But are you really "stating the models"? Or are you stating what you've read from journalists that find the interesting things to say from those who are stating what comes from their model? In astronomy, the difference between the science and accurate reporting isn't that dramatic, but I find the claims and reporting in Climate Change to be sometimes problematic.I am not preaching, nor even teaching, I am stating. And I am stating the models of climate change and its impact on Earth.
I'm not suggesting each claim shouldn't be taken serious. On the contrary, I'm saying each claim should be taken serious but in a scientific manner - with great scrutiny.
Isn't it a little odd that efforts to establish a "red team" for climate science have been thwarted? They would greatly improve the credibility of most claims within the science, IMO.
Yes, that's important to understand. The SLR (Sea Level Rise) has been increasing. [Here's a nice page from: NASA SLR. I tend to trust NASA data over some others.]Read this:
New analysis of Antarctica's melting glaciers refines our understanding of climate change, while risks of global impacts remain significant.www.nationalgeographic.com
Notice the graph. It shows that the rise is now at 3.3 mm per year. [This is an average, of course, as some areas are going down in sea level, but most are going up. It's complicated.] That's significant and it demonstrates a steady acceleration rate. We both would agree on this, no doubt. But look closer at the values over the last year and half and you will see only an increase of 1 mm. Why is that? How can that be given all the recent ice melts (and the drama that goes with it)? The answer to this question is important, too, and it would be important to any modeling. Perhaps the models do explain it, but do they?
[If I post again it will be addressing the OP.]