Wash. Times Falsely Claims Study "Shows Oceans Are Not Rising"
Wash. Times: "Latest Report Shows Oceans Are Not Rising." A Washington Times editorial that was posted online on March 28 and appeared in the print version of the newspaper on March 29 claimed that a recent study "shows oceans are not rising":
Wash. Times Claims Study Showed Increase In Sea Level In Western Pacific "Was Offset" Elsewhere. The editorial highlighted a recent analysis of U.S. tide gauges by James R. Houston and Robert G. Dean published in the Journal of Coastal Research and claimed that the researchers found that "the sea level was increasing in the western Pacific, but this was offset by a drop in the level near the Alaskan coast":
The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), co-recipient with Mr. Gore of the Nobel Peace Prize, quantified the sea-level rise as being between 7 and 23 inches by the year 2100. They argued that man's emissions of carbon dioxide have been heating up the globe. While man's CO2 is identical to that emitted by polar bears and other animals favored by environmentalists, the left insists "too much" of it is melting polar ice caps. This, the theory goes, makes the oceans swell.
A former research director with the Army Corps of Engineers and a former civil-engineering professor at the University of Florida decided to put the sea-rise claims to the test. They gathered U.S. tide-gauge readings from 57 stations where water levels had been continuously recorded for as long as 156 years. The result did suggest the sea level was increasing in the western Pacific, but this was offset by a drop in the level near the Alaskan coast. "Our analyses do not indicate acceleration in sea level in U.S. tide gauge records during the 20th century," the study's authors concluded. "Instead, for each time period we consider, the records show small decelerations that are consistent with a number of earlier studies of worldwide-gauge records." [Washington Times, 3/28/11]
Study authors: "Sea Levels Are Rising"
Study author James R. Houston: Wash. Times' Claim "Is a mischaracterization of our work." James Houston, Director Emeritus of the Corps of Engineers' Engineer Research and Development Center and an author of the study cited by the Washington Times stated in an email:
Saying, "Latest report shows oceans are not rising" is a mischaracterization of our work. Sea levels are rising. Our study showed that the rise is not accelerating -- it is actually slightly decelerating over at least the last 80 years.
An analogy would be driving a car. If you are driving at a constant speed of 60 miles per hour, the car is not accelerating, but obviously moving. Sea level has been rising at a rate of about 1.7 millimeters per year for the past 100 years. We considered whether the 60 mile per hour speed of the car was accelerating (you are pushing on the gas pedal) or decelerating (you are pushing on the brake). We found a slight deceleration -- sea level over the past 100 years, in particularly the past 80 years, has decelerated slightly, but it is rising. [e-mail to Media Matters, 3/29/11]
The study included the following chart of global mean sea level:
[Journal of Coastal Research, 2/23/11; International Panel on Climate Change, Fourth Assessment Report, 2007] Houston: Wash. Times "Implies That The Net Effect Has Been No Rise. This Is Not The Case." Media Matters asked Houston about the Wash. Times' statement that "The result did suggest the sea level was increasing in the western Pacific, but this was offset by a drop in the level near the Alaskan coast." Houston replied that this was a reference to satellite measurements, not the tide gauge measurements that his study analyzed. Houston also stated:
Basically, from 1993 to 2010, sea level rise measured by satellite altimeters has been remarkably spatially variable over the planet. But if you add up all the ups and downs, the net effect has been a rise measured by the altimeters of about 3.1 millimeters per year from 1993 to 2010. The newspaper article implies that the net effect has been no rise. This is not the case. [e-mail to Media Matters, 3/29/11]
Study Author Robert Dean: "Sea level in the 20th century was (and is) rising." Responding to the Washington Times' claim that his study "shows oceans are not rising," Robert Dean, Professor Emeritus at the Department of Civil and Coastal Engineering of the University of Florida, stated via e-mail:
There is a difference between "rising" and "accelerating." Accelerating means that the rate of rise is increasing. Sea level in the 20th century was (and is) rising, it wasn't accelerating taking the entire century as a whole.
