The sea level at Duck, NC is rising 4.59 mm/yr with a 95% confidence interval of +/- 0.94 mm/yr based on monthly mean sea level data from 1978 to 2011 which is equivalent to a change of 1.51 feet in 100 years if the rate of rise remains constant.

http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_station.shtml?stnid=8651370

8/23/2013 5:58:50 PM

Quote :

"It would seriously be no laughing matter...if it was actually something to worry about. But it's not. It's just fear mongering, which several warmists have admitted is needed to get people to try and take man made global warming seriously. The sea level is increasing at a average rate of 2.77mm per year, and has been increasing since the last ice age. Wake me up when that number is bumped over a decimal place."

It seems this is mostly correct and fair, although there is a nugget or two of misinformation. The most recent IPCC report was apparently leaked, and here is where it talks about this:

http://www.stopgreensuicide.com/Ch13_sea-level_WG1AR5_SOD_Ch13_All_Final.pdf

The rate of 2.77 mm/yr is correct as far as I'm concerned. I don't really care about ^ that NC is a higher rate. Well, I would if I owned a house there but I don't and would not buy one either. This is from the report:

Quote :

"It is very likely that the rate of global mean sea level rise has increased during the last two centuries.[25] Paleo sea level data from many locations around the globe indicate low rates of sea level change during the [26] late Holocene (order tenths of mm yr–1) and modern rates (order mm yr–1) during the 20th century."

This is actual science, and it seems that both sides of the discussion are trying to distract people from it.

It's not true that sea level is rising at some natural background rate. The fact that TKE-Teg thinks it is shows that he's getting information from non-scientific sources. If you wanted to claim we don't know exactly how modern rates compared to pre-20th century then you would have a case. But that's not what's argued.

Still, it's rising primarily due to thermal expansion, even if ice melt is a major contributor. TKE-Teg is correct that the 50 cm or so rise in the 21st century isn't exactly apocalyptic, and the other side does like to ignore this fact. It is quite debatable how relevant sea-level rise is to us or our grandchildren. Our descendants in the year 3000 are a different story, but that's just not what we plan for.

[Edited on August 24, 2013 at 12:47 PM. Reason : ]

8/24/2013 12:46:27 PM

almost September and no hurricanes? Al gore must be pissed

8/26/2013 8:35:28 AM

just an fyi... when you bring up al gore during a discussion about global warming, you can't be taken seriously.

8/26/2013 9:11:50 AM

http://blogs.worldwatch.org/sustainabilitypossible/envisioning-future-sea-level-rise/

^Like minded people should really do something to make him shut up then. Hes running all over the globe pretending to be climate change Jesus and preaching the gospel.

Does more harm than good really. If he started a campaign against corndogs obesity in this country would take a sudden dramatic spike.

[Edited on August 26, 2013 at 9:34 AM. Reason : -]

8/26/2013 9:33:44 AM

the hurricane thing wasn't more hurricanes but stronger hurricanes when they do form. Wind patterns can prevent hurricanes from forming or help them form and the wind patters and steering currents in the north atlantic seem to be changing drastically over the last several years...due to climate change.

And thats how everything is. Very dynamic with multiple factors that could all be changing do to climate change but pulling one effect in multiple directions.

8/26/2013 12:20:22 PM

Is Al Gore a scientist? What does anything he says or does have anything to do with the fact of AGW?

8/26/2013 12:55:42 PM

i don't think i've heard Al Gore's name mentioned since the "controversy" around An Inconvenient Truth died off several years ago. Except by silly folks who still use him an argument against global warming.

[Edited on August 26, 2013 at 1:06 PM. Reason : ]

8/26/2013 1:05:50 PM

Is he not its public face?

8/26/2013 2:07:49 PM

not to me he's not. i've never cared for al gore.

8/26/2013 2:26:37 PM

Well plenty of conservatives dont care for Rush Limbaugh, yet plenty of folks think hes the official spokesperson.

Al Gore isnt a scientist, no.

