Besides, I've been meaning to share this video since first watching it last year. Here is some very interesting and relatively new scientific understanding regarding sea levels and the changes we might come to expect.
Dr. Mitrovica does a wonderful job of explaining the interactions between melting ice sheets; gravity; and surface rebound which have enabled scientists to better estimate regional sea level rise for various geophysical scenarios.
Geophysical Evidence
Jerry Mitrovica: The Fingerprints of Sea Level Change
Jerry Mitrovica, Harvard University
Uploaded on May 18, 2011The Fingerprints of Sea Level Change
This meeting was held March 31-April 2, 2011 at the AAAS Auditorium, in Washington, D.C.
Meeting Overview
Climate science is addressing issues that require an increasingly interdisciplinary perspective, posing new challenges to scientists and to the organization and support of this science. Like other interdisciplinary activities, recognition and support of interdisciplinary climate science by the broader scientific community—including university and government administrators, journal editors and reviewers, and funding agencies—is advancing slowly.
Often it is easier to recognize ideas that would represent major advances within a discipline, than ideas that would provide major advances but cut across multiple disciplinary foundations. This circumstance poses a challenge to interdisciplinary research and may slow interdisciplinary scientific advances. Such issues are of particular significance for studies of climate impacts, which may, for example,represent linkages between physical and social science, as well as feedbacks among physical, chemical and biological systems.
This Sackler Colloquium will provide a forum for addressing these issues. Specifically: How are high-quality interdisciplinary scientific ideas best recognized and nurtured in their nascent phase? How can we improve this recognition process so as to better support interdisciplinary climate science advances? The colloquium will examine the history of successful, innovative interdisciplinary scientific advances, drawing on experience not only in climate science but also in other fields.
The purpose of the colloquium is to identify patterns in the evolutions of research in these areas. Are there common characteristics and/or principles that allowed critical efforts to succeed, thereby leading to significant advances? Did they begin as small concepts or as big, break-out ideas? How were these efforts nurtured, supported, or hindered? At what career stages were the primary researchers? How might future, novel interdisciplinary ideas in climate science be better identified?
==============
my rough notes:
2mm/yr is not anomalous - sea level has been rising at this rate for thousands of years.
Sea level change varies dramatically from place to place - melting ice sheets cannot be the culprit.
Regardless, 2mm/yr is small and stable ... it won't change.
Mass of Ice Sheets exert a gravitational force on the water. Resulting in counter-intuitive sea-level changes...
Adding water; relaxing the gravitational tug...
"Probabilistic assessment of sea level during the last interglacial stage"
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
DECIPHERING SEA LEVELS
The Gravity of Glacial Melt
by Elizabeth Gudrais | Harvard Magazine | May-June 2010
http://harvardmagazine.com/2010/05/gravity-of-glacial-melt
IN THE POPULAR imagination, sea levels rise in response to a warming climate in the same way water rises in a bathtub when the tap is turned on: evenly and uniformly around the globe.
Until nine years ago, many scientists also assumed the same thing. That’s when professor of geophysics Jerry X. Mitrovica (then at the University of Toronto) and collaborators including Harvard College Observatory associate James L. Davis reported in Nature that incorporating glaciers’ gravitational pull into the equations used to describe sea-level changes would help explain the extreme variation scientists were already seeing around the world.
The equations then in wide use accurately described the trend in average sea level worldwide—a rise of about two millimeters per year in the twentieth century—but couldn’t explain why actual observed conditions in many places did not conform to that average. . . link
==========================================================
In response to Dave Burton's comments and seeing that he's a champion for Nils-Axel Morner one of the most well known sea level rise contrarian scientists who claims the world's scientists are in on a conspiracy and that sea level rise is nothing for us to worry about, or think about for that matter.
