Sea Level Rise: Human Portion is Small

May 25th, 2018 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.

There is a continuing debate over sea level rise, especially how much will occur in the future. The most annoying part of the news media reporting on the issue is that they imply sea level rise is all the fault of humans.

This is why the acceleration of sea level rise is what is usually debated, because sea level has been rising naturally, for at least 100 years before humans could be blamed. So, the two questions really are (1) Has sea level rise accelerated?, and (2) how much of the acceleration is due to humans?

Yesterday’s spat between Gavin Schmidt and Willis Eschenbach dealt with the question of whether sea level rise has accelerated or not. Gavin says it has. Willis says not, or at least not by a statistically significant amount.

I’m going to look at the data in a very simple and straightforward manner. I’ll use what I believe are the same data they did (Church & White, from CSIRO, updated through 2013 here), and plot a trend line for the data before 1950 (before humans could reasonably be blamed), and one for the data after 1950:

If we assume that the trend prior to 1950 was natural (we really did not emit much CO2 into the atmosphere before then), and that the following increase in the trend since 1950 was 100% due to humans, we get a human influence of only about 0.3 inches per decade, or 1 inch every 30 years.

Even though it looks like there is some evidence of even stronger acceleration more recently, sea level has varied naturally on multi-decadal time scales, and it is dangerous to extrapolate any short term trends far into the future. Climate models aren’t of much help in determining the human contribution because we have no idea how much of recent warming and glacial melt was natural versus human-caused. Models still can’t explain why glaciers started melting in the mid-1800s, just like they can’t explain why it warmed up so much from the mid-1800s to the mid-1900s.

The bottom line is that, even if (1) we assume the Church & White tide gauge data are correct, and (2) 100% of the recent acceleration is due to humans, it leads to only 0.3 inches per decade that is our fault, a total of 2 inches since 1950.

As Judith Curry mentioned in her continuing series of posts on sea level rise, we should heed the words of the famous oceanographer, Carl Wunsch, who said,


“At best, the determination and attribution of global-mean sea-level change lies at the very edge of knowledge and technology. Both systematic and random errors are of concern, the former particularly, because of the changes in technology and sampling methods over the many decades, the latter from the very great spatial and temporal variability. It remains possible that the database is insufficient to compute mean sea-level trends with the accuracy necessary to discuss the impact of global warming, as disappointing as this conclusion may be.”


701 Responses to “Sea Level Rise: Human Portion is Small”

Toggle Trackbacks

  1. I hope the global temperatures fall so we can put an end to the endless claims made by AGW, none of which have materialized as of today.

    • Idiot tracker says:

      Man lives by hope

      • David Appell says:

        Salvatore especially.

        • UK in brown says:

          Hello David .what is your view on the approaching grand solar minimum.predicted for 2019 2020 and its effect on global temperatures.taken into account the record low temp and above average snowfall during the past winter across the whole of the northern hemisphere.Northern UK temp in the hours of darkness are still in single figures.many astro physicist’s are predicting a return of a mini ice age.

          • Svante says:

            Here’s a professor of Space Environment Physics giving credence to your UK observation:
            https://tinyurl.com/y7sms7w7

          • David Appell says:

            UK: I don’t think we’re going to have a collapse in solar irradiance, and even if we did have one back to something like the Maunder Minimum is wouldn’t make much difference (since the sun had very little to do with the Little Ice Age).

            Several studies have been done of the possible influence of a future Maunder Minimum. Manmade GHGs still predominate:; anthropogenic greenhouse gas warming easily swamps any cooling from a Maunder Minimum-like sun. Cooling by 2100 would only be, at most, 0.3 C below IPCC projections. We will not be entering another Little Ice Age.

            “On the effect of a new grand minimum of solar activity on the future climate on Earth,” G. Fuelner and S. Rahmstorf, Geo Res Lett vol. 37, L05707 2010.
            http://www.pik-potsdam.de/~stefan/Publications/Journals/feulner_rahmstorf_2010.pdf

            “Increased greenhouse gases enhance regional climate response to a Maunder Minimum,” Song et al, Geo Res Lett vol. 37, L01703 (2010)
            http://www-cirrus.ucsd.edu/~zhang/PDFs/Song_et_al-2010.pdf

            “What influence will future solar activity changes over the 21st century have on projected global near-surface temperature changes?” Gareth S. Jones, et al, JGR v 117, D05103 (2012) doi:10.1029/2011JD017013, 2012.
            http://www.leif.org/EOS/2011JD017013.pdf

    • Lewis guignard says:

      Salvatore,

      While I expect you to be right in the long run, and I agree that the carping by warmists is tiresome, getting rid of their arguments will not be so easy.

      The point is, the AGW crowd are the same people who tried to make us fearful of the onset of an ice age 30+ years ago. At that time, they blamed CO2 for making weather colder. Their prescription was the same as now: control industrialization.

      My point is the politics of the movement will not go away if the weather doesn’t cooperate. They will find another platform from which to argue for state control.

      Lewis

      • David Appell says:

        Lewis guignard says:
        The point is, the AGW crowd are the same people who tried to make us fearful of the onset of an ice age 30+ years ago.

        That’s false.

        There was no consensus on global cooling in the ’60s and ’70s. Unlike today, it was a time before satellites were routinely provide loads of observational data, and some scientists were not very sure what was going on. A literature survey of that time period found there was no cooling consensus:

        “The Myth of the 1970s Global Cooling Scientific Consensus,” W. Peterson et al, Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 89, 13251337, 2008
        http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/2008BAMS2370.1

        In fact, by 1965 plenty of scientists had already been warning about global warming from the buildup of greenhouse gases, and by the late ’60s climate models were calculating the warming expected from CO2. List of some papers and reports here:

        http://www.davidappell.com/EarlyClimateScience.html

        • RAH says:

          “Myth” eh?
          I was alive and aware, graduating HS and attending IU at the time.
          It is not a myth.

          http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/outreach/CDPW40/CD&PW_reeves_denver.pdf

          https://realclimatescience.com/2017/08/1970-global-cooling-scare-front-page-news/

          I have plenty more.

        • Nate says:

          RAH,

          Interesting, but why is it so important that some scientists, and some newspapers were more concerned about cooling than warming for a few years in the 70s? It seems there are mechanisms for both to occur, and at the time there was a slight cooling.

          Science advances.

          In the 70s we were told to not eat eggs, avoid stress and spices to prevent ulcers, have a lot of unprotected sex and wear leisure suits.

          They were wrong about a lot of things.

          • Svante says:

            Seven papers predicting global cooling found here:
            https://tinyurl.com/y8er2dbo

          • RAH says:

            Nate:
            And you assume that though they were wrong then they can’t be wrong now?

            We all live and learn. The picture of me that is most embarrassing to me personally is my HS Jr. year prom pic. I’m a white guy and pictured wearing a powder blue leisure suit with an afro out to my shoulders that makes Kaepernick’s look thin and scrawny. I also experimented with pot and cocaine back then. I learned and dropped most of that stuff quickly and all of it before I was 25 years old when I really started to understand who I was and the kind of person I wanted to be.

            I have also learned that you can’t get 97% of a substantial segment of people to agree that that the sky is blue on a clear sunny day, let alone something as complex as the climate.

            And learned that any time politicians start talking about taking over a substantial portion of the economy or taking personal liberties and decisions and choices away from the individual “for their own good” it is time to be very skeptical and to look into the issue to try and determine what is best for yourself and your fellow citizens, nation, and society in the long run.

            I have determined the best thing to do about the climate is NOTHING! I get angry when I think of what the money that has been and is being squandered on green energy and every other aspect of this scam could have been used for that would have actually saved lives and/or improved the quality of life for so many. How it could have been used to actually save rain forests or clean up the plastic in the oceans, or prevent malaria or research into cancer, or other scientific research or space exploration, or…!

          • Nate says:

            RAH,

            Thanks for your yearbook memory. Mine was late 70s, but still powder blue, and still wacky hair.

            I think, particularly in science, we do learn. We have lots more data today

            The difference between the cooling concern and the warming one, was that the cooling one was brief ~ 5 y or so, while the warming concern has now been going on for ~ 5 decades. The cooling was never a certainty or a consensus, was a minority of papers.

            There was cooling in 1940s-70s, particularly over land in NH. The SH land did not show this. The question was why.

            There is good evidence it had to do with aerosols from pollution, which increased dramatically in NH post WWII, and caused dimming.

            https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1029/2008JD011470

        • kramer says:

          There was no consensus on global cooling in the ’60s and ’70s.

          So?

          “…this is why the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is such a phenomenal beacon of scientific consensus. They’ve done the hard work for us–indeed, the very purpose of the panel is to synthesize scientific consensus.”

          – Dr. Sarah Myhre
          https://www.thestranger.com/slog/2017/08/23/25368541/cliff-mass-belittles-woman-scientist-and-makes-seattles-climate-change-discussions-toxic

          And with this so-called scientific consensus, it makes it easier to pass policies that left-wingers and rich people like and want.

          By the way, I don’t recall any skeptic ever saying there was a consensus on global cooling during the 70s. By framing this issue in this way, it makes it easy to pass a snopes test and hence, fool snow flakes into thinking the skeptics are a bunch of imbeciles. What is more accurate is that there were a fair amour of articles in the 70s about the possibility of a coming ice age according to scientists.

          Wonder how the cooler 70s looks today after it’s been massaged? Does it still show up in graphs of temperature?

          • Nate says:

            Kramer

            Having consensus on science is generally helpful to society.

            There is a consensus on vaccines, and as a result most children grow up.

            There is a consensus that mercury, lead, and smog are toxic, so policies that kept them out of the environment were good for the public.

            There is a consensus on preventing radioactive stuff from escaping nuclear power plants. It has worked.

            If an asteroid were going to possibly hit the Earth, having a scientific consensus on it would be a essential before taking action. My guess is there would an equivalent of an IPCC set up. Would we listen?

        • Les says:

          In the 1970s I lived at Palo Alto working on the computer systems at Stanford Medical Center. Recall people talking of the coming ice age. They were figuring out how much would it cost to build bubbles over the major cities. Don’t know about a consensus but it was considered at Stanford.

      • David Appell says:

        For example, a 1965 report to the Johnson Administration had a chapter on CO2s potential to cause warming:

        Restoring the Quality of Our Environment, Report of the Environmental Pollution Panel, Presidents Science Advisory Committee (1965), pp. 111-133.

        https://dge.carnegiescience.edu/labs/caldeiralab/Caldeira%20downloads/PSAC,%201965,%20Restoring%20the%20Quality%20of%20Our%20Environment.pdf

      • David Appell says:

        Lewis guignard says:
        The point is, the AGW crowd are the same people who tried to make us fearful of the onset of an ice age 30+ years ago. At that time, they blamed CO2 for making weather colder.

        They did????

        I’d love to see evidence of that?

        (Honestly, I’m interested.)

  2. I have a question for Dr. Spencer, what controls the convective heat loss, and does this change and if it does how?

    I agree with this premise by the way. Thanks.

    Let’s start with that second point. As originally calculated by Manabe and Strickler (1964, see slide #10 here), the greenhouse effect does not explain the average surface temperature being 288 K (observed) rather than 255K (the effective radiating temperature of the Earth absent an atmosphere). Instead it is actually much more powerful than that, and would raise the temperature to an estimated 343 K (close to 160 deg. F.) It is convective heat loss generated by an unstable lapse rate caused by the greenhouse effect that reduces the temperature to the observed value.

    • David Appell says:

      See Manabe and Wetherald 1967 and 1975.

      • WizGeek says:

        @Appell: The Manabe & Wetherald 1964 & 1975 papers are outdated not to mention the 1975 paper is self-referential to their 1964 paper which relies heavily on a Budyko 1956 paper. Wow…44 year old predictions using a then 11 year old model based on a model eight years prior. Sure, science tends to be timeless until superseded, but simplified models are not science–they’re useful visualizations upin which hypotheses are draw that then are tested using scientific methods; the models themselves are not science and ought not be construed as such.

        Syukuro Manabe farewell lecture, 2001, Tokyo:
        “Research funds have been 3 million dollars per year and 120 million dollars for the past 40 years. It is not clever to pursue the scientific truth. Better way is choosing the relevant topics to the society for the funds covering the staff and computer cost of the project.”

        See “Hansen et al.” 1981 & 1984 as well as Schlesinger 1986 for more recent and more accurate analyses.

        • David Appell says:

          Yes, they’re outdated by — much better techniques now exist. But M&W were the first to correctly calculate the average surface temperature of the Earth.

          And I don’t see the point in Manabe’s 2001 quote. What do you think it is?

          • WizGeek says:

            Being the first to calculate average surface temperature is notable but not enduring [or endearing 😉 ] if its assumptions are incorrect about what a no-atmosphere planet might entail.

            Dr. Manabe’s 2001 quote is indicative of the myopia endemic to the publicly subsidized climate research. The myopia was alluded to by Manabe’s “not…pursue..scientific truth.” The next part, “…choosing…topics…for the funds covering…the project” hints at C. Northcote Parkinson’s adage: “Work expands so as to fill the time [and funds] available for its completion.” In other words, as long as there’s funding available to investigate a “crisis”, there’s personal incentive to perpetuate said “crisis”. If there’s no foreseeable end to funding a possibly erroneous presumptive conclusion, then where’s incentive to disprove it?

            On a side note: Sadly, these Spencer threads tend to devolve a la Alinsky:

            #5: Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon. It is almost impossible to counterattack ridicule. Also it infuriates the opposition, who then react to your advantage.
            #9: The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself.
            #8: Keep the pressure on, with different tactics and actions.
            #11: If you push a negative hard and deep enough it [becomes a positive].
            #13: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.

            Saul would be proud. [/snark]

    • Kevin Hearle says:

      From memory NASA said recently (earlier this year) that sea level was decelerating. Hansen’s research recently analysed by Willis on WUWT showed the ups and downs that look like natural variability not continuous increased forcing by CO2. and when you look at the tide gauge data the guru is Morner, I tend to the simplest explanation, the one that matters for the reality we live in and that is the tide gauge data. That is what matters at the interface between see and land where the problem, if one exists, will first present. In our part of the world (NZ) there is no CO2 signal in the tide gauge data . End of story

  3. gbaikie says:

    “The bottom line is that, even if (1) we assume the Church & White tide gauge data are correct, and (2) 100% of the recent acceleration is due to humans, it leads to only 0.3 inches per decade that is our fault, a total of 2 inches since 1950. ”

    I think 2″ rise from humans is generous ( or wildly optimistic). And if humans caused a four inch rise, this would not be a problem.
    Now, you could pick between ice melting or ocean increase in temperature.
    I think it human causing 4″ in 50 years rise because ocean was warming (causing thermal expansion), that lead me to think CO2 was somehow warming the world more than I thought was possible.
    If it was 4″ due to melting ice caps, that is not as convincing that CO2 had anything to do with it.

    As it is, I think in last century, we had about 7″ of sea level rise and 2 to 3 inches of it was due to the ocean getting warmer, and last 50 year, we had less than 2″ inches from ocean thermal expansion (ocean increasing average temperature) and that about the most I think the warming effect of CO2 could/can be).

    • gbaikie says:

      Though on low side of it, it seems obvious that we still recovering from the Little Ice Age, and C02 effect upon sea level rising has had a near zero effect.

      • Entropic man says:

        Gbaikie

        “it seems obvious that we still recovering from the Little Ice Age, ”

        I’ve seen this phrase used a lot on sceptic websites, but never explained.These things do not happen by chance, they are driven by cause-and-effect.

        What mechanism caused 700 years of cooling, and what is now warming us up again?

        • gbaikie says:

          –Entropic man says:
          May 25, 2018 at 12:09 PM
          Gbaikie

          it seems obvious that we still recovering from the Little Ice Age,

          Ive seen this phrase used a lot on sceptic websites, but never explained.These things do not happen by chance, they are driven by cause-and-effect.-

          I would say it has not been explained.
          But there are known cycles of warming and cooling, and Little Ice Age, was the last cooler period of series of warmer and cooler periods lasting for more than 100 years.
          And in last hundred years average global temperature go up and down, monthly, yearly, and decades.
          But I don’t think it is chaotic or random. Or more precisely it is not controlled by random chance.

          I have explained it, and give it another go.
          The big control knob is the temperature of the entire ocean.
          And it’s average temperature is about 3.5 C.
          And entire ocean temperature, controls the surface ocean temperature, which is currently about 17 C.
          The surface temperature of ocean controls global average air temperature, over shorter periods of months, years, and centuries.
          Or for mortals, the average ocean temperature of 3.5 C do not change much. But because the ocean is 3.5 C means that we are in a global icebox climate. And no where near a hothouse climate, have not near a hothouse climate in last million years. Not will be in a thousand years.

          • gbaikie says:

            wiki says hothouse average temperature starts at global average temperature of 19 C.
            K don’t agree, I would say more like a ocean of 10 C.
            And icebox climate is ocean of 1 to 5 C, and with ocean which is 5 C, one could get an global temperature of 19 C (or warmer).

            Ocean temperature is control knob, but surface ocean temperature can warm or cool and give in decades or centuries warmer or cooler global temperature by a degree or two, land temperatures can have wider ranges of average global temperatures.

            Or ocean surface has warmed about .5 C and land by more than 1 C over about last hundred years. Global temperature has risen by about .6 C.
            And perhaps entire ocean by about .02 C (at most).
            But over last 1000 year, my guess entire ocean has warmed by less .02 C.
            And over last 8000 years we have had a slight cooling trend, which would say is from entire ocean cooling, or oceans were warmer than now.
            And entire ocean cooled during Little Ice Age, how much depends from what point, but in terms present, if ocean are exactly 3.5, did not cool below 3.4 C, probably not as cold as 3.45 C and could much less difference, but would have had a larger change in ocean surface temperatures, or we know it was at least .5 C colder.

            So in terms of what caused LIA, it be could thousands of years of cooling of entire ocean, and even somewhat small effect triggering a colder ocean surface temperature.
            Or surface water, it could instead be water temperature to depth of 700 meters or some other depth, say 200 meters. Or water that is nearer the surface.

          • David Appell says:

            gbaikie says:
            And entire ocean cooled during Little Ice Age….

            That’s not what the science finds.

            “There were no globally synchronous multi-decadal warm or cold intervals that define a worldwide Medieval Warm Period or Little Ice Age.”

            — “Continental-scale temperature variability during the past two millennia,” PAGES 2k Consortium, Nature Geosciences, April 21, 2013
            http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v6/n5/abs/ngeo1797.html

          • WiGeek says:

            @Appell: Interestingly in the Umer/Consortium paper you cited, page 343, Figure 4, plot b, the rightmost temperature is just barely above the 450 CE and 600 CE temperatures! The erroneous conclusion that there’s rampant warming occurs only when trend analysis deceptively begins in the 1800s.

            These questions remain: What mechanism triggers the onset and cessation of glacials and interglacials, and what role does that mechanism play in modern climate events?

          • Svante says:

            WiGeek says:
            “Figure 4, plot b, the rightmost temperature is just barely above the 450 CE and 600 CE temperatures!”

            That plot stops before year 2000. UAH has more than +0.2C since then.

            “What mechanism triggers the onset and cessation of glacials and interglacials”.
            Milankovitch cycles.

            “What role does that mechanism play in modern climate events?”
            None, they work on multi-millennial timescales, and in the opposite direction.

          • David Appell says:

            Umer/Consortium paper…. Umer?

          • David Appell says:

            WiGeek says:
            @Appell: Interestingly in the Umer/Consortium paper you cited, page 343, Figure 4, plot b, the rightmost temperature is just barely above the 450 CE and 600 CE temperatures!

            What is “Umer?”

            Yes, the right-hand-most temperature is above any of those of 450 CE or 600 CE.

            And note the right-hand-most temperature stops before the year 2000. There’s been more warming since then.

          • David Appell says:

            WiGeek says:
            These questions remain: What mechanism triggers the onset and cessation of glacials and interglacials, and what role does that mechanism play in modern climate events?

            My understanding is that the trigger is the amount of sunlight around 65 deg N latitude.

            Last spring I sat in on a class on paleoclimatology at Oregon State University. The instructor showed Milankovitch factors and said their current rate of change is about -0.003 W/m2/yr.

            (Note: negative. => cooling.)

            Compare to CO2’s RF change of, now, about +0.04 W/m2/yr.

            Source:
            http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/aggi/aggi.html

          • WizGeek says:

            @Appell et al:

            ** “Umer” reference: My apology. The non-paywall copy of the cited PAGES 2K Consortium paper I read noted Mohammed Umer as the main author; this isn’t the case.

            ** There are too many problems with Milakovitch cycles for it to explain glaciations alone, so I don’t accept that hypothesis. There’s likely something else afoot.

            ** Figure 4d discussions may be fruitless given the proxy error uncertainties. The important point is that contemporary warming isn’t as sensational as some would claim when compared to climate trends prior to 800 CE.

            In all, there’s no climate model that’s accurate enough for prediction (likely because they’re too simplistic,) there’ no correlative theory that aptly explains glaciations, and all our bloviating here isn’t getting us any closer to the truth. [LOL]

        • Mike Flynn says:

          E,

          Chaos.

          As per the IPCC. I assume you have heard of the IPCC, and read their output?

          Mostly nonsense, but contains the odd grain of truth.

          I hope this helps to alleviate your bewilderment.

          Cheers.

  4. Idiot tracking says:

    With data at hand, your simple method has likely as much merit as more sophisticated and fancy confidence interval based ones,

    Now the data after 1950 might better fit to a quadratic (or even exponential, ha ha) function, I am told by the alarmists.

    And so human caused portion be sharply rising, they exult !

    • Dr. Spencer,

      Pertaining to sea levels rising…I was under the impression that for at least the last 140 years or so, the stations in Sydney Harbor are the best for attempting to measure mean sea levels. Perhaps this is not correct, but the web site, http://www.psmsl.org/data/obtaining/stations/65.php
      appears to show data that does not compare with that shown by Church and White, 2011. In fact, the Sydney data appears to show either no, or only a very small average change in sea levels over the period of ~1880 to the present. I have not done any statistical analysis on the data, but as Dr. Stu Hunter always said, “plot the data first” in order to see if the statistics you calculate from it make any sense. The Sydney data appears to have about a 7.8 inch monthly variation with a mean level of ~274 inches at the point of measurement.

      Could you comment on the Sydney data and what the difference is with that provided by Church and White?

      Cordially,

      Gerry J. Dail, PE

  5. David Appell says:

    ROy wrote:
    If we assume that the trend prior to 1950 was natural (we really did not emit much CO2 into the atmosphere before then)….

    But the forcing increases fastest in the beginning. Atmospheric CO2’s concentration was 311.3 ppm in 1950. Today it’s 411 ppm. So the radiative forcing of CO2 in 1950 was 28% of today’s. Not negligible.

  6. Nate says:

    If your ‘natural rise’ of 0.5″/decade has been the historical trend, SL would have been 100″ (8 feet) lower at the time of Christ. But We know, based on studies of roman coastal fish farms, and other research that sea-level was close to today’s level 2000 ago.

    So clearly the 0.5″ decade rate has not been going on a long time.

    Other proxy analysis confirms this

    http://www.pnas.org/content/pnas/early/2011/06/13/1015619108.full.pdf?with-ds=yes

    • David Appell says:

      Good point. From Wikipedia via a 2012 review article (cited) of Tom Cronin:

      “Recently, it has become widely accepted that late Holocene, 3,000 calendar years ago to present, sea level was nearly stable prior to an acceleration of rate of rise that is variously dated between 1850 and 1900 AD. Late Holocene rates of sea level rise have been estimated using evidence from archaeological sites and late Holocene tidal marsh sediments, combined with tide gauge and satellite records and geophysical modeling. For example, this research included studies of Roman wells in Caesarea and of Roman piscinae in Italy. These methods in combination suggest a mean eustatic component of 0.07 mm/yr for the last 2000 years.[16]”

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_level_rise#Past_changes_in_sea_level

      [16] Cronin, T. M. (2012) Invited review: Rapid sea-level rise. Quaternary Science Reviews. 56:11-30.

  7. Nate says:

    Also the satellite derived rise for last 25 y has averaged 3.2 mm/y which is 1.25 inch/ decade.

    The anthro portion is then ~ 0.75 inch/decade.

  8. Entropic man says:

    Dr Spencer

    The current Earth energy imbalance(EEI) is around 0.6W/M2 and, based on your data,producing a rate of sea level rise around 0.8″/year.

    Since you would expect the rate of sea level rise to be proportional to the energy imbalance, the pre-1950 EEI can be inferred to be 0.5/0.8 * 0.6 = 0.375W.

    If this 0.375W/M2 EEI is natural and not caused by the 31ppm anthropogennic increase in CO2, what was causing it?

    You are suggesting that this natural EEI is more than half the measured total we observe today. Why are we not observing the corresponding forcing?

    • Mike Flynn says:

      E m,

      There is no positive energy balance. The surface heats during the day,. Cools at night.

      Winter is colder than summer, and temperature drops suddenly during a total solar eclipse.

      The Earth has cooled over the last four and a half billion years. Gee – negative energy balance!

      All part of Nature. Learn some physics, and all will become clear.

      Cheers.

  9. Myki says:

    Interesting.
    We all agree that there is a human influence on sea level, and therefore climate.
    Yes?

    • David Appell says:

      Yes, but the other way ’round.

    • UK in brown says:

      No we don’t.not everyone with a science degree in earth sciences agrees that humans have any influence at all on climate or sea level rise.human CO2 is dwarfed by natural CO2.Oceans Bacteria.termites.volcanoes.all emit more CO2 than humans.no one really knows how much more let alone if it is stable.what we do know is the warm water outgasses more CO2 than cold water.the driving force is solar.the assumption that CO2 drives climate is a lazy cop out arrived from 19 century experiments by scientists using gasses in closed vessels and using artificial ir.and not at 400ppm as in the chaotic world of the atmosphere.the crux is that at this moment in time any change in the climate or any sea level rise has being so benine it is more or less irrelevant.and is all lost in the noise

      • David Appell says:

        UK in brown says:
        human CO2 is dwarfed by natural CO2

        Nature actually absorbs more CO2 than nature emits.

        The increase in atmospheric CO2 is due to man. (Isotopic analysis also shows this.)

        • UK I Brown says:

          David you said that the earth absorbs more CO2 than it produces.but if that were true the planet would have ran out of CO2 before humans came on the scene.and as Salby pointed out both C13 and C14 were once believed to be only found in CO2 that came from the burning of fossil fuels.but we now know they are produced naturally making it difficult if not almost impossible to calculate the human contribution.

  10. CO2isLife says:

    Dr. Spencer, NASA had better have someone look into Gavin Schmidt. He will destroy the reputation of NASA.

    Hide the Decline Part Deux; NASA is Using Fraudulent Statistical Techniques

    It appears that Michael Mann and Gavin Schmidt are sharing their fraudulent statistical methods over at Real Science. Guilt by association, however, isnt enough for us to accuse Gavid Schmidt of outright fraud, it is his educational background. Gavin Schmidt has a Ph.D. in Applied Mathematics. Noone with a degree in applied mathematics worth the paper it is written on would not understand the problem of a data set dog-leging immediately after an adjustment is made. If Gavin Schmidt was in elementary school he might get away with it, but not a Ph.D. running a NASA Department. NASA didnt put a man on the moon using nonsensical and fraudulent statistical methods.

    https://co2islife.wordpress.com/2018/05/25/hide-the-decline-part-deux-nasa-is-using-fraudulent-statistical-techniques/

    • David Appell says:

      It appears that Michael Mann and Gavin Schmidt are sharing their fraudulent statistical methods over at Real Science.

      Do you have any scientific critiques, or just ad hom attacks on experts?

      BTW, Gavin blogs at RealClimate.org, not “Real Science.” So much for your accuracy.

      PS: Adjustments REDUCE the long-term warming trend. You’re aware of that, right?

