Sea Level Rise
15 responses | 0 likes
Started by joj - Dec. 9, 2020, 4:29 a.m.

MM - Wiki has data.  This isn't a challenge.  It may in fact be a confirmation of your convictions.  How would you evaluate this presentation?

By mcfarm - Dec. 9, 2020, 6:26 a.m.
Like Reply

first thing I would do if I was honest and believed in my convictions is not buy a 15 million dollar house on the beach. But we all know the scam right?

By metmike - Dec. 9, 2020, 12:10 p.m.
Like Reply

Thanks joj,

I'm glad that you clarified that it isn't intended to be a challenge because it helps me to clarify what the entire problem is, not only with regards to this metric of  projecting increasing sea levels but with the entire realm of climate change/climate science.

This is a wonderful source for 97%+ of the information which is comprehensive and accurate but the entire ball of wax that matters is...........where are the sea levels headed.

And our belief's/projections are entirely formed by global climate models that forecast least they use that and most others do also. I continue to show why the global climate models are too warm and now we have proven the reason why. They double the affect of CO2 in the equations compared to the now measured and known with high certainty amount in the REAL atmosphere. Here is a statement from your source:

"Projecting future sea level is challenging, due to the complexity of many aspects of the climate system. As climate research into past and present sea levels leads to improved computer models, projections have consistently increased.  In 2007, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) projected a high end estimate of 60 cm (2 ft) through 2099,[7] but their 2014 report raised the high-end estimate to about 90 cm (3 ft).[8] A number of later studies have concluded that a global sea level rise of 200 to 270 cm (6.6 to 8.9 ft) this century is "physically plausible""

Not only is this misleading(making it appear as if the models are getting more accurate and constantly increasing the projections) its also false and the total opposite.

For one thing, the world continues to hang on every word/number from the IPCC as gospel. They are a world governmental entity guided by politics over science created for world governing objectives. They look for and assign no natural influences to the recent warming. Everything is about manmade warming and political actions to that which would change the warming for them. 

Regardless, they have been using broken models for decades. Always too warm and refuse to adjust them lower because they suggest that the real atmosphere will catch up to what they are telling us its supposed to be acting like.

No, in real science the atmosphere acts the way it should and authentic scientists observe and measure it............and adjust their theories and models to the reality. They don't change the narrative to  "its worse than we thought and amplify the projections" when its turning out not as bad as they thought.

One might wonder how some yahoo scientist in Indiana could possibly know more than the world's elite authority on climate science/change, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change(IPCC) that all climate scientists in the world, the majority that work for governments have been following exactly for 3 decades.

My response to that is that science does not follow rules that mainstream science tells it to obey or that they have decided(as settled science, discarding the scientific method). Rules that absurdly project out for the next 100 years based on a theory with tremendous uncertainty. 

We have learned an enormous amount about the CO2 forcing that we call the greenhouse affect recently............after the science was supposed to be settled. That was their science.........not mine. The models have all been too warm. My 4th grade grandson could look at a graph of model forecasts vs observations and tell us that.

So I am no brilliant scientist, wasting my genius on a forum. 

The fact is....................I am just looking honestly and objectively at the latest data/evidence and mainstream climate science is intentionally ignoring it because...............they already decided what they want to believe and what they want you to believe a long time ago. 

The powerful evidence is all over the place here:

                Smoking Guns!!            

                            13 responses |          

                Started by metmike - Aug. 14, 2020, 6:20 p.m.     

By metmike - Dec. 9, 2020, 12:57 p.m.
Like Reply

So the bottom line on the previous page is that this statement is full of crap. It's science fiction:

A number of later studies have concluded that a global sea level rise of 200 to 270 cm (6.6 to 8.9 ft) this century is "physically plausible""

The  reason to be making crazy statements for seas rising that much, is that it justifies immediate political actions to stop the seas from rising to prevent the coming disaster. 

When we had lower predictions 15 years ago, nobody acted did they? Despite dire warnings then. The new authentic information suggests that even those predictions were too high.

So how did they respond?

Increase the severity of the crisis and call it an emergency. Call it worse than we thought and increase the predictions............while the science says otherwise. 

The reason  do this is that nobody acted. The previous predictions just were not scary enough, so they must INCREASE the predictions because the predictions are being used to scare people into action, not to educate brainwash us and steal our intelligence on this topic. 

That describes climate science in today's world in a nutshell. 

It's not about telling people the truth or educating them about climate science or passing on accurate information.

It's about creating the right narrative to convince people to act. 

