SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
HEARING CHARTER
A Rational Discussion of Climate Change: the Science, the Evidence, the Response
Wednesday, November 17th, 2010
10:30 am
2325 Rayburn House Office Building
Sea Level Rise. The global sea level rose about 17 centimeters (6.7 inches) in the last century. The rate in the last decade, however, is nearly double that of the last century.
Actually, sea level rise rates have not changed a bit – when you measure them the same way as you did in the past.
Steven:
I have been reading Lindzen’s presentation and found this:
Here are two of their assertions:
(iii) Natural causes always play a role in changing Earth’s climate, but are now being overwhelmed by human-induced changes.
(iv) Warming the planet will cause many other climatic patterns to change at speeds unprecedented in modern times, including increasing rates of sea-level rise and alterations in the hydrologic cycle.
Now, one of the signers was Carl Wunsch. Here is what he says in a recent paper in Journal of Climate (Wunsch et al, 2007) (and repeated a couple of weeks ago in a departmental lecture):
It remains possible that the data base is insufficient to compute mean sea level trends with the accuracy necessary to discuss the impact of global warming–as disappointing as this conclusion may be.
In brief, when we actually go to the scientific literature we see that the ‘authoritative’ assertions are no more credible than the pathetic picture of the polar bear that accompanied the letter.
The part about sea level caught my eye.
I found the link at Tom Nelson:
http://democrats.science.house.gov/Media/file/Commdocs/hearings/2010/Energy/17nov/Lindzen_Testimony.pdf
But for the one that displays Pathological science at its best:
http://democrats.science.house.gov/Media/file/Commdocs/hearings/2010/Energy/17nov/Santer_Testimony.pdf
I like Lindzen’s closing remarks:
Perhaps we should stop accepting the term, ‘skeptic.’ Skepticism implies doubts about a plausible proposition. Current global warming alarm hardly represents a plausible proposition. Twenty years of repetition and escalation of claims does not make it more plausible. Quite the contrary, the failure to improve the case over 20 years makes the case even less plausible as does the evidence from climategate and other instances of overt cheating.
In the meantime, while I avoid making forecasts for tenths of a degree change in globally averaged temperature anomaly, I am quite willing to state that unprecedented climate catastrophes are not on the horizon though in several thousand years we may return to an ice age.
Judith Curry has her presentation here :
http://judithcurry.com/2010/11/17/uncertainty-gets-a-seat-at-the-big-table-part-iv/
I have not read this one yet!
Ok they want a CARBON TAX?
I don’t get it, it’s a Carbon Dioxide Tax, not a Carbon tax.
So if we tax H20 (Water) then we call it a Hydrogen tax?
It’s been cleverly worded.
The sea-level data is essentially garbage, the data quality prior to the mid-70’s is un-usable.
I don’t know how the satelites measure but it must be a very complex and not necesarily reliable algorithm due to gravitational / tidal effects, thermal effects (short lived) etc..
Land based gauges are inapplicable on a global scale so it is more complex than it seems to get an accurate measure and so prone to manipulation…..
http://www.celestiamotherlode.net/catalog/images/screenshots/various/earth_Informational_maps_1__Ton_Lindemann.jpg
So does the sea level take into account the different amount of gravitational forces in different parts of the planet?
I wonder how sea level varied during The Holocene Warming b (8000-5600bp). The Akkadian Cooling (5600-3500AD). The Minoan Warming (3500-3200bp). Do we have satellite data from these times so we can compare? 8)
Another view of earth http://www.abc.net.au/science/news/stories/s911917.htm
hmmm most be very special satellites that work out these sea level rises
http://www.climatechangedispatch.com//behind-the-science/3969-ancient-greeces-global-warming
They need to call Professor Ian Plimer to the Hill to teach them geology ABC
An interesting question is why the sea-level rise continued at more or less the same rate while global temps dipped a little from 1940-1970. Does anyone have any references?
Could it be the Water footprint from the cars, all that H20 coming out of the tail pipes makes the sea rise?
We need a Hydrogen tax on Water
It would suggest that sea level changes are in fact extremely insensitive to global temperature changes.
This would actually make sense. The small rise in sea level over the centuries reflects the gradual melting of ice left over from the ice age. Any extra melting resulting from a half degree rise in temps would be barely noticeable compared to this.
Pingback: Goracle Claims Media Aren’t Covering Climate Hysteria Correctly : Stop The ACLU
Heh, Dr. Lindzen told them like it is. Hopefully, some of those pinheads are articulate enough to know what “sentient” means.
“Given the above, the notion that alarmingwarming is ‘settled science’ should be offensive to any sentient individual, though to be sure, the above is hardly emphasized by the IPCC.”——Dr. Richard Lindzen.
And………”However, with global warming the line of argument is even sillier. It generally amounts to something like if A kicked up some dirt, leaving an indentation in the ground into which a rock fell and B tripped on this rock and bumped into C who was carrying a carton of eggs which fell and broke, then if some broken eggs were found it showed that A had kicked up some dirt. These days we go even further, and decide that the best way to prevent broken eggs is to ban dirt kicking.”
Oh, heck, a must read…….. http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2010/11/lindzen_testimony_11-17-2010.pdf
Steve – I watched the entire 3 hours and 45 minutes. Did anyone notice in the Q&A session for Panel 1 after Lindzen starts discussing thermometer “problems” at the 49:00 minute mark, that Dr. Meehl in addressing daily data collection problems at 51:40 inadvertantly (it seems) says, “…a bigger problem than the thermometer problem…”? I took that to mean Meehl doesn’t disagree with Lindzen’s contention that the thermometers and the T record are a problem. At the very least it gave ammunition to the panel for a further investigation into the reliability of the thermometer record.