Reply to: No acceleration in Sea level rises

[TimberWolf]

A bit of new science research:

Bombshell conclusion – new peer reviewed analysis: “worldwide-temperature increase has not produced acceleration of global sea level over the past 100 years” | Watts Up With That?

Watt about this?

They add their voices to several other studies that have concluded sea levels will rise faster than projected by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in its landmark 2007 assessment.

[EternalOptimist]

You seem unusually serious EO. Make with the funny.

yeah, sorry about that.
i should have learned the lesson, its not a good idea to get serious about something you are not an expert in

[TiroFijo]

A bit of new science research:

Bombshell conclusion – new peer reviewed analysis: “worldwide-temperature increase has not produced acceleration of global sea level over the past 100 years” | Watts Up With That?

George Carlin (RIP) always nailed it on the head for me!

[d000hg]

You seem unusually serious EO. Make with the funny.

[EternalOptimist]

I hold no special brief for Al Gore, and his behaviour has no bearing on the ability of CO2 to warm the planet, but I do know he has substantial holdings in, and is on the board of both Apple and Google. I would speculate that these made him substantially more than his tiny stakes in 'green' investments. I do know on his Tennessee house



I also know that 100% of the profits from his climate books, his Oscar winning movie, and his Nobel prize money were donated to an educational charity he founded.

Presumably the Nobel prize committee are either a bunch of rubes, or part of the conspiracy .... ?

look
Newton is remembered for an apple falling on his head
Darwin is remembered for his big beard
Einstein is remembered for e = mc2

your lot will be remembered for a bloated, thick as pigsh1 t, failed american politician claiming that the science was settled. learn to live with it pj

[pjclarke]

I hold no special brief for Al Gore, and his behaviour has no bearing on the ability of CO2 to warm the planet, but I do know he has substantial holdings in, and is on the board of both Apple and Google. I would speculate that these made him substantially more than his tiny stakes in 'green' investments. I do know on his Tennessee house

Gore "has completed a host of improvements to make the home more energy efficient, and a building-industry group has praised the house as one of the nation's most environmentally friendly [...] 'Short of tearing it down and starting anew, I don't know how it could have been rated any higher,' said Kim Shinn of the non-profit U.S. Green Building Council, which gave the house its second-highest rating for sustainable design.

I also know that 100% of the profits from his climate books, his Oscar winning movie, and his Nobel prize money were donated to an educational charity he founded.

Presumably the Nobel prize committee are either a bunch of rubes, or part of the conspiracy .... ?

[EternalOptimist]

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.

But I never said the science was settled, someone else said that. In my view, anyone who claims that something as massively complex as the earths climate is fully understood is either an idiot or a fraudster.
As you say, quantum physics could do things, even when not fully understood, what has that got to do with the cagw debate ? The big mistake they made with Kilimajaro was making a prediction too close in time, so it could be verified in our lifetime.
They have taken an existing trend, warming, added an idea, agw, created models to perpetuate that trend, hyped it up into cagw and now want to take control of the levers of the worlds economy.
It is not science to create an unfalsifiable hypothesis, claim it is settled and then base the worlds economy on the oucome.
It's something, but its not science

[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.

[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]

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.

[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.

[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.

[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?

[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

[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.