The trend has turned flat/downward since 2005/2006, so if sea level is the "ultimate measure" then this proves global warming has stopped
>>That’s EXACTLY what it means. If CO2 driven “greenhouse” warming were of the order of magnitude claimed by its zealots, the effect of the radiative changes in the sun would be of no cosequence to the earth’s temperature, and global warming zealots would not be scrabling to cover their collective “assets.”<<
The temperature increase is only a few degrees per century - its not surprising a local minimum in solar flares could slow that rise for a while.
But the ultimate measure is sea level. Warming will be over when the seas start going down and that had not happened.
At this moment, I would like to make a paramount announcement: I have found—yes, FOUND the reason behind what some scientists term “global warming”...and here it is....
wait for it......
ALL THE DEMOCRATS AND OBAMA-ITES SCREAMING FOR MONEY!!!
:)
What's the data, how reliable is it and what's the rate of change?
According to the computer models. There is no actual proof, just models. Those models can't even predict what already happened; that is, when you feed data from the 50 years ago into the models, they all get it wrong as to where we are today. The models predict a much higher planetary temperature than we actually have today. If they can't even do that much right, only a fool would think they would be correct predicting future planetary temperature.
" But the ultimate measure is sea level. Warming will be over when the seas start going down and that had not happened."
How about, warming isn't happening because the seas haven't risen at all, unlike what the models predicted? Is that what you meant? There was this big symposium a couple years ago, where some planetary warming scientist showed the seas rising. Turns out, he added in his own "fudge factor" to get that result. When questioned about it, he stated something to the effect of "but if I didn't put it in, there would be no rising trend!"
You ought not to go there. There isn't any reliable indication of rising sea levels associated with global warming ANYWHERE in the world. There is only the very minimal rise associated with the end of the last ice age.
Places which have been alleged to be endanged on account of rising sea levels, i.e the Maldives, Nuaru, Kiribati, and so on have been utterly debunked.
Where there is obvious sea incursion on what was historically dry land, such as on the Batavia plain in Java, the effect is the result of subsidence due to the extraction of ground water.
So, what we have is no evidence of sea level rise, no evidence of "greenhouse gas" induced warming, no evidence of arctic sea ice diminishment, and indeed no evidence of anything other than a form of mass dementia.
One more thing - sea levels WON'T subside absent a fairly substantial cooling: i.e. sea level is a LAGGING indicator. It is enough that they are not rising, or are rising at an insignificant but most likely diminishing rate, which is the case worldwide.
The sea levels have been rising since the end of the last Ice Age: 6000 to 11000 years ago depending on your definition of "Ice Age". Sea levels will begin to sink when the next Ice Age starts.
The trend has turned flat/downward since 2005/2006, so if sea level is the "ultimate measure" then this proves global warming has stopped