Spectacular Collapse Of The Arctic Climate Scam Continues

The Arctic was the last remaining hope of the climate criminals to maintain any credibility, and that story has completely collapsed.

As we approach mid-summer, southern Greenland is still covered with snow. This is a land where Vikings farmed 1,000 years ago.

ScreenHunter_9529 Jun. 14 00.49

Weather Webcams | Weather Underground

The melt season on Greenland is the slowest on record. Normally about 30% of Greenland is melting by now, but this year less than 10% is melting.

ScreenHunter_9526 Jun. 14 00.35

Greenland Ice Sheet Surface Mass Budget: DMI

Greenland’s surface has gained more than half a trillion tons of snow and ice since September.

ScreenHunter_9527 Jun. 14 00.37

Near the midpoint of the melt season, Arctic sea ice is closely tracking 2006. That was the year with the highest summer minimum of the past decade.

ScreenHunter_9528 Jun. 14 00.41

Ocean and Ice Services | Danmarks Meteorologiske Institut

Arctic sea ice is the thickest it has been since 2006.

Bpiomas_plot_daily_heff.2sst (4)

Bpiomas_plot_daily_heff.2sst.png (2488×1960)

Ahead of the Paris conference, the White House and climate scientists are ramping up their spectacular lies – telling the exact opposite story of what is actually happening.

ScreenHunter_9530 Jun. 14 01.08

Arctic sea ice disappearing at record rate – Al Jazeera English

About stevengoddard

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

81 Responses to Spectacular Collapse Of The Arctic Climate Scam Continues

  1. omanuel says:

    May the rest of the post-WWII consensus science scam collapse with the Artic climate scam and the President of the National Academy of Sciences, Dr. Ralph Cicerone, get full credit for directing public funds to deceive the public.

    • omanuel says:

      Members of the Royal Society, the National Academy of Sciences, the news media (BBC, NPR, NYT, etc.), the Parliaments and Congresses have failed to grasp that spectular collapse of the Artic climate scam will confirm in the minds of the public that government science is as TRUSTWORTHY AS THE COMMUNITY LIAR.

  2. The pseudo-science fiction
    Is quite scary stuff,
    Thankfully real world observations
    Are calling their bluff.
    http://rhymeafterrhyme.net/the-ghost-of-real-science/

  3. pariahinside says:

    While I do not agree with many of his ideas, especially his social and political philosophy, Stefan Molyneux recently did a good video on youtube calling out the complete sham of one major study on global warming claiming there was a “97% consensus” on it.

    It should be noted that while there is a lot of religious fervor for “proving” global warming among climatologists that other scientific fields, namely geology, have large professional associations who seem to have their own consensus’ that there really isn’t anything abnormal about the climate patterns we see today or any strong evidence that they are being affected by human actions.

    At the end of the day, science is about evidence, in this case testable predictions, and not about consensus.

  4. Marsh says:

    Greenland is the critical balance for the Northern Hemisphere with nearly 10% of the Worlds Ice.
    Various sources are indicating greater Ice mass of recent months & delays in Summer melting ;
    I can state with confidence ; there is more Ice on Planet Earth than for more than a decade !

    • cfgj says:

      Perhaps you forgot how much mass both Greenlandic and Antarctia ice sheets have lost during the last decade. Are you following the science nor not?

      • AndyG55 says:

        Have you forgotten just how much ice mass was gained in the lead up to the LIA.

        And the only part of the Antarctic that has lost mass is the very localised volcanic West Antarctic peninsula, the rest has gained mass.. as far as measurements can determine.

        You obviously think that science started only 10 years ago. DOH !!!

      • gator69 says:

        Wrong again.

        According to NASA’s Land-Ice Study published in 2012, from 1992-2008:

        “Mass Gains of the Antarctic Ice Sheet Exceed Losses.”

        During 2003 to 2008, the mass gain of the Antarctic ice sheet from snow accumulation exceeded the mass loss from ice discharge by 49 Gt/yr (2.5% of input).

        The net gain (86 Gt/yr) over the West Antarctic (WA) and East Antarctic ice sheets (WA and EA) is essentially unchanged from revised results for 1992 to 2001.

        http://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?R=20120013495

        Increases offsetting losses:

        …“The recent 90 Gt/yr loss from three DS (Pine Island, Thwaites-Smith, and Marie-Bryd Coast) of WA exceeds the earlier 61 Gt/yr loss, consistent with reports of accelerating ice flow and dynamic thinning.

        Similarly, the recent 24 Gt/yr loss from three DS in the Antarctic Peninsula (AP) is consistent with glacier accelerations following breakup of the Larsen B and other ice shelves.

        In contrast, net increases in the five other DS of WA and AP and three of the 16 DS in East Antarctica (EA) exceed the increased losses.”

        http://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?R=20120013495

        GRACE is an error ridden platform, that never had proper calibration, and whose data is then run through models, until the grantologists get their desired results.

        What’s a TRF error? That stands for Terrestrial Reference Frame, which is basically saying that errors in determining the benchmark are messing up the survey. In land based geodesy terms, say if somebody messed with the USGS benchmark elevation data from Mt. Diablo California on a regular basis, and the elevation of that benchmark kept changing in the data set, then all measurements referencing that benchmark would be off as well.

