There has been zero temperature change over the last sixteen years. If you divide the temperature change by McKibben’s IQ, you get NaN.
Disrupting the Borg is expensive and time consuming!
Google Search
-
Recent Posts
- “pushing nature past its limits”
- Compassion For Terrorists
- Fifteen Days To Slow The Spread
- Maldives Underwater By 2050
- Woke Grok
- Grok Explains Gender
- Humans Like Warmer Climates
- Homophobic Greenhouse Gases
- Grok Explains The Effects Of CO2
- Ice-Free Arctic By 2027
- Red Hot Australia
- EPA : 17.5 Degrees Warming By 2050
- “Winter temperatures colder than last ice age
- Big Oil Saved The Whales
- Guardian 100% Inheritance Tax
- Kerry, Blinken, Hillary And Jefferson
- “Climate Change Indicators: Heat Waves”
- Combating Bad Weather With Green Energy
- Flooding Mar-a-Lago
- Ice-Free Arctic By 2020
- Colorless, Odorless CO2
- EPA Climate Change Arrest
- Nothing Nuclear Winter Can’t Fix
- “We Are From The Government And We Are Here To Help”
- Blinken Not Happy Yet
Recent Comments
- William on Compassion For Terrorists
- arn on “pushing nature past its limits”
- arn on Compassion For Terrorists
- Francis Barnett on Compassion For Terrorists
- arn on Compassion For Terrorists
- arn on Fifteen Days To Slow The Spread
- Ulric Lyons on Woke Grok
- Gamecock on Woke Grok
- Disillusioned on Maldives Underwater By 2050
- Jehzsa on Fifteen Days To Slow The Spread
I’m not too sure many people will have come across ‘Not a Number’. Bill McKibben for one – he probably doesn’t even know what the ‘x’ is for after the 50.
Let me see here Zero gozenta Zero? I don’t nave enough toes to Cypher that! 😉
Fifty times faster than no change is still no change. That outrageously idiotic remark shows that the alarmists are desperate charlatans, simply out to scare ign0rant people.
There has been zero temperature change over the last sixteen years.
This is false, and also irrelevant.
Take either GISS or HadCRUT4 database and calculate the trend over the last 16 years. Calculate its uncertainty. Calculate its statistical significance.
Go ahead, do it.
You will find that both show statistically significant warming over the last 16 years.
I happen to have HadCRUT4’s handy: it is +0.04 +/- 0.04 C/decade. (Uncertainty is the 95% confidence level.)
But that doesn’t really matter. The short-term surface trend is subject to a lot of variation due to ENSOs and aerosols. In 2007 the 15-yr trend for HadCRUT4 was 0.29 C/decade. It was just as improper to cite that a meaningful as it is to cite today’s short-term trends.
The ocean has warmed a lot over this time. Ice continues to melt. Sea level continues to rise. The world continues to warm.
Yes, during the 1982-83 & 1997-98 MASSIVE El Nino events.
So you’re saying that ENSOs are an explanation for past short-term trends, but not current short-term trends?
“You will find that both show statistically significant warming over the last 16 years.”
Thanks for reminding us
Davemoron. We should send a boat load of money to fight statistically significant warming. It will kill us all in like a million years or so.Hahahahahahaha …thank you global warming!
Despite setting a record high (2012-2013) winter heating bill, it would have been statistically 0.00 to -0.08 degrees cooler if not for you!
Sea level continues to rise.
Where?
http://sealevel.colorado.edu/
Sites like this one crowed over the sea level haitus in 2010-2011. Scientists said it was just the large La Nina, which took a lot of water from the ocean and put it on land. And they were right.
Did this site ever issue a correction for its bad information, or acknowledge its errors?
You are correct Dave. I don’t think Steven ever apologized for allowing you to continue to post. Thanks for pointing it out.
Puhleeze — not another noddy graph – complete with this sort of highly qualified BS:
“When seasonal and other variations are subtracted, they allow estimation of the global mean sea level rate.”
Get real. I mean an actual location – somewhere in the physical world – where sea levels had actually and physically risen.
Does such a place exist – where I can visit and see for myself that this has happened?
Subtracting seasonal variations is a completely valid (and necessary) process.
Guys like at CU (and Aviso, and CSIRO) are world experts in deducing sea level rise from the myriad of data that comes in around the world, and have been doing it for a long time. You can choose not to accept peer reviewed, published work, but who are you anyway? A: No one.