      • CO2isLife says:

        David Appell Says: “Do you have any scientific critiques, or just ad hom attacks on experts?”

        Have you visited my blog or read the article I posted? Clearly not. It totally debunks the science and data being used by Gavin. Feel free to refute any of my analysis.

        • David Appell says:

          No, I haven’t read your blog. I don’t read denier blogs like yours.

          If you have an argument you want me to consider, you’ll have to present it here and not just point to one of your links.

      • CO2isLife says:

        David Appell says: Adjustments REDUCE the long-term warming trend. Youre aware of that, right?

        There are a few issues here:

        1) CO2 data starts in 1959 and shows a linear increase
        2) Therefore adjustments are made are likely to make temperatures more linear
        3) The claim is that post 1950 CO2 drives temperature, therefore temperatures pre-1950 are likely to be adjusted to show LESS warming
        4) Adjustments made to the period during which CO2 has an impact are likely to show greater warming
        5) I’ve seen many temperature data sets so I don’t know exactly what one you are talking about, but my bet is that the adjustments will follow the above detail on how to manufacture warming that will work with a CO2 drives temperature model. If I’m correct, that is pure nonsense.

        Please post a link to the graphic or data you are referring to.

    • Now we are at the crossroads and the next few years should tell us if AGW has any merit or if solar based climate has any merit.

      • David Appell says:

        Salvatore, don’t you get tired of saying the same old junk?

        “Your conclusions are in a word wrong, and that will be proven over the coming years, as the temperatures of earth will start a more significant decline (which started in year 2002 by the way)….”

        – Salvatore del Prete, “Reply to article: IC Joanna Haigh – Declining solar activity linked to recent warming,” 10/8/2010
        http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=6428

    • La Pangolina says:

      CO2isLife says:
      May 25, 2018 at 2:58 PM

      What about ‘publishing’ your disgusting adhoms at Hockeyschtick, Notrickszone, Goddard or WUWT?

      These are the far better corners for discrediting the work of others.

      • Bart says:

        Your fallacy is: Argument from incredulity.

        • Nate says:

          Bart thinks that smears of climate scientists from conspiracy theory blogs is likely to be credible.

          On the other hand, he is quite sure that data, analysis, and physics-based modeling from a half-dozen reputable publications that he hasnt bothered to read are ‘handwaving gibberish’.

          Critical thinking is a useful skill that anyone can learn, Bart.

          • Bart says:

            How dare you question me? Don’t you know who I am?

            Please. Such histrionics do not convince. Methinks thou dost protest too much.

          • Nate says:

            I don’t see any histrionics happening. These are your stated views.

            Some people think conspiracy theories are completely rational, others prefer an evidence-based approach.

          • Bart says:

            That’s because you’re the one engaging in them.

            My stated view is that protesting that conspiracies never happen is illogical.

          • Nate says:

            My posts keep going the wrong place.

            Anyway, anything is possible, but items that fit the pattern of conspiracy theories, like the ‘chaff’, and the ones on CO2forlife’s blog, and many things on the internet, should be considered low probability unless real evidence is reported, and can be safely ignored.

          • Bart says:

            The evidence is clear to anyone outside the choir.

        • David Appell says:

          Bart has nothing, and never does.

        • Nate says:

          ‘How dare you question me? Dont you know who I am?’

          Oh I see, I think this is supposed to be Gavin Schmidt talking.

          I think there is big difference between questioning, which is fine, and smearing.

          Do you not know how to recognize smearing, conspiracy mongering? Guess not.

          A blog with an obvious axe to grind, picks the most effective people on the opposing team, and they try to find, or more-likely create, flaws in their character, that are happily exposed.

          The Skeptical Science guy is a Nazi.

          Democrats are pedophiles.

          G. Schmidt only has a math degree, but doesnt understand stats.

          The data looks too good, or it looks too bad. Either way, it must be fraud.

          Trump is the smearer in chief. A proud birther. Dems colluded, and are splitting immigrant families. Muellers team is rigging the election.

          Apparently there are plenty of buyers out there for this crap.

          Are you one?

          • Bart says:

            The ClimateGate emails were real. You are just throwing up chaff to obscure the evidence.

          • Svante says:

            And the quote mining was unreal.

          • Bart says:

            More chaff. You wouldn’t allow yourself to be gaslighted if it were the other side that had been caught out confirming your suspicions in their own words.

          • Nate says:

            ‘obscure the evidence’ You’ve been repeatedly given evidence of the actual nature of the emails. But you ignore this completely, as if, as usual, facts just doesnt matter when it interferes with your beliefs.

          • Bart says:

            The nature of the emails is clear to anyone who isn’t interested in fooling his or her self.

          • Svante says:

            There was an over reaction to the smear campaign, and this:
            https://tinyurl.com/y7sygg7s

            Was there any problem with their results?

          • Nate says:

            How many investigations have cleared them? How many will it take? As many as 911?, Benghazi?, JFK? If you are a true believer, then you never ever give up. That you, Bart?

          • Bart says:

            Forget it, guys. You are defending the indefensible, and anyone who takes the time to read them can see plainly what they say.

          • Nate says:

            Happy to. FYI, you sound just like my mother-in-law, talking about chem-trails, etc.

          • Bartemis says:

            Your fallacy is: guilt by association.

            Your MIL is a nut.

          • Nate says:

            Yes she is a nut. And reasoning or logic have no impact on her either.

      • Michael Flynn says:

        La P,

        Are you speaking from experience in discrediting the work of others and delivering ad homs, or just making stuff up as you go along, for no particular reason?

        Cheers.

      • CO2isLife says:

        Please feel free to refute any of my comments. I welcome the challenge, it will make my case better.

        1) NASA GISS shuns Satellite Temperature Data and uses Satellite Sea Level Data. Why?

        2) The Sea Level Chart Dog-legs right when Satellite Data is used. Clearly there is an issue with combining the two data sets. Battery Park Sea Level shows no acceleration next to NASA GISS.

        3) Tidal Guages like Battery Park show a clear correlation with Ocean Cycles like El Nino and La Nina. CO2 and LWIR between 13 and 18 microns won’t warm the oceans.

        4) The Dog-legs in the sea level don’t align with the Dog-legs in the hockey stick and other temperature measurements

        5) Greenland and the Arctic have sub-zero temperatures most of the year, and their glaciers and ice are melting from below. CO2 doesn’t cause warm water or geothermal heating. Melting glaciers can’t be attributed to CO2.

        • La Pangolina says:

          CO2isLife says:
          May 27, 2018 at 9:29 AM

          At least you managed to stop writing about ‘Using Fraudulent Statistical Techniques’, where you since ever lack the knowledge to give a scientifically valuable proof of your disgusting assertion.

          I’ll reply to your other claims as soon as I have time to do.

          • CO2isLife says:

            If you honestly think that if a data set dog-legs with the change in measurement methodology without an underlying explanation as to why the behavior of the underlying variable should have changed at that exact moment, then you don’t know much about statistics, datasets, science, measurements, etc etc etc. Changing the way a variable is measured doesn’t change the underlying variable itself. A dog-leg represents a fundamental change in behavior of the variable. The Hockeystick also dog-legs with measurement changes, and those dog-legs don’t match the sea level dog-legs. You have serious problems whether or not you what to accept it.

          • David Appell says:

            It’s very easy to show that the hockey stick is required by the laws of physics. The math is trivial.

            Prior to the industrial age atmo CO2 was near constant, so its forcing relative to 1850 was zero, so so was the temperature change. That’s the “shaft” part of the hockey stick — flat.

            After the beginning of the industrial age CO2 increased exponentially, so its forcing increased linearly, so so did the temperature change. That’s the “stick” part of the hockey stick — slanted upward.

            http://davidappell.blogspot.com/2015/08/the-thing-is-hockey-stick-isnt.html
            http://davidappell.blogspot.com/2015/08/more-about-generating-hockey-sticks.html
            http://davidappell.blogspot.com/2015/09/an-even-easier-way-to-get-hockey-stick.html

          • Nate says:

            “Greenland and the Arctic have sub-zero temperatures most of the year, and their glaciers and ice are melting from below. CO2 doesn’t cause warm water”

            Already been debunked many times. GHE can affect ocean temp. Greenland also melting from above.

            FYI,try this at home. Heat up a cup of water in a microwave. Use your IR thermometer to measure the temperature of the water surface. It works just fine! Why? The water surface is a good black body (BB) radiator. Same for ocean surface, hence satellites can use IR to measure SST .

            As you know, heat loss from a BB will depend on temp of BB AND its surroundings. For ocean, surroundings are the atmosphere. If the atm is warmer due to GHG (yes CO2!), then the NET radiation from the ocean will be lower. With net solar input fixed, and net output reduced, the ocean warms. First Law.

            Of course, with a warmer atm, the convective losses are also reduced.

          • Bart says:

            David Appell @ May 27, 2018 at 6:08 PM

            Your fallacy is: Post hoc ergo propter hoc.

          • Bart says:

            Nate @ May 28, 2018 at 10:17 AM

            “It works just fine! Why?

            A) the cup is very small
            B) the field is very intense
            C) the radiation comes at the cup from all sides.

          • Nate says:

            ‘A) the cup is very small
            B) the field is very intense
            C) the radiation comes at the cup from all sides.’

            Huh? Not making much sense.

            What are you objecting to? That water is a good black body?

          • Bart says:

            That a cup in a microwave proves IR radiation can penetrate and heat the oceans. That’s pretty dumb.

          • Nate says:

            You’re not paying attention, missing the point.

          • Nate says:

            Proof that ocean cant heat or cool by radiation?

          • Nate says:

            To clarify,

            The microwave just heats the water-then we’re done with it. Forget about it.

            Take the cup out, the water is hot, say 90C. My IR thermometer, pointed at the waters surface measures ~ 90C. Because water is a good black body (BB) in IR.

            The ocean is water. By extension, I assume it is also a good BB. Of course it is, which is why satellites use its IR emission to determine SST.

            The ocean emits strongly in the IR, ~ 400 W/m^2 in the tropics. This is not the NET emission. The atmosphere, with GHG, is also emitting, downward toward the ocean, which absorbs well, because the NET emission is ~ 60 W/m^2. Without the GHG, the ocean would be colder.

            Which part to do you want to disagree with?

        • David Appell says:

          CO2isLife says:
          1) NASA GISS shuns Satellite Temperature Data and uses Satellite Sea Level Data. Why?

          GISS calculates surface temperatures. That’s their speciality. UAH and RSS calculate lower tropospheric temperatures (and more). That’s their speciality.

          BTW, RSS finds a trend about 50% higher than UAH.

          PS: We also happen to live on the surface.

          • CO2isLife says:

            If you are familiar with MODTRAN you would know that CO2 has absolutely zero impact on the lower atmosphere when H2O is present…zero. You aren’t arguing with me, you are arguing with a calculator. Check it yourself.

          • David Appell says:

            I’m familiar with MODTRAN. And I know that your claim is completely wrong.

            There are many wavelengths for which CO2 and w.v. don’t overlap.

            If there weren’t, don’t you think scientists would have noticed that about 150 years ago.

            In addition, there is little w.v. in the stratosphere and polar regions, so CO2 easily dominates there.

          • David Appell says:

            CO2: Here you can see the less-than-100% overlap:

            Ab.sorp.tion spectra for CH4, N2O, O2, O3, CO2 and water vapor, and of the atmosphere:

            https://tinyurl.com/y843js8t

          • CO2isLife says:

            David says: Its very easy to show that the hockey stick is required by the laws of physics.

            You clearly don’t know the physics of the GHG effect and the CO2 molecule. The W/M^2 radiation of the CO2 molecule shows a log decay. Also, in the lower atmosphere is it irrelevant because H2O swamps the system. Check it yourself on MODTRAN. Your understanding is contrary to the actual physics.

          • CO2isLife says:

            David says: Im familiar with MODTRAN. And I know that your claim is completely wrong.

            Anyone can check it yourself. If you don’t know MODTRAN I have the screenshots here:

            https://co2islife.wordpress.com/2018/05/26/nasa-cherry-picks-data-sets-to-prop-up-climate-change-fraud/

            Once again David, you aren’t arguing with me, you are arguing with a calculator and BTW, you don’t know MODTRAN.

          • David Appell says:

            CO2isLife says:
            David says: Its very easy to show that the hockey stick is required by the laws of physics.
            You clearly dont know the physics of the GHG effect and the CO2 molecule.

            Does the radiative forcing of CO2 vary as its logarithm?

            Does the temperature change vary as the change in forcing?

            (Yes to both.)

            Then the hockey stick is required by basic physics.

            QED

          • David Appell says:

            PS: My hockey stick argument doesn’t depend on any results from MODTran, just simple physics (that you haven’t disputed).

          • David Appell says:

            CO2isLife says:
            You clearly dont know the physics of the GHG effect and the CO2 molecule. The W/M^2 radiation of the CO2 molecule shows a log decay. Also, in the lower atmosphere is it irrelevant because H2O swamps the system.

            You keep writing “H2O” when you mean water vapor. They are not the same.

            And your claim is false. As anyone can see, CO2 and w.v. have many bands that do not overlap:

            Ab.sorp.tion spectra for CH4, N2O, O2, O3, CO2 and water vapor, and of the atmosphere:

            https://tinyurl.com/y843js8t

        • Nate says:

          CO2,

          Other skeptics complain that the data and fits to it look too good to be real.

          You are saying the opposite, the data doesnt’t ‘look right’ to you.

          If its all fraudulent, as you constantly assert, wouldn’t they try to make it ‘look right’?

      • CO2isLife says:

        “What about ‘publishing’ your disgusting adhoms at Hockeyschtick, Notrickszone, Goddard or WUWT?”

        Calliing out fraud isn’t disgusting, calling people deniers, flat-earthers, Neandertals, etc etc etc is disgusting and anti-science.

  11. No because this time we really are at the crossroads unlike earlier years.

    • David Appell says:

      What makes this time different from all the other times you have cried “wolf?”

      “…here is my prediction for climate going forward, this decade will be the decade of cooling.”

      – Salvatore del Prete, 11/23/2010
      http://ourchangingclimate.wordpress.com/2010/10/20/andrew-dessler-debating-richard-lindzen/#comment-8875

      • David you act as if the climate has never changed prior to the last century until now.

        If I am wrong n making that statement how do you explain all the prior climatic changes in the past and with many of them being much more abrupt and greater in magnitude then what has happened since the end of the Little Ice Age?

        What caused it and if you say CO2 what caused that not do keep building upon itself through positive feedbacks because there were times in the past when co2 increased at a faster rate.

        • David Appell says:

          Salvatore, you have cried wolf many, many times, and been wrong in all of them. I don’t know why you’d think anyone would believe you now.

          • David Appell says:

            SLR is now about 3.4 mm/yr. To pump that up 5 km and onto Antarctica requires 10% of today’s world energy production.

            Looks like we’ll have to cut CO2 after all.

  12. David Appell says:

    Just a reminder – its been shown that there’s a linear relationship between ULTIMATE warming and ULTIMATE sea level rise — about 10-20 meters per degree C of warming. See Figure 3 (pg 290) of :

    The millennial atmospheric lifetime of anthropogenic CO2,
    David Archer and Victor Brovkin,
    Climatic Change (2008) 90:283297
    DOI 10.1007/s10584-008-9413-1

  13. Darwin Wyatt says:

    When do we start pumping sea water onto Antarctica? Pretty sure we could do an inch in 30 years?

    • David Appell says:

      How much energy will that take? Shouldn’t be hard to estimate….

      • David Appell says:

        I don’t think your scheme is going to work.

        I calculate that moving one inch of seawater up to 5 km altitude onto Antarctica will require 480 GW over 30 years.

        That’s 2-3% of today’s global energy use (~20 TW).

        In a place like Antarctica, 24×7 by 30 years? Forever? No way.

  14. David Appell says:

    Steve Nerem AGU Dec 2017 mtg – clear and significant acceleration in sea level over satellite altimetery era ~0.084 +/- 0.025 mm/yr^2

    https://twitter.com/climateofgavin/status/940636003265646593

    My calculation using a 2nd-order fit to AVISO’s global sea level time series is 0.058 +/ 0.007 mm/yr^2 (no autocorrelation).

    data:
    ftp://ftp.aviso.altimetry.fr/pub/oceano/AVISO/indicators/msl/MSL_Serie_MERGED_Global_AVISO_GIA_Adjust_Filter2m.txt

  15. David Appell says:

    “Satellite observations show sea levels rising, and climate change is accelerating it,” CNN 3/13/18

    https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/12/world/sea-level-rise-accelerating/index.html

    • spalding craft says:

      Maybe you should consider the source. A CNN source tells us what we already know, that mainstream media is captive to the agw world view and is blindly repeating what another agw source has said.

  16. Harry cummings says:

    You can always tell when poor old David out of date thoughts get threatened

    24 David

    24 hits ever body else

    He is totally out of control maybe Mike and co got to stop winding him up

    Regards

    • Laura says:

      Not out of control but paid to do it.

      After all, which business could afford having an employee that all but lives in this blog (and who knows how many others and under how many aliases)?

      • spalding craft says:

        Laura, what you say is correct and it applies to a lot of serial commenters on all blogs that I follow. And it applies to people across the spectrum of opinion on climate change. These folks are either being paid to do it or don’t have a job that demands much of their time.

        This behavior is an indicator of the huge interest and huge stakes in play in the climate change arena. The best ones are quite articulate and put up with a huge amount of abuse in order to stay in the conversation. This takes dedication and probably a decent level of compensation.

      • Myki says:

        “Not out of control but paid to do it.”
        Really?
        How did you figure that out oh wise one?
        Lets face it, DA is logical, informative, correct and restrained. This is anathema for most of the desperate denialists here.

        • spalding craft says:

          Although I don’t agree with him (or you either I guess)I do agree with what you say about DA (except maybe the “correct” part). And no, I don’t know that he gets paid and I really don’t care, as long as others have the same opportunity.

          I’ve followed blogs for a long time and it’s clear that some commenters are always there, and always will hang in there even when things get ugly. What accounts for this indefatigable interest? You tell me.

          • David Appell says:

            Paid?
            Ha.
            $0.00

            But it’s telling that you think I can only disagree with you if I am getting paid to do so. Trust me, no one thinks your’s or anyone else’s opinion here is worth a dime.

            Are you getting paid to comment here?

          • spalding craft says:

            I’ve already said that I don’t know if you get paid and that I don’t care. What I do know is that you’re always here, and I’ve seen blog posts with over 2000 comments where your comments probably exceeded 200. What accounts for this sort of persistence? Someone would have to pay me before I would seriously consider doing it.

            It was not my intention to make this personal. In fact I’ve been complimentary about your comments. But everyone who follows blogs can see this going on day after day. And it’s not restricted to any particular view in the climate wars. We shouldn’t be surprised if people were paid to continually fight the good fight.

          • David Appell says:

            Spalding: I guess you and I are just different.

        • Laura says:

          Well, “Myki”, be logical yourself and consider the obvious.

          The man is here permanently.

          Thus, someone is paying for it, knowingly or unknowingly.

          In fact, “Myki”, there is a pretty good chance you are him under another alias…

          • La Pangolina says:

            Laura says:
            May 26, 2018 at 2:38 PM

            Well, ‘Laura’, be logical yourself and consider the obvious. The man is here permanently.

            Whom do I mean, Laura?

            Robertson? Flynn? TonyM? Phil?
            Or Snape? Nate? La Pangolina? Bindidon?

            Aren’t they here permanently as well, Laura? Is there also ‘someone paying for it, knowingly or unknowingly’ ?

            What a paranoid nonsense!

          • Laura says:

            So some “La Pangolina” replies to a comment explicitly addressed to “Myki” by saying…

            Whom do I mean, Laura?

            .. naively stating that it is one single person using several aliases.

          • Laura says:

            And, btw, David/Myki/Pangolina/et al. consider the original comment:

            24 David

            24 hits ever body else

            It is evident who spends the most amount of time here by far… even before accounting for the multi-alias derangement.

            Again, someone is paying the guy’s salary and he is here permanently. Do the math.

          • David Appell says:

            Laura: A very weak attack for which you have zero (0) evidence.

            Typical denier B.S. when they can’t disprove the science and facts

          • Myki says:

            Laura, you are a first rate dimwit.
            Your ridiculous comment exposes both typical denialist paranoia and absence of logic.
            No – I am not DA.
            (although I do confess I may have posted under another pseudonym at one stage).

  17. Daneil Steenkamp says:

    Hi Roy

    I love your work and think it must be incredibly challenging to measure global temperature and constantly strive to improve the measurement. Keep up the good work.

    I have my own personal challenge: Two kids that are way more intelligent than I. My daughter tends to panic about things, hears something at school and comes home all teary eyed telling everyone we are all going to die because of (insert reason here). In my opinion, this is mostly due to poorly informed teachers. This forces me to go and read up on various topics, global warming and sea level rise being one (or two) of the subjects. I will confess that I am very naive on the subject, but I am striving gather as much information as I can to form my own opinion on the subject and to give my children a subjective view on the topic.

    On a recent visit to Table Mountain in Cape Town South Africa, I noticed an official placard that said that until approximately 15000 years ago,Table Mountain was an island. “Table Island” was about 50km off the then African coast line. According to the placard, the area between the mountain and the Hottentots Holland mountains dried up to form the Cape Flats because of the onset of an ice age. I am currently trying to find information on how far the ocean receded during this period. I have seen a map that showed the shore line receded significantly further than where it currently is, but have not found the associate article yet.

    Let’s assume that some time earlier than 15000 years ago marked the high water line for sea level around Cape Town and for argument sake, 366 years ago when Jan van Riebeeck landed in the Cape, was the low level mark, there is quite a large scope for natural sea level variance. We all can agree that the sea level is rising. I bet that there is some level of human induced sea level rise, but are we not simply squabbling over insignificant variables within the bigger scheme of things?

    • gbaikie says:

      20,000 years ago sea levels were about 120 meters lower, and in previous interglacial period is was more than 5 meter higher than presently it is in our interglacial period.

      Glacial periods have lower sea levels, and interglacials have higher. In the start our interglacial period, called, Holocene period sea level were rising very fast:
      https://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/gornitz_09/
      And around 15000 years rising pretty fast.

      • Daneil Steenkamp says:

        Did some further reading and I have to question the timelines that I saw. However, the fact remains that previously the sea levels were significantly higher than now and not due to AGW.

    • David Appell says:

      Daneil Steenkamp says:
      We all can agree that the sea level is rising. I bet that there is some level of human induced sea level rise, but are we not simply squabbling over insignificant variables within the bigger scheme of things?

      Miami Beach is spending $500 million to deal with higher sea levels. Does that amount equal “insignificant?”

  18. Myki says:

    Warming? What warming?
    “Record-breaking heatwave hits 10th day in Hong Kong as new photos show barren reservoir where scenic hiking spot was Lau Shui Heung Reservoir now so dried-up it can be walked across”
    http://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/health-environment/article/2147940/record-breaking-heatwave-hits-10th-day-hong-kong

    • spalding craft says:

      Hot, dry weather is pretty common, Myki. No one is suggesting that it hasn’t warmed.

    • David Appell says:

      Blog posts aren’t science. Not mine, not Roy’s, and not Cliff Mass’s.

      Science appears in the scientific literature. It is presented in talks and at scientific conferences. It is read, seen and scrutinized by other scientists.

      All scientists know this.

  19. Brad says:

    I was Just wondering if anyone has ever calculated mans DIRECT impact on sea levels, I was bored one night and did a “back of the envelope” calculation on the loss of water in the Dead Sea and the Aral Sea – and came up with a couple of millimeters, SLR.
    Now if that got added to various land reclaimation projects around the world especially Asia ( Singapore and Japan have done quite a bit) no doubt that has some additional values..

    And this may be a bit fanciful, but the ever increasing numbers of mega ships – displacing 100000 tons + of seawater, I doubt that would add much – but something surely..

    Bound to be some smarter cookies than me on this site who would have a better idea on the numbers , such as they may be, than me.
    Cheers All
    B

    • Nate says:

      Ive seen papers that discuss that, the contributions to SLR from draining various groundwater resources. It matters. When rivers are damed up, the opposite happens.

  20. Bart says:

    Sea level charts using data spliced from numerous sources and subject to various hand-waving “adjustments” are not at all convincing.

    • David Appell says:

      PS: If you have global sea level data from a single source going back many decades, please cite it.

      PPS: UAH now calibrates over more than 10 different satellites. Does that invalidate their results?

      PPPS: In an observational science, you don’t usually get the data you’d like, so you have to figure out how to best use the data you can get.

      • Bart says:

        “In an observational science, you dont usually get the data youd like, so you have to figure out how to best use the data you can get.”

        All the more reason to treat said data with substantial caution. One cannot use it to make solid conclusions.

      • Nate says:

        Bart,

        You are consistent in your belief that scientists are

        1. Not very capable

        2. Mostly do ‘hand-waving’

        3. Produce unreliable results (unless they agree with you).

        The counterargument is obvious…the modern world.

        • Bart says:

          Your fallacy is: straw man

        • Nate says:

          Some people who are climate scientists (may have) behaved unethically.

          Therefore climate scientists are unethical.

          Therefore the work of climate scientists is unreliable.

          That about right?

          No logic problems?

  21. David I am interested.

    What level would global temperatures have to be based on satellite data from 1981-2010 to get you to at least start to wonder about the whole AGW prediction say 3 months from now,6 months from now ,a year from now ,two years from now,5 years from now?

    If the global temperatures for instance just remain as is would that keep your confidence level the same? If they should fall how much of a fall would be needed to have you start to have second thoughts?

    Of course if they rise you will be very confident and rightly so.

  22. For myself I need to see a fall to at least the 1981-2010 satellite average before I would start to become more confident and lower then the 1981-2010 average in the not to distant future.

    If global temperatures remain at these levels going forward much less rise my confidence will diminish, over the coming months.

  23. gbaikie says:

    The 3000 year study of sea level indicates sea levels were falling during the Little ice Age, and before it.

  24. gbaikie says:

    In Egypt, there are plans (not new plans) of making inland lake, and get hydro power, because sea water is going lower elevation than sea level.

    • David Appell says:

      “In Egypt, A Rising Sea And Growing Worries About Climate Change’s Effects,”NPR August 13, 2017.

      https://www.npr.org/sections/parallels/2017/08/13/542645647/in-egypt-a-rising-sea-and-growing-worries-about-climate-changes-effects

    • David Appell says:

      “Alexandria: locals adapt to floods as coastal waters inch closer,” The Guardian 1/19/17
      https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/jan/19/alexandria-egypt-locals-adapt-storms-floods-coastal-waters-rise

    • gbaikie says:

      “The Qattara Depression contains the second lowest point in Africa at an altitude of 133 metres (436 ft) below sea level, the lowest point being Lake Assal in Djibouti. The depression covers about 19,605 square kilometres (7,570 sq mi), a size comparable to Lake Ontario or twice as large as Lebanon. Due to its size and proximity to the Mediterranean Sea shore, it has been studied for its potential to generate hydroelectricity. ”
      https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qattara_Depression

      • David Appell says:

        Since it’s so far below sea level, that site has nothing whatsoever to do with man-caused sea level rise, unlike your implication.

        • gbaikie says:

          My point was one flow a large amount water inland and gain electrical energy, rather using energy to pump water inland.

          So Egypt would not need to import as much energy, and if managed well (not a certainty) the people would become more wealthy.

          • David Appell says:

            And this has nothing to do with modern sea level, as your first comment implied.

          • gbaikie says:

            Just that the sea level is higher than some land elevation, so that instead wasting money, one could make make money. And a100 meter drop in elevation would provide a lot of energy. And land is already a salt pan. And water could evaporate at higher rate, than water let in. But I think one should have greater inflow, so you get a large lake. And more electrical power.

          • David Appell says:

            And yet again, this has absolutely nothing — NOTHING — to do with current sea level.

            It’s because of land that is, and was, below sea level.

            It’s dishonest to conflate the two.

