“clearscience” gets silly

What Goddard ignores is that thermal expansion explains the majority of global sea level rise

Sea level has risen 130 metres. Those oceans must be getting incredibly hot!


About stevengoddard

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

56 Responses to “clearscience” gets silly

  1. Tony Duncan says:

    Some idiot posted that sea level rise throughout history is from thermal expansion, and he PRINTS a GRAPH starting from the ice ages?

    • Tony Duncan says:

      I see that actually Steve invented the idea that Clearscience was saying that all the sea level rise since the last ice age is due to thermal expansion.
      What a classic case of propaganda. Why would you even need to imply something so ridiculous, when, as you say, the actual tide gauges bear you out, and there is no sea level rise due to ACC. Why not just stick with the facts rather than grossly distort what someone else says?

      • Mike Davis says:

        Clearscience has shown a creative bent in writing. You should get along well and maybe set up a fantasy writing team. You do need to find something more plausible to write about as ACC is about worn out as a fantasy topic and the BIG BOY Climatologists are leading the pack in the fantasy writing!
        Maybe you can write about the drastic reduction in Oxygen concentration in the Biosphere Due to an excess number of animals on the planet.

      • Tony Duncan says:

        Mike,
        please don’t tell me that you are actually going to argue with the idea that this post is a total distortion of what clear-science actually wrote.
        Let’s get this clear.
        Steve quoted Clearscience “What Goddard ignores is that thermal expansion explains the majority of global sea level rise”
        Steve wrote” Sea level has risen 130 metres. Those oceans must be getting incredibly hot!” and then put a graph up of sea level over the last 24,000 years.
        Goddard ignores the ENTIRE rest of clearsciences post in order to present what amounts to a total fabrication. I keep wanting to write “lie” but he didn’t actually lie about clearscience, he was just totally dishonest.

        I know Steve is not stupid, and even someone as stupid as I am was able to understand what clearscience wrote.
        If it was a joke, I am willing to give Steve lessons in how to make something funny, but I find it more likely he was trying to portray someone as bonkers by totally distorting what they wrote. This goes way beyond a creative bent in writing; it is a valiant attempt at topping “The Big Lie”.

        Now that we have that out of the way, what did Clearscience write that was not factual?

        and actually I think there has been a reduction in O2, but I haven’t had have any trouble breathing recently.

        Finally, I think it was big of you to admit to Clearscience that you are too scared to go to sites that support ideas that you cannot accept. In spite of the fact that you are so much smarter than me, I still visit sites that have opposite points of view from mine. I occasionally learn something, as I have from you.

      • Mike Davis says:

        TonyD:
        I am just bored reading at sites like CS. You bore me but I attempt to counter your dramatic fantasies.
        I could give you a long list of the sites I do not visit but did at least once only to find the BS was all the same.
        You will need to get shriller and try to scream louder but that only results in proving how wrong you are.
        There is nothing going on with the current rate of sea level rise other than it somewhat stabilized some thousands of years ago. However that is a result of the sampling and smoothing methods used.
        Reality is that there are many dynamics involved in regional sea level and average global sea level destroys all realization of what sea level is. Sea level is a regional situation. PERIOD! Temperature is a regional situation. PERIOD! Describing a global temperature destroys the meaning of temperature because there is no such thing as a global temperature. On a given day somewhere in the world the temperature can be +50c and in another location the temperature can be -50C. That would make the mean global temperature 0C for today.
        The temperature at the nearest NOAA weather station can be 10F higher, 10F lower or somewhere in between compared to the thermometer at my house. It shows me the relative temperature at a specific time and little more. It gives me information I will need for my daily activities and an idea of what will happen tomorrow allows me to plan for that as well.
        Other than that It does not mean SH#T. Temperatures have been hotter and colder. Long term the temperatures will decline over the next 80 thousand years but with current technology humans will be able to adapt better than they did the last time the temperatures dropped that low.
        Seeing as we are talking about sea level.
        Globally sea levels will change! In a warming world they will go up and continue to go up after the globe starts to cool again a well observed reaction in all weather situations. The sea level will go down in a cooling world to the level it was during the LGM or even lower because there will be more ice locked up on land than during any of the past glacial maximums.
        I will not attempt to go into specifics of causes as they are to diverse so it is best just to say due to natural causes climate changes over long periods of time and sea levels follow suit.
        Worrying about the sea level in 100 years is about equal to worrying about the color of shirt you will wear next August. Worry about it when the time comes because there are a whole lot of other things to worry about that are more important than what temperature or the sea level in 20, 40, 60, 80, or even 500 years. You will probably be dead in 80 years and there are important things you can teach others after you give up the BS about climate.