Many scientists(who are also affected by their political belief system) are even on the record as claiming that this is justified. The ends justifies the means and if we have to feed them a bit of LIEnce instead of SCIEnce to save the planet..........its worth it.

Yeah, right. Corrupting science for the altruistic cause, which is being used to impose the belief system of those who know whats best for the rest of us and for the planet. 

How about just telling the truth and letting us decide using that truth vs you deciding for us and manufacturing the reality that you think we need to hear to get the result that you think is best for everybody. 

Again, this exactly defines climate science and the bogus Climate Accord that at best, could change the global temperature by .1 deg C by 2100.  It's all about global socialism, redistributing global wealth and cutting back on the over consumption of natural resources of the rich countries like the US. The Green new deal also, has zero to do with the climate. It's part of imposing the cultural revolution that has already started. 

Think about the entire absurd existence of Greta and her words below, the quintessential example of this in action.

A young person that clearly knows nothing about climate science, saying easily verified ridiculous things:  "People are suffering. People are dying. Entire ecosystems are collapsing. We are at the beginning of a mass extinction, and all you can talk about is money and fairy tales of eternal economic growth. How dare you!!

This would not be so absurd if we were not actually having a climate optimum, featuring the planet massively greening up.

Greta is entirely controlled by her adult handlers that connect with the United Nations.

More on that on the next page.

By metmike - Dec. 9, 2020, 1:12 p.m.
Like Reply

This is entirely what its about. We are having a climate optimum but it must be presented as a climate crisis/emergency to be used for the objectives below. 

Take Action for the 17 Sustainable Development Goals


The Sustainable Development Goals are the blueprint to achieve a better and more sustainable future for all. They address the global challenges we face, including poverty, inequality, climate change, environmental degradation, peace and justice. Learn more and take action.

By metmike - Dec. 9, 2020, 1:19 p.m.
Like Reply

What are the Sustainable Development Goals?

The Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), also known as the Global Goals, were adopted by all United Nations Member States in 2015 as a universal call to action to end poverty, protect the planet and ensure that all people enjoy peace and prosperity by 2030.

The 17 SDGs are integrated—that is, they recognize that action in one area will affect outcomes in others, and that development must balance social, economic and environmental sustainability.

metmike: I am in strong agreement with the majority of their goals, especially as an environmentalist and believing that rich people/countries should be helping less fortunate people MUCH more.

But not in the dishonest hijacking of climate science(my field of expertise) and stealing peoples intelligence with propaganda to capture their brains. We all have certain freedoms and rights............including the right to know the truth in order to understand and apply it with our freedom to choose things based on that truth. 

By metmike - Dec. 9, 2020, 2:23 p.m.
Like Reply

To be clear again. This is how the Climate Accord is set up to work:

The  rich countries like the US must commit to severe cuts in the use of fossil fuels but China, that emits twice the amount of CO2 as the US does currently does not. China states as part of their agreement in the Paris Climate Accord,  that they will consider stopping their increase in CO2 in the year 2030. 

The increase in CO2 emissions by China and India is greater than all the cuts from the rich if CO2 really controlled the global temperature and future of the planet, as we are being told, the Climate Accord would be telling us that its ok for emissions from poor countries to destroy the planet but not emissions from rich countries. 

Rich countries like the US must also pledge billions of dollars(Obama already pledged 3,000,000,000)..........and the money goes to poor counties, like China and India, supposedly to adapt to their climate that we wrecked. Funny, we should be charging them for the free atmospheric fertilizer and optimal climate thats been contributing to their bin busting crop yields in recent years.

This is just a vehicle for the redistribution of global wealth while imposing a new form of global socialism with the United Nations as our mommy and daddy. 

At the same time, this provides justification for governments to impose CO2/fossil fuel taxes to raise funds and cut use. Cutting the use of cheap, efficient, abundant and reliable fossil fuels, the life blood of every rich countries economy will cause major pullbacks, resulting in the stifling demand for natural resources.............and more sustainable development. 

By metmike - Dec. 9, 2020, 2:36 p.m.
Like Reply

Remember now, China and India are poor/undeveloped countries and they can increase emissions AND they get our money.

A pie chart showing emissions per country by percentage, 2018

The 20 countries that emitted the most carbon dioxide in 2018


RankCountryCO2 emissions (total)
2United States5.41GT
4Russian Federation1.71GT
7Islamic Republic of Iran0.72GT
8South Korea0.65GT
9Saudi Arabia0.62GT
13South Africa0.46GT
17United Kingdom0.37GT
By metmike - Dec. 9, 2020, 2:52 p.m.
Like Reply

To make it easy to visualize, quantify with's the way that it looks on graphs.

