As Usual, John Cook Doesn’t Get It

The reason why alarmists are able to continue in that mode, is because they have difficulty with comprehension and logic. John Cook thinks he is being clever by pointing out that sea level is rising long term.

No one is disputing that fact. Sea level has been rising for more than 15,000 years. As I point out all the time.

The big lie : Tell them that sea level is rising. But don’t tell that sea level has been rising for at least 15,000 years.

http://www.globalwarmingart.com/images/1/1d/Post-Glacial_Sea_Level.png

The point of my article Sea Level Falling In 2010 was – if Hansen’s claims about 2010 Arctic temperature and 3-6 metres sea level rise by 2100 were true, we shouldn’t be seeing a drop during 2010. Rather, we should be seeing a sharp rise. Somehow, Cook completely failed to comprehend what he was reading.

Sea level is rising much slower than Hansen’s numbers. John Cook should take the word “skeptic” off his web site, because he is not a  skeptic. He comes more in the category of Pavlov’s Dog.

Wouldn’t a real skeptic wonder about this?

Sea Level Falling In 2010

About these ads

About stevengoddard

Just having fun
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

72 Responses to As Usual, John Cook Doesn’t Get It

  1. ichytalus says:

    what a joke

  2. Conrad Dunkerson says:

    “we shouldn’t be seeing a drop during 2010″

    Your prior analysis shows data from January through late April 2010. Do you really think that is sufficient to determine the trend for the year? Or are you arguing that we shouldn’t be seeing any decreases at all… just a continuing upward slope? That is, of course, not the case… sea level rises and falls on an annual cycle and temporary weather and tide events also introduce fluctuations. Hence the usual process of examining long term trends… rather than less than four months.

    • My analysis includes all available CU data for the year. If Hansen’s 3-6 metres numbers were correct, and if Greenland was as hot as he shows, we should be seeing a sharp rise – not a fall.

  3. Roger Wehage says:

    “John Cook thinks he is being clever by pointing out that sea level is rising long term.”

    It looks more like John Cook thinks he is being truthful by using real scientific data to point out that sea level is showing a steady upward trend as of today. No one can say what the sea level will be one hundred or two hundred years from now, but one can certainly make educated predictions based on “all” existing scientific data and historical records to date.

    According to historical records, Earth should be on the leading edge of the next ice age, where glaciers and ice caps are growing and sea levels are falling. But scientific data collected by countries around the world are showing that glaciers and ice caps are still receding and the oceans are still rising.

    Why is that?

    Could it possibly be because atmospheric CO2 concentrations have shot up to 390 ppmv, when historical records indicate that they should have been slowly declining from a historical maximum of around 280 ppmv, starting a century or two ago? Or that atmospheric CH4 concentrations have shot up to 1750 ppbv, when historical records indicate that they should have been declining from a historical maximum of around 750 ppbv?

    There is every reason to believe that massive deforestation over the past centuries and fossil fuel burning over the past two centuries has sent the CO2 and CH4 concentrations way off their normal historical trajectories. And because these gasses are so good at absorbing radiated longer wavelength energy, every indication is that global temperatures must rise in the decades to come, and the consequences of these rising temperatures are very likely to be further melting of ice caps and glaciers and further rises of sea levels.

    One need only use a bit of common sense to see what is happening. Citing non peer reviewed papers full of errors and half-truths to prove a point only leads to confusion and delay in mitigating this serious problem.

    If Pascal were alive today, he might have written a second wager. “Since scientists cannot prove that global warming will or will not increase, and if it does increase, since scientists cannot prove that increased global warming will or will not lead to world disaster, it would be better to do something about it now than to face the horrifying consequences of world disaster if scientists happen to correct.”

    Each year, as more and more scientific data are collected, the odds of increased global warming and impending world disaster are increasing. And the odds of avoiding world disaster will be decreasing the longer we argue among ourselves and do nothing.

    • Current sea level rise rates are much lower than the average for the last 15,000 years. Current trends are more than an order of magnitude lower than Hansen’s forecast.

      There is nothing honest about the way way sea level rise has been presented to the public. More like the big lie.

