Global Warming: Overestimated

[_Droopy]

Sea level is tracking at the top of the IPCC range of predictions.

Sea level is rising at somewhere between 4 - 11 inches for the entire century (and could be less). Average actual measured rise is well below IPCC projections and indicates nothing more than natural dynamics at work:

http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2012 ... d-falling/

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/04/01/e ... ojections/

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/image ... rising.pdf

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/02/14/s ... edictions/

AGW is an political program, awash in oceans of taxpayer money, supported by clamoring rent-seekers, and driven by dangerous ideological fanatics.

[_Droopy]

What is it that Rush Limbaugh has claimed? Has he said that there is no "global warming," that there is no anthropogenic global warming, that there is no dangerous or catastrophic global warming, what?

What makes you think I get most or any of my arguments about AGW from Rush Limbaugh?

Yes he has said it in the past many times and many other scientifically idiotic things as well. So he has no stature among conservatives then? Or were you just wrong again?

I know he's said that DAGW is a "hoax," which, given all we know about it, is a defensible statement. As to there being no such thing as global warming, I'd have to see a direct quote. No matter, though, as my study of the issue has not been at the feet of Mr. Limbaugh (although I do enjoy his commentary on the issue now and then).

[_Res Ipsa]

Sea level is tracking at the top of the IPCC range of predictions.

Sea level is rising at somewhere between 4 - 11 inches for the entire century (and could be less). Average actual measured rise is well below IPCC projections and indicates nothing more than natural dynamics at work:

http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2012 ... d-falling/

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/04/01/e ... ojections/

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/image ... rising.pdf

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/02/14/s ... edictions/

AGW is an political program, awash in oceans of taxpayer money, supported by clamoring rent-seekers, and driven by dangerous ideological fanatics.

You really are too, too precious. You won't listen to actual scientists who, you know, study climate and publish papers, but you cite as references Anthony Watts' blog o' crap? Watts is a hack who has been proven wrong time and time and time and time again. And he's dishonest as hell.

You are the dangerous ideological fanatic.

[_Res Ipsa]

On sea level rise, the only article that supports what Dropy claims is the first. Here's a good summary of what's wrong with the author's claims: http://www.skepticalscience.com/Nils-Ax ... -rise.html. He cites a couple by authored or co-authored by Church, but omits the article where Church finds an acceleration in sea level rise. http://naturescapebroward.com/NaturalRe ... 024826.pdf Funny how he missed that one given it's title....

The others really address the problems in trying to measure average sea level.

It's not hard to find up to date research: just google "sea level rise acceleration"

1. Now go back and actually read the abstracts again, and Google up the full papers if you can find them. All these peer reviewed papers find no need to invoke AGW to explain sea level rise, and the empirical, observational fact remains that sea level is rising at approximately 7 - 11 inches per decade and at similar rates for several centuries, and at varying rates for the last 14,000 years.

2. You ask for sources. I send you to peer reviewed science papers. You send me back to political propaganda sites (you quite clearly don't know the difference). This is Bambi vs. Godzilla stuff here. The International Union for Quaternary Research (INQUA) was clear that the IPCC, who would rather play sophisticated computer games that do empirical science, simply ignored the majority of scientists who generate most of the data and and evidence of global sea levels, concentrating instead on their unverified and unvalidated computer models, because it is there they can generate the output they want at will. Keep in mind to that the nonsense spouted by institutional leadership at INQUA, just as with a number of other major science organizations who's institutional leadership has sold out to the $$green$$ government gravy train, does not represent many of its members (such as the AGU).

According to actual scientists expert in sea level changes, we have "10 cm -plus or minus 10cm" to wake up screaming with fear about, destroy the global economy, deindustrialize the West, wreck civilization, trap the Third World in grinding poverty for any foreseeable future, and dismantle constitutional democracy.

Here are the empirical, observational scientific facts: sea level is now rising at 20 to 30 centimeters per hundred years, which means approximately 7 to 11 inches of apocalyptic doom by the beginning of the next century. Skeptical Science is not a science site but a leftist climate cult site that traffics in every single discredited whopper the IPCC and its minions have stuffed into the pop media culture since its inception.

Sea level rise, like global warming itself, is well within natural perimeters and can be wholly explained without invoking human activities:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/09/13/s ... -recently/

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1 ... 3/abstract

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/05/16/i ... elerating/

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/04/01/e ... ojections/

When the next Jim Jones arrives on the scene, it will be interesting to watch all the left-wing drones flock, glassy-eyed, into his charismatic embrace. Or have they already:

I read them. Why did you omit Church's paper that finds an accelerating sea level rise while citing older papers of his? Rather than having a hissy fit over skeptical science's treatment of the first paper you cited, why don't you respond to the substantive criticisms.

Your pretzel logic is amazing. We should listen to "the INQUA" because they accuse the IPCC of fraud, but we shouldn't listen to the leadership of the INQUA because they are sell outs.

You cite a couple older papers by Church, written before there was sufficient satellite altimeter data to evaluate, but ignore what that data has shown for sea level rise since that data started to be collected in 1993. Here's a more recent paper by Church, an author you cited as authoritative on sea level rise. ftp://dossier.ogp.noaa.gov/NCASLR/Publi ... 0_2009.pdf And here's the abstract:

Abstract We estimate the rise in global average sea level from satellite altimeter data for 1993–2009 and from coastal and island sea-level measurements from 1880 to 2009. For 1993–2009 and after correcting for glacial isostatic adjustment, the estimated rate of rise is 3.2 ± 0.4 mm year-1 from the satellite data and 2.8 ± 0.8 mm year-1 from the in situ data. The global average sea-level rise from 1880 to 2009 is about 210 mm. The linear trend from 1900 to 2009 is 1.7 ± 0.2 mm year-1 and since 1961 is 1.9 ± 0.4 mm year-1. There is considerable variability in the rate of rise during the twentieth century but there has been a statistically significant acceleration since 1880 and 1900 of 0.009 ± 0.003 mm year-2 and 0.009 ± 0.004 mm year-2, respectively. Since the start of the altimeter record in 1993, global average sea level rose at a rate near the upper end of the sea level projections of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s Third and Fourth Assessment Reports. However, the reconstruction indicates there was little net change in sea level from 1990 to 1993, most likely as a result of the volcanic eruption of Mount Pinatubo in 1991.

