Global Warming: Are Sea Levels Rising?

False argumentation. You're assuming it's a scam (Which is very unusual to me.. considering its a world-wide multi-lingual phenomena the amount of collaboration made to create a hoax would make Flat Earthers explode with orgasmic glee)
There's no immediate and effective solutions because its such a wide ranging problem that's taken forty years to get us to where we are. There's no quick solutions to such things. Assuming that there is would be a fallacy. After all, there's no solutions to world garbage problems, overpopulation, water shortages, fracking.. the list goes on and on.
How do governments fake migration of species into previous locations they never were- animals that couldn't inhabit cold arctic places now living there?
How do governments fake massive soil erosion that hasn't occurred before?
How do governments fake rising water levels?
All of these things and more are measurable and have been measured. I know. I know some of the scientists involved in this corner of the world who have been involved. Hell, I know Forest Rangers who measure simple rainfall and temperature variances and have found their forests drier and more susceptible to wildfires (How do they fake rising wildfires? Are you suggesting that scientists are setting fires to cover their tracks?)

The more people deny Global Warming the more shocked I am.
 
False argumentation. You're assuming it's a scam (Which is very unusual to me.. considering its a world-wide multi-lingual phenomena the amount of collaboration made to create a hoax would make Flat Earthers explode with orgasmic glee)
There's no immediate and effective solutions because its such a wide ranging problem that's taken forty years to get us to where we are. There's no quick solutions to such things. Assuming that there is would be a fallacy. After all, there's no solutions to world garbage problems, overpopulation, water shortages, fracking.. the list goes on and on.
How do governments fake migration of species into previous locations they never were- animals that couldn't inhabit cold arctic places now living there?
How do governments fake massive soil erosion that hasn't occurred before?
How do governments fake rising water levels?
All of these things and more are measurable and have been measured. I know. I know some of the scientists involved in this corner of the world who have been involved. Hell, I know Forest Rangers who measure simple rainfall and temperature variances and have found their forests drier and more susceptible to wildfires (How do they fake rising wildfires? Are you suggesting that scientists are setting fires to cover their tracks?)

The more people deny Global Warming the more shocked I am.
The argument I'm making has nothing to do with global warming one way or the other. The scam lies in the proposed solutions to the supposed problem, not the supposed problem itself.
 
Climate models don't work when tested against climate data for the past 10,000 years.
Changes in the angle of the earth's axis, not CO2, correlates with changes in temperature over that time period.

http://www.pnas.org/content/111/34/E3501.full

Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America
...

Current Issue > vol. 111 no. 34 > Zhengyu Liu, E3501–E3505

The Holocene temperature conundrum

Zhengyu Liua,b,1, Jiang Zhua, Yair Rosenthalc, Xu Zhangd, Bette L. Otto-Bliesnere, Axel Timmermannf, Robin S. Smithg, Gerrit Lohmannd, Weipeng Zhengh, and Oliver Elison Timmi
...
Abstract
A recent temperature reconstruction of global annual temperature shows Early Holocene warmth followed by a cooling trend through the Middle to Late Holocene [Marcott SA, et al., 2013, Science 339(6124):1198–1201]. This global cooling is puzzling because it is opposite from the expected and simulated global warming trend due to the retreating ice sheets and rising atmospheric greenhouse gases. Our critical reexamination of this contradiction between the reconstructed cooling and the simulated warming points to potentially significant biases in both the seasonality of the proxy reconstruction and the climate sensitivity of current climate models.
...



More here:
https://judithcurry.com/2017/04/30/nature-unbound-iii-holocene-climate-variability-part-a/


Red line: CO2 going up for 8000 years.
Green line: Climate models predict temperature going up for 10,000 years
Black line: Temperatures going down for 7000 years.
Purple line: Angle of the tilt of Earth's axis following temperature changes
 
Yes - this is crucial - the climate change crowd seem to ignore the most basic principles of statistics - I mean imagine discussing a 0.01+-0.1 difference in any other context! All this "hottest year ever" stuff is just reporting noise on what has been a flat curve since about 1998. Also "hottest year ever" should be restated as "hottest year since detailed records began" possibly 1880. The rise since then has been 0.8 C.

The other thing to mention is that land temperatures are hugely unreliable because they are based on a fixed, arbitrary set of measuring stations that got out of action (and are replaced by computer estimated values) or become urbanised so that the data requires adjustment to compensate for this effect (known as the Urban Heat Island effect) which will cause recorded temperatures to rise spuriously.

