US coasts sea level rise 10 to 12 inches by 2050

[Dieseldude]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Learn to read graphs. The horizontal line 1991-2020 mean. The temperatures are deviations from that mean.

Here is the longer instrumental record.

I see an even variation of figures above and below a horizontal line that represents a net zero change.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Dieseldude

I see an even variation of figures above and below a horizontal line that represents a net zero change.

The increase from 1880 to the present is 1.2 C. That is not net zero.

[Ericson38]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Learn to read graphs. The horizontal line 1991-2020 mean. The temperatures are deviations from that mean.

Here is the longer instrumental record.

Interesting that SLR started at about the same time (1880).

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by GordMay

You're right again.
The science is well understood: the climate is changing, and we are the cause.
.

The cause of the changing climate is the part that is most debatable .
Now remember the planet has gone from no idea on the planet to a complete snowball so climate change is a fact but the cause is hotly debated .

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by jackdale

The increase from 1880 to the present is 1.2 C. That is not net zero.

We all know those charts are using adjusted data. When the facts are the hottest period in modern times was in the 1930's. But it seems to be missing on current graphs .
Wonder why? ( perhaps doesn't fit the narrative)

[Bycrick]

+1 to Gord's post #930. And for Jackdale, I didn’t cherry pick anything. I haven’t even discussed any of the snakepit of alleged scientific papers that have been posted. And have no intention to do so. It’s a political problem.

[boatman61]

Originally Posted by newhaul

Sorry but I have sailed at least as many miles ×10 but my boats never looked like that. The only ocean I haven't sailed is the Atlantic Ocean.

Yeah but.. did you kinda start out on a circumnavigation on a $1000 boat without a major rebuild..

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by boatman61

Yeah but.. did you kinda start out on a circumnavigation on a $1000 boat without a major rebuild..

No excuse for that . Putting things away off deck when pulling into a new port goes a long way toward perception

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Bycrick

+1 to Gord's post #930. And for Jackdale, I didn’t cherry pick anything.

You choose 1997 in claiming a hiatus.

Here is what Carl Mears has to say about that.

(The denialists really like to fit trends starting in 1997, so that the huge 1997-98 ENSO event is at the start of their time series, resulting in a linear fit with the smallest possible slope.)

https://www.remss.com/blog/recent-sl...-temperatures/

cher·ry-pick·ing
/ˈCHerēˌpikiNG/
noun
noun: cherry-picking; plural noun: cherry-pickings; noun: cherrypicking; plural noun: cherrypickings
the action or practice of choosing and taking only the most beneficial or profitable items, opportunities, etc., from what is available.
"it is an exaggeration based on the cherry-picking of facts"

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by newhaul

We all know those charts are using adjusted data. When the facts are the hottest period in modern times was in the 1930's. But it seems to be missing on current graphs .
Wonder why? ( perhaps doesn't fit the narrative)

The US was warm in the 1930's, not the rest of the planet



It seems you are the one with the narrative.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Ericson38

Interesting that SLR started at about the same time (1880).

Now I will complain about acronyms. SLR?

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by jackdale

The US was warm in the 1930's, not the rest of the planet



It seems you are the one with the narrative.

Wrong but then what do I expect ?

Where were almost all of the temperatures taken at before 1940?
Where ? They didn't exist so they just made up most of them .

Australia only had a few but even they showed the heat.

[jackdale]

Global temperatures for 1934



Check other years here:

https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs...l-temperature/

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Global temperatures for 1934



Check other years here:

https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs...l-temperature/

Where are all of the stations that took the temperatures?

[Dieseldude]

Originally Posted by jackdale

The US was warm in the 1930's, not the rest of the planet



It seems you are the one with the narrative.

Without causation established, the graph are only background information. Just how annual mean temperatures over vast areas are established is a complex issue that can include bias on how data is manipulated. Taken without questioning methods, these figures can simply be showing effects of natural solar variation. Another consideration is that the little ice age ran from about 1300 to 1850 AD. Establishing precise dates for such an event can be quite subjective.



Since we are only about 172 years past. It would not be unreasonable to expect a continued slight warming, as the sea can take hundreds of years to change temperatures due to thermal inertia. The sea is such a great moderator of natural climate variation over long periods that short variations can be difficult to discern. Consider complex interactions such as ocean currents, wind patterns, water vapor, cloud formation, vulcanism, and we have a can of worms to sort. Those who design algorithms to predict trends are using incomplete information and making assumptions. This is the reason for many failed climate change predictions. The earth's systems are amazingly resilient to sharp variations of climate influencing factors.


In 1976, climate scientist Stephen Schneider wrote a book about how to prepare for lower food production caused by global cooling. Some years later Schneider became a leading advocate of global warming alarmism.


Al Gore predicted in 2009 that the North Pole would be completely ice free in five years. A U.S. Navy scientist in 2013 concluded that the Arctic’s summer sea ice cover would all be melted by 2016.



The Maritime Bulletin reported that on Sept. 3, 16 “climate change warriors” making a documentary film on the melting polar icecap had to be rescued by helicopter from their ship because it was stuck in the ice halfway between Norway and the North Pole.


----------------------------------------------------------------------

The climate change agenda has its roots in politics rather than science. UK PM Margaret Thatcher used it as a stage prop to demonize coal to break the miners' union during their strike of 1984-85.



“She felt Britain should not be so dependent on coal. She was in favour of building up nuclear energy to break the dependence on coal and the main opposition to nuclear came from the environment movement. Mrs Thatcher thought she could trap them with the carbon emissions argument.”
http://www.thegwpf.com/david-cameron...-nigel-lawson/

Thatcher’s initial belief in carbon dioxide-driven global warming was likely genuine. It was promoted by Sir Crispin Tickell, who incidentally had been warning the government in the 1970’s (incorrectly) about global cooling. But Tickell was a history graduate, not a scientist.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/...e-sceptic.html


Tickell had jumped off the global cooling bandwagon of the 1970’s on to the more fashionable global warming bandwagon. He was joined by the head of the UK Met. Office Dr. John Houghton, co-chair of the IPCC’s scientific assessment working group and Lead Editor of the first 3 IPCC reports.

Thatcher seized the opportunity to condemn coal and its emissions on environmental grounds. She injected money into the Hadley Centre that was linked with the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU), the repository of global terrestrial temperature records. The CRU was later to become the centre of the notorious “Climategate” scandal of 2009 that provided clear evidence that some climate scientists were behaving very badly.

To further promote climate alarmism via the imaginary carbon dioxide-global warming link, Thatcher gave large amounts of taxpayer money to the UK’s National Academy of Science, asking them to produce “science” that would further raise public concern about the dangers of carbon dioxide emissions and global warming.


(not all direct quotes, but credited to article by Dr. John Happs) https://saltbushclub.com/2019/05/25/...limate-change/
---------------------------------------------------------------------


The doom saying climate alarmists have discredited themselves many times. But their failed prophesies are never given the same attentions as their sensational statements. What incentive has Al Gore for instance to produce a sequel documenting his errors? And will media, which thrives on shock factor, review their stories on the predictions of climate charlatans of years past, exposing their errors? They are not out to fling egg on their own face. The climate change industrial complex has an agenda. It is a political agenda as proven by examination of its first grand scale promotion by Margaret Thatcher. We can spend much time reading detailed studies, but simple situational scrutiny reveals their ineptitude and or malevolence.