And the answer is – no. The dissonance of these people knows no bounds.
http://www.aviso.oceanobs.com/
Sea level has scarcely risen for the past eight years.
Disrupting the Borg is expensive and time consuming!
Google Search
-
Recent Posts
- 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
- “False Claims” And Outright Lies”
- Michael Mann Cancelled By CNN
- Spoiled Children
- Great Lakes Storm Of November 11, 1835
- Harris To Win Iowa
- Angry Democrats
- November 9, 1913 Storm
- Science Magazine Explains Trump Supporters
- Obliterating Bill Gates
- Scientific American Editor In Chief Speaks Out
Recent Comments
- arn on The Clock Is Ticking
- dm on “hottest weather in 120,000 years”
- D. Boss on The Clock Is Ticking
- William on The Clock Is Ticking
- arn on “Peace, Relief, And Recovery”
- arn on The Clock Is Ticking
- Gordon Vigurs on “Peace, Relief, And Recovery”
- Disillusioned on “Peace, Relief, And Recovery”
- Disillusioned on “Earth’s hottest weather in 120,000 years”
- Francis Barnett on “Peace, Relief, And Recovery”
“if this trend continues”……
…………we’re going to run out of water
Once water runs out……no more major greenhouse gas……no more global warming……welcome global burning……and it’s all our fault!
Remember what the purpose of RC is. They provide one liners and cover to the media. Being correct is irrelevant to thier mission.
That post is credited to Stefan “waterworld” rhamsdorf who created the accelerated sea level rise for “Dopenhagen” a couple of years ago. He is a fantasy writer so he fits well with the rest of the Chicken Little Brigade.
The last name is probably spelled wrong but IDNGAS. You know who I mean!
I read that post at unRealClimate, God help me, and I’m no wiser as to what Hansen’s elf Gavin was on about. Seemed to be something to do with the choice of dataset, or something. Probably it was the “or something”.
Still, the “Team” know all about the right choice of dataset.
That’s Stefan climate skeptics are the new “aryan physics of the third reich” Rahmsdorf.
But I’m sure Gavin is of a like mind. Close enough.
Gavin Schmidt’s another one of those young losers we remember very well saying “Wait!!! We’re only just LEARNING about this stuff!!!” when Mann and Hansen’s ignorance shown through time after time regarding atmospheric electromagnetic activity.
Gavin Schmidt’s having a huge time with the fact that recent a 14 year study, the infra-red telescopy, and optical telescopy fields, all report L.E.S.S. INFRA RED in the atmosphere and LESS heat distortion regarding optical telescopy than SCORES of years ago.
In the case of atmospheric infra-red, there can’t BE any “offset.”
And since the DEFINITION of HEAT on GAS is MOTION, the OPTICAL TELESCOPY field doesn’t have an out.
There’s less of all that as manmade gases have R.A.G.E.D. U.P. which is not just indication but p.r.o.o.f. that not only has the atmosphere not been hoarding heat: it’s impossible and there isn’t a G.H.G. Effect.
If there were even a G.H.G. Effect, the amount of both heat and infra-red heat, would be higher as manmade gases have raged upward.
There is no g.h.g. effect, it’s a myth created in men’s minds and instruments of MANY kinds which MUST have picked up the MANDATORY ELECTROMAGNETIC SIGNATURES.
,
There’s too much noise in a short (8-year) data set. The graph above is an artefact of weather variability, not a climatic response. Even the paper rebutted in the above-referenced realclimate article states that trends shorter than 50 years are ‘corrupted by decadal variability’.
This is a signal problem on the skeptical side – data periods selected are frequently too short to render a meaningful climate trend. The above article is a case in point, and no physical or statistical rationale is presented as to why the period is selected. (There isn’t any)
Weather variability?
The main driving factors of sea level are ice melt and ocean temperature. That isn’t just the ocean surface temperature but the temperature of the entire ocean. It takes some major changes in “weather” to effect those at a global level.
When talking about trends 8 years is a small amount of data but we are talking about the change in trends. That requires looking at smaller groupings of data. There are about 30 years of sea level data in the satellite record. The first 15 years rise in sea level was much higher than the last 15 years. Any way you cut that, it is not Acceleration – unless one means Acceleration in the stopping of the rise in sea level.
That phrase doesn’t actually mean anything in English. I mean, you do understand that a “trend” is an extrapolation, right?