      • ChrisD says:

        Tony Duncan says:

        please don’t tell me that you are actually going to argue with the idea that this post is a total distortion of what clear-science actually wrote.

        Of course that’s what he’s doing. It’s what he and certain others always do here. It really doesn’t matter how obviously wrong and/or dishonest the post is, they will not, under any circumstances, admit it. That’s why his 500+ word reply fails completely to address your point, which has nothing to do with SLR and everything to do with the fundamental dishonesty of this post.

        For Phase 2 of the operation, Steve will accuse me of spamming.

      • ChrisD says:

        Oh, I was wrong! He used the “idiot” play instead of the expected “spammer” diversion. Nicely done! Well played, sir!

      • Mike Davis says:

        Chris:
        If you believe a lie then someone telling you the truth is lying about your lie as far as you can tell. To those that understand what you support is still a lie and counter claims are still based on reality. They are just not based on your version of reality. Your version of reality shifts depending on which promoter you are defending today whereas Steven is pointing out the absurdity of false claims made by your heroes.

      • ChrisD says:

        Steven is pointing out the absurdity of false claims made by your heroes.

        That is exactly the point: clearscience didn’t make the claim that Steve has thrust upon him. But you will never, ever admit that; you will simply insist on talking about other things entirely.

        As far as “heroes” goes, they aren’t my heroes any more than Steve is yours (well, maybe he is, it does sort of look like you think he’s infallible).

        But apparently repeating once that you’ve ignored Tony’s point is my limit, so that will be it for this thread. You, of course, can feel free to repeat your irrelevant argument as many times as you care to. That’s the nature of a hypocracy.

      • sunsettommy says:

        I went to CS bog site and see that only a short database was used.One was a 42 year period and the other one 10 years.Not much time frame to go one to try supporting the idea that thermal expansion is a major cause of sea level increase.

        Steve expanded on the thermal idea,with his chart in the attempt to show the absurdity of Thermal expansion over thousands of years time.

        “Sea level has risen 130 metres. Those oceans must be getting incredibly hot!”

        Water can expand only so much and for so long.Do you realize that when you spread the water out you make it easier for it to lose heat?

  2. Troels Halken says:

    Well, gentelmen. I’m not an expert, but since the OHC refuses to rise since the ARGO bouys where deployed in 2004 any sea level rise since then cannot be due to rising temperatures of the oceans. And the GRACE mission shows 1mm/year. Hmmm.

  3. “gets”, or “always was”?

  4. Paul H says:

    Unfortunately for CS the good old tide gauges reject his shoddy science.

  5. Paul H says:

    It would seem that ClearScience only has one supporter, good old Tony D.

    It would seem most people see through his shoddy work.

    • Tony Duncan says:

      I never said I was supporting clearscience,
      just trying to point out an extremely obvious instance of total deception by Steve. Interesting that not one person here addressed my actual point, you just ignore it.

      Since you all have in the last 24 hours proved even MORE fraud, by the climate scientists, I again urge you to publish this in peer reviewed journals. That will hold much more weight a the congressional hearings than just blog posts.

      Oh and Steve I looked up the position papers for the geological society and the AGU. And it looks like your geology friends have been taken over by the pod people. How could that happen? you said most geologists know ACC is a fraud and yet the main organizations just parrots the party line.
      I assume you will have no trouble voting out the purveyors of fraud in these organizations and get honest people running them shortly so that they can present the real science that you have so faithfully presented. (except of course for this particular post of total deception)

  6. Paul H says:

    Perhaps ClearScience could answer Steve’s questions that the Rapid Response Unit could not manage to do.

