The nub of the climate change thing problem

[kalm]

It was a response to tman's comments regarding Mann (the author of this article) from earlier in the thread.

Peddle faster.

Oh ok I get it now. This thread is about McCarthyism.

I still can't understand why a climate scientist is arguing the finer points of timing and McCarthyism... I mean, is that all he's got?

I mean.... shouldn't he be blinding us with SCIENCE?

Read the thread again, google search Michael Mann, and you'll have a better grasp...I'm hoping.

[JohnStOnge]

Just to re-iterate the concept behind the starting post:

The issue is that the nature of the situation that there is no opportunity for conducting real controlled experiments to infer cause and effect. That means that there can never be the optimum level of certainty. In fact, one could argue that it shouldn't even be classified as "science" because the scientific method includes controlled experimentation.

Bottom line is that "treatments" are being recommended. People like to use an analogy involving doctors. They ask, "If 99% of doctors are saying one thing and 1% are saying something else, who are you going to go with?"

But here's another thing about medicine: In medicine, we would never allow a treatment supported by the level of evidence associated with the "treatments" suggested for the climate change thing. We would not allow a claim that a treatment is "safe and effective" based on creating "virtual humans" through modeling then modeling the effects we expect the treatments to have. Wouldn't happen.

And to me that's the issue. We are basically told that this is REALLY certain. I've seen people say it's as certain as it gets in science. And it's not. Not even close.

[JMU DJ]

That is a model that is FOUR ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE off. THAT's the "catastrophic" predictions that I"m talking about. And I'm not real good with numbers, but I fail to see how a sea level that rises 1.5 inches per DECADE can go up 5.3 FEET in 10 decades. 1.5" x 10 = 15 INCHES which is a long fucking ways from 5.3 feet.

But that's global warming math.

DJ, you conveniently omitted the most telling (and damning) sentence in the post:

Z, these two models do not equate. The first model you reference is and IF-THEN model. IF the global temperature were to increase by 3.6 F above preindustrial temperatures THEN sea levels could rise 15 to 20 feet in the span of 100 years. The second model you reference says that sea levels will rise by 5 feet by 2100 based. Do you see the difference? We have not yet reached a 3.6 F increase (~1.4 F above preindustrial currently). So, in short, both of these models are valid

BTW, this is the 1981 temperature model aligned with physical data collected since the publication. Pretty spot on.

The 5 foot sea rise is not referencing the first model. It's all contained in the second quote. Sea levels along the East Coast are allegedly rising 4 times faster than the world in general...i.e., at a rate of 1.5" per DECADE, on average, as opposed to .4" / DECADE global average, and allegedly at an increasing rate (whatever that means....1" the first decade? 1.5" the 2nd decade? 2" the 3rd decade?) For the sea to then rise 5.3 FEET by 2100 (just 8.5 DECADES away), if it's risen just 1.5"x3.5 Decades = 5.25", at that rate of increase we would see sea level increases of just 12.75" in 8.5 decades...NOT 63.6" as inferred in the article. Even assuming an increasing rate of rise, you'd get nowhere NEAR 64" by 2100. Sea levels would have to rise an AVERAGE of 7.5" PER DECADE over the next 8.5 decades to get anywhere near their number. It's just flawed, biased, global warming math at its finest....and it's why global warming apologists have NO integrity left.

Alright, I've got a few cervecas in me. Let's DO THIS Pat Sajak



First, the graph was in reference to your 1981 data, as is clearly marked in the graph. The intention of this was to show the accuracy of the prediction over the past 33 years by supporting the prediction with physical data.

Second, sorry I omitted your most damning point, I figured the ones you had placed in bold were your main points. So let me address your damning one.


Your calculation in your second post does not factor in other variables utilized by scientist to assess rates (or in your terms "whatever that means"). Variables that include projected increases in temperature, projected increases in glacial/arctic ice melt, etc and how those changes may factor into changes in sea level. For one, since Sallenger's article was published, the rate of arctic ice melt has doubled (From 2010-2013, 160 Billion tons of arctic ice melt per year. From 2005-2010: 80 Billion per year). So that's one variable that changes. These models aren't linear, nor are they based on simple algebraic calculations. These are complex models, involving multiple variables that are projected to change over time... some pretty serious physical, thermodynamic (thermal expansion of the ocean, warmer oceans take up more volume), mathematics going on.