        In the case of radio altimetry from space, such measurements are extremely dependent on errors related to how radio signals are propagated through the ionosphere. Things like Faraday rotation, refraction, and other propagation issues can skew the signal during transit, and if not properly corrected for, especially over the long-term, it can introduce a spurious signal in all sorts of data derived from it. In fact, the mission summary shows that it will affect satellite derived data for sea level, ice loss, and ice volume in GRACE gravity measurements.

        http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/10/30/finally-jpl-intends-to-get-a-grasp-on-accurate-sea-level-and-ice-measurements/

        And the Earth’s gravitational field is not uniform, or constant. GRACE measure gravity, and not ice or water.

        http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/07/20/graces-warts-new-peer-reviewed-paper-suggests-errors-and-adjustments-may-be-large/

  5. PJ London says:

    You guys are full of rubbish! Last year was the warmest year ever! I know because I read it in the newspapers and everyone agrees, and all the scientists, and yeah, so there.

    • Andy DC says:

      97% of “scientists” who are paid to lie about every year being the warmest on record say that every year is the warmest on record. Even though their very own satellites say there has been no warming for at least 18 years. Even though raw data from US stations away from cities says there has been no warming since the 1930’s.

      • Marsh says:

        I though the rubbish comment was being facetious ; at least your answer wasn’t rubbish.

      • Brian H says:

        Actually, 97% said no such thing. Cook’s reviewers ranked everything not an explicit “denial” as full-bore agreement. When you look for explicit agreement, you get about 0.3%. Overstatement by 97/0.3 = 323X = 32,300%. Typical CAGW margin of error.

  6. smamarver says:

    The Arctic seems to be a top subject these days. I suggest you to leave behind the skeptics and the alarmists and take a look here – http://www.arctic-heats-up.com/pdf/chapter_2.pdf – to find more about the general picture and the arctic in climatology. There are some very interesting aspects which should be taken into considertion when analysing our days climate.

    • Elaine Supkis says:

      Namely, at no point during any Ice Age was all of Alaska or even much of Alaska outside of the mountains, ever covered by massive glaciers whereas nearly all of Canada and the Great Lakes/New England parts of North America were under a mile of ice.

    • Marsh says:

      Just looking at that web site ; although there are interesting points in the mix, I get concerned when ever it involves a nonsense hypothesis. For example, to even factor in WW 1 Naval battles as potentially contributing to the warming of Ocean currents into the Arctic Circle?? Sorry, in my understanding of proportional heat load “that’s crazy stuff”,,, it was worth a look from another perspective, despite the wild assertions…

      • rah says:

        Yea, I have checked that out a few times and think it’s nuts. There was really only one great naval battle between big ships during WW I but it did involve more capital ships than any naval battle in the history of iron/steel ships. Back then all those large ships were fired by coal. When they poured the coal to the boilers in those ships, as they would in combat, it could create quite a nasty noxious smoke screen downwind.

        • Andrew S says:

          A nasty noxious smoke screen that would have virtually no effect on ocean temperatures or circulation patterns.

        • smamarver says:

          From Chapter 8 http://www.arctic-heats-up.com/pdf/chapter_8.pdf this excerpt is taken: The situation became dramatic when U-boats destroyed more ships than Britain could build in early 1917. In April 1917, the same total rate of the previous annual rate of 1916, ca. 850,000 tons, was destroyed by U-boats. In April 1917, Britain together with the Allies lost 10 vessels every day. During the year of 1917, U-boats alone sank 6,200,000 tons, which means more than 3000 ships, and, during the war months of 1918, another 2,500,000 ship tonnage.

        • rah says:

          Andy my note about coal was just for general knowledge. As I said, I think the whole idea that ships or war cause real climate change is nuts.

        • rah says:

          Along the same lines. During WW II there were several times that attacks by American submarines were thwarted because of coal smoke acting as an inadvertent smoke screen for Japanese ships at night. But actually the older ships using coal cost the Japanese far more ships than coal smoke saved because the coal smoke coming out of the stack of a ship could be seen when the ship was far below the horizon and when it was well outside of radar range. Thus during the daytime such smoke acted as a beacon for a sub to make an approach.

      • smamarver says:

        How are you explaining the sudden warming in the Arctic since 1919? I wonder where you read about “the naval war contributing to the warming of Ocean currents”. As I understand the thesis, that naval war changed the water structure (temperature and salinity) around GB, all flowing northwards, contributed to a shift in the water profile around the Fram Strait and Arctic Ocean.

        • gator69 says:

          U-boats actually sunk a million more tons in WWII, 14.1 million vs 13 million in WWI. Oceans are vast, and that is a drop in the bucket.

        • smamarver says:

          @gator 69: The only period of global cooling since the LIA started in autumn 1939, few weeks after WWII begun, first causing extreme winters in Europe, and subsequently lower temperatures world wide for 30 years. People who know that the oceans have an average temperature of +4°C, and a very complex structure would not be too surprised if the war at sea brought about a lot of changes and chaos into the system, suggesting reading the booklet at: http://www.1ocean-1climate.com/.

        • gator69 says:

          So like CO2, naval warfare causes warming and cooling. Got it.

        • smamarver: you’re implying that a few million tons of warm sunken ships and coal could have ANY impact on the Tra-Zillions of tons of ass cold ocean water?? Really??

          Rather than focus on and debate the ridiculous… why not just accept the KNOWN and well documented period called the “little Ice Age”… after that bitter cold.. YES! Things warmed up a bit!!

