RSS_Monthly_MSU_AMSU_Channel_TLT_Anomalies_Land_and_Ocean_v03_3.txt
Hansen’s “dead certain multi-metre sea level rise” is based on rapid Antarctic warming – which isn’t happening. What is dead-certain is that Hansen’s opinions are worthless.
RSS_Monthly_MSU_AMSU_Channel_TLT_Anomalies_Land_and_Ocean_v03_3.txt
Hansen’s “dead certain multi-metre sea level rise” is based on rapid Antarctic warming – which isn’t happening. What is dead-certain is that Hansen’s opinions are worthless.
IMO you have over estimated him.
Check the surface temp data to confirm the satellite data. The science stations Vostok, Amundsen-Scott, Halley and Davis all show no warming since data began being recorded in 1956 or 1957 during the IGY. Those stations are widely separated. The stations are operated under different nationalities. The instruments recording the data maintained with some sense of scientific quality controls since each was established.
It’s worse than we thought
“New paper finds upper limit of sea level rise from Antarctic ice sheet is about 70% less than IPCC upper limit ”
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2013/05/new-paper-finds-upper-limit-of-sea.html
Each time I see a temp profile that doesn’t look like the global GISTemp profile, I wonder where the actual warming is.
If we were to break down the globe into, say, eight segments, and created temp profiles, I wonder if we would see that “global” warming is only an Arctic and continental USA occurrence.
I’ve seen the Arctic Ocean breakdown for ice loss, and it is this story: the “global” Arctic ice loss is largely the eastern seas/subbasins. And same if you look to “open” Arctic water supposedly causing all the bad winter snows and cold.
Factoids are the best way to characterize modern climatological, MSM facts.
Erroneous assumption seems to pass for science in the 21st century. How do these “scientists” continue to be employed and get published?