Global Warming, real or fallacy? Science vs pseudo science

This discussion is a fresh start and a continuation from the Global Warming threads. Please stay on topic.

If you wish to discuss the implications of and solutions for climate change, please do so here: Climate Change, the implications and solutions

Well, let’s see. You have a source that says no noticeable rise in sea levels since 2006 (with notations that you supplied regarding the inconsistency of sea level tidal gauge research) and according to your own U of C Boulder site, the tidal gauge data is problematic and very incomplete. I have another source who states no observable sea level rise in the Pacific since 1998 with questions of whether this extends to 1993. Then, there is the incomplete nature of tidal gauge data coupled with the fact that no observable rise has been seen in many of these direly critical areas. You were the one to show all of this by citing the U of C Boulder data… but I am an asshat? okay… well, this asshat predicts that neither the Maldives nor Tuvalu will disappear any time soon and when one examines the PR efforts of NASA to get 19 percent increase in funding for climate research… no, there are no conflicts of interest there and speaking of asses, it seems that Real Climate has had its ass handed to it repeatedly… but no doubt this fuels your interest in the dangers of climate change… yawn… yawn… and I am sure that your discomfiture at providing the two sources that provided the exactly opposite conclusion to your “proof” when the data was examined must be highly disconcerting and even worse… it is I not you who is providing the “scientific literature” and you are merely engaging in name calling… funny that? hahahahahahhahah and be sure and show us how the tidal gauge data that your site has called essentially unreliable fits in with the satellite data… what are the benchmarks? no use of tidal gauge data? and while you are at it discuss the PR ramifications of Real Climate and its vested interests in getting more funding for NASA… Even worse, who has disproved Dr. Morner’s research on sea level rises in the Maldives. Got anything? Strange that you have showed no specific research on the Maldives or Tuvalu or anywhere else. We are told by V to read the scientific literature so where is it on that subject? where ? where? where?

I believe it was you who asked for proof that Morners six measurements were not valid, you wanted actual measurements, not predictions. Now you are saying conclusions can’t be made because of incomplete data or margins of error in tide gauge measurements, which we can get to in a bit.

But first, lets go back to Morners six measurements, are you now saying no conclusions can be based on these either?

A fallacy is not always a product of a psuedo science. The history of science is also built upon fallacy. Plus what was once considered pseudo science may have come from or indeed ended up as a ‘hard’ science. Phrenology was a natural response to the development of biological science, and whilst based on truth, became pseduo science. Mesmerism was long considered pseudo science, yet today hypnotism is studied as a hard science. Was Freud a scientist or did he just wank off frustrated women?
The attempt to place the global warming discussion into this further division is misjudged, in my opinion, as these are two different topics. Is global warming real or not? Is global warming a part of science or pseudo science?

[quote]For the past three years, the vast cap of shining-white ice covering the Arctic has melted away in summer to an area that would have been unbelievable just a decade ago. At the end of the winter, the frozen seas cover 15.7m square kilometres (6.1m square miles), an area more than one and a half times that of the United States. By September the ice regularly used to melt to 7m square kilometres. But since a great collapse in 2007 the figure has been closer to 4.3m square kilometres.
Every summer an extra area of ice six times the size of California has been disappearing.
As well as this reduction in area, scientists believe that, hidden beneath the surface, the ice is growing ever thinner, setting up the Arctic for another sudden, catastrophic collapse. The big question now is when the ice will disappear totally each summer. There will be an answer in 2010.

Another year of observations, better computer models and—the Holy Grail of ice scientists—maps of the thickness of the ice from a new European satellite called -Cryosat-2 should reveal in 2010 how long the Arctic ice has left. Estimates range from 2013—terrifyingly soon—to 2050 for the first year when the Arctic is free of ice in summer.

When that happens, it will be the biggest and fastest change to the Earth’s surface ever made by human influence. The ice, poised between freezing and melting, is an especially sensitive indicator of the planet’s temperature. When it disappears, it will be a disaster for all the Arctic life that depends on ice, from the polar bears that walk on it to the tiny creatures that live within it.

