Sea level has already risen over nine metres, and rising almost 1 cm/year!
During the last few years, curiosity about the climate turned to anxious concern as politicians began ushering in the topic of global warming for campaign platforms.
“Not only this, but taken together, the world appears to have been warmer when compared to preindustrial temperatures,” said Dr. Chris Turney from the Department of Geography at the University of Exeter.
“Critically, the warmer temperatures appear to have resulted in global sea levels some 6.6 to 9.4 meters higher with a rate of rise of between 6 to 9 centimeters per decade. This is more than double that recently observed.”
Being a university professor is such a great job. You can just make up whatever crap you want and get it in the newspaper.
I’ve been scanning the article to make sure the “6.6 to 9.4 metres higher” quote wasn’t out of context, or related to some earlier period, or whatever. My conclusion: the guy is a fruitloop.
Dave,
I would suggest you stop scanning and actually read the words. See my explanation to Steve below.
Again, no need to thank me, I just wish people like you did not encourage Steve when he is so obviously wrong.
But I do appreciate another article that totally mangles an actual scientists meaning.
TonyD:
The problem is that there are many versions of the English language. Depending on the region where the scholar grew up you could interpret his statement many ways. That the claim was taken out of context was obvious as were all the other claims made in the article. I agree with Dave that the guy writing the article was a fruit loop and maybe even the one he quoted for making a claim of 6.8 to 9.4 rather than about 10 which for the previous interglacial is low but probably not for the Minoan Warm period or during the period ended 5000 years ago.
Grumpy,
GREAT deflection, since unlike Steve Dave does not state exactly who he is referring to you come up and casually state that he is referring to the AUTHOR not the scientist who made the quote. Dave should thank you vehemently for giving him that out .KUDOS!
But then you go and put a pie in your own face and say the “one he quoted” which I am assuming means Dr. Turney, conjecturing that he “may” be a fruit loop, even though you acknowledge that the comment was taken out of context and you have no idea what he is actually referring to. But you are correct, if he is referring to any of a few billion things that did NOT have the effect of increasing sea levels up to 9 meters, he is obviously a fruit loop.
But at least you implicitly agree that Steve is making a judgement about a quote that is clearly out of context and refers to some time in the past, making his conclusion pointless.
You are a nutcase.
Tony,
One common definition of “scan” is:
TonyD:
I was implying the article could be talking about the day before yesterday and not 100 thousand years ago. 135 thousand years ago the sea level was possibly as much as 100 ft higher than present so that rules out the comment being made about that period even though it probably was.
When you find an actual scientist for us to mangle what they say please share their claims with us. I for one appreciate Steven bring up these off the wall claims.
Grumpy,
I would appreciate Steve bringing this up as an example of the MEDIA spreading scare stories and mangling the science That is a real valuable and important issue to point out. But Steve appears to believe that if a scientist is quoted in a paper then the scientist HAD to have been the one at fault, no matter how crazy the quote is. There was another instance where a scientist was quoted as saying CO2 had been 700,000 PPM in the past. Steve ridiculed the scientist in much the same manner as this. I pointed out that this was almost certainly the reporters error. I contacted the scientist directly and he confirmed that and pointed me to papers that showed what he actually said.
Fortunately Paul did the actual research and cleared up the matter so that we could all see what the truth was.
Steve,
fascinating that you seem impervious to the grammar used in the statement. it is obviously taken out of context.
Read again and think of the tense used. Would you consider “…the world appears to HAVE BEEN warmer when compared to pre industrial temperatures”…..”more than double that RECENTLY observed” Would you say that 2011 or even any part of the last half of the 20th century to have been BEFORE pre industrial times?
Fascinating that Dave even considered the possibility of some earlier period, but isn’t QUITE able to connect the past tense with the idea of the past. of course maybe there has NEVER been a period in earths history when sea levels rose 6-9 meters, in which case he MUST be referring to… to ….. what? Oh that’s right Steve KNOWS that the guy just made up a number that is so completely beyond possibility , orders of magnitude beyond any scientific measure and the experience of every human being on the planet.
but it is on the internet so it has to be accurate
I see, so sea level is rising 9 cm / decade
Do you enjoy being a science moron?
