Note: This post will remain an extra day…
More than 70 recent scientific publications show that there is absolutely nothing unusual about the magnitude and rapidity of today’s sea level changes. These academically peer-reviewed papers show that sea levels were on average 2 meters higher earlier in the Holocene than they are today.
Before the advent of the industrial revolution in the late 18th to early 19th centuries, carbon dioxide (CO2) concentrations hovered between 260 to 280 parts per million (ppm).
Within the last century, atmospheric CO2 concentrations have risen dramatically. Just recently they eclipsed 400 ppm.
Scientists like Dr. James Hansen have concluded that pre-industrial CO2 levels were climatically ideal. Though less optimal, atmospheric CO2 concentrations up to 350 ppm have been characterized as climatically “safe”. However, CO2 concentrations above 350 ppm are thought to be dangerous to the Earth system. It is believed that such “high” concentrations could lead to rapid warming, glacier and ice sheet melt, and a harrowing sea level rise of 10 feet within 50 years.
To reach those catastrophic levels (10 feet within 50 years) predicted by proponents of sea level rise alarmism, the current “anthropogenic” change rate of +0.14 of a centimeter per year (since 1958) will need to immediately explode into +6.1 centimeters per year. The likelihood of this happening is remote, especially considering Greenland and Antarctica combined only contributed a grand total of 1.54 cm since 1958 (Frederiske et al., 2018).
70+ Papers: Sea Levels 2+ m Higher 9,000-4,000
Years Ago While CO2 Levels Were ‘Safe’ (265 ppm)
(Click the link above or at the right side bar)
• Are Modern ‘Anthropogenic’ Sea Levels Rising At An Unprecedented Rate? No.
Despite the surge in CO2 concentrations since 1900, the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has concluded that global sea levels only rose by an average of 1.7 mm/yr during the entire 1901-2010 period, which is a rate of just 0.17 of a meter per century.
During the 1958 to 2014 period, when CO2 emissions rose dramatically, a recent analysis revealed that the rate of sea level rise slowed to between 1.3 mm/yr to 1.5 mm/yr, or just 0.14 of a meter per century.
Frederiske et al.,2018 “Anthropogenic” Global Sea Level Rise Rate (1958-2014): +0.14 of a meter per century
“For the first time, it is shown that for most basins the reconstructed sea level trend and acceleration can be explained by the sum of contributors, as well as a large part of the decadal variability. The global-mean sea level reconstruction shows a trend of 1.5 ± 0.2mm yr−1 over 1958–2014 (1σ), compared to 1.3 ± 0.1 mm yr−1 for the sum of contributors.”
In the past few thousand years, in contrast, sea levels in some regions rose and fell at rates of + or – 0.5 to 1.1 meters per century., which is 4 to 7 times greater than the change since 1958.
“Continuous record of Holocene sea-level changes … (4900 years BP to present). … The curve reveals eight centennial sea-level oscillations of 0.5-1.1 m superimposed on the general trend of the RSL [relative sea level] curve.”
•Other regions have also undergone profound sea level oscillations in the last few thousand years that far exceed modern changes.
Image Sources: Bracco et al., 2014 Whitfield et al., 2017 Strachan et al., 2014
Hein et al., 2014 Miguel et al., 2018
•Modern changes aren’t even detectable on graphs of long-term sea level trends.
Image Sources: Dura et al., 2016 Bradley et al., 2016
Scheffers et al., 2012 Kane et al., 2017
• ~15,000 – 11,000 Years Ago, Sea Levels Rose At Rates Of +4 to +6 Meters Per Century
Cronin et al., 2017 Global Sea Level Rise Rate: +4 meters per century (14,500 to 14,000 years ago)
“Rates and patterns of global sea level rise (SLR) following the last glacial maximum (LGM) are known from radiometric ages on coral reefs from Barbados, Tahiti, New Guinea, and the Indian Ocean, as well as sediment records from the Sunda Shelf and elsewhere. … Lambeck et al. (2014) estimate mean global rates during the main deglaciation phase of 16.5 to 8.2 kiloannum (ka) [16,500 to 8,200 years ago] at 12 mm yr−1 [+1.2 meters per century] with more rapid SLR [sea level rise] rates (∼ 40 mm yr−1) [+4 meters per century] during meltwater pulse 1A ∼ 14.5–14.0 ka [14,500 to 14,000 years ago].”
