IPCC Sea Level Rise Estimates

[CrusaderFrank]

Helena nailed it. The AGWCult sounds like Bill Murray "dogs and cats" speech in ghostbusters

Sent from smartphone using my wits and Taptalk

 

[SSDD]

I have seen nothing in the last seven years to indicate that there should be a large increase in SLR estimates, and perhaps a few to warrant a decrease. your thoughts?

He is a parrot...he has no thoughts. He repeats whatever he is told to repeat by whoever happens to be a snug fit with his political leanings....it has nothing to do with science.

An actual ocean engineer (as he claims to be) would probably provide an endless stream of opinion regarding what is happening in the oceans and one would expect that an actual ocean engineer wouldn't be unable to read graphs...especially those describing what is happening in the oceans.

hahahahahaha

you do realize that he holds the same opinion about you, right?

Since he is a poser, his opinion doesn't mean much to me. And I don't claim to be a scientist.

am pretty sure I have never convinced anyone to act smart by calling them retarded.

And I am pretty sure you can't make an idiot act smart by calling him smart.

only way to get someone to move away from an emotionally held opinion is to get them to defend it logically and then start trimming out the inconsistencies.

You can't get a zealot away from his religion....the more you point out inconsistencies, the more he will attack you.

know for myself that the more I learn about climate science, the less certain I am about just about everything. but that doesnt mean that there isnt lots of things that are just plain wrong, and should be discarded.

Like the greenhouse hypothesis as described by climate science? Pressure rules, not trace gasses.

 

[Abraham3]

Abe- I agree that the IPCC up until AR5 had given fairly realistic estimates of SLR. unfortunately the 20-60 cm projection in 2007 has morphed into 50-120 cm in 2013. even with The Pause, and other clawbacks in the actual document rather than just the SPM.

out of curiousity, did you ever point out that SLRs of one metre or more were unrealistic when posters here cut and pasted exaggerated numbers out of news articles and such?

SLRs or one meter or more by 2100 are not unrealistic.

 

[joshuah]

Abe- I agree that the IPCC up until AR5 had given fairly realistic estimates of SLR. unfortunately the 20-60 cm projection in 2007 has morphed into 50-120 cm in 2013. even with The Pause, and other clawbacks in the actual document rather than just the SPM.

out of curiousity, did you ever point out that SLRs of one metre or more were unrealistic when posters here cut and pasted exaggerated numbers out of news articles and such?

SLRs or one meter or more by 2100 are not unrealistic.

How long can the current rate continue before it becomes unrealistic?

 

[percysunshine]

Still waiting for the meme to change from 'sea level rising' to 'sea level fluctuations'.

Even simple physics confounds the ideologically driven.

.

 

[IanC]

Abe- I agree that the IPCC up until AR5 had given fairly realistic estimates of SLR. unfortunately the 20-60 cm projection in 2007 has morphed into 50-120 cm in 2013. even with The Pause, and other clawbacks in the actual document rather than just the SPM.

out of curiousity, did you ever point out that SLRs of one metre or more were unrealistic when posters here cut and pasted exaggerated numbers out of news articles and such?

SLRs or one meter or more by 2100 are not unrealistic.

How long can the current rate continue before it becomes unrealistic?

Even the current rate of 3mm/yr is made up of SLR away from the coast. Imagine that....it jumped by 50% at the exact time that we started using satellites! What are the odds of that?

 

[Abraham3]

Abe- I agree that the IPCC up until AR5 had given fairly realistic estimates of SLR. unfortunately the 20-60 cm projection in 2007 has morphed into 50-120 cm in 2013. even with The Pause, and other clawbacks in the actual document rather than just the SPM.

out of curiousity, did you ever point out that SLRs of one metre or more were unrealistic when posters here cut and pasted exaggerated numbers out of news articles and such?

SLRs or one meter or more by 2100 are not unrealistic.

How long can the current rate continue before it becomes unrealistic?

