Sea level rise linking to global warming

[konradv]

YAAAAAAAWWWWWWNNNN Wake me up when this crisis proves to be a false alarm just like the whole string of crises that go back to the founding date of the green movement.

The oceans are not acidifying. They are becoming ever so slightly more neutral. The oceans are a buffered solution that can not become acidic. Further, the present PH is well within the natural norms and paleohistory tells us that life in the oceans thrived in a more neutral ocan.

No one said the oceans were becoming acidic, as in below 7.0, just MORE acidic as in the difference between 8.0 and 7.9. If you don't acknowledge that one is more acidic than the other despite their both being above 7.0, then you're just playing with words and not using standard scientific constructs, further putting into doubt your dredentials and that you know what you're talking about.

A Warmer talking about "standard scientific constructs"! How cute!!

A denier not knowing what that means! How common!

 

[Old Rocks]

yet another staggering failure of peer review! M Mann has produce yet another Hockey Stick graph, and to make things even worse he is STILL using the upsidedown Tiljander cores!

how is the ordinary layperson supposed to know that papers like these are contaminated with the voodoo science of Mann and the rest of the hockey team when peer review wont even stop the same errors from being used time after time?

Maybe because they aren't errors.

Hell, they've now resorted to citing advocacy groups like Greenpeace as "peer reviewed'.

As everybody now knows, the headlines from IPCC WGIII report on renewable energy appear to have been written by Greenpeace. When the Summary for Policy Makers was published last month, I was one of many who noted the role of Greenpeace, and the extent to which the SPM's authors were involved in the renewable energy industry. Steve McIntyre's discovery has caused further criticism of the IPCC's letting such overt agendas near its evidence-making for policy-makers, even from the green camp, albeit only because it is such bad PR. But there is yet more to this story.

The European Renewable Energy Council (EREC), who co-authored the report with Greenpeace, claims to be an 'umbrella organisation of the European renewable energy industry, trade and research associations' of the renewable sectors. 'EREC represents an industry with an annual turnover of EUR 70 billion and providing over 550.000 jobs'. They consist of a number of partner organisations, each representing one technology sector within renewable energy, such as wind, geothermal and solar, and each of these has as many as hundreds of members. As Mark Lynas points out, then, it is no surprise that the EREC 'are of course enthusiasts for renewable energy’s prospects because they make money from selling wind turbines and solar panels, so hardly count as an unbiased source'.

- Bishop Hill blog - Ideological money*laundering

Now Oddie, while the blog may back up you dumb ass viewpoint, it is hardly considered evidence.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

No one said the oceans were becoming acidic, as in below 7.0, just MORE acidic as in the difference between 8.0 and 7.9. If you don't acknowledge that one is more acidic than the other despite their both being above 7.0, then you're just playing with words and not using standard scientific constructs, further putting into doubt your dredentials and that you know what you're talking about.

A Warmer talking about "standard scientific constructs"! How cute!!

A denier not knowing what that means! How common!

I love it when you kids use big words...like "hypothesis".

Can you state your hypothesis, Dear?

 

[Oddball]

yet another staggering failure of peer review! M Mann has produce yet another Hockey Stick graph, and to make things even worse he is STILL using the upsidedown Tiljander cores!

how is the ordinary layperson supposed to know that papers like these are contaminated with the voodoo science of Mann and the rest of the hockey team when peer review wont even stop the same errors from being used time after time?

Maybe because they aren't errors.

Hell, they've now resorted to citing advocacy groups like Greenpeace as "peer reviewed'.

As everybody now knows, the headlines from IPCC WGIII report on renewable energy appear to have been written by Greenpeace. When the Summary for Policy Makers was published last month, I was one of many who noted the role of Greenpeace, and the extent to which the SPM's authors were involved in the renewable energy industry. Steve McIntyre's discovery has caused further criticism of the IPCC's letting such overt agendas near its evidence-making for policy-makers, even from the green camp, albeit only because it is such bad PR. But there is yet more to this story.

The European Renewable Energy Council (EREC), who co-authored the report with Greenpeace, claims to be an 'umbrella organisation of the European renewable energy industry, trade and research associations' of the renewable sectors. 'EREC represents an industry with an annual turnover of EUR 70 billion and providing over 550.000 jobs'. They consist of a number of partner organisations, each representing one technology sector within renewable energy, such as wind, geothermal and solar, and each of these has as many as hundreds of members. As Mark Lynas points out, then, it is no surprise that the EREC 'are of course enthusiasts for renewable energy’s prospects because they make money from selling wind turbines and solar panels, so hardly count as an unbiased source'.

- Bishop Hill blog - Ideological money*laundering

Now Oddie, while the blog may back up you dumb ass viewpoint, it is hardly considered evidence.

