Slide of north Greenland glacier quickens, raising sea levels

In other News: The sky is falling. We must run and tell the king.

More updates on possible catastrophes tomorrow and all this month until end of Paris Climate Conference.

So, if the rise in oceans we measure isn't coming from melting Antarctica, I wonder where it's coming from. Hmmmmmm . . . let me think . . .

I don't think you mean sea level rise, because the sea level has been rising for about 10,000 years, hasn't it?

I think you mean acceleration of rise.

Show me what you're talking about.



I didn't see you pop in there, I edited and forgot what was there, but here's the Harvard study we're talking about where the guy is talking about finding new figures for seal level rise data using what he calls "probalistic techniques", but what I would call imagineering, and somebody in the comments calls "noise.}

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/01/14/c ... e-thought/

So, you are saying this study is wrong. Ok, what are your measurements for the movement of this glacier?

I'm actually having trouble figuring how much actual acceleration in rate of increase they're talking about.

Do you know? You are claiming a rise in acceleration of sea level rise, aren't you?

Can you show me exactly what you're talking about and for what period based on real word data.

As to your glacier if I read the article right, and here it is from Reuters...

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/11/ ... EZ20151112

they don't seem to be talking about something that's actually happening, they're talking about something that might happen. We'll assume they're crossing their fingers.

Fiddy doesn't have to prove a negative. You have to provide proof that sea level is actually rising due to this supposed glacial event.

According to the facts you can easily glean for yourself from these monitoring stations you can see that sea level is unchanged for the period November 12, 2012 to November 12, 2015.

http://www.ioc-sealevelmonitoring.org

As far as the glacier in the OP goes that one doesn't matter, because it's not actually happening.

It's more just another "Hey, what if such and such happened and Greenland fell into the sea? That would be bad, right? Come to Paris, Canada, and bring your cheque book" story

What I'm curious about is this sea level rise thing Doc keeps talking about.

That's been happening for thousands of years. Doc seems to be saying it's getting worse. I want to know for what period and what data he's using to come to that conclusion? He might even be right. I just want to know what he's talking about, specifically.

It doesn't seem to be happening within the last twenty years.

http://sealevel.colorado.edu/files/2014 ... global.png

So it must be something like a claim this twenty year trend is higher than the last one or something like that.

Well, let's use Wikipedia. Warmists like Wikipedia. They pretty much run it.



The most recent 20 year trend I have is 3.2 mm. Wiki is claiming a 20th century trend of 1.7.

That's a difference of 1.5. So that would be 15 mm a decade, or 150 mm a century.

So if the Wikipedia claim is correct and remains consistent through the 21st century we're looking at an increase of 6 inches, or half one of those little wooden 1 foot rulers you see. In a freaking century.

OMGs Quick! Sell your beachfront property!

Fiddy doesn't have to prove a negative. You have to provide proof that sea level is actually rising due to this supposed glacial event.

According to the facts you can easily glean for yourself from these monitoring stations you can see that sea level is unchanged for the period November 12, 2012 to November 12, 2015.

http://www.ioc-sealevelmonitoring.org

Cherry picking. There is a well known formation near Lake Superior. It's a huge waterfall, about a 200 foot drop. Right now, it's 300 feet under water. Has been for about 10,000 years. See? I can do that too!

Choosing a 2 year period doesn't quite capture the essence of 'climate'. And I did provide you with links earlier showing measurements form the NOAA, and articles backing up those measurements of islands in the Bay of Bengal that are disappearing under the rising waves.

Fiddly disagrees with the study and it's conclusions, so obviously he has some different measurements, or he has some other conclusions that fit the data shown. Otherwise, he's showing the symptoms of what he claims not to be - a 'denier'.

So, let's agree here that you are using the fallacy of 'it hasn't happened in the past, so it can't happen in the future'.

I get it.

It's like we've never agreed on anything in the past, but now you've imagined a new point where you think we should agree. But I don't.

That's a fallacy now? I always thought of it as failing being proven wrong by deductive reasoning inductive works just fine.

I thought insanity was when the same thing keeps happening, but you expect different results.

Fiddy doesn't have to prove a negative. You have to provide proof that sea level is actually rising due to this supposed glacial event.

According to the facts you can easily glean for yourself from these monitoring stations you can see that sea level is unchanged for the period November 12, 2012 to November 12, 2015.

http://www.ioc-sealevelmonitoring.org

Cherry picking. There is a well known formation near Lake Superior. It's a huge waterfall, about a 200 foot drop. Right now, it's 300 feet under water. Has been for about 10,000 years. See? I can do that too!

Choosing a 2 year period doesn't quite capture the essence of 'climate'. And I did provide you with links earlier showing measurements form the NOAA, and articles backing up those measurements of islands in the Bay of Bengal that are disappearing under the rising waves.

Fiddly disagrees with the study and it's conclusions, so obviously he has some different measurements, or he has some other conclusions that fit the data shown. Otherwise, he's showing the symptoms of what he claims not to be - a 'denier'.

Your argument is that sea level is rising. I invited you to take a look and see if that's true. It's not.

That isn't 'cherry picking'. No, to the contrary you're moving the goal posts here by backwalking your claim that sea level is rising to instead claim a historical trend.

Sea level is not rising over the past two years and it is therefore not rising year.

Cherry picking. There is a well known formation near Lake Superior. It's a huge waterfall, about a 200 foot drop. Right now, it's 300 feet under water. Has been for about 10,000 years. See? I can do that too!

Choosing a 2 year period doesn't quite capture the essence of 'climate'. And I did provide you with links earlier showing measurements form the NOAA, and articles backing up those measurements of islands in the Bay of Bengal that are disappearing under the rising waves.

Fiddly disagrees with the study and it's conclusions, so obviously he has some different measurements, or he has some other conclusions that fit the data shown. Otherwise, he's showing the symptoms of what he claims not to be - a 'denier'.

Your argument is that sea level is rising. I invited you to take a look and see if that's true. It's not.

It is. 2012 - 2014 shows a rise in sea levels.

http://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/sea-level/

The link I provided you the last time we discussed this said exactly the same thing.

http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/sealevel.html

This is why people get bored with this subject, because we keep bringing up the same subjects and saying the exact same thing!



It is 'cherry picking' because the numbers for November 2015 are not available yet. August 2015 is the newest data the I can find. Asking me to prove something not yet known is 'cherry picking', AKA 'the fallacy of incomplete evidence'.



Yes, they are. I don't know how many ways you need for me to prove this, before you start to believe it.

This is from 2012 and still amazing to watch.