US coasts sea level rise 10 to 12 inches by 2050

[AllenRbrts]

Originally Posted by newhaul

Which failed one?
1981 James Hansen, NASA scientist, predicted a global warming of “almost unprecedented magnitude” in the next century that might even be sufficient to melt and dislodge the ice cover of West Antarctica, eventually leading to a worldwide rise of 15 to 20 feet in the sea level.

https://www.nytimes.com/1981/08/22/u...ea-levels.html

That a good start?

I'm convinced you post these links thinking nobody will read them, so you don't even read them yourself.
If you read the link you posted, you would see that in the 1981 it was stated that "If fuel burning increases at a slow rate with emphasis on other energy sources, the study predicts a global temperature rise in the next century of about 5 degrees Fahrenheit. If fuel use rises rapidly, which some believe may occur as the developing countries industrialize, the predicted rise is from 6 to 9 degrees." The time frame for this prediction is 2081... we have another 60 years to see if the prediction comes true. Unfortunately so far we right on track.

[Bycrick]

When the overwhelming number of "academics" are self-proclaimed Democrats, I don’t see how you can believe that "group-think" is solely an affliction of the right.

"I'd believe it more than Anything said by By Trump or any of the Loonies on the Right at AFPAC."

Everyone likes to believe people who agree with them. A good example of "groupthink."

[lestersails]

Originally Posted by S/V Illusion

There is no consensus among climate scientists quantifying anthropogenic climate change.

This is false. As plain as the nose on the end of your face.

Denialism award of the day - and you have some serious competitors here.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by AllenRbrts

I'm convinced you post these links thinking nobody will read them, so you don't even read them yourself.
If you read the link you posted, you would see that in the 1981 it was stated that "If fuel burning increases at a slow rate with emphasis on other energy sources, the study predicts a global temperature rise in the next century of about 5 degrees Fahrenheit. If fuel use rises rapidly, which some believe may occur as the developing countries industrialize, the predicted rise is from 6 to 9 degrees." The time frame for this prediction is 2081... we have another 60 years to see if the prediction comes true. Unfortunately so far we right on track.

And yet the UAH shows us at the 0°C point for the month of February compared to the long term average . So cooling it is

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by lestersails

This is false. As plain as the nose on the end of your face.

Denialism award of the day - and you have some serious competitors here.

Ok then what is the QUANTIFIED ( I hate using political words like this ) consensus?

[Dieseldude]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Assumption: it makes an ass out of you and me. . Also, it's wrong.


First - even if the first statement was true, it does not in any system of logic support the conclusion in your second statement.

Second - the first statement isn't true, in any practical sense. There is a very good idea about how much warming has resulted from human activity.

Your continued link-free assertions of proven falsehoods... why?

Consensus does not confirm science. If one scientist by scientific means proves something to be correct. It would not matter if 10 000 others disagree. The climate cultists try to turn science into a democratic process. There is no scientific consensus on climate change. It is not possible to have scientific consensus. It is only possible to have political consensus. This proves that the notion of anthropomorphic climate change has only been a political debate under the guise of false science. The idea was first promoted on large scale by Margret Thatcher as a threat against striking coal miners.



Just do a bit of reading on "climategate". You will discover the massive fraud that has been committed by scientists at the University of East Anglia Climate Research Unit. Dr. Michael Mann was also involved with his infamous false "hockey stick curve". Big media only briefly covered the climate gate story that broke in 2010. It has been long forgotten as the media and politicians continue their false climate narrative. The UN IPCC has relied heavily on this fraudulent data to establish their political stance on climate. They are not a science organization. They are a political body which relies on false science to support political action.



On August 22, 2019 British Columbia's Supreme Court ruled in favor of climate scientist Dr. Tim Ball whom fraudster climate scientist Dr. Michael Mann had sued for libel. Ball had justifiably publicly criticized Mann. Mann never delivered his data to the court, that if correct would have given him victory over Ball. Climate change proponents will claim that the case was dismissed due to time delay. But the fact that matters is that Dr. Michael Mann never produced data to prove his assertion of libel against Dr. Ball. Since proof was never produced, we can be certain that it does not exist. Dr. Mann's data would have been easily proven by Dr. Ball as fraud in court. And Dr. Mann paid a high price for his lack of credibility by agreeing to pay the legal costs of his opponent that were in the million dollar range. Would this be the course of action of a man who was right? Effectively, man made climate change was proven to be a fraud in the British Columbia Supreme Court. But of course the media and governments will never admit to this.


