New paper finds no evidence of a human influence on sea levels

[SSDD]

In response to the barrage of recent posts by a certain member of this board, the vast majority of which reflect, and discuss nothing more than the output of computer models, I am going to post some recently published papers based on actual observation. The contrast is remarkable.

http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI-D-12-00319.1

This paper, recently published in the Journal of Climate examined the world wide sea level change over the period of the 20th century and found that seal level rise was consistent over the 20th century with little if any acceleration in the rate of rise and that glacier mass lost was not less during the first half of the 20th century than during the second half.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Obama promised to stop the seas from rising. That has to be it

 

[SSDD]

Obama promised to stop the seas from rising. That has to be it

I saw the sound bite. I would like to know how he stopped sea level rise retroactively to the beginning of the 20th century.

 

[Old Rocks]

In response to the barrage of recent posts by a certain member of this board, the vast majority of which reflect, and discuss nothing more than the output of computer models, I am going to post some recently published papers based on actual observation. The contrast is remarkable.

An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie

This paper, recently published in the Journal of Climate examined the world wide sea level change over the period of the 20th century and found that seal level rise was consistent over the 20th century with little if any acceleration in the rate of rise and that glacier mass lost was not less during the first half of the 20th century than during the second half.

An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie


Abstract


Confidence in projections of global-mean sea-level rise (GMSLR) depends on an ability to account for GMSLR during the 20th century. There are contributions from ocean thermal expansion, mass loss from glaciers and ice sheets, groundwater extraction and reservoir impoundment. We have made progress towards solving the “enigma” of 20th-century GMSLR—that is, the observed GMSLR has been found to exceed the sum of estimated contributions, especially for the earlier decades. We propose that: thermal expansion simulated by climate models may previously have been underestimated owing to their not including volcanic forcing in their control state; the rate of glacier mass loss was larger than previously estimated, and was not smaller in the first than in the second half of the century; the Greenland ice-sheet could have made a positive contribution throughout the century; groundwater depletion and reservoir impoundment, which are of opposite sign, may have been approximately equal in magnitude. We show that it is possible to reconstruct the timeseries of GMSLR from the quantified contributions, apart from a constant residual term which is small enough to be explained as a long-term contribution from the Antarctic ice-sheet. The reconstructions account for the approximate constancy of the rate of GMSLR during the 20th century, which shows small or no acceleration, despite the increasing anthropogenic forcing. Semi-empirical methods for projecting GMSLR depend on the existence of a relationship between global climate change and the rate of GMSLR, but the implication of our closure of the budget is that such a relationship is weak or absent during the 20th century

Seems to me that the abstract has several contradictions in it. Not only that, the the satellite observations show an acceleration of the sea level rise.

Be interesting to see the papers refuting his points.

 

[Politico]

That's not true. Last time I went to the beach I definitely influenced the ocean a bit.

 

[Dubya]

In response to the barrage of recent posts by a certain member of this board, the vast majority of which reflect, and discuss nothing more than the output of computer models, I am going to post some recently published papers based on actual observation. The contrast is remarkable.

An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie

This paper, recently published in the Journal of Climate examined the world wide sea level change over the period of the 20th century and found that seal level rise was consistent over the 20th century with little if any acceleration in the rate of rise and that glacier mass lost was not less during the first half of the 20th century than during the second half.

So what you are telling me and all the people I put on this Earth is when I see Greenland melting, I shouldn't care about the facts.

That's very comforting and thanks again for a WGAF report of the facts.

 

[daveman]

In case of a discrepancy between reality and computer models, reality is wrong.

/AGW proponent

 

[Dubya]

In case of a discrepancy between reality and computer models, reality is wrong.

/AGW proponent

Computer models have consistently shown less warming than what happened in reality. The models just aren't good enough yet.

Let me give you a link to the Arctic Sea Ice blog, if you don't already have it!

Arctic Sea Ice

This is a damned good place where scientists talk to other scientists and people who aren't scientists can join in to create dialogue. If you are interested in other areas of science, you can find directions by asking those people who post there.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to promote another site, but if you want science that doesn't put up with dumbshit from morans (intentional), there is a way to find it.

I like arguing and I also like knowing the facts. I posted on WUWT, until I made the mistake of mentioning that free speech isn't free if you are getting paid to say it and there are legal complications for lying. The message was obviously more than they could handle at the moment.

 

[daveman]

In case of a discrepancy between reality and computer models, reality is wrong.

/AGW proponent

Computer models have consistently shown less warming than what happened in reality. The models just aren't good enough yet.

Let me give you a link to the Arctic Sea Ice blog, if you don't already have it!

