Climate For All

An All Around Science Blog

Tamino

Why Tamino’s ‘Open Mind’ Isn’t

This is what denial looks like.

Tamino is your garden variety environmental alarmist. His blog sites header says OPEN MIND, but beyond that, you will only find closed doors to reality.
A few days ago I had made yet another adventure to the ‘other side’, and decided to test the waters of reason with an alarmist.
Tamino had written a blog called, “Jerk.”
The opening remark went like this:
“In the last post I showed that not only is CO2 increasing, its growth rate is also increasing. So, the growth rate of CO2 is faster now than it was just a few decades ago. Significantly so.”
Having just posted my own  article on the deceleration of sea levels, despite rising levels of Co2, I thought I would post a comment about his assumption.
My Comment was this:

 ClimateForAll | April 17, 2011 at 2:55 am |

“I hope you are as ‘open-minded’ as such that your blog suggests, because I would like to challenge that theory with a question.
You stated:

‘I showed that not only is CO2 increasing, its growth rate is also increasing. So, the growth rate of CO2 is faster now than it was just a few decades ago. Significantly so.’

Many of the CAGW predictions from noted scientists and panels around the world, have come under attack from many sectors.
Co2 has been used in climate models to explain, rising temperatures, melting sea ice, more hurricanes, and my personal favorite, rising sea levels.
Many environmental impact studies have predicted that as Co2 increases, many coastal areas will be inundated with erosion and flooding, due to rising sea levels.
And MSM continues to quote scientists and environmental talking heads that suggest, ‘it’s worse than we thought,’ because we should expect anywhere from 2-6 feet of rise by centuries end.
On 2-23-11, In the Journal of Coastal Research, Houston & Dean had this to say in their published paper::

Without sea-level acceleration, the 20th-century sea-level trend of 1.7 mm/y would produce a rise of only approximately 0.15 m from 2010 to 2100; therefore, sea-level acceleration is a critical component of projected sea-level rise. To determine this acceleration, we analyze monthly-averaged records for 57 U.S. tide gauges in the Permanent Service for Mean Sea Level (PSMSL) data base that have lengths of 60–156 years. Least-squares quadratic analysis of each of the 57 records are performed to quantify accelerations, and 25 gauge records having data spanning from 1930 to 2010 are analyzed. In both cases we obtain small average sea-level decelerations.
———————————————————————————————

It is essential that investigations continue to address why this worldwide-temperature increase has not produced acceleration of global sea level over the past 100 years, and indeed why global sea level has possibly decelerated for at least the last 80 years.

My question to you is this:

If Co2 rise is ‘faster’, ‘larger’, ‘increasing’ or whatever term you wish to use for the acceleration of CAGW, where is the evidence, in regards to sea level rise?”

Here is his response:

[Response: CO2 rise is faster. That’s a fact.

As for the utter nonsense from Houston & Dean, I dealt with that here.]

Basic enough I thought. Tamino is still on his CO2 rising faster kick. Ok, thats cool. Then says Houston & Deans work is utter nonsense. Typical. So lets venture over to his blog on debunking Houston & Dean.

The Blog is called, “So What?”, and here are a couple of  quotes  from it:
Those who deny the reality of global warming are, once again, overly excited about a recent paper by Houston & Dean. Why is it that they think every paper which strengthens the case for global warming is some kind of fraud, but every paper which they think weakens the case, is some kind of “bombshell”?”

“Why do they use tide gauge records from just U.S. stations? Why not a global sample? Why use individual tide gauge records when we have perfectly good combinations, from much larger samples, which give a global picture of sea level change and show vastly less noise? Why do they restrict their analysis to either the time span of the individual tide gauge records, or to the period from 1930 to 2009? Why do they repeatedly drone on about “deceleration” when the average of the acceleration rates they measure, even for their extremely limited and restricted sample, isn’t statistically significant?”

Firstly, I’m not sure who called it a bombshell. I see no reference to anyone saying that. H&D said in their conclusion:

“It is essential that investigations continue to address why this worldwide-temperature increase has not produced acceleration of global sea level over the past 100 years, and indeed why global sea level has possibly decelerated for at least the last 80 years.”

Secondly, Taminos own words are, ” … even for their extremely limited and restricted sample, isn’t statistically significant?”

If the whole of US  known  tide records is too limited, maybe he should provide more that is available. Probably find it in those I.P.C.C.  Carbon Models somewhere.

Also, rather than make some huge comment to suggest sea levels aren’t decelerating, he only writes,” isn’t statistically significant.”

That should tell us something right there that he doesn’t have a clue what he’s talking about.

It was at this point I choose to follow up our commentary.

Here is my comment to, “So What?”:

ClimateForAll | April 17, 2011 at 8:07 pm |

I seem to have found the appropriate post to discuss further the question I asked you about Co2 rise in relationship to sea level rise.
It looks like you fairly well debunked the Houston & Dean paper. I don’t agree with your method, but that is really beside the point.

You do what you have to do to defend yourself. I can’t blame you for that.

Several environmental correspondents have written articles, discussing how many cities around the US will suffer from rising sea levels because of rising Co2 emissions.

This seems to be your position as well, because you seem to disagree with the paper in question and you also fully support the fact that Co2 is rising faster than predicted.

Since you choose to deny any possibility that Houston & Dean might have discovered any deceleration in tide gauge records, I am hoping you might at least give NOAA some acknowledgement.

The region around New Orleans has been the topic for some time in regards to rising Co2 levels and the rising sea levels associated with it.

Yet if we view the tide gauge data from that region, using NOAA Tide records, we find a deceleration of sea level rise for the last 30 years or more.