      • Roger Wehage says:

        Over the past seventeen years, global scientific data shows that sea level has been rising at the average rate of about 3.2 mm/year. That is much larger than the average of 0.8 mm/year over the past 15,000 years during the last receding ice age. The argument is that the world should be on the verge of the next ice age and sea levels should be steady or falling, but scientific evidence is showing that sea levels are not steady or falling, They are rising at an alarming rate.

        Over most of those 15,000 years, a significant percentage of the world population didn’t live in vulnerable low-lying costal areas as they do today. Everyone knows the disastrous consequences of even one additional meter rise in sea level, which would be a small percentage of the 130+ meter rise from the last glacial maximum.

        • Over the last 15,000 years average sea level rise has been 8 mm/year. Over the last five years it has been about one quarter of that at 2 mm/year. To reach 3 metres by the end of the century, we need more than 30 mm/year. 15X higher than the current rate.

      • ChrisD says:

        It looks to me like the vast majority of the SLR in the last 15,000 years–maybe 95% of it–was finished by about 7,000 years ago. I do not see the point of comparing the current trend to an average that includes this entire period. It is far more reasonable to compare the current trend to the average SLR since most of the glaciers melted.

        What happens if you use the average SLR over, say, the last 5,000 years rather than practically the entire period since the end of the last glacial minimum? Wouldn’t that be a more useful comparison?

        So, how does the current trend compare to that number?

      • A better comparison is against what has happened over the last 100 years. There has been no change in rate despite a significant acceleration in atmospheric CO2.

        http://www.globalwarmingart.com/images/thumb/0/0f/Recent_Sea_Level_Rise.png/700px-Recent_Sea_Level_Rise.png

      • Roger Wehage says:

        “Over the last five years it has been about one quarter of that at 2 mm/year.”

        The plot of scientific data here: http://www.skepticalscience.com/Climate-Cherry-Pickers-Falling-sea-levels-in-2010.html shows a clear 3.2 mm/year average over the last 17 years. It also shows longer term fluctuations due to cycling between El Niño and La Niña.

        But what the trend is now isn’t the real issue, It’s what the trend may be ten or twenty or fifty years from now that we should be concerned about. It’s what our children and grandchildren will be facing in the future is what we should be concerned about.

      • ChrisD says:

        “A better comparison is against what has happened over the last 100 years.”

        Oh? 5,000 years provides the long-term trend of SLR in the post-glacial climate. It is the most reasonable comparison, yet you won’t use it. Why not?

        The current trend is well over four times higher than the 5,000-year trend. What is the explanation?

      • Roger Wehage says:

        “A better comparison is against what has happened over the last 100 years. There has been no change in rate despite a significant acceleration in atmospheric CO2.”

        According to http://www.skepticalscience.com/Climate-Change-The-40-Year-Delay-Between-Cause-and-Effect.html there is about a 40 year delay between greenhouse gas concentrations and global temperature response. And as we’ve seen, there is then another delay between global temperature increase and ocean rise due to glacial and ice cap melt. So sea level changes over the past 100 years cannot be directly correlated with greenhouse gas concentrations over the past 100 years. That is scary too, because the exponential increases in CO2 and CH4 levels since 1950 give every reason to expect exponential increases in global temperatures and sea levels in the coming decades.

        • The hockey stick shows that temperatures started increasing at the current rate in 1880. Are you suggesting this was a response to CO2 from the 1840s? Did they change horse diets around that time?

      • Roger Wehage says:

        “If the trend over the last 17 years is 3.2, and the trend over the last five years is 2, we can infer that sea level rise is slowing rather than accelerating.”

        Absolutely not! Five years are buried in more noise than seventeen years. Principal Component Analysis will show that sea level fluctuations are composed of daily, monthly, annually, and various longer term components. Looking at short samples emphasizes the short-term effects, but looking at longer samples and filtering out the short-term effects, helps to identify the longer-term effects. And it is the longer-term sea level rise that we must be most concerned about.

      • Roger Wehage says:

        “The hockey stick shows that temperatures started increasing at the current rate in 1880. Are you suggesting this was a response to CO2 from the 1840s? Did they change horse diets around that time?”

        There you go again, making inferences from a tiny slice of time. Historical records show that during the rebound from the last ice age, global temperatures shot up about 10 °C, and then they oscillated down and up several times within a 2-3 °C range. Historical records show that global temperatures should start to decline toward the next ice age, but that isn’t happening.

