Facebook Twitter Youtube

Sea Level Expert Rips Study Claiming Fastest Rise in 2800 years: Study ‘full of very bad violations of observational facts’

But Professor Dr. Nils-Axel Morner, a leading world authority on sea levels and coastal erosion who headed the Department of Paleogeophysics & Geodynamics at Stockholm University calls the new study and the media spin surrounding it “demagogic.”
“The PNAS paper is another sad contribution to the demagogic anti-science campaign for AGW. It is at odds with observational facts and ethical principles,” Morner wrote to Climate Depot. “The paper is full of very bad violations of observational facts,” Morner explained.
Few scientists have published as much on the subject of sea level rise as Dr. Mörner. He is also a co-founder of the Prague-based Independent Committee on Geoethics.
Morner noted:
– global tide gauges show moderate mean rates
– many key sites and test sites show little or no rise at all
– nowhere do we find records of true “acceleration”
– satellite altimetry show a mean rise of 0.5 ±0.1 mm/yr after back-callibration
– past sea level oscillations have been faster & steeper that in the last century
Morner explained: “The paper is full of very bad violations of observational facts.”
Just one first example:
This is their graph of sea level change at Christmas Island , Kiribati
This is the tide gauge record from Christmas Island
Morner asked: “How can anyone find a rapidly rising trend in this tide gauge record? It is flat or rather slowly falling – but in no way rising.”
“So they work – with no respect to observational facts. A true case for Fraud Investigation,” Morner added.
Climatologist Dr. Judith Curry, Former Chair of School of Earth & Atmospheric Sciences at Georgia Institute of Technology also weighed in on the studies. “So, what to make of all this?” Curry wrote on her blog on Feb. 23, 2016.
Curry: “At a presentation that I made earlier this year to CEOs of small electric cooperatives, one participant was surprised by what I had to say about sea level rise – he hadn’t realized that there had been sea level rise prior to 1950.  I.e., like ‘climate change’, all sea level rise has been sold as caused by humans.
Sea level has overall been rising for thousands of years; however, as the Kopp et al. paper points out, there have been century scale periods of lowering sea level in the recent millennia.  It is not clear from my cursory reading as to whether meaningful decadal and multi-decadal variations in sea level can be discerned from their data.

The key issue is whether the sea level rise during the past 50 years reflect an acceleration in sea level rise.  The IPCC figure 3.14 suggests that there is no acceleration, given the large rates of sea level rise in the first half of the 20th century.  Until we have an understanding of variations in decadal and multi-decadal sea level rise, we can’t make a convincing argument as to acceleration.

With regards to coastal planning, I absolutely agree with the paper linked to above.  Locations where sea level rise is a problem invariably have rates of sea level rise that are much greater than even the altimeter values of 3.2 mm/yr are caused by local geologic processes, land use, and or coastal/river engineering.  Global values of sea level rise have essentially no use in coastal planning; rather they seem mainly relevant in terms of motivating ‘action’ on carbon mitigation policy.

Sea level will continue to rise, no matter what we do about CO2 emissions.  We need creative solutions – one of my favorites remains the garbage solution.

#
More analysis of new sea level rise study: “The article was based on some very complex statistical work and in that context we note that the authors describe their work as “semi-empirical”.  What does that mean?  It simply means that their results come partly from  guesswork.  And seeing the authors are keen Warmists we can be sure in which direction their guesses tended. And, with the complex nature of their analyses, guesses at various points could make a big difference to the final outcome.  To believe their conclusions would therefore require an act of faith.”
Another analysis:  “HH Lamb also provides strong evidence that sea levels were at least as high, and probably higher, back in the Middle Ages, and also around 400 AD. In between, sea levels fell, so we know that sea levels have never been the sort of constant thing often portrayed. For instance, he talks of sea levels dropping by 2 meters between 2000 and 500 BC, a rate of 1.33mm/year. As I think it is safe to assume that this was not a steady rate throughout, it seems reasonable to assume that for much of this period the fall was much greater.”
Meteorologist Tom Wysmuller told Climate Depot on Feburary 24: ‘For the past 130 years there has been ZERO acceleration in sea-level rise as directly measured by tide gauges in tectonically inert areas (land neither moving up nor down), even as CO2 has risen almost 40% in the same period.’ Also see: Meteorologist Tom Wysmuller: ‘There is no measurable linkage between Sea Level and CO2!’ – ‘The Inconvenient CO2/Sea Level Non-Linka
Related Links:
Past Sea Level Rise Data ‘Adjusted’ Upward: NASA has ‘more than tripled sea level rise by simply altering the data’ – In 1982, NASA showed 1 mm/year.  Now they claim 3.3 mm/year. They have more than tripled sea level rise by simply altering the data.

NYT: Forecast for Sea Level Rise By 2100 Scaled Back from max of 6 feet to 4 feet – But ‘reconstruction’ of sea levels over 28 centuries claim current rate is fastest rising – Forecast for Sea Level Rise By 2100 Scaled Back from 6 feet to 4 feet

NYT: ‘One of the authors of the new paper, Dr. Rahmstorf, had previously published estimates suggesting the sea could rise as much as five or six feet by 2100. But with the improved calculations from the new paper, his latest upper estimate is three to four feet.’

NYT: ‘Scientists say the recent climate agreement negotiated in Paris is not remotely ambitious enough to forestall a significant melting of Greenland and Antarctica, though if fully implemented, it may slow the pace somewhat.’

Reality Check on Justin Gillis of NYT: Bjorn Lomborg: The Paris climate deal won’t even dent global warming

Sea Level Rise: ‘Just The Facts’: ‘Sea-level rise is not accelerating, & has not accelerated since 1920s’ – There are about sixty good-quality, 100+ year records of sea-level around the world, and they all show the same thing: there has been no statistically significant acceleration (increase) in the rate of sea-level rise in the last 85 years or more. That means anthropogenic CO2 emissions do not measurably affect sea-level rise, and predictions of wildly accelerated sea-level rise are based on superstition, not science.

Sea Level Rise info here  – Also see: Claim: ‘No change in sea level until modern times – but that change is dwarfed by sea levels of the past‘

Rebuttal: Examination of the data from the paper, however, shows the range of proxy sea levels is approximately 10 meters, far too large to discern the tiny ~1.5 mm/yr sea level rise over the past 150 years. The authors instead assume from other published studies of tide gauge measurements that the ~1.5 mm/yr sea level rise over the past 150+ years began at that point in time. Other papers find sea levels rising only 1.1-1.3 mm/yr over the past 203 years, and without acceleration. 

