By Paul Homewood
I have long highlighted the fact sea level rise during the first part of the 20thC was just as high as now. In between, sea level rise slowed down considerably.
These sort of oscillations make it imperative that sea level trends are measured over much longer periods. Leading oceanographer, Bruce Douglas, often said that you needed to look at periods of 50 to 60 years.
In a new paper Parker and Ollier have analysed several large datasets of tidal gauge records, and conclude that sea levels have been oscillating about the same trend line during the last century and this century.
Long records of sea level show decadal and multi-decadal oscillations of synchronous and asynchronous phases, which cannot be detected in short-term records. Without incorporating these oscillations, it is impossible to make useful assessments of present global accelerations and reliable predictions of future changes of sea level. Furthermore, it is well known that local sea-level changes occur also because of local factors such as subsidence due to groundwater or oil extraction, or tectonic movements that may be either up or down.
Limited data from limited areas of study are, therefore, unsuitable for making predictions about the whole world sea level. Yet, people continue to make such predictions, often on an alarming scale. Here, we use one example to illustrate the problems associated with trying to make sea-level predictions based on a short record (25 years) in a limited region.
Linear and parabolic fittings of monthly average mean sea levels (MSL) of global as well as different local (United States Atlantic Coast, United States Pacific Coast) data sets of long tide gauge records.
It is clear from the analyses of the tide gauges of the “NOAA-120”, “US 39”, “PSMSL-162”, “Mitrovica-23”, “Holgate-9”, and “California-8” data sets and the United States Pacific and Atlantic coasts that the sea level has been oscillating about the same almost perfectly linear trend line all over the 20th century and the first 17 years of this century.
It is of paramount importance to discuss the proper way to assess the present acceleration of sea levels. This can not be done by focusing on the short-term upward oscillations in selected locations. The information from the tide gauges of the United States does not support any claim of rapidly changing ice mass in Greenland and Antarctica. The data only suggest the sea levels have been oscillating about the same trend line during the last century and this century.
This section of the paper is particularly revealing:
The loud divergence between sea-level reality and climate change theory—the climate models predict an accelerated sea-level rise driven by the anthropogenic CO2 emission—has been also evidenced in other works such as Boretti (2012a, b), Boretti and Watson (2012), Douglas (1992), Douglas and Peltier (2002), Fasullo et al. (2016), Jevrejeva et al. (2006), Holgate (2007), Houston and Dean (2011), Mörner 2010a, b, 2016), Mörner and Parker (2013), Scafetta (2014), Wenzel and Schröter (2010) and Wunsch et al. (2007) reporting on the recent lack of any detectable acceleration in the rate of sea-level rise. The minimum length requirement of 50–60 years to produce a realistic sea-level rate of rise is also discussed in other works such as Baart et al. (2012), Douglas (1995, 1997), Gervais (2016), Jevrejeva et al. (2008), Knudsen et al. (2011), Scafetta (2013a, b), Wenzel and Schröter (2014) and Woodworth (2011).
As an example of short-term measurement in a limited area, we consider the results of Davis and Vinogradova (2017). They consider time windows of only 25 years and only selected locations along the East Coast of North America. They neglect all other information in their selected locations and ignore results from other locations such as the West Coast of North America. Nevertheless, they draw global conclusions about sea level and the mass change in the ice of Greenland and Antarctica that per them has occurred since 1990.
Aim of this paper is to show that the information from the tide gauges of the USA and the rest of the world when considered globally and over time windows of not less than 80 years (but 120 years, or twice the quasi-60 years’ periodicity, work even better) does not support the notion of rapidly changing mass of ice in Greenland and Antarctica as claimed by Davis and Vinogradova (2017). The sea levels have been oscillating about a nearly perfectly linear trend since the start of the twentieth century with no sign of acceleration. There are only different phases of some oscillations moving from one location to another that do not represent any global acceleration.