The fact that all this garbage science is not called out for what it is - rubbish - tells me that the whole concept of CAGW is bogus.

Maybe I am over-optimistic, but I do wonder if when President Trump is in office, a few (more) senior scientists will stick their heads above the parapet and call CAGW what it is - crap!

This could produce a real crisis in science, because it will draw everyone's attention to absurdities like reporting 0.01 +- 0.1, and the obvious question will be how so many senior scientists could have ever endorsed this rubbish.

I'd just like to point out that the fact that these 'scientists' seem to ignore basic rules of science, means that I have little time for the rest of their argument - where the truth is shrouded in elaborate computer models. Imagine that you sat on a jury and the lawyer for the defence started out by observing that "You only have to look at the defendant to know he is guilty!". One piece of very weak evidence delivered in all seriousness undermines everything that follows

David
Sorry, but can someone explain to me like they would to child exactly how serious the .01 +- .1 reporting problem is. And what is the skeptic's rebuttal to this?

Thanks
 
This post continues a discussion started in the Introduction thread at http://www.skeptiko-forum.com/threads/introduce-yourself.90/page-15

I had said during my introduction that I had worked on programming early climate models in the '70s and:
"As you may guess I have followed the global warming issue for years but I am afraid my view will not bring much comfort to Michael and David :)
Furthermore I live below sea level so perhaps my judgement is affected. It does focus the mind in some respects..."

I am not trained in meteorology but physics and programming. However I recently did multiple MOOCs on global warming etc including one at Cousera on modeling climate change to update myself a bit.

As I see it the consensus view (as IPCC) is the best theory we have right now. I have not seen anything else remotely convincing. Further delay and hesitation is likely only to compound the problem even more. We need to slam on the brakes first then maybe debate some more...
 
http://notrickszone.com/2017/05/29/...of-unprecedented-global-scale-modern-warming/


80 Graphs From 58 New (2017) Papers Invalidate Claims Of Unprecedented Global-Scale Modern Warming
By Kenneth Richard on 29. May 2017

Scientists Increasingly Discarding ‘Hockey Stick’ Temperature Graphs

“[W]hen it comes to disentangling natural variability from anthropogenically affected variability the vast majority of the instrumental record may be biased.” — Büntgen et al., 2017

Last year there were at least 60 peer-reviewed papers published in scientific journals demonstrating that Today’s Warming Isn’t Global, Unprecedented, Or Remarkable.
.
Just within the last 5 months, 58 more papers and 80 new graphs have been published that continue to undermine the popularized conception of a slowly cooling Earth temperature history followed by a dramatic hockey-stick-shaped uptick, or an especially unusual global-scale warming during modern times.
...

 
Hi Jim. A few comments on your link, but first some context. I accept:
  1. That there is compelling evidence that the Earth is warming,
  2. That this warming is due to human causes, in particular, the emission of greenhouse gases (GHGs),
  3. That if we do not limit our GHG emissions, the warming could become (and has already become in some cases) dangerous to not just human life, but also to non-human life, and that,
  4. Therefore, we should limit our GHG emissions.
I accept #1-3 not because I have dug deep into the evidence and read widely, but because I understand it to be the consensus amongst scientists who are qualified to make these sort of judgements (I am not one of them), but I am comfortable with #4 regardless of whether my acceptance of #1-3 is justified, because in my view we should do this anyway, for at least two reasons:
  1. Emissions pollute our Earth in ways other than warming it.
  2. Non-renewable resources are by definition going to run out at some point anyway, and the sooner we transition away from them, the better prepared we are for this eventuality.
So, before addressing your link, I would like to ask you: do you agree that we should limit our GHG emissions anyway - i.e. regardless of whether or not the planet is in fact warming due to human causes, and whether or not anthropogenic global warming is a hoax or otherwise false?

To your link: it is at worst a suggestion that some scientists are reconsidering the severity of global warming. But as a non-scientist, particularly without qualifications in climatology, I don't feel qualified to assess even that possibility, even were I to read the papers in question. As I understand it, the person who compiled these papers, Kenneth Richard, is also not a climate scientist - and nor, I understand, are you. The best way for laymen like us to assess just what it is that these papers prove, and in particular which, if any, of the first three points I listed above, they refute, would be to contact at least a representative sample of them. I considered doing that, but at this point have not gone ahead. In any case, and in the meantime, I don't see that the scientific consensus on the reality of anthropogenic global warming has changed, nor that the appropriate action - to limit our GHG emissions - is any less pressing. Even at worst, this link does little to prove that anthropogenic global warming is not occurring, and is not dangerous to (human) life on this planet.