Dr. Nils-Axel Morner's Maldives Tree - what's up with that? | June 27, 2013
~ ~ ~
Nils-Axel Mörner - bio
~ ~ ~
Official complaint from President of the Russian Academy of Sciences
Dr. Mörner has misrepresented his position with INQUA (International Union for Quaternary Research) | July 21, 2004
~ ~ ~
Damning evidence of fraud by Nils Axel-Morner
Posted on November 10, 2009 by Dale Husband
~ ~ ~
Kook Lies About ‘Lies’
So who is Nils-Axel Mörner, and how is he able to see these things that every other scientist in the world can’t?Well, in addition to his activities “debunking” climate change, Mörner is also an enthusiast of dowsing and water witching.And he has some very weird ideas about archaeology. See here, here, here, and here.And he is associated with fringe wacko/antisemite/conspiracy theorist Lyndon LaRouche. Here’s an interview (PDF) he did with the LaRouche publication Executive Intelligence Review.And he is an “allied expert” with the Natural Resources Stewardship Project, a group that is controlled by energy industry lobbyists.
~ ~ ~
Nils-Axel Mörner is Wrong About Sea Level Rise
Posted on 6 December 2011 by dana1981
___________________________________________________________
Here's an interesting take on my new pal Dave Burton:
Denier Weirdness: David Burton @wattsupwiththat finally has a 97% brain wave! | December 11, 2013
If you haven't realised by now, one of the things that keeps fake sceptics awake at night is trying to figure out ways to reject the fact that climate science shows that humans are causing global warming.
Yesterday on WUWT one fake sceptic, David Burton, published a long article (archived here) telling us how for the last year and a half, he's been thinking of how to protest the Doran and Zimmerman paper, published almost five years ago.
(Mike H in the comments below provides a bit of background on David Burton, Science Denier Third Class and "Expert Reviewer" of the IPCC AR5 WG1 First Order Draft - trying to inflict Foreign Object Damage.)
He's come up with such a clever way of protesting the results. In a 680 word "guest essay" on WUWT he explains that it's not 75 out of 77 climate scientists, including contrarians, who responded to a survey who agree that: human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperature. It's really "only" 75 out of 79 (even though two of those 79 didn't answer the question).
He tells us he's even written to the journal demanding a correction to a non-error in the paper that was published almost five years ago in January 2009! He says this snippet from a longer sentence is wrong: "97.4% (75 of 77) answered yes". David Burton doesn't dispute the fact that 75 answered yes. David Burton doesn't dispute the fact that 77 climate scientists answered the question. What David argues is that Doran and Zimmerman should have added to the 77 two responses that didn't exist.
547.5 days and nights sweating over a five year old paper
All I can say is "Wow!" Just think. It only took David Burton 547.5 days and nights of fretting about this five year old paper before finally having such a number-fudging brainwave! (I wonder how long it will take him to compute that the earth isn't flat?)
Doran, P. T., and M. K. Zimmerman (2009), Examining the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change, Eos Trans. AGU, 90(3), 22–23, doi:10.1029/2009EO030002.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Dave Burton is one of the directors of NC-20, the group behind the North Carolina legislation that outlawed sea level rise.
I see that he is labelling himself a "IPCC AR5 WG1 Expert Reviewer".
Tamino has a takedown of him here.
The following is quite amusing if you recall the reaction to the Heartland leaks. If not, here is a reprise.
The 71 year old veteran Col Walmsley spotted Burton as a fraud immediately.
"The second letter scolds me. It is from a Mr. Dave Burton who follows his name with an impressive series of letters and numbers that are meaningless to me. Perhaps someone can decode for me. It appears that he uses IPCC to try to attach him self to that organization, but the “Expert Reviewer” makes me think he is a denier who reviews the work of IPCC to discredit it. Any helpers here. In my carear as a pilot, FOD meant Foreign Object Damage. I wonder if that is what it means here."
A little late but if you go to the IPCC review, not one of Dave Burton's recommendations were accepted. He's such a waste of time. Oh yes N. Carolina has over turned the law making sea level rise illegal Bwahahaha... you can go thru the IPCC report and see Mr. Burton's comments... https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/drafts/Ch13_WG1AR5FOD_RevCommResponses_Final.pdf
24 comments:
Please add me to the email list for your blog. Thanks!
Parts of Prof. Mitrovica's talk were very interesting, particularly his discussion of how melting ice sheets affect the Earth's mass distribution, and hence its gravity field, which, in turn, causes non-intuitive effects on sea-level.
However, he also got some things badly wrong. I have a detailed critique here:
http://www.sealevel.info/mitrovica_cmts01.html
Dave Burton, I gave you the benefit of the doubt and posted your comment before reviewing your link. I have now looked at it and am appalled at your malicious crazy making. In fact, what you are doing fit's right under what some consider criminal negligence. Check it out: Is CO2Science.org 'criminally negligent'? Why not consider it?