In their Discussion, Parker and Ollier are even more scathing:
Davis and Vinogradova (2017) overrate the positive acceleration which they claim occurred after 1990 in one location by using a parabolic fitting of only 25 years of positive monthly average mean sea-level oscillations about the 60 years’ linear trend. They claim there was an acceleration of up to 0.3 mm/year2 after 1990. That is two orders of magnitude larger than the legitimate values. It is nothing but deceptive to infer global acceleration trends from short records while ignoring additional information from same tide gauges or tide gauges in other locations.
Global temperature continues to cool
Global effects of El Niño event seem to have passed, and we’ve cooled to a value just before the event, according to data from the UK Hadley Climate Centre
Earlier we reported on ocean temperatures dropping, now we have confirmation that global air temperature is dropping as well. The latest data is in, and now according to HadCRUT data, we are back to the same level as before the 2014/2016 super El Niño event heated up the planet.
Clive Best writes:
The HadCRUT4.5 temperature anomaly for September calculated by spherical triangulation is 0.54C, a fall of 0.17C since August. Temperatures have seemingly returned to a long trend after the 2016 El Niño.
Clive Best uses a custom triangulation method to calculate the global temperature anomalyfrom the raw data, so I thought I’d verify this from the publicly available HadCrut data.
Source of global temperature anomaly data:
HadCRUT4 time series
These ‘best estimate’ series are computed as the medians of regional time series computed for each of the 100 ensemble member realisations. Time series are presented as temperature anomalies (deg C) relative to 1961-1990.
Quoted uncertainties are computed by integrating across the distribution described by the 100 ensemble members, together with additional measurement and sampling error and coverage uncertainty information.
The data files contain 12 columns:
- Column 1 is the date.
- Column 2 is the median of the 100 ensemble member time series.
- Columns 3 and 4 are the lower and upper bounds of the 95% confidence interval of bias uncertainty computed from the 100 member ensemble.
- Columns 5 and 6 are the lower and upper bounds of the 95% confidence interval of measurement and sampling uncertainties around the ensemble median. These are the combination of fully uncorrelated measurement and sampling uncertainties and partially correlated uncertainties described by the HadCRUT4 error covariance matrices.
- Columns 7 and 8 are the lower and upper bounds of the 95% confidence interval of coverage uncertainties around the ensemble median.
- Columns 9 and 10 are the lower and upper bounds of the 95% confidence interval of the combination of measurement and sampling and bias uncertainties.
- Columns 11 and 12 are the lower and upper bounds of the 95% confidence interval of the combined effects of all the uncertainties described in the HadCRUT4 error model (measurement and sampling, bias and coverage uncertainties).
More details are given in the paper introducing the dataset.
According to the Japanese Meteorological Agency, the 2014-2016 El Niño event formed in May 2014.
Plotting the HadCRUT4.5 data (column 2, mean anomaly) for that period yields this:
In May 2014, at the beginning of the ENSO event, Global Temperature Anomaly was 0.608, now in September 2017, it has cooled to 0.561. It appears all affects from that ENSO event are now removed from the global temperature record.
Looks like claims of the “hottest year ever” won’t be happening in 2017, and we may see a return of “the pause” soon.
AGW Skeptic Rep. Jim Bridenstine nominated to be NASA Administrator
By David Middleton
Rep. Jim Bridenstine (R-OK) has been nominated to be the new NASA Administrator by President Trump… And the greenies are having conniption fits!
OCT. 31, 2017 AT 1:14 PM
Trump’s Nominee For NASA Chief Could Remake The Agency
By Rebecca Boyle
Filed under Space
Before Rep. Jim Bridenstine was nominated to lead NASA, he already had unorthodox ideas about what it should do. In 2016, as one of Oklahoma’s congressmen, he proposed the American Space Renaissance Act, which he called a “pioneering doctrine” that would refocus NASA’s mission. The space agency would concentrate on human spaceflight and “permanently secure the United States of America as the preeminent spacefaring nation.” Bridenstine’s vision would eliminate two of NASA’s current stated missions — to pursue aeronautical and space activities for peaceful and scientific purposes, and to expand knowledge of Earth and its atmosphere. (Bridenstine has said that there’s no credible evidence that CO2 affects the global climate.) In their place, his plan would spread human influence throughout the solar system and ensure the U.S. shows up first on alien worlds — and gets them ready for use by humans.
