Watch Peter Sinclair’s latest video:

Comments

  1. #1 Chris O'Neill
    July 15, 2012

    What the denialists say:

    “No sea level rise acceleration is detectable in the Australian New Zealand region over the last decades.”

    What the scientists actually said:

    “During the latter half of the 20th century the reconstructed rate of relative sea-level rise was 0.7 ± 0.6 mm/yr.”

    which has accelerated to 3.1 ± 0.4 mm/yr since 1990.

    i.e. another case of proof by non-supporting or contradictory citation, a standard denialist technique.

  2. #2 MikeH
    July 15, 2012

    Karen has done a unattributed copy and paste from here – if it looks like denialist pap, Karen,s “skepticism” disappears.
    http://notrickszone.com/

    My guess is Karen has the “deeds” to the Eiffel Tower and the Brooklyn Bridge.

  3. #3 Chris O'Neill
    July 15, 2012

    “which has accelerated to 3.1 ± 0.4 mm/yr since 1990.”

    Should be 1993.

  4. #4 Karen
    July 15, 2012

    Here it is again numpties.

    Abstract

    “Palaeosea-level positions were determined by foraminiferal analyses. Relative sea level in Tasmania was within half a metre of present sea level for much of the last 6000 yr. Between 1900 and 1950 relative sea level rose at an average rate of 4.2 ± 0.1 mm/yr. During the latter half of the 20th century the reconstructed rate of relative sea-level rise was 0.7 ± 0.6 mm/yr. Our study is consistent with a similar pattern of relative sea-level change recently reconstructed for southern New Zealand. The change in the rate of sea-level rise in the SW Pacific during the early 20th century was larger than in the North Atlantic and could suggest that northern hemisphere land-based ice was the most significant melt source for global sea-level rise.”

    http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0012821X11005103

    I know that all these peer reviewed papers that I post in here makes you all doubt your sanity, tough titties, It’s about time you all face the facts that the climate facade syense is failing at all levels now, soon the only part of it that will remain will be the joke’s that are told for the next 100 yrs about all the dumbo’s that believed fat al.

  5. #5 John
    July 15, 2012

    Karenmmackspot posts another paper that strengthens the evidence for AGW.

  6. #6 John
    July 15, 2012

    And I especially liked a recent paper Karenmackspot posted that cited Mann’s hockey stick.

    Whoops!

    Look what happens when you don’t read things.

  7. #7 bill
    July 15, 2012

    So, ‘Karen’, do you acknowledge that the BoM posting you made regarding Glen Innes also bolstered the AGW argument – particularly a warmer, longer Autumn and Spring – not yours?

    You know, you guys are such patent clowns that it would be very easy to play ‘Trojan Post’ – put up a link to a paper confirming AGW but with an accompanying claim that it’s a bona-fide ‘another nail in the coffin’ chunk of delectable chum at WUWT, Jo Nova’s, or the Sticky Bishop’s – and watch you all copy and paste it around without ever bothering to read it.

    In fact, how do you know it isn’t happening already?

  8. #8 Lionel A
    July 15, 2012

    KaremMackFloppyBunny

    You might like to research on Thames Barrier and increasing frequency of raising same and then reflect upon why this should be.

    You are a numpty dumpty, so broken can never be put back together again.

    But keep posting links to these papers for each one demonstrates how little you truly understand.

  9. #9 Lionel A
    July 15, 2012

    Krakenbrain

    Here you go, explain this away Extreme heat becoming more likely under climate change and follow a link (that is spade work for you to do) to this:

    Worldwide, 2011 was the coolest year on record since 2008, yet temperatures remained above the 30 year average, according to the 2011 State of the Climate report released online today by NOAA.

    Now all of us here wish that this were not true. Non of us take satisfaction in demonstrating your straight up devious cherry picking for we are all very concerned about where events are leading us. The fact that you can still eschew this means that your are either the village idiot or a lying perhaps mostly to yourself. You are showing considerable intellectual dishonesty, as much as a ‘village idiot’ can show that is.

  10. #10 Bernard J.
    July 15, 2012

    Sheesh….

    USKMSPMM, I posted about the Gehrels et al paper a month or two ago (I’m not sure it is was here or elsewhere), precisely because it supports the evidence for sea level rise. I came across the paper for work reasons, and I have it on the USB stick attached to my computer as I type.