        • Dave1billion says:

          Facepalm.

        • smamarver says:

          @Phillippe Jones: If all is so clear, why discussing climate change at all? As long as the warming period 1919-1939, and cooling period 1940-1970s are not thoroughly understood and explained, I am curios what climate science is talking about, and skeptics do not challenge them on these events!

        • Smokey says:

          smamarver,

          Are you aware that from the 1940’s – 1970’s, there was global cooling? How does that fit into your conjecture?

          All that CO2 and smoke should have caused global warming, no?

          Conversely, the rapid rise in CO2 over the past few decades should have caused lots of of global warming. But it didn’t; global warming stopped almost twenty years ago.

          I think your conjecture needs some work.

        • Gail Combs says:

          smamarver, The ClimAstrologists can’t even explain the Dansgaard-Oeschger events. During full glaciation you get abrupt warmings. Between this interglacial and the last one back, the Greenland ice cores show 24 Dansgaard-Oeschger oscillations. These abrupt warmings occurred from just a few years to mere decades that average between 8-10C rises (D-O 19 scored 16C). The nominal difference between earth’s cold (glacial) and warm (interglacial) states being on the order of 20C.

          If they can not explain NATURAL temperature swings of that magnitude then CAGW is nothing more than blowing smoke at the rubes the elite want to fleece.

    • smamarver says:

      @gator69: Any evident causation has a correlation!

      • gator69 says:

        That is a meaningless statement.

        “Water is wet”. 😆

      • smamarver says:

        @ Gail Combs: Our interest should – at least my – focus on the question whether and how man can and has changed climate. The Arctic warming 1919-1939 saw an extreme rise in winter temperature, which indicates that the sea was the source, and naval war during WWI brought a lot of changes as already outlined above:“….. naval war changed the water structure (temperature and salinity) around GB, all flowing northwards, contributed to a shift in the water profile around the Fram Strait and Arctic Ocean.”, that is anthropogenic climatic change.”

        • smamarver says:

          @Smokey: The mechanism was indicated above: “The only period of global cooling since the LIA started in autumn 1939, few weeks after WWII begun, first causing extreme winters in Europe, and subsequently lower temperatures world wide for 30 years. People who know that the oceans have an average temperature of +4°C, and a very complex structure would not be too surprised if the war at sea brought about a lot of changes and chaos into the system, suggesting reading the booklet at: http://www.1ocean-1climate.com/.” An anthropogenic contribution is evident. Even if only by 1 percent, it should have been discussed since long, and thoroughly explained!

  7. rah says:

    If I lived in the areas of east TX and west LA right now I would paying attention to this:

    Joe gets right into this in his new Saturday Summary: http://www.weatherbell.com/saturday-summary-june-13-2015

    Says it will hold together as it arcs to the NE coming in over my neck of the woods in Indiana late this week.

    Been kept busy lately driving last week but yesterday had a day off. No way to get the yard mowed but between rains I did manage to get my hedges trimmed. Accuweather is miserably inaccurate when it comes to forecasting short term with pop up thunderstorms.

  8. rah says:

    Looks like at this particular time this years sea ice level is nearer 2008 than 2006. Of course that could easily change before long.

  9. Centinel2012 says:

    Reblogged this on Centinel2012 and commented:
    After over 30 years of it being drummed into us the the planet was going to melt and kill all of us we have lost the battle the under 45 people most all of them think we are crazy for not believing what we are being told. very few under 45 people i know think Al Gore is wrong and they will not believe anything to the contrary even when you show them Charts like these. I am told that I made them up when i try! Like this insane trade deal (which will pass) COP21 will result in an agreement!

  10. cfgj says:

    So how come the seas have been warming up at 0-2000m and are consequently rising, without any hiatus, if there’s indeed a “pause” in warming? The skeptics are eerily silent on this one…perhaps their narrative is flawed?

    • AndyG55 says:

      The rate of sea level rise since the LIA has not accelerated at all.

      There is ZERO evidence of extra thermal expansion above the general, thankfully, warming trend of the last couple of hundred years.

    • bit chilly says:

      no they have not. there is no physical evidence for this whatsoever.

    • Gail Combs says:

      SILENT? I guess I have to post this again.

      TEN STUDIES PROVING SEA LEVEL IS NOT RISING

      STUDY #1
      Mid to late Holocene sea-level reconstruction of Southeast Vietnam using beachrock and beach-ridge deposits

      ….backshore deposits along the tectonically stable south-eastern Vietnamese coast document Holocene sea level changes…..reconstructed for the last 8000 years….The rates of sea-level rise decreased sharply after the rapid early Holocene rise and stabilized at a rate of 4.5 mm/year between 8.0 and 6.9 ka. Southeast Vietnam beachrocks reveal that the mid-Holocene sea-level highstand slightly above + 1.4 m was reached between 6.7 and 5.0 ka, with a peak value close to + 1.5 m around 6.0 ka….

      Translation the sea level was up to 1.5 meters higher than today in a tectonically stable area ~5000 years ago to 2000 years ago.

