Judith Curry in the post reality age

There are certain types who love to cite Judith Curry as though she were the ultimate authority of climate science.


Yet if you compare her CV with Michaels Manns, (who is endlessly demonized by the same libertarian delusionals) the difference is absolutely astounding.

But, have hard facts ever made any difference to the “libertarian” mindset or the types who have elevated Curry to celebrity, heck sometimes near god like, status.

Judith Curry - School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, Georgia Tech.


Michael Mann - Pennsylvania State University, Department of Meteorology & Atmospheric Science University Park, PA


And then there’s her unreal claims, made for effect, rather than any constructive education.

Judy Curry’s attribution non-argument Filed under:Climate modelling Climate Science Greenhouse gases — Gavin Schmidt @ 18 April 2017


  1. Models are NOT tuned [for the late 20th C/21st C warming] and using them for attribution is NOT circular reasoning.

Curry’s claim is wrong on at least two levels. The “models used” (otherwise known as the CMIP5 ensemble) were not tuned for consistency for the period of interest (the 1950-2010 trend is what was highlighted in the IPCC reports, about 0.8ºC warming) and the evidence is obvious from the fact that the trends in the individual model simulations over this period go from 0.35 to 1.29ºC! (or 0.84±0.45ºC (95% envelope)). …

  1. Attribution studies DO account for low-frequency internal variability

Patterns of variability that don’t match the predicted fingerprints from the examined drivers (the ‘residuals’) can be large – especially on short-time scales, and look in most cases like the modes of internal variability that we’ve been used to; ENSO/PDO, the North Atlantic multidecadal oscillation etc. But the crucial thing is that these residuals have small trends compared to the trends from the external drivers. We can also put these modes directly into the analysis with little overall difference to the results.

  1. No credible study has suggested that ocean oscillations can account for the long-term trends

The key observation here is the increase in ocean heat content over the last half century (the figure below shows three estimates of the changes since 1955). This absolutely means that more energy has been coming into the system than leaving. …

  1. Indirect effects of solar forcing cannot explain recent trends

Solar activity impacts on climate are a fascinating topic, and encompass direct radiative processes, indirect effects via atmospheric chemistry and (potentially) aerosol formation effects. Much work is being done on improving the realism of such effects – particularly through ozone chemistry (which enhances the signal), and aerosol pathways (which don’t appear to have much of a global effect i.e. Dunne et al. (2016)). However, attribution of post 1950 warming to solar activity is tricky (i.e. impossible), because solar activity has declined (slightly) over that time: …

  1. Aerosol forcings are indeed uncertain, but this does not impact the attribution of recent trends very much.

One of the trickier issues for fingerprint studies is distinguishing between the patterns from anthropogenic aerosols and greenhouse gases. While the hemispheric asymmetries are slightly larger for aerosols, the overall surface pattern is quite similar to that for greenhouse gases (albeit with a different sign). This is one of the reasons why the most confident statements in IPCC are made with respect to the “Anthropogenic” changes all together since that doesn’t require parsing out the (opposing) factors of GHGs and aerosols. Therefore in a fingerprint study that doesn’t distinguish between aerosols and GHGs, what the exact value of the aerosol forcing right is basically irrelevant. If any specific model is getting it badly wrong, that will simply manifest through a scaling factor very different from 1 without changing the total attribution.

What would it actually take to make a real argument?

As I’ve been asking for almost three years, it is way past time for Curry to shore up her claims in a quantitative way. I doubt that this is actually possible, but if one was to make the attempt these are the kind of things needed:

Evidence that models underestimate internal variability at ~50-80 yr timescales by a factor of ~5.

Evidence that indirect solar forcing can increase the long-term impact of solar by a factor of 3 on centennial time-scales or reverse the sign of the forcing on 50-80 yr timescales (one or the other, both would be tricky!).

Evidence that warm surface ocean oscillations are associated with increased downward net radiation at the TOA. [This is particularly hard because it would mean the climate was fundamentally unstable].

