Patrick Michaels discusses "Ocean sea levels could rise 3 to 6 feet in this century"

Clock

Senior Member.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Boston

Active Member
I wonder if you could explain to us the effects of thermal expansion in relation to the results of changes in the atmospheric chemistry evidenced through multiple data collection methods ?
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
This is not a debunk. The reality is that there are a variety of estimates, and we don't know what will happen. Hence the original claim is correct. Sea levels could rise that much, although it seems more likely to be below three feet.

upload_2013-9-7_14-7-31.png
http://www.skepticalscience.com/sea-level-rise-predictions-intermediate.htm
 
Last edited:

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
And please don't post full articles from commercial news sites, they tend the get annoyed at that.
 

cosmic

Senior Member.
all hype no action http://www.usatoday.com/story/weather/2013/09/07/quiet-hurricane-season/2776845/

Could you please explain why you think hurricane predictions for one season have any relevance to sea level projections for the remainder of the century?
 
J

Joe

Guest
Even a one foot rise in ocean levels is pretty bad for some countries.
countries or sannbars ? LikeMaldives
Could you please explain why you think hurricane predictions for one season have any relevance to sea level projections for the remainder of the century?
Because they are just guessing and they get payed for it . We would be better off with some gypsy and a crystal ball . Same with sea level rise . Global warming is a conspiracy made up by alarmist that get paid for making crap up . Sure they use scientific methods that make it seem like they know what theyre doing but its just a guess . looks like Australia has had enough of their carbon taxes and elected a conservative leader . http://world.time.com/2013/09/06/australian-government-faces-carbon-tax-backlash-at-poll/
 

cosmic

Senior Member.
Because they are just guessing and they get payed for it . We would be better off with some gypsy and a crystal ball . Same with sea level rise .

That doesn't address my question.

Global warming is a conspiracy made up by alarmist that get paid for making crap up . Sure they use scientific methods that make it seem like they know what theyre doing but its just a guess .

Why do you believe this?
 

Sausalito

Active Member
countries or sannbars ? LikeMaldives/
I have to brush my teeth and wash my sink after reading that. Excuse my vomit breath, but I'm allergic to certain things.
Unique ecosystem aside, I heard that there are a few people in Bangladesh. (The Netherlands would be bummed, too.) The displacement of humans due to climate change will ultimately affect your home country, no matter how you color your predictive maps. Desperation breeds radicalism, if that brings it any closer to your doorstep. C'mon, man...

Just noticed that you're in Florida. How would a 1 foot rise affect Florida? And you misspelled Cinnabar. Sorry, I'm done here. "Global warming is a conspiracy," says someone who obviously does not understand the overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Look - Earth's atmosphere does not care about human politics. Ozone doesn't consider Al Gore and Rush Limbaugh. In that regard, we might stand to learn something from ozone. Leave politics the heck outta objective scientific inquiry.
 

Sausalito

Active Member
And as for objectivity and Forbes (excuse homeboy's slow speaking style):


Edit: Yes, I know dropping a lengthy vid. is often frowned upon, but I feel that it is appropriate. Would it be more appropriate to refer folks to a stack of papers? Sod it. Drop by for tea and I'll prepare a rocks-out seminar custom-tailored to your particulars. [time permitting, I probably would, in all honesty...]
 
Last edited:
J

Joe

Guest
I have to brush my teeth and wash my sink after reading that. Excuse my vomit breath, but I'm allergic to certain things.
Unique ecosystem aside, I heard that there are a few people in Bangladesh. (The Netherlands would be bummed, too.) The displacement of humans due to climate change will ultimately affect your home country, no matter how you color your predictive maps. Desperation breeds radicalism, if that brings it any closer to your doorstep. C'mon, man...

Just noticed that you're in Florida. How would a 1 foot rise affect Florida? And you misspelled Cinnabar. Sorry, I'm done here. "Global warming is a conspiracy," says someone who obviously does not understand the overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Look - Earth's atmosphere does not care about human politics. Ozone doesn't consider Al Gore and Rush Limbaugh. In that regard, we might stand to learn something from ozone. Leave politics the heck outta objective scientific inquiry.
need I say more ? Global warming is a HOAX http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...caps-grows-60-global-warming-predictions.html PS I meant SANDBAR
 
Last edited by a moderator:
J

Joe

Guest
Yes you need say more. You need to say if you see a trend here:
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...global-warming-predictions.html#ixzz2eLnJGFHH
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
 
Last edited by a moderator:
J

Joe

Guest
I have to brush my teeth and wash my sink after reading that. Excuse my vomit breath, but I'm allergic to certain things.
Unique ecosystem aside, I heard that there are a few people in Bangladesh. (The Netherlands would be bummed, too.) The displacement of humans due to climate change will ultimately affect your home country, no matter how you color your predictive maps. Desperation breeds radicalism, if that brings it any closer to your doorstep. C'mon, man...

