As alarmists ramp up the rhetoric about rising sea levels, melting glaciers, hot temperatures, warming oceans, disappearing ice – nature sends them a clear message to stop lying.
Disrupting the Borg is expensive and time consuming!
Google Search
-
Recent Posts
- Ellen Flees To The UK
- HUD Climate Advisor
- Causes Of Increased Storminess
- Scientist Kamala Harris
- The End Of Polar Bears
- Cats And Hamsters Cause Hurricanes
- Democrats’ Campaign Of Joy
- New BBC Climate Expert
- 21st Century Toddlers Discuss Climate Change
- “the United States has suffered a “precipitous increase” in hurricane strikes”
- Thing Of The Past Returns
- “Impossible Heatwaves”
- Billion Dollar Electric Chargers
- “Not A Mandate”
- Up Is Down
- The Clean Energy Boom
- Climate Change In Spain
- The Clock Is Ticking
- “hottest weather in 120,000 years”
- “Peace, Relief, And Recovery”
- “Earth’s hottest weather in 120,000 years”
- Michael Mann Hurricane Update
- Michael Mann Hurricane Update
- Making Themselves Irrelevant
- Michael Mann Predicts The Demise Of X
Recent Comments
- Gordon Vigurs on Causes Of Increased Storminess
- Ed on Ellen Flees To The UK
- Walter on Ellen Flees To The UK
- conrad ziefle on Causes Of Increased Storminess
- conrad ziefle on Scientist Kamala Harris
- conrad ziefle on Ellen Flees To The UK
- William on Ellen Flees To The UK
- William on Ellen Flees To The UK
- arn on Ellen Flees To The UK
- Greg in NZ on Ellen Flees To The UK
Steve,
Here’s an interesting graphic showing the plume from the recent Icelandic volcano over North America.
http://spaceweather.com/swpod2011/26may11/so2.gif
Cool, thanks.
When will this be reported by the mainstream media? Kind of puts the whole warmist reason for being down the toilet.
The next pontificating from the mount will be that a warming planet is consistent with higher/lower sea levels.
Andy, they are more creative than that. Try: The water that is causing all of the floods used to be in the oceans (which should be higher but for all that evaporation) but has evaporated due to CO2 warming the planet out of control.
It is all consistent with AGW theory, as confirmed by GCMs.
Where is my grant, I can do this all day.
Very few journalists practice journalism nowadays where they actually have to check out facts. It is much easier for them to cut’n’paste or produce the sort of celeb mulch that passes for news these days.
I never used to believe in conspiracy theories but I do now genuinely believe that our establishment ( govt, media, unions, educationalists etc) are deliberately attempting to dumb down the population at large esp kids.
A docile ignorant populace that is only interested in Ryan Giggs’ affairs is much easier to rule.
You would expect that with all the reports of warm oceans, hottest decade on the record, accelerating melting glaciers that the rate of sea level should be accelerating. It is not. Why? Either some people are exagerating, cherry picking or using selective lying / headline grabbing crap.
Onlt a matter of time until the eruptions are “adjusted”out and the net anomaly becomes an upward incline — the real trend, about which Hansen was right all along.
In a totally unrelated story the recent discovery that the NSF was funding research involving shrimp on treadmills has led to some questions on the wisdom of ways for science to spend taxpayer money.
http://blogs.plos.org/neurotribes/files/2011/05/shrimp.treadmill.jpg
I think shrimp on treadmills is easily explained. It is obvious that the Dems are working on a breakthrough means of producing power for propelling vehicles and generating power without the need for fossil fuels or nuclear energy.
Probably more reliable, with less maintenance, than whirligigs.
They should have been testing Crawdads.
Hi Steve,
Following your ftp link, I found lots of files, but did not know which file you might have looked at.
If you have a moment, take a look at the graph at the AVISO site, you’ll notice that most recent data shows sea-level rising — not continuing to plummet as suggested by your graph.
As I noted previously, there is also an obvious upward trend to the data when looking at 1993-2011.
Finally, you’ll notice when looking at more years that there have been dips in the past, and sea level has gone back up.
Perhaps we are looking at different data?
Best regards,
Don
Envisat. It is clearly marked in the article.
I’m curious,
The data you graph is an but an extraction of the data set you cite (ftp://ftp.aviso.oceanobs.com/), a fuller data set that extends back to 2004 (which when graphed in full indicates a clear upward trend) . And yet, you only present data from 2008 onwards in your graph (which falsely cherry-picks a 3 year window indicative of current status more than climate). Climate, of course, is the study of historic trends which can then help inform and predict future trends.
Why would you present such unfair and unbalanced information in an actively deceptive manner? Goodness, what might your readers think?
I presented the data for the latest and best satellite. Clearly they need to resolve the issues with the other satellites.
No, you didn’t present “the data for the latest and best satellite”. You don’t even have the backbone to graph the data that you cited.