Evidence that the known fingerprints of different forcings are fundamentally wrong. Say, that CO2 does not cool the stratosphere, or that solar forcing doesn’t warm it.

Absent any evidence to support these statements, the claim that somehow, somewhere the straightforward and predictive mainstream conclusions are fundamentally wrong just isn’t credible.

What is your debate here?

You posted in the Politics and Social Issues section.

Are you just letting off steam?

No debate.

Judith Curry is all about politics, this is where discussions about her belong!

Once she was a scientist but that was long ago and she was pretty mediocre at it.

Simply sharing relevant information that some proud, but disconnected from reality, libertarians and politically motivated right wingers must be compelled to hide away from.

How do you explain Judith Curry?

By Greg Laden on August 20, 2015.


"How do you explain a person seemingly legitimately trained in science drifting off and becoming more and more of a science denier?

In the case of Judith Curry I was unwilling to think of her as a full on science denier for a long time because her transition into denierhood seemed to be going very slowly, methodologically. It was almost like she was trying to drift over into denier land and maybe bring a few back with her. Like some people seem to do sometimes. But no, she just kept providing more and more evidence that she does not accept climate science’s concensus that global warming is real, caused by human greenhouse gas polution, involves actual warming of the Earth’s surface, and is important.

And lately she has added to this slippery sliding jello-like set of magic goal posts yet another denier meme. She is certain, after a convoluted review of “evidence” that one of the classic examples of deniers lying, deniers making stuff up to confuse and mislead policy makers, reporters, and the public, is real. … link "

CC, I have high confidence that we have a big Lysenko going on here with Gavin and Michael. They are so far into the Lysenko they can’t back out. All they can do is help each other out and hope time will make people forget. Their biggest fear is people like Judith. What the hell is it going to take to get a public debate on Climate Change? Why do the CO2 pushers run from a public debate?

What news and information sources are you using? Other than political debates with competing candidates, where it should be, I see plenty of debating. I think what you mean is, “when will the unqualified minority voices be treated as if they are equals to the actual scientists?”

No one is “running from” debate. It’s like when the Kansas school board was “debating” teaching creation science in science class. The actual evolutionary biologists and experts in science education refused to participate because they didn’t want to give any air of legitimacy to that “debate”. You can download the whole show trial. It’s a great record of every bad argument against evolution in one place.

Lausten, “Lysenko” is one of their dog whistles. Very high pitched. No one understands it, but they sure hear it and jump to.

Though I wager you Mike couldn’t define it in any sort of constructive manner, nor how it relates to Gavin Schmidt or Michael Mann.

All they got is a binary love or hate - Curry knows it all - despite having a pretty pathetic professional track record <i>(not including paid opinion speaking engagements, she’s got tons of that on her resume. But you know what they say opinions are like … </i>

What’s interesting here is that it doesn’t matter one bit, how much solid work Mann and Schmidt have produced and how respected they are within the community of their peers. Oh yeah, I forgot EVERYONE of those hated ‘establishment’ experts is in on cooking the climate science books according the Libertarian Bible.


In October 2011, the American Geophysical Union awarded Schmidt the Inaugural Climate Communications Prize, for his work on communicating climate-change issues to the public. The award news release noted his outreach work including co-founding and contributing to the RealClimate blog.[11][12] He was a contributing author[13] of the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC); the work of the IPCC, including the contributions of many scientists, was recognised by the joint award of the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize. Schmidt was named in November 2004 as one of Scientific American’s “Top 50 Research Leaders” of the year.[14]



Mann’s dissertation was awarded the Phillip M. Orville Prize in 1997 as an “outstanding dissertation in the earth sciences” at Yale University. His co-authorship of a scientific paper published by Nature won him an award from the Institute for Scientific Information (ISI) in 2002, and another co-authored paper published in the same year won the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s outstanding scientific publication award. In 2002 he was named by Scientific American as one of fifty “leading visionaries in science and technology.” The Association of American Geographers awarded him the John Russell Mather Paper of the Year award in 2005 for a co-authored paper published in the Journal of Climate. The American Geophysical Union awarded him its Editors’ Citation for Excellence in Refereeing in 2006 to recognize his contributions in reviewing manuscripts for its Geophysical Research Letters journal.[69]