Why Steve,
what a shock, you did not respond to a thing I posted in my comment!
So I will tell you again. the esteemed Doctor is obviously referring to an event that is NOT the present. Maybe English is not your first language, so i will explain it to you. When a past tense is connected to a verb that means that the thing being talked about happened before the time referenced. Therefore the Dr is talking about some time in the past when these things took place. before the recent pre industrial time.
again no need to thank me for clearing it up for you. But i do wish people like Dave would not enable your mistakes. it is only going to make it that much harder to accept reality.
I see, so sea level has increased nine metres since the 17th century. You are perfecting stupidity.
Tony
It would appear that the good doctor was referring to the last interglacial being warmer than pre-industrial times.
http://www.cejournal.net/?p=4054
However the article Steve refers to makes no mention of that and certainly implies that temperatures (recently) have been warmer.
You certainly cannot blame Steve for that. Maybe it was just sloppy reporting, but one has to wonder whether the article was intended to mislead.
He did not respond to you because you are a dunce, making up whatever you feel like. Providing context that you have conjoured up. Go juggle your balls some more.
Paul,
OMG. You actually tried to find the SOURCE for this. THANK you! (though I don’t think Steve will be happy with you for doing that ).
You just provided the proof that Steve’s conclusion is completely WRONG. and SO convenient that it is in a post that relates to Steve’s biggest recurring lie about Hansen saying Manhattan would be underwater by 2008.
So let’s look at the facts and the timeline here.
1. Steve posts that “sea level has risen over 9 meters, and rising over 1 cm a year”. Since he used the present tense at the end he is implying that the past tense used in the first phrase was recent.
2. He then quotes an article that CLEARLY is referring to some event in the past BEFORE industrialization and that is pretty clearly out of context.
3. He links to the article which has no information to add to the context of the quote.
He then concludes that “Being a university professor is such a great job. You can just make up whatever crap you want and get it in the newspaper”.
4.Unless Steve has some information that indicates the reporter who wrote the article is a University Professor ( I don’t think even Steve will try to get away with that one) he is saying that Dr. Turney made up the 6-9 meter quote and either instigated the article or took advantage of an opportunity to mislead people by making bat-shit crazy claims about sea level.
5. Dave comes along and “scans the article” and gives Steve some moral support adding that the guy “is a fruitloop”.
6. I read the post and the article and see immediately that the quote Steve just posted CANNOT be be referring to the present because it uses the PAST tense numerous times AND actually COMPARES that past event with the present. I call Steve out on this obvious mistake, and his unsupported and erroneous conclusion.
7. Steve completely ignores the content of my comment and in typical fashion calls me a “science Moron”.
8. I point out that he did not respond to anything I wrote and explain exactly why he is wrong, both for grammatical reasons and using common sense.
9. Steve responds with this “I see, so sea level has increased nine metres since the 17th century. You are perfecting stupidity.” here Steve CLEARLY states his belief that Dr. Tierney was talking about the recent past, as he strongly implies in the post.
10. At various times around this other commenters come in to support Steve’s obviously erroneous interpretation.
10a. Omnologos “…the article is just cobbled up. Most likely, Dr Chris Turney tried to depict one of those scary scenarios that keep people like Tony Duncan busy arguing it’s not predictions yada yada yada..” again in no way addressing the points I made that show that Steve is wrong. He just assumes that the Dr. is doing something nefarious.
10b. Deebee “He did not respond to you because you are a dunce, making up whatever you feel like. Providing context that you have conjoured up. Go juggle your balls some more.” Accusing ME of providing imaginary context. THAT made me laugh out loud. he of course provides nothing to refute my explanation or offer any support for Steve’s
10c. Jimash. ““so sea level has increased nine metres since the 17th century. ”
That is how it reads. Obviously it is untrue. Pure misinformation designed to upset re adders . Anyone interested in the sea level, knows that it increased faster in the past.