There are plenty of links to evidence in that piece.

Not that I'd expect a hardened Malthusian declinist like you to actually look at data which contravenes the fundamentalist teachings of your doomsday cult.

 

[daveman]

yet another staggering failure of peer review! M Mann has produce yet another Hockey Stick graph, and to make things even worse he is STILL using the upsidedown Tiljander cores!

how is the ordinary layperson supposed to know that papers like these are contaminated with the voodoo science of Mann and the rest of the hockey team when peer review wont even stop the same errors from being used time after time?

Maybe because they aren't errors.

Hell, they've now resorted to citing advocacy groups like Greenpeace as "peer reviewed'.

As everybody now knows, the headlines from IPCC WGIII report on renewable energy appear to have been written by Greenpeace. When the Summary for Policy Makers was published last month, I was one of many who noted the role of Greenpeace, and the extent to which the SPM's authors were involved in the renewable energy industry. Steve McIntyre's discovery has caused further criticism of the IPCC's letting such overt agendas near its evidence-making for policy-makers, even from the green camp, albeit only because it is such bad PR. But there is yet more to this story.

The European Renewable Energy Council (EREC), who co-authored the report with Greenpeace, claims to be an 'umbrella organisation of the European renewable energy industry, trade and research associations' of the renewable sectors. 'EREC represents an industry with an annual turnover of EUR 70 billion and providing over 550.000 jobs'. They consist of a number of partner organisations, each representing one technology sector within renewable energy, such as wind, geothermal and solar, and each of these has as many as hundreds of members. As Mark Lynas points out, then, it is no surprise that the EREC 'are of course enthusiasts for renewable energy’s prospects because they make money from selling wind turbines and solar panels, so hardly count as an unbiased source'.

- Bishop Hill blog - Ideological money*laundering

Now Oddie, while the blog may back up you dumb ass viewpoint, it is hardly considered evidence.

Put some pants on, Roxy.

 

[IanC]

yet another staggering failure of peer review! M Mann has produce yet another Hockey Stick graph, and to make things even worse he is STILL using the upsidedown Tiljander cores!

how is the ordinary layperson supposed to know that papers like these are contaminated with the voodoo science of Mann and the rest of the hockey team when peer review wont even stop the same errors from being used time after time?

No link, no credibility. Just a bs statement.

will you publically denounce Mann and his misuse of the Tiljander cores if I go through the bother of putting up the links?

 

[daveman]

yet another staggering failure of peer review! M Mann has produce yet another Hockey Stick graph, and to make things even worse he is STILL using the upsidedown Tiljander cores!

how is the ordinary layperson supposed to know that papers like these are contaminated with the voodoo science of Mann and the rest of the hockey team when peer review wont even stop the same errors from being used time after time?

No link, no credibility. Just a bs statement.

will you publically denounce Mann and his misuse of the Tiljander cores if I go through the bother of putting up the links?

Never! Damn the truth -- full meme ahead!

 

[CrusaderFrank]

No one said the oceans were becoming acidic, as in below 7.0, just MORE acidic as in the difference between 8.0 and 7.9. If you don't acknowledge that one is more acidic than the other despite their both being above 7.0, then you're just playing with words and not using standard scientific constructs, further putting into doubt your dredentials and that you know what you're talking about.

A Warmer talking about "standard scientific constructs"! How cute!!

A denier not knowing what that means! How common!

Want to watch me make an idiot of you again? Please state your hypothesis, Dear.

 

[westwall]

YAAAAAAAWWWWWWNNNN Wake me up when this crisis proves to be a false alarm just like the whole string of crises that go back to the founding date of the green movement.

The oceans are not acidifying. They are becoming ever so slightly more neutral. The oceans are a buffered solution that can not become acidic. Further, the present PH is well within the natural norms and paleohistory tells us that life in the oceans thrived in a more neutral ocan.

No one said the oceans were becoming acidic, as in below 7.0, just MORE acidic as in the difference between 8.0 and 7.9. If you don't acknowledge that one is more acidic than the other despite their both being above 7.0, then you're just playing with words and not using standard scientific constructs, further putting into doubt your dredentials and that you know what you're talking about.

And in experiments done to determine what levels are "safe" they have not been able to acidify the water enough to harm the organisms involved. In fact quite the opposite occured, the organisms thrived in a more acidic environment.


From your favourite source wiki...