And it will be a disaster for the planet. That great dome of ice reflects sunlight back into space throughout the 24 hours a day of polar summer sunshine. When it turns sea-dark and soaks up the sun, global warming will really take off.[/quote]

economist.com/theworldin/dis … payBarrier

[quote=“TomHill”]A fallacy is not always a product of a psuedo science. The history of science is also built upon fallacy. Plus what was once considered pseudo science may have come from or indeed ended up as a ‘hard’ science. Phrenology was a natural response to the development of biological science, and whilst based on truth, became pseduo science. Mesmerism was long considered pseudo science, yet today hypnotism is studied as a hard science. Was Freud a scientist or did he just wank off frustrated women?
The attempt to place the global warming discussion into this further division is misjudged, in my opinion, as these are two different topics. Is global warming real or not? Is global warming a part of science or pseudo science?[/quote]

I think you’ve got the question wrong. Climate science is definitely science; human-driven global warming is a conclusion of climate science and other earth sciences. The anti-science/psuedoscience is climate science denialists, who are like creationists, IDers, vaccine/autism cranks, astrologers, etc, except that they have corporate backing and the others mostly don’t.

Vorkosigan

Its dead Jim.

[quote]IPCC Corruption Included Ignoring Facts and Science
excerpt:
“Exclusion of Antarctica is a convenient omission and makes a mockery of their claim, because it cooled over the period.Their solar explanation for half the change prior to 1950 uses only one part the sun’s effect on global temperature, namely electromagnetic radiation (ER), (heat and light). They were flummoxed by the decrease of temperature from 2002 while CO2 levels continued to rise. Jones now concedes, “There was no significant warming from 1998-2009” and “Neither the rate nor magnitude of recent warming is exceptional.” He also concedes the Medieval Warm Period was warmer than at present. These statements alone completely destroy all claims about the validity of the science and claims of the IPCC.”…more at link[/quote]

…:deadhorse:

LMAO.

TC, Tim Ball is another longtime recipient of fossil fuel funds. I’ve been reading his crap for years now. Like several other people you’ve brought up – Gerhard Gerlich springs to mind – Ball cut his teeth working for corporations on CFCs and the ozone layer (the scientists got the Nobel on that one). You’re like a giant magnet for the very worst of the anti-science shit – you find them with astonishing ease. Don’t they have Google in your part of the world? Ball’s intro from Sourcewatch.

[ul]http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Tim_Ball
Dr. Timothy Ball is Chairman and Chair of the Scientific Advisory Committee of the Natural Resources Stewardship Project (NRSP).[1] Two of the three directors of the NRSP - Timothy Egan and Julio Lagos - are executives with the PR and lobbying company, the High Park Group (HPG).[2] Both HPG and Egan and Lagos work for energy industry clients and companies on energy policy.[3]

Ball is a Canadian climate change skeptic and was previously a “scientific advisor” to the oil industry-backed organization, Friends of Science.[4] Ball is a member of the Board of Research Advisors of the Frontier Centre for Public Policy, a Canadian free-market think tank which is predominantly funded by foundations and corporations.[5][/ul]

Ball is simply misrepresenting, or what is vulgarly known as lying. You can verify this for yourself simply by catching up on the science news. Or…

If you had simply Googled around you could have found how Ball is lying. Here is what Ball wrote:

[ul]Jones now concedes, “There was no significant warming from 1998-2009” and “Neither the rate nor magnitude of recent warming is exceptional.” He also concedes the Medieval Warm Period was warmer than at present. [/ul]

Had you Googled this phrase…

“There was no significant warming from 1998-2009”

…which I knew perfectly well Jones never could have said (the last decade is the warmest yet), you would have quickly found that it is found only in the right-wing echo chamber (I got 11 hits in Google, I think). It comes from Anthony Watts, another ardent proponent of psuedoscience:

wattsupwiththat.com/2010/02/14/p … ed-issues/

Watts was misrepresenting what Phil Jones said with a bogus summary. Here is the original BBC interview Watts was summarizing which Ball borrowed:

news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8511670.stm

Read the interview and then read Watts. It is easy to see that in every case Watts totally lies about what Jones said, as does Ball. Note that Ball says:

[ul]He also concedes the Medieval Warm Period was warmer than at present.[/ul]

Here is what Jones said about the MWP:

[ul]There is much debate over whether the Medieval Warm Period was global in extent or not. The MWP is most clearly expressed in parts of North America, the North Atlantic and Europe and parts of Asia. For it to be global in extent the MWP would need to be seen clearly in more records from the tropical regions and the Southern Hemisphere. There are very few palaeoclimatic records for these latter two regions.

Of course, if the MWP was shown to be global in extent and as warm or warmer than today (based on an equivalent coverage over the NH and SH) then obviously the late-20th century warmth would not be unprecedented. On the other hand, if the MWP was global, but was less warm that today, then current warmth would be unprecedented.