HOLY CRAP LOOK AT THIS MATH! WTF? GRAVITY!?!



So the only math here that's ridiculous is your attempt at "Fuzzy Math." Z, I just remembered how to calculate the rate at which my beer would reach room temperature based on a few fixed variables and that's childs play compared to the work that these people do. But I believe my slightly warmer adult beverage has made me digress from the point here.

So back to Sallenger, this is the study where you are getting the values used in your calculations. In their study, they project that by 2100 the sea level on the eastern seaboard would increase by up to 24 cm (9.4 inches) over the projected global average (1-3+ feet from the IPCC). This is where a lot of these "alarmist" articles mess up (I don't have a link to your article, so I don't know what the source is), they lump multiple different studies together and cherry pick the data from it (much like deniers do) to get their point across (which is surprising they picked Atkinsons 5 feet versus NOAA's 6 1/2 Feet). So let's actually look at what's happened over the last 2000 years and then maybe we'll get a more clear picture of what's going on. Between 0 A.D. and 1900 A.D., sea level did not change much. Since industrialization, sea level has gone up. Over the past 100 years, the sea level has risen about or over a foot in NYC, Boston, Norfolk, Charleston, and over 2 feet in Galviston. Now, lets factor in a variable that has changed. Over the 20th century, the average global increase in sea level was 1.7mm per year (or 0.5 inches per decade). Over the last 20 years, the average global increase in sea level was 3.2mm per year (or 1.2 inches per decade), over double the rate of sea level increase of the 20th century. So now we're looking at a global rate that has doubled the 20th century, which saw those 1 foot plus rises on the eastern seaboard.... so is it irrational to think that double the rate would result in an increase in sea level greater than that of the 20th century?

Now to Atkinson and their 5 feet. See that equation above? Atkinson factors in a variable that Sallenger does not, a weakening gulf stream that results in a regional increase sea level and he comes to a different conclusion based on his model. It happens, this is science and as much as everyone would like to think there is a concensus on these values, there aren't. What scientist agree on: Sea levels are rising. What scientist don't agree on: projections for how much they will rise.


Aaaaaaand I'm out.

[SeattleGriz]

DJ, you conveniently omitted the most telling (and damning) sentence in the post:




The 5 foot sea rise is not referencing the first model. It's all contained in the second quote. Sea levels along the East Coast are allegedly rising 4 times faster than the world in general...i.e., at a rate of 1.5" per DECADE, on average, as opposed to .4" / DECADE global average, and allegedly at an increasing rate (whatever that means....1" the first decade? 1.5" the 2nd decade? 2" the 3rd decade?) For the sea to then rise 5.3 FEET by 2100 (just 8.5 DECADES away), if it's risen just 1.5"x3.5 Decades = 5.25", at that rate of increase we would see sea level increases of just 12.75" in 8.5 decades...NOT 63.6" as inferred in the article. Even assuming an increasing rate of rise, you'd get nowhere NEAR 64" by 2100. Sea levels would have to rise an AVERAGE of 7.5" PER DECADE over the next 8.5 decades to get anywhere near their number. It's just flawed, biased, global warming math at its finest....and it's why global warming apologists have NO integrity left.

Alright, I've got a few cervecas in me. Let's DO THIS Pat Sajak



First, the graph was in reference to your 1981 data, as is clearly marked in the graph. The intention of this was to show the accuracy of the prediction over the past 33 years by supporting the prediction with physical data.

Second, sorry I omitted your most damning point, I figured the ones you had placed in bold were your main points. So let me address your damning one.


Your calculation in your second post does not factor in other variables utilized by scientist to assess rates (or in your terms "whatever that means"). Variables that include projected increases in temperature, projected increases in glacial/arctic ice melt, etc and how those changes may factor into changes in sea level. For one, since Sallenger's article was published, the rate of arctic ice melt has doubled (From 2010-2013, 160 Billion tons of arctic ice melt per year. From 2005-2010: 80 Billion per year). So that's one variable that changes. These models aren't linear, nor are they based on simple algebraic calculations. These are complex models, involving multiple variables that are projected to change over time... some pretty serious physical, thermodynamic (thermal expansion of the ocean, warmer oceans take up more volume), mathematics going on.