        On the other hand historical records, long-term or near-term, are of little use in predicting our current situation in light of the recent man-made changes to CO2 and CH4 concentrations in the atmosphere. There we have to rely much more on recent measurements, because what we are in now has never before been seen in available historical records.

  4. Owen says:

    Mr. Goddard’s analyses seem always to focus on the short term, where the noise obscures the small but persistent signal. Mr. Goddard is, in may ways, master of the noise.

    • Exactly – sea level rise is a “small signal.” Not the huge one Hansen claims.

      • Roger Wehage says:

        ‘Exactly – sea level rise is a “small signal.” Not the huge one Hansen claims.’

        Sea level rise is a noisy signal, not a small signal. That is why short snippets have little value when predicting long-term trends.

  5. Owen says:

    Hansen claims a potential large sea level rise, but under certain assumptions and over a century and more. The year to year signal right now is a small one, but one that is accurately measured by the Jason satellites. The concern of many of us is that positive feedbacks (loss of albedo, methane release, lowered solubility of CO2 in the ocean, etc) could become a real problem, accelerating the warming and the rise in sea level. No one knows what will happen with absolute certainty (the role of clouds seems to be an uncertainty and the key measurements of ocean heat content need to be refined), but it is prudent to seriously listen to the current science. The science is getting better and better, and the measurement more and more accurate.

    • Roger Wehage says:

      But Owen, if what you say is true, shouldn’t we be doing something now? And won’t fixing it send us all to the poor house? With that in mind, maybe we should listen to the deniers and let our kids and grandkids take care of it.

  6. Muoncounter says:

    Stunning. You juxtapose 18 ka of post-glacial sea level rise with 4 months of 2010 sea level ‘drop’ and state that the depiction of current sea level rise is part of ‘the big lie.’ Perhaps you should look at a graph of the full Colorado data to see where “D’Oh” applies.

    Yet you can’t resist the claim that John Cook doesn’t get it and the gratuitous insult. This post adds nothing to serious debate and should be retracted immediately. With an apology, if you have the gumption for it.

  7. MarkR says:

    “If the trend over the last 17 years is 3.2, and the trend over the last five years is 2.1, we can infer that sea level rise is slowing rather than accelerating.”

    Can we? Is it a statistically significant slowdown in trend? At what significance level?

  8. serioussam says:

    “But what the trend is now isn’t the real issue, It’s what the trend may be ten or twenty or fifty years from now that we should be concerned about. It’s what our children and grandchildren will be facing in the future is what we should be concerned about.”

    I am willing to risk it. It’s not even gambling because there’s no possible loss for me. You see even sea level does accelerate and all the doom and gloom happens I’ll be in retirement somewhere away from the sea anyway. Disasters make nice TV anyway. And why should I care about other people’s grandchildren? Screw them, I feel zero empathy to people I don’t even know. That’s the alarmists fatal mistake in all this climate change BS, you forget we don’t give a hoot about future generations even if some disasters were incoming – this is how most ordinary people think. Not “pie in the sky” airy fairy touchy feely folk. People die in places like North Korea and wars all the time. Grow up be real men and get used to it and stop this BS “caring” nonsense.

  9. Thoughtful Tom says:

    So… 3 months of data is better than 5 years is better than 17 years.

    BUT we have to SKIP the 1000 to 8000 years range. Then we are good again. For someone who is so afraid of statistics you certainly use a lot of them to “prove” your point.

    Or not.

    The evidence shows sea level rise of 3.2mm/year. The evidence shows the rate of increase is increasing.

    But if we don’t HAVE to look at the evidence, sure Goddard is 100% right (at least in his own mind).

    But kudos for publishing the responses, and for trying to respond.

  10. Thoughtful Tom says:

    Exactly! Your 5 year data is clearly BETTER than the 17 year data in a noisy signal! But you can win that debate by stretching the timeline to 17 THOUSAND YEARS (to catch rising sea levels at the end of the last ice age) – you can’t lose. You win in the near term. You win in the long term.

    Look – make it easy on yourself. Everyday the tides go out, which means sea levels DROP every day. Why should a man of your intellectual ability waste his time on THREE MONTH measures when the data you WANT is available every day!