Rush Limbaugh isnt a politician.

They both have huge influence on their respective audiences though, and like it or not when it comes to global warming hes one of the most influential players.

Which is unfortunate because he happens to be Al Gore.

8/26/2013 2:36:51 PM

its 2013, no one cares about al gore anymore

8/26/2013 2:37:38 PM

In your opinion maybe, but you cant escape the fact that he officially branded it in 2006/2007.

The damage hes done IMO is immeasurable.

8/26/2013 2:40:09 PM

disagree that he did more damage than good. the people who don't like him wouldn't have liked anyone and wouldn't have believed in climate change no matter what

8/26/2013 2:41:44 PM

True, but I was saying that his Al Goreness amplified skepticism.

Or rather focus was placed more on him than his message. Or as it was highlighted earlier "he isnt a scientist."

Well, yes. Thanks for giving that fodder in particular to skeptics. Obviously thats not the only fodder hes handed out.

8/26/2013 2:45:59 PM

http://www.climatenamechange.org

8/26/2013 7:34:16 PM

well, shit, the 97% claim is now dead >.<
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/03/cooks-97-consensus-disproven-by-a-new-paper-showing-major-math-errors/

Interesting takeaways:
The study was based upon a survey of papers where almost two thirds of the papers were invalidly disqualified outright.
The study used three different definitions of the consensus claim, thus inflating the number of matching papers.


But, I guess the authors of the new study must be paid off by the oil industry, right?

Quote :

"the hurricane thing wasn't more hurricanes but stronger hurricanes when they do form. Wind patterns can prevent hurricanes from forming or help them form and the wind patters and steering currents in the north atlantic seem to be changing drastically over the last several years...due to climate change."

Isn't that convenient? A non-specific claim that things might be different in some unspecified way... and the cause? Climate change, of course!

9/7/2013 7:42:37 PM

well climate had been pretty predictable in the past and it would be absurd to expect someone to know how a change will occur to such a complex system if this change has never happened before.

9/7/2013 8:06:28 PM

Quote :

" that most warming since 1950 is anthropogenic"

that's a pretty terrible definition

I was curious, here is Cook's abstract (i hadn't read it before because i had heard all of the reports that it was debunked)

Quote :

"We analyze the evolution of the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, examining 11?944 climate abstracts from 1991–2011 matching the topics 'global climate change' or 'global warming'. We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming. Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming. In a second phase of this study, we invited authors to rate their own papers. Compared to abstract ratings, a smaller percentage of self-rated papers expressed no position on AGW (35.5%). Among self-rated papers expressing a position on AGW, 97.2% endorsed the consensus. For both abstract ratings and authors' self-ratings, the percentage of endorsements among papers expressing a position on AGW marginally increased over time. Our analysis indicates that the number of papers rejecting the consensus on AGW is a vanishingly small proportion of the published research."

http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024024/article

Cook doesn't seem to be making the claims that aaronburro's link has an issue with. His 97% seems clearly qualified to only include articles that express an opinion, so I'm not sure why they have a problem with him excluding some papers. I'm also not sure why they are only looking at this post-1950 claim in the rebuttal or why they are saying that is the standard definition? It's not the definition Cook used.

[Edited on September 8, 2013 at 7:39 PM. Reason : .]

9/8/2013 7:31:10 PM

This is a recent link from Bjorn's feed. I hope that our readers now accept both Bjorn and mrfrog as truly scientific observers, and that there are people on both sides that go further than the claims merited by the science.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/10294082/Global-warming-No-actually-were-cooling-claim-scientists.html

Quote :

"The IPCC says it is “95 per cent confident” that global warming has been caused by humans - up from 90 per cent in 2007 – according to the draft report. "

I have actually recently been in, and won, this conversation with other scientists. That is, start with a scientifically minded person who believes that anthropogenic warming up until now is basically fact, and they can be convinced that the science doesn't say that. However, it basically is scientific fact that 2100 will see global average temperatures anonymously high due to anthropogenic factors.