The IPCC presented Mann, along with all other “scientists that had contributed substantially to the preparation of IPCC reports”, with a personalized certificate “for contributing to the award of the Nobel Peace Prize for 2007 to the IPCC”, celebrating the joint award of the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize to the IPCC and to Al Gore.[70][71][72][73]

In 2012, he was elected a Fellow of the American Geophysical Union[2] and awarded the Hans Oeschger Medal of the European Geosciences Union for “his significant contributions to understanding decadal-centennial scale climate change over the last two millennia and for pioneering techniques to synthesize patterns and northern hemispheric time series of past climate using proxy data reconstructions.”[6][69]

Following election by the American Meteorological Society he became a new Fellow of the society in 2013.[74] In January 2013 he was designated with the status of distinguished professor in Penn State’s College of Earth and Mineral Sciences.[75]

In September 2013, Mann was named by Bloomberg Markets in its third annual list of the “50 Most Influential” people, included in a group of “thinkers” with reference to his work with other scientists on the hockey stick graph, his responses on the RealClimate blog “to climate change deniers”, and his book publications.[76][77] Later that month, he received the National Wildlife Federation’s National Conservation Achievement Award for Science.[78]

On 28 April 2014 the National Center for Science Education announced that its first annual Friend of the Planet award had been presented to Mann and Richard Alley.[79] In the same year, Mann was named as a Highly Cited Researcher by the Institute for Scientific Information (ISI). In 2015 he was elected Fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, and in 2016 he was elected Vice Chair of the Topical Group on Physics of Climate (GPC) at the American Physical Society (APS).[69]

On June 19, 2017, Climate One at the Commonwealth Club of California said that he would be honored with the 7th annual Stephen H. Schneider Award for Outstanding Science Communication.[3]

He received the James H. Shea Award from the National Association of Geoscience Teachers for his “exceptional contribution in writing or editing Earth science materials for the general public or teachers of Earth science.” [80]

On February 8, 2018, the Center for Inquiry announced that Mann had been elected as a 2017 Fellow of its Committee for Skeptical Inquiry.[7]

On February 14, 2018, the American Association for the Advancement of Science announced that Mann was chosen to receive the 2018 Public Engagement with Science award.

On September 4, 2018, the American Geophysical Union announced Mann as the 2018 recipient of its Climate Communication Prize

On February 12, 2019. Mann and Warren Washington were named to receive the 2019 Tyler Prize for Environmental Achievement.



Mike writes:

"CC, I have high confidence"
You sure do. I've no doubt about that. You're so self-certain you don't need to look at any more evidence, you've figure it all out according to gospel.


When Scott Pruitt took control of the left wing EPA he wanted a Nationwide TV broadcast national debate on climate change. Tell me what is wrong with a national public debate on the science of climate change. [Pruitt has been touting the idea of a climate science “red team” since at least July. He told Reuters last summer that “the American people deserve an honest, open, transparent discussion” about climate science. “What do we know? What don’t we know? Does it pose an existential threat, what can be done about it?”].

Cc, I used Lysenko as an example. I was thinking about using Bernie Madoff, but Lysenko fit so much better. The point being Gavin and Michael together could not come close to the credentials of Lysenko. And they all run big government departments that are producing papers and reports that they get the credit for. Then they sit around patting each other on their backs as time is being wasted.

February 18, 2019 at 12:53 pm#297633REPLY | REPORT

What news and information sources are you using? Other than political debates with competing candidates, where it should be, I see plenty of debating. I think what you mean is, “when will the unqualified minority voices be treated as if they are equals to the actual scientists?”