    I doubt that you actually read the paper, so you might be interested in the conclusion:

    5. Conclusions

    Relative sea-level change in eastern Tasmania was reconstructed from analyses of salt-marsh and estuarine deposits. The record shows that sea-level was stable and slightly lower than present during the middle and late Holocene and during the 19th century. Starting between 1880 and 1900, sea level rose at about 4 mm/yr until the 1950s after which sea-level rise significantly slowed down. Maximum rates of sealevel rise were achieved in the 1910s (4.5±2.5 mm/yr). The reconstructed 20th century average rate of relative sea-level rise in eastern Tasmania is 1.5±0.4 mm/yr. The rapid early 20th century sea-level change documented in eastern Tasmania also occurred in southeastern New Zealand. The magnitude of the change observed in the records from Tasmania and New Zealand is greater than in the North Atlantic and is consistent with a spatial pattern that suggests that Northern Hemisphere melt sources contributed significantly to global sea-level rise in the early 20th century. Supplementary materials related to this article can be found online at doi:10.1016/j.epsl.2011.08.046.

    You really need to go read the whole thing. You also really need to understand what “relative” means, and what “eastern Tasmania”and “southeastern New Zealand” mean.

    Seriously, it what world do you imagine that Gehrels et al even remotely disproves the science of global warming and its attendant sequelæ?

  11. #11 Lionel A
    July 15, 2012

    Bernard J

    The magnitude of the change observed in the records from Tasmania and New Zealand is greater than in the North Atlantic and is consistent with a spatial pattern that suggests that Northern Hemisphere melt sources contributed significantly to global sea-level rise in the early 20th century.

    I think it no coincidence that the early part of the twentieth century saw increasing numbers of large bergs drifting down and out of the Davis Strait and into the North Atlantic shipping lanes. Researchers of the Titanic disaster became aware of this from maritime logs of the period.

    Of course the berg the Titanic met would have calved from a glacier, and hence added its own portion to sea level rise, a few years prior to 1912.

    Maritime, mostly naval and naval aviation, history is one of my interests.

  12. #12 Mercurius
    NSW
    July 16, 2012

    Nice to see my home town rate a mention in these august pages. Glen Innes had a freakishly long autumn this year. Was still bringing in tomatoes in the first week of May, three weeks later than the previous season. And all the deciduous trees and perennial food plants are budding again already…about 4 weeks earlier than usual. I’ve got *flowers* on the broccoli plants, and nasturtiums sprouting from seed (they didn’t do that until September last year).

    Actually this town is one of the very few parts of Australia that will be more comfortable and more productive food-wise with a 2 degree temperature increase this century, so if long-term property investments are your thing, buy, buy, buy! (PS – 1100 metres above sea level too…nice!)

  13. #13 Bernard J.
    July 16, 2012

    Mercurius.

    Where I live spur-wing plovers have almost always hatched their first brood of the season in the third week of August, usually within a day or two of the 20th of the month.

    This year, however, I saw the first brood of plover chicks running around the paddock on 14 July.

    Whether they will survive late chills remains to be seen, but the parents obviously thought that spring was on the way.

  14. #14 FrankD
    July 16, 2012

    Lionel A,

    You would be right that it’s no coincidence (the issue of Greenlands mass loss was recently discussed following one of Karen’s better examples of pedal autopercussion).

    It is also interesting to note that following the peak in iceberg sightings, the situation has now radically changed.

    This year, almost no substantial bergs rounded Cape Spear into the former “iceberg alley”. And the few that did didn’t survive long enough to reach the line of Titanic’s course. And its not like the Titanic berg was a singleton – that night there was an icefield at least 50km long and several km wide blocking the main shipping channel.

    It is well known that the water temperature overnight was subzero (due to the proximity of the icefield); people lapsed into unconsciousness in minutes and died well before the Carpathia arrived two hours after the sinking. But…

    At noon on the 14th April, then around 42N 47.5W and about 110 miles from the ice field, Californian took a sea surface temperature measurement of 50d F (10 d C). On 14th April this year at noon at Californians position, sea surface temperature was 17 d C, while at the Titanic collision site, it likely remained above 12 d C overnight.

    So, had you dropped 1500 people into the Atlantic Ocean in the middle of the night this year, 50% to 70% would have survived the two hours it took Carpathia to arrive – exhausted, hypothermic, unconscious even, but mostly still alive.

    Of course, two sea surface temperatures a hundred years apart are just “weather”, but given the thermal inertia of the ocean, I find the ~7d C increase remarkable.

  15. #15 wow
    July 16, 2012

    But that’s not proof,frank.

    Because it isn’t saying that agw is false, therefore it -must- be faked!

  16. #16 Karen
    July 20, 2012

    Here is a link that demonstrates that the video above is indeed a CrOcK.

    http://www.weru.ksu.edu/new_weru/multimedia/dustbowl/dustbowlpics.html

    All history would have to be erased before the CO2 fable could gain traction, one little warm spot just doesn’t cut the mustard.

