Exposure of Deception in the CSSR on Sea Level Rise

Here's some good work to expose AGW alarmist deceptions.

[h=2]Steve Koonin: A Deceptive New Report on Climate[/h][FONT=&quot]Posted on November 3, 2017 | 24 comments[/FONT]
by Judith Curry
Red-teaming the the U.S. government’s Climate Science Special Report on the topic of sea level rise.
Continue reading →


Steve Koonin as a new op-ed in the WSJ: A Deceptive New Report on Climate. that clarifies the need for a Climate Red Team. Excerpts:
One notable example of alarm-raising is the description of sea-level rise, one of the greatest climate concerns. The report ominously notes that while global sea level rose an average 0.05 inch a year during most of the 20th century, it has risen at about twice that rate since 1993. But it fails to mention that the rate fluctuated by comparable amounts several times during the 20th century. The same research papers the report cites show that recent rates are statistically indistinguishable from peak rates earlier in the 20th century, when human influences on the climate were much smaller. The report thus misleads by omission.
This isn’t the only example of highlighting a recent trend but failing to place it in complete historical context. The report’s executive summary declares that U.S. heat waves have become more common since the mid-1960s, although acknowledging the 1930s Dust Bowl as the peak period for extreme heat. Yet buried deep in the report is a figure showing that heat waves are no more frequent today than in 1900. This artifice also appeared in the government’s 2014 National Climate Assessment, which emphasized a post-1980 increase in hurricane power without discussing the longerterm record. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration recently stated that it has been unable to detect any human impact on hurricanes.
Such data misrepresentations violate basic scientific norms. In his celebrated 1974 “Cargo Cult” lecture, the late Richard Feynman admonished scientists to discuss objectively all the relevant evidence, even that which does not support the narrative. That’s the difference between science and advocacy. . . .

Jack Hays said:

Here's some good work to expose AGW alarmist deceptions.

[h=2]Steve Koonin: A Deceptive New Report on Climate[/h][FONT="][FONT=inherit]Posted on[/FONT] [URL="https://judithcurry.com/2017/11/03/steve-koonin-a-deceptive-new-report-on-climate/"]November 3, 2017[/URL] | 24 comments[/FONT]
by Judith Curry
Red-teaming the the U.S. government’s Climate Science Special Report on the topic of sea level rise.
Continue reading →


Steve Koonin as a new op-ed in the WSJ: A Deceptive New Report on Climate. that clarifies the need for a Climate Red Team. Excerpts:
One notable example of alarm-raising is the description of sea-level rise, one of the greatest climate concerns. The report ominously notes that while global sea level rose an average 0.05 inch a year during most of the 20th century, it has risen at about twice that rate since 1993. But it fails to mention that the rate fluctuated by comparable amounts several times during the 20th century. The same research papers the report cites show that recent rates are statistically indistinguishable from peak rates earlier in the 20th century, when human influences on the climate were much smaller. The report thus misleads by omission.
This isn’t the only example of highlighting a recent trend but failing to place it in complete historical context. The report’s executive summary declares that U.S. heat waves have become more common since the mid-1960s, although acknowledging the 1930s Dust Bowl as the peak period for extreme heat. Yet buried deep in the report is a figure showing that heat waves are no more frequent today than in 1900. This artifice also appeared in the government’s 2014 National Climate Assessment, which emphasized a post-1980 increase in hurricane power without discussing the longerterm record. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration recently stated that it has been unable to detect any human impact on hurricanes.
Such data misrepresentations violate basic scientific norms. In his celebrated 1974 “Cargo Cult” lecture, the late Richard Feynman admonished scientists to discuss objectively all the relevant evidence, even that which does not support the narrative. That’s the difference between science and advocacy. . . .

Click to expand...

This indicates one of the reasons I have had such a hard time accepting the prognosis and even more so the proposed remedies. From the beginning of the climate debate it has dealt in certainties that had to be substantially corrected later or made dubious assumptions aimed at proving points rather than lend themselves to rational debate.

Jack Hays said:

...U.S. government’s Climate Science Special Report on the topic of sea level rise.

One notable example of alarm-raising is the description of sea-level rise, one of
the greatest climate concerns. The report ominously notes that while global sea level
rose an average 0.05 inch a year during most of the 20th century, it has risen at
about twice that rate since 1993. But it fails to mention that the rate fluctuated
by comparable amounts several times during the 20th century.

Click to expand...

Here's a new chart on acceleration of sea level rise:



Each point on the chart is a comparison of the first half and
second half of the time series up to that time. If you have
ten years of data and you calculate the rate of sea level rise
(slope) for the first five years and compare it to the last five
years and find out that the last five years has a higher rate
you can conclude that there's been acceleration. Do the
same for five years and and one month, five years and two
months and so on. It generates a curve.

In the chart above that curve is shown for the last 20 years.
And what you see is that from the 1997 to 2007 there was
positive acceleration. From 2007 to 2016 acceleration was
negative. Since 2016 the rate is positive once again.

The Red Blue and Green arrows mark those dates that Colorado
University published various transparent articles on their website
that illustrate how they would like to see the data progress.
Why hasn't acceleration been detected?
A pothole on the way to higher seas.
And finally Imminent Detection of Acceleration of sea level.

Steve Case said:

Here's a new chart on acceleration of sea level rise:

Each point on the chart is a comparison of the first half and
second half of the time series up to that time. If you have
ten years of data and you calculate the rate of sea level rise
(slope) for the first five years and compare it to the last five
years and find out that the last five years has a higher rate
you can conclude that there's been acceleration. Do the
same for five years and and one month, five years and two
months and so on. It generates a curve.

In the chart above that curve is shown for the last 20 years.
And what you see is that from the 1997 to 2007 there was
positive acceleration. From 2007 to 2016 acceleration was
negative. Since 2016 the rate is positive once again.

The Red Blue and Green arrows mark those dates that Colorado
University published various transparent articles on their website
that illustrate how they would like to see the data progress.
Why hasn't acceleration been detected?
A pothole on the way to higher seas.
And finally Imminent Detection of Acceleration of sea level.

Click to expand...

Superb graph.