Regardless, even the IPCC concedes that there was no significant anthropogenic influence on climate prior to 1950, thus man is not be responsible for sea level rise beginning 150-200 years ago, at the end of the Little Ice Age.
The sea level rise over the past ~200 years shows no evidence of acceleration, which is necessary to assume a man-made influence. Sea level rise instead decelerated over the 20th century, decelerated 31% since 2002 and decelerated 44% since 2004 to less than 7 inches per century. There is no evidence of an acceleration of sea level rise, and therefore no evidence of any man-made effect on sea levels. Sea level rise is primarily a local phenomenon related to land subsidence, not CO2 levels. Therefore, areas with groundwater depletion and land subsidence have much higher rates of relative sea level rise, but this has absolutely nothing to do with man-made CO2.
#

New paper finds sea level rise has decelerated 44% since 2004 to only 7 inches per century – Published in Global and Planetary Change – According to the authors, global mean sea level rise from 1993-2003 was at the rate of 3.2 mm/yr, but sea level rise ‘started decelerating since 2004 to a rate of 1.8 ± 0.9 mm/yr in 2012.’ – ‘The authors also find “This deceleration is mainly due to the slowdown of ocean thermal expansion in the Pacific during last decade,” which is in direct opposition to claims that the oceans “ate the global warming.” This finding debunks alarmist claims that ocean heat uptake has increased over the past decade, demonstrating instead that ocean heat uptake has decreased during the global warming pause since 2004, and has gone negative since 2007′

New paper finds global sea levels will rise only about 5 inches by 2100 — A new peer-reviewed paper by sea level expert Dr. Nils-Axel Morner – Study ‘concludes that Australian government claims of a 1 meter sea level rise by 2100 are greatly exaggerated, finding instead that sea levels are rising around Australia and globally at a rate of only 1.5 mm/year. This would imply a sea level change of only 0.13 meters or 5 inches by 2100. Dr. Morner also finds no evidence of any acceleration in sea level rise around Australia or globally’

Flashback 1987: ‘Global Warming’ Causes Sea Levels to Fall — 2016: ‘Global Warming’ Causes Slowdown In Sea Level Rise

Flashback 1987: ‘Global Warming’ Causes Sea Levels to Fall — 2016: ‘Global Warming’ Causes Slowdown In Sea Level Rise – Climate Depot’s Marc Morano: “Before ‘global warming’ caused sea level INCREASES, ‘global warming’ caused sea level DECREASES in 1987. Now in 2016, a NASA study is claiming ‘global warming’ is causing a slowdown in sea level rise.”

Drowning in Sea Level Nonsense: ‘ The notion of the seas rising, swamping coastal cities, and creating havoc is the stuff of science fiction, not science’

Geologist Dr. Don Easterbrook debunks ‘absurd’ new warmist study claiming 1,700 U.S. cities will be below sea level by 2100 — Easterbrook: ‘The rate used by [Lead Author] Strauss for his predictions is more than 10 times the rate over the past century!’

Geologist Dr. Don Easterbrook debunks ‘absurd’ new warmist study claiming 1,700 U.S. cities will be below sea level by 2100 — Easterbrook: ‘The rate used by [Lead Author] Strauss for his predictions is more than 10 times the rate over the past century!’ – Easterbrook: ‘The accelerated rise is based on postulated accelerated warming but there has been no warming in the past 15 years and, in fact, the climate has cooled during that time. So no climatic warming means no accelerated sea level rise as postulated by Strauss…the huge rise of sea level rates proposed by Strauss are absurd and that the maximum sea level rise by 2100 will be less than one foot’

New Study sea level expert Prof. Morner: ‘At most, global average sea level is rising at a rate equivalent to 2-3 inches per century. It is probably not rising at all’ – Sea level is not rising at all in the Maldives, the Laccadives, Tuvalu, India, Bangladesh, French Guyana, Venice, Cuxhaven, Korsør, Saint Paul Island, Qatar, etc.– ‘Modelling is not a suitable method of determining global sea-level changes, since a proper evaluation depends upon detailed research in multiple locations with widely-differing characteristics. The true facts are to be found in nature itself’

Are sea-levels rising? Nils Axel-Morner documents a decided lack of rising seas – Sea level scares are, ‘as it turns out, one interpretation of some highly adjusted, carefully selected data, all possibly ‘corrected’ by one outlying tide gauge in Hong Kong. Nils Axel-Morner is here to point out that the raw satellite data shows barely any rise, and furthermore, the observations from places all over, like the Maldives, Suriname, Tuvalu, India, Bangladesh, Venice, and Germany show not much either. It’s close enough to zero to call it ‘nothing’

Via 2RealClimateScience.com: 

Your SUV was already drowning the English coast by 1911

Share:

Marc Morano

Marc Morano

170 Responses

  1. What caused sea level rise 2800 years ago to be greater than it is today? That is well past the end of the last ice age and the Holocene optimum. It could not possible have been Man’ s use of fossil fuels, not 2800 years ago.

    1. ❝my .friend’s mate Is getting 98$. HOURLY. on the internet.”….two days ago new McLaren. F1 bought after earning 18,512$,,,this was my previous month’s paycheck ,and-a little over, 17k$ Last month ..3-5 h/r of work a days ..with extra open doors & weekly. paychecks.. it’s realy the easiest work I have ever Do.. I Joined This 7 months ago and now making over 87$, p/h.Learn. More right Here!!b111➤➤➤➤➤ http://GlobalSuperEmploymentVacanciesReportsLab/GetPaid/98$hourly…. .❦2:❦2:❦2:❦2:❦2:❦2:❦2:❦2:❦2:❦2:❦2:❦2:❦2:❦2:❦2:❦2:❦2:❦2:❦2:❦2:❦2:❦2:❦2:❦2:❦2:❦2:❦2:❦2:::::!!b111…….

            1. Little goodspkr tells little fibs for attention. Why?

              Nonetheless, the commenter is confused. My question points out how. Can LoInfo goodspkr grasp it?

              Best,

              D

                  1. You have absolutely no self awareness of how pitiful your put downs are. There not clever and they have nothing backing them up. You’re a sad little man, Dano.

            2. True. He is an arrogant asswhole who thinks he understands climate dynamics. He has no clue. All he can do is try to condescend others. He doesn’t even do that well.

                  1. No I am not confused about the paper. If a faster sea level rise occurred longer ago then 2800 years then the authors would have used the larger number in the title of this article. Others have furnished evidence that what I am saying is true.

                    1. Let’s try this, and I’ll type slowly and use small words:

                      How far back did paper go? (sorry about that two syllable word there)

                      Best,

                      D

      2. Dano2, you seem impervious to facts. But, here they are none-the less. 2800 years ago was the end of the Greek dark ages a very cold period that ended many civilizations. Then the Roman Warm Period began. It was much warmer than today and caused a lot of ocean water expansion, thus rising sea levels. I’m sure some glacial melting contributed as well. Sea level rise was rapid and well documented as cities moved inland. The original Alexandria, Egypt, for example, is now under water. You can see a picture of a 3000 year old Egyptian statue in the Smithsonian article “Raising Alexandria.”

                    6. Pitiful try, D2, but you said, ‘What information do you have that it was faster, say, 3000 years ago? 2900 years ago”

                      You then claim to prove it wrong by posting a link that goes back 2500 years. LOL. What a putz.

                    8. Actually you did. But your ability to keep track of what you are claiming appears to be greatly limited.

                    14. Congrats. You can count to three. Wow. That’s the most impressive thing you’ve done in the past year.

                    15. “Goodspkr” is a retirement-age public speaker named Jim Kutsko – not a scientist. He has repeatedly refused to answer how he, as a retirement-age non-scientist AGW denialist, is somehow able to see a “truth” that evades hundreds of major scientific organizations, world-wide. Are all of these hundreds of major scientific organizations corrupt? Are they all somehow not intelligent enough to come to the correct conclusions, leaving this retirement-age non-scientist to reveal the “truth” to the world? How likely does he find these two scenarios, and what might either one say about his own understanding of how science works? Or, does he have an alternative explanation?

                    16. Are all of these hundreds of major scientific organizations corrupt?

                      Yep:

                      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=poi8YLUIgVs

                      Can Humans Cause Global Warming with CO2-Emissions From the Burning of Fossil Fuels?

                      Fred Goldberg Ph.D. is a climate analyst and authority on polar history and exploration, affiliated with the Royal Institute of Technology (KTH) from 1969 to 2000.

                      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LOyBfihjQvI&spfreload=1

                      The IPCC Exposed

                      Corbett Report.

                      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pruTqY_JLcg

                      IPCC exposed by Donna Laframboise

                      Here Donna, investigative reporter exposes the lies of the claims IPCC makes that it is a professional organization of climate scientists, nothing could be further from the truth! LOL

                    17. Looks like you didn’t understand the question, Scottar. A denier-financed YouTube screed proves nothing. If you think there’s a big global conspiracy which has somehow taken over all major scientific institutions as well as almost all governments, then you have bigger problems than this discussion.

