THIS PAGE HAS BEEN ACTIVATED AS THE NEW STATESMAN BLOG IS NOW CLOSED FOR COMMENTS
At 10am this morning, the New Statesman finally closed the Mark Lynas thread on their website after 1715 comments had been added over a period of five months. I don’t know whether this constitutes any kind of a record, but gratitude is certainly due to the editor of of the New Statesman for hosting the discussion so patiently and also for publishing articles from Dr David Whitehouse and Mark Lynas that have created so much interest.
This page is now live, and anyone who would like to continue the discussion here is welcome to do so. I have copied the most recent contributions at the New Statesman as the first comment for the sake of convenience. If you want to refer back to either of the original threads, then you can find them here:
Dr David Whitehouse’s article can be found here with all 1289 comments.
Mark Lynas’ attempted refutation can be found here with 1715 comments.
Welcome to Harmless Sky, and happy blogging.
(Click the ‘comments’ link below if the input box does not appear)
10,000 Responses to “Continuation of the New Statesman Whitehouse/Lynas blogs.”
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
Hi J Z Smith
I was born in Windsor.
The country was coming out of the little ice age in the 1800’s so whilst there were undoubtedly some very severe winters during Victorias reign- which overlappped with Dickens writing of ‘A Christmas Carol’- two out of the three warmest winters occured during her lifetime.
Warmest of all was 1733 followed by 1868 and then 1833 when Victoria was 14. In total Victoria lived through 5 out of our top 20 warmest winters
By no means would a ride in the sleigh have been a regular winter event even then, I have lived within 50 miles of Windsor for most of my life and even in this period there would have been a number of times when a sleigh could have been used, but snow is by no means certain or reliable anywhere in lowland Britain and you couldn’t have planned it too far in advance!
Incidentally the last time I walked on the ice on the Thames was only in 2003! The British climate was-and remains- highly variable
TonyB
Some additional research demonstrating that co2 levels have been substantially higher than the constant 280ppm cited by IPCC
“Kouwenberg et al. (Geology vol. 33, p.33-36, 2005) states that:
A stomatal frequency record based on buried Tsuga heterophylla needles reveals significant centennial-scale atmospheric CO2 fluctuations during the last millennium. The record includes four CO2 minima of 260–275 ppmv (ca. A.D. 860 and A.D. 1150, and
less prominently, ca. A.D. 1600 and 1800). Alternating CO2 maxima of 300–320 ppmv are present at A.D. 1000, A.D. 1300, and ca. A.D. 1700. These CO2 fluctuations parallel global terrestrial air temperature changes, as well as oceanic surface temperature fluctuations in the North Atlantic. The results obtained in this study corroborate the notion of a continuous coupling of the preindustrial atmospheric CO2 regime and climate.
The 260-320 ppm range measured by Kouwenberg et al. is twice the range cited by IPCC, moreover, these numbers are averaged over many decades, since individual measurements show a possible range of 230-350 ppm. The variations from minimum to maximum in Kouwenberg et al. occur on a less than 150 year time scale. These measurements are in direct contradiction with the IPCC statements.
Van Hoof et al (Tellus 57B, 351-355, 2005) found CO2 concentration variations of over 30 ppm in the 13th century. This again contradicts the IPCC’s claim that it has not varied by more than 30ppm in 1000 years.
Wagner et al (Quaternary Science Reviews 23 1947–1954, 2004) state that “The majority of the stomatal frequency-based estimates of CO2 for the Holocene do not support the widely accepted concept of comparably stable CO2 concentrations throughout the past 11,500 years.” This paper shows variation in CO2 of the order of 50 ppm over a few hundred years, and shows that these results are robust and not localized.
The Kouwenberg, Van Hoof and Wagner papers are not cited by the IPCC report, even though these papers are readily available and published in highly regarded journals. Nor are these scientists amongst the list of IPCC authors, or reviewers. So these authors were not even given a chance to comment on the omission of their results.
A very recent paper by Van Hoof et al (PNAS 105, 15815-15818, 2008) is quite critical of IPCC AR4: “Inferred changes in CO2 radiative forcing are of a magnitude similar to variations ascribed to other mechanisms, particularly solar irradiance and volcanic activity, and may therefore call into question the concept of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which assumes an insignificant role of CO2 as a preindustrial climateforcing factor.” They find preindustrial levels up to 319 ppm (higher than claimed by the IPCC) and state that diffusion causes a smoothing of the CO2 record in ice cores.
