Study Confirms Global Warming Causes Major Increase In Sea Levels

Climate Changephotovision / Pixabay

A team of researchers at the University of Florida has confirmed that global sea levels will very likely rise around 20 feet over the next few decades. The bad news is that this increase in sea levels will occur even in the best case scenario of a global treaty to reduce CO2 levels to mitigate climate change. Moreover, the rise in sea levels could be considerably higher without prompt and effective reduction in carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases.

In the study, the U of F researchers examined the geological history of the Earth, and discovered that sea levels increased by about 20 feet when temperatures reached or moved above above modern day global averages.

Details on the study showing global warming leads to rises in sea levels

The research determined that sea levels moved up around 20 feet during three historical warming periods of 1.8 to 3.6°F (1 to 2°C) that occurred during interglacial periods in the last three million years. The findings suggest that Earth is likely to see a significant rise sea level even if global warming is held to just 2°C. Scientists have been pointing out for some time that limit will soon be exceeded unless we take big steps now to mitigate climate change.

The new study was published in the academic journal Science, and compiled more than 30 years of research from scientists around the world to show that changes in the planet’s climate and sea levels are closely linked. The data showed that even a relatively small warming episode can lead to a 20-foot rise in sea levels.

Andrea Dutton, a geochemistry professor at the University of Florida, was the leader of a global team of academics who participated in the study. She said the  team examined sea levels 125,000, 400,000, and three million years ago to determine a range of possibilities, given that each historical warming period is caused by different factors.

Of note, 2014 was the hottest year on record, however, that record looks like it may be broken in 2015. The International Energy Agency published a study earlier this year suggesting that that global temperatures could increase by 7.7°F (4.3ºC) by 2100. The IEA also notes that global average temperatures have risen nearly 1.8°F (1ºC) since the 1880s.

Statement from lead researcher Andrea Dutton

“As the planet warms, the poles warm even faster, raising important questions about how ice sheets in Greenland and Antarctica will respond,” Dutton explained. “While this amount of sea-level rise will not happen overnight, it is sobering to realize how sensitive the polar ice sheets are to temperatures that we are on path to reach within decades.”

For exclusive info on hedge funds and the latest news from value investing world at only a few dollars a month check out ValueWalk Premium right here.

Multiple people interested? Check out our new corporate plan right here (We are currently offering a major discount)



381 Comments on "Study Confirms Global Warming Causes Major Increase In Sea Levels"

  1. And you’re an illiterate moron, moron. “You’re” not “your”, moron.

  2. And the moron man is back. Excellent intellectual prowess be marveled by all.

  3. Not being a Right Wing Fascist like you doesn’t make me a Communist, moron. Remember, moron, it is
    the Conservative Right Wing Fascists who want rape by vaginal probe, ban
    books, censor the mass media, suppress voting rights, try to force
    religion into educational curricula, etc, etc, etc. Right Wing Fascists
    like you always get it wrong, moron.

  4. Oh come on and embrace your inner Marxist, Phlem. It’s obvious to anybody with a functioning brain that you’re the worst kind of mindless left-wing neo-totalitarian bigot. You’d frog-march anybody who doesn’t parrot your extremist mindset to the gulag in a heartbeat if you had the chance.

  5. Not being a Right Wing Fascist like you doesn’t make me a Communist, moron.

  6. Writing a Bond like book using the pseudonym Iam Phlemming playing off Ian Fleming.

  7. No such thing as a “Liberal neo-Fascist”, moron. Fascism is Right Wing Corporatism by definition, moron. You are faR too ignorant to know what junk Science is, moron.

  8. So why did you pick hacking up mucous for a screen name? Not that it doesn’t fit and all…

  9. Shouldn’t you be chanting some cult mantra or singing the old Internationale?

  10. Spoken like a true Liberal neo-Fascist, telling other people what they are on the sole basis that they don’t buy into your own demented political based junk science cause.

  11. You’re a total moron.

  12. And you’re an illiterate moron, moron. “You’re” not “your”, moron.

  13. Your like a third grader saying poopy head over and over

  14. Don’t need one, moron. When the shoe fits, moron.

  15. Buy a thesaurus.

  16. Like a moron like you would know, moron.

  17. OOPs made fun of your religion my apologies

  18. You need help, keep calling.

  19. No not any 3rd person stupid… My original posting name was Kem Patrick, when Discus arrived I could no longer use it because the Discus computer program said that name was already used…. Yes; it was used by me…
    You and your sidekicks, Orkneygal, Common Sense, who has none, Thon Brockett and a few others were the worst of the worst GW Deniers and everything I ever said on the subject has turned out to be a fact.
    The stupidity you displayed several years ago has not changed, you are still at it.

  20. So now you refer to yourself in the third person?

    It seems your senility has advanced even further.

  21. Yeah that’s right; and Kem Patrick has kicked your dumass all over the screen many times and wiped the floor with your face….. You are without any reasonable doubt the stupidest professional Global Warming Denier to ever post a comment on the web.

  22. Oh, look! You picked up a stalker!

  23. Faith requires no empirical evidence.

    In fact, it usually rejects it summarily.

  24. Oh, look — it’s everybody favorite whackjob Kem Patrick!

  25. Sewage can reply. Who would have thought?

  26. eff off troll

  27. You would have to explain to the foul fool what the word apologize means.

  28. Apologize to her.

  29. Mirror at-hand, eh?

  30. duplicate post removed

  31. Others? I am not judging another. I am judging a piece of excrement and making a determination that it stinks.

  32. After some time doing this the jig is up. The summary is finished. I sent the summary to a good friend and colleague of mine on fb. His name is Omar Alahgondi. If you wish to see the results I suggest you check it out. He would be happy to answer any questions you may have and can explain about how the data was used from the NOAA site as well.

  33. I should imagine so — every time you use it.

  34. You are a liar, moron.

  35. It allows me to instantly identify morons, moron.

  36. No, It’s clear from your other posting that you are indeed a Right Wing Fascist. Most American Libertarians are. BTW, the guys who founded the USA were Liberals. Most were Democrats. Absolutely none were Republicans.

  37. I don’t label every person I correspond with as morons, moron. Just those like you who are espousing moronic statements, moron.. Very few could “knock my lights”, moron. I am a very skilled martial artist in a number of disciplines, moron. I shoot and use edged weapons too, moron. You are correct, moron, I could care less.

  38. You’re a despicable troll, who’s never added any insight to any discussion. And you have the nerve to judge others….

  39. You lied and you know you lied, moron.

  40. Like a moron like you would know, moron.

  41. Moronic statement – “Culling data is not proper for real statistics”. Your expertise in Statistical Analysis is suspect.

  42. Sparafucile, you’re one nasty piece of slime. The only question is whether your incivility exceeds your ignorance, or the other way around. I flagged that comment and hope others do too.

  43. No Phlemming, it seems to work just fine here but this isn’t a puny processor or system, which is why I am doing it. I think I stated that earlier so thanks for pointing that out for yourself.

    Culling data is not proper for real statistics. It is a method to save the costs of working with massive amounts of data and only selecting and researching data that proves your point or case. Claiming one culled any data is open admittance that it is highly selective (cherry picked). You are already saying that the charts and claims of climate change science is one sided with data that only shows the most valuable side determined by themselves. It is already cooked at this point, and that is what you are saying. Data culling serves other non-statistical organizations well. Like the law profession. When it is used in finance it is determine or identify trends. Unfortunately these trend predictions have a high margin of error. So if these climates (as I will call them) culled any data, their yearly temperature variations do not even fall within their margin of error because one could clearly create a + or – 8 degree Celsius variation with culling alone. Their claim is that the data is absolute. It can’t be if they used culling as you state.

    I am currently not culling any data at this time because I don’t see the need to do so. I am breaking it up, henceforth why it is going into a SQL database so I can pull in chunks, crunch those chunks, then crunch the results of the individual chunks to come up the result. I can quite comfortably take hourly data by month on this system. But this is going to take time.

  44. Ya I know, people who eat this global warming crap are morons

  45. Well, there is no way to have a conversation if you do not accept reality. Your constant name calling has ended my desire to attempt to help you, so this will be my last comment. (I know, you are going to respond by calling me a moron. I get your schtick, all you do is act rude. Good luck with life, you make it much harder than it needs to be…)

  46. Calling every person you have a dialog with a moron is indeed rude. Unfortunately, the anonymity of the internet allows people to behave poorly. I’m sure you are not this way face to face or else someone would knock your lights out. I feel sad for you (yes, I know….you don’t care…).

  47. Like I said. a Right Wing Fascist.

  48. Condescending, yes, Rude, no, moron. Telling the truth isn’t rude, moron.

  49. More so than under any of his predecessors, moron. Moron. his 6/3/08 speech did not make your nonsense statement “President Obama promised that he would lower the sea levels if he was elected.” You are a liar as well as a moron, moron.

  50. Like I say, a humorless [bleep.] So what tells you I’m a Right Wing Fascist besides the voices you hear in your head? I’m an Independent voter, moderately conservative on some issues, liberal and libertarian on others, and a guy with a degree in physics and 40 years experience of watching scientific crackpots and frauds using hysterical climate doomsday scenarios that NEVER come true to play credulous fools for enthusiastic marks. If the shoe fits and all that.

  51. 200+ credits is what it took to convince you to buy a mirror?

    What a waste of time and money.

  52. Just find Right Wing Fascists like you revolting/.

  53. The allow me to instantly identify morons, moron.

  54. You certainly are “exceptional”, moron. Exceptionally stupid that is, moron.

  55. I don’t need to re-inventt the wheel, moron. It has already been proven. See http://www.businessspectator.com.au/article/2015/7/16/science-environment/truth-about-some-medias-mini-ice-age or find you own, there are plenty around.

  56. Wow, you are truly an imbecile. Poor reading comprehension, unhinged emotionally, couldn’t get out of mediocre schools, claims “project management” (by implication) coursework is “science”, while engineering coursework is not. Besides, there’s nothing of importance that’s come out of Bell Labs in the last 40 years, that wasn’t done better (and usually sooner) elsewhere, and actually productised to be useful, except perhaps DSL (who the hell cares).

    Are you capable of pooping in a toilet? Or is somebody government-paid to clean it up off your floors?

  57. Moron, I never saw Al Gore’s film. I have worked in the field and am, unlike you moron, capable of assessing the credibility of Scientific research papers. You don’t even have the language to talk about it, moron. You are an idiot, moron.

  58. American University does, moron. And, moron, you use products daily that my teams developed. Engineering and Business aren’t ‘Science”, moron.

