Michael, whose response to the graph showing the global average sea level going up was
There's no such thing as a global average sea level.
The awesome thing about this response is that it really is a corollary to McKitrick's Theorem that there is no such thing as a global average temperature since average sea level is an intensive quantity.
- Log in to post comments
More like this
I wrote earlier correcting Ross McKitrick's false claim that there is no such thing as Global Temperature. Unfortunately McKitrick's claim has been adopted and spread by people ignorant of basic physics. For example, consider this review of Essex and McKitrick's book Taken by Storm at (where…
The graph above, which Iain Murray claimed showed that
"The fact that the ten hottest years happened since 1991 may well be an artifact of the collapse in the number of weather monitoring stations contributing to the global temperature calculations following the fall of…
Deep Climate dissects Ross McKitrick's deceptive quoting from the emails stolen from CRU in 2009:
In one particularly outrageous and error-filled passage, McKitrick accuses IPCC AR4 co-ordinating lead authors Phil Jones and Kevin Trenberth of selecting their team of contributing authors solely on…
There seems to be some confusion about McKitrick's latest attempt to refute global warming. For instance, Andrew Sullivan thinks that McKitrick's famous degrees-radians screw up is part of this latest attempt. However, McKitrick claims to have refuted global warming in several different…
I accept this prize in honour of McKitrick, without whose inspiration I would never have thought of saying such a thing.
If I have seen this far, it is because I'm standing behind individuals somewhat taller than me.
Thankyou.
Um wait, what's the prize that was won? Well, I guess it doesn't matter, because whatever it is, Michael won it. :)
But can I also win, by writing a comment about winning?
Personally, I thought Michael's Planck Unit of Water was also made of win.
Um wait, what's the prize that was won? Well, I guess it doesn't matter, because whatever it is, Michael won it. :)
But can I also win, by writing a comment about winning?
(Ugh, double post... dang network. Perhaps that should count as some sort of win too...)
Michael.
Your award is well deserved. When I asked for insight I suspected that it would be, well, insightful, but I had no idea that it would be so profound.
I predict that your technical accumen will rapidly be recognised and spread around the intersphere. In particular your revelation about the variability of r^, and the self-regulation of sea-level rise that occurs through increased (evaporative) surface area, will no doubt spawn examples of (Michael 2008) on the best Sceptical sites.
A word of warning though - the alarmists at Realclimate will be bending over backwards to try to find a flaw, any flaw, no matter how small, in your succinct summation of the science.
I'm sure that you'll handle them though!
I tip my hat to you.
I suggest Michael document his findings and send a manuscript off to Energy & Environment, where it will go through rigorous and objective peer review.
James Haughton at #3 has made me think... perhaps we should henceforth refer to the Michaels-Planck Unit of water.
'MPU' has such a nice ring to it.
Michael wins Monckton's Nobel Peace Prize. If you see him, he has to hand over his gold Nobel prize pin. And Monckton is no longer allowed to say that he won a Nobel.
I'm being slow here I'm sure, but: the linked post shows that you can add temperatures proportionately, because temperature equals heat energy over heat capacity, so the combined temerature is the sum heat energy over the sum heat capacity.
What's the analogous thing for sea level here? Something to do with the total potential energy of water divided by unit surface area? Volume of the geoid?
Oh, and Michael.
Cool acceptance speech.
Worthy of an IgNobel prize, that one is. I was not at all bored!
Paul: change in volume divided by area.
Michael is smart enough to stand behind others that are taller than those - see, he is cooled by their shade cast by solar insolence, instead of Algore's energy-sucking house and Mannian hockey sticks.
Best,
D
That was ... elegant.
Michael #1:
We paradigm-shattering visionaries think alike!
http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin/ikonboard/ikonboard.cgi?s=4940beb0…
Marion Delgado
Posts: 22
Joined: Nov. 2007
(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 11 2008,01:18
OT: In a cynical, depressed mood about climate, but want to lighten things up with a little snarky humor? This new blog's for you.
(Actually it's very nicely done and the science looks good as far as I can tell. I especially like the poll that ends each post.)
I'm afraid that this theory is only partially right. There is indeed no average sea level. That graph is yet another hockey stick.
However, localized rises that have been measured, are due to natural variations in the orbit of the moon. Scientists have been overlooking the moon's influence on sea level - something that is immediately obvious to all who look. Have climate change alarmists never heard of tides?
I came late to the party, I know. But if you want a denialist sea level meme, there you go :)
Not only that, but the moon's height is influenced by electrical plasma currents (or is it plasmatic electric currents, I keep forgetting) generated by midichlorians the sun and this is TOTALLY IGNORED by so called mainstream science.
> Michael wins Monckton's Nobel Peace Prize. If you see him, he has to hand over his gold Nobel prize pin. And Monckton is no longer allowed to say that he won a Nobel.
Can't Monckton just fashion another Nobel medal and call it his own?