Once again we see that the IPCC creates a misleading picture by gluing together two sources (ice cores and recent direct measurements) that are not directly comparable. Short-term changes are smoothed out in the ice core data, giving a false impression of stability. And again we see the IPCC ignoring scientific research that does not conform to the message it wants to convey”
tonyB
I have been investigating the every day use of co2 monitoring in the 19th century. I previously wrote of the factories act of 1889 when a limit of 900ppm was set in cotton factories. This had been put into everyday use some 20 years prior to 1889 and was subsequently reviewed by a parliamentary committee.
The findings were debated in the House of Commons and recorded in Hansard-the written record of parliamentary debates. Check out page 154 onwards
http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=7GHLv-rLifgC&pg=PA154&lpg=PA154&dq=prosecution+co2+cotton+factory+1889+factories+act&source=web&ots=rPD5OFQUIG&sig=3wPlj-HR9A-B2aEr0H1yk9xXJQM&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=1&ct=result#PPA154,M1
Co2 was being measured routinely during Victorian times and the means to do this accurately was established from around 1820. There is no reason whatsoever to believe that the measurements recorded by numerous scientists of up to 400ppm were incorrect
TonyB
JZS, Reur 3116 above, you wrote in part:
I saw this article today in the Hawaii Reporter citing a report detailing 650 skeptical scientists.Also, in part, TonyB’s 3123/21
I know Senator Inhofe is considered the devil by warmists but he does come up with some interesting stuff! [Inhofe’s 650]
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I thought I’d do a Google on ‘Inhofe 650’ and some variants, to see if there has been any response from RC and the like….. And:
Hey Brute, your old buddy Joseph Romm, has written a huge response article on his own site; ClimateProgress. I truly complement him for his industry, however, he may have made a mistake by duplicating it onto Gristmill.
The big difference at Gristmill, is that there does not seem to be an editorial policy excluding comments that contradict the lead author’s views. (Although they are sensitive to SOME things: see my footnote on “Grolar” bears)
Max, you may recall that when Dessler, promised to debunk 1-per-day of the earlier Inhofe 400 scientists on Gristmill, that he was somewhat slowed by some of our counter-comments, and rapidly abandoned his plan at a low single digit score, (Well short of 400), when he was variously shown to be misrepresenting people or making assumptions, or uttering mountainous crap!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
There is probably a great deal to comment-on in Joe’s latest waffle, but just flicking through, my eye firstly caught this graph that he presented:
If no image click:
http://sealevel.colorado.edu/current/sl_noib_global_sm.jpg
I claim first grabs on commenting on this which I hope to do later today or domani. Meanwhile, the very welcome big rain locally seems to have paused and the dog is signalling that she needs to take me for a walk!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
FOOTNOTE: My only experience of Gristmill Cutting-off posts was when I posted a photo of a “Grolar Bear” that had been shot, with four triumphant hunters in the background. (Grolar = hybrid Grizzly + Polar). My blogo-visual-point was to illustrate evidence about species origin and adaptation and whatnot. But a lady complained that the photo was horrible, and thus editors had it and all associated posts, including hers, excised. (Pure emotion: Bugger the scientific considerations; bugger the evidence!)
Sorry Bob #3179
But I posted the graph and commented on it back on December 5th. Nice to look at old friends again though…
“About a month ago I posted a great deal of information about sea levels, pointing out that according to Proudman they were at best static- at worst (for the IPCC) dropping slightly. This information was also repeated in the abstracts from the Exeter Climate conference that I posted.
Here is official confirmation. My information from the Environment Agency- the official UK govt body for sea levels -and for whom I do some work-shows a drop of around 2-3mm over the last couple of years.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/
Further comments on the information is of course welcome
TonyB
Bob my #3180
The actual page and posts on the subject of sea level ‘stumble’ had dropped right down the list on wuwt, it is here;
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/12/05/satellite-derived-sea-level-updated-trend-has-been-shrinking-since-2005/
TonyB
Bobclive / JZSmith / Robin Guenier
Have been following your exchange on government control for the “common good” (as defined by government), even when it is against the democratic will of the people.
Peter may not agree with my analysis on this at it applies to the current AGW controversy, but here goes…
The underlying problem as I see it was observed quite clearly by the early 20th century American writer and journalist (back when these still existed), H.L. Mencken, who wrote (as TonyB has reminded us): “The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.”
As we have all noted, there have been many precedents for this behavior by “well meaning” (and not so “well meaning”) politicians.
In the 20th century, the USSR and Nazi Germany provide two classical examples.
We now have an unholy alliance of (a) international politicians and bureaucrats who want to “save” the world’s citizenry from themselves (at the same time soaking them with higher taxes), (b) scientists and pseudo-scientists who are well aware of the “no crisis = no funding” principle and see that getting government research grants from these politicians means toeing the “party line” on AGW and (c) a media that spreads alarm in order to increase public interest and enhance their own profits.
