Climate Science Glossary

Term Lookup

Enter a term in the search box to find its definition.


Use the controls in the far right panel to increase or decrease the number of terms automatically displayed (or to completely turn that feature off).

Term Lookup


All IPCC definitions taken from Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Working Group I Contribution to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Annex I, Glossary, pp. 941-954. Cambridge University Press.

Home Arguments Software Resources Comments The Consensus Project Translations About Support

Twitter Facebook YouTube Pinterest MeWe

RSS Posts RSS Comments Email Subscribe

Climate's changed before
It's the sun
It's not bad
There is no consensus
It's cooling
Models are unreliable
Temp record is unreliable
Animals and plants can adapt
It hasn't warmed since 1998
Antarctica is gaining ice
View All Arguments...

New? Register here
Forgot your password?

Latest Posts


How much is sea level rising?

What the science says...

Select a level... Basic Intermediate

A variety of different measurements find steadily rising sea levels over the past century.

Climate Myth...

Sea level rise is exaggerated

"We are told sea level is rising and will soon swamp all of our cities. Everybody knows that the Pacific island of Tuvalu is sinking. ...

Around 1990 it became obvious the local tide-gauge did not agree - there was no evidence of 'sinking.' So scientists at Flinders University, Adelaide, set up new, modern, tide-gauges in 12 Pacific islands.

Recently, the whole project was abandoned as there was no sign of a change in sea level at any of the 12 islands for the past 16 years." Vincent Gray).

Gavin Schmidt investigated the claim that tide gauges on islands in the Pacific Ocean show no sea level rise and found that the data show a rising sea level trend at every single station.  But what about global sea level rise?

Sea level rises as ice on land melts and as warming ocean waters expand. As well as being a threat to coastal habitation and environments, sea level rise corroborates other evidence of global warming 

The blue line in the graph below clearly shows sea level as rising, while the upward curve suggests sea level is rising faster as time goes on. The upward curve agrees with global temperature trends and with the accelerating melting of ice in Greenland and other places.

Because sea level behavior is such an important signal for tracking climate change, skeptics seize on the sea level record in an effort to cast doubt on this evidence. Sea level bounces up and down slightly from year to year so it's possible to cherry-pick data falsely suggesting the overall trend is flat, falling or linear. You can try this yourself. Starting with two closely spaced data points on the graph below, lay a straight-edge between them and notice how for a short period of time you can create almost any slope you prefer, simply by being selective about what data points you use. Now choose data points farther apart. Notice that as your selected data points cover more time, the more your mini-graph reflects the big picture. The lesson? Always look at all the data, don't be fooled by selective presentations.

graph from Church (2008)

Other skeptic arguments about sea level concern the validity of observations, obtained via tide gauges and more recently satellite altimeter observations.

Tide gauges must take into account changes in the height of land itself caused by local geologic processes, a favorite distraction for skeptics to highlight. Not surprisingly, scientists measuring sea level with tide gauges are aware of and compensate for these factors. Confounding influences are accounted for in measurements and while they leave some noise in the record they cannot account for the observed upward trend.

Various technical criticisms are mounted against satellite altimeter measurements by skeptics. Indeed, deriving millimeter-level accuracy from orbit is a stunning technical feat so it's not hard to understand why some people find such an accomplishment unbelievable. In reality, researchers demonstrate this height measurement technique's accuracy to be within 1mm/year. Most importantly there is no form of residual error that could falsely produce the upward trend in observations. 

As can be seen in an inset of the graph above, tide gauge and satellite altimeter measurements track each other with remarkable similarity. These two independent systems mutually support the observed trend in sea level. If an argument depends on skipping certain observations or emphasizes uncertainty while ignoring an obvious trend, that's a clue you're being steered as opposed to informed. Don't be mislead by only a carefully-selected portion of the available evidence being disclosed.

Current sea level rise is after all not exaggerated, in fact the opposite case is more plausible. Observational data and changing conditions in such places as Greenland suggest if there's a real problem here it's underestimation of future sea level rise. IPCC synthesis reports offer conservative projections of sea level increase based on assumptions about future behavior of ice sheets and glaciers, leading to estimates of sea level roughly following a linear upward trend mimicking that of recent decades. In point of fact, observed sea level rise is already above IPCC projections and strongly hints at acceleration while at the same time it appears the mass balance of continental ice envisioned by the IPCC is overly optimistic (Rahmstorf 2010).

