Fastest Sea-Level Rise in 2,000 Years

[Von Bismarck]

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

Fastest Sea-Level Rise in 2,000 Years Linked to Increasing Global Temperatures

[oly]

Maybe US is sinking!

[Little Fish]

michael mann?

is he still allowed to publish after his hockey stick nonsense?

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/06/20/manns-new-sea-level-hockey-stick-paper/

sea level increase by 2mm/year since 1865?

can't be due to co2 then.

Edited June 21, 2011 by Little Fish

[Guest]

michael mann?

is he still allowed to publish after his hockey stick nonsense?

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/06/20/manns-new-sea-level-hockey-stick-paper/

sea level increase by 2mm/year since 1865?

can't be due to co2 then.

Please remind me when the agricultural land clearances and industrial revolution really kicked in.

You love that reliable source called Watts up don't you. Really boosts your credibility.

Br Cornelius

[Little Fish]

Please remind me when the agricultural land clearances and industrial revolution really kicked in.

You love that reliable source called Watts up don't you. Really boosts your credibility.

Br Cornelius

so co2 does not lift the sea level, but agricultural land clearance and the industrial revolution does lifts the sea level? please explain.

notice how Michael Mann didn't include the last 10 years data of sea level, hiding the decline (again).

tricks and cherry picking, sea level decreasing over the last 10 years:

http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2011/06/19/hiding-the-decline-in-sea-level/#more-32692

[Guest]

so co2 does not lift the sea level, but agricultural land clearance and the industrial revolution does lifts the sea level? please explain.

notice how Michael Mann didn't include the last 10 years data of sea level, hiding the decline (again).

tricks and cherry picking, sea level decreasing over the last 10 years:

http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2011/06/19/hiding-the-decline-in-sea-level/#more-32692

I think you will find the three are inextricably linked.

Your link is funny and not really relevant to the discussion. Just old hackneyed repeats from the denialist crowd. The study did a survey of over 160yrs - your graph covers just twenty. Cherry picking again.

Br Cornelius

Edited June 22, 2011 by Guest

[Guest]

Deleted for duplicate post

Edited June 22, 2011 by Guest

[stevewinn]

Fastest Sea-Level Rise in 2,000 Years, holy cowabunga, does anyone have noah's phone number, or a good boat builder.

[Little Fish]

I think you will find the three are inextricably linked.

if you are claiming that land changes/industrialisation lead to co2, lead to warming, lead to sea level rise, then you are wrong because the sea level rose (according to mann) prior to the rise in co2, and co2-sea level show no correlation.

you are hiding in sophistry.

Your link is funny and not really relevant to the discussion. Just old hackneyed repeats from the denialist crowd. The study did a survey of over 160yrs - your graph covers just twenty. Cherry picking again.

how is showing a decline over the last 10 years cherry picking? you don't seem to understand the meaning of "cherry picking", its just something you throw out as a standard rebuttal.

michael mann ends his chart in 2000, why does he not include the last 10 years over which satellite measurements show a decline.

how can we compare his proxy data from his two mud cores in carolina to the global satellite record to seek confirmation with actual measurements. if his mud core proxy data would have overlapped and matched the satellite record it would strengthen his paper, but he just ends his measurements in 2000.

[Von Bismarck]

how is showing a decline over the last 10 years cherry picking? you don't seem to understand the meaning of "cherry picking", its just something you throw out as a standard rebuttal.

michael mann ends his chart in 2000, why does he not include the last 10 years over which satellite measurements show a decline.

how can we compare his proxy data from his two mud cores in carolina to the global satellite record to seek confirmation with actual measurements. if his mud core proxy data would have overlapped and matched the satellite record it would strengthen his paper, but he just ends his measurements in 2000.

Because it dosn't look good when you publish a study, showing the fastest Sea-Level Rise in 2,000 yaers yet since 2003 it has decline.

[Little Fish]

Because it dosn't look good when you publish a study, showing the fastest Sea-Level Rise in 2,000 yaers yet since 2003 it has decline.

given Mann's track record of hiding declines, I would not chastise you for saying such a thng. Edited June 22, 2011 by Little Fish

[Guest]

By focusing on just the last 20yrs it makes the dip at the end appear more significant than it is. All trend lines become more meaningful the longer they are present and all trend lines involve ups and downs. The trend is a smoothing of those ups and downs. Why did the article Little Fish linked to only deal with 12% of the available data - because it was cherry picking with an intend to mislead. Little Fish fell for it - again.

Br Cornelius

Edited June 22, 2011 by Guest

[Little Fish]

By focusing on just the last 20yrs it makes the dip at the end appear more significant than it is. All trend lines become more meaningful the longer they are present and all trend lines involve ups and downs. The trend is a smoothing of those ups and downs. Why did the article Little Fish linked to only deal with 12% of the available data - because it was cherry picking with an intend to mislead. Little Fish fell for it - again.

Br Cornelius

http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2011/06/19/hiding-the-decline-in-sea-level/

you never read the above article, for if you did you would realise the point of the article was to show how data is being manipulated to hide the decline in sea level over the last decade. Michael Mann's paper that reconstructs sea levels from two mud core proxies in Carolina does not display the last 10 years in his paper. The point was to provide more data to show what Mann did not show, and in searching out those last 10 years, it appears the "warmistas", as Goddard puts it, manipulated their graph to hide the decline.

the graph belongs to:

http://www.aviso.oceanobs.com/

here is their graph:

http://www.aviso.oceanobs.com/fileadmin/images/news/indic/msl/MSL_Serie_ALL_Global_IB_RWT_NoGIA_Adjust.png

which looks like:

here is how the same data should look if it were honestly graphed:

the steve goddard article shows how the graph is deceitful, do you see how the yellow line (the most accurate of satellite measurements) has been shifted up and coloured yellow to diminish its impact.