Arctic Sea Ice

This is a damned good place where scientists talk to other scientists and people who aren't scientists can join in to create dialogue. If you are interested in other areas of science, you can find directions by asking those people who post there.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to promote another site, but if you want science that doesn't put up with dumbshit from morans (intentional), there is a way to find it.

I like arguing and I also like knowing the facts. I posted on WUWT, until I made the mistake of mentioning that free speech isn't free if you are getting paid to say it and there are legal complications for lying. The message was obviously more than they could handle at the moment.

The models suck, and anyone who alters data to fit the model, instead of altering the model to reflect the data, isn't interested in science, but only agenda.

 

[Missourian]

In case of a discrepancy between reality and computer models, reality is wrong.

/AGW proponent

Computer models have consistently shown less warming than what happened in reality. The models just aren't good enough yet.

So the models have shown less than zero warming?

The world stopped getting warmer almost 16 years ago, according to new data released last week.


The figures, which have triggered debate among climate scientists, reveal that from the beginning of 1997 until August 2012, there was no discernible rise in aggregate global temperatures.

Read more: Global warming stopped 16 years ago, reveals Met Office report quietly released... and here is the chart to prove it | Mail Online
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
​

 

[Mad Scientist]

In case of a discrepancy between reality and computer models, reality is wrong.

/AGW proponent

Computer models have consistently shown less warming than what happened in reality. The models just aren't good enough yet.

Let me give you a link to the Arctic Sea Ice blog, if you don't already have it!

Arctic Sea Ice

This is a damned good place where scientists talk to other scientists and people who aren't scientists can join in to create dialogue. If you are interested in other areas of science, you can find directions by asking those people who post there.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to promote another site, but if you want science that doesn't put up with dumbshit from morans (intentional), there is a way to find it.

I like arguing and I also like knowing the facts. I posted on WUWT, until I made the mistake of mentioning that free speech isn't free if you are getting paid to say it and there are legal complications for lying. The message was obviously more than they could handle at the moment.

That sh*t belongs in "Conspiracy Theories".

 

[TNHarley]

In response to the barrage of recent posts by a certain member of this board, the vast majority of which reflect, and discuss nothing more than the output of computer models, I am going to post some recently published papers based on actual observation. The contrast is remarkable.

An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie

This paper, recently published in the Journal of Climate examined the world wide sea level change over the period of the 20th century and found that seal level rise was consistent over the 20th century with little if any acceleration in the rate of rise and that glacier mass lost was not less during the first half of the 20th century than during the second half.

You are gonna have all the Al Gore butfuckers going ape shit on you!

 

[SSDD]

You are gonna have all the Al Gore butfuckers going ape shit on you!

They are no worse than hari krishnas, or wacked out bible thumpers. They are just pushing their religion.

 

[RollingThunder]

In case of a discrepancy between reality and computer models, reality is wrong.

/AGW proponent

Computer models have consistently shown less warming than what happened in reality. The models just aren't good enough yet.

Let me give you a link to the Arctic Sea Ice blog, if you don't already have it!

Arctic Sea Ice

This is a damned good place where scientists talk to other scientists and people who aren't scientists can join in to create dialogue. If you are interested in other areas of science, you can find directions by asking those people who post there.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to promote another site, but if you want science that doesn't put up with dumbshit from morans (intentional), there is a way to find it.

I like arguing and I also like knowing the facts. I posted on WUWT, until I made the mistake of mentioning that free speech isn't free if you are getting paid to say it and there are legal complications for lying. The message was obviously more than they could handle at the moment.

That sh*t belongs in "Conspiracy Theories".

No....you just belong in an insane asylum, you poor delusional retard.

 

[Trakar]

In response to the barrage of recent posts by a certain member of this board, the vast majority of which reflect, and discuss nothing more than the output of computer models, I am going to post some recently published papers based on actual observation. The contrast is remarkable.

An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie

I thought you said this paper was based on actual observation? And yet, as the authors clearly state in the paper's conclusion regarding one of the primary premises you are touting:

"...Because ocean observations are lacking for the first half of the 20th century, we use thermal expansion simulated by AOGCMs. Our central estimate of this contribution is somewhat larger than previous authors', because we make an adjustment for the long-term volcanic forcing on ocean heat content. After this adjustment, the ensemble-mean simulation of thermal expansion by AOGCMs including both natural and anthropogenic forcing agrees remarkably well an observational estimate for the last four decades in both the trend and the transient effect of volcanic eruptions..."

This paper, recently published in the Journal of Climate examined the world wide sea level change over the period of the 20th century and found that seal level rise was consistent over the 20th century with little if any acceleration in the rate of rise and that glacier mass lost was not less during the first half of the 20th century than during the second half.