Then there are the usually left-leaning “do-gooders” and “Mother Earth worshippers” who believe that industrialization is the root of all evil and that mankind should return to a simpler (and harsher) pre-industrial life (whether we want to or not).
Those who live in the as yet non-industrialized world are watching with horror as the “rich countries” attempt to decide to keep them in abject poverty by limiting their ability to become industrialized (as they themselves have done).
The broad public in the industrialized world is sort of a neutral by-stander in this drama. Unfortunately it has been so heavily bombarded with alarmist AGW propaganda backed by agenda-driven pseudoscientific proclamations that it begins to believe this drivel. School children are being brainwashed and frightened with this garbage by their teachers, many of whom truly believe that they are doing a “good thing” by making the children “aware” of the potential problem.
But worst of all are the charlatans who see personal gain (in recognition or fortune) from the whole circus. (We all know who these are, because they are the most vociferous.)
It is important that all of us keep pointing out all the weak spots, omissions, exaggerations, and outright lies that are being used to sell the AGW story to the world.
Keep up the good work.
As a rational optimist, I am convinced that even Peter is basically honest and will, therefore, eventually see the light and join us.
Regards,
Max
Hi Bob_FJ,
Since you have claimed “fisrt go” at debunking the sea level chart, I’ll hold off.
Regards,
Max
Max, Reur 3183
Since you have claimed “first go” at debunking the sea level chart, I’ll hold off.
Thanks Max, but I have not really debunked the chart, but Romm’s attack on Anthony Watts, accusing him of bad eyesight I think. Funnily enough, I was going to ask you to look at the actual data, and particularly the pair of graphs that Romm cites secondly in his lead article, because you know a lot more on the topic than me. I’m sure you will find it intertaining, and I‘ll find plenty of other fun over there.
Here is my first post at Gristmill:
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2008/12/11/134543/71#comment2
TonyB, Reur 3189/3181
Thanks for that, but my point was that Joseph Romm is deserving of counter-comment on some of his opening sillies concerning his views on the Inhofe 650 at Gristmill. (where he will probably be unable to delete anything, as he does at his own website)
Oh, BTW, I’m keeping my old Nom de Blog of Black Wallaby over there.
Remy 3184; Couldn’t get the format right at Gristmillso here it is:
Joe Romm, you quoted Anthony Watts concerning your first graph above
What Watts is in effect saying, is that the blue smoothed line should be assessed and not the suggested black linear trend. You then responded with:
Below is your ex University Colorado graph, slightly modified by me in two ways, the first (left), with ONLY the original straight trend-line removed. If you concentrate on this one first, and apply an old trick of the trade, of squinting the eyes, you should be able to see that the blue smoothed line, (and the raw data), would not fit well with a linear trend-line, especially in recent rears. This is the point that Watts is correctly making.
Just to make it absolutely clear, the graph to the right below has a curvilinear trend line added that I suggest has a good fit with the raw data. Thus Watts is totally correct in commenting:
Of course that does not mean that this short-term trend will continue, but that was not the point that either you or he were making.
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3248/3106059818_76b520e0f0_o.png
IF no image appears above, click link below:
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3248/3106059818_76b520e0f0_o.png
ALL:
I stumbled on this Wall Street Journal thingie, whilst looking for something else. It is a year old now, but still a very good read….. And that includes you Pete. Please carefully read it Pete!
The Science of Gore’s Nobel
What if everyone believes in global warmism only because everyone believes in global warmism?
http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/hjenkins/?id=110010947
BTW, the author has a Wiki’ bio entry, and I enjoyed some of his notable quotes per Wiki‘:
1) “In the end, whether the drug companies have successfully called their opponents’ bluff won’t be measured by AIDS, which is certain to fester.”
2) Prius fans might do the planet more good by convincing the American Public of the merits of nuclear energy, the closest thing to a genuinely “green solution” to energy challenges in the real world.”
3) “That man-made carbon dioxide has a net planetary warming effect is an important hypothesis, one that science can make stronger or weaker, but can’t prove. It may be true, but a layperson only has to look into the antecedents of today’s “consensus” to realize it wouldn’t be too surprising if tomorrow’s consensus were that CO2 is cooling, or neutral, or warming here and cooling there.”
Funny how Holman W. Jenkins Jr., (Not a “climate scientist”) can apply such EVIDENT LOGIC in his lucid observations on the so-called science and the politics of AGW!
ALL,
Further my 3186, I should refine a line in that post by adding the qualifiers: FUNDED and INDEPENDENT.
