Sea level rise has slowed. (It must be time to correct that data!)

Sea level rise has slowed. (It must be time to correct that data!)

http://joannenova.com.au/2014/04/sea-level-rise-has-slowed-it-must-be-time-to-correct-that-data/

Filed under the Semi-Satirical Press. The Universe is surely conspiring against ecologicist scientists*. Their task is to convince the world that things are dire, and yet just as humans pump out more carbon dioxide pollution than ever before, many natural markers start behaving as if CO2 was having barely any effect at all. It’s all potentially so misleading. A new paper by Cazenave et al 2014 digs deep to uncover the reasons for yet another unfortunate un-catastrophic trend change. First, global surface temperatures stopped rising in the late 1990′s. Now, it’s become irrefutable that, for the last ten years, the rate of sea-level rise slowed by thirty percent. Seas were rising at 3.5mm a year up til 2003, then the rate fell to 2.2mm per year for the next eight years. This is exactly what ninety-eight percent of expert Global Climate Models did not predict. The slowing sea level rise is extra problematic because it forms the backbone of the excuse for the long pause in surface warming that wasn’t supposed to happen either.  The fact that it coincided with the global pause in surface temperatures was no comfort at all. The missing heat, after all, must be […]Rating: 9.9/10 (14 votes cast)

Sent by gReader Pro…

Sea level rise slows while satellite temperature ‘pause’ dominates measurement record

Sea level rise slows while satellite temperature ‘pause’ dominates measurement record

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/04/28/sea-level-rise-slows-while-satellite-temperature-pause-dominates-measurement-record/

Measured sea level rise drops 30% with “pause” greater than half of RSS measurement period. Guest essay by Larry Hamlin A paper titled “The rate of sea-level rise” published in Nature Climate Change on March 23 by Cazenave, et al. … Continue reading →

Sent by gReader Pro…

Climatologist Dr. Roy Spencer: Top Ten Good Skeptical Arguments

Top Ten Good Skeptical Arguments

http://www.drroyspencer.com/2014/05/top-ten-good-skeptical-arguments/

As suggested by a friend, I’m following up my Top Ten bad global warming arguments list with a Top Ten good arguments list. These are in no particular order, and I might have missed something important.
These ten were just off the top of my head….there’s no telling what might be lingering deeper in my brain.
I have avoided specific alternative causal mechanisms of natural climate change, because I view them individually as speculative. But taken as a whole, they represent a class of unknowns that can’t be just swept under the rug just because we don’t understand them.
For some reason, all of these ended up being phrased as questions, rather than statements.
1) No Recent Warming. If global warming science is so “settled”, why did global warming stop over 15 years ago (in most temperature datasets), contrary to all “consensus” predictions?
2) Natural or Manmade? If we don’t know how much of the warming in the longer term (say last 50 years) is natural, then how can we know how much is manmade?
3) IPCC Politics and Beliefs. Why does it take a political body (the IPCC) to tell us what scientists “believe”? And when did scientists’ “beliefs” translate into proof? And when was scientific truth determined by a vote…especially when those allowed to vote are from the Global Warming Believers Party?
4) Climate Models Can’t Even Hindcast How did climate modelers, who already knew the answer, still fail to explain the lack of a significant temperature rise over the last 30+ years? In other words, how to you botch a hindcast?
5) …But We Should Believe Model Forecasts? Why should we believe model predictions of the future, when they can’t even explain the past?
6) Modelers Lie About Their “Physics”. Why do modelers insist their models are based upon established physics, but then hide the fact that the strong warming their models produce is actually based upon very uncertain “fudge factor” tuning?
7) Is Warming Even Bad? Who decided that a small amount of warming is necessarily a bad thing?
8) Is CO2 Bad? How did carbon dioxide, necessary for life on Earth and only 4 parts in 10,000 of our atmosphere, get rebranded as some sort of dangerous gas?
9) Do We Look that Stupid? How do scientists expect to be taken seriously when their “theory” is supported by both …

New paper predicts future warming is likely to reduce the number of floods – Published in Global and Planetary Change

New paper predicts future warming is likely to reduce the number of floods

http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2014/05/new-paper-predicts-future-warming-is.html

A new paper published in Global and Planetary Change finds on the basis of paleoclimate data over the past 6,000 years that “future warming is likely to reduce the number of floods.”According to the paper, “although most climate models agree on a general increase in future precipitation in the Northern Hemisphere due to higher temperatures, no consensus has yet been reached on how this warming will perturb flooding rates.” The authors find however, “Despite an anticipated increase in Pw [winter precipitation], the paleodata, nevertheless, suggest that we are likely to witness a decrease in future floods 50–100 years from now because the accompanying warming will cancel that net effect of a wetter regime.” The paper adds to many other peer-reviewed papers finding flooding is more common during cold periods, such as the Little Ice Age [LIA] and Dark Ages Cold Period [DACP].

