Inhofe recycles long-debunked denier talking points 7

Comments View as Flat

1. 

   Luddhunter2 Posted 7:33 am
   12 Dec 2008

   Thanks for the unexpected gift!Joe,
   
   I think our therapy sessions on this blog have produced a breakthrough, though you have clearly gone off the alarmist reservation with some amazing concessions:
   
   
   Many wild predictions of sea rise may not be true.  You post a graph that shows 3.3mm/yr sea rise, and call it a crisis.  That's about 11 inches by 2100.  This is a new kind of alarmism, Oceanoholmesophobia, the fear of catastrophe resulting from the sea rising the equivalent length of deceased porn star John Holmes' moneymaker, over 90 years!
   Tech breakthroughs may not in fact result from banning existing tech.  This is off the reservation, because ban-firsters uniformly claim that the breakthroughs in tech are just waiting for the bans, and they will immediately hit the market.  I expect you will get a call from the Pope or one of his cardinals when he gets back from warming the air in Poznan.
   You admit scientific consensus is in fact, not achieved on armageddonistic AGW.  This one will really get your chestnuts roasted on an open fire.
   
   
   With your new concessions, I cannot see the doom. Thanks for the early present, Joe.  Now I have to run out and try and find you an organic fruit basket....did you hear it's snowing in New Orleans?   Have a white and cold and environmentally merry Xmas!
   The Luddhunter
   
   

   Permalink

2. 

   Black Wallaby Posted 9:06 am
   13 Dec 2008

   Joe's Analysis of Sea Level GraphJoe, you quoted Anthony Watts concerning your first graph above
   
   "It looks like the steady upward trend of sea level as measured by satellite has stumbled since 2005. The 60 day line in blue tells the story."
   
   What Watts is in effect saying, is that the blue smoothed line should be assessed and not the suggested black linear trend.  You then responded with:
   
   "Does it look to you like the recent data shows that the rate of sea-level rise has slowed, as Watts says, let alone stopped, as Inhofe suggests? If so, I suggest you get your eyes checked. In particular, look at the most recent data points at the upper right. They are precisely on the long-term trend."
   Below is your ex University Colorado graph, slightly modified by me in two ways, the first (left), with ONLY the original straight trend-line removed.  If you concentrate on this one first, and apply an old trick of the trade, of squinting the eyes, you should be able to see that the blue smoothed line, (and the raw data), would not fit well with a linear trend-line, especially in recent rears.   This is the point that Watts is correctly making.
   
   Just to make it absolutely clear, the graph to the right below has a curvilinear trend line added that I suggest has a good fit with the raw data. Thus Watts is totally correct in commenting:
   
   "It looks like the steady upward trend of sea level as measured by satellite has stumbled since 2005. The 60 day line in blue tells the story."
   
   Of course that does not mean that this short-term trend will continue, but that was not the point that either you or he were making.
   <img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3248/3106059818_76b520e0f0_o.png" width="525" height="167" alt="SeaLevelpshrunk">
   IF no image appears above, click link below:
   
   http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3248/3106059818_76b520e0f0 ...

   Permalink

3. 

   Black Wallaby Posted 9:51 am
   13 Dec 2008

   Joe's Analysis of Sea Level Graph (Contin)Joe, further to my post above, I would like to query this statement of yours in your lead article:
   "Does it look to you like the recent data shows that the rate of sea-level rise has slowed, as Watts says, let alone stopped, as Inhofe suggests? If so, I suggest you get your eyes checked..."
   I've since been through your references, and could not find anything suggesting that sea-level rise has stopped, as you say here:
   
   "...rate of sea-level rise has slowed, as Watts says, let alone stopped, as Inhofe suggests?..."
   Would you please advise where you got this "stopped" accusation from?

   Permalink

4. 

   rhjames Posted 2:36 pm
   13 Dec 2008

   Real dataGlobal temperature has been increasing slightly over the past 160 years (except for the past 11). So they should - we're still coming out of the little ice age (check the past 1,000 years). Ocean level is rising - yes they are in some areas - they've been rising for the past 20,000 years, though slower in recent times.
   Why is all this suddenly blamed on CO2? It's an hypothesis, and I'm yet to find any real data to back it up. The climate models are of no use - they failed to predict to past 11 years of cooling, and aren't based on real data. We can show that for the past 10 years, CO2 concentration has increased 5%, but Earth's climate has stubbornly refused to take any notice. Some say it will bounce back in a few years, but this is only theory. Can someone please produce some evidence to back this up?

   Permalink

5. 

   Bob Wallace Posted 2:51 pm
   13 Dec 2008

   Which planet you live on?Down here on planet Earth temperatures have been rising during the last 11 years.  We had one weird  high spike back a few years ago when we had a very usual el Nino event, noise happens.
   http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2007/Fig1_2007annual.gi ...
   BTW, if you go to the first page of this site and look toward the bottom you'll find "How to Talk to a Denier".  All your 'stuff' answered there....)
   
   

   Permalink

6. 

   Black Wallaby Posted 4:13 pm
   13 Dec 2008

   Trying to keep on topic:Re the two posts from above
   
   (1) rhjames at 9:36 PM
   
   (2) Bob Wallace at 9:51 PM
   
   I found (1) to be of very lucid interest, and in particular the concluding question:
   
   "Can someone please produce some evidence to back this up?"
   
   And; it to be of significant interest.
   
   However, I found (2) to be a bit confused, and for starters recommend that BobW explore some other data such as at Hadley, and the various graphical smoothing techniques which are arbitrarily employed around the church.
   However, regardless of what the two authors above wrote, I would like to suggest that we should try to remain ON TOPIC, which concerns Joe's attack on the "Inhofe 650", and his attempted assassination of some individuals within that 650 group of rationalists.

   Permalink

7. 

   Bob Wallace Posted 4:24 pm
   13 Dec 2008

   asdfWallaby - I've read some of your stuff.
   You're about as useful to a rational discussion as tits on a boar.  You and jabailo....

   Permalink