On Wednesday, he’s likely to face tough questions from senators wondering if a 42-year-old former Navy pilot and climate skeptic with an enthusiasm for space but no technical background or formal connection to NASA is really the right man for the job.
The 538 piece is one of many articles questioning Bridenstine’s qualifications to be NASA Administrator. He’s not a scientist, has no technical background (apparently being a Naval Aviator flying E-2C Hawkeyes isn’t “technical” in green circles) or “formal connection to NASA.”
Well, James Webb, namesake of the James Webb Telescope and NASA’s third Administrator had an oddly similar background.
Webb was born in the hamlet of Tally Ho in Granville County, North Carolina. His father was superintendent of the Granville County public schools. He completed his college education at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, where he received an A.B. degree in education in 1928. He was a member of the Acacia Fraternity. Webb became a second lieutenant in the United States Marine Corps, and he served as a Marine Corps pilot on active duty from 1930 to 1932. Webb then studied law at The George Washington University Law School where he received a J.D. degree in 1936. In the same year, he was admitted to the Bar of the District of Columbia.
Webb spent the next 25 years mostly as a government bureaucrat in various agencies before President Kennedy nominated him to be NASA’s first Administrator in 1961. Webb led NASA from 1961-1968 when NASA’s primary mission was manned spaceflight, with the objective of a manned Moon landing before 1970. NASA accomplished this.
Bridenstine’s background is very similar to Webb’s…
Bridenstine was born in Ann Arbor, Michigan and is a Jenks High School graduate, a graduate of Rice University with majors in Economics, Psychology, and Business, and has an MBA from Cornell University. He is a former executive director of the Tulsa Air and Space Museum & Planetarium and is a Naval Aviator in the U.S. Navy Reservewhere he flies the E-2C Hawkeye in Central and South America in support of the War on Drugs.[non-primary source needed] Bridenstine is an Eagle Scout and received several military awards, including the Air Medal. As of 2016, Bridenstine is a State of Oklahoma record holder in the 200M long course freestyle relay.
In 2012, Bridenstine, with Tea Party backing, unseated a 5-term incumbent Republican congressman and has represented Oklahoma’s 1st Congressional District since January 2013. So, Bridenstine is every bit as qualified to run NASA as Webb was.
The other area in which the greenies are objecting is to Bridenstine’s commitment to refocus NASA on space operations and reduce its efforts in earth and environmental sciences – areas which more properly fall under the purview of NOAA, NSF and USGS, not NASA. Oddly enough, a former Apollo astronaut and geologist, Dr. Harrison “Jack” Schmitt has a similar view as to how NASA should refocus its mission:
MAY 25, 2011 BY HARRISON H. SCHMITT
46. SPACE POLICY AND THE CONSTITUTION #4
Former Senator Schmitt Proposes Dismantling of NASA and Creation of a New, National Space Exploration Administration (NSEA)
On May 25, 1961, President John F. Kennedy announced to a special joint session of Congress the dramatic and ambitious goal of sending an American to the Moon and returning him safely to Earth by the end of that decade. President Kennedy’s confidence that this Cold War goal could be accomplished rested on the post-Sputnik decision by President Dwight D. Eisenhower to form the National Aeronautics and Space Administration and, in January 1960, to direct NASA to begin the development of what became the Saturn V rocket. This release of a collection of essays on Space Policy and the Constitutioncommemorates President Kennedy’s decisive challenge 50 years ago to a generation of young Americans and the remarkable success of those young Americans in meeting that challenge.
Is there a path forward for United States’ space policy? When a new President takes office in 2013, he or she should propose to Congress that we start space policy and its administration from scratch. A new agency, the National Space Exploration Administration (NSEA), should be charged with specifically enabling America’s and its partners’ exploration of deep space, inherently stimulating education, technology, and national focus. The existing component parts of NASA should be spread among other agencies with the only exception being activities related to U.S. obligations to its partners in the International Space Station (ISS).
