6 thoughts on “Why Skeptics are Losing the Climate Change Battle”

  1. There is, however, a globally averaged rate of sea-level rise, because gravity tends to even out the effects of additions or removals of water from the oceans. That’s a big advantage of sea-level measurements, compared to temperature measurements. It means any long-term acceleration or deceleration in the rate of sea-level rise will be evident at all high-quality, long-term tide gauges, everywhere in the world.

    With atmospheric CO2 at 0.040% by volume, globally averaged sea-level rise is just under +1.5 mm/year.
    When atmospheric CO2 was at 0.031% by volume, globally averaged sea-level rise was just under +1.5 mm/year.

    The difference is that the current +1.5 mm/year is catastrophic and caused by human release of CO2, and the +1.5 mm/year eighty years ago was natural and inconsequential. However, the similarity between the two numbers — the catastrophic 1.5 mm/yr and the inconsequential 1.5 mm/yr — has confused even some liberals into backing away from the One True Climate Faith. Even President Obama’s former Undersecretary for Science, Steven Koonin, has written that:

    “Even though the human influence on climate was much smaller in the past, the models do not account for the fact that the rate of global sea-level rise 70 years ago was as large as what we observe today.”

    http://blog.jonolan.net/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/global-warming-heresy-cru.gif

    http://www.sealevel.info/120-022_Wismar_2015-5_40pct.jpg

    http://www.sealevel.info/680-140_Sydney_2015-10_40pct.jpg

  2. Spot on by the author. How can there be a pause in something that isn’t happening. By talking about the pause, there is an admission of a non-existant problem.

  3. My question about using sea level as a measure: Isn’t that an assumption that sea level rise corresponds solely to volume expansion due to temperature while discounting the change in volume of the ocean’s container? For example the new volcano erupting SE of the Big Island of Hawaii is logically reducing the ocean basin’s capacity by deploying molten rock into areas previously occupied by water. Add in all the undersea volcanic activity in the Pacific, for example, and I would think that sea level rise would at least partially be explained by the “bowl holding the water” suddenly having things dropped into it (Archimedes principle). I’m not suggesting there is no volume change, only that using a model where 100% of ocean level rise is assigned to volume change/warming is about as accurate as saying all land-station temperature rise is due to CO2 concentration in the atmosphere.

  4. “…once we declare roundly that there is no Global Temperature… “

    I, and many others, have roundly declared that that the Sun revolves around the Earth. But roundly declaring a supposed truth is not enough – one needs to publish evidence of claims and subject those claims to peer review criticism.

    No doubt that paper is being prepared for publication in a peer-reviewed scientific journal? Because self-publishing a screed ( Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #1,357,100 in Books) is not the same thing.

  5. Dave Burton said:

    “… because gravity tends to even out the effects of additions or removals of water from the oceans. That’s a big advantage of sea-level measurements, compared to temperature measurements. It means any long-term acceleration or deceleration in the rate of sea-level rise will be evident at all high-quality, long-term tide gauges, everywhere in the world.”

    Except it doesn’t, and your claim that an increase in SLR will be seen equally all around the world is absurd and easily seen to be absurd – because when we look at SLR records it simply has not been the case, and still is not the case, and never will be the case.

    There are numerous influences on local SLR which work against an even global SL change, like differential heating, the fact that the Earth is spinning, the mass of local continents and ice sheets, local elevation changes in land masses. etc. That you would even imply that gravity predominates and that SLR should be consistent all around the world demonstrates that you either don’t know very much about the topic, or are actively trying to hornswaggle the folks here, Dave.

    “The difference is that the current +1.5 mm/year is catastrophic and caused by human release of CO2, and the +1.5 mm/year eighty years ago was natural and inconsequential. “

    Except that your numbers are wrong and your categorization of SLR eighty years ago as being “natural” is false. Current SLR is NOT 1.5mm/year. In fact, SLR has not been that slow in decades. Here are the correct figures:

    1870-1924 – 0.8mm/year
    1925-1922 – 1.9mm/year
    1993-mid 2012 – 3.1mm/year
    Late 2012- 2014 – 4.4mm/year
    2015 – 10.0 mm/year

    Notice anything about those numbers? They are not just rising – the rise itself is accelerating. How could someone who promotes themselves as an ‘expert’ on SLR be so poorly informed?

    As for your claim that eighty years ago, SLR was from natural causes, that is belied by the evidence. Eighty years ago was 1935, and SLR was double that of the already accelerated rate of 1870-1924. Before 1800, Global Sea Level was actually going down slightly.

    Eighty years ago was about 120 years into the Industrial Revolution when fossil fuels started being burned at a significant clip, so the increased SLR of eighty years ago was not “natural” at all – it was due to increased greenhouse gases. Just like today.

Comments are closed.