                    18. Denier financed? You went deep into the koolaide punch bowl for that one. Donna was being interviewed about her book and she is spot on.

                      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LOyBfihjQvI&spfreload=1

                      The IPCC Exposed

                      Corbett Report.

                      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y8CVh2deXTI
                      Climategate: The Backstory

                      http://www.undeceivingourselves.org/I-ipc2.htm
                      IPCC’s abuse of science 2

                      http://www.spectator.co.uk/2015/11/i-was-tossed-out-of-the-tribe-climate-scientist-judith-curry-interviewed/
                      I was Tossed Out of the Tribe- Judith Curry

                      http://www.amazon.com/Environmentalism-Gone-Mad-Activist-Discovered-ebook/dp/B00WFN8R50/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1454953737&sr=1-1&keywords=Radical+Green+Energy+Fantasy

                      Environmentalism Gone Mad: How a Sierra Club Activist and Senior EPA Analyst Discovered a Radical Green Energy Fantasy by Alan Carlin

                      Enjoy your humble pie chump!

                    19. Hi cowardly “Scottar” – thanks for posting those loony-bin videos. A good laugh! You don’t expect to be taken seriously, I assume.

                    24. I have no problem with your website except it’s name is not very conductive to climate research and would leave people scratching their heads, but all links lead to ‘Rome’ eh.

                    25. If you think buying a certain domain name makes a website relevant I have some Nigerian deals to sell you.

                      “Climate Change Dispatch” is a WordPress Blog run by a freelance writer named Thomas Richard who has a bachelors degree in engineering with no scientific expertise that used to be named “Climate Change Fraud”.

                      “C3 Headlines” is a Typepad Blog run by an anonymous person with no scientific expertise.

                      “NoTricksZone” is another WordPress Blog run by Pierre Gosselin who has a bachelors degree in mechanical engineering with no scientific expertise.

                      None of those Blogs have anything to do with climate research and unlike each of those PopularTechnology.net has been cited 11 times in 7 scholarly peer-reviewed journals: http://www.populartechnology.net/2014/11/the-impact-of-popular-technologynet.html#Journal

                    26. None of those Blogs have anything to do with climate research? It’s like saying congress has nothing to do with laws. The only other disassociation of material covered vers the name is C3headlines, but they have nothing but peer reviewed, referenced material.

                      I find it hard to paint the kettle black when you have this kind of expertise list:

                      Editor

                      Andrew K (Computer Analyst)

                      [email protected]

                      Copy Editor

                      Karl (Computer Scientist)

                      Contributing Authors

                      Doug (Computer Engineer)

                      Mike (Electrical Engineer)

                      The others have nothing but climate stuff while Popular Technology covers about 75% of climate. So maybe they could rename their site Popular Technology and Climate. They have some very good coverage but the warmistas look at their links to news items and call it a news clearing house. One of their articles on Cook’s Skeptical Science is out of date. Cook has a degree now in science and over a dozen degreed people on that site. It’s similar to the NIPCC site, it’s own science organization.

                      Take the rant on Judith Curry. Maybe they should update their material on her:

                      http://www.spectator.co.uk/2015/11/i-was-tossed-out-of-the-tribe-climate-scientist-judith-curry-interviewed/

                      I was Tossed Out of the Tribe- Judith Curry

                      So she’s no longer a hardcore warmista supporter and has seen the light. So on that basis I find it embarrassing to reference their site.

                      I’ve also noticed that they reference all these sites for referenced linked. I would be greatful that they reference PT’s site on the peer reviewed sources although some don’t return the favor of listing PT’s site on their climate links lists.

                      So I reference stuff that gets the best bang per digits, some of it from PT’s site. I go to their site for reference stuff sometimes, the best resource is the Exposés. But some of their stuff is out of date. Then they don’t have daily updates on climate stuff like the others do.

                      So maybe PT has some cleaning and sprucing up to do on the old webpage.

                      I deal with all kinds of blog readers / commenters on news sites. Some are quite sophisticatedly and have good arguments, while others are dumber then Dave County voters. I use the best vetted sources I can find from many sites. So I’m sorry that I don’t use PT’s site as a mainstream site, I don’t use any site as mainstream, just what I find as most relevant, best referenced supported.

                      I have used PT’s site before as a referance and get more negative feedback then on the other peer reviewed referances, so I typicaly use more targeted references.

                      Cheers

                    27. Yes, none of those blogs have anything to do with “climate research”. I can setup a spam website that reposts links to science articles it does not make the site a “climate research” website. There are a few skeptic websites that actually perform climate research such as:

                      http://www.drroyspencer.com/
                      http://www.co2science.org/

                      Why are you inventing misinformation? No one has ever called Popular Technology.net a “news clearing house”.

                      This article on skeptical science is not out of date: http://www.populartechnology.net/2012/03/truth-about-skeptical-science.html

                      Everything stated in that article is 100% accurate. Cook did not just get a “science degree” but I am sure you heard that in a response somewhere and did not know how to respond. If you think Skeptical Science is similar to the NIPCC you are delusional and should immediately retire from ever debating this subject again. That comment is absolutely embarrassing.

                      Unlike you I have been debating this subject for over ten years before Judith Curry had her “conversion”. Nothing in that article about her is inaccurate. Everything in that article is fully cited and sourced. It is an excellent background piece, so people have all the facts before making up their minds on her.

                      Of course you will get negative feedback from alarmists about articles from our site because our site poses the most threat to them. This is confirmed by how many times we were discussed in the Skeptical Science forums. How many times do you think those other sites were? What part of YOU WILL NEVER CONVINCE ALARMISTS OF ANYTHING DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND? This is like debating 101. They will intentionally try to take out what they believe are your most dangerous sources with lies, misinformation and strawman arguments and you fall for it by thinking they accept your other sources as valid. They don’t, they just do not bother attacking them because they are not a threat to them.

                      My original point stands you linked to an outdated copy of our list and continue to make nonsensical excuses about it. If you are incapable of properly debating this subject then stay out of it and leave to people that can.

                    28. I like those websites too but I don’t limit myself to them. Some of my other websites I often go for reference are Icecap.us, Wattsupwiththat.com, Notrickszone.com, Hockeyschtick.blogspot.cz.

                      So don’t give me this buttspew that they don’t deal with climate research! Your sounding like the warmistas.

                      I once tried to use the medieval reference page on CO2-Science and to my dismay it didn’t work. I had to go to:

                      http://notrickszone.com/2015/12/23/new-comprehensive-map-by-scientists-confirms-medieval-warm-period-was-real-and-global-climate-models-faulty/#sthash.3ll7SpE9.2uTEap7X.dpbs

                      >Why are you inventing misinformation.

                      I’m not, i’ve had savy repliers calling PT a news recycling site funded by the Koch Brothers and Exxon. I had to do some out of the box searching to counter that. They often reference sites like the desmogblog site and I debunk that as PT does have a very good debunking page on them that’s verifiable.

                      >Unlike you I have been debating this subject for over ten years before Judith Curry had her “conversion”

                      I never said anything was inaccurate, I just said it’s outdated, as is your Cook page:

                      http://www.skepticalscience.com/team.php

                      This is what I ment by being similar to NIPCC, they both have their ‘experts’. To me it’s who has the most honest and credible evidence. So it’s time to get real about them, even though we can agree they publish faux material with contrived claims, much like the IPCC does. Like where does he get his funding from? Backgrounds on his team members. Many of your references just fold back to earlier PT posts concerning smears, too much of that. I like more direct material that gets to the meat of issues.

