Sea level rise

@metal-brain said
We have been over this before. Fred Singer is a retired climate scientist.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_climate_scientists

If you look at his qualification on that link, you will see he isn't.
"atmospheric physicist" doesn't equate with "climate scientist", as you can be an atmospheric physicist without expertise in climate. Obviously, there are relevant links between the two, just as there are relevant links between general physics and climate science; But you wouldn't say all physicists are climate scientists so why would you say all atmospheric physicists are climate scientists?

And even if he hypothetically WAS a climate scientist, since his idiotic assertions on climate have been widely dismissed and debunked by the scientific community including (real) climate scientists, you make no point.

Another person listed there on that link is;

"Hans E. Suess (1909-1993), Austrian, radiocarbon dating, Suess effect."
and if you click on that sublink you will see that the only thing he had (he is now dead) expertise in was nuclear physics, which he used to develop radiocarbon dating, which can, among other things, be used in climate research.
Thus he actually definitely was NOT a climate scientist himself even though he indirectly contributed to it thus showing there are people listed there that are not climate scientists themselves even thought most of them directly or indirectly contributed something to climate science (but with Fred Singer contributing nothing positive).

@metal-brain said
Are you?

he isn't and neither are you. And yet you think you know better than they do; THAT'S the point he is making you are too thick to get.

@metal-brain said
Are you?

I am not the one dismissing every scientific study released by climatologists that does not conform to my preconceptions as being wrong or fake. To wit, I don't have to be a climatologist to read what climatologists have to say, but if you're going to say they're wrong then you need expertise in the matter. It's called peer review. So what are your qualifications?

A high school earth science course doesn't count.

@soothfast said
A high school earth science course doesn't count.

Trust me; he's very unlikely to even have done that, at least not with any success.

@soothfast said
I am not the one dismissing every scientific study released by climatologists that does not conform to my preconceptions as being wrong or fake. To wit, I don't have to be a climatologist to read what climatologists have to say, but if you're going to say they're wrong then you need expertise in the matter. It's called peer review. So what are your qualifications?

A high school earth science course doesn't count.

You have read every scientific study released by climatologists? Once again, not all climate scientists are climatologists. In fact, most of them are not.

There are lots of peer reviewed articles by skeptics. What convinced you otherwise?

You seem to believe the consensus myth. There is no consensus that GW is a serious problem. There are plenty of websites that make that false claim and provide no source to prove it, but that is common for liars to make false assertions they cannot back up.

In order for a majority of scientists to agree on something a majority has to be polled. That has never happened. It should.

So what are your qualifications? Since you are not a climate scientist you have no point. You simply believe a false consensus that does not exist. Rumor is not fact.

@humy said
he isn't and neither are you. And yet you think you know better than they do; THAT'S the point he is making you are too thick to get.

Prove that the majority of climate scientists know what you think they do. Rumor is not fact.

https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2014/02/climate_consensus_con_game.html

@humy said
If you look at his qualification on that link, you will see he isn't.
"atmospheric physicist" doesn't equate with "climate scientist", as you can be an atmospheric physicist without expertise in climate. Obviously, there are relevant links between the two, just as there are relevant links between general physics and climate science; But you wouldn't say all physicists are clima ...[text shortened]... ectly contributed something to climate science (but with Fred Singer contributing nothing positive).

Define climate scientist.

Notice the continued digression into everything but sea level rise. They always digress back to consensus and then fail to prove any valid consensus. Then they digress into something else after yet another failure to prove their false assertions.

Alarmists cannot prove anything so they resort to common gossip. The reason is simple, it is all they have. Right after making a big deal about peer review they will post a link that has nothing peer reviewed and contains false info. They always violate their own standards as if that is normal.

@Metal-Brain

You're just throwing up smoke screens. You keep repeating the phrase "Define climate scientist," or a variant of same, like some demented parrot.

When I search "climate science" the online dictionaries redirect to climatology.

https://www.thefreedictionary.com/Climate+science

So there you go. Does Polly also need a cracker before moving on?

You are not a climatologist. You are a hack who has dedicated a sizable chunk of his life to the attempt to deny that anthropogenic climate change exists, for inane reasons perhaps not even known to yourself. You're not clever enough to get paid for this.