Edited June 22, 2011 by Little Fish

[Guest]

http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2011/06/19/hiding-the-decline-in-sea-level/

you never read the above article, for if you did you would realise the point of the article was to show how data is being manipulated to hide the decline in sea level over the last decade. Michael Mann's paper that reconstructs sea levels from two mud core proxies in Carolina does not display the last 10 years in his paper. The point was to provide more data to show what Mann did not show, and in searching out those last 10 years, it appears the "warmistas", as Goddard puts it, manipulated their graph to hide the decline.

the graph belongs to:

http://www.aviso.oceanobs.com/

here is their graph:

http://www.aviso.oceanobs.com/fileadmin/images/news/indic/msl/MSL_Serie_ALL_Global_IB_RWT_NoGIA_Adjust.png

which looks like:

here is how the same data should look if it were honestly graphed:

the steve goddard article shows how the graph is deceitful, do you see how the yellow line (the most accurate of satellite measurements) has been shifted up and coloured yellow to diminish its impact.

And your response to the point that the 160 yrs trend was approximately 2mm per year. Its still cherry picking.

And this is the actual plot for the recent period which shows a far from smooth rise as suggested by your article;

You seem to be a victim of intentional data manipulation - which coincidentally is exactly what you are accusing Mann of

Br Cornelius

Edited June 22, 2011 by Guest

[Little Fish]

some problems with Kemp and Mann's sea level paper

upside down graphs, mud cores disrupted by historic peat cutting and bridge building, includes the corrupted Tiljander cores for temperature reconstuction.

http://amac1.blogspot.com/2011/06/tiljander-data-series-appear-again-this.html

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/06/22/manns-inverted-tiljander-data-survives-another-round-of-peer-review/

http://climateaudit.org/2011/06/21/amac-upside-down-mann-lives-onin-kemp-et-al-2011/

[Guest]

Same quality sources. Using known amateurs and liers.

When are you going to start reading real science. I am certain there are real scientific dabate's going on between real scientists about any flaws - reading them might actually teach you about how science is really carried out.

Br Cornelius

Edited June 23, 2011 by Guest

[Little Fish]

Same quality sources. Using known amateurs and liers.

When are you going to start reading real science. I am certain there are real scientific dabate's going on between real scientists about any flaws - reading them might actually teach you about how science is really carried out.

Br Cornelius

so that's your contribution?

"amateurs and liers <sic>" ?

the science is presented in those links. why don't you as a self-declared scientist read it and show where and why you think it is flawed. The Tiljman issue has been around for years. why is it not true? if you are scientist then present a scientific rebuttal. scientists don't go around saying "liar" and cherry picking "sources", they show why something is not supported by the data.

[Guest]

so that's your contribution?

"amateurs and liers <sic>" ?

the science is presented in those links. why don't you as a self-declared scientist read it and show where and why you think it is flawed. The Tiljman issue has been around for years. why is it not true? if you are scientist then present a scientific rebuttal. scientists don't go around saying "liar" and cherry picking "sources", they show why something is not supported by the data.

Go to a place where real science is actually debated rather than denialist propaganda blogs. If there are flaws in the paper - this is where they are highlighted and assessed as to their significance - between experts in their field with differences of opinion.

Real scientific debate is not carried out on industry financed blogs, and if there are flaws, the blogs will not be the place where they are found.

Your constant reference to denialist blogs means that your arguments cannot be taken seriously because you receive all your opinions predigested from variously biased sources with some very dodge agendas.

I have already shown in one tiny little way that your sources are far from honest and impartial in the way they present data, so why should I debate science witrh you when you consistently fail to spot the differenced between science and make believe.

Br Cornelius

Edited June 23, 2011 by Guest

[oly]

Real scientific debate is not carried out on industry financed blogs

Br Cornelius

So where do I go for the scientific debate?

Ps how much do they pay?

[Little Fish]

if there are flaws, the blogs will not be the place where they are found.

makes me feel 10 years younger.

[Little Fish]

more criticism on the mann-kemp paper

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/06/23/reduce-your-co2-footprint-by-recycling-past-errors/#more-42111

[Guest]

more criticism on the mann-kemp paper

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/06/23/reduce-your-co2-footprint-by-recycling-past-errors/#more-42111

Your not learning that your arguments mean almost nothing when the quality of your sources is sub-science. Watts-up has a fine track record of parroting every denailist argument that was ever dreamed up.

You know what - if you can find me a decent source I might even read it

Br Cornelius

[Von Bismarck]

To decent papers that disput IPCC esimated sea-level rise.

http://ruby.fgcu.edu/courses/twimberley/EnviroPhilo/PastRecords.pdf

http://ff.org/centers/csspp/library/co2weekly/20070809/20070809_06.pdf

[Little Fish]

Your not learning that your arguments mean almost nothing when the quality of your sources is sub-science. Watts-up has a fine track record of parroting every denailist argument that was ever dreamed up.

You know what - if you can find me a decent source I might even read it

Br Cornelius

yes, yes, we get it, everyone who opposes your opinions is to be attacked, dismissed, slurred, libeled, slandered. its the way of the cult.

To decent papers that disput IPCC esimated sea-level rise.

http://ruby.fgcu.edu/courses/twimberley/EnviroPhilo/PastRecords.pdf

http://ff.org/centers/csspp/library/co2weekly/20070809/20070809_06.pdf

there's 13 more here:

http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html

[Von Bismarck]

here's 13 more here:

http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html

Wow, over 900 peer reviewed paper agianst man made GW.

I'll have to do some reading.

Thank you very much Little Fish!!!!