Brett: The graphs on the ScienceDaily link are atrocious. They end in 2003, so the current downturn in SST and OHC aren't illustrated. There aren't any units for the right-hand scale, leaving no way to spot check their claims of greater warming. If the rest of the report is as poor as the associated graph...enough said.

And people wonder why there are skeptics.

Regards.

NASA JPL has an excellent new climate site, including excellent up-to-date data and graphics.

Also, Brett, you say the cool phase of the PDO has resulted in a *warming* of large areas of the Pacific? That will come as a shock to some of the regulars here, who just *know* that the PDO drives global climate by periodically warming and cooling it. I mean, all we need to do is consider the cold summer Anchorage is having!

Something odd happened to my previous comment and it may not come through. Here's the critical part:

The new NASA JPL climate site has excellent data and graphics for sea level and other important metrics.

This data says volumes about ocean levels and the lack of evidence proving a “dramatic rise in those levels”.

As for the, “previous report in June from ScienceDaily suggested….”

For those without any statistical knowledge the term “suggested” means “No matter what we did to the data, it does NOT show any meaningful statistical significance” or “the data says we can’t disprove that the rise is caused by anything other than chance but, we really tried.”
When you spend money thinking you can prove one thing and the data says something else you need a spin or just a quiet convoluted answer to confuse and suggest that something horrible is happening.

This site should get a good statistician and see if they could disprove the Null Hypothesis. Which would mean that there is a global rise in the ocean levels.” Until that time it means that there is the same total amount of water in the oceans it is just moved causing the level to be rise in one spot and lower in another. Kind of like tilting a glass. The same water just higher or lower depending where you are.)

However, I am sure if we give the data over to the Hansonian Math, Statistics and Beauty Salon they can show that by altering the numbers we will all be drowning in a few years.

Follow the real science not suggestions and altered data.
Folks, read, learn ask questions and after a good laugh have a great weekend.

Great idea here. They almost have it. All they need to do now is encase this turbine into my "TUNNEL" which I have shown a model of here. By doing so this will allow them to filter out the sea life that would otherwise foul the turbine blading,keep from killing it and return it back to the ocean surface.This is done with the traveling screen.
It will also increase the velocity flowing past the turbine in the venturi section of the Tunnel allowing more electrical energy to be produced. Bernoulli increases the flow through the venturi.Pascal makes it flow because of the pressure differental between Force 1 at the Tunnel entrance and Force 2 at the Tunnel exit.

Florida Looks to the Sea for Energy
Undersea Turbines May Convert Powerful Current to Electricity
By LEE DYE
July 30, 2008 �

A consortium of Florida universities is about to embark on a bold and ambitious program aimed at realizing an old and elusive goal -- tapping into the restless energy of the world's oceans.

"We're sitting on the edge of what could be a major energy resource," said Susan Skemp, a mechanical engineer who directs the Center for Ocean Energy Technology at Florida Atlantic University, the epicenter of the effort.

About eight billion gallons of sea water flow past the southern tip of Florida every minute as part of the Gulf Stream, a global wonder that has long mystified oceanographers. This underwater river dwarfs all the rivers of the world combined, transporting more than 30 times the total freshwater flow in rivers around the globe.

Finish reading this fine article hear:

http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/AheadoftheCurve/story?id=5473958&page=1

Just to nitpick here Steve Bloom, but the site you linked to doesn't include any of the hottest years in the thirties as the hottest ever. Remember how big a deal this was for skeptics a couple of years ago? Now it just gets swept under the rug like so many other inconvenient facts. The CO2 record graph looks too much like the defamed hockey stick graph, did Mann make that up too?

Steve Bloom: Thanks for showing us learners a good site to refer to. I have been studying and nothing expresses better for me the correlation between temperature rise and the increase of CO2, then the Keeling Curve. Temperatures and CO2 are almost exactly the same. Astounding. By another source there is a graph that goes back 650,000 years and the rise of temps and an increase in CO2, mirror each other. I think it was the OSTP, an affiliate of the IPCC. What is another problem are the sinks, and an Earth with so much less biomass, and our oceans pH, which is 1 unit more acidic. Also the low lying areas of the southern pacific, and Indian oceans disposal of human waste.
Fertilizer for sugar cane is another problem. Half of The Great Coral Reef is dead.It is said that if we took the nuclear material from half of our DEFENSE SHIELD, we would have enough fission for hundreds of power plants. George Bush just wants to drill for more OIL, as he has no wish to understand that Global Warming could kill mankind.
In New Jersey this week, they voted against any off-shore drilling. Also as a sidebar N.J N.Y. and Conn. are officially in a recession. John McCain with little military experience, little economic knowledge, wants us to keep spending our money in Vietnam. I I I mean Iraq. My Friends! Don't we have enough issues here at home. Time to build those wind Farms, solar panels, and nuclear power plants. NO MORE OIL! Buy a Horse.
KIPP

Here is another up-to-date sea level chart directly from the University of Colorado:
http://sealevel.colorado.edu/current/sl_ib_global.jpg

It also shows the sea level decrease (about 1.5 mm/yr) due to the recent SST cooling trend since 2007 that Bob Tisdale was referring to.