HOLY CRAP LOOK AT THIS MATH! WTF? GRAVITY!?!



So the only math here that's ridiculous is your attempt at "Fuzzy Math." Z, I just remembered how to calculate the rate at which my beer would reach room temperature based on a few fixed variables and that's childs play compared to the work that these people do. But I believe my slightly warmer adult beverage has made me digress from the point here.

So back to Sallenger, this is the study where you are getting the values used in your calculations. In their study, they project that by 2100 the sea level on the eastern seaboard would increase by up to 24 cm (9.4 inches) over the projected global average (1-3+ feet from the IPCC). This is where a lot of these "alarmist" articles mess up (I don't have a link to your article, so I don't know what the source is), they lump multiple different studies together and cherry pick the data from it (much like deniers do) to get their point across (which is surprising they picked Atkinsons 5 feet versus NOAA's 6 1/2 Feet). So let's actually look at what's happened over the last 2000 years and then maybe we'll get a more clear picture of what's going on. Between 0 A.D. and 1900 A.D., sea level did not change much. Since industrialization, sea level has gone up. Over the past 100 years, the sea level has risen about or over a foot in NYC, Boston, Norfolk, Charleston, and over 2 feet in Galviston. Now, lets factor in a variable that has changed. Over the 20th century, the average global increase in sea level was 1.7mm per year (or 0.5 inches per decade). Over the last 20 years, the average global increase in sea level was 3.2mm per year (or 1.2 inches per decade), over double the rate of sea level increase of the 20th century. So now we're looking at a global rate that has doubled the 20th century, which saw those 1 foot plus rises on the eastern seaboard.... so is it irrational to think that double the rate would result in an increase in sea level greater than that of the 20th century?

Now to Atkinson and their 5 feet. See that equation above? Atkinson factors in a variable that Sallenger does not, a weakening gulf stream that results in a regional increase sea level and he comes to a different conclusion based on his model. It happens, this is science and as much as everyone would like to think there is a concensus on these values, there aren't. What scientist agree on: Sea levels are rising. What scientist don't agree on: projections for how much they will rise.


Aaaaaaand I'm out.

Totally weak. Pussy.

[AZGrizFan]

DJ, you conveniently omitted the most telling (and damning) sentence in the post:

No shit, Sherlock. You could have saved a lot of fancy math equations and just said you agreed with my point. We've gone from a projected 20 feet rise, to 5.3 feet, to now 9.4 INCHES by 2100. And THAT was my only point. You can use lots of fancy equations, but when your assumptions suck balls, it's garbage in, garbage out.

Now, I'm out.

[travelinman67]

No shit, Sherlock. You could have saved a lot of fancy math equations and just said you agreed with my point. We've gone from a projected 20 feet rise, to 5.3 feet, to now 9.4 INCHES by 2100. And THAT was my only point. You can use lots of fancy equations, but when your assumptions suck balls, it's garbage in, garbage out.

Now, I'm out.

Now, 5 inches. Houston and Dean.

What's notable is that Sallenger emphasized significant variances globally, with "hotspots" (U.S. East Coast for example), though global averages were around...

... .5mm

Really?

With the Maldives fiasco, and Sallengers introduction of variances, kinda thinkin the "data" is less than hard.

Nice to see someone actually discussing science...Thanks JMU DJ.

[AZGrizFan]

No shit, Sherlock. You could have saved a lot of fancy math equations and just said you agreed with my point. We've gone from a projected 20 feet rise, to 5.3 feet, to now 9.4 INCHES by 2100. And THAT was my only point. You can use lots of fancy equations, but when your assumptions suck balls, it's garbage in, garbage out.

Now, I'm out.

Now, 5 inches. Houston and Dean.

What's notable is that Sallenger emphasized significant variances globally, with "hotspots" (U.S. East Coast for example), though global averages were around...

... .5mm

Really?

With the Maldives fiasco, and Sallengers introduction of variances, kinda thinkin the "data" is less than hard.

Nice to see someone actually discussing science...Thanks JMU DJ.

Even fucked up science.

[AZGrizFan]

BTW, this is the 1981 temperature model aligned with physical data collected since the publication. Pretty spot on.

