By Willis Eschenbach – Re-Blogged From WUWT
Today I saw some scary headlines. I post them up along with snippets of the stories. First, from the BBC:
Earth’s great ice sheets, Greenland and Antarctica, are now losing mass six times faster than they were in the 1990s thanks to warming conditions.
“That’s not a good news story,” said Prof Andrew Shepherd from the University of Leeds in the UK.
Next, from the NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL)
By David Siegel – Re-Blogged From WUWT
How do we measure success in helping people understand the climate issue? I don’t think we can measure it by unique visits to WUWT or various videos that many of us know well. But they simply attract the same audience over and over. I think the only way to measure success is by somehow measuring minds changed. This is a quick announcement of a new video I recently released, my philosophy on how to change minds, and a request from the community to help me with some data science.
My name is David Siegel. In 1991, I wrote a book explaining how the greenhouse effect worked and how we have to cut back on CO2 emissions or suffer dire consequences. Then, in about 2014, a partner at a green fund told me “the science is settled.” That prompted me to revisit the subject, and I was surprised to find that the data didn’t support the “common wisdom” that I had believed for so long. So I started reading papers, blogs, and web sites like WUWT.
By Willis Eschenbach – Re-Blogged From WUWT
After considering the tide gauge records around Fairbourne in my last post, I wanted to look at a larger picture. Remember that we’ve been repeatedly told that acceleration in sea level rise is not just forecast, it’s actually occurring. I wrote about some of these claims in my post entitled “Accelerating The Acceleration“. Plus we’ve been deluged, if you’ll excuse the word, with endless cartoons and memes and movies and earnest predictions about the Statue of Liberty going underwater, cities being drowned, islands being overtopped by the sea, and the like. And not only that, but we’re assured that we can see and measure the acceleration in both the tide gauge and the satellite sea-level records.
So I went to get the satellite sea-level records from the University of Colorado. But when I plotted them up, I realized that they stopped in 2018. I couldn’t find anything on their website that explained why. Here’s their data.
Figure 1. University of Colorado sea-level record. Note that it is a splice of four satellite datasets that all seem to be in quite good agreement.
By CFACT: – Re-Blogged From WUWT
According to the National Snow and Ice Data Center (nsidc.org), ice currently covers 6 million square miles, or one tenth the Land area on Earth, about the area of South America. Floating ice, or Sea Ice, alternately called Pack Ice at the North and South Poles covers 6% of the ocean’s surface (nsidc.org), an area similar to North America. The most important measure of ice is its thickness. The United States Geologic Survey estimates the total ice on Earth weighs 28 million Gigatons(a billion tons). Antarctica and Greenland combined represent 99% of all ice on Earth. The remaining one per cent is in glaciers, ice sheets and sea ice. Antarctica can exceed 3 miles in thickness and Greenland one mile. If they were to melt sea level would indeed rise over 200 feet, but not even the most radical alarmists suggest that possibility arising due to the use of fossil fuels. However the ice that flows off of the Antarctic and Greenland called shelf ice represents only half a percent of all the Earth’s ice and which if melted would raise sea level only 14 inches, (nsidc.com).
By Willis Eschenbach – Re-Blogged From WUWT
Over in the Tweeterverse, I said I wasn’t a denier, and I challenged folks to point out what they think I deny. Brandon R. Gates took up the challenge by claiming that I denied that sea level rise is accelerating. I replied:
Brandon, IF such acceleration exists it is meaninglessly tiny. I can’t find any statistically significant evidence that it is real. HOWEVER, I don’t “deny” a damn thing. I just disagree about the statistics.
Brandon replied:
> IF such acceleration exists
It’s there, Willis. And you’ve been shown.
> it is meaninglessly tiny
When you have a better model for how climate works, then you can talk to me about relative magnitudes of effects.