                      And what is a climatologist anyway? There are notable physicists listed that are skeptics like:

                      Lindzen, Singer, Idso referenced.

                      To me climatologists are similar to doctors. There are medical practitioners of who many focus on specialties. But then there are general practitioners with the title of Doctor. Who are real climatologists who directly have degrees reflecting that.

                      And then there are scientists like Dr. Tim Ball (who I like and has good digestible stuff on climate) who claims on one news site:

                      “PhD in Geography with a specific focus on historical climatology from the University of London (England), Queen Mary College,”

                      Yet from his webpage his CV background is listed as:

                      Ph.D. (Doctor of Science), Queen Mary College, University of London (England), 1982

                      I can’t verify his claim of PhD in Geography and so I can’t really use him as a reference because of that ambiguity. And I find that for other scientists who have really good presentations but their backgrounds can’t be verified. It’s frustrating.

                      >Of course you will get negative feedback from alarmists about articles from our site…

                      It not just that I get bad feedback, but it’s that they have relevant points about their feedback. But I get bad feedback about the other sites, including anything from Curry’s site these days.

                      >My original point stands you linked to an outdated copy of our list.

                      Well if you have more current lists please present them. And if you really want to deconstruct Skeptical Science you should dissect that ‘about webpage’, claim by claim.

                    29. Anyone can setup a website and re-post things that does not mean they understand what they are posting. Out of the ones you listed only WattsUpWithThat has actual scientists posting to their website to properly interpret any climate research that is posted.

                      When you say “it did not work” do you mean the webpage did not load or did someone make a claim you did not know how to respond to? The MWP Project at CO2 Science is the best reference on that subject on the Internet. http://www.co2science.org/data/mwp/mwpp.php

                      Please do not include the phrase “savy repliers” with some online morons who falsely claimed we are funded by anyone, let alone the Koch Brothers and Exxon. You do not have to do any searching to counter a bogus claim, just demand that they prove it – which they cannot. This is debating 101. Do I need to teach a class on this too?

                      http://www.populartechnology.net/p/about.html

                      “PopularTechnology.net is an impartial, not-for-profit website that covers popular trends and technology. This site receives no funding of any kind, has no affiliations and is completely independent.”

                      Nothing on our Skeptical Science page is outdated. The fact that you are making this ridiculous claim means you do not understand what you are arguing and do not have the background on them.

                      What was John Cook employed as when he started his Skeptical Science Blog?

                      How long was he employed as such?

                      OMG, please stop pulling my leg! The fact that you are attempting to compare the clowns at Skeptical Science to the NIPCC is an embarrassment to this debate. I never thought the debate would devolve so bad like this. Skeptical Science is the laughing stock of the climate debate, so much so that radical environmentalists like Joe Romm do not even take them seriously anymore. http://www.populartechnology.net/2012/09/skeptical-science-too-inaccurate-for.html

                      Dr. Timothy F. Ball has a Ph.D. in Climatology not Geography. This is irrefutable based on his Ph.D. thesis, “Climatic change in central Canada : a preliminary analysis of weather information from the Hudson’s Bay Company Forts at York Factory and Churchill Factory, 1714-1850.” https://qmro.qmul.ac.uk/jspui/handle/123456789/1382

                      None of the people you debate have relevant points (I know I have debated more than you can imagine for over 10 years), you just do not know how to properly respond to them and lack the ability to debate properly.

                      What part of negative feedback means they feel the source is a threat do you not understand? You are apparently under some sort of delusion that you are going to change the mind of an alarmist. LMAO! THAT IS IMPOSSIBLE!

                      I presented the most current list when I posted here the first time: http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html

                    30. > Out of the ones you listed only WattsUpWithThat has actual scientists posting to their website to properly interpret any climate research that is posted.

                      Utter bullcrap, the other links have guest scientists too, as well as references to peer reviewed papers. C3 Headlines is almost entirely based on peer reviewed sources. People look at Watt’s bio and claim he’s nothing more then a weather reporter jockey, although I know that degrees necessarily don’t make for the credentials of validity and IQ. Proving that is something else. But I can tell by the quality of his material, blog and guests / commenters, he is above the other sites. I find relevant material on all 5+.

                      >When you say “it did not work”

                      I was referring to the interactive map.

                      http://www.co2science.org/data/timemap/mwpmap.html

                      I didn’t display, I got an error message of application blocked by Java security. I did not see this mother page before. But the NoTricks Zone looks just as good, perhaps a little less comprehensive. But many people want something easy to digest as they don’t have the time nor background to digest such comprehensive information. The easier you make it for them to digest the better they grasp the concepts. They can then pursue it deeper from there. Of course some are just warmista trolls or AGW ‘religious’ believers.

                      >Please do not include the phrase “savy repliers” with some online morons who falsely claimed we are funded by anyone, let alone the Koch Brothers and Exxon.

                      I did not include them. They say you are not degreed Earth scientist’s, don’t know what your talking about.

                      > Skeptical Science page is outdated.

                      Then it’s misrepresentation as it’s not a 1 man / woman show as I linked to the team staff.

                      >The fact that you are attempting to compare the clowns at Skeptical Science to the NIPCC is an embarrassment to this debate.

                      I just did a structural, resource comparison, not one based on credibility nor experience. Get real!

                      >Dr. Timothy F. Ball has a Ph.D. in Climatology not Geography.

                      Show me where that’s so, it’s not on his webpage CV! And I don’t see it listed on that referenced paged. The linked PDF page says:

                      “A thesis presented to the University of London in partial fulfillment of their requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Queen Mary College”

                      CV:

                      Ph.D. (Doctor of Science), Queen Mary College, University of London (England), 1982

                      This does not make him a climatologist by publishing one paper, although I wish it did. You should be referring to his CV from his website!

                      >None of the people you debate have relevant points.

                      Most yes, But some do. And who do you know who I debated? Some point to NASA or NOAA for their resource although I have stuff that refutes their convictions. But I’m always looking for better stuff, more current stuff. I’m waiting for the Arctic melting turnaround as it’s just about run out the 30 year melting cycle. This year it may surprise the warmistas as it’s already above the 2012 levels during the “hottest year” yet.

                    31. The Hockey Schtick and NoTricksZone has had maybe 1 to 2 scientists guest post over their entirety while WattsUpWithThat has had hundreds in over 6000 guest posts. The bulk of those websites post un-vetted content which according to you would be dismissed under the same exact arguments the people you claim to debate make.

                      Watts does not claim to be a climate scientist but at least Anthony posts his bio unlike those other websites, he has been published in the peer-reviewed literature.

                      “Analysis of the impacts of station exposure on the U.S. Historical Climatology Network temperatures and temperature trends”
                      http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/2010JD015146

                      What do these online clowns you claim to debate say about the non-existent credentials of The Hockey Schtick, NoTricksZone, Climate Change Dispatch and C3 Headlines? They probably say nothing because they don’t care about those websites.

                      There is a problem with the security settings on the CO2 Science Java Map applet. I contacted them to get it resolved. In the mean time I added the URL to the Java exception list and it loads fine. This is only an issue if you have Java 5 update 51 or newer installed.

                      Regardless, the CO2Science main MWP page is directly available from their menu. Go to DATA -> MWP PROJECT …this is like Internet 101.

                      Now you are changing your argument, we never claimed to be degreed Earth Scientists and nothing we post requires those qualifications. We do not interpret climate science and all of our posts are fully cited and sourced.