We know from the instrumental temperature record that the two hemispheres do not always follow one another. We cannot, therefore, make the assumption that temperatures in the global average will be similar to those in the northern hemisphere. [/ul]

Show me where in there Jones says the MWP was warmer than the present era. What he says, clearly, is that there isn’t enough information to know.

Your post is actually an excellent example of the right-wing echo chamber at work. Many thanks TC – your lack of familiarity with the science, and with the internet, tossed up a really excellent instance of how these lies are constructed.

Still waiting for your brilliant explanation of how Bill Leeman’s image of temperature variation through earth history refutes human-drive global warming…

Vorkosigan
Edited to add: “Neither the rate nor magnitude of recent warming is exceptional.” Jones never said that either. Ball is a total liar.

Sorry just back… Packers coming then not coming then coming now not coming. Believe that they will be here tomorrow.

  1. V: You have abundant data (scientific literature) on the following:
    a. Dr. Morner made six trips to measure sea levels around the Maldives. This was not six measurements but six sets of measurements. He found no indication of a sea level increase. In fact, there had been a decrease since the 1970s.
    b. You have a study made by the same in Tuvalu where he concluded that there was no sea level increase but that the “proof” of sea level increase was due to excessive irrigation of pineapples leading to a seepage of seawater into the water table.
    c. You have a study of 12 Pacific Islands. There has been no increase in sea levels since 1998 and given the cyclones that hit the region damaging measurement devices, perhaps not since 1993. Before that, there were no measuring devices so… hard to say whether that was a trend or not. And given his statement that a trend would require 50 to 60 years… we are back at the issue of whether your satellite measurements would have any benchmarks other than inaccurate tidal gauge data to compare/contrast. Please also note the two sources from Meltdown Mick in which his sources label the tidal gauge data system bad but the best that we have. Also, note that his thousands of records include thousands and thousands of incompletes.
    d. You have another statement citing the U of Colorado Boulder figures noting no increase in sea levels since 2006 with the proviso that the instruments in place would have been able to measure the same given the incompleteness and imperfection of the system as noted in that very same study, which was cited by Meltdown Mick NOT me. So, if you have a problem with scientific literature and not reading the same, take it up with him…
    e. you dismiss any findings of groups that receive money or support from private industry, yet you fail to use this same criticism against government organizations who as you note receive all of their researching funding from grants. Now, given the finite supply of money/support, grants tend to go to the causes with greatest public support/concern.
    f. Real Climate is run by a NASA employee. NASA has been engaging in public relations efforts to get more funding for its projects. One of the major areas where new projects are being funded is in the area of climate modeling, satellites to monitor climate, etc. etc. and yet this does not strike you in any way as a conflict of interest? why then did Real Climate have to issue the statement that you cited to deny the same? Obviously, someone felt the need to “set the record” straight. You accept all such denials at face value unless they involve the private sector and then… same set of standards? I don’t think so. Note the figures supplied to show a 19 percent increase in funding to NASA.
    g. You dismissed Tainan Cowboy’s “scientific literature” from a US government cite to show that polar bear numbers are NOT decreasing pointing instead to “observable” conditions in the Arctic in contrast to the conservative estimate. Yet, you would not accept any such “observable” trends from Dr. Morner.
    h. you have yet to show how many tidal gauge stations have GPS installed. You have failed to show how this would guarantee the accuracy of their results. You have failed to show how satellite data does not rely upon tidal gauge measurements as benchmarks. How long and how widespread has the satellite monitoring/measurement been? when did it start? if there is not sufficient time to meet the 50 year to 60 year requirement, then… how can you know with any confidence that sea level rises are occurring? or that if this is happening that it represents a long-term trend?

Sorry, must go… Will be on and off for the next few days and then pretty much off for quite some time. My gift to you and the “concernist” community but it has been nice arguing with you. I totally disagree with your approach/findings but it has been amusing nonetheless… One final parting shot: for one who keeps talking about the scientific literature… ain’t seem much of use from you on the above points… Would really appreciate an attempt to answer some of these concerns rather than getting blanket responses/denials on the same.