This article twists that small fact into something scary and completely irrelevant.” here he seems to support Steve erroneous interpretation, without any specifics, and totally ignoring my comment.
11. YOU come along and provide a link that the quote is obviously taken from. An article from october2, 2010, referencing a peer reviewed paper from September 2010. The article Steve posted is from Sat, Jul. 16 2011 11:46 AM EDT.
The paper you linked to is from a year before the article Steve quoted from and linked to. The quote is lifted , out o context, and put in the article Steve quoted. Steve ignores the grammar and makes a totally erroneous conclusion. I point this out to him, and he attacks my intelligence. I point it out to him again, and he attacks my intelligence AGAIN and and then doubles down on what the quote means. YOU supply the context that shows that my interpretation was EXACTLY right, and that Steve’s was completely wrong. There is no getting around that conclusion, yet, I have a very strong feeling that Steve is NOT going to say. Hey, Tony, I blew that one, you were right, but SEE how the media used that to be alarmist? And I would agree, and respond that the reporter who wrote the article Steve quoted was either an idiot, was purposefully trying to create a sensation, or in my view , more likely, was on a deadline and just threw this together without making sure that it was accurate and made sense. All of which are condemnations of the reporter, NOT the scientist
Foolishly I think that that IS possible that Steve will acknowledge that he was wrong, in spite of the fact that I have never seen Steve admit a mistake. I imagine that he and others will find different ways to deflect from what the post ACTUALLY says and try to confuse the issue. Hmm, in writing this there have been 11 new comments. let’s see if I am right.
Here were are in a situation remarkably similar to the “Manhattan under water by 2008”. Steve finds a quote, does not bother to check it out and see if it is accurate and makes a judgement that the person quoted is trying to scare people with totally impossible claims.
as for YOUR comments in supplying the relevant link.
I do NOT blame Steve for the reporting on this article. I accuse him of making a conclusion about a scientist without all the facts, when it was very clear and I pointed out to him the extremely likely explanation of the quote.
As for Dr. Turney’s credibility, that is not the issue. THE issue is that Steve attributed to him something that he was not saying and accused him of sensationalizing an absolutely crazy unscientific impossible event that Turney never even suggested.
but at least you are being honest about what the quote actually means. So we can discuss the issue and likely come to some actual understanding, though I think we already agree on just about everything.
“so sea level has increased nine metres since the 17th century. ”
That is how it reads. Obviously it is untrue. Pure misinformation designed to upset re aders .
Anyone interested in the sea level, knows that it increased faster in the past.
This article twists that small fact into something scary and completely irrelevant.
Turney actually means that sea levels in the last interglacial rose by 9 meters. It would appear to be the reporter who has deliberately or otherwise left the impression that the increase has occurred since the 17thC.
This is typical of many so called journalists these days who either have their own agenda or want to print the scariest stories they can get hold of.
This report is on the “Christian Post” so I suspect the former is the case.
In the meantime I cannot quite see Turney announcing that his earlier work was wrong and advising people not to buy his alarmist book after all.
Tony says
“10c. Jimash. ““so sea level has increased nine metres since the 17th century. ”
That is how it reads. Obviously it is untrue. Pure misinformation designed to upset re adders . Anyone interested in the sea level, knows that it increased faster in the past.
This article twists that small fact into something scary and completely irrelevant.”
here he seems to support Steve erroneous interpretation, without any specifics, and totally ignoring my comment.”
From the article
““Not only this, but taken together, the world appears to have been warmer when compared to preindustrial temperatures,” said Dr. Chris Turney from the Department of Geography at the University of Exeter.
“Critically, the warmer temperatures appear to have resulted in global sea levels some 6.6 to 9.4 meters higher with a rate of rise of between 6 to 9 centimeters per decade. This is more than double that recently observed.””