  59. Well, that certainly explains why you are so condescending and rude.

  60. June 3rd, 2008 speech. Really not that hard to find. Obama said his election would be the begining of healing the planet too. Has that happened yet????

  61. You must be one of the short ones. And a humorless [bleep] at that.

  62. You don’t have to worry about that. No man would touch her. I doubt any turkey baster would, either.

  63. That seems to be the extent of your vocabulary. Apparently, those 200+ university credits went to waste.

  64. So that is your empirical evidence ? Look around you? Did you use the same line with your children about Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy?

  65. “Provide a study or studies that show, by empirical evidence, that CO2 emissions are the primary cause of global warming.”

    That information is absolutely all around you.

    You have access to the entire internet.

    How is it possible you haven’t been able to locate it by now?

    “Most climate scientists agree the main cause of the current global warming trend is human expansion of the “greenhouse effect” “

    (NASA, “Climate change: Vital Signs of the Planet: Causes”)

  66. A more accurate antonym for “common” would be “exceptional” not elitist. See what happens when you add politics into the mix.

  67. Don’t mind Plegm, Brian – His plegmatic cough sounds like he is insulting you, but it actually comes out automatically at the end of every phrase he utters.

  68. We are waiting for you to prove the planet is not entering a mini ice age, as the science indicates.

  69. You really are hypocrite then. IE you believe and nothing in the world will stop you from believing. Why don’t you give up on your hot air sky is falling mantra. Al Gore’s movie shows you the truth. He just didn’t point it out to you or his movie wouldn’t have scared you so much. But you believe and don’t want to know the truth. It really hurts when you find out something you believe to be true. Isn’t.

  70. It ain’t “theory”, moron. It is a measurement taken by satellites. Read the following, moron, if you can comprehend it. http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/EnergyBalance/page6.php Your English needs some work.

  71. Models correlated with data are immaterial since climate is a Chaotic System. Data correlated models would imply determinism.
    The relative stability of the Climatic System is under AGW stimulus abrupt changes are possible.

  72. You do try to project your moronic mentality, don’t you?

  73. Illiterate and moronic, moron. Every Professional Scientist’s organization on the planet affirms AGW, moron. Moron, you have nothing. Not even a meaningful opinion.

  74. Common is the opposite of Elitist. I’ll take common any day. Not surprising at all that Right Wing Fascists would be Elitists, moron.

  75. You claim a “degree” in project management? Considering I have a formal credential in it, too, it’s hard to fathom anyplace (except a community college) has a degree program in it.

    Otherwise, you do have (if your claims are accurate) more relevant credits than I do, but only slightly. I hold four degrees (from very prominent schools) in Solid State Physics, Quantum Physics, Engineering, and Business, and have been THE innovation leader behind a number of the technologies and products you use today.

    You were saying, a-hole?

  76. Moronic and inaccurate, moron.

  77. Degrees in Math, Physics, Geology, Applied Computer Science and Project Management with over 260 University credits – 160 of which are in the Sciences, innumerable in service courses, Scientific occupation at NASA Langley Research Center and Bell Laboratories as a DMTS over 40 years says otherwise, moron.

  78. This is, what “theory” says. Did you read it? Poorly educated one cannot have his own ‘theory’.

  79. And yet the actual sea level rise falls within the IPCC predictions, though most of their predictions are low, but not all. So taking their upper limit we should see 3 feet (one meter).

    Models need to be correlated with actual data or they are worthless. There are scores of technical papers comparing climate data with models, and then making improvements.

  80. Phlem stutters but comes when called. GloBULLstool, oh GloBULLstool…… Why look, there he is now…..
    Wonder if he’ll come when I call for a Moronic GloBULLstool????

  81. Typical denialist mentality!
    And please do something about that revolting, phlegmatic cough that punctuates the end of every phrase you emit!

  82. I guess you really are a hypocrite then. Keep on believing in the irrational science of global warming based on data manipulated and collected by men who are paid to do it. You should really try applying some science. The suns cooling off. That means the planet earth will cool off. Nothing man will be able to do about. We’ve shut down and destroyed way too power plants.

  83. We agree! You are vulgar. ( being coarse and pretentious)
    Wait… maybe you prefer being “common”.

  84. That’s spectacularly doubtful.

  85. You are a psycho moron who has little understanding of the methods of Science and no Credentials in Climatology, moron. Your opinions are worthless..

  86. Provide a credible citation that the majority of Solar Scientists are predicting a “mini-ice age”, moron.

  87. That does not change the fact that it is the nonsense you are spewing that is moronic, moron

  88. Moron, the data is arranged for processing by multiple array processors. It isn’t meant for puny PC processing. Culling data is perfectly proper in Statistical Analysis.

  89. I have absolutely no doubt that my Scientific education and professional experience in Science dwarfs your nonsense, moron.

  90. I am not a Believer.. Now that is offensive! I would never be a Believer in the Church of Climate Scientology! I cannot bring myself to reject the scientific method and science.

  91. ROFLOL The wrong questions?? ??

  92. ?. Apparently that IS all that you have.

  93. That’s why I voted for Obama…

  94. Boston is the only place on a Earth where the snow finally melted in Boston yesterday.

    According to satellite measurements, 2014 was not the hottest year on record. Your surface measuring system is false pbecause you extrapolate wide areas of the planet from scattered sensors.
    NOAA was caught falsifying baseline data.
    Get a real source of information.

  95. I swear to f ing god. If the people that are making these predictions are wrong they should be wiped to death in the public square. I am so over your worthless science and 100% wrong every time predictions.

  96. Now now Phlem – You’re not going to “deny Science” are you?
    BTW – you really have to do something about that persistent phlegmatic cough. It always sounds like you are insulting people, when I’m certain you are not crass enough to call people names because they disagree with you.

  97. Wow, an article from another captain obvious. The planet has been warming for nearly 12,000 years which has inundated the bridge between the Bearing Strait that the ancient peoples used to come from Eurasia to North America, meaning the oceasn have risen almost two hundred feet since the planet began warming again. This guy is spot on, I look forward to the next article that will state unequivocally that rain fall is directly responsible for making the ground wet.

  98. And what you find moronic doesn’t change the fact that you are a GloBULLstool

  99. “(my) view”?

    My view that demonstrating causality is something that matters?

    Or my view that empirically-measured data doesn’t align with the AR3 models?

    Given those are the only two “views” I’ve expressed, I’ll respond accordingly: To the first — that’s a basic tenet of all good science. Disregarding, discarding, or ignoring it is the opposite of science. To the second — well, even the IPCC admits as much, in AR5.

  100. That’s all you deserve, chief. If that.

  101. You’re asking the wrong questions, chief. As long as you do that, you’ll never get answers withi any connection reality. Please do move on.

  102. You are aware, of course, that your view represents a tiny, tiny minority of scientific opinion on this, right?

    Outside of a few contrarian sites, the causality in question is universally accepted. Why? Because the data support a solid theory, and they keep piling up.

  103. Quite a catty response there Phlemming. I bet you’re proud of that one. Needless to say you probably don’t own a valid copy of Microsoft Office to do the research. If you did, I doubt your computer would open it up any time this week because the file is impractically large (1.1 gig). You have surely told me that you are pretty clueless as to the source of the problem.

    If you did, and could open the file up, and understood analytics and used its tools, you would very well know that the paretos they show derive from mini-tab and Excel. Both programs will not and cannot crunch all of the data but a small portion of it because it exceeds max row capacity. I believe it will break the 10 million row limitation in mini-tab. With that said, let’s not fret because the conclusion I came up with is exactly what they come to the conclusion of as far as temperature. If you compare 1902 to 2014, the average temperature was 2 degrees Fahrenheit higher in 2014. The low and high were picture perfect and uniform. But I am not accounting all of the data, much like they are not accounting all of the data. They often select station locations and monthly periods for those areas, but never an equal station to station overall at the same time period. Stations move as well and this will certainly skew data because the data pool would have to be exactly the same data pool as any given year collected for an actual comparison to be conducted with conclusive accuracy. Quick explanation; I want to increase average temp overall, I install two hundred more stations in the hottest area of Arizona and draw its data with the rest and then make the conclusion that average temperatures soared…well gee I wonder why… Could it be all the stations I added were put where the average temperature is higher than the global average? So I am pointing out the bull here on both of my part and theirs.

    The only solution I have left is a simple one. I am going to dump the many of the cvs files into a SQL table and pull from there in increments and continue the crunch. Now we will see what is really going on here because I can pull data under solid structured queries. You’ll get my answer hopefully by the end of this month because I plan on pairing many different years. I have at least 4 terabytes of storage to play with here so I am game, and obviously bored. I may make some dire predictions. I could skew some data as well and start a trillion dollar institution, but it wouldn’t change the fact that it is a hoax.

  104. Moron, you mentioned “temperature” I didn’t. You mentioned “warming”. I didn’t “Energy’ would be even better since it is manifestation neutral and reflects the situation of increased energy budget more accurately.

  105. Not the Faithful Psychotic Religious Irrational Believer such as yourself, moron.

  106. It isn’t name calling, moron. It’s the appropriate use of taxonomic
    classification based to the moronic traits exhibited by those, such as yourself, so labeled, moron. Your Oedipus complex makes you irrational, moron. I could care less what the DSM says with regard to morons, moron. I am using it in the vulgar sense, moron.

  107. Don’t be so certain about that.

    (It’s nice to see that your scientific illiteracy might be matched, or even exceeded, by your presumptuousness.)

  108. Idiot, I have a much greater and encompassing Scientific education and background than you do, moron. And even more germane to your nonsense is that I have a good understanding

  109. That does not change the fact that it is the nonsense you are spewing that is moronic, moron.

  110. The freak, trying to compensate lock of knowledge by increased audacity: when you speak warming up, speak amount of heat, not the “temperature”. Or – “voltage”.

  111. There is a web site on the internet that can help you find information called Google.com. The way it works is you just type in a word or phrase and Google will search all web sites and find what you typed in. For example, I typed in ‘Obama sea level’ and found hundreds of web sites that reference his quote. If you don’t feel you are able to perform this search, I can help you out. Here is his quote:
    Obama declared in a June 8, 2008 speech, that his presidency will be “the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal.”
    Now you know how to do your own research! Bon Chance!

  112. What else do you expect, from somebody who doesn’t know the difference between science and politics?

  113. Me: “Don’t you have anything substantive to say?

    You: ” To an irrational moron like you? You gotta be kidding, moron.”

    I’ll take that as a ‘No’. Keep posting. You are are so representative of Believers.

  114. Again you engage in repetitive use of a term no longer used in an evaluative nomenclature. You do not know your taxa.
    Does my pointing out your ignorance make you angry? Would you say you were happy as a child?