Scientists said it was just the large La Nina, which took a lot of water from the ocean and put it on land. And they were right.
Is there any evidence to support this claim, or are you just making shit up?
the myriad of data that comes in around the world,
Give me some examples.
I travel a lot – I want to inspect some of these.
http://sealevel.colorado.edu/
http://davidappell.blogspot.com/2013/01/an-upward-spike-in-sea-level.html
http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.php?release=2011-262
http://www.real-science.com/sea-level-continues-plummet
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=nT0KiC-km9w
I travel a lot – I want to inspect some of these.
As if your travels are going to be of any use determining sea level rise.
Maybe you can also determine the Higg’s mass when you’re out there?
“As if your travels are going to be of any use determining sea level rise.”
It’s not hard to see why so many people on this blog think (and rightly so) you are a repulsive little turd.
One day, you might want to have a try at giving a straightforward answer to a simple question for a change.
The point that you seem to miss is that if sea level rise is the problem that you alarmists claim, then we should be able to begin to see the results of this – somewhere in the world at least.
Or are you too dense to realise this?
RE: David Appell – “Maybe you can also determine the Higg’s mass when you’re out there?”
It is refreshing, how certain you are…
https://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/05/science/all-signs-point-to-higgs-boson-but-still-waiting-for-scientific-certainty.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
RE: David Appell – “Maybe you can also determine the Higg’s mass when you’re out there?”
To me, this comment just illustrates what an appallingly repulsive intellectual snob he is. Higg’s mass has absolutely no relevance to this discussion – he trots it out simply as a means of saying: “Look – I understand Higg’s mass – I’m smarter than you – so don’t question me on something as pedestrian as sea-level rise.”
I find this same sanctimonious approach adopted by many self-styled “intelligent” people who like to sound off about climate change, but can’t engage in a discussion about the “science” from first principles – and can’t provide anything resembling evidence.
we should be able to begin to see the results of this – somewhere in the world at least.
Clearly you have done no reading of your own; maybe too busy traveling?
See: western Pacific sea level rise.
See: Atlantic cost hot spot
See: inundation of North Carolina barrier islands
And this is just for starters….
And this is just for starters….
You seem to have neglected to include any links or references to your anecdotes.
You seem to have neglected to include any links or references to your anecdotes
False. I linked to http://sealevel.colorado.edu/, which contains an enormous number of references to the data.
I don’t expect you to investigate them, of course. Deniers never do.
You must have money tied up in this scam.
I don’t expect you to investigate them, of course. Deniers never do.
Don’t be too sure – deniers aren’t like grubby little intellectual snobs – facts matter.
It’s a hobby of mine, in fact.
Like the one in Sydney harbour, that shows no change in a hundred years.
http://www.bom.gov.au/ntc/IDO70000/IDO70000_60370_SLI.pdf
Funny that the whole rest of the world seems to be drowning around us – and nobody seems to know.
You must have money tied up in this scam.
My money is invested in industries I know, and doing very nicely, thank you.
And no, it’s not in some souless, amoral defense company.
I don’t work for any defense companies, you dumbass.
“And no, it’s not in some souless, amoral defense company.”
You should kidnapped and parachute dropped into North Korea.
RE: David Appell – “See: inundation of North Carolina barrier islands”
RE: I. Lou Minotti – “Did you ever stop to think that the only reason the sea level seems to rise is because of subsidence”
RE: David Appell – “Did you ever stop to think that people far smarter than you thought of that possibility many decades ago?”
Yes we did David, and you know what? Those people, like the ones at realclimate, they agree…its subsidence. But you sir, already knew this, and asserted it wasn’t.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2011/06/2000-years-of-sea-level/
“To get a continuous record of good resolution, we need a site with a rapid, continuous sea level rise. Kemp and colleagues used salt marshes in North Carolina, where the land has steadily sunk by about two meters in the past two millennia due to glacial isostatic adjustment. Thus a roughly 2.5 meters long sediment core is obtained. The effect of land subsidence later needs to be subtracted out in order to obtain the sea level rise proper.”
Funny that the whole rest of the world seems to be drowning around us – and nobody seems to know.
Have you looked at the papers from CU and Aviso and CSIRO?
Are they basing their conclusions on a single site? Yes or no?