          • gbaikie says:

            “And yet again, this has absolutely nothing NOTHING to do with current sea level.”

            Again, I did not say it did.
            There a couple posters (above) discussing pumping sea water on to land, and mentioned in Egypt there is location where electrical power can be generated by harvesting the difference between sea level and land elevation.
            So put sea water on land and get lots of hydropower.
            btw the problem is a political power of the socialist egyptian government, a less dysfunctional political system would have done it, already.

          • David Appell says:

            Yes, you implied, by where and the way you commented, that it did have something to do with modern SLR.

            It doesn’t.

          • gbaikie says:

            –David Appell says:
            May 27, 2018 at 10:24 PM
            Yes, you implied, by where and the way you commented, that it did have something to do with modern SLR.

            It doesnt.–

            Perhaps, your browser, is somehow distorting my post.

  25. Entropic man says:

    Brad

    A useful ready reckoner is that 1mmm of sea level rise is a volume increase of 360 cubic kilometres or 360 billion tonnes.

    This puts one human activity into perspective.

    The world’s gross shipping tonnage was 1.55 billion tonnes in 2017 and displaced 1.55 cubic kilometres.

    Remove every ship from the water and sea level would drop by 0.04mm.

    • Mike Flynn says:

      E m,

      Unfortunately, nobody has any way of knowing what the crust which forms the sea basins is doing.

      You have a touching, but naive, faith that the crust is immobile beneath the water, otherwise you wouldnt utter the sea level nonsense that you do.

      Even the visible and known movements of the tectonic plates affects the ocean basins, as there is a fixed mass of crust – what goes up somewhere is balanced by what goes down somewhere else – conservation of mass and all that.

      On top of that (or more properly at the bottom), is the unknown amount of mantle matter continuously pouring out through the mid ocean ridges, which girdle the Earth. The solidified magma displaces the water, being denser.

      Assuming that the mass of oceanic water is relatively constant, what is the effect of the displacement by now solid rock?

      No clue? And yet presumptuous fools of the climatological variety endlessly proclaim impending doom! The usual tactic of the pseudoscientific cultist – faith overcoming fact.

      Do some more calculations. Let me know when Antarctica will once again be ice free, with verdant flora and abundant fauna. Do you think the seas will rise after the Antarctic ice cap returns to the oceans, or might something else happen?

      Maybe you could dream up a testable GHE hypothesis while you are at it. Good luck.

      Cheers.

      • Nate says:

        “nobody has any way of knowing” lots of stuff, according to Mike.

        No way of knowing the the movements of the Earth’s crust, which geologists have measured exceedingly well.

        No way of knowing the heat flow from the Earth, which has been determined quite accurately to be tiny.

        No way to describe the GHE, impossible! BTW, its description and existence is required to make weather models work.

        Where does he get these notions? All very mysterious. No way of knowing.

    • David Appell says:

      EM: Nice. Put another way, sea level rise is now like 16 Niagara Falls pouring into the ocean, with nothing going out.

    • Nate says:

      +1, Entropic

  26. Entropic man says:

    AZ1971

    I think you overestimate the decline in warming rate due to the logarithmic effect.

    The increase from 280ppm to 408 ppm seen since 1880 is calculated to eventually produce 5.35ln(408/280)3/3.7=1.55C of warming.

    Adding the same amount again gives 536ppm. The warming effect is calculated to be another 5.35ln(536/408)3/3.7=1.18C

    Because of the logarithmic effect each increment of CO2 increase will produce less warming than the preceding one, but the effect is not large enough to save us from ourselves.

    • Michael Flynn says:

      E m,

      And where is the testable GHE hypothesis on which you base your calculations, pray tell?

      Or is it a case of “Put your faith in climatology, and ye shall be saved!”?

      Otherwise – Doom, Doom, thrice Doom. eh?

      Cheers.

      • Entropic man says:

        Mike Flynn

        Magma pours out of a mid atlantic ridge.

        The surrounding sea floor drops to fill the space left by the outpouring magma.

        Net effect on sea level is zero.

        My reply to AS1971 is a testable prediction of the GHG hypothesis. If the system behaves as I predicted, that is evidence in surpport. If it does not, that is evidence against the hypothesis.

        Kindly stop your repeated blather about a testable GHG hypothesis. It has been described repeatedly and a number of tests discussed.

        You are on a website whose regulars vary in their views, but all know a testable hypothesis when they see one. All that you are achieving is to make yourself sound foolish.

      • Ebbets Field says:

        Mike, you’re on a site where the acclaimed scientist who runs it agrees that CO2, to some unknown extent, has warmed the planet and is a known GHG. Yet you still can’t wrap your brain around those facts. Your ideology is showing.

        Cheerio

        • Mike Flynn says:

          E F,

          Science is not about agreement. As to the warming properties of gases, there is no testable GHE hypothesis, and hence talk of GHGs is quite meaningless.

          Dr Spencer, and anyone else with half a brain, acknowledges that the atmosphere acts chaotically, and therefore usefully predicting the effect of anything on the future state of teh atmosphere is impossible.

          That is why terms like “unknown effect” are used.

          The. IPCC itself clearly stated that the prediction of future climate states is impossible. Maybe your ideology is showing?

          Cheers.

        • Gordon Robertson says:

          ebbets…”Mike, youre on a site where the acclaimed scientist who runs it agrees that CO2, to some unknown extent, has warmed the planet and is a known GHG. Yet you still cant wrap your brain around those facts. Your ideology is showing”.

          My take on Roy’s position on CO2-warming is one of bemusement. Roy is trying to understand what all the fuss is about and he takes exception to the bs being peddled about matters like sea level rise and so on.

    • David Appell says:

      Entropic man says:
      The increase from 280ppm to 408 ppm seen since 1880 is calculated to eventually produce 5.35ln(408/280)3/3.7=1.55C of warming.

      You’re confusing radiative forcing and warming.

      The CO2 increase is 1.55 W/m2 of FORCING. The amount of warming depends on the transient climate response and equilibrium climate sensitivity.

      • CO2isLife says:

        W/M^2 aren’t additive. If I add 1 gallon of 40 degree water to another gallon of 40 degree water, the water doesn’t increase to 80 degrees. 13 to 18 microns is the blackbody equivalent of -80 degree C. You aren’t going to warm anything with that low energy, nor will you warm H2O or melt ice. The first you even see the CO2 signature is up 3 km when CO2 is precipitating out. CO2 is 400 ppm all the way up to 70 km yet temperatures warm and cool throughout the different layers completely unrelated to CO2.

        • Mike Flynn says:

          CO2,

          These dimwits add Watts with gay abandon. Stupid and ignorant, I know, but that is the nature of fumbling bumblers.

          They just invent new jargon to confuse anyone trying to pin them down. Forcings? Feedbacks? ECS? DWLIR?

          What a pack of clowns!

          Cheers.

        • David Appell says:

          CO2isLife says:
          W/M^2 arent additive.

          Of course they are.

          If I add 1 gallon of 40 degree water to another gallon of 40 degree water, the water doesnt increase to 80 degrees.

          This isn’t an example of what you’re trying to refute. Far from it.

          • Mike Flynn says:

            DA,

            Of course they aren’t.

            300 W/m2 from 1 m2 of ice, added to 300 W/m2 from another 1 m2 of ice, produces no increase in temperature.

            Pseudoscientific equations involving nonsensical manipulations serve only to confuse, which is the reason climate clowns use them.

            Learn some physics. Accept fact – the Earth has cooled over the last four and a half billion years. Calculate that in W/m2, if you want to appear really stupid and ignorant.

            Cheers.

        • Gordon Robertson says:

          CO2…”W/M^2 arent additive”.

          An even neater trick is assigning W/m^2 to electromagnetic energy, then summing a two way flow of EM to claim the 2nd law is not contravened.

          A watt is a measure of power and typically measured in joules/second. It typically refers to heat but it is also used to measure electrical power as in P = EI.

          In sheer desperation, climate alarmists have assigned it to EM in contravention of what you claim above. Of course, it was assigned by Stefan-Boltzmann but both of them though heat flowed through the air as heat rays.

          746 watts = 1 horsepower

          So 746 watts of EM should be the equivalent power provided by a horse. Neat, if you can do it. Jut harness you load to a moonbeam.

          It’s very odd how science has deteriorated to a point where people are thoroughly confused about the meaning of heat and the difference between heat and EM.

        • Nate says:

          Right, remember, Mike, according to you, temperatures add. Hahahahahahahhah!

        • Nate says:

          “CO2 is precipitating out” uhhhhh no, just no.

          So many NOs for you CO2. W/m^2 are of course additive.

          No difference if I shine 100 W light on you, or ten 10 W lights, none.

          ” 13 to 18 microns is the blackbody equivalent of -80 degree C”

          Not sure how you derive that temperature. CO2 in the atmosphere has various temps. Still, -80C is 190 C warmer than space!

          Would you be warmer if surrounded by walls at room temp, or walls 190 C degrees lower!

      • Entropic man says:

        David Appell

        I’m not confusing forcing and temperature. I’m using an extended version of the forcing equation.

        The change in forcing due to a change in CO2 is

        ∆f = 5.35ln(C/Co)

        ∆f is the change in forcing
        C is the new CO2 concentration
        Co is the original CO2 concentration.

        Climate sensitivity can be defined as forcing+feedbacks/ direct forcing. The IPCC mid-range value for CO2 is 3.

        The IPCC estimate that a change in total forcing of 3.7W/M2 will produce a temperature rise of 1C.

        The effect of a given change in direct forcing becomes
        climate sensiivity/ forcing per C

        Put these together and the formula becomes

        ∆T = 5.35ln(C/Co).climate sensitivity / forcing per C

        I haven’t seen it in the literature, but it gives me a convenient formula for calculating the temperature response of the system to a given change in CO2.

        Feel free to critique. If I’ve made a silly mistake of logic or there is a standard equation which does the same thing, I’d like to know.

        • Mike Flynn says:

          E m,

          You wrote –

          “I’m using an extended version of the forcing equation.”

          This would be the nonsensical sciency piece of rubbish supposedly based on nothing that can be actually verified by experiment because it is too complicated?

          Climate is the average of weather – nothing more, nothing less.

          Future climate states can not be predicted – fairly obvious, and agreed by the IPCC.

          There is nothing to critique – you are stupid and ignorant. Your supposed equations are meaningless thrashing around – completely irrelevant and pointless.

          Carry on.

          Cheers.

        • David Appell says:

          EM: The IPCC gives a relatively large range for ECS — and not as a Bell Curve, just as a pure interval — and you can’t just assign 3.7 C/(W/m2) to it.

        • Gordon Robertson says:

          entropic…” The change in forcing due to a change in CO2 is

          ∆f = 5.35ln(C/Co)”

          Where’s the proof? We had a global warming hiatus for 18 years from 1998 – 2015 according to the IPCC and UAH. What was forced?

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        DA….”The increase from 280ppm to 408 ppm seen since 1880 is calculated to eventually produce 5.35ln(408/280)3/3.7=1.55C of warming”.

        A direct contravention of the Ideal Gas Law. CO2 at 0.04% of the atmosphere could not possibly provide warming of more that a few hundredths of a degree C.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        DA…”Youre confusing radiative forcing and warming”.

        Who would not be confused about forcing? It’s a stupid term that applies only to climate models. In the real atmosphere there no such thing as forcing.

  27. Martin J says:

    Dr Spencer, you claim elsewhere on this blog that the PDO can explain most of the global temperature increase over the last century with only a relatively small contribution by Grenhouse gases after 1950. Is it the PDO you are referring to with the term “natural” causes in this post?

    If so, how do you explain the sea level rise during the period 1947-1976 when the PDO was in a cold phase? It should have had a negative effect then right? Instead the rate of sea level was higher than during 1900-1947 when PDO was in positive mode.

    • David Appell says:

      This is a good and insightful question.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      Martin…”how do you explain the sea level rise during the period 1947-1976 when the PDO was in a cold phase?”

      The PDO was not discovered till 1977 and not named the PDO till into the 1990s. How could anyone have real data for it from 1947 – 1976?

  28. Lewis guignard says:

    As an aside,
    if, as we’re told, 20,000 years ago, the oceans were 250 feet (or some such) lower than they are now, that implies an average of .12 inches of rise per decade since. One can be sure it was not a strait line rise.

    So the argument that humans have an influence of any significance is difficult to believe. – More exactly, as there is no way to test the hypothesis against no human influence, How does one know there is any influence?

    • David Appell says:

      Except the warming we’re causing now is about 30 times faster than when the planet warmed up after the last glacial maximum.

      • Mike Flynn says:

        DA,

        Complete nonsense. Nobody has ever managed to raise the temperature of anything with CO2.

        Not even a stupid and ignorant pseudoscientific dimwit of the climatological variety.

        They wouldnt be stupid enough to claim it is possible, would they?

        Cheers.

      • Bart says:

        Yes, it is complete nonsense.

        https://tinyurl.com/hc4bpt3

    • Nate says:

      Lewis,

      “0.12 inch per decade”. The current rise is 1.3 inch per decade, so I dont understand the point.

  29. DEEBEE says:

    Slightly OT. But it is fascinating that you describe pre-1950 as natural. As if the other rise is unnatural and therefore a bad thing. I know not your intent. But another subtle way progs win, even if not science

    • Entropic man says:

      DEEBEE

      In a scientific debate of this nature the distinction is not between natural and unnatural, but between natural and artificial.

      Natural is what conditions would be like in the absence of our industrial civilization.

      Artificial is what we may have induced.

      As you say, unnatural is a value judgement.

  30. Entropic man says:

    Lewis Guignard

    The classic test of any hypothesis is to carry out controlled experiments to test its predictions.

    Unfortunately this would require multiple planets with different amounts of industrially released CO2 for comparison.

    There are other possibilities.

    There is considerable paleoclimate data available, so past climates can be compared with the present. You see a correlation between increased temperature, increased CO2 and increased sea level. Most of the time geology or astronomy drives changes temperature and CO2 acts as an amplifying feedback. Sea level follows. Occasionally a rapid rise in CO2 drives an increase in temperature.

    You can also simulate climate under different conditions using models and compare their projections with observation.

    • Mike Flynn says:

      E m,
      You wrote –

      “The classic test of any hypothesis is to carry out controlled experiments to test its predictions.

      Unfortunately this would require multiple planets with different amounts of industrially released CO2 for comparison.”

      If you cannot devise a hypothesis which can be tested by experiment, you are talking pseudoscience, or speculation. You cant even describe this supposed GHE, can you? You would have to claim that introducing additional CO2 between the Sun and a thermometer makes the thermometer hotter!

      You would also have to explain the cooling of the earth over the last four and a half billion years, and the fall in temperatures at night, along with the fact that the hottest places on Earth occur where the least amounts of supposed GHGs are in the atmosphere.

      How hard can it be? Very. Impossible, in fact. That is why the climatological fumbling bumblers resort to claims that they dont need to follow normal scientific practices. They dont need no stinkin’ scientific method!

      Cheers.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      entropic…”There is considerable paleoclimate data available, so past climates can be compared with the present”.

      The Medieval Warm Period, circa 1000 AD, was warmer than today. Was that due to CO2?

    • ren says:

      Sea Surface Temperature Anomalies, Ice and Snow Cover
      https://weather.gc.ca/data/saisons/images/[email protected]@sd_000.png

      • Ren, the real data is looking good of late in that it has shown global warming has failed to make any further progress, much less showing some cooling thus far in year 2018.

        Sea surface temperatures I think need to be monitored, and so far that trend has also been down of late.

        I wish we had better cloud coverage, albedo, and aerosol concentrations in the stratosphere data along with more frequent updates on the geo magnetic field.

        That data would be so useful.

        So far so good if your belief is global warming what little we have had ,like about .8c since the Little Ice Age ended in 1850, is now in the process of winding down.

        I conclude that because what I think drives the climate solar/geo magnetic fields, are now weakening and this weakening I think results in cooling if the degree of magnitude and duration of time is sufficient.

        I think year 2018 is the first year where this is coming to be. I may be early but I think not.

        On the other hand it is still early , global temperatures are still high, have not fallen enough but it is a start.

        Will it be a false start? We will see.

        • David Appell says:

          “Temperatures in response to this will decline in the near future, in contrast to the steady state of temperature we presently have,or have been having for the past 15 years or so.”

          – Salvatore Del Prete, 11/6/2012
          http://www.drroyspencer.com/2012/11/uah-v5-5-global-temp-update-for-october-2012-0-33-deg-c/#comment-64939

          • David Appell says:

            ren, that’s another one of your dumb 1-day-only charts that says absolutely NOTHING about how temperature is changing (“falling”).

        • gbaikie says:

          SOLAR CYCLE 24 STATUS AND SOLAR CYCLE 25 UPCOMING FORECAST
          published: Thursday, April 26, 2018 19:18 UTC

          “Current solar cycle 24 is declining more quickly than forecast. The smoothed, predicted sunspot number for April to May, 2018 is about 15; however, the actual monthly values have been lower. Will solar minimum be longer than usual or might solar cycle 25 begin earlier? Leading solar and space science experts will convene a meeting in the coming years and attempt to predict solar cycle 25.”
          https://www.swpc.noaa.gov/news/solar-cycle-24-status-and-solar-cycle-25-upcoming-forecast

          James Marusek’s forecast:

          4. The number of Galactic Cosmic Rays (GCRs) striking Earth increased. GCRs are highenergy charged particles that originate outside our solar system. They are produced when a star exhausts its nuclear fuel and explodes into a supernova. The Suns magnetic field modulates the GCR flux rate on Earth. Cosmic rays are deflected by the interplanetary magnetic field embedded in the solar wind, and therefore have difficulty reaching the inner solar system. The effects from the solar winds are felt at distance approximately 200 AU from the sun, in a region of space known as the Heliosphere. As the sun went quiet magnetically, the Heliosphere shrunk, and a greater number of these particles penetrated into the Earths atmosphere. The suns interplanetary magnetic field fell to around 4 nano-Tesla (nT) from a typical value of 6 to 8 nT. The solar wind pressure went down to a 50-year low. The heliospheric current sheet flattened. In 2009, cosmic ray intensities increased 19% beyond anything that was seen since satellite measurements began 50 years before.
          And:
          III. Detailed Forecast

          “I predict that the intensity of Solar Cycle 25 will be fairly similar to Solar Cycle 24. I base this prediction on two observations:

          1. The pattern seen in Solar Cycles 22 through 25 matches fairly close to the historical pattern seen in Solar Cycles 3 through 6. Refer to Figure 3. Solar Cycle 4 to Solar Cycle 7 corresponded to a period known as the Dalton Minimum. The Dalton Minimum was a time of minimal sunspots, a series of weak solar cycles; but it is not weak enough to be described as a Solar Grand Minima.

          2. Solar cycles come in pairs. A solar cycle is in reality a half cycle. It takes two solar cycles to complete one full cycle. In one solar cycle, the magnetic polarity of the sun faces north and in the next it faces south. At the end of 2 solar cycles the sun is back to its original starting point. So they are two different sides of the same coin. The intensity of each half cycle is approximately equal.

          In my opinion, the most interesting part of the upcoming solar cycle is the period of minimal sunspots rather than the period of maximum sunspots because the minimum represents the extreme, the primary actor that foreshadows weather events. ”
          https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2018/02/11/james-maruseks-forecast-for-solar-cycle-25/

          • David Appell says:

            gbaikie says:

            Current solar cycle 24 is declining more quickly than forecast.

            According to whom?

            When I look at the minimum of this solar cycle I don’t see a thing that’s suspicious:

            http://spot.colorado.edu/~koppg/TSI/TSI_Composite.png

            How about pointing it out to me?

          • David Appell says:

            gbaikie says:
            4. The number of Galactic Cosmic Rays (GCRs) striking Earth increased.

            So what? There is no evidence for the Svensmark effect — in fact, there is evidence against it. The first study of Svenmarks hypothesized process does not support it — a model found that changes in cosmic rays are two orders of magnitude too small to cause such changes in clouds:

            Can cosmic rays affect cloud condensation nuclei by altering new particle formation rates?, J. R. Pierce and P.J. Adams, Geophysical Research letters, v36, L09820, 6 PP., 2009.

            And even if the Svensmark hypothesis applied it would not disprove or nullify the warming properties of CO2, which are quite strong — it would only mean we might face even *more* warming in the future.

          • gbaikie says:

            –Current solar cycle 24 is declining more quickly than forecast.

            According to whom?–
            NOAA
            I will give link, again:

            https://www.swpc.noaa.gov/news/solar-cycle-24-status-and-solar-cycle-25-upcoming-forecast

            –When I look at the minimum of this solar cycle I dont see a thing thats suspicious:

            http://spot.colorado.edu/~koppg/TSI/TSI_Composite.png

            How about pointing it out to me?–

            Well according to the other link, I provided above.
            There is less UV and more visible light.
            And that link claimed that tropics gets higher temperature and less rain fall in tropics. Which I have not heard anyone else making that claim, but there numerous other sources describing the changes in amount UV light.

          • gbaikie says:

            “And even if the Svensmark hypothesis applied it would not disprove or nullify the warming properties of CO2, which are quite strong it would only mean we might face even *more* warming in the future. ”

            Well as I have said, we are still recovering from Little Ice Age, and I don’t expect, cooling anytime soon. Though I might change my mind in a few years.
            But I do think the solar min, could effect weather, and prolonged effect on weather, could have some effect on global temperatures.
            And still think CO2 could have some effect on global temperature, or U am still a lukewarmer – and K would want warmer global average temperatures, rather slightly cooler.

            I tend to think the cold weather mentioned in the second link, is bit colder then I expect, but a slight chance to get something like, I suppose.

          • David Appell says:

            In what way are we still recovering from the little ice age?

            Temperatures now are higher than they were at the beginning of that era. How does a recovery produce warmer temperatures than that?

          • gbaikie says:

            Grr.

            U and K are supposed to be I

          • gbaikie says:

            –David Appell says:
            May 27, 2018 at 11:06 PM
            In what way are we still recovering from the little ice age?

            Temperatures now are higher than they were at the beginning of that era. How does a recovery produce warmer temperatures than that?–

            I think global average temperature is related, or is, average ocean temperature, which we are not really measuring, yet.

            So, global average ocean temperature, is about 3.5 C.
            And the entire ocean average temperature (about 3.5 C) controls the average ocean surface temperature, which again is about 17 C.

            So recovery has to do with a temperature, which we aren’t really measuring, and why I say, “about”.

            Though one could claim we are sort of starting to actually measure it. And we have proxies providing historical measurements.

            So, essential aspect of global climate is understanding we are in an icebox climate.

          • gbaikie says:

            Though, global land air surface temperature, could be regarded as a proxy for what would regard as the real global average temperature. And sea level rise or fall also acts a proxy.

            Global climate has from the beginning used sea level as measuring stick, and also used glacier as a proxy for global average temperatures.
            Measuring glaciers is why, the Little Ice Age is called what it is called. Though there was also the cold weather.

          • gbaikie says:

            Also, it generally accepted that there is a delay, cools first, and glaciers form. Or warms first, glaciers melt and sea levels rise.
            This delay with glaciers advancing or retreating is about 50 years.
            And with warming ocean, it is a longer delay, in terms entire average temperature of ocean, though with the surface ocean temperatures, it is months of time in regards to delay affecting surface air of land.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            DA…”In what way are we still recovering from the little ice age?

            Temperatures now are higher than they were at the beginning of that era”.

            *******

            You forgot about the Medieval Warm Period circa 1000 AD. It was warmer than today and the proof is farming by the Vikings on Greenland.

            There’s no way it that warm today, no one is farming on Greenland. Therefore it cooled following the MWP and we have not returned to that level of warming.

            What caused the MWP? Let me guess, the Vikings were burning peat on Greenland.

  31. Entropic man says:

    DEEBEE

    In a scientific debate of this nature the distinction is not between natural and unnatural, but between natural and artificial.

    Natural is what conditions would be like in the absence of our industrial civilization.

    Artificial is what we may have induced.

    As you say, unnatural is a value judgement.

    • Mike Flynn says:

      E m,

      Man is part of the environment, surely.

      Are you claiming that natural” for dinosaurs is the absence of mammals and suchlike? Nature is chaotic, it appears. Never static, constantly changing.

      More than 99.9% of all species are now extinct – before man existed. Even the CO2 that you might complain about, comes from burning things that Mother Nature carefully tucked away for our use.

      Good luck with trying to defeat Nature. Youll need it.

      Cheers.

  32. David I am glad you are back. It is boring without you.

  33. David I had said a 5 year period. Are you saying if 5 years from now global temperatures are lower then today you still would believe in AGW?

    Maybe a better way to ask it is how much lower (regardless of time) would global temperatures have to be in order for you to START to question the theory?

    .2c .4c 1.0c etc

    • David Appell says:

      Salvatore, I know what you wrote. Five years isn’t *close* to being long enough to rule out AGW.

      It depends on what else is going on, but if nothing special, something more like 30-50 years might suffice. Might.

      I don’t think you understand the extent to which physics REQUIRES anthropogenic global warming. The great surprise would be if it wasn’t occurring….

      • 30 -50 years!

        You will never change your mind I guess no matter what happens in contrast to myself which is I will change my mind within the next year or two if global temperatures continue to rise and maybe even if they stay the same.

        • David Appell says:

          Salvatore Del Prete says:
          …I will change my mind within the next year or two if global temperatures continue to rise and maybe even if they stay the same.

          That’s because you don’t understand the difference between climate change and natural variations.

          I’ve tried to explain it to you many times, but you clearly aren’t capable of understanding and I give up.

          • David natural variations in the past have taken less then a decade at times.

          • and I have to add the climate changed.

            A great recent example is going into the Little Ice Age from the Medieval warm period around 1300 AD and the sudden end of the Little Ice Age around 1850 AD. Not to mention all the temperature variations within the Little Ice Age.

            It happened fast not slowly.

          • David I said I would change my mind and admit to being wrong.

          • David Appell says:

            Salvatore Del Prete says:
            David natural variations in the past have taken less then a decade at times.

            Yes Salvatore, which is why it’s idiotic to try to make conclusions about climate based on every month’s change, as you repeatedly try to do.

            Or a 3-month change. Or 6-month. Or 2-year.

            When are you going to learn????

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            DA…”Thats because you dont understand the difference between climate change and natural variations”.

            There is no such thing as climate change in the context used by alarmists. Local climates do change but not due to an overall increase of CO2. There are other factors involved, like a change in precipitation.

  34. CO2isLife says:

    Anyone want to take a stab at why NASA GISS uses satellite data for sea level and not temperatures? Just curious.

    • David Appell says:

      Because satellites directly measure sea level.

      • David Appell says:

        Or did. I’m not sure what’s happening since the GRACE satellite pair when down.

        • gbaikie says:

          “The Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment Follow-On (GRACE-FO) mission is a partnership between NASA and the German Research Centre for Geosciences (GFZ). GRACE-FO is a successor to the original GRACE mission, which orbited Earth from 2002-2017. GRACE-FO will carry on the extremely successful work of its predecessor while testing a new technology designed to dramatically improve the already remarkable precision of its measurement system.”
          https://gracefo.jpl.nasa.gov/mission/overview/

      • Bart says:

        No, they do not. GRACE measures perturbations in the gravity gradient from the Earth, from which one can infer redistributions of mass on the Earth. It requires a variety of assumptions to conclude how much of the redistribution is from water mass migrating from the poles, and how much from movements of the crust and other components.

    • Bindidon says:

      If I well remember, O2 microwave as well as IR readings by satellites create major biases at Earth’s surface, especially over oceans.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      CO2…”Anyone want to take a stab at why NASA GISS uses satellite data for sea level and not temperatures? Just curious”.

      1)GISS is hopeless.

      2)It’s easier to fudge sat data.

  35. Snape says:

    Sal

    The April, 2018 anomaly of 0.21 was influenced by a weak la nina. What happens if the April 2023 anomaly is influenced by a very strong la nina?