  115. “All Science is ultimately about majority consensus”

    Thanks for making it crystal clear that you have no scientific background.

    (Only a moron mistakes science for democratic politics, which is what you are doing.)

  116. DiogenesDespairs | Jul 16, 2015, 2:06 pm at 2:06 pm |

    Here are some crucial, verifiable facts – with citations – about human-generated carbon dioxide and its effect on global warming people need to know. I recommend following the links in the citations; some of them are very educational.

    The fact is, there has been global warming, but the contribution of human-generated carbon dioxide is necessarily so minuscule as to be nearly undetectable. Here’s why:

    Carbon dioxide, considered the main vector for human-caused global warming, is some 0.038% of the atmosphere[1]- a trace gas. Water vapor varies from 0% to 4%[2], and should easily average 1% or more[3] near the Earth’s surface, where the greenhouse effect would be most important, and is about three times more effective[4] a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. So water vapor is at least 25 times more prevalent and three times more effective; that makes it at least 75 times more important to the greenhouse effect than carbon dioxide[5]. The TOTAL contribution of carbon dioxide to the greenhouse effect is therefore 0.013 or less. The total human contribution to atmospheric carbon dioxide since the start of the industrial revolution has been estimated at about 25%[6]. So humans’ carbon dioxide greenhouse effect is a quarter of 0.013, works out to about 0.00325. Total warming of the Earth by the greenhouse effect is widely accepted as about 33 degrees Centigrade, raising average temperature to 59 degrees Fahrenheit. So the contribution of anthropogenic carbon dioxide is less than 0.2 degrees Fahrenheit, or under 0.1 degree Centigrade. Global warming over the last century is thought by many to be about 0.6 degrees Centigrade.

    But that’s only the beginning. We’ve had global warming for more than 10,000 years, since the end of the last Ice Age, and there is evidence temperatures were actually somewhat warmer 9,000 years ago and again 4,500 to 8,000 years ago than they are today[7]. Whatever caused that, it was not human activity. It was not all those power plants and factories and SUVs being operated by Stone Age cavemen while chipping arrowheads out of bits of flint. Whatever the cause was, it melted the glaciers that in North America once extended south to Long Island and parts of New York City[8] into virtually complete disappearance (except for a few mountain remnants). That’s one big greenhouse effect! If we are still having global warming – and I suppose we could presume we are, given this 10,000 year history – it seems highly likely that it is still the overwhelmingly primary cause of continued warming, rather than our piddling 0.00325 contribution to the greenhouse effect.

    Yet even that trend-continuation today needs to be proved. Evidence is that the Medieval Warm Period centered on the 1200s was somewhat warmer than we are now[9], and the climate was clearly colder in the Little Ice Age in the 1600s than it is now[10]. So we are within the range of normal up-and-down fluctuations without human greenhouse contributions that could be significant, or even measurable.

    The principal scientists arguing for human-caused global warming have been demonstrably disingenuous[11], and now you can see why. They have proved they should not be trusted.

    The idea that we should be spending hundreds of billions of dollars and hamstringing the economy of the entire world to reduce carbon dioxide emissions is beyond ludicrous in light of the facts above; it is insane. Furthermore, it sucks attention and resources from seeking the other sources of warming and from coping with climate change and its effects in realistic ways. The true motivation underlying the global warming movement is almost certainly ideological and political in nature, and I predict that

    Anthropogenic Global Warming, as currently presented, will go down as the greatest fraud of all time. It makes Ponzi and Madoff look like pikers by comparison.

    [1] Fundamentals of Physical Geography, 2nd Edition

    by Michael Pidwirny Concentration varies slightly with the growing season in the northern hemisphere. HYPERLINK “http://www.physicalgeography.net/fundamentals/7a.html” http://www.physicalgeography.net/fundamentals/7a.html

    [2] ibid.

    [3] HALOE v2.0 Upper Tropospheric Water Vapor Climatology Claudette Ojo, Hampton University; et al.. HYPERLINK “http://vsgc.odu.edu/src/Conf09/UnderGrad%20Papers/Ojo%20-%20Paper.pdf” http://vsgc.odu.edu/src/Conf09/UnderGrad%20Papers/Ojo%20-%20Paper.pdf. See p. 4.The 0 – 4% range is widely accepted among most sources. This source is listed for its good discussion of the phenomena determining that range. An examination of a globe will show that tropical oceans (near high end of range) are far more extensive than the sum of the earth’s arctic and antarctic regions and tropical-zone deserts (all near the low end). Temperate zone oceans are far more extensive than temperate-zone desert. This author’s guess of an average of 2% or more seems plausible. I have used “1% or more” in an effort to err on the side of understatement.

    [4 NIST Chemistry Webbook, Please compare the IR absorption spectra of water and carbon dioxide. ] HYPERLINK “http://webbook.nist.gov/” http://webbook.nist.gov/

    [5] Three quarters of the atmosphere and virtually all water vapor are in the troposphere. Including all the atmosphere would change the ratios to about 20 times more prevalent and 60 times more effective. However, the greenhouse effect of high-altitude carbon dioxide on lower-altitude weather and the earth’s surface seems likely to be small if not nil.

    [6] National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration. HYPERLINK “http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/gases.html” http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/gases.html. The estimated 90ppm increase in carbon dioxide, 30% above the base of 280 ppm, to a recent reading of 370 ppm, equates to just under 25% of present concentration, the relevant factor in estimating present contribution to the greenhouse effect.

    [7] Oak Ridge National Laboratory http://www.esd.ornl.gov/projects/qen/nerc130k.html

    [8] New York Nature – The nature and natural history of the New York City region. Betsy McCully http://www.newyorknature.net/IceAge.html

    [9] Global Warming: A Geological Perspective John P. Bluemle HYPERLINK “https://www.dmr.nd.gov/ndgs/Newsletter/NL99W/PDF/globlwrmw99.pdf” http://www.azgs.az.gov/arizona_geology/archived_issues/Winter_1999.pdf This article, published by the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Agency, is drawn from a paper by the author in Environmental Geosciences, 1999, Volume 6, Number 2, pp. 63-75. Note particularly the chart on p.4.

    [10] Ibid.

    [11] Wikileaks: Climatic Research Unit emails, data, models, 1996-2009 HYPERLINK “http://wikileaks.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_emails,_data,_models,_1996-2009” http://wikileaks.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_emails,_data,_models,_1996-2009.

    See also HYPERLINK “http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1246661/New-scandal-Climate-Gate-scientists-accused-hiding-data-global-warming-sceptics.html” http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1246661/New-scandal-Climate-Gate-scientists-accused-hiding-data-global-warming-sceptics.html and

    HYPERLINK “http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704075604575356611173414140.html” http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704075604575356611173414140.html and, more diplomatically: HYPERLINK “http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/01/science/01tier.html” http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/01/science/01tier.html. Et al.

    ADDENDUM

    What initially troubled me was the aberrant behavior of the climate research unit at East Anglia University, which had been the main data source for AGW arguments. They initially refused (!) to reveal their algorithms and data on the grounds that they were proprietary(!!). They responded to critics with ad hominem attacks and efforts to block their publication in scientific journals. Now, as I am sure you know, this is not how one does honest science, in which you PUBLISH your data and methodology and invite critical comment to ferret out error or oversights. It took the now-famous Wikileaks “Climategate” to pry loose the data and expose their machinations. Yet despite the devastating blow these revelations should have to their credibility, the AGW “cause” has taken on a life of its own.

    Fundamentally, the argument seems to rest on a logical fallacy, post hoc ergo propter hoc – after this, therefore because of this. We see a rise in temperature and a rise in (principally) carbon dioxide, and therefore conclude one must have caused the other. It does not necessarily follow at all. There can be other causes entirely behind both phenomena, and as you see above, almost certainly there are. Beyond that, I have encountered numerous assertions of fact that cannot add up given the physical properties of water vapor and carbon dioxide that go unchallenged. One-sided arguments proliferate and people arguing the other side are frequently denounced as being employed by business interests rather than rebutted on the merits.

    In sum, I have not come lightly to the conclusion that the AGW argument as it applies to carbon dioxide is largely untrue and certainly does not account for more than a very small, nearly negligible part of the phenomena we are seeing. The implications of widespread assertions of and belief in such an untruth are staggering, and potentially enormously destructive. It is unwise indeed to let oneself be stampeded in this matter, and stampede is clearly what many have been and are trying to induce.

    I can understand politicians behaving this way; a carbon tax or carbon trading regime would allow enormous revenues to fall into their hands. I can understand “Progressive” ideologues; it logically leads to enormous expansion of government power over industry, the economy, and the daily life of individuals, which they regard as a good thing. I understand the environmentalists; they want to shrink the size and impact on the environment of modern civilization. But responsible citizens need to put aside such considerations.

  117. Yes, you should be sorry, you sorry excuse for a moron. Absolutely correct, Right Wing Fascist Moron, moron.

  118. All Science is ultimately about majority consensus, moron. A fact is a fact because it is recognized as such by consensus. Red is red because the majority of English speaking peoples have a consensus that it is the label applied to a certain portion of the visible spectrum. Informed Consensus is the foundation of knowledge.

  119. To an irrational moron like you? You gotta be kidding, moron.

  120. Your idiotically moronic comments are being appropriately addressed, moron.

  121. acronym for GloBULLstool Mororon: Phlemming

  122. Poor stupid toll-girl still can’t comprehend how causality is demonstrated, no matter how often the concept is explained to her.

  123. “that doesn’t stop you and your ilk from making wild projections”

    If you don’t like other people’s predictions, make your own:

    If you understand polar ice caps have never before in Earth’s history been able to withstand CO₂ as high as we’ve pushed it, how likely is it they will today?

    “both Antarctica and Greenland are losing ice.”

    (NASA, “Ice Sheet Loss at Both Poles Increasing, Study Finds”)

  124. And what has that to do with your moronic volcanoes diversion?

  125. “the snow pile in Boston finally melted away.”

    Is Boston the only place on Earth?

    “The year 2014 was the warmest year across global land and ocean surfaces since records began in 1880.”

    (NOAA, “Global Analysis – Annual 2014”)

  126. “The climatologists are a bunch of snake oil peddlers”

    If scientists are peddling snake oil, where are you getting your information?

    “The Greenland ice sheet has been one of the largest contributors to global sea-level rise over the past 20 years, accounting for 0.5 mm yr-1 of a total of 3.2 mm yr-1.”

    (Khan, et al, “Sustained mass loss of the northeast Greenland ice sheet triggered by regional warming”, Nature, March 2014)

  127. “Which databases provided the data… the raw data or the “adjusted” data?”