“This is a signal problem on the skeptical side – data periods selected are frequently too short to render a meaningful climate trend. The above article is a case in point, and no physical or statistical rationale is presented as to why the period is selected. (There isn’t any)
”
Sure there is. These trends were said to be inexorable and fully linear in direction, and predictable in intensity.
The “short range” trend plots that show that the trends are not inexorable and have proven unreliable for over a decade are meaningful in the context of how the projections were presented.
As a result they now backtrack and blame the quiet sun , in which they were uninterested when t was loud.
Or the Chinese pollution which has always been considered a positive addition to AGW till a few days ago.
As a science that is supposed to be able to model the complete climate of the planet and know all the factors and their values, this is some pretty piss-poor rationalizing.
aztecbill,
“The main driving factors of sea level are ice melt and ocean temperature. That isn’t just the ocean surface temperature but the temperature of the entire ocean. It takes some major changes in “weather” to effect those at a global level.”
There is a seasonal signal in the data. Global sea level rises and falls by around 10 millimetres, once a year. That biannual swing is three times greater than the satellite sea level trend per annum. Sea level exhibits annual fluctuations, too, like the temperature record, and rose 10 millimetres during the 1997/98 el Nino. Sea level drops with significant volcanism.
You cannot extract a climate signal out of 8 years data, and you need more data, not less, if you want to observe a statistically significant rate change.
By the way, the satellite record began in the early 1990s. It spans 18 years, not 30.
I’m not sold either way on the question,of acceleration.
I see, so by clever use of statistics you can turn a flat line into a statistically significant upwards trend.
You should apply for a job at Penn State.
Realclimate doesn’t think the statement is meaningful either. It’s from the paper they’re rebutting that is positing a deceleration in sea level rise.
Or a flat one or a decreasing one. And it doesn’t have to be clever, just a cherry-pick.
I’m not selling upward trends here (where did you get that idea?) I’m saying you can’t detect a climatic signal, much less a change in the trend rate, from such a short period (8 years). I assume you’ve tested for statistical significance? What method/s did you use and what were the results? Did you somehow overcome the null hypothesis?
I see. Sea level hasn’t risen for eight years, but will rise several metres the rest of the century. Makes perfect sense. All that record ice sheet melt is just going down the toilet.
Hidden black hole?
The “Null Hypothesis” is natural weather variations. That means we can see trends both up and down during any period of time, whether daily, yearly, decadal, centennial, millennial, or longer. By claiming Noise you are losing the most important part of the signal!
There is no such thing as a climatic signal. Climate is the study of the history of changing weather patterns. Some groups think past performance is evidence of future
performance. Sorry Charlie!!!
So a climate projection that s supposed to be valid for a thirty year term ,
is not expected to show ANY intermediate results consistent with its end prediction ?
That doesn’t fit .
IF ti isn’t doing what they said 1/3 of the way through, many of us conclude that its validity is dubious.
Barry:
There is not enough data to determine what the “Global Sea Level” is doing. Sea Level is a regional issue related to connected land. Your claim of 50 years has been shown to be incorrect by the knowledge of long term weather patterns that affect regional weather over periods of longer than 60 years. That does not take into account how each individual weather pattern is affected by the adjoining weather patterns because they are not always in sync. Maybe looking at hundreds of thousands of years of weather patterns you might find long term signals. Whatever “Trends” are seen are evidence that weather varies due to natural causes. Nothing more! The so called trends can not be extended into the future in any reliable fashion. Doing so is creating a fantasy.
Your buddies at Surrealclimate have shown they do not know squat about weather which means they are clueless about climate.
Nothing is stable in nature and find some illusory average / normal is a fools game, Climatology!
FWIW this is an interesting analysis of sea-level rise acceleration/deceleration:
http://theinconvenientskeptic.com/2011/02/sea-level-deceleration-inverted-barometer/
Once again, your response has absolutely nothing to do with what I’ve written. I haven’t talked about projections. I haven’t talked about the end of the century or how high sea level will rise or even if it will rise. I haven’t promoted the notion of rising trend at all. It’s as if you’re talking to someone else entirely.
To clarify: You’ve made a claim that sea level rise has decelerated. You’ve given a trend. My counter-argument is that the trend is not statistically significant – that it is more a measure of variability than trend. So here’s a simple query.
Is the trend statistically significant? Please indicate method/s and results. Doesn’t have to be wordy or anything, Just the brief facts.
Please.