                      Unlike those other websites, PopularTechnology.net has been extensively cited in the peer-reviewed literature.

                      http://www.populartechnology.net/2014/11/the-impact-of-popular-technologynet.html#Journal

                      You just made a strawman argument, where do we claim Skeptical Science does not have contributors? All of which is irrelevant to the information in our fully cited and sourced article about that worthless alarmist blog.

                      Your attempted “comparison” between Skeptical Science and the NIPCC is an amateur embarrassment beyond words. If you truly believe that then you should retire from this debate today.

                      My God this is tiring, that is a link to his Ph.D. Thesis. Do you know what that is? It is not a paper but what you have to complete to earn your Ph.D. in your chosen field. It is common for scientists on their CVs not to list the degree field, as Dr. Ball did on his CV.

                      Now, try scrolling down: https://qmro.qmul.ac.uk/jspui/handle/123456789/1382

                      Authors
                      Ball, Timothy F.

                      Collections
                      Theses

                      Do you understand that his Ph.D. Thesis is titled: “Climatic change in central Canada“?

                      This is listed on his CV, try scrolling down again: http://drtimball.com/_files/dr-tim-ball-CV.pdf

                      “Climatic Change in Central Canada: A Preliminary Analysis of Weather Information from Hudson’s Bay Company Forts at York Factory and Churchill Factory, 1714-1850, unpublished Ph.D. Thesis, University of London, England, p. 480”

                      All of this confusion is because his official title as a professor was in “Geography”. That’s because it was uncommon for Universities back then to have separate climate change departments. Instead they were frequently grouped under a Universities’ Geography department.

                      From all of the arguments you have presented here and the sheer volume of debates I have had online over the last ten years I know for fact no one you debated has had valid points, you simply did not know how to respond to them.

                    32. >The Hockey Schtick and NoTricksZone has had maybe 1 to 2 scientists guest post over their entirety while WattsUpWithThat has had hundreds in over 6000 guest posts.

                      I don’t find that to be true. but I go where I can find the most significant info. On the recent Louisiana flooding I got my answer here:

                      http://dailysignal.com/2016/08/17/the-facts-show-louisianas-floods-not-caused-by-man-made-climate-change/

                      Can’t find it on any of the other mainline sites.

                      Guests on Hockschtick:

                      http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2015/08/why-climate-modelers-seeking-funds-fame.html

                      http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2015/08/why-climate-modelers-seeking-funds-fame.html

                      http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2015/07/erasing-agw-how-convection-responds-to.html

                      http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2013/12/analysis-finds-ipcc-exaggerates-effect.html

                      http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2013/08/new-paper-finds-climate-sensitivity-to.html

                      http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2011/11/new-german-study-exposes-climate.html

                      http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2013/10/a-scientific-no-change-in-temperature.html

                      http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2013/09/biochemistry-professor-explains-why.html

                      And more.

                      >Watts does not claim to be a climate scientist:

                      I know, he has been vetted by his peers and I’m familiar with the et.el., which includes degreed climate scientists. I use it as a reference along with this study for balance:

                      http://globalwarmingsolved.com/2013/12/summary-urbanization-bias-papers-1-3/

                      Good overview on how NOAA processes the surface data. But climate is by definition the long term observation of meteorology events. So those who are in the science of meteorology are just one step from being climatologiests in by book.

                      >What do these online clowns you claim to debate say about the non-existent credentials:

                      If the article is backed by peer reviewed references then it’s valid. They (AGWers) usually reference skeptical science or real climate in their rebuttals.

                      >I added the URL to the Java exception list and it loads fine.

                      How do you do that?

                      >Unlike those other websites, PopularTechnology.net has been extensively cited in the peer-reviewed literature.

                      All I see is a bunch of journal article references+. Did you mean article coverage extensively cited by Poptech?

                      I see references of Hockyschtick and Notrickzone on other sites as well. Here one off of icecap,us:

                      http://notrickszone.com/2016/08/11/35-new-scientific-publications-confirm-ocean-cycles-sun-are-main-climate-drivers/?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter#sthash.ggLaYcC5.1XA97DUD.dpbs

                      They give a little summary review of each link.

                      >You just made a strawman argument, where do we claim Skeptical Science does not have contributors?

                      I never said you did, but by ignoring the SS- site’s team expert list you give that impression. You should compare their experts against the NIPCC team. But I look at it this way, SS to NIPCC is like comparing a community college to a university in the quality of info and academics. But SS does have a notible team list. NIPCC should give some background info on thier team scientist like SS does.

                      >My God this is tiring, that is a link to his Ph.D. Thesis.

                      Well that’s kind of quirky, why didn’t he list it as science of climatology? AGWers will discredit it. If some of his peers verify his credentials then it would be more acceptable. Another thing is the Heritage lists his credentials as Historical Climatologist when he was at University of Winnipeg. I was told there was a big spat over that with the university. His CV shows “Lecturer, Department of Geography” and it shows advancement up from there to Professor of UW.

                      According to Wikipedia: “University of Winnipeg does not have, nor has it ever had, a climatology department. However, Dr. Ball has disputed these claims, maintaining that the climate program at The University of Winnipeg was part of the geography department in the early 1980s”
                      “Ball claimed, in an article written for the Calgary Herald, that he was the first person to receive a PhD in climatology in Canada, and that he had been a professor for 28 years. l “cite_note-Coverup-45″In the ensuing court case, Ball acknowledged that he had only been a professor for eight years, and that his doctorate was not in climatology but rather in geography, and subsequently withdrew the lawsuit on June 8, 2007.”

                      So with a background like that I can see why people would be skeptical of his articles and credentials. It also gives ammunition to those who discredit the Heritage organization.
                      So although I find his presentations mostly spot on, his integrity factor is in question.

                    33. I had already checked before I made my claim and you only cited a handful of scientists.

                      > http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2015/08/why-climate-modelers-seeking-funds-fame.html
                      > “Kyoji Kimoto, a Japanese chemist, scientist, and fuel-cell computer modeler & inventor”

                      I cannot verify any of his credentials.

                      > http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2015/08/why-climate-modelers-seeking-funds-fame.html

                      Duplicate link.

                      > http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2015/07/erasing-agw-how-convection-responds-to.html
                      > “Stephen Wilde, who has been a member of the Royal Meteorological Society”

                      He is not a scientists and no credentials were given. He was never a “Fellow” of the Royal Meteorological Society and anyone can be a member which is meaningless.

                      https://www.rmets.org/about-us/people/fellows?pageNum_frmets=5&totalRows_frmets=577
                      https://www.rmets.org/membership

                      “Membership. Anyone with a genuine interest in the weather, its impact or the science behind it, or in the interface with related disciplines, such as hydrology and oceanography can join the Society. The Society is made up of weather enthusiasts, practitioners, students and scientists from across the world.”

                      > http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2013/12/analysis-finds-ipcc-exaggerates-effect.html
                      > “A guest post by Nic Lewis, Climate Audit”

                      Nic Lewis is not a scientist.

                      http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424127887323981504578179291222227104

                      “Nic Lewis. A semiretired successful financier from Bath, England, with a strong mathematics and physics background”

                      >http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2013/08/new-paper-finds-climate-sensitivity-to.html

                      1. Larry Hulden is an actual scientist. – https://tuhat.halvi.helsinki.fi/portal/en/persons/larry-hulden(f3e3d151-7191-4392-8156-91f29910e314).html

                      > http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2011/11/new-german-study-exposes-climate.html

                      John O’ Sullivan is a blogger not a scientist and his credentials are unknown.

                      > http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2013/10/a-scientific-no-change-in-temperature.html

                      This is “reblogged’ which is not a guest post.

                      > http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2013/09/biochemistry-professor-explains-why.html
                      > “Dr. Gösta Pettersson, Professor Emeritus of biochemistry”

                      2. Gösta Pettersson is an actual scientist. – http://www.false-alarm.net/about/

                      So like I said they only have guest posts from 1-2 actual scientists.