    Given that the statement you just made is a common, dishonest Climate Denier talking point, it is doubtful you understand the first thing about the data.

    In point of fact, even a deep solar minimum wouldn’t offset the warming we’ve set in motion through our emission of greenhouse gasses. I would suggest you start being a little more skeptical of your sources of information. Your life may actually depend on it.

    “Even in the event of the Sun entering a new Maunder Minimum like activity state the climate response is very small compared to the projected warming due to anthropogenic influences”

    (Jones, Lockwood and Stott, “What influence will future solar activity changes over the 21st century have on projected global near-surface temperature changes?”, JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH, VOL. 117, March 2012)

  128. Moronic, your comment, that is. Provide a credible citation for when Obama made such a statement, moron.

  129. Well said.

  130. The IPCC is very conservative in their forecasting. Models correlated with data are immaterial since climate is a Chaotic System. Data correlated models would imply determinism.

  131. “Yes, you should be sorry, you sorry excuse for a moron.” Read you own sentence several times until you get it. What you actually said is I am not a moron. What fool. Here let me show you … You are an excellent example of a moron and an Alinsky-ite, tool of fascists.

  132. No, it is the nonsense you are spewing that is moronic, moron.

  133. OK. I used an on line conversion program that I picked at random. In any event 1/ft every 100 years is nothing in the scheme of things. For that matter, 1 1/2 feet every 100 years is NBD. Thanks.

  134. Fascism is corrupting the political process across the country down to the local school board level (see Koch Brothers Wake County Bord of Education) and forcing Fascism into the local curricula. Fascism is Koch Brother Industries causing massive pollution of the environment and circumventing the judicial system to avoid responsibility. Yes, you should be sorry, you sorry excuse for a moron.

  135. You have no empirical evidence that CO2 emissions are the primary cause of global warming do you?

    Since you have no empirical evidence, I am moving on.

  136. Since when is any science about “majorities”?

  137. “We know that GHG helps warm the planet, but there’s no way of knowing how the planet will react to the amount that we are adding now.”

    Yet, that doesn’t stop you and your ilk from making wild projections, uttered with tremendous certainty, while ironically backed by no validated models or empirical data that links delta-CO2 causally to delta-T.

  138. Provide a credible citation that the majority of Solar Scientists are predicting a “mini-ice age”, moron.

  139. In directing idiots, it’s sometimes necessary to use large gestures to get their attention. If you find the evidence of the AGW mechanism scant, it’s only because you’re not looking for it.

    The theory is central to the whole project of atmospheric chemistry, starting with Tyndall, back in Darwin’s time and Arrheneius over a century ago.

    There’s no one study that shows AGW irrefutably; that’s not how science works. Only a idiot, of the sort that needs large simple gestures, would think that it does.

  140. Your computations are wrong 3.2 mm/year = about 1/8 inch year or 1 inch/8 yrs or about 1 ft/100 yrs = 20 feet every 2000 years and like I said the 3.2 mm/year has been confirmed by tidal gauges.

  141. First, moron, you publish your illiteracy for the world to see. Your first word should ave been “You’re” not “Your”, moron. Your phraseology is incoherent, as well, moron. You don’t know anything about “Science”, moron.

  142. :) Ad hominem again. Are sneer and smear all that you have?

  143. ROFLOL Provide a study or studies that show, by empirical evidence, that CO2 emissions are the primary cause of global warming.

    And stop the arm waiving. You are not a landing signal officer on an aircraft carrier.

  144. Moron, I am far far more educated than you are now or will ever be. You know nothing about Science now and never will, moron.

  145. You two suggest a lot of missing brain cells, your own.

  146. First of all, moron, CO2 isn’t the “Primary” cause. The Sun is, moron.
    Secondly it is well established that CO2 is the thermostat governing
    Global Warming, moron. It is all well documented at https://www.aip.org/history/cl

  147. First of all, moron, CO2 isn’t the “Primary” cause. The Sun is, moron. Secondly it is well established that CO2 is the thermostat governing Global Warming, moron. It is all well documented at https://www.aip.org/history/climate/index.htm

  148. Your post contains ad hominem attacks and irrational Gish Gallop. Don’t you have anything substantive to say?

  149. Your ad hominem attacks convince no one of anything, but they reveal a lot about you.

  150. Don’t understand anything about Chaotic Systems, do you moron? …..sigh No past cycle is identical to any other, moron.

  151. So you discount the publication of this study in the journal Science? This doesn’t tell you that other experts looked at the methodology and found it valid?

    Peer review has no value, in your eyes? The whole of climate science is one self-reinforcing feedback loop, where more flawed science generates more and more grant money?

    Do you know the term, “magical thinking”?

  152. It isn’t name calling, moron. It’s the appropriate use of taxonomic classification based to the moronic traits exhibited by those, such as yourself, so labeled, moron.

  153. As an irrational moron, what makes you think you are capable of rational comment?

  154. Conservatives have a genetic defect that doesn’t allow them to understand “Freedom”. Rape by vaginal probe. That is their concept of “Freedom”. This country was not founded by “Conservatives”, moron.

  155. Yadda, yadda, yadda: Nowhere in the geological record has atmospheric CO2 concentration risen as fast as it has in the last 250 years. And there’s no question that human activity is causing THAT. “Natural variability” is of limited use as a guide to projected sea level increase.

    The inertia of the global air and ocean is probably the only thing that stands between us and 30feet of GMSL increase in this century. Given the growing volume of anthropogenic GHG emission, humankind has entered into unknown territory.

    We know that GHG helps warm the planet, but there’s no way of knowing how the planet will react to the amount that we are adding now.

  156. Sophomoric nonsense, moron. Who said it was limited to an inductive proof, moron.

  157. Thank you, for your astute observation. Have a nice day, at least as much as the climate will allow!

  158. Clayton, brother. The study in Science doesn’t say anything about 20 feet of sea level increase in “the next few decades”. It projects 1-4 feet of increase by 2100.

  159. Really? Aren’t all “fossil fuels” a “cumulative radiation” from the sun as well? Ocean will hold the heat for centuries to come, limiting its ability to dissipate the heat from the sun.

  160. Thank you, for your astute observation. Have a nice day, at least as far as the climate allows it.

  161. Orbiting Iceberg | Jul 16, 2015, 10:41 am at 10:41 am |

    I read you loud and clear Pigmalion. Now you’re talking the talk. I will forward your dissertation to NASA’s WWHAC computer for further prevarication. WWHAC is the weather computer on a sub-orbital satellite (a weather balloon) launched by NASA in October1963. It has the smallest Sperry-Univac computer ever built. They launched it to mitigate weather risks to the planned Kennedy visit to Dallas WWHAC, stands for “Wish We Had Abetter Camera”. The computer has been off-line for almost 40 years, but still produces the most accurate geopolitical climate projections in the world. The only real question remaining is; How many climatologists does it take to change a light bulb ?

  162. I agree. Candidate Obama’s promise to lower the sea level was moronic…

  163. Restates conditions experienced during the last LIG thermal maximum as stated in the article. The point, regardless of the affects of the additional atmospheric CO2 we as a species have to plan to encounter a dramatic increase in sea level over the next few centuries. How the solar variations, the earths orbital precession, deep ocean currents and the increase in CO2 affect the next glacial period is a matter of conjecture. What is known is that much of the inhabited coastal areas are about to get wet.

  164. No, models correlated with data are the most accurate. No mention of that in this article, but it is mentioned in the original article.

    The problem with this article is that the writer did not read the original article, or did not understand the article. Professor Dutton’s article states that if the we limit global warming to 2C, we could see a 6 meter rise in sea levels, just not in two decades.

    The article also states that there is a need for better data to make the models and hence the predictions better.

  165. You are deflecting to avoid admitting that you don’t have the empirical evidence.

  166. Acronym for GloBULL study: Moronic nonsense,

  167. I’m sorry, my apologies. I didn’t realize fascism was employing people (Kochs). I thought it was healthcare control (Obamacare), internet control (Net Neutrality), policing control (DOJ), control over the smallest puddles (EPA), essentially off of what Obama does. Again, I am sorry. My bad.

  168. I think the expletive, “moron” is phlem’s way of clearing his throat.

  169. Would that be 97% of solar scientists, phlem?
    Can we call it “settled” then?

  170. 97% of the world’s scientists are currently working on a joint, international project; the Politically Correct Thermometer, or PCT.

    Simple in appearance, theidea is deceptively complex: A thermometer that accurately shows rising temperatures from global warming, whilst exhibiting high immunity to induced error from the parasitic influence of ambient air temperature. A clock drive is
    a good approximation, slowly creeping up at a fixed rate, but it is more complex; the upward climb must be attenuated by financial contributions, at a rate thought to be about 0.1°C per $100Billion/year pledged to the IPCC, yet even this must be compensated for inflation (indexed to 2006 – inconvenient truth year dollars – $ITY) and the algorithm must also continually compensate for carbon share futures on the climate exchanges. Much work remains to be done, which is why we are still living with the paradox (which is only an apparent one) of experts saying it is constantly warming, whilst individuals and meteorologists, who naturally consult their own rudimentary thermometers, are unable to corroborate this trend.

  171. like I said….

  172. minions…koolaid…WOW how ORIGINAL!!!

  173. Why bother providing you with “empirical evidence” odin2…you wouldn’t bother reading it; it’s so much easier to troll than to read with comprehension.

  174. Senior Memberdad | Jul 16, 2015, 1:28 am at 1:28 am |

    The Political Scientists will use this information to transfer wealth to coastal cities (to their low income people). Of course it doesn’t matter if their theories are right or wrong . . . just give us the money.
    One fact always left out of these articles is that Antarctic is a desert climate with only 7 inches of precipitation annually, but this amounts to an annual accumulation of 300 cubic miles of ice, more than the projected melt rate. But not to worry, we now know we can relocate to the Planet Pluto.

  175. your the moron, as usual can disprove my facts, those are well known facts to the science community, but Dumb Chits like you would not know that……………

  176. Just got back from Colorado, went off roading on the Rockies, the amount of packed snow is huge, yet these idiots still push the hoax of Global Warming every day of the week to see if they can scare enough idiots out there so they can push their carbon tax down our throats!!! Lies, lies and more lies, that is all the Communists Progressives have left in their arsenal.

  177. You are the moron that believes the crap of Global Warming that you have been fed by Al Gore and his minions. Stop drinking Obama’s koolaid since it has wiped out the few brain cells you had to begin with.

  178. The scam and hoax of Global Warming on its daily rounds at all the left wing liberal progressive communists sites!!! Al Gore and his minions promoting the new carbon tax that will fix all of the made up hysteria, once the tax is in place, the problems will be solved!!! What a freaking disgrace are all these stupid idiots that believe this crap!!!

