Actually, recent sea level rise is below IPCC projections and is clearly decelerating. Why does someone who calls himself an “evangelical Christian” intentionally mislead his readers? How much does Cook get paid to promote this BS?
Disrupting the Borg is expensive and time consuming!
Google Search
-
Recent Posts
- 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
- COP29 Preview
- UK Labour To Save The Planet
- A Giant Eyesore
- CO2 To Destroy The World In Ten Years
- Rats Jumping Off The Climate Ship
- UK Labour To Save The Planet
Recent Comments
- Disillusioned on Democrats’ Campaign Of Joy
- Ulric Lyons on “Impossible Heatwaves”
- William on Democrats’ Campaign Of Joy
- William on 21st Century Toddlers Discuss Climate Change
- czechlist on Democrats’ Campaign Of Joy
- arn on Democrats’ Campaign Of Joy
- GeologyJim on Democrats’ Campaign Of Joy
- Peter Carroll on New BBC Climate Expert
- Peter Carroll on New BBC Climate Expert
- Greg in NZ on 21st Century Toddlers Discuss Climate Change
But obviously Cook is referring to the adjusted readings after accounting for isostasy!
Obviously that is a bogus adjustment wrt sea level, and obviously it wouldn’t make a lot of difference anyway.
You are not alone on this one !
http://notrickszone.com/2011/07/16/german-geology-professor-rejects-claim-of-acceleratiing-sea-level-rise/
the key word is “cook”
think you dropped an r after the c
I thought it was a typo incorrectly using C instead of K.
Yes he is a KOOK:
Keeper
Of
Odd
Knowledge
I can see why SLR dropped the past year, but won’t it rise in the coming months after the recent flooding and summer melt? Just wondering.
You would not even notice the difference.
LOL,
he made a guest post at my forum 2 weeks ago.Peddling his baloney.
“Hello all. This is the *real* John Cook (I don’t know who Guesty is but I always post under my own name). Sorry it’s taken me so long to notice this thread (someone just tweeted it). I think Richard111 asks an excellent question: “tell me how CO2 changes climate”. The answer comes from satellite measurements. Over the last few decades, satellites have been measuring radiation escaping to space from our climate system. In 2001, UK scientist John Harries compared measurements from the 1970s to current measurements. What he found was less heat escaping to space at the precise wavelengths that CO2 absorbs radiation. He described this as direct experimental evidence for an increased greenhouse effect.
That is how CO2 changes climate. It traps heat. This is an empirically observed reality. More evidence is outlined at http://sks.to/agw”
gargle….
He never did post under his own name.
LOL
Real Climate doesn’t allow “slime” all over their website and why should you?
What was “measuring” CO2 wavelengths to space in the 1970’s, anyway. The Star Ship Enterprise?
These people really need to throw out their Star Trek toys, move out of mom’s basement, and get a job.
“What was ‘measuring’ CO2 wavelengths to space in the 1970?s, anyway. The Star Ship Enterprise?”
It was the Nimbus 4 satellite, launched by NASA, that measured outgoing longwave radiation from April 1970 to January 1971. In Harries et al 2001, scientists compare the outgoing radiation from 1970 to measurements made by the Japanese ADEOS satellite in 1997 and find “direct experimental evidence for a significant increase in the Earth’s greenhouse effect that is consistent with concerns over radiative forcing of climate”.
You can read about it here:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v410/n6826/abs/410355a0.html
John Cook:
Long term weather patterns account for any minor changes measured between 1970 and 2000. However just the improvements in measuring equipment would also account for the differences.
I gave up reading science fantasy and fairy tales years ago.
By the way: welcome to the site it is always fun to have Chicken Littles stop by to display their prognostication skills!
Worse, Mr. Cook is writing about sea-level rise as if it is happening today, when obviously it isn’t, and it can’t be considered accelerating by any stretch of the imagination, unless one disregards the last 3 years of data.
Its just as bad as talking about as the earth warms when it hasn’t in over a decade. Its disingenuous.and purposefully misleading.
John Cook, how is it that you know about some obscure study done in 2001 but don’t understand a simple graph? I find that hard to believe. So, it seems you’re simply ignoring data you don’t agree with.
Grumpy Grampy: “just the improvements in measuring equipment would also account for the differences”
Just curious, Grumpy Grampy, in coming to that conclusion, did you read the Harries 2001 paper to see how they addressed the issue of data measured 27 years apart?
sutys, Harries 2001 isn’t some obscure study, it’s a piece of the puzzle in a much larger picture. It was followed up by analyses from other satellites that came after the 2001 paper (Griggs 2004, Chen 2007). The comparisons over extended periods also addresses Grumpy Grampy’s point of weather patterns.