                      > If the article is backed by peer reviewed references then it’s valid. They (AGWers) usually reference skeptical science or real climate in > their rebuttals.

                      Simply being backed by peer-reviewed references is meaningless and both those alarmist websites are worthless.

                      > How do you do that?

                      Go to the Windows Control Panel -> Java control Panel -> Security Tab -> Edit Site List… -> Add

                      http://www.co2science.org/data/timemap/mwpmap.html

                      > All I see is a bunch of journal article references+. Did you mean article coverage extensively cited by Poptech?

                      No I mean PopularTechnology.net has been cited by others extensively. None of those sites have been references in peer-reviewed papers, we have.

                      http://www.populartechnology.net/2014/11/the-impact-of-popular-technologynet.html

                      > I never said you did, but by ignoring the SS- site’s team expert list you give that impression. You should compare their experts against the
                      > NIPCC team. But I look at it this way, SS to NIPCC is like comparing a community college to a university in the quality of info and academics.
                      > But SS does have a notible team list. NIPCC should give some background info on thier team scientist like SS does.

                      Our article has nothing to do with the clowns who contribute to the SS website. Why would we compare a bunch of alarmist clowns against real scientists? Why would you want to know if a scientist scuba dives or not? It makes no sense. Community College? LMAO more like clown college.

                      > Well that’s kind of quirky, why didn’t he list it as science of climatology?

                      Queen Mary University of London does not have a Climatology school so it is technically classified as “Geography”. What matters though is what his thesis was in since that is the research work he did to earn his Ph.D. It is not possible for AGWers to discredit his Ph.D. thesis which is titled: “Climatic change in central Canada.”

                      https://qmro.qmul.ac.uk/xmlui/handle/123456789/1382?show=full

                      Geography is not simply the study of map making, as stated on their School of Geography webpage:

                      http://www.geog.qmul.ac.uk/admissions/undergraduate/degrees/index.html

                      “The general idea about Geography is all wrong. I am not merely a student of maps or the Earth’s features; I am a critical investigator of the way the world works. Geography at Queen Mary includes everything from the causes of uneven development to the interconnected physical mechanisms that allow the planet to function.” (Anika Bahra, BA, 2009–2012)

                      This is how Queen Mary University of London describes their BSc degree in Geography: http://www.qmul.ac.uk/undergraduate/coursefinder/courses/80005.html

                      “Our Geography BSc enables you to explore the processes and mechanisms that shape the planet, examining how physical, chemical, biological and human agents affect the landscape on short to long timescales. We explore key topics and issues with you including climate change, environmental management …and examine how these influence or are conditioned by human activity.”

                      This is how Queen Mary University of London describes their BA degree in Geography: http://www.qmul.ac.uk/undergraduate/coursefinder/courses/80084.html

                      “The flexibility of our Geography BA degree programme allows you to focus on the areas that interest you most, …people and the environment; and the science and politics of climate change.”

                      Dr. Ball was employed at the University of Winnipeg for 25 years and was a “Professor” for 14 of them (Assistant, Associate and Professor). He has published 32 papers directly related to climate change.

                      He has every right to call himself a Historical Climatologist since that was what his Ph.D. thesis was in as well as various peer-reviewed papers he has published.

                      There is no objective criteria that can be used to determine who is a “climate scientist”. The field of climate science is a very broad discipline that includes scientists from a variety of backgrounds. Very few climate scientists have a Ph.D. in Climatology like skeptical scientist Dr. Patrick J. Michaels. Well known alarmist scientists such as Gavin Schmidt of RealClimate.org has a Ph.D. in Applied Mathematics, Phil Jones the Director of the Climatic Research Unit of Climategate fame has a Ph.D. in Hydrology, IPCC Chairman Rajendra Pachauri has a Ph.D. in Industrial Engineering and Hockey Stick author Michael Mann has a Ph.D. in Geology.

                    34. Sorry I’m late with this but I am trying to configure and deal with a new computer.

                      > “Kyoji Kimoto, a Japanese chemist, scientist, and fuel-cell computer modeler & inventor”

                      I cannot verify any of his credentials.

                      http://www.nims.go.jp/AEMG/membersOld/kimoto/main-e.html

                      And he has published several papers.

                      http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2010/03/co2-lifetime-which-do-you-believe.html

                      I recently had an in-person & email exchange on this topic with a senior atmospheric scientist studying the effects of CO2 for a federal agency

                      The Kinetic Theory of Gases explains why the Maxwell et al Gravito-Thermal Greenhouse Effect is Correct

                      By Michael Fowler, physicist, U of VA

                      So that adds 3 more to Hockyschtick.

                      Who are WUWT 6,000 scientists guest posts

                      Go to the Windows Control Panel -> Java control Panel -> Security Tab -> Edit Site List… -> Add

                      Did that and it worked! But I still find the Notrickszone has a better presentation for the fence sitters who are not very sophisticated or informed. So I will use both sites.

                      >Simply being backed by peer-reviewed references is meaningless

                      I find that to be a narrow minded viewpoint. Peer reviewed may be flawed but that is what we have to work with. To me it comes down to historical and current data which can be vetted. One Peer reviewed article can oppose another.

                      >Our article has nothing to do with the clowns who contribute to the SS website.

                      Those clowns have credentials and backgrounds so that to the “fence sitters” it may appear they are formidable. To them SS may appear to have a more valid argument then NIPCC. I don’t agree with the fence-sitters but they are the ones that need real convincing, understandable arguments on their level. So when I look for valid material I do searches using both Bing and Startpage. When I find an article with proper peer reviewed backing I use it.

                      >Queen Mary University of London does not have a Climatology school so it is technically classified as “Geography”.

                      Thanks for that, it fleshes out Dr. Balls credentials.

                      >He has every right to call himself a Historical Climatologist

                      There will be people who don’t see it that way, usually the people who got compromised degrees or education background. I think Dr. Ball went out on a limb on that 25 year claim and probably is why it’s not listed as such in his CV, he lost in the courts. He needs peer review backing.

                      >There is no objective criteria that can be used to determine who is a “climate scientist”. The field of climate science is a very broad discipline that includes scientists from a variety of backgrounds.

                      So even those who have degrees in climatology, they are relying on the research of others in different fields you mentioned, right? They can’t be experts in all those fields. So it’s the sorting out of peer reviewed articles they find significant, right?

                      Then you have scientists like Gavin Schmidt who went though the NOAA climate intern program (NOAA Postdoctoral Fellow in Climate and Global Change Research) to get his climatology credentials as his official background is BA and PHD in Mathematics. So his climatology credentials is like going through the Algore college of grant approval methodology. NOAA is a weird animal, I can find AGW stuf but then I can find materials that actually supports the skeptic viewpoint. It’s like some of their articles got skipped over by the AGW science police.

                      I think if several physicists of atmospheric physics could prove how insignificant the contribution from methane and CO2 is that would render the whole AGW claim mute. I already know it is.

                      We may disagree on some viewpoints but I’ll keep thinking skeptic.

                      One of the biggest problems I have in this area is the local news organizations tend to prohibit significant comments against the global warming, hysteria, mantra. And my Rep and 2 senators in Congress are all liberal democrats how are in lock step with the Obama agenda. Everytime I counter their views I either get a form letter or nothing.

                    35. This is a fucking waste of time. Please do not cite our website ever again as you are incapable of defending anything you post and I do not want to come in and have to clean up your mess.

