My Photo
Mobilise this Blog





New Zealand Conservative


AmCam News Tips

  • Have you got mobile camera pix of breaking news, or a first-hand account you've written?
    email Investigate now on publicity [at] and we'll get you online
Blog powered by Typepad

« BREAKING: IPCC lied about Antarctica, public belief in AGW plummets | Main | Telecom’s woes self-inflicted »



come on ian everyone knows that climate change causes the sea levels to go down.......or up.....or stay the same.
Hmmmmm it could be the rising crime rate is caused by global warming, and credit card debt.....hmmm what crashes, politicians, used car salesmen all increasing due to global warming....definitely the science is setttled...who says? me obviously....I ma never wrong?? What a joke lol


Have you not got eyes to see with? Or do you choose to believe shonky stats despite your eyes.

Statistically - how significant do you think that slope is?

I duplicated this guy's measurements)as much as I could from the description I get an R^2 value of 0.0049!

In other words that slope is not significantly different from zero! The data does not show any change at all.

And before you crow that it is not showing an increase - obviously the time period and/or data (number of measurement sites)is insufficient to determine any changes.

This is the problem of idiots getting hold of data and trying to tell lies with it.

ian wishart

Ken darling, go back and visit the previous post I linked to...what I found even more stunning in that was that during the peak of the superhot noughties, sea level rose at only 1.5mm a year, which was not statistically different from the average rise over the past century of 1.7mm a year.

If that's the best the ocean can do during the heat it doesn't bode well for runaway sea level rise this century, does it...


Just goes to prove the climate is cooling.
Warm water expands cool water contracts, with lower sea levels the climate must be cooling.
Who needs Scientists?


Ian, you attempt to avoid my point.

Do you think the trend shown in the figure above us at all significant, statistically. Yes or no?

If not why repeat these lies?


Doug, can you refer me to a source which confirms the oceans are cooling?

"In climate discussions, the most common error is focusing on a single piece of the puzzle while ignoring the big picture. The ocean cooling meme commits this error twofold. Firstly, it scrutinises 6 years worth of data while ignoring the last 40 years of ocean warming. Secondly, it hangs its hat on one particular reconstruction that shows cooling, while other results and independent analyses indicate slight warming.

The bottom line is there is still uncertainty over the reconstruction of ocean heat. Generally, the various reconstructions show the same long term trends but don't always agree when it comes to inter-decadal variability. The uncertainty means one cannot conclude with confidence that the ocean is cooling. Independent analysis seem to indicate that over last half dozen years, the ocean has shown less warming than the long term trend but nevertheless, a statistically significant warming trend."

Ian Wishart

Ken, define "significant". If you mean statistically significant as defined by climate scientists, it might not be. But it is the only large scale deep dataset we have, and it's only been going since the start of 04, and its data is certainly not showing warming during supposedly the hottest decade ever. So in that sense, limited as it might be, it remains significant.

In truth, the idea of a 30 year measurement for significance was pretty much plucked out of the air as a guess, as Phil Jones himself admitted in the Climategate emails, and it could be as low as ten years.

On the other hand, if we are looking at part of a much bigger cycle, 300 years might be too short to guess the trend.

Here's what Von Storch has to say - you would do well to pay attention.

“…How fast can climate change when only natural causes are operating? This rate may be described by a probability distribution…This distribution is not known…It is not possible to prove that the estimation is “right”…I personally believe that our estimates are approximately correct – but I have to admit that I may be wrong with that assessment.

…the quality of estimating the magnitude of naturally caused variability is a key issue in this exercise. This magnitude is not known but must be estimated. Accepting its estimated value is a matter of trust. If somebody believes that the estimate is inadequate because of the limited data base, then I can not disprove this assertion. The same is true for my belief that the data base is good enough to allow a reasonable educated guess of this quantity – possible opponents are not able to prove that I am wrong.

…We humans – at least in the western culture – seem to be predisposed to accept “anthropogenic climate change” as an acceptable explanation for uncommon events even if they are natural and simply rare. This may be one of the reasons why the prophets of “climate catastrophes” and disasters are so successful in communicating with the general public – they articulate a primal fear, so to speak an eigen-oscillation of public perception.

…often the implicit assumption is made that when a climate change signal is detected in the global mean temperature, which is attributable to increased greenhouse gas concentrations, then all extraordinary meteorological events, like disastrous storms or extensive floods, must also be causally related to this anthropogenic climate change…There are even scientists who admit that exaggeration of the threat of climate change would be in order – because without exaggeration the public would not take the threat sufficiently serious (Bray and von Storch, 2007).

…If every extreme event is considered a support of the concept of anthropogenic climate change – how would we be able to falsify the hypothesis of anthropogenic climate change, if it would actually be false? Only by the absence of extreme events – which would, on the other hand, be a sure proof of climate change, as extreme events are integral parts of the statistics of weather.

The emphasis on “protection of climate” and the wrong causality of emissions and weather extremes is…a detrimental disinformation. It causes people to falsely believe that normal weather extremes are really related to climate change, and that such extreme would no more happen as soon as a successful climate policy is installed. The vulnerability against weather extremes is enhanced because of the false perception that we are facing a revengeful environment which is striking back against the perpetrator instead of the view that extremes of this sort are “normal” and need preparation on our side even if these events are rare

The truth is, we really don't know what is "significant". It is an artificial construct of humans struggling to discern order in a chaotic system.


The ocean's evaporating, dude! Global Warming, AHHHHH!

Steve Milesworthy

This is fraud.

The original plot says that this is the dynamical height of the top layer relative to the layer at 100 dbar (about 100 metres down).

To get the real height you have to look at, probably 0/1800, which is what the comparison plot from the paper noted on the site where this came from used.

