OT: Greenland is literally cracking apart and flooding the world

Yeah, the left half of that graph has a lower slope than the right half. That's what 'acceleration' means.

Have you checked that the surroundings will still attach your elevation to the mainland after a few meters water rise? This could affect the sell-or-bequeath economics down the road...

I can't even be sure of that. Too much instrumentation has been changed and too much data has been "corrected."

Is that why the beaches are so crowded?

--

John Larkin         Highland Technology, Inc 

lunatic fringe electronics

What's interesting is that many or most local tide gages do not show an acceleration. The ones around here don't.

About 150 feet of rise would put us on a pretty big island. Property values would probably go up. At 1.45 mm/year, that will take about

30,000 years, and the current interglacial won't last that long.

After this silly AGW panic gets boring, which it is already, people will find other things to be scared of.

--

John Larkin         Highland Technology, Inc 

lunatic fringe electronics

Of course he can't. He believes everything that Anthony Watts tells him - at the behest of the fossil carbon extraction industry - and nothing else.

It's part of the reason. Sea shipping happens to be a cheap way of moving freight around (though not so much cheaper than the alternatives as it used to be), so people do tend to congregate around ports.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

seem to

That's

Lots of stuff influences local sea levels.

That not the right way to think about it. Sea level rise is ice sheets slid ing off into the sea somewhere. 150 feet is 45 metres, and it would take th e entire Antarctic ice sheet to drive up sea levels that far.

The Greenland ice sheet and the West Antarctic ice sheet could let go in a century or so, but that's only 10 metres of sea level rise.

10 metres of sea level rise would be attention-getting. All the suckers who fell for denialist propaganda and failed to do anything to stop it would l ook a bit silly, but that clearly doesn't bother John Larkin, who is dumb e nough to take Anthony Watts seriously.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

Well, technology marches on, and instrumentation SHOULD be changed every once in a while. You have to know that, it keeps you in business.

As for dark hints about 'too much data has been corrected' either publish specifics, or accept that researchers know how to calibrate.

John Larkin is channelling Anthony Watts, who was a Stevenson box obsessive before he got co-opted by the denialist propaganda machine.

John Larkin is a gullible sucker, who hates admitting that he has been suckered.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

I accept that a lot of "researchers" and politicians know how to calibrate their career paths.

Google warming temperature corrections

It's really hard to measure temperature to one degree accuracy over tens, much less hundreds of years, and too much power and money is involved to trust the approximations.

If you want to worry about the extinction of humanity, in the face of massive evidence to the contrary, then worry.

--

John Larkin         Highland Technology, Inc 

lunatic fringe electronics

Studying an area doesn't necessarily imply falsifying the results you find, and it's a pretty poor strategy if you are looking for long-term career.

They happen. So what? Humans make mistakes from time to time, and honest humans correct them when they find them.

Particulary when there is a lot of money being spent trying to persuade you not to trust the measurements.

In reality, historical global temperatures are recorded in the isotope ratios in the water in ice cores, which takes us back some 800,000 years.

There are lots of ice cores from various places, and cheating on all of them would be difficult.

We tell John about this kind of evidence from time to time, but it never shows up on denialist web sites, so he can't possibly beleive it.

Anthropogenic global warming is unlikley to make humanity extinct, though it might contribute to a population crash. John Larkin can't get anything right.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

No, I refuse to let Google be my only filter against nonsense. Cite a peer-reviewed article, that gives specifics, to any kind of 'correction' that bothers you. Hint: a researcher determining temperature calibrations is not likely to draw conslusions about 'warming' in the same paper. Those keywords wont appear together except in an essay (and 50 cents a word, with a few megabucks available, buys lots of nonsense essays).

Why do you put 'researchers' in single-quotes? The collectors of temperature data from around the world really ARE researchers. I'm detecting an addiciton to dark hints, with Google as your enabler.

ish specifics, or accept

eer-reviewed article, that gives specifics, to any kind of 'correction' tha t bothers you. Hint: a researcher determining temperature calibrations is not likely to draw conclusions about 'warming' in the same paper.

rd, with a few megabucks available, buys lots of nonsense essays).

ature data from around the world really ARE researchers. I'm detecting an addiction to dark hints, with Google as your enabler.

John Larkin gets all his "climate science" opinions from denialist web-site s. He doesn't seem to post links to anything else. Quite how he manages to avoid google links to the anti-denialist content escapes me - I suspect he 's fed his links by James Arthur, rather than using google on his own (whic h may be above his pay-grade).

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

Do you refuse to do your own research, or just refuse to consider anything that reinforces your prejudices?

Luckily, there are lots of beds to hide under.

--

John Larkin         Highland Technology, Inc 
picosecond timing   precision measurement  

jlarkin att highlandtechnology dott com 
http://www.highlandtechnology.com

The data here seems OK.

There is a 'are you a climate skeptic?' link. Where he (Richard Muller) takes the 'climategate' guys to task.

George H.

If we do get another solar-driven LIA, or a real ice age, which are really inevitable, this AGW thing will be remembered as a gigantic case of pathological science.

--

John Larkin         Highland Technology, Inc 
picosecond timing   precision measurement  

jlarkin att highlandtechnology dott com 
http://www.highlandtechnology.com

Sounds like wishful thinking.

Inevitable? Where are your links?

So far, you have not presented one single reference to prove your claims. You will need a lot of them to overcome the huge mass of evidence that is already available. And more is being collected.

So get busy. Prove it is wrong. And not just by hand waving. Show us your data.

You need to show lots of data if you hope to convince anyone.

If we see another ice age coming (which we should be able to do) then I assume we'll ask everyone to burn more oil and coal*.

Say, is there anything that would let you trust the data?

George H.

*It's not at all clear if coal causes more heat retention or cooling from the crud/ particulate matter blocking the sunlight.

What comes around, goes around.

George H.

That was my attempt at sarcasm, apparently I didn't do well. :-)

Quote: "One theory holds that decreases in atmospheric CO2, an important greenhouse gas, started the long-term cooling trend that eventually led to glaciation."

Atmospheric CO2 is increasing. This is the opposite of what is needed for a new ice age.