Because the satellite altimetry has concluded that since 1992, the rate of rise has been more rapid than in the 20th century (which would imply a recent acceleration), we are now examining more than 400 gauge records over the last 20 years or so. [e-mail to Media Matters, 3/29/11]
Wash. Times Falsely Suggests Study Refutes IPCC Estimates Of Future Sea Level Rise
Wash Times: The Study "Put The Sea-Rise Claims To The Test." After stating that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change "quantified the sea-level rise as being between 7 and 23 inches by the year 2100," the editorial claimed that Houston and Dean "decided to put the sea-rise claims to the test." [Washington Times, 3/28/11] Houston: IPCC Figures Are "A Reasonable Prediction For The Range Of Scenarios They Consider." Houston stated via e-mail:
I personally think that IPCC (2007)'s range of 7-23 in. by 2100 is a reasonable prediction for the range of scenarios they consider. Our results would indicate that if the conditions of the past century persist (so a similar temperature rise of the past century), the rise by 2100 would approach the lower limit of the range -- so about 7 inches. However, most of the scenarios involve greater temperature rises, and we also would expect there might be greater melting of ice sheets in Greenland and Antarctica.
Therefore, a range of 7-23 inches seems reasonable to me given we don't know which scenario of greenhouse gas emissions, temperature rises, and sea level response to temperature rises will occur. [e-mail to Media Matters, 3/29/11]
Josh Willis of Jet Propulsion Laboratory: "Past rise is not an indicator of future rise." Commenting on the Journal of Coastal Research study via e-mail, Josh Willis, an ocean expert at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, stated: "I think that most people who study global sea level rise accept that there has been an increase, or acceleration, in the rate of global sea level rise during that last 100 or more years. However, scientists do disagree on how obvious this is in some of the tide gauge data." He also said that "it is very difficult to estimate the rate of globally averaged sea level rise from tide gauges alone, much less to do so with something a subtle as acceleration." Willis added: But more importantly, past rise is not an indicator of future rise. When we look closely at the things that cause sea level rise, like ice loss from glaciers and ice sheets, we find that they can dump huge amounts of ice into the ocean in a very short time. So this paper has little or no bearing on sea level rise during the next century. Most people who study these things agree that future rise will be something like 2 to 5 feet by 2100 and this paper doesn't change that." [e-mail to Media Matters, 3/29/11]
NCAR's Kevin Trenberth: "Since 1993 sea level is rising at rates unprecedented in the past 150 years."
Kevin Trenberth, head of the Climate Analysis Section at the National Center for Atmospheric Research similarly stated that the Journal of Coastal Research study "says nothing about the future," adding that "future sea level rise is much debated" with some estimating that "it could be much greater than 23 inches by 2100 (the IPCC estimates are known to be low because they did not include all factors, and they say so)." Trenberth further stated: Facts are that since 1993 sea level is rising at rates unprecedented in the past 150 years, and it is well accounted for by expansion of the ocean and melting of land ice. Prospects for the future are even larger increases depending critically on what happens to the major ice sheets of Greenland and Antarctica. Both have shown acceleration of melting since 2003. [e-mail to Media Matters, 3/29/11]
http://mediamatters.org/research/201103290042 
[Washington Times, 
Posts
Since Joe has not seen fit to provide a link to the post in question, along with the errata I published, I will do so, here it is: [snip]
[JR: That is another falsehood. There is a link to the post in question in my post here. I am tired of you publishing your nonsense here. And I'm certainly not going to give you another link -- particularly to an error riddled post that contains a variety of false attacks on me.]
BEST has seen the correction and has thanked me for it. I was not aware of the issue until Dr. Muller communicated with me.