The easiest change to make would be to move NASA Space Science activities into the National Science Foundation (NSF), exclusive of lunar and planetary exploration science but including space-based astronomical observatories. At the NSF, those activities can compete for support and funding with other science programs that are in the national interest to pursue. Spacecraft launch services can be procured from commercial, other government agencies, or international sources through case-by-case arrangements. With this transfer, the NSF would assume responsibility for the space science activities of the Goddard Space Flight Center and for the contract with Caltech to run the Jet Propulsion Laboratory.
Also, in a similarly logical and straightforward way, NASA’s climate and other earth science research could become part of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). NOAA could make cooperative arrangements with the NSF for use of the facilities and capabilities of the Goddard Space Flight Center related to development and operation of weather and other remote sensing satellites.
Next, NASA aeronautical research and technology activities should be placed in a re-creation of NASA’s highly successful precursor, the NACA. Within this new-old agency, the Langley Research Center, Glenn Research Center, and Dryden Flight Research Center could be reconstituted as pure aeronautical research and technology laboratories as they were originally. The sadly, now largely redundant Ames Research Center should be auctioned to the highest domestic bidder as its land and facilities have significant value to nearby commercial enterprises. These actions would force, once again, consideration of aeronautical research and technology development as a critical but independent national objective of great economic and strategic importance.
NASA itself would be downsized to accommodate these changes. It should sunset as an agency once the useful life of the International Space Station (ISS) has been reached. De-orbiting of the ISS will be necessary within the next 10 to 15 years due to escalating maintenance overhead, diminished research value, sustaining cost escalation, and potential Russian blackmail through escalating costs for U.S. access to space after retirement of the Space Shuttles. NASA itself should sunset two years after de-orbiting, leaving time to properly transfer responsibility for its archival scientific databases to the NSF, its engineering archives to the new exploration agency, and its remaining space artifacts to the Smithsonian National Air and Space Museum.
Finally, with the recognition that a second Cold War exists, this time with China and its surrogates, the President and Congress elected in 2012 should create a new National Space Exploration Administration (NSEA). NSEA would be charged solely with the human exploration of deep space and the re-establishment and maintenance of American dominance as a space-faring nation. The new Agency’s responsibilities should include robotic exploration necessary to support its primary mission. As did the Apollo Program, NSEA should include lunar and planetary science and resource identification as a major component of its human space exploration and development initiatives.
So… If President Trump had nominated Jack Schmitt to be NASA Administrator, they would be hunky-dory with it… Right? Schmitt clearly has a “technical background” and has had a “formal connection to NASA”…
Born in Santa Rita, New Mexico, Schmitt grew up in nearby Silver City, and he is a graduate of the Western High School (class of 1953). He received a B.S. degree in geology from the California Institute of Technology in 1957 and then spent a year studying geology at the University of Oslo in Norway. He received a Ph.D. in geology from Harvard University in 1964, based on his geological field studies in Norway.
Before joining NASA as a member of the first group of scientist-astronauts in June 1965, he worked at the U.S. Geological Survey’s Astrogeology Center at Flagstaff, Arizona, developing geological field techniques that would be used by the Apollo crews. Following his selection, Schmitt spent his first year at Air ForceUPT learning to become a jet pilot. Upon his return to the astronaut corps in Houston, he played a key role in training Apollo crews to be geologic observers when they were in lunar orbit and competent geologic field workers when they were on the lunar surface. After each of the landing missions, he participated in the examination and evaluation of the returned lunar samples and helped the crews with the scientific aspects of their mission reports.
Schmitt spent considerable time becoming proficient in the CSM and LM systems. In March 1970 he became the first of the scientist-astronauts to be assigned to space flight, joining Richard F. Gordon, Jr. (Commander) and Vance Brand (Command Module Pilot) on the Apollo 15 backup crew. The flight rotation put these three in line to fly as prime crew on the third following mission, Apollo 18. When Apollo flights 18 and 19 were cancelled in September 1970, the community of lunar geologists supporting Apollo felt so strongly about the need to land a professional geologist on the Moon, that they pressured NASA to reassign Schmitt to a remaining flight. As a result, Schmitt was assigned in August 1971 to fly on the last mission, Apollo 17, replacing Joe Engle as Lunar Module Pilot. Schmitt landed on the Moon with commander Gene Cernan in December 1972.