Aaaaaaand I'm out.[/quote]

BTW: What you see is data that's "pretty spot on". What I see is data that (while fluctuating), hasn't changed measurably (and in fact is LOWER) since 1999. If you can't explain the pause, you can't explain the cause.

[Ibanez]

Today is warmer than yesterday. Thanks Obama.

[bandl]

Today is warmer than yesterday. Thanks Obama.

Today is cooler than yesterday here. So we equal each other out. All is well now.

[bandl]

Btw I don't like the fact that The JOO is back. Just when I was getting JMU back on track known as a smart and well rounded school of students and alumni, he shows up and dumbs us down again. Gawddammit.

[andy7171]

Btw I don't like the fact that The JOO is back. Just when I was getting JMU back on track known as a smart and well rounded school of students and alumni, he shows up and dumbs us down again. Gawddammit.

[JMU DJ]

No shit, Sherlock. You could have saved a lot of fancy math equations and just said you agreed with my point. We've gone from a projected 20 feet rise, to 5.3 feet, to now 9.4 INCHES by 2100. And THAT was my only point. You can use lots of fancy equations, but when your assumptions suck balls, it's garbage in, garbage out.

Now, I'm out.

Ok, now that I've slept off the hooch and am stuck at the mechanic while I do some computational work, let me try to be more clear.

1981 study - Significant warming in the arctic would result in the melting of arctic ice/greenland ice. The melting of the Arctic would contribute to a 15-20 foot increase in sea level. The study states (at least from the unreferenced article you posted) IF the temperature increases by 3.6F globally, THEN the rate of arctic ice melt would result in this 15-20 foot increase over 100 years. We are not at 3.6F, yet. As global temp has only risen 1.4 degrees since the preindustrial period, you cannot use the 15-20 ft model to prove your point. IF temperatures reach 3.6F above preindustrial, THEN this model applies.

The models presented by the IPCC, Sallenger, Atkinson, NOAA are based off of modeling starting from a defined point through 2100 (not based on a condition such as global temperature rising 3.6F). Sallengers model does not say "9.4 inches," Sallengers models says "9.4 inches above the global average." The global average is projected to rise anywhere from 1-3ft (IPCC) and 0.75-6.6ft (NOAA). So, you see there's a range there? So, Sallenger study is saying that sea levels on the eastern seaboard could rise 1.78-3.78ft by 2100 based on IPCC data or 1.53-7.32ft based on NOAA (not just 9.4 inches). Atkinsons study is also focused on the eastern seaboard. Their conclusion from the article you site is that sea levels could rise by 5.3 feet on the eastern seaboard by 2100, which is in the range outlined by NOAA and is 1.22ft higher than Sallenger's prediction for the average rise on the eastern seaboard. But that 5.3ft is also at the high end of Atkinsons prediction. From what I can see, he says 2.3-5.3 feet by 2100, which overlaps with the other ranges.

1-3ft (IPCC)
0.75-6.6ft (NOAA)
2.3-5.3ft (Atkinson)
Then Sallenger says the east coast will increase at a rate of 0.78ft above those global averages.

All of the scientist agree that sea levels are rising, all of the scientist agree that the rate is increasing, all of the scientist project a range of increase that overlap. Some range higher, some range lower.

Also, I addressed "the pause" in a previous thread, something about global warming alarmist. Hint, it has something to do with why sea levels are rising.

[JMU DJ]

Btw I don't like the fact that The JOO is back. Just when I was getting JMU back on track known as a smart and well rounded school of students and alumni, he shows up and dumbs us down again. Gawddammit.

I missed you too Deborah.

[kalm]

Btw I don't like the fact that The JOO is back. Just when I was getting JMU back on track known as a smart and well rounded school of students and alumni, he shows up and dumbs us down again. Gawddammit.

I missed you too Deborah.

You need a new sig.

[YoUDeeMan]

Oh ok I get it now. This thread is about McCarthyism.

I still can't understand why a climate scientist is arguing the finer points of timing and McCarthyism... I mean, is that all he's got?

I mean.... shouldn't he be blinding us with SCIENCE?

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-FIMvSp01C8[/youtube]

[YoUDeeMan]

Global warming.

Seriously, who cares?

According to JMU, sea levels, over the last 100 years, have risen 1 foot in New York, Boston, Charleston, etc....and 2 feet in Galviston. Oh my...wonder if they should have ordered evacuations of those cities back in 1914.

