Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Sea level HAS been rising the last 100 years. Even if it continues on it's current trend, it WILL continue to rise. The arguments are how much it will rise, not IF it will.
In the end, isn't this what earth does and has done since the beginning of time? Earth is an ever changing planet and will continue to do so until the end times. Can you imagine if we would have had the internet, electricty, twitter, etc., during the Black Plague? You would have thought the world was ending, right? Same with the weather. Our weather patterns are forever changing. People see what they want to see. Al Gore and his ilk are nothing more than snake oil salesmen trying(and doing a good job at it) to make a buck. Carbon credits....what a JOKE!
What's being ignored in the foregoing debate is that a complex theory such as anthropogenic global warming is the result of a set of hypotheses that are tested, refined, tested some more, refined some more, challenged, updated, etc.
The theory of AGW, as it stands today, is supported by thousands of studies from dozens of disciplines ranging from paleoclimatology to geology to astrophysics to botany. A theory is a set of propositions that can be tested and verified. When tests are inconclusive, the theory isn't affected one way or another. When tests refute predictions from the theory, then the theory is revised.
In the current case that is being discussed, a single paper was retracted for whatever reasons you choose to believe: those who deny AGW claim it falsifies AGW entirely, those who believe AGW is happening focus on the retraction being based on its overly conservative estimates of sea level rise.
But, ya know what? It doesn't matter who's right or wrong in this thread. The theory itself isn't affected by this single case. Thousands of other papers and readily available hard data all support the AGW theory. The fact that deniers need to pull sentences out of a single paper in order to dance a victory dance on the empty graves of scientists and those who trust their findings just shows how little evidence there is to support the null hypothesis that humans aren't warming the planet.
nice try.... but your off base here. This is a single paper in the IPCC 4th assessment... which has had a dozen or more papers rejected from the report already. This paper is more like one rock in an avalanche. It seems the IPPC 4th assessment itself has crumbled into a heap of baseless claims.
Even Michael Mann is now lamenting his infamous “Hockey Stick”
Oh good grief. These quotes are from the same article in the OP.
Quote:
Siddall said that he did not know whether the retracted paper's estimate of sea level rise was an overestimate or an underestimate.
Announcing the formal retraction of the paper from the journal, Siddall said: "It's one of those things that happens. People make mistakes and mistakes happen in science." He said there were two separate technical mistakes in the paper, which were pointed out by other scientists after it was published. A formal retraction was required, rather than a correction, because the errors undermined the study's conclusion.
"Retraction is a regular part of the publication process," he said. "Science is a complicated game and there are set procedures in place that act as checks and balances."
Quote:
In a statement the authors of the paper said: "Since publication of our paper we have become aware of two mistakes which impact the detailed estimation of future sea level rise. This means that we can no longer draw firm conclusions regarding 21st century sea level rise from this study without further work.
"One mistake was a miscalculation; the other was not to allow fully for temperature change over the past 2,000 years. Because of these issues we have retracted the paper and will now invest in the further work needed to correct these mistakes."
at the end of the day, there has been no increase in sea level that is out of the stistical norm for the last 150 years or so.
in the last few years, it seems (according to Dr. Nils-Axel Morner) that rise has slowed. Thus one cannot say that ocean levels are currently impacted by Global Warming that is outside of a normal variation in climate.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