This is under the Climate Accord as it was designed. Look how (planet killing-according to them) CO2 emissions still soar higher because poor countries get to gush out all that planet killing pollution. (its actually a beneficial gas and they know it or else this agreement would be a "death sentence" for planet earth)

Screen Shot 2015-03-03 at 07.26.30

By metmike - Dec. 9, 2020, 3:14 p.m.
Like Reply

One might think that this is going off on a tangent and has nothing to do with increasing sea levels.

Just the opposite. The only reason that we are getting these extreme, science fiction type projections of catastrophic increases in sea levels  and other apocalyptic future weather and climate scenarios is to scare people enough to make them believe we need the Climate Accord to save the planet.

I am proving to you that the Climate Accord does NOT even cut global CO2 emissions(which are well mixed in the global atmosphere), so its obviously about something else.

A USA CO2 molecule does not wreck the planet, while a China CO2 molecule greens it up.

If the Climate Accord  only cuts CO2 emissions of rich countries, then you should be able to figure out whats going on using common sense.............especially when you add the fact that it transfers many billions of dollars from rich to poor countries(that are increasing their use of fossil fuels)

By metmike - Dec. 11, 2020, 3:30 p.m.
Like Reply

Although the Paris Climate Accord is a complete sham, the increase in CO2 from humans burning fossil fuels is real. Global warming and climate change are real. Often, this is how you can be tricked when somebody knows that you are not an expert on something or that they know more about it than you.

They profess and base their foundational belief system on something with a grain of truth(increase in CO2 and global warming) that causes you to believe they know what they are talking about. Then they throw in things like "97% of climate scientists agree with what we are stating". 

Then,  you have the makings of an opportunity for them to use the situation to tell you anything they want when they expand it into the complicated realms of climate science that only a tiny fraction of the population understands. 

You think "I'm certain that  they are right about increasing CO2 and global warming and climate change and 97% of the experts agree with everything they say, so I need to be on the side of the science/experts and believe them.

Except that 97% number includes me....they don't want you to know that. An atmospheric scientist that acknowledges the increase in CO2 and the physics which causes global warming. Except I've actually been observing the atmosphere all day for 38 years and am witnessing a climate optimum for life, not the one simulated on busted(too warm)  models based on mathematical equations to represent a speculative theory,  going out 100 years. 

I also use global (weather) models every day. Hundreds of maps from different models and time frames that process data using  millions of equations using thousands of measurements/observation and numerous parameters. 

Meteorologists could not forecast the weather without global models. We live by them and cherish greatly. 

So I am all for global climate models enhancing our ability to understand and try to predict the future climate. But we have to give MORE weight to whats happening in the real world when the models are busting.

Climate models have been busting for 3 decades. This is ok. They just need adjusting. Those of us who didn't declare that the science was settled 2 decades ago, didn't stop learning new things. One thing that we know with very high confidence right now is that the global climate models are doubling the actual affect of warming that CO2 is having. We have actually measured it. This is why the models have been too warm and why, not changing them means they will continue to be warm........and the warming  difference in the models compared to the REAL warming will only grow...........until the models are adjusted.

It's only then, when they will be provide usefullness in SCIENCE. Right now, their usefulness is only in the field of politics, where their exaggerated solutions, which some exaggerate even more,  are great to scare people. Then, we are constantly told that its even worse than the models(even though its not as bad as most models) and the fake narrative about the coming apocalypse can be made to sound even scarier. 

By metmike - Dec. 11, 2020, 3:50 p.m.
Like Reply

So to help educate you and help you to understand the science, here is a great article. No politics, just authentic science. I love diagrams, maps, charts and images!!! Thank you Alex for creating a forum that allows us to show them!

The greenhouse effect in more depth

The greenhouse eEffect in a more depth 1

By metmike - Dec. 11, 2020, 3:53 p.m.
Like Reply

  Exactly how much greenhouse effect is contributed by each gas, and

·      Exactly what portion of each greenhouse gas is human-made versus nature-made.

Fortunately, brilliant climate scientists have already made this analysis, and their findings are presented in Figure – 2[i] below. A summary of the significant revelations include:

1.    Water vapor accounts for 95% of the entire greenhouse effect, which is nearly 100% nature-made.

2.    The total carbon dioxide contribution to the greenhouse effect is only 3.168%, of which the human-made portion is only 0.117%

3. Of the entire greenhouse effect, nature accounts for 99.72%, and the human-made contribution, including all human-made gasses (CO2, methane, etc.), is a mere 0.28%.