But if you ask anyone who promotes the fraud of man made climate change, they are likely ignorant of climategate and Dr. Michael Man's fraud. They only believe big media that ignores evidence which exposes the fraud. But they embellish false claims that support it.

[GordMay]

Further to #748: https://www.cruisersforum.com/forums...ml#post3584721


All the scenarios, from the 1980s, resulted in predictions of sea level rise of well below 1 meter by2018.

Ie: The 24 October 1983 report “Projecting Future Sea Level Rise: Methodology, Estimates to the Year 2100" , 2nd edition, predicted (mid-range scenario, see table 4.1 on page 39):
by 2000: 8.8-13.2 cm [actual ± 3cm]
by 2025: 26.2-39.3 cm [actual to 2018 ± 9cm]

Their prediction in the low scenario was 2.4-4.8 cm by 2000, and 6.5-13.0 cm by 2025, which makes the low scenario prediction consistent with the actual change to 2000. It also means the actual change to 2018 was already greater than the lowest predicted change (6.5 cm) by 2025.

The mid-range scenario assumed a climate sensitivity of 3.0 degrees C per doubling of CO2 concentration. The mid-range scenario was further split into two scenarios, one where rise, due to net melting, equaled rise due to thermal expansion, and a second where, rise due to melting, was twice that due to thermal expansion.

In addition to the mid-range scenarios, extreme low and high scenarios, were considered.

In the low scenario assumed was: climate sensitivity of 1.5 degrees per doubling of CO2 concentration, partial mitigation of CO2 increase due to halving the price of nuclear energy, low heat diffusivity of the ocean, low rates of increase of methane, N2O, and CFCs, low economic productivity growth, rise due to net melting equaled rise due to thermal expansion, and a constant 53% of CO2 emissions being retained in the atmosphere.

The low scenario yielded an estimated rise of 4.8cm by 2000 and 13.0cm by 2025.

In the high scenario assumed was: climate sensitivity of 4.5 degrees per doubling of CO2 concentration, high heat diffusivity of the ocean, high rates of increase of methane, N2O, and CFCs, high economic productivity growth, rise due to net melting being double rise due to thermal expansion, and an initial 60% of CO2 emissions rising to 80% being retained in the atmosphere.

The high scenario yielded an estimated rise of 17.1cm by 2000 and 54.9cm by 2025.

Actual change to 2000 was about 3cm and to 2018 about 9cm.

“Projecting Future Sea Level Rise: Methodology, Estimates to the Year 2100" ~ by John Steven Hoffman, Dale L. Keyes, James G. Titus [1983]
page 39 ➥ https://books.google.ca/books?id=c1H...page&q&f=false

This is tangential, but just because a prediction is wrong, doesn't mean the theory is.
That's especially true, in cases where the prediction is based on non-public-knowledge, (whether governments plan to adopt carbon control legislation), guesses about future culture (if 'going green' will get popular), and estimates of things that can easily change (carbon output from industry), and doesn't even account for plain ol' mistakes.
Attempting to discredit the theory, because the prediction is wrong, is invalid [logical fallacy].

[lestersails]

Originally Posted by newhaul

Ok then what is the QUANTIFIED ( I hate using political words like this ) consensus?

It has already been posted in this thread. You have ignored it, as you do innumerable other citations of the overwhelming scientific consensus. I won't be drawn into your childish playground taunts. You have no interest in actual data or real science. You came into this with a predetermined conclusion. You ignore the tidal wave of evidence that contradicts it. You ceaselessly cherry pick and frequently misinterpret tiny shards of contrary evidence. Your citation of the average temperature for a single month in a single place demonstrates this ridiculous denialism trope. There is no point in pointing you to anything because you have zero desire to learn or understand.
You are wasting our time.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by GordMay

Further to #748:
All the scenarios, from the 1980s, resulted in predictions of sea level rise of well below 1 meter by2018. Actual rise has been slightly below the lowest of the scenarios.