These results are corroborated by surface measurements that also find an increased greenhouse effect. Eg – Evans 2006, analysing the spectrum of download longwave radiation, concluding “this experimental data should effectively end the argument by skeptics that no experimental evidence exists for the connection between greenhouse gas increases in the atmosphere and global warming.”
Dear John Cook,
Well, I did a rather fast search for “Harries 2001” and a vast majority (honestly all of the first couple of pages) are in the area of social science. Surely if it were not obscure it would be at least in the first 20 or 30, and if it were “a piece of the puzzle” have an integer number of citations that was greater than 0. Obviously such a vital and foundational study could be merely plagiarised in further papers, so the citations don’t show up, but that would surely be quite unlikely.
John, they weren’t “corroborated” by surface measurements, they were calibrated to surface measurements. Worse, the surface measurements they used were inadequate. Even worse, their stated margin of error is well beyond any tenth of a millimeter. Satellites simply don’t have that sort of sensitivity and neither do surface measurements.
But most hilariously, you didn’t address my point. (Actually Steve’s point from his post.) Can you read a graph? If the satellite data is as good as you purport it to be then sea-level is obviously lowering. Speaking of sea-level rise as if it was ongoing is misleading. As as far as Evans06, don’t tell me, tell the temps…..they’re the ones not cooperating with this Malthusian misanthropist’s power grab. Obviously, there was something wrong with the conclusions.
But, moreover, again, this is deception. Sure, long-wave radiation warms things, and it would warm the earth if the earth were a vacuum. But its not. It is an equilibrium seeking machine with enumerable mechanisms. Some which haven’t engaged yet, others have, some perpetually do.
You see John, the problem with the climate science is that it is all based on the same assumption. It’s built into their models of all sorts. Temp models, sea level models, drought models, flood models….etc. And the reality is the models are wrong. They always been wrong and always will be wrong if they continue to hold the one common denominator. Its quite obvious, even to the casual observe, the science is missing much knowledge and assuming too much.
And as Grumpy stated, welcome. It is nice that you’d come and pay us a visit. It would be nicer, though, if you’d respond to the graphic above instead of all of this hand-waving. At any rate, do swing back by from time to time, you don’t have to wait for your name to be mentioned. In spite of the tone, it is enjoyable to exchange thoughts and ideas about our current happenings.
Best wishes,
James
Stark, a better source for peer-reviewed citations is google scholar. Try this link:
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?cites=8352931607960765738&as_sdt=2005&sciodt=0,5&hl=en
James, I was intentionally not commenting on the graph – cherry picked timeframes, particularly with data that show much year-to-year variability like sea level that is affected by ocean cycles, are not particularly illuminating or interesting.
I usually don’t have time to get involved in blog threads, this week particularly is crazy as, but I simply couldn’t resist Brian’s Star Trek toys 🙂 Thanks for a civil discussion.
John:
You claim to not get concerned about “Cherry Picked Graphs” But everything you have based your web site on is built of Cherry Picked fantasies. Or were you just being facetious.
It’s obvious that sea level rise is accellerating. After all, Miami Beach, Cape Cod and Virginia Beach are all under 20 feet of water, aren’t they?
Stark,
Are you kidding? You do a google search and that supports your comment? That’s just idiotic. For the record it has been cited 84 times not zero as you attest. You can see the papers which cite it at the following link:
http://scholar.google.ca/scholar?hl=en&lr=&cites=8352931607960765738&um=1&ie=UTF-8&ei=VRYlToniJrGOsAKAxKHZDA&sa=X&oi=science_links&ct=sl-citedby&resnum=1&ved=0CBgQzgIwAA
Think before you speak…
Grumpy grampy:
“Long term weather patterns account for any minor changes measured between 1970 and 2000.”
heh, heh, heh.
That would be climate then.
Not sure if “John Cook” is actually John Cook, but the comments above display the usual pattern of sophisms, a disregard for the use of critical thinking and a basic lack of familiarity with the reality of Government-funded scientific research.
In fact, John could be logically identified as a “literature supremacist”, somebody who believes that nothing can trump the conclusions reached by this or that scientific paper.
Luckily science doesn’t work this way otherwise every new article would close down all research in a topic.