Basic rebuttal written by doug_bostrom

Update July 2015:

Here is a related lecture-video from Denial101x - Making Sense of Climate Science Denial

This rebuttal was updated by Judith Matz on September 13, 2021 to replace broken links. The updates are a result of our call for help published in May 2021.

Last updated on 5 July 2015 by pattimer. View Archives

Printable Version  |  Offline PDF Version  |  Link to this page

Argument Feedback

Please use this form to let us know about suggested updates to this rebuttal.

Further viewing


Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  Next

Comments 151 to 200 out of 316:

  1. "Looking at tidal guages and satillites, both at this time show a reduction in sea level rise. That puts the Von Schuckmann paper in question because for them to be correct, we should be seeing a steady if not increasing rate of rise." That's not right Camburn, check out the graph I provided @ 143 Von Schuckmann & Le Traon measure an increase in ocean heat down to 1500 metres over the 2005-2010 period, along with a corresponding rise in steric sea level. It's as one would expect.
  2. Rob: Envisat, which covers a larger area of the globe, does not agree with your graph, and when one adds the current data the GMSL is unchanged since 2004. Before you accuse me of cherry picking a satallite, the reason I use Envisat is because it covers more surface area and should be a better metric of what is going on. My question once again is, how is this possible? Is Evistat not correct? If it isn't, wouldn't someone that works there know and written about it?
  3. Re, "Envisat, which covers a larger area of the globe.." Please back up this assertion, you have made it several times now, and while it may be true, and if it is, please demonstrate quantitatively why and how this 'revelation' is important in the face of a myriad of other data. And please respond to the points made about OHC and sea level rise in the latest von Shuckmann paper. Do you deny that too? You are doing a sterling job of missing the point, and this time continuing to be in denial about sea-level rise.
  4. Re, "....and when one adds the current data the GMSL is unchanged since 2004.' Please quantify this statement and compare it with analysis of data from other observation platforms. Thanks.
  5. Whilst chasing down Camburn's unsubstantiated claims, I came across this comment on the Aviso website: "On the other hand the drift obtained with the Envisat MSL is more significant, approximately 0.45 mm/year. This is currently being investigated and could possibly be explained by stability problems for the correction of the wet troposphere and instrument corrections." They also say elsewhere on the page that: "During the first year (cycles 9 to 22) Envisat MSL global trend is not consistent to other flying satellites. This unexplained behavior is under investigation. Results plotted here are obtained after cycle 22 (beginning of 2004)." So while the Envisat coverage is better, north of 66 N and S, it appears that the data have unresolved issues. It would thus be unwise to place emphasis on these Envisat sea-level data until the drift issues have been identified and corrected. Now this is interesting, a so-called 'skeptic' identified those Envisat data and believed the results at face value, likely because those data told him what he wanted to believe. That is not skepticism, it is confirmation bias folks. And this is all ignoring the foolhardiness of looking at such short periods of time that are not statistically significant.
  6. Albatross: The Von Schuckman paper is one of the reasons I am questioning the results of the Evistat satillite. As I said, there is no physical reason for sea level to have been virtually flat for the past 6-7 years. I don't know how to post pictures. I have tried, but can't seem to get that to work yet. So, either there is someone wrong with the Evistat data, which I have not read about, or there is something that we don't understand.
  7. Albatross: Yep.....confirmation of bias, to question if the posted results are correct. That is really some bias. Thanks for the info on Envisat. They indiate that the results after cycle 22 should be viable...right? Are they?
  8. Albatross: Thank you for the link. After reading it, it appears that the error bars are so large for all satillite data at this point that it is unrealiable. "This demonstrates in two independent ways the reliability of the global MSL evolution deduced from the Topex and Jason-1 altimetry missions. Nevertheless, this budget should be refined further in order to estimate the impact of error sources which have not yet been taken into account such as the contribution of the ocean covered by ice and eventually the impact of very long ocean tide periods (18.6 years)." Certainly changes my view on the valilidity of salillite measurements of GMSL.
  9. Camburn, I doubt very much had those Envisat data been showing a faster rate of increase in the GMSL than the other products that you would have been so quick and eager to post them here. "So, either there is someone wrong with the Evistat data" Indeed there does appear to be an issue with those data. Please follow and read the link provided above. The drift issue (see below) applies to the data after 2004. As clearly shown in my previous post, the Envisat sea-level data have issues at this time and should not be considered reliable. [Source]
  10. Data from von Suckmann and Le Traon (2011), experts in this field, clearly contradict your claims Camburn: "Our revised estimation of GOIs [Global Ocean Indicators] 25 indicates a clear increase of global ocean heat content and steric height. Uncertainty estimations due to the data handling reveal that this increase is significant during the years 2005–2010 (this does not mean, of course, that these are long term trends). Global ocean heat content changes during this period account for 0.55±0.1W m−2 and global steric rise amounts to 0.69±0.14 mmyr−1." The steric rise has decreased recently, but it is certainly not "virtually flat" (whatever that is supposed to mean-- anything you want I guess).
  11. Camburn @158, "it appears that the error bars are so large for all satillite data at this point that it is unrealiable." Argumentum ad absurdum. Also, intriguing that you deduce that when their first line states: "This demonstrates in two independent ways the reliability of the global MSL evolution deduced from the Topex and Jason-1 altimetry missions." Your claim might apply to the Envisat data, but not the other satellite data. Note the excellent agreement between those data and the global tide gauge data shown in the post @151.

