Seriously? Parched Earth soaks up water.
Sponges, ocean heat sinks, stronger than ‘normal’ El Niño, adjusted temperatures. Excuses.
There has to be a point, some time, some where, when even the least ardent believer in the scientific method has to hang their head and admit, this ain’t how the process works.
Not a religion, no, no, no.
h/t, Adrian
So it wasn’t Obama who slowed the rise of the oceans? No, he just began the slow of the human part, silly.
First they missed the oceans, now, dirt. Moisture is stored in dirt? How could they have known that? Is that why during powerful earthquakes all the shaking turns the ground into mud? Did the climatologists miss that one too? Remember because we call it climate change which means only human caused, then any climate change means humans caused it, who must now be taxed.
I detect a parachute packing party.
Um, hasn’t it been about 18 years now that ‘global warming’ stopped warming the globe in any measurable way?
It’s the desperate need for climate change/global warming to be catastrophic that’s driving much of the bad science. If they’d have stuck with CC/GW via man made CO2 is real but we’re not sure how this will affect the environment then they wouldn’t need to exaggerate and blame everything on CO2. As it is now, CO2 has become a mystical, almost God-like molecule, who’s presence wields ultimate power over weather, seasons, flora and fauna. CO2’s perceived power almost revivals the medieval mindset that explained every beneficial or malevolent event as God’s will and God’s wrath (or possibly witches) – no further investigation or explanation needed. I’m disappointed at how many secularists and atheists are falling for the catastrophic prophesies of this new religion.
Experiment: go back 5,10,20,30 years and evaluate the reliability of the Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming augurs. Very few predictions were anywhere near as bad as imagined. Now it’s the failure of the seas to rise as quickly as foreseen. In real science these failures would necessitate reevaluating the original hypothesis. The fact that this is never considered or is considered to be evidence of being a “climate denier” (aka. dangerous heretic) pretty much proves that CAGW is driven by politicals and religious impulses. If a hypothesis can never be allowed to be wrong, despite prediction failures, it’s not very scientific.
Personally, I’d bet that increase in vegetation is partly responsible for using up any extra water. Basic science: higher CO2, heat and water = more plant growth (see Freeman Dyson’s opinion, for instance). Lo and behold, sattelites do show that the Earth has been getting greener. But a greener earth would be a positive effect of increased CO2 and all the experts agree that a warmer, wetter, CO2 fertilized world is a bad, bad thing. Gaia forbid that more of earth be as green and have the biodiversity of, say, a rainforest. And longer growing seasons for the North, fewer cold related deaths —- pure evil.
From DemocracyRules:
OK, so Mother Nature stole the water? How are we going to get sea level to rise 20 feet, like Al Gore promised? Mother Nature is part of the climate denier conspiracy. Put her in jail.
Of course all these “scientific” “discoveries” and pronouncements sound ridiculous to you and me. Because none of these simplistic scienci-sounding stories are aimed at the educated population. These stories are aimed at the science illiterates (pretty much EVERY student “taught” by the American Teachers Unions) who dominate the population. These are the same people who cannot identify Canada on a map of the world. This demographic offers the last hope for all the Socialists in Global Warmist garb. If Global Warming is to be believed … it will be believed by the low information voters. Hence the preponderance of these silly, nonsensical studies. Oh … and these faux-Eco sciencitists get boatloads of taxpayer dollars to produce this useless crap.
That’s my view. Call it whatever you want just don’t call it science.
They blew a perfect opportunity to increase their numbers by blaming it on water weight retention. People could use it as an excuse for their weight gain, and do nothing about it because they’re making a sacrifice to save the planet.
Well,the problem is, it is not about the climate at all. Hence scientific/climate related arguments will get you nowhere. It is political. The proponents of AGW wiil keep buying research and not give up. Goebbles said it best. If you keep repeating the lie people will eventually believe it. The bigger the lie, the more easily they are taken in. I know people who NEVER investigate alternative claims — just go along with what they are being told. How could people be so complacent?
And on the same topic(for those who think real science might make a difference):
https://clareswinney.wordpress.com/2009/06/16/blowing-holes-in-the-global-warming-hoax/:
I have a T-shirt that says “I’m not fat – I’m sequestering carbon”
Exactly! It is a political ploy to achieve a mass wealth redistribution scheme and uses the natural fears of the people of the unknown to manipulate them.
Back in the 1970’s that same leftists rag TIME was blabbering aboit a NEW ICE AGE and GLOBAL COOLING and now its Global Warming which proves TIME magazine cant be trusted their liars all the way
regarding voter demographics, watch out for this bunch:
http://skepdic.com/apollo.html
I picture some fat woman with a grade 7 education, scratchy faced, flies swarming, 5 kids in various states of dress screaming in the background, she’s loudly declaring ‘obama is the greatest president we’ve ever had’.
ya. THAT demographic.