Abdul et al., 2017 Global Sea Level Rise Rate: +4 meters per century (11,450 to 11,100 years ago)
“We find that sea level tracked the climate oscillations remarkably well. Sea-level rise was fast in the early Allerød (25 mm yr-1), but decreased smoothly into the Younger Dryas (7 mm yr-1) when the rate plateaued to <4 mm yr-1here termed a sea-level “slow stand”. No evidence was found indicating a jump in sea level at the beginning of the Younger Dryas as proposed by some researchers. Following the “slow-stand”, the rate of sea-level rise accelerated rapidly, producing the 14 ± 2 m sea-level jump known as MWP-1B; occurred between 11.45 and 11.1 kyr BP with peak sea-level rise reaching 40 mm yr-1 [+4 meters per century].”
Ivanovic et al., 2017 Northern Hemisphere Sea Level Rise Rate: +3.5 to +6.5 meters per century (~14,500 years ago)
“During the Last Glacial Maximum 26–19 thousand years ago (ka), a vast ice sheet stretched over North America [Clark et al., 2009]. In subsequent millennia, as climate warmed and this ice sheet decayed, large volumes of meltwater flooded to the oceans [Tarasov and Peltier, 2006; Wickert, 2016]. This period, known as the “last deglaciation,” included episodes of abrupt climate change, such as the Bølling warming [~14.7–14.5 ka], when Northern Hemisphere temperatures increased by 4–5°C in just a few decades [Lea et al., 2003; Buizert et al., 2014], coinciding with a 12–22 m sea level rise in less than 340 years [3.5 to 6.5 meters per century] (Meltwater Pulse 1a (MWP1a)) [Deschamps et al., 2012].”
Zecchin et al., 2015 Regional Sea Level Rise Rate: +6 meters per century (14,500-11,500 years ago)
“[M]elt-water pulses have punctuated the post-glacial relative sea-level rise with rates up to 60 mm/yr. [6 meters per century] for a few centuries.”
It has become more and more apparent that sea levels rise and fall without any obvious connection to CO2 concentrations. And if an anthropogenic signal cannot be conspicuously connected to sea level rise (as scientists have noted), then the greatest perceived existential threat promulgated by advocates of dangerous anthropogenic global warming will no longer be worth considering.
78 responses to “70+ Papers: Holocene Sea Levels 2 Meters Higher – Today’s Sea Level Change Indistinguishable From Noise”
Great compendium, K. 🙂
We are in massive panic at a sea-level rise of 0.65mm/year down here near Sydney
(or less, since Fort Denison has been found to be sinking very slightly)
We really have no idea how we are going to cope. 🙂
I’m waiting for the price of harbour-front properties to take a huge plunge, should be able to up for a song.
Will make sure its double story though 😉
You mention “the price of harbour-front properties”, I’m always amused how all those soon to be ‘inundated with sea’ tropical island properties hold there value.
Strange isn’t it, all this blather about Maldives, Nevis, Antigua, Cook Islands, Tonga, Tuvalu, Kiribati, Marshall Islands, etc., disappearing soon and yet you can’t find a nice property on any of them at a reasonable price. 🙂
And of course these island are taking it so serious, that’s why their populations are all rapidly falling 😉.
Does that Denmark paper take isostatic rebound into consideration?
The sea level changes around Denmark used in the introductory graph were intended to be illustrative of the nothing-unusual-is-happening theme for the article.
Yes, that region is still recovering/rebounding from the period when it was covered with a kilometers-thick ice sheet. Consequently, relative sea levels haven’t risen around Denmark:
Nor around Finland:
“Yes, that region is still recovering/rebounding from the period when it was covered with a kilometers-thick ice sheet.”
So “global warming” has obviously been going on for quite a while!
“So “global warming” has obviously been going on for quite a while!”
Depends on how you define “global warming”
Do you mean the totally natural and highly beneficial warming out of the COLDEST anomaly in 10,000 year, ie the LIA.