By Ken Haapala, President, Science and Environmental Policy Project (SEPP)
Thirty Years of Error? In 1988, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was created by the UN under the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and the United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP) from a resolution by the UN General Assembly to address possible future, human-induced, climate change. The reports of the IPCC support the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). The objective of the UNFCCC is “stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system.” [Boldface added.]
By Jim Steele – Re-Blogged From WUWT
Director emeritus Sierra Nevada Field Campus, San Francisco State University and author of Landscapes & Cycles: An Environmentalist’s Journey to Climate Skepticism
Pacifica California, just south of San Francisco, is my adopted hometown of 25 years. It has garnered national attention as an icon of dangerous sea level rise as eroding cliffs dangled homes over ocean bluffs (discussed in a WUWT post a few years ago). To the delight of property owners and the dismay of environmental extremists, I became a member of Pacifica’s Community Working Group on Sea Level Rise. Governor Jerry Brown’s California Coastal Commission has advised coastal cities to consider that by the year 2100 we should expect a range of sea level rise from 3 to 10 feet due to climate change. Based on such predictions the city will map flood zones, and properties in those zones could suffer from Coastal Commission restrictions that will devalue their property.
Brought to You by www.SEPP.org The Science and Environmental Policy Project
By Ken Haapala, President
Sea Level Rise – What is Measured? Last week’s TWTW had an interview with Richard Lindzen a with statement questioned by some readers. The paragraph with the statement is:
“Since 1979 we have been able to measure sea level itself with satellites. However, the accuracy of such measurements depends critically on such factors as the precise shape of the earth. While the satellites show slightly greater rates of sea level rise, the inaccuracy of the measurement renders the difference uncertain. What the proponents of alarm have done is to accept the tide gauge data until 1979, but assume that the satellite data is correct after that date, and that the difference in rates constitutes ‘acceleration.’ They then assume acceleration will continue leading to large sea level rises by the end of this century. It is hard to imagine that such illogical arguments would be tolerated in other fields.” [Boldface added]
By Anthony Watts – Re-Blogged From http://www.WattsUpWithThat.com
Most recent NOAA Sea surface temperatures, note the lack of oranges and reds:
By Ken Haapala, President
Brought to You by www.SEPP.org The Science and Environmental Policy Project
Constant, Not Accelerating: On May 16, SEPP Chairman emeritus S. Fred Singer had an essay in the Wall Street Journal explaining why there is little humanity and governments can do to stop the constant rate of sea level rise. Unfortunately, in the print edition, the sentence “But there is also good data showing sea levels are in fact rising at a constant rate,” was muddled into reading “But there is also good data showing sea levels are in fact rising at an accelerating rate.” [Boldface added]. The error was corrected in the online editions. The central issue of Singer’s essay is” that sea-level rise does not depend on the use of fossil fuels.”
By Kip Hansen – Re-Blogged From http://www.WattsUpWithThat.com
Have you ever noticed that whenever NASA or NOAA presents a graph of satellite-era Global Mean Sea Level rise, there are no error bars? There are no Confidence Intervals? There is no Uncertainty Range? In a previous essay on SLR, I annotated the graph at the left to show that while tide gauge-based SLR data had (way-too-small) error bars, satellite-based global mean sea level was [sarcastically] “errorless” — meaning only that it shows no indication of uncertainty.
By Larry Hamlin – Re-Blogged From http://www.WattsUpWithThat.com
On June 23, 1988 the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources held a hearing addressing the Greenhouse Effect and Global Climate Change.
Among the presenters at this hearing was Dr. James Hansen, Director, NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies who introduced his infamous and now debunked global surface temperature model results with future temperature projections under three different scenarios of CO2 emissions growth that grossly over exaggerated resulting projected global temperature increases.