    The 2023 value might be colder, but would tell you nothing because it’s comparing apples to oranges.

  36. Snape says:

    If in 5 years the per decade trend has fallen significantly, I would be inclined to agree with Dr. Spencer that sensitivity to CO2 has been overestimated.

  37. Paul A. says:

    We don’t have a global warming problem. We have a global coolng problem. When is the science world going to wake up?

  38. Bindidon says:

    Salvatore Del Prete says:
    May 27, 2018 at 6:58 AM

    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/05/02/giss-global-land-ocean-temperature-index-vs-ghcn/

    exposing the deceit in the temperature data.

    *

    No, Salvatore: the deceit is 100% on Mark Fife’s side.

    1. He compares GHCN data with GISS land+ocean data. That is pure nonsense, as GHCN is a land-only measurement.

    2. He uses only 490 stations for an appreciation of the whole world, where in fact over 35000 stations contributed to temperature measurement from 1880 till today.

    3. The vast majority of these (intentionally selected?) 490 stations is in the USA. This creates a major bias, as 2% of Earth are dominating the rest.

    4. He uses nonsensical data (days with temperature over this and that, coldest months, warmest months) as material to compare with GISS data, instead of comparing the complete GHCN time series with GISS.

    Few people could do a worse job than Fife’s.

    *

    Here is a comparison of a run over all accessible GHCN V4 daily stations worldwide with GISS land-only, in the period 1880-2018:

    http://4gp.me/bbtc/1527465547918.jpg

    The same data now compared with UAH in the period 1979-2018:

    http://4gp.me/bbtc/1527465910329.jpg

    As you can see, GISS land-only shows for the satellite era, with 0.22 C / decade, a trend much nearer to UAH land (0.17 C) than to GHCN (0.35 C).

    And here is the yearly record of all GHCN V4 stations having contributed in each year:

    http://4gp.me/bbtc/1527466146715.jpg

    *

    Sources

    – GHCN V4 daily
    tinyurl.com/y8xyojfw

    – GISS land-only
    tinyurl.com/lzlhu3h

    – UAH 6.0 LT
    tinyurl.com/y997zl7w

    • You are entitled to your opinion. As for me I will be going by the data Dr. Spencer outs out. Someone that is pretty even handed when it comes to the climate.

      No agenda and is not a proponent of solar and is luke warm on AGW.

      For the record I do not believe the GISS data never have and never will.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      binny…”No, Salvatore: the deceit is 100% on Mark Fifes side”.

      More bs from binny.

      Here’s how it really works. GHCN gathers temperatures from global sources. NOAA takes the data, slashes it down to 25% of the available data, adds that to a climate model, then synthesizes (fudges) bigus data through statistical interpolation and homogenization.

      GISS takes the fudged NOAA data and fudges it even more.

      Along comes binny and uses the double-fudged data, trying to convince us it is legit.

  39. Myki says:

    Warming? What warming?
    “Record-breaking heat wave continues through Memorial Day.
    Twin Cities likely to break record for consecutive 90-degree days in May. “

    • David Appell says:

      No records about specific locales over short time periods say anything about AGW.

      I wish you’d quit posting them, because they are very misleading, not less than posts about cold spots.

      • Myki says:

        While you are correct, it does annoy the heck out of them.
        Which, in my book, is a good thing.

        • David Appell says:

          Sorry, but I don’t think they annoy anyone — they’re just dismissed as not representative of climate change.

          • Myki says:

            Sorry, but they are consistent with climate change since the records typically go back 100 years – not “short time periods”.
            Breaking warm records at a greater rate than breaking cool records is a measure of climate change.

        • Gordon Robertson says:

          myki…”Which, in my book, is a good thing”.

          Don’t tell me you’re writing a book?

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      myki…”Twin Cities likely to break record for consecutive 90-degree days in May”

      Note that the previous record was 1934. That was before NOAA erased it.

  40. Gordon Robertson says:

    DA…RSS is now in the fudged camp with NOAA, GISS, and Had-crut.

    Here’s proof:

    http://joannenova.com.au/2017/07/satellite-battle-five-reasons-uah-is-different-better-to-the-rss-global-temperature-estimates/

    • David Appell says:

      Gordon, you’ll have to summarize that — I don’t read denier blogs.

      I bet you can’t summarize that.

    • David Appell says:

      Gordon, again If you paint three targets on the side of a barn, what’s the probability a thrown ball hits one of them?

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        DA…”If you paint three targets on the side of a barn, whats the probability a thrown ball hits one of them?”

        Is that from inside the barn, or outside the barn?

  41. David Appell says:

    You’ll also have to explain why RSS’s trend aligns with GI.SS’s, NO.AA’s, Had.CRUT’s, JMA’s and BEST, while UAH is the outlier.

    That doesn’t speak well for UAH.

    • La Pangolina says:

      David Appell says:
      May 27, 2018 at 9:28 PM

      You’ll also have to explain why RSS’s trend aligns with GISS’s, NOAA’s, Had.CRUT’s, JMA’s …, while UAH is the outlier.

      Wrong.

      JMA’s linear estimate for 1979-2018 is:
      0.135 ± 0.005 °C / decade
      i.e. much nearer to UAH 6.0 than to the rest.

    • Bart says:

      “If everyone is thinking alike, then somebody isn’t thinking.”
      – George S. Patton

      It doesn’t speak well for the others that they are marching in lockstep. He who pays the piper calls the tune.

  42. Dan Pangburn says:

    I wonder how much of the sea level rise is a result of pumping water out of the ground for irrigation, industry, residential.

  43. David appell says:

    Salvatore, No one who is the least bit competent would ever link to a watts posting. That is the worst denier site on the Internet. Do you have any real science to site? That is, anything thats been published in a peer reviewed journal?

  44. David appell says:

    Really? Just how fast it happen Salvatore? The truth is it didnt happen very fast at all, and you have no evidence showing it did.

  45. David appell says:

    Until today this site filled in my name, email address, and you are out. Now suddenly it doesnt. Any reasons, Roy? Im just kidding, because I know you dont really care, and no one really cares about what word press dollars. It is truly the worst software ever unleashed onto the Internet.

  46. David appell says:

    Why did I even ask? Nobody cares at all, let alone Roy.

    • Mike Flynn says:

      DA,

      Possibly because you are stupid and ignorant? Why do you think you need to ask someone else to explain your mental perturbations?

      Cheers.

  47. ren says:

    After rainfall on the Arabian Peninsula and in the US, the water level will fall. The mighty monsoon season in Asia begins.

  48. Aaron S says:

    Including Carl Sagan in the original Cosmos.

  49. Aaron S says:

    Pulling out Human influence is impossible because: the dominant driver of eustacy is orbital parameters and the orbits and forcing are highy precise but the timing for climate change is poorly understood (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/100,000-year_problem). There are clearly internal dynamics in the system that we dont get. For example peak diurnal solar radiation leads peak diurnal temperature. This sort of process could be at work.

    2. The major contribution from Greenland is related to thermal hotspot. The hotspot has nothing to do with humans.

    3. Last interglacial sea level was >6m higher than today. There is no way to exclude that we are on our way to a 2m increase as the peak of this cycle. However it shows there was clearly something that prevented the runaway warming our extreme IPCC models anticipate. So much of the feedbacks are not supported by analogy.

  50. David is a very strong believer in AGW, to the point that no matter what the global temperatures do moving forward which does not make any sense.

    So as(if) the global temperatures decrease David, is going to keep saying month after month that AGW is alive and well.

    You will be more and more in the minority and may eventually be the last man standing.

    Good luck you will need it if global temperatures do not continue to rise or at least stay at these levels.

    • ren says:

      Abstract
      Motivated by numerous ground‐based noctilucent cloud (NLC) sightings at latitudes as low as ~40°N in recent years, we have conducted a study to determine if there have been any systematic NLC increases in the midnorthern latitudes. This question is addressed through investigating both the measured and modeled polar mesospheric cloud (PMC) occurrence frequencies. Temperature measured by the SABER instrument on the TIMED satellite over the 2002–2011 time period and a 7 year water vapor climatology developed from the data measured by the MLS instrument on the Aura satellite for the 2005–2011 period are used to simulate midlatitude PMCs. PMCs measured by the OSIRIS instrument on the Odin satellite and the SHIMMER instrument on the STPSat‐1 satellite are used to extensively validate the model‐generated PMC results. After validating the model against the PMC data, the model results were used to examine changes in the PMCs at midlatitudes between 2002 and 2011. The results show a statistically significant increase in the number of PMCs each season in the latitude range 40°N–55°N for the 10 year period examined. Increases in cloud frequency appear to be driven by the corresponding temperature decreases over the same time period. During this time, solar activity decreased from an active to a quiet period, which might have been partially responsible for the temperature decrease over this time period.
      https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2013JD021017

      • ren says:

        Influence of geomagnetic activity on mesopause temperature over Yakutia
        Galina Gavrilyeva and Petr Ammosov
        Yu. G. Shafer Institute for Cosmophysical Research and Aeronomy SB RAS, 677098, Yakutsk, Russian Federation
        Received: 13 Jun 2017 – Discussion started: 04 Oct 2017
        Revised: 29 Jan 2018 – Accepted: 31 Jan 2018 – Published: 08 Mar 2018
        Abstract. The long-term temperature changes of the mesopause region at the hydroxyl molecule OH (6-2) nighttime height and its connection with the geomagnetic activity during the 23rd and beginning of the 24th solar cycles are presented. Measurements were conducted with an infrared digital spectrograph at the Maimaga station (63° N, 129.5° E). The hydroxyl rotational temperature (TOH) is assumed to be equal to the neutral atmosphere temperature at the altitude of ∼ 87 km. The average temperatures obtained for the period 1999 to 2015 are considered. The season of observations starts at the beginning of August and lasts until the middle of May. The maximum of the seasonally averaged temperatures is delayed by 2 years relative to the maximum of the solar radio emission flux (wavelength of 10.7 cm), and correlates with a change in geomagnetic activity (Ap index). Temperature grouping in accordance with the geomagnetic activity level showed that in years with high activity (Ap > 8), the mesopause temperature from October to February is about 10 K higher than in years with low activity (Ap < = 8). Cross-correlation analysis showed no temporal shift between geomagnetic activity and temperature. The correlation coefficient is equal to 0.51 at the 95 % level.
        https://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/18/3363/2018/

  51. La Pangolina says:

    ren says:
    May 28, 2018 at 6:35 AM

    1. https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2013JD021017

    Increases in cloud frequency appear to be driven by the corresponding temperature decreases over the same time period. During this time, solar activity decreased from an active to a quiet period, which might have been partially responsible for the temperature decrease over this time period.

    2. http://saber.gats-inc.com/news.php

    The increase appears to be driven by corresponding mesopause region temperature decreases over the same time period. During this time, solar activity decreased from a maximum to a quiet period, which might have been partially responsible for the temperature decrease over this time period. Further research to understand these changes and their consistency is ongoing.

    *

    The mesopause is the temperature minimum at the boundary between the mesosphere and the thermosphere atmospheric regions.

  52. ren says:

    Heavy downpours in Kansans, Nebraska, South Dakota.

  53. ren says:

    The cold from the north will continue to flow west North America.
    http://files.tinypic.pl/i/00965/clexcicxbhl9.png

  54. Christopher Hanley says:

    Apropos sea-level as a global temperature proxy and the MWP.
    Evidence that around 800 AD the sea-level along the glacio-isostatic stable NE coast of Australia was at a high stand of about 1.2m higher than now and fell at a rate between 0.1 – 0.5mm/yr within 200 years:
    https://research.jcu.edu.au/tropwater/publications/RapidrelativesealevelfallalongnortheasternAusralia.pdf

  55. Christopher Hanley says:

    Decimal point in the wrong spot, 1 – 5mm/yr.

  56. Mike Flynn says:

    Cooling? What cooling?

    “Extreme winter cold front from Antarctica to send temperatures across Australia plunging below zero and bring snow to the Alps – so how cold will it be near YOU?”

    Cheers.

    • Myki says:

      No records broken.
      No cigar.

    • goldminor says:

      @ Mike …the change down around Antarctica is not due to extreme cold, but rather to the major shift in surface winds for the region. Antarctica did experience a rapid drop to cold temps early on, but that has since been mitigated by surface winds back to average conditions for the time of year.

      • Mike Flynn says:

        g,

        Just having a bit of fun, with a newspaper quote. As to winds, chaos in action, unless shown otherwise – my opinion, anyway.

        And of course, my opinion is worth what you just paid for it.

        Cheers.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      Mike…”Extreme winter cold front from Antarctica to send temperatures across Australia plunging below zero and bring snow to the Alps….”

      You mean Aussies will be skiing on Ayers Rock?

      • Mike Flynn says:

        GR,

        The last time it snowed on Ayers Rock was around 1997. Do you think it was caused by CAGW? Scary!

        Cheers.

      • Myki says:

        You mean Uluru.
        The traditional occupiers request that visitors do not climb it.
        So the answer is no.

        • Mike Flynn says:

          M,

          No, he means Ayers Rock. If he meant Uluru, he would have no doubt written Uluru.

          As to skiing (assuming sufficient snow, of course), your answer, is, as usual, wrong. A ban on climbing Ayers Rock is proposed to come into effect on Oct 28, 2019. Ski away.

          To a climatological pseudoscientist, facts are whatever you want them to be. Some of us live in the real world, and structure our lives accordingly.

          Continue to believe in the non-existent GHE if you wish. I cant be bothered. So sad, to bad.

          Cheers.

          • Myki says:

            No – the facts are:
            1. The local Anangu, the Pitjantjatjara people, call the landmark Uluṟu. Ayers Rock is no longer common usage.
            2. The climb is not prohibited, but Anangu ask as visitors to their land that you respect their wishes, culture and law by not climbing Uluru.
            You may like to dismiss the traditional occupiers, but some of us have more respect.
            But then again, you are, no doubt, an ageing, white, middle class male.

          • Mike Flynn says:

            M,

            As usual, you haven’t disputed a single thing I wrote. Ayers Rock is still common usage for official purposes – for example, YAYE (Ayers Rock) happens to be the ICAO usage for the airport.

            Be as PC as you like – you obviously respect inherited wealth, power, and position rather than treating people on their merits. Do you aquiesce as readily to the requests of European nobility?

            You haven’t the faintest idea of the wishes, culture and supposed law of the Government recognised traditional owners, have you?

            You also haven’t the faintest idea of my background,, nor of my ethnicity, age, social standing or pretty well anything else – standard fare for a pseudoscientific GHE supporter, I suppose.

            So deny, divert, and do your best to confuse. You still cannot produce a testable GHE hypothesis, can you?

            Keep on with the puerile attempts at being gratuitously offensive. I generally decline to take offense, and you have provided no good reason for making an exception for you. So sad, too bad. Good for a laugh, if nothing else!

            Cheers.

  57. Aaron S says:

    La Pang,
    It seems that paper supports the idea Greenland is a hotspot with thermal vents that may be causing unknown melting. Thus determining the human component is unlikely.

    • La Pangolina says:

      What I contradicted was the inverse:

      The major contribution from Greenland is related to thermal hotspot.

      That’s all.

  58. Nate says:

    If David is paid, then certainly Mike Flynn is. His posts are more like propoganda. Highly repetetive. Catch phrases. Half truths -literally, ie the moon is very hot!

  59. Mike Flynn says:

    N,

    Learn to spell.

    If you wish to disagree with me, quote my words if you like – pseudoscientific climatological types don’t have the courage, usually.

    People are free to take notice of what I write, or not, as they wish. They might even agree that the lack of a testable GHE hypothesis means that any climatological pretensions to science, are just that – pretensions.

    Carry on. Toss in a fact from time to time, if you can actually find one to support whatever it is you are trying to say.

    Cheers,

  60. Nate says:

    Yeah, good point.

    On the other hand, Rudy Giuliani is being paid for his propaganda ‘skills’.

  61. Nate says:

    Mike, Im quite sure youve said the moon was very hot, never mentioning the cold side.

    As far as posting facts, my experience with you is, you do not respond. Or you simply deny them. Not much incentive then, is there?

    • Mike Flynn says:

      N,

      You may be quite sure, and you may still be wrong.

      What are you whining about? You can’t be bothered to quote me, and you don’t seem to be contradicting anything I said. Typical of the stupid and ignorant GHE believer.

      As to telling me what information I should include in my comments – I do as I wish. You are free to do as you wish – I’m sure you can find some more pointless and irrelevant complaints, if you try hard enough!

      I’m not sure why why my failure to respond as you wish should be of concern to you. Do you really believe you have some awesome power to bend me to your will? I’m having a laugh at your expense, of course – just in case you are too thick to realise it.

      Oh well, if you cannot figure out how to copy and paste, you will just have to assume that people believe your recollections of what I wrote. Some will, I’m sure.

      Cheers.

  62. barry says:

    If we take Wunsch’s words to be the most definitive, then we can’t say whether the human contribution is small or large or non-existent.

    People keep forgetting that uncertainty cuts both ways. It’s quite revealing.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      barry…”then we cant say whether the human contribution is small or large or non-existent.

      People keep forgetting that uncertainty cuts both ways”.

      *************

      In that case, why do you try to prop up cheaters like NOAA, who fudge data and use low confidence levels to make years look like records when they are nowhere near?

      If uncertainty is a factor, then why not be open minded about the scientific misconduct perpetuated by NOAA? Why not be open-minded about the politicalization of science by the IPCC?

      In other words, why not be skeptical?

    • barry says:

      I’m plenty skeptical. But you’re asking me to get on board with propaganda and myths.

      use low confidence levels to make years look like records

      You still think those values were confidence levels. They were probability estimates – worked out at the standard 95% confidence level.

      It’s incredible how utterly wrong you get things. This is one of the more obvious examples.

      And once we’ve dipped into your dross, it still remains that uncertainty cuts both ways, and those who believe AGW is reduced because of uncertainty are just as biased as those who overlook uncertainty to say the opposite.

      Quite revealing.

  63. Nate says:

    The ‘chaff’ and this case have tha same pattern. It is easy to recognize, unless one is primed and ready to believe.

  64. Nate says:

    “’m not sure why why my failure to respond as you wish should be of concern to you. Do you really believe you have some awesome”

    You were the one requesting things from me., that apparently you felt you needed. Im simply showing you courtesy to explain the poinlessness of that.

    • Mike Flynn says:

      N,

      You must be dreaming. You are babbling about unspecified “things”. Why you would think that I need anything from you is a mystery.

      You cannot quote anything I wrote with which you factually disagree.

      You cannot even produce a testable GHE hypothesis, let alone a GHE theory!

      Stick with your conspiracy theories – Big Oil, Big Tobacco, Hottest Year EVAH! – you can believe anything if you choose. Good luck.

      Cheers.

      • Myki says:

        Obviously suffering from too much tobacco smoke, too many oil and soldering fumes, too many hot days, not enough medication.

        • Mike Flynn says:

          M,

          Spoken like a true climatological pseudoscientist.

          A testable GHE hypothesis might be more convincing, but you are too stupid and ignorant to realise that facts are facts, whether you agree with them or not. It is a fact that increasing the amount of CO2 between the Sun and a thermometer will not raise the temperature of the thermometer.

          The surface of the Earth is no longer molten. It has cooled. Bad luck for your consensus – stupid and ignorant people agreeing with each other wont create a GHE.

          Keep the ad homs coming. They expose your inability to address inconvenient facts, dont they?

          Cheers.

  65. Nate says:

    Not chaff, all have the elements of conspiracy theories. Could be true, but usually not, and should be treated that way.

    • Myki says:

      Nate, don’t waste your time on MF. He just repeats age-old rubbish and has’nt had an original thought in years.

      • Mike Flynn says:

        Nate,

        Obey Myki. The stupid and ignorant issuing instructions to the stupid and ignorant. You should return the compliment, unless you wish to be the bottom man on the Myki totem pole of awesomeness!

        I await your decision with some amusement.

        Cheers.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        Myki…”Nate, dont waste your time on MF. He just repeats age-old rubbish….”

        Yet none of you alarmists can prove him wrong.

  66. Dan Murray says:

    “It is a fact that increasing the amount of CO2 between the Sun and a thermometer will not raise the temperature of the thermometer.”
    Game, set, match.

    • Nate says:

      ” ‘then certainly Mike Flynn is (getting paid)’

      Paid? For what?

      Who would ever be ready to pay for such a trivial, egocentric nonsense?”

      See La-P, there are an abundance of buyers of ‘trivial nonsense’.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        Nate…”See La-P, there are an abundance of buyers of trivial nonsense”.

        Binny (aka La-P) should know.

    • Nate says:

      Dan Murray,

      “Game, set, match”

      Not really.

      ‘Putting Co2 between the sun and a thermometer’, is a caricature of the GHE that is missing important ingredients.

      The main thing missing is that CO2 is also between Earth surface and the extreme COLD of space.

      Although CO2 is absorbing some near IR from incoming sunlight, which warms the atmosphere, it is also absorbing OUTGOING IR from the surface, but MORE of the outgoing portion, due to its absor*ption spectrum.

      The NET effect is to warm the atmosphere and act as insulation between the surface and SPACE.

  67. Myki says:

    Warming? What warming?
    The warmest month of May in American History !!!
    According to PRISM, the avg. monthly temp for the CONUS for May is 64.6F, thru 5/28. #NCEI shows the all-time CONUS record being 64.71F in May 1934. With blast furnace temps across much of CONUS next 2 days, the Dust Bowl era record should fall.

    Maybe it is the CO2 between us and the sun?

    • Dan Pangburn says:

      No, the (poorly named) GHE is essentially all a result of the water vapor between us and the 3 K CMB

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      Myki…”With blast furnace temps across much of CONUS next 2 days, the Dust Bowl era record should fall”.

      So what made it so hot in 1934 (Dust Bowl) that it took nearly a century to break the record, if it is broken?

      And why did NOAA feel it necessary to amend the 1934 record downward?

      Also, are the new proposed record a fabrication due to NOAA fudging?

      • Myki says:

        “So what made it so hot in 1934 (Dust Bowl) that it took nearly a century to break the record, if it is broken?”
        Who cares? The question is irrelevant.
        A new record is a new record is a new record. The question is why are such records being set at such a fast rate?

      • Myki says:

        “And why did NOAA feel it necessary to amend the 1934 record downward?”
        Another stupid question.
        If they were fudging the data, they would have removed the 1934 record long ago. Fact is they did’nt.

      • Myki says:

        “Also, are the new proposed record a fabrication due to NOAA fudging?”
        Ahh! The old conspiracy theory raises its ugly head again.
        That means you lose if that is all you’ve got.

    • La Pangolina says:

      Myki says:
      May 30, 2018 at 6:43 AM

      With blast furnace temps across much of CONUS next 2 days, the Dust Bowl era record should fall.

      1. Here around Berlin / Germany, we had a similar May in 1988, but this one seems to break all german records since measurement begins 130 years ago.

      *

      2. My friend is actually quite busy with the GHCN V4 daily record. What I have seen out of his data evaluation until now:

      – Dust Bowl was by no means a phenomenon solely due to temperatures. Harsh winds and thorough lack of precipitation must have been factors of equal weight;

      – the 2018 record cold days in Northern America are a myth similar to the so-called 1934 record warm year. Many winters at GHCN V4 stations located in MN, ND, MT, AK, YT, BC, MB, QC etc were by far colder. Only one station (Cigar Lake, SK) placed a 2018 day with -48 C in 4th position below 3 2002 days.

      *

      Maybe it is the CO2 between us and the sun?

      No. One single warm May certainly is not due to the amount of CO2 between the Sun and any thermometer on Earth.

      Should you have any doubt, ask Flynn. He is the worldwide best renowned expert in that sensible domain.

  68. Mike Flynn says:

    M,

    You, and other GHE believers, apparently believe that reducing the amount of energy reaching a thermometer increases the temperature of the thermometer.

    Unfortunately, this is a fantasy of the pseudoscientific climatological variety.

    Nonsense believed by the likes of Schmidt, Mann and Trenberth. Maybe you can wish a testable GHE hypothesis into existence by concentrating really, really, hard. Only joking – you can’t concentrate hard enough!

    Cheers.

  69. Norman says:

    Flynn

    I have asked you before and I will ask again.

    YOU: “You, and other GHE believers, apparently believe that reducing the amount of energy reaching a thermometer increases the temperature of the thermometer”

    What evidence do you have to support this statement. I find it false and misleading. I find you are a dishonest person intentionally because you keep making this claim with zero support. I have asked you to get evidence for it but you will not. The evidence I am seeing is you are a dishonest human who wants to deceive people who are ignorant of facts. A poor character reflection on your part.

    So what source do you have that the amount of solar energy reaching a thermometer on Earth is reduced with addition of Carbon Dioxide? If you don’t answer than I would demand you quit pretending you know what you are talking about and quit your dishonest ways. You are not helpful to anyone and make skeptics look like dishonest people that will deceive people to make a false conclusion.

    • Mike Flynn says:

      Norman,

      A quote to start with –

      “I think over the past couple of years it’s become clear that the solar irradiance at the Earth’s surface has decreased,” says Jim Hansen, a leading climate modeller with Nasa’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York.

      This guy apparently believes that a reduction in solar irradiance causes hotter thermometers. Maybe he is just stupid and ignorant, do you think?

      But I digress. I said “apparently” for good reason. Pseudoscientific climatological types strenuously avoid proposing a testable GHE hypothesis, because they realise it is impossible.

      I would be happy for you to provide a testable GHE hypothesis, but of course you can’t!

      Moving along –

      “About 23 percent of incoming solar energy is absorbed in the atmosphere by water vapor, dust, and ozone, and 48 percent passes through the atmosphere and is absorbed by the surface. Thus, about 71 percent of the total incoming solar energy is absorbed by the Earth system.”

      Of course, NASA overlook a few inconvenient truths. Such as the fact that CO2 blocks about 2000 times as much energy at certain wavelengths as O2 and N2, but comprises less than 1/2000 of the total. This means, of course, that the non-CO2 atmospheric components are responsible for more attenuation of sunlight than CO2.

      All completely irrelevant, of course, because pseudoscientists of the climatological variety refuse to say what it is they are claiming, in any form that can be scientifically assessed by experiment.

      As to your demands, I shall ignore them as usual.

      Cheers.

  70. gbaikie says:

    C02 as you know, blocks a portion of direct sunlight from reaching the surface (or a thermometer).
    But I would say the pseudoscience is largely the idea that CO2 and/or mostly water vapor causes 33 K increase to average global temperature.
    Any type of atmosphere can increase increase the average temperature of a planet, but if increases the average it also does not increase the energy of direct sunlight. Or no atmosphere increases the energy of sunlight or increases the temperature of sunlight (makes temperature higher that could be measured with a thermometer).
    Earth average temperature is increased by Earth atmosphere.
    And Earth average temperature is a fairly cool temperature of 15 C.
    And with this atmosphere Earth would be both much colder and much hotter.

    But as said what is important is Earth ocean, which by itself would be capable of making an atmosphere and with this atmosphere of H2O, would also able to increase the average temperature of Earth.

    • Norman says:

      gbaikie

      YOU: “C02 as you know, blocks a portion of direct sunlight from reaching the surface (or a thermometer).”

      Ok so how much would that be? It does make a huge difference. Scientists have measured quantities of energy that are emitted in the 15 micron range at surface air temperature. Do you have a number to put with this? Is it a microwatt/m^2? Milliwatt/m^2? Watt/m^2.

      Without numbers it is a scientifically meaningless point.

      • Mike Flynn says:

        Norman,

        What’s your point?

        Are you disputing gbaikie’s statement? You say the quantity makes a huge difference – but of course you don’t say what “it” is, or how you quantify this “huge difference”!

        You are doing a good job of appearing stupid and ignorant. If you disagree with someone, it helps to say why. A fact or two would help. You could start by providing a testable GHE hypothesis, if you truly believe that increasing the amount of CO2 between the Sun and a thermometer makes the thermometer hotter.