#1 Sea level is NOT rising 6-9 centimeters per decade. More like 3.
#2 Using the term “pre-Industrial” implies that such occurred during historical
times at some incredibly fast rate when in fact it was 14,000 years ago at best and took a thousand years.
Rather than “preindustrial” they should have used some word like “Prehistoric”.
#3 I completely support Steve’s interpretation, because that was the intended interpretation of he author of the piece.
You, Tony are supporting lying scaremongers.
http://drtimball.com/2011/sea-level-rise-a-major-non-existent-threat-exploited-by-alarmists/
Jimash,
Please show me where I in any way suggested that Dr. Turney’s facts were accurate. I am in no way supporting what he ACTUALLY wrote. i don’t know enough about it.
But you state some rather bizarre things:
#1. The Dr. said that 6-9 cm / year was MORE than double current rates. You say current rates are more like 3. I did the math and I come up with a number…. wait I am going to double check… Nope I was right the first time. 6-9 IS more than double 3. Please provide some documentation to show that this is not true. if you want i can ask Ron Graham( the mathematician juggler who I posted the link to the wikipedia article referenced above. i am sure he would know the answer)
#2 using the term “pre-industrial, in conjunction with the phrase ” last interglacial period, which lasted from approximately 130,000 to 116,000 years ago.” is generally accepted to mean before historical times, prehistoric if you will.
#3, if you are supporting Steve’s interpretation you are saying that the SCIENTIST just made up those numbers for the purpose of misleading people to believe something impossible. (unless of course the reporter for the Cristian Post is a University Professor, in which case I owe Steve a HUGE apology, though he should have made it clearer, since no where does the article say the author was a University professor and no numbers were made up, so i don’t owe him an apology even in that fantastical scenario)
I have no problem with attacking the author of the Christian Post article. He screwed it up royally and you are free to animate him with any motivation you like. But that has nothing to do with what Steve wrote in his post.
as I expected, the responses after Paul’s revelation of what the real quote meant and his clear documentation of that are not responded to with acceptance of reality, but meaningless diversionary attacks that have nothing to do with the point of the post. I have now repeatedly said that I think the Article is wrong ,misleading and should be attacked. Steve and anyone one else are free to do so and have my full support.
I read you link by the esteemed Dr. Ball, I did not see anything in his post that contradicted the Turney numbers. In fact he stated that during the CURRENT interglacial there were periods of 14 MM year sea level rise, which is actually HIGHER than Turney’s statement of 6-9 cm / decade for the previous interglacial warming. Ball completely disagrees with Turney’s conclusion, but again that has nothing to do with what Steve posted.
How can I be supporting lying scaremongers, when all I am doing is trying to let people know when Steve is lying about what scientists actually say?
Tony
” 6-9 IS more than double 3. :”
—Quite right. The darn thing ( which I have just read) is written very badly,
compounding the confusion of whatever Dr. Turney might have been driving at.
(Cause he is not too clear either)
“#2 using the term “pre-industrial, in conjunction with the phrase ” last interglacial period, which lasted from approximately 130,000 to 116,000 years ago.” is generally accepted to mean before historical times, prehistoric if you will. ”
UM… no.” Pre-industrial” clearly means 1700’s and before, and going backward at that.
The term “Last interglacial” is confused to start with, but that aside, it is technical, and many people will just gloss it over, other readers will assume ( justifiably) that the term refers to the recession of the last big Ice age a mere 18,000-12,000 years ago.
Well… I am willing to risk playing the foil a bit.
Let us assume for the moment that we are not just mocking this ridiculous article
(which I intend to do in some detail later) but questioning the comments of Dr. Turney.
What is he saying ?
Is he saying that these events of the past have some bearing on the present situation but that the numbers do not indicate this yet, and thus we will have to wait another 30 years to see if this pans out, or even another 90 years ?
That would be fairly gratuitous padding and dancing on his part.
Is he saying “nothing to see here, stop your worrying, move along now” ?
