Seas Rising 60 Percent Faster Than Projected, Study Shows

[maidu]

I recall reading in earlier posts that RichBradford agrees world temperatures are increasing. Now, it appears he doesn't think so. Which is it?

The world has warmed gently over the past 100 years (by 0.7 - 0.8 degrees or so in total). It has not warmed at all over the past 16 years, despite all of the IPCC models predicting ever-increasing temperature rises over this period.

As the great Richard Feynman said: "It doesn't matter how beautiful your guess is, how smart you are, who made the guess, what his name is; if it disagrees with experiment, it's wrong."

You do your cause no good service by quoting as your sole authority Dr Rajendra Pachauri, a man so thoroughly compromised that even other members of the IPCC (including Greenpeace) have asked him to resign. The man is a politician, pure and simple, protecting his interests, which include leading The Energy Research Institute (Teri), a think-tank promoting "sustainable development."

This is the man who publicly vilified as "voodoo science" the work of glaciologist Dr Vijay Raina, who had criticised the IPCC's statement that all Himalayan glaciers would be gone by 2035. It turned out that Raina was right, it was the IPCC that was producing voodoo science, about which Pachauri then said he had "absolutely no responsibility". Pachauri's statements aren't even taken seriously by his own people.

The problem with the IPCC's predictions is that they come from models built on models, which have to be laboriously tweaked before they can even simulate the past, let alone predict the future. They do not accord with reality as measured by experiment, and their value should be assessed on that basis alone.

Perhaps that's true. I was just using your own measuring stick when I researched a bit on the IPCC. You had mentioned the IPCC prior - to back up something your were asserting. I think data and conclusions from the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration National Climatic Data Center is more dependable and objective.

[Potosi]

It has not warmed at all over the past 16 years, despite all of the IPCC models predicting ever-increasing temperature rises over this period.

Were do you get this stuff from? Made up out of thin air? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instrumental_temperature_record#Warmest_years

"The list of warmest years on record is dominated by years from this millennium; each of the last 11 years (2001–2011) features as one of the 12 warmest on record."

The global temperatures rose as follows during the last decades

1980-1989 0.176 °C

1990-1999 0.313 °C

2000-2009 0.513 °C

[RickBradford]

*sigh*

You seem to regard Wikipedia as a reliable source of scientific information.

I prefer the UK Meteorological Office.

Professor Phil Jones, director of the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, last week dismissed the significance of the plateau, saying that 15 or 16 years is too short a period from which to draw conclusions.

Others disagreed. Professor Judith Curry, who is the head of the climate science department at America’s prestigious Georgia Tech university, [said] that it was clear that the computer models used to predict future warming were ‘deeply flawed’.

I'm afraid that Wikipedia is as close to 'thin air' as it is possible to get...

As for the statement "..each of the last 11 years (2001–2011) features as one of the 12 warmest on record.", that is obvious.

If I fill up a cup to the brim with water, and then leave it for 10 minutes, I can quite truthfully say: "..each of the last 10 minutes, the cup has been amongst the fullest on record."

It doesn't mean it is actually warming now -- it could be cooling, and the statement would still be true.

It's just a red herring often used by activists to dazzle the scientifically illiterate.

[Potosi]

Your allegory is nonsensical. Temperature records begann in what? 1850? Certainly you prefer Conservapedia. It's an ideological thing, finding sources which fit best to your way of looking at things. That's when an American turns to British sources, instead of NASA. More resourceful than the University of East Anglia or the UK Meteorological service.

"The first 11 years of the 21st century experienced notably higher temperatures compared to the middle and late 20th century, Hansen said. The only year from the 20th century in the top 10 warmest years on record is 1998."

[RickBradford]

I realise it's probably hopeless, but I'll try just the once more:

Look at the graph below:

1) Has the graph stopped rising at the right-hand end?

2) Is the level of the graph at the right-hand end at high levels compared with the left-hand end?

In a similar way, you can have recent years in the top 10 of warmth, even though the temperature has stopped rising. It's the difference between the absolute temperature (height) and the rate of warming (slope). Many people can't grasp this, which is why it has proved such an effective tool for activists seeking to exploit the gullible.

I can't address the rest of your post because I don't understand it -- all the talk about allegories and Americans baffles me.

[thaibeachlovers]

An interesting discussion, but unfortunately irrelevant to the lives of the vast majority of the world's population that just want the good life that they see on tv, even if it means consuming far more than can be sustained with today's technology.