        Or you could keep avoiding saying what it is you really believe.

        Cheers.

        • La Pangolina says:

          Mike Flynn says:
          May 30, 2018 at 5:30 PM

          You are doing a good job of appearing stupid and ignorant.

          You give the best description of yourself one could ever imagine.

          • Mike Flynn says:

            La P,

            Thank you so much for the ringing endorsement.

            Maybe if you had included a fact or two – say a testable GHE hypothesis – your opinion might count for something, do you think?

            Otherwise, it might be considered a whiney back handed ad hom, just because your pseudoscience isn’t doing too well.

            Carry on avoiding.

            Cheers.

  71. gbaikie says:

    Meant to say: “And withOut this atmosphere Earth would be, both much colder and much hotter.”

  72. gbaikie says:

    Or only have atmosphere of CO2 (no ocean and no 1 ATM of others gases, but start with 1 ATM of CO2) and this earth is not hotter nor has higher average temperature compared to our Earth.

  73. gbaikie says:

    Watts per square meter.
    See wiki, sunlight.
    Tried to quote and link
    But anyhow, main thing is sunlight is weakened passing thru atmosphere and greenhouse gases, including, CO2, and H2O, block more than other gases.
    But I would add or clarify, it blocks direct sunlight. Or it removes from parts of spectrum of sunlight full spectrum. And for many things, it should reduce the temperature.

    • Norman says:

      gbaikie

      I would say the amount of solar energy that is weakened by CO2 is incredibly small amount.

      Here maybe this is the graph you were thinking about.
      http://geologycafe.com/oceans/images/insolation_curve.jpg

      You can see the CO2 band in the near infrared only absorbs a small amount of the solar energy in this band and the percentage of solar energy in that band is also fairly small.

      UV, Visible and Near Infrared account for 100% of the solar energy so the amount of solar energy at 15 microns would be very small. It is way to the right on the graph.

      Here is some more information for you to consider.
      http://agron-www.agron.iastate.edu/courses/Agron541/classes/541/lesson09a/9a.3.html

      http://www.sun.org/uploads/images/mainimage_BlackbodySpectrum_2.png

      • Norman says:

        gbaikie

        Here:
        http://lidar.ssec.wisc.edu/papers/dhd_thes/img47.gif

        This is a measured value of DWIR (energy emitted by the atmosphere at a certain temperature). You can see a black-body peak for a H2O CO2 band. This is actually a lot of energy as compared to what CO2 will absorb from the Sun.

      • gbaikie says:

        –gbaikie

        I would say the amount of solar energy that is weakened by CO2 is incredibly small amount.–

        and what is incredibly small, a microwatt/m^2? or Milliwatt/m^2? or Watt/m^2
        ?

        • bilybob says:

          It would appear the solar spectrum is in watt/m^2 and the energy emitted from the atmosphere is in milliwatt/m^2. Is that correct Norman? That last graph was a bit fuzzy.

          • Norman says:

            bilybob

            Yes that is the units they have chosen. Both could be in watts or milliwatts. It would not change how energy was contained in the EMR when integrated over the entire spectrum.

            You Solar flux is a total of 1360 Watt/m^2 where the Downwelling IR averages 340 W/m^2. Solar flux is 4 times the energy of the DWIR which moves it up the magnitude scale.

            If you will notice the units for the DWIR is at peak around 120 milliwatts while the peak solar is around 2.5 watts.

            If CO2 absorbs even 1% of Solar flux of 1360 W/m^2 (which seems unlikely from the graphs) it would amount to 13.6 W/m^2. The contribution of DWIR from CO2 is greater than this so a GHE would still take place with more CO2. Increases in CO2 make spread the out the area under the curve so more energy is radiated back to the surface at the same temperature of gas. The effect does get less and less each doubling.

          • bilybob says:

            Thanks Norman,

            It may be interesting to see the amounts over a 24 hour period on both. Integrate the total area between the curves and determine a total net. I would imagine as the sun changes it zenith the effect would become less and less, but I could be wrong. Of course at night there would be no impact on solar.

  74. Gordon Robertson says:

    Dan Pangburn….from earlier….”I wonder how much of the sea level rise is a result of pumping water out of the ground for irrigation, industry, residential”.

    When you come right down to it, we humans eat food from the land and poop it into the sea. Each year there are more humans and each year the sea level rises.

    • Myki says:

      Of course you are correct. I propose culling humans as an emergency measure.
      I can nominate a few to be culled right away. They would be no loss to mankind.

    • Norman says:

      Gordon Robertson

      Interesting. Let us see what contribution human poop has on sea level rise.

      Someone actually calculated the amount of global poop a year.

      https://www.quora.com/How-many-kilograms-of-feces-do-we-produce-each-day-globally

      He found that humans generate 900 million tonnes of poop a year.

      Poop is close to the density of water so it will displace an equivalent mass of water for poop.

      The ocean area is 360 million Km^2 which is equal to 3.6×10^14 m^2.

      One tonne of water is equal to one cubic meter of water.

      With 900 million tonnes of poop a year you would displace 900 million cubic meters of water.

      900 million m^3/3.6×10^14 m^2 = 0.0000025 meters or 0.0000984 inches. I don’t think you could see this value on Roy’s chart above.

  75. michael hart says:

    It’s kinda sad that one of the first things I have to do on this blog is ask the computer for the frequency of “Appell”.
    Do it yourself, and learn the meaning of troll.
    I like your blog, Roy, but it’s too much for me to bother with.

    • Bindidon says:

      What about asking your computer (over say ten threads) for the frequency of other trolls (e.g. Robertson, Flynn).

      Did you forget them? Or did you eliminate them because their blah blah perfectly fits to your own narrative?

      • Mike Flynn says:

        B,

        What about him ignoring your demand? What would he lose?

        Not happy? Why not do your own count – or are you just too lazy?

        Questions, questions.

        Cheers.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        binny…”What about asking your computer (over say ten threads) for the frequency of other trolls (e.g. Robertson, Flynn).

        Did you forget them? Or did you eliminate them because their blah blah perfectly fits to your own narrative?”

        **********

        You are confused as to the meaning of troll. A troll is someone who posts to a site to intentionally disrupt other posters.

        It goes deeper. If a blog has a theme as set by its owner/moderator and a person posts to contradict that theme, that is considered trolling.

        In case it has escaped you, Mike and I fully support Roy and the work of UAH. How could either of us be trolls when we try to counter alarmists trying to disrespect the work of Roy and John of UAH?

        Roy has pretty well declared himself as skeptical of the catastrophic global warming meme although he remains open about the sensitivity of the atmosphere to CO2. He allows a broad discussion range, which I greatly appreciate.

        DA is a troll. His intention here is not to engage in scientific discussion it’s to disrupt the input of skeptical posters like myself and Mike. He follows posters like me and Mike around posing gotchas and harassing us any way he can.

        Fortunately neither of us bite to his troll tactics.

        DA regards himself a climate journalist but he only interviews alarmist scientists. When I asked him why, he replied that the alarmists he interviews have a better understanding of climate science than either Roy or John of UAH.

        In other words he regards Roy and John as scientists of low standing yet he rambles on Roy’s blog about anything that opposes the views of Roy and UAH.

        That’s trolling.

        You are even worse. You post junk graphs and inferences using UAH data that does not resemble UAH in the least. You and your alter-ego post alarmists drivel, trying to compare UAH data to NOAA, using your own fudged graphs.

        At least DA just rambles incoherently in a harmless manner to anyone with a basic understanding of science.

    • Nate says:

      How bout how many times phrases are repeated?

      We are running a tad low on ‘testable GHE hypothesis’ and ‘stupid and ignorant’.

      Only 14 each.

      • Mike Flynn says:

        N,

        If you expect people to believe you, you should be able to provide at least a testable GHE hypothesis, otherwise people might believe you are stupid,ignorant, and a pseudoscientific fatasist to boot!

        You don’t need to thank me.

        Cheers.

      • Nate says:

        Been there done that. Many times. You must be leaking brain fluid.

        • Mike Flynn says:

          N,

          You wrote –

          “Been there done that. Many times. You must be leaking brain fluid.”

          A pseudoscientific fantasist who cannot even produce a testable GHE hypothesis would say something like that, dont you agree?

          Cheers.

  76. La Pangolina says:

    Dan Pangburn says:
    May 27, 2018 at 9:43 PM

    I wonder how much of the sea level rise is a result of pumping water out of the ground for irrigation, industry, residential.

    This is certainly significant.

    Put into numbers, 1.2 mm SLR per year would correspond to roughly 100 m3 pumping out of ground per adult Mankind unit per year, what is really not much!

    But as an expert in water vapor, shouldn’t you be able to give us a relation of that to the evaporation / precipitation cycle on Earth?

    Is SLR not a residual in the global balance sheet?

  77. Bindidon says:

    La Pangolina says:
    May 30, 2018 at 6:38 PM

    … a myth similar to the so-called 1934 record warm year.

    ***

    Rose is here mixing two different data views in two different manners:

    – Globe vs. CONUS;
    – monthly and yearly averages of daily data.

    When considering CONUS’ yearly temperature average out of the GHCN V4 daily data, you obtain the following descending sort:

    2012 19.78
    1934 19.74
    1953 19.68
    1921 19.59
    1954 19.54
    1931 19.52
    1939 19.48
    1990 19.37
    1999 19.30
    2016 19.24

    Within CONUS, 1934 is second below 2012 and that by an absolutely insignificant factor of 0.04 C.

    But in a global, monthly land+ocean evaluation, 1934 appears at position… 49.

    • Bindidon says:

      Ooops! I forgot two further factors Rose didn’t take into account:
      – daily maxima vs. daily averages;
      – anomalies vs. absolute values.

      The list above refers to absolute temperature maxima.

      When computing daily average anomalies wrt the mean of e.g. 1981-2010, you obtain a different order.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      binny…”Within CONUS, 1934 is second below 2012 and that by an absolutely insignificant factor of 0.04 C.

      But in a global, monthly land+ocean evaluation, 1934 appears at position 49.”

      **********

      1934 was the hottest year in the United States lower 50 states.

      It still is!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

      NOAA has retroactively fudged the historical data to remove 1934 as the hottest US year. But they got it wrong by replacing it with 2012, if your data is to be believed. 2012 was nowhere near to 1998 for the most recent warmest year, nor 2016, nor 2010.

      It would be nice if you stopped butt-kissing NOAA/GHCN and see them for the cheaters they are.

  78. Mike Flynn says:

    La P,

    Marine fossils are found at altitudes exceeding 6 000 m. You are going to tell us that proves sea levels have dropped more than 6 000 m, are you?

    On the other hand, oil can be found at depths of more than 10 000 m. Have sea levels risen by more than 10 000 m, do you think?

    Have you the faintest idea of the causes of sea level variations, or are you just spouting pseudoscience, based on nothing more than wishful thinking?

    From NASA –

    “After correction for atmospheric and instrumental effects, the range measurements are accurate to less than 3 centimeters.”

    More wishful thinking, of course – after the data has been massaged and corrected to come up with the desired result! Just for fun, they then average these dodgy figures, to come up with utter nonsense, such as producing brightly coloured charts showing changes of 0.1 mm, or even 0.01 mm.

    The thickness of a European human hair is around 0.04 mm to 0.1 mm. Would you believe a climatological pseudoscientist who claims to be able to measure global sea levels to better than the thickness of a human hair?

    Believers would have to be incredibly gullible to swallow such nonsense, wouldnt they?

    Carry on believing.

    Cheers.

    • Nate says:

      ‘human hair is around 0.04 mm to 0.1 mm. Would you believe a climatological pseudoscientist who claims to be able to measure global sea levels to better than the thickness of a human hair?’

      Averages are fun, Mike. Perhaps you should try them sometime.

      The average woman had 1.84 babies in the US this year. Down from 1.86 the year before.

      How the heck do the measure .01 of baby??

      • Mike Flynn says:

        N,

        Only a pseudoscientific climatological fantasist could try to avoid the impossibility of performing measurements to the accuracy claimed, by diverting attention to something equally ridiculous.

        Why would you ask me to measure something completely meaningless? Thats about as pointless as asking a climatologist to measure climate (which is the average of weather)!

        Go ahead – measure the climate of the USA. Has it increased, decreased, or remained the same over the last 30 years? Pointless, isnt it?

        Just like 0.01 of an entity measured and counted in whole positive integers! Or maybe you could name this average woman? How hard could it be – maybe she is holding the testable GHE hypothesis, do you think? That doesnt seem to be easily found, either!

        Stupid and ignorant – Ill leave you to having fun with your meaningless average. Let me know if anything useful comes of it.

        Cheers.

      • Nate says:

        Mike,

        I see you are a little slow on catching the drift.

        Average of anything, SL, birthrate, age of marriage, is a calculated quantity, not directly measured.

        As the number of measurements (N) that are averaged increases, the error on the average decreases, and can become very tiny ~ 1/sqrt(N). Its a stats thing.

        While births are of course integers, an average number per person is not an integer, and can have a tiny error, like 0.01.

        Same with SL. Each measurement may have an error of centimeters, but the average of thousands can have less than 0.1 mm error.

        Comprende?

  79. Aeno Arrak says:

    Back in 2008 I was working on my book (What Warming?) and ncame across an article by Chao, You and Liin Sciennce of April 12, 2008. It dealt with sea level ise and they found it necessary to make corrections for water held in storage by reservoirs built since the beginning of the century. What these corrections did was to make the last 80 years of the temperature curve linear. The rate of sea level rise it showed was 2.46 millimeters per year. This extrapolates to a total rise for a century of just under ten inches. I did not expect to see any sigbificant changes anytime soon and decided to let that prediction stay in the book. I also ignored refinements like acceleration and you could do if in your graph you just dump the first fortyyears and then apply a linear fit to the rest of yourdata.
    Arno Arrak.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      Aeno…the way I see the problem of sea level rise is much the way Mark Twain regarded the shortening of the Mississippi River by removing some of its meandering/ox-bow features. I think it’s grossly exaggerated by number crunchers who could not possibly calculate sea level rise within a couple of feet.

      “The Mississippi between Cairo and New Orleans was twelve hundred and fifteen miles long one hundred and seventy-six years ago. . . . Its length is only nine hundred and seventy-three miles at present.

      Now, if I wanted to be one of those ponderous scientific people, and let on to prove what had occurred in the remote past by what had occurred in a given time in the recent past . . . what an opportunity is here! Geology never had such a chance, nor such exact data to argue from! . . .
      In the space of one hundred and seventy-six years the Lower Mississippi has shortened itself two hundred and forty-two miles. That is an average of a trifle over one mile and a third per year. Therefore, any calm person, who is not blind or idiotic, can see that in the Old Oolitic Silurian Period, just a million years ago next November, the Lower Mississippi River was upwards of one million three hundred thousand miles long, and stuck out over the Gulf of Mexico like a fishing-rod.

      And by the same token any person can see that seven hundred and forty-two years from now the lower Mississippi will be only a mile and three-quarters long. . . . There is something fascinating about science. One gets such wholesale returns of conjecture out of such a trifling investment of fact.

      https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/829923-a-humorous-treatment-of-the-rigid-uniformitarian-view-came-from

  80. Gordon Robertson says:

    norman…”Where I live the temperature has been around 20 F above normal….”

    Say no more, say no more. Norman’s a cornhusker.

    Should have known, should have known, his science smacks of corn-pone.

    • Norman says:

      Gordon Robertson

      My science is actually based upon valid and real science. I don’t need to make it up. I do trust that most scientists are still doing a decent job.

      You do not understand what a molecular vibration is (even though you have been shown numerous times).

      You do not understand the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics at all.

      You are totally clueless about the Inverse square law and have zero hope of ever actually understanding it. Your total understanding of the real deal is based upon your very limited use of your hand with a 1500 watt burner plate. Really sad indeed.

      No you are the one who needs to learn actual science. I might be able to communicate with you. You and Flynn are both science illiterates and are nearly impossible to communicate with. Neither of you knows any science and both are unwilling to even attempt to learn it. Too bad.

      You are unable to see how ignorant you are and how far off you are on the real science. You believe real science is a conspiracy and your fantasy world is the only reality. The place where you get to make up the rules on how the Universe operates. I know it is painful to realize you are not God. Because you think you are God you will never want to learn the real science as it will remove you from you lofty status!

      • Dan Pangburn says:

        Nor,, Delve deeper into the science with an understanding of thermalization and use of Quantum Mechanics (Hitran does the calculations) and discover that CO2 (or any other noncondensing ghg) does not now, has never had and will never have a significant effect on climate.

        • Norman says:

          Dan Pangburn

          I have already has discussions with you. I do strongly believe you are wrong and have missed something. You are a very intelligent person so I am not sure what you are missing.

          The thermalization works both ways. The molecules in air are moving at a higher rate from temperature and when they collide with CO2 molecules they are able to excite the CO2 to higher vibrational states that results in emissions.

          It is not just my opinion. Empirical evidence shows you are wrong and it might be good for you to rethink what you believe.

          I have, previously, linked you to DWIR spectrum. This one breaks up the components of what is emitting the IR.

          CO2 does have a significant fingerprint at the 15 micron range.

          http://lidar.ssec.wisc.edu/papers/dhd_thes/node3.htm

          I will go with the empirical evidence. Other spectrum show the same thing.

          It is not as much as water vapor but it is still significant and cannot be ruled out with a misunderstanding of science.

          I did link you to the emissivity of the atmosphere. With an emissivity, if you have a temperature you use Stefan-Boltzmann to find the radiant emission for a given temperature.

          http://www.patarnott.com/atms411/pdf/StaleyJuricaEffectiveEmissivity.pdf

          Carbon Dioxide emissivity is around 0.19 with overlap with H2O. You can see in Figure 1 of this paper that increasing the CO2 concentration increases the emissivity. That means at a given atmospheric temperature it will emit more IR.

          • Dan Pangburn says:

            Nor,, Hitran agrees, this which you said ,,The thermalization works both ways. The molecules in air are moving at a higher rate from temperature and when they collide with CO2 molecules they are able to excite the CO2 to higher vibrational states that results in emissions.,, is true at high altitude (above about 10 km) but at low altitude, Hitran shows that emission from the gas (atmosphere) is essentially all by WV.

            I have not seen any empirical evidence that shows that Hitran is wrong or that I am wrong.

            The statement at your link ,,the energy is isotropically re-emitted at the wavelengths where the absorp-tion occurred,, says that they did not account for thermalization. As discussed (with links to source data) at my blog/analysis, the relaxation time is about 5 microseconds or longer while sharing of the absorbed energy with surrounding molecules by conductive heat transfer starts within about 0.0002 microseconds. This says that thermalization does take place and the graph at your link cannot be correct for down-welling IR in the range 600-740 wn emitted by the ghg in the atmosphere.

            The 1971 paper also appears to be flawed by not accounting for thermalization. With thermalization, emission of a specie is not equal to the absorp-tion of that specie. At surface level, CO2 absorbs about 18% of terrestrial radiation energy but emission is barely discernable. Thermalization ,redirects, the energy to WV.

            This theory is easy to verify/refute. Simply MEASURE the upwelling radiation in the range 600-740 wn at an altitude of about 50 m. If the theory is valid, the flux in that wn range and altitude should be near zero.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            norman…”The molecules in air are moving at a higher rate from temperature and when they collide with CO2 molecules they are able to excite the CO2 to higher vibrational states that results in emissions”.

            *********

            Norman, what is a CO2 molecule? Here’s a diagram:

            O====C====O

            Do you see the oxygen atoms at the ends of the dashed-line bonds and the carbon atom in the middle? Those dashed lines represent double electron bonds that bind the molecule together.

            All vibration involves those dashed-line bonds. The lines contract or expand, either symmetrically or asymmetrically, with the oxygen atoms moving closer to and/or further from the carbon atom.

            Or, the O atoms try to torque around the C atom. All of that vibration involves electrons as they absorb and emit energy.

            There you have it, Molecules 101.

            You admitted the molecules are excited to higher energy states but in reality that means the electrons in the bonds are excited. Molecules are not excited because there is no such thing as a molecule other than a definition referencing two or more atoms bonded together by electrons.

            It’s the electrons, and only the electrons, that become excited.

          • David Appell says:

            Gordon Robertson wrote:
            All of that vibration involves electrons as they absorb and emit energy.

            Wrong.

            Gordon, why won’t you study quantum mechanics?

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        norman…”You do not understand what a molecular vibration is (even though you have been shown numerous times)”.

        You don’t even understand that a molecule is a definition for two or more atoms bonded by electrons. A molecule, therefore, is an aggregation of electrons and protons, simply because beyond the sub-atomic level, the interaction of protons and electrons is what atoms are about.

        Molecules as an aggregation of electron-bonded atoms cannot vibrate without the proton-electron electrostatic interaction. The electron is the only part of that union capable of absorbing energy.

        The fact that you have not the slightest clue as to how that works disqualifies you from commenting intelligently on my views on molecular vibration. Of course, you’ll go on rambling.

        • Norman says:

          Gordon Robertson

          You are the only one that does not know how molecular vibration works. I have linked you to so many valid science articles and videos on it. I can’t help your ignorance.

          When a carbon dioxide molecule is moving through space can you see that all the protons and electrons move together as one unit? The electrons are not moving up and down energy levels as the carbon dioxide moves are they.

          In vibrational motion all the protons and electrons of the atoms composing the molecule move together as one unit. The electrons don’t make transitions they remain in their energy levels and move along with the whole atom, the protons and electrons together. Because of electronegativity some atoms develop charges overall. When the atoms move back and forth in vibrational states, this charge creates an electromagnetic energy. You don’t understand it but keep thinking you do.

        • David Appell says:

          Again, Gordon shows he is ignorant of the quantum mechanics of molecules and their rotational and vibrational modes.

  81. Mike Flynn says:

    S,

    I’ll bite.

    What is sea level? Has it been redefined by climatological pseudoscientists?

    Cheers.

  82. Snape says:

    Mike,

    I’m guessing you didn’t like the video I linked. This one’s a better fit:

    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=A_WKYqmLxAk

    • Mike Flynn says:

      S,

      What are you blabbering about? Do you expect anybody to watch random videos for no good reason?

      If you have something to say, why not say it? Cryptic comments and irrelevant links are generally an attempt by pseudoscientific GHE supporters to appear wise and knowledgeable, rather than stupid and ignorant.

      Not a terribly good attempt on your part.

      Cheers.

  83. ren says:

    Very strong thunderstorms in Oklahoma and Kansans.
    http://en.blitzortung.org/live_lightning_maps.php?map=30

  84. Carbon500 says:

    Dr. Spencer comments that “Climate models aren’t of much help in determining the human contribution because we have no idea how much of recent warming and glacial melt was natural versus human-caused. Models still can’t explain why glaciers started melting in the mid-1800s, just like they can’t explain why it warmed up so much from the mid-1800s to the mid-1900s.”
    It seems appropriate to mention many factors affecting sea and shore level changes which are never discussed (it’s always CO2 and mankind causing it, isn’t it?) as explained by Dr.Nils-Axel Mörner:
    Coastal dynamics: Erosion, silting, sediment transport, continental runoff, air pressure changes, log term trends, storms, hurricanes and tsunamis.
    Changes in land level: compaction, geoid deformation, seismotectonics, hydro, sediment and glacial-isostasy,
    Sea level changes: stearic effects, temperature, salinity, basin volume changes (long term tectonic and glacial rebound), geoid deformation, and glacial eustasy.
    Isostasy is the general state of equilibrium of the Earth’s crust, with rise and fall of land relative to sea level. Eustasy is the uniform change of sea level throughout the world.
    Dr. Mörner has commented that “it is high time to face available observational facts, discard untenable model scenarios and start discussing real threats in the real world.”
    Exactly so.

    • Carbon500 says:

      The computer has scrambled the name of the scientist whose observations I have quoted. The spelling is M followed by an o with an umlaut over it. Morner, as an approximation.

    • La Pangolina says:

      Good, informative comment.
      Sound skepticism is my favourite.

    • David Appell says:

      Carbon500 says:
      (its always CO2 and mankind causing it, isnt it?)

      Actually it isn’t.

      But I doubt you read enough to understand that.

    • David Appell says:

      Sorry, the best scientists of the day don’t buy what Dr.Nils-Axel Mörner is trying to sell.

      He isn’t convincing to them.

      • Carbon500 says:

        DA: you comment:
        “Carbon500 says:(its always CO2 and mankind causing it, isnt it?)
        Actually it isn’t. But I doubt you read enough to understand that.”
        Take another look and read what Dr. Spencer says in the heading for this post – “There is a continuing debate over sea level rise, especially how much will occur in the future.The most annoying part of the news media reporting on the issue is that they imply sea level rise is all the fault of humans.”
        The fact that I’ve listed various factors which influence sea level rise as given by Dr.Nils-Axel Mörner suggests that I do in fact read around the subject, wouldn’t you say?
        Which of the factors he lists do you deem incorrect, and why?
        Dr. Mörner has had something like 500 papers published if memory serves me well, and among those are field studies.
        What exactly is he ‘trying to sell’ as you put it, and who exactly are the ‘best scientists of the day’ you’re referring to?

  85. Nate says:

    No. Just your posts, summed up.

  86. Snape says:

    Mike
    You asked, “what is sea level?”

    And complain that a video with the title, “What is sea level?” is random, irrelevant and cryptic. Thanks for the laughs.

    • Mike Flynn says:

      S,

      You posed a question, followed by a link to something.

      No explanation – cryptic, random, and irrelevant without some reason to view it.

      Typical pseudoscientific crypticism – trying to get others to dance to your tune.

      I decline. If you have something to say, just say it – it usually works better. Your choice, of course. I’m glad you find your actions laughable – I certainly do! Nothing wrong with laughter.

      Cheers.

  87. gbaikie says:

    “If CO2 absorbs even 1% of Solar flux of 1360 W/m^2 (which seems unlikely from the graphs) it would amount to 13.6 W/m^2.”

    If CO2 absorbed 13.6 W/m^2, if would removing 13.6 watts from solar spectrum. And it would be, W/m^2.

    To make something hot, one needs direct sunlight, and if lessen the direct sunlight, the sunlight does does not make it as hot.

    • Norman says:

      gbaikie

      YOU: “To make something hot, one needs direct sunlight, and if lessen the direct sunlight, the sunlight does does not make it as hot.”

      The sunlight would not make it as hot, true, but both are energy inputs.

      If you remove 13 W/m^2 from the solar flux but add 60 more to the mix you have a net gain of 47 W/m^2. Some skeptics, for unknown reasons an without any mechanism, feel that energy fluxes cannot add. Not sure where this bogus point came from but it is endlessly repeated by unscientific skeptics.

      • Mike Flynn says:

        N,

        Add 300 W/m2 from ice to, say, 400 W/m2 from sunlight, and you will get no higher temperature than without the ice. So 700 W/m2 makes a thermometer no hotter than 400 M/m2.

        Pseudoscientific climatologists do not understand physics.

        The radiation from 2 square meters of ice may be 600 W – adding 300 W and 300 W. If you believe than an infinite amount of radiation from ice can heat even a teaspoon of water, you must be deep in some sort of pseudoscientific climatological fantasy!

        You have been had. You are simply gullible – fodder for those slightly less foolish than yourself.

        Press on Norman. Keep looking for that testable GHE hypothesis. How hard can it be to find one?

        Cheers.

        • Norman says:

          Mike Flynn

          You don’t know enough physics to understand anything. It is pointless correct the many flaws in your science. You ask people to point them out, they do and you ignore it then go about repeating yourself. It is hard for me to accept you are an actual flesh and blood person. I have met many people but not so unthinking and repetitive as you. The only time I see this type of speech is from AI bots. If you are not a bot then post a link to some science article, any article. A bot will not be able to link to an internet article but a person can. When you put a link in one of your posts I can accept you are just a very strange person. Until then I will not bother correcting your bad physics in your post. When you supply a link to an article of science I might reconsider. A lot of sites have bot tests. Let us see if you can pass one. So far you have not shown that you are human. Will you attempt to prove it?