I just don’t think so ( have to check on this by reviewing his quotes)
No I would say that he has carefully chosen a ridiculous comparison, misused it by stating the premises and numbers in a reverse order, and related it to today
by context, when in fact in the context of the article Dr. Turney’s comments might be pure non sequiturs .
Jimash,
well we are getting somewhere.
But the words last inrglacial were connected to the dates 130,000 to 116, 000 years ago. Pretty much sews up when the time period is, whether pre industrial or pre historic.
I am not sure that you have read the article paul posted. http://www.cejournal.net/?p=4054. This is the phrase with the words “pre-industrial”. “Most significantly, with temperatures just a little shy of 2°C higher than pre-industrial times” it is clearly comparing pre industrial times to the last interglacial, not saying they are the same thing.
Some of the rest of what you wrote has merit, but the sticking point is this
“Let us assume for the moment that we are not just mocking this ridiculous article
(which I intend to do in some detail later) but questioning the comments of Dr. Turney.”
you are assuming something entirely irrelevant. We are NOT questioning the comments of Dr. Turney( though i will be happy to read any that are brought up). We are discussing Steve saying that Dr. Turney made up his figures and put them in this Christian post article in order to scare people with impossible unscientific and crazy predictions about sea level rise. Dr. Turney did not do any of those things. he did not make up numbers and he did not “get it in the paper”. And Steve refuses to admit it. Just as he refuses to admit that he was wrong about Hansen saying Manhattan would be under water by 2008. Initially it was just a mistake, now it is just flat out lying. Just the same as if he continues to contend that Turney says sea level rise has been 6-9 meters in the recent past.
You want to show how wrong Turney’s ACTUAL figures and conclusions are you are welcome to do so.
“We are discussing Steve saying that Dr. Turney made up his figures and put them in this Christian post article in order to scare people with impossible unscientific and crazy predictions about sea level rise.”
But Steve didn’t say that Dr. Turney had made up numbers at all.
What he said was that Dr. Turney made up “Crap” and by my lights Dr. Turney was, talking a lot of crap, dancing around whatever issue they think they are on about and as you point out confusing and conflating irrelevant data in order to make the correct numbers sound scarier by comparing today to that “Last interglacial” with which it shares few features other than temperature .
Anyway I am not arguing about what Steve said.
If I inadvertently support some point that you make in my occasional search for more information, well I guess that is just my bad luck.
Jimash,
Silly me to think we were getting somewhere.
Steve writes “Sea level has already risen over nine metres, and rising almost 1 cm/year!” and then at the end says “You can just make up whatever crap you want and get it in the newspaper.” and you are contending that crap does NOT refer to the figures in the quote?
he pulls a quote out of an article that is out of context and incomplete, and then he either purposefully or ignorantly misreads the grammar and attributes the quote to something that is clearly wrong. I POINT out the error very clearly. Steve and others attack me for doing so claiming i am the one inventing context, and am wrong (and other hurtful things I don’t want to remember)
Paul posts the context for the quote that completely confirms EXACTLY what I described, and then a host of commenters try myriad ways of rationalizing this. Stark being the most entertaining since his contentions are almost incomprehensible.
I repost for you the actual link that paul posted so you can check what Turney actually wrote, and without ANY explanation stating that “by my lights Dr. Turney was, talking a lot of crap, dancing around whatever issue they think they are on about and as you point out confusing and conflating irrelevant data in order to make the correct numbers sound scarier by comparing today to that “Last interglacial” with which it shares few features other than temperature .”
I NEVER said Turney said anything that was confusing or conflating. The CHRISTIAN POST article was confusing because it took Turneys statements out of context. Turneys statements are not confusing at all. I read the article and Turney’s statements are very straightforward clear and consistant, and you may argue that his facts are conflating irrelevant data, but again that has nothing to do with this post. Steve does not ANYWHERE in the post or comments say anything that has to do with Turneys actual statements or conclusions. I would be happy to see Steve argue about Turneys actual statements instead of attributing statements to him that are completely erroneous. Turney NEVER wrote that sea level rise has been up to 9 meters either recently or since the 17th century. He NEVER wrote that sea level is rising at almost 1cm /year. THAT is the ENTIRE point of Steve’s post. it is wrong, you know it, I know it and he knows it. Steve should either remove the post or state clearly that he was not correct in his interpretation of the quote in the article. If Steve wants to make another post about how wrong Turney is, that is fine, as long as he accurately states what Turney is saying.