    Plus your native audience is hungry for results! Don’t make them wait man!

    The fact that the middle time periods 17 years to 8,000 years – where the data is relevant – directly supports Hansen (which is not a coincidence, Hansen bases his paper on the real data) is something you can conveniently ignore. Bravo.

  11. Thoughtful Tom says:

    Yeah, the reality where increased CO2 raises temperature, which melts ice, which raises sea levels.

    Given that we are at the beginning of this delightful cycle, I see nothing wrong with Hansen’s numbers. He is acknowledging the increasing rate of increase of sea level rise.

    So my reality is definitely different than the one where you reside, where data doesn’t matter and 3 months of data is BETTER than 17 years.

  12. Thoughtful Tom says:

    Look EVERY day sea levels rise more than 3.2mm. And given the “Goddard rule” (less data is better) I can therefore demonstrate whatever rate you would like to see.

  13. Gneiss says:

    stevengoddard writes,
    “The “real data” shows the real slope 15-30X too low for Hansen’s targets.”

    When you made this claim about Hansen the centerpiece of another post, I thought maybe you didn’t know the difference between linear and exponential. Now it’s clear your mistake is intentional.

    • You are grasping at straws. Right now it looks closer to logarithmic than it does to exponential.

    • Thoughtful Tom says:

      And we are back! Remember -the less actual data – the better. Would you like me to prove sea level is dropping or rising? I can do it with a SINGLE day’s data. And this is BETTER than the 3 months originally used because it is even shorter!

      Thanks Steven – this is a fun game.

  14. Gneiss says:

    “You are grasping at straws. ”

    No, I’m just telling the truth. You are not. Hansen did not project a linear rise in sea level, as you keep declaring that he did.

    • You are correct. Hansen forecast that Manhattan would be submerged by 2008.

      http://dir.salon.com/books/int/2001/10/23/weather/index.html

      • Roger Wehage says:

        I didn’t think it was physically possible for one person to take “Real Science” into the Dark Ages.

        When you use “all” the available data that you have to intelligently predict the future, you still run the risk of making incorrect projections. That’s part of science.

        But when you “cherry pick” or “misquote” or “leave out” or “tell little white lies” to advance your own personal agenda, that’s quackery. Plain and simple.

        So there are two kinds of people who benefit from projections based on real scientific data and observations, real scientists who use this information to plan and warn and take action and to improve their understanding of the real world and their projection models, and quacks who “cherry pick” and “misquote” and “leave out” and “tell little white lies” to sway innocent people into disbelieving the consensus expounded by real scientists around the world. For what sensible reasons quacks would do this to harm their unsuspecting lambs is beyond my comprehension.

        And what exactly did Jim Hansen say about the effects of climate change and global warming in that interview with Salon as reported by Suzy Hansen at the website pointed to above? Nothing, because the interview was with Bob Reise, not Jim Hansen. Now if Bob Reise had said that Jim Hansen forecast that Manhattan would be submerged by 2008, wouldn’t that be hearsay information? And if someone had quoted Bob Reiss’ quote, wouldn’t that be hearsay, hearsay information? And if Bob Reiss hadn’t even said that Jim Hansen forecast that Manhattan would be submerged by 2008 in the first place, wouldn’t that hearsay, hearsay information be “a little white lie?” But a quack’s lambs will keep right on following, because they will never check out his “facts.”

        Anyway, let’s take a look at the last part of Salon’s interview with Jim Hansen as reported by Suzy Hansen. Oops, I mean Salon’s interview with Bob Reise as reported by Suzy Hansen.

        Salon: It seems like at this point there are two questions: Is the earth warming? And, are humans causing that warming? Everyone believes that the answer to the first one is yes, right? Or are there still scientists and skeptics — besides lawyers for coal companies — who will say that this isn’t happening?

        Reiss: Definitely. That’s the nature of scientists. They disagreed the day before the moon rocket went off and the day before the first nuclear explosion and before the first heart transplant. The problem is that politicians on one side use this disagreement as an excuse to do nothing. Since there’s never going to be complete agreement, we might go forever on this. There are scientists who believe that the role of clouds will alleviate the warming. And those who say we’re still coming out of an ice age. And those who believe that natural climate variation is responsible for the weather and not humans. And those who believe that even if humans are involved, the effect is so minuscule compared to the natural one that the whole thing is ridiculous to talk about.