Here is that line restated in better fullness:
Funny how Holman W. Jenkins Jr., (Not a FUNDED “climate scientist”) can apply such EVIDENT LOGIC in his lucid INDEPENDENT observations on the so-called science and the politics of AGW!
Bob
Good stuff over at Gristmill-I’ve come to the conclusion that many of the top warmists can be very childish as well as insulting! Your comments were good and your graphs interesting and didn’t warrant such silly responses.
Being in the sea level ‘business’ as it were I am completely bemused by this continued belief in rapidly rising sea levels. It has been higher in the past 1000 years, has been rising very modestly over the past 500 years or so without the benefit of this magic ingredient co2-which can seem to do almost anything-and has had numerous stumbles over the centuries.
It has been falling for a year or two which I have posted extensively on here using real world data. Why do people persist in distorting actual facts and more to the point rely on the unreliable-satellite readings have a substantial margin of error.
The long term sea level records such as Newlyn(1915) and Helsinki (1880) tell the static or dropping story-counterbalanced by others gently rising.
http;//tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/060-351.gif this leads to Helsinki-others can be found in the main menu
If you are not aware of the work of Prof Morner his various comments have been posted here and are readily available on the web. He calls sea level rises ‘a lie.’ Also previously posted have been Dutch reconstructions of sea levels. I can find the reference again if you are interested.
Keep up the good work.
TonyB
Bob_FJ / TonyB
Bob’s 3185 shows clearly that the upward trend in the satellite altimetry sea level record has flattened out or actually reversed itself in recent years. It is not surprising to me that Joe Romm is unable to see this, but this is beside the point.
But I believe the whole sea level controversy is even more basic (Peter and I had an exchange on this earlier on this site , #1615), and I’m sure that TonyB can shed much more light on this, but below is some stuff I have been able to uncover – remove {parentheses} from links.
The Proudman tide gauge record as reported by S.J. Holgate (2004 and 2007) shows the long-term picture very clearly. See curve below.
{http}://farm4.static.flickr.com/3185/2690464396_3a2b975c7e_b.jpg
Holgate states: “Extending the sea level record back over the entire century suggests that the high variability in the rates of sea level change observed over the past 20 years were not particularly unusual. The rate of sea level change was found to be larger in the early part of last century (2.03 ± 0.35 mm/yr 1904–1953), in comparison with the latter part (1.45 ± 0.34 mm/yr 1954–2003). The highest decadal rate of rise occurred in the decade centred on 1980 (5.31 mm/yr) with the lowest rate of rise occurring in the decade centred on 1964 (?1.49 mm/yr). Over the entire century the mean rate of change was 1.74 ± 0.16 mm/yr.”
{http}://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2007/2006GL028492.shtml
Another 2003 study concludes, “In the last 300 years, sea level has been oscillating close to the present with peak rates in the period 1890–1930. Between 1930 and 1950, sea fell. The late 20th century lacks any sign of acceleration.”
{http}://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6VF0-49C5G0W-2&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=d471cc450145c491b716051f36f61df5
Despite this record, IPCC 2007 SPM claims a faster rate in sea level rise in the period 1993-2003 over earlier periods (pp.5,7). “Global average sea level rose at an average rate of 1.8 [1.3 to 2.3] mm per year over 1961 to 2003. The rate was faster over 1993 to 2003: about 3.1 [2.4 to 3.8] mm per year. Whether the faster rate for 1993 to 2003 reflects decadal variability or an increase in the longer-term trend is unclear.”
{http}://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4WG1_Print_SPM.pdf
An acceleration in sea level rise as suggested by IPCC is not supported by the tide gauge record.
Prior to 1993 IPCC uses the tide gauge record of sea level, which records measurements at several shorelines; in 1993 this was changed to satellite altimetry, which measures the entire ocean. The change in method coincides with an apparent acceleration of sea level rise over previous periods. IPCC throws out the tide gauge record, which shows significant fluctuations but no such acceleration. To compare one set of results using one method covering one scope over one time period (prior to 1993) with another set of results using a different method covering a different scope over another time period (after 1993) and then using this cobbled-together record to claim an acceleration trend between the two time periods is bad science, at best, especially if the record for the latter time period which uses the same method and covers the same scope for both periods and shows no such acceleration is ignored.
A more recent study by Carl Wunsch et al. using satellite altimetric data entitled “Decadal Trends in Sea Level Patterns: 1993-2004” concluded that the increase over this period was 1.6 mm/year (or around one-half the rate reported by IPCC and slightly lower than the average for the entire 20th century). It did conclude, however that “systematic errors are likely to dominate most estimates of global average change” and the [satellite] “database is insufficient to compute sea level trends with the accuracy necessary to discuss the impact of global warming”.
