At the following website listed here.
Steven Goddard makes a statement that I found a little perplexing. He says that a new study shows that the annual world average sea level rise is about 1 mm per year. This statement gives the impression that a new study shows that NOAA is wrong on their annual sea level rise estimates, which since the 1990s have shown a rise of around 3 mm per year.
The source of Goddard’s information is a news article which links to the study. I clicked the link and noticed the names of the authors and thought “I’ve already read this study, this isn’t what the authors said at all!”.
So now i’m going to do something that perhaps Goddard has never thought of doing, i’m going to go to the original source.
The paper “Sea-level fingerprint of continental water and ice mass change from GRACE” was published in Geophysical Research Letters (Vol. 37) and estimates the contribution to sea level rise from ice and water loss from the continents.
What Goddard ignores is that thermal expansion explains the majority of global sea level rise. This study only looks at contributions from ice and water on continents. It isn’t exactly hidden in the fine print either, it’s in the abstract.
-1 for Goddard.
Update
Goddard Responded with this
According to him thermal expansion cannot be causing sea level rise to be greater than 1 mm per year because the paleo records show something else causing sea level rise. So the disintegration of past ice sheets prove that sea level rise right now is not caused by thermal expansion? Wow…
But I suppose those folks at the IPCC are in on the conspiracy too…
-2 for Goddard
Did you read his response to this? If you want I will let you respond, but this is such an easy one. He prints a graph showing sea level rises since the last ice age of many meters, inferring that you are saying that ALL sea level rise , even back, then was from thermal expansion.
Maybe he doesn’t realize that there were glaciers on the continents that melted.
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2010/11/25/clearscience-gets-silly/
[Yeah I read his response. As I have said to others before, it is like boxing a glacier, it doesn’t matter how hard you hit it, it is still going to keep flowing… Thanks for showing me either way. I adapted my article a bit but I just think it is a lost cause at this point. Nevertheless having people out there like you to call him on it is a great thing. Cheers – Clearscience]
Sounds like a drowning man clutching at straws to me… Mr Steven Goddard gets +2 points on this round… and I think he is worth a whole bunch of bonus points for his straight talking.
[I’m not quite sure whether you’re being sarcastic or not at this point… If you claim that I am the “drowning man” then I think that you perhaps should read the original article in GRL prior to making your decision. If you claim however that Goddard is the “drowning man” then I think that you hit the nail right on the head. Nevertheless, one of the challenges of blogging is getting the right impressions from comments – Clearscience]
One of the challenges with Blogs is finding good and reliable sources of information… this has become increasingly important because the official sources of information, like NOAA and IPCC, have become increasingly casual with the truth…
[I very much challenge that assertion. The IPCC (and NOAA) are both very accurate and reliable. The IPCC in itself is considered to be quite conservative to many climate scientists and in particular to glaciologists. In particular with respect to ice sheet contributions to sea level rise the IPCC remained steadfastly “on the fence” despite all the indications from glaciologists that rapid dynamical changes were occurring. While I think it is important to be objective with the science, I think it is important to not make assumptions about the motives behind scientists. I know myself personally that the vast majority of working climatologists are not advocates or militant believers in AGW but rather they feel that is the direction that the facts have lead them. I think if you want to be skeptical of everything you hear/read that’s a good thing, just remember that it goes both ways… – Clearscience]
“I think if you want to be skeptical of everything you hear/read that’s a good thing, just remember that it goes both ways…”
On that point we are in total agreement.
malaga,
so therefore after reading this post, you would agree that Goddard, on his blog, portraying clearscience as saying all sea level rise is due to thermal expansion, is a total misrepresentation to the point of fabrication?
[Snip]
[If you want to go on a rant about the IPCC, take it somewhere else. Fraud and corruption are strong words, if you feel there’s so much darn evidence then I’m sure you can get a lawyer to take up the case. Otherwise… this blog is about discussion not ideological rants so take it some place else – Clearscience]
so take it some place else
With Pleasure….
Malaga,
I am waiting fro your reply about Goddard’s total misrepresentation of what Clearscience wrote where he claims that clearscience attributes ALL sea level rise since the last ice age to thermal expansion. Is that the kind of “straight talking” you are referring to?
[I don’t think he will be coming back. He posted a rant of all the corruption and scandal in the IPCC and basically said that anything I post from them is wrong because they’re implicit in a fraudulent conspiracy… – Clearscience]
It would be more accurate, honest and straightforward if you let my reply stand so that Tony Duncan can see my reply… so the world can see my rant and decide accordingly… not just based upon what you think.
[It would be more honest and straightforward if you only made claims you could substantiate. No personal attacks or attacks on organizations on this blog. Those are the rules. See the comments policy. – Clearscience]
No personal attacks or attacks on organizations on this blog.
Don’t you realise that people will see this article as a personal attack on Steven Goddard?
[I think showing that someone is wrong is much different than making accusations of fraud and deep corruption. Did I say anything about Goddard’s motives or indicate that he was implicit in fraud? No. I simply said his analysis was flawed. And it is.
Being wrong doesn’t mean it is a personal attack. It seems everytime someone shows that a skeptic is wrong on an analysis it is played out as being just the corrupt AGW attack dogs beating down opposition rather than just the truth which is that an argument wasn’t supported by the evidence. I’m all for someone coming out and asking questions of AGW, just don’t do a half-assed job in the process. – Clearscience]