No one is “running from” debate. It’s like when the Kansas school board was “debating” teaching creation science in science class. The actual evolutionary biologists and experts in science education refused to participate because they didn’t want to give any air of legitimacy to that “debate”. You can download the whole show trial. It’s a great record of every bad argument against evolution in one place.


Where the debate is today. Skeptics place facts on the table to be debated. The alarmist walk away with the claim that it is uncertain what the answer is but also irrelevant to crafting climate policy.

Point being. Skeptics are working on the science and the alarmist want to work on political policies.

The question on the table today is:

Skeptics are asking how come. The evidence is so strong for the orbital-driven Pleistocene glacial oscillations, that it has become widely accepted as an exception to the CO2 theory of climate. A common explanation is that very low CO2 levels during the Pleistocene allowed glacial pacing by Milankovitch orbital changes. No alternative hypothesis has successfully explained why CO2 levels would oscillate at Milankovitch frequencies.

But since temperature and CO2 levels follow Milankovitch oscillations, an unresolved question is how much of the temperature change is caused by the CO2 change.

Point being. That is the question of Al Gore’s chart that shows the CO2 following the heat. Remember Al Gore faked the first chart that had the CO2 rising and heat following. Then we were told that heat rising before the CO2 is very complicated and we must accept all the reasons given. Over the years every reason has failed. The question that needs to be answered has never changed over the years and decades and was one of the very first questions that required to be answered. The Charts show the CO2 following the heat. Now humans have put a lot of CO2 in the air which will warm the air. But it is not the driving force. The chart is correct and proven by the Milankovitch oscillations in past records.

That’s the problem with debating someone like Mike,

he believes it’s okay to wave around totally fictitious facts and reasoning. He refuse to acknowledge, let alone absorb new information. He is trapped within a lawyer/politician/profiteers frame of mind. He tailors his words to fit his objective. That is not how a SERIOUS CONSTRUCTIVE DEBATE works.

In a serious debate, clarity and better understanding is the goal,

both sides are honor bound to honestly represent each others arguments and evidence,

both sides honestly represent their own arguments,

both sides actually listen to each other, acknowledge what they have shared, then going from there, finding areas of agreement or disagreement and so on. There is beauty in the wonder of discovery, even if that discovery comes at the expect of one’s own pride. Oh the humanity. That is; learning through our mistakes.

Allowing the facts to direct what we believe or dismiss.

Mike, hasn’t changed his tune one bit in years, even though outside his window things are moving quite fast.


Mike Yohe: When Scott Pruitt took control of the left wing EPA he wanted a Nationwide TV broadcast national debate on climate change. Tell me what is wrong with a national public debate on the science of climate change. [Pruitt has been touting the idea of a climate science “red team” since at least July. He told Reuters last summer that “the American people deserve an honest, open, transparent discussion” about climate science. “What do we know? What don’t we know? Does it pose an existential threat, what can be done about it?”].
I'll admit this is one of the rare moments I can agree with Mike. That the Democrats couldn't see how to turn that to their advantage was simply another sigh of what hapless losers they are.
JANUARY 1, 2018 OUTLINE - Science’s Blue team educates Pruitt’s Red team An outline for exploring the learning opportunities Pruitt's Red Team Blue Team challenge offers for exposing GOP's intellectual dishonesty. With time I hope to add posts and links to sources explaining all of the listed items.

“Blue team v Pruitt”

Pruitt, questioning the unquestionable is fine.

Now, will you pay attention to the answers you receive?

Science’s Blue team educates
Pruitt’s GOP Red team  -  A Rough Outline.

I appreciate this is only an amateur’s exercise, I dare you to do better.
Heck, I implore you to do better.  Please.


It seems Pruitt’s grand dream of a Red Team Blue Team “Exercise” is little more than a fading memory, a dead horse even.  One that Republicans and Democrats alike just as soon forget about.

I, on the other hand, believe this is one dead horse that deserves some serious beating.  Because this beating promises to produce a few lessons about fairly and squarely confronting the climate science lies that Pruitt and his Republican Red Team fraudsters have bet our house, farm and futures on.