Well, a simplistic reading of the abstract alone might well lead those with lessor understanding to believe so, but actually looking through the full paper leads one to a much clearer understanding of the author's investigations, scientific focus and most importantly, their findings!

A bit further into the paper's conclusion than the section I posted above, we find them telling us:

"...These natural upward fluctuations in sea-level happened to lead into the start of pronounced anthropogenic warming and the relative constancy of the rate for most of the century was partly due to greater negative volcanic forcing since the 1960s..."

I share and echo their concluding two sentences:

"...A complete explanation remains to be achieved. This is an important goal, because it would put us in a better position to judge the reliability of the models of the contributions, to attribute past GMSLR* to climate forcings (anthropogenic or natural), and thus to increase our confidence in projecting future sea-level rise."

 

[Dubya]

In case of a discrepancy between reality and computer models, reality is wrong.

/AGW proponent

Computer models have consistently shown less warming than what happened in reality. The models just aren't good enough yet.

So the models have shown less than zero warming?

The world stopped getting warmer almost 16 years ago, according to new data released last week.


The figures, which have triggered debate among climate scientists, reveal that from the beginning of 1997 until August 2012, there was no discernible rise in aggregate global temperatures.

Read more: Global warming stopped 16 years ago, reveals Met Office report quietly released... and here is the chart to prove it | Mail Online
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
​

What happened to arctic sea ice, glaciers and permafrost in the past 16 years?

It takes a lot of heat to convert 32 degree ice to 32 degree water and if you apply that same amount of heat afterwards, what is the temperature of that water?

You can pretend the world hasn't become warmer in the past 16 years, but what are the 16 warmest years on record? Just typing words on the internet doesn't make it reality!

Can't you people figure out your days of just lying to the world are over?

There are no computer models involved in collecting temperature data. That data has been collected and archived long before global warming concerns. The data has been collected by our Commerce Department and stored in North Carolina. Do you know where the data for arctic sea ice originates? Let me post you a link and maybe you can figure it out!

http://www7320.nrlssc.navy.mil/hyco...n2012123018_2013010500_035_arcticictn.001.gif

Do you see navy.mil in the address?

The world can't be something as simple as our navy wanting to know the thickness of sea ice, because they have nuclear submarines that may have to surface under that sea ice, it's got to be a giant conspiracy with even nations that export energy involved, just to screw you!

Everybody is involved in the same conspiracy, except you and we have nothing better to do than to lie to you constantly! The whole economy of the world is dedicated to that single purpose!

 

[Old Rocks]

For the people in the GOP to acknowledge reality now would mean they would have to acknowledge how many people in their party have been whores for the energy corperations. So all too many of them will stay in a state of denial until there is series of events that affect them personally.

Then they will blame the scientists because they did not warn them specifically about that one event.

 

[SSDD]

For the people in the GOP to acknowledge reality now would mean they would have to acknowledge how many people in their party have been whores for the energy corperations. So all too many of them will stay in a state of denial until there is series of events that affect them personally.

Then they will blame the scientists because they did not warn them specifically about that one event.

Funny you should mention party whores for big energy since your very own algore has recently the most well paid slut for big energy on the face of the earth.

 

[Old Rocks]

In case of a discrepancy between reality and computer models, reality is wrong.

/AGW proponent

Computer models have consistently shown less warming than what happened in reality. The models just aren't good enough yet.

So the models have shown less than zero warming?

The world stopped getting warmer almost 16 years ago, according to new data released last week.


The figures, which have triggered debate among climate scientists, reveal that from the beginning of 1997 until August 2012, there was no discernible rise in aggregate global temperatures.

Read more: Global warming stopped 16 years ago, reveals Met Office report quietly released... and here is the chart to prove it | Mail Online
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
​

Very nice cherry picking by the deniars. Of course, if one looks at the whole picture, one can see a very differant situation.

UAH Global Temperature Update for Dec. 2011: +0.13 deg. C « Roy Spencer, Ph. D.

And looking at a longer time scale;

How much has the global temperature risen in the last 100 years? | UCAR - University Corporation for Atmospheric Research

Note that there are periods when the temperature did not rise or fall that much, there are even periods of falling temperatures. That is natural variability superimposed on a rising temperature. The temperatures will continue to climb, and we will see ever increasing consequences from that climb.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

For the people in the GOP to acknowledge reality now would mean they would have to acknowledge how many people in their party have been whores for the energy corperations. So all too many of them will stay in a state of denial until there is series of events that affect them personally.

Then they will blame the scientists because they did not warn them specifically about that one event.

Current in the Balance

An Inconceivable Truth