    • Malaga View says:

      I doubt Mr Snippy is really up to the challenge…

      • Tony Duncan says:

        Malaga,
        Could you answer my question about this post being a total distortion of what Clearscience said in his blog?
        Again if Steve was trying to be funny, I would gladly offer my services.

      • Mike Davis says:

        Clearscience’s entire position is a distortion so any discussion would also be a distortion of any claims made by CS. Unless you agree with what is being claimed by a distorted view any truthful claims made are a distortion of the false claims.
        A lie is a distortion of the truth!
        Truth is a distortion of a lie in an attempt to correct the false claims.
        Saying the Easter Bunny does not bring you brightly colored eggs for Easter is a distortion of the fantasy associated with the Easter Bunny.

      • Malaga View says:

        Tony Duncan: Unfortunately I do not have a copy of my reply to your question that was snipped by Mr Snippy but this is roughly what I wrote:

        My view is that the IPCC Sea Level Rise data for 1993-2003 [posted on the clearscience blog] is a total misrepresentation to the point of fabrication [to use your words].

        From my perspective the IPCC live in a parallel universe based upon corrupt data, revised histories, cherry picked analysis, non-scientific methods, bogus scientists, funding bias, peer-review cronyism, NGO agendas and alarmist propaganda. Debating their science is like discussing How many fairies can dance on the head of a pin?

  7. MJB says:

    I don’t know if I would characterize this post as a total distortion, but I would agree with Mr Duncan that this is certainly an obvious attempt to redirect. Very politician like. Which is troubling because not answering the original CS comment head-on makes it look like the original CS comment was valid, which it clearly is not.

    • Plzzz… Blaming much of sea level rise on thermal expansion is absurd.

    • Lazarus says:

      MJB says:
      “I don’t know if I would characterize this post as a total distortion”

      No, it is a total distortion, because unless you take the trouble to go to the CS site (and one poster on here has already said they haven’t – a true skeptic would) you will have a totally wrong impression of what was actually said and leave with the idea that Clear Science has said something silly – just what the title incorrectly suggests.

      So you see it is total distortion and misinformation.

    • Tony Duncan says:

      Steve,

      Point me to the part in CS’s post where he says that most sea level rise since the last glacial has been from thermal expansion, and I will apologize profusely for accusing you of being totally dishonest in this post.
      If you read my first comment, I immediately stated that such a person had to be an idiot. I actually read the post however, and saw that he was talking ONLY about recent sea level rise. Your post CEARLY is, sorry to repeat myself, totally dishonest.

      I once again make my offer on help with your comedy, if you were trying to be funny.
      Otherwise your inability to admit what is obvious to anyone who reads both posts (CS’s and yours) points to a severe problem.

    • Tony Duncan says:

      Steve,
      please try to stop listening to the voices in your head.
      Show me ANYPLACE on CS’s post where he mentions anything about sea level rise since the last glaciation, or any place where he states that sea level rise is ALWAYS mostly from thermal expansion.
      or anywhere on his post where he says there will be a 3 meter rise in sea level.
      Also please show me what he wrote that was factually wrong.
      CS corrected your post where you said sea level rise was only 1mm/year, when in fact the paper you based that on clearly said that rise was ONLY from meltwater, NOT from thermal expansion*. Instead of acknowledging your error there, you then responded with this totally invalid post.
      It is comparable to accusing someone of saying “all the jews are hardened criminals” , when the full quote is “In Leavenworth’s solitary confinement block all the jews are hardened criminals.” That is not actually a lie, but it might as well be.

      *”One of the authors of the report, Riccardo Riva from the Delft University of Technology in the Netherlands, said that average annual rise in sea level rise due to meltwater entering the ocean is about 1 millimeter, but that an additional rise will come from that fact that as the average temperature rises so does the ocean temperature, which in turn causes the volume of the ocean to increase. “

      • No matter how much evidence you are presented, you can’t grasp what is going on.

      • Tony Duncan says:

        Steve,
        and apparently no matter how obvious it is that you are being totally dishonest, you can’t ever admit it.
        you have not answered ONE thing regarding your obvious deception about THIS post. Why not just say “Yeah I exaggerated what he said, but he is wrong about the importance of sea level rise”. Then you could just go on and retain some semblance of decency.

