Posted: Apr 27, 2010 9:08 pm
bit_pattern wrote
Yeah, well, I hate to break it to you, Einstein, but sea level is an average, it can vary wildly from ocean to ocean, up to fifteen feet iirc, so just because the pin prick of coast that you happen to have observed has nominally not changed is entirely meaningless. The bigest driver of sea level rise is thermal expansion and, surprise surprise, the greatest sea level rises have been recorded in equatorial regions.
You know I hadn't even considered that. I just sort of assumed that the sea along the coast by my town was at, you know, sea-level. I hadn't even considered the possibility that sea-level had risen in the rest of the world but stayed the same next to my town. It's an amazing world isn't it?
But a question for you. If the sea-level is higher in the rest of the world why doesn't it flow downhill towards me?
And that is only recent up until 2004, as I've already shown, the Greenland ice melt has nearly doubled in that time.
I wonder where all that water is going? It isn't raising sea-level. Perhaps the Chinese are gathering it all behind those dams they are building.
To do what exactly, grandpa? It might be OK for you, but I intend to live well into the last half of this century and I'd like to have kids one day, and I'd like my future kids, and my already existing nieces, to inherit a world that is as habitable as the one I eventually leave.
I wish you every success and happiness in that. When you are a grandpa take a trip to the seaside and consider if things have changed very much in the previous half century. They might have done but time will tell.
Yes, the world has warmed and cooled before, no doubt, but SOMETHING has to trigger those changes.
Any ideas what?
And the glaring fact of the matter is that there is no alternative explanation as to why the world suddenly warmed over the last 35 years EXCEPT the sudden and dramatic, and historically unprecedented, 40% rise in CO2 concentrations.
1. To say that and be believed you need to quote the causes of all the previous warming episodes and explain why they don't apply this single time when they account for all of the previous warming events.
2. Climate now is very similar to the way it has been for a long time. If this 'sudden and dramatic..." has had so little effect then more of the same doesn't cause me any concern.
3. Since the CO2 concentrations are historically unprecedented then I presume that previous warmings had nothing to do with CO2.
Which, funnily enough, fits perfectly with the century old physical model that predicts a sudden rise in CO2 should cause exactly the sort of warming that we are currently observing. The observations fit the pre-existing model, ergo, the model is sound.
That would include Phil Jones's decade of no statistically significant warming I suppose. I suppose it also explains the recent bad winters and cool summers and the recent increase in north polar ice. I don't think that any of that was predicted by the warming models. On the contrary predictions included less snow in winter, continuing polar ice melt and lots of hot summers and awful hurricanes. I don't believe recent climate fits warming predictions.
I think of warming gloom and doom predictions in the same way I think of Nostradamus. At frequent intervals a new version comes out to explain that Nostradamus accurately predicted all sorts of things that have now happened but for the future we are all doomed because the real meaning of what he said is...