Bob D

Steve: There doesn't appear to be any evidence to support your rather extreme accusation of fraud. In order to make that allegation you should have plotted the 0/1800 data yourself and published the graph to support your accusation. Otherwise you should just have pointed out that 0/1800 might be better than 0/100. It can only be fraud if the 0/1800 data shows the opposite trend, and you can show there was a deliberate attempt to hide this by showing only the 0/100 trend. Also, I believe you should show there was a financial advantage to the person doing this. You have done none of these basic things, yet you have jumped to a conclusion and accused people of fraud.

The author of the piece has already responded to your comment at his site, saying there is little difference between 0/100 and 0/1800. We'll have to wait for the updated graph, but so far your accusation appears to have been somewhat hasty and unfortunate:
"Steve Milesworthy: Thanks for your suggestion. Argo doesn't provide data in the Pacific Marine Atlas at 1800dbar, but do at 1900dbar, so I assume you would be fine with that. Just took a look at the graph of 0/1900 dbar and it looks by eyeball to also show a similar downtrend as 0/100dbar, but will have to digitize it and plot the trendline & will post here."

(not so) Silent

Who does this "Ken" think he is to demand answers in such a peremptory manner?
Rude little troll isnt he. Does he have any scientific qualifications?

Louie D

Well it might be right and it might be wrong.
However it dose seem a bit odd that such a short period is ok ,when most of the time its not.


Ian - why is it you guys can never admit your mistakes when you are caught out. And can never apologise for them.

Your just try to divert away from the facts. This figure does not indicate a cooling at all. At the 95% confidence level the slope is in the range -0.20 to +0.12.

The data is just not sufficient to make claims like you have. The time period is far too short.

This is equivalent to the dishonest claims being made that Jones indicated a cooling from 2004 or no temperature increase from 1995. All based in dishonest misquoting of his accurate statistical statements.

(not so) silent - you are quite welcome to check me out at Open Parachute. Silly to jump to conclusions based on spite.

Steve Milesworthy

No it's not fraud of course. It's just that everything else seems to get called fraud.

Anyway. The separate point is that this is measuring about 100 metres of the sea level. Satellite measurements show a rise of about 10-12mm. If 100m equates to 10% of the depth, then we might expect a rise of 1mm over the time if it were proportionally distributed. The calculated trend is clearly too insignificant to measure such a difference.

Jim Owen

Ken -
It doesn't require "significant" cooling - just a lack of warming (and therefore a lack of "significant" sea level rise) to logically destroy your position.

Nor does it require "scientific" training or credentials (although I have them) to understand that, just common sense.


So, Jim, what conclusion can you draw from a trend which at the 95% probability level lies between -0.20 to +0.12?

Obviously - you need more data/time.

Certainly not claiming it as evidence of declining sea levels!

Not if you are honest.

Jim Owen

The conclusion is that, based on the evidence, there is neither a clear increase nor decrease, so your statistics are useless. The only evidence that will make any difference at all is "what happens next." Will temps increase? Or decrease? Will sea level increase or decrease? The questions go on and on and on. The answers will come in time, but are not (or at least have not yet) been predicted by either statistics or models. The probability right now tends to lean in the direction of cooling/possible sea level decrease simply because it fits the 30/60 year warming/cooling climate cycle that's been exhibited over the last 100+ years.

Or as a "real" scientist once wrote:
I am suspicious of any ontological system that claims to deliver unchallengeable truths. The extent to which scientists claim to have delivered such certainty is the extent to which they have perverted the real purpose of science, which is above all a rigorous but open-minded and dynamic system of inquiry.
From – “Hunting Down the Universe” by Michael Hawkins

Youre trying to tell me that statistics gives you certainty. And I'll tell you this: Don't substitute statistics for common sense. That could leave you looking very foolish.

My point still stands - if it's not warming, if the sea level rise isn't measurable, if the Arctic ice isn't melting, then AGW believers need a new cause to believe in. And NONE of those things are happening.


Jim, the obvious point is that the scientific conclusion of current climate warming is not based on the silly data Ian is trying to draw conclusions from. It's based on many lines if evidence and is well accepted.

It us silly of people like Ian who think that they can overturn all that science with such skimpy rubbish and shonkey interpretations.

Jim Owen

Dear Ken -
You need to learn some things about science.

First is that you can have all the evidence you want, but if that evidence is shown to be false to any degree whatever, then the structure must be changed, reevaluated or trashed. Otherwise you're not talking about science, but religion, astrology or some other unrelated subject.

Secondly, I've yet to see convincing evidence that AGW has been "proved" or even has reasonable science to support it. Note that it's not the job of sceptics to "prove" that AGW is wrong. That's what the AGW adherents are supposed to do. They haven't been doing their job.

Third, I ALWAYS keep in mind the quote about lies, damned lies and statistics. And I've seen plenty of lies clothed as statistics over the last few years.

Fifth, regardless of what anyone else sees, what "I" see is a plot that says that one component of sea level rise is not as great as it has been in the past. Is this significant? Not enough data for that conclusion. Nor is there enough data for you to conclude that the plot is, in your words, "shonky".

There is, however, quite sufficient evidence that the rate of sea level rise has slowed considerably, that ocean heat has declined, that Arctic ice is not melting but that Antarctic ice is growing, and that "global" temps have not warmed since the first quarter of 2001.

Now - about that evidence you're so fond of.....? :-)


Well, Ian, your repetition of this rubbish, the plot above is surely a classic example of lies dressed up in statistics. Shonky statistics.
When I pointed out the problem on the hockeyschtic blog my comment was deleted.

So we can see who is being dishonest.

At least you haven't got into such censorship. I congratulate you for this. Censorship is so common with climate cange deniers, creationist and Christian aplogists blogs here.

The comments to this entry are closed.