We call weather nothing more and nothing less than the Earths air, land, and oceans attempting to eliminate the temperature and pressure imbalances caused by the sun heating one part of the planet and not the other. These imbalances are imposed on Earth by the asymmetrical heating caused by the sun.  Consequently, the weather is how the Earth responds to these forces imposed on the planet by the ever-changing dynamics of what happens within the sun and the relative position of the sun concerning the Earth.

Weather patterns over 15 to 30 years are what we call climate.”  We then learned that weather is challenging to predict. Even a 7-day forecast is typically only accurate about 56% of the time. Imagine how challenging it must be to predict climate forecasts 5, 10, 30, or 50 years out. Lastly, we learned that the human-caused contribution to the greenhouse effect is small, trivial.

Science is never settled. Science is a journey with unknown destinations.

By metmike - Dec. 27, 2020, 10:58 p.m.
Like Reply

I was doing some research for another topic and ran across this on sea levels:

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: free speech...worth a quick listen            


                               By metmike - Dec. 27, 2020, 9:56 p.m.            


When looking up censoring, I ran across this article that is FALSE, in fact the exact opposite of the truth in many cases. Their example in Alaska is a good example of it. They are claiming the other side is doing what they do...........censor data from people like me. They exaggerate and make up things or use busted models.........then censor sources that show something different..........or only show the busted forecasts and present them as the science.

How the U.S. Government Is Aggressively Censoring Climate Science

    By keeping the public in the dark, federal agencies create an environment where inaction is justified.  

"However, climate denial hasn’t stopped agencies from addressing present impacts. In fact, only two days after the FEMA strategic plan was published, the agency approved a $1.7 million grant to relocate Alaskan climate refugees, who are losing their homes as melting sea ice, thawing permafrost, and rising sea levels combine to erode coastlines"

metmike: They are exactly 100% wrong! In the higher latitudes, the land is rising much faster than the seas from glacial rebound(including all of Alaska) and coastlines are ADDING land. 

Going to another source below, they are doing the same thing as mainstream science has totally colluded on this narrative. Even when the article itself recognizes and shows seas sinking, they tell us and show us that somehow, this trend will suddenly reverse and seas will be going up for the next 100 years..........because the simulations using busted, too warm models are programmed to show this. 

sea level rise logo

As Lands Rise, Alaska's Sea Level is Sinking



                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: free speech...worth a quick listen            


                By metmike - Dec. 27, 2020, 10:14 p.m.            


The article, written by a believer in the climate crisis ignores the actual data and instead believes the busted simulations that have been too warm for 30+ years.

Here's the computer simulated forecast from their story, which they tell us will be happening as if its a fact. Note that seas were supposed to be rising in 2016+ after they published this article. Note, Sitka is supposed to see, sea levels go 10 inches higher between 2016 to 2050 in their forecast below.


Here's the real measurement of the real sea and real land from the real planet in the same state, Alaska over the last 70 years. Sea levels have actually DROPPED over 30 inches during that time frame.

Here's the actual empirical data/measurement at this exact site, Sitka, AK. The climate crisis advocates were wrong for over 30 years before this article was written in 2016 and now we can add another 4 years of being wrong since it came out.


       metmike:     Here is the real reason for the  sea levels to be falling(with respect to land) in Alaska:

Post-glacial rebound (also called isostatic rebound or crustal rebound) is the rise of land masses after the removal of the huge weight of ice sheets during the last glacial period, which had caused isostatic depression. Post-glacial rebound and isostatic depression are phases of glacial isostasy (glacial isostatic adjustment, glacioisostasy), the  deformation of the Earth's crust in response to changes in ice mass distribution.[1] The direct raising effects of post-glacial rebound are readily apparent in parts of Northern Eurasia, Northern America, Patagonia, and Antarctica. However, through the processes of ocean siphoning and continental levering, the effects of post-glacial rebound on sea level are felt globally far from the locations of current and former ice sheets

By metmike - Dec. 30, 2020, 2:20 a.m.
Like Reply

So the above proves the massive disconnect that their model forecasts.............for rapidly increasing sea levels in Alaska, have with the real world FALLING sea levels in Alaska.(from glacial rebound) 

And they just keep bombarding us with busted predictions and call it science!

By metmike - Jan. 2, 2021, 6:20 p.m.
Like Reply

Much more on sea levels increasing here: