Thread: Sea level rise has SLOWED DOWN since 2002, totally contradicting the climate change “

Sea level rise has SLOWED DOWN since 2002, totally contradicting the climate change “science” narrative

(Natural News) We need a new way of viewing global warming -- especially in making it the storm in a teacup. Scientists are saying that while ocean levels continue to rise, the rate in which they have increased has actually decelerated by 31 percent since 2002 and 44 percent since 2004 to less than seven inches per century. Hardly a … [Read More...]


Tuesday, September 25, 2018 by: Rhonda Johansson
Tags: badscience, climate change, global warming, sea level rise, sea levels rising

800 Views

(Natural News) We need a new way of viewing global warming — especially in making it the storm in a teacup. Scientists are saying that while ocean levels continue to rise, the rate in which they have increased has actually decelerated by 31 percent since 2002 and 44 percent since 2004 to less than seven inches per century.
Hardly a cataclysmic event that would garner the vociferous predictions of the end of the world.
Present-day sea level rise has always been considered an indicator of climate change, yet a slowdown of this rate demonstrates a “pause” in warming. The papers being published now call for improved models in quantifying the true effects of global warming and sea water rise.

A background: Let’s give it a little context

There is a lot of scientific evidence that suggests that ocean volume was directly impacted by industrialization. As soon as the Industrial Revolution began, scientists noted that sea levels began to rise. The reason: increased concentrations of greenhouse gases trapped heat in the air and the ocean. Seawater expands as it gets warmer, and the extra water volume adds to the global disintegration of land-based ice from warming. This is what every little kid sees on TV. Gases make the temperature warm, ice melts, and that poor polar bear learns gymnastics as it balances on the iceberg — now an ice pick.
Yet what remains unsaid is that there are other factors to consider, such as large year-to-year variations in sea level due to the storage of water on land (either as water or as ice or snow). There are annual fluctuations that occur and are reliant on the El Niño – Southern Oscillation. Put simply, during La Niña periods, rain normally falls on land, while during El Niño, it falls over the ocean. There are also weather patterns that affect sea level trends not just in years, but in decades. While scientists note that these weather fluctuations do not affect sea levels in the long term (enough to support an apocalyptic forecast), it does obscure the exact relationship between global warming and sea level rise (i.e. the rise in global sea levels through glacial meltwater and the long-term warming of the ocean).

The paradox that must be accepted

The truth is, we’ve only been given half the story. It is true that global sea levels have risen (quite obviously) in the last decade. It is also true that the rate of heat uptake by the ocean has also increased and the melting of glaciers has accelerated. Nonetheless, the rate of sea level rise is declining. It is a paradox that needs to be accepted to prevent mass hysteria.
Take note that satellite images that display trends in sea levels show that there is an apparent “bulge” in the Western equatorial Pacific region — a pattern that is not displayed in other parts of the world. Scientists are concluding that a localized “bulge” points to other wind or ocean oscillations rather than a direct effect from greenhouses gases which would create a generalized sea level rise.
A complete answer to this conundrum has yet to be drafted. Scientists are still working on answering the question in full. They do caution though that there are many annual and multi-year fluctuations that strongly influence short-term trends and data. A “factual” conclusion would depend on which time frame is being examined. Regardless, scientists have said that — thus far — the actual rise in global sea levels is a constant 3.3 +/- 0.4 mm per year.
Understand exactly how you affect the planet by reading ClimateScienceNews.com.
Sources include:
HockeySchtick.Blogspot.com
SkepticalScience.com
Nature.com



https://www.naturalnews.com/2018-09-...narrative.html

Youtube Video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SXxHfb66ZgM

Nobel Laureate in Physics; "Global Warming is Pseudoscience"

879,448 views

Yes, I believe in science, but not all scientists

September 25, 2018

The left makes a mockery of science.

By Thomas Lifson

One of the most annoying slanders of conservatives by leftists is the claim that we do not believe in science. In my Berkeley neighborhood full of virtue-signaling progressives, I walk by this proclamation implying that science is part of a package of SJW beliefs.

As many others have quipped, belief in the scientific method and its fruits is quite different from believing every scientist's claims. After all, many of the slurs directed at conservatives over believing science are hurled at us because we question the conclusions of those who proclaim that man-made global warming threatens to incinerate the planet's inhabitants. That is a conclusion not experimentally verified; rather, it is based on computer models that have had a poor track record in predicting the future.
Now comes yet another stream of scandals involving ethically questionable scientists. The French news agency AFP reports:

Three prominent US scientists have been pushed to resign over the past 10 days after damning revelations about their methods, a sign of greater vigilance and decreasing tolerance for misconduct within the research community.
The most spectacular fall concerned Jose Baselga, chief medical officer at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York. He authored hundreds of articles on cancer research.
Investigative journalism group ProPublica and The New York Times revealed on September 8 that Baselga failed to disclose in dozens of research articles that he had received millions of dollars from pharmaceutical and medical companies.
Such declarations are generally required by scientific journals.
Links between a doctor leading a clinical trial and manufacturers of drugs or medical equipment used in the study can influence the methodology and ultimately the results.
But journals don't themselves verify the thoroughness of an author's declarations.
Caught up in the scandal, Baselga resigned on September 13.
Next came the case of Brian Wansink, director of the Food and Brand Lab at the prestigious Cornell University.
He made his name thanks to studies that garnered plenty of media attention, including on pizza, and the appetites of children.
His troubles began last year when scientific sleuths discovered anomalies and surprisingly positive results in dozens of his articles. ...
In the final case, Gilbert Welch, a professor of public health at Dartmouth College, resigned last week.
The university accused him of plagiarism in an article published in The New England Journal of Medicine, the most respected American medical journal.

Actually, by confusing scientists with science itself and ignoring the actual scientific method, the left makes a mockery of the foundations of our modern civilization.

Hat tip: Bryan Demko

Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog...cientists.html

Protecting old trees: Self-contained ecosystems, the majestic giants clean more air and produce more offspring than younger trees

(Natural News) Scientists have assumed that younger trees can sequester more carbon from the atmosphere than older trees; it does make sense that old age can slow down certain functions in any living thing, including trees. However, this is far from the truth according to a new study published in Nature, which reveals that aging trees … [Read More...]

Tuesday, September 25, 2018 by: Janine Acero
Tags: carbon banks, carbon dioxide, carbon sinks, conservation, deforestation, ecosystems, environment, older trees, oldest living trees, redwoods, trees

820 Views



(Natural News) Scientists have assumed that younger trees can sequester more carbon from the atmosphere than older trees; it does make sense that old age can slow down certain functions in any living thing, including trees. However, this is far from the truth according to a new study published in Nature, which reveals that aging trees continue to grow rapidly and even increase the amounts of carbon they are able to absorb and store in their trunks and roots as they get older.
“Well, lots of people recognize that as humans get older they tend to have less and less children…trees do it the other way around,” said David Lindenmayer of the Australian National University College of Science in Canberra, in an interview with ScientificAmerican.com.
A team of international researchers, led by Nate Stephenson of the U.S. Geological Survey Western Ecological Research Center, examined carbon storage at the level of individual trees rather than forests and found that the mass growth rate of older and taller trees kept increasing. The researchers surveyed 673,046 individual trees and more than 400 species, going back as far as 80 years ago, on six continents. The team determined that 97 percent of the surveyed trees have increased leaf cover as individual trees grew older and taller, which enabled them to keep absorbing an increasing amount of carbon as they aged.
The findings of the study suggest that older trees are “carbon vacuums” – a single big tree could absorb and store the same amount of new carbon in a year as might be contained in an entire mid-sized tree, if we look at it on a tree by tree basis.
“In human terms, it’s as if our growth just kept accelerating after adolescence, instead of slowing down,” Stephenson remarked.
However, on a forest by forest basis, the younger stands of trees beat the old-timers as overall living carbon banks. This is because the clusters of old trees become fewer as some will inevitably die, leaving the still older ones in ever decreasing numbers.
William Morris, a Ph.D. candidate from The University of Melbourne, said the study may have significant implications for management of forests and individual trees.
“As we now know that the biggest trees are the most valuable as both carbon stores and carbon sinks. If a manager’s goal is to maximize carbon uptake, then maintaining larger trees may be an efficient way to do so,” he said.

Population decline

Natural death is far from the only reason for decreasing numbers of older trees. Populations of these large, old trees have been rapidly declining in many forests, woodlands, and other ecosystems around the world due to continuous land developments that cause massive deforestation. (Related: Living beyond our means: We are burning through the planet’s resources, living an unsustainable way of life.)
“We can make sure we grow more forest, we can make sure we protect the big trees that we have now, and we can make sure that we don’t do things that really put a lot of pressure on those trees. Straight out, just cutting them down – we should not be cutting down really big, old trees anymore,” warned Lindenmayer.

Oldest living trees

For the longest time, an ancient Great Basin bristlecone pine (Pinus longaeva) aptly named Methuselah was recognized as the oldest living tree in the world, having lived a staggering 4,845 years in the White Mountains of California, in Inyo National Forest. It was later discovered that another bristlecone pine tree even surpassed Methuselah at a whopping 5,062 years of age.
Learn more about our forests and other ecosystems by visiting Environ.news today.

Sources include:
ScientificAmerican.com
Nature.com
TheConversation.com 1
TheConversation.com 2
LiveScience.com

https://www.naturalnews.com/2018-09-...ger-trees.html