Heidi Cullen Climate Metrics : One Centimetre Equals One Foot

The IPCC said 18-59 cm, so Heidi’s team turned that into 18-29 feet.

A new analysis released Thursday in the journal Science implies that the seas could rise dramatically higher over the next few centuries than scientists previously thought — somewhere between 18-to-29 feet above current levels, rather than the 13-to-20 feet they were talking about just a few years ago.

Sea Level Rise: It Could Be Worse than We Think | Climate Central

I will refrain from insulting turnips.


About stevengoddard

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

23 Responses to Heidi Cullen Climate Metrics : One Centimetre Equals One Foot

  1. Don Sutherland says:


    The article that appeared in the July 13, 2012 issue of Science states:

    “During the last interglacial period, ~125,000 years ago, sea level was at least several
    meters higher than at present, with substantial variability observed for peak sea level at
    geographically diverse sites. Speculation that the West Antarctic ice sheet collapsed during
    the last interglacial period has drawn particular interest to understanding climate and ice-sheet
    dynamics during this time interval. We provide an internally consistent database of coral
    U-Th ages to assess last interglacial sea-level observations in the context of isostatic modeling
    and stratigraphic evidence. These data indicate that global (eustatic) sea level peaked 5.5
    to 9 meters above present sea level, requiring smaller ice sheets in both Greenland and
    Antarctica relative to today and indicating strong sea-level sensitivity to small changes in
    radiative forcing.

    Current modeling and data-based estimates converge on a 2- to 4-m contribution to ESL from Greenland (9, 10, 29–31) and on a maximum contribution of +3.3 m from West Antarctica (32). Thus, the lower limit estimate of the peak LIG ESL (+5.5 m) is consistent with such contributions from both Greenland and West Antarctica, but the upper limit (+9 m) implies additional melt-water contribution from adjacent sectors in East Antarctica.”

    • There is zero indication that sea level rise has accelerated.

      • Don Sutherland says:


        You were referring to the measurements. The measurements accurately reflected what was stated in the Science piece. The Climate Central author did not mistakenly transform millimeters into feet.

        • So you have no problem with people inflating IPCC estimates by three orders of magnitude.

          The science you support is complete junk with no standards and no ethics.

      • Don Sutherland says:


        That was a new study dealing with the last interglacial approximately 125,000 years ago. It was not an interpretation of any IPCC discussion. My point was that the Climate Central author did not erroneously cite or exaggerate the figures concerning sea level rise. Those figures came directly out of the study to which he referred. Had you checked the study first, you would have seen that the study, not Climate Central, was the source of those figures. The issue concerning whether or not such a scenario is likely in the future–and it’s not imminent according to the study’s authors–is an entirely separate matter.

        • My point is that it is spectacularly irresponsible and unethical to make claims like that without a frame of reference of IPCC forecasts and actual measurements.

      • Gator says:

        stevengoddard says: September 1, 2012 at 6:25 pm

        “My point is that it is spectacularly irresponsible and unethical to make claims like that without a frame of reference of IPCC forecasts and actual measurements.”

        Most folks would say that if the parties making those wild claims stand to profit from said exaggerations, that this would be fraud.

        My mother works for a museum whose curator is a fraud. He makes wild exaggerations to get grant money to pay for his divorce and womanizing. He is a professor at a major university and steals from his students as well! I’m sure glad climatology does not suffer from this same sick human condition.

      • Hugh K says:

        Don, Do try and keep up.

        Steven — “Heidi Cullen Climate Metrics : One CENTEMETRE Equals One Foot”

        Don — “The Climate Central author did not mistakenly transform MILLMETERS into feet.”

        (Caps mine for clarity/emphasis in an all out effort to penetrate an oviously very thick skull)

    • johnmcguire says:

      Well Don , at least they had the honesty to admit they were speculating about what they thought the study proved . It’s models all the way down and garbage in garbage out . I see they require smaller ice sheets in Greenland and Antarctica as well . So nice of them to tell nature what it has to do . Oh , and they can’t even understand forcing in todays world yet they claim they can calculate forcing from by gone ages . Don , you are showing a pattern of siting marginal studies to support your agw agenda . I am speaking of the study you cited two days ago on the decline in ice in the arctic . After reading and considering your statements and the study it is plain that the study supports natural variation and in no way supports anthropogenic global warming . Now you are citing a study composed of modeling and speculation as though it is definative . You are indeed grasping at straws and hoping to fool the uneducated . I am disappointed as I was thinking you were actually showing the evidence that convinced you of agw but instead find you wish to throw out a lot of smoke in an effort to lead people to false conclusions . That tactic if continued will lead to derision not respect .

