Calibration curve for the radiocarbon dating scale

This results in adding curvature to the upward trend (an acceleration) by flattening out the early part of the curve. Short-term undulations in the sea level rise curve should not be used as a predictive curve for the future.

This new signature of “acceleration” was what made the news in the new study, even though the long term trend went down. They are affected by a wide variety of natural phenomena.

A new brief summary of the reasoning and evidence behind the skeptics case.

–Jo ——————————————— We check the main predictions of the climate models against the best and latest data.

Fortunately the climate models got all their major predictions wrong. Every serious skeptical scientist has been consistently saying essentially the same thing for over 20 years, yet most people have never heard the message — here it is, put simply enough for any lay reader willing to pay attention.

will cause more evaporation from the oceans and that this extra water vapor will in turn lead to even more heat trapping because water vapor is the main greenhouse gas.

When Trump repudiated the Paris Accord it was the main news-lead for days, as “The mad presumption of the American idiot, Trump.” “Trump defies 19 world-leaders.” etc.,etc.

This important and pivotal data was not released publicly by the climate establishment until 2006, and then in an obscure place.[13] Here it is: In reality there was no hotspot, not even a small one.

So in reality there is no amplification – the amplification shown in Figure 1 does not exist.[16] Even The climate models predict that when the surface of the earth warms, heat is radiated from the earth into space (on a weekly or monthly time scale).

This is because, according to the theory, the warmer surface causes more evaporation and thus there is more heat-trapping water vapor.

This is the heat-trapping mechanism that is responsible for the assumed amplification in Figure 1.

For longer-term variations, yes, the rate of sea level rise during the period since 1993 probably is a little more than, say, during the period since 1900 (sea level rise was occurring naturally, anyway). And even that acceleration could be mostly natural — we simply don’t know. They clearly had to find something in the study that supported the alarmist view of sea level rise, and they figured few people would read past the headline.

You must have an account to comment. Please register or login here!