Neither you nor anyone else has provided ANY information that contradicts anything I have said about this post. Nothing that in any way indicates Steve was completely wrong in his interpretation. And nothing that indicates in any way that the mistake was not obvious and rather ridiculous. Of course I expect that on this blog, but I just like pointing that out
I wonder if the Vatican has a beatification application for immense patience. if I converted I think I would have a good shot.
Tony,
” I would be happy to see Steve argue about Turneys actual statements instead of attributing statements to him that are completely erroneous.”
But Steve’s interpretations of Turney’s statements are exactly what they infer.
“Steve writes “Sea level has already risen over nine metres, and rising almost 1 cm/year!” and then at the end says “You can just make up whatever crap you want and get it in the newspaper.” and you are contending that crap does NOT refer to the figures in the quote?”
Of course it does. Turney is pretty clear, that he expects that to happen any day now and culminate in a grand swamping round a bout 2100. I can read.
It is indefensible. Biased. Agenda driven.
“The results here are quite startling and, importantly, they suggest sea levels will rise significantly higher than anticipated and that stabilizing global average temperatures at 2?C above pre-industrial levels may not be considered a ‘safe’ target as envisaged by the European Union and others,”
“” Critically, the warmer temperatures appear to have helped global sea levels become some 6.6 to 9.4 metres higher than today, with a rate of rise of between 60 to 90 millimetres per decade; more than double that recently observed.”
“The inevitable conclusion is emission targets will have to be lowered further still,” Turney concludes.”
It is quite clear that Dr. Turney is some kind of “activist” since he throws that stuff in every time. Wasn’t me or Steve that linked today to the “last interglacial”. That honor .dubious though it may be, belongs to Dr. Turney.
It is his whole deal.
Mocking it would seem to be called for.
What the Doctor is referring to is not at all evident in the short snippet used. What is obvious is the snippet was used to alarm the reader rather than convey facts.
Grumpy,
Yet that is NOT what Steve wrote. What he wrote was the SCIENTIST was responsible for this. It is NOT the scientists fault that his quote was not given the correct context.
is anyone going to contact the Christian post and inform them of this confusing and misleading article?
Sorry Tony, I assumed you already had.
Paul,
I would be happy to. As I might be able to actually explain what Turney actually was saying.
Where did Steven Goddard write, “the SCIENTIST was responsible”? I can’t seem to find that anywhere, and I even search for it without quotes. It seems that “Tony Duncan” is the only person misquoting here.
Stark,
wow, you got me AGAIN. I used the word scientist and it is NOT in the post from Steve.
Ok. I admit it. Steve was quoting from the article where it attributes a professional status to the person making the quote” “Dr. Chris Turney from the Department of Geography at the University of Exeter.” Now i understand that making the leap form “Dr.” and “Department of geology” and “University of Exeter”, to scientist is going to take some fancy footwork on my part. I actually estimate the leap to be about 9 cm/ decade”
I guess this totally invalidates everything else i said as well. I mean HOW could you trust someone who mangles reality by thinking someone is a scientist just because he has a Ph. D and works at a scientific department of a university and publishes scientific articles in peer reviewed journals of science.
nevermind the “97 out 100″…the article is just cobbled up. Most likely, Dr Chris Turney tried to depict one of those scary scenarios that keep people like Tony Duncan busy arguing it’s not predictions yada yada yada..
