JC NOTE: Not for this thread, put in week in review
Two-line summary of Gregory et al. Twentieth-Century Global-Mean Sea Level Rise: Is the Whole Greater than the Sum of the Parts? (as linked by Moruh).
Conclusion 1 Sea-level rise from thermal expansion already is accelerating.
Conclusion 2 Sea-level rise from glacier-melt and ice-sheet sliding has not yet accelerated.
Summary Sea-level observations provide scant comfort to climate-change denialists.
Thank you for this fine reference, MoruH!
Really disruptive would be:
Disruptive ideas: public intellectuals and their arguments AGAINST action on climate change
Like: eradicating world poverty has far higher priority than climate change (see e.g. Lombiorg)
Muller and Dyson might be arrangable.
Hmm I’ll ask him.
I think a discussion rather than a debate would be interesting.
plus one.
nottawa rafter posts [with correction by FOMD] “The NOAA graph for NYC Battery goes back to 1850 and the
trend line shows no uptickcurve-fit shows sea-level rise acceleration of +0.0056 mm/yr^2.”
Bluff by nottawa rafter, data analysis by FOMD!
Do you ever analyze the data yourself, nottawa rafter?
Conclusion The reality of sea-level rise-rate acceleration is affirmed.
Muller has had frank discussions. He got body slammed as being a fake.
Russ Roberts would be interesting moderator
Public intellectuals in Australia tend to be public embarrassments but with the right inner-urban cheer squads. Collectivism, population control, eugenics (by sly indirection), social engineering, nature fetishism and general misanthropy – disguised or blatant – are their usual stock in trade. Climate bothering has been a perfect fit for them.
Practical intelligence has a different and more glorious history in Oz, starting with Elizabeth Macarthur just after the nation came into being. The mental accomplishments, approaching genius, of the surveyor Goider and the cattleman Kidman leave one in awe.
Clement Wragge and Sir Charles Todd are two more examples of practical intellectuals with enormous vision. And here is why, at least in the MSM, you are likely to hear less, rather than more, about these extraordinary 19th century Australians.
Dissent is a big tent;
Room, whatever your bent.
===============
Goyder, not Goider.
He was an example of what one can achieve by first observing, then, secondly, observing, and, subsequently, observing. After which, he observed.
When impatient people like me would be claiming knowledge or pleading ignorance, George Goyder would be puzzling over specks of evidence in the land, sky or water around him.
And when he came up with a theory about South Australia’s climate, impatient people would learn the hard way that Goyder’s theory was solid.
Don’t call him a public intellectual. Just say he was massively intelligent to the massive benefit of the public.
It’s always Marcia, Marcia.
===========
JCH,
Found a link where Willis deconstructed and refuted in detail.
Re:”I would say Hay and Mitovica have revealed the actual history, but we’ll see how Chambers and White and Holgate, etc. see it.” That sounds like we agree that Hay’s view needs support prior to acceptance. Adjusting 90 years of history, then saying SLR is increasing at a greater rate justs sets my radar off.
And if there indeed is a 60 year cycle correlated with PDO or not, it seems wise council that it be considered over a shorter term (even if satellite based) 20 year view. Having said that, the melting Greenland ice related water has to go somewhere. Please correct if you see a problem with my thinking.
rls, yes and Crowley and Unterman 2013 volcanic forcing tends to agree with Oppo and Rosenthal.
Oppo 2009 versus da Mann-O-matic
Crowley and Unterman 2013 for just the northern hemisphere.
Thinking about it, it is worse than I put it. It s ludicrous to suggest you can develope a method of roughly accounting for the past that provides specifics for the future and everyone should keep their mouth shut unless they have a competing model that explains the past and accounts for the future. No competing model is needed for crackpot theories (homeopathy, astrology for example). You just say “we don’t know and your illumination is false and unhelpful as it does not square with demonstrated evidence”.
Nine of what I’m saying is meant to be a criticism of any particulars of climate science, but rather of the self appointed defenders of climate alarmism who are attacking the basics of the scientific approach in order to enshrine a set of dogmas. At best if they are correct, their methods may help a battle, but long term they weaken science and progress. While they despise any rain on their parade, if you banish the clouds things will soon be unbearable.
The pro is most likely not a cycle, but it’s peak to peak is no more than 45 years. It’s not 60. The 60-year cycle is an optical illusion.