Despite the reservations stated above, the impression is given by IPCC that satellite altimetry provides a more accurate methodology for measuring sea level trends than the older tide gages, “These estimates are based on improved satellite and in situ data now available.”
Based on the evaluation of the scientists directly involved in satellite altimetry to measure sea levels, it appears that the above-stated reservations on the accuracy of this method are well founded and the IPCC statement referring to “improved satellite data” is a bit of a stretch.
A report by one of the NOAA scientists directly involved casts serious doubt on the validity of satellite altimetry for measuring sea levels, concluding, ”every few years we learn about mishaps or drifts in the altimeter instruments, errors in the data processing or instabilities in the ancillary data that result in rates of change that easily exceed the formal error estimate, if not the rate estimate itself.” “It seems that the more missions are added to the melting pot, the more uncertain the altimetric sea level change results become.”
{http}://www.cosis.net/abstracts/EGU04/05276/EGU04-J-05276.pdf
All in all, it appears that IPCC is on very weak ground in its claim of accelerated sea level rise in the period 1993-2003 over earlier periods.
A more correct conclusion would have been, “Observations show large oscillations in the rate of sea level rise, with an underlying trend of +1.74 ± 0.16 mm/yr over the 20th century and a slight reduction in the rate of rise in the latter 20th century as compared to earlier periods. New satellite altimetry measurements promise another source of data, but this methodology is still in its infancy for sea level measurement, and unable to provide accurate trend data today.”
Appreciate any comments either of you may have to all this.
Regards,
Max
Being a “Skeptic” of vitually everything that I read/am told, I generally don’t follow “conspiracies”; however, I find this situation curious. Can anyone reading this thread provide a plausible explanation as to why this data would change overnight?
Something is rotten in Norway – 500,000 sq-km of sea ice disappears overnight
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/12/13/something-is-rotten-in-norway-500000-sq-km-of-sea-ice-disappears-overnight/
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2008/12/nansen_sea_ice_area2-520.gif
Hi Brute,
Looks to me like the most recent curve was getting too close to the 1979-2000 “baseline”, which would have meant that there has been no loss of Norwegian sea ice. So someone (who KNEW that sea ice is supposed to be receding due to AGW) decided there must be an error in the observed facts and made the adjustment to correct for this error. Very logical.
Looks like it’s not only happening with GISS and Hadley temperature records, but now also with sea ice measurements.
“Conspiracy” is a BIG word, though. I think that there are a handful of overenthusiastic AGW “believers” stuck into various offices that make these kind of measurements (why would anyone in his right mind otherwise go into that line of business?).
It’s good that there are people like Watts and others “keeping these guys honest”.
But the good news is: the more these guys do these things, the more they will get caught and the more it will become obvious to one and all that the whole AGW scare is just a hoax based on GIGO computer forecasts and bogus data.
Regards,
Max
JZ, Bob, Max: re # 3182 and earlier posts, there was, in the UK last week, a perfect example of why left-leaning politicians and opinion-formers fear democracy – especially when they are trying to introduce what they see as policies for “the common good”.
On Friday, the citizens of Manchester voted on whether or not they wanted the city to adopt a “congestion charge” of up to £5 a day payable by drivers entering and leaving the city during rush hours. The Government was very supportive of the proposal, seen as a precursor of similar schemes elsewhere in the UK; and as part of the package it offered substantial cash inducements for better public transport facilities etc. The scheme was recommended to voters by all but one of the ten local authorities (boroughs) in Greater Manchester and, of course, praised by the MSM and by environmentalists – Friends of the Earth had described the plan as a step “to help tackle greenhouse emissions”.
In the event, 2 million voters rejected the plan by a majority of 4 to 1. So, when the public is allowed to be rather more than, in Max’s words, “a neutral bystander”, it seems to have a very different worldview from its rulers.
I daresay that those of you who are interested in historical levels of CO2 have already seen this. If not, you may find it interesting.
Max #3189
Nothing is guaranteed to wind me up more than the outright lies and manipulation of sea level data on which I have vented my dealings several times on this site.
You will remember that just a month or so ago I commented on a sea levels conference I attended which had been put together by an international firm of consultants who do work for virtually every oceanographic and sea levels agency in the world.
After listening to their expensive solution for flood defences to solve a non existent problem, I challenged them discreetly at lunch time. They agreed the figures being used were nonsense but said they had to work with the data they were told to use. This came – in an upward hierarchy-from the following sources;
Their client- The UK Environment Agency (for whom I do some work)
Defra The overall govt agency
The UK Govt
The EU
The IPCC
I am a Defra representative and am directly told we must use the IPCC material which was revised upwards around three years ago. So agencies around the world are marching to the drum beat of the IPCC’s fantasy band.