______________________
Now to your link, it starts: "The great bulk of scientific evidence indicates that anthropogenic CO2 is beneficial to both mankind and natural ecosystems, and the warming which results from it is modest and benign.
Atmospheric CO2 is the basic building block of plant life, from which Atmospheric CO2 is the basic building block of plant life, from which plants extract the carbon they need. …"
It's utter malicious nonsense trying to conflate what CO2 does in our atmosphere with it's biological role in life. It's like your trying your best to confuse, rather than clarify.
You are all concerned about CO2 what about predictable weather patterns and their role in producing bumper crops???
What about about the upheaval as Plant Hardiness Zone are marching towards the poles and higher elevations???
What about the disruption of age old pollinator and blossoming timing, and mountain water melt rates???
Or the role glaciers forms as anchors to regional weather patters and hydrology systems???
I really hate the way this sounds, but it is so appropriate for the likes of you: "IT'S THE ATMOSPHERIC INSULATION STUPID !"
All your handwaving is merely arrogant self-certainty driven self-delusion coupled with a profound disconnect from our physical planet > acting out for power political reasons. Got nothing to do with learning about our planet.
You are a con artist of the highest order Mr. Burton and what you are doing is contemptible!
PS. How ironic, you write: "Unfortunately, the National Academy of Sciences is censoring comments on YouTube."
Yet, you don't allow for comments under your string of shear misrepresentations and creative nonsense - which all the while ignores all evidence that doesn't fit into your neat echo-chamber story.
(excuse the typos))
Your complaint that I "don't allow for comments" on my critique is misplaced. I first posted my comments on YouTube, on Prof. Mitrovica's video. The reason you can't see them there, and respond to them, is that the NAS won't let you. If the NAS hadn't "ghosted" my comments on Prof. Mitrovica's video, you could have responded there. But they don't allow critical comments there, so I posted my comments on my own web site.
My sealevel.info web site is not a blog. It doesn't run Wordpress or any other CM or blogging software, so there's no provision for reader comments. But if you (or anyone else) find any errors, please let me know, and I will correct them.
You asked, "what about predictable weather patterns and their role in producing bumper crops" and the disruption caused by anthropogenic climate change?
The answer is in the data. Thus far there's no evidence that anthropogenic climate change is causing extreme weather events, or adversely affecting weather patterns in any other way. It certainly hasn't adversely affected agricultural productivity:
http://sealevel.info/image024_agricultural_productivity_1958_to_2004.jpg
(The red line is CO2.)
You wrote, "It's utter malicious nonsense trying to conflate what CO2 does in our atmosphere with it's biological role." That's wrong in two different ways:
1. The fact that you're unfamiliar with something does not make it "malicious nonsense." Every word I wrote is true. If you learn more about the climate issue, what you'll discover is verification of what I wrote.
Environmentalist David Siegel has already trod that path. Here he shares What I Learned about Climate Change:
http://www.climatecurious.com/
He learned a lot, and so can you.
2. It is a fundamental error to try to separate what CO2 does in our atmosphere with its biological role. They're intimately connected.
Have you ever wondered about the high level of free oxygen in the Earth's atmosphere?
On Venus and Mars nearly all the oxygen in the atmosphere is in the form of CO2. O2 is nearly non-existent, because it is highly reactive, and combines with other elements to make less-reactive, more stable molecules, like CO2, H2O, SO2, etc.
But on Earth, other than some water vapor, >99% of the oxygen in the atmosphere is in the form of O2. Only 0.2% is in CO2, despite fires and animal respiration which constantly produce CO2 from O2.
Have you ever wondered why?
The correct answer is that it's because CO2-hungry living things have stripped nearly all the CO2 from the atmosphere, to get the carbon, releasing the O2 as a waste product. That's why, although 21% of the Earth's atmosphere is oxygen, carbon dioxide levels are measured in parts-per-million.