I would not place too much credibility on what Chris Turney has to say. After all he does have an alarmist book to sell.
http://www.palgrave.com/PRODUCTS/title.aspx?PID=280639
When you read Chris Turney’s comments in context http://www.exeter.ac.uk/research/excellence/keythemes/climate/news/title_104103_en.html they are the usual alarmist stuff, but not in themselves ridiculous. The writer of the article in the Christian Post, R Leigh Coleman, is responsible for taking a quote about how high sea levels were many years ago and making it seem as if Turney is talking about the present. Despite Tony Duncan’s best efforts there is no way to tell from this longer excerpt from the article:
“The vast majority of climate scientists at Berkeley agree that global warming is happening and that human activity plays a significant role in rising temperatures. “Our research shows a rolling record of the earth’s mean surface temperature,” he said at the conference. “The warming figures reveal a common trend. Since pre-industrial times, all point to a warming of the earth to around 0.75 degrees.” During the last few years, curiosity about the climate turned to anxious concern as politicians began ushering in the topic of global warming for campaign platforms. During the last few years, curiosity about the climate turned to anxious concern as politicians began ushering in the topic of global warming for campaign platforms. “Not only this, but taken together, the world appears to have been warmer when compared to preindustrial temperatures,” said Dr. Chris Turney from the Department of Geography at the University of Exeter. “Critically, the warmer temperatures appear to have resulted in global sea levels some 6.6 to 9.4 meters higher with a rate of rise of between 6 to 9 centimeters per decade. This is more than double that recently observed.””
that Turney was talking about the distant past.
Note that no-where does “Tony Duncan” actually provide even the slightest hint of the exculpatory context he claims must exist. Truly, this is what passes for intellectual debate among jugglers. Keep in mind, then, all you fellow travellers, he’s yours. All yours.
Stark,
So opportune of you to join the conversation at this time. You are right ,I did NOT provide even the slightest hint of exculpatory context that I claimed must exist. How utterly gauche (I am left handed after all). I just used a 7th grade understanding of grammar and common sense to explain something that should have been obvious to most people. And then PAUL comes along and RUINS the party by providing exactly the context that completely confirms my explanation. Not bad for a science moron and an almost perfectly stupid person (Steve’s accolade of me, see above)
Dear “Tony Duncan”,
Unfortunately, I actually read the article Paul so kindly linked. It does not provide any such quote from Chris Turney. You’ll have to try better.
ark,
how Silly of me and Paul to try to fool you. yes the article Paul linked to completely vindicates Steve’s contention that Turney was talking about sea level rise after the 1700’s and that sea level is currently rising by a 9 cm/year.
it gives NO support to my contention that the quote Steve picked out had to have been far in the past. I am just imagining this part of the article that references the peer reviewed paper
“He and his co-author analyzed a set of global data on climatic conditions during the LAST INTERGLACIAL PERIOD which lasted from approximately 130,000 to 116,000 years ago. Like the current geologic period, the last interglacial was marked by relatively warm conditions and a retreat of glaciers and ice sheets. The analysis suggests that at that time, global temperatures were about 1.9°C higher than pre-industrial levels.
Most significantly, with temperatures just a little shy of 2°C higher than pre-industrial times, SEA LEVEL 6.6 meters to 9.4?meters higher than it is today, and it ROSE AT DOUBLE THE RATE BEING OBSERVED NOW. ”
funny how my eyes keep reading “last interglacial”, when as Steve has proven it really must say, “since the 17th century”. I guess I must be a scientific moron and dyslexic to boot.
Get with the program, Tony. Your mindless ramblings are a waste of time.
Steve,
Of COURSE they are a waste of time. We agree.
As for getting with the program. hmmm. is there much money involved? I would actually want to be compensated MUCH more than I am making now, because when I lie in my show, the audience knows it’s a lie and sometimes they laugh, and I get paid for making them laugh. In this case if getting with the program means lying or totally misrepresenting what scientists say, I would need to be able to buy lots of stuff to ease my conscience.
But sure. Give me more details and I will consider it. If I have to travel for training, I expect my expenses to be re-imbursed at standard rates.