Steven, intentionally a trick paleoproxy resolution question? Take Tonyb’s high resolution CET Fig. 1 10 year smooth. From LIA to now about +2.3C. Yet Fig. 5 70 year “everyman” smooth for the same period gives only +0.9C. Coarser resolution washes out significant multidecadal variation and understates Δtemperature swings. Cannot directly compare annual or decadal Δtemperature to Δpaleoproxies. This is part of the ‘alignment/calibration’ issue. You probably knew that. Mann even got that grossly wrong—spliced temperature onto paleoproxies in his ‘Nature trick’ to ‘hide the decline’. Climategate, the gift that keeps on giving. You have probably read Montfort’s The Hockey Stick Illusion.
Highly recommended to any denizen that has not. Cheap. iBooks.
Marcott’s reconstruction has an average resolution of 180 years and a median resolution of 120. That is how his thesis turned the MWP into a little blip, almost removing it. See my essay Lets Play Hockey Again in ebook Blowing Smoke (also a previous guest post here). His Science 20th century spike constitutes academic misconduct IMO. Essay A High Stick Foul, also a previous guest post.
I really don’t like any of the Mann gang’s stuff: faulty statistics (short centered PCA) on top of known faulty treemometers (bristle cones) on top of gross treemometer selection bias (Yamal larch). Steve McIntrye has also pretty much kaiboshed the more recent but ecumenical PAGES2K.
My own favorite paleoreconstructions use NO treemometers. There are several other paleoproxy types available. Varve cores from undisturbed sediments (without Tiljander road construction inverted by PCA step 1), alkenone UK’37 cores, diatom Mg/Ca cores, pollen and formamin mat cores, speleothems, glacier ice core δ18O, ikaites,… These have coverage around the world, land and sea.
With the above huge resolution caveat, the data you ask about is:
Source MWP-LIA LIA-‘now’ Resolution
Tonyb CET na(yet) +2.3C 10 yr
‘’ +0.9C 70 yr
Landsner n=27 -1.1C +0.6C ~100 yr
Loehle n=18 -0.7C +0.8C ~100 yr
Marcott n=73 -0.6C NH INVALID ≥120 yr
-0.5C SH INVALID ≥120 yr
Ljundquist -0.7C NH +0.6CNH (includes some treemometers)
Like I said above to Tonyb, it is a real data slog, paper by paper. Category 1, calibrated temperatures but at different resolutions, as in this comment. Category 2, qualitative temperature (Vikings grew barley in Greenland; ok what is the minimum barley growing seasonal temp? Ditto grapes in England…). Category 3, qualitative. (Vikings settled in Greenland during the MWP, but did not survive the LIA). Eventually one can work out ‘a preponderance of the evidence’, maybe even ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’. That is where I am headed. Glad you ‘agree’.
Thanks for the encouragement. This is a much harder slog than I realized when started it for a book essay. Maybe some day a guest post. Thanks for the encouragement, Richard.
Oops, table response to Mosher did not post correctly; wrapped around. Just four columns. Top ‘row’ is the column headers minus spacings. All wrapped rows also minus spacings. Anyone interested can unwrap it. Sorry, late on a Friday workday my time; I took off early to write the comment. No time to fix this evening. Other comments were grabbed out of lunchtime.
JCH: Matthew R. Marler thanked me for providing this link like 24 hours ago.
So true! I hadn’t read it yet, and did not recognize it as the same paper. This has been happening to me more and more as I approach 68 years old.
![\scriptstyle\rule[2.25ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}\,\boldsymbol{\overset{\scriptstyle\circ\wedge\circ}{\smile}\,\heartsuit\,{\displaystyle\text{\bfseries!!!}}\,\heartsuit\,\overset{\scriptstyle\circ\wedge\circ}{\smile}}\ \rule[-0.25ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}](http://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=%5Cscriptstyle%5Crule%5B2.25ex%5D%7B0.01pt%7D%7B0.01pt%7D%5C%2C%5Cboldsymbol%7B%5Coverset%7B%5Cscriptstyle%5Ccirc%5Cwedge%5Ccirc%7D%7B%5Csmile%7D%5C%2C%5Cheartsuit%5C%2C%7B%5Cdisplaystyle%5Ctext%7B%5Cbfseries%21%21%21%7D%7D%5C%2C%5Cheartsuit%5C%2C%5Coverset%7B%5Cscriptstyle%5Ccirc%5Cwedge%5Ccirc%7D%7B%5Csmile%7D%7D%5C+%5Crule%5B-0.25ex%5D%7B0.01pt%7D%7B0.01pt%7D&bg=bbffcc&fg=0055ff&s=2 "\scriptstyle\rule[2.25ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}\,\boldsymbol{\overset{\scriptstyle\circ\wedge\circ}{\smile}\,\heartsuit\,{\displaystyle\text{\bfseries!!!}}\,\heartsuit\,\overset{\scriptstyle\circ\wedge\circ}{\smile}}\ \rule[-0.25ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}")