The CO2/O2 balance is determined by a race between plants and animals. Animals use O2 and produce CO2; plants use CO2 and produce O2. But there are a lot more plants than animals, and in the tug-o-war between plants and animals the plants have won. They've tugged the CO2-O2 tug-of-war rope all the way to the end. Animals are relatively scarce, compared to photosynthetic plants, and the plants have used up nearly all the CO2. The animals just can't produce enough CO2 to keep up.
The plants would use much more CO2, but they ran out of it. The chronic shortage of CO2 in the Earth's atmosphere is the primary limit on plant growth. That's why anthropogenic CO2 emissions, which have increased atmospheric CO2 from about 0.03% in the 1940s to about 0.04% today, are directly responsible for 15%-20% of current agricultural productivity.
If CO2 were still at 0.03% instead of the current 0.04% of the atmosphere, we'd need 18-25% more land under cultivation, just to maintain current agricultural output. If all the world's rain forests were put under cultivation, that would almost, but not quite, make up the deficit. The rain forests can thank their continued existence to anthropogenic CO2!
You are malicious liar and right now my day is too crowded that this internet connection too flakey to give your devious misleading response it's due, though in time I certainly will.
Sea level -
http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2015/05/sea-level-rise-accelerating-faster-thought
http://www.climatecentral.org/news/sea-level-rise-accelerating-18543
Extreme weather damaging crops -
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v529/n7584/full/nature16467.html
http://wqad.com/2015/07/28/extreme-weather-takes-toll-on-illinois-crops-and-farms/
http://cropwatch.unl.edu/usda-nrcs-funding-aid-storm-damaged-crops
You do your work within an echo chamber, and you believe by ignoring information and creative manipulation of words you've created an air tight justification for pretending that we haven't set our planet on a course for a profound decimation of this biosphere that's been created over the past hundreds of millions of years.
Now that I've twice show you the courtesy of posting your spiele, please answer my simple question: What's your justification for conflating Carbon Dioxide's role in our atmosphere with Carbon's role in our biosphere -
Please provide your rational.
...that would be "now that I've twice shown you the courtesy… Please provide your rationale"
PS. for those interested in learning a little more about Carbon's role in creating this world we know, it takes more than reading a few paragraphs of soundbites - it requires some serious person curiosity and initiative to do the homework and study and spend time thinking about how it all fits together.
Here's an easy introduction: Appreciating Earth's Climate -
Who says understanding Earth’s Evolution is irrelevant?
http://whatsupwiththatwatts.blogspot.com/p/understanding-earth.html
[part 1 of 2]
I do not lie, Citizenschallenge.
W/r/t sea-level, you need to take those satellite altimetry figures with about a gallon of salt. They simply are not trustworthy. E.g., at the end of the ENVISAT mission, Aviso massively revised the entire decade-long measurement record, tripling the reported rate of sea-level rise. I have a great deal of information on this topic on my web site, here:
http://www.sealevel.info/resources.html#satellite
The tide gauge measurements are far more reliable, and they measure sea-level whwere it matters: at the coast. (Satellite altimetry can't measure sea-level at the coasts.) The best coastal measurements show no sustained acceleration in the last 85 years. Even President Obama's former Undersecretary for Science, Steven Koonin, a devout liberal, wrote that:
"Even though the human influence on climate was much smaller in the past, the models do not account for the fact that the rate of global sea-level rise 70 years ago was as large as what we observe today."
Here're some relevant papers:
http://sealevel.info/papers.html#acceleration
I don't know anything about you, so please do not take this question the wrong way: do you know how to recognize "acceleration" in a graph? If you don't, I can explain it to you; just ask. Or you could ask Google:
http://www.google.com/search?q=how+to+recognize+acceleration+in+a+graph
If you do know how to recognize acceleration in a graph, then when you look at the sea-level graphs from any of the best tide gauge measurement records around the world, you'll certainly recognize that sea-level rise is not noticeably accelerating.
The great majority of the human contribution to atmospheric CO2 levels has been since the 1940s. If CO2 were driving sea-level rise, then the rate of sea-level rise should have accelerated since then. Can you see the post-1940s anthropogenic surge in sea-level rise, in this graph?
http://www.sealevel.info/680-140_Sydney_2016-04.png
That was a trick question, of course. You can't see the anthropogenic surge because there was none.
Every high-quality, long-term coastal sea-level measurement record in the world shows the same thing: adding nearly 100 ppmv of CO2 (and nearly 0.8 ppmv methane) to the atmosphere has not detectably affected the rate of sea-level rise.