And then, blaming it on someone else to clear up satellite issues…don’t you inwardly cringe at your own deceptions? Have you no shame (or ethics)?
BTW, Dick Feynman, of course, would have had nothing to do with you and your self-serving data manipulation. You know that deep down, right?
Oh good, a new village idiot.
June 3, 2008-
“…generations from now, we will be able to look back and tell our children that this was the moment when we began to provide care for the sick and good jobs to the jobless; this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal; this…”
The sea level graph *proves* that O’bama (this week’s spelling) was right!
He really is a modest guy if he can make this come to pass…
Thanks for the quick tour of the narrow minded Steve.
Your response to my observations is just what could be predicted. Nasty, pedantic, and, last but not least, wholly without merit because you decide not to address my comments at all.
Ciao!
OK – you are right. I just made up the data and hacked it on to the aviso web site.
No, clearly not what I said. Jeez, are you having cognitive issues over there?
Why can’t you simply address the observation that you clearly cherry-picked the data? Why is that so difficult?
I DID graph the data you cited. Presumably you graphed the data as well, but then decided only to post that section of the graph you were comfortable with.
Why do you treat your readers to such misdirection?
I understand now, We had record Greenland melt and record high temperatures, which led to sea level declining over the last forty months.
Last try, Steven.
Discuss the issue at hand (see above), or stay in your bubble and have your readers understand that you have no business discussing science.
PS Greenland melt, high temps, and short term (or long term for that matter) declining sea levels are a complex mix of chaotic systems, and collectively chuckle at such a simplistic statement. Pretending it is a straightforward case of cause and effect doesn’t make it so, no matter how convinced you are, or how clever you wish your readership to believe you are.
best,
Mike
I love how alarmists use the word “complex” as an excuse to defy the basic laws of science.
No matter how confused your mind is or how determined you are to spread your bullshit, you still have to comply with the law of conservation of mass. If we had record melt in Greenland, that water had to go somewhere. Where did it go?
Don’t reply with your mindless climate babble. It won’t fool anyone around here.
Fine, last post…your bubble, you get the last word.
So you DO disrespect you readership enough to completely ignore the issue at hand. You are a prevaricator, and a pretender. Nothing more than a grifter trying to score points by misusing science.
The irony found in the title of your blog is galactic.
Here is where I address your comments… pssst:that’s what blogs are actually useful for, Steven, addressing each other’s comments, questions, and concerns. You should try it sometime!
1) You deny that climate is a complex system by claiming it is an “excuse” — you made a funny, Steven!
2) You call on the conservation of energy. Hint: take a course in physics, and stay awake while open/closed systems are discussed (That sound you hear is Feynman laughing at you)!
3) You use inflammatory terms such as alarmist while completely ignoring the implications of your own misunderstandings of science.
4) You continue with the simplistic “where did it go, then?!!” like a 3rd grade bully.
So, we have come to the end of a productive time for me at your blog. I wish your readers much patience and understanding…they’re gonna need it.
best,
Mike
In other words, you can’t account for the missing water and prefer to retreat to places with lots of words – and no science.
Hi Steve,
Let me say first that I am not interested in ad hominem flaming, and I hope that you and I can continue to have a respectful conversation.
There is extra Greenland ice melt and temperature is up, but sea-level went down in 2010. What’s up with that? There is a contradiction: one might expect the opposite to occur with the extra water and thermal expansion. So, what is the implication? There must be other factors affecting the system. La Nina might be one of them. Presumably there are others to explain what is going on with the data. When you have a moment, I would be interested in your thoughts regarding what might be causing the drop.
Best regards,
Don
Don,
It is quite simple. The amount of water melting in Greenland was actually quite small, and apparently more than compensated for by increased snowpack in other areas. La Nina also undoubtedly had an impact.
The point of this article is to show that claims of record melt in Greenland are little more than marketing tripe.
Hi Steve,
Thanks. It seemed like you were saying that there was all this water. So, you kept emphasizing Greenland water because in reality you think it is relatively unimportant. I misunderstood. Seems like that is a separate thread.
I have no idea how much water there might be coming off Greenland. My understanding is that it is increasing, but relative to the ocean it may well be small.
So regarding what causes sea-level fluctuations, it sounds like we agree that La Nina contributes.
Best regards,
Don
You got me, Steven. I said it was to be my last post, but I can’t resist one more.
Firstly, do you have any sense for the IMMENSE hypocrisy of your claiming I didn’t address the issue your brought up, while ignoring mine?
I’ll wait as that question sinks in.
You KNOW some of your readers are calling you out now on this issue. They _all_ can’t be so thick as to not see this.
So, any luck with your irony meter? Personally, if I were you, I would do some serious introspection, and make a tough decision about whether you are even in the right game with this blog. The sense I get from just a few posts is that you are over your head by a good bit.