Just noticed that you're in Florida. How would a 1 foot rise affect Florida? And you misspelled Cinnabar. Sorry, I'm done here. "Global warming is a conspiracy," says someone who obviously does not understand the overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Look - Earth's atmosphere does not care about human politics. Ozone doesn't consider Al Gore and Rush Limbaugh. In that regard, we might stand to learn something from ozone. Leave politics the heck outta objective scientific inquiry.
well Rush Limbaughs house would be underwater and Id be able to surf right behind my shop . The people in the Netherlands and Bangladesh should have moved years ago . But 100 years from now the coastline will look the same .
 
J

Joe

Guest
You're bound to encounter problems if tabloids are your chosen source for climate news -- especially those with a history of deliberately misrepresenting science.

Skeptical Science: Arctic sea-ice 'growth', a manufactured IPCC 'crisis' and more: David Rose is at it again
Bad Astronomy: No, the World Isn't Cooling

(Not that I think anyone besides Joe put stock in the articles he posted.)
Maybe so but if they cant convince me think about the millions that are just Average Joes :) Seems the only believers in Global Warming are the ones who make a living off it ?
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Maybe so but if they cant convince me think about the millions that are just Average Joes :) Seems the only believers in Global Warming are the ones who make a living off it ?

How could you make a living off global warming if you did not believe it was happening?

That's like saying "only believers in hunger make a living from growing food".
 
J

Joe

Guest
How could you make a living off global warming if you did not believe it was happening?

That's like saying "only believers in hunger make a living from growing food".
I couldnt make a living off it . The IPCC and their ilk seem to :)
 

cosmic

Senior Member.
Maybe so but if they cant convince me...

If you're forming your opinions around articles like you've linked, which are full of misrepresentations and bunk, how do you propose to identify what's "convincing" at all? First you have to learn how to distinguish between accurate information and nonsense, and that's going to require more effort on your part.
 
J

Joe

Guest
If you're forming your opinions around articles like you've linked, which are full of misrepresentations and bunk, how do you propose to identify what's "convincing" at all? First you have to learn how to distinguish between accurate information and nonsense, and that's going to require more effort on your part.
Explain the bunk in the article ? Mick posted a graph but never said that the ice cap didnt grow larger in 2013 ? Thats not debunking the article just a attempt to debunk my Hoax statement . Iv seen more bunk out of the alarmist then the deniers . IMO of course . Plus Whats the point of climate scientist anyway ? Its not like they can change anything and predictions were just as good with the Farmers Almanac which is saying this winter should be cooler .
 

cosmic

Senior Member.
Explain the bunk in the article ? Mick posted a graph but never said that the ice cap didnt grow larger in 2013 ? Thats not debunking the article just a attempt to debunk my Hoax statement .

I already gave you two articles which do so in detail. Did you not read them?
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Explain the bunk in the article ? Mick posted a graph but never said that the ice cap didnt grow larger in 2013 ? Thats not debunking the article just a attempt to debunk my Hoax statement . Iv seen more bunk out of the alarmist then the deniers . IMO of course . Plus Whats the point of climate scientist anyway ? Its not like they can change anything and predictions were just as good with the Farmers Almanac which is saying this winter should be cooler .

Come on Joe. You know what the graph means - there's a downwards trend.

You also know the article is misleading because it's strongly implying that because the sea ice grew one year then global warming is not happening and we are in a cooling trend.

Does this look like a cooling trend?

Hence that bit of the article is debunked.
 
Last edited:
J

Joe

Guest
Explain the bunk in the article ? Mick posted a graph but never said that the ice cap didnt grow larger in 2013 ? Thats not debunking the article just a attempt to debunk my Hoax statement . Iv seen more bunk out of the alarmist then the deniers . IMO of course
Come on Joe. You know what the graph means - there's a downwards trend.

You also know the article is misleading because it's strongly implying that because the sea ice grew one year then global warming is not happening and we are in a cooling trend.

Does this look like a cooling trend?

Hence that bit of the article is debunked.

Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency (JAXA) – International Arctic Research Center (IARC)http://wattsupwiththat.com/reference-pages/sea-ice-page/
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Jay Reynolds

Senior Member.
I've been looking at this subject in the context of Dane Wigington's claims about massive methane releases he claims are underway at present.

You might find the following relevant, as it extends the time scale back considerably, and a different picture emerges.
http://bprc.osu.edu/geo/publications/mckay_etal_CJES_08.pdf

There have been periods of arctic sea ice minimums less than today's levels during the Holocene, at CO2 levels much lower than present, and at least some of the current minimums are a recovery from the LIA.