… Or do you mean “global warming™” which is some sort of FANTASY warming caused by human CO2 and/or data adjustment?
btw, K is talking about a different time period. He is referring to the steep climb out of the last real ice age, around 11,000 years ago. That is when the major ice packs over parts of the NH melted.
Since about 9000 or so years ago its actually been cooling first slowly, then more quickly starting around 3000 years ago, when the Neoglaciation cooled down the Little Ice Age, with a couple of bumps at the RWP and MWP
Around the mid 1800s, depending on who you ask, the world THANKFULLY started a small warming trend.
Its still not back up to MWP temperatures, but at least its a start. Let’s all hope that the coming slight cooling really is only slight.
Back down to LIA conditions would be an absolute disaster for world food supplies, and probably also for countries that have decimated their electricity reliability because of the great con of the anti-CO2 agenda.
I wonder how many alarmists will accuse us skeptics of “cherry-picking”. The problem for the alarmists is that skeptics are finding cherries by the bushel, and the whole orchard is looking like cherries!
Used to live near Young in Central NSW.
Lotsa cherry-picking there, especially around November/December.
[…] Read more at No Tricks Zone […]
Great news…..no worries about my beach front property now
Much of this data has been available for quite some time for anyone who cared to look. It does not support the catastrophic global warming scenario, so is ignored by the MSM.
I hope this listing is widely shared on other blogs, comment sections and social media. I am going to try to do my part. https://goo.gl/9Ns3ux
Thank you for the effort.
… is a weird claim to make Kenneth. So sea levels were higher in the past and – surprise – increased faster during the deglaciation phase. What exactly does that have to do with today’s sea level increase being caused by global warming?
No, this is the “believe”: https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_Chapter13_FINAL.pdf
The expected rise for the worst scenario (RCP 8.5) is 0.52 to 0.98 m until 2100. With rates increasing to 8 to 16 mm/yr near the end of that period.
In some regions? Rather in specifically in Denmark. Also, you seem to have missed that this paper concludes that the overall decrease in RSL for that island was 2.1 mm/yr over the last few millennia. That’s a bit smaller than the current rate in the other direction. Since sea levels are projected to continue to rise and depending on the scenario, the rate increases, this can very well exceed those 2 meters higher sea levels earlier in the Holocene in a few centuries.
Because sea level rise is more or less linked to temperature? Are you seriously concluding that because sea level was higher (or lower) in the past and CO2 wasn’t as high (or lower) then, that CO2 has nothing to do with sea level changes?
Would you agree with me then that death by gunshots is a myth? Since a few thousand years ago, people died despite there being no guns. So no obvious connection, right? Today’s deaths that look like the person has been shot by a gun, must be clearly fake then.
This is what your argument sounds like.
As written above, stick to what the IPCC report says about the future sea level rise. Maybe you don’t think an up to 1 m until 2100 (and continuing to rise after this date) higher sea level is not an “existential threat”. That’s a perfectly ok opinion to have. But please don’t try to downplay this by “sea level was 2 m higher just a few thousand years ago and mankind survived that too” (or something like that. Of course, we will survive and adapt. There will not be a sudden gigantic “climate change wave” that washes away all cities built at the oceans.
Worries about a “catastrophic” sea level rise (0.33 to 0.63 m until 2100 in RCP4.5 is anything but “catastrophic”, just build damns like the Netherlands have been doing) are not the main reason for trying to reduce emissions to soften the impact we have on climate.
Have fun posting your usual troll comments below this guys. I won’t reply, so don’t bother using creative language to provoke an emotional response 😉
Sorry for the double negative. You’ll figure it out 😉
“You’ll figure it out 😉”
Figured it out — it’s not an “existential threat” by all the best measurement taken.
What a load of ANTI-SCIENCE BS.
Empty mindless rhetoric, at best. !
Based on proven ERRONEOUS models,
Which in turn are based on PROVEN ERRONEOUS CO2 warming.
“that CO2 has nothing to do with sea level changes?”
You are welcome to PRODUCE EVIDENCE that CO2 has any effect on sea level.
“the main reason for trying to reduce emissions to soften the impact we have on climate.”
