Well, I was just doing the math. But if you go look at the actual tide gauge for Kwajalein in the Marshalls it show nearly 6 inches of sea level rise since 1990.
One of those other factors is gravity. For instance the sea level around Antarctica is some 15 to 20 feet higher than it would otherwise be because of the gravitational attraction of the Antarctic ice sheet and some 5 feet higher around Greenland because of the gravitational attraction of its ice sheet. So paradoxically the relative sea level around those big ice sheets will drop compared to the rest of the world as they melt.
That may be true but over 80% of stocks and mutual funds are owned by only the top 10% of the population and over 35% are owned by the top 1%. Who Rules America?
Second point. Since the telescopes themselves are working in the visible light range the lasers for the adaptive optics systems need to be there also because distortions of the light is what they're adapting to telescopes optics to.
Just because the light isn't visible doesn't mean it's not harmful. After all, it's the invisible to you ultraviolet light from the Sun that gives you a sunburn.
Those "huge deviations" you see are still within the range of predicted natural variability by climate models. They are not a surprise to climate scientists. When you factor in the various sources of natural variation the deviations largely disappear.
His original hockey stick graph still holds up as shown by around a dozen similar studies done by different scientists using different proxies and techniques.
LOL! Okay, dude. lol.
You can laugh all you want but that doesn't change the scientific findings.
The connection with "holocaust denial" was made by guys that had their feelings hurt by being called deniers. Denier is a perfectly good word in the English language and to imply that it can only be associated with holocaust deniers is abuse of the definition. I prefer the term "climate science denier" myself.
However, "Climate Change" has happened many times in the past in relatively recent history (e.g. Maunder Minimum).
The temperature change from the Maunder Minimum and the depths of the Little Ice Age to the mid-20th Century was about 1 degree C. Now we're talking about an increase of several degrees C over the next 100 years or so.
No, the entire idea of AGW is based on fundamental physics. It doesn't require climate models in any way. Climate models are merely a way to explore how the various aspects of the fundamental physics fit together and interact with each other.
In Antarctica the albedo effect of increased ice is very small because the greatest ice area covered occurs when the least sunlight is hitting it. In the Antarctic summer the sea ice melts out nearly completely every year and there is essentially no carryover from one year to the next.
Well if there is any consolation, its that government command-and-control slamming the brakes on the economy as a"solution" (which would, by process of inaction slowing down development, be far worse for humanity than moving back from the sea over 300 years) is dead in the water.
It's a straw man to say responding to the threat of global warming requires "slamming the brakes on the economy". Most of the economic analyses I've seen say it will be cheaper to do something about it than to adapt after the fact.
Wasn't the increase in ice-area attributed to the melt from inland not being salty, and thus having a higher freezing-point?
That's part of it but the fresher water on the surface is also less dense so it floats on top of the denser salt water and prevents warmer water from below from mixing at the surface. Another factor is the warmer atmosphere above the Antarctic ocean carries more water vapor which means increased precipitation which is also fresh water. And yet another factor appears to be the ozone hole has caused the circumpolar winds to get stronger causing the ice to break apart and spread out more opening polynyas that subsequently freeze over. This wave height study is something new (to me) although on reflection it makes sense that it would have some effect on sea ice. But the effect would only be on the margins of the ice pack. In the middle of the ice pack or even in relatively small polynyas within it there won't be any wave action to speak of. I look forward to more research on the subject.
What you and your cohorts ought to do is get a Kickstarter campaign going to fund a study done properly (as you see it). Find a qualified group of researchers to run the study and publish their results. That's the way science works. Publish a competing work and let the scientific community decide. A good example is the BEST team who looked at all temperature stations, not just the selected sample that the other major temperature records use.
BTW, the fact that 66% of the papers examined had no statement about anthropogenic global warming is not surprising. That doesn't mean the authors don't have an opinion on the matter, just that it wasn't relevant to the subject of their paper. It would be interesting to see how many of the authors of those neutral papers were also authors on other papers that did express an opinion.
Slashdot Mirror
What, the Kwajalein tide gauge? It's empirical data. What makes you think it's BS?
Here is the tide gauge for Kwajalein in the Marshall Islands since about 1945. There is a definite uptick in the past 15 or 20 years.
Well, I was just doing the math. But if you go look at the actual tide gauge for Kwajalein in the Marshalls it show nearly 6 inches of sea level rise since 1990.
One of those other factors is gravity. For instance the sea level around Antarctica is some 15 to 20 feet higher than it would otherwise be because of the gravitational attraction of the Antarctic ice sheet and some 5 feet higher around Greenland because of the gravitational attraction of its ice sheet. So paradoxically the relative sea level around those big ice sheets will drop compared to the rest of the world as they melt.