        And I totally will state that the vast majority of your posts are not dishonest in this manner. I am not making any claims of what these numbers mean, I am just looking at what you wrote and what CS wrote, and you refuse to acknowledge that your post was totally deceptive and totally misrepresented what CS wrote, and that his correction of your previous post was accurate.

        that in no way invalidates whatever else you are saying. It just means in this particular instance you are being, have I mentioned this before? – dishonest.

        This is maybe worse than Amino or Scarlet, or whoever, accusing me about lying when I mentioned Dyson. and then he had the balls to say I was misrepresenting Dyson when I quoted him at length, after clearly saying that I was NOT reflecting Dyson;s views just documenting the accuracy of my comment.

        • No matter how obvious it is that you are being totally clueless, you can’t ever admit it. You have no idea how much sea level is rising, and what fraction is from thermal expansion and what fraction is from melt.

          You just don’t get it …..

      • Tony Duncan says:

        Steve,

        no matter how much you try to wiggle out of this, you can’t escape the fact that this has NOTHING to do with how much is thermal and how much is from melt. that has nothing to do with the deceptive nature of your post.

        you are right I don’t have a CLUE about what causes sea level rise
        What I DO have a clue about is you not responding to ANYTHING I have actually written.

        Show me where what CS wrote is wrong. QUOTE what he wrote and then supply the information that contradicts it.
        This is so funny because all he did was quote the paper YOU used in your original post, that he showed you inaccurately based an assertion on.
        This is quite beyond anything I could have hoped for in entertainment value. Cause now you have dodged SO much you can’t possibly admit the truth. All you can do is accuse me of being clueless about the science, which I quote readily admit

  8. slimething says:

    How does the abyss warm without it being detected in the upper 700m? Just wondering.

  9. sunsettommy says:

    Tony Duncan writes:

    “You are seriously saying that Steve putting a graph starting at 22,000 years ago and saying that the rise of 100 meters relates to CS saying “What Goddard ignores is that thermal expansion explains the majority of global sea level rise” is not totally deceptive?”

    Only to people like you who make a big deal out of it.

    He was expanding on what CS wrote at his blog.We both know that CS was covering the thermal expansion data only back to 1961,and Steve knows that too.

    The problem YOU have is that you are continually implying something that does not exist.

    The ocean can only expand so much thermally before it has to release all that heat.Since the atmosphere pressure does not change much.There is a limited range of expansion that a body of water can run on before it becomes too difficult to maintain continued expansion.

    Tony writes:

    “No Steve never claimed that CS went back to the ice age. So WHAT THE HELL is he doing posting something that has nothing to do with anything CS is saying?”

    Then you agreed with me that Steve never stated that.

    LOL

    It is pitiful that you do not understand how absurd it is to think that 20,000 years of sea level increase based on thermal expansion (being the main cause) is possible.The oceans would have BOILED away long ago.

    Sure it is possible for a few decades,but much longer and the waters would have to give up the excess heat,to stop or slow down the thermal expansion.Since there is no “pressure cooker” type of atmosphere.The oceans can not expand for long before it releases some of the heat that causes the thermal expansion in the first place.

    Thermal expansion is limited.

    Tony continues:

    “CS is quite aware of glacial melt and the role it plays in sea level rise. THAT IS WHAT HE CORRECTED STEVE about in the post.”

    What post are you referring to?

    Tony:

    “If I had a weak bladder I would have peed myself at how funny and to what lengths you will go to rationalize the most obvious distortion.”

    Now you are just Bsing here.

    Tony going crazy with delusions:

    “So PLEASE explain to me WHAT CS wrote that is inaccurate?
    Please supply the quote and then the evidence that contradicts it. It is a very short post.”

    Since you are replying to ME.I have to wonder what you are referring to.After all I did not say beyond this against CS;

    Sunset wrote:

    “I went to CS bog site and see that only a short database was used.One was a 42 year period and the other one 10 years.Not much time frame to go one to try supporting the idea that thermal expansion is a major cause of sea level increase.”

    Not much of a dispute going on here.Just thought his lack of years weakens his claims is all I pointed out.