    3. These document that the Roman Warm Period and the Medieval Warm Period were warmer than today.

      http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/bor.12003/abstract

      http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/~blinsley/Dr._B._K_Linsley/Indonesia_&_Pacific_Intermediate_Water_files/Rosenthal.Linsley.Oppo%202013%20Pac.Ocean.Heat.pdf

      There is no doubt about this. Coming into the RWP from the Greek dark age caused sea level to begin to rise rapidly, roughly 3000 years ago.

  2. This looks like another case of “Hide the Decline.” From what Nils-axel Morner shows, the proxy for sea level obviously doesn’t line up with what current measurements are showing so just ignore the discrepancy and publish the report!

  3. So yet another Emeritus Professor with a scant publishing record (with major errors in the paper, making its conclusions flawed) on a topic is hauled out as an expert.

    No wonder they use this guy – he incorrectly stated in a published work that sea levels weren’t even rising. Just the man for the denialist crew.

    Best,

    D

    3. Sea level rises when we come out of an ice age. Always has. Always will. Humans cannot accelerate it or decelerate it. If you believe otherwise you really are a moron. Sea level does what it wants but it’s cute that you still believe in a theory that was debunked 30 years ago called global warming.
      Best,
      J

        1. Quite the contrary D. You haven’t been paying attention. Majority of research shows that sea level rise is not at all faster today than during any previous interglacial. And in fact sea level rise over the last 50 years has slowed down to what it was the preceding 100 years. From about 1850-1950 sea level rise was much faster and that was before man-made co2 emissions were in full swing. So, you can be rest-assured that driving your car has zero affect on the rate of sea level rise. Co2 and sea level rise have no correlation as you can conclude since the rate of rise has indeed slowed over the last 50 years even though co2 levels continue to go up. Thanks for playing.
          Best,
          J

          1. Derp!

            Majority of research shows that sea level rise is not at all faster today than during any previous interglacial.

            [citation needed]

            And in fact sea level rise over the last 50 years has slowed down to what it was the preceding 100 years.

            [citation needed] https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/536f222df2e80fb71aaabbcd9368fd0fb3499e3f3f2bf98334ac26d8477c7dce.png

            From about 1850-1950 sea level rise was much faster

            You were duped (willingly?).

            Best,

            D

            1. LOL. poor D. your religion has been exposed and your denial is the last refuge of a scoundrel. As your church collapses you cling to it rather than accept the truth. Your fake data charts have been exposed as fraudulent since Climategate in 2009. It is entertaining watching you pathetically try to cling to your failed religion. Remember, intelligent people are open to other view points and open to change, idealogues and zealouts are not. I feel bad for you and your lot.
              Best,
              J

  4. Your expert on sea level rise is also an advocate of dowsing. Too funny! Next thing you know deniers will think the a website run by a former aid to Sen Inhofe, whose claim to fame is being the master of political smear jobs, is a reliable source for scientific information. No, that’s just too absurd.

    “Mörner has written a number of works claiming to provide theoretical support for dowsing. He was elected “Deceiver of the year” by Föreningen Vetenskap och Folkbildning in 1995 for “organizing university courses about dowsing…”.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nils-Axel_M%C3%B6rner#Views_on_sea_level_change

      1. “…and the only paper he ever wrote on sea level contained egregious errors. ”

        Lol, you think he’s only ever published 1 paper on SLR? I love the way you guys make things up. You truly are a delusional loon.

          1. You’re the one that said he has a “scant publishing record” and then later claimed it was only 1 (“the only paper he ever wrote on sea level “). If you think his record is “scant” or only 1 you must know his publishing record. So show me his record. It is you who needs a citation. I can’t honestly believe you’re going to dig a deeper hole on this. You must even worse than a delusional loon. If nothing else you’re proving to everybody that you don’t follow the scientific literature and that you make things up. Back up your claim and lets see his “scant publishing record”.

              1. So you can’t back up your statement (quelle surprise) and you honestly think I can’t back up the fact that this guy has more than 1 publication? And you’re going keep this cake on the griddle proving to everybody you make things up? Are you trying to highlight your delusions?

                1. Your bluffing doesn’t work with me.

                  If you are asserting the dowsing guy has more than one publication (you are implicitly asserting it with your whining and ululating and arm-waving and widdle foot-stomping), then show them.

                  Otherwise, you are letting us know you can’t show more than one.

                  Totes obvies.

                  Best,

                  D

                  1. LOl, you think I’m bluffing? Your even more delusional than CML at Media Matters. It was you who asserted he had only 1. Why don’t you start by showing us the one you’re talking about just to enlighten the class and get this ball rolling. Do you even know where to look.? What are you going to do when I finally show you? So start by showing us that one you’re talking about and will go from there.

                    1. I said one. If you say more, show more.

                      If you don’t do any work to show more, you are hereby invited to our next poker party.

                      Best,

                      D

                    3. So you can’t even show 1. You don’t even have a freakin clue where to look, do you? What a loser.

                      OK, first clue.

                      This makes it sooooo easy that even if you escaped from Mom’s basement you could figure it out. Why don’t you read the article above and click on some of the links already provided? Lol, I can’t believe you just keep digging a hole when the answer it already right in front of your face. Let me know how many you find just linked in this article alone and then I’ll show you more.

                      You are tooooo stupid to live.

                    4. OK, I checked with my boys, next game is Saturday March 12. You’re invited. Cash, BYO, we feed. You’re not vegan, right?

                      Best,

                      D

                    5. Aaaahhhh, poor Dano. He got caught again making stuff up. Now it is even too difficult for him to click a link above and count so he has to go into more incoherent ramblings. But the important thing to remember is that he is a credible source for climate information. Yeah that’s it. Who would doubt The Big Man who obviously know so much about the scientific literature and has such great reading comprehension.

                      Tell you what I’m going to do since I’m such a nice guy and you’re so super intelligent. I’ll make it even easier again for you.

                      What color is an orange? No googling now (whoops-apparently you don’t know how to google).

                    7. True. He is an arrogant asswhole, full of himself. He doesn’t have a clue when it comes to climate dynamics.

                    8. Seen his kind many times. They try to impress you with someone else’s work and when you tear it up, they play the flute and dance around it.

                    9. Can you believe this guy? What a loon. In all the years I’ve been following the scientific debate he had what was probably the single stupidest comment in reply to me 1 day over at Media Matters. Somehow he thinks he’s credible. What a riot.

                    10. He gets his talking points from the left-wing fairy land, but they don’t teach him how to defend them.

              3. Wait a minute. Did you claim his record is “scant” or only 1? If so it seems you are the one making a claim so you have the burden of proof. He called you a liar out on your claim so you need to prove your statement.

      2. He has more than one paper on sea level. Here are three. There might be more.

        The northwest European “sea-level laboratory” and regional holocene eustasyhttp://www.sciencedirect.com
        Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology
        Volume 29, 1979–1980, Pages 281–300
        /science/article/pii/0031018279900865

        Eustatic changes during the last 20,000 years and a method of separating the isostatic and eustatic factors in an uplifted area
        Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology
        Volume 9, Issue 3, April 1971, Pages 153–181
        http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0031018271900307

        Some problems in the reconstruction of mean sea level and its changes with time
        Quaternary International
        Volume 221, Issues 1–2, 1 July 2010, Pages 3–8
        http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1040618210000224

        Here is a Google Scholar search:
        https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=author%3ANA+M%C3%B6rner&btnG=&hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C14

        But, I do not think his recent work is considered credible.

        1. Thanks, my overarching point is that – despite being the bestest and greatest sea level guy evahhhhhhhhhhh (he’s yoooge, the BEST)!!!1 no one can name a single paper he wrote, and can’t even haul one out when pressed.

          His work was largely done before the satellite era, and the one real paper he tried to write after the satellite era contained egregious errors.

