Disrupting the Borg is expensive and time consuming!
Google Search
-
Recent Posts
- “a persistent concern”
- Deadliest US Tornado Days
- The Other Side Of The Pond
- “HEMI V8 Roars Back”
- Big Pharma Sales Tool
- Your Tax Dollars At Work
- 622 billion tons of new ice
- Fossil Fuels To Turn The UK Tropical
- 100% Tariffs On Chinese EV’s
- Fossil Fuels Cause Fungus
- Prophets Of Doom
- The Green New Deal Lives On
- Mission Accomplished!
- 45 Years Ago Today
- Solution To Denver Homelessness
- Crime In Colorado
- Everything Looks Like A Nail
- The End Of NetZero
- UK Officially Sucks
- Crime In Washington DC
- Apparently People Like Warm Weather
- 100% Wind By 2030
- It Is A Nice Idea, But ….
- Climate Grifting Shutting Down
- Fundamental Pillars Of Democracy
Recent Comments
- arn on “a persistent concern”
- Margaret Smith on “a persistent concern”
- arn on Fossil Fuels To Turn The UK Tropical
- Francis Barnett on Fossil Fuels To Turn The UK Tropical
- Francis Barnett on 622 billion tons of new ice
- conrad ziefle on The Other Side Of The Pond
- Bob G on The Other Side Of The Pond
- Mike Haseler (Scottish Sceptic) on Big Pharma Sales Tool
- gordon vigurs on The Other Side Of The Pond
- arn on The Other Side Of The Pond
It had been said that “a rising tide lifts all boats” but in the looking glass world of climate science, it does not seem to be the case. This aphorism fails equally in both sea level and temperature measurement (see previous posts). A seemingly ignored fact in the BEST temperature reconstructions is that about a third of all stations showed a cooling effect with only the overall average global temperature showing an increase. If there is a smoking gun for low global temperature sensitivity to CO2 concentration, these minority cases of flat or negative trends are it. CO2 dogma decrees that rising concentrations should raise all boats, though perhaps not equally.
RA, could that third have some common factors?
I haven’t looked into the idea that the cooling stations might have some common characteristics. I am actually relying on BEST’s claims to have the best reconstruction. I guess Steven Mosher could weigh in on the subject if he would deign to go beyond his usual cryptic one liner that he often drops into the climate blogs. I just think that even if the net trend is upward for either sea level or global temperature, it is a significant clue if a substantial minority of stations show a flat or negative trend. Stations exhibiting flat or negative trends would seem to imply that the external forcings are substantially less than the natural climate variability.
Agree.
No sea level rise since 1841: http://www.john-daly.com/index.htm
Even the use of the word sea level rise or change is an exaggeration.
Close down the IPCC immediately.
John was one of my early favorite reads.
There is a good thesis in here somewhere. Some tide gauges must be located in areas where isostacy doesn’t come into play. What do they say about sea level without adjustments? The 1/3 cooling stations should be located and assessed. My guess is they are mostly southern hemisphere- with some exceptions. Much can be learned from data subsets.
It is clearly thermal expansion due to the retained heat at the bottom of the ocean raising the islands. All I need is a few grants and I’ll study the issue.
Mike D. touches on an interesting point. It is posible that no consideration has been taken of tectonic changes in making the sea level argument. If the Greenland icecap melts, the entire island may rise, and as a result possibly lowering overall sea level.
Actually, there is an isostasy adjustment to current sealevel records which is used to jack up the trend another couple tenths of a millimeter a year.
Jct: If the ocean didn’t rise in the South, that would explain why it did all the more rising in the North! Har har har.
This year I heard a man on Dutch radio who is working at the port of Rotterdam. His last remark was: And in contrary to what some people say, the ocean hasn’t risen at all. And we measure every day.