You are welcome to PRODUCE EVIDENCE that CO2 or any other emissions have any impact on climate.
“Would you agree with me then that death by gunshots is a myth?”
An irrelevant, empty, brain-numbed analogy.
What Kenneth ably shows is that atmospheric CO2 levels and sea level rates of rise are just not connected historically, and therefore very, very unlikely to connected today. This planets basic operation appears not to value the CO2 alleged effect proffered by the UN-IPCC, and merrily goes about doing what comes naturally.
The human impact on this this planet is nowhere as alarming as the cAGW advocates wish to paint it. Their unrealistic predictions have failed and will continue to fail, as they are not based on reality. Their unverified climate models have failed and therefore the UN-IPCC predictions of sea-level rise have to date failed, and will continue to fail. The UN-IPCC stance is and has been largely unsubstantiated by recent history because of their application of very poor science and guesswork.
The result — there is no reason to believe that sea-level should rise at the IPCC’s rate.
I see, so you share the claim that gunshot deaths must be a myth then? No historical connection to violent deaths in the past, so why should any death in recent times be caused by being the victim of gun violence? Very unlikely to be connected, right?
I highly doubt there is anyone here who takes your completely unconnected comparisons and “analogies” seriously enough to even engage you in your thought experiments.
To repeat, there is no obvious correlation between sea level rise and CO2 concentration/emissions either in recent analyses…
…or in the past, when CO2 concentrations rose…
…as sea levels actually fell..
“The abundant marine diatoms and mangrove pollens indicate the highest RSL [relative sea level] transgression in Bangladesh at approximately 6000 cal BP, being at least 4.5 to 5 m higher than the modern m.s.l. [mean sea level]. … The curve indicates that at approximately 5000 cal BP and onwards, the RSL started to fall towards its present position, and the present shoreline of Bangladesh was established at approximately 1500 cal BP and has not noticeably migrated inland since.”
Please stop pretending we are talking about guns, or gun shots, or anything other than the reported lack of positive correlation between CO2 concentration changes and sea level changes.
“your thought experiments.”
No K, just call it what it is..
Basically ZERO thought involved.
“No K, just call it what it is..”
Gees mod, can I get away with calling seb’s irrelevant analogy distraction…
…a “random thought bubble” !
“I see, so you share the claim that gunshot deaths must be a myth then?”
Sorry you lost me there, I’m writing about the errors in your assertion that CO2 controls ocean temperatures, and how Kenneth’s message is correct. Umm, you’ve changed the subject and are writing about gun control, or something????
Are you on the correct blog? Do you know what the subject of this piece is about?
Thought experiment? I am trying to make you see how weird your argument is and this is your reply?
Because the connection is temperature.
Again, you seem not to understand how CO2 and temperature are connected and try to make up your own reality that enables you to argue this way. It’s weird …
You need to see just how strange your argument is. If you find my “gun argument” wrong, then you are one step closer to this revelation. You guys are misinterpreting a lot of stuff, see for example tomOmason’s reply. What is he talking about changing the subject to gun control? Either trolling or a serious problem with reading texts.
It would appear that bringing up a gun narrative in a comment section about sea level changes would be perceived as strange by most observers.
I don’t think tomOmason is the one who brought a gun to a debate about sea level rise. But here you are accusing him of changing the subject. Sigh.
“you seem not to understand how CO2 and temperature are connected “
There is absolutely ZERO causal link from raised CO2 levels and temperatures.
You have proven that by you ABJECT INABILITY to produce one iota of actual supportive evidence.
Yes, naturally raised temperatures, can lift the atmospheric CO2 level through Henry’s law and the enhancement of the carbon cycle.
The whole world biosphere functions better on a raised CO2 level.
What is it that you don’t comprehend, seb?
Or do you have some other ZERO-science fantasy in mind?
“There is absolutely ZERO causal link from raised CO2 levels to temperatures.”
Well you had to try it at some stage, seb
Pretty much a failure, though.
Not much thought there.
No seb your reply at https://notrickszone.com/2018/04/12/70-papers-holocene-sea-levels-2-meters-higher-todays-sea-level-change-indistinguishable-from-noise/comment-page-1/#comment-1258441
is at the most polite banal!