    Especially when everywhere else is cold.

  17. #17 Wow
    July 20, 2012

    So how does GLOBAL climate relate to a regional problem mostly caused by over-intensive farming, spots?

  18. #18 Lionel A
    July 20, 2012

    OK KrakenKnutt it just so happens that Tamino has just put together a brilliant article ‘Craps’ explaining what we have put in motion with our ramp-up of agro-industrial activity.

    RL&ID

  19. #19 Lotharsson
    July 20, 2012

    Here is a link that demonstrates that the video above is indeed a CrOcK.

    So…the strong climate-related trends pointed out in the video aren’t actually climate-related because there was a bad drought in the past?

    It appears that you simply cannot (or are not wiling to) understand the case the scientists are putting forward, as your “rebuttals” fail to address that case every single time.

  20. #20 Wow
    July 20, 2012

    How come if we had bad droughts in the past, we still get droughts today, karen? Surely we should have run out of water!

  21. #21 Wow
    July 21, 2012

    Here’s a question for all you deniers.

    What do you think you’re doing? Even if your contention were correct and AGW didn’t exist, the only data you can get in support is laughably bad. Cherry picks, conspiracy nut theories, nonsequitors, and flat out lies.

    If your intent was to prove you had nothing, you’ve done it.

  22. #22 ben
    Seattle, WA
    July 25, 2012

    Here’s a question for all of you: when did AGW / Climate Change get so boring? The issue is all but dead to the general population of Canada and the USA.

  23. #23 ben
    Seattle, WA
    July 25, 2012

    Wow, I just watched the first minute of the Sinclair video and it’s full of cherry picks: “oooh a puny town in Kansas was 118 degrees, must be AGW!!!” or “the temperature was so high the road buckled! Must be AGW!!! Science!!!” I guess that’s OK if they support AGW baloney, right?

  24. #24 ianam
    July 25, 2012

    it’s full of cherry picks

    You’re lying denialist scum. Quote marks should include what people actually say. Try it some time.

  25. #25 ben
    July 25, 2012

    ianman, have you not heard of sarcasm and/or paraphrasing? Is that really the best you can do? Sorry that you’re so hurt about the death of AGW.

  26. #26 Lotharsson
    July 25, 2012

    “ben” misses the argument of the video, exactly like Karen did earlier. It’s not claiming that the weather at a cherry-picked town proves AGW – although it’s easy to see why denialists might think so, because that’s how people like Karen and Sunspot “prove” it’s not warming when they cite a cold place. I presume ben denies that logic, even if someone like Karen or Sunspot were to use it?

    The video clearly goes on to show trends in global and aggregate measures that strongly indicate warming. Perhaps ben could try actually watching it to see the argument it’s making before he confidently decries it.

    And ben can’t even seem to decide whether it’s the A in AGW that he’s denying, or the W.

    Then again, ben could easily be a Poe.

  27. #27 bill
    July 25, 2012

    What is it about idiots and mutiple punctuation???!!!

    Reality is not determined by opinion polls.

  28. #28 ianam
    July 25, 2012

    have you not heard of sarcasm and/or paraphrasing?

    Yes, but unlike you I know what they are, you stupid fucking wretched sack of lying denier shit. You didn’t paraphase the video, you lied about what it says. So fuck off and die.

  29. #29 ianam
    July 25, 2012

    Perhaps ben could try actually watching it

    The part that he did watch had “Warmest 12 month period since 1985″ plastered on the screen. If ben weren’t so intensely stupid and dishonest he could attempt to make an argument about that not implying AGW, instead idiotically lying about cherry picking … another term he doesn’t understand the meaning of, despite so much practice doing it.

    Then again, ben could easily be a Poe.

    No, really not, and not just because ben has frequented this and other climate blogs in the past.

  30. #30 ianam
    July 25, 2012

    s/1985/1895/

  31. #31 Wow
    July 25, 2012

    Ben if you’re paraphrasing and getting a different meaning, ur doin it wrong.

  32. #32 John
    July 25, 2012

    Ben doesn’t care so much he came by repeatedly to tell us how little he cares.

    Doesn’t sound like he’s particularly confident.

  33. #33 Bernard J.
    July 25, 2012

    …when did AGW / Climate Change get so boring?

    Boring? Only if you’ve been pithed.

    For anyone with a modicum of understanding about the science, the serious implications for the future just keep on worsening.

  34. #34 ben
    July 25, 2012

    ianman, I found you on youtube!