Can anyone explain why Mother Nature is picking on American cities? Has anyone told the moon that humans are battling her for control of area specific sea level changes...and do we have a treaty ready to sign?

Has anyone told the Earth, Sun, Solar System, and/or Universe, that they are no longer responsible for Earth's climate?

The Earth has been a frozen ball, a blazing inferno, a water world, and we've had tides that would cover our skyscrapers. We're losing our moon (which is lowering the tides and will eventually impact life on Earth) and we'll all have to look for a new home in about 4 billion years.

Oh, and we had a mini ice age recently...and survived.

So, people are all up in a frenzy about a couple extra inches, or feet, of water (oddly distributed around the globe)?

Really?

REALLY?

[kalm]

Well at least April was really hot.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/2014/4" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[AZGrizFan]

No shit, Sherlock. You could have saved a lot of fancy math equations and just said you agreed with my point. We've gone from a projected 20 feet rise, to 5.3 feet, to now 9.4 INCHES by 2100. And THAT was my only point. You can use lots of fancy equations, but when your assumptions suck balls, it's garbage in, garbage out.

Now, I'm out.

Ok, now that I've slept off the hooch and am stuck at the mechanic while I do some computational work, let me try to be more clear.

1981 study - Significant warming in the arctic would result in the melting of arctic ice/greenland ice. The melting of the Arctic would contribute to a 15-20 foot increase in sea level. The study states (at least from the unreferenced article you posted) IF the temperature increases by 3.6F globally, THEN the rate of arctic ice melt would result in this 15-20 foot increase over 100 years. We are not at 3.6F, yet. As global temp has only risen 1.4 degrees since the preindustrial period, you cannot use the 15-20 ft model to prove your point. IF temperatures reach 3.6F above preindustrial, THEN this model applies.

The models presented by the IPCC, Sallenger, Atkinson, NOAA are based off of modeling starting from a defined point through 2100 (not based on a condition such as global temperature rising 3.6F). Sallengers model does not say "9.4 inches," Sallengers models says "9.4 inches above the global average." The global average is projected to rise anywhere from 1-3ft (IPCC) and 0.75-6.6ft (NOAA). So, you see there's a range there? So, Sallenger study is saying that sea levels on the eastern seaboard could rise 1.78-3.78ft by 2100 based on IPCC data or 1.53-7.32ft based on NOAA (not just 9.4 inches). Atkinsons study is also focused on the eastern seaboard. Their conclusion from the article you site is that sea levels could rise by 5.3 feet on the eastern seaboard by 2100, which is in the range outlined by NOAA and is 1.22ft higher than Sallenger's prediction for the average rise on the eastern seaboard. But that 5.3ft is also at the high end of Atkinsons prediction. From what I can see, he says 2.3-5.3 feet by 2100, which overlaps with the other ranges.

1-3ft (IPCC)
0.75-6.6ft (NOAA)
2.3-5.3ft (Atkinson)
Then Sallenger says the east coast will increase at a rate of 0.78ft above those global averages.

All of the scientist agree that sea levels are rising, all of the scientist agree that the rate is increasing, all of the scientist project a range of increase that overlap. Some range higher, some range lower.

Also, I addressed "the pause" in a previous thread, something about global warming alarmist. Hint, it has something to do with why sea levels are rising.

The 20 feet might have been an if-then model, but dipshits and alarmists like AlGore took that shit and RAN with it, with the sheep bleating in agreement. The 5.3' is at the top end of his scale, but THAT'S what gets printed, and THAT'S what the sheep see and believe...and are willing to completely upend the global economy to prevent (all the while profiting on the upheaval).

If I projected a range (pulling it out of my ass, as usual ) of increase of 6" to 8 feet, my ranges "overlap" too....guess I'm a fucking genius because my ranges "agree" with the other scientists, and I didn't need to copy and past fancy math equations to prove my point.

[kalm]

Ok, now that I've slept off the hooch and am stuck at the mechanic while I do some computational work, let me try to be more clear.

