And the calculations suggest that the rise could conceivably exceed six feet, which would put thousands of square miles of the American coastline under water and would probably displace tens of millions of people in Asia.
The graph below gives a good feel for what complete scumbags the alarmist community consists of.
Data and Station Information for SANTA MONICA (MUNICIPAL PIER)
What’s that saying about “flying pigs”.
When they get the science right about “Climate Change” My Pig will be able to fly!
Scare people to increase those sales.
OT but Pachauri has basically admitted that AGW is probably nonsense, but will confirm in another 15 years, enough for him to retire and say “see I told you, there aint no more warming” haha refer Climate Depot
I think you must have attached the wrong link. The one above says 3 feet, but then says this depends on continuing climate change.
RE: JohnM – “then says this depends on continuing climate change”
Please don’t paraphrase the article. Readers are going to believe you quoted the article. You did not. I did find the following quotes, and will leave it to the readers to determine who is cherrypicking . Is it seven inches, two feet, three feet, six feet, fifteen feet, or no meaningful upper limit (inifinite!)?
“with sea level possibly rising as little as seven inches in this century”
“many scientists now say that sea level is likely to rise perhaps three feet by 2100”
“the calculations suggest that the rise could conceivably exceed six feet”
“We can’t afford to protect everything. We will have to abandon some areas.”
“One published estimate suggested the threat was so dire that sea level could rise as much as 15 feet in this century”
“the ice will go into an irreversible decline before this century is out, a development that would eventually make a three-foot rise in the sea look trivial.”
“the things I’ve seen in Greenland in the last five years are alarming. We see these ice sheets changing literally overnight.”
“Climate scientists readily admit that the three-foot estimate could be wrong. Their understanding of the changes going on in the world’s land ice is still primitive. But, they say, it could just as easily be an underestimate as an overestimate”
“the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, said that sea level would rise at least seven more inches, and might rise as much as two feet, in the 21st century.”
“the climate panel said, that no meaningful upper limit could be put on the potential rise of sea level.”
“With the waxing and waning of ice ages, driven by wobbles in the earth’s orbit, sea level has varied by hundreds of feet,”
200 Meters! Simple as that! Good-bye New York and good riddance!
I do not think the NYTimes even knows what they wrote!
JohnM just wants it to appear as if “Someone”, not mentioning any names, is “Cherry Picking”! 😉
I want nothing more than science free of dialectic.
I am also interested in science, however you have been promoting anything but SCIENCE. Anyone that would promote the workings of the IPCC or any of the contributing authors is in reality promoting Pathological Science and Fairy Tales. If the NYTimes wants to promote Fairy Tales from the So-Called Experts, then they also deserve to be ridiculed as you do, because of the position you bring to this site. You have proved yourself a fool, why not crawl back to the fan clubs like Airhead, RegurgitatedClimatfamntasy or the fascist site SS. The Waskly Wrabbit would also appreciate your contribution in his fantasy world.
You are correct, in that I did not paraphrase anything in the article, but rather I interpreted the main thrust of what was said concerning the three foot figure. I apologise if this gives the wrong impression, though I would have expected readers to be sufficiently critical to read the original alongside my comment.
Interestingly you reply to my comment with an abstraction of the several different estimates put out by the writer of the article, seemingly because I didn’t do so. I apologise for not including the other figures in my comment, making it appear as though I was cherry-picking. Yet I see no implied criticism of Mr Goddard when he included just the one value – 6 feet – in his post.
Was there any particular reason you chose to do that? Especially as I chose to highlight a median figure, while he opted for one of the extremes. Maybe Mr Goddard will follow up my apologies with his own apology now.
RE: JohnM – “Interestingly you reply to my comment with an abstraction”
RE: JohnM – “Was there any particular reason you chose to do that?”
Rather than respond with an abstraction (the idea of the article), I responded with detail, the quotes the article makes regarding seal level rise. Readers were then empowered to evaluate your assertion that Steven chose the wrong link.
Given the evidence, this reader concluded that Steven did not choose the wrong link.
The words he asserted were in the article…were in the article. Yours words “this depends on continuing climate change” were not in the article.
Have an excellent weekend
My apologies for the Freudian “seal level rise”. Although as the polar bears die off, the seal level will indeed rise.
It should read sea level rise