IPCC confirms climate models wrong. Now NASA confirms sea levels dropping

OP topic

Now that's the kind of stuff NASA is good at.

 

It *IS* profound. Saying the oceans are still rising because they have risen in the past is actually the argumentative fallacy known as Argument to Age. If it was this way in the past then it should be the same way in the future. It ignores the fact that things in the real world *can* change.

 

That consensus is changing. People are finally having to come to grips with the reality that the computer models are wrong. When the IPCC report says the models are wrong and yet it also says there is a 90-95% confidence the models are correct you are seeing the impact of government bureaucrats writing the conclusions, not scientists. It's cognitive dissonance on a massive scale!

The IPCC report doesn't even have a section discussing the newly found global warming holes in North America where the CO2 concentration is the highest on the globe! The climate models can't even explain the twenty year hiatus. How are they going to explain the global warming holes?

 

You think the ice at the South Pole is in danger? Based on what?

 

Again, we are in a 2.6 million year ice age. Some proxy records show the Medieval Warm Period warmer than today. The climate changes naturally and no one can say how much man has affected it since no one can identify how much warming is natural. This current mild inter-glacial will eventually end and then the real trouble begins. Cold kills, warming enhances civilization.

 

The models are not just inaccurate. They are *wrong*. Overestimating and underestimating is not inaccuracy, it is being *wrong*.

There hasn't been a two year hiatus in sea level rise before. It's like the global warming hiatus. No one expected it because the climate models didn't predict it. They *still* don't show it. This could be a hiatus in sea level rise just like the global warming hiatus. If the globe has stopped warming then it would make sense for the sea level rise to stop. There would necessarily be a delay because of the thermodynamic inertia of an object the size of the worlds oceans.

 

All of these are based on the outputs of computer models. All of the computer models use one of the same three basic data sets. If those data sets are inaccurate then all the models are inaccurate as well. And there are *huge* questions about the data sets.

NASA took the temperature measurements of the newest, most accurate sensors and revised them upwards to match older, less accurate measurements. Since sea level rise calculations are based on the temperature of the oceans, raising the temperatures causes the sea level rise to be overestimated.

Land measurements are also questionable. They simply do not match satellite measurements. Large areas of the globe are not accurately measured, their temperatures are just guessed at.

Take *everything* you hear about global warming with a grain of salt.

 

Based on the break away of ice sheets:

Iceberg 3 times the size of Manhattan breaks off Antarctica
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...ze-manhattan-breaks-off-antarctica/703578001/

 

If you read up on it, nothing unusual.

 

But it's accelerating. The previous month or so another ice sheet broke off, and they also evacuated a settlement in Antarctica.

 

Accelerating from what? Do you understand how short our record is?

 

So you invoke the fallacy fallacy? Just because it is a logical fallacy doesn't mean its not true.

 

The article somehow never makes the connection that the sea ice expanse at the South Pole is at record levels. So where is the "warmer" water coming from? It's far more likely associated with the increased volcanic activity that has been detected under the South Pole that *it* is the cause for the warmer water than is global warming. And volcanic activity at the South Pole seems to be quite variable over time.

This is one of the major reasons the AGW religionists are being believed less and less as time goes on. They never give the *full* story, only as much as supports their alarmism!

 

ROFL!!! Logical fallacies are *always* untrue. That's why they are called fallacies. Can a fallacious conclusion sometimes be true? Of course, a stopped clock is right twice a day! It doesn't mean the clock actually keeps time!

 

The chart you posted shows that the average slope of the line hasn't changed in 25 years.

Yet, you think something big happened?

What?

 

Boy are you smrt.

Argument from fallacy

Argument from fallacy is the formal fallacy of analyzing an argument and inferring that, since it contains a fallacy, its conclusion must be false.[1] It is also called argument to logic (argumentum ad logicam), the fallacy fallacy,[2] the fallacist's fallacy,[3] and the bad reasons fallacy.[4]

Fallacious arguments can arrive at true conclusions, so this is an informal fallacy of relevance.[5]

 

So a guess based on faulty reasoning that might be correct on accident is your scientific stance on the subject?

 

So man putting co2 into the atmosphere could possibly delay the onset of the next ice age? Makes sense. Perhaps it will give us a few more years before much of america is under a couple miles of ice. If we have transitioned away from fossil fuel energy, we might have to open up closed oil wells so we can add as much co2 as possible to stave off the ice age for awhile longer and keep starvation of humanity at bay. So co2 may ironically end up being our friend and ally?

Given an alarmist a lemon and all he will have to show for it, is a puckered mouth. Give one to the so called denier, and he will be drinking some refreshing tasty homemade lemonade. He might even sell the alarmist a glass of it.

 

You do so love begging the question. Anything else you beg for?

 

Supposedly the slope of global warming hadn't changed in over 1500 years. Yet even the IPCC now recognizes that it *has* changed, that the climate models are now wrong, and that no one knows why the warming has stopped.

Like I said, if global warming is truly in hiatus then the rise in the sea level could be as well, it is just trailing the warming hiatus because of the thermo inertia of such a large body.

Do you deny that the IPCC said: ".Most, though not all, models overestimate the observed warming trend in the tropical troposphere over the last 30 years, and tend to underestimate the long-term lower stratospheric cooling trend. "

 

I do, just as I take unsupported claims of NASA claiming that the sea levels are falling with a grain of salt.

 

Do you actually know what the argumentative fallacy of "begging the question" is?

It is a form of circular logic.

"So a guess based on faulty reasoning that might be correct on accident is your scientific stance on the subject?"

How is that a form of circular logic? Do you know what circular logic is?

premise: X is true
conclusion: therefore X is true.

In the sentence above:
Premise: so a guess based on faulty reasoning that might be correct on accident
conclusion: none

Question: is this your scientific stance on the subject.

It's not even of Premise/conclusion in form!

 

The conclusion being true does *NOT* make the argument any less of a fallacious one!

An argumentative fallacy is *ALWAYS* a fallacy whether the conclusion is true or not. That's because you cannot tell if the conclusion is true or false!

If you will notice in my post I *said* the conclusion could be true! You just didn't bother to quote that part! Why not?

My assertion stands: "The conclusion being true does *NOT* make the argument any less of a fallacious one".

 

I don't believe anyone said NASA made any claim at all. In fact, I believe I told you that they wouldn't and gave you a reason why!