        Salon: But the models do show that since industrialization the earth has changed at a faster pace than it used to. To what extent are we too late?

        Reiss: Too late?

        Salon: Have we set forth changes in the earth that we can’t reverse?

        Reiss: I don’t know. At what point do you hit critical threshold? See, these are the scary questions that are not being addressed, and these are the scary questions that we’re not even taking out insurance against. What happens if there’s a runaway greenhouse effect?

        Salon: If we wanted to reverse the greenhouse effect, how much emissions would we have to cut back?

        Reiss: Globally, the figure is something like 70 percent. What we want to do is hold it back while we develop alternative forms of energy. Carbon is increasing in the atmosphere, the automobile industry is surging in China, the world population is exploding in Asia, developing countries want the same thing that we have in America — they want air conditioning and a car too. Every single manufactured item you can think of contributes to the greenhouse effect. If you buy a pair of shoes, it came from a factory. The factory needed energy. You order water in a restaurant; it comes out of a faucet that was produced and that took energy. This conversation on the phone. Salon.com uses energy. My computer’s on and, look, I left the light on. It’s true. I’m going to go turn it off.

      • ChrisD says:

        It wasn’t my comment, and I don’t know if Reiss was lying, but Hansen, whatever you think of him, is a very smart cookie. It makes no sense that this is a real prediction. There is no possible way he could actually believe that in just 20 years the West Side Highway would be underwater. There is no possible way he could believe that all the trees and all of the birds in Manhattan would be replaced. Not only does it make no sense, it’s not even consistent with his own predictions of either SLR or temperature change.

        There is more to this than what was in the Salon interview, and we don’t know what it is. I do not believe that this was a straight-up prediction for a 20-year time frame, and I will never believe it until Hansen says publicly that this is what he meant–which he has never done, to the best of my knowledge.

      • Hansen’s 1988 prediction was no less ludicrous than his current predictions. He has been wrong about both temperature and sea level.
        http://stevengoddard.files.wordpress.com/2010/09/hansen88_v_obs2.jpg
        http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/08/13/is-jim-hansens-global-temperature-skillful/

  15. Roger Wehage says:

    “Are you accusing Reiss of lying?”

    If that question was directed to me, I am accusing you of purposely distorting information to destroy real science. Get it?

  16. Thoughtful Tom says:

    Actually Hansen’s 1988 model is amazingly accurate. He missed climate sensitivity by about .8C. Based on actual warming, the number for sensitivity is 3.4C/doubling. Hansen’s model yielded 4.2C. It is simply amazing how much he got right 22 years ago, when AGW had serious critics, and was not the mainstream view.

    Tell you what Steven Goddard – you are so quick to criticize the one guy who has gotten everything right on this issue (Hansen). Why don’t you make some 5 and 10 years predictions (not even holding you to HALF of Hansen’s standard) and we will check in and see if wishing it were so really works. Go ahead. Write up the climate for 2015 and 2020. We will score you against Hansen (2005 or later – his latest work at this time).

    I will make a meta-prediction based on your lame use of science and logic: Hansen beats you soundly in the prediction realm (because he uses real data and science, not cherry picking with a pre-determined outcome in mind).

  17. Thoughtful Tom says:

    Temperature has FALLEN since when the dinosaurs were the victorious species (and mammals were the size of mice. You have, of course, picked an arbitrary and deceitful beginning date, and ignore the accelerating rate of change.

    Your prediction is …?

    Surely you are not going to ignore the challenge? After all your intellectual might compared to Hansen’s is …well we are back to mice and dinosaurs. But give it your best shot – this should be entertaining.

  18. Perry says:

    The subject under discussion here is relevant only insomuch as it clearly illustrates that those AGWarmist beliefs are indicative of a religious fervour rather than an example of using scientific method to establish repeatable results. By that, I mean the apparent unwillingness of TT, RW & CD to consider that they might not be right, which convinces me they should address the question of “How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?” to its logical conclusion, in order for them to review their mindsets. It’s a question that serves as a metaphor for wasting time debating topics of no practical value.

