Arguments
Sea level is not rising
The skeptic argument...
Sea level is not rising
"Together, these two unaltered [sea level] datasets indicate that global mean sea level trend has remained stable over the entire period 1992-2007, altogether eliminating the apparent 3.2 mm/year rate of sea-level rise arising from the “adjusted” data." (Christopher Monckton)
What the science says...
| Select a level... |
Basic
|
Intermediate
| |||
|
The claim sea level isn’t rising is based on blatantly doctored graphs contradicted by observations. |
|||||
We have a new entry in the contest for most bizarre "skeptic" argument. The "Science" and Public Policy Institute ("S"PPI) Monthly CO2 Report for January 2011, edited by Christopher Monckton, claims on page 29: "Sea level is not rising."
This is of course false. In fact, sea level is not only rising, but the rise is accelerating. Immediately below this false claim, the document contains the following figure:
Notice that the caption claims the blue curve is observational sea level data "up to 1960 according to Professor Morner." Of course, after 1960 (when the "observations" are apparently just made up) is not only when the "observations" supposedly diverge from the models, but also when they diverge from reality! Ah, but it gets even worse from here. On page 33, the document presents what may be my favorite figure of all time:
Monckton and "S"PPI have taken the sea level graph from the University of Colorado at Boulder which shows a 3.2 milimeter per year sea level rise trend (as is still visible in the bottom right of the graph), rotated it to make the trend look flat, and claimed that this is what the "unaltered" and "uncorrected" data looks like.
It boggles the mind that Monckton and the "S"PPI think they can convince people that sea level has dropped since 1950 based on nothing more than their own unsubstantiated claims and blatantly doctored graphs which are completely contradicted by the actual observational data.
Last updated on 14 May 2011 by dana1981.
"the rate of increase in sea level has not changed since satellites first began measuring it reliably in 1993"
(i.e. talking about a real but constant rate of increase with time: saying that the derivative dLevel/dTime is constant).
... but 'what the science says' gives:
'The claim sea level isn’t rising is based on blatantly doctored graphs contradicted by observations'
(i.e. suggesting that the 'myth' is not talking about a rate (derivative) but about the absolute level. Personally I didn't read it that way).
I don't have much respect for Christopher Monckton, but I'm not sure that his standpoint is being correctly addressed here. And arguably, the 'myth' statement justifies his trick of sloping the graph: it can be seen as a convenient way of illustrating that the line is straight, i.e. no acceleration.
If only you were correct.
The summary of the myth is ambiguous but when combined with the graphs that are part of the SPPI document I think the meaning is clear. At any rate, I suspect you have inadverently mis-paraphrased the myth statement, which cites Monckton as claiming:
When combined with the SPPI graphs, it is IMO clear that Monckton is claiming sea levels are not rising at all.
I assume you have cited an actual quote by Monckton as well (in fact, it would not surprise me if it was from the same document that this rebuttal cites), which is probably par for the course from Monckton.
thanks for the very useful reply. However for clarification: my citations are copied directly from the table on the front page of SkS 'Monckton Myths', hence my comment about these seeming muddled. Could I suggest a clarification?
I think you are correct there: the myth Monckton promulgates in the 'Monckton Myths page' is different than the myth he promulgates at the top of this article (surely a Monckton vs Monckton moment if ever there was one).
However, your point stands: when Monckton claims sea level isn't rising, this is the article to go to. When he claims, as per myth #1 on the Monctkon myth page, that sea level rise is not accelerating, surely there is another, better rebuttal to use. This one might do.