Au Revoir
Fred

[quote]1.Emotional claims are being made that the oceans are turning to acid. Acidic and basic are two extremes that describe a chemical property. The pH scale measures how acidic or basic a substance is and ranges from 0 to 14. A pH of 7 (e.g. water) is neutral. A pH less than 7 is acidic. A pH greater than 7 is basic.
2. The pH scale is logarithmic and as a result, each whole pH value below 7 is ten times more acidic than the next higher value. For example, pH 4 is ten times more acidic than pH 5 and 100 times (10 times 10) more acidic than pH 6.
3. The same holds true for pH values above 7, each of which is ten times more alkaline (another way to say basic) than the next lower whole value. For example, pH 10 is ten times more alkaline than pH 9 and 100 times (10 times 10) more alkaline than pH 8.
4. IPCC WGI state that the mean pH of surface waters ranges between 7.9 and 8.3 in the open ocean, so the ocean remains alkaline. It is dishonest to present to a lay audience that any perceived reduction in alkalinity means the oceans are turning to acid.
5. The claim that “ocean acidity” has increased by 30% since before the industrial revolution was calculated from the estimated uptake of anthropogenic carbon between 1750 and 1994, which shows a decrease in alkalinity of 0.1 pH unit, well within the range quoted by IPCC.
6. One of the authors of a prominent paper used by IPCC, sits on specialist panels on other bodies, such as the Royal Society, that come to the same conclusions. This is then presented in a manner to imply a consensus view from an apparently independent separate body.
7. A separate critique of that paper suggests it relates to an extrapolation of 18 years of data to 2100 and even 2300.
8. At least one University is equating seawater with vinegar in an on-line presentation for schools. Vinegar, (acetic acid), has a pH of 2.5, almost a million times more acidic in terms of hydrogen ion activity than seawater. This is deliberate disinformation to young people.
9. There are many contrary peer reviewed papers challenging the claims about the impact of CO2 on the oceans. One survey highlights some one hundred and fifty such papers, most of them showing that we cannot possibly acidify the oceans. The IPCC claims to present the physical science basis for IPCC claims but confines itself to a very narrow range of research and ignores the contrary papers.
10. Authors of papers supporting the IPCC position are already involved in IPCC AR5 and in one case their host University also provides the Technical Support Unit for WGII.
11. NGO involvement in further scientific research into Ocean “acidification”, as they choose to call it, is clearly described on the web site of the UK Natural Environment Research Council, NERC, a grant awarding body.
12. NGO organisations cannot be held to have an independent scientific stance, they implicitly have an agenda. The use of non-peer-reviewed papers from NGO’s in IPCC AR4, is currently the subject of major criticism relating to false claims of glacier melting, Amazon forest degradation and Extreme Weather cost impacts. It appears that they will be welcome again in AR5.[/quote]
scienceandpublicpolicy.org/image … d_seas.pdf

[quote]Gore says the Arctic has been warming faster than the rest of the planet. It is not. While it is in general true that during periods of warming (whether natural or anthropogenic) the Arctic will warm faster than other regions, Gore does not mention that the Arctic has been cooling over the past 60 years, and is now one degree Celsius cooler than it was in the 1940s. There was a record amount of snow cover in the Northern Hemisphere in 2001. Several vessels were icebound in the Arctic in the spring of 2007, but few newspapers reported this. The newspapers reported that the North-West Passage was free of ice in 2007, and said that this was for the first time since records began:

but the records, taken by satellites, had only begun 29 years previously.
The North-West Passage had also been open for shipping in 1945, and, in 1903, the great Norwegian explorer Amundsen had passed through it in a sailing ship.[/quote]
scienceandpublicpolicy.org/monck … rrors.html

So open ice in 1903 and then again in 1945 and now again in 2007 with only 29 years of records on ice melt… not enough to draw a conclusion on a trend which requires a minimum of 50 to 60 years… but I do find it interesting that the Arctic has been cooling but that the ice melt is stepping up… due to what? currents? This seems to be contradictory and I would be open to further “scientific literature” on this.

Here is a bit on temperature readings and more important those from satellites.

