No acceleration in Sea level rises

[EternalOptimist]

BB Your quote is 14 years old. Things have moved on.

EO - no acceleration is unequivocally present in the SLR trend since 1900, however the estimates range widely:-

(from the IPCC section linked earlier)

During the satellite era, the SLR has been of the order 3mm/yr



so a linear extrapolation gives a further rise of c27cm by 2100, but the increase is unlikely to remain linear, as ice sheets melt and ocean heat content increases.



Hansen's full argument is here It is based on a nonlinear response from the ice sheets, plus his own paleoclimatic research. Hansen has no connection to the Hockey Stick studies, btw.

Gore, I believe, was talking about the consequent SLR if one of the major ice sheets (Greenland or West Antarctica) melted entirely, which is not likely in under a millennium.

BTW there is a poster at WUWT also named EternalOptimist who can usually be relied upon uncritically to suck up Watts' balony. Small world!

I have noticed that fellow at WUWT. iirc, he does not take a position (because he is not a scientist) but he is extremely funny and takes a pop at some of the more idiotic cagw statements.

its good to keep ones humour , no ?

[BlasterBates]

It is true that global average temperature has remained roughly constant over the past decade.

Chief Scientific Advisor John Beddington during a debate with Nigel Lawson.

- Bishop Hill blog - Beddington quotes

I get amused about the fact that some warmists (guess who) continue to deny this when Phil Jones testified it in front of a parliamentary commitee, and John Beddington reiterates it, and you can see it clearly on the graph from HADCRUT.

It rose for a couple of decades it's been constant for a decade and now it'll drop.

[BlasterBates]

Gore, I believe, was talking about the consequent SLR if one of the major ice sheets (Greenland or West Antarctica) melted entirely, which is not likely in under a millennium.

Are you seriously suggesting that the average temperature in Antarctica will rise by 60 degrees? Which is what would have to happen.

[EternalOptimist]

yet more humble pie from the warmists.

Al gore said in 2006, that within ten years the snow on kilimanjaro would be gone, due to global warming.
This was based on predictions by cagw scientist douglas Hardy amongst others. It has now been shown that the retreat of the glacier was nothing to do with co2, and Hardy has said

'Unfortunately, we made the prediction. I wish we hadn’t, None of us had much history working on that mountain, and we didn’t understand a lot of the complicated processes on the peak like we do now'

Al Gore has declined to comment


at last, some honesty

[d000hg]

What do you make of this BB? Antarctic ice breakup makes ocean absorb more CO2 ? The Register

What if AGW exists but all the effects cancel each other out? Is it the scientific part you object to or the politicisation?

[DimPrawn]

What do you make of this BB? Antarctic ice breakup makes ocean absorb more CO2 ? The Register

What if AGW exists but all the effects cancel each other out? Is it the scientific part you object to or the politicisation?

Yeah, it's like my time machine. You step in it and it goes back in time, but in doing so, the universe moves time forward, so it cancels out. So really it's like standing wasting time in a big cardboard box overall. And just as relevant as AGW.

[EternalOptimist]

What do you make of this BB? Antarctic ice breakup makes ocean absorb more CO2 ? The Register

What if AGW exists but all the effects cancel each other out? Is it the scientific part you object to or the politicisation?

so what is it ? is the science settled or isnt it ?
that link (and the kilimanjaro one above) seems to suggest that we are still learning new and major things all the time.

[d000hg]

so what is it ? is the science settled or isnt it ?
that link (and the kilimanjaro one above) seems to suggest that we are still learning new and major things all the time.

I agree. However that's still the case in areas of science like quantum physics and yet we were able to do things with the results even decades ago, despite not knowing everything.

In science if you wait until you know everything before acting, you never will... you can only go on what you know right now and modify your thinking as new knowledge is gained.

[DimPrawn]

As soon as Gore is mentioned, I think of the billions he has made with the ponzi Carbon credits, and the massive non-green mansion he has bought recently, and his grinning greedy lying face, and think.


SCAM!

But hey, despite no evidience of AGW, you guys keep the faith.

[d000hg]

Saying there is NO evidence is as extreme as those who call you a 'denier' for not buying in wholesale and making your own clothes from hemp. There's obviously some evidence, but that doesn't mean AGW exists because it could be evidence which is actually caused by something else... just as in a crime scene evidence can suggest one thing which is later proved to be incorrect.