tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post8976448380841422925..comments2024-02-12T15:25:44.028+11:00Comments on HotWhopper: WUWT wonders why no mention of the Eemian at the Guardian?Souhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comBlogger10125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-41572842918493331112014-06-16T00:46:33.140+10:002014-06-16T00:46:33.140+10:00a strong indicator of big trouble just ahead.
Yup...<i>a strong indicator of big trouble just ahead.</i><br /><br />Yup. <br /><br />[EW at WUWT:] <i>The inconvenient fact that sea level was around 6 metres higher during the Eemian Interglacial</i><br /><br />Inconvenient, but not in the sense that Eric Worrall has in mind. BBDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10687930416706386215noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-44340050598639767922014-06-15T15:42:51.105+10:002014-06-15T15:42:51.105+10:00Thanks, Rob. They are great articles and an excell...Thanks, Rob. They are great articles and an excellent video (first link), which I've posted at HW at other times too.<br />Souhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-12112126721562270522014-06-15T15:38:48.871+10:002014-06-15T15:38:48.871+10:00Bob, most of your comment is about sea level. Not ...Bob, most of your comment is about sea level. Not surprisingly because it's a subject that is of great concern to everyone. <br /><br />However if you want to focus on the article in the Guardian rather than the article at WUWT, feel free to do so - elsewhere. <br /><br />BTW seas are rising. If he's still around in a few decades time even Anthony Watts won't be able to help but notice.Souhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-50880392134424937432014-06-15T13:08:58.907+10:002014-06-15T13:08:58.907+10:00Holocene sea level doesn't just confuse denier...Holocene sea level doesn't just confuse deniers, many people have a flawed perception of what happened through the Holocence, and since the last ice age. And that sea level graph by Robert Rohde at Wikipedia (last glacial maximum to present) doesn't help because it is most likely wrong.<br /><br />Here's a few Skeptical Science posts that might provide clarity:<br /><br />1. <a href="http://www.skepticalscience.com/Jerry-Mitrovica-Current-Sea-Level-Rise-is-Anomalous-Weve-Seen-Nothing-like-it-for-the-last-10000-Years.html" rel="nofollow">Jerry Mitrovica: Current Sea Level Rise is Anomalous. We've Seen Nothing Like it for the Last 10,000 Years</a>.<br /><br />2. <a href="http://www.skepticalscience.com/Sea-Level-Isnt-Level-Ocean-Siphoning-Levered-Continents-and-the-Holocene-Sea-Level-Highstand.html" rel="nofollow">Sea Level Isn't Level: Ocean Siphoning, Levered Continents and the Holocene Sea Level Highstand</a>.<br /><br />So for the last 4-5000 years, up until the 19th century, global sea level, i.e. the volume of water in the ocean, was unchanged. The regions closer to the equator experienced no deformation (glacial isostatic adjustment) because they were far enough away from the ice sheets, the land beneath which sprung back up when the vast ice sheets disappeared. In the near-equatorial ocean, therefore, relative sea level fell over the last 4-5000 years as ocean volume was siphoned away to fill collapsing areas of the sea floor. <br /><br />This 'relative' sea level fall is why the tropics are littered with '3 metre beaches', and also formed the solid reef foundations upon which atoll islanders now live. These solid reef foundations were formed when coral grew up the the higher relative sea level, and were left exposed as sea level there fell over the last 4-5000 years.<br /><br />I leave it as an exercise to readers to process what this sea level trend means for the global temperatures of the Medieval Period Rob Paintinghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14198427903627448320noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-7978626459509795632014-06-15T11:38:58.286+10:002014-06-15T11:38:58.286+10:00The focus in this post on sea levels seems a bit a...The focus in this post on sea levels seems a bit arbitrary. The point of the post at WUWT was simply to link to a Guardian article that noted that sea level rise is the better metric for what was once known as global warming. The average Joe in the streets understands that climate change will result in a warmer world, yet here we have several scientists suggesting that a) atmospheric and sea surface temps are not rising at present so we should focus on SLR, and b) that climate models (tho it is not clear just what models are being