[quote]THE HISTORICAL RECORD
The models that employ the various scenarios are poor at replicating past climate and even current weather conditions. Temperature data for the world, measured over the last hundred years, show an increase of about 1°F or less. Partisans point to this as evidence of warming, but much of that boost in worldwide temperatures occurred before 1940 and a good portion took place around 1920, before widespread industrialization. From 1940 to the mid-1970s, global temperatures declined a little, setting off speculation about global cooling. Then, starting in the second half of the 1970s, the world became warmer. Overall for this century, temperatures have risen most at night and during the winter, with a fall in summer daytime readings. Within the United States, which has the best records, thermometers have registered no significant gain for the 101 years between 1895 and 1996. What were temperatures in 1896 compared with those of 1996? Slightly warmer! Nor has precipitation varied. The general circulation models that have been predicting warming forecast that the polar regions should warm the most. Over the last fifty-five years, no significant warming has been measured at either pole. American researchers at the South Pole, who have been keeping records for forty years, recorded the coldest month ever in July 1997. Moreover, there are problems with the measurements used to calculate temperature trends worldwide. Those data are based on ground measurements, taken mainly in cities. Most of the world, especially the Southern Hemisphere, is water, and there are no figures for much of this area. Mountainous regions also sport few thermometers. Poor and primitive areas are underrepresented in the data since most gauges are located in the more economically advanced parts of the world. Another major problem with the data is that, as cities grow and pave more of their area with asphalt and cement, heat is trapped, thus raising local readings. Although climatologists claim to have adjusted for this bias, questions remain about whether the record can accurately portray world temperature changes. Furthermore, since 1979 satellites circling the earth have measured temperatures around the globe, including much of the world where no one can regularly take temperatures. Those data fail to show an increase in global temperatures over the period 1979 to 1997, even though the models predict and earth-based thermometers show a slight rise. Although the satellite figures are controversial, they are highly correlated with the readings from weather balloons, taken twice a day around the planet. Critics of the satellite figures point out that they reflect the average temperature between the earth’s surface and fifteen thousand feet. However, not only do the data from space cover the planet, but they are free from the heat-island effect and are accurate to within plus or minus 0.02 degrees. Environmentalists view climate change as a catastrophe necessitating immediate and major steps to head off or mitigate. Whether global warming will occur is uncertain. Although temperature data until now could reflect a warming planet, they are also consistent with normal fluctuations in weather. From a scientific viewpoint the evidence for global warming must be “not proven.”


Excerpted and adapted from Climate of Fear: Why We Shouldn’t Worry about Global Warming, published by the Cato Institute.[/quote]
I realize that this has been discussed but would like to provide an update:

[quote]Climategate U-turn as scientist at centre of row admits:
There has been no global warming since 1995
By Jonathan Petre
Warming periods have happened before - but NOT due to man-made changes
Data: Professor Phil Jones admitted his record keeping is ‘not as good as it should be’
The academic at the centre of the ‘Climategate’ affair, whose raw data is crucial to the theory of climate change, has admitted that he has trouble ‘keeping track’ of the information.
Colleagues say that the reason Professor Phil Jones has refused Freedom of Information requests is that he may have actually lost the relevant papers.
Professor Jones told the BBC yesterday there was truth in the observations of colleagues that he lacked organisational skills, that his office was swamped with piles of paper and that his record keeping is ‘not as good as it should be’.
The data is crucial to the famous ‘hockey stick graph’ used by climate change advocates to support the theory.

Professor Jones also conceded the possibility that the world was warmer in medieval times than now – suggesting global warming may not be a man-made phenomenon.
And he said that for the past 15 years there has been no ‘statistically significant’ warming.
The admissions will be seized on by sceptics as fresh evidence that there are serious flaws at the heart of the science of climate change and the orthodoxy that recent rises in temperature are largely man-made.
Professor Jones has been in the spotlight since he stepped down as director of the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit after the leaking of emails that sceptics claim show scientists were manipulating data.
The raw data, collected from hundreds of weather stations around the world and analysed by his unit, has been used for years to bolster efforts by the United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change to press governments to cut carbon dioxide emissions.

Read more: dailymail.co.uk/news/article … z0ffinuy10[/quote]
So, scientific literature that concludes no global warming took place in the past 15 years and that none has occurred in the US since 1895. Revelations on the failure of various global temperature recording stations. Satellite data available in past 29 years. Earlier paper through 1997 showed no global warming and now we can add the past 15 years on as well. So? Where’s the beef? Time for concernists to admit that they have been had. No sea level rises recorded either. Certainly none in any of the concernist “hot spots.” If there are any studies proving sea level rises in the Maldives or Tuvalu, let’s have them so that we can all take a look.

[quote]Ball is simply misrepresenting, or what is vulgarly known as lying. You can verify this for yourself simply by catching up on the science news. Or…

If you had simply Googled around you could have found how Ball is lying. Here is what Ball wrote:
Jones now concedes, “There was no significant warming from 1998-2009” and “Neither the rate nor magnitude of recent warming is exceptional.” He also concedes the Medieval Warm Period was warmer than at present.

Had you Googled this phrase…

“There was no significant warming from 1998-2009” [/quote]
What about the most recent article that appeared in the Daily Mail?
or this one?