  179. Provide a paper or papers with empirical evidence proving that CO2 emissions are the PRIMARY cause of global warming.

  180. “history is irrelevant” sigh…

  181. If my computations are correct, that is approximately 12.6 inches every CENTURY.

  182. Perhaps the study was conducted by the U of Florida football team?

  183. A bit. I have always wondered at the correlation between insecurity and name calling, especially among the highly educated such as yourself, and inability to maintain an erection. Could you share some of your experience?

  184. As one who worships Gaia, why do you deny nature?

  185. But Science has turned into a yellow rag promoting CAGW.

  186. Balderdash.

  187. You point out a lot of missed opportunities.

  188. It is a Chaotic System and out of the AGW frame of reference history is irrelevant. The fact that it is now winter in the Antarctic is not an anomaly, moron.

  189. Orbiting Iceberg | Jul 16, 2015, 12:23 am at 12:23 am |

    Sorry Phlem, I shouldn’t have said acrimonious to you. Let me try this; That’s right young Phlemming, let your anger take control. When hatred takes over you thoughts, you will be more powerful than a Confederate Flag. The insulting minions around you, who believe in heating and air conditioning in homes, cars and commercial buildings, will be defenseless against a 4 degree temperature change and don’t know it. Current technology cannot save them. They will not have the sense to move away from the water as the oceans rise. Only you have the wisdom and power to get the money and move to Montana where it will be cool and dry.

  190. From an article in Hockey schtick dated September 25, 2014, entitled “New paper finds sea levels rose up to 8 times faster & to much higher levels during the last 5 interglacials”

    “A paper published today in Nature Communications finds sea levels naturally rose up to 5.5 meters [18 feet] per century during 5 prior interglacial periods. In addition, the authors finds interglacials “with close to the modern amount of ice on Earth, show rates sea level rise of up to 1 to 1.5 metres per century,” which is about 8 times faster than sea levels are rising today with the same levels of ice on Earth [i.e. less than 7 inches per century without acceleration].

    Further, in a prior paper by the same authors and using the same data, the authors state that TODAY’S SEA LEVELS ARE WELL WITHIN THE LEVELS EXPECTED FROM NATURAL VARIABILITY AND THAT NATURAL VARIABILITY ALONE COULD ACCOUNT FOR 25 METERS MORE SEA LEVEL RISE THAN THE PRESENT: [Emphasis Added]

    “Regardless of the uncertainties surrounding the use of any one of the specific scenarios in Fig. 2, it is clear that equilibrium sea level for the present-day [CO2] of 387 ppmv resides within a broad range between 0 and +25 (±5) meters.”

    and show sea levels during at least 4 prior interglacials over the past 500,000 years were higher than during the present interglacial period [up to 31 feet higher during the last interglacial alone]. Thus, there is no evidence that the [decelerating] sea level rise over the past ~20,000 years is unusual, unprecedented, or unnatural.”

    Browne’s article does not even try to draw a connection between rising sea levels and CO2 levels, but the implication is there because of the hottest ever discussion and that 2015 is likely to be hotter (surprise, surprise 2015 is an El Nino year).

    There is no empirical evidence proving that CO2 emissions have ever been the primary cause of global warming.

    If the sea levels rise, it will be due to natural causes- just as the sea levels rose during the past 4 interglacials. The current rate of rise in sea levels is less than 7 inches per century with no acceleration.

  191. So, you do realize, every attempt to point to any secondary impact of “Climate Change” can not possibly, nor logically have any relevance to providing proof of said “Climate Change”, right?

    For, you are not allowed to assume that climate change is happening, then further assume that it is causing some secondary effect, then measure a trend in that effect, and through a miracle of double-think and logical fallacy, claim that the trend “proves climate change”. There goes 99% of all “scientific papers” on climate change. Poof! In an illogical puff of smoke.

    Hack.

  192. Moron, I have degrees in Math, Physics, Geology, and Applied Computer Science and 40 years of experience doing Science What do you know about Science, moron.

  193. When you are right, you’re right. Answering the morons too quickly.

  194. Moron, Global Surface temperature is just one metric and even that isn’t linear. The energy budget is positive on a Chaotic System. Your idea of linearity is nonsensical.

  195. Moron, local/regional weather was implied in your comment.

  196. No. it’ll be long forgotten by then as weather events become more intense.

  197. Hammered? By idiotic Right Wing Fascist morons, moron? Historuy and fact are on my side, moron.

  198. You can’t possibly get more moronic and irrational than that. It’s also really bad in the illiteracy department too.

  199. The moron, without a Climatological Credential and virtually no relevant science background has made a moronic comment. Not surprising, Deniers are getting desperate.

  200. Perfectly good taxonomic labeling for your mental capacity, moron. Right Wing Fascists are irrational, so what’s the point, moron?

  201. Not when they found out that modern Conservatives are really Right Wing Fascists who despise Freedom.

  202. When it became clear to them that modern Conservatives are really Right Wing Fascists they would certainly vote Democratic party, moron.

  203. Most of them were Democrats, moron. Given an education of what happened in the intervening years, all of them and even Abraham Lincoln would vote Democratic party. They would detest the Right Wing Fascism that pretends to espouse Conservative ideals.

  204. Got a credible source for that claim?

  205. A moronic faith argument without an iota of rational thought. You should write fantasy since you are so divorced from reality. Irrelevant nonsense.

  206. You have responded to questions with the assertion that the poster offered a ” misinterpretation of events”. Got a credible source to back up your claim?

  207. No it hasn’t, moron. It has been all over the Right Wing Tabloids and web sites. That’s why you should provide a credible citation, moron. Even the author of the study said it wouldn’t cause a disruption in AGW.

  208. Orbiting Iceberg | Jul 15, 2015, 11:42 pm at 11:42 pm |

    Now Phlemming, try not to get acrimonious about the GW hoax. They postulate that warm is bad, so bad, that it threatens mankind. These threat stories do not deserve any credible discussion. Why would I dignify this kind of drivel with logical conversation. Much more fun to be sarcastic. I’d like to see just how far they’ll go with threats and coercion before the see how embarrassing the stories have become. A 20 foot rise in sea level in a few decades? Ha Ha I encourage the author to go all in. Attach his name to the most outlandish and horrifying story he can concoct. May the farce be with you.

  209. Moronic Right Wing Fascist disinformation. Their Liberalism is exactly the same as liberalism is today. Conservatives can’t comprehend freedom.

  210. History is clear on both of my assertions, moron. John Lock the father of Liberal Philosophy heavily influenced the Founders, Moron. And Moron,Conservative Right Wingers fought for the British. Read up on the early history of the Pilgrims, moron. Right Wing Fascists really can’t stand reality.

  211. History is clear on both of my assertions, moron. John Lock the father
    of Liberal Philosophy heavily influenced the Founders, Moron. And Moron,
    Conservative Right Wingers fought for the British. Read up on the early
    history of the Pilgrims, moron

  212. Sure you can and you can fly using your own little wings too, moron.

  213. Why do you hate science?

  214. You are projecting, moron.

  215. It is a perfectly good word for taxonomically identifying morons like you, moron.

  216. Uh, that would be a “coupled system” as the dynamics are linked across many different mechanisms. Please get it right.

  217. Well phlem, the actual data, showing a 0.8 degree temperature rise in 180 years, is still well within the margin for error and annual year-to-year variation for an entirely linear trend. All claims to the contrary require that we allow for gaming the data, the range or even, occasionally, the units of measure. Your comment is quite moronic. Typical for Catastrophic Climate Change Cultists though. Expected even.

  218. Moron, you are projecting. Your idol Adolf was a Right Wing Conservative for proof read Mein Kampf you will positively harmonize with it, moron.

  219. Boy do you have it turned around, moron. Your momma must have dropped you on your pointy little head too many times. Fascism is “Corporatism” and is Right Wing by Definition, moron.

    Oxford Dictionary:

    fascism

    See definition in

    Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary

    Syllabification:
    fas·cism

    Pronunciation: /?faSH?iz?m/

    (also Fascism)

    Definition of fascism in English:

    noun

    1An authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization.

    Example sentences
    Synonyms

    1.1(In general use) extreme right-wing, authoritarian, or intolerant views or practice.

    Example sentences
    The term Fascism was first used of the totalitarian right-wing nationalist regime of Mussolini in Italy (1922–43), and the regimes of the Nazis in Germany and Franco in Spain were also fascist. Fascism tends to include a belief in the supremacy of one national or ethnic group, a contempt for democracy, an insistence on obedience to a powerful leader, and a strong demagogic approach

    Origin

    1920s: from Italian fascismo, from fascio ‘bundle, political group’, from Latin fascis (see fasces).
    More
    The term fascism was first used of the right-wing nationalist regime of Mussolini in Italy ( 1922–43), the Partito Nazionale Fascista
    (‘National Fascist Party’), and later applied to the regimes of Franco
    in Spain and of the Nazis in Germany. It comes from Latin fascis ‘bundle’. In ancient Rome the fasces were the bundle of rods, with an axe through them, carried in front of a magistrate as a symbol of his power to punish people

    And no, moron, it is the Fascists like the Koch Brothers who want to force society into their mold, idiot.

  220. I thought Floridas plan was to ban the use of the words climate ahange and the seas would stop rising.

  221. Either global warming is global or it is just weather. If you do not understand climate, then climb it, monkey.

  222. Guess we’ll all find out one way or another in 15 years.

  223. In the case of the moon, it is moving away from us at a rate of 3.78 centimeters (1.5
    inches) per year. In addition, the moon also exerts a tiny pull on the
    tidal bulge and because the moon is slightly behind the bulge, it slows
    the rotation of the Earth by about 4 hours every billion years!

    Moron, the lunar distance delta over 200 years has a very low noise level impact on the gravitational delta. Ice melting via AGW much predominates as a factor in increased depth of flood tides.

  224. Been waiting for those sea levels to rise now for over 15 years, wife still wont let me buy a boat….

  225. I have far more credibility than you do, moron.

  226. Yes indeed, you are.

  227. Please listen to yourself ! Using the complete satellite record is not “cherry picking”. And shoreline measurement is a problem when the crust of the earth is rising and falling- you know about that I’m sure. The areas that can be observed from space include vast areas of open seas which are extremely hard to model. also, speaking of models, a real world measurement is how models are checked not the other way around.