The following is a rough outline for a rational level playing field constructive debate where the Blue Team has a chance to describe the scientific fundamentals, before going on to examine the claims, tactics and reasoning behind the Republican Red team's dogmatic rejection of serious climate science.

I appreciate that my list can certainly be improved on and I’ll admit I’m not equipped to truly flesh it out, though I’ll give it a start as time permits.  Doing this project justice would require some savvy engaged climate science communicators with more time, discipline, depth of understanding, not to mention opportunities.

I hope this makes sense to a few and that it might serve to inspire some dynamic minds with the ability to do more.

Fundamental Climate Science Understanding

<strong>Spencer Weart’s,  “The Discovery of Global Warming”</strong>
Center for History of Physics of the American Institute of Physics.

<strong>Understanding the Forecast  </strong>
Professor David Archer - University of Chicago
A comprehensive introduction to all aspects of global warming science.

<strong>CO2 Science - Blue team: "Pruitt, it's certain as certain gets! </strong>
It's the physics, don't you know.

<strong>CO2 Science (2) - Pruitt, proof is in the pudding! Impossible Modern Marvels</strong>
<a href="https://confrontingsciencecontrarians.blogspot.com/2018/01/pruitt-proof-isin-modernmarvels.html">https://confrontingsciencecontrarians.blogspot.com/2018/01/pruitt-proof-isin-modernmarvels.html</a>

<strong>Climate Models - Pruitt look at Red team deceptions</strong>


Earth’s Story

*  Considering very deep-time, the first four billion years, evolution of Earth, primitive life, and our evolving atmosphere and global heat circulation:

Pruitt about our atmosphere. In the beginning.

Pruitt - life and mineral co-evolution made our atmosphere, Dr. Hazen.

Alley - 4.6 Billion Years of Earth’s Climate History: The Role of CO2


*  Considering deep-time, the past 700 million years, intimate connections between biological evolution and geological evolution and Earth’s changing climate.


<strong>Pruitt - Explaining the science, Prof. Summerhayes.</strong>

*  Considering the past ten thousand year Climatic Optimum and the window of opportunity it provided for humanity's rise to a complex civilization and the attainment of Godly powers.

*  Considering the past two hundred years of industrialization, globalization, population explosion, cascading consequences driving climate change.

*  Considering the next hundred years.  Do the math.
Compounding interest, the realities of exponential math.


Global Heat and Moisture Distribution Engine

*  Review the physics of increasing our planet’s insulation.

*  Greenhouse gas molecules temporarily capture and slow down infrared radiation’s escape to space. Resulting in heat accumulating within our global climate engine.

*  Infrared radiation is heat.  Every element within our biosphere absorbs some of this heat, as the whole system attempts to equilibrate to new conditions.

*  Our global ocean is the heavy weight driver of Earth’s climate regime.  Why?

*  Oceans hold over 90% of our global heat and moisture distribution engine’s heat content.

*  Ocean currents and oscillations push heat around our planet, they do not ‘make’ heat.

*  Oceans intimately interact with the atmosphere, feeding it moisture, heat and energy.

*  Thus creating weather, another vehicle for moving heat towards colder regions.


<strong>Cascading Consequences</strong>

*  Ocean, atmosphere interaction, heat and hydrology cycles - makers of weather.

*  Arctic Ice Cap melting and turning into a dark solar absorption and evaporation pond, with all its varied and interconnected cascading consequences.

*  Atmospheric profile changing in accordance with warming, connection to Jet Stream Weirding.

*  Melting Polar ice cap's connection to Jet Stream Weirding.

*  Melting Polar ice cap and oceanic circulation patterns.

*  Amazon Basin and global warming’s cascading consequences.  Global implications.

*  Earth's Cryosphere and global warming impacts.

*  Earth's Melting Cryosphere implications for Sea Level Rise.