[quote]Climategate: Scientist admits no ‘statistically significant’ warming for the last 15 years

By E. Thomas McClanahan, Kansas City Star Editorial Page columnist

For years, we’ve heard from the climate-change folks that the science is unalterably settled: global warming was caused by humans. But now one of the climatologists at the center of the research admits that maybe things aren’t quite as settled as many advocates suggest.

Phil Jones, who stepped down recently as head of the embattled Climate Research Unit at East Anglia University, acknowledges that there’s been no “statistically significant” warming for 15 years, some of the temperatures records have been lost and the Medieval Warm Period may have been warmer than temperatures today[/quote]

[quote]B - Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming

Yes, but only just. I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009. This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level. The positive trend is quite close to the significance level. Achieving statistical significance in scientific terms is much more likely for longer periods, and much less likely for shorter periods. [/quote]

Here is the actual exchange. Not statistically significant but “only just.” Well, that hardly makes for a damning case for global warming. It is STILL statistically insignificant. I note, however, that his retraction has been politicized to a large degree. But hey… screaming headlines were what concernists wanted and now they have them and will have to deal with them.

Of course, since much of the data is missing, we are also not quite sure whether to take these statistically insignificant figures at face value either… What a mess!

news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8511670.stm

Is it me or does this guy sound like a real shyster?

guardian.co.uk/environment/2 … ather-data

Ya think that you “might” want to “consider” submitting a correction? Ya think? Also what is the subsequent study and what is it based on? How do we know that the numbers are any more accurate and not made up? The article goes into great detail about just how many of the stations were moved and not by just a little bit.

No one is posting their counterevidence. Like, perhaps, a study in which it is proved that sea levels are actually rising in the Maldives or Tuvalu? Just a thought… or why the satellite data do not rely on tidal gauges… considering that we have satellites for only 29 years… and 50 to 60 years are needed for a trend… or how the tidal gauge data is really more accurate than it is when even Mick’s supplied evidence clearly indicates that it is not by the admission of the site’s own authors (under data)… but by all means shut me up… that is what the concernists usually try to do… as evidenced by our very own Phil Jones… history repeats itself.

Fred,
You are arguing two contradictory points at the same time. First is the six trips by Morner to take measurements which conclude there has been no sea level rise in half a century, which you think has been proven. Despite his work not being taken seriously by the rest of the scientific community.

   Then papers from other scientists who used hundreds of tide gauges from various sites concluded the sea level was rising at about 3mm a year. These you question the accuracy due to the certain problems involved in actual measurements. 

  Dr. Morner is of course free to say what he wishes, as are you. But if you call into question the reliability of actual measurements, then you must also apply it to Dr. Morners work. The reason you do not, is clear to everyone, you cherry pick facts and don't approach the subject objectively.

 Regarding incomplete data sets, of course we have incomplete data. What would complete data look like? Tidal measurements going back to the dawn of time from every location on the planet? The question you should be asking is, if it is possible to draw conclusions based on the data we do have. 

 From the great number of papers that do support the idea sea levels are rising, its safe to conclude the general consensus is that they are rising, although there are varying levels being concluded. You might wonder how that is possible without "complete" data records, from all the points on the planet, and given errors, subsidence and other mitigating issues that would cause the data to be inaccurate. 

 Consider this, a while back I was working on decrypting wireless data for audio. It's possible to recreate accurately the audio, even in the presence of massive incorrect incoming data being received as a form of trend analysis is used. A single error, or even groups of errors in the sea level analysis do not invalidate the findings, as from what I can see, all the papers made efforts to include levels of uncertainty within their findings. 

  Did Dr. Morner ever publish his findings in a peer review publication? Did he release his data and methods, as the University of Colorado site I offered does? if so please provide a link.