By Anthony Watts – Re-Blogged From http://www.WattsUpWithThat.com
Key Points:
By Anthony Watts – Re-Blogged From http://www.WattsUpWithThat.com
We’ve been told over an over again that global warming would melt the icecaps, and melt Greenland, and that would result in catastrophic sea level rise flooding cities. We’ve also been told that “sea level rise is “accelerating” but in an investigation done here on WUWT by Willis Eschenbach, Putting the Brakes on Acceleration, he noted in 2011 that there seems to be no evidence of it at all, and notes that sea level was rising faster in the first half of the record.
By Ken Haapala, President, Science and Environmental Policy Project
Brought to You by www.SEPP.org
Skepticism: In an essay titled “Be Skeptical of Those Who Treat Science as an Ideology” appearing in the Wall Street Journal, Dr. Sue Desmond-Hellmann discusses the difference between anti-science and skepticism, and the difference between denialism and skepticism. As an oncologist, faced with treating patients dying with cancer, Dr. Desmond-Hellmann recognized the importance of honesty and integrity in building trust with her patients. She writes: [Boldface added.]
A broad survey of climate change literature for 2017 reveals that the alleged “consensus” behind the dangers of anthropogenic global warming is not nearly as settled among climate scientists as people imagine.
Author Kenneth Richard found that during the course of the year 2017, at least 485 scientific papers were published that in some way questioned the supposed consensus regarding the perils of human CO2 emissions or the efficacy of climate models to predict the future.
By Kip Hansen (with help from Steve Case) – Re-Blogged From http://www.WattsUpWithThat.com
Prologue: I have been writing recently about Sea Level Rise, both as particular local examples ( Guam, Canton, Miami, New York, and NY/NJ ) and in the series SEA LEVEL: Rise and Fall, of which this is the fourth installment.
# # # # #
Let’s see just how R. Steven Nerem, of the CU Sea Level Research Group, manages to pull that trick out of a hat. According to a report at Nature.com:
By Willis Eschenbach – Re-Blogged From http://www.WattsUpWithThat.com
I got to thinking about the records of the sea level height taken at tidal stations all over the planet. The main problem with these tide stations is that they measure the height of the sea surface versus the height of some object attached to the land … but the land isn’t sitting still. In most places around the planet the land surface is actually rising or falling, and in some places, it’s doing so at a surprising rate, millimeters per year.
The places that are the most affected, unfortunately, are the places where we have some of the longest tidal records, the northern extra-tropics and northern sub-polar regions. In those sub-polar regions, during the most recent ice age, there were trillions of tonnes of ice on the land. This squashed the land underneath the ice down towards the center of the earth … and as result of that, just like when you squeeze a balloon it bulges out elsewhere, the extra-tropical areas further from the North Pole bulged upwards in response to the northern areas being pushed down.
By Kip Hansen – Re-Blogged From http://www.WattsUpWithThat.com
[Part 3 of 3 -Bob]
There have been so many very good essays on Global Sea Level Rise by persons all of whom have a great deal more expertise than I. Jo Nova hosts a dozen or so excellent essays, which point at another score of papers and publications, for the most part clearly demonstrating that there are two contrarian positions on sea level rise in the scientific community: 1) Sea level has risen, is rising and will continue to rise at a rate approximately 8-12 inches (20-30 centimeters) per century — due to geological and long-term climatic forces well beyond our control; and 2a) Other than explicit cases of Local Relative SLR, the sea does not appear to be rising much over the last 50-70 years, if at all. 2b) If it is rising due to general warming of the climate it will not add much to position 1.
By Kip Hansen – Re-Blogged From http://www.WattsUpWithThat.com
Introduction:
Temperature and Water Level (MSL) are two hot topic measurements being widely bandied about and vast sums of money are being invested in research to determine whether, on a global scale, these physical quantities — Global Average Temperature and Global Mean Sea Level — are changing, and if changing, at what magnitude and at what rate. The Global Averages of these ever-changing, continuous variables are being said to be calculated to extremely precise levels — hundredths of a degree for temperature and millimeters for Global Sea Level — and minute changes on those scales are claimed to be significant and important.
