain, the increase in days below freezing.
While it doesn’t seem to mean much, in regards to the current topic, the extreme wrongs of the recent past certainly don’t help, since people tend to ignore the boy who cries wolf too often.
One could say the same thing about the current disconnect between those claiming drastic and unstoppable warming, and the researchers and scientists who are now predicting cooling for the next 20, 30 or even 50 years.
But was it a creation of a few media outlets? Which is what bloggers want you to believe.
That’s putting it mildly. Because after 1975 things got much worse in the US, leading up to the winters of 77, 78 and 79, which really made the global cooling experts foam at the mouth. And for good reason.
In the warmers world, the National Academy of Sciences is the stupid media scaring people. Like how the global warmer ignores the report to congress on the climate change, since it was something nobody could ignore.
You can no longer see the historic data, “the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration reveals a drop of half a degree in average ground temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere between 1945 and 1968”, because all the new analysis presented have removed that, changed the data, so there isn’t much cooling when you look at GISS or the NCDC or CRU or HADCRUT, they vanished that historic fact. Science!
There is no doubt about the cooling that actually was happening. Arctic ice reached levels not seen since the little ice age, with 1979 being a very high year, which is of courser why most people think that is when satellite data starts. Which isn’t true.
SS and company will tell you none of that is true.
No kidding.
Doesn’t that sound familiar? But if you change it and say it was just the media at fault, everything is OK.
No doubt the current situation will one day be blamed on Al Gore and the media. No real scientists ever thought it was going to just keep getting warmer.
Are you just having a conversation with yourself? Why are you posting all this complete bullshit?
Normally I wouldn’t waste my time any more but that last post is typical of the worst denialist tactics. It is complete and total bullshit to suggest that “scientists” were warning of “global cooling” in the 70s; much of that was based on the usual media distortions of the day, similar to what we get today, and in particular, that really awful and sensationalized Newsweek cover story from 1975 that is in one of the links that was posted above.
What science was saying in 1975 was that not only did we not know what the future of the climate was going to be, we didn’t even know the right questions to ask. This was well articulated in a report called Understanding Climatic Change: A Program for Action, issued in 1975 by the National Research Council of the National Academy of Sciences, and specifically an NRC group called the US Committee for the Global Atmospheric Research Program. The purpose of the report – several decades before the IPCC even existed – was to make recommendations about setting up research programs so that the right questions about climate change could be asked, and eventually answered:
It is of particular significance to note the vast gulf between this frank statement of unknowns, and our position 40 years later when the National Academy of Sciences, the national science academies of major nations, the IPCC, and other major science bodies now issue unequivocal statements about the nature of anthropogenic climate change from greenhouse gas emissions and other anthropogenic factors, and its long-term dangers.
I’m no longer reading his nonsense but the fact that he breaks out the “in the 70’s they predicted am ice age” is pretty sad. Wouldn’t that be analogous to, several pages into a discussion on the merits of evolutionary theory, bringing up Piltdown Man as if it was some game-changing revelation?