*  Sea Level Rise, implications for our two thousand year old Western civilization.

*  A warming climate engine's connection to increasing Extreme Weather.  It’s fundamental unavoidable physics.

*  How the planet’s global weather regime dictates the type and condition of our biosphere.

*  How our temperate weather regime has enabled and sustained our complex global society.

*  Extreme weather impacts on people, society, our infrastructure, farming, transportation, and on, and on, and on…

*  Anthropogenic Global Warming's equally destructive twin, Ocean Acidification.</blockquote>


Also lets clear up another thing. It’s the White House that shut it down, and sure as poop it was planned to be another absolutist snow-job.

The Energy 202: Scott Pruitt's 'red team-blue team' debate prep largely left out mainstream climate scientists


Yet even after White House Chief of Staff John F. Kelly made it clear to the EPA in December that it should not move forward with the debate, Pruitt’s staff was coordinating having Oren Cass, a senior fellow at the conservative Manhattan Institute think tank, make a presentation to Pruitt touching on the red team-blue team idea.


How do you talk to Pruitt about climate change? Niina Heikkinen, E&E News reporter | Climatewire: March 19, 2018


John Cook of George Mason has his own questions he’d like the EPA administrator to answer.

“If I personally got to ask Pruitt a question, it would be, ‘Why if he believes there’s so much uncertainty over human’s role in causing global warming, then why is he so certain that humans are not the primary contributor?’ This is a hallmark of science denial: emphasis on uncertainty while being so certain in their own position,” he said.


It seems like every year is declared warmer than the year before. Record breaking heat is declared all summer long. “Antarctica meltdown could double sea level rise.” “The planet could become ungovernable” are common headlines today.


Is recent sea level rise unusual?

At least in some regions, sea level was higher around 5,000 to 7,000 years ago. After several centuries of sea level decline following the Medieval Warm Period (about a thousand years ago), global sea levels began to rise in the mid-19th-century. Rates of global sea level rise between 1920 and 1950 were comparable with recent rates. Recent sea level rise is therefore within the range of natural sea level variability over the past several thousand years.


Is recent sea level rise caused by human-caused global warming?

The slow buildup of fossil fuel emissions before 1950 did not contribute significantly to 19th- and early 20th-century sea level rise. There is not yet any convincing evidence of a human fingerprint on global sea level rise, because of the large changes driven by natural variability. An increase in the rate of global sea level rise since 1995 is being caused by ice loss from Greenland. Greenland ice loss was larger during the 1930s, which was also associated with the warm phase of the Atlantic Ocean circulation pattern.


How much is local sea level rise being influenced by the global sea level rise?

The main causes of local sea level rise in many locations are local sinking of the land and ocean circulation patterns. Landfilling in coastal wetland areas and the withdrawal of groundwater have caused many of the worst local sea level rise problems.


How much will sea level rise in the 21st century?

Local sea level in many regions will continue to rise in the 21st century – independent of global climate change. The 2013 report from the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change predicted a likely range of sea level rise by the end of the 21st century to be from 10 inches to almost 3 feet, depending on the scenario for greenhouse gas emissions. The highest of these emissions scenarios, RCP8.5, more than doubles atmospheric CO2 concentrations from current values by the end of the 21st century, and is based on a number of extremely unlikely assumptions.

Since the 2013 report, a number of worst-case scenarios for global sea level rise have been published by scientists. Estimates of the maximum possible global sea level rise by the end of the 21st century range from 5 to 10 feet, and even higher. These extreme values of sea level rise, driven by the extremely unlikely Representative Concentration Pathway RCP8.5 emissions scenario, are regarded as highly unlikely or even impossible. Nevertheless, these extreme, barely possible values of sea level rise are driving policies and local adaptation plans.

These predictions of sea level rise depend on climate models to predict the correct amount of warming. However, there are reasons to think that the models are predicting too much warming:

Observed warming for the past two decades is smaller than the average warming predicted by climate models.