Bottom line, whether the world as we know it vanishes in a methane storm or just from a tsunami of illegal immigration, our way of life is unsustainable as long as the world's population continues to increase as it is doing now.

Till the politicians acknowledge that fact and do something about it ( don't hold your breath ), might as well just enjoy ourselves and hope we are dead before it really hits the fan.

[tartempion]

A climate change conference in Qatar. Yeah, OOOOOKaaaaayyyyyy.

Yep, we are doing fine.

Exterminating animal and plant species.

We destroyed more the last 100 years than the previous 3000 years.

Do you realise one 10h flight, say Paris to Bangkok,burns more fuel than your car will in a lifetime?

Cutting the tree we are sitting on, nothing wrong with that.

J F Kennedy missed the opportunity to free the planet from the apes we are

[thaibeachlovers]

A climate change conference in Qatar. Yeah, OOOOOKaaaaayyyyyy.

I'm sure the parties made it worth while burning all that jet fuel!

[maidu]

if each year of the 21st century sets new records for heat (compared to prior century), then that would indicate things are heating up. It matters little if each year is hotter than each previous year in a row. It's the trend that's important. According to the US govt's best data, 2012 set all kinds of 'hottest since recording began' records. Worldwide, there were around 60 sectors that had 'record warmest.' You wanna know the number of record coldest for 2012? Answer: zero. that's according to a map I posted earlier. I would post it again, but I had to reduce its size and ftp it etc, and I'm too pooped to do it all over again.

There is simply a die-hard minority who are seized on the idea that there is no global warming, or even if they admit there is (some do, some don't and they waffle back and forth), then it most certainly has nothing to do with human activity. No amount of scientific data will sway their fixation. Instead, they will grasp a tattered little graph made years ago by some like-minded person, and dangle that out as proof that GW is some sort of plot to........ fill in the spaces

The data and personal reports (by people actually at the poles, and at glacial beds which are no longer icy) are so overwhelming. To not believe the data is to have a dire fixation to not want to believe it.

[RickBradford]

No amount of scientific data will sway their fixation.

Precisely. The actual data -- not what Wikipedia says, or what Greenpeace says, but the actual data, which is freely available*, to state it yet again, shows there has been no warming for 16 years. Zero.

This is not controversial -- CRU's director Phil Jones acknowledges as much. Now, he believes this is just a blip, that temperatures will start to rise again soon; others think we are in for some serious cooling over the next few decades due to solar activity (or, rather, lack of it).

Those are speculations; what is not speculation is the data showing 16 years of no warming, and I would agree with you that many people (rather more than 'a die-hard minority', I'm afraid) are trying to ignore that data because they are fixated on the narrative of a catastrophically warming world. This is a real problem, which the Green/Left seems unwilling or unable to address.

*See CRUTEM4 from the Climate Research Unit of UAE. They are one of the three or four centers regarded as the 'keepers' of the global temperature record and are now under such intense public scrutiny that there are no longer any shenanigans going on with the data.

[maidu]

No amount of scientific data will sway their fixation.

Precisely. The actual data -- not what Wikipedia says, or what Greenpeace says, but the actual data, which is freely available*, to state it yet again, shows there has been no warming for 16 years. Zero.

This is not controversial -- CRU's director Phil Jones acknowledges as much. Now, he believes this is just a blip, that temperatures will start to rise again soon; others think we are in for some serious cooling over the next few decades due to solar activity (or, rather, lack of it).

Those are speculations; what is not speculation is the data showing 16 years of no warming, and I would agree with you that many people (rather more than 'a die-hard minority', I'm afraid) are trying to ignore that data because they are fixated on the narrative of a catastrophically warming world. This is a real problem, which the Green/Left seems unwilling or unable to address.

*See CRUTEM4 from the Climate Research Unit of UAE. They are one of the three or four centers regarded as the 'keepers' of the global temperature record and are now under such intense public scrutiny that there are no longer any shenanigans going on with the data.

It is controversial. For every scientific study you can show which concludes no GW in the past decades, I can show you dozens which show there has been increased warming.

