Seas are rising way faster than any time in past 2,800 years

[The Nature Boy 7,659]

I use to be in the mining industry. We use to find sea creature fossils in Mid Ga.

Ga use to be under water.

[Rob L 3,811]

I have taken several climate and energy classes, and the models we were exposed to seemed to ignore the sun and focus squarely on carbon dioxide.

Did you keep your receipt for the classes? maybe we can get your money back

[Póg mo 1,749]

That article was written 2 years after the end of your data curve. Whats the matter - it takes two years to "adjust" thermometer readings? Where's 2014 and 2015?

If libs weren't so stupid they would figure out that oil and gas companies make WAY more money from cold weather, if there was a man made way to control weather they'd turn that thermostat DOWN

Someone doesn't quite understand the difference between weather and climate change.

[Rob L 3,811]

That article was written 2 years after the end of your data curve. Whats the matter - it takes two years to "adjust" thermometer readings? Where's 2014 and 2015?

If libs weren't so stupid they would figure out that oil and gas companies make WAY more money from cold weather, if there was a man made way to control weather they'd turn that thermostat DOWN

Your (scientific) posting says:

Global Cooling is Here

Global Research Editors note

The following article represents an alternative view and analysis of global climate change, which challenges the dominant Global Warming Consensus.

Global Research does not necessarily endorse the proposition of Global Cooling, nor does it accept at face value the Consensus on Global Warming. Our purpose is to encourage a more balanced debate on the topic of global climate change.

[Article originally published by Global Research in November 2008]

So has Easterbrook not updated his research since 2008 and this oil company mouthpiece keeps posting the same junk?

Does Esterbrook have any peer reviewed articles on this subject?

-

[eieio 1,594]

I hate to give you the bad news….but we are all going to die. The earth will have the last laugh.

[blondedoc 35]

All the water can flood the earth, because as I´m not with my partner, I don´t care to be alive... And maybe all the dirt around the world, could be cleaned up.

[Advanced Aardvark 82]

what levels are you using? i rarely pass wind after imbibing food laced with cayenne pepper.

Input or output levels? For the output, I am considering the Saffir-Simpson Hurricane scale. Although, I am completely open to using an equivalent Typhoon scale...

[The Nature Boy 7,659]

Did you keep your receipt for the classes? maybe we can get your money back

Oh it will be deductible

[Expat1 971]

Someone doesn't quite understand the difference between weather and climate change.

Someone thinks that "looking for clues about sea levels around the seashore" can be passed off as science

[Expat1 971]

http://csas.ei.columbia.edu/2015/01/16/global-temperature-in-2014-and-2015/

I wonder why this temperature graph from Columbia is shaped differently from your panic graph?

You're right, sinking land and rising seas have nothing to do with one another, so measuring sea level from land doesnt give you any valid data.

[Rob L 3,811]

Someone thinks that "looking for clues about sea levels around the seashore" can be passed off as science

Studying tides and coastal geology as a way to determine how sea levels have changed seems rational to me, but heck, I dont have your PHD in Science to argue with you.

We present the first, to our knowledge, estimate of global sea-level (GSL) change over the last ∼3,000 years that is based upon statistical synthesis of a global database of regional sea-level reconstructions. GSL varied by ∼±8 cm over the pre-Industrial Common Era, with a notable decline over 1000–1400 CE coinciding with ∼0.2 °C of global cooling. The 20th century rise was extremely likely faster than during any of the 27 previous centuries. Semiempirical modeling indicates that, without global warming, GSL in the 20th century very likely would have risen by between −3 cm and +7 cm, rather than the ∼14 cm observed. Semiempirical 21st century projections largely reconcile differences between Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change projections and semiempirical models.

And yet a totally different approach to measurement came up with the same results. http://www.pik-potsdam.de/~anders/SeaLevel.html

[Expat1 971]

I use to be in the mining industry. We use to find sea creature fossils in Mid Ga.

Ga use to be under water.