    [DB] I appreciate the passion and conviction, but you are no doubt aware that all efforts to convince your primary target will bear no fruit.

  12. Camburn - It should be clear to you by now that Envisat data is still being calibrated, and is not currently a reliable data set. As opposed to the Jason/TOPEX data, which have much smaller drifts when calibrated against tide gauge data. Hence the Envisat dataset is not (yet) a basis for disputing sea level rise. I believe that over the next few years the various instrumental issues with Envisat will be identified and corrected for, much as satellite surface temperature records have been. As was noted earlier by another poster, though, I suspect you presented the Envisat data as something that agreed with your preconceptions. You did not take sufficient care to ensure that this was quality data, and certainly did not take into consideration the statistical significance of it given the short timeline. You need to pay more attention to the possibility of confirmation bias.
  13. Don't blame poor Camburn. He's just echoing the siren calls of the great minds of denialism skepticism, like that Arctic ice prognosticator of prognosticators Steven Goddard. Goddard has a post about how the evil scientists that launched and run all of these nefarious, one-world-government-oriented satellites have hidden the decline in sea level rise by using a hard-to-notice color (yellow) for the Envisat data on their graphs. Evil, yellow-wielding scientists! Curse them and their foul color choices! He fixed that on his blog (by changing the one he likes, Envisat, to blue, while one he doesn't like, Jason-1, to the yellow that was originally assigned to Envisat... I don't know why he didn't do away with yellow completely and use black, maroon, dark green, dark gray, or any other clearly visible color -- pot, meet kettle kind of thing): Of course, the fact that none of them seem to notice how closely all of the other data sets agree, while Envisat is a clear outlier that is off throughout its existence, doesn't appear to enter their observations or logic at any point. It couldn't possibly be that the Envisat data as currently badly calibrated, could it? I can see the post a year from now, when they sort it out and the cry becomes that they "homogenized" the data to look the way they want it to. You can't win with some people (some = those with a serious confirmation bias wired into their nervous systems).
  14. I don't read Mr. Goodards blog, and I, up till a few weeks ago, have very seldom read Wattsup blog. As far as denialist, you will have to do better than that.
  15. Camburn - Envisat has a drift problem as pointed out by Albatross @ 159, & Sphaerica @ 163, whereas ARGO, JASON, TOPEX (now defunct) and tide gauges all show rising sea level trends. Von Schuckmann and Le Traon in fact use the AVISO satellite altimetry data to validate their 'box-averaging' method. So any contradiction is purely imagined on your part. Is sea level rising long-term? Yes. But look at the satellite, tide gauge and ARGO data - there is considerable year-to-year variability. What do you think that means?
  16. Camburn, when the data for Jason and Envisat are compared over the same latitudes and over areas deeper than 1000 meters, Envisat still shows a negative trend relative to Jason for Mean Sea Level, along with much larger semi-annual fluctuations in sea level (see the first graph for "Cross comparison of performances".) At the same time, Envisat is known to have major instrument problems (from the same link):
    "USO anomaly: In February 2006, the RA-2 Ultra Stable Oscillator (USO) clock frequency underwent, for an unknown reason, a strong change of behavior. The anomaly consists in a bias, superposed with an oscillating signal with an orbital period. Auxiliary files are distributed since mid 2006 allowing the users to correct the range from this anomaly. The anomaly periods are detailed beside Loss of the S-Band: On the 17 January 2008, a drop of the RA2 S-band transmission power occurred. There is thus no more dual frequency altimeter both in Side A and Side B"
    Further, Jason is known to agree with buoy data, while Envisat disagrees. This is true not only for sea level, but also for wave height:
    "Collocation criteria of 50 km and 30 min yield 3452 and 2157 collocations for Jason-1 and Envisat, respectively. Jason-1 is found to be in no need of correction, performing well throughout the range of wave heights, although it is notably noisier than Envisat. An overall RMS difference between Jason-1 and buoy data of 0.227 m is found. Envisat has a tendency to overestimate low Hs and underestimate high Hs. A linear correction reduces the RMS difference by 7%, from 0.219 to 0.203 m."