Sea levels are a fluid affair (pun intended) and a rise in one place is often matched by a fall in another, so information has to be heavily averaged, smoothed, and sent through a Gaussian filter, computer modelled, and emerges as useless. There are some obvious factors that need to be considered, such as a high or low pressure weather system at time of measuring, together with the state of the tide-both within its twice daily cycle and also within the longer lunar cycle. Add waves of varying sizes and thermal expansion, and it becomes extremely difficult to measure to the ocean surface-wherever that may be at any one time. Satellite drift and the averaging already mentioned create further problems and account must be taken of obstructions such as new docks, build up of sand bars, the nature of the sea bed and the stasis of the land-is it rising, falling, or static?
Officially satellites are accurate to within plus or minus 3-5cm (yes 30-50mm) unofficially probably double that level of inaccuracy.
Both the following two sites give a good description of the process-which is being constantly refined but doesn’t get more accurate as the inherent flaws in measuring capabilities can’t be resolved.
http://www.tos.org/oceanography/issues/issue_archive/issue_pdfs/15_1/15_1_jacobs_et_al.pdf
http://jchemed.chem.wisc.edu/Journal/Issues/1999/dec/abs1635.html
This site deals with problems of the data;
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=859
This one shows the Dutch study of sea levels over the last 1000 years-the Dutch know a thing or two about sea levels and they are sceptical of official data.
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=61
The Environment Agency -where possible- like to use physical tide gauges which are both visually observed or can send data electronically. Best of all is gathering information from local people such as the Harbour master or those who work the fishing boats.
Now for the anecdotal stuff. I live in Devon on the south coast of England 100 yards from the sea. The EA get involved in some 10 flood defence projects a year in the south west of England and I see a lot of data. Our closest gauge is Newlyn-referenced to Bob earlier. The levels according to this haven’t changed in 120 years (as well as the official data posted to Bob our unofficial records go back much longer.)
Our house overlooks Bruels Great Western railway built in 1850 which straddles the sea wall and I can see the trains and the waves beating against the sea wall-it is said to be the only main line in Britain where it is advisable to consult a tide and time table!
Brunel had a harbour built to take the materials to his rather inaccessible building project, which I often walk to. (originally the railway was operated by a vacuum system) The harbour is untouched and original and to this day shows no evidence of sea level rise whatsoever. We are right on the dividing line that runs through Britain where one part is sinking and the other rising, so do not need to take this into account. So not only do we have the 120 year Newlyn records showing no rise, but can go back another 30 years to demonstrate that the area has shown no rise for at least 160 years.
Experts also are sceptical of widespread or large sea level rises. Prof Morner –considered the leading expert on sea levels- gave evidence to the British parliament as follows;
Morner says: “The mean eustatic rise in sea level for the period 1850-1930 was in the order of 1.0-1.1
mm/year,” but that “after 1930-40, this rise seems to have stopped (Pirazzoli et al., 1989; Morner, 1973,2000).” This stasis, in his words, “lasted, at least, up to the mid-60s.” Thereafter, “the record can be divided into three parts: (1) 1993-1996 with a clear trend of stability, (2) 1997-1998 with a high-amplitude rise and fall recording the ENSO event of these years and (3) 1998-2000 with an irregular record of no clear tendency.” Most important of all, in his words, “There is a total absence of any recent ‘acceleration in sea level rise’ as often claimed by IPCC and related groups.”
He concludes: “When we consider past records, recorded variability, causational processes involved and the last century’s data, our best estimate of possible future sea-level changes is +10 +/- 10cm in a century, or, maybe, even +5 +/- 15cm.” See also Morner (1995); INQUA (2000).”
So Max, all in all I would say the sea level figures are even more laughable than the Global temperatures that you attempt to dissect to fractions of a degree. The idea that anyone knows what is happening to 1 mm a year globally, or that there is widespread evidence of rapidly escalating sea levels is frankly laughable.
Tony B
Robin #3193
Well it just shows that I’m not the only mad one because Ive been posting exactly this information on an ad hoc basis for some time-nice to see it put together in a coherent fashion!
The worst part is that there are hundreds of records showing how the measurements were being used-I posted some relating to the social conditions of the time in Britain which forced a 1889 Cotton Factories Act to ensure levels were kept below 900ppm for ventilation purposes.
These levels were mentioned in Gaskells 1859 book ‘North and South’ and known about by Florence Nightingale.
My chart picks up the spikes Tikm Ball refers to in 1825, 1857 and 1942. I researched each one of them exhaustively asd they are correct.
http://cadenzapress.co.uk/download/beck_mencken_hadley.jpg
Sea level nonsense, co2 level nonsense, ice core nonsense, and global temperatures nonsense.