In my recent essays on Tide Gauges, the question of the durability of original measurement uncertainty raised its toothy head in the comments section.
By Kip Hansen – Re-Blogged From http://www.WattsUpWithThat.com
There are two important points which readers must be aware of from the first mention of Sea Level Rise (SLR):
In order to talk about Sea Level Rise, we must first nail down Sea Level itself.
By Ken Haapala, President, Science and Environmental Policy Project
Brought to You by www.SEPP.org
Quote of the Week.
“…it was clear that the first and greatest need was to establish the facts of the past record of the natural climate in times before any side effects of human activities could well be important.”
– H.H. Lamb on forming the Climatic Research Unit [H/t Tim Ball]
By Rud Istvan – Re-Blogged From http://www.WattsUpWithThat.com
Background
There is no doubt that interglacials change sea level (SL). And that sea level rise (SLR) can be dramatic on millennial interglacial time scales. That’s what happens when the vast Laurentide ice sheet (among others) melts. But sea level has changed relatively little in the past 7 millennia. We know from archeology that it rose somewhat in the Medieval Warm Period, dropped some during the Little Ice Age, and has been rising slowly since based on tide gauge records. This mostly natural variation is, from 1950-2000, about +1.8mm/year to 2.2mm/year (discrepancy explanation and references follow below). That rate is no cause for alarm. We coped with it for the past century, and can cope with it for the next.
The anthropogenic global warming (AGW) question is whether SLR will accelerate into catastrophic AGW (CAGW) requiring urgent mitigation? Warmunists argue yes, with many alarming images such as National Geographic’s photoshopped Statue of Liberty half submerged (which would require that all of Greenland and Antarctica melts before the next
The Week That Was: June 18, 2016 Brought to You by www.SEPP.org
By Ken Haapala, President, Science and Environmental Policy Project
Fear of CO2: Those promoting the fear of carbon dioxide (CO2), and other greenhouse gases, primarily use three possible threats: one, dangerous increased temperatures; two, change in ocean chemistry (called ocean acidification); and three, drastic sea level rise. John Christy’s February 2 testimony to the U.S. House Committee on Science, Space & Technology empirically demolishes the argument that increasing CO2 is causing significant global warming –major warming is simply not happening in the atmosphere, where the greenhouse effect takes place. The current increase in atmospheric temperatures is influenced by the El Niño warming the tropical Pacific Ocean, a natural occurrence, but the effect is short-lived. The question remains: what will happen to atmospheric temperatures as the influence of the El Niño diminishes and is possibly replaced by a La Niña? Will global temperatures return to a higher level, the same level, or a lower level?
By contrast, surface temperatures used by the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), and its followers, are influenced by many other natural and human actions, particularly land use change. Unfortunately, the IPCC does not highlight the severe limitations of its reports, particularly in its summaries for policymakers, allowing many to incorrectly believe that weather and climate change stems from increasing the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere from 3 parts per 10,000 to 4 parts per 10,000. Ascribing unusual weather events to increasing CO2 is similar to the beliefs in the 1950s of blaming unusual weather events, such as tornadoes in New England, on nuclear testing.
By Professor Philip Lloyd – Re-Blogged From http://www.WattsUpWithThat.com
Daily we are told that we are wicked to burn fossil fuels. The carbon dioxide which is inevitably emitted accumulates in the atmosphere and the result is “climate change.” If the stories are to believed, disaster awaits us. Crops will wither, rivers will dry up, polar bears will disappear and malaria will become rampant.
It is a very big “IF”. We could waste trillions for nothing. Indeed, Lord Stern has estimated that it would be worth spending a few trillion dollars each year to avoid a possible disaster in 200 years’ time. Because he is associated with the London School of Economics he is believed – by those whose experience of insurance is limited. Those who have experience know that it is not worth insuring against something that might happen in 200 years time – it is infinitely better to make certain your children can cope. With any luck, they will do the same for their children, and our great-great-great grandchildren will be fine individuals more than able to deal with Lord Stern’s little problem.
