• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Peer reviewed Journals/Global Warming

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
I remember an argument on Global Warming and peer reviewed journals on PB, a while back. What ever happened to those people that thought the peer reviewed journals were the only credible authority on AGW?

Climate scientists withdraw journal claims of rising sea levels

Scientists have been forced to withdraw a study on projected sea level rise due to global warming after finding mistakes that undermined the findings.

The study, published in 2009 in Nature Geoscience, one of the top journals in its field, confirmed the conclusions of the 2007 report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). It used data over the last 22,000 years to predict that sea level would rise by between 7cm and 82cm by the end of the century.

At the time, Mark Siddall, from the Earth Sciences Department at the University of Bristol, said the study "strengthens the confidence with which one may interpret the IPCC results". The IPCC said that sea level would probably rise by 18cm-59cm by 2100, though stressed this was based on incomplete information about ice sheet melting and that the true rise could be higher

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/feb/21/sea-level-geoscience-retract-siddall


A little common sense and Grade School science would have put this to bed awhile ago.

ANTARCTIC WEATHER
Mean Temps:
Winter: -40 to -94°F (-40 to -70°C)
Summer: -5 to -31°F (-15 to -35°C)

AGW Science said the GLOBAL temp. was going to rise How Much?

Even if it did rise by 5°C or even 10 °C, the Mean Temps for the Antarctic would still be below freezing.
 

Steve

Well-known member
U. S. Tide Gauge Measurements
U. S. Sea Level Trends 1900-2003

Tide gauges in the United States show considerable variation because some land areas are rising and some are sinking. For example, over the past 100 years, the rate of sea level rise varies from about an increase of 0.36 inches (9.1 mm) per year along the Louisiana Coast (due to land sinking), to a drop of a few inches per decade in parts of Alaska (due to post-glacial rebound).

So the Dutch, who have most to lose from accelerating sea-level rise, see no evidence such an acceleration and find the climate models which suggest such an acceleration for the future unconvincing and poorly documented. Bear in mind that the part of the Netherlands which is below sea-level is sinking (as is the Southern part of the UK).

why would "science" leave out a factor such as land mass sinking?
 
Top