Mick:
You really are getting worse. Your “evidence” is a site with so many incompletes as to make any kind of comparison impossible. Dr. Morner’s issue was how the tidal gauge information is recorded. Most does not appear to take into account any kind of subsidence or rising. The second paper (not his but in the South Pacific) indicates that even cyclones were able to disrupt accurate measurements to a large degree. Actually, I am not arguing both sides of it. I am stating that models and computations given the level of accuracy with tidal gauge data are not to be trusted. I am with Dr. Morner on that. This is why he wanted to go with local measurements and OBSERVABLE checks. There is no inconsistency here. I am disappointed that someone who “understands science” as much as you still fails to see that. Now, do you have any data to show that the sea levels ARE rising in the Maldives and Tuvalu to counter Dr. Morner? No. You have general sea level rises that are “computed.” Right? And again, if they are “computed,” what figures are they using to compute this final result with? YOUR SAME PAGE that is riddled with incompletes. I am not trying to prove anything here; you are. You are NOT making your case. I dispute that we have the ability to determine with exactitude what is happening using models. I also suspect that many a politician in Tuvalu and the Maldives is more than happy to keep this issue burning to generate enough public interest and sympathy to see aid levels to said nations rise. Say it isn’t so! But what interests me is that you have done nothing in the way of countering any of these points. Even worse, when you have as in your last post, you supplied two sites that directly COUNTERED your point. If this is what passes for “scientific literature” then I think that both you and V are in a great deal of trouble convincing anyone that you have any solid basis whatsoever for making such claims. I will be back tomorrow or the next day… please see if you can find anything interesting to keep this debate going. I have supplied enough that you should have no end of targets to go after to “prove me wrong.”

I already asked you what a complete set would look like, any answer to that?

Are you suggesting Tide gauges are not observable checks? Again, have you a link to his data, methods used, as I provided you with those who think the sea is rising at 3mm a year.

I dont know whats been done specifically regarding the Maldives and Tuvalu, but even if Morner was right, it doesnt translate into global measurements, can you see that?

Im not trying to prove anything, just pointing out the facts. If “incomplete” data sets exist, then thats that. If you think it invalidates any study based on what data you have ,thats your opinion, but seems to be much like you saying you have a “feeling” global warming will be gone in 10 years.

I’m glad you are reading what scientists are saying, I have been encouraging this and had said time and again there is more material for you in this debate there than in the right wing nonsense you get in the mainstream, which also like to find cute names for people and events. You can do better, I’m glad to see you rising to the challenge, but still have some areas that need to work on obviously.

Fred, I’m not trying to “prove” you wrong. There is room at my table for ALL your septics and their arguments. Lets see if you are up to the challenge of offering a seat to the alarmists.

Oh, congratulations on your promotion by the way.

[quote=“fred smith”]
Phil Jones, who stepped down recently as head of the embattled Climate Research Unit at East Anglia University, acknowledges that there’s been no “statistically significant” warming for 15 years, some of the temperatures records have been lost and the Medieval Warm Period may have been warmer than temperatures today[/quote]

No, you’re serious? Only a complete dupe could believe this. Read the whole interview. As Jones lays out, and any climate (or other) scientist could tell you, a much longer period is needed to achieve statistical significance.

Science, please, not 10-hand corporate shill interpretations from agenda-driven right-wing skeptidorks.

Vorkosigan

It seems to me a little like fred has us up against the ropes a bit on the sea level thing actually.

Would someone be so kind as to break it down really simply and explain “how” issues such as the subsistance of land were factored in.

I’ll bully up and admit that I don’t understand this stuff.

Satelites have only be used to measure sea levels for ____ years and so can’t really provide much useful information yet. And given that oceans are always splashing about it must be harder to measure their level using any measure I would imagine. Satelites rotating around the earth how ever miles up calculating to within milimeters the average of a constantly fluctuating mass of water?

Imagine, please (not you TC, I don’t “trust” anything you say) that you had to soften this out and explain all this to a ten year old. Just the facts. No appealing to science that is beyond an extremely lay understanding.

No insults, no sarcasm please.

Thanks in advance.

Meltdown Mick and V:

Oh! Suddenly we need much longer times for a trend? really? Is that not what I have been arguing with my point regarding the lack of sea rise in the Pacific Islands? Oh and suddenly there is room for dissenting voices on this? My how the mighty have fallen.

The problem with the global tidal gauge data is as your own site (meltdown Mick) admits: It is flawed and unreliable. Your figures were so incomplete as to make any kind of “global” computation impossible. Hell, Phil JOnes would not be in so much trouble if the same were available for temperature gauges and that is far easier to manage than the tidal gauges… Suddenly, we no longer have a reliable system of temperature gauges either but this criticism has been around for a long time and suddenly Phil Jones is discovering it? Bullshit. He figured proving his science was more important than accuracy of data. What kind of scientist is that?