That is why carbon emissions need a price, but this is a political, and not a scientific view. It is not simple to convince an educated man or woman of that. Depending on how the conversation goes, I would have to resign myself to the fact that I can not do that convincing.

[Edited on September 8, 2013 at 8:03 PM. Reason : ]

9/8/2013 8:02:46 PM

Quote :

"The sea level at Duck, NC is rising 4.59 mm/yr with a 95% confidence interval of +/- 0.94 mm/yr based on monthly mean sea level data from 1978 to 2011 which is equivalent to a change of 1.51 feet in 100 years if the rate of rise remains constant"

Duck, NC is a sandbar. While that's unfortunate, sandbars aren't permanent.

Quote :

"It's not true that sea level is rising at some natural background rate. The fact that TKE-Teg thinks it is shows that he's getting information from non-scientific sources. If you wanted to claim we don't know exactly how modern rates compared to pre-20th century then you would have a case. But that's not what's argued. Still, it's rising primarily due to thermal expansion, even if ice melt is a major contributor. TKE-Teg is correct that the 50 cm or so rise in the 21st century isn't exactly apocalyptic, and the other side does like to ignore this fact. It is quite debatable how relevant sea-level rise is to us or our grandchildren. Our descendants in the year 3000 are a different story, but that's just not what we plan for."

I mean, I'm aware of the thermal expansion aspect of things. But how is it not true that the sealevel has been rising the last few hundred years? How's that unscientific.

[Edited on September 9, 2013 at 1:12 PM. Reason : k]

9/9/2013 1:07:03 PM

If you believe the ocean's temperature has changed according to this profile:



Then you should believe that sea level rise has accelerated - because of thermal expansion.

9/9/2013 1:20:13 PM

Quote :

"Cook doesn't seem to be making the claims that aaronburro's link has an issue with. His 97% seems clearly qualified to only include articles that express an opinion, so I'm not sure why they have a problem with him excluding some papers."

In the context of saying "97% of papers that express an opinion say lah-de-frickin-dah-foo-bar", that's fine, but that is NOT how the study has been billed, and it's not how countless people have characterized it. Thus, by not speaking up and correcting the record, Cook is, at the least, complicit in furthering the bullshit claim of a "consensus" based on his work, when he knows that it's not 97% of the papers. Moreover, other attempts at showing the existence of a "consensus" have taken similar methods of excluding who groups of people in order to inflate the numbers. Such behaviour isn't science; it's ideology, bordering on religious fervor.

9/10/2013 10:22:18 PM

http://www.foxnews.com/science/2013/09/09/arctic-sea-ice-up-60-percent-in-2013/?test=latestnews

9/11/2013 7:05:39 AM

Great site for a quick look at arctic sea ice.

http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/

9/11/2013 10:01:27 AM

Quote :

"but that is NOT how the study has been billed, and it's not how countless people have characterized it."

that's not the fault of Cook et al, the abstract is incredibly clear. It also doesn't explain why the decided to make their response using a definition that Cook et al did not use.

[Edited on September 11, 2013 at 10:15 AM. Reason : .]

9/11/2013 10:14:39 AM

wait wait wait

2012 was a minimum. It appears to have been a minimum over 2007.
Why is anyone posting images comparing 2007 to 2013? Why not 2007 vs 2012? Why?

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/sep/14/arctic-sea-ice-smallest-extent


This is 2012

9/11/2013 10:23:30 AM

9/11/2013 4:05:22 PM

^ you forgot to include sea ice numbers from BEFORE the known maximum of the 70s. You know, to show the natural cycles. And you accuse others of being dishonest...

9/11/2013 11:44:02 PM

^^Why don't you talk about the Antarctic Ice as well? Since that ice mass has been continually increasing...

9/12/2013 8:23:30 AM

I don't think that was posted to be a full picture of sea ice, it looks like it was posted as a response to the Fox News article. And its a perfect response to the problem with the Fox News article.