When atmospheric CO2 was under 0.031%, >85 years ago, globally averaged sea-level rise at the coasts was just under +1.5 mm/year.
With CO2 at 0.040%, SLR at the coasts is still just under +1.5 mm/year.
Despite increased groundwater pumping and decreased dam construction, both of which should have been expected to cause a slight acceleration in sea-level rise, the measured rate of coastal sea-level rise hasn't measurably accelerated since the 1920s. That suggests that climate-driven sea-level rise has actually slowed slightly, even as CO2 has increased from under 0.031% to over 0.040% of the dry atmosphere, by volume.
[to be cont'd in part 2]
[part 2 of 2]
You are certainly correct that extreme weather damages crops. However, there's scant evidence that extreme weather is driven by anthropogenic GHGs.
Have you noticed how long it's been since a major hurricane hit the USA? 125 months! It's the longest in recorded history. Worldwide storminess actually seems to have decreased slightly, rather than increased, as greenhouse gas levels have gone up. In fact, as GHG levels have risen, the worldwide frequency of extreme weather events has actually declined slightly:
http://policlimate.com/tropical/frequency_12months.png
There's no obvious causal mechanism for GHGs to decrease storminess, so it's probably just coincidence. Nevertheless, it is certainly strong evidence that anthropogenic GHGs do not significantly worsen extreme weather.
You asked, "What's your justification for conflating Carbon Dioxide's role in our atmosphere with Carbon's role in our biosphere?"
I'm sorry if I was not clear. Thanks to the activity of living things, there is 500x as much O2 in the atmosphere as CO2 (by volume). If Earth were a dead planet, like Venus and Mars, then the ratio would be reversed: there would be hundreds or thousands of times as much CO2 in the atmosphere as O2, just as there is on Venus and Mars.
So it is a mistake to try to separate the discussion of CO2 in the atmosphere from its role in the biosphere. They are intrinsically connected.
For instance, the IPCC estimates that, each year, either 27% or 29% of anthropogenic CO2 emissions are removed from the atmosphere through "greening," otherwise known as the "fertilization effect" of CO2, which causes accelerated plant growth. It's a "negative feedback" machanism: as CO2 levels go up, plants remove more CO2 from the atmosphere, reducing CO2 levels, and thus attenuating the effect of CO2 emissions. On p. 6-3 of AR5 they give these numbers:
"During 2002–2011, atmospheric CO2 concentration increased at a rate of 2.0 ± 0.1 ppm yr–1 (equivalent to 4.3 ± 0.2 PgC yr–1 54 ); the ocean and the natural terrestrial ecosystems also increased at a rate of 2.4 ± 0.7 PgC yr–1 and 2.5 ± 1.3 PgC yr–1 55, respectively."
That would work out to:
4.3 / (4.3+2.4+2.5) = 4.3 / 9.2 = 47% remained in the atmosphere
2.5 / 9.2 = 27% went into the biosphere ("greening")
2.4 / 9.2 = 26% went into the ocean
Their figure 6.1 gives slightly different numbers:
http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/figures/WGI_AR5_Fig6-1_errata.jpg
2.6 / (7.8 + 1.1) = 2.6 / 8.9 = 29% went into the biosphere ("greening")
2.3 / 8.9 = 26% went into the ocean
(8.9 - (2.6+2.3)) / 8.9 = 45% remained in the atmosphere
(Disclosure: I was an Expert Reviewer on the IPCC's AR5 Report.)
A) I just got home and don't have the time or interest right now. Except to say NO.
I've posted enough of your echo-chamber comments, time for you to deal with some sunshine baby!
ANSWER MY SIMPLE QUESTION if you want to proceed.
To repeat:
Now that I've twice show you the courtesy of posting your spiele, please answer my simple question:
What's your justification for conflating Carbon Dioxide's role in our atmosphere with Carbon's role in our biosphere
Please provide your rational, not a lot of fancy rhetorical dancing. Why do you feel justified ignoring know physics, physics that a large number of modern marvels depend on the scientists and engineers getting right. NO maybe - thoroughly understood!
Your turn Mr. Burton.
your rationale !
ncdave4life at 7:20 PM.
