# An interesting article on sea levels rising..



## Wyatt earp (Aug 11, 2016)

Check out this part of the story...

Seas aren’t just rising, scientists say — it’s worse than that. They’re speeding up.



*The problem, or even mystery, is that scientists haven’t seen an unambiguous acceleration of sea level rise in a data record that’s considered the best for observing the problem —* the one that began with the TOPEX/Poseidon satellite, which launched in late 1992 and carried an instrument, called a radar altimeter, that gives a very precise measurement of sea level around the globe. (It has since been succeeded by other satellites providing similar measurements.)

*This record actually shows a decrease in the rate of sea level rise from the first decade measured by satellit*es (1993 to 2002) to the second one (2003 to 2012). “We’ve been looking at the altimeter records and scratching our heads, and saying, ‘why aren’t we seeing an acceleration in the satellite record?’ We should be,” said John Fasullo, a climate scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colorado.

In a new study in the open-access journal Scientific Reports, however, Fasullo and two colleagues say they have now resolved this problem. It turns out, they say, that sea level rise was artificially masked in the satellite reco*rd by the fact that one year before the satellite launched, the Earth experienced a major cooling pulse.*


----------



## Two Thumbs (Aug 11, 2016)

you can't make this kind of bullshit up.

Uhm, uhm, the truth isn't lining up with what we said the facts were, so so, uhm, fuck, uhm, pineapples!


----------



## Two Thumbs (Aug 11, 2016)

when GP is telling you your environmental bullshit is bullshit.....


----------



## Wyatt earp (Aug 11, 2016)

This what gets me is the AGW cult said they eliminated every known variable ...and there was no warming pause..

Yea ok


Yet a little volcano cause a cooling pulse?



The study was performed using a suite of 40 climate change models to determine how the Pinatubo eruption affected seas and the global distribution of water. *The scientists estimate* as a result that sea level not only fell between 5 and 7 millimeters 


_Got to love scientist guessetimations _


----------



## Two Thumbs (Aug 11, 2016)

bear513 said:


> This what gets me is the AGW cult said they eliminated every known variable ...and there was no warming pause..
> 
> Yea ok
> 
> ...


It's all just a money and power grab.

scientist want money and the pols that give it to them want power


----------



## Crick (Aug 11, 2016)

What money do you think scientists are getting?  Research grants?  When a scientists get a research grant, the purpose of the grant is to fund the conduct of specified research.  The grant is sized to conduct that research and the scientist will have to keep records of his expenditures for his grantor.  They do not include large sums of money that the researches gets to simply stick in his pocket and use to buy a new car.  If scientists were getting rich from research grants, why wouldn't we see scientists going solo?  Why do they maintain employment at universities and large corporations?

You people are SO goddamned stupid!


----------



## Wyatt earp (Aug 11, 2016)

Crick said:


> What money do you think scientists are getting?  Research grants?  When a scientists get a research grant, the purpose of the grant is to fund the conduct of specified research.  The grant is sized to conduct that research and the scientist will have to keep records of his expenditures for his grantor.  They do not include large sums of money that the researches gets to simply stick in his pocket and use to buy a new car.  If scientists were getting rich from research grants, why wouldn't we see scientists going solo?  Why do they maintain employment at universities and large corporations?
> 
> You people are SO goddamned stupid!




*Why do they maintain employment at universities *


Because those 30~80 year old scientist are pervs...Damn how stupid do you think I am? They get to oogle at 18~22 year old coeds all day long



.


----------



## Two Thumbs (Aug 12, 2016)

Crick said:


> What money do you think scientists are getting?  Research grants?  When a scientists get a research grant, the purpose of the grant is to fund the conduct of specified research.