Horizontal axis is years before the present. Floods were less common during the Holocene Climate Optimum ~6,000 years ago, Minoan Warm Period ~3,000 years ago, Roman Warm Period ~2,000 years ago, as well as over the past two centuries. Flooding was more common during the Little Ice Age and Dark Ages Cold Period.

Scandinavian floods: From past observations to future trends

Eivind N. Størena, b, , , 
Øyvind Paasche

Highlights

Winter precipitation and floods are linked on longer time scales.

Wetter winter regimes in mountainous areas produce more floods.

Future warming is likely to reduce the number of floods.

Abstract

Although most climate models agree on a general increase in future precipitation in the Northern Hemisphere due to higher temperatures, no consensus has yet been reached on how this warming will perturb flooding rates. Here we examine the potential co-variability between winter precipitation (Pw) and floods on millennial time scales. This is accomplished by analyzing reconstructed Pw from five records in Scandinavia, which is, compared to data from two high-resolution flood records from southern Norway. These Holocene records reveal a positive correlation (R2 = 0.41, p 0.01) between the number of floods and Pw [winter precipitation] on centennial time scales over the last 6000 years. Future projections for Pw over central Scandinavia for the next 100 years suggest a continued increase in Pw that approximates maximum Holocene precipitation values. Despite an anticipated increase in Pw [winter precipitation], the paleodata, nevertheless, suggest …

Earth to Newsweek: Polar bear populations have not been on the decline since 2008

Earth to Newsweek: polar bear populations have not been on the decline since 2008

http://polarbearscience.com/2014/05/01/earth-to-newsweek-polar-bear-populations-have-not-been-on-the-decline-since-2008

A recent Newsweek story about the US Navy having no “rules of engagement” to deal with polar bear encounters leads with alarmist misinformation.
Photo credit Cmdr. Christy Hagen/U.S. Navy
Author Max Strasser (April 30, 2013), in his recent article in Newsweek (“As the World Warms, Navy Strategists Plan for an Arctic Rush”) [h/t D. V]
“Approximately 25,000 polar bears live in and around the Arctic Circle. Climate change has put the majestic ursines, a longtime favorite of children’s books and Christmas cards, in peril. In 2008, the United States listed them as a “threatened species” under the Endangered Species Act, and populations have been on the decline since then.”
Sigh. Not so Max, totally not so.
Global polar bear numbers have been stable for the last 30 years, as the graphs below show. The proposed ‘threat’ to polar bears is a future decline in sea ice predicted by computer models. The future, Max, is not now.

Polar bear populations are currently doing very well (see my post on the most recent status update report here). On top of that, note that the bears are well distributed throughout available Arctic habitat — one of the accepted hallmarks of a healthy species.

Figure 1. Upper graph uses totals reported in PBSG status tables, with min/max; Lower graph uses the same figures, but adds back in the so-called “inaccurate” estimates dropped 2005-2013. The 1960 figure * is a ballpark estimate.See previous post here.
OK, with that error corrected, back to the point of the Newsweek story…

The Navy apparently wondered what Marines will do if they encounter some of those polar bears…
“So when is it acceptable for a Marine to shoot one? The Navy is still trying to figure that out.
Walter Berbrick, a retired Navy officer and a professor of war games at the U.S. Naval War College, was conducting the Fleet Arctic Operations Game in 2011, simulating, among other things, how the Navy would respond to an oil spill in the Arctic, when he discovered there were no rules of engagement for polar bears. “You’ve really got to be mindful of where you’re at and where they’re at,” Berbrick says, pointing out that polar bears travel in open waters and on ice floes where naval units would have to operate. “Folks need to be trained …