[JR: That is also an outrageous falsehood. One of your commenters pointed out on March 23 (!) your mistake "It seems to me that using weather stations only in Japan doesn’t seem like a random process, yet the BEST team says the stations mimic the Global Data and were randomly chosen." Instead of correcting your post last week, you wrote, "Ah I see you are immediately back to wasting everyone’s time here, so I’ll waste some of yours with some sarcasm. I’m not going to give you any additional information, as you’ve proven yourself to be a hostile commenter who will just run over to the Rommulans...." ]
Thanks for taking out Mr. Roddy’s ugly bestiality insinuation, it was hardly humorous by any stretch.
As for being cock-sure about information in blog posts, here’s the problem in reverse where Mr. Romm made a very large error and also had to correct a blog post.
[JR: Uh, the difference was that (1) I was quoting someone else and (2) the minute the error was pointed out I fixed it, whereas you refused to fix your post for 6 full days after it was pointed out. If I hadn't written this post, who knows if you ever would have fixed that falsehood.]
[snip -- I'm not giving you more links back to another error-riddled post.]
Blogging by its nature, gets peer review post facto.
Thanks again, Anhtony
[JR: Uhh, only for those who care about accuracy, as opposed to those who push disinformation, like you.]
None of this explains why Dr. Muller is consulting with a discredited-denier-former-TV-weatherman.
There have got to be at least 1,000,000 people more qualified, possibly a lot more.
Hell, I’m one of them with a B.S. in engineering science and a focus in energy and the environment.
Funny how Watts didn’t mention whether or not he will concede on the “settled facts”(NAS) or “unequivocal”(IPCC) evidence that the earth is in fact warming.
Accusing someone on consorting with a goat is a time-honored intenet mock. Always prefaced with the libel-defeating boilerplate, “I’ve heard that …”
I can’t believe that Watts is so thin-skinned, humorless, and self-important as to object — in print! — to the accusation of goat consorting. It’s like running to mommy.
Anything he says has one goal:
Make the discussion sound like particularly nasty divorce proceeding.
That’s all he has to do – integrity be damned – and he wins.
At least, until the climate itself forces Watts to crawl into a hole in shame….. which it will.
Meanwhile, does the man get a dime of federal funds? Then lets subpoena all his email! I especially want to know if he’s investing in real estate in Churchill Manitoba, water distribution technology, and so on. I mean, does he expect to leverage his current profits earned by smearing climate scientists, planning to really cash in big peddling things to desperate people in the future? Integrity be damned. But at least it would be consistent.
Not Shakespeare, but apropos -
Oh what a tangled web we weave
When first we practice to deceive.
- Sir Walter Scott (Marmion, 1808)
And don’t be knocking my buddy, Mike Roddy, neither! We were on the teevee too!
(okay, for five seconds)…
http://witsendnj.blogspot.com/ 2011/ 03/ koch-kills-on-ed-show.html
Mr. Watts. Your story about Hansen’s “little known” 1988 prediction is false. You never bothered to compare the Salon.com report with Bob Reiss’s book. Search for “west side highway” on http://www.skepticalscience.com for more info.
Pull that false story down, Watts.
Mike has withdrawn the goat comment, but no word from the goat itself. . .
[JR: Remember, Watts has never apologized for the smears against NOAA or NASA scientists -- or the headline "When Warmistas Attack" or the attacks on the patriotism of Tamino and Rabbett or.....]
Dear Anthony,
I wrote almost all the text for the original Alternet 5 Awards for Most Heinous Climate Villains, and bestiality was never mentioned in the original or subsequent versions posted on that site:
http://www.alternet.org/ environment/ 149120/5_awards_for_the_world%27s_most_heinous_climate_villains?page=4
Ian Murphy, my coauthor who mostly did the illustrations, added the bestiality part in the Buffalo Beast version. Ian writes a lot of dark humorous pieces, which suits my taste. My name is also on the Beast version, but I don’t really care.
We were having fun, Anthony, including with the aftermath. Now, however, I am wondering. And my advice to you, dear Anthony, is to remember what Lyndon Johnson said to his campaign manager in a 1948 run for Congress:
LBJ: “I want you to accuse my opponent of having sex with every animal in the barnyard”.
campaign manager: “But that’s not true!”.