        • Norman says:

          Flynn

          To demonstrate your ignorance of science (which is extreme).

          Here this will show you that even ice will not create or establish a set temperature.

          Say you have a large sheet of ice you maintain at around 270 K which emits around 300 Watts/m^2. Put a non heated plate very near this sheet. There is no other source of energy but the ice sheet. How hot do you think the non heated plate (say one square meter plate that is near a blackbody surface). The plate will absorb 300 watts of energy. It will emit IR from both sides. It must get rid of 300 total watts so it will emit 150 watts from each side and reach a temperature of around 227 K. If you then move another large ice sheet maintained at a temperature of 270 K on the opposite side of the plate so that the plate is sandwiched between the two ice sheets the non heated plate’s temperature rises to 270 K. It will have risen 43 K by adding another cold ice sheet.

          • Mike Flynn says:

            N,

            Are you off with the fairies?

            You are quite mad. More imaginary irrelevant nonsense.

            As you refuse to accept reality, let me put it his way – it does not how much ice you use, or how much radiation it is emitting, you cannot raise the temperature of an water heated by the Sun by any amount at all. It doesnt matter how much CO2 you use to help the ice along, the result will be the same – no temperature rise at all.

            This is all irrelevant, because you cannot even say what the GHE is supposed to do!

            The Watt is a unit of power. Nothing to do with temperature. Add away – it makes no difference – just more pseudoscience.

            Cheers.

          • Norman says:

            Mike Flynn

            So you refuse to accept the challenge to prove you are an actual flesh and blood human by posing a link.

            I strongly suspect you are a bot and just use words people post to pass for a human poster.

            Nothing in your posts shows actual human thought. Usually just the same dose of repeated words over and over.

            If you don’t post a link don’t expect anymore replied from me. I don not want to waste time thinking you are a human poster that has some type of reasoning ability.

          • Mike Flynn says:

            N,

            Why you imagine that I care for your opinion is beyond me. As to your demand that I post a link to satisfy your fantasy – no.

            Think as you wish. Nothing to do with me, is it? Maybe you coukd think up a testable GHE hypothesis, but I doubt it.

            Or you could disagree with something I wrote, and present some facts to support your disagreement.

            Or maybe not. Think on.

            Cheers.

          • Norman says:

            Flynn

            Nothing in your post demonstrates a flesh and blood human. Looks more like a bot program response. Post a link. On anything. Not hard to do. Why you refuse to do this, if you were an actual human, makes no sense.

          • David Appell says:

            Norman, I don’t address MF anymore.

            Primarily because anytime he gets into a jam, he says, why would I care about your opinion? Why would I deem to answer your question?

            This is extremely childish, and shows he isn’t serious. I suggest you ignore him too. (But not Gordon and the others.)

          • David Appell says:

            Norman, this quote from above for MF is exactly what I mean:

            “Why you imagine that I care for your opinion is beyond me. As to your demand that I post a link to satisfy your fantasy no.”

            MF isn’t serious. His essence isn’t even distinguishable from a 3-yr old’s.

          • Norman says:

            David Appell

            I am not sure Mike Flynn is an actual flesh and blood human. A lot of the responses from this handle sound like an AI bot. It finds some words and puts out some programmed response to seem human. It can even learn and add more as more information is presented.

            I have played around with some internet AI programs and Mike Flynn responds a lot like they do.

            I am testing to see if there is a real person behind the online persona. On some sites they have little tests that a bot cannot accomplish to make sure that a human is the one on the site.

            My test for Mike Flynn is for this poster to just post one link to anything. A bot will not post such a link but a human can.

            I have never seen one link from this poster in years. All regulars have at least posted a few links now and then. I am requesting that he post a link so I can at least know it is a flesh and blood human. As of now it seems more a program than a person.

      • gbaikie says:

        –Norman says:
        May 31, 2018 at 4:41 PM
        gbaikie

        YOU: To make something hot, one needs direct sunlight, and if lessen the direct sunlight, the sunlight does does not make it as hot.
        Norman says:
        May 31, 2018 at 4:41 PM
        gbaikie

        YOU: To make something hot, one needs direct sunlight, and if lessen the direct sunlight, the sunlight does does not make it as hot.

        The sunlight would not make it as hot, true, but both are energy inputs.

        If you remove 13 W/m^2 from the solar flux but add 60 more to the mix you have a net gain of 47 W/m^2. Some skeptics, for unknown reasons an without any mechanism, feel that energy fluxes cannot add. Not sure where this bogus point came from but it is endlessly repeated by unscientific skeptics. both are energy inputs.

        If you remove 13 W/m^2 from the solar flux but add 60 more to the mix you have a net gain of 47 W/m^2. Some skeptics, for unknown reasons an without any mechanism, feel that energy fluxes cannot add. Not sure where this bogus point came from but it is endlessly repeated by unscientific skeptics. ”

        Norman says:
        The sunlight would not make it as hot, true, but….

        So forget: , but…..
        This is all, Mike is saying.

        Or Mike could say, CO2 is not going to cause Earth to become like Venus.
        Or not going to become vaguely like Venus.
        Or not going to cause hotter days on Earth.
        The hottest day measured on Earth was about 100 years ago. And one can assume there is more CO2 now, as compared to a 100 years ago. And no reason to assume adding more CO2 will cause hotter days than the hottest days we currently have.
        CO2 does not make hotter days.

        Now, CO2 might increase the average temperature of Earth.
        Mike do not think so. But we can call this is another issue.

        Another thing Mike asks endlessly, is for the theory of GHE, and there is not one.

        You need author or person, to have a theory. If you think the author is the father of greenhouse effect theory, he was wrong.
        So cite a paper which has a author of a theory.
        But there is not one, as far as I know.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        norman…”Some skeptics, for unknown reasons an without any mechanism, feel that energy fluxes cannot add. Not sure where this bogus point came from but it is endlessly repeated by unscientific skeptics”.

        You cannot add different energies such as heat and electromagnetic energy. It’s obvious that EM will add and subtract when run through a diffraction grating or a twin slit.

        The question is this, if two EM fields meet in air, will they add and subtract? I say its unlikely if the EM is not monochromatic. I don’t see how anyone could add/subtract the mess you’d get with polychromatic EM.

        • Norman says:

          Gordon Robertson

          You are wrong again. More than likely everyone of your posts will contain horrible made up physics that you spout as an Authority.

          YOU: “You cannot add different energies such as heat and electromagnetic energy. It’s obvious that EM will add and subtract when run through a diffraction grating or a twin slit.”

          This is really a dumb point. You can certainly add different energies that is why all the units are in joules because they add and subtract.

          Why do you need to make dumb points? Who are you doing it for.

          Do you even know the equation you like to post? U=Q+W

          If you do work and add heat to an object both are added together to get the overall increase in internal energy. Man you got to stop posting your crap. Please! No one is impressed with your total garbage you post. Learn some real science.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            norman…”YOU: “You cannot add different energies such as heat and electromagnetic energy. It’s obvious that EM will add and subtract when run through a diffraction grating or a twin slit.”

            This is really a dumb point. You can certainly add different energies that is why all the units are in joules because they add and subtract”.

            ***********

            I think it’s hilarious how you transfer your deficiencies in science to me, claiming I make up whatever contradicts your inability to understand.

            What is there to sum between heat and EM? Do you ever think outside of your inane theories?

            EM is an electric field perpendicular to a magnetic field produced by the electric and magnetic fields of electrons. The kinetic energy of those electrons is largely responsible for heat but heat lacks the electric and magnetic fields of EM.

            How can you sum heat and EM? Show me.

          • David Appell says:

            Gordon Robertson says:
            The kinetic energy of those electrons is largely responsible for heat but heat lacks the electric and magnetic fields of EM.

            Ever get a sunburn?

            Where did that heat come from?

    • barry says:

      A real greenhouse shaded to reduce incoming sunlight is still warmer than the air outside.

      Yes, by convection, but this is a simple demonstration that your thesis there is misguided.

      Because you are only looking at energy going in one direction.

      • Mike Flynn says:

        b,

        What is your point, or dont you have one? In sunlight, things heat up. When the sunlight reduces, things cool down.

        Even the Earths surface, after four and a half billion years has cooled down. You might be aware it probably started off in the molten state, so it has cooled quite a lot..

        Tell me again about the way the GHE is supposed to make thermometers hotter – it hasnt worked for four and a half billion years, has it?

        Cheers.

        • E. Swanson says:

          MF, The Earth’s crust had already solidified by 4.55 Billion years ago. The existence of the rocks which have been used to calculate that age proves this to be true. Yes, the Earth still must radiate a small amount of energy which reaches the surface from the core, but that amount is tiny compared to the energy which floods in from the Sun thru the atmosphere. Of course, if you have studied paleoclimate, you will understand that the Earth has been in a period of repeated Ice Ages beginning about 3.3 million years BP. The last peak of glacial cooling was only 20k years BP, the Earth has warmed since then.

          • David Appell says:

            Right, E. Swanson. The surface heat from the core is only about 0.09 W/m2, while the sun strikes the top of the atmosphere with a average S/4 = 1365/4 = 341 W/m2.

        • barry says:

          b,

          What is your point

          “you are only looking at energy going in one direction.”

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        barry…”Because you are only looking at energy going in one direction”.

        Which energy, electromagnetic or thermal?

  88. gbaikie says:

    If you add a solar flux to solar flux (also called magnifying sunlight) the combination can make a much higher temperature.

    If add a solar flux to a the light from a lightbulb, it could or might not make a higher temperature.

  89. MIke Flynn says:

    g,

    Unfortunately, some people think that by concentrating energy, they can achieve higher temperatures than the body emitting the radiation.

    If one used a large magnifying glass, or similar, to concentrate 300 W from 1 m2 of ice, into an area of 1 cm2, then the radiative intensity would be 10 000 times as great – at 3 000 000 W/m2!

    No additional temperature, sad to say. Pseudoscience.

    Green plates, blue plates, imaginary pseudoscientific scenarios – still no GHE. Its supporters cannot even say what the GHE is! How silly is that?

    Cheers.

    • barry says:

      As it is well known why concentrating sunlight through a magnifying glass to a piece of paper can burn the paper, I wonder how you would describe what is going on there, as your comment seems to deny that this should happen.

      • Mike Flynn says:

        b,

        Pseudoscientists of the climatological variety do not seem to realise that W/m2 is a meaningless figure, without knowing the temperature of the emitter.

        Read my comment. Quote the part you disagree with, if you can bring yourself to do it.

        Or, point out the blindingly obvious and completely irrelevant – tell me, what is the connection between the Sun at 5 800 K or so, and ice, at something below 273 K?

        Have you tried burning paper with 300 W/m2 from ice? It doesnt work, but 300 w/m2 from the Sun does!

        Once you understand why, you will appreciate why nobody can come up with a testable GHE hypothesis – the GHE concept is nonsense, thats why! Give it a try, if you want.

        Cheers.

        • La Pangolina says:

          Flynn tries to behave as dumb as Robertson… and is not far from success.

          • Mike Flynn says:

            La P,

            I am sure you could say why – but of course you are too shy.

            Or maybe justotoo stupid and ignorant?

            The world wonders why you cannot provide a testable GHE hypothesis.

            Cheer.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            binny…”Flynn tries to behave as dumb as Robertson and is not far from success”.

            There’s another way of looking at that, Binny, that maybe your are to lacking in awareness and intelligence to get what Robertson and Flynn are talking about.

            After all, someone who is posting on this blog, becomes angry and announces his/her departure, then re-appears a few days later under a different nym, is a few bricks short of a load.

          • David Appell says:

            Gordon, your profound ignorance is very clear to anyone who knows anything.

        • barry says:

          I’m wondering how you get ice at below 273K to radiate at 300 W/m2.

          • Mike Flynn says:

            barry,

            Why do you wonder? How many W/m2 does your ice radiate? Is it special climatological non-radiating ice?

            I wonder.

            Cheers.

          • Nate says:

            Mike,

            You are correct (!) that one cannot focus ice radiation and heat something with it above ice temperature (without help), just as focusing sunlight cannot get you hotter than the sun’s surface.

            But, relevance to GHE is what?

  90. gbaikie says:

    What is the average temperature of Earth on nightside?
    And what is the average temperature of Earth on the dayside?

    I realized I didn’t know.

    What I thinking about was that it the Moon was colder on nightside, it would not make any/much difference to average temperature of dayside.
    Which would not be the case with Earth.

    So roughly, the Moon nightside is about 100 K, and so it if instead it was 50 K, a 50 K lower temperature of the nightside, would have much effect on average temperature of dayside. Or noon equator, would still be, about 120 C.

    And that is when I realized I didn’t know average night side temperature. But anyhow, it Earth night average temperature was 20 K cooler than it is currently, it make a large difference upon the dayside average temperature.

    But I could make a wild guess, probably around 5 C, and that make dayside average temp about 20C. Hmm, that does not work, the two have to equal 30. Hmm, 8 C night and 22 C day??

    As said, just guessing, if Ocean is 17 C, then say, day 18 C and night 16 C.
    And land is 10 C average, hmm, well big difference depending season, as most land is in northern hemisphere.
    Say, Equinox. Day 20, night 0 C. Probably closer to 18 C and 2 C night.

    Anyhow, would be problematic have ocean below freezing at night- lots of frozen ocean water.
    In terms land, you already get it, with seasonal difference, but say 20 C lower night temperature if when average would normally have highest average temperature.
    Wild guess, beginning of August, and have average global land temperature night side temperature, were to lower by 20 K, and what would effect be upon the following daytime average temperature?

  91. Gordon Robertson says:

    This may seem off-topic but it’s not when one considers the obfuscation of reality in alarmist climate science.

    One of the best known and regarded scientists in history was Albert Einstein. I feel somewhat disappointed with him regarding his theory of relativity, which is based on nothing more than thought-experiments.

    Einstein was critical of Bohr circa 1930 when the latter took quantum theory off on a tangent that still exists today. Both Einstein and Schrodinger objected to Bohr dealing in terms of theory that could not be verified by observation. Yet that’s exactly what Einstein did with relativity.

    There are very few applications for special relativity and Einstein admitted as much. He was hoping to offer a unified theory relating space-time to general physics and he failed. Instead, he left us with a theory that obfuscated reality in which an imaginary space-time continuum replaced real particles, masses and forces.

    In relativity theory, Einstein tried to equate accelerations from different sources into a unified theory. He promoted a thought-experiment in which a human was inside a large box in space. Of course, the human was weightless and could be located in the middle of the box, touching no walls or either the ceiling or floor.

    It’s described as follows, and please note that Einstein was a theoretical physicist and no engineer. He would have flunked out as an engineering student:

    “Imagine you’re standing in a box.

    Imagine you are floating in a box, unable to see what’s happening outside of the box. Suddenly, you drop to the floor. So what happened? Is the box being pulled down by gravity? Or is the box being accelerated by a rope yanking it upward?

    The fact that these two effects would produce the same results led Einstein to the conclusion that there is no difference between gravity and acceleration they are the same thing.

    Now consider Einstein’s previous assertion that time and space are not absolute. If motion can affect time and space, and gravity and acceleration are the same thing, that means gravity can actually affect time and space”.

    This thinking by Einstein is utter nonsense to me. Gravity is a force for cripes sakes, and acceleration requires a force acting on a mass to produce it. Einstein should have been equating forces to forces, not accelerations to accelerations. Furthermore, time is a human invention invented tio keep track of change. Time plays no part in the interaction between force and mass.

    Had a rope pulled up on the box, the man would have contacted the bottom of the box but down-dwelling gravitational force should act on both the man and the box equally. The two situations are not the same.

    These days, advocates of the Einstein thought-experiments have replaced forces with space-time because Einstein erred by imposing time, a human invention, on forces and masses.

    We need to go back to the beginning of this mess and sort it out. It is not acceptable to impose an imaginary space-time relationship on physical reality then claim reality depends on it.

    The calculations work for the orbit of Mercury but anyone using Newtonian physics could have solved that problem and done it without this nonsense of space-time.

    Same with climate science. We need to get back to basics and explain the atmosphere from a point of real observations. When the highly regarded Einstein can make such a mess of physical reality, anyone can, and they have.

    Science is in a mess. It needs to be cleaned up.

    • ren says:

      For example, the observations show a strong interference of the stratospheric polar whirl in the troposphere. Therefore, winter temperatures are strongly dependent on the phenomena occurring in the stratosphere.
      https://images.tinypic.pl/i/00965/p1fgzng0g87r.gif

      • ren says:

        Concordia Station

        Now
        Snow flurries. Sunny.
        -72 C
        Snow flurries. Sunny.

        Feels Like: -84 C

    • La Pangolina says:

      One more time we all can see the dumbest mixture of arrogance and ignorance we ever experienced.

      • Myki says:

        I agree. Truly astounding.
        Where do these crack-pots come from?
        More importantly, why don’t denialists ever object to them?
        Answer: they realise that their cohort is the natural home for stupidity and are too ashamed to acknowledge it in public.

        • Mike Flynn says:

          M,

          Which crackpots – Schmidt and Mann, or did you have some other capering climate clowns in mind?

          Astounding, indeed.

          Not even a testable GHE hypothesis amongst the lot of them. No science whatever!

          Tell us again, how does increasing the amount of CO2 between the Sun and a thermometer make the thermometer hotter?

          Dumb or dumber?

          Cheers.

      • ren says:

        You better not go to Dresden today. It will be a strong thunderstorm.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        binny…”One more time we all can see the dumbest mixture of arrogance and ignorance we ever experienced”.

        For someone like you who as a fetish for authority, I understand your reluctance to question Einstein, as if he is a god.

        Even at that, can you not begin to understand what I have said about relativity? It is based on a fabricated presumption of a 3 dimensional space with a 4th dimension of time.

        Humans created the lengths by which the dimensions are measured and we oriented the coordinate system based on the Earth. Then we invented time by measuring the rotational period of the planet, dividing that period down till we formed the second.

        People have complained about Newton but his work was based on real forces and how they affected masses. Einstein has reversed that to make it appear as if imaginary coordinate systems and time are causing gravity.

        Anyone who would believe that nonsense is an idiot.

        • David Appell says:

          Gordon, special relativity is used EVERY DAY to prevent or create explosions on Earth.

          Do you have a theory that can do that?

          Of course you don’t.

        • David Appell says:

          Gordon Robertson says:
          People have complained about Newton but his work was based on real forces and how they affected masses. Einstein has reversed that to make it appear as if imaginary coordinate systems and time are causing gravity.

          This is clearly how gravity works, and why, just as clearly, the Newtonian view is wrong.

          And this bothers you why?

        • David Appell says:

          Gordon Robertson wrote:
          Humans created the lengths by which the dimensions are measured and we oriented the coordinate system based on the Earth.

          No – length is a fundamental property of the universe, set by the Planck length.

          But still you do not understand.

          Einstein’s question was, how do measurements of length change UNDER AN COORDINATE TRANSFORMATION TO ANOTHER INERTIAL REFERENCE FRAME.

          You won’t understand that, but it’s a perfectly reasonable question, one Einstein thought about at great length.

          You haven’t thought about it Gordon.

          So you don’t get to question Einstein. Is that clear?

    • David Appell says:

      Gordon Robertson wrote:
      The calculations work for the orbit of Mercury but anyone using Newtonian physics could have solved that problem and done it without this nonsense of space-time.

      As ever, Gordon, you are badly wrong.

      Physicists tried for decades, using Newtonian physics, to calculate the perihelion shift of Mercury — they came up with a number that we too small, by 38 arcseconds/century. Einstein’s general relativity got the right answer.

      And there is copious evidence for both special relativity and general relativity. Naturally, you are unaware of all of it, and are too unprepared and arrogant to go learn it.

      It’s easy to think you’re smarter than Einstein when one stands on a mountain of ignorance. When you can correctly explain the large number of phenomena that SR and GR do, quantitatively, get back to us. Until then seriously consider being respectful of your betters. Also, silent.

      • Norman says:

        David Appell

        I totally agree with you about Gordon Robertson. He is so ignorant of science with a patchwork of many false ideas and beliefs that he should be like a small child and sit quiet. If he posts you can almost be certain he will post some awful incorrect science. On the other thread he does not even understand adiabatic process.

        That person should quit posting and go study. This poster will not do it however. They are too smart to be told that they don’t know anything.

        Gordon reminds me of an old man that walks around naked thinking he has a hot body that all woman want to see. In reality it is nothing anyone wants to see. His terrible physics is a good reminder for students to keep studying science and learn. He obviously did not do so.

        • David Appell says:

          Norman, sometimes I think Gordon **HAS** to be a troll, just much better at it than MF or g*.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            DA…”Norman, sometimes I think Gordon **HAS** to be a troll, just much better at it than MF or g*.”

            Maybe if you and norman applied your half brains to form a whole brain, you might be able to compete with me on an even level.

          • David Appell says:

            Gordon, you clearly know so little science that no one takes you seriously.

            So that goes for your insults too.

        • Gordon Robertson says:

          norman…”Gordon reminds me of an old man that walks around naked thinking he has a hot body that all woman want to see. In reality it is nothing anyone wants to see. His terrible physics is a good reminder for students to keep studying science and learn”.

          I seem to have you so flustered you are behaving like a child slinging arrows because you have no intelligent answers.

          • David Appell says:

            Gordon, when are you going to present your theory that gives better analytic agreement with natural phenomena than general relativity?

            I’m waiting…. {snort snicker snort}

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        DA…”Physicists tried for decades, using Newtonian physics, to calculate the perihelion shift of Mercury they came up with a number that we too small, by 38 arcseconds/century. Einsteins general relativity got the right answer”.

        I am not arguing with the results, I am arguing against the legacy of Einstein’s methods. Feynman once claimed that quantum theory works but no one knows why. I think that might be applied equally to Einstein finding an accurate solution to the Mercury retrograde motion issue.

        The problem with Mercury’s orbit is long-standing. Viewed from our moving platform on Earth, Mercury appears to begin moving backwards (retrograde motion) when viewed under certain conditions related to orbital positions. No one seemed to get it that the cause was us observing from a moving platform while Mercury itself was moving in an inner orbit between us and the Sun.

        Had scientists gotten that, they could have used Newtonian theory to solve the problem. I don’t think Einstein would have gotten it either had he not been aware of the retrograde motion.

        Einstein left us with sheer nonsense as a solution to the real physical world. I think the mistake he made was using acceleration as the basis of his reasoning. Had he used real forces and masses rather than our artificial creation of acceleration based on time, I think his reasoning may have been different.

        We tend to regard Einstein as a genius in all matters and there is a certain infallibility inherent in that image. Furthermore, anyone questioning him are regarded as morons. I’ll gladly be regarded as a moron if it leads to others questioning the utter stupidity of space-time theory as an actuality.

        I watched a Nova presentation the other day in which it was claimed the gravitational effect of the Sun bent light, as predicted by Einstein. Well, duh!!! The Sun also has a tremendous electrical and magnetic field due to its cauldron of boiling electrons and protons, on top of its gravity, and that was completely ignored.

        Did it occur to no one that the electric and magnetic fields could bend light?

        • David Appell says:

          Gordon Robertson says:
          I am not arguing with the results, I am arguing against the legacy of Einstein’s methods.

          Don’t keep lying, Gordon. You wrote that Newtonian physics could solve the problem of Mercury’s perihelion shift. You were completely unaware of what work had been done and how the Newtonian calculations came up short.

          It was Einstein and his GR that correctly calculated the difference.

        • David Appell says:

          Gordon Robertson says:
          I watched a Nova presentation the other day in which it was claimed the gravitational effect of the Sun bent light, as predicted by Einstein. Well, duh!!! The Sun also has a tremendous electrical and magnetic field due to its cauldron of boiling electrons and protons, on top of its gravity, and that was completely ignored.

          Gordon, what does Newtonian, classical physics predict for the bending of starlight?

          Quote it for us here.

        • David Appell says:

          Gordon Robertson wrote:
          No one seemed to get it that the cause was us observing from a moving platform while Mercury itself was moving in an inner orbit between us and the Sun.

          Had scientists gotten that, they could have used Newtonian theory to solve the problem.

          That’s absolutely wrong, Gordon.

          And extremely ignorant.

          Physicists of the 18th century accounted for *everything* Newtonian, and came up short.

          They weren’t so stupid as to fail to account for Earth’s motion.

          Einstein calculated the missing piece.

          Go learn something before opening your yap and spouting one ignorant thing after another.

          You are to unprepared to deserve an opinion here. Go learn some physics and come back in 5 years, when maybe, just maybe, you might know a thing or two. (But, frankly, I doubt it.)

    • gbaikie says:

      Assuming black holes exist.
      If mass is added to blackhole, what happens is get a larger space which which bent. Or you increase the diameter of the event horizon.
      If do not accept Einstein theory, do you accept that black holes exist? And if you do, what happens if more mass is added to a blackhole?

      • David Appell says:

        If you do not accept general relativity, then provide your theory that explains as much as it does.

        General relativity has NEVER made a wrong prediction or postdiction.

        • gbaikie says:

          That is true.
          So obviously, general relativity is very different then the pseudoscience of global warming.

          • David Appell says:

            So now suddenly you accept general relativity?

            PS: No, general relativity does not intersect with climate science.

          • Mike Flynn says:

            DA,

            No real science intersects with “climate science”, does it?

            If you want to believe that relativistic effects do not need to be taken into account when considering interactions between light and matter, be my guest.

            If you want to believe that there is a minimum change which can be shown to result in a chaotic system exhibiting chaotic behaviour, or otherwise, believe it.

            If you want to believe you can simultaneously establish the position and momentum vector of a photon to any desired level of precision, you probably believe that Gavin Schmidt is a scientist, and that Michael Mann is a Nobel Laureate.

            Belief is not necessarily fact.

            Cheers.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        gbaikie…”Assuming black holes exist.
        If mass is added to blackhole, what happens is get a larger space which which bent. Or you increase the diameter of the event horizon.
        If do not accept Einstein theory, do you accept that black holes exist? And if you do, what happens if more mass is added to a blackhole?”

        Don’t know if this is aimed at me.

        When I studied astronomy for a year, a couple of decades ago, a black hole was defined as a possible outcome of a star exploding. A live star has an inward force of gravity and an outward force due to its nuclear-like explosions. As it uses up its fuel, both become weaker and the star begins to expand to become a red giant.

        Somewhere after that, the star starts to its self-destruction. There are three scenarios. It can explode into a super-nova, it can collapse into a neutron star of very dense mass, or it can collapse further into a black hole.

        That makes sense in a way since a black hole should come from somewhere, not out of empty space like the Big Bang fantasy. However, it was never explained why neutrons should collapse further. You very seldom see that explanation anymore.

        Neutrons have always been mysterious particles to me. They apparently have mass and they account for a good proportion of the atomic weight. Why should they collapse further than a neutron star state?

        Even that raises questions. Hydrogen, the predominant gas in stars has no neutrons and Helium has two. However, hydrogen has isotopes, where the number of protons remain the same but the neutrons increase. The first hydrogen isotope is deuterium, and it has 1 neutron, the other is tritium and it has two neutrons.

        It is conceivable that when a star uses up all it’s fuel of electrons and protons, all that is left is neutrons. Highly unlikely. However, a neutron star which has allegedly collapsed to its form from a healthy star may be predominantly neutrons.

        Why should the neutrons compress further into a formless black hole?

        No. I don’t believe in black holes, the evidence for them is scant. I especially don’t subscribe to the modern theory that black holes are related to space-time. I think that’s absurd.

        • David Appell says:

          Gordon Robertson says:
          That makes sense in a way since a black hole should come from somewhere, not out of empty space like the Big Bang fantasy.

          That’s not how BHs arise, stupid.

          (The BB BHs are hypothetical only. The other ones are real.)

        • gbaikie says:

          I think there is sufficient evidence of black holes.
          And I think it likely that the core of all galaxies, have very massive black holes (And such a black hole having masses equal to millions of suns).