  228. Phlem, you’re getting hammered and, yet, you still continue to try to dig your way out of the hole.

  229. LOL_PhlemmingTheTownIdiot | Jul 15, 2015, 10:59 pm at 10:59 pm |

    Moronic. Provide credible citations, moron

  230. The Founders of the U.S. We’re Tea Party Patriots.

  231. “Effective immediately, the Space and Science Research Corporation (SSRC), a leader in climate prediction, has dropped the US government’s ground based global temperature data from its list of reliable sources.
    This significant step has been made by the SSRC after extensive review of the US government’s ground temperature data and its wide divergence from more reliable sources of climate data, namely satellite systems.
    The SSRC has found multiple flaws that it says render the US government’s climate data virtually unusable. The SSRC has further observed that the US government and specifically, President Barack Obama, have routinely deceived the people regarding the true status of the Earth’s climate, its causes, and where the global climate is heading.
    In the past, the SSRC has used five global temperature data sets, three ground based (NOAA, NASA and HADCRUT) and two satellite data sets (RSS, UAH). These data sets are analyzed and an integrated picture of all five allows the SSRC to produce its semi-annual Global Climate Status Report (GCSR). HADCRUT is a combined set from two UK science groups.
    As of today, the SSRC will no longer use the ground based data sets of NASA and NOAA because of serious questions about their credibility and allegations of data manipulation to support President Obama’s climate change policies. Use of HADCRUT will also be suspended on similar grounds.
    According to SSRC President, Mr. John L. Casey, “It is clear that during the administration of President Barack Obama, there has developed a culture of scientific corruption permitting the alteration or modification of global temperature data in a way that supports the myth of manmade global warming.
    This situation has come about because of Presidential Executive Orders, science agencies producing unreliable and inaccurate climate reports, and also with statements by the President about the climate that are patently false. For example, the President has said that global warming is not only a global threat but that it is “accelerating” (Georgetown Univ. June 2015). Further, he has said that “2014 was the planet’s warmest year on record” (State of the Union Address, January 2015).
    Both these statements are simply not true. He has also publicly ridiculed those who have correctly stated that there has been no global warming for eighteen years therefore nullifying any need for US government actions to control greenhouse gas emissions for any reason.
    Climate mendacity seems to be the rule and not the exception in this administration. “As a result, the US government’s apparently politically manipulated ground based temperature data sets can no longer be regarded as credible from a climate analysis standpoint.
    Until scientific integrity is restored in the White House and the rest of the federal government, we will henceforth be forced to rely solely on satellite measurements. “Most disturbing of course, is that the President has failed to prepare the country for the difficult times ahead as a result of the ominous changes taking place on the Sun.
    Not only is the Sun the primary agent of climate change, but it is now cutting back on life giving warmth, bringing a new cold climate period. We will all face a more difficult future, one which the President is ensuring we will be totally unprepared for.”
    Dr. Ole Humlum, a Professor of Physical Geology at the University of Oslo, Norway and an expert of global glacial activity, is the co-editor of the SSRC’s Global Climate Status Report (GCSR). He adds to Mr. Casey’s comment with, “It is regrettable to see the politically forced changing of temperature data which will of course lead to the wrong conclusions about the causes and effects of climate change.

    Recently, NOAA indicated that May 2015 was the warmest May since 1880. Yet, this cannot be verified by satellite measurements which show that May was in the average range for the month over the past ten years. Also, on page 41 of the June 10, 2015 GCSR, we noted that the temperature spread between ground based and satellite based data sets, has now widened to a point that is problematic.
    The average in degrees Centigrade among the three ground based sets shows a 0.45 C warming in temperature since 1979. For the more reliable satellite systems, it is only 0.17 C warming. This 264% (0.45/0.17) differential is scientifically unacceptable and warrants ending the reliance on the ground based data sets until some independent investigation of the variance resolves the matter.
    While the use of satellite data only, will limit the depth of quality of the Global Climate Status Report, it will at the same time allow us to still provide the best available climate assessment and climate predictions possible using only the most reliable data.”

    http://www.spaceandscience.net/id16.htm

  232. PhlemmingKnowsNothing | Jul 15, 2015, 10:57 pm at 10:57 pm |

    Moron. Moron. Moron. Don’t you know any other words. Use logic, not labels.. Moron

  233. PhlemmingTheIdiot | Jul 15, 2015, 10:55 pm at 10:55 pm |

    Lol. Your a moron if you think George Washington or any of the early founders or presidents would vote democratic in today’s world. Idiot Moron

  234. Leftists are collectivists. The Founding Fathers were so not liberal as the term is known today.

  235. PhlemmingTheMoron | Jul 15, 2015, 10:54 pm at 10:54 pm |

    Lol. Your a moron if you think George Washington or any of the early founders or presidents would vote democratic in today’s world. Moron idiot

  236. How’s this for starters: “There is an annual conference of Nobel Prize Laureates (NPL), commonly held on the picturesque island of Mainau in Lake Constance, Germany, picture above. The 65th of such meetings, under the name Lindau Nobel Laureate Meetings just concluded. The purpose of their meetings is found on their website. Once every year, some dozens of Nobel Laureates convene at Lindau to meet the next generation of leading scientists: undergraduates, PhD students, and post-doc
    researchers from all over the world. The Lindau Nobel Laureate Meetings foster the exchange among scientists of different generations, cultures, and disciplines. Undoubtedly, it’s a laudable intention and, who knows, there may well be future Nobel Laureates among the
    listeners. The assembled laureates also have become known for signing
    “declarations” of sorts that are supposed to warn the world of potential
    problems and consequences. This year was no exception. A total of 36 out of 65 Nobel Laureates signed the “Mainau Declaration 2015 on Climate Change;” available in six languages. You may have noticed that’s just barely over one half of the attendees.”

  237. How’s this for starters: There is
    an annual conference of Nobel Prize Laureates (NPL), commonly held on the picturesque island of Mainau in Lake Constance, Germany, picture above. The 65th of such meetings, under the name Lindau Nobel Laureate Meetings just concluded. The purpose of their meetings is found on their website. Once every year, some dozens of Nobel Laureates convene at Lindau to meet the next generation of leading scientists: undergraduates, PhD students, and post-doc
    researchers from all over the world. The Lindau Nobel Laureate Meetings foster the exchange among scientists of different generations, cultures, and disciplines. Undoubtedly, it’s a laudable intention and, who knows, there may well be future Nobel Laureates among the
    listeners. The assembled laureates also have become known for signing
    “declarations” of sorts that are supposed to warn the world of potential
    problems and consequences. This year was no exception. A total of 36 out of 65 Nobel Laureates signed the “Mainau Declaration 2015 on Climate Change;” available in six languages. You may have noticed that’s just barely over one half of the attendees.

  238. One quick study after another proves that some will do anything to protect that grant money. The climatologists are a bunch of snake oil peddlers who make the rest of the scientific community look bad.

  239. Lol. Your a moron if you think George Washington or any of the early founders or presidents would vote democratic in today’s world. Moron

  240. The earth has been regulating this temperature for millions of years and for man to be so arrogant as to believe our influence is earth temperature so great is utter nonsense. If you are to add the weigh of 230 feet of water to all the oceans and not think that the earth has a mechanism to place to put it back on the poles is short sighted. The earth is a giant cracked egg. You move all that mass from the polls to the equator the volcanoes are all going to start to blow sending sulfur dioxide into the atmosphere and reflect the sun rays back into space. The earth remains in this limited temperature range for a reason. The urgency is being compounded because the world powers have yet to get there carbon tax there holy grail of socializing the planet. Once they get it the earth and rhetoric will suddenly be all better till its not enough money and we will have another crisis.

  241. Moronic logic. Never heard of the “Divine Right of Kings” or the belief that Kings derived their right to rule from “God”, moron. The Founders rejected that assumption and the religious nonsense that supported it. You are an irrational idiot. These is no “what if”, moron. I am not wrong. There are no consequences, idiot. The consequence of your belief system is idiocy, idiot.

  242. The communist Pilgrims turned capitalists in order to survive.

  243. MasterClimatologist | Jul 15, 2015, 10:51 pm at 10:51 pm |

    It has been all over the science news. Moron

  244. This just in: yesterday, the snow pile in Boston finally melted away.

  245. SmartestManInTheWorld | Jul 15, 2015, 10:49 pm at 10:49 pm |

    Moron

  246. In 15 years time cold will be warm.

  247. Idiot, moron, nimrod and dilusional

  248. Idiot and a Moron

  249. Right and the geologic and actual historical evidence of relentless cyclical changes in global temperatures with cyclical variations in the Sun’s magnetic storms means absolutely nothing. Man that Kool Aid is really destroying your brain.

  250. According to the vast majority of Solar Scientists, it won’t result in a mini-ice age, moron.

  251. Yeah. I know.
    I can.

  252. No answer back is necessary, moron. History is clear on both of my assertions, moron. John Lock the father of Liberal Philosophy heavily influenced the Founders, Moron. And Moron, Conservative Right Wingers fought for the British. Read up on the early history of the Pilgrims, moron.

  253. Phlemming… Moron…Moronic…Moronist…learn a new word..Moron

  254. Phlemming… Moron

  255. Phlemming, really? Liberals are better educated? Show me some statistics that prove that! Additionally, Yale Univ. did a study not too long ago regarding knowledge of climate science. “Deniers” scored higher than “Alarmists.” So, I really think you should re-consider your belief system.

  256. Mitigation of AGW effects is calculated to cost $1250 trillion.

  257. Trailer trash can’t afford private jets.

  258. Already accounted for and regarded as noise level impact. Cumulative radiation from the sun dwarfs all volcanic activity.

  259. Misinterpretation of events.

  260. I suspect is is one Danish Denier who is irrational to begin with.

  261. Moronic

  262. Not true scientifically, moron. The is actually a rise but a trivially small one.

  263. Provide a credible citation for your assertions, moron. The studies do no say what you are implying they do.

  264. 20 ft in the next few decades? That’s more than 5X’s the rate of sea level rise than when we came out of the last glaciation. Seriously? We are going to witness exponentially higher rates of sea level rise now, compared to when huge continental glaciers over a mile thick across the northern hemisphere were all rapidly melting back into the oceans? How does this possibly pass the peer review? Those conditions simply do not exist on today’s Earth. Like Kevin Trenberth’s missing heat, now we have the “missing ice”. So where does “the science” tell us this new monster is hiding this time?

  265. Right Wingers moronic clutching at straws.

  266. Provide a credible citation for your statement “But what if the climate goes the other way as some are predicting”, moron.

