mikeworst

NSIDC chart updated, just "wow" http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/S_stddev_timeseries.png

Watch

Well bftw your own counter argument would in turn discount any positive detection of the opposite. If detecting An accelerating trend is impossible, well then what is possible? The study compares results to static, conventional sea level tide gauges and is in agreement with those. The slide show is not the paper but a summary.

Talking of Grace this latest study using data from Grace showing sea level rising at less than 2mm per year. No acceleration and no need to panic then.http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2013/07/baur_gghs2012.pdf

The problem here and possibly the reason there is so little interest is this particular topic is the issue of models and their accuracy, (fail) input, (incomplete or faulty) and of course the ridicule of Trenberths missing heat fiasco. Now proceeding to duck down to avoid incoming flack.

First of all heat or warmth has nothing to do with suntan/sunstroke. A suntan is the skin producing melanin, a dark pigment, to protect the cells from damage by ultraviolet radiation. Ultraviolet radiation is very energetic and damaging to living tissue and much else besides. Your friends assersion is therefore incorrect as regards global warming.

The last two sentences of the abstract comfirm the effect rather than dismiss it. I do believe this issue is far from settled. "It is interesting that he cosmic ray hypothesis has to be tested by experiment in a mutibillion dollar facility whereas anything that supports the CAGW mantra is blindly accepted and it is up to everybody else to disprove it."

Rybris that is not called for. Tamara is essentially correct in her post that solar activity is directly attributable to changes in the global climate. This has been known for a long time and there are many peer reviewed papers showing exactly that. What is really frustrating for me is that so many believers in the CO2 theory of AGW do not want or will not even consider looking at alternative views even if these views are increasingly compelling, and they are.

"No, unless the rules of English grammar have changed, all of a sudden, it is a question.." As for Rybris & co I presume they are all financed by the wind energy industry. In other words we are all paying for that too. Makes more sense than what you said. lol

You made an accusation (not a question) that, in my opinion, is totally ludicrous and it falls on you to provide some (any at all) justification for said accusation. It is really easy to point fingers and badmouth folk when you do not agree with them.

Rainy, " Exactly RP. It's amazing (indeed scary) how little our decision makers know about fracking and its consequences. I heard a local Lancashire MP mention the prospect of our county having in the future a landscape of "nodding donkeys'." Indeed, nodding donkeys are used to pump oil and have no relation to fracking for natural gas in shale. We should be so lucky to have a landscape of nodding donkeys.

Rybris and rainy, I have been chastised for being disrespectful and a troll on this particular forum so I will try to state the facts only as I see them and apologize if I offended anyone. Rybris a few questions on your post. 1. "frack the British countryside into one giant slag heap". Without being rude or anything ,where do you get that idea from? Fracking does not result in any such thing and is pretty non invasive and does not destroy the countryside as implied 2. Increasing energy costs are the result of subsidies for wind etc. Power companies have admitted that they have had to pass these costs on to consumers. I would like to know how you can possibly accuse Monckton& co of profiting or being financed by this(in my opinion only of course) stupid government blunder. Provide evidence or retract your statement, please.

A lot of your questions are answered by posts at tallbloke.wordpress.com. If you need some help in digging for the posts in question just ask.

Light here but no settling yet

Knocker if you dig a little deeper into that saga and sidestep the hype you will discover that the island in question in transitory and sediment based. It comes and goes despite a ( non existant) sea level rise but is dependant on sediment deposition by the rivers in question.

I ask again, has any area/country anywhere been compromised by actual sea level rise?. Continental sinking does not count.

As it has been the case since the end of the little ice age, and so what exactly?. yes, the average temperature of the globe has been increasing and the sea level probably risen along with it at a modest rate if not in fact a virtally undetectable rate for those at ground level who actually live on the coast. Have any really low lying islands been inundated in the last 100 years? Have any coastal areas anywhere experienced a problem with sea level rise in recorded history? If so please present evidence here.

Ok just read that article again with an open mind. Rampant and unjustifyable alarmism at its best. All this in a year or two as well, oh my. lol

"Who should we listen to then? Who should we learn about climate from?" Read, research information and then make up your own mind. The whole issue is too wrapped up in self interest and hubris to say say listen to this or that. I put my opinion forward but that of course is just that, my opinion only gained from reading papers and what I consider common sense. Take it as you will.

"There may well be but I believe CO2 is the principle one." Perhaps and hopefully so as humanity is ill prepared to take on another little ice age. I remain firmly sceptical though because I see little or no evidence for the influence of co2 outside of computer simulations and that is not evidence at all. Hopefully we are still climbing out of the previous cold period and will avoid another for awhile yet. It is all still very uncertain/unknown.

" If CO2 isn't the principle driver behind this what is, because in reality we should be cooling?" Interesting statement Knocker. If you believe that in reality we should be cooling then you are implying that there are other drivers besides co2 that are affecting the climate. Well i agree with that and there are various lines of observational evidence that point to solar influence and changes in oceanic cycles such as the PDO and AMO as primary drivers of the global climate. Remember that the oceans are a huge heatsink and we may well be cooling but not yet seeing the effects. Certainly there is no evidence of the so called missing heat as alledged by Trenberth. The missing hotspot and flatlining temperatures do not do the co2 hypothosis any favours at all.

Sorry, tired and some errors in the post.

Hi Knocker, good points and you are in good company with who believe just as you do. You may be right and you may not as is the case with my opinions. I do however have serious questions to ask with regard to evidence, honesty of research published in many instances and good old common sense. There is no doubt that the world has been warming since the little ice age, no argument there or with your statement "There is no question that GW has been occurring for a hundred years or so along with a similar rise in CO2 levels. The warming is supported by the physical evidence of vegetation, animals and fish moving north, glaciers shrinking, the state of the Arctic etc." is possibly accurate as well except that perhaps the warming has been a tad longer than the last hundred years with the odd cooling in between. Again I will add with shouting" THERE IS NO EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE TO SHOW THAT CO2 CAUSES GLOBAL WARMING. None, i am sorry but it is true and the only "evidence", faux evidence, is by data assumptions put in by programmers to try and simulate the temperature record as it stands. Sure,CO2 in lab conditions will result in the absorbtion and immediate immission of infrared radiation in a limited wavelength and the theory of global warming holds that this radiation will be directed in random directions instead of straight out to space thus slowing the global heat loss mechanism. This may be correct but there is no evidence to show that this is in fact occurring. If it is there appears to be something else going on to prevent this showing up as an instant warming response as it should logically do The fact that water vapour/humidity is not increasing (as predicted by models and the theory of feedback) is interesting as well.

Do not understand what you are on about Dev. Please elaborate.

Do not get your context Paul?