Mr. Burton,
You did not even get close to responding to this question:
What's your justification for conflating
Carbon Dioxide's role in our atmosphere
with Carbon's role in our biosphere ?
Also, I have a new rule, write your comments in plain english, without coding.
Respond to that question in an honest straight forward constructive manner.
If you can.
ncdave4life at 3:43 AM
No! Telling me you answered is not an answer.
Repeating that answer in plan english would be an answer.
Also I will not be posted coded comments - I don't like the tricky dick stuff.
I'll repeat, if you have something worth saying and sharing -> please use plain straightforward english here.
Let's see if you can offer a simple serious answer, sans the gish gallops.
(fyi - I do reserve the right to use your comments in a stand alone article, if/when time and interest permits.)
Alternately, how about sharing some of your coding technique?
http://www.centerforinquiry.net/forums/viewthread/18672/#223657
ncdave4life at 9:58 PM - Please don't talk to me about nerve. I asked you to present your case without CODING.
Want courtesy? Here:
ncdave4life at 5/15/16 9:58 PM writes:
"Here ????? some plain English for you, Citizenschallenge you ????? got a lot of chutzpah asking me more questions. If you want my help, you could start by show me some courtesy"
ncdave4life on 5/14/16:
"You asked, ????? your justification for conflating Carbon Dioxide's ????? role in our atmosphere with Carbon's ????? role in our biosphere ????? sorry if I was not clear."
_____________________________________________________________________
I'm not muzzling you, type it up the old fashioned way.
I actually would give your comments much more attention, but unfortunately, heavy duty working season is upon me and unfortunately I gotta jump for them right now. When things calm down I'm sure I'll have more time to spend on your game.
Like I said type it up in plan english, I'll even accept links, but cut the coding bullshit buddy.
This is supposed to be a dialogue between us, not a free billboard for you. ;- )
ncdave4life at 4:09 AM
writes: "1" when I quote little snippets from two of my censored comments, why did you change the word &?????; and several other innocuous texts, to five question marks."
"innocuous" you a funny fellow.
Thick as a brick, you appear to be.
I have told you to comment in plain english not with a bunch of tricky dick coding. If you can't show that courtesy I certainly am not obligated to provide you with a free billboard. Why not open your blog to comments?
This is suppose to be a discussion between us.
Dave, I do apologize for seeming to ignore you, believe me I would love nothing better than to spend the next day or two focusing on your comments. A lot to work with there. It will make a great vehicle for examinating the echo-chamber and to explore your willful disconnect from the full spectrum of Earth observations.
However, your timing has been unfortunate since I'm neck deep in projects I can't opt out of.
But, this shall pass and I will surely be spending a bunch of time with your comments.
Good day sir.
Ncdave, let the debate begin.
I had an unexpected day off, so have had a chance to review your first comment.
I have posted your comment along with my detailed review at WUWTW,
"#1 considering malicious mischief in action: ncdave4life"http://whatsupwiththatwatts.blogspot.com/2016/05/1malicious-mischief-ncdave4life.html
______________________________________________________________
Oh and Dave, I really didn't mean it when I said I wouldn't post any deviously coded comments.
Guess I really meant I would do it at my pace.
So, lets go ahead see what your next gift package has to offer.
The comments get filed in chronological order of submission and not approval.
You can find Dave B's next offering at
May 14, 2016 at 10:43 AM
May 14, 2016 at 10:45 AM
Dave, regarding your brag about being an IPCC Expert Reviewer, it's another example how you folks pump yourselves up with nothing but hot air trying lend authority to your self-certain but contrived claims.
– all it means is that you asked to see the draft report. The only real requirement to be a reviewer is to sign an agreement not to publicly comment on the draft. ( check it out http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2006/05/09/you-too-can-be-a-leading-clima) or to be formal:
New Zealand Climate Change Centre -
1. First Order Draft: Expert Review
Author teams work for months drafting the First Order Draft.
When the First Order Draft is ready for review, a notice is sent out to a wide group of experts inviting them to register through the website of the appropriate Working Group for participation as reviewers. A notice is also placed on the IPCC website advising that review is underway. Experts who have not received an invitation but would like to review the draft are able to advise the Working Group Technical Support Units of this. Expert reviewers are issued with a username and password to access the first order drafts online.