  267. You made the moronic assertions, the onus is on you to prove them. That is how logical discourse works, moron.

  268. LIE – “Why is it that you all ignore Satellite observations of the lower
    atmosphere that measure every cubic inch of the earth everyday that have
    shown there has not been any statistically significant warming for the
    last 18 plus”

  269. Moronic

  270. Irrelevant to the AGW frame of reference

  271. I’d guess you don’t have the brights to comprehend how they organized the data.

  272. Where ever do you come up with nonsense like this – “Since the actual trend in temperature has been slow and linear over the last two centuries”.? A casual look at the data shows it is not “Linear”. Global Climate is a non-linear decouple Chaotic System. Your comment is quite sophomoric.

  273. See my comment above you fascist tool.

  274. They created the greatest live and let live document in all of history, the Constitution. That is exactly why the progressive fascist movement must crush the Constitution. They cannot stand the fact that they cannot control the way others live, and must get their wealth to fund their sick lives. You are only part right in that true Constitutionalists are the true liberals. It is the fascist left and their hatred for the Constitution that seek control over others.

  275. The Anthropogenic CO2 already released into the atmosphere alredy precludes this as a solution.

  276. I see, the ocean isn’t any higher but just the tides are. How odd is that considering the moon is increasingly expanding its orbit, getting further away from the Earth’s surface, and therefore actually having a lesser effect on tides over the billions of years. You do know that the moon determines the height of tides, right moron?

  277. Nonsense “We had 50 100+degree days in 1980; 54 in 2013.” refers to where, moron? Your entire comment is irrational nonsense.

  278. Oh, and starting your comment with an insult? Does nothing for your credibility. Go back to your echo chamber.

  279. Really. Your definition of Liberal does not include the old meaning, or the thought processes of men who believed their Reason came from God. Silly Phlemming. You can re-define the words all you like. We know what you really want – power over others, and to feed your ego. You consider yourself smarter and are no doubt atheist. And rational. But what if you are wrong? Have you even consider the consequences of that?

  280. Moronic. Provide credible citations, moron.

  281. Moronic The USA was founded by Leftist Liberals.

  282. Moronic Nonsense. Freedom was brought to you by the Leftist Liberal Founders of the USA

  283. If the solar reduction is going to result in something that can be called a mini-ice age, I would hardly classify that kind of disruption as noise.

  284. The Founders of the USA were Leftist Liberals, moron.

  285. Oh, I see. Because you interpret the behavior of people long dead (who can’t answer back) as being the same as your own, it’s okay to spout propaganda and lies. Right?

  286. Flood tides are higher, moron.

  287. No they didn’t. Credible citations, moron?

  288. PLAIN STUPIDITY. FLORIDA HAS BEEN UNDER WATER AT LEAST FOUR TIMES IN THE PAST. WONDER WHAT CAUSED IT? COAST LINES IN EUROPE WERE AT ONE TIME FURTHER INLAND THAN CURRENTLY. WONDER WHAT CAUSE IT?

  289. Moronic nonsense

  290. If all the ice covering Antarctica, Greenland, and in mountain glaciers around the world were to melt, sea level would rise about 70 meters (230 feet). The ocean would cover all the coastal cities. And land area would shrink significantly.

    Work backwards to determine how much melt 20 feet represents.

  291. More recent work is likely to be more accurate.

  292. Moron, when tipping points are pasted, things accelerate.

  293. The Founders of the USA were Leftist Liberals. The US Constitution is the codification of Liberal Philosophy. Liberals on the average are better educated than Conservatives and are much more likely to be Rational.

  294. The Founders of the USA were Leftist Liberals.The Pilgrims were communists before Communism existed.

  295. Irrational.

  296. Even the author of the article that started the mini-ice age hoopla says the decrease in sun activity is noise level.

  297. From what I’ve been able to get out of all the estimates that would have to be about 1/2 of Greenland’s ice and about 1/4 of Antarctica. Along with some glaciers that is feasable.

  298. I am looking at some of the data as we speak directly from the NOAA website. We shall see if the conclusion they propagate is the same conclusion when someone who analyzes data for a living analyzes the data. The preliminaries do not bode well for the climatologists.

    Right off the start the data is organized in a way that an average user with an average computer couldn’t possibly process. They should have broken the CVS files up so it could be broken up into worksheets or separate workbooks. This is a clear indication that either their IT department are not the sharpest pencils in the drawer or they are providing information to make the story look good, meanwhile they can tell any story they wish because the average person isn’t going to be able to call them out on their bull.

  299. Orbiting Iceberg | Jul 15, 2015, 9:45 pm at 9:45 pm |

    Slycat, Truth and reality are uncalled for, when posting a warming threat. Clayton need not limit his ocean rise to 20 feet. He could go 50 or even 100 feet and still draw the correlation between a thermometer and a tape measure. Just use the phrase “much faster than expected” or “in a few decades”. Who knows what that really means. The bigger the threat – the bigger the bucks is the political axiom. Learn to think like Gore.

  300. Orbiting Iceberg | Jul 15, 2015, 9:32 pm at 9:32 pm |

    I would like to encourage Clayton to not hold back when he posts a warming threat. He referred to the U of F research as a “study”. that’s a step in the right direction. The U of F team knew how to use their imagination. They looked at a tape measure and they looked at a thermometer and drew an immediate correlation to the grant money available. Clayton should use any contradictory scientific research to leverage the fear concept to the max. He could use the idea that a mini ice age would only add to the warming problem or point out that a temporary cold spell would only result in a warm ice phenomenon which accelerates the real warming affect on atmospheric temperatures. See what I mean? Melting ice raises ocean temperatures. When you’re talking a 20 foot rise in ocean levels, throw in some mass extinctions. Birds and even mammals won’t be able to get out of the way. The disaster is only as big as your imagination.

  301. since we’ve been adding more and more CO2 to the atmosphere for hundreds of years now we should surely be seeing all kinds of sea-level rise……of course…that’s not happening….it’s always “in the next few decades” with these lying tards.
    homey ain’t buying it…..only liberal fools will bite the same rotten apple over and over.

  302. can’t trust any satellite data because the sea is hardly constantly….it doesn’t move in predictable fashion for obvious reason I don’t have to state. You could cherry pick data and state whatever your case may be…which is exactly what these “researchers” have done. The only way to show any sea level rise would be measurements at the shoreline over a long period of time….not by bouncing a signal off a satellite onto the ocean surface.

  303. well how about that? they started out with a conclusion and I’ll be damned if their “research” didn’t support that conclusion. Tax money well spent.

  304. Add to the damage from all the HAARP Bases around world and there is the cause.

  305. Not to worry. In 15 years we’ll be starting a mini-ice age. And poof goes their silly CO2 centric theory.

    CO2 might be a greenhouse gas, but in reality its impact on the Earth’s heat balance is at the level of “noise” when compared to other more significant variables. But we’re not trying to do a comprehensive study because the chicken littles have put all of their eggs in the CO2 basket.

    Oh, and the non-fudgeable satellite data has extended our 18 year period of NON global warming by another 6 months. Pesky data still not agreeing with incorrect models.

  306. When the planet warms ice melts. When the planet cools water freezes into ice. Only is “Is it occurring naturally or not?” If you really believe man is causing ice to melt please stop using those dirty carbon fuels. You really are hypocrites if you don’t stop using it. I mean after all you are causing the planet to heat up and a lot of ice to melt. Once youfigure out how to stop the ice from melting then you need to work on keeping water from freezing into ice before the next ice age occurs.

  307. amateur support | Jul 15, 2015, 8:51 pm at 8:51 pm |

    The EU is attempting to take advantage of every crisis to further centralize power. Liberals in this country are doing the same. Fact or fiction the only solution is….socialism!!

  308. Studies confirm while sea levels continue their insolent dissent!

  309. No – The UN is also on the waterfront, but they paid up front to buy better weather and lower seas.

  310. Ahhh competition in the hoax department!
    This could get positively catty!

  311. WOW! Now I know NOT to send my kids to the University of Florida!! Hmm, 20 feet in a few decades….under the best conditions… That’s some HORRIBLE science. Andrea Dutton, maybe you shouldn’t be so quick to publish results.

  312. then stop flapping your jaws and prove it!, My post is 100% correct

  313. Satellites confirm that the sea-level is increasing at a rate of 3.2 mm/year and the rate is constant since the satellites came on line about 20 years ago.

  314. Silly denial.

    woodfortrees [dot] org/plot/rss/from:1997/plot/rss/from:1997/trend/plot/esrl-co2/from:1997/normalise/offset:0.68/plot/esrl-co2/from:1997/normalise/offset:0.68/trend

  315. Another B.S. post! The no warming for 18 year thing is absolutely 1000% false. Any 3 year old could tell you that. You are not having a good day.

  316. If you have the Internet it is VERY easy to check.

  317. Closer to 99.9%. Another fail of a post from you.

  318. Silly lie. Anyone can check the satellite data online.

    woodfortrees [dot] org/plot/rss/from:1997/plot/rss/from:1997/trend/plot/esrl-co2/from:1997/normalise/offset:0.68/plot/esrl-co2/from:1997/normalise/offset:0.68/trend

  319. 99% false Yes the study said sunspot activity could slow by 2030. No, it will not in any way, shape or form cause a mini ice age.

  320. Hell, their hair good be on fire and they would just stare at you with that stupid look on their faces… “what fire?”

  321. I guess it’s a good thing the planet is no longer warming. Add that to weak future solar cycles, a negative PDO and a declining AMO and the only way our temperature is going is down. Of course, it may mean we can’t produce as much food as we have been. That is of much more concern than oceans creeping up over many decades.

  322. And the other 1000 studies have been correct. Sarcasm of course

  323. Read the study… it said no such thing…. and you missed badly on the melting ice is glass example.

  324. Only the low information/education, welfare liberals will believe this HOAX anymore. Why do the libatards continue to embarrass themselves when all with a brain know its a lie

  325. Your post is entirely false. All the points you have made have been easily refuted, many, many times.

  326. As the years go by you keep bumping up the timeline. You have lost credibility long ago my friend. You continue to fail to look at the polls. PEOPLE DON’T CARE ABOUT THIS SUBJECT!

  327. OK, I get it now. You pretended to know.

  328. OK, I get it now. You pretended.

  329. The IPCC predicts 1-3 feet by 2100. This study is a very flawed. Maybe the units are 20cm in the 20 years.

    Clayton, how about a link to the this paper? Telling us it is in Science is not cutting it.

  330. As I said, I’ll give you my list of Astrophysicists when you supply me with the list of the 97% of scientists who support the IPCC Mantra about “Anthropogenic Global Warming” . You alarmists tout that 97% all the time, so, show us all the list. Enlighten us.