No wonder I voted the IPCC report the top science fantasy book for my Christmas present list!
TonyB
Max,
I agree; however, I wanted someone else to corroborate my thoughts. As you wrote, (I’m paraphrasing); the people that are divining this information have a dog in this fight and are of the mindset that Anthropomorphic Global Warming is real and a concern and will “adjust” data that even hints at disproving their doctrine.
Again, unless someone can provide a plausible explanation as to why this data was changed, I consider this fraud.
No Pete, my name is not Doug Giles and I did not write this article……..
The Global Warming Goons Want Your Little Ones
by Doug Giles
I bet Jim Jones is tooling around hell right now green with envy over the mind manipulation the global warming greenies are wielding upon our culture.
We’ve got green jobs, green cars, green dogs, green houses, green toilet paper and environmentally friendly green condoms. Everything now must become green or it is gone, mama. I’m sure Kermit the frog, iguanas, the Grinch, the Creature from the Black Lagoon and Gumby are seriously ticked off regarding the liberal alarmists’ hysterical hijacking of the color they have previously owned, loved and profited from for so many years.
I’m an oil painter, and as an artist I, naturally, love colors—all kinds of colors—but not anymore. Because of the global warming alarmists, as of right now, I officially hate the color green (nothing personal, green). I’m just sick of hearing about you. You are everywhere. It’s that whole overexposure thing . . . that Kathie Lee Gifford, incessant yacking about Cody and Cassidy mind numbing malaise that just the mention of your name now spawns.
Because of the sick amount of cash involved, both sides of the political aisle have drunk so much of the Global Warming Kool-Aid that they are peeing green, and if we the sheeple don’t lock step to these unhinged fascist demands then we’re the devil, Bobby Boucher.
There are several things that get me heated up over the global warmers’ hyperventilated horse smack. It’s stuff like:
– The specious science the global warblers put forth which establishes truth not by facts but through non-stop repetition.
– How the taxpayer dollar is floating this flotsam to the tune of $6 billion a year. That’s more than we send to the National Cancer Institute and to AIDS research.
– The Gestapoesque censorship of “dissenters” and “deniers” of the global warming “facts” by the greenies. God help you if you don’t parrot their apocalyptic projections. If you don’t believe me, just ask the “climate criminals” NASA chief Michael Griffin and NYT bestselling author Christopher Horner. Yep, if science is your field and you don’t inhale what the alarmists are trying to sell then you are SOL regarding a J-O-B.
– Actors in Hollywood who won’t hump a tree and trade in their H2 for a Huffy might as well slap a Bush/Cheney sticker on their truck and drive back to wherever the heck they hail from.
– College students who dare to question their panic-stricken prof’s apocalyptic predictions will endure more scorn than a nice old Christian lady holding a Styrofoam cross at a gay activist rally.
– Everything is now being blamed on global warming from summer frost in Africa, freezing penguin chicks, poorly rising bread dough, impoverished fashion houses and the recent economic downturn suffered by Bulgarian whorehouses.
– The Main Stream Media’s obvious omission of the fact that birds, fleas, and trees crank out more CO2 than humans. Hey, MSM greenie weenie, a cow’s tailpipe puts out more pollutants than a BMW’s. How are you going to guilt trip the flora and fauna into following you? They don’t watch your morning “news” or Hollywood’s stupid Leo DeCaprio and Al Gore end of the world fear flicks. How are you going to get them to step and fetch?
– Congress is currently deliberating whether or not they should make “environment literacy training” a required course for your kids before they get to graduate.
Which brings me to the main point of this column and that which really ticks me off about the green freaks: namely, how they’re after our kids with their gospel of green.
Here’s the rationale behind their brainwashing our young ‘uns: A lot of thinking adults (as in the multiple millions) think that the greenies are pretty much off their rocker. Since the greenies can’t have us arrested (yet), they have decided to get their agenda going via our children, primarily through the agency of the public school system.
Yep, if they can get little kids who still eat their boogers to believe in their boogie man then they will morph into half-pint climate nags who will be an emotional guilt tripping Disney-fueled pain in the butt to the parents who are destroying the earth by not using low flow toilets.
Our kids are being hammered with green hysteria from K through 12. Yep, on a regular basis they are spoon fed apocalyptic children’s books meant to scare the crap out of them and paint the F-150 father as a bad, bad man. In addition, many schools force the kids to view chunky butt, hypocrite extraordinaire Al Gore’s daft film and do chants and life pledges to save the earth. The global warmers are serious as a heart attack about making our children “Inconvenient Youths, veritable eco-warriors who will go after their parents for environmental offenses.”
