Miriam O’Brien says: Bob Tisdale gets into a spot of hot water

New Post at HotWhopper.

WattsUpWithThat post:  The Region of Unusual Sea Level Rise East of the Philippines Contributes Only a Little to the Global Rate

HotWhopper Reply from Monday, November 24, 2014 [archived]: Bob Tisdale gets into a spot of hot water

The comments are open…there’s no moderation, except for comments with 3 or more links. There is a new moderation policy in place.

Please refrain from ad hominem comments. I realize that will be difficult for many people, especially if you’ve just returned from Hot Whopper. But try; ad homs hurt your arguments.

About Bob Tisdale

Research interest: the long-term aftereffects of El Niño and La Nina events on global sea surface temperature and ocean heat content. Author of the ebook Who Turned on the Heat? and regular contributor at WattsUpWithThat.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

18 Responses to Miriam O’Brien says: Bob Tisdale gets into a spot of hot water

  1. wuwt.fan.4.6yrs says:

    We’ll have to remember this post at Hot Whopper the next time an alarmist starts whining about the sea levels in the region of that hot spot… Look even Sou understands that the additional sea level rise in the region is caused naturally.

    [When reading comments on this thread by wuwt.fan.4.6.years, keep in mind my post My Temporary Pseudonym wuwt.fan.4.6.years – A Little Deception Went a Long Way.]

    Liked by 2 people

  2. wuwt.fan.4.6yrs says:

    In her post, sou said, “He [Tisdale] doesn’t go quite as far as admitting that melting ice and thermal expansion of water from the hotter oceans or changing salinity have anything to do with sea level change, let alone that it’s got anything to do with human activity. But it’s a small step in the right direction.”

    Tisdale discussed global sea level rise in a post a few weeks ago. Sou has a short memory.

    Also see the WUWT post:

    Tisdale wrote:

    [Start quote.]

    Sea levels, on the other hand, present an altogether different problem. Again, even if we could turn back CO2 levels to preindustrial values, sea levels would continue to rise. Sea levels have been rising since the end of the last ice age, and they will continue to do so until Earth heads toward another ice age and the globe starts to cool once again. Further, the rate at which global sea levels might possibly change in the future, in response to the hypothetical effects of manmade greenhouse gases, is still the subject of wide ranges of uncertainty and open debate…and the subject of even more alarmism from activists and the media, if that’s possible. One thing is certain: the oceans and seas will continue to assault Earth’s land masses. Adding solar arrays and windmills to power grids is not going to stop the oceans from invading our shorelines. We can only adapt to rising sea levels…and we have been doing exactly that since the end of the last ice age.

    We can no longer travel by land between Asia and North America via the Bering Land “Bridge”. Similarly, we can no longer migrate on land between Tasmania, New Guinea and Australia, which were all interconnected landmasses not too many millennia ago. We can no longer hunt and gather in Doggerland, which was the former landmass that once connected Britain to mainland Europe during and after the last ice age. Doggerland disappeared only 6000 to 6500 years ago, swallowed by the rising North Sea. All around the globe, since the last glacial maximum, we’ve lost valuable low-lying lands and their resources to rising sea levels, and we’ll lose more of them in the future. That’s an unfortunate and unavoidable fact of life on this planet.

    Maybe it’s easier to fathom if we look at the rise and fall in sea levels in paleoclimatological timeframes. We won’t have to think in those terms often in this book, because most of the discussions are about the past 3 to 4 decades. But for a moment, let’s think in tens and hundreds of thousands of years. Then the 100 to 125 meter (330 to 410 foot) variations in sea levels could simply be thought of as a form of ice age-dependent “tides”, washing ashore when the Earth warms between ice ages and receding when the earth cools toward the glacial maximums. See Figure Intro-5.

    Out of need and without the slightest thought of future “tides”, our ancestors built villages, towns and cities along those retreating shorelines, and we continue to build homes and businesses there. Now, with a new-found awareness of those future advances in the “tides”, we are adapting, and future generations will continue to adapt, because our villages, towns and cities lie within the “glacial-interglacial tidal range”. Trying to hold back the “tides” of naturally rising sea levels by limiting greenhouse gas emissions is a fool’s errand.

    [End quote.]


  3. wuwt.fan.4.6yrs says:

    How funny. How absolutely preposterous in its silliness.

    If you click on the link Sou attached to ” Perennially Puzzled Bob Tisdale”, you’re taken her article “Bob Tisdale is Perennially Puzzled about ENSO”:

    Did Sou counter any of the arguments Tisdale had presented in the post she’s complaining about? No. She simply contradicted Tisdale and presented the same argument as SkS, which was the basis for Tisdale’s article.

    Tisdale had written somewhere that Sou uses the Monty Python contradiction method of argument. Her ” “Bob Tisdale is Perennially Puzzled about ENSO” is a prime example. If that’s the best you’ve got, Sou, no wonder more and more people are becoming skeptical of CAGW.


  4. Bob Tisdale says:

    wuwt.fan.4.6yrs, thank you for your comments on this thread, and on others.