In shallower waters, it's undeniable that increased CO2 levels result in a decreased oceanic pH, which has a profound negative effect on corals.[21] Experiments suggest it is also very harmful to calcifying plankton.[22] However, the strong acids used to simulate the natural increase in acidity which would result from elevated CO2 concentrations may have given misleading results, and the most recent evidence is that coccolithophores (E. huxleyi at least) become more, not less, calcified and abundant in acidic waters.[23] Interestingly, no change in the distribution of calcareous nanoplankton such as the coccolithophores can be attributed to acidification during the PETM.[23] Acidification did lead to an abundance of heavily calcified algae[24] and weakly calcified forams.[25]



Paleocene

 

[RollingThunder]

Here's some new peer reviewed scientific research on the rising sea levels that has just been published. Sea levels are rising faster now due to AGW than they have anytime in at least the last two thousand years, and probably much longer.

Sea-level rise in two millennia
June 23, 2011
(excerpts)

Showing a consistent link between changes in global mean surface temperature and sea level, the rate of sea level rise along the U.S. Atlantic coast is greater now than at any time in the past 2,000 years.

That conclusion comes from research conducted by Andrew Kemp of Yale University and others from various institutions.

The findings are published in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS).

Sea-level stable

The team found that sea level was relatively stable from 200 BC to 1,000 AD.

Then in the 11th century, sea level rose by about half a millimetre each year for 400 years, linked with a warm climate period known as the Medieval Climate Anomaly.

Then there was a second period of stable sea level during a cooler period called the Little Ice Age. It persisted until the late 19th century.

Since the late 19th century, sea level has risen by more than 2 millimetres per year on average, the steepest rate for more than 2,100 years.

 

[IanC]

why another thread? Chris posted the same thing

 

[IanC]

it funny how the hockey team tried to write off the MWP as a regional effect but now they are taking a local measurement from a changeable environment and calling it global.

so if you are supporting this paper RollingThunder that means you are supporting Mann and his use of upsidedown proxies as well.

a question for the readers. if a proxy has so little information within it that it fits better upsidedown, should it be used at all? even right side up? the Tiljander cores are bad but the bristlecones and foxtails are just as bad. and Tiljander is not the only core Mann has used upsidedown.

 

[wirebender]

it funny how the hockey team tried to write off the MWP as a regional effect but now they are taking a local measurement from a changeable environment and calling it global.

Not just a changeable environment, but one of the most changeable environments to be found on the east coast.

As with the hockey stick, he cut off some of the data as far back as 1000AD because to use the more modern data would have invalidated his original hypothesis.

 

[skookerasbil]

invented science fAiL

( See "FRAUD" thread)

 

[konradv]

( See "FRAUD" thread)

Got your own thread, eh?

 

[westwall]

Oh looky it's Mann cherry picking data yet again! blunder you fool! You've fallen for the same old crapola yet again! Turns out the world sea level was calculated by these two frauds based on TWO sediment samples from one location! That's a hoot!

You claim this as peer reviewed science? Really?

Dude, that's pathetic! try learning something, anything so you don't look like a complete ass!

PIK report: “Sea level rising fastest in 2000 years” turns out to be a quack! Data shows no change!

Sea levels are now rising faster than at any time in the last 2000 years claims a new hockey stick manufactured by Michael Mann and Stefan Rahmstorf. But that claim has already turned out to be bogus.

As nobody cares much about so-called climate change anymore, the Potsdam Institute For Climate Impact Research (PIK) had to come up with another scare story: rapidly rising sea levels. That claim is supported by a whopping 2 (cherry-picked) North Carolina coastal sediment cores, which the authors claim reflect sea level behavior for the entire globe. Other scientists have already poured cold water on the paper, like Jens Schröter of the Alfred Wegener Institute, who says Mann’s and Rahmstorf’s paper is “unsuitable for making predictions”.

The opposite is the reality

The new predictions of catastrophe are not based on actual MEASUREMENTS. Actual measurements made by coastal tide gauges and satellites show the opposite is likely happening, i.e. sea level rise is actually decelerating. Presented are 7 datasets that contradict the latest Mannian hockey-stick fantasy.

(1) The US-Coastal Journal reports that sea level rise rate is clearly slowing down – based on tide gauge measurements, full publication here:


HOUSTON, J.R. and DEAN, R.G., 2011. Sea-level acceleration based on U.S. tide gauges and extensions of previous
global-gauge analyses. Journal of Coastal Research, 27(3), 409–417. West Palm Beach (Florida), ISSN 0749-0208.
Without sea-level acceleration, the 20th-century sea-level trend of 1.7 mm/y would produce a rise of only approximately
0.15 m from 2010 to 2100; therefore, sea-level acceleration is a critical component of projected sea-level rise. To determine
this acceleration, we analyze monthly-averaged records for 57 U.S. tide gauges in the Permanent Service for Mean Sea
Level (PSMSL) data base that have lengths of 60–156 years. Least-squares quadratic analysis of each of the 57 records
are performed to quantify accelerations, and 25 gauge records having data spanning from 1930 to 2010 are analyzed. In
both cases we obtain small average sea-level decelerations. To compare these results with worldwide data, we extend the
analysis of Douglas (1992) by an additional 25 years and analyze revised data of Church and White (2006) from 1930 to
2007 and also obtain small sea-level decelerations similar to those we obtain from U.S. gauge records.



http://www.eike-klima-energie.eu/fi...Meerespiegel_2000/MSp.J.Coast.Res.2011May.pdf

Leading German Meteorologist: Michael Mann’s Sea Level Story Is “A Quack”

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Mann's tree rings say that the sea level has risen and it's Sarah Palin's fault.