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9aspp1r0tS4

  35. #35 ben
    July 25, 2012

    “For anyone with a modicum of understanding about the science, the serious implications for the future just keep on worsening.”

    And yet the vast majority of people don’t care.

  36. #36 jrkrideau
    July 25, 2012

    ben Seattle, WA

    Here’s a question for all of you: when did AGW / Climate Change get so boring? The issue is all but dead to the general population of Canada and the USA.

    Either you need to get out more or watch something other than Fox News.

    A simple google on “Globe and Mail climate change” shows up:

    “Climate change opens up Arctic fisheries – but should Canada cut bait?” Saturday, Jul. 21 2012

    “Climate change’s costs hit the plate” Tuesday, Jul. 24 2012,

    “Gen Xers on climate change: Meh” Thursday, Jul. 19 2012

    “Climate change likely to bring food inflation” Monday, Jul. 16 2012

    “Canada and climate change: all plan, no action Saturday, May. 12 2012,

    One paper in one city.

    Oh, and CBC & climate change
    “Climate change linked to recent weather extremes
    3 types of evidence combine to bolster scientific case” Mar 26, 2012

    “Wildrose leader takes heat over climate change views” Apr 19, 2012

    Climate change shrinks forests in 3 Prairie provinces
    Finding belies assumption that global warming improves growing conditions The Canadian Press Jan 31, 2012

    Yup, it’s a dead letter okay.

  37. #37 Lionel A
    July 25, 2012

    And yet the vast majority of people don’t care.

    Ben maybe that is because they watch and read too much vapid and distorting MM.

    Have a look at the latest Open Thread for instances of where climate change and its effects are brought to the fore, ignoring the noise from the usual muppets.

  38. #38 Wow
    July 25, 2012

    Ben, where do you get the idea that the majority don’t care? Remember, in an echo chamber, the voices you hear is your own one multiplied.

    68% in Europe think AGW is a serious problem and 83% think not enough is being done about it.

    Those figures are lower, 42% and 48%

  39. #39 Wow
    July 25, 2012

    Cutnpaste caused the page to jump about, clicked submit early…

    In the usa. Only Saudi Arabia have a lower opinion of AGW officially, no census of the pipulace has taken place, though.

    Worldwide, nearly 75% of peoole think that AGW is a serious problem facing the world.

  40. #40 ianam
    July 26, 2012

    “For anyone with a modicum of understanding about the science, the serious implications for the future just keep on worsening.”

    And yet the vast majority of people don’t care.

    That would make the vast majority of people ignorant fools. Was that your point?

  41. #41 Wow
    July 26, 2012

    However,the claim is incorrect: the majority DO care.

    But when you’re limited to WTFUWT and Faux News/Hannity, your “majority” is self-selecting for like-mindedness.

  42. #42 Russell
    July 28, 2012

    We are about to enjoy 48 hours respite from WUWT, pending its threatened return Sunday.

    One fears he has finalized the post-Heartland subsidy alluded to by Brad Johnson

    Smoke ‘em if you’ve got’em.

  43. #43 Vince Whirlwind
    July 31, 2012

    “Worldwide, nearly 75% of peoole think that AGW is a serious problem facing the world.”

    Denialism has only gained traction in a few places where the right alignment has occurred of dishonest media and ignorant politicians.
    It is almost solely in english-speaking countries where denialism has gained a foothold: USA, Canada, Australia, and to a lesser extent the UK.

  44. #44 Wow
    July 31, 2012

    Canada is mostly the government being denialist.

    A common complaint over the government that gived them a low vote is their stance on AGW. The effects are much more noticeable there.

  45. #45 Bernard J.
    July 31, 2012

    Eh?

    Is that you, Wow?

  46. #46 Wow
    July 31, 2012

    Yeah, that’s me.

    The UK keeps talking up how they’re going to be green, but as soon as anything might be done, the tories stop it happening.

    Very little different from the Canadian or Australian government.

    All three governments have very poor approval ratings, but being a democracy with more than two parties, a 22% voting share is enough to get you into power.

  47. #47 Bernard J.
    July 31, 2012

    Cool. You gived me some confusion with your turning of phrase.

    I was wondering if someone had typed the wrong name by accident.

    ;-)

  48. #48 Wow
    July 31, 2012

    Tablet use.

    REALLY crappy for anything other than “sit there in a cramped position and squint at a small screen while we show you content on the internet”.