Everywhere that there is oil and gas used to be under water. Starting temp readings at the end of the "little ice age" in Europe like the global warming nitwits do tells a much different story than starting them back a couple million years and plotting the climate cycles.

Historically we've peaked a warming cycle and CO2 levels being lower than 3 of the last 5 arent going to affect that cycle. As to oil companies lol they make WAY more $$ in cold weather than warm weather....

[Expat1 971]

Studying tides and coastal geology as a way to determine how sea levels have changed seems rational to me, but heck, I dont have your PHD in Science to argue with you.

We present the first, to our knowledge, estimate of global sea-level (GSL) change over the last ∼3,000 years that is based upon statistical synthesis of a global database of regional sea-level reconstructions. GSL varied by ∼±8 cm over the pre-Industrial Common Era, with a notable decline over 10001400 CE coinciding with ∼0.2 °C of global cooling. The 20th century rise was extremely likely faster than during any of the 27 previous centuries. Semiempirical modeling indicates that, without global warming, GSL in the 20th century very likely would have risen by between −3 cm and +7 cm, rather than the ∼14 cm observed. Semiempirical 21st century projections largely reconcile differences between Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change projections and semiempirical models.

And yet a totally different approach to measurement came up with the same results. http://www.pik-potsdam.de/~anders/SeaLevel.html

Statistical synthesis, likely, largely reconcile, very likely aren't scientific terms dude. A "statistical synthesis" is (LMAO) definitely not comprised of measured scientific data. Thanks for publishing someone's theories though!

Studying tides and coastal geology as a way to determine how sea levels have changed seems rational to me, but heck, I dont have your PHD in Science to argue with you.

We present the first, to our knowledge, estimate of global sea-level (GSL) change over the last ∼3,000 years that is based upon statistical synthesis of a global database of regional sea-level reconstructions. GSL varied by ∼±8 cm over the pre-Industrial Common Era, with a notable decline over 10001400 CE coinciding with ∼0.2 °C of global cooling. The 20th century rise was extremely likely faster than during any of the 27 previous centuries. Semiempirical modeling indicates that, without global warming, GSL in the 20th century very likely would have risen by between −3 cm and +7 cm, rather than the ∼14 cm observed. Semiempirical 21st century projections largely reconcile differences between Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change projections and semiempirical models.

And yet a totally different approach to measurement came up with the same results. http://www.pik-potsdam.de/~anders/SeaLevel.html

Statistical synthesis, likely, largely reconcile, very likely aren't scientific terms dude. A "statistical synthesis" is (LMAO) definitely not comprised of measured scientific data. Thanks for publishing someone's theories though!

[Rob L 3,811]

Statistical synthesis, likely, largely reconcile, very likely aren't scientific terms dude. A "statistical synthesis" is (LMAO) definitely not comprised of measured scientific data. Thanks for publishing someone's theories though!

Verbiage pulled from the study published on http://physics.pnas.org/ which is the home of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. Are you maintaining NAS is not worthy of you scientific standards. Laugh all you want dude, you apparently don't have a research or science background, or have not demonstrated that understanding.

You posted one article from a blog by a professor from Western Washingtonian University ( where we used to go for weed before it was legal and abundant) that is not peer reviewed . Do you have anything else?

[Expat1 971]

Verbiage pulled from the study published on http://physics.pnas.org/ which is the home of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. Are you maintaining NAS is not worthy of you scientific standards. Laugh all you want dude, you apparently don't have a research or science background, or have not demonstrated that understanding.

You posted one article from a blog by a professor from Western Washingtonian University ( where we used to go for weed before it was legal and abundant) that is not peer reviewed . Do you have anything else?

Just a GED. Qualifies me to read a frickin thermometer.

And a masters in environmental engineering (chemical, not civil). My reasearch was on inorganic hazardous waste inertion by bonding, cement kilns. That was 1996. While i was working as a process/process design engineer.

You got something hotshot? Lemme guess, your liberal arts degree makes you a "social scientist" lmao