So after an increase of about 44 mm (1.7 inches) during the period of August 1992 to 2007, there has been steady to slight decrease of about 1-2 mm (0.1 inches) since 2007. There were similar steady to 1-2 mm drop in sea level from 2003 to 2005, 1998 to 2000, and 1994-1996. Despite these steady to slightly decreased sea level oscillations, the overall 16-year record uptrend is still in force.

This is just to put Bob Tisdale's argument of the relative drop in sea levels (and SST's) into proper relative perspective. This argument is similar to the arguments used in a similar manner to the recent steady to slight cooling in world temperatures since 1998 relative to the overall temperature increase since the early 1900's.

Mark:Politics and big oil go hand in hand. That is why there are perhaps two skeptics, and the rest deniers on this blog. They show their hand every time they speak, and I really feel that their contribution to science is so small that they should just blog on the fox news website. They think they are delaying history where in fact they are hurting America. Now as we plod along like turtles other countries like China, have the best solar panels.
I wish the Dinosaurs like the cigarette looby would go crawl under a rock. There is a future
to be made. Global warming is getting hotter every day.
KIPP

Steve Bloom,
The negative PDO footprint is different for different areas of the Pacifc. For the area south of Alaska to off the West Coast there is a cold or cool SST anomaly. For the Northwest Pac, the SSTs anomalies are warmer. During the - PDO, the Alleutin Low is far offshore, which allows for mainly offshore flow (colder flow from the Northwest Territories), which inhibits the moderating influence of the warmer Maritime Polar waters. During the + PDO, the Alluetin Low sits south of Alaska, which allows for onshore flow, and the moderating influences of the Pacific. During periods where the Alleutin Low is absent, the polar source regions cool more than normal, and hence stronger outbreaks of Continental airmasses.

As Bob Tisdale points out frequently, the PDO isn't a classic residual like the AMO, but is more of a signal for the longterm behavior of ENSO. El Ninos occur during the - PDO,just like La Ninas occur during + PDOs. The question is one of dominance. ENSO events tend to osillate every 30-60 years, with periods of dominate El Ninos followed by dominate La Ninas. As you know ENSO events have a profound influence on climate worldwide. The PDO appears to oscillate with increases and decreases in global temps, but the oscillation in global temps really oscillate with the frequency of ENSO.

Brett: Isn't it time you updated the global temperature anomalies map you have on the main global warming page 2004-2006. It's a bit misleading as the situation has changed quite a bit since then don't you think

Reply:I will look into that. I will see what I can do, if anything.

Cheers

1.5 mm per year? NO!!! For the love of God, what about those who cannot swim? Good thing I just bought a boat, I may need it. BTW, that's a new 260hp 5.0 liter Mercruiser.

What can I say? I am trying to help the economy. Good thing I can afford the gas ;)

Speaking of gas...

Obama shifts and may allow off shore drilling. Duhhh.... off shore drilling... brilliant! Will Pelosi, Reid and Boxer follow suit? Probably not.

Your days are numbered alarmists. Don't believe me? How many of you have signed up at wecansolveit.org, despite a $300,000,000 ad campaign? 1.4 million? Thats a joke.

Brett, when are you going to join the rest of us realists (MAJORITY) by announcing that AGW is a grossly exagerated hoax -AND- that we need to drill here, drill NOW!! Reply: No Rich, I am the moderator. It's not my job to do that.

Brett: I guess you shot an 84 right.Reply: No, a 91. I onlly play twice a year. )Thst's great.
The best tip I got was from Lee Trevino during the Sawgrass tpc many years ago. He was just there on a publicity junket. The Ben Hogan grip. I used to hit the ball with my right hand like a baseball grip. He took my right hand and turned it to the left so when I looked down it was an upside down v between my thumb and index finger.That made me use my whole body and corrected my balance. Just that made it all come together using my left more and my right less. So when I hit the ball my waste automatically went first, I had to keep my elbow close to my chest for power and cleared for my right side to follow through. But if you are golfing like this, you probably do it anyway. See you on the course, Best,KIPP

For all of the believers, you can watch the ocean rise and cover the beach and boardwalk by checking this webcam over the next couple of decades.

http://www.kiteloft.com/beach_webcam.asp

Keep in mind that this area was supposed to be under 200 feet of water by now, according to earlier predictions.

When I review this blog I find that instead of presenting a balanced debate with articles and information from both sides of the AGW community you just put up article after article pro-AGW. I am not sure I have ever seen anything from the skeptic community on here, probobly why I don't visit very often. It does little to bring credibility to your company when you cannot just put forth the data that is out there. Do us all a favor and present both sides.

