Amazing "logic" here. You are not an expert but think you are qualified to judge what the expert says. " Hey, I'm not a cardiologist, but if he tells me that I need surgery and he's really sure of it, I'm going to find a cardiologist that says he is not sure. Cause I'm not sure. And any person who is unsure must be smarter than the sure person. Logic 101" derp
Do you mean to tell me back in 2008 when Obama said the seas were going to start receding, that he was lying?
You may be one of the few here who can grasp the connection between Hansen's hypothesis and cap and trade , and understand that if that connection is not there, than there is no, as yet, rationale that makes sense for Cap and Trade.
But the connect is definitely there. No doubt. One would have to be a certain kind of ignorant or stupid - or ideologically blindered - to not see that it is there. I guess you have me ignore since I call you out on your absurd AGW bullshit all the time and you never rebut it, but.... Love how you call bedrock climate science 101 greenhouse effect "Hansen's Hypothesis". Ad homs and diminishes the overwhelming science of greenhouse gasses and their increasing effect at higher concentrations. Hansen, correctly assumed that rising concentrations of earth's most important gas, CO2, would cause a concurrent rise in lower troposphere temps. He was and is completely correct. To suggest otherwise is absurd and offensively wrong. So much so that it makes me think that you are just trolling.
fraudcurrents has not appreciation for cause and effect. first of all temps did not rise for 18 to 20 years during a period that co2 went up dramatically. secondly co2 trails change in ocean temp and land temp. you need to understand the concept of causation... when you do, you will understand why there are no peer reviewed papers saying that man made co2 causes warming... which rely on science not failed models.
Sea levels rose much more quickly and higher in the Roman (B.C.) times, 500AD time-frame, and Medieval Warming Period times that they did during the past 100 years. Do you disagree with the above?
I take your compliments to me and everyone else here as a sign you want to be friends with everyone. An impossible task imo, just so you know. You've admitted that adding GH gases to a hypothetical Earth without an atmosphere would delay the cooling of that Earth. Thus, it would warm, until a new equilibrium is reached. I'm sure you're aware that Venus, home to a "runaway" GH effect, is not getting hotter--it is in equilibrium. Sure did, back before Man was adding more than those natural cycles ever did.
Key points An accurately dated, near-continuous, history of sea level variations for the last 150,000 years has been compiled. Comparison with ice core data reveals that major global ice volume loss, as implied by sea level rise, has followed relatively quickly after polar warming. The Greenland ice sheet responding virtually straight away (0-100 years lag time), and a 400-700 lag for the Antarctic ice sheet. These response times are much faster than was previously commonly suspected, and implies that once sufficient polar warming is underway, future ice sheetcollapse may be unavoidable. During all episodes of major global ice loss, sea level rise has reached rates of at least 1.2 metres per century (equivalent to 12 mm per year). This is 4 times the current rate of sea level rise. http://www.skepticalscience.com/Pas...ests-High-Rates-of-Future-Sea-Level-Rise.html ******************************************************* So, it's just getting started