  2. suyts says:

    Well, given their obvious manipulation of our sea level information, they can make it come true by just adjusting the numbers. Or killing the uncooperative satellites. I just wrote another post about how they have completely fubared the satellite derived sea level measurements.


  3. pwl says:

    Mind numbing co2 climate doomsdayist spews mind poop.

  4. rw says:

    Looks like another fish spawned by “rigorous reviewing”.

  5. GeologyJim says:

    Would Heidi “The Mighty” care to explain the record snowfall and cold summers of Alaska?

    Another cool, wet summer in the Brit Isles?

    Record, debilitating snowfall in the Balkans?

    Growing ice mass in Antarctica?

    Declines in ocean heat content?

    Declines in sea-level rise rate?

    This woman is a propagandist, nothing more. Well, one could make allusions to anatomical parts, but that would be crude. Much like her cherry-picking yarn-spinning.

    • Don Sutherland says:


      Oceanic heat content is increasing.

      • Me says:

        Didn’t someone say it sank to the bottom of the ocean?

      • The data you have cited shows that ocean heat content rise is decelerating, exactly opposite to the expectation of AGW scientists.

        The data you cite also suggests that all the missing heat has diffused into the deep ocean. Three points here:

        (a) We have almost no reliable measures of heat content of the deep ocean. This data is largely guesswork.

        (b) That guesswork is most likely wrong because we have not seen acceleration of sea level rise which would be consistent with such data.

        (b) If we assume anyway that the data is correct, and it has in fact diffused into the deep ocean, there is no way that heat can come back out because it is very very cold in the deep ocean. So your data set shows we don’t actually have a problem. Fantastic, let’s move on to worry about real problems, not your group’s imaginary problems. 😉

      • Don Sutherland says:


        Several quick points:

        1. The recent deceleration in the increase in OHC was related to the deep and prolonged solar minimum. The earth’s energy imbalance was reduced (meaning less heat uptake by the oceans) but not eliminated (meaning solar forcing is not driving recent climate change). The rebound in uptake followed the end of the solar minimum.

        2. The trend in OHC corresponds closely with rising CO2, which offers an additional piece of evidence that anthropogenic forcing is likely driving the earth’s energy imbalance and, in turn, increase in temperatures. Levitus (2012) concluded, among other things, that the “strong positive linear trend” in OHC since 1955 “can only be explained by the increase in atmospheric GHGs.”


        3. As for trends in OHC below 2,000 meters, one can reference: http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/people/gjohnson/gcj_3w.pdf

        4. Do you have literature that suggests that very deep OHC can never rise to the surface? Although deep ocean circulation (thermohaline circulation) occurs over long time scales (centuries to a millennium), that doesn’t mean that the heat is trapped forever.

        One resource that provides a brief summary of the ocean currents and thermohaline circulation can be found at: http://eesc.columbia.edu/courses/ees/climate/lectures/o_circ.html

  6. Bruce of Newcastle says:

    Slight correction Steve: IPCC said 18-59 cm, not mm. I’m being picky, but scepticism works best when precise.

    The data suggests we’re on course to undershoot the low end IPCC estimate.

  7. bubbagyro says:

    Heidi the weather bimbo, must be pitied.

  8. tomwys says:

    She gets some facts right, but then interlaces them with guesswork, and the guesses are incorrect.

    Didn’t anyone tell her that an open Arctic Ocean results in “ocean effect” snow on land surrounding the Arctic? Albedo from that early snow will SUBTRACT energy from solar input and your next winter will be hard (as ice?) evidence that things ARE changing, but not in the way Heidi predicts (or guesses).

  9. TimiBoy says:

    You bastard.

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 )

Connecting to %s