Reply: You obviously have not read much of these blogs. The subject is global warming and a lot of the posts are about global warming, not necessarily man-made global warming. You seem to assume they are the same. Maybe you should visit more often and come to a different conclusion about the blog.

Bret, in past threads there was discussion about combustion formulae regarding how much water is produced per gallon of hydrocarbon fuels..gasoline and fuel oils having perhaps slightly different proportions. Ultimately I was corrected by others on this forum that one gallon of fuel burned produces about half a gallon water and the rest is perhaps particulates and carbon dioxide and other gasses. The current industrial era of petroleum fuels started arround 1865. Prior to that (and after for a time)coal and whale oil fueled the world civilization. I still wonder how much water has been physically added to the hydrological cycle of earths oceans and atmosphere? That quantitative amount may indeed correlate to the rising sea level observed in the last hundred years. I understand all smoke contains some water vapor. Thus coal, wood and liquid fuels all add water as vapor to the atmosphere. Also, the earth as petri dish is a closed loop system, with some hydrogen off gassing to space past the ionisphere, thus the rearrangement of molecules from combustion of fuels is a factor dependant on existing matter available, earth as recycling factory of sorts. SOOOO, the amount of water in the oceans can not change significantly unless it is added to. AGW or no AGW NH polar ice is already in the sea. SH polar ice seems to stay put on the continent due to altitude...My question is: Is there geological reccords of Ocean levels being significantly higher than today? or Lower? Reply: I do not know. Not my area of expertise. Maybe someone else on this board would know.

I'm only 18 and do not know much about AGW, could someone please inform me as to what it is and prove to me that it is real? I keep hearing its true, no wait it's a hoax, no wait... I would like someone to prove to me that it is real, whatever it is.

Thanks in advance,
Josh

Chris F, try, try, try to keep just a little bit of this stuff straight in your head:

The 1930s were warm in the U.S., and the whole "controversy" was over whether 1934 would show as the warmest year for the U.S. (versus 1998 or 2005, I forget which) in one of the three data sets. The adjustment was entirely within the error bars, which is to day the "controversy" never meant anything. Globally the 1930s were far cooler than the recent decade, as the JPL graphic shows.

You can look this sort of thing up on the internet, you know. I'm fairly sure that Brett even wrote it up here.

Thanks, JP. I'm familiar with all of that, but there are those here who keep commenting that they think the warm phase of the PDO was responsible for the recent sharp warming and that the cool phase is somehow going to have a significant effect on global temps. Of course ENSO does have an effect on temps because of how it changes the position of warm and cold water on the surface, but the effects balance out over the course of time.

Dennis Hlinka:
Your observation is noted. Some people will take advantage of any short term cooling to deny the reality of Global Warming. Any diminishing ice in Greenland or The Arctic would indicate further warming do to absorption of the suns wavelengths.
The vicious circle of warming will increase and I wish we would change now, not when it is to late.
I think this is why Al Gore came out and made a declaration that we must start turning this problem around in the next ten years. As you would know, many scientists believe that what is wrong with the IPCC predictions is that they are too conservative. Who knows how much things will warm up and when. There is not natural temperature forcing anymore. We are so important that we made our own. So goodluck with that.
KIPP

Vincent said:

"Brett: Isn't it time you updated the global temperature anomalies map you have on the main global warming page 2004-2006. It's a bit misleading as the situation has changed quite a bit since then don't you think"

My questions is why to you use the Hansen 1951 to 1980 default base period? I have played with Hansen's baby using different base periods and found wide ranging results. Try taking 1880 (the first year of data) to your birth date as the base and your birth date to the latest data for anomalies. For me, I found a +.23 degree anomaly.

Rich:
The majority believe in global warming. Brett is a scientist so he must be intellegent about making the right choices and judgements. He can't let politics, or conformity blind his better senses. If Obama wants offshore drilling he will work with congress to get it. The price of gas will be more expensive in ten years, and by then we will have enough alternate sources of energy, we won't even need it. If we had followed Pelosi or Reed's advice we wouldn't be in a recession or in Iraq, to solve a sixteenth century tribal war against two historically opposite religious groups. How's your new boat?
KIPP

Bret, thanks for being the latest to mistake local sea level change as due to thermal expansion rather than winds.
Steve Bloom, you might notice Bret said "northwestern/western Pacific." That part of the Pacific actually warms when the PDO is in a cool phase.

Lets see now. There are 1000 mm in a meter. In order to reach Al Gore's 20 meter rise, at 1.5 mm per year, it would take over 13,000 years.

On the other hand, a repeat of the 1938 hurricane would create 18 foot tides on the south coast of New England, with 20 foot waves on top, and the sea-level would rise in six hours.

Hmmm. If I am inclined to be a Chicken Li