 

[percysunshine]

Here's some new peer reviewed scientific research on the rising sea levels that has just been published. Sea levels are rising faster now due to AGW than they have anytime in at least the last two thousand years, and probably much longer.

Sea-level rise in two millennia
June 23, 2011
(excerpts)

Showing a consistent link between changes in global mean surface temperature and sea level, the rate of sea level rise along the U.S. Atlantic coast is greater now than at any time in the past 2,000 years.

That conclusion comes from research conducted by Andrew Kemp of Yale University and others from various institutions.

The findings are published in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS).

Sea-level stable

The team found that sea level was relatively stable from 200 BC to 1,000 AD.

Then in the 11th century, sea level rose by about half a millimetre each year for 400 years, linked with a warm climate period known as the Medieval Climate Anomaly.

Then there was a second period of stable sea level during a cooler period called the Little Ice Age. It persisted until the late 19th century.

Since the late 19th century, sea level has risen by more than 2 millimetres per year on average, the steepest rate for more than 2,100 years.

Geologic eras show that we are at a sea level high stand today. When the ocean drops by 500 feet, how will you spin it?

 

[RollingThunder]

Here's some scientific research that was published in Science about four years ago that also showed an accelerating rise in sea levels.

Sea levels 'rising faster than predicted'
Nature
1 February 2007
(excerpts)

Climate factors such as sea-level rise may be changing more rapidly than predicted, according to a new survey of global trends since 1990. The figures suggest that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which publishes a fresh assessment of climate change tomorrow, may have previously underestimated the changes that lie ahead. Researchers led by Stefan Rahmstorf of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research in Germany studied the most recent data for atmospheric carbon dioxide, global temperatures and sea level. They calculate that carbon dioxide levels are rising in line with predictions, but that temperatures are rising in line with the upper limit predicted by the IPCC, and that sea-level rises are on the very edge of the worst-case predictions of climate models.

Satellite data show that, since the early 1990s, sea levels have been rising by an average of 3.3 millimetres per year. The IPCC's Third Assessment Report, published in 2001, predicted that the annual rise was likely to be around 2 millimetres. Global average temperatures have risen by 0.33 °C since 1990, which is towards the upper limit of the IPCC's predictions of the rate of global warming. The rise in carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere has almost exactly followed its predicted trajectory.

"We wanted to compile and document the most recent climate observations, mainly with those in mind who claim that the IPCC has been exaggerating the climate problem. The data so far suggest that this is simply not the case. If anything, the IPCC has been conservative," Rahmstorf says.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Here's some scientific research that was published in Science about four years ago that also showed an accelerating rise in sea levels.

Sea levels 'rising faster than predicted'
Nature
1 February 2007
(excerpts)

Climate factors such as sea-level rise may be changing more rapidly than predicted, according to a new survey of global trends since 1990. The figures suggest that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which publishes a fresh assessment of climate change tomorrow, may have previously underestimated the changes that lie ahead. Researchers led by Stefan Rahmstorf of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research in Germany studied the most recent data for atmospheric carbon dioxide, global temperatures and sea level. They calculate that carbon dioxide levels are rising in line with predictions, but that temperatures are rising in line with the upper limit predicted by the IPCC, and that sea-level rises are on the very edge of the worst-case predictions of climate models.

Satellite data show that, since the early 1990s, sea levels have been rising by an average of 3.3 millimetres per year. The IPCC's Third Assessment Report, published in 2001, predicted that the annual rise was likely to be around 2 millimetres. Global average temperatures have risen by 0.33 °C since 1990, which is towards the upper limit of the IPCC's predictions of the rate of global warming. The rise in carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere has almost exactly followed its predicted trajectory.

"We wanted to compile and document the most recent climate observations, mainly with those in mind who claim that the IPCC has been exaggerating the climate problem. The data so far suggest that this is simply not the case. If anything, the IPCC has been conservative," Rahmstorf says.

IPCC sounds familiar...where did I hear them before?

Ah yes

"...one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy." -- IPCC official policy

Read more: UN IPCC Official Admits 'We Redistribute World's Wealth By Climate Policy' | NewsBusters.org