    Tony:

    “We are not talking about science here. it is a question of deception. See my post below.”

    You are the one who is making it up.Steve NEVER stated that CS was going back 20,000 + years.Or that CS ignores other sea level increase causes.

    It is YOU who is making a big deal out of so little.

    Last time from Tony:

    “I must admit I was starting to get bored, but this is really quite fun.”

    Yep I think you are indeed bored to make up bullshit as you go.

    The one thing I thought Steve made a mistake was to not provide the link back to Clearscience blog.To provide the source for the quote he posted above the chart.

  10. Tony Duncan says:

    Wow,
    Sunset…
    if you don’t actually pay attention to the content of your comment it almost sounds like it makes sense. But I guess you had to make it really long in order for it to make that impression. At least you are actually responding. But it is really much simpler than you are tortuously making it out to be.

    1. Steve posted a blog referencing an article that said sea level rise was only 1MM therefore contradicting IPCC low estimates for sea level rise.
    2. CS READ the actual paper to show that they ONLY were talking about land melt component of sea level rise, NOT thermal expansion. The paper specifically says that it does not include thermal expansion.
    3.Steve posts THIS post where he quotes CS as saying “thermal expansion explains the majority of global sea level rise”, and includes graph form 20,000 years ago showing 100 meter rise, and says. “Oceans must be getting incredibly hot.”

    analysis: CS points out error in a post Steve made. An error Steve has mysteriously neglected to comment about.
    Steve responds by taking a quote bizarrely out of context, and grafting it to a totally irrelevant graph making the correlation that 100 meters of sea level rise would require an insane amount of heat to just be from thermal expansion.
    I point out this deception, and everybody runs around denying the dead decaying body in the room.

    I agree I am making a big deal about something that is so little. And I said if Steve had just said. “Yeah I exaggerated that. he obviously didn’t really mean that” it would have just been a stupid thing he did that didn’t mean anything. It would have been corrected and we all would have gone on our merry ways. of course if I HADN’T commented on it. anyone who read the post could ONLY think one thing. That someone was saying that thermal expansion caused most of the 100 meter rise in sea level. What other possible interpretation could one take from that?
    I.E. “Jews are hardened criminals. ” But I never said that he wasn’t just talking about jews in solitary in Levenworth.

    And then you bring up all the stuff about the limitations of thermal expansion that have nothing to do with anything that CS or the paper Steve referenced or I or anyone else said. that only relates to THIS post. And in fact in my FIRST comment I specifically said what an IDIOT anyone would have to be to say something to that effect. But then CS posted WITH his link, I READ it and realized that Steve was being completely deceitful.

    the post I am referring to is the one on CS’s blog that started this whole thing. Read CS’s blog. he links to it.

    Yes, a convenient “mistake” for Steve to make about not including the link to the quote. That is exactly the point. WITHOUT the link and then actually reading what CS says, reading Steve’s post can ONLY lead to a completely inaccurate conclusion about of What CS is saying. the fact that Steve was wrong, and it was pointed out to him in the paper STEVE referenced makes one wonder.

    Again, this WHOLE thing is about STEVE making a mistake about a paper he referenced, someone correcting him about that mistake, and then Steve taking a quote so out of context and tying it to a graph so that the ONLY conclusion one could draw was that the guy was a loony. That is deceitful a total distortion and does not in any way address what CS was saying.

    Steve could have made this post one that disputed that there is any sea level rise from thermal expansion, or that it is not as much as the chart CS posted. But he didn’t do that. He instead posted something that was a total Straw-800 lb. gorilla.

    Finally your position that you contend his 10 or 40 year period for thermal expansion is a bit limited. Well, guess what? That is a logically reasonable opinion to have. I have no problem with that at all. It just has nothing to do with this post. If that was what Steve posted, we wouldn’t be having this fun carnival ride.

    But you do have me on one thing. Steve never actually technically lied. He didn’t say CS wrote that thermal expansion is responsible for most seal level rise since the last ice Age. he just posted a graph that pretty much left one with no other possible conclusion. With a comment that totally reinforced the conclusion.
    And Clinton never said he didn’t use a cigar sexually with Monica, so I guess he didn’t lie either.

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 )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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