Have you looked elsewhere? Or did you cherry pick just one location?
I expect you just cherry picked, since deniers do not have the honesty or integrity to do otherwise.
You should kidnapped and parachute dropped into North Korea.
You need to work on your sense of humor.
I think there are classes for that. Or just Life.
“You need to work on your sense of humor.
I think there are classes for that. Or just Life.”
Your stupidity and arrogance don’t mix well with a sense of humor.
I expect you just cherry picked, since deniers do not have the honesty or integrity to do otherwise.
So – I’ll take that as a “No.” – there is no real-world evidence that you can point to where sea-level rise is a problem.
I don’t work for any defense companies
Who knows? You are too much of a coward to blog under your real name, so you can invent any lie you want to. And usually do.
Appell, you are posting under multiple fake names, and then calling me a coward for using a pen name? What kind of dirt ball are you?
Everything I have ever posted is accurate, including the fact that I use a single pen name.
I recently anonymously posted on Watts’ site, just to screw with him.
Here? No, just me.
But I like that I’ve gotten into your head and worried you about it.
World class dirtball.
I recently anonymously posted on Watts’ site, just to screw with him.
Ummmm … what was your previous comment:
since deniers do not have the honesty or integrity to do otherwise.
So – this is an example of your “honesty” and “integrity”?
You really are the grubbiest of grubby little hypocrite shits.
World class dirtball.
Yet brave enough to put his real name to his words.
Must eat you up, I’m sure.
You post under multiple fake names, and you side with the orthodoxy when they are obviously lying.
What a coward.
Yet brave enough to put his real name to his words.
Yup – I can just hear everyone on Monday saying it:
“Wow – the grubby little hypocrite turd is brave enough to use his own name.”
I am glad I don’t have to use a fake name to blog — that I’m too afraid of losing my job to be honest about who I am. It’s never fun having boots on your neck like that….
What is wrong with you? You live in your own little fantasy land
I suspect that “David Appell” is one of those boys-own “group-blog” IDs, where someone different in the fan-club takes a turn on alternate days.
I hope so anyway – hate to think that there is any one person out there in the world as seriously fkt up as the comments would suggest.
Did you ever stop to think that the only reason the sea level seems to rise is because of subsidence? In other words, the place you’re posting your wisdom from is displacing water?
Did you ever stop to think that people far smarter than you thought of that possibility many decades ago?
I. Lou Minotti says, “my name is Louis G. Wenner, Jr. I live at 217 W. High St. in Glassboro, NJ, 08028-2525.” Our police chief’s name is Alex Fanfarillo. The Mayor’s name is Weo McCabe. (856-881-1500). David Appell is more than welcomed to stop in and talk to me face-to-face, at his discretion and at any time, since he “travels a lot.” Well, travel to Glassboro, NJ, where my wife and I can show you what stupid progressive idiots like yourself have wrought. And when you grow a set and come (as a “traveller”), you will have full access to my computer to let everybody else at Real Science know you’ve finally grown a set, and left mommy’s basement. And yes, idiot, I’ve thought about how subsidence is wrought by fat cats. All they have to do is opine without picking up a tool, a piece of pipe, a sheet of plywood or drywall, and have a “mommy image” that wipes their fat asses. Otherwise, they have nothing to offer except ideas and theories not unlike fat-assed Cuz Joey from Vineland–a total loser who went to Princeton and had a nervous breakdown when presented with ideas that went far beyond “what’s for dinner, mom?” Your call, dickhead. Man up, or shut up.
Smarter than me? Got you figured out, don’t I? I’m not a scientist, unlike most of those who post here with more knowledge than me. But I’m not stupid, either. I’d much rather read or hear from someone who’s taken the time and trouble to write a book about their beliefs, than someone with an Appelation that believes they’re the smartest person to come along since Solomon.
David Appell,
You realize of course that the 0.04C rise per decade is well below the IPCC projected trends for the first two decades of this century and below the trend rate of the 1990’s.
Then someone with more integrity than you wrote up a full temperature trend presentation and showed the warming trend to be statistically insignificant for well over a decade:
“For RSS the warming is not significant for over 23 years.
For RSS: +0.127 +/-0.136 C/decade at the two sigma level from 1990
For UAH, the warming is not significant for over 19 years.
For UAH: 0.143 +/- 0.173 C/decade at the two sigma level from 1994
For Hacrut3, the warming is not significant for over 19 years.