    Miriam O’Brien’s post “Bob Tisdale is Perennially Puzzled about ENSO” was a foolish contradiction of my post “SkepticalScience Still Misunderstands or Misrepresents the El Niño-Southern Oscillation (ENSO)”.

    And you’re correct. She never addressed any of the points I made in my post. Miriam simply parroted the same tired arguments that Nuccitelli made in his post “Distinguishing Between Short-Term Variability and Long-Term Trends”.

    SkepticalScience has since backed off on that simple interpretation of the instrument temperature record, which is something else that Miriam O’Brien chooses to overlook. See my post “SkepticalScience Now Argues Against Foster & Rahmsorf (2011)”.

    Thanks again, wuwt.fan.4.6yrs.

    Liked by 1 person

  5. philjourdan says:

    I have heard Trenberth called many things, but ENSO expert? Just curious when he became an expert on the subject.


  6. Bob Tisdale says:

    philjourdan, Trenberth has been studying and writing papers about ENSO for decades:

    In fact, my understandings of ENSO (chaotic, naturally occurring, sunlight-fueled recharge-discharge oscillator) are based on and supported by Trenberth papers.

    Liked by 1 person

  7. wuwt.fan.4.6yrs says:

    I just left the following over at HotWhopper. Let’s see if she approves it.

    Hi Sou. Just wanted to let you know that this post of yours is being discussed at another blog here.
    According to Tisdale, you all are welcome.


  8. I used to blog over at WUWT. I left a while ago. Got to say I miss you guys. But I’m on to other things. I’ve recently gotten into creating creating videos to reach urban youth to deliver the important message of climate skepticism. I hope you’ll watch and enjoy: http://bit.ly/1HDaYkE


  9. wuwt.fan.4.6yrs says:

    From Tisdale’s article:
    “Will the sea levels in that region continue at that pace into the future? Much of it depends on ENSO, and that’s something climate models still can’t simulate. Extending that excessive trend into the future would be foolish, especially when we have no understanding of what ENSO will do in the decades to come.”

    In response, from Sou’s article:
    “For the life of me I don’t know why he suggests anyone would think that the sea level in that region would continue to rise at the same higher than average rate forever and a day. You’d end up with the sea shooting up through the sky eventually. Who does he think would be so foolish, one wonders.”

    Sou, maybe before you tried (and failed) to ridicule Tisdale for his statement, you should have tried Googling sea level + Philippines. There you would have found an example right on the first page of Google results. It is the article “Changing sea levels: The global context and Philippine coastal vulnerability”.

    Here’s the money quote, Sou:
    “Assuming that the rate of change of sea level around the Philippines for the period 1992-2011 does not change, we can expect waters to rise by at least 20cm in the next 40 years. Figure 1 shows the absolute rise in sea level around the Philippine coast by 2050.”

    Figure 1 from that article:

    “Figure 1, Sea level rise by 2050.”

    Notice how east of the Philippines that map is predicting sea level rises of as high as 40+ cm by 2050.

    Do you want me to find more examples, Sou? Or is one enough?

    Are you going to correct your article, Sou, and apologize to Tisdale?


  10. wuwt.fan.4.6yrs says:

    Sou has deleted the comment that I also left here at November 24, 2014 at 2:07 pm.


  11. Michael says:

    Oh noes!, censorship!!


  12. wuwt.fan.4.6yrs says:

    Bob Tisdale, I tried to make some headway over at HotWhopper. I thought Sou might delete the comments so I archived it.

    I also didn’t want to push it so I’ll let her cool down for a day.

    The way they all spin reality is remarkable.


  13. wuwt.fan.4.6yrs says: “Sou has deleted the comment that I also left here at November 24, 2014 at 2:07 pm.”

    She is very devious. She even deleted your comment from 2:07 pm from the archive you made and there is no comment in your archive, as far as I can see, that is not also on HotWhopper.


  14. wuwt.fan.4.6yrs says:

    Victor Venema, she has been conversing(?) though. See my latest archive of that thread:

    I’ve just left another comment, but it is very early in the morning there and I do not expect her to read it for a few hours. Even Sou has to sleep (I think).


  15. wuwt.fan.4.6yrs says:

    Hey Bob Tisdale. I think I may have really outstayed my welcome at HotWhopper.

    I just replied to Joe’s November 27, 2014 at 3:38 AM comment and I’ll really be surprised if Sou let’s it through. I’ll post it here if Sou deletes it.


  16. Bob Tisdale says:

    Thanks, wuwt.fan.4.6yrs.

    I especially like Sou’s comment where she says:
    “Bob’s hypothesis was off track and his article was pointless. Despite my facetious comment up top, you can’t even use his exercise to “prove” or “disprove” anything about contributions to global warming and sea level rise, in part because “Bob” left out changes in sea level in the rest of the ocean.”

    Obviously, she can’t understand that my post was about the sea level of a very small region of the western equatorial Pacific, not global sea level. I’m not sure why that’s so hard to fathom.


  17. wuwt.fan.4.6yrs says:



  18. wuwt.fan.4.6yrs says:

    Victor Venema, there would be no evidence of a comment that was not approved in moderation.


Comments are closed.