This is partly the line of evidence used recently by Gavin Schmidt, climate researcher and no AGW skeptic who used this information when refuting claims of an methane hydrate release catastrophe scenario.
 

cosmic

Senior Member.

Ah, the climate discussion equivalent of Godwin's Law. While this is neither relevant to the articles I posted nor a substitute for answering questions posed to you, I suppose it is useful in one way -- a reminder to readers that your objections are political or conspiratorial rather than scientific.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
J

Joe

Guest
Ah, the climate discussion equivalent of Godwin's Law. While this is neither relevant to the articles I posted nor a substitute for answering questions posed to you, I suppose it is useful in one way -- a reminder to readers that your objections are political or conspiratorial rather than scientific.
Global warming is political . Its all about carbon taxes and control .
 

cosmic

Senior Member.
Global warming is political . Its all about carbon taxes and control .

No. "What exactly is happening?" and "what should we do about it?" are two different questions. You can't lump policy recommendations or mitigation strategies under the same heading as climate science itself.

Scientific investigation explains the processes and mechanisms at work as well as identifies problems we may encounter from the human impact on climate. That's separate from any subsequent policy recommendations or the politics of their implementation. Your objections, to reiterate, are not scientific; they're attributable to differences (real or only perceived) in political ideology. Well, that and the fact that you think an entire scientific discipline is an elaborate hoax. :rolleyes:
 
J

Joe

Guest
No. "What exactly is happening?" and "what should we do about it?" are two different questions. You can't lump policy recommendations or mitigation strategies under the same heading as climate science itself.

Scientific investigation explains the processes and mechanisms at work as well as identifies problems we may encounter from the human impact on climate. That's separate from any subsequent policy recommendations or the politics of their implementation. Your objections, to reiterate, are not scientific; they're attributable to differences (real or only perceived) in political ideology. Well, that and the fact that you think an entire scientific discipline is an elaborate hoax. :rolleyes:
Science cant make up its mind one decade its a coming ice age then next its global warming soon WW3 . What happened to the rain forest ? lots or carbon dioxide consuming trees gone . Like I said if you cant convince the average Joe you need to nudge them . Blame your politicians because they wanted to use the issue to enrich themselves and their friends not a hoax just payed shills pushing a agenda to stifle growth and make us live like Europeans .
 

cosmic

Senior Member.
Science cant make up its mind one decade its a coming ice age then next its global warming soon WW3 . <snip>

Yet again, instead of responding directly to the previous issue(s) raised, you shift to others which are equally incorrect, and without even acknowledging corrections or refutations provided.

Nature: The great global cooling myth

The paper itself: The Myth of the 1970s Global Cooling Scientific Consensus
(Link to complete .pdf here)

You're regurgitating old bunk. The question is: why?
 

Tim Redmond

New Member
Leave politics the heck outta objective scientific inquiry.
If that had happened, the claim of Global Warming would never have gotten anywhere. It's what keeps it going.
It's such a convenient power and money opportunity. Yes, even for scientists. If you don't support anthropogenic global warming, you don't get the grants and you don't get published.
 

"They"

New Member
This same thing has always been happening about as long as humans have been recording it, and about 10,000BC or so as the last major global cooling was ending and glaciers started melting back... some old dude was telling his grandchildren "yeah back in my day, we had to walk at least a week in the snow to get to the ocean!" "I blame the Northern folk! They made the gods angry!" and so on. :p
 

George Hammer

New Member
If that had happened, the claim of Global Warming would never have gotten anywhere. It's what keeps it going.
It's such a convenient power and money opportunity. Yes, even for scientists. If you don't support anthropogenic global warming, you don't get the grants and you don't get published.

I don't know a lot of scientists who study science for power like you suggest. I also know a lot of scientists who don't make very much. Perhaps you could qualify this statement with some data and show the correlations between funding and research results. You do have expert data to back you up right? Or is this a drive-by shooting type or argument?

This same thing has always been happening about as long as humans have been recording it, and about 10,000BC or so as the last major global cooling was ending and glaciers started melting back... some old dude was telling his grandchildren "yeah back in my day, we had to walk at least a week in the snow to get to the ocean!" "I blame the Northern folk! They made the gods angry!" and so on. :p

Partially true. However showing climate changed in the past due to natural causes in no way establishes that climate now is changing due to natural causes.

Climate reacts to whatever is the dominant forcing at the time. We have periods where we can tell sun was the dominant forcing for warming. We also have a period from the 1950s on where we can tell that anthropogenic contributions are the dominant forcing.
 
Top