      STUDY #2
      Sea-level highstand recorded in Holocene shoreline deposits on Oahu, Hawaii

      Unconsolidated carbonate sands and cobbles on Kapapa Island, windward Oahu, are 1.4-2.8 (+ or – 0.25) m above present mean sea level (msl)…we interpret the deposit to be a fossil beach or shoreline representing a highstand of relative sea level during middle to late Holocene time. Calibrated radiocarbon dates of coral and mollusc samples, and a consideration of the effect of wave energy setup, indicate that paleo-msl was at least 1.6 (+ or – 0.45) m above present msl prior to 3889-3665 cal. yr B.P, possibly as early as 5532-5294 cal. yr B.P., and lasted until at least 2239-1940 cal. yr B.P

      This study shows a sea level highstand ~1.6 meter above the present level from ~5500 years ago to 2000 years ago.

      STUDY #3
      Late Quaternary highstand deposits of the southern Arabian Gulf: a record of sea-level and climate change

      Abstract
      …..It has therefore been necessary to infer the ages of these sediments by a comparison of their stratigraphy and elevation with deposits known from other parts of the world. We regard this approach as valid because the southern Gulf coastline lacks evidence for significant widespread neotectonic uplift,…….
      …..Widespread evidence exists for a Holocene sea level higher than at present in the southern Arabian Gulf, indicating that it peaked at 1–2 m above present level, c. 5.5 ka bp…….

      This study shows a sea level highstand ~1 to 2 meters above the present level about ~5500 years ago.

    • Gail Combs says:

      STUDY #4
      The Quaternary Geological History of the Santa Catarina Southeastern Region (Brazil) 1999

      The first part discusses drilling in several locations and analyzing samples. They mention dating prior to that was guesses. “…. A drilling campaign done in the domain permitted the sampling of material for 14C datings, and the obtained data confirmed some previously assumed ages. The sequence of events, that originated the Holocene deposits, has been also reconstructed through drilling and 14C dating of the collected peat and shell samples…”

      In the body of the text is this:

      THE HOLOCENE DEPOSITIONAL SYSTEM
      Partially abutted against the Pleistocene barrier island/lagoonal system III, there is the Holocene depositional system. This unit is attributable to the Santos Transgression of Suguio & Martin (1978), along the State of São Paulo coastline, or to the Last Transgression of Bittencourt et al. (1979) along the State of Bahia coastline, being similar to the barrier island/lagoonal system IV of Villwock et al. (1986), along the State of Rio Grande do Sul coastline.

      This system is related to the post-glacial transgressive episode whose culmination stage was attained about 5.1 ky BP, when a barrier island alignment was formed parallel to the shoreline, while drainage net was drowned. The subsequent regressive episode promoted the barrier island progradation following the lagoonal basin silting.

      The paleoshorelines limited by ancient cliffs carved within Pleistocene terraces, presently representing the inner limit of the Holocene terrace, shows that this sea-level reached about 4m above the present one. Several terraces situated in different altitudes, and truncation of past morphological features nowadays observed on Holocene deposits, as well as along present lagoonal margins suggest that small scale sea-level oscillations occurred during the last 5 ky….

      This study shows a sea level highstand ~ 4 meters above the present level about ~5000 years ago. With sea level oscillating since then. Not only has the sea levels have dropped since the Holocene Optimum the evidence shows that “warmer paleotemperatures were favourable for great proliferation of mollusks in the area”
      Santa Catarina brazil is at latitude 27.2500°S.

      STUDY #5

      Holocene sea-level change and ice-sheet history in the Vestfold Hills, East Antarctica

      A new Holocene sea-level record from the Vestfold Hills, Antarctica, has been obtained by dating the lacustrine–marine and marine–lacustrine transitions that occur in sediment cores from lakes which were formerly connected to the sea. From an elevation of ∼7.5 m 8000 yr ago, relative sea-level rose to a maximum ∼9 m above present sea-level 6200 yr ago. Since then, sea-level has fallen monotonically until the present….

      The above is a RELATIVE sea level. The area is not tectonically stable because the area has isostatic uplift in response to deglaciation from the Wisconsin Ice Age. The same applies to the following study.

      STUDY #6
      A new Holocene relative sea level curve for the South Shetland Islands, Antarctica
      nora(DOT)nerc.ac.uk/15786/

      The curve shows a mid-Holocene RSL highstand on Fildes Peninsula at 15.5 m above mean sea level between 8000 and 7000 cal a BP. Subsequently RSL gradually fell as a consequence of isostatic uplift in response to regional deglaciation….

    • Gail Combs says:

      VALIDATION BY ALTERNATE STUDIES
      STUDY #7
      Ice free Arctic Ocean, an Early Holocene analogue

      Abstract
      Extensive systems of wave generated beach ridges along the North Greenland coasts show that these areas once saw seasonally open water. In addition to beach ridges, large amounts of striated boulders in and on the marine sediments from the same period also indicate that the ocean was open enough for ice bergs to drift along the shore and drop their loads. Presently the North Greenland coastline is permanently beleaguered by pack ice, and ice bergs are very rare and locked up in the sea ice. Predictions of the rapidly decreasing sea ice in the Arctic Ocean generally point to this area as the last to become ice free in summer. We therefore suggest that the occurrence of wave generated shores and abundant ice berg dropped boulders indicate that the Arctic Ocean was nearly free of sea ice in the summer at the time when they were formed. The beach ridges occur as isostatically raised “staircases”, and C14-dated curves for relative sea level change show that they were formed in the Early Holocene. A large set of samples of molluscs from beach ridges and marine sediments were collected in the summer of 2007, and are presently being dated to give a precise dating of the ice free interval. Preliminary results indicate that it fell within the interval from c. 8.5 to c. 6 ka – being progressively shorter from south to north. We therefore conclude that for a period in the Early Holocene, probably for a millenium or more, the Arctic Ocean was free of sea ice at least for shorter periods in the summer….