    The logical conclusion is that the difference between Envisat and Jason is due to instrumental error in Envisat.
  17. To all: I have no problem that Envisat has errors. IF you note, on my original post, I pointed out that the rise in Envisat exceeded the rise of the other metrics. Anyways, I had asked repeatedly if the data was good data. I had a hard time believing that a major organization would present data publically with known errors, (at least to me now). Envisat should not be avaialbe to the public until these issues are addressed and corrected in my opinion. One would expect AVISO to be a credible now appears that I have to view everything with a skeptic eye. Thank you all for pointing this out.
  18. 167, Camburn, First, if they did hold back the data until they were certain it was well calibrated, there would be a great hue and cry that they were hiding something, so they can't win. Secondly, scientists, the ones who actually use this stuff, know very well all of the details involved, what to trust, when to be skeptical, and so on. That you are naive about it is meaningless. Thirdly, the information that you failed to find is all available on the Internet. You only had to take the time to look yourself, instead of excepting it to be spoon fed, and then complaining that you felt cheated. This last point is, time and again, the problem at the heart of so called "skeptics." For all of their skeptical attitude, they stop the very moment they find something that supports their desired belief, and anything after that is just plain annoying, or part of a vast conspiracy, or incompetence, or whatever the denial flavor of the month is. So your rather arrogant sounding "aha" attitude is nothing but bluster and implied recriminations. The only thing wrong here is your apparent feeling (shared by too many "skeptics") that science exists to satisfy and/or entertain you personally. It does not.
  19. Camburn @167, the proper thing to do when you have flawed data is to report both the data and the flaws. So called "skeptics" have been very critical when climate scientists have supposedly done otherwise, as, for example, with "hide the decline". Of course, they did not do otherwise in that case; and it would be wrong for AVISO to not publish their envisat data, so long as they also publish their reasons for thinking it may be flawed. The problem here is not with AVISO but with people such as Steve Goddard, who purport to have a scientific education, and hence should be aware of the pitfalls and qualifications that exist in the data, but who publish a cherry picked selection of the data to a popular audience without any mention of the problems that may be involved. That is, IMO, dishonest. It deliberately cultivates misunderstanding in order to persuade people to a view point that is almost certainly false.
  20. Scientists conduct proper research Deceivers misrepresent that research 'Sceptics' rejoice that global warming is false Actual sceptics point out that they've been hoodwinked 'Sceptics' complain about the scientists. Not the people who tricked them Par for the course. It always makes me think that at some level 'skeptics' must KNOW their position is nonsense. Otherwise they'd feel some sense of outrage at being lied to. The only conceivable reason that 'skeptics' haven't run off frauds like Goddard, Monckton, and so forth after their numerous blatant falsities have been revealed is that they WANT to be deceived. Why else keep going back to people you know are lying to you?
  21. You may be interested in this paper, if not for the specifics of the Australian measurements, for the international references.
  22. Eric the Red, you may be interested in the analysis of this paper How not to analyze tide gauge data. While this analysis isnt published (though I am encouraging the author to do so) it is basically the same cherry pick as H&D. See here for published criticism of this kind of cherry pick.
  23. I was curious about the history of the Sea Level Estimates published on the web by Colorado University. Here's the current estimate, 2011 release #2, of 3.2 mm/yr: I used The Internet Wayback Machine and searched on: [] [take me back] I found the following series of CU Sea Level Estimate pages: YYYY MM DD; Rel #; rate mm/yr 2004 02 15; rel 1; 2.8 2004 12 23; rel 4; 2.9 2006 04 10; rel 5; 2.9 2007 09 08; rel 2; 3.0 2007 04 27; rel 3; 3.2 2008 02 10; rel 2; 3.2 2008 09 08; rel 3; 3.2 2009 01 24; rel 4; 3.3 2009 11 02; rel 2; 3.2 2010 04 13; rel 4; 3.1 2011 01 08; rel 5; 3.1 2011 07 18; rel 1; 3.1 2011 07 19; rel 2; 3.2 So I plotted them all out: I added in red what the time line would have been if GIA hadn't been added starting in May of 2011

    [DB] If you have a point with this exercise please be more transparent and just state it.  As it stands right now, you don't.