For Hadcrut3: 0.098 +/- 0.113 C/decade at the two sigma level from 1994
For Hacrut4, the warming is not significant for over 18 years.
For Hadcrut4: 0.095 +/- 0.111 C/decade at the two sigma level from 1995
For GISS, the warming is not significant for over 17 years.
For GISS: 0.116 +/- 0.122 C/decade at the two sigma level from 1996”
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/02/10/has-global-warming-stalled/
You need to stop the misleading crap since it is plain the CAGW conjecture is a failure and that the warming trend has slowed to a crawl and maybe soon into a definite cooling trend.
To expand on this with Hadcrut4,Werner showed that there has been ZERO warming for the last 12 years:
“Hadcrut4
The slope is flat since November 2000 or 12 years, 2 months. (goes to December.)
For Hacrut4, the warming is not significant for over 18 years.
For Hadcrut4: 0.095 +/- 0.111 C/decade at the two sigma level from 1995
With Hadcrut4, the anomaly for 2012 is 0.436. This would rank 10th. 2010 was the warmest at 0.54. The highest ever monthly anomaly was in January of 2007 when it reached 0.818. The anomaly in 2011 was 0.399 and it will come in 13th.
Following are two graphs via WFT. Everything is identical as with RSS except the lines apply to Hadcrut4. Graph 1 and graph 2.”
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/02/10/has-global-warming-stalled/
David try being an honest PH.D holder for a change.
You need to stop the misleading crap
The fact that he is over here ranting suggests that no-one is listening to him anyway – and this is just an outlet for his frustrations.
Let him carry on, I say – it is quite amusing to watch him flailing around, without a straw of fact or evidence to clutch at.
On the other hand, if I lived anywhere near him, I’d quietly make sure that there were no sharp objects or loaded weapons anywhere at hand.
So, David, let’s see – according to your source, sea level HAS risen since 1993 – no problem, we can agree to that.
The trend says it’s gone up a whole 64 millimeters (-6 to +58), which comes out to about 2.52 inches over that 20 years. Again, we can agree to a 1 inch per decade rise.
The problem is, there are people who say that we’re expecting to see an 80 foot (24384 mm) rise in sea level. At the current rate, it’ll take 7,620 years to get to that level.
So do you agree with the theory that there will be an 80 ft rise in sea level, and if so, what time frame would you use?
Who says we agree with the little prick?
“Observations of sea level at Port Arthur, Tasmania, southeastern Australia, based on a two-year record made in 1841–1842, a three-year record made in 1999–2002, and intermediate observations made in 1875–1905, 1888 and 1972, indicate an average rate of sea level rise, relative to the land, of 0.8 ± 0.2 mm/year over the period 1841 to 2002.”
However, not happy with the observed result, they then have to fiddle with it:
“When combined with estimates of land uplift, this yields an estimate of average sea level rise due to an increase in the volume of the oceans of 1.0 ± 0.3 mm/year, over the same period. These [adjusted] results are at the lower end of the recent estimate by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change of global average rise for the 20th century.”
http://keyportarthur.org.au/extras/1044/The%20sea%20level%20at%20PA%20from%201841%20to%20present%20by%20John%20Hunter.pdf
…and apparently these observations in Tasmania were instrumental in contributing to the investigations into the Higg’s mass.
Why are you assuming future sea level rise will be linear.
Or will stop?
Are you aware of what past warming events have meant for sea level rise?
https://www.google.com/search?q=sea+level+rise+past+historical&aq=f&um=1&ie=UTF-8&hl=en&tbm=isch&source=og&sa=N&tab=wi&ei=isU6UdbyL9TQqwHE8YDQCQ&biw=1366&bih=635&sei=j8U6Ude1D4TiqgHb-IHYBQ#um=1&hl=en&tbm=isch&sa=1&q=sea+level+rise+paleoclimate&oq=sea+level+rise+paleoclimate&gs_l=img.3…87314.93135.6.93562.35.24.3.1.1.4.118.2200.16j8.24.0…0.0…1c.1.5.img.QRehCRBEo_k&bav=on.2,or.r_cp.r_qf.&bvm=bv.43287494,d.aWM&fp=9193e07b8a20555e&biw=1366&bih=635&imgrc=WgIEe8vPaFb84M%3A%3BLvAyBKdDyABytM%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fchadtolman.com%252Fimages%252Ffig8.jpg%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fchadtolman.com%252Frisingseas.html%3B526%3B344
What is that you think any of this actually proves?
http://seaandskyny.com/2011/05/24/rising-waters-and-coastal-floods-living-with-sea-level-rise-in-nyc-part-12/
Interesting charts you referred to. Especially the one covering the last 15,000 years of sea level rise. Anyone would think we were coming out of an ice age…..