What has this reply of yours have anything to do with the topic —
“I see, so you share the claim that gunshot deaths must be a myth then? No historical connection to violent deaths in the past, so why should any death in recent times be caused by being the victim of gun violence? Very unlikely to be connected, right?”
Truly I believe you’ve lost the plot seb!
Either my English is really bad or you are misunderstanding my comments either on purpose or not. There is not “gun narrative” anywhere. If I had chosen modern telecommunication or the printing press the analogy would have worked the same.
What you do is looking at the past, only see books written by hand and conclude that modern books must also be written by hand, since there is no connection to the printing press in the past.
And in case this could be misunderstood, no, I am not saying that you said anything about books and neither am I changing the topic.
And again, either my English is really bad, or you don’t want to understand. How can “You guys are misinterpreting a lot of stuff, see for example tomOmason’s reply. What is he talking about changing the subject to gun control?” misinterpreted in this way? With your reply you basically prove that this is a correct assertion.
What do you want to achieve with this strategy (if it is on purpose)?
It was referring to the very first comment in this thread. Do you – like Kenneth – only read the comment you are directly replying to and ignore everything else in the thread?
“increase being caused by global warming?”
You are welcome to PROVIDE EVIDENCE
And by “global warming” do you mean the totally natural and beneficial warming out of the COLDEST anomaly in 10,000 years…
… Or do you mean “global warming™” which is some sort of FANTASY warming caused by human CO2 or data adjustment?
Last 40 years, the ONLY warming has come from ocean cycles, so CO2, human or otherwise can be ruled out ABSOLUTELY.
Wouldn’t you agree.
“With rates increasing to 8 to 16 mm/yr near the end of that period”
And do you actually “believe” such anti-science nonsense?
I have a book of Grimm Bros fairy-tales here is you want.
I read them when I was a child of 5 or 6… even then I KNEW they were fairy-tales.
No, I’m saying there does not appear to be a long-term correlation. Sea levels rise and fall without any obvious connection to CO2 concentration changes, as illustrated here:
Sea level rise actually decelerated after 1920-1950, when CO2 emissions began rising, as explained here:
So you are claiming there is no obvious connection, but not that CO2 has nothing to do with sea level changes?
Which leads you to conclude that we shouldn’t worry about sea level rise as a result of AGW, doesn’t it?
The obvious connection more CO2 -> higher temperatures -> sea level rises is not obvious enough? Or is higher temperatures leading to sea level rise not obvious enough, too? What changed the sea level in the past then?
Again, temperature! Global dimming. Why are you ignoring this?
I’ll repeat what I wrote: “There does not appear to be a long-term correlation. Sea levels rise and fall without any obvious connection to CO2 concentration changes.”
On a global scale, there is more land area above sea level today (2015) than there was in 1985. In other words, sea levels aren’t even rising fast enough to compete with land uplift/subsidence and other natural geophysical processes that affect the relative sea level far more dramatically. If I’m worried about encroaching coastal waters (and I am for places like the U.S. Gulf, where the land has been rapidly sinking), that worry is tied to the observation that land subsidence (and not centimeters-per-century sea level rise) is endangering human settlements on the coasts in some regions.
No, the connection between the increase in anthropogenic CO2 emissions and sea level rise has not been clearly established. Natural variability has not been ruled out.
“Such identification of oscillators and general trends over 160 years would be of great importance for distinguishing long-term, natural developments from possible, more recent anthropogenic sea-level changes. However, we found that a possible candidate for such anthropogenic development, i.e. the large sea-level rise after 1970, is completely contained by the found small residuals, long-term oscillators, and general trend. Thus, we found that there is (yet) no observable sea-level effect of anthropogenic global warming in the world’s best recorded region.”
“[W]e further show that the remaining residual sea level trend pattern does not correspond to externally forced anthropogenic sea level signal. In addition, we also suggest that satellite altimetry measurement may not still be accurate enough to detect the anthropogenic signal in the 20-year tropical Pacific sea level trends.”