Stark,
i did not finish reading your comment. in saying “he’s all yours” does that mean that you are completely renouncing ever having anything to do with the truth any more?
But actually many jugglers are quite intellectual. A past president of the Juggling association is described in this wikipedia entry http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronald_Graham. Hmm, with apologies, I would contend he is even smarter than Steve! a large number of jugglers are extremely successful in math science and computer related areas. two that I coached a few years ago are among the best diabolists in the world and have studied at MIT. a good friend of mine got advanced degrees from MIT and Cal Tech. i could go on much longer than you would be willing to read. I do know some jugglers that are not terribly bright but they are a small minority.
Note well: the quote provided by “Tony Duncan” is not a quote from Chris Turney. Sad, really that someone who lectures so loudly about reading comprehension would fail so very badly at it.
Stark,
Funny that you categorically state that the quote is NOT from Dr, Turney. even though the linked article names him and a Dr. jones and includes the phrase “says study co-author Chris Turney of the University of Exeter in the U.K.”
Later it says
“TURNEY believes his new research shows this won’t be nearly good enough. He and his co-author analyzed a set of global data on climatic conditions during the last interglacial period, which lasted from approximately 130,000 to 116,000 years ago. Like the current geologic period, the last interglacial was marked by relatively warm conditions and a retreat of glaciers and ice sheets. The analysis suggests that at that time, global temperatures were about 1.9°C higher than pre-industrial levels.
Most significantly, with temperatures just a little shy of 2°C higher than pre-industrial times, sea level was 6.6 meters to 9.4?meters higher than it is today, and it rose at double the rate being observed now. A sea level rise of that degree would swamp many coastal cities, affecting many tens of millions of people.
“The inevitable conclusion is emission targets will have to be lowered further still,” Turney concludes.
Now, maybe stark has some sort of super power that allows him to see that this is actually some OTHER person, saying these things and that Turney is inexplicably being credited with them. More likely Stark is playing the ridiculous game of “it is not a direct quote, even though the article sites him as saying these things.” As if that in any way effects anything about this issue. But, just to make SURE it is Turney saying these things I found his blog about this http://www.christurney.com/Home/Blog/Entries/2010/9/20_A_Lesson_from_Past_Global_Warming.html
in it he says (unless someone else writes his blog posts) ” Critically, the warmer temperatures appear to have helped global sea levels become some 6.6 to 9.4 metres higher than today, with a rate of rise of between 60 to 90 millimetres per decade; more than double that recently observed.” Does that quote ring any bells. Does it sound familiar to any other quotes that have been posted on here? Oh and just to be clear the BEGINNING of that paragraph also says “The most recent super-interglacial took place between 130,000 and 116,000 years” so he was not referring to the 17th century.
No doubt Stark will find some bizarre interpretation or other deflection. More likely he will declare that somehow I have proven his point that Turney didn’t say these things. Actually I don’t know what Stark will say, he and Phil constantly surprise me with their inventive rationales.
” Critically, the warmer temperatures appear to have helped global sea levels become some 6.6 to 9.4 metres higher than today, with a rate of rise of between 60 to 90 millimetres per decade; more than double that recently observed.”
“The inevitable conclusion is emission targets will have to be lowered further still,” Turney concludes.
Tony, can you not see that Dr. Turney is making an unjustified leap here ?
He is saying, “Here is what happened 130,000 years ago, at which time the Earth was a completely different place, and here is what we believe happened then, and we see no sign of that today whatsoever, but I think it is going to happen , based on this unrelated information, so we had better regulate the absolute fuck out of everything and live as climate serfs, where is my grant money and book advance “/?
And at long last “Tony Duncan” has provided a real quote from Chris Turney: “The inevitable conclusion is emission targets will have to b lowered further still,”
Yeah, you’re right, “Tony Duncan”, that quote sure has the word “interglacial” stab’d squarely through the heart of’t. Why can’t us stupid non-jugglers see that the word “interglacial” is in there in the bolded part?