To help you help yourself and yours steer clear from these terra firma fascists, NYT bestselling author Christopher Horner has penned a new book that is must for those who do not wish to be gang tackled by the green gang. In Red Hot Lies: How Global Warming Alarmists Use Threats, Fraud, and Deception to Keep You Misinformed, Horner reveals how the greenies are about to go into overdrive, forcing new legislation, killing our weak economy, squelching our freedoms, and quashing all dissenting opinion about the causes and effects of climate change.
He has a particularly freaky chapter on how the greenies are gunning for our children, indoctrinating them to the extent that they blame their own parents for the “warming globe.” This heavily footnoted book body slams the global warming alarmists and their junk science. Get one for yourself and your kids and become a “climate criminal” with me!
Since gas prices are now plummeting, I’m off to the Ford dealership. I’m thinking about ordering their spankin’ new pickup truck, the 2009 Ford F-666 Global Warmer, with the El Diablo package. Varooom!
Global Warming Is Caused by Computers
Pete,
I didn’t write this article either……
http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2008/12/global-warming-is-caused-by-computers.html
Hi TonyB,
Thanks for your very informative post on sea levels.
Now, I am no expert on this at all, and, living in Switzerland, should probably not concern myself too much with this subject.
But here is something that concerns me a bit.
For well over 150 years we have had a system of sea level measurements at various coastlines using tide gauges.
These tell us that sea level fluctuates by a large amount on a multi-decadal basis, but has been rising at an underlying rate of around 1.7 mm/year over the past 150 years. It also tells us that there has been no real “acceleration” in the rate of sea level rise over the 20th century (in fact, there has been a slight “slowing down”).
Now we have a group of scientists who want to “improve” on the traditional tide gauges. They have introduced satellite altimetry (a method that has shown promise for measuring glacial ice and snow to determine ice mass loss/gain in ice caps).
Instead of measuring sea level at various coastlines compared to land (where it could have an impact on mankind), these measurements measure the entire ocean (as compared to the center of the Earth).
A heaving ocean is not the same as a stationary glacier. In addition, metal ship decks can cause major distortions in the satellite sea level readings over several square kilometers. The scientists themselves who are involved with this measurement process admit that it is highly inaccurate, and that errors in readings exceed the value of the readings themselves.
In addition, the values obtained from satellite readings must be “adjusted” to “fit” tide gauge readings.
So, my question to you: why don’t we just simply stick with the “tried and true” tide gauge readings to determine “global” sea levels?
Is it because the satellite altimetry measures are less transparent and cannot be checked by the public?
Is it because they are being gathered by “AGW friendly” organizations (NOAA) rather than “neutral” ones (Proudman, INQUA)?
I can see why IPCC “switched” from tide gauges (which showed no late 20th century acceleration in sea level rise) to satellite altimetry (which could be construed to show such a rise).
In the process IPCC could also make the claim that they now use “improved satellite altimetry” (sounds more “scientific” than tide gauges, right?)
I’d really appreciate any input you have on this. Thanks.
Regards,
Max
Max
Everything you say is correct but I think we ought to home in on this;
“So, my question to you: why don’t we just simply stick with the “tried and true” tide gauge readings to determine “global” sea levels?”
I think the answer lies in the other thread ‘do computers cause global warming’. I have been astonished as to how reluctant people in the EA are to go out and actually observe things. They are never happier than when compiling a model on their office computers with all sorts of pretty coloured graphs iluustrating their thesis.
At the press of a button computers can do this sea level work-albeit not very well- and there is a nice digital record of what has been achieved that can be used to demonstrate value for money when the govt is looking at measurable results and future budgets.
Fixed Tidal gauges are old fashioned and unglamorous and take some effort to read regularly- during which time you can get wet-if wired up the electrics can be unreliable as water and electric don’t tend to mix.
There are floating tide gauges of course powered by solar panels that use wireless to trasmit data, unfortunately boats have the habit of using them as anchors or knock them when mooring. One was washed up on our beach last week which had first been hit by a ship THEN pulled loose by a storm. At 165,000CHF apiece its expensive to replace them.
So the old technology is the best but rather old fashioned for the office based computer generation who know very little about historic sea levels so aren’t looking for information that might contradict their assumptions.
Satellites are currently hopeless at measuring a liquid that refuses to stand still long enough to be measured accurately-but they ARE modern!
Personally I think using technology that has a 5cm plus margin of error when you are claiming to be able to measure a sea level rise of say 1.65mm is laughable, and I do wonder how they get away with it.
Mind you there are a lot of gullible people out there.
TonyB