I am sure you can go find the data yourself. It’s free to the public.

So, I must ask you again, given the fact that at least the New Orleans tidal records suggests that sea levels are decelerating, where is the evidence that suggest rising Co2 levels will also give rise to accelerated sea levels?
And shouldn’t the residents of New Orleans know that sea level rise in their region are decelerating, rather than make alarmist claims that sea level rise is going to destroy their way of life, in their lifetime?

And here was Tamino’s response to my comment:

[Response: I’m not interested in chasing down data just to satisfy someone who wants to focus on a single location rather than the global picture.

As for the evidence that rising CO2 will accelerate sea level rise, how’s this: temperature has gone up and global sea level rise HAS accelerated. Cherry-picking a single NOAA station to contradict this makes you look like a fool.

The residents of New Orleans should be warned that denialists threaten to obstruct any attempt to prevent terrible damage to the region in which they live.]

For my own posterity, here is the graph again for Grand Isle Inter-annual Variation I used previously:

While Tamino would like to consider this ‘insignificant’, this graph from NOAA shows no acceleration in rising sea levels for New Orleans.

That was all I was mentioning. While my opinion is that sea levels are decelerating, I only suggested to Tamino that,”shouldn’t the residents of New Orleans know that sea level rise in their region are decelerating, rather than make alarmist claims .”

Instead, Tamino calls into question my actions as cherry-picking and foolish.

Having gone back and re-read his blog,”So What”, I noticed that all of his graphs, regarding sea levels, were not from any government agency, but from, Domingues et al. (2008, Nature, 453, 1090-1094, doi:10.1038/nature07080), and the data only continues up to 2008. Then to obscure matters even more, Tamino superimposes satellite data over the last few years.

Here is the graph Tamino provided:

Data from Tides and Satellite

Looks to me that the only person cherry-picking and acting a fool is Tamino. This graph is not current and misleading.

So I called him out on it. Here is my comment I submitted, which he never published:

Your comment is awaiting moderation.

ClimateForAll | April 17, 2011 at 10:45 pm | Reply Your comment is awaiting moderation.
You state: “As for the evidence that rising CO2 will accelerate sea level rise, how’s this: temperature has gone up and global sea level rise HAS accelerated.”
That statement is your opinion, and using the data you provide, I can understand why you support that theory. Unfortunately, you don’t use current, up-to-date data.
That could be construed as cherry-picking as well, but I won’t make that claim. I’ll let the facts decide that, and not the opinion of someone who refuses to spend a few moments looking at current data.
But you are not alone. UC seems to refuse to update their database at their website for over a year now, but after some investigation, current JASON data also shows a decline in tidal records.
You really should look at the up-to-data that is currently available. Things have changed and the data you have currently posted is outdated.
As for the name calling, I’ve come to expect it. I’ve learned patience in dealing with anger and denial. Grieving the loss of a thing is difficult, and I support you in that grief.

I can’t blame him for censoring me. But rather than allow my comment to be published, he did allow 2 others to comments.

This is what they had to say:

Ray Ladbury | April 17, 2011 at 9:48 pm |

ClimateforAll, Uh, Dude, you do realize that this is science, right? It’s not about “defending one’s position”. I’t about evidence. And ALL the evidence says that we are changing the planet’s climate. If you look at ALL the evidence that conclusion is inescapable. This isn’t a matter of looking at a few measurements or a single paper, or even just the temperature or sea-level rise trends.

Go take a look at skepticalscience.com. Try to actually understand the evidence. Then feel free to come back and ask questions. But please don’t insult the intelligence of the folks here by pretending there is any real controversy over the science. We’ve already done our homework.

MartinM | April 17, 2011 at 11:12 pm |

CFA’s claim that sea level rise at New Orleans is decelerating appears to be based entirely on eyeballing it. A quick check suggests that there isn’t actually a statistically significant deceleration at all.

[Response: I’m shocked.]

The only thing shocking here is I had hoped that ONE alarmist would debate with me. I guess that will never happen in my lifetime.

Then I tried to post this comment, and it as well didn’t get published:

ClimateForAll | April 18, 2011 at 2:32 am |
Your comment is awaiting moderation.

@Ray Ladbury | April 17, 2011 at 9:48 pm

It’s not about “defending one’s position”. I’t about evidence

You are absolutely right Ray. I brought forth evidence, and the moderator responds that they don’t want to look at the evidence.

I also had a valid question, and rather than answer the question, I’m told I’m a fool and a denialist.

I also supplied information about current JASON data that suggests a deceleration and a few terse words, but neither part or it’s whole was accepted.

The least that the moderator could have done was post part of the comment regarding it, but I think I hurt his feelings.

So to answer your question Ray, why don’t you ask the moderator about providing current evidence for his theory on sea level rise/decline, rather than name call and censor comments.

Instead, Tamino quickly publishes another post on his website, called,  “Cherries Jubilee.”

Here is, in whole and parcel, what he wrote:

“There are a couple of recent posts on WUWT about sea level. It starts with this indulgence in conspiracy theorizing, then moves on to this look at some sea level data from NOAA.”

That’s it. Tamino then throws up a couple, very basic graphs, and calls it a day.

Way to spin yourself right into more denial Tamino.

Tamino said people should be warned about skeptics like me.

I got one thing for ya Tamino…..

BRING IT !


Advertisements

One response to “Tamino

  1. Don April 23, 2011 at 9:08 pm

    I am with you 100%. The depths of intellectual dishonesty practiced on Tamino and some other blogs defending CAGW are amazing. Thanks a lot for your post.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: