We Are Just Recovering From the LIA

This is just one of dozens of responses to common climate change denial arguments, which can all be found at How to Talk to a Climate Sceptic.


Objection:

Today’s warming is just a recovery from the Little Ice Age.

Answer:

The problem with this argument is that it relies on an implicit assumption that there is some particular climate that the earth needs to be at and that given a period of globally lower temperatures, an eventual rise is inevitable. What is the scientific basis for such an assumption?

There is no evidence that such a situation exists. The climate is influenced by many factors, factors that change or remain stable in their own ways. The current understanding of the Little Ice Age is that it was likely the result of a decrease in solar irradiance together with an increase in volcanic activity, blocking additional sunlight. The LIA was also not very well synchronized globally, affecting different regions at different times. There is no century scale pattern that scientists are aware of in solar output, or in volcanic activity, so there would be no reason to expect a reversal of those changes. As it happened, solar output did increase somewhat in the early 20th century which did contribute to the warming at that time. This is not a candidate for the current warming.

One other problem with appealing to a natural recovery from the LIA is that we have in fact risen to levels higher than the assumed baseline climate. So even if some recovery were to be expected, why have we now exceeded that? This argument has problems similar to the more general "it is part of a natural cycle" argument.


This is just one of dozens of responses to common climate change denial arguments, which can all be found at How to Talk to a Climate Sceptic.


“We Are Just Recovering From the LIA” was first published here, where you can still find the original comment thread. This updated version is also posted on the Grist website, where additional comments can be found, though the author, Coby Beck, does not monitor or respond there.

83 thoughts on “We Are Just Recovering From the LIA

  1. Re post 49

    What Coby says might be right, in regards to the 95% figure i have not seen a compelling argument for or against this therefore i do not assume this figure to be correct which is why i decline to use it in a debate.

    Re post 50

    I think i read it somewhere (H2O rising) Pough, i might have got it wrong and yes they did mention CO2 is a heaver molecule etc. The point i was trying to make but mucked it up was that the CO2 has no effect on WV as it rises (transference of heat etc), but yes an increase in CO2 will increase the temp and increase evaporation most climate experts (i use that word with caution) agree on this i think. There is a differing of opinion as to what happens next (feed backs etc).

    Crakar

    Like

  2. Crakar –

    but yes an increase in CO2 will increase the temp and increase evaporation most climate experts (i use that word with caution) agree on this i think. There is a differing of opinion as to what happens next (feed backs etc).

    This is, by definition, a feedback.

    Like

  3. “The problem with this argument is that it relies on an implicit assumption that there is some particular climate that the earth needs to be at and that given a period of globally lower temperatures, an eventual rise is inevitable. What is the scientific basis for such an assumption?”

    The whole controversy around the current warming for AGW believers is that it is supposedly not normal. You AGW believers are assuming the climate of the pre Industrial Revolution is what we are supposed to be at and any warming trend is abnormal. How can you make this assumption and discredit skeptics for believing that warming and cooling trends are natural based upon an assumption of a “particula climate that the earth needs to be at?” You just discredited yourself in the first paragraph of your supposed argument.

    Like

  4. Coby – I hesitate to bring this up because I can well imagine your ‘not again’ response. However, as Tim opens it up once more, let me plunge in.

    I have never understood your point about this argument relying upon ‘an implicit assumption that there is some particular climate that the earth needs to at…’

    I don’t honestly see why there is an assumption of this kind, implicit or otherwise. All some people are saying is that this oscillation between warmer and colder periods seems to have been pretty regular in the past, so why isn’t the current pattern merely business as usual? Such an argument doesn’t, it seems to me, make assumptions of any kind. Indeed, if anything it does the opposite: it merely notes historical fact.

    Now, before dhogaza starts ripping me to shreds, can I say that I am addressing only your specific point about an ‘assumption’ and not any other evidence that may be offered.

    Like

  5. Tim,

    This is one argument out of over 60, the whole AGW case will not be presented in each. There is no assumption of “normal” in this case, there is however evidence that the current change is abnormal and anthropogenic. See here for the basic reasoning. See the IPCC report for all the evidence.

    The argument being debunked here is frequent and specific and the word recovery is what it is about. That word implies some state to be recovered to.

    The “it’s just natural changes” argument is addressed here:
    http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2006/02/this-is-just-natural-cycle.php

    Like

  6. The whole controversy around the current warming for AGW believers is that it is supposedly not normal.

    I don’t agree with that at all, although I can see how you might end up thinking it. There are two things that I see as being abnormal. One is the cause of the temperature change and the other is the rate of change.

    While it’s apparent that the climate changes normally, its usual pattern involves changes that aren’t a result of things that we do. CO2 volume normally increases as a result of other forcings, but we’ve been adding it to the atmosphere. That’s not normal. As well, the rate of temperature increase is at least somewhat striking when compared to other (natural) temperature swings. That’s not normal.

    Changing climate? Normal. Rapid climate change due to human interference? Not normal.

    You AGW believers are assuming the climate of the pre Industrial Revolution is what we are supposed to be at and any warming trend is abnormal.

    That’s not true at all. We’re well aware that there are natural changes in climate and that there isn’t any objective optimal climate. What there is, though, is a subjective normal, and from our own (ie. humanity’s) perspective the climate we’ve built our societies upon is what we think of as normal, if only because change is difficult and expensive. While it may be entirely natural for food crops to only grow far away from our established farms in a changed climate, it’s hardly to our benefit. And if it’s our own damn fault? And if we could have done something about it?

    Objectively optimal? No. Subjectively optimal? Obviously.

    Like

  7. Snowman –

    I don’t honestly see why there is an assumption of this kind, implicit or otherwise. All some people are saying is that this oscillation between warmer and colder periods seems to have been pretty regular in the past, so why isn’t the current pattern merely business as usual? Such an argument doesn’t, it seems to me, make assumptions of any kind. Indeed, if anything it does the opposite: it merely notes historical fact.

    Since this seems like an earnest request for discussion, I’ll keep it civil.

    The main reason we can’t say “it has always cycled, so why isn’t it natural” is because we know the circumstances are different.

    Three main points here: we know that the atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration has been below 300ppm for the better part of 800,000 years (and maybe as much as 2 million years) from the ice core data. We also know that carbon dioxide concentrations are approaching 400ppm.

    We also know that humans have been emitting enormous quantities of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere for the last 150 years. This is a very unique circumstance in the history of the planet (the only other time I can think of that say such a rapid rise in CO2 was the PETM 55 mya… maybe).
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleocene%E2%80%93Eocene_Thermal_Maximum

    Given this information, it’s clear that the situation is different than it has been for the last 800,000 years. So, we can’t assume it’s a continuation of the business-as-usual pattern. We have to dig deeper. The more thorough evidence for AGW is far more complex and comprehensive than what I just described, but this just shows that there’s a fundamental difference between the historical record and the current situation.

    I hope you will take this in the spirit it’s meant to be, as an honest answer to the best of my knowledge and abilities without trying to sound patronizing (which I don’t know if I succeeded or not).

    Like

  8. re: my post at 10:47am July 17

    By “know,” I mean know in the scientific sense:

    “know with a reasonably degree of certainty”

    Like

  9. Thank you, Adam, and I do indeed take your observations in the spirit in which they were intended.

    However, perhaps I could just mention again that I was addressing only Coby’s ‘assumption’ argument, not other evidence that people may put forward.

    Please don’t take this as a sign that I am attempting to inflate one small point while ignoring everything else. I don’t dispute that there are many aspects to this complex matter that need to be considered.

    Like

  10. Adam “Three main points here: we know that the atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration has been below 300ppm for the better part of 800,000 years (and maybe as much as 2 million years) from the ice core data. We also know that carbon dioxide concentrations are approaching 400ppm.”

    So what?

    If as you say Carbon Dioxide has shown no previous rises and yet the earth in those 800,000 years has gone through many cataclysmic rises and falls in temperature, then how is CO2 at all relevant to rising and lowering temperatures?

    You’ve just shown that CO2 has nothing to do with temperatures rising for the last 800,000 years.

    Like

  11. If as you say Carbon Dioxide has shown no previous rises and yet the earth in those 800,000 years has gone through many cataclysmic rises and falls in temperature, then how is CO2 at all relevant to rising and lowering temperatures?

    You’ve just shown that CO2 has nothing to do with temperatures rising for the last 800,000 years.

    Logic fail. Exercise left to the denialist.

    Like

  12. If as you say Carbon Dioxide has shown no previous rises

    Perhaps reading comprehension fail is more accurate.

    But again, exercise left to the denialist.

    Like

  13. Here’s a little hint for the denialist. “Below 300” does not mean constant. It’s varied cyclically between 180 and 300 over that time. Look at the near perfect correlation between temperature (blue) and CO2 (green) on this graph http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Vostok-ice-core-petit.png Adam’s point is that because we’ve driven CO2 into a range humans have never seen, we’re going to see temperatures that humans have never before experienced. Of course this conclusion is supported by more than just that graph. Decades of multiple lines of research support that conclusion.

    Like

  14. Hey gfw, I maintain that that graph does not show or prove that CO2 causes temperature rise.
    Here are two links that support my position.
    http://swampie.wordpress.com/2009/01/11/what-the-vostok-ice-core-data-says-about-global-warming-and-more-importantly-cooling/
    http://joannenova.com.au/global-warming/ice-core-graph/

    Surely you have seen this information before, i.e., the graph looks like a “near perfect” corelation, but the scale is huge! CO2 lags temperature by 800 years!
    What do you think of that?
    I’d also like to know what you think of what I have posted on “climate is always changing”.

    Dhogaza, I think I can read and comprehend the written word, and I must say, I don’t see where you’re coming from with your comments. (#s 63 & 64)
    I realise that the chances I am missing the bleedin’ obvious are high, but I just can’t see it! Please explain how Myhrr has mis-read/mis-understood/mis-comprehended this sentence written by Adam.
    (I would also like to know what you think of my posts on “climate is always changing”. …. sans abuse)

    Like

  15. Surely you have seen this information before, i.e., the graph looks like a “near perfect” corelation, but the scale is huge! CO2 lags temperature by 800 years!
    What do you think of that?

    You need a remedial course in climatology, or at least you need to read one or two pages from a reliable source. I’m tired of spoon-feeding willfully ignorant people.

    I realise that the chances I am missing the bleedin’ obvious are high, but I just can’t see it! Please explain how Myhrr has mis-read/mis-understood/mis-comprehended this sentence written by Adam.

    gfw gave the game away in 65, damn it! He even said “here’s a little hint …”.

    I would also like to know what you think of my posts on “climate is always changing”. ….

    It’s the logical equivalent of saying “people are always dying of natural causes, therefore this bullet I’m about to put into your head won’t kill you”.

    Care to test the logical correctness of that construction?

    Like

  16. By the way, those two links were pretty easy to find.
    I typed “vostok ice core data” into our beloved Google, and these results were numbers 6 and 11. (I didn’t look at the others)
    My point is that the “AGW movement” would have us peasants believe that “the science is settled”.
    I really don’t believe it is.
    I mean, I look at websites like these, (in the links) I have read Heaven and Earth by Prof. Ian Plimer, I search Youtube. I find article after article that decrys AGW.
    They are all very convincing.
    How can that be?
    How can anyone say the science is settled?
    (by the way, I saw the “debate” between Monbiot and Plimer. I though Prof. Plimer’s performance was just awful. “Please just answer the question!”)

    I fully expect various comments in reply mentioning “flat-Earth”, and “Gravity”, but really(!) How can the average punter (like me) know the truth?

    Like

  17. I have read Heaven and Earth by Prof. Ian Plimer

    Oh, Lord. As I said, I’m tired of spoon-feeding the willfully ignorant.

    I find article after article that decrys AGW.
    They are all very convincing.
    How can that be?

    They’re lying to you, and you’re willing to be lied to, in other words – you’re willfully ignorant.

    Like

  18. Michael:

    Have you ever read *anything* that makes the case *for* AGW?

    This is a question I propose to every denier I meet in person or on the net: Would you be willing to read *three* books that make the case *against* your position?

    I always pose the question because I have done exactly that with the denial position; I will also provide my 47 page essay detailing why I found all of those sources (Bjorn Lomborg, Lawrence Solomon, and Christopher Horner) to be blatant, arrant, horse*shit*–if you wish.

    The point: It looks very much like you only expose yourself to things that tell you what you want to believe, and this is *classic* denier behavior, in all my experience.

    Skip

    Like

  19. Hey Skip,
    To answer your question, no, I haven’t.
    I’ve written here before about how I was shocked and apalled
    by Al Gore’s movie at first. I saw another documentary that convinced me even more-so than that one which was this one.
    http://www.abc.net.au/science/crude/resources/
    (I could only find one little clip on Youtube)

    This documentary convinced me that humans were burning oil and releasing all that carbon into the atmosphere.
    However, as you can read on the intro page in my first link, they use the term “increasingly wierd weather patterns”…. That got me! I simply cannot see evidence of this apparent “weird weather”. Can you?
    My basic understanding of weather made me think that surely if the entire earth were to warm, i.e. the temperature differential between poles and equator decreased, surely that would lead to decreased storminess? The ferocity of storms is caused by the difference in temperature between two masses of air meeting. Isn’t that right?
    Or, is it the case that a warm mass of air meeting a slightly less warm mass of air will cause a more ferocious storm than a warm mass meeting a very cold mass?
    Because of this very idea, I started to question the information that was put forward as “the science of global warming”. Since then I have read as much as I could on both sides of the argument, and I have been convinced by what you would call The Dark Side. (and what I would call The Truth)
    Notice the very emotive images and language used by the AGW movement. “dangerous climate change”, the power staion cooling tower emitting that filthy blace smoke into the air. (of course we all know it’s water vapour/steam, and if you shoot it with the sun behind it, it looks darker)
    The opening video of the COP15 summit was the same. Emotive use of catastrophic flooding, children stranded etc. Can you see my point?
    God! There’s so much to say, and not enough time to say it all.

    What about my posts on “climate is always changing”?
    I would appreciate you responding to those. (re sea levels etc)

    Of course now, we’ve had the leaked emails, but long before that I felt the information coming from the IPCC was more political than scientific. I feel like that information is tainted, and I therefore am sceptical of all of it.
    I can only read what I can read and garner what I can garner. From my own observations of life here in Brisbane Australia, I do not see any wierd weather, I do not see that the sea levels are rising, and whenever there is an unusually high (or low) temperature, it is usually equalled or bettered by a temperature from the twenties, thirties or forties.
    The tragic bushfires that occurred in Victoria Australia early this year were, in some instances, blamed on AGW.
    Here’s a link that shows how wrong that is:
    http://www.parkweb.vic.gov.au/resources/14_0980.pdf
    My point is, that the weather patterns we are seeing on the earth now, (flooding, hurricanes, heatwaves, ice storms, record snow, etc) are nothing new.
    It’s our collective memories that are short.
    This is the purpose of the Emotion used by the AGW movement.
    Am I making sense? I hope you will read all this and look at the links.
    I know you’re above name calling and abusive responses.
    Cheers, have a good day.

    Like

  20. erm… Dhogaza, does it really seem reasonable to you that a person would be “willfully ignorant”?
    Why would someone do that?
    Is it willfully ignorant of me to not trust the information emitted by the IPCC and it’s buddies?
    Is it willfully ignorant of you to continually nominate a “reliable source”, which invariably turns out to be from the IPCC, Real Climate or some other “endorsed and vetted” source.
    You have mentioned “comprehension” before. I honestly can’t see how you can justify what you’ve written in your “cherry picked” copy and pasted replies.
    Why do you not just copy and paste the entire post, and then write underneath it: “this sux!!” ?
    Of course, you could save electrons and not copy and paste at all. Just write something like “michael’s a dickhead”.

    Forgive me, but from a supposedly educated person, I expect more.

    Like

  21. does it really seem reasonable to you that a person would be “willfully ignorant”?
    Why would someone do that?

    If they don’t like the implications of the truth. There is your answer.

    Like

  22. Skip, I have written a response to your previous question. However it is quite long, and needs to me moderated.

    I do not take my position in this debate because I “do not like the implications of the truth”. I take my position because I believe your “truth” is the opposite of my “truth”.
    I do not believe I am ignorant at all.
    I think to imply that someone is ignorant on purpose is quite ridiculous. Wouldn’t it mean that I know I am wrong but I’m gonna stick to it anyway?
    For example, I KNOW that the light inside the refrigerator is controlled by a little man with a light switch. I will argue about that until the cows come home! The fact that you can open the door and show me how the door itself operates the switch is irrelevent. If the door is open, you can’t see the little man! He is invisible to our eyes. Nothing you say can convince me otherwise!

    Like

  23. No, that’s cool.

    Take your time . . . happy holidays, Michael. I will address your analogy later but right now we’re having family time. (This excursion to Coby’s blog was a guilty digression from my alleged trip to the biffy.)

    Like

  24. Hey Mr T,
    It seems persons of our ilk can also be called “conspiricists”.
    (It’s always good to learn new words.)
    I maintain, in fact that I consider myself someone searching for the truth. I consider myself an environmentalist. This argument, in my opinion, should be concentrating on pollution, not carbon dioxide.
    Do I need to keep stating ad nausaeum that I don’t trust any of the information that is EMITTED (pun intended) from the IPCC? (or it’s approved and vetted sources)
    Do I need to explain my pun?
    Ok then, I will…
    I belive wholeheartedly, that the “information/data” that is emitted by the IPCC is pollution in itself. I state again, that I believe the IPCC is a political body and not a scientific one. (I posted this opinion well before the emails were leaked)
    I ask you, Coby, Skip, Adam, Ian Forrester, Dhogaza, Mandas, gfw, carrot eater; How can you KNOW (in the scientific sense) that the information endorsed and vetted and peer reviewed which you get from essentially the same source, is real, accurate and true?
    How can I know (in the scientific and biblical senses) that the information that I have gleaned from everything I’ve read is real, accurate and true?
    I will tell you.
    It is because in my part of the world at least, the weather is NOT weird, the sea levels are NOT rising and there is enough “unsettled science” to keep me asking questions.
    Are these things happening in your parts of the world?
    Other than what you read on the internet, are you observing changes in your local weather and climate?
    If you are, then I might be convinced to the contrary.
    If you are not, then how can you know your information is real?
    Before you come at me with cherry picked “copy ‘n’ pastes”, I hope you will think for a minute.
    If you cannot come up with anything other than to call me names, I’d rather you didn’t say anything at all.
    (not that that’s stopped you before)
    I am writing all this from the heart.
    I have stated my environmentalistic position previously.
    Please respond solemnly?

    Like

  25. “It is because in my part of the world at least, the weather is NOT weird, the sea levels are NOT rising and there is enough “unsettled science” to keep me asking questions.” – Michael.

    The sea level is rising alright. That you haven’t noticed is not relevant.

    http://www.cmar.csiro.au/sealevel/sl_hist_last_15.html

    “Other than what you read on the internet, are you observing changes in your local weather and climate?” – Michael.

    Yup, it doesn’t get as cold as it did in the 60’s and 70’s – no frozen puddles in winter anymore and no frosts so heavy that one is able to make balls of ice out of it. It doesn’t get that cold anymore, although it’s still cold in winter. But it doesn’t constitute evidence of a global phenomenon.

    Like

  26. ‘morning, Michael.

    I will take you at face value that you are speaking from the heart, ok?

    Having looked over your previous posts from the other thread, there are a couple of recurring themes which concern me.

    First, I have seen you routinely refer to “warmistas” with their “scare tactics” (I did not follow your links but take at face value your assertion that they show “alarmism”).

    But what does this prove? It looks very much like the internal reasoning going on here is, “Many people who believe AGW is real use loaded emotional appeals, therefore I don’t have to believe in AGW.” I don’t use scare tactics when trying to persuade people to act on climate change for two simple reasons: (1) Fear is a poor, short-lived motivator; (2)I don’t know for a fact how bad and how imminent the effects of global warming will be. (I know how bad they *could* be–sinister feedback loops such as the loss of ice mass which reflects sunlight back to space, over-concentration of CO2 in the ocean, loss of vegetation as warmer climates gradually dry, release of frozen methane reserves from the ocean–and these are risks against which we should hedge.)

    Second, (and this is reminiscent of a more recent poster named John Nicol or something), when you say you think the IPCC is a “political body” you say it not only with audacity but with the apparent assumption that being “political” means “not believable.” But Michael, even assuming your label is valid, why should the truth not be allowed “political” support or its proponents to engage in “political” activity? In my country, abolitionists, civil rights activists, suffragists, and other movements all engaged in aggressive “political” activity because they recognized that certain changes were necessary to make their world *better*. Why is it not possible that the IPCC and its attendant scientific supporters are similarly motivated?

    Which brings us to the question of who should we believe and why. You asked:

    How can you KNOW (in the scientific sense) that the information endorsed and vetted and peer reviewed which you get from essentially the same source, is real, accurate and true?

    In the pure “scientific” sense, I of course cannot. I am too unsophisticated in my understanding of science. But I am certainly not going to run around saying I have sound reason to believe they are *wrong*. When I write an article for peer review, I don’t lie, Michael. The people I work with in my field–whatever their personal failings, whatever their biases, and however many nasty emails they might have written about their enemies–also, overwhelmingly, are *honest*. Many of them are record pricks, but they’re honest. By and large, in the long run, the scientific peer review process yields credible results, and in the case of AGW, we ignore those credible results perilously.

    Which leads to the matter of your own espoused approach to scientific knowledge:

    How can I know (in the scientific and biblical senses) . . .

    On a semi-tangent, what should I infer from your claim to have achieved a “biblical” level of knowledge on these matters?

    . . . that the information that I have gleaned from everything I’ve read is real, accurate and true?
    I will tell you.

    (I was really interested in this part.)

    It is because in my part of the world at least, the weather is NOT weird, the sea levels are NOT rising . .

    And this might be my biggest concern of all: The appeal to your perception of “everything” you’ve read (which you earlier conceded does not include a rigorous dose of the other side) and subjective experience (the absence of “weirdness” in the weather) as a means of falsifying AGW. Climate science does not predict that your weather patterns on any given day, or even over the course of five years for that matter, should be “weird”. It simply says that the overall *climate* is warming, and this has potential long term negative consequences for the planet. In 100 years people living near the arctic circle will find nothing “weird” about the fact that there is no summer ice extant. It will be a routine feature of their lives, but it will not mean that AGW is false.

    . . . and there is enough “unsettled science” to keep me asking questions.

    But I thought you had achieved scientific and biblical certainty (based on the body of information to which you’ve allowed yourself exposure and by observing no weirdness in the weather).

    Nonetheless, if you are truly asking questions, Michael, I would humbly suggest you ask this one: “What is the *best* case *against* what I believe, and why do I think its wrong.” If you’re just reading Plimer and Monckton, you are not asking that question in earnest, I fear.

    Skip

    Like

  27. “ermm…. Dappled Water, I’m not too sure of what your link is showing.” – Michael.

    Rising sea levels.

    “Is it showing that the sea levels change all the time?” – Michael.

    Nope.

    http://www.cmar.csiro.au/sealevel/sl_drives_intro.html

    ” I can’t find the part where they attribute the changes in sea levels to human emissions of CO2.” – Michael.

    There’s strong hint here:

    http://www.cmar.csiro.au/sealevel/sl_proj_21st.html

    Notice the mention of the IPCC and their projections?. Enhanced Greenhouse Effect from fossil fuels = global warming = melting ice + thermal expansion of oceans = rising sea level.

    Like

  28. But DW, this website cites information that comes, once again, from the IPCC. Is there no other source??
    I have already said ad nausaeum that I cannot trust information from the IPCC.
    I appreciate that the diagrams are good, and what they said made sense, right up until I saw the IPCC reference.
    (I have certainly learnt something about different sea levels in different parts of the world.)
    As for your first link, there are five reasons that sea levels can change. If AGW is real, then it accounts for only two of those reasons.
    Couldn’t any current sea level rise be accounted for, by any of the other three?
    If not, why not?
    What is your opinion of the quote above about what is un-certain?
    Don’tchathink they put that in to cover their own asses?

    Like

  29. @Michael:
    I think you still need to learn more about sea level changes. Of the five reasons, one is a short-term effect (circulation changes + storm surges), one actually would lower sea levels (terrestial water storage etc), and only the third could give long-term changes…but regional (up or down).

    Like

  30. Point taken Marco, I certainly need to learn more about lots of things.
    My main point was that although the site is well put together and great reading, as soon as they mention anything to do with AGW, they source their information from the IPCC.
    Is there no other source?
    “this is a recording”….

    Like

  31. “they source their information from the IPCC.” – Michael.

    Wrong. The IPCC source some of their information on sea level research from Neil White, John Church and co. If you read the site properly you’d understand the data for recent sea level observations come from tide gauges and satellite altimetry.

    “Is there no other source?” – Michael.

    Read the primary scientific literature the IPCC summarizes. Drink lots of coffee.

    What is your opinion of the quote above about what is un-certain?

    The recent acceleration in sea level rise, and whether it is long term trend. That pretty much is a slam dunk because of the continued global warming and increased rate of ice mass loss from Greenland and Antarctica. Especially considering sea level projections don’t include “rapid dynamical changes in ice flow”.

    “Don’tcha think they put that in to cover their own asses?” – Michael.

    Nope.

    Like

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