Ie: The 24 October 1983 report “Projecting Future Sea Level Rise: Methodology, Estimates to the Year 2100" , 2nd edition, predicted (mid-range scenario, see table 4.1 on page 39):
by 2000: 8.8-13.2 cm [actual ± 3cm]
by 2025: 26.2-39.3 cm [actual to 2018 ± 9cm]

Their prediction in the low scenario was 2.4-4.8 cm by 2000, and 6.5-13.0 cm by 2025, which makes the low scenario prediction consistent with the actual change to 2000. It also means the actual change to 2018 was already greater than the lowest predicted change (6.5 cm) by 2025.

The mid-range scenario assumed a climate sensitivity of 3.0 degrees C per doubling of CO2 concentration. The mid-range scenario was further split into two scenarios, one where rise, due to net melting, equaled rise due to thermal expansion, and a second where, rise due to melting, was twice that due to thermal expansion.

In addition to the mid-range scenarios, extreme low and high scenarios, were considered.

In the low scenario assumed was: climate sensitivity of 1.5 degrees per doubling of CO2 concentration, partial mitigation of CO2 increase due to halving the price of nuclear energy, low heat diffusivity of the ocean, low rates of increase of methane, N2O, and CFCs, low economic productivity growth, rise due to net melting equaled rise due to thermal expansion, and a constant 53% of CO2 emissions being retained in the atmosphere.

The low scenario yielded an estimated rise of 4.8cm by 2000 and 13.0cm by 2025.

In the high scenario assumed was: climate sensitivity of 4.5 degrees per doubling of CO2 concentration, high heat diffusivity of the ocean, high rates of increase of methane, N2O, and CFCs, high economic productivity growth, rise due to net melting being double rise due to thermal expansion, and an initial 60% of CO2 emissions rising to 80% being retained in the atmosphere.

The high scenario yielded an estimated rise of 17.1cm by 2000 and 54.9cm by 2025.

Actual change to 2000 was about 3cm and to 2018 about 9cm.

“Projecting Future Sea Level Rise: Methodology, Estimates to the Year 2100" ~ by John Steven Hoffman, Dale L. Keyes, James G. Titus [1983]
page 39 ➥ https://books.google.ca/books?id=c1H...page&q&f=false

This is tangential, but just because a prediction is wrong, doesn't mean the theory is.
That's especially true, in cases where the prediction is based on non-public-knowledge, (whether governments plan to adopt carbon control legislation), guesses about future culture (if 'going green' will get popular), and estimates of things that can easily change (carbon output from industry), and doesn't even account for plain ol' mistakes.
Attempting to discredit the theory, because the prediction is wrong, is invalid [logical fallacy].

It shows that there are many flaws in the theory .
However 99% of the missing the mark is due to trying to blame natural processes on man and inputting incorrect data into the already flawed modeling software. GIGO prevails.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Dieseldude

Just do a bit of reading on "climategate". You will discover the massive fraud that has been committed by scientists at the University of East Anglia Climate Research Unit. Dr. Michael Mann was also involved with his infamous false "hockey stick curve".

Climategate: disproven 6 ways from Sunday.

"Hockey Stick": ditto

...but these zombie denier myths still walk the earth, a decade or more after they've been debunked.

[AllenRbrts]

Originally Posted by newhaul

And yet the UAH shows us at the 0°C point for the month of February compared to the long term average . So cooling it is

Humm... do you have a hot line to Roy Spencer? The February report is not out yet. You also seemed to be confused on the difference of climate and weather, something you frequently hurl at others. According to the report issued on Feb 2 for January, the current slow down on warming is due to La Nina. "The global temperature departure from average in January fell from December to what is essentially zero, at +0.03 °C (+0.05 °F). Equatorial cooling associated with the on-going presence of La Niña continued and the tropics are now substantially below the 30-year average at -0.24 °C (-0.43 °F). As is often noted on these reports, the maximum cooling effect of La Niñas usually occurs sometime from February to May". Elsewhere in the report "Global climate trend since Dec. 1 1978: +0.13 C per decade"

You falsely state that climate scientist are incorrect in their predictions, but you are batting basically zero in your own predictions... you have proclaimed for years the planet is cooling... you have yet to be right, not matter what dataset is used.