- See more at: https://www.nzclimatechangecentre.org/ipcc/expert_review#sthash.lMdGC94d.dpuf
________________________________________________________________________________
Regarding the sea level.info list of papers - most of those papers are junk and flunk the basic scientific principles you espouse.
And highlighting people like the fraud Morner - here I got the picture to prove what I'm claiming:
http://whatsupwiththatwatts.blogspot.com/2013/06/dr-nils-axel-morners-maldives-tree.html
Mr Burton, regarding your boast of being an IPCC "Expert" reviewer, am I supposed to be impressed. Did you think I wasn't going to try and find your review comments?
A search shows you had two comments, though the first was not comment, it was a mistake and you were informed your form wasn't properly filled out and couldn't be processed. The second comment and response is interesting in it's own right. Unfortunately, you display that contrarian ability to refuse all learning opportunities, as it seems you didn't learn a thing from being corrected.
https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/drafts/Ch00_WG1AR5FOD_RevCommResponses_Final.pdf
IPCC Review - Comment number 0-12
(Mr. Burton writes)
The report contains multiple citations of studies depending on GISS ModelE, but inexplicably omits the critical analysis of GISS model E performance in Scafetta's latest papers: N. Scafetta, “Empirical evidence for a celestial origin of the climate oscillations and its implications”. Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics 72, 951–970 (2010), doi:10.1016/j.jastp.2010.04.015 http://www.fel.duke.edu/~scafetta/pdf/scafetta-JSTP2.pdf
N. Scafetta, “Testing an astronomically based decadal-scale empirical harmonic climate model versus the IPCC (2007) general circulation climate models” Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics, in press. DOI: 10.1016/j.jastp.2011.12.005. http://www.fel.duke.edu/~scafetta/pdf/Scafetta_models_comparison_ATP.pdf
In these papers it is argued that the global surface temperature presents clear evidences of a strong harmonic component associated to astronomical cycles. All climate models used by the IPCC have failed to reproduce these harmonics. Here's an extended comment/summary of the above papers: http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2012/01/10/global-warming-no-natural-predictable-climate-change/
Here's one in Swedish, but you can translate it with Google translator: http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF- 8&layout=2&eotf=1&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.theclimatescam.se%2F2012%2F01%2F17%2Fmer-harmonisk- analys%2F
[David Burton, USA]
__________________________
IPCC Response"
Noted -- the papers referred to by the reviewer clearly state that there is no known physical mechanism to explain the proposed celestial modulation of climate, and so this is not included in the physically-based models whose results are assessed in this report, in particular in Chapter 9 "Evaluation of Climate Models".
More specifically, the second paper by Scafetta referred to by the reviewer claims that not only the GISS but all climate models assessed in the IPCC reports significantly underestimate the magnitude of 20 and 60 years cycles apparently seen in the reconstructed global temperature.
However, irrespective of whether the above mentioned periodicities are real or an artifact of the statistical analysis, this fact alone does not challenge validity of current climate models.
Please note that the role of various known forcings is assessed comprehensively in Chapter 10 of the report.
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Well that does impress me, though not the way you're hoping, I'm sure.
Your science is dependent on remaining confined to your echo-chamber and rejecting everything else.
You manage to cling to your storyline only by studiously ignoring most of the available information and screaming that everyone who doesn't agree with you is a cheat or stupid, no matter how rational and systematic their attempts, to explain the science to you, are.
ncdave4life, at 1:40PM, 6/11/16 wrote two posts - of which I choose to reprint one key line: "Are you ever going to approve the rest of my comments, citizenschallenge?"
My response:
Hell no. Not until you rationally respond to the thoughtful critiques of your three comments. Like I told you before, I'm not a billboard for you!
Now Mr. Burton, my question for you:
ARE YOU GOING TO CONTINUE IGNORING MY CRITIQUE OF YOUR FIRST COMMENT?
I have addressed your first comment:
May 17, 2016
#1 considering malicious mischief in action: ncdave4life
http://whatsupwiththatwatts.blogspot.com/2016/05/1malicious-mischief-ncdave4life.html
I published your second and third comments with the intention of reviewing them, but the weather cleared up and life is busy and I have more pressing priorities.