          Besides the embarrassing dowsing thing, there’s the totally embarrassing thing: Pattern Recognition in Physics that would get a working scientist laughed off the Internet.

          That is: one day they decry “pal review” and the next haul out this guy. I don’t know why no one has brought this up yet.

          Best,

          D

          1. Hey Mr hole digger. Mr. stuff maker upper. Not only you’re too stoopid to click on a link from the article above and count and so stupid you just keep digging and digging and digging now you are even so stoopid are you not even capable of clicking on the link the other idiot supplied that you are replying to.

            https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=author%3ANA+M%C3%B6rner&btnG=&hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C14

            If you type in his full name at google scholar you get….start counting..

            https://scholar.google.ca/scholar?start=30&q=Nils+Axel+M%C3%B6rner&hl=en&as_sdt=0,5

            Did you get more than 1? Did you get more than 3? Why do you insist on continuously embarrassing yourself with these made up things you dn’t know about. It takes less than 10 seconds to check Google Scholar and yet you just keep making stuff up.

            What colour is an orange? Just because you’re a loser doesn’t mean you have to highlight in Neon.

              1. Yeah, you got it. I don’t know how to use Scholar and I was bluffing’ all the time but I just got lucky. And I just happened to read those links in the article but I didn’t want to bow to your superior knowledge. Just because you’re a confirmed liar and too stoopid to click on a link I would have thought you could at least check your own propaganda site.

                http://www.desmogblog.com/nils-axel-morner

                If if you just click on 1 of the papers tthrough this article you’ll see another 15+ citations. He is also cited by the IPCC.

                http://junksciencearchive.com/jan04/nils-morner_1.pdf

                But heh, you’re the man who makes things up and can’t read words right in front of your face.

                Dano2…”..and the only paper he ever wrote on sea level contained egregious errors.”

                Google Scholar…12000 hits

                https://scholar.google.ca/scholar?start=160&q=Nils+Axel+M%C3%B6rner&hl=en&as_sdt=0,5

                Even if you told us the colour of an orange nobody would believe you since we know you’re a liar.

                    5. Here’s an eagle shadow puppet I made from your projection! See the eagle? Eagle? See eagle? Birdie?

                      Best,

                      D

                    7. And this is a bunny shadow puppet I made with your projection.

                      See bunny little one? Bunny? The bunbun! Awh! Little one see bunbun?

                      Best,

                      D

                    9. And this is a duck! Little one see duckie? Duckie? Duck shadow puppet? Duckie? Good job buddy!

                      Best,

                      D

                    10. And this is a duck! Little one see duckie? Duckie? Duck shadow puppet? Duckie? Good job buddy!

                      Best,

                      D

                  2. Still highlighting the fact that your a shameless liar. Bizarre.

                    You went through the Google schlar list and only saw 1 publication in the satellite era? Bizarre.

                    “Now SUPERGENIUS knows where to look!”

                    Isn’t it amazing how I knew how to use Scholar 10 months ago but not now?

                    http://mediamatters.org/blog/2015/05/01/right-wing-media-desperately-smear-scientists-t/203489#comment-2000742879

                    (To understand what I just said you have to actually click on the link and read it. Don’t be shy now. There’s a first for everything)

                    You really are the total package and a skeptics wet dream.

                    So why did you make up the lie that Morner had a “scant publishing record” and only 1 paper on SLR? Does it make you feel good inside or something.

                    Well, it’s been good having fun with you and proving you’re a liar but I’m afraid I’m headed out for the evening. Did you go upstairs and check to see if Mom has dinner ready for you? I must apologize because I don’t usually make fun of people with mental illness but sometimes it’s just too much fun shooting fish in a barrel.

                    I see there’s lots and lots of questions of mine that you just ignored but there is one you really should answer.

                    Why do you make things up and lie?

  5. NYT’s Gillis’ article was a classic we’re all gonna drown story and another cherry pick by an
    alarmist author. Of course he highlights Annapolis, MD for flooding. It also happens to
    be sinking 7mm a year as are most of Chesapeake Bay area cities. Here’s a hint don’t
    build/develop on soft sandy soil next to the ocean. Not mentioned are the 38 NOAA tide gauges on the West
    Coast,British Columbia and Hawaii that show only an average of 1.16mm ± .72mm of sea level
    rise and show no increase in level of rise.That’s most of the Eastern Pacific in the NH.

                    2. My point, smartie, again, is that satellites cover all the oceans. And satellites tell us (and scientists, and mariner, and everybody) that SLR is ~3.4 mm/yr.

                      Thanks!

                      best,

                      D

                    3. So we’ll add blind to deaf and dumb for you!! Including the GLOSS stations ALL of the oceans are covered by tide gauges! ie…WORLDWIDE the whole enchilada. Ouch that’s gonna leave a mark! Thanks for playing

                    5. Smartie? LOL. Your point is that you don’t have a point except at the top of your skull. But are you admitting that satellites are better measuring instruments than say land based thermometers are since they cover the entire planet? Thanks for the admission.

                  2. More alarmist nonsense. Anyone who has a science or engineering background should have warning signals going off with the AGW nonsense.

                    Richard Lindzen spelled it out when he noted:

                    “On the other hand, there is quite a lot of ‘science on demand’ as Eisenhower anticipated. The well-established Medieval Warm Period is a problem for the narrative. Michael Mann’s Hockey Stick gets rid of the Medieval Warm Period.

                    The physics of moist convection requires that warming maximize in the tropical upper tropospheric troposphere, and models agree, but the data doesn’t show this. Ben Santer reworks the data to show the maximum.

                    Significant warming ended about 18 years ago showing that CO2 is not the major factor in climate. Tommy Karl adjusts and rearranges the data to eliminate the pause.

                    Quite a few independent studies show that the outgoing radiation from the earth indicate low climate sensitivity. Andy Dessler ignores the physical and mathematical constraints to claim the opposite (at a truly negligible significance level).

                    Antarctic sea ice is increasing. Jim Hansen absurdly claims that this is what one should expect from global warming (which, however, has not been occurring for 18 years).

                    Basic dynamics of the atmosphere calls for reduced extremes and storminess in a warmer world. John Holdren invents a cockamamie theory of tropospheric polar jets to claim that such an imaginary jet is destabilized with warming, leading to more and more extreme storminess”.

                    Knowing what a putz you are I’m pretty sure I know how you will respond to this.

                    2. And you apparently know you can’t deny the fact that you asking for the fraction of the planet is being monitored by 2133 gauges world wide is more alarmist nonsense. Thanks for you admission.

  6. Let’s look at what Mörner is saying.

    ““The PNAS paper is another sad contribution to the demagogic anti-science campaign for AGW. It is at odds with observational facts and ethical principles,” Morner wrote to Climate Depot. “The paper is full of very bad violations of observational facts,” Morner explained.

    I have seen the paper. It does not read “demagogic”. I am not an expert, so I cannot make an independent judgement about the paper. We’ll need to wait see what other researchers publish, after they have made of study of it. Mörner has not done that.

    As for the claimed conflict with recent observations, Mörner offers data from one tide gauge. That does not tell you what the global average has been. Even deniers admit sea level has been rising. Judith Curry says this elsewhere in the post. The debate has been over whether the rate of sea level rise is increasing – that is whether seal level rise is accelerating. And what “ethical principles” did this study violate? That’s just a bizarre charge.

    There is a summary of the paper for non-experts you can find here:
    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2016/02/millennia-of-sea-level-change/

Leave a Reply

Support Climate Depot

Social Media

Facebook-f Youtube Twitter Instagram

Most Popular

Stay in the Know

Sign up to get updates.

Facebook Twitter Google-plus Pinterest

Copyright 2024 © All rights Reserved.