Higher temperatures are connected to sea level rise, but today’s temperatures aren’t significantly different enough from the past to do more than add about 3 inches to sea levels during 1958-2014. This does not fall outside the range of natural variability, nor from noise.
I’m curious to know what it is you think I am “ignoring” here.
I don’t get it, do you accept now that sea level is rising, but are saying that it’s not a problem since more land is above level today?
And now you are worried that some land is sinking?
Well, they are, but I am sure you will come up with some non-hockey-stick graphs trying to show the instrumental record is somehow wrong/fake. Right?
You tried to argue that CO2 has nothing to do with sea level rise by mentioning deceleration of the rise after 1950 by ignoring that temperature can of course change without CO2 changing. Nobody is saying otherwise.
If the basic argument of skepticism is that the current change isn’t (yet) as large as past changes, then you really have got nothing. You might not like analogies, but it is exactly like that gun analogy. We can try a different one if you like … historically people weren’t able to communicate wirelessly. No obvious connection between radio waves and people communicating in the past, right? So it’s unlikely that radio waves make it possible today, right?
Another ZERO PROOF AGW rant from seb.
How can you type so much and say absolutely NOTHING ??
Sea level rise at its current CONSTANT or SLIGHT DECELERATING rate is not any sort of problem to anyone, nor will it be in the foreseeable future (ignore fantasy models)
If you have SCIENTIFIC proof otherwise
THEN PRODUCE IT.
There is absolutely ZERO PROOF that CO2 has anything to do with warming, ocean sea levels , Arctic sea ice level or anything else except better plant growth
If you have proof of ANYTHING
THEN PRODUCE IT
You posts are totally empty of anything resembling actual science..
“You tried to argue that CO2 has nothing to do with sea level rise “
There is ABSOLUTELY ZERO PROOF that it does.
One does not have to rebut FAIRY-TALE FANTASIES.
If you have any proof that CO2 has ANYTHING to do with sea level rise, THEN PRODUCE IT.
“The obvious connection more CO2 -> higher temperatures -> sea level rises is not obvious enough”
No, your fantasy connection doesn’t work except over some very short cherry picked time period
There is absolutely no causal link from CO2 to temperatures either.
Yes there is one from temperatures to aCO2. called Henry’s law
And one from temperature to part of sea level rise, thermal expansion.
And yes it has warmed very slightly since the LIA, the COLDEST ANOMALY in 10,000 years.
Just leave the CO2 out of it, because, as you have ably proven.. IT IS IRRELEVANT.
ps, great to see you ADMITTING that temperatures were a lot higher during the first 8000+ year of the Holocene (even though CO2 was not.. big oops on your behalf, hey seb)
Maybe eventually you will ADFMIT that the LIA was a period of ANOMALOUS COLD and the NATURAL warming out of that coldest of period has been highly beneficial.
Maybe eventually you will even ADMIT that enhance atmospheric CO2 has zero effect except enhanced plant growth.
“Again, temperature! Global dimming. Why are you ignoring this?”
The records of temperature and CO2 level variations show the only connection is a CO2 long term (around 600-800 year) lagging connection. Which logically means CO2 level variations and sea level variation hold little mutual connection in the long or short term.
Of course I understand your difficulty with this concept as neither your mentors nor the UN-IPCC have given you a script (with tenuous analogies) to repeat.
Ah.. the global dimming that maybe caused the dip into the late 1970s COLD period, that cause sea ice extremes in the Arctic, etc
Funny how they all follow the RAW temperatures, isn’t it. ! 🙂
seb you have a failure of logic (again)
“So you are claiming there is no obvious connection, but not that CO2 has nothing to do with sea level changes?
Which leads you to conclude that we shouldn’t worry about sea level rise as a result of AGW, doesn’t it?”
Changes in CO2 does not have an obvious connection to sea level changes.
AGW is just your (and others) belief based on an UN supposition.
AGW is not a given, the warm-up since the LIA is well within the bounds of normal natural climate variability. That is unless you have observed scientific evidence of CO2 level changes altering the tropospheric temperature of the world. If you have show it, and your supposition may be worth some attention, however to date you have shown no such evidence.
You continuously, and for many here, incorrectly assert that CO2 changes equate to global temperature changes, and even oceanic temperature changes. Your assertion has no evidence.
