Judith,
Spreading fear for the future derives from ignorance, not enlightenment. That is the test for true science. The pursuit of knowledge (fruit from the Tree of Knowledge, if you like) is man’s greatest task. The truth from this knowledge is what it is, emotion free,,
Stuck in localized ice,. say, who can count the ways.
http://climateaudit.org/2010/12/02/odonnell-et-al-2010-refutes-steig-et-al-2009/
That’s average annual rise for each decade, of course, not the total rise for the decade. SLR is sluggish but not that sluggish!
Is there a bigger, more obvious climate beat-up than the sea level thing? They’ll take any old bit of subsidence or erosion anywhere as proof. No wonder Hansen looks like he’s swallowed a bristlecone. Burp.
Mosomoso
What we have to remember is that hansens argument is that sea level rise in the future will be non Linear, that is to say the sea will suddenly rise due to our past actions and may do so several times.
Therefore extrapolating current sea level rise and just adding a bit more to it each year over a century is not how he sees things. In that respect he has a lot in common with Peter wadhams who also saw a sudden rapid change, this time in the arctic ice.
People are now edging away from wadhams looking at him nervously. Hansen has played the clever game by forecasting things beyond the lifetime of anyone posting here.
Tonyb
I was thinking of Hansen’s near term predictions for NY many years ago. All the fudging and back-tracking over that has taught him to go strictly long-term, maybe.
This non-linear thing is sort of like the transition from graceful ballet to Can-Can? And just in time for you-know-what.
Look out Jevrjeva et al! Jimbo is warming the punters up for Paris!
[…] However the paper did not include that alarming excerpt, and was more measured in its conclusions than the press release. Other oddities to this episode were the number of prominent climate scientists, including some usually on the “alarmist” side of the public debate, criticizing the paper, and the general low-key news coverage. Coverage since publication has been even more critical. See summaries of the coverage at Climate Etc. […]
In view of the intervening period of time since the release of James Hanson’s latest paper, one would rather doubt that Judith’s response would ever be described as being of a “knee jerk” kind.
Time to discard peer/pal review to the dustbin of history. Open peer review via the web is required.
Sorry, I have misspelled her name – it was Hansen.
I was almost certain that an old woman had written this piece.
If you don’t know how something was created does it follow that it wasn’t created at all?
Your brain is random and chaotic, Donny. And that’s putting it nicely.
Actually Jim, that’s not quite how science works. Take this hypothesis: all machines are created through intelligent agency. This can be tested by observation and experiment. Showing a single machine where the origin is law and chance alone falsifies the hypothesis.
Good luck.
Science isn’t about proofs. It is about hypotheses which can be disproven by observation or experiment.
Donny got smart and took a powder rather than responding to forensic sciences employing design detection.
Mosomoso
Proves my point, one minute you’re sitting on a hill watching ballet and the next minute you’re up to your neck in water watching can can dancers float by.
Tonyb
ristvan | July 26, 2015 at 7:24 pm |
“PS, why not weight in on Hansen’s paper itself, the subject of this post.”
Is that what you were doing talking about Schneider in hell?
I used to marvel, as a joke as a kid, that the ocean exactly meets the shoreline without gaps or overlap anywhere.
That was back when it could be a joke.
Jim D,
Sounds like you’re a committed Hansonite and that all science associated with Antarctica is known to you (or as far as you’re concerned). Guess it is all settled after all, eh? No reason for further study there?
Yes, that’s the case we agree on. Please focus on the case of an EW or latitude-preserving path.
The point is that NS tilt exactly balances the centrifugal force when moving exactly at the speed of the Earth’s rotation. If you move eastward, you’re moving faster, and the added force pushes you uphill: south in the Northern hemisphere. If you move westward, you’re moving slower (than the Earth’s rotation), and the reduced centrifugal force fails to entirely balance the tilt, so you are pushed downhill: north in the northern hemisphere.