I guess 3 mm/year for the last 20 years isn't substantial sea level rise but compare that to less than 0.25 mm/year for the last 3000 years.
If the rate of SLR in the Marshall Islands was 12 mm/year from 1993 to 2009 that's a total of 204 mm or 8 inches in the 17 year period.
That may be true but over 80% of stocks and mutual funds are owned by only the top 10% of the population and over 35% are owned by the top 1%. Who Rules America?
Second point. Since the telescopes themselves are working in the visible light range the lasers for the adaptive optics systems need to be there also because distortions of the light is what they're adapting to telescopes optics to.
Just because the light isn't visible doesn't mean it's not harmful. After all, it's the invisible to you ultraviolet light from the Sun that gives you a sunburn.
If the network bogs down I'm blaming my ISP (which happens to be Comcast), not NetFlix or some other content provider.
Regarding McKintrick, here are responses from the Mann himself:
False claims by McIntyre and McKitrick regarding the Mann et. al. 1998 reconstruction
On yet another false claim by McIntyre and McKitrick
I'm not going to waste my time with the NIPCC report. I did too much of that with the first one.
Those "huge deviations" you see are still within the range of predicted natural variability by climate models. They are not a surprise to climate scientists. When you factor in the various sources of natural variation the deviations largely disappear.
His original hockey stick graph still holds up as shown by around a dozen similar studies done by different scientists using different proxies and techniques.
LOL! Okay, dude. lol.
You can laugh all you want but that doesn't change the scientific findings.
The connection with "holocaust denial" was made by guys that had their feelings hurt by being called deniers. Denier is a perfectly good word in the English language and to imply that it can only be associated with holocaust deniers is abuse of the definition. I prefer the term "climate science denier" myself.
However, "Climate Change" has happened many times in the past in relatively recent history (e.g. Maunder Minimum).
The temperature change from the Maunder Minimum and the depths of the Little Ice Age to the mid-20th Century was about 1 degree C. Now we're talking about an increase of several degrees C over the next 100 years or so.
What last several years of cooling? From a climatological view there has been no cooling.
If climate science is a religion then it's an awesome religion because it's got actual evidence to back it up.
No, the entire idea of AGW is based on fundamental physics. It doesn't require climate models in any way. Climate models are merely a way to explore how the various aspects of the fundamental physics fit together and interact with each other.
In Antarctica the albedo effect of increased ice is very small because the greatest ice area covered occurs when the least sunlight is hitting it. In the Antarctic summer the sea ice melts out nearly completely every year and there is essentially no carryover from one year to the next.
A more accurate term would be "climate science denier".
Well if there is any consolation, its that government command-and-control slamming the brakes on the economy as a"solution" (which would, by process of inaction slowing down development, be far worse for humanity than moving back from the sea over 300 years) is dead in the water.
It's a straw man to say responding to the threat of global warming requires "slamming the brakes on the economy". Most of the economic analyses I've seen say it will be cheaper to do something about it than to adapt after the fact.
Wasn't the increase in ice-area attributed to the melt from inland not being salty, and thus having a higher freezing-point?
That's part of it but the fresher water on the surface is also less dense so it floats on top of the denser salt water and prevents warmer water from below from mixing at the surface. Another factor is the warmer atmosphere above the Antarctic ocean carries more water vapor which means increased precipitation which is also fresh water. And yet another factor appears to be the ozone hole has caused the circumpolar winds to get stronger causing the ice to break apart and spread out more opening polynyas that subsequently freeze over. This wave height study is something new (to me) although on reflection it makes sense that it would have some effect on sea ice. But the effect would only be on the margins of the ice pack. In the middle of the ice pack or even in relatively small polynyas within it there won't be any wave action to speak of. I look forward to more research on the subject.
This seeming contradiction is a pretty small blip in a global picture. Should I give you an F if you miss one answer in a 1,000 question test?
Yes, the consensus has been wrong before but if you make a habit of betting against it you may win some but you'll be a loser in the long run.
As far as letting other sides make their arguments and having them disproved it's been done over and over but many of them won't give up when they don't get the answer they want. There's a whole website dedicated to scientific rebuttals of the other sides arguments.
What you and your cohorts ought to do is get a Kickstarter campaign going to fund a study done properly (as you see it). Find a qualified group of researchers to run the study and publish their results. That's the way science works. Publish a competing work and let the scientific community decide. A good example is the BEST team who looked at all temperature stations, not just the selected sample that the other major temperature records use.
BTW, the fact that 66% of the papers examined had no statement about anthropogenic global warming is not surprising. That doesn't mean the authors don't have an opinion on the matter, just that it wasn't relevant to the subject of their paper. It would be interesting to see how many of the authors of those neutral papers were also authors on other papers that did express an opinion.