9/12/2013 8:34:27 AM

Quote :

"^ you forgot to include sea ice numbers from BEFORE the known maximum of the 70s. You know, to show the natural cycles. And you accuse others of being dishonest..."

http://bprc.osu.edu/geo/publications/polyak_etal_seaice_QSR_10.pdf
2010 paper, cited by 114

9/12/2013 8:54:55 AM

Quote :

"I don't think that was posted to be a full picture of sea ice, it looks like it was posted as a response to the Fox News article. And its a perfect response to the problem with the Fox News article."

ohok, fair enough. I didn't read the FoxsNews article (why waste my time?)

9/12/2013 9:02:49 AM

http://www.foxnews.com/science/2013/09/12/climate-models-wildly-overestimated-global-warming-study-finds/

9/12/2013 4:07:50 PM

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics/2013/09/climate-denialists-stop-whole-science-laureate-nonsense-its-tracks/69408/

9/13/2013 6:55:36 PM

Quote :

"And its a perfect response to the problem with the Fox News article."

So, the perfect response to cherry-picked data is to give more cherry-picked data?


^ I won't read any article that starts out comparing an entirely unrelated group of people to Nazis in the headline.

9/15/2013 12:07:43 AM

Quote :

"Climate Denialists Stop This Whole 'Science Laureate' Nonsense in Its Tracks"

9/15/2013 2:06:21 AM

huh?

9/15/2013 12:54:48 PM

Quote :

" I won't read any article that starts out comparing an entirely unrelated group of people to Nazis in the headline."

My mind is full of fuck.

9/15/2013 1:12:55 PM

Nazis?

9/15/2013 1:20:38 PM

but seriously

Nazis?

9/15/2013 5:09:30 PM

I'm confused.

Where has anyone presented any evidence whatsoever that the scientific establishment has cherry picked data for Arctic sea ice? Either for 1970 to now, or the data before then, which clearly exists, considering how I just posted it.

9/15/2013 6:28:11 PM

^^&^^^ he wasn't very clear with his statement, however the use of the word denier WRT Global Warming was intentionally done so as to make us look bad, like Holocaust deniers. Ever since some people started denying the holocaust "denier" has had bad connotations.

However, calling AGW skeptics deniers isn't calling them Nazis, b/c I doubt you would find any Nazis that denied the holocaust took place.

9/16/2013 12:38:48 PM

denier just means people who deny something, no reasonable person is assuming nazis

9/16/2013 12:41:40 PM

so aaronburro is claiming that using the term "denier" is akin to calling someone a nazi?

9/16/2013 1:44:09 PM

Quote :

"^^&^^^ he wasn't very clear with his statement, however the use of the word denier WRT Global Warming was intentionally done so as to make us look bad, like Holocaust deniers. Ever since some people started denying the holocaust "denier" has had bad connotations. However, calling AGW skeptics deniers isn't calling them Nazis, b/c I doubt you would find any Nazis that denied the holocaust took place."

Then "AWG denier" seems to be accurate.

9/16/2013 2:21:32 PM

Quote :

"so aaronburro is claiming that using the term "denier" is akin to calling someone a nazi?"

flawed reasoning, but yes I think so.

9/17/2013 12:41:24 PM

http://www.wral.com/what-95-certainty-of-warming-means-to-scientists/12919219/

Quote :

"Top scientists from a variety of fields say they are about as certain that global warming is a real, man-made threat as they are that cigarettes kill. They are as sure about climate change as they are about the age of the universe. They say they are more certain about climate change than they are that vitamins make you healthy or that dioxin in Superfund sites is dangerous. They'll even put a number on how certain they are about climate change. But that number isn't 100 percent. It's 95 percent. And for some non-scientists, that's just not good enough. There's a mismatch between what scientists say about how certain they are and what the general public thinks the experts mean, experts say... ... "

9/24/2013 2:28:37 PM

Quote :

"They are as sure about climate change as they are about the age of the universe."

but that's wrong!

9/24/2013 3:36:19 PM

o.O?

9/24/2013 3:47:59 PM