Another Aggie Joke

Texas A&M professor Andy Dessler claims that rising sea level is evidence that temperatures are increasing. It is trivial to demonstrate that his claim is both incorrect and absurd.

Over the last 8,000 years, temperatures have steadily fallen – as seen above. At the same time, sea level has risen about 20 metres.

There is no correlation between rising temperatures and rising sea levels. Anyone with a basic understanding of science knows that ice melts above the freezing point – regardless of whether temperatures are increasing or decreasing.

Sea level will keep rising until the amount of new glacial ice formed each year equals the amount of melt. That circumstance would require a considerable amount of cooling from present.

Rice student : Can ice melt after 5 pm?
Aggie professor : No it can’t, because temperatures are falling.

h/t to Marc Morano

About stevengoddard

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

27 Responses to Another Aggie Joke

  1. Brendon says:

    Any one with a basic understanding of science knows that ice melt isn’t the only cause of sea level rise.

    I’ve yet to watch the above video (I will later tonight), but I’m guessing Andy Dessler was talking about temp and sea level rise in the context of the 150 years or so. This time period is different to the ending of the glacial period because land based ice melt has not yet played as significant a role.

    • I take it that you didn’t understand the article.

      Did it occur to you that your argument undercuts your position?

      • Brendon says:

        My position is that the warming of the ocean and the melting of land based ice contribute to sea level rise.

      • Exactly. They both work in the same direction, which makes your argument weaker. Falling temperatures over the last 8,000 years reduces both.

      • Brendon says:

        Why? We’ve known for quite some time the melting land ice contributed to rising sea levels when coming out of the glacial period.

        As the climate started to cool we should have seen this rate of sea rise decline, which it does.

        As the climate warms up again, the land based ice will begin to melt again at a more rapid rate and cause further sea level rise.

        There’s nothing contradictory about it Steve.

      • There has been no change in the rate of sea level rise for the last 100 years.

        In fact, for the last five years sea level has been rising at below the century trend.

      • Brendon says:

        That site is blocked for me, are you able to show this somewhere else and does it contain error bars? Preferably from the original paper if possible.

  2. Nick says:

    The fact that there are 6billion people on earth is because it’s warm, this would not have been possible 10,000 years ago. The last warmings of the 10,000 had bursts of technology and innovation followed by stalling with religious doctrines, these generally occured during cold periods. I never heard of any civilisations going under during warming phases unless they were El Nino cycles which take water away from one area and hoard it in another.

  3. suyts says:

    What happens when the dumbest Kansas U. student transfers to Texas A&M? Both schools’ average IQ goes up!

  4. dorlomin says:

    So water does not expand when it warms. This is indeed yet more ground breaking science steve.

    • What part of “temperatures have been cooling for the last 8,000 years” isn’t clear to you?

      • suyts says:

        hahaha, you’ve introduced a new concept to some people today! Somewhere, you’ve just caused a robot to wave its arms frantically stating “Warning Will Robinson! Danger! Does not compute! Warning…..”…….hahahha

      • Brendon says:

        What part of “land ice continued to melt” isn’t clear to you? You said so yourself, “Anyone with a basic understanding of science knows that ice melts above the freezing point – regardless of whether temperatures are increasing or decreasing.”

        Where you fail is that the data you have here is not sufficient to distinguish between what part of the sea level rise is due to a warming/cooling ocean and what part is due to land ice melt.

      • They both are trending in the wrong direction. Ice melt is a positive feedback. Your argument works against you.

      • Brendon says:

        What trends are you talking about?

      • suyts says:

        It doesn’t really matter. The findings of Norse farmlands in Greenland indicate much more terrestrial ice has melted in relative recent past and we managed through it some how. Really, the only terrestrial ice we’d even have to begin to worry about is the Antarctic, and it seems to be “growing” ice.

      • If temperatures are falling, then the oceans are contracting in volume.

        The only possible explanation for rising sea levels over the last 8,000 years is glacial melt. Thermal expansion works against your argument.

      • intrepid_wanders says:


        Check out the Vostok data.

        Cooling… πŸ˜‰

        That why we need GHG. Other than that we have the free fall of 8degC 125,000ya which would make the 0.2degC the noise that it is.

        Either that, or we were screwed from the start of our optimum.

      • Brendon says:

        The only possible explanation for rising sea levels over the last 8,000 years is glacial melt. Thermal expansion works against your argument.

        Not at all. My argument isn’t that sea level rise is ONLY thermal expansion.

        I’m satisfied that the 8,000 year period sea level rise is caused by glacial melt and that it overwhelms any thermal contraction.

      • Brendon says:

        “Check out the Vostok data”

        Check out the difference between global and local temperatures and why the Antarctic temps fluctuate more than global ones.

      • dorlomin says:

        And yet, on the graph you have above, 2004 is shown as warmer than any periopd over the past 8000 years. So the seas will take more than 120 years to respond to the warming.

        Gotcha now.

  5. PJB says:

    Smoking Richard Lindzen? That explains the stupor and lack of cognitive ability.

    What? Ohhhh Richard Lindzen is NOT a type of weed? I had heard that he was high in the scientific world but….

  6. R. de Haan says:

    I am sure Richard Lindzen will smoke him.

    You can’t really smoke Lindzen, he to skilled and to smart to loose a dispute.

  7. Layne Blanchard says:

    What will all the nitwits do when the arctic recovers? This is about all they’re holding onto now. Will there be mass suicide when they realize the “joy” of climate Armageddon is a hoax?

    I suspect ice extent may continue to bounce around the current vicinity until the AMO and PDO are in phase. How long must we wait for the whining and drivel to end? Will GM be able to buy “Hummer” back?

  8. Eli Rabett says:

    It’s 2013, September 2012 was a huge low. Still waiting for the AMO

Leave a Reply

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

You are commenting using your 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 )

Connecting to %s