{Updated 5/13/14 with breaking news, also check comments for another example of Anthony's dishonesty}
OK, here's an example of Anthony's dog whistle in action:
May 9, 2014
"Study: sea level rise acceleration still uncertain, we won’t have statistical certainty until 2020-2030
Anthony writes: "This is a bit of a bombshell to those that claim sea level rise is accelerating and certain. From the University of Southampton: …"Now watch how one of Anthony's pals, Jim Steele, runs off to proclaim scientists can't "… determine if there has been any change in the rate of sea level rise". Even though a reading of the report makes clear they are talking about something quite different, and in fact, they explicitly reaffirm:
“By developing a novel method that realistically approximates future sea level rise, we have been able to add new insight to the debate and show that there is substantial evidence for a significant recent acceleration in the sea level rise on a global and regional level. ..."
by citizenschallenge » Sun May 11, 2014 5:29 amAs of posting this, Sunday 1:30 Mtn Time - and although Mr. Steele has been making numerous other comments on other threads he's started, in particular he's jumped on the Dr. Mann Bashing Bandwagon, he's stayed away from responding to his error. Guess the only way to feel good about peddling endless lies is to ignore the truth. {Nor has he offered any comments directly to me through this venue.}
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
As for this Christmas Island thing, Steele waves a graph from one gauging station as though that proves anything about anything. Take a look at this site, you'll see that sea level is quite complex with many different factors impacting what's happening at any one spot.
Take a look at this NOAA Tides and Current's webpage, with its dynamic map of gauging stations throughout the world.
http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends.shtml
Also here's an interesting video looking at the record of sea level rise over the past couple thousand years and the surprising role gravity has on sea levels
In Search of Lost Time: Ancient Eclipses, Roman Fish Tanks and the Enigma of Global Sea Level Rises Dr. Jerry X. Mitrovica
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Update - Breaking News May 12, 2014
Runaway Glaciers in West Antarctica
Published on May 12, 2014
Glaciologist Eric Rignot of NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory and the University of California, Irvine, narrates this animation depicting the processes leading to the decline of six rapidly melting glaciers in West Antarctica. A new study by Rignot and others finds the rapidly melting section of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet appears to be in an irreversible state of decline, with nothing to stop the glaciers in this area from melting into the sea. Full press release at: http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.php...
Interestingly, in Dr. Jerry X. Mitrovica's 2010 talk at about 50:00 he discusses West Antarctic and does a better job of explaining the landscape and the various dynamics working on the West Antarctic ice sheet.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
West Antarctic Ice Sheet Is Collapsing
12 May 2014 6:15 pm
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
or will he take comfort in the guess that it could take as long
as a thousand years, while ignoring the two century's mentioned
or that less than two centuries is more likely than a millennia,
after all,
the one thing that has been consistently shocking cryosphere experts is the speed with which changes have occurred during these first few decades of this transition back to the Mesozoic.
Anthony why do you possess such profound contempt
for our planet's geophysical processes and
our dependence on a healthy planet?
7 comments:
By Anthony's logic it's also a bit of a bombshell for those who claim sea level rise is decelerating, but, predictably, he omitted to mention that.
{sorry those typos…}
Kevin's links to WUWTzer land and an article by Larry Hamlin retired Southern California Edison vice president - Not a place for serious climate science information -
Hamlin writes: "A paper titled “The rate of sea-level rise” published in Nature Climate Change on March 23 by Cazenave, et al. shows that during the last decade the rate of sea level rise has declined by about 30% …"
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
And then there is this written by Dr. Cazenave herself:
Abstract
Present-day sea-level rise is a major indicator of climate change1. Since the early 1990s, sea level rose at a mean rate of ~3.1 mm yr−1 (refs. 2, 3). However, over the last decade a slowdown of this rate, of about 30%, has been recorded [4,5,6,7,8]. It coincides with a plateau in Earth’s mean surface temperature evolution, known as the recent pause in warming [1,9,10,11,12].
Here we present an analysis based on sea-level data from the altimetry record of the past ~20 years that separates interannual natural variability in sea level from the longer-term change probably related to anthropogenic global warming. The most prominent signature in the global mean sea level interannual variability is caused by El Niño–Southern Oscillation, through its impact on the global water cycle [13,14,15,16].
We find that when correcting for interannual variability, the past decade’s slowdown of the global mean sea level disappears, leading to a similar rate of sea-level rise (of 3.3 ± 0.4 mm yr−1) during the first and second decade of the altimetry era.
Our results confirm the need for quantifying and further removing from the climate records the short-term natural climate variability if one wants to extract the global warming signal [10]. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The question is who are you gonna believe one of the scientist who did the study or Con Edison's man?
Sorry if it wasn't clear, I'm more than aware that Hamlin (or anyone else that posts on WUWT) is talking out of his hat, I was merely pointing to the hyorisy of citing uncertainty for rejection of an acceleration, but not when accepting the supposed deceleration. Also, for what it's worth, I did use a "nofollow" tag when linking through, so anyone who had the misfortune of clicking won't be adding to Watts' page ranking.
The Canenave et al paper only used data through to 2011, so the end point was anomalously low due to the massive La Nina influenced rainfall event over Auistralia that year (at least that's my understanding, but I'm an interested, but uneducated lay person and must always use the caveat that my understanding may be catastrophically ill-judged), even by the time it was published the rate of sea level rise had recovered to 3.2mm per year. This is not a slight on the authors, they, like proper scientists do and as you point out, acknowledged the large uncertainty and offered an explanation for it.
I wasn't very clear either, that was a rhetorical "who you gonna believe?" sent out to other readers and not intended for Kevin, who obviously knows better.
I'm glad you brought it up Kevin. Thanks for commenting.
Kevin writes: "I was merely pointing to the hypocrisy of citing uncertainty for rejection of an acceleration, but not when accepting the supposed deceleration." Yup, that's pretty bad, just as hideous is focusing on one sentence, while ignoring clarifying paragraphs.
Post a Comment