If you read any scientific history at all, you might find fascinating parallels to how many scientists at the turn of the 20th century thought space was permeated by an aether that allowed light and gravitational force to travel. Every time research came out against it those who were proponents of the aether theory (and there were many, at a minimum a sizable plurality) came up with excuses and/or modified their theory, before it finally crashed and burned between the works of Lorentz and Einstein. The basic idea of greater carbon dioxide concentrations causing a greenhouse effect is sound, and then everything after that has been pretty much bunk by people who refuse to admit that their initial thesis may have been bunk in the first place.
Oddly enough, ‘progressives’ love to quote Einstein’s statements about insanity being repeating things and expecting a different result, but Einstein had a personal motto that roughly translates to ‘blind obedience in authority is the greatest enemy of truth’. Funny how they NEVER seem to want to quote that.
The progs are also quick to mention Eisenhower’s warning about the ‘military-industrial complex’ in his farewell speech, but they nevr mention his other warning just a couple paragraphs later:
“Yet in holding scientific discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite”
Doesn’t that hold true?!
“The basic idea of greater carbon dioxide concentrations causing a greenhouse effect is sound”
No it isn’t. You have cause and effect reversed. An increase in heat releases more CO2 from the oceans.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WK_WyvfcJyg
I’m so glad this is happening. No more hand – wringing documentaries about depleted Arizona aquifers and the catastrophic reduction of Florida’s ‘ s fresh water reserves.
The settled science of the age of the Earth is an interesting 15 minute read. William Thompson (Lord Kelvin) conclusively proved in 1892 the Earth was no younger than 20 million years and no older than 400 million years but was probably about 100 million years old.
His method was based on the time required for a molten earth to lose its heat, turn solid and cool to the modern temperature gradient. When he came under fire by other scientists, additional proof was supplied by others to support his work.
Kelvin’s scientific proof lasted for over 3 decades until the discovery of radioactivity and later radio-active dating proved him wrong. By this time it was the late 1920s.
He also failed to consider that convection within the Earth might have been much greater than he had estimated.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_the_Earth
Keep your eye on Florida. The average above sea level height is about 30 feet. Much is at sea level … so if there is any rise whatsoever … all the millionaires who live along Florida’s coast and waterways would be the first to complain about the rise …. it hasn’t happened. It won’t happen because it’s actually cooling not warming … not that there’s anything wrong with that!
And now that we know about “Mr. Thirsty Parched-Planet” there should be nothing more than a replenishment of our aquifers … nez paw?
Ha ! Why does it not surprise me that Whoopie Goldfarb insisted the moon landing was fake … because the flag was folded to simulate a wind fapping condition … yep THAT demographic.
The planet isn’t warming because the oceans are soaking up and hiding the heat. GW is real.
Sea level isn’t rising because the land is soaking up the water and hiding the water. GW is real.
Polar ice is increasing because GW causes more precipitation over the poles. GW is real.
But GW causes more drought, so, uh, the land soaks up more water. Yeah, that’s it. GW is real.
Oh, and the dog ate my homework. Because of GLOBAL WARMING!!!!!!1!
Aether, dating earth, plate tectonics, general relativity, quantum theory, position of Earth in the solar system, etc. All areas of physical science have had controversy and grand fights before acceptance of a new idea (which might also be disproved). People think science is always right but, in reality, science gets it right…..eventually.
To think that climate science, a very immature science, is settled and to ignore its failures, moralizing and political interference is anti-scientific. Personally, I think in a couple of generations CAGW will be used as an example of how not to do science. Similar to how we mock the idea that people beleived the sun revolved around the Earth. CAGW even has the same human-centred bias and its own version of epicycles. Lukewarmers will look pretty good, IMO.
PS – liked the Einstein quote.In my experience, CAGW proponents are incapable of debating the subject without constant appeals to authority. Usually in the same fervour and tone of someone quoting scripture in a bid to end a debate based on facts.
As it happens, I live in Jacksonville, Florida. Even before I moved here in 1988, I had been going to the beaches on the Atlantic-side periphery of the city since the mid-1970s, when I was courting my then wife-to-be, whose family lived here. So I am quite familiar with various piers, jetties, and other structures that jut out into the Atlantic along the littoral. Nothing has changed since the mid-1970s! None of these structures has been cut off from the beach by rising sea levels, nor have the tidal marks left on pier pilings and such changed appreciably. I used to amuse myself, while walking along the beach at low tide, by counting the number of pier pilings left completely out of the water by the receding tide (yeah, I know, I am easily entertained) those numbers are still the same. So you are right, no sign of the swamping of Florida by rising sea levels is to be found, at least along the northeast coast of the state.
With warming, wouldn’t the soil hold less water thereby increasing ocean level. What about all the water pumped out of acquifers? Wouldn’t that increase sea level? But it really hasn’t. Was this written by a kid in grade three?
Lets try another track. The average depth of the ocean is 3,688 meters.
A 1 degree rise in temperature increases volume by a factor of 0.000214
3,688 x .000214 = .79 meters or about 3 feet. I think the best increase warmists can come up with is measured in mm. If my math sucks, correct me.
It is interesting how an increase in temperature, caused by increased solar radiation, would release CO2 from the ocean and increase sea level. There are so many variables in play, many of which are self correcting, that to blame any imagined global warming on CO2 levels is full-on retarded.