    Is Steven Goddard spoofing here on Real Science? No! He gathers facts and draws them to our attention. To those to whom this is anathema, I offer culinary advice, “If you can’t stand the heat, get out of the kitchen”.

    • ChrisD says:

      the apparent unwillingness of TT, RW & CD to consider that they might not be right

      As opposed to what? Your obvious willingness to consider that you might not be right?

      Look, I’ve studied this subject for fifteen years. I’ve read everything I can get my hands on, from both sides. The scientists make a far more convincing case, in my opinion. Could they be wrong? Of course. But I don’t think they are. That opinion hardly make me, or anyone else, “unwilling to consider that they might not be right.” It makes me someone with an opinion based on a whole lot of study.

    • Thoughtful Tom says:

      “Is Steven Goddard spoofing here on Real Science?”

      If only that were the case. I would say “nice job Steven Goddard.” I think he believes MOST of what he writes, and LOVES all the attention.

      As for it being science? No. Not when you look at 3 months of sea level data (hello!? has anyone heard of tides?!) and try to say ANYTHING about it. I proved the logical fallacy by offering to PROVE any result you want (with data!) from a single day’s sea level data.

      Nope. No science here. May I suggest skepticalscience?

  19. Gneiss says:

    Perry writes,
    “Is Steven Goddard spoofing here on Real Science? No! He gathers facts and draws them to our attention.”

    He’s feeding heaps of pseudoscience to readers who can’t tell the difference.

    • Nothing intelligent to say, so go straight for the ad hom.

      • ChrisD says:

        You should probably go look up what ad hom actually means.

        It’s not ad hom by any stretch of the imagination to point out what it is that he thinks you do.

        http://plover.net/~bonds/adhominem.html

      • In poker, when you don’t have any cards, some people fold and others bluff. I would advise that you do the latter.

        You don’t have a good poker face.

      • ChrisD says:

        Sorry, it’s not ad hom. It just isn’t.

        “You’re ugly”: ad hom.

        “You’re a stinking green vegetarian”: ad hom.

        “What Steve is posting is pseudoscience”: not ad hom. A relevant statement of opinion on what you do here.

        In fact, your “poker face” post is a helluva lot closer to ad hom that the one you’re complaining about.

      • DavidCOG says:

        You need to look up the meaning of ‘ad hominem’. It’s not what you think it is.

        Then go read some real climate science instead of trying to invent your own distorted version of it.

  20. Perry says:

    CD wrote’ “Look, I’ve studied this subject for fifteen years. I’ve read everything I can get my hands on, from both sides. ”

    The obvious conclusion is quantity, not quality. 15 years of study and you still do not know your chosen subject that well. Don’t give up though, enlightenment is months away. After an horrendous NH winter, the scales will drop from your eyes PDQ. Assuming we all do not freeze to death.

    When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?
    There is no harm in being sometimes wrong — especially if one is promptly found out.

    John Maynard Keynes

    • ChrisD says:

      After an horrendous NH winter, the scales will drop from your eyes PDQ.

      They might, if I didn’t know the difference between regional weather and global climate.

  21. Cliff says:

    “Right, it is going to be flat for 80 years and then rise 6 metres overnight.”

    Well you need to do the math to see if an accelerating rise is feasible. Which you have not done. Writing a post based on a linear rate is wrong.

  22. Cliff says:

    Also, here Hansen, as a mathematical example explains how one could get 5 meter rise with a non-linear rate of SLR — and without SLR being flat for 80 years and then going up 6 meters overnight

    http://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0703/0703220.pdf

    Note in that piece he is not providing a basis a 5 meter rise, just saying that a assuming a linear rate is wrong and that it

    • ChrisD says:

      Thanks, I hadn’t seen that. Also interesting is the section where Hansen notes the effects of one’s belief in AGW on funding in the early days:

      It was not obvious who was right on the science, but it seemed to me, and I believe to most scientists, that the scientists preaching caution and downplaying the dangers of climate change fared better in receipt of research funding. Drawing attention to the dangers of global warming may or may not have helped increase funding for relevant scientific areas, but it surely did not help individuals like [John] Mercer who stuck their heads out. I could vouch for that from my own experience. After I published a paper (Hansen et al 1981) that described likely climate effects of fossil fuel use, the Department of Energy reversed a decision to fund our research, specifically highlighting and criticizing aspects of that paper at a workshop in Coolfont, West Virginia and in publication (MacCracken 1983).

