I covered the basics of the update yesterday and there has been some interesting discussion so far. Some of the ideas are mere suggestions and others are based on the information that the Sea Level Research Group (SLRG) has put out on their website. So I am going to discuss three different aspects of the update. First will be the Glacial Isostatic Adjustment (GIA) that they are using to justify the 0.3 mm/yr increase in the data. Then the suggestion that recent La Nina’s have caused the rate of sea level rise to decrease in the recent past. Finally I will show the acceleration of the new data.
You are currently browsing the archives for May, 2011.
I have to say I was looking forward to the eventual release of the Global Sea level data from the University of Colorado because it was clear from the last update in August that 2010 was going to show a significant drop in sea level from 2009 and I was curious how it would be dealt with. Now it is clear that the latest update included a substantial revision to the data, not just the recent data, but all the data. I guess I should not be surprised by this as it has happened with numerous other data sets. If the data doesn’t support your view, do a revision that fixes the problem.
Nor is this a trivial change. It adds on average 2.6 mm to the global sea level, but not surprisingly it does so more as time goes forward. That average of 2.6 mm is from 1993-2010. The average difference in 2009-2010 is a stunning 4.7mm. After enough tweaking they managed to get 2010 to show a minor increase in sea level from 2009. Here is the version difference between the data that was released last fall and the most recent version.
The IPCC has released a “draft” report about energy usage for the Earth that might be the worst piece of science ever produced to date by any UN body. That is an incredible achievement in futility. I started writing about it and ended up needing a series of articles to cover just how bad this report really is. The ideas included in this report are so absurd that they make perpetual motion appear reasonable. Dissecting this much bad information will take some time, so I am going to spend the next week or two slowly tearing this thing to pieces. It is so bad that it deserves this kind of detailed attention. I might wrap up early if I finish up, but I will have to include some articles that explain the real science so I can point out just how bad this report really is.
Everything that actually needs to be known about the latest major “draft”report from the IPCC is that the lead author is the renewable energy director of Greenpeace International by the name of Sven Teske. If that doesn’t reek of conflict of interest then nothing ever will. That single fact alone is enough to make me disregard the entire report out of hand because putting someone with a known and vested interest in renewable energy in charge of an international report on the future of the worlds energy ensures the conclusion of the report. There is not even an attempt to make this appear legitimate. That is truly audacious.
The La Nina of last fall has been fading of late even though the ENSO index continues to be negative. Since it is obvious that global temperatures are impacted by ENSO events (more on that here) I started trying to figure out what is going to happen for the coming fall when the Pacific Ocean will be determining the type of winter that North America and parts of Asia will be having later in the year.
My method was simple and didn’t use a single super computer or GCM, but I still trust the results. The fall predication is based solely on how the current ocean anomaly pattern compares to past years. I am not sure what methods are used by others for this, but after looking at enough anomaly maps for the oceans it is obvious that there is a cycle to the ENSO and is evident in the anomaly of the Pacific Ocean.
The Economist has put together a large special edition about the problems facing California. It is a very sobering article about the problems that have been developing for the past 30 years. The overall message of the article is that the initiative process has been disastrous for California because people will vote for a “good” thing, but not understand the consequences. As a result many seemingly “good ideas” are bad for the state as a whole. It does not blame parties, it blames the voters for the problems.
The one section I am going to focus on used some in depth polling of the electorate of the state. The results are simply stunning to say the very least. The opening paragraph is so good and so relevant to the discussion that I have to quote it.
“A POPULAR GOVERNMENT without popular information or the means of acquiring it is but a prologue to Farce or Tragedy or perhaps both,” James Madison wrote. “A people who mean to be their own Governors must arm themselves with the power knowledge gives.” The question in any democracy, but especially a direct democracy in which citizens legislate at the ballot box, is how much voters do in fact know.
The Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) and the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO) have been found to contribute significantly to the nesting behavior of loggerhead turtles. I guess nature still has a role to play in the world today.
Loggerheads lay their eggs on subtropical beaches around the world. After hatching, baby sea turtles head out to sea where they spend years maturing. When females reach breeding age—25 to 35 years old for loggerheads—they clamber ashore to lay eggs on the beach. Nest counts are the main source of demographic data for sea turtles, but it’s hard to estimate population size from these counts. Between the mid-1990s and 2006, loggerhead nests in Florida—one of the species’ nesting epicenters—declined from roughly 55,000 per year to around 30,000. That drop and declines elsewhere prompted U.S. federal agencies to propose upgrading most loggerheads from threatened to endangered under the Endangered Species Act.