  331. I’m going to have to do some research, but I have to question this. 20 feet? How much land ice would have to melt to cause the ocean levels to rise that far? All of it? I mean, given how much water is in the ocean, to cause it to rise by 20 feet would take one HELL of a lot of water. I suspect this is just more fear mongering, unsubstantiated except for some shoddy science that doesn’t bother with addressing all of the facts.

  332. There is many a GloBULL “Study” that “confirms” many things that didn’t, can’t and won’t really happen. Typical Warm Monger…

  333. I do. Maryann was my first crush. More recently I so enjoyed Hank Johnson (D-GA) who warned of Guam tipping over. These are the morons that morons elect and then accept what they say as truth. These progressive lying godless animals are waiting for those blessed with common sense and a love of freedom to die off and having nothing left but the product of the failed American education system … that they built.

  334. spewing venom 619 | Jul 15, 2015, 5:56 pm at 5:56 pm |

    Remember the episode on Gilligan’s Island where the castaways thought the island was sinking because Gilligan keep moving the lobster trap pole further out into the lagoon?

  335. spewing venom 619 | Jul 15, 2015, 5:55 pm at 5:55 pm |

    Meanwhile, other esteemed scientists and climatologists announce that earthlings should prepare for a “mini-ice age” by 2030.

  336. Yet I dare anyone 50 and over to go to a beach that they went to as a child and see if the water is any higher. Supposedly we have had 40 years of global warming and yet I can’t be provided with one single address that is under water today that wasn’t then, absent erosion. Not one property. Damn liars.

  337. A recent study confirms that at the current rate of sea level rise (which has been remarkably consistent for over a century) Liberals standing at the tide line for the next 947 years will drown (sooner for the short ones.) Only Liberals are affected. Everybody else has enough sense to walk a few feet to higher ground.

  338. Study Confirms Global Warming Causes Major Increase In Sea Levels – They’ve been crying wolf with this since the 80’s. According to these ‘fortune tellers’; most coastal cities should be under water by now.

  339. How did they predict future suboceanic activity? The surface of the earth is 70+% water, 29+% land. If the ocean floor were uniform, the earth would be completely submerged. Tectonic plate activity, convection, evaporation and precipitation all figure in the equation.
    We had 50 100+degree days in 1980; 54 in 2013. We have not broken 100 this year. The meteorological measuring stations in the Soviet Union closed in the 1980s as CCCP fought its losing battle to survive. Those stations in the northern hemisphere lowered temperature averages. Without them, the averages increased.
    The southern hemisphere is more water than land and has higher temperature averages for that reason.

  340. No coming ice age any time soon, moron.

  341. Start desalinating those oceans, pouring that water into the deserts such as the Sahara, the Great Sandy and the lower desert in Southern California and start growing forests and grains and rice and ALL the food stuffs we need to feed the world from the green veldts that USED to be deserts! Stop trying to steal billions from the taxpayers to line the pockets of the leffist eco-fear mongers and start DOING something to lower those ocean levels by converting the deserts of the world to GREEN VELDTS!!

  342. What’s next? Fire is hot?

    So, the question isn’t if rising temperatures will cause a rise in sea level. No, the question is, how long will it take, how likely is it to occur, and does CO2, particularly mankinds’ emissions, have a significant impact.

    Since the actual trend in temperature has been slow and linear over the last two centuries, all the Catastrophic Climate Change Cult can do is scream, “But we are about to go through a ‘tipping point’ and temperature and sea level rise with accelerate due to the ‘Methane Bomb’!”

    A few problems with that contention. The so-called ‘Methane Bomb’, where the oceans and tundra suddenly release huge stores of methane, a strong greenhouse gas, hasn’t happened…ever. Not even when temperatures were nearly 8 degrees higher than they are today. So, never fear little chickens! The ‘Methane Bomb’ isn’t an issue.

    Then, there is the entire idea of ‘tipping points’. Mathematically, complex systems, which require a system of two or more dependent differential equations, have no solution. Even a single ordinary differential equation has an infinite family of solutions. However, such complex systems go through different modes of behavior. Most of the time, they are in “well behaved” regions, where most of the complexity is hidden, and the behavior can be described by a single differential equation, as the rest of the parameters, terms and equations impact approaches zero. In these “well behaved” regions, we have developed all of our mathematics and science. However, the real, true complexity is still there, and when the system passes through a discontinuity, more commonly called a “tipping point”, everything changes.

    The fundamental behavior of the system changes, sometimes to a completely different equation. However, of note are the following facts about “tipping points”:

    1. No method we know can predict when a tipping point will occur.
    2. We have no means or method to predict what might cause a tipping point.
    3. We have no method to determine what the new defining characteristics of the system’s behavior will be after we go through a tipping point.

    Every time you see someone claim that we are “about to go through an irrevocable tipping point”, or suggest that the fundamental behavior of temperature is going to change? They lie. Or at least misrepresent. That is to say, it is not science, but propaganda.

  343. Why can’t you answer my question? Do you or do you not know most astrophysicists? Or do you just pretend to?

  344. Just a FYI.
    The last interglacial period (LIG), which ran from about 130,000 to 120,000 years ago, was a particularly warm interglacial period with global temperatures about 3.6 °F warmer than today. Sea levels during the LIG were about 23 feet higher than current Holocene (the last 10,000 years) levels, despite global sea surface temperatures not being much warmer than today (perhaps 1.3 °F warmer). This lack of a major water temperature difference implies that only a small fraction – about a foot or two – of the 23-foot sea level rise was due to thermal expansion of the ocean waters. For comparison, about one-third of the eight-inch sea level rise experienced during the 20th century was due to thermal expansion; melting of mountain glaciers and the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets accounted for the rest. In addition to thermal expansion, estimates of sea level rise sources during the LIG suggest that less than one-third was from Greenland and mountain glaciers, and at least two thirds was from the Antarctic Ice Sheet.

  345. More predictions, yep, the sea level have increased 400 feet since the last Ice Age, so it might be a good guess, however Why is it that you all ignore Satellite observations of the lower atmosphere that measure every cubic inch of the earth everyday that have shown there has not been any statistically significant warming for the last 18 plus years, instead they rely upon an outdated patch of monitoring stations and buoys with thermometers that cannot even measure hundredths of a degree or give global averages, hell you can travel thousands of kilometers without finding any, so scientist have to make up data to fill the voids,

  346. …or maybe this coming ice age will lower the sea levels. It’s all speculation anyways.

    However, now that we are on the subject, President Obama promised that he would lower the sea levels if he was elected. Has he done that yet????

  347. Hey, now, you need to give Aitor the benefit of the doubt. Maybe he DOES know most astrophysicists. Studies have shown that MOST people who know everything also know everybody.

  348. I asked you first. Wasn’t being rhetorical.

  349. WHAT are you talking about? Floating ice cannot rise of the sea level. Liberal fools already apologized for such a claim, at end of 1960th.

  350. 97% of scientists refer to those rapid freeze/melt cycles as “freelting”.
    They cause mammals to shrink and humans to become terrorists!

  351. I’ll give you my list when you give me yours showing the 97% “Consensus”.

  352. But what if the climate goes the other way as some are predicting and we enter a mini- ice age there will be a large shortage of water and drought will be the norm.

  353. Get a clue, Solar Activity only began to drop significantly in Cycles 23 and 24 with an even greater drop for SC25 predicted. And in spite of a CO2 increase of about 10%, there wsas been now warming for 18 years.

  354. You could say 97% of Astrophysicists.
    It’s easy to make claims like that. Nobody checks!

  355. Does the coming ice age put the sea levels back down again?

  356. Wow! A “new study” from Denmark! Hmmm. Looks like it’s Denmark vs. University of Florida.
    I’ll go with the U of F. They speak my language, for one thing. Not sure the Danes know as much as Floridians anyway.

  357. “Most Astrophysicists”? Really? Do you know most astrophysicists?

  358. Orbiting Iceberg | Jul 15, 2015, 5:04 pm at 5:04 pm |

    Great posting Clayton. I can see the science fiction and social science influence in your “study”. The newest study from Denmark predicts a mini ice age within 30 years. Fabulous fear abounds. Oceans rise, then freeze, only to melt again causing oceans to rise again, then freeze. Melt – Freeze – Melt – Freeze. Everyone knows that when the ice in a drink glass melts, it causes the drink to overflow the top of the glass. In just the next three generations, people will be living in Water World. Will that give them enough time to grow gills like Kevin Costner ? No ! Well all the better, even more scary. Great study, whew! 20 feet.

  359. Hasn’t Antarctica reported colder temps and more ice? So much more they need to move the camps since they are to far inland now. Did they also really say they had data from 125K to 3M years to make a prediction? Good margin of error there…

  360. Did “study” get into account volcanoes? One of them, Kilauea on Hawaii, is flawing a river of hot volcanic lava into ocean for a century, unstoppable – since 1980th! Kids, what hot lava will do to the ice? Tell it to fraudulent “scientists”!

  361. If giving up my hard-earned to a carbon tax will do no good, perhaps I ought to instead spend my hard-earned on accommodations on higher ground. Or is that just too difficult a concept?

  362. The average denialist would “just stand there” because they don’t believe it would ever happen – even if it were to actually happen (it’s just the nature of the beast).
    I guess if there’s “no way to prevent it”, we should just continue to try to make it worse. Makes sense, no?

  363. My garden stands 630ft above sea level.
    I don’t care.
    I’m gonna buy a private jet and fly it everywhere…

  364. Which databases provided the data to draw the graphs that Google showed you – the raw data or the “adjusted” data?

  365. If the sea levels rise 1 foot a year (20 feet, 20 years), will the people living below the water line have time to move to higher ground? Or will they just stand there for 4-7 years until the water’s over their heads?

    And if, as the scientists estimate, there’s no way to prevent it, should we still fork over carbon taxes to the government anyway?

  366. What are they confirming, that they have made a prediction?

  367. Time to invest in some mountain top real estate. I like mountains anyway.

  368. the professor of common sense | Jul 15, 2015, 4:29 pm at 4:29 pm |

    Lots of cities that are infested with “progressives” are located on coastlines. Rising sea levels will clean a little house.

  369. Nope. Google search terms graph, sun activity, temperature, and co2. Notice that roughly in the 60s-70s the suns activity went down and yet global temps went up along with co2. So, this shows that co2 rise was trapping more of the suns radiant energy despite the drop in sun activity which further demonstrates the rise in global temps is due not to the sun but to the excess co2.

  370. No kidding. Problem is, according to most Astrophysicists, the Sun is entering into a Solar Minima which means Earth is going to undergo Ice Age conditions with a concomitant DROP in Sea Levels. Plants love warmth and die in cold weather so global starvation and food shortages on a mass scale are soon to follow.

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published.