So let us circle back. Do you believe that there is a long-term positive correlation between atmospheric CO2 concentrations and mean global air temperatures? If not, why not?

EDIT: We'll get to sea levels in time, but we need to fan away your smoke screens first. You tend to argue first by misdirection and verbal sleight-of-hand, then employ semantic quibbling and historical revisionism as a last resort.

@soothfast said
@Metal-Brain

You're just throwing up smoke screens. You keep repeating the phrase "Define climate scientist," or a variant of same, like some demented parrot.

When I search "climate science" the online dictionaries redirect to climatology.

https://www.thefreedictionary.com/Climate+science

So there you go. Does Polly also need a cracker before moving on?

Yo ...[text shortened]... verbal sleight-of-hand, then employ semantic quibbling and historical revisionism as a last resort.

I said define climate scientist, not climate science. By ignoring the correct wording you are throwing up smoke screens.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_climate_scientists

Count how many are not climatologists.

You are not a climatologist or a climate scientist. The only way to marginalize my opinion is to marginalize your own. There is no consensus for alarm. That is a myth you blindly accepted because you heard it repeated like a parrot so many times from the same alarmists that lied to us in the 90s.

There is a correlation between temps and CO2 as shown by the ice core samples. Temps caused CO2 to rise because a warmer ocean cannot hold as much CO2. See Henry's Law.

Al Gore lied about the cause and effect and still promotes the same lie shamelessly. CO2 never caused temps to rise as shown by ice core samples. CO2 lagged behind temps. There are plenty of peer reviewed articles that show this to be a fact. Sonhouse refused to believe it until I did just that. Imagine someone who lauds science refusing to believe facts because of rumor. That is what you are doing. You have your cause and effect backwards because the corporate news media does not correct these persistent myths. In fact, PBS' Nova promoted that myth fairly recently.

https://www.redhotpawn.com/forum/science/propaganda-and-lies-from-pbs-nova.176611

"EDIT: We'll get to sea levels in time, but we need to fan away your smoke screens first."

Now shameless delay tactics. I never presented any smoke screens. Facts are not smoke screens. This thread is called sea level rise. They refuse the subject and continue to shamelessly digress. It is a sign of weakness.

Furthermore, I am not resorting to historical revisionism, PBS' Nova is. The ice core samples prove temps drove CO2 from the ocean into the atmosphere. There is about a couple of hundred years lag of CO2 behind temps.

Al Gore promoted a myth and still shamelessly does it. He will not participate in debates because he knows he would be called out on his lies.

@Metal-Brain

This study, cited more than 80 times in other articles, was presented on page 1 of this thread: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3557064/

Your indignant reply of "People existed 40 million years ago?" indicated that you have no interest in real answers to your question.

@sonhouse £157 per year for TV licence. I wouldn't mind but my car when I got it was one of the lowest CO2 output around. In the UK they change the rules constantly to increase revenue. The latest change is that those who elect to have cash rather than co car will have to pay the higher of the tax on the cash or what the company car tax would have been for the car they drive. This is because so many people got p***ed off with being robbed. I have to have a car as its full of test equipment and tools for my job. I've decided to have a micky mouse car next time.

@wildgrass said
@Metal-Brain

This study, cited more than 80 times in other articles, was presented on page 1 of this thread: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3557064/

Your indignant reply of "People existed 40 million years ago?" indicated that you have no interest in real answers to your question.

What does it prove? CO2 lags behind temp rises in the ice core samples and that is a fact. Do you accept that fact or not? Yes or no?
Here is the NASA long term graph again.

https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/sea-level/

Show me using the graph where man influenced sea level rise.

Here is an excerpt from the article you posted:

"For instance, our results imply that acceptance of a long-term 2 °C warming [CO2 between 400 and 450 ppm (46)] would mean acceptance of likely (68% confidence) long-term sea-level rise by more than 9 m above the present."

The article made a prediction that did not come true. CO2 between 400 and 450 ppm is already here. The article is from 2013 and history since has proven it wrong.

CO2 lagged behind temps in the ice core samples.

YouTube

The whole foundation of global warming theory was built on a lie. That popular myth is still being pushed by PBS' Nova in a shameful ignorance of science. They should apologize for the error and correct the misinformation. They have no right to push a myth on people that any competent climate scientist could have told them about.