[maidu]

if each year of the 21st century sets new records for heat (compared to prior century), then that would indicate things are heating up. It matters little if each year is hotter than each previous year in a row. It's the trend that's important. According to the US govt's best data, 2012 set all kinds of 'hottest since recording began' records. Worldwide, there were around 60 sectors that had 'record warmest.' You wanna know the number of record coldest for 2012? Answer: zero. that's according to a map I posted earlier. I would post it again, but I had to reduce its size and ftp it etc, and I'm too pooped to do it all over again.

There is simply a die-hard minority who are seized on the idea that there is no global warming, or even if they admit there is (some do, some don't and they waffle back and forth), then it most certainly has nothing to do with human activity. No amount of scientific data will sway their fixation. Instead, they will grasp a tattered little graph made years ago by some like-minded person, and dangle that out as proof that GW is some sort of plot to........ fill in the spaces

The data and personal reports (by people actually at the poles, and at glacial beds which are no longer icy) are so overwhelming. To not believe the data is to have a dire fixation to not want to believe it.

There is Global Warming and there is Anthropogenic Global Warming..

The first is natural ,the second man-made.

Most of the sceptics, myself included, dispute the AGW theory...some dispute both.

Of course the greenies will jump asap to any bandwagon that blames humanity for everything.

It's in their nature...their mama didn't love them.

When the ensuing cull comes, I hope they will volunteer to be first..

...to save 'mother nature' of course.

...by the way, the late, great Mr. Pachauri was a railroad engineer by trade.

...so much for credibility.

I think you've admitted to losing your argument when you have to stoop to saying such kindergarten taunts as "their mama didn't love them" Have you really run out of things to say to bolster your stance?

[RickBradford]

For every scientific study you can show which concludes no GW in the past decades, I can show you dozens which show there has been increased warming.

This is not a 'scientific study'.

It is the data, the actual observations, the experiments, carried out by one of the three or four organizations worldwide whose specific job it is to collate global temperature data. And it says no warming for 16 years.

[TommoPhysicist]

A reduced population by disaster or managed will occur , most probably by the former, but managed would be less painful but the current economic system can't function with a shrinking population. So whatever way it goes there are some unescapable huge and probably painful changes coming. The the exact timing can't be for sure but its worth preparing right now as best we can; on a personal level, no good belly aching about how useless the leaders are; we can't change them or the world but we can ready ourselves.

A relatively small event would kill many in the west.

We are lucky to be in Thailand where food grows all around us and winter heating is never needed.

[canman]

For every scientific study you can show which concludes no GW in the past decades, I can show you dozens which show there has been increased warming.

This is not a 'scientific study'.

It is the data, the actual observations, the experiments, carried out by one of the three or four organizations worldwide whose specific job it is to collate global temperature data. And it says no warming for 16 years.

You cannot simply trust actual data until you insert the corrected numbers into a model, adjust the model, tweak the variables and add phenagles constant to get the the values which you seek. * sarcasm mode off *

[maidu]

For every scientific study you can show which concludes no GW in the past decades, I can show you dozens which show there has been increased warming.

This is not a 'scientific study'.

It is the data, the actual observations, the experiments, carried out by one of the three or four organizations worldwide whose specific job it is to collate global temperature data. And it says no warming for 16 years.

The terms 'scientific study' and data are essentially synonymous. Semantics.

[RickBradford]

For every scientific study you can show which concludes no GW in the past decades, I can show you dozens which show there has been increased warming.

This is not a 'scientific study'.

It is the data, the actual observations, the experiments, carried out by one of the three or four organizations worldwide whose specific job it is to collate global temperature data. And it says no warming for 16 years.

The terms 'scientific study' and data are essentially synonymous. Semantics.

That is nonsense.

A scientific study may or may not use data, but may also incorporate computer models, statistics, theories and plausible mechanisms, qualitative evidence, policy prescription, and a whole host of other components.

[thaibeachlovers]

It's an interesting subject, but regardless as to whether we have man made warming or not, how many of us are prepared to deal with the consequences of any crisis?

I have certainly prepared as much as possible, and I have a life time collection of useful survival skills, but I would be prepared to say that most don't even give a second thought to what might happen.

Like the Boy Scouts say- Be prepared. It might save your life.

[cbrer]

Doesn't matter. the solution is simple.

Giant artificial icebergs, created by giant fridges, powered by solar.

[maidu]

For every scientific study you can show which concludes no GW in the past decades, I can show you dozens which show there has been increased warming.

This is not a 'scientific study'.

It is the data, the actual observations, the experiments, carried out by one of the three or four organizations worldwide whose specific job it is to collate global temperature data. And it says no warming for 16 years.