  24. "Including the GIA correction has the effect of increasing previous estimates of the global mean sea level rate by 0.3 mm/yr. (Source) Doesn't this mean that, to illustrate the 2011 new releases GIA correction, you should have done exactly the opposite : let the blue line after 2011, and substract 0.3 mm/yr before ? But I agree that the influence of this correction should be discussed to determine if the nino variations are the only driver of the recent global sea level drop.
  25. # 174 Papy Your source has this interesting statement: In essence, we would like our GMSL time series to be a proxy for ocean water volume changes. In other words they aren't really measuring sea level anymore. They aren't measuring sea level relative to the center of the Earth, nor are they measuring sea level relative to the shore line. So, if I want to sea what sea level is relative to the center of the earth, I need to subtract the GIA from those last two data points. Indeed, that's what Colorado U said to do back in May when they announced that they were adding the GIA correction. They said: Simply subtract 0.3 mm/year if you prefer to not include the GIA correction. (Link) Why might you want to not include the GIA correction? If you wanted to know what sea level is and not ocean water volume.
  26. Steve I'm not sure I understand your concern. How do you uncouple ocean volume from sealevel rise at time scales of a few decades, Steve? And why would we be interested in the component of sea level rise that is not due to eustatic changes in ocean volume? I would think the component of sea-level change that is most relevant to understanding linkages to climate are those realted to ocean volume.
  27. #176 Stephen Baines Where do you want to measure sea level from? The shore line? Or the center of the Earth? If your answer is either one of those, adding in the 0.3 mm/yr GIA correction will give an erroneous answer. Besides all that, if the scientists are really interested in how much ocean water there is and run a time line to represent that, then plotting mass instead of volume would be the most accurate way to go. They're not doing that.

    [DB] "if the scientists are really interested in how much ocean water there is"

    You tread dangerous ground here.  If you are going down the path you are implying (fraud/conspiracy) then take this whole conversation to a more appropriate venue (many dozens exist).  This forum is about the science of climate change.  No room exists for implications such as this.  FYI.

  28. I've been drawn off the topic of my original post which was to point out that over time, the estimates of the rate at which sea level rises have changed over time. I don't know what the justification for some of those changes are. In particular, the 2004 - 2008 time line. A plot of the current data that CU provides with their estimate for the period 2004 - 2008 doesn't show an increase in rate for that period.

    [DB] Steve, we have all been through this before.  You focus on insignificant timescales (while ignoring the contextual greater picture) and fixate on minutiae without a good grounding and background.  Perhaps more time researching, reading and studying would bear more useful results than the current approach.

  29. [DB] You know perfectly well what my point is, but I can't post it on this forum because it will be deleted. But I can put up data and graphs and I can state that I don't see any justification for changes that I see. If you or any other posters here know what that justification is and how it relates to the data and graphs, then by all means put it up.

    [DB] Then we are at impasse.  Whether due to a lack of background in climate science and statistics (I give you more credit than that) or an ideology discordant with the science, you continually prosecute an agenda of conspiracy and fraud rather than discussing the science itself.

    I reiterate:  if you wish to have an open dialogue about the actual science of climate change, then you are welcome to participate here.  Your present course is unacceptable. 

    Your choice on how this plays out.

  30. Yes, we are at an impasse, I would think that you or some one would be curious to find out what the reasons for those increases from 2.8 mm/yr to 3.3 mm/yr over that period of time are when graphically it looks like it didn't happen.
  31. [DB] I missed your comment on measuring mass instead of volume as the best way to determine how much water is in the ocean. Measuring how much water there is is more a function of mass than volume since temperature affects volume. I stated the obvious, and you tell me I'm on dangerous ground. ????????

    [DB] "I stated the obvious, and you tell me I'm on dangerous ground."

    Re-read my response to you above.  If you are again implying that fraud & conspiracy are obvious then we are done.