Schmitt claims to have taken the photograph of the Earth known as The Blue Marble, one of the most widely distributed photographic images in existence. (NASA officially credits the image to the entire Apollo 17 crew.)
While on the Moon’s surface, Schmitt — the only geologist in the astronaut corps — collected the rock sample designated Troctolite 76535, which has been called “without doubt the most interesting sample returned from the Moon”. Among other distinctions, it is the central piece of evidence suggesting that the Moon once possessed an active magnetic field.
As he returned to the Lunar Module before Cernan, Schmitt is the next-to-last person to have walked on the Moon’s surface.
After the completion of Apollo 17, Schmitt played an active role in documenting the Apollo geologic results and also took on the task of organizing NASA’s Energy Program Office.
Clearly, someone like Jack Schmitt has the qualifications that both James Webb and Jim Bridenstine were/are lacking in. So, obviously he would be warmly embraced as NASA Administrator. The facts that he would refocus NASA on space operations and and is an AGW skeptic, certainly wouldn’t trump his technical qualifications in the eyes of the greenies… Right?
Of course not.
More than 40 Florida scientists oppose Trump’s NASA nominee
By SERGIO BUSTOS 10/06/2017 03:40 PM EDT
MIAMI — More than 40 Florida scientists oppose President Donald Trump’s nominee to lead NASA, saying Oklahoma Rep. Jim Bridenstine is unqualified for the job and that they are troubled by his denial of climate change.
“He has no scientific training and little administrative experience and he is not qualified to lead this prestigious agency,” the scientists wrote in a letter Friday to Sens. Bill Nelson (D-Fla.) and Marco Rubio (R-Fla.). “At this critical time, we can ill afford to allow this vital agency be subject to political whims. There is too much at stake.”
Are “Florida scientists” those who specialize in Florida? Or just scientists who live in Florida?
Do these “journalists” and Florida Senators strive for ignorance? It sure seems that way.
WHY DONALD TRUMP’S NASA CHIEF PICK IS A CONTROVERSIAL CHOICE
BY SOFIA LOTTO PERSIO ON 9/2/17
The White House announced President Donald Trump’s preferred pick to head NASA on Friday night, but the choice is already proving unpopular, with Florida senators criticizing Trump’s choice.
Bridenstine did serve as a pilot in the U.S. Navy Reserve for nine years and is a former executive director of the Tulsa Air and Space Museum and Planetarium between December 2008 and August 2010.
But unlike previous NASA administrators, the 42-year-old Michigan native does not have any formal qualifications in science or engineering…
Hello? Ms. Lotto, Senators Nelson & Rubio… Can you say, “James Webb”?
On the flip side, Jim Bridenstine has the endorsement of former NASA Administrator Sean O’Keefe…
Jim Bridenstine is the leader NASA needs
BY SEAN O’KEEFE, OPINION CONTRIBUTOR — 09/26/17
Rep. Jim Bridenstine (R-Okla.), the president’s nominee for NASA administrator, is facing criticism regarding his qualifications for the job. These concerns seem to be rooted in a clear preference instead for a nominee possessing skills or experience as a scientist, engineer or technologist. Perhaps most critically, some have dismissed Bridenstine’s experience as inadequate given that he is an elected politician.
But if history is any guide, technical skills are not necessarily requisites for success leading this storied agency. While several previous NASA leaders were credentialed or experienced in such disciplines, this was not a clear determinant for success. And contrary to the critical view, Bridenstine arguably has the best qualifications for success given the challenges ahead.
Of the dozen previous NASA administrators, perhaps the most extraordinary and historically noteworthy of them served during the Apollo era. James Webb possessed a diverse base of experience, but none of the technical skills extolled in some of the current dialogue. Webb earned an undergraduate degree in Education, served in the Marine Corps, earned a law degree and served as a congressional staffer before a brief time in industry.