The terms 'scientific study' and data are essentially synonymous. Semantics.

That is nonsense. A scientific study may or may not use data, but may also incorporate computer models, statistics, theories and plausible mechanisms, qualitative evidence, policy prescription, and a whole host of other components.

.....most of which relate to data.

[RickBradford]

You stated that 'data' is synonymous with 'scientific study' ; that the difference between the two is merely 'semantics'.

That is utterly incorrect.

The same data can result in diametrically opposed scientific studies, depending on the selection of the data, its statistical treatment, the theories that the data is being used to support, and hence the conclusions and policy prescriptions that flow from it.

A classic example is the study by Mann, Bradley and Hughes in 1998, (MBH98), which is perhaps the most extensively criticised and ridiculed study in the history of climate science.

The data was solid, but MBH98 was later shown to have used a variety of simplistic and inappropriate statistical techniques, flawed data selection and analysis and overblown presentation techniques which rendered it useless as a piece of serious science, but effective as a propaganda tool.

'Data' is emphatically not the same as 'scientific study'.

If it was, nobody would be carrying on like Mister Bill at the thought of a climate catastrophe, because the data does not support that conclusion.

The alarmism and catastrophism come exclusively from computer programs, or 'climate models', which purport to predict the future of the climate based on a large set of suppositions which have little to do with data.

[mccw]

For every scientific study you can show which concludes no GW in the past decades, I can show you dozens which show there has been increased warming.

This is not a 'scientific study'.

It is the data, the actual observations, the experiments, carried out by one of the three or four organizations worldwide whose specific job it is to collate global temperature data. And it says no warming for 16 years.

This report puts both sides forward:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2217286/Global-warming-stopped-16-years-ago-reveals-Met-Office-report-quietly-released--chart-prove-it.html

It matters little though; urge you all to read this factual book about the resource depletion going on:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/aw/d/047092764X

Not much we can do about the climate but read this book and you will be shocked by the implications and want to start taking steps to ready yourself and family. It's not alarmist but a sober look at the facts of extraction rates, energy in to energy out rations of production, the nature of exponential growth and ties it in with the money system and economy. Really good read. A lot to think about.

[maidu]

Global warming enthusiasts don't seem to be able to connect the dots.

Al Gore and Maurice Strong are heavily invested in the Chicago Carbon Exchange....trading in 'carbon credits'.

Conflict of interest or what?

Some of the sheeple might want to do research on 'agenda 21'

What irritates me the most is that the powers that be, who traditionally were very anti-environment, suddenly had a 'change of heart' and started fanatically pushing a green agenda.

Excuse me? Alarm bells should start ringing.

The bottom line....there is an agenda behind all this.

The first is obvious....money...

...but there are more sinister aspects to it.

They are penalizing us for just being alive....because life equals CO2...think about it.

....so you start hearing calls for cutting the earths population to manageable levels.

That can only happen in a 'violent' manner...there is no way you can persuade large chunks of the third world to stop having children.

The future looks interesting indeed.

My suggestion to 'greenies'...stop being 'useful idiots' to a dark agenda that you can't fathom.

While you're pontificating, you might want to get a higher soapbox - the water is rising around your ankles.

[craigt3365]

An off topic post violating forum rules has been removed from view.

[GentlemanJim]

Global warming enthusiasts don't seem to be able to connect the dots.

Al Gore and Maurice Strong are heavily invested in the Chicago Carbon Exchange....trading in 'carbon credits'.

Conflict of interest or what?

Some of the sheeple might want to do research on 'agenda 21'

What irritates me the most is that the powers that be, who traditionally were very anti-environment, suddenly had a 'change of heart' and started fanatically pushing a green agenda.

Excuse me? Alarm bells should start ringing.

The bottom line....there is an agenda behind all this.

The first is obvious....money...

...but there are more sinister aspects to it.

They are penalizing us for just being alive....because life equals CO2...think about it.

....so you start hearing calls for cutting the earths population to manageable levels.

That can only happen in a 'violent' manner...there is no way you can persuade large chunks of the third world to stop having children.

The future looks interesting indeed.

My suggestion to 'greenies'...stop being 'useful idiots' to a dark agenda that you can't fathom.

While you're pontificating, you might want to get a higher soapbox - the water is rising around your ankles.

I don't understand, everything he said is correct. Perhaps the wrong person is stood on the soap box, check your ankles maidu.