  32. Steve, I'm not interested. If I was, I'd doublecheck my own methodology and then carefully read the CU pages on processing and steric effects. Then I'd go through their bib carefully. If I still didn't find an answer to my question, I'd ask CU. What you're effectively doing here is backing into an argument for the difficulty of measuring sea level rise, but I can't figure out what you want to do with this argument. Scientists who study sea level rise know that it's difficult. Are you attempting to use sea level rise as a proxy for measuring the energy in the Earth system? If so, why not use something more direct and less subject to gravitational shift, currents, cycling, sedimentation, local uplift/subsiding, crustal movement, incomplete historical coverage, and instrumental error? Or do you think you've found the Golden Hoax?
  33. #181: But volume is the measure that is relevant to sea level rise, not mass. Concentrating on very short time periods (such as 5 years) will very often lead you to the wrong conclusions.
  34. Steve Case, How did you come up with the trend line in your graph? Why is it above the actual from 2006 to mid year 2007, and then below the actual from mid year 2007 on? You stop at 2008. Here is a current, full data set: Here is that same image/data, with your "trend line" overlaid where it belongs. Can you see the problem here? And can you see the problem with using too short of a dataset to try to infer a trend? Or with paying too much attention to the tail in what is clearly very noisy data?

    [DB] In addition, per Willis and Leuiette (2011):

    "Because of both uncertainties in the observational systems and interannual variations, it has been estimated that a minimum of 10 years is necessary to meaningfully interpret global trends in sea level rise and its components (Nerem et al., 1999)."

    "Despite efforts to maintain them, there are still limitations to the current observing systems. Coverage of the ice-covered and marginal seas is not possible with the current generation of Argo floats, and there is no systematic network for measuring steric changes in the deep ocean. Challenges also remain for altimeter measurements poleward of the 66° turning latitude of the reference missions and in regions covered by sea ice."

    Also from Hamlington et al. (2011, J.Climate):

    "However, from the 12-yr and full time series, we can see that the SNR patterns begin to converge, and an increase of areas with SNR greater than one occurs from 12 to 16 years."

    [Emphasis added to each.]

    Santer et al, DelSole et al and Hamilton et al. (and probably others) all point toward a minimum sample period of 16 years or so increase the SNR.  Anything less than 10 years is meaningless, a chasing after the wind.

    H/T to the mighty Albatross...

  35. # 184 Sphaerica at 03:54 AM on 19 September, 2011 Nice job on the graphic overlay, I was about to do that one myself. And what does it show? It shows that over that short time, and yes it is short, that sea level did not increase in rate. Yet over that very same short time CU did report in it's estimates, that it periodically updates and posts, that the rate did increase. By 0.5 mm/yr I might add. By the way, CU made a +0.1 mm/yr adjustment between 2011 Release #1 and Release #2 and they explained it: ..the rate increased slightly from 3.1 to 3.2 mm/yr due to the improvements to the TOPEX SSB model and replacement of the classical IB correction with the improved DAC correction... For the 2004 - 2008 time line there would have to have been a whole series of corrections like that. Much like the GIA 0.3 mm/yr correction they would have to have been applied to the entire time series. So let's add it up. The 2004 - 2008 time frame doesn't show a rate increase, but the reported rate increased by 0.5m/yr. The May 2011 GIA correction is 0.3 mm/yr and the most recent correction is 0.1 mm/yr. That adds up to a 0.9 mm/yr increase due to corrections and improvements in methodology of one kind or another since 2004. Do you agree with that assessment? What I'm doing is painting a picture of what it is that needs to be explained to those of us in this world that are skeptical of what we are told about climate change.

    [DB] "What I'm doing is painting a picture of what it is that needs to be explained to those of us in this world that are skeptical of what we are told about climate change."

    Then paint that picture to those at UCAR.  I'm very certain that they will be able to explain things to "skeptics".

  36. Steve, I don't have time at the moment, but have you addressed your concerns to the guys and gals at the University of Colorado? If not, why not?
  37. Rob No, It isn't that I haven't ever e-mailed big names in the "Global Warming" debate, but I don't do it to argue or open some sort of a dialog with them, although it did happen once. I figure that a website like Skeptical Science ought to be able to make a good argument regarding the questions I bring up.
  38. 185, Steve Case,
    What I'm doing is painting a picture...
    Yes, exactly. You're using fingerpaints when what you need to understand science. You've already been caught in a ridiculous misrepresentation of the data, and it has been explained to you that you cannot compute a sea level trend with just a few years of data.
    So let's add it up. The 2004 - 2008...
    And yet, there you go again.
    Do you agree with that assessment?
    No, because your time period is far, far to short to be arguing about.
  39. # 188 Sphærica Yes the time period is short and Colorado U adjusted the rate of sea level rise at least three times over that stretch.
  40. 189, Steve Case, So what? What's your point? That scientists make adjustments as data and techniques improve? Did CU adjust their rate using a short range, or did they adjust their rate based on new data that extended a reasonably long range for even longer?