Webb’s contribution was not his scientific or engineering know how. But he did have a wide breath of experience in finance, business management, the art of negotiating outcomes and making decisions in the very emotionally charged public policy arena.
In short, Webb was, by any standard, a politician and an awfully good one.
He successfully marshaled an exceptional team of engineers and scientists, none of which suffered low self-esteem. Choosing among a multitude of diametrically opposite “right answers” advanced by those with technical expertise, it was up to Webb to achieve consensus among them to forge a path forward.
He also needed to secure the president’s support for a strategy, devise management plans to achieve the outcomes and somehow convince Congress to appropriate funds to finance the endeavor. To do so required exceptional leadership, management and political skills drawn from an array of experiences and professional training to yield the heralded achievements of the Mercury, Gemini and Apollo programs.
He was a most remarkable public servant. But to listen to the critics today, it seems some might consider Webb to be a marginally qualified nominee.
It is impossible to tell if Jim Bridenstine will have the kind of success that Webb achieved. But in pursuit of this parallel prospect, it’s altogether possible he has exactly the skills and experience to position the agency to make that possible. His policy views, voting record and insights on how he may choose to use skills honed as a politician and elsewhere will surely be revealed in the upcoming confirmation hearing. But if past is prologue, he’s qualified to clear the hurdles for Senate confirmation. And I’m willing to bet he’ll prove to be a fine choice as the 13th NASA administrator.
Sean O’Keefe served as the 10th NASA administrator in the George W. Bush administration, 2001-2005, and is presently a professor of public administration at the Syracuse University Maxwell School.
Jim Bridenstine could even be good news for Elon Musk…
Earlier this year, Musk announced that SpaceX would fly two private citizens in a trip around the moon by late next year. And he hinted at the moon base during a conference in July.
“If you want to get the public really fired up, I think we’ve got to have a base on the moon. That’d be pretty cool. And then going beyond there and getting people to Mars,” he said. “That’s the continuance of the dream of Apollo that I think people are really looking for.”
It also could be a good business move. Jim Bridenstine, the Trump administration’s nominee for NASA administrator, has advocated a return to the moon, writing in a blog post last year that “from the discovery of water ice on the moon until this day, the American objective should have been a permanent outpost of rovers and machines, with occasional manned missions for science and maintenance.”
NASA is poised to ask the private sector for proposals to develop a lunar lander that could take experiments and cargo to the moon’s surface, with flights starting as early as 2018.
Wow! I mentioned Elon Musk without saying anything negative about Tesla!
UGLY: Disputing peer review by lawsuit
Wow, just wow. Some scientists and their egos. Sheesh.
Michael Shellenberger writes:
Stanford University professor Mark Z. Jacobson has filed a lawsuit, demanding $10 million in damages, against the peer-reviewed scientific journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) and a group of eminent scientists (Clack et al.) for their study showing that Jacobson made improper assumptions in order to claim that he had demonstrated U.S. energy could be provided exclusively by renewable energy, primarily wind, water, and solar.
Jacobson’s lawsuit is an appalling attack on free speech and scientific inquiry and we urge the courts to reject it as grossly unethical and without legal merit.
What Jacobson has done is unprecedented. Scientific disagreements must be decided not in court but rather through the scientific process. We urge Stanford University, Stanford Alumni, and everyone who loves science and free speech to denounce this lawsuit.
The lawsuit rests on the claim that Clack et al. defamed Jacobson by calling his assumption that hydroelectricity could be significantly expanded a “modeling error.”
One of the most environmentally devastating ways of producing electricity is with hydroelectric dams. While poor nations have a right to make cheap power from hydroelectricity, their environmental impact is enormous.
Full story here
Expanding hydro? Sure….the enviros will embrace that one in the pursuit of 100% renewable energy. yeah, that’s the ticket. Let’s start with the Auburn dam in California as a test case.
This is probably the most idiotic lawsuit I’ve ever seen in science, Mann’s egotistical uproars against Tim Ball and Mark Steyn included.