Besides, it didn't take much searching to find that much more informed individuals than I have taken the time to describe the many falsehoods you employ. It gave me an easy out, since I promised to review those comments, I'll let these folks fill in the story for me.
Now it's your turn with you want to play.
________________________________________
May 18, 2016
The Seamonster does Dave Burton's sea level claims.
http://whatsupwiththatwatts.blogspot.com/2016/05/seamonster-does-dave-burton.html
The NC sea level rise saga: reply to Dave Burton
Posted on Monday, June 18th, 2012
http://theseamonster.net/2012/06/the-nc-sea-level-rise-saga-reply-to-dave-burton/
Dave Burton of NC 20 published a reply here to recent post I did about natural and human-caused sea level rise, “Sea Level Rise 101“. This is a reply to his post and a clarification of some of his many misconceptions about sea level rise science.
I want to start by saying that my interests in the NC sea level rise issue are not at all political. I am neutral on what coastal communities should do as adaptation measures to sea level rise and other impacts of climate change. ...
________________________________________
May 26, 2016
HOTWHOPPER does Dave Burton's sea level claims
http://whatsupwiththatwatts.blogspot.com/2016/05/hotwhopper-does-dave-burton-claims.html
~ ~ ~
Dave Burton wants to level the seas at WUWT
http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2016/04/dave-burton-wants-to-level-seas-at-wuwt.html
Over at WUWT, deniers are clutching at straws to continue to reject science in the face of all the "hottest evers". They really, really liked the last big El Nino in 1997-98, but they really, really dislike this current El Nino of 2015-16. It means they'll have to wait a while before they can start pointing to a drop in the surface temperature although Anthony Watts keeps jumping the gun and is excitedly telling his readers that a La Nina is just about here.
Here is some of what they got up to today, with a moan and lots of misdirection from a WUWT regular commenter called Dave Burton about another bane of deniers' existence - rising seas (archived here). But first, what's been happening...
_____________________________________________________________
Mr David Burton,
I have shown you good faith and posted your comments, now it's time for you to show some intellectual integrity and respond to the many examples of how you manipulate and ignore various scientific facts in pursuit of your foisting your Rainbow Realtor's Reality onto an apathetic public.
oops,
whiny "comments", not posts.
Mr. Burton @ 10:45PM, I have made myself clear. Let me do it one more time. This time please shut down that dialogue in your head long enough to listen to what I'm telling you. This is not a negotiation. You won't even show me the courtesy of writing straight text, you still feel compelled to pack it full of your tricky dick coding, despite my request. You don't kid me, you aren't acting in good faith. You've got a malicious game going, rather than and honorable attempt to communicate with an 'opponent.'
I have made myself clear: Straight text, no tricky dick coding. I'm not your billboard!
Furthermore, I have taken the time to review your first comment and write up my observations. It is your turn to systematically respond to my claims, in a clear good faith matter.
I don't give a rat's ass for your games or how many points you score within your echo-chamber.
I deal in the real world! Come on down.
B) If you have the intellectual integrity you are welcome to continue this dialogue by visiting WUWTW and responding to the thoughtful constructive critique of your claims. We don't need to like each other to have a constructive dialogue.* Respond to my specific and clearly defined critique of your first comment.
Heck, send me an email for a guest post, I'll post it,
So long as you respond specifically to one of those three posts,
each of which seriously examines, critiques, and describes your various claims,
while providing supporting evidence for why your claims are rhetorically crafted but fundamentally misleading and willfully deceptive.
Can you handle scrutiny sir?
http://whatsupwiththatwatts.blogspot.com/2016/05/1malicious-mischief-ncdave4life.html
http://whatsupwiththatwatts.blogspot.com/2016/05/seamonster-does-dave-burton.html
http://whatsupwiththatwatts.blogspot.com/2016/05/hotwhopper-does-dave-burton-claims.html
Incidentally Dave, Citizenschallenge.blogspot has become my non-confrontational, debate free zone. My more assertive, let's debate, activities moved to WhatsUpWithThatWatts.blogspot.com five years ago, which explains why I've moved your stuff over there. Just in case you are wondering.
Over there the rules of serious constructive debate hold sway!
*That would be as opposed to the lawyerly politician's circus-debate
Post a Comment