          I thought you might not think that black holes existed.
          If you were to get evidence that black holes existed, would that change your view in regard to Einstein’s theories?

          • David Appell says:

            I agree with the evidence that black holes exist.

          • gbaikie says:

            A Google search:
            Astronomers find the best evidence yet for a midsized black hole

            “Bridging the gap between the stellar-mass black holes left behind by dying stars and the supermassive black holes dominating the centers of galaxies is a class of black hole that remains theoretical: intermediate-mass black holes. Although most astronomers believe these black holes, which would range from about one hundred to one hundred thousand times the mass of our Sun, are out there, hard evidence of their existence has been elusive. Several candidates have been found, however, and now one particularly promising detection has been made, right in our own home galaxy. ”
            http://www.astronomy.com/news/2017/09/best-imbh-evidence-yet

          • gbaikie says:

            Next one:
            Frequently Asked Questions
            “What evidence do we have for the existence of black holes?
            Astronomers have found convincing evidence for a supermassive black hole in the center of our own Milky Way galaxy, the galaxy NGC 4258, the giant elliptical galaxy M87, and several others. Scientists verified the existence of the black holes by studying the speed of the clouds of gas orbiting those regions. In 1994, Hubble Space Telescope data measured the mass of an unseen object at the center of M87. Based on the motion of the material whirling about the center, the object is estimated to be about 3 billion times the mass of our Sun and appears to be concentrated into a space smaller than our solar system.

            For many years, X-ray emissions from the double-star system Cygnus X-1 convinced many astronomers that the system contains a black hole. With more precise measurements available recently, the evidence for a black hole in Cygnus X-1 — and about a dozen other systems — is very strong. ”
            http://hubblesite.org/reference_desk/faq/answer.php.id=64&cat=exotic

          • David Appell says:

            Thanks for that.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            gbaikie…”I thought you might not think that black holes existed.
            If you were to get evidence that black holes existed, would that change your view in regard to Einsteins theories?”

            No. It’s not his theory regarding relativity that bothers me per se, it’s this infernal notion that an entity called space-time exists. I think the theory is garbage. There is not one shred of evidence to support the theory and it can only exist as an illusion in the mind.

            In reality, there is no such thing as space-time. That’s why I feel disappointed in Einstein. I regarded him as a champion of real physics, based on observation, and here he has created a sci-fi world in which time dilates and solid objects change dimension while traveling at the speed of light.

            It is know that Einstein was under tremendous pressure to work out the theory of relativity. He had made egregious errors in his approach to a conclusion. It strikes me that he found a way to work toward a solution by making the math fit the goal.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            gbaikie…”Based on the motion of the material whirling about the center, the object is estimated to be about 3 billion times the mass of our Sun and appears to be concentrated into a space smaller than our solar system”.

            *********

            It is ‘estimated’ to be ‘about’ 3 billion times the mass of the Sun. It ‘appears’ to be concentrated into a smaller space than our solar system.

            Astronomers are desperate for recognition. Got to justify their funding.

            If this super-dense mass does exist at the centre of our galaxy, why is it not sucking nearby stars into it?

            You have to realize that the tools available to astronomers are fairly Mickey Mouse. Much of astronomy is based in inference and conjecture. From what I learned a couple of decades ago, astronomy has descended into an abyss of bs.

          • gbaikie says:

            “If this super-dense mass does exist at the centre of our galaxy, why is it not sucking nearby stars into it?”

            Same reason the huge gravity of Sun is not sucking Earth into to it.

            But any very large mass will make things orbit fast around it.
            Earth orbits sun at about 30 km per second.
            And if earth stays same distance, and sun was more massive, Earth orbital speed would be faster than 30 km per second.

            But with center of galaxy it is densely packed with stars.
            And at our distance we going around 250 km per second in orbit around galaxy. And takes something like 250 million year for one orbit. If nearer to center one could be going faster, and the distance is shorter.
            Or quite simply, all stars and massive bodies are going to gravitational interact a lot more than they do, out here.

            Btw, there is an idea that our sun was ejected from the middle of the galaxy.

            And it also thought when our system was forming it tossed out bodies. So could have had a lot more inner planets, some joined together making larger planets and a few others were tossed out of our solar system.

            Or at earth distance, we have solar escape velocity of 42.1 km per second, and we are going 30, so if add 13 km per second, then we leave the solar system. And subtracted somewhere around 15 km per second we would hit the Sun (or at least get very close to the sun).

          • David Appell says:

            Nice answer, gbalkie.

            Gordon will of course ignore all of it.

    • David Appell says:

      Gordon Robertson says:
      Its described as follows, and please note that Einstein was a theoretical physicist and no engineer. He would have flunked out as an engineering student:

      In fact, Einstein hadmorethan50patentstohisname and collaborators,andinseveralcounties. The most well known is the “Einstein refrigerator.”

      He also worked in a patent office during his annus miraculous.

      So, wrong again, Gordon. (How many patents do you have?)

  92. Mike Flynn says:

    LaP,

    Would that be Schmidt or Mann?

    Cheers.

  93. Snape says:

    Gordon

    “Had a rope pulled up on the box, the man would have contacted the bottom of the box but down-dwelling gravitational force should act on both the man and the box equally. The two situations are not the same”

    You need to assume the elevator met resistance (landed on a planet, for example) and either slowed down or stopped moving. The man would hit the floor a brief moment later.

    *First situation: a force makes the box move but not the man.

    *second situation: a force makes the man move but not the box.

    Either way, once the man is on the floor the two forces will be acting on both the man and the box, and the man would not be able to tell one from the other.

    • g says:

      snape…”You need to assume the elevator met resistance (landed on a planet, for example) and either slowed down or stopped moving. The man would hit the floor a brief moment later”.

      “Either way, once the man is on the floor the two forces will be acting on both the man and the box, and the man would not be able to tell one from the other”.

      *******

      In part 2 from your response you are reaching the same conclusions as me, that it is forces acting on the box and man that are important. Einstein claimed it was the accelerations that were important and concluded further that gravity and the acceleration due to the rope were equivalent.

      I am claiming he missed the boat on that one. As engineering students we were required to use freebody diagrams in such cases. We would cut the rope and draw an arrow (vector) in its place with its magnitude. If the rope was pulling on an angle we’d include the angle so we could find the horizontal and vertical components.

      For gravity, however, we applied the vector toward the centre of the body with the gravitational force.

      Einstein applied acceleration vectors rather than force vectors, and as a former engineering student that does not sit well with me because acceleration has an artificial time component in it. It becomes apparent to me that later in the theory, time takes on real qualities it does not possess.

      Had Einstein stuck to real forces and masses, that would not have happened.

      I am not sitting here arrogantly criticizing Einstein. I am combining what I have learned about time and space coordinates with the views of others, like physicist David Bohm, who admitted humans invented time. Also, in a recent article I saw, psychologist, Eugene Gendlin, who had expertise in quantum theory, questioned Einstein applying time to real forces.

      I felt aghast when I read in Einstein’s own words that time is the position of hands on a clock, then later inferred that time could dilate. He later talked about physical dimensions of solids changing length at the speed of light, which I regard as nonsense.

      • David Appell says:

        Right, you, some person on the internet who is so afraid he can’t even comment under his own name, says Einstein is wrong.

        More deep and utter ignorance, who acts like you’ve thought of some simple objection that no one else has ever thought of in 100 years.

        You people are unbelievable.

        – David

        • Gordon Robertson says:

          DA…”Right, you, some person on the internet who is so afraid he cant even comment under his own name, says Einstein is wrong”.

          ********

          It’s an opinion blog, idiot, who asked you to moderate?

          I wish more people would challenge science.

          • David Appell says:

            I’m not moderating — I’m saying that you’re an idiot for thinking you know more than Einstein. YOU!

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            DA…”I’m not moderating — I’m saying that you’re an idiot for thinking you know more than Einstein. YOU!”

            What’s your point???

          • David Appell says:

            My point is that I think youre an idiot for thinking you know more than Einstein, and it shows you don’t have the slightest idea how science works. And that carries over into climate science.

  94. PaulS says:

    If we assume that the trend prior to 1950 was natural (we really did not emit much CO2 into the atmosphere before then), and that the following increase in the trend since 1950 was 100% due to humans, we get a human influence of only about 0.3 inches per decade, or 1 inch every 30 years.

    This is unphysical. Natural sea level changes have causes. Even if the positive trend from late 19th Century to 1950 were 100% natural that says almost nothing about the natural contribution since 1950. Based on well-known accounting for natural factors it is expected that the natural contribution was likely to be significantly positive in the early 20th Century: transition from strong volcanic activity in the 19th Century to weak in mid-20th Century + increase in solar activity. Tracking those same factors beyond that time frame produces zero expectation for natural sea level rise for the period since 1950 because of the resumption of strong volcanic activity and flat to negative solar activity trend.

    The assumption that a positive natural trend in the early 20th Century should then continue forever (that is the argument being made by Roy here) is therefore physically baseless. It’s also statistically baseless given that the available proxy data on sea level change indicates very little net change over the past few thousand years (less than 1 meter, most likely close to zero). It also indicates that sea levels fluctuated up and down century-by-century (though at much smaller magnitude than seen in the 20th Century), so the rate over one century should not be used to predict the rate over the next century.

    Even if we assume the 1880-1950 trend was 100% natural it makes no sense to assume that same natural trend applies to any other period.

  95. Snape says:

    Above I mistakenly wrote, “You need to assume the elevator met resistance”

    Should be, “You need to assume the BOX met resistance”

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      snape…”Above I mistakenly wrote, You need to assume the elevator met resistance

      Should be, You need to assume the BOX met resistance

      It’s natural to regard the box with a rope as an elevator.

      What would happen if the box was big enough for the man in a real elevator to be positioned in mid-box as the elevator free fell at the 9.8 m/sec^2. Would he remain mid-box all the way to the bottom?

      Einstein is not suggesting that, all he is claiming that an acceleration due to a gravitational force acting on the box/man would be the same as an acceleration due to a force pulling the box upward.

      This is why I don’t like thought experiments. Unless you are exceedingly careful they can lead to dubious outcomes.

      • David Appell says:

        Why is Einstein’s conclusion “dubious?”

        • Gordon Robertson says:

          DA…”Why is Einsteins conclusion dubious?”

          I have told you before, time does not exist, and conclusions that claim time can dilate, or change the dimensions of real bodies, is nonsense.

          • David Appell says:

            Gordon, did you age compared to 40 years ago?

            If so, justify saying “time does not exist.”

          • David Appell says:

            And again, Gordon, how many patents to you have? Einstein had more than 50.

            He was clearly a far, far better engineer than you are.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            DA…”Gordon, did you age compared to 40 years ago?

            If so, justify saying time does not exist.”

            Don’t know about you but I age due to biochemical changes in my cells. I am currently working on correcting that.

          • David Appell says:

            What transpired between when you were born and today, if not time?

            You’re really trying to claim that that transpiration is an illusion?

            That’s your wackiest claim yet.

          • David Appell says:

            Gordon Robertson says:
            I have told you before, time does not exist, and conclusions that claim time can dilate, or change the dimensions of real bodies, is nonsense.

            What do experiments say? Do they support your claim, or Einstein’s?

            Have you ever even bothered to look? (I doubt it.)

  96. David Appell says:

    Roy, my Name/Mail/Website information was always automatically populated by WordPress.

    Now in the last week or so it is not any longer.

    What’s wrong here?

  97. Snape says:

    Gordon

    Einstein was showing that the force produced by acceleration is identical, or very nearly identical, to the force of gravity. That’s why it’s measured as a g- force.

    • David Appell says:

      NO, what Einstein assumed was that a gravitational field was equivalent to an acceleration of the reference system.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      snape…”Einstein was showing that the force produced by acceleration is identical, or very nearly identical, to the force of gravity. Thats why its measured as a g- force”.

      I don’t have a problem with any of that. As someone trained in engineering, however, I tend to look for the driving forces.

      In the electronics/electrical field, you find people making claims like ‘it’s not the voltage that kills you, it’s the amps’. Or they talk about current injection, as if electrical current can be injected into a circuit without a driving electromotive force.

      Yes. it’s the current that kills you but the voltage is vital. You can put your hands right across a car battery capable of generating 600 amps, which would burn the heck out of a human, yet nothing happens. It depends on the ability of a voltage to drive a lethal current through a human body and tat does not begin to happen, on average, till after 70 volts or so.

      Acceleration requires a force and a mass. Acceleration is not really a phenomenon like force or mass. It’s really a property of the resistance to motion when a force is applied to a mass. The only two real phenomena are force and mass in that case.

      Of course, a force-mass system can be affected by other phenomena like resistance, inertia, wind, etc. Time is not one of those phenomena.

      You can see the effect we call acceleration but we need a clock to measure it. Therefore, the acceleration we measure has a time component in it. That’s where we need to be very careful.

      The time component is there only for the benefit of the human mind. It has no bearing whatsoever on real phenomena like forces and mass, yet relativity has turned physics around so reality is based on space and time. In other words, they have based reality on imaginary phenomena.

      I think it was wrong for Einstein to presume time has anything to do with the real world and its phenomena. He should have dealt with the driving forces rather than the products.

      • David Appell says:

        Gordon Robertson says:
        I think it was wrong for Einstein to presume time has anything to do with the real world and its phenomena. He should have dealt with the driving forces rather than the products.

        Gordon, until you can predict and explain all the things Einstein’s theories have, you should just be quiet.

        You completely fail to understand Einstein’s theory of general relativity. There are no gravitational forces — all objects are falling along the geodesics that spacetime has been shaped into. That’s what gravity IS.

        No calculation in GR has ever been wrong when compare to reality. When you can do that, Gordon, let us know.

      • David Appell says:

        As usual, you are unable to learn anything beyond 7th grade science.

  98. Snape says:

    David

    I have no doubt you’re right, but look at the example Gordon mentioned:

    “Imagine you are floating in a box, unable to see whats happening outside of the box. Suddenly, you drop to the floor. So what happened?”

    When a rope pulls the box up, the man drops to the floor precisely because he is NOT part of the accelerating reference system.

    Acceleration and gravity produced identical effects…..the man fell to the floor.

    • David Appell says:

      “Acceleration and gravity produced identical effects..the man fell to the floor”

      Einstein’s theory of general relativity is based on the Equivalence Principle — locally the effects of gravity are indistinguishable
      from those of an acceleration.

  99. Snape says:

    Yes. Do you for some reason think I disagree?

  100. Snape says:

    David

    “Einsteins theory of general relativity is based on the Equivalence Principle locally the effects of gravity are indistinguishable
    from those of an acceleration.”

    Did I write something that makes you think I disagree with that? If so, please explain.

  101. Snape says:

    Gordon blabbers:

    “The time component is there only for the benefit of the human mind. It has no bearing whatsoever on real phenomena like forces and mass, yet relativity has turned physics around so reality is based on space and time. In other words, they have based reality on imaginary phenomena.”

    *******

    newtons/

    “the SI unit of force. It is equal to the force that would give a mass of one kilogram an acceleration of one meter per second per second, and is equivalent to 100,000 dynes.”

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      snape…”newtons/

      the SI unit of force. It is equal to the force that would give a mass of one kilogram an acceleration of one meter per second per second, and is equivalent to 100,000 dynes.”

      ************

      you need to pay attention. I said the time units are there for the benefit of humans and take no part in the action between a force and a mass.

      The newton is one measure of force and if applied to a one kilogram mass it would cause the mass to accelerate one metre per second per second, provided there was no opposing force interfering.

      Velocity is the motion involved in a change of position. Acceleration is a motion related to a change in velocity. Some people insist those changes are related to time but that’s not a requirement. Time is not required for that acceleration to take place.

      Let me demonstrate with velocity and we will extend that to acceleration. Take a machine, like a clock, with springs, gears and such. Set up a pointer to turn from the 12 o’clock position CW to 12 o’clock repetitively.

      Make another clock with a gear ratio that allows this clock to turn twice while the original pointer turns once. Let them run. You can truthfully claim the second clock is turning at twice the velocity of the first. Use speed in lieu of velocity if it makes you feel better, or rate.

      No reference to time. The force from the springs in the clock are rotating the gear that rotate the mass. One mass is moving at twice the velocity of the first.

      You could do the same with acceleration. Time is not required unless there is a desire to measure the velocities with respect to a timebase based on the second which we humans invented by dividing the period of the Earth’s rotation by 86,400.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        snape…please note, the clock had to come before time. A clock was required to measure the period of the Earth’s rotation BEFORE the second could be derived.

        • Norman says:

          Gordon Robertson

          Your musings may be interesting but I would not think they are valid or even good logical thought.

          You are confused in your own misguided understanding of reality. You believe Time is equal to the measure of time. It is as dumb to suggest that mass does not exist until someone came up with the unit of pound or kilogram. The concept still exists independent of the measurement. Measurements come into play in science and for precision and comparison to other systems.

          I think you are definitely a crackpot and not a particularly smart one, very confused and mixed up. You read some crackpot article by some goofball and you think it is reality, then you reject hundreds of years of empirically based logically driven science in favor of a few wild speculations you find on the Internet.

          Time exists outside the human system of measurement. It is the rate of change. You can sense a rate of change without a measured unit. You can sense a mass without an actual measured weight, you can sense a temperature without a degree. All exist outside the world of human measurements.

          Rate of change exists even if you do not have a way to measure it.

          You really should stop posting. You seem to be on some random walk of ideas.

          On another thread you said you were fed lies by Authorities on science. What exactly were the lies that you found out about. What were they telling you that you found out was false?

          • David Appell says:

            For fun, let’s score Gordon on the Crackpot Index:

            http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            norman….”You are confused in your own misguided understanding of reality. You believe Time is equal to the measure of time. It is as dumb to suggest that mass does not exist until someone came up with the unit of pound or kilogram. The concept still exists independent of the measurement. Measurements come into play in science and for precision and comparison to other systems”.

            ***********

            I’m afraid you are the one lacking in the awareness of reality. Both mass and time are inventions of the human mind.

            I am not implying in any way that mass does not exist, it’s an aggregation of atoms, and atoms exist. However, we defined mass as the amount of matter in a substance which translates to the number of atoms in the substance.

            At least mass is real, but the harmonic motion of the planet and its period are not functions of time but due to angular momentum. We used a property of that natural momentum, its period, to define the second, which is the basis of human time. There is no other time in the universe.

            One day, if you’re lucky, science wannabee-clowns like you and David Appell may have the privilege to discover the difference between the sci-fi world in which you live, and the real world.

            Here’s one for you, Planck mentioned in his book on heat that we humans invented not only time, but temperature, length, density and pressure.

            Note that Planck does not claim time to be a mysterious dimension, rather a measure of the period of the Earth’s harmonic motion.

            From his book, The Theory of Heat Radiation, on page 173 (193 of 252 in Adobe) he states:

            “164. Natural Units. All the systems of units which have hitherto been employed, including the so-called absolute C. G. S. system, owe their origin to the coincidence of accidental circumstances, inasmuch as the choice of the units lying at the base of every system has been made, not according to general points of view which would necessarily retain their importance for all places and all times, but essentially with reference to the special needs of our terrestrial civilization.

            Thus the units of length and time were derived from the present dimensions and motion of our planet, and the units of mass and temperature from the density and the most important temperature points of water, as being the liquid which plays the most important part on the surface of the earth, under a pressure which corresponds to the mean properties of the atmosphere surrounding us.

            It would be no less arbitrary if, let us say, the invariable wave length of Na-light were taken as unit of length. For, again, the particular choice of Na from among the many chemical elements could be justified only, perhaps, by its common occurrence on the earth, or by its double line, which is in the range of our vision, but is by no means the only one of its kind. Hence it is quite conceivable that at some other time, under changed external conditions, every one of the systems of units which have so far been adopted for use might lose, in part or wholly, its original natural significance”.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            DA…”For fun, lets score Gordon on the Crackpot Index:”

            You energy would be far better spent trying to learn some basic science.

        • David Appell says:

          Gordon Robertson says:
          snapeplease note, the clock had to come before time. A clock was required to measure the period of the Earths rotation BEFORE the second could be derived.

          Astonishingly stupid. Even by Gordon’s standards.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            DA…”Astonishingly stupid. Even by Gordons standards…”

            This is the typical response of DA to anything he can neither understand nor rebut.

          • David Appell says:

            Gordon, I say it about you because it’s true. I’ve been asking you to define “rotate” and “move” without reference to time, and you either ignore that or say it’s my problem.

            Because you can’t do it.

        • gbaikie says:

          “snapeplease note, the clock had to come before time. A clock was required to measure the period of the Earths rotation BEFORE the second could be derived.”

          The early morning of 5th day after the big storm, refers to what time it is.
          It does not require a clock.
          One can change a system of the measurement of time, you can also invent the metric system based upon the length of a meter.

          And it is predictable, that if you were to live on different
          planet, one will change the system of measurement of time.

          But at moment, we are stuck on Earth.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            gbaikie…”The early morning of 5th day after the big storm, refers to what time it is”.

            What makes you think anything has changed wrt time? The change takes place in the human mind, which tracks days based on circadian rhythms. We get tires, we sleep. Under normal workaday situtations the end of sleep and subsequently arising represent a new day.

            Nothing in the physical world related to time has changed, only the human mind and his/her invention, the clock.

            When I worked in the Tar Sands doing 10 hour shifts with up to 24 days in a row, we began counting the number of ‘sleeps’ till our next break. We became so tired we began calculating time based on the number of sleeps.

            It’s important to understand that time is an expression of human thought rather than a 4th dimension or a real phenomenon. Time is related to human memory because it is stored there, like a log book or journal. Time exists nowhere in the universe as an independent phenomenon.

          • David Appell says:

            Gordon Robertson says:
            Under normal workaday situtations the end of sleep and subsequently arising represent a new day.

            You just described the passage of time.

            This is quackery.

      • David Appell says:

        Gordon says:
        No reference to time.

        Define “turning” without referring to time.
        Define “rotate” and “rotating” without referring to time.
        Define “moving” without referring to time.

        • David Appell says:

          As usual, no response from Gordon to the slightest challenging question.

        • Gordon Robertson says:

          DA…”Gordon says:
          No reference to time.

          Define turning without referring to time.
          Define rotate and rotating without referring to time.
          Define moving without referring to time”.

          This is your problem, not mine. Definitions from the human mind are not reality. We humans can only observe and guess. You have obviously submitted to authority rather than thinking for yourself.

          BTW…I did what you asked above. I demonstrated two clock-like device with different gear ratios so that one turned a hand twice as fast as another. One hand turned twice as fast as the other with no reference to time.

          Turning, rotation, and moving can all be defined with no reference to time. It’s not till the human mind needs to calculate RATES of turning, rotation, and movement that time is required.

          That’s why we humans invented time.

          • David Appell says:

            Gordon Robertson says:
            Turning, rotation, and moving can all be defined with no reference to time.

            SO DO IT.

            One hand turned twice as fast as the other with no reference to time.

            “Fast?” That’s a reference to time.

      • David Appell says:

        Gordon Robertson says:
        Velocity is the motion involved in a change of position.

        Your use of “change” is a reference to time. You can’t define it without referring to time.

        This is trivially obvious.

  102. name says:

    Really? No.

    According to NASA, their adjustments are responsible for half a degree Celsius of added heat in the US temperature record of the 20th century:

    https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/faq/

    Reassuringly, they say their adjustments didn’t affect the global record……

    • David Appell says:

      Where exactly does NASA say that?

      (Quote them, please.)

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      name…”According to NASA, their adjustments are responsible for half a degree Celsius of added heat in the US temperature record of the 20th century:”

      What would you expect from a load of climate modeling sci-fi artists?

      • David Appell says:

        Every single one of them, Gordon, knows far more science that you ever will.

        • Gordon Robertson says:

          DA…”Every single one of them, Gordon, knows far more science that you ever will”.

          On rocket-propulsion, yes, on climate science physics, no.

          • David Appell says:

            You’re delusional. Everyone here points out all your copious errors every day, and yet somehow you think you’re an expert. Where did that trait come from?

  103. Nostrildomis says:

    So, I imagine it is to late from article post to get an answer, but if someone could help an uneducated idiot out:
    how can we even form a consensus that the sea level can be measured? Given that the entire planet is made up of plates that “float” on a liquid and are constantly shifting, affected by multiple variables such as gravity, rotation speed of planet, and relative location of other gravitational fields in the galaxy, where is the static point we measure sea levels from?

    • Svante says:

      The static point can be the orbit of a satellite, and their radar altimetry can give you numbers.

      The grace satellites can track water globally, including ice loss.

      The funny thing is that sea level rise is not the same everywhere.

      There is no evidence that earth is expanding as a whole, so I guess plate tectonics is a zero sum game.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        svante…”The grace satellites can track water globally, including ice loss”.

        So they tell you.

  104. Dan Pangburn says:

    Nos,, The absolute value of sea level is unimportant. The important thing is to determine it by exactly the same procedure and look at the change. Given the unavoidable uncertainties in measurement, do it many times over an extended period of time and the trend is pretty close. The more measurement periods and the longer the time, the closer.

    • David Appell says:

      Almost no measurements in climate science can always be done by the “same procedure.” Thermometers break or are replaced by new technology. Satellites last only for a certain number of years.

      Look at UAH, not calibrating microwave readings over something like 10 or more different satellites.

  105. Snape says:

    Gordon

    I almost always agree with Norman, and this TIME is no different:

    “You are confused in your own misguided understanding of reality.”

    ********

    Time is inextricably linked to motion.
    No motion, no force.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      snape…”Time is inextricably linked to motion.
      No motion, no force”.

      Before you support norman and flame me, you had better learn to think straight. That is norman’s problem, straight thinking.

      Force causes motion of a mass. Motion does not cause force, in general, unless we are referring to the effect of momentum. At that, momentum impels another body by transferring momentum to it. It was a force that started the initial body moving, giving it momentum.

      Let’s stick to simple motion for the moment. If a mass is at rest, it will remain at rest, unless a force is applied. When the force is applied, if there is no force opposing that force, the mass will accelerate uniformly.

      So far, no time is required. Acceleration is a visual phenomenon that is obvious when the force of gravity starts a ball moving down a ramp. Time is not involved in any capacity until we humans want to measure the change in rate we call acceleration.

      If we were on a similar planet to Earth, around another sun, and time was unknown, would we be able to see acceleration when a force was applied to a mass? We might call it something else but we could see it visually if it was fast enough.

      I gave an example of two clocks with different gear ratios, designed so that one hand turns at twice the rate of the other. One hand on one clock is turning twice as fast as the other but there is no reference to time.

      And no, a clock does not measure time, it creates time. An atomic clock does not measure time it oscillates at a natural frequency due to internal atomic forces. We humans have taken that accurate oscillatory period and converted it millions of time to equal our second, which we defined on a fraction of the Earth’s period of rotation.

      I don’t care if you agree with norman, who is filled with his own importance. All you are demonstrating is an equal lack of ability to think straight.

  106. name says:

    David Appell
    June 3, 2018

    Where exactly does NASA say that?

    (Quote them, please.)

    David, on their website, on the link I posted.

    Q. Why are the US mean temperatures in the Hansen 1999 paper so different from later figures?

    A. In the Hansen et al. (1999) paper the GISS analysis was based on GHCN data alone; in the meantime, the group working at NOAA/NCEI had taken a closer look at the US data, an investigation that resulted in substantial modifications compensating for station moves, procedural changes, etc. These corrected data were made available as “adjusted USHCN” data. The adjustments and their effects are described here, with a graph showing the effect of each of the five individual adjustments here. These adjustments caused an increase of about 0.5C in the US mean for the period from 1900 to 1990. They had no significant impact on the global mean.

    So, as I said, “adjustments” ADDED +0.5C to the US mean temperature record for the 20th century.

  107. name says:

    Also David, on top of their adjustments heating up the records, NASA also says that globally, the sun is responsible for a not insignificant 25% of the “warming” that was observed globally in the 20th century.