  49. #50 StevoR
    Adelaide, SA
    August 2, 2012

    @Lionel A – July 15, 3:52 pm :

    “Bernard J The magnitude of the change observed in the records from Tasmania and New Zealand is greater than in the North Atlantic and is consistent with a spatial pattern that suggests that Northern Hemisphere melt sources contributed significantly to global sea-level rise in the early 20th century. I think it no coincidence that the early part of the twentieth century saw increasing numbers of large bergs drifting down and out of the Davis Strait and into the North Atlantic shipping lanes. Researchers of the Titanic disaster became aware of this from maritime logs of the period. Of course the berg the Titanic met would have calved from a glacier, and hence added its own portion to sea level rise, a few years prior to 1912. Maritime, mostly naval and naval aviation, history is one of my interests.”

    Astronomy is one of mine and, interestingly enough, the April 2012 issue of (American) ‘Sky & Telescope’ magazine had a fascinating (cover) article on some of the astronomical (esp. lunar) events that led to the extreme amount of ice and calving in 1912 focusing mostly on the extreme perigean tides caused by a rare phenomena of spring tides coinciding with perihelion when the Earth is closest to our Sun.

    This could have made more icebergs calve from the glaciers and also led to higher sea levels meaning fewer of them grounded and thus more reached open oceans.

    That combined with a dark moonless night and calm seas preventing giveaway breaking water – and forgotten binoculars left back in Southhampton – contributed to the Titanic’s loss together with so horribly many of its passengers and crew.

  50. #51 StevoR
    August 2, 2012

    ^ D’oh! Sorry, The first paragraph there was supposed to be blockquoted not the whole comment italicised. Somehow that ended up messed up.

  51. #52 StevoR
    August 2, 2012

    @Lionel A – July 25, 4:39 pm :

    “And yet the vast majority of people don’t care.” (- Ben? ed)
    Ben maybe that is because they watch and read too much vapid and distorting MM. Have a look at the latest Open Thread for instances of where climate change and its effects are brought to the fore, ignoring the noise from the usual muppets.

    &

    @Wow – July 25, 5:24 pm :

    Ben, where do you get the idea that the majority don’t care? Remember, in an echo chamber, the voices you hear is your own one multiplied. 68% in Europe think AGW is a serious problem and 83% think not enough is being done about it. …

    Greenman3610 has a good post on the growing acceptence of scientifically confirmed reality here :

    http://climatecrocks.com/2012/07/19/is-it-warming-yet-more-americans-say-like-duhh/

    Which observes :

    “With 70 percent of Americans now agreeing that global warming is affecting weather in the U.S., the public is showing increasing support for measures that would tackle the problem of climate change, according to a new survey. Conducted by the Yale Project on Climate Change Communication, the survey showed that 60 percent of Americans would be more likely to vote for a candidate who supports legislation that would reduce the federal income tax and make up for that decrease in revenue by increasing taxes on fossil fuels. The ongoing survey — which divides the U.S. public into six categories on global warming, from the alarmed to the dismissive — showed that an overwhelming majority of people who identified themselves as alarmed, concerned, or cautious about global warming say that if people with their views worked together, they could influence politicians’ views on global warming.”

    Well worth reading in full. Should all be blockquoted this time..

    Hope this helps.

  52. #53 Wow
    August 3, 2012

    It’s been fairly close to a majority all along. More people thought AGW was a serious problem and/or thought more should be done about it than thought it was false.

    But if you only go on blog noise, you only hear what you’re willing to listen to and for Faux News listeners, everyone they listen to says it’s all fake.

  53. #54 Lionel A
    August 3, 2012

    That combined with a dark moonless night and calm seas preventing giveaway breaking water – and forgotten binoculars left back in Southhampton – contributed to the Titanic’s loss together with so horribly many of its passengers and crew.

    As it happens over the last few years I have been collecting literature about Titanic and Olympic, The White Star Line (a part of the J P Morgan empire which also owned the Californian) plus Harland & Wolff. There were considerable conflicts of interest amongst these parties which following the Olympic’s collision with the protected cruiser HMS Hawke could have been behind the fate of the Titanic.

    Some consider that a switch of the two liners was a conspiracy that could never have been kept hidden. One only has to think how well kept were the secrets of Bletchley Park to appreciate that anything is possible. One of the authors who pours cold water on the switch conspiracy, Churnside, produced a degree dissertation dismissing the damage Olumpic sustained in the Hawke collision. However he has clearly not been on a ship when in collision with another vessel. I have (HMS Ark Royal v. Soviet Kotlin destroyer). From photographs of both vessels and scale drawing of Olympic I have concluded that indeed the Hawke could have fatally compromised the castings supporting the centre propeller. I am ambivalent on the switch theory btw.

    Sorry for OT. Email if interested in more. Thanks for the ‘Sky and Telescope’ info. I am interested in astronomy too more of the armchair variety though.