LBJ: “Yes, but I want him to deny it!”.
We can’t help but laugh at you, Anthony, sorry. How could anyone possibly take your opinions about climate science and everything else seriously?
And thanks to my friends for sticking up for me here.
[JR: If you want to know the kind of comments Watts routinely allows, read this.
Joe,
I don’t agree with your strategy:
“So the question is, will Anthony Watts keep his word and concede, finally, that there has been substantial warming in recent decades and that the results given by CRU and GISS are largely correct?”
I think it is more important that Watts & family stop pushing nonsense about “no global warming” than that he eat crow in public about getting it wrong. By trying to force the issue, you may just ensure that he does neither – thus sustaining the lifespan of this stalling point.
There is a quote attributed to Sun Tzu, “The Art of War”: “Never cut off your enemy’s retreat.” I think this point has application in this situation.
climate undergrad @13:
You ask, “None of this explains why Dr. Muller is consulting with a discredited-denier-former-TV-weatherman.
There have got to be at least 1,000,000 people more qualified, possibly a lot more.”
There is a very good reason for consulting with Watts: He has one of the most popular climate websites on the WWW, and he’s skeptical about global warming. If the BEST study takes into account his input and concerns, and still gets the conventional results (and that is what looks like happening), Watts & family will have no fallback and no cover.
It would be worthwhile to get beyond this stage of argument. Let’s let that happen.
Hey Anthony Watts. Congratulations on being able to admit you were wrong. Seriously, I actually respect that. It seems very rare over there.
But you better get used to it, because you guys are wrong about so very much. And it doesn’t matter how much you “shout them down in the comments” — you guys need to look in the mirror and figure out what is the honorable way to react when your shouting certainty is no longer convincing to anyone with a speck of decent intellect.
Anthony Watts: you are committing acts that are morally and ethically on par with selling meth to gradeschoolers. At long last, have you no shame?
Never mind, its a rhetorical question, and the answer is abundantly clear.
A message to Anthony Watts:
***
Please save the bullsh!t and playing the victim card for your own blog where it fits right in.
Everyone who reads this website knows how entirely, calculatingly, unapologetically, full of $%&# you are. You can blame your “misunderstanding” on bad hearing or the mean ole internets as much as you want, but just remember this:
Your blatant dishonesty and distortion is completely transparent to CP commenters like me and the rest of us – i.e. those who actually understand the science of AGW as well as the underhanded politics people like you peddle to deny it.
Now think about what happens when time, reality, and hindsight catch up to those flocks of sheeple you choose to lead astray. Unless you’ve brainwashed yourself as badly as you have your own readers, I think you know just as well as the rest of us what’s really coming down the pipe.
So please enjoy your 15 minutes of disingenuous fame, your absurd “science blog” awards, and whatever kickbacks you’re getting from the Heartland Institute and the Koch brothers for all your pollutocrat propaganda.
…
Because here’re the REAL accolades you will ultimately be remembered for:
When your 15 minutes are up, when the harsh reality of AGW will be too much for even your own Dunning-Krugerite army to ignore, when the consequences are too dire and any possible mitigation too little too late – people will eagerly look back for whoever they can blame.
The next generation and those beyond will ask with incredulous outrage how we chose to twiddle our thumbs on this issue when our best scientists warned us about it for decades.
And although you may not be around to face the torches and pitchforks by that point – just remember every word you write on that joke of a website, every speech you give spreading your disinfo to the disinformed, will find its way into permanent history.
So when people look back FOR THE REST OF HISTORY with disdain and ask how our generation could be so lazy, so selfish, and so utterly stupid to let this all happen – they’ll have the exact same perspective on you that we already do.
I hope that level of permanent infamy is worth whatever cheap kicks you’re getting out of all this in the meantime.
Just who’s going to be around 100 years from now to blame all your DELIBERATE dishonesty on “bad hearing”?
Good luck with that.