      So much for “They’re all just in it to get grants.” At the time, it was the exact opposite. It was harder to obtain funding if you believed that carbon emissions were a threat. But they did it anyway.

  23. Perry says:

    CD,

    Whether you like it or not, eventually Weather is indicative of Climate. In that a journey of a thousand miles starts with a first step, here is the start line.

    http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2010/10/stacking-up-for-cold.html

    Cold kills far more creatures than warmth. What do you want to happen next?

    • ChrisD says:

      There’s no “like it or not” involved. Weather isn’t climate, and a cold NH winter does not say anything about longer term climate trends any more than a short run of boxcars proves that the dice are loaded.

    • ChrisD says:

      Cold kills far more creatures than warmth.

      Don’t confuse creatures dying because they get too hot with creatures dying because their habitat has changed out from under them. And that includes humans. If there’s a significant increase in long-term temps, far more creatures will die, not from heat, but from radically altered local environments.

      What do you want to happen next?

      What I want to happen is a negative: I want us to not unintentionally change our climate. It is an uncontrolled experiment with the only atmosphere we have, and not a smart thing to do.

  24. Jimash says:

    I suspect that there is something wrong with Mr Wehage’s wiring .
    fer instance:
    “The argument is that the world should be on the verge of the next ice age and sea levels should be steady or falling, but scientific evidence is showing that sea levels are not steady or falling, They are rising at an alarming rate.”

    Sea levels rising at an alarming ( Actuallu nearly imperceptible) rate .
    THAT he finds alarming. A new Ice Age, he apparently would find comforting.

    “Could it possibly be because atmospheric CO2 concentrations have shot up to 390 ppmv, when historical records indicate that they should have been slowly declining from a historical maximum of around 280 ppmv, starting a century or two ago? ”

    Of course Mr. Wehage would rather his bassackwards opinions be validated than that PLANTS GROW.

    Mr. Wehage here, is the reason that they have to put warnings on dry cleaning bags.

  25. sunsettommy says:

    ROFLMAO!

    I read through the long comment thread and can only wonder why so many failed to remember that Steve gave us several different Sea Level rise over time periods,in the comments.All of them factually supported.

    First he starts with the 15,000 year rate at 8mm/year average.Then to 5 year rate at 2mm/year

    “Over the last 15,000 years average sea level rise has been 8 mm/year. Over the last five years it has been about one quarter of that at 2 mm/year…”

    I admit that Chris D does have a decent question about the 5,000 rate.

    “Oh? 5,000 years provides the long-term trend of SLR in the post-glacial climate. It is the most reasonable comparison, yet you won’t use it. Why not?

    The current trend is well over four times higher than the 5,000-year trend. What is the explanation?”

    But he also does not give us the rate for that time frame either.Thus Chris Dudley claim remains unsupported.

    Steve G. also mentions with a link source that the past 100 years rate is unchanged.

    Meanwhile we have Roger Wehage tell us that in last 17 years we have a 3.2mm/year and Steve counters with 2.1mm in last five years.Neither number credibly disputed factually.

    In all the exchanges,I failed to see any credible evidence that Steve is wrong.None of you guys showed actual accelerating increase in sea level rise in recent years.Steve Showed the very opposite using Colorado University sea level data.A credible satellite database.

    James Hansen is pushing projection baloney.There is simply not all that much easy to melt ice left on the planet available to to bring up the sea rise to Hansen’s level in 90 years time.It is embarrassingly stupid for you guys to fall for such obvious crap.

    I find this silly because there is no science in it or even rational thinking behind it.Just plain unsubstantiated fears.

    “But what the trend is now isn’t the real issue, It’s what the trend may be ten or twenty or fifty years from now that we should be concerned about. It’s what our children and grandchildren will be facing in the future is what we should be concerned about.”

    What the trend MAY BE in ten,twenty or gasp 50 years into the future.All based on bogus non existent sea level acceleration claims manufactured to scare people with.

    Has anyone seen this chart.That shows that current sea levels among the lowest levels even existing in last 6 hundred million years?

    http://www.globalwarmingskeptics.info/forums/thread-188-post-5053.html#pid5053

    LOL

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s