Specifically in Denmark, sea levels have not been rising by more than 2.1 mm/yr. They’ve been stable to falling – currently. Thank you for calling attention to this:
SebastianH, I’m curious to see if you will admit that you are wrong about sea levels rising by more than +2.1 mm/yr currently around Denmark, or if you will continue to repeat these false claims.
Talking about the global rate here.
Good for them, even if that is not what your image link shows us …
Are you? Or are you again making something up I didn’t say and expect me to respond to it?
seb is PANICKING about a global sea level rise of 2mm/year or less
What is WRONG with you, seb ??
Scared your basement will flood?
“I won’t reply, “
WOW, who knew seb couldn’t help himself
Could NOT stick to his own word.
” I won’t reply,”
How long did that last, seb.
Truth to yourself, seb
Try it.. once at least.
OT, today has been a real PITA.
I live less than a km from a main electricity substation
9:30ish, a loud bang/thud sort of sound from that vicinity, and everything turns off.
11:15, power back on, so I got into some work, auto save set to 10 minutes, thank goodness.
Since then, we have had 4 or 5 outages of between 10mins and 40 mins in length. (half a dozen or so local suburbs affected.)
I guess some sort of instability issue. Who knows.
All I know is that when power is unreliable from whatever cause.. it really is a PITA !!!
I feel sorry for you AndyG55 and all in Australia.
However what did you expect from a country where socialist, greenies, and communists dictate how engineering of your nation’s infrastructure should be done?
I gather this was just a failure of a transformer or breaker. Very localised. Happens occasionally. Can’t really put the blame anywhere.
Blackouts are actually very unusual for this area (unlike South Australia)
OT, but dumping all those coal fired power stations in the UK seems to have had the desirable effect
Conversation seems eerily similar,
one guy sticking to unprovable non-science AGW mantra,
Others asking for actual SCIENTIFIC PROOF.. and never getting any.
Oops another comment in spam?
@Andy, re the dumping of coal stations…
“The ‘virtue signal’ is coming in loud and clear, sir.” – Greenie flunky in training (GFIT)
“What does it say.” – Head greenie activist (HGT)
“WE – ARE – IDIOTS.” – GFIT
“Excellent. Inform lord Soros and the UN commission no the destruction of civilization, immediately.” – HGA
[…] Read more at No Tricks Zone […]
From the link posted above: http://www.xmetman.com/wp/2018/03/01/thursday-28-february-2018-coldest-since-1785/
Someone who doesn’t know how this is possible asks for scientific proof of theories? Skepticism can’t get any weirder …
Say Empty nothings seb.
Someone who just makes up junk-science and can’t support even the most basic fallacy of AGW mantra, that’s pretty funny
Do you REALLY think a colder object can “heat” a warmer object?
You skipped heat transfer classes at any level as well apparently. That “unaware” list is getting mighty long
Or is this just another pathetic attempt to sidetrack from the FACT that you are totally unable to produce one single bit of empirical evidence that enhanced atmospheric CO2 does anything except enhance pant growth?
Your attempts at distraction cannot get any more BIZARRE.
From SebH’s link…
“I can quote you various IPCC reports (the efforts of thousands of scientists from relevant fields). I can quote you lots of people from The Hadley Centre. I can quote you people from NOAA, GISS, NCDC.”
Appeal to authority, nothing more. And they are the same “authorities” who doctor the data to “prove” their assertions.
Oh, yeah, now there’s a “gotcha,” lololol.
“I can quote you lots of people from The Hadley Centre. I can quote you people from NOAA, GISS, NCDC.””
Poor PeterH, has as about much idea about what actual science and scientific proof is as sebH does(wonder if they are bro’s)
ie very little to negative….. just like the effect of atmospheric CO2 on temperatures.
But we see that there are no illustrative quotes, and no links to where we could find anything. Silliness, at best.
“Your attempts at distraction cannot get any more BIZARRE.” – AndyG55
Give him time, Andy. Give him time.
I thought you knew how the greenhouse effect is supposed to work? Why do you reply like you have no clue? Trolling or do you really think that it’s the CO2 that is heating the surface?