When compared with observations over the past 150 years, climate models produce too much warming in response to increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide.

Climate model predictions only consider human-caused warming and neglect changes in natural climate processes: variations in the sun’s output, volcanic eruptions and long-term changes to ocean circulations. These natural processes are expected to have a cooling effect in the 21st century.

Predictions of 21st century sea level rise higher than 2 feet are increasingly weakly justified, even if the predicted amount of warming is correct. Predictions higher than 5 feet require a cascade of extremely unlikely to impossible events using overly simplistic models of poorly understood processes.



For the next 30 years, we can expect the rates of global sea level rise to be similar to what we have seen in recent decades.


CC, we seem to have natural climate sea rise. The climate change sea rise is nowhere to be found. I hear stuff like four of the last 10 years are the hottest ever on record. Where’s the water? This is not good for CO2 science. How do we get a debate? My guess is. If the democrats make climate change a platform issue. Trump may force of a debate before election.

Mike you are sharing your wrong opinions.

You offer no links, to support your deliberate misunderstanding.

It’s lip flapping and slander - no evidence.

Second paragraph starts with, “In contrast, ocean warming plus added glacial meltwaters are estimated to have only added 0.06 inches per year to sea level from 1850 to 1990, punctuated by decades of that accelerated sea level rise (SLR) to 0.14 a year.”

Seriously Jim? What about since 1990?
Okay lets play this game:
The 140 year average SLR was 0.14 mm/year.
Why not mention the rate in 1990? 2.2 mm/year
What about since 1990?
GMSL rise from 1993 to 2009 was 3.2 ± 0.4 mm/year

Mr. Steele, what morally legitimate reason is there for hiding away these critically relevant numbers from your audience?


Third paragraph “But, even if climate policies could reduce our carbon footprint, natural sea level rise that began in the 1800s will likely continue.” Natural sea level rise? As a matter of fact, it’s all quite natural.

Increase our planet’s atmospheric insulation regulator from ~280 ppm in 1800s up to +410 ppm in 2019; it is certainly quite natural that our global heat and moisture distribution engine will gain heat; that heat will circulate through the entire geophysical engine, (though at different rates).
Naturally, that heat will permeate our cryosphere and this warming naturally causes increased melting, that water will naturally seek the oceans. Gravity, don’t you know.
It is true that sea level rise will continue for quite some time, that’s why everyone ought to be taking it more seriously today. Rather than playing disingenuous games aimed at confusion and inaction.
For the record, sea levels have been amazingly constant for better than 6,000 years and scientists have the evidence.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
In Search of Lost Time: Ancient Eclipses, Roman Fish Tanks and the Enigma of Global Sea Level Rise

Distinctive Voices - Jerry X. Mitrovica, Ph.D
Published on Aug 17, 2010

Want some mora dora, right here on the flora dora?


I do supply links to many authoritative sources you can learn from. That’s if learning you want to do.

This is why I love this forum. It reminds of that scene at the restaurant at the end of the universe. Arthur wants to talk to some rich snob but his body guard tells him to buzz off. I have CC, when Mike asks, “who do you think you are?”, CC says, “I’m the one what’s telling ya’ how global climate change works, that’s who.”


Hey, at least I offer links to where I learned my stuff. :- )

Blogs and decade old data dumps. All you needed to do is look out your window. It wasn’t that long-ago you alarmist were saying no more snow in America. You never post facts any more. You never post predictions. Simple answer - give me sea level rise amounts for last year or the year before caused by climate change. Next answer, sea level rise for this year and next year in inches, please.

My answer is, stack two pennies together on the table and the height is the natural sea level rise. Anything above that is climate change rise.

I agree with you. The international policy should pay attention to such an important issue as climate change. After all, we see all those processes that destroy the necessary conditions for the existence of life on the planet. I am writing an essay analyzing this ambiguous problem and helping me with the best service https://super-essays-service.com/speech-and-presentation-writing-at-cheap-price-rates at a good price in the process