      STUDY #8
      Temperature and precipitation history of the Arctic

      …. Solar energy reached a summer maximum (9% higher than at present) ~11 ka ago and has been decreasing since then, primarily in response to the precession of the equinoxes. The extra energy elevated early Holocene summer temperatures throughout the Arctic 1-3°C above 20th century averages, enough to completely melt many small glaciers throughout the Arctic, although the Greenland Ice Sheet was only slightly smaller than at present. Early Holocene summer sea ice limits were substantially smaller than their 20th century average, and the flow of Atlantic water into the Arctic Ocean was substantially greater. As summer solar energy decreased in the second half of the Holocene, glaciers re-established or advanced, sea ice expanded…

      STUDY #9
      A new approach for reconstructing glacier variability based on lake sediments recording input from more than one glacier January 2012

      …. A multi-proxy numerical analysis demonstrates that it is possible to distinguish a glacier component in the ~ 8000-yr-long record, based on distinct changes in grain size, geochemistry, and magnetic composition…. This signal is …independently tested through a mineral magnetic provenance analysis of catchment samples. Minimum glacier input is indicated between 6700–5700 cal yr BP, probably reflecting a situation when most glaciers in the catchment had melted away, whereas the highest glacier activity [growth] is observed around 600 and 200 cal yr BP. During the local Neoglacial interval (~ 4200 cal yr BP until present), five individual periods of significantly reduced glacier extent are identified at ~ 3400, 3000–2700, 2100–2000, 1700–1500, and ~ 900 cal yr BP….

      ANOTHER THIRD METHOD OF VALIDATION
      STUDY #10
      Sea Level Changes Past Records and Future Expectations

      For the last 40-50 years strong observational facts indicate virtually stable sea level conditions. The Earth’s rate of rotation records an [average] acceleration from 1972 to 2012, contradicting all claims of a rapid global sea level rise, and instead suggests stable, to slightly falling, sea levels.

    • Gail Combs says:

      Have the ClimAstrologists corrected for the 18.6-yearly Luna Nodal cycle? Linear trend lines on sinusoidal curves are very time dependent.
      The Dutch who are the most concerned about actual sea level rise have found the cycle.

      Local Relative Sea Level
      To determine the relevance of the nodal cycle at the Dutch coast, a spectral analysis was carried out on the yearly means of six main tidal gauges for the period 1890–2008. The data were corrected for atmospheric pressure variation using an inverse barometer correction. The spectral density shows a clear peak at the 18.6 -year period (Figure 1). The multiple linear regression yields a sea-level rise (b1) of 0.19 +/- 0.015 cm y-1 (95%), an amplitude (A) of 1.2 +/- 0.92 cm, and a phase (w) of -1.16 (with 1970 as 0), resulting in a peak in February 2005 (Figure 2). No significant acceleration (inclusion of b2) was found.
      CONCLUSIONS
      Coastal management requires estimates of the rate of sealevel rise. The trends found locally for the Dutch coast are the same as have been found in the past 50 years (Deltacommissie, 1960; Dillingh et al., 1993). Even though including the nodal cycle made it more likely that the high-level scenarios would become apparent in the observations, no acceleration in the rate of sea-level rise was found. The higher, recent rise (van den Hurk et al., 2007) coincides with the up phase of the nodal cycle. For the period 2005 through 2011, the Dutch mean sea-level is expected to drop because the lunar cycle is in the down phase. This shows the importance of including the 18.6-year cycle in regional sea-level estimates. Not doing so on a regional or local scale for decadal length projections leads to inaccuracies.
      http://www.bioone.org/doi/pdf/10.2112/JCOASTRES-D-11-00169.1

    • Gail Combs says:

      This graph at WIKI is often used to show sea level rise over the Holocene.

      One problem is the sea level data is not raw data but adjusted data.

      WIKI
      This figure shows changes in sea level during the Holocene, the time following the end of the most recent glacial period, based on data from Fleming et al. 1998, Fleming 2000, & Milne et al. 2005. These papers collected data from various reports and adjusted them for subsequent vertical geologic motions, primarily those associated with post-glacial continental and hydroisostatic rebound….

      The second problem is the earth has been cooling since the Holocene optimum, glaciers have re-established and the sea level has FALLEN as I showed in those ten studies above. The reason this fall of ~1 to 2 meters is not shown in the graph is because the Santa Catarina outlier, high above the graph is included.