referenced) are short on 'skill'. However you look at it, the scientists quoted are diverting attention away from the poster children of AGW to a metric that this century at least shows little change, if not a deceleration. Perhaps you might discuss the relevance and veracity of the Guardian article rather than conduct an 'expose' of no interest to the issue at hand...Bobnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-50324541096718073432014-06-15T10:31:48.672+10:002014-06-15T10:31:48.672+10:00I double-checked the WG1 report, and mid-Holocene ...I double-checked the WG1 report, and mid-Holocene is definitely lower than present by a couple meters (with a pretty steady rising trend up to close to the present). The Eemian is shown as higher than present by an average of about 2 meters, but with a (quite brief) 6-meter high and a low about the same as present. This fast and substantial intra-Eemian ice sheet response (to Milankovitch forcing, I assume) is a strong indicator of big trouble just ahead.Steve Bloomhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12943109973917998380noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-72620926350675532622014-06-15T08:51:11.146+10:002014-06-15T08:51:11.146+10:00After nexus4684 notices this discrepency, Eric adm...After nexus4684 notices this discrepency, Eric <a href="https://archive.today/WvSKX#selection-8661.0-8695.76" rel="nofollow">admits</a> those paranoid insinuations (contradicted by the IPCC's 1990 statements) were actually his, not deleted Guardian comments. His "essay" has now been edited to make that clearer.Concerned Citizennoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-82917250531596040282014-06-15T08:47:05.795+10:002014-06-15T08:47:05.795+10:00But that's not global (which IIRC didn't s...But that's not global (which IIRC didn't see that highstand), and the focus on a single site, especially one in a volcanic island chain, is still a bad error.<br /><br />This poor attempt at misdirection is especially ironic given multiple recent papers indicating much greater ice sheet vulnerability than had been thought to be the case as recently as a year ago. Steve Bloomhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12943109973917998380noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-8545061099359853412014-06-15T06:12:51.997+10:002014-06-15T06:12:51.997+10:00"Contrary to what Eric thought, global sea le..."Contrary to what Eric thought, global sea level was by no stretch of the imagination higher than it is now by two metres during the Holocene Optimum."<br /><br />Actually, the mid-Holocene sea-level highstand in the Pacific and Indian Ocean is quite well-documented. For example, see <a href="http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2014GC005272/abstract" rel="nofollow">here</a>, <a href="http://geology.gsapubs.org/content/37/5/455.short" rel="nofollow">here</a>, <a href="http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277379112003423" rel="nofollow">here</a>, and <a href="http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0012825201000630" rel="nofollow">here</a> for a nice review.<br /><br />Of course, this highstand has no bearing on ongoing sea-level rise.Kaustubh Thirumalaihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01165685814332239799noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-48328581254382709302014-06-15T05:37:40.320+10:002014-06-15T05:37:40.320+10:00You're not giving Eric enough credit. He copie...You're not giving Eric enough credit. He copied a few disjointed paragraphs from the article, without ellipses. Then he pasted three comments, again without ellipses or even letting readers know that they're from the comments instead of the article. Not only that, but even after expanding all the comments I couldn't find those comments. Eric apparently pasted <b>deleted</b> comments as though they were written by the article's author!<br /><br />The WUWT horde responded with the usual paranoid insinuations that scientists only recently realized that global temperatures are an inadequate indicator of global warming, unless they include ocean temperatures. Someone who hasn't been banned from WUWT might want to point out that scientists have been saying this since 1990:<br /><br />“Global-mean temperature alone is an inadequate indicator of greenhouse-gas-induced climate change.”<br />- IPCC AR1 (1990), Chapter 8, Executive Summary, p. 244<br /><br />“Obviously, a compilation of global temperature variations must include ocean temperatures.”<br />- IPCC AR1 (1990), section 7.4.1.2, p. 209Concerned Citizennoreply@blogger.com