Maybe you should actually read the latest papers instead of relying on what Watts says about them. But then, I suppose Church must be a sell-out now....

[_EAllusion]

What makes you think I get most or any of my arguments about AGW from Rush Limbaugh?

The issue is whether anyone of note in conservative or libertarian circles has argued against global warming occurring. Is Rush Limbaugh a figure of note in conservative circles? You, Droopy, make an anti-global warming claim with your point number 2. "Global warming" isn't the view that the earth has been warmer than previous years a few times Droopy. It's the view that there is a sustained pattern of planetary warming that is likely to continue into the future. You borrow from the anti-global warming canards list with your second point. Disbelief in global warming has had numerous conservative adherents. Fred Singer, whom you cited as an uber-expert was a global warming skeptic until a few years ago when he switched to arguing that unstoppable global warming occurs every 1500 years. So both Fred Singers fundamentally contradict what you are arguing here.

The reason there's a whole section devoted to anti-global warming skepticism in this denialist canard collection is because those arguments exist.

So, for example, it used to be popular among global warming skeptics to argue that the apparent rise in temperature was simply a consequence of the urban heat island effect. This now tends to be tossed in as a secondary "everything but the kitchen sink" approach to skepticism. Anthony Watts, the former TV meteorologist who you presumably trust given your reference to his blog, was one of those people.

[_EAllusion]

This link contains numerous quotes from Fred Singer that demonstrate a complete skepticism in global warming occurring:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/skeptic_Fred_Singer.htm

There are many more if that isn't sufficient. He testified in congress that the climate isn't warming. "...there is no convincing evidence that the global climate is actually warming" is a direct quote from him.

Humoursly, a bunch of the quotes in the link I offered come after he co-wrote Unstoppable Global Warming Every 1500 Years which directly contradicts what he is saying.

[_Tarski]

This link contains numerous quotes from Fred Singer that demonstrate a complete skepticism in global warming occurring:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/skeptic_Fred_Singer.htm

There are many more if that isn't sufficient. He testified in congress that the climate isn't warming. "...there is no convincing evidence that the global climate is actually warming" is a direct quote from him.

Humoursly, a bunch of the quotes in the link I offered come after he co-wrote Unstoppable Global Warming Every 1500 Years which directly contradicts what he is saying.

So the "distinguished" Fred Singer also has no stature it seems (right Droopy?). This is getting beyond hilarious and becoming brutal. Poor Droopy.

[_EAllusion]

This link contains numerous quotes from Fred Singer that demonstrate a complete skepticism in global warming occurring:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/skeptic_Fred_Singer.htm

There are many more if that isn't sufficient. He testified in congress that the climate isn't warming. "...there is no convincing evidence that the global climate is actually warming" is a direct quote from him.

Humoursly, a bunch of the quotes in the link I offered come after he co-wrote Unstoppable Global Warming Every 1500 Years which directly contradicts what he is saying.

So the "distinguished" Fred Singer also has no stature it seems (right Droopy?). This is getting beyond hilarious and becoming brutal. Poor Droopy.

Besides Dr. Singer being a favorite of global warming skeptics and having enough stature to be routinely invited by Republican political groups to events where that is the theme, Droopy did write in response to you not that long ago, " ...and have probably never read a single black and white page written by the eminent Dr. Singer, let alone a book, monograph, symposium paper, or op-ed, who, unlike you, is actually qualified academically to pronounce on this issue, has spent much of his life studying and critiquing it, and who has published extensively and travels around the world speaking before scientific, scholarly, and governmental bodies on the topic on an almost continual basis, where, one wonders, is your credibility?"

So Droopy clearly respects him. Yet he said no one of stature in conservative/libertarian denies the existence of global warming. So I linked sources showing Dr. Singer doing just that as recently as 2011. At best, Droopy is equivocating the term 'global warming', but more likely I'm just exposing his paper thin, hastily read rightwing website understanding of his own references.

[_subgenius]

snip...From what I'm reading, my house will be a breakwater in about 100 years. My favorite little town for antiquing and fine dining (Seal Beach) will be out at sea.

that is inevitable at any rate is it not?
quit impeding progress in order to conserve what you presume your grand-kids will esteem or value. To anchor them to your ideals seems rather conservative, don't it?

[_Quasimodo]

snip...From what I'm reading, my house will be a breakwater in about 100 years. My favorite little town for antiquing and fine dining (Seal Beach) will be out at sea.

that is inevitable at any rate is it not?
quit impeding progress in order to conserve what you presume your grand-kids will esteem or value. To anchor them to your ideals seems rather conservative, don't it?

Without global warming, we might be slowly (very slowly) moving into the next glaciation period, so the beach would gradually be getting further away.

Even if the earth was naturally moving into a warmer period, it would take thousands of years (instead of a hundred) for sea levels to raise that much. In that case my great, great, great, great grandchildren would be on their own.

I'm not sure destroying most of the major population centers (mostly on coasts) could be called progress. The resultant loss of crops and mass starvation doesn't sound too progressive to me, either.