      Santa Catarina

      Relative sea-level changes in the last 5500 years in southern Brazil žLaguna–Imbituba region, Santa Catarina State / based on vermetid 14C ages
      Rodolfo J. Anguloa,), Paulo C.F. Giannini b,1, Kenitiro Suguio Luiz C.R. Pessenda

      December 1998
      Abstract
      Twenty-six new radiocarbon dates from vermetid shells collected in the southernmost sector of the Brazilian rocky coast presented dates ranging from 5410 ” 80 to 190 ” 65 years B.P., with associated paleosea levels varying from +2.10 m to +0.20 m above present sea level. The overall suggested trend of the relative sea level ŽRSL., declining until at least 190 years B.P., is somewhat contradictory to a proposed RSL rise in the last 1000 years in southern Brazil. The data also seem to undermine a more widely accepted RSL trend that suggests that at least two negative RSL oscillations occurred between 4100 and 3800 years B.P. and between 3000 and 2700 years B.P. The maximum elevation of the RSL in the Holocene in southern Brazil was possibly lower than that observed in most of the Brazilian eastern coast. Discrepancies between ancient sea levels of similar ages are attributed to coincidental methodological problems, to imprecisions in determining past relative sea levels and to possible changes in the geomorphology and wave climate close to shore during the last 5000 years. A general trend of increasing d18 O with a reduction in age in the studied samples may suggest a gradual reduction of water temperature in the region during the same period.
      http://apostilas.cena.usp.br/moodle/pessenda/periodicos/internacionais/Angulo%20et%20al.,%201999.pdf

      The next question is Brazil tectonically stable?

      The Brazilian Shield is tectonically stable. The last orogenic cycle to affect it occurred > 600 million years ago.

      Any uplift is extremely slow.

      Cyclic sedimentation in Brazilian caves: Mechanisms and palaeoenvironmental significance
      Augusto S. Auler; Peter L. Smart; Xianfeng Wang; Luís B. Piló; R. Lawrence Edwards; Hai Cheng

      Abstract
      Caves associated with doline slopes in the tectonically stable area of eastern Brazil display remarkable sequences of clastic sediment intercalated with calcite layers. Sediment erosion has also occurred allowing access to formerly sediment-filled passages. The palaeoenvironmental meaning and chronology of these three processes (i.e. clastic sediment input, clastic sediment erosion, and speleothem precipitation) were studied in both semi-arid Campo Formoso and sub-humid Lagoa Santa areas through 230Th dating and stratigraphical analyses. The dry climate of the Campo Formoso area prevents speleothem deposition at present, but soil erosion results in valley aggradation and cave infilling. Growth periods of speleothems and travertines in this area have allowed the recognition of recurrent past phases of increased humidity correlated with wet conditions recorded in southeastern Brazil speleothem calcite. At the Lagoa Santa area there is limited speleothem precipitation and sediment input at present. However, sediment entrainment is actively exhuming speleothems and exposing cave passages. Sediment erosion inside caves in the area is interpreted as being due to intermediate climatic conditions, not wet enough to favour speleothem deposition and not too dry to allow doline slope erosion and sediment transport into caves. Due to the low rates of denudation and isostatic rebound inherent to tectonically stable areas, cave passages will remain within the range of sediment infill and erosion for a much longer time than in tectonically active areas spanning, in average, at least three full glacial-interglacial cycles. As uplift proceeds, cave passages will be decoupled from the doline bottom and no longer will be affected by erosion or infilling episodes. Sediment filled passages in many caves in the Lagoa Santa region are relict features that display ancient clastic and chemical precipitation. The three processes described above have occurred throughout the life history of the caves, resulting in complex sediment assemblages that can, however, show significant intra- and inter-site variations.
      http://experts.umn.edu/pubDetail.asp?t=pm&id=61849149977&n=Hai+Cheng&u_id=3388&oe_id=1&o_id=5

      Campo Formoso is in the state of Bahia in the North-East region of Brazil. Lagoa Santa is in the mid region inland and a bit north of Rio de Janeiro on the east coast and Santa Catarina is on the coast south of Lagoa Santa.

    • Gail Combs says:

      I am not the only skeptic who has not been silent:
      spangled drongo said on April 29, 2015 at 12:47 am

      Gail and Gator, living in a particularly tectonically stable part of the world I can say that over the last 70 years, benchmarks of mine that are accurate to at least an inch, show no SLR but in fact some fall [up to 12 inches in some cases].
      I’m using highest astronomical tides at normal barometric pressure which show practical SLR, not tide gauges which show changes in MSL.
      https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2015/04/28/understanding-sea-level-rise-3/#comment-519123

      Actually there was no sea level rise until, like the temperature data it was ‘adjusted’ to GIVE a RISE!

      ….Now, back to satellite altimetry, which shows the water, not just the coasts, but in the whole of the ocean. And you measure it by satellite. From 1992 to 2002, [the graph of the sea level] was a straight line, variability along a straight line, but absolutely no trend whatsoever. We could see those spikes: a very rapid rise, but then in half a year, they fall back again. But absolutely no trend, and to have a sea-level rise, you need a trend. Then, in 2003, the same data set, which in their [IPCC’s] publications, in their website, was a straight line—suddenly it changed, and showed a very strong line of uplift, 2.3 mm per year, the same as from the tide gauge. And that didn’t look so nice. It looked as though they had recorded something; but they hadn’t recorded anything. It was the original one which they had suddenly twisted up, because they entered a “correction factor,” which they took from the tide gauge. So it was not a measured thing, but a figure introduced from outside. I accused them of this at the Academy of Sciences in Moscow— I said you have introduced factors from outside; it’s not a measurement. It looks like it is measured from the satellite, but you don’t say what really happened. And they answered, that we had to do it, because otherwise we would not have gotten any trend!