So I decided to examine the hypothesis from first principles.
The Week That Was: (November 7, 2015) – Brought to You by www.SEPP.org
By Ken Haapala, President, Science and Environmental Policy Project
Un-Validated Models: “The basic problem with the IPCC’s [UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] extensive analysis of peer-reviewed, published research, from which it draws its conclusions regarding climate sensitivity to CO2 [carbon dioxide] and other GHG [greenhouse gases], is that it makes the critical mistake of giving any credence whatsoever to projections of future climate changes, and attribution of those changes, from output of un-validated climate simulation models. Moreover, in our opinion, the results of computer model studies should only be published in scientific journals if they are accompanied by supportive empirical observations. This conclusion is based on over a half-century of experience from many of our research team members, using models for critical decision-making in design and operation of spacecraft, where human safety was involved.
“Although computer models based on first principles are used extensively for design of commercial airplanes, bridges and buildings, engineers never base design decisions on output of un-validated computer models, and for good reasons supported by a grateful public. For what possible reason would it be appropriate to base public policy decisions regarding climate, with potentially severe unintended consequences, on un-validated climate simulation models, as the IPCC advocates and as adopted by the IWG [US Interagency Working Group] for SCC {Social Cost of Carbon] calculation?” (p.22)
“The Right Climate Stuff (TRCS) research team is a volunteer group composed primarily of more than 25 retired NASA Apollo Program veterans, who joined together in February 2012 to perform an objective, independent study of scientific claims of significant global warming caused by human activity, known as Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW).” (p.11)
By David Siegel – Re-Blogged From Medium.com
What is your position on the climate-change debate? What would it take to change your mind?
If the answer is It would take a ton of evidence to change my mind, because my understanding is that the science is settled, and we need to get going on this important issue, that’s what I thought, too. This is my story.
More than thirty years ago, I became vegan because I believed it was healthier (it’s not), and I’ve stayed vegan because I believe it’s better for the environment (it is). I haven’t owned a car in ten years. I love animals; I’ll gladly fly halfway around the world to take photos of them in their natural habitats. I’m a Democrat: I think governments play a key role in helping preserve our environment for the future in the most cost-effective way possible. Over the years, I built a set of assumptions: that Al Gore was right about global warming, that he was the David going up against the industrial Goliath. In 1993, I even wrote a book about it.
Recently, a friend challenged those assumptions. At first, I was annoyed, because I thought the science really was settled. As I started to look at the data and read about climate science, I was surprised, then shocked. As I learned more, I changed my mind. I now think there probably is no climate crisis and that the focus on CO2 takes funding and attention from critical environmental problems. I’ll start by making ten short statements that should challenge your assumptions and then back them up with an essay.
Re-Blogged From http://www.WattsUpWithThat.com
Josh writes: Here are last night’s cartoon notes from a superb GWPF Annual Lecture by Patrick Moore, co-founder of Greenpeace. You can read the lecture here. Click the image below for a larger version.
The answer is, unequivocally, yes!
By Geir Hasnes – Re-Blogged From http://www.WattsUpWithThat.com
Very often, and arguably most often, a disagreement is rooted in a lack of definition of what one agrees upon before starting the argument. Thus the argument soon develops into a quarrel, and while each side thinks he has won the argument in the end, he is also puzzled by why the other side doesn’t give in to the facts, of for instance, as in the case of the climate quarrel, the ‘Science’.
The statistician William M. Briggs, in his recent article Climate Change Alarmists Appear Immunized against Reality (link) asks: “This brings us to the crucial question: how do we reach educators like Johnson? We can’t do it with reality. Temperatures aren’t increasing, storms are down in number and strength, sea levels aren’t chasing folks from beaches, droughts are not increasing, parts of the world are growing greener.
“I don’t have the answer. Do you?”