1981 study - Significant warming in the arctic would result in the melting of arctic ice/greenland ice. The melting of the Arctic would contribute to a 15-20 foot increase in sea level. The study states (at least from the unreferenced article you posted) IF the temperature increases by 3.6F globally, THEN the rate of arctic ice melt would result in this 15-20 foot increase over 100 years. We are not at 3.6F, yet. As global temp has only risen 1.4 degrees since the preindustrial period, you cannot use the 15-20 ft model to prove your point. IF temperatures reach 3.6F above preindustrial, THEN this model applies.

The models presented by the IPCC, Sallenger, Atkinson, NOAA are based off of modeling starting from a defined point through 2100 (not based on a condition such as global temperature rising 3.6F). Sallengers model does not say "9.4 inches," Sallengers models says "9.4 inches above the global average." The global average is projected to rise anywhere from 1-3ft (IPCC) and 0.75-6.6ft (NOAA). So, you see there's a range there? So, Sallenger study is saying that sea levels on the eastern seaboard could rise 1.78-3.78ft by 2100 based on IPCC data or 1.53-7.32ft based on NOAA (not just 9.4 inches). Atkinsons study is also focused on the eastern seaboard. Their conclusion from the article you site is that sea levels could rise by 5.3 feet on the eastern seaboard by 2100, which is in the range outlined by NOAA and is 1.22ft higher than Sallenger's prediction for the average rise on the eastern seaboard. But that 5.3ft is also at the high end of Atkinsons prediction. From what I can see, he says 2.3-5.3 feet by 2100, which overlaps with the other ranges.

1-3ft (IPCC)
0.75-6.6ft (NOAA)
2.3-5.3ft (Atkinson)
Then Sallenger says the east coast will increase at a rate of 0.78ft above those global averages.

All of the scientist agree that sea levels are rising, all of the scientist agree that the rate is increasing, all of the scientist project a range of increase that overlap. Some range higher, some range lower.

Also, I addressed "the pause" in a previous thread, something about global warming alarmist. Hint, it has something to do with why sea levels are rising.

The 20 feet might have been an if-then model, but dipshits and alarmists like AlGore took that shit and RAN with it, with the sheep bleating in agreement. The 5.3' is at the top end of his scale, but THAT'S what gets printed, and THAT'S what the sheep see and believe...and are willing to completely upend the global economy to prevent (all the while profiting on the upheaval).

If I projected a range (pulling it out of my ass, as usual ) of increase of 6" to 8 feet, my ranges "overlap" too....guess I'm a fucking genius because my ranges "agree" with the other scientists, and I didn't need to copy and past fancy math equations to prove my point.

Now who's the alarmist?

You and I both know that big banks are greater threat to that.

[travelinman67]

No shit, Sherlock. You could have saved a lot of fancy math equations and just said you agreed with my point. We've gone from a projected 20 feet rise, to 5.3 feet, to now 9.4 INCHES by 2100. And THAT was my only point. You can use lots of fancy equations, but when your assumptions suck balls, it's garbage in, garbage out.

Now, I'm out.

Ok, now that I've slept off the hooch and am stuck at the mechanic while I do some computational work, let me try to be more clear.

1981 study - Significant warming in the arctic would result in the melting of arctic ice/greenland ice. The melting of the Arctic would contribute to a 15-20 foot increase in sea level. The study states (at least from the unreferenced article you posted) IF the temperature increases by 3.6F globally, THEN the rate of arctic ice melt would result in this 15-20 foot increase over 100 years. We are not at 3.6F, yet. As global temp has only risen 1.4 degrees since the preindustrial period, you cannot use the 15-20 ft model to prove your point. IF temperatures reach 3.6F above preindustrial, THEN this model applies.

The models presented by the IPCC, Sallenger, Atkinson, NOAA are based off of modeling starting from a defined point through 2100 (not based on a condition such as global temperature rising 3.6F). Sallengers model does not say "9.4 inches," Sallengers models says "9.4 inches above the global average." The global average is projected to rise anywhere from 1-3ft (IPCC) and 0.75-6.6ft (NOAA). So, you see there's a range there? So, Sallenger study is saying that sea levels on the eastern seaboard could rise 1.78-3.78ft by 2100 based on IPCC data or 1.53-7.32ft based on NOAA (not just 9.4 inches). Atkinsons study is also focused on the eastern seaboard. Their conclusion from the article you site is that sea levels could rise by 5.3 feet on the eastern seaboard by 2100, which is in the range outlined by NOAA and is 1.22ft higher than Sallenger's prediction for the average rise on the eastern seaboard. But that 5.3ft is also at the high end of Atkinsons prediction. From what I can see, he says 2.3-5.3 feet by 2100, which overlaps with the other ranges.