[Dieseldude]

Originally Posted by jackdale

The history of denial.

The promoters of anthropomorphic climate change are the true deniers. They chose to deny that climate varies by natural means. This is variation of solar activity. They deny the exposure of fraud that disproves their false position.


Consensus does not confirm science. If one scientist by scientific means proves something to be correct. It would not matter if 10 000 others disagree. The climate cultists try to turn science into a democratic process. There is no scientific consensus on climate change. It is not possible to have scientific consensus. It is only possible to have political consensus. This proves that the notion of anthropomorphic climate change has only been a political debate under the guise of false science. The idea was first promoted on large scale by Margret Thatcher as a threat against striking coal miners.

Just do a bit of reading on "climategate". You will discover the massive fraud that has been committed by scientists at the University of East Anglia Climate Research Unit. Dr. Michael Mann was also involved with his infamous false "hockey stick curve". Big media only briefly covered the climate gate story that broke in 2010. It has been long forgotten as the media and politicians continue their false climate narrative. The UN IPCC has relied heavily on this fraudulent data to establish their political stance on climate. They are not a science organization. They are a political body which relies on false science to support political action.

On August 22, 2019 British Columbia's Supreme Court ruled in favor of climate scientist Dr. Tim Ball whom fraudster climate scientist Dr. Michael Mann had sued for libel. Ball had justifiably publicly criticized Mann. Mann never delivered his data to the court, that if correct, would have given him victory over Ball. Climate change proponents will claim that the case was dismissed due to court delays. But the fact that matters is that Dr. Michael Mann never produced data to prove his assertion of libel against Dr. Ball. Since proof was never produced, we can be certain that it does not exist. Dr. Mann's data would have been easily proven by Dr. Ball as fraud in court. And Dr. Mann paid a high price for his lack of credibility by agreeing to pay the legal costs of his opponent that were in the million dollar range. Would this be the course of action of a man who was right? These men are academics, not high rolling business tycoons. A million bucks is no trivial sum to such men. Effectively, man made climate change was proven to be a fraud in the British Columbia Supreme Court. But of course the media and governments will never admit to this.

But if you ask anyone who promotes the fraud of man made climate change, they are likely ignorant of climategate and Dr. Michael Man's fraud. They only believe big media that ignores evidence which exposes the fraud. But they embellish false claims that support it

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by AllenRbrts

Humm... do you have a hot line to Roy Spencer? The February report is not out yet. You also seemed to be confused on the difference of climate and weather, something you frequently hurl at others. According to the report issued on Feb 2 for January, the current slow down on warming is due to La Nina. "The global temperature departure from average in January fell from December to what is essentially zero, at +0.03 °C (+0.05 °F). Equatorial cooling associated with the on-going presence of La Niña continued and the tropics are now substantially below the 30-year average at -0.24 °C (-0.43 °F). As is often noted on these reports, the maximum cooling effect of La Niñas usually occurs sometime from February to May". Elsewhere in the report "Global climate trend since Dec. 1 1978: +0.13 C per decade"

You falsely state that climate scientist are incorrect in their predictions, but you are batting basically zero in your own predictions... you have proclaimed for years the planet is cooling... you have yet to be right, not matter what dataset is used.

Actually the numbers are out . Perhaps you should do what I do and check the sources like the UAH and RSS.
What was the hottest year and then list them in decending order .

I will even allow the squed numbers from your mmgwc gods.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by newhaul

It's not man it's the sun that controls all life on the planet.

.

The sun has little to do with climate change

The Sun powers life on Earth; it helps keep the planet warm enough for us to survive. It also influences Earth’s climate: We know subtle changes in Earth’s orbit around the Sun are responsible for the comings and goings of the past ice ages. But the warming we’ve seen over the last few decades is too rapid to be linked to changes in Earth’s orbit, and too large to be caused by solar activity.1

https://climate.nasa.gov/ask-nasa-cl...limate-change/

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by jackdale

The sun has little to do with climate change



https://climate.nasa.gov/ask-nasa-cl...limate-change/

Bull and we both know it . If the sun suddenly went and reduced all output by 25% the planet would revert back to snowball earth in a really rapid fashion .

If not the sun then what? The sun is the only game in town .