data available at the Permanent Service for Mean Sea Level
if you just look at Church & White data you won't get anything other
than the answers you already have.
I think you said you were Excel literate, but if I'm wrong about that,
don't hesitate to use Mr. Excel they help anybody and they provide
expert help free of charge within minutes.
"Is this really right?" before I post stuff. Sometimes I shoot from
the hip, but usually I try to provide a reference to something that
guys from your side of things aren't likely to dismiss out of hand.
NOAA comes to mind. It's best when the reference has actual data
that can be analyzed independently from what I've come up with.
Regarding the deceleration of sea level rise I don't have to, the
guy who maintains the CU Sea Level Research Group's chart wrote
that pdf Power Point presentation I linked to a few month's back:
says that holds sway. I suppose you can argue that the peer reviewed
journals ARE media if you want.
some bloggers read stuff I write on forums and they've sent me e-mail
as a result [fan mail?] but it hasn't come to anything much.
Last edited by Steve Case; 23rd October 2012 at 01:46 PM. Reason: spacing
Here's an interesting You Tube:
Climate Change In Presidential Debates Since 1988
Too bad a State of the Union montage hasn't been made,
I was thinking of the 2010 speech when President Obama
was laughed at when he brought up the topic.
More on the science, that at every turn is not cast iron in the least:
The theory [models] just doesn't match real world observations and scientists who are supposed to relish finding such contradictions bury them instead.So of these two papers, Wigley2006 offers a climate sensitivity but fails to reconcile to the measured flux data. Soden2002 does seek to match the observed flux data but does not report on the implied climate sensitivity.
I am now sufficiently cynical about mainstream climate science to believe that the reason for the non-barking dogs in the two cases is the same. I will show that you cannot get a reasonable match to the flux and temperature data with a high [equilibrium climate sensitivity]. Wigley would have had to show a serious mismatch with the flux data, and Soden would have had to report and explain the politically incorrect, low, climate sensitivity implied by his match of the flux data.
Last edited by Earthling; 23rd October 2012 at 04:27 PM. Reason: spelling correction