1-3ft (IPCC)
0.75-6.6ft (NOAA)
2.3-5.3ft (Atkinson)
Then Sallenger says the east coast will increase at a rate of 0.78ft above those global averages.

All of the scientist agree that sea levels are rising, all of the scientist agree that the rate is increasing, all of the scientist project a range of increase that overlap. Some range higher, some range lower.

Also, I addressed "the pause" in a previous thread, something about global warming alarmist. Hint, it has something to do with why sea levels are rising.

Just when I thought we made progress...

Shifting a discussion on Sallengers research on the effects of temperature, land subsidence, oceanic anomalies in the creation of "hotspots" (variances) in rate of rise, into a facade to discuss unsupported, political, ALARMIST. asserted sea level rise ranges , which even Sallenger's satellite model driven model DID NOT SUPPORT, is a Gore-level move.

Tidal gauge data does not support Sallenger's rate of increase hypothesis, and more importantly, the IPCC's disregard of non-AGW factors, in particular, subsidence, is blatantly hypocritical at a time the U.N. is circling their wagons around subsidence as a "destructive" result of "fracking"...

Just depends on which direction they want to spin...

...so long as the outcome diminishes industrialized nations.

Please, DJ, there's no scientific model ANYWHERE that asserts a 15-20 ft sea level rise.

Stop posting ALARMIST propaganda, and I'll stop revealing that Al "The Liar" Gore has proposed aborted fetal incineration as a sustainable energy source.

[YoUDeeMan]

Well at least April was really hot.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/2014/4" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Woo-hoo! So people saved money on heating their homes...GREAT news!

Time to use that money to kick start the economy...buy Al Gore's movie!

[89Hen]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/cap ... tid=pm_pop

Pat Sajak @patsajak
I now believe global warming alarmists are unpatriotic racists knowingly misleading for their own ends. Good night.

[Pwns]

We need to ban the word "racist".

[JohnStOnge]

this is science

No it's not. What's commonly referenced as "Climate Science" is not science. It's observational study. I know I've said it many times before but it can't be said too often. It would actually be better if they called it something like "Climate Study" and quit giving it the aura of "Science." I think that if they stopped calling it what it isn't that would give people in general a better perspective with regard to the certainty associated with it.

I've been through it before but I'll do it again. You can find many references but one version of the information involved is at http://science.howstuffworks.com/innova ... ethod6.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;.

I'll quote that site's discussion of "experiment" first then post a graphic. The graphic shows the steps of the scientific method. Note that one of the steps is "Conduct an Experiment." If you don't do that you didn't apply the scientific method. It might be neat. It might even be correct or at least close to it. But it's not science. We've become numb to people calling things science that aren't. But the truth remains. Now here is the discussion of "experiment" from the site (underline added for emphasis):

Step 4: Conduct an experiment
Many people think of an experiment as something that takes place in a lab. While this can be true, experiments don't have to involve laboratory workbenches, Bunsen burners or test tubes. They do, however, have to be set up to test a specific hypothesis and they must be controlled. Controlling an experiment means controlling all of the variables so that only a single variable is studied. The independent variable is the one that's controlled and manipulated by the experimenter, whereas the dependent variable is not. As the independent variable is manipulated, the dependent variable is measured for variation. In our car example, the independent variable is the shape of the car's body. The dependent variable -- what we measure as the effect of the car's profile -- could be speed, gas mileage or a direct measure of the amount of air pressure exerted on the car.

Now the graphic:



Back to my post at the start of this thread: This issue is the nub of the problem with creating the impression that we MUST do what the IPCC recommends, that doing what they recommend will result in a net benefit when plusses and minuses of all possible scenarios are taken into account, because "science" tells us that's what we need to do. "Science" is not involved. Or at least not for the most part. There may be some limited scale controlled experiments that relate to the issue. But the main body is that thing about experimenting with "virtual Earths" described by models. That just does not cut it as "science."

All the stuff with the Hansen projections, etc., is irrelevant to that point.