Past warmings of 3C have lead to long-term sea level rise of ~30 m:
http://chadtolman.com/risingseas.html
Why should this one be any different?
But you’ll be dead, so it’s not your problem. Party on, dude.
Where is your evidence for 3C rise?
Yikes!
Don’t tell me you’ve lost funding as well.
I see that 216 potential AGW associated projects have been either wiped out totaslly or drastically reduced from the NSF pockets…
By September 2014 the money train will be completely done and up to each university to continue any of it.
The private donors have dropped $ in almost a linear fashion for the past 30 months and that is a point of psychological stress, isn’t it?
First, why are you assuming that sea level will have a catastrophic increase? Or that it will continue to rise?
Second, I notice that you neglected to answer the question.
Can you, as a climate scientist, tell us with 95 percent certainty, that there will be an 80 foot sea level rise by 2050? Feel free to link to one of your many peer-reviewed papers if you need to.
Surely, one of your degrees (Ph.D. in Physics, M.A. in Physics, B.S. in Physics and Mathematics) prepared you to write papers on this protected sea-level rise.
Even if it was the Graduate Program in Creative Writing.
McKitten must have been monitoring temp from sunrise until noon.
I see that David once again has you guys off topic over Sea Level stuff when the topic is about McKibben;s absurd 50X faster temperature change ……………….
LOL.
The problem is that all of this shit is so absurd and unbelievable that one argument is just as good as the next. If a moron falls in the forest, does anyone hear it?
If it’s Toshinmack, I’d just ignore it! 😆
Ivan says:
March 9, 2013 at 3:14 am
Scientists said it was just the large La Nina, which took a lot of water from the ocean and put it on land. And they were right.
Is there any evidence to support this claim, or are you just making shit up?
This is one of the rare cases where Appell has a point. Remember the Brisbane floods? Those were caused by extra precipitation (and bad dam management) caused by the western Pacific warm pool which is caused by La Nina conditions.
This is one of the rare cases where Appell has a point.
I assume you are talking about the one on the top of his head?
Those were caused by extra precipitation
No argument about that – as was the case in all the previous floods.
http://www.simplesustainable.com/topic/3555-brisbane-river%E2%80%99s-flood-history/
However, the point that the pointed-one is trying to link to this, is that so much extra precipitation occurred that the sea levels fell by a corresponding amount.
You only need 3rd-grade level arithmetic to tell you that this hypothesis is laughable in the extreme.
In a post at WUWT, Willis pointed out how the claims of the missing sea level rise was due to extra water on land just didn’t add up:
“The sea level was going up at about 3 mm per year. In the last year it fell about 6 mm. So that’s a change of about a centimetre of water that NASA says has fallen on land and been absorbed rather than returned to the ocean. But of course, the land is much smaller than the ocean … so for the ocean to change by a centimetre, the land has to change about 2.3 cm.
To do that, the above map would have to average a medium blue well up the scale … and it’s obvious from the map that there’s no way that’s happening. So I hate to say this, but their explanation doesn’t … hold water …
I suspected I’d find this when I looked, because in the original press release the authors just said:
“This year, the continents got an extra dose of rain, so much so that global sea levels actually fell over most of the last year,” says Carmen Boening.
When people make claims like that, with no numbers attached, my Urban Legend Detector™ goes off like crazy … and in this case, it was right.
Best to all, thanks to Anthony.
w.”
See the update by Willis at the end of the article:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/08/24/nasa-notes-sea-level-is-falling-in-press-release-but-calls-it-a-pothole-on-road-to-higher-seas/
Sea level has been rising since the end of the last ice age and at the present rate of rise will never constitute a serious problem. On the other hand, mankind should seriously start to worry should sea level start to fall, a likely sign of a plunge into the next little ice age.
“David Appell says:
March 9, 2013 at 5:43 am
Past warmings of 3C…”
“I can’t see the forest for all these damn trees!” 😆