At the current rate, sea level will be roughly half a meter above the 1870 level by year 2100. That in itself is not a harmless change. But to reach one meter from this point would require the rate go to 5.9 today. A linear change from the current rate to one of 11.8 mm/yr by 2100 would do the trick. That's an acceleration of only 0.13 mm/yr^2; a long way from the realm of the "unrealistic".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Current_sea_level_rise

 

[IanC]

Abe- aka King Canute

So even natural SLR is dangerous. Hahaha.

I wonder how long it will take to adjust the late 00's SLR drop out of existence? You know, when the oceans were taking up all that missing heat and thermally expanding. Oh wait......

 

[Darkwind]

Ah, a fine "avalanche o' crap" dump by SSDD. Common cultist tactic.

If you don't spend hours refuting each bit of cherrypicked nonsense individually, the cultist proclaims victory.

If you _do_ spend the hours, the cultist simply temporarily retreats and posts the exact same refuted nonsense somewhere else, even though he knows full well it's garbage.

Hence, one does not waste time on it. One simply points and laughs.

So, those that don't spend hours and days refuting the church of Wamer's cherry picked data just get labeled as anti and then the proclamation of "Settled Science" is issued.

 

[Abraham3]

The proclamation of "settled science" was issued when better than 95% of active climate scientists agreed with the theory.

 

[westwall]

The proclamation of "settled science" was issued when better than 95% of active climate scientists agreed with the theory.

And, since they decided it was "settled" they have learned that their GCM's are shit. That they have no idea if clouds are positive or negative forcers. That the world stopped warming 17 years ago....BEFORE the "science was settled". That the main proponents have been cooking the numbers and falsifying reports since then.

And that...as they say, is the tip of the iceberg.

 

[SSDD]

The proclamation of "settled science" was issued when better than 95% of active climate scientists agreed with the theory.

Take a guess....how many times in scientific history have the cosensus been wrong?

 

[Abraham3]

So you reject all science because it might be wrong? How's life in your cave in the woods eating slugs and cockroaches?

 

[elektra]

The proclamation of "settled science" was issued when better than 95% of active climate scientists agreed with the theory.

When 95% of all the Climate Scientists receiving Billions $$$ agreed, it was settled?

News flash, they excluded everyone that disagreed, it was in their own emails, to EXCLUDE those who disagree.

That is how Liberal/Socialist/Democrats conquer and win, by Excluding, not including.

 

[Abraham3]

I'm glad to see you've got all bases EQUALLY covered.

 

[Abraham3]

PS: there are higher resolution versions of Elektra Records' logo available.

 

[SSDD]

So you reject all science because it might be wrong? How's life in your cave in the woods eating slugs and cockroaches?

Nope...just those whose basic hypothesis has proven itself to be flawed. One failure of a hypothesis is enough to reject it, if science is at work...The greenhouse hypothesis, and the AGW hypothesis have multiple failures and yet, they continue to be accepted...why? Politics...money...power.

Actual scientists are at work looking for the truth but it isn't happening in climate science.

 

[SSDD]

PS: there are higher resolution versions of Elektra Records' logo available.

Want to point out possible punctuation errors also? You sure have no actual evidence to support your claims so you find that you must attempt to denegrate your opponents in whatever petty way you can.

Here all that sound in the background?....take of the AGW cult blinders and look around...see all the people pointing at you and laughing?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The proclamation of "settled science" was issued when better than 95% of active climate scientists agreed with the theory.

They also had consensus that the Earth was a Flat Plane held up on the back of a Giant Turtle, so you're in excellent company.

Remember when Einstein claimed Relativity was "Settled science"?

Yeah, me neither

 

[whitehall]

What good are estimates made by people who make a living from the fake fear and extortion of global warming? In the 70's they told us to beware of another ice age. Noted pop-scientist Carl Sagan said the world would end when Saddam lit off the oil wells. He did and the world barely burped.