[cooked]

Global warming enthusiasts don't seem to be able to connect the dots.

Al Gore and Maurice Strong are heavily invested in the Chicago Carbon Exchange....trading in 'carbon credits'.

Conflict of interest or what?

Some of the sheeple might want to do research on 'agenda 21'

What irritates me the most is that the powers that be, who traditionally were very anti-environment, suddenly had a 'change of heart' and started fanatically pushing a green agenda.

Excuse me? Alarm bells should start ringing.

The bottom line....there is an agenda behind all this.

The first is obvious....money...

...but there are more sinister aspects to it.

They are penalizing us for just being alive....because life equals CO2...think about it.

....so you start hearing calls for cutting the earths population to manageable levels.

That can only happen in a 'violent' manner...there is no way you can persuade large chunks of the third world to stop having children.

The future looks interesting indeed.

My suggestion to 'greenies'...stop being 'useful idiots' to a dark agenda that you can't fathom.

While you're pontificating, you might want to get a higher soapbox - the water is rising around your ankles.

I don't understand, everything he said is correct. Perhaps the wrong person is stood on the soap box, check your ankles maidu.

Seems like you missed the point, any change in policy direction implicates that the flow of money goes from one place to another. Seeing deep conspiracies behind any change isn't necessarily an intelligent way of seeing the big picture. Do some reading instead of watching Fox News.

[MrRealDeal]

Aganda 21 is certianly bizzare to say the least. And it's just as he said a huge power grab in the name of enviornmentalism that people can't fathom.

Aganda 21 isn't a deep conspiricy it's written and signed by heads of state , you can even buy a copy and read it if you like.

[thaibeachlovers]

Global warming enthusiasts don't seem to be able to connect the dots.

Al Gore and Maurice Strong are heavily invested in the Chicago Carbon Exchange....trading in 'carbon credits'.

Conflict of interest or what?

Some of the sheeple might want to do research on 'agenda 21'

What irritates me the most is that the powers that be, who traditionally were very anti-environment, suddenly had a 'change of heart' and started fanatically pushing a green agenda.

Excuse me? Alarm bells should start ringing.

The bottom line....there is an agenda behind all this.

The first is obvious....money...

...but there are more sinister aspects to it.

They are penalizing us for just being alive....because life equals CO2...think about it.

....so you start hearing calls for cutting the earths population to manageable levels.

That can only happen in a 'violent' manner...there is no way you can persuade large chunks of the third world to stop having children.

The future looks interesting indeed.

My suggestion to 'greenies'...stop being 'useful idiots' to a dark agenda that you can't fathom.

I am hardly a "greenie", ( I fly to Thailand, drive a car, use oil generated electricity etc etc ) though I like to practice some "green" policies as many of them make sense- use public transport when possible, economise, don't pollute, recycle etc. However, mankind is fast breeding itself into extinction. Either the 3rd world voluntarily stops having so many children, or Gaia will remove most or all of us.

Over to the 3rd world.

[LomSak27]

My suggestion to 'greenies'...stop being 'useful idiots' to a dark agenda that you can't fathom.

Vinny you do not seem to be able to "fathom" how this "dark Agenda" has hijacked scientists the world over - better get working on it. I'll check in from time to time to see if you got something.

By the way I am very concerned as quite soon I'll be living on a boat and cruising. I have no desire to get crushed in a super typhoon.Fight the Good Fight Vinny. I for one am rooting for you.

[maidu]

This thread is stirring up a lot of emotion among posters - leading to polarization, name calling and more. None of us commenting on this blog will feel the more dire effects of rising seas. It will affect some of our childrens' generation, and a greater number of our grandchildren and their offspring. People are an adaptable species. When Kartrina hit N.Orleans or Sandy hit NJ, some people toughed it out. Yet, particularly in the US, when a natural calamity hits, everyone, rich and poor, immediatly clamor for federal and state money. That's the headline in the US now, in regard to the recent storms which damaged the eastern sea board. Most sea level cities in the world (Bkk included), don't have a federal paymaster to go and write checks when disaster hits. It's ironic (to me) that if a person's home burns down or is individually flooded, that person is left to tough it out on his own. When a group of homes and businesses are destroyed, then everyone expects State and Feds to come running with money. How much less of a bummer is it if your house burns down or floods individually, compared to it being destroyed along with other houses?