Cheers,
Laird
 
This post continues a discussion started in the Introduction thread at http://www.skeptiko-forum.com/threads/introduce-yourself.90/page-15

I had said during my introduction that I had worked on programming early climate models in the '70s and:
"As you may guess I have followed the global warming issue for years but I am afraid my view will not bring much comfort to Michael and David :)
Furthermore I live below sea level so perhaps my judgement is affected. It does focus the mind in some respects..."

I am not trained in meteorology but physics and programming. However I recently did multiple MOOCs on global warming etc including one at Cousera on modeling climate change to update myself a bit.

As I see it the consensus view (as IPCC) is the best theory we have right now. I have not seen anything else remotely convincing. Further delay and hesitation is likely only to compound the problem even more. We need to slam on the brakes first then maybe debate some more...
This question is way overdue: Andrew9, as somebody who has historically worked on climate models and who has brought himself up to date recently via coursework, what do you make of the common skeptical assertion that the climate models have failed in their predictions?
 
This post continues a discussion started in the Introduction thread at http://www.skeptiko-forum.com/threads/introduce-yourself.90/page-15

I had said during my introduction that I had worked on programming early climate models in the '70s and:
"As you may guess I have followed the global warming issue for years but I am afraid my view will not bring much comfort to Michael and David :)
Furthermore I live below sea level so perhaps my judgement is affected. It does focus the mind in some respects..."

I am not trained in meteorology but physics and programming. However I recently did multiple MOOCs on global warming etc including one at Cousera on modeling climate change to update myself a bit.

As I see it the consensus view (as IPCC) is the best theory we have right now. I have not seen anything else remotely convincing. Further delay and hesitation is likely only to compound the problem even more. We need to slam on the brakes first then maybe debate some more...
Andrew, I would be very interested to discuss CAGW with you in a dispassionate way, but I am loathe to start yet another thread on this because it is something of a distraction from the main purpose of this forum. Would you like to PM me for a private discussion - including Michael as well if you wish. We both have what we at least feel are good reasons for our views, and I would say that in more general ways I am fairly green. For example, I think our societies should do much more to reduce food waste - and my partner and I have managed to reduce our own food waste to essentially zero. I am willing to be shown the error of my views on this subject.

David
 
No need for either another thread nor privacy, surely? Why not do it publicly in one of the existing threads? This one would serve the purpose, surely? If Andrew9 has expertise and arguments against global warming skepticism, then let us all benefit from them!
 
No need for either another thread nor privacy, surely? Why not do it publicly in one of the existing threads? This one would serve the purpose, surely? If Andrew9 has expertise and arguments against global warming skepticism, then let us all benefit from them!
Because we have had a number of CAGW threads that have just gone wild - two or three people can maybe get somewhere - I'd like to try it.

David
 
But I'd like to hear it too? Who would complain if a thread 'goes wild', it's exactly what this forum needs at the moment!
Well suppose Andrew and I and Michael get together and figure a few things out and then present our conclusions - or simply invite those interested to join the discussion. The previous global warming threads seem to have pulled in people with no interest in this forum - just a desire to win the CAGW argument at all costs. Typically that means posting huge numbers of threads rather than actually discussing specific points.

Let me use an analogy. A 'sceptic' of NDE's (say) could GOOGLE a mass of articles and post link after link. Sensible debate soon breaks down - there aren't enough hours in the day to read all the stuff posted - that is one reason forums need a moderator.

I know that Andrew did not come here just to push this issue - he has an interest in the paranormal - which gives him more street cred, if you like :)

I mean, maybe Andrew will convert me - who knows? Nobody gets converted in an n-way debate dominated by links to other material.

David
 
Last edited:
The previous global warming threads seem to have pulled in people with no interest in this forum - just a desire to win the CAGW argument at all costs.
Funny that I've gone on to have some very meaningful discussions by email with at least two of such people. I don't agree with your guess at why they were here. One of them is as highly qualified a scientist from as elite a place of education as is possible, but in spite of this I feel quite certain that he got frustrated with the forum and it's very own dogma.

Ironic, don't you think?

No, I wouldn't like to hear the 'final presentations' I think such discussions should be held in public.

Sorry, no, thinking about it, the highly qualified scientist did join because of the frustration he felt at the sceptics here on the forum. Alex, you and Michael Larkin are obviously against. But I don't think there's a problem with drawing people into the forum, as much as making them feel there's no longer any point in discussing things, when they are accused of being trolls.
 
Last edited:
Top