IF you want to have a truly global study, then you need globally reliable sites. You do not have these. Satellite data is being used but what is it benchmarked against? the tidal gauge data! And at most, comprehensive satellite data is available for only 29 years not the needed 50 to 60 minimum. And were you not the one Meltdown Mick who claimed to have thousands and thousands of records for hundreds of years? well, it is insufficiently accurate or complete for our needs. You cannot use it to do a GLOBAL study. And now even V is forced to agree with me that much longer time periods are needed to suggest trends but only because Phil JOnes has been forced to admit himself that there has been no stastically significant warming because he cannot. Ditto then for all the other claims that at various times Meltdown Mick and V have been trying to argue. So what do we have? Failed computer models with insufficiently long observation periods to produce trends. BUT in the Maldives, and the 12 Pacific Islands, we do have extensive studies and observations showing NO sea level rises at worst from 1998 but most possibly since 1993 and the case of the Maldives by a drop in sea levels. This is what has been OBSERVED and much closer attention has been paid to the management of these sites. V: Still nothing on how many sites have GPS tracking? No? and Meltdown Mick: again, a total failure to achieve the data sets needed to produce the kind of projections that you would like. Again, answer: You need a globally reliable system to do so. You do not have that in place as of yet and the time frames are not sufficiently long. Also, your backdown to allow Phil Jones to backdown ahahaahahahaahahahaha

Mick: Thanks for the congrats. Much appreciated.

Who can trust the scientists, now?

:s

Its obviously settled! :laughing:

Wow… No matter how you look at it, from a news point of view, Phil Jones bombshell comments to the BBC were worthy of publication or airing, yet, these find media organizations had NO comment whatsoever… interesting…

Not Only the IPCC Whose Credibility Is Damaged [Edward John Craig]

Noel Sheppard points out that WaPo wasn’t alone in failing to mention the BBC interview with Phil Jones.

[quote]# No mention by the New York Times

No mention by the Washington Post

No mention by USA Today

No mention by ANY major U.S. newspaper EXCEPT the Washington Times

No mention by the Associated Press

No mention by Reuters

No mention by UPI

No mention by ABC News

No mention by CBS News

No mention by NBC News

No mention by MSNBC

At least CNN brought John Christy on air to talk about it.[/quote]

Why is this? Despite one’s views on the subject, does this not at least rate as “news?” If not, why not?

Fred,
For the third time, do you have a link to Dr Morners data and methods? I provided you a link to all data on tide gauges, methods used, papers and so on. You’re not just saying Dr Morner is right, because he says so, say it aint true.

 Regrading accuracy in measurements, nearly all measurements we take have errors associated, your watch, my speedometer, my petrol gauge I know is only a rough estimate but is still pretty useful. 

 From the site I provided, the error associated with the conclusion is between 10 and 20 percent, depending on whose paper you read, they all conclude sea levels are rising and the amount is between 10 and 25 cm over the last century.

  At this point you can do a common sense test of your own. For example, if I were to determine within a milli second the accuracy of time with my wrist watch, it would not be possible. If I needed to measure within a tenth of a degree change in temperature with my household thermometer, again this is not possible. But since the range is 10 to 25 cm, for the sea level rise, this is clearly observable, also to attribute a 10 or 20 % factor for error seems reasonable given the range discussed.

Meltdown Mick:

You provided a link where most of the figures were “incomplete.” Why keep discussing this 10 cm to 25 cm? Given the number of incompletes, this is the best that your scientists can do with the limited knowledge that they have. It is not an absolute that “even with these incompletes” that they are able to with confidence state that there has been 10 cm to 25 cm sea level rise. They are putting this incredibly “incomplete” data into the models and coming up with this random figure. You know that but are desperate now that the whole global warming thing is coming undone. No observed sea level increases have been seen in the Maldives. Go to the other site in which the data on 12 Pacific Islands is made available. Do the simple thing and click on data. This is where the evidence is. No sea level increase since 1998 and perhaps not since 1993 and before that they simply do not know because the gauges were not in place. Get that? the gauges were not in place. I am in the middle of packing. Go back and click on the link and see if there is anything on Dr. Morner’s methods yourself. Regardless, he claims there is no sea level increase. You obviously cannot prove that there is. So… if you really want to go into this, let me see what I can find but it does not change the fact that everywhere the comprehensive gauges are in place… no sea level rise… If you really cannot find anything on Dr. Morner’s methods, let me know but then… in the meantime, nothing is stopping you from finding even ONE study to show sea level rises in the Maldives… nothing is stopping you from finding sea level rises in the Pacific 12. Nothing is stopping you from supplying a data set that shows “complete” figures around the world. Let’s face it. You have been beat and beaten pretty badly. Meanwhile US states are pulling out of cap and trade and so are major companies… The beginning of the end me thinks…