And, finally, unlike you, I WILL comment on the issue you flagged. Again, though, don’t be shocked. This is what reasonable people do…I must seem very strange to you, actually addressing an issue, but sensing you have room to grow is an adult thing to do.
There is no missing water, Steven. Nature is not running around, wondering where its molecules went. Nature does just fine by herself. In fact, nothing is missing. What is at issue is man’s rather feeble attempt to account for the behaviour of very complex systems.** There are quite reasonable current measurements (and predictive theory) for the increase in total atmospheric water content (due to increased heat content and other things) which could account for your “missing” water. But that is just off the top of my head, it is not what I study.
My guess is that if this particular issue really interested you, you would go to the literature, do some reading and thinking for yourself, and then you could come back and inform your blog readers what you found.
But something tells me that is not how things proceed here…
**I know, there’s that word you don’t like again…you might want to rant against a subject different than climate change if you don’t like that word.
best,
Mike
Hi Steve,
You are more familiar with the data than I. The link is for an AVISO ftp site, so I figured I was not far off just by citing the graph at the AVISO website.
It seems from later posts in this thread, however, that you were using data for a particular satellite. The FTP site that you cite has got lots of folders and files, so it is not obvious which file you might have used. When you have a moment, please let me know which file you used.
Best regards,
Don
Don, the link Steven provided is this one:
ftp://ftp.aviso.oceanobs.com/
not the ftp site you gave.
Plotting those data (in total) show clearly that Steven chopped the data off, misdirecting you and all others to a short-term fluctuation that illuminates nothing more than his willingness to cherry pick data.
The link to the main AVISO site which you correctly supply (http://www.aviso.oceanobs.com/en/news/ocean-indicators/mean-sea-level/)
is even more embarrassing, in which the totality of the combined satellite data indicate a sea level rise of 3.5mm/year or thereabouts.
How (or why, really) is it that you all are ignoring such active deceptions?
Please stop your mindless babbling. The graph clearly states that it is for the last three years – which includes the period of claimed record Greenland melt.
Take your paranoid meds and then try to think logically.
Because Mike, we all know that the sea level has been rising at roughly that same rate for 7-8,000 years, so pointing out the rise in the last century, which was completely consistent with the last 7 millenia is hardly proof of any damn thing, other than that the last century of Sea Level rise is meaningless in the case of AGW.
However, since we have been told repeatedly in the last couple of years, that the glaciers are melting and that sea level rise is accelerating, and that these changes are dangerous, different, indicative of general warming, obvious , and caused by Man,
the FACT that the current conditions are reported incorrectly
on a routine basis is in fact significant, in addition to being simply true.
http://blogs.laweekly.com/informer/2011/03/sea_levels_rising_cal_tech.php
http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2011/05/163288.htm
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/post-carbon/2011/03/study_ice_sheets_melting_sea_l.html
In truth the sea level has fallen. And before that the rate of rise also fell.
http://sealevel.colorado.edu/
What DID increase was the level of SNOW.
And lest you believe in fairies and warm/cold, we all know that it snows when it is cold, and that snow that piles up and disrupts regions well into Spring and possibly Summer is not an indication of dangerous Venus-like Global warming.
But that truth would spoil the message.
Why do you like the false message so much Mike ?
is even more embarrassing, in which the totality of the combined satellite data indicate a sea level rise of 3.5mm/year or thereabouts.
Which of course is much more than the tide guages show!
Steven,
Last try, and then I’ll happily leave your attempts to grasp conservation of energy and other complex issues…
The reason your cherry picking is scientifically indefensible is that a three year window has squat to do with climate, and yet you pretend to your readers that this is somehow meaningful.
This is why looking at the whole data set is necessary. Chopping out a decreasing trend within a short time frame, and suggesting that this illustrates something about climate (look up the definition if you need to) is idiotic, and consistent with the predictive model of those who deny reality. You choose to look only at what fits your worldview, rather that what is actually happening.
In other words, you actually have earned the label “denialist”, whereas I have in no way earned the label alarmist…I don’t “alarm” about anything, I study data. Big difference.
So, have a good time in “happy land”.
Ciao!
Interesting seeing how your one track mind works.
I have stated repeatedly that the point of this article is to show that the record 2010 heat/Greenland melt claims are nonsense.
I have posted at least two other articles in the last two days showing the complete satellite series.
You seem bound and determined not to think or process information. I can’t help you with that.
Sorry, Steven, you can’t back out so easily as that. Your deception (if intentional) or ignorance (if not) clearly indicate the problem you have with reality. Your analysis is weak, and your understanding of climate science is apparently even weaker.
You present on this blog a dangerous mix of political and scientific ideology. And you catalyze it all with a sense of pompous certitude which is a sure clue to your lack of understanding of what skepticism even is.
You are, in other words, a boorish, amateur hack who deserves no more than to have serious people who wish to discuss serious issues ignore you.
As I do now.
Have a nice life!
You are starting to strike me as a bit of a loon.