      Click to access NilsAxelMornerinterview.pdf

      Dr. Niv Shaviv had “…a paper accepted in the Journal of Geophysical Research. Since its repercussions are particularly interesting for the general public, I decided to write about it…”

      The oceans as a calorimeter
      ….A calorimeter is a device which measures the amount of heat given off in a chemical or physical reaction. It turns out that one can use the Earth’s oceans as one giant calorimeter to measure the amount of heat Earth absorbs and reemits every solar cycle….

      ….A calorimeter is a device which measures the amount of heat given off in a chemical or physical reaction. It turns out that one can use the Earth’s oceans as one giant calorimeter to measure the amount of heat Earth absorbs and reemits every solar cycle…..

      It turns out that there are three different types of data sets from which the ocean heat content can derived. The first data is is that of direct measurements using buoys. The second is the ocean surface temperature, while the third is that of the tide gauge record which reveals the thermal expansion of the oceans. Each one of the data sets has different advantages and disadvantages.

      The ocean heat content, is a direct measurement of the energy stored in the oceans. However, it requires extended 3D data, the holes in which contributed systematic errors. The sea surface temperature is only time dependent 2D data, but it requires solving for the heat diffusion into the oceans, which of course has its uncertainties (primarily the vertical turbulent diffusion coefficient). Last, because ocean basins equilibrate over relatively short periods, the tide gauge record is inherently integrative. However, it has several systematic uncertainties, for example, a non-neligible contribution from glacial meting (which on the decadal time scale is still secondary).

      Nevertheless, the beautiful thing is that within the errors in the data sets (and estimate for the systematics), all three sets give consistently the same answer, that a large heat flux periodically enters and leaves the oceans with the solar cycle, and this heat flux is about 6 to 8 times larger than can be expected from changes in the solar irradiance only. This implies that an amplification mechanism necessarily exists. Interestingly, the size is consistent with what would be expected from the observed low altitude cloud cover variations…..

      (Several graphs from the paper are shown and a link to the actual paper.)

      • AndyG55 says:

        chuckle..

        You know that this putz won’t bother reading one single word of any of this, don’t you. 😉

        He CANNOT let any facts interfere with his “belief”.

      • Gail Combs says:

        To add to Dr Shaviv’s ocean calorimeter study:
        What he assumes the reader knows is that the sun, not CO2 warms the ocean.

        A closer look at the depths to which solar radiation penetrates:

        Note that the ocean is most affected by the shorter wavelengths of radiation.

        Since I have already posted studies showing that glaciers are re-establishing over the last 800 years, that leaves thermal expansion due to energy from the sun. By insisting that sea levels are rising in the face of the increase in ice in Greenland and Antarctica, all the ClimAstrologists are doing is PROVING It’s the Sun Stupid!

        UV Solar – Reconstruction of solar UV irradiance since 1974 (2009)

        Solar radiation at 130–175 nm (Schumann-Runge continuum) is completely absorbed in the thermosphere. Over activity cycles 21–23, solar radiative flux in this spectral range varied by about 10–15% (Figure 5a), i.e., by more than a factor of 100 more than solar cycle variations in the solar total energy flux (total solar irradiance). In the oxygen Schumann-Runge bands (175–200 nm) and Herzberg continuum (200–242 nm), important for photochemical ozone production and destruction in the stratosphere and mesosphere, solar irradiance varied on average by about 5–8% (Figure 5b) and 3% (Figure 5c), respectively. In the Hartley-Huggins ozone bands between 200 and 350 nm, solar radiation is the main heat source in the stratosphere. At these wavelengths, the amplitude of the solar cycle variation is of the order of 1%, which is still an order of magnitude stronger than variations of the total solar irradiance.
        http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2009JD012375/pdf

        A History of Solar Activity over Millennia

        ….Note that several “predictions” of the general decline of the coming solar activity have been made recently (Solanki et al., 2004; Abreu et al., 2008; Lockwood et al., 2011), however, these are not really true predictions but rather the acknowledge of the fact that the Modern Grand maximum (Usoskin et al., 2003c; Solanki et al., 2004) must cease. Similar caution can be made about predictions of a Grand minimum (e.g., Lockwood et al., 2011; Miyahara et al., 2010) – a grand minimum should appear soon or later, but presently we are hardly able to predict its occurrence. ….

        …The most prominent feature in CR modulation is the 11-year cycle, which is in inverse relation to solar activity ….An interesting feature is the increase of CR flux in 2009, when it was the highest ever recorded by NMs (Moraal and Stoker, 2010), as caused by the favorable heliospheric conditions (unusually weak heliospheric magnetic field and the flat heliospheric current sheet) (McDonald et al., 2010). For the previous 50 years of high and roughly-stable solar activity, no trends have been observed in CR data; however, as will be discussed later, the overall level of CR has changed significantly on the centurial-millennial timescales. ….

        If you have no tread this paper, I would suggest you do so. for the following reason.

        ….As very important for the climate research, the variations of the total solar irradiance (TSI) are sometimes reconstructed from the solar proxy data (Steinhilber et al., 2009; Vieira et al., 2011). However, the absolute range of the TSI variability on the centennial-millennial time scales still remains unknown (Schmidt et al., 2012). …

        3.7 Verification of reconstructions
        Because of the diversity of the methods and results of solar-activity reconstruction, it is vitally important to verify them. Even though a full verification is not possible, there are different means of indirect or partial verification, as discussed below. Several solar-activity reconstructions on the millennium timescale, which differ from each other to some degree and are based on terrestrial cosmogenic isotope data, have been published recently by various groups. Also, they may suffer from systematic effects. Therefore, there is a need for an independent method to verify/calibrate these results in order to provide a reliable quantitative estimate of the level of solar activity in the past, prior to the era of direct observations….