    [DB] "What's your point?"

    The point Steve has been trying to make is one of conspiracy and fraud on the part of UCAR.  However, he is reduced to making them via veiled insinuations, because he knows any more open accusations won't survive moderation.

    It has become very tiresome.

  41. Was my post deleted or did I just forget to press submit?

    [DB] The moderator deleted your comment because:

    1. You have continued to focus on inconsequentially short time periods despite repeated advice to the contrary.
    2. You have still not indicated what your point in posting on inconsequentially short time periods is.
  42. Since the 2004 earthquake, the Earth's rotation has increased. So, is there a slight increase in the bulge at the equator? If so, the sea level will go down (except along the equatorial seas) until this effect is overtaken by ocean expansion and other factors. Or do the satellite measurements null this effect out?
  43. Henry Justice, satellite measurements are just that--measurements. They measure what is there, so they cannot "null this effect out." Do they measure with sufficient spatial resolution to detect the differences in sea level between the equator and other regions? Yes. When someone wants a single statistic that summarizes the sea level across all regions of the Earth, that statistic (e.g., a mean--an average) necessarily will collapse across the equator versus other regions.
  44. Henry J#192: "So, is there a slight increase in the bulge at the equator?" No. From NASA 2005: They found Earth's oblateness (flattening on the top and bulging at the equator) decreased by a small amount. It decreased about one part in 10 billion, continuing the trend of earthquakes making Earth less oblate. The article details that there is a long term trend and thus cannot be responsible for recently observed change.
  45. Here is an updated TOPEX and Jason data time series from CU. Hope it posts OK as I have not tried here before. Seems completely consistent with previous results from CU. It seems that CU AVISO, CSIRO and NOAA all have converged on a 3.1 mm/yr rate. Source

    [DB] Fixed image. Html posting tips are here.

    As a tip for images, place your URL address desired between both sets of "" in the string below:

    <a href="">< img width="450" src=""></a>

  46. Sorry clearly an amateur at this here are the unembellished links.... The NOAA trend seems to be a bit lower @2.8mm/yr
  47. If sea level was falling, Earth would be in an ice age and that wouldn't be nice for any of us.

  48. Earthling, does that fact somehow make rapid sea level rise somehow benign?

  49. DSL,

    What Earthling is saying is that because starvation is bad for you, obesity must be good. Or because drought is bad, flooding must be good. This seems like the appropriate place for that argument.

    If he's worried about ice ages, perhaps he should ponder the selfishness of squandering what could have been a useful geoengineering resource to future generations faced with an imminent glaciation; carefully burning fossil fuels to enhance the greenhouse effect just enough to maintain temperatures in the face of declining northern-hemisphere insolation due to the Milankovich cycles may well be the most cost-effective method for them to do so, if those resources are still around at the time.

  50. Gads - Joe D'Aleo is on a The Weather Channel comment stream trying to convince people that Morner is a "the top world expert" in sea level.  I quote:

    "Also see where after studying tide gauges (instead of relying on failing models) they conclude: Our analyses do not indicate acceleration in sea level in U.S. tide gauge records during the 20th century. Instead, for each time period we consider, the records show small decelerations that are consistent with a number of earlier studies of worldwide-gauge records. The decelerations that we obtain are opposite in sign and one to two orders of magnitude less than the+0.07 to+0.28 mm/y2 accelerations that are required toreach sea levels predicted for 2100 by Vermeer and Rahmsdorf (2009), Jevrejeva, Moore, and Grinsted (2010), and Grinsted, Moore, and Jevrejeva (2010)." 

Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  Next

Post a Comment

Political, off-topic or ad hominem comments will be deleted. Comments Policy...

You need to be logged in to post a comment. Login via the left margin or if you're new, register here.

Link to this page

The Consensus Project Website


(free to republish)

© Copyright 2021 John Cook
Home | Links | Translations | About Us | Privacy | Contact Us