“I thought you knew how the greenhouse effect is supposed to work”
Ah, the imaginary greenhouse effect .. that DOESN’T work.
A fairy-tale wrapped in scientific FARCE.
Do you REALLY think a colder object can “heat” a warmer object?
That is what you said.. do you really “believe” it, SERIOUSLY ????
“do you really think that it’s the CO2 that is heating the surface?”
What’s this , a tiny admission of the truth that atmospheric CO2 has ZERO warming effect. ????
If you have evidence that atmospheric CO2 does ANYTHING except induce better plant growth.
THEN PRODUCE THE EVIDENCE
Chanting AGW mantra and fallacy is NOT proof.
Funny how he keeps accusing us of not understanding something he’s totally unable to explain.
Hey, did everybody know that by putting a block of ice near a radiant heater, you can make the heater HOTTER !
AMAZING new FIZZUCS !!
If the heater is in space, it may work. )(background of the space radiation is 3K or – 270°C) Or if it is colder behnd the ice block.
A kind of iglu around a heater makes it warmer than the same thing outside at say – 30 °C.
Radiative Energy transfer consists out of the difference between radiating sources.
So there is no Energy transfer from a warm object to a cold one, but a reduced flow of energy if there is something cold between the heat source and something dammned cold behind.
Igloos block radiant heat, convective heat and conductive heat.
Great build up of CO2 inside, too. 😉
Just don’t fart !!
There is NO reduced energy flow in the atmosphere, the tiny thin band of low energy CO2 absorption is thermalised and dealt with immediately by conduction and convection.
Albedo. Ice reflects. That has NOTHING to do with how gasses behave.
note added in proof.
So we see again that the cAGW advocates have nothing to counter the main point of “70+ Papers: Holocene Sea Levels 2 Meters Higher – Today’s Sea Level Change Indistinguishable From Noise”.
Except for the troll.
Must be the weekend 😉
Or a day with a “y” in it?
The good old “no counter” phrase …
Why do you think it needs any countering? Sea levels were higher, so what? If you guys think that today’s rise is completely normal you have to back it up with more than weird blog posts.
But hey, if you can so easily “prove a case” you should use your skills to prove more interesting things and solve the important problems. Any idea how to get to a sustainable (energy) future more quickly?
Yet another EMPTY zero content post from seb.
“Any idea how to get to a sustainable (energy) future more quickly?”
Yep, get away from wind and solar.
No country can sustain the subsidies to keep them running. Even Germany will eventually realise what a waste of time and money they are.
Coal, Gas, oil.. all sustainable for a long time into the future, PLUS, they provide enhanced atmospheric CO2 for the world’s plant life.
Speaking of proving a case.
Have you got one single piece of empirical evidence that enhanced atmospheric CO2 does anything except promote stronger plant growth ?
Have you got any scientific proof that CO2 causes increased sea level rise or increased Arctic sea-ice melt?
Seems you are TOTALLY LACKING in any sort of skill.
“The good old “no counter” phrase … “
Show us where you have anything to counter anything !!
Truth hurts, hey seb.
If you seb, thinks that today’s rise is ANYTHING BUT completely normal you have to back it up.
Waiting for yet another scientifically EMPTY non-response.
Sea level has been rising at basically the same rate for over 100 years, There is NOTHING untoward about a TINY rise in sea level after the COLDEST ANOMALY in 10,000 years.
If you even the slightest proof that current sea level rise is ANYTHING BUT NORMAL,
THEN PRODUCE THE EVIDENCE.
AGW mantra is NOT evidence.
Yes, old boy, and you’ve failed again to make a case.
Have you not got some dumb analogy left in your bag of UN-IPCC inspired tricks?
Go on try! I could do with some of your comedy today.
Sea level is in fact DECELERATING.
…. totally contrary to any mythical CO2 effect on sea level
(or have they changed heir minds again) ?
Does CO2 now cause NATURAL sea level rise to slow down?
Willand, Devon UK is rising by 2 metres per century. Scientists baffled!
[…] https://notrickszone.com/2018/04/12/70-papers-holocene-sea-levels-2-meters-higher-todays-sea-level-ch… […]