    • Smokey says:

      cfgj says:

      “So how come the seas have been warming up at 0-2000m and are consequently rising, without any hiatus, if there’s indeed a “pause” in warming?”

      Your premise is wrong. Oceans have not been warming (within the margin of error; AKA: exceeding the error bars).

      Even if we accept the dubious number of 0.023ºC/decade warming, that is less than a quarter of a degree per century. Are you worried? Don’t be. That minuscule warming would be entirely beneficial.

      Next, even the recent head of the UN/IPCC states that global warming has been in a “hiatus” for many years. Many other Warmists admit that global warming has stopped. So you are making a baseless assertion when you say “without any hiatus”.

      Next, the sea level rise is not accelerating, as had been widely predicted. In fact, SL rise may be decelerating. It may even be non-existent.

      Finally, here’s a question for you: what, exactly, would it take to convince you that the “dangerous man-made global warming” scare is a false alarm?

      Would a full TWENTY YEARS of no global warming convince you?

      Would you be convinced if Arctic ice exceeded its 30-year average?

      Or, what if a great new Ice Age began, and like it has before, global temperatures declined by 2º – 3º within a decade or two?

      Or could nothing ever convince you that “dangerous man-made global warming” is a hoax?

      Just wondering where you draw the line…

      • AndyG55 says:

        UK Royal Society says 50 years of zero warming before they admit they were wrong.!

        This religious zealotry is really quite bizarre !!

      • Ted says:

        I doubt record Arctic ice would do it. The Arctic and Antarctic seem to mirror each other, with one rising while the other falls. Assuming that pattern continues, record northern ice would mean less southern ice, which would once again “prove” global warming. You’d just stop hearing about the Arctic, just like we don’t hear much about the Antarctic today. You’d even be called a kook if you mentioned the growing Arctic ice, because the “real” problem would then be at the other end of the Earth. From a practical perspective, the south has always been far more important. But from a religious perspective, it’s been committing heresy lately.

      • cfgj says:

        Seems like I need to repeat myself: The possible “hiatus” in warming is only in the atmospheric temperatures, while a LOT of extra heat has been heating the oceans without ANY kind of pause. The fact that the oceans and therefore the planet has been warming up without a pause indicates that there’s a small energy-imbalance between Earth and space, exactly as AGW predicts.

        • gator69 says:

          Your repetition of nonsense does not make sense. You have still not provided any proof of your refuted claims, only artifacts. We OTOH, have repeatedly shown your claims to be nonsense, with facts.

        • You are possibly the most blinkered and obtuse person I have ever encountered. Obviously you did not deign to notice, let alone read Gail Combs’s posts.

        • AndyG55 says:

          Your posts are as empty as your mind.
          You have nothing.

        • AndyG55 says:

          The ONLY heat going into the oceans is from the sun.

          And that extra energy from strong solar cycles in the latter half of last century has ENDED!!

        • Dear cjgj,

          The greenhouse effect is in the atmosphere. By definition, the atmosphere must warm, or it’s not the greenhouse effect.

          Love,
          Morgan

        • AndyG55 says:

          “Obviously you did not deign to notice, let alone read Gail Combs’s posts”

          David, Its not that he didn’t even try to read them..

          He would never have understood them anyway. !

          By the quality of his posts, he is barely out of low-end junior high.

  11. Dave N says:

    Where’s Jim, complaining about missing ice cubes??

    • AndyG55 says:

      His employment as a mouthpiece for the Exeter Uni climate bletheren has either not started for this week…

      …. or he has been sacked for blatant incompetence.

    • rah says:

      Well since the 2012 arctic ice is close to 2006 now he has slunk away. Sure he’ll show up again if we getting a spurt of melting.

      • AndyG55 says:

        Do you think I’ll ever get him to admit that the Arctic temperature is only just a little bit above the coldest period in the last 10,000 years, and that for most of the Holocene the Arctic was 2-3C warmer?

        I means, it like he’s handing me a cosh and asking me to use it on him every time he pokes his head up.. sort of like wack-a-mole… bizarre !!

    • shazaam says:

      Jabber-the-Hunt is somewhat conspicuous by his absence.

      Perhaps he’s occupied praying for an Arctic Cyclone to push a bit of the un-melted ice out of the Arctic basin.

      Or, Jabber-the-Hunt might be providing some technical assistance with Reggie’s endlessly trouble-plagued, “Brawndo-Fueled Blowtorch of Arctic Ice Armageddon”….. That outta sort it.

      • gator69 says:

        He’s busy taking food out of the mouths of the poorest and most at risk. Millions to deny…

        • rah says:

          Well if things keep up the way they are at the other end of the earth mother nature will be taking food out of the mouths of scientists at some Antarctic research stations because of the increasing sea ice. Then they will have to move to another location so the fossil fueled ice breakers can get through to bring them food and the fossil fuel they need to keep warm so they can continue to write about how the ice at the southern polar regions is melting away. It’s looking like that climate refugee thing may actually happen after all!

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