    Which rather flies in the face of what the political scientists at the UNIPCCWMO conglomeration says about the sun’s role in things.

    https://www.nasa.gov/topics/solarsystem/features/solar_variability.html

  108. Gordon Robertson says:

    DA…”Einsteins theory of general relativity is based on the Equivalence Principle locally the effects of gravity are indistinguishable from those of an acceleration”.

    It’s too bad that the forces in question are not equivalent. The force accelerating the box up the way is not equivalent to the force of gravity. Furthermore, the force of the Earth’s gravity accelerates masses at a constant acceleration of 9.8 m/s^2.

    That should mean that the man in the middle of the box should be accelerated at the same rate as the box and he should not hit the floor at all till the box lands on the gravity source.

    I am a fan of Einstein but I fear he became so desperate to solve the conundrums he faced trying to equate time and acceleration that he made a major blunder, failing to realize time has no effect on real forces and masses.

    There is nothing wrong with his basic calculations as long as velocities are very low compared to the speed of light. It’s the inference of time dilation and the stretching/curving of space-time that is the issue. Einstein should have gotten it that time cannot stretch and that space-time cannot curve. The reason is clear, neither exist as physical entities in the manner he described.

    That’s not just my opinion, it is the opinion of Eugene Gendlin, a psychologist who specialized in quantum theory. As a psychologist, he understood the mistakes we humans make in equating imaginary mental constructs to the real world. As a psychologist with expertise in quantum theory he was able to see the mistakes made by Einstein in equating time, an imaginary construct, to real forces and masses.

    It is impossible for time to dilate and for dimensions of materials to change based on velocity, a human defined parameter based on an imaginary human based time.

    The successes Einstein had with relativity theory are few and far between. The retrograde motion of Mercury is one but the speeds involved are so slow compared to the speed of light that the c parameter for the speed of light can be ignored. In other words, the retrograde problem could have been worked out using Newtonian translation of axes theory.

    Einstein admitted that. He knew there were few provable applications for his theory.

    • David Appell says:

      Gordon Robertson says:
      In other words, the retrograde problem could have been worked out using Newtonian translation of axes theory.

      I already corrected you on this. Scientists tried for decades to calculate the right value for Mercury’s perihelion shift — they came up short by 38 arcseconds per century.

      It was Einstein’s general relativity that calculated exactly this missing piece.

      You know nothing, Gordon — one huge mistake after the other.

    • David Appell says:

      GR wrote:
      The successes Einstein had with relativity theory are few and far between.

      More raw ignorance. Neither special or general relativity has ever made a wrong prediction or failed to explain an observed phenomena.

      It has passed many, many tests, and is used everyday in machines around the world.

      You really are a nitwit.

  109. Snape says:

    Gordon blabbers some more:

    “Heres one for you, Planck mentioned in his book on heat that we humans invented not only time, but temperature, length, density and pressure.”

    **********
    We invented UNITS for MEASURING those things, Gordon. That’s what Plank was talking about.

    Do you suppose, for example, there was no such thing as atmospheric pressure until we humans invented it?
    You really are a nitwit.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      snape…”Do you suppose, for example, there was no such thing as atmospheric pressure until we humans invented it?
      You really are a nitwit”.

      You suffer the fate of most humans who rely solely on the garbage in their minds. In Zen circles, it’s called the Cosmic Joke, a reference to humans relying on biased, incorrect stored data in their minds to assess the real world.

      The joke is that such humans think their minds work fine but they don’t. It gets even funnier when it is discovered through sudden insight that the problem is a reliance on garbage filled minds when a perfectly intelligent process of awareness has all the time been available.

      A first class example is humans looking at the Sun in early morning or late evening and seeing the Sun as rising or setting. For cripes sake, we’ve known for 500 years or more than the Sun does not revolve around the Earth yet here we are still getting sucked in by that illusion.

      Time is an illusion as well yet you and norman persist in refusing to LOOK!!! It’s so damned obvious if you want to SEE!!! Of course, you are famous for your thought-experiments which is trying to work out reality in your mind. Try shutting the garbage off for a bit and look with an unbiased mind.

      Pressure as defined by humans is an illusion. We define pressure as the sum of FORCES exerted on the walls of a container by atoms/molecules of gas. In reality, atoms/molecules of gas are just banging against the walls of the container. There is no pressure to anyone other than humans just a sum of tiny forces.

      So, we invented a system to measure the collisions and we call it pressure. More specifically, gas pressure. At least, pressure is based on real particles colliding with real masses. There is no equivalent for time.

      Come on, snape, don’t be so thick. If there is a real phenomenon called time, then show me where to find it. Show me how it interacts PHYSICALLY with real phenomena like force and mass. With force and mass there are only TWO phenomena at work unless the mass encounters another REAL force like air pressure or friction. Time plays no part in the interaction.

      Now, don’t rush to an answer, think about it. Go into your mind and focus as to where you can find a phenomenon called time. I am not interested in thought-experiments just an answer as to where I can locate a phenomenon called time.

      Show me the basis of dimensions changing in a metal ruler because it is moving at the speed of light. All you can show me is an equation and because it came from Einstein you claim it has to be right. Einstein got the equation from Lorentz, who specifically designed it to fit the theory.

      EINSTEIN NEVER DEMONSTRATED THAT DIMENSIONS CHANGE AT THE SPEED OF LIGHT OR THAT TIME CAN DILATE. NO ONE HAS OBSERVED EITHER HAPPENING.

      Time does not exist anywhere and basing relativity on something that has no existence is just plain dumb. What’s even dumber, is modernists trying to extend the theory of space-time to replace gravity as a force.

      You can embrace this modern stuff all you like but I am treating it as the garbage it is.

      Gravity is a force that accelerates bodies at 9.8 m/s^2 near the planet’s surface. There is no way it is the product of an illusionary space/time fabrication.

      • David Appell says:

        Gordon Robertson says:
        EINSTEIN NEVER DEMONSTRATED THAT DIMENSIONS CHANGE AT THE SPEED OF LIGHT OR THAT TIME CAN DILATE. NO ONE HAS OBSERVED EITHER HAPPENING.

        No one thinks Einstein said that.

        Your problem is that you don’t understand special relativity, yet for some reason you’re sure it is all wrong. How does that happen?

        But there is length contraction and time dilation. Proven by many experiments. Experiments you can’t refute just by using classical mechanics and classical space and time.

        You pay no attention whatsoever to the evidence.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      snape…”We invented UNITS for MEASURING those things, Gordon. Thats what Plank was talking about”.

      Here’s the exact comment from Planck:

      “Thus the units of length and time were derived from the present dimensions and motion of our planet, and the units of mass and temperature from the density and the most important temperature points of water, as being the liquid which plays the most important part on the surface of the earth, under a pressure which corresponds to the mean properties of the atmosphere surrounding us”.

      1)He said the units of length and time were derived from the present dimensions and motion of our planet…”

      Length is an arbitrary measure that at one time was created by a king placing his foot forward and claiming, “there…the measure of a foot”. Others have posited hand widths for the height of a horse while basic power was once defined as the work rate of a horse. The horsepower was sub-divided into 746 watts.

      The metre is defined as a fraction of the distance from the Equator to the North Pole.

      Time is based on the rotational motion of the Earth on its axis. A machine was developed to measure one rotation but there was no time at that point other than a measure of a day. Later, the measured period was sub-divided into hours, minutes, and seconds. That was defined as time and the machine developed from it was called a chronometer, aka a clock.

      2)”the units of mass and temperature from the density and the most important temperature points of water…”

      Density is defined as the mass per unit volume. Mass is defined loosely as the quantity if matter in a body. However, density is based on the mass/unit volume of water. In other words, the amount of hydrogen and oxygen in a cubic centimetre of water.

      Temperature was DEFINED according to a scale related to the boiling point and freezing points of water. It is measuring the heating of a device or material like mercury in a vial. When the mercury is heated it expands up the vial. The vial is calibrated at 0C (freezing point of water) and 100C (boiling point of water).

      Temperature and time have no meaning as real phenomena, they simply do not exist as such.

      • David Appell says:

        Gordon Robertson says:
        Temperature and time have no meaning as real phenomena, they simply do not exist as such.

        Gordon is trying to seem profound, but really just ends up looking like an unthinking nitwit.

        Snape is right, Gordon. You are very, very wrong. Just as you always are. Yet for some reason that doesn’t shame you.

  110. Snape says:

    Even more blabbering:

    “That should mean that the man in the middle of the box should be accelerated at the same rate as the box and he should not hit the floor at all till the box lands on the gravity source.”

    Duh, I already mentioned that. Why do you bring it up again?

    “You need to assume the box met resistance (landed on a planet, for example) and either slowed down or stopped moving. The man would hit the floor a brief moment later.”

  111. gbaikie says:

    Gordon Robertson-
    I think you have accept that Einstein theories are “settled science” and basically there are lots of people would love to disprove it, but so far none have.
    Wiki says:
    “General relativity (GR, also known as the general theory of relativity or GTR) is the geometric theory of gravitation published by Albert Einstein in 1915 and the current description of gravitation in modern physics. General relativity generalizes special relativity and Newton’s law of universal gravitation, providing a unified description of gravity as a geometric property of space and time, or spacetime. In particular, the curvature of spacetime is directly related to the energy and momentum of whatever matter and radiation are present.”
    And wiki later says:
    “Although general relativity is not the only relativistic theory of gravity, it is the simplest theory that is consistent with experimental data.”
    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_relativity

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      gbaikie…”I think you have accept that Einstein theories are settled science and basically there are lots of people would love to disprove it, but so far none have”.

      You stated something in a recent post that comes to mind. You referred to the fact we live on Earth and we are stuck with that predicament. Why then has relativity theory moved us into a world of space and time that does not exist on Earth but in an abstract space related to human thought only?

      Astronomer Wal Thornhill made a similar observation about relativity and string theory. He claimed that string theory works in every universe but our own. About relativity, he claimed space-time means imposing 4 dimensions on a 3 dimensional world.

      I respect Einstein but in science no one is beyond questioning. Besides, I am not questioning his relativity theory at terrestrial speeds, that can be done with Newtonian physics. I am questioning rash claims he made about dimensions of solids changing at the speed of light, and the inference that time can dilate. I think he missed something, and that parts of his theory have never been proved.

      There have been parallel developments in psychology and related fields that show the human mind in the time of Einstein circa 1900 was subject to the beliefs of the day. In other words, beliefs were rigid and the human condition and mode of thought was related to will-power.

      There is a good possibility that Einstein was acting on a thought experiment rather than considering the actuality of the real world. It’s not a matter of disproving the theory since it has never been fully established by rigourous experiment. It’s not easy to do observational work at the speed of light. Einstein admitted that himself.

      Freud was breaking ground on the workings of the human mind at the time Einstein was in his prime and he was treated badly. Freud did manage to establish that will-power was not the basis of unconscious processes. Although the theories of Freud got pretty far out with his theories on the Oedipal Complex, much of his work and terminology, such as self and ego persist to this day.

      Around 1920, Jiddu Krishnamurti began turning the way humans think on it head. He had an unusual upbringing that allowed him to focus on how the mind operates, not from a micro view but from a macro view. He realized early that we humans have somehow related thought to time and vice-versa. As a result, we have biased the way we observe from a delusional self-centre built on thought and time..

      The scientific process of mind that requires awareness and insight is essentially blocked when operating in the time-thought mode (day-dreaming, deep-thought). Some scientist can apparently allow for that while others cannot. I thought Newton was amazing in that regard since he was devoutly religious. I think it’s possible that Einstein was lead astray by allowing himself to become immersed in the almost fantasy land of the part of the mind that deals with time a la past and future.

      Krishnamurti’s work attracted deep thinking luminaries like Bertrand Russell, George Bernard Shaw, Aldous Huxley, and even Einstein, along with psychologists and philosophers. The luminary who impressed me most was David Bohm, a physicist who was a major force in quantum theory and a friend of Einstein. In one dialog on time with Krishnamurti Bohm made the astounding statement (for me) that humans invented time. Krishnamurti agreed.

      David Bohm revealed in one of his books how he ran an idea equivalent to entanglement theory past Einstein and was rebuffed due to the view of Einstein that ‘action at a distance’ did not interest him. Einstein even sided with Schrodinger, the father of quantum theory, that physics should be about observation and conclusions related to real phenomena.

      In that case, why did he leave us with a theory that is obscure? Where is this space-time, the basis of relativity theory? He was under tremendous pressure to come up with a relationship between gravity and acceleration and I fear he sold out.

      Freud’s work was taken up by psychologists who went in different directions. There were psychoanalysts like Carl Jung, and later, humanitarian psychologists like Maslow and Carl Rogers, behaviorists like Watson and Pavlov and so on. A student of Carl Rogers was Eugene Gendlin, who wrote an important book called Focusing.

      I did not know till recently, after the death of Gendlin, that he has been deeply into quantum theory as part of his interest in mathematical modelling. He wrote this important paper critiquing relativity from the perspective of a psychologist who understood the operation of the human mind a al observation.

      http://www.focusing.org/critique_of_relativity.html

      “…Space-time grids are not events but only ideal comparisons made by observers. Therefore the identity of space-time points and also of single particles is inherently a speculative assumption”.

      We all know that the application of Newtonian physics at the atomic level does not work due to interference at the atomic levels by the human observer. Why then do we accept that the human observer does not interfere in the forces and masses in relative reference frames when the observer is imposing his invention of time on the system?

      This is a very important observation and should be totally obvious to an aware person. It points out that relativity is not settled science, rather it is a speculative assessment of reality by a THEORETICAL physicist who prided himself on direct observation. In other words, Einstein abandoned his basic views of how science should be done and resorted to mental models based on mathematics only.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      gbaikie…”General relativity generalizes special relativity and Newtons law of universal gravitation, providing a unified description of gravity as a geometric property of space and time, or spacetime”.

      That’s the part I call rubbish. Without mass there is no gravity. Space-time is nonsense, it has no existence.

      • David Appell says:

        Gordon Robertson says:
        Without mass there is no gravity. Space-time is nonsense, it has no existence.

        That’s wrong. Without ENERGY there is no gravity. (In relativity mass and energy are equivalent.) But even the vacuum has energy….

      • David Appell says:

        Gordon Robertson says:
        Space-time is nonsense, it has no existence.

        So what is between here and the Moon?

      • David Appell says:

        Gordon Robertson says:
        Space-time is nonsense, it has no existence.

        Gordon, are you aware of the evidence showing Einstein was right and the Newtonian is not?

        Muon decay in the atmosphere, the Pound-Rebka experiment, the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs? The fact that particle colliders don’t explode the moment they’re turned on.

        It doesn’t see like you’re aware. Don’t you think you should educate yourself on the evidence, and refute it before dismissing Einsteinian spacetime?

  112. Snape says:

    Gordon

    When I said, “no motion, no force”, I did not intend to imply causation. Only that the two are inseparable, just like motion and time.

    An animal knows an object has MOVED when it’s PRESENT location is different than a PAST location. Unless a force acts upon that object, and brings it to a rest, it will be in a different location in the FUTURE.

    “Time is the indefinite continued progress of existence and events that occur in apparently irreversible succession from the past through the present to the future.”

    Where there is motion, there is a past and present……and a likely continuation into the future The two cannot exist without the other.

    We humans invented methods to measure time, which invariably requires a comparison of motion.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      snape…”An animal knows an object has MOVED when its PRESENT location is different than a PAST location. Unless a force acts upon that object, and brings it to a rest, it will be in a different location in the FUTURE”.

      An animal knows because it has a memory that stores events and which can be recalled. That’s your past and future, human memory.

      “Where there is motion, there is a past and presentand a likely continuation into the future The two cannot exist without the other”.

      Only in the human mind. In reality, there is no past and future. A force acting on a mass does not care about past and future, only the human mind cares about it, or perhaps the mind of an animal as you mention.

      *******

      Time is the indefinite continued progress of existence and events that occur in apparently irreversible succession from the past through the present to the future.

      Gobbeldygook…someone struggling with a concept he or she fails to grasp. Where is this progress taking place? In which medium or dimension? How can it be demonstrated?

      There is only one answer to that question, in human memory.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        this… “Time is the indefinite continued progress of existence and events that occur in apparently irreversible succession from the past through the present to the future”, should have had quotation marks around it above. It came from snape’s comment which I presume he quoted from elsewhere.

  113. Snape says:

    Gordon

    You still don’t get it (no big surprise there).

    It can be argued that reality only exists in the present moment. I.e., the past is just a memory, the future has not yet arrived. Both are mental projections.

    The problem with that viewpoint, as least as far as physics is concerned, is this:

    An object can’t be In two places at the same moment. Motion, therefore, is a comparison of an object’s current location with the memory of where is was in the past. So if you say the past is just a mental construct, you are implying motion itself is just a mental construct. And if motion is just a mental construct, then by extension so is force.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      snape…”An object can’t be In two places at the same moment. Motion, therefore, is a comparison of an object’s current location with the memory of where is was in the past. So if you say the past is just a mental construct, you are implying motion itself is just a mental construct. And if motion is just a mental construct, then by extension so is force”.

      You are still confusing real motion with the human perspective of motion. Real motion takes place in a timeless environment that is a space of some kind. Last night I was watching Star Trek and they mentioned the timelessness of space. That’s right, space has no time.

      When a human views motion, the human mind adds time and space to the motion. Space exists independently of human thought but we humans add a 3-d coordinate system to space along with a 4th dimension we call time. That coordinate system with its up/down, north/south, etc., along with the dimension of time does not exist in reality.

      I understand the need for theories and mathematical relationships in physics but we need to be careful to understand that what we define based on human thought is not reality. Our definitions may be adequate much of the time but as Feynman pointed out, in the limit, they are nothing more than approximations. I might add to that, sometimes we are just plain wrong.

      With motion, there is the real force and the real mass. Nothing else is operating other than forces and mass but in order to quantify position and change of position, we humans have imposed a coordinate system and a 4th dimension.

      In the case of relativity, we seem to have forgotten that. We introduced time as a 4th dimension then imposed it on a force-mass system that does not require it. Then we got cheeky and stupid and made our invention an independent variable upon which force and mass depend.

      That’s just plain dumb. I am not trying to judge Einstein, I have no idea what he was thinking. I am judging those who followed and who very likely misinterpreted his theories.

      I pointed out how we humans invented time based on the period of the Earth’s rotation. What has the Earth’s rotation got to do with a force operating in a mass, or the effect of a mass traveling at the speed of light?

      BTW, all time from the Egyptians onward is based on the Earth’s rotation.

      • David Appell says:

        Gordon Robertson wrote:
        You are still confusing real motion with the human perspective of motion.

        So define “real motion.” Give us the equation for it.

        • Gordon Robertson says:

          DA…”So define “real motion.” Give us the equation for it”.

          I don’t think you’ll ever get it, David, that real motion has no equation, it just is. A body moves through a space with no dimensions and no time. That’s reality.

          You seem to live in a world where you accept everything going on mentally within you as fact and that it represents reality. That is reality to you, what goes on in your mind. However, reality is independent of human thought.

          If you removed all humans and all animal life from the planet, what is left would be reality. If a rock fell off a cliff, there would be no one to measure the dimensions over which it fell or the time it took to fall. It would just fall.

          Where would you find equations?

          It would do no harm for you to throw out the equations right now and try to explain to yourself what is behind the math. If you cannot do that, what good is the math?

          • David Appell says:

            And you think this is profound?

            All of this is either trivially obvious, or made up gobbledygook. You’re trying to sound profound, but aren’t very good at it.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            DA….”All of this is either trivially obvious, or made up gobbledygook. You’re trying to sound profound, but aren’t very good at it”.

            It has occurred to me in the past that you are playing a game in which you act obtuse. But, no, you’re just plain stupid and utterly lacking in awareness of the world around you.

          • David Appell says:

            Gordon, I’m far from obtuse.

            So I know bullsh!t when I see it.

            Here you are peddling bullsh!t.

  114. Snape says:

    “I pointed out how we humans invented time based on the period of the Earths rotation. What has the Earths rotation got to do with a force operating in a mass…….?

    It has nothing to do with it, Gordon. Time and how we measure it are not the same thing. Your question shows you still don’t see a difference.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      snape…”It has nothing to do with it, Gordon. Time and how we measure it are not the same thing. Your question shows you still dont see a difference”.

      There is nothing to measure with regard to time!!!! Time is defined as a fraction of the period of the Earth’s rotation. The Earth’s rotation is due to its angular momentum.

      There is no independent phenomenon called time. If you think so, please show me where it is.

      You can’t, can you?

      • David Appell says:

        The word “period” is a measure of time.

        Time exists because we can define it and measure it. That’s all that’s needed for science.

        • Gordon Robertson says:

          DA…”The word period is a measure of time.

          Time exists because we can define it and measure it. Thats all thats needed for science”.

          Another idiotic comment from David Appell, who is still confused as to how electromagnetic radiation can cause skin to burn.

          The Earth’s period of rotation is due to its angular momentum. It had to be a force of some kind that started it spinning and nowhere was the fictitious time involved.

          The word ‘period’ is an invention of humans, it’s the only way we can quantify one rotation of the planet.

          It’s little wonder to me that you have so much trouble understanding climate issues when you cannot see the obvious about time. It does not exist, just as the reality of CO2 at 0.04% warming our planet catastrophically does not exist.

          • David Appell says:

            Gordon Robertson says:
            The word period is an invention of humans, its the only way we can quantify one rotation of the planet.

            Define “rotation” without referring to time.

          • David Appell says:

            Gordon Robertson says:
            It does not exist, just as the reality of CO2 at 0.04% warming our planet catastrophically does not exist.

            Define “catastrophically.”

  115. Snape says:

    David asks a good question,

    “So define “real motion”. Give us the equation for it.”

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      snape…”So define real motion. Give us the equation for it.”

      Real motion cannot be defined, it just is. All you can do is observe it. However, we humans have a penchant for quantifying motion and change and to accommodate that penchant we invented time.

      You need to spend less time with your thought experiments and begin observing the environment in which you live.

      Go outside on a clear day and check out the Sun. Is it really rising, or is the horizon moving down the way? Don’t just think this out as a thought experiment, go and do it to experience it. The experience is called grounding, it’s getting you away from your conditioned mind and into reality.

      Both you and David live in your minds. Shut off the garbage (conditioning), and when it becomes totally quiet, observe anew. You will see a far different reality.

      • David Appell says:

        The fact that you can’t define “real motion,” or produce an equation for it, shows that it doesn’t exist.

        It’s just something you made up. You make up a lot of “science.”

        • Gordon Robertson says:

          DA…”The fact that you cant define real motion, or produce an equation for it, shows that it doesnt exist”.

          The fact that you cannot understand that real motion is independent of human thought is the issue. You seem to think that reality is a set of definitions defined by humans. Therefore, if all humans left the planet, it would cease to exist as a reality.

          Reality does not need our definitions, it simply exists. It is. Can you really not see that? Motion is a phenomena, it requires no definition.

          However, as we humans claim, motion is a change of position. We can see a change in position without quantifying it. Something moves, we can see it.

          If we need to quantify the motion, we need dimensions and time, both of which we invented for such quantification.

          • David Appell says:

            Lots of things are independent of human thought — electrons, for example — but can be described and the physical laws that describe them can be established.

            You can’t define “real motion” or provide an equation for it because it doesn’t exist and you’re just BSing as usual.

  116. Snape says:

    Gordon

    “Time is defined as a fraction of the period of the Earths rotation.”

    ******

    Does nothing sink in?

    A fraction of the period of Earth’s rotation would be UNIT OF MEASUREMENT, I.e., hour, minute, second. NOT a definition!

    I’m done

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      snape…”Does nothing sink in?

      A fraction of the period of Earths rotation would be UNIT OF MEASUREMENT, I.e., hour, minute, second. NOT a definition!

      Im done”

      *********

      Are you this stupid? Do you think the Earth’s period of rotation came complete with divisions of hours, minutes, and seconds? Is it marked somewhere around the Equator, on a band of brass, with tiny gradations corresponding to hours, minutes, and seconds?

      No!!! We used a machine to measure the period as a complete day, then we arbitrarily divided that day into 24 hours, sixty minutes, and 60 seconds. Then we created a clock to keep track of that derived time. However, there were issues.

      As the Earth rotates it also revolves around the Sun. That means the Sun appears at a slightly different time each morning. So we had to develop two forms of time, one related to sunrise and the other related to the relatively fixed stars.

      Another issue was synchronization. The older mechanical clocks lose time due to friction and that would mean every clock would go out of synchronization with the Earth’s rotation. So, we created a basic time at Greenwich, England with which we synchronize all clocks.

      Do you think there was a clock already synchronized to some universal time constant so we could independently derive one second?

      The second is a definition, and an arbitrary definition at that. Where did we come up with 24 hours, and 60 for hours and minutes?

      What goes through your mind? Do you think the period of the Earth’s rotation is a universal constant?

      • David Appell says:

        We used a machine to measure the period as a complete day

        Measuring time…. Another admission that time exists.

        • Gordon Robertson says:

          DA…”We used a machine to measure the period as a complete day

          Measuring time. Another admission that time exists”.

          ***********

          Time is length, as measured in degrees of rotation of the Earth.

          A machine was devised to track the angular motion of the planet. That required deliberation until it was agreed upon that one revolution of the planet would be a day, and that the revolution would be broken into 24 hours, 60 minutes, and 60 seconds. Of course, the length of a second could be derived from that.

          It’s interesting that someone else equated the second to the number of degrees through which the planet rotated during that contrived time period. You see, the second is really a number of degrees of length as measured along the planet’s line of latitude and the length related to the second varies as one travels north or south from the Equator.

          You can see that clearly if you look at the lines of longitude. If you take 24 of them, corresponding to 24 hours, between each longitudinal line, which represents an hour, it is divided into 60 minutes and 60 seconds. Therefore time is really a measure in degrees of how far the planet turns for each increment.

          • David Appell says:

            Gordon Robertson says:
            Therefore time is really a measure in degrees of how far the planet turns for each increment.

            Now you admit that time exists and is not an illusion.

            I declare victory.

  117. Mike Gale says:

    I just checked the underlying data. It is constructed from tide gauge data, blended in some way with satellite data and the Glacial Isotatic Adjustment (GIA) applied. (In my quick check I didn’t establish whether tide gauges on land that was rising or falling too rapidly were excluded.)

    In other words it’s not the sea level that you would see on a coastline. It’s a synthetic measurement. (The satellite data is not coastline data and the GIA explicitly changes it from what is observed on a coastline.)

    Review of the paper doi:10.1029/2005GL024826 and maybe some additional data processing would be needed to establish what likely happens on a coastline. (This data could be described as “estimted volume in the ocean expressed as a sea level”.)

    Given that you can’t draw reliable conclusions about coast line sea level from this data.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      Mike Gale…”In other words its not the sea level that you would see on a coastline. Its a synthetic measurement”.

      That’s exactly what I guessed in a previous post. So many of the so-called facts thrown out as proof in climate science these days is nothing more than estimates and outright guesses.

      • David Appell says:

        Satellites measure global sea level — independent of any subsidence issues — very accurately.

        Of course local conditions will vary. Everyone knows this. But it’s precisely where there is significant land subsidence that sea level rise will appear first and be problematic.

        Ask the citizens of Norfolk, VA how much they like global sea level rise. Ask the citizens of Miami Beach, who are spending $500 B to deal with sea level rise — problems they did not have 20+ years ago.

        You can’t defeat physics.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      DA…”Tamino has corrected Roy, here:”

      I have always regarded Tamino as an alarmist fool willing to bend science to fit his stupid theories. His comments on Roy are no different than the ad hoc pseudo-science of Eli Rabbett.

      The only thing positive I can say about Tamino is that he does not show up here. Unless, that is, you are Tamino.

      • gbaikie says:

        It seems Tamino disagrees with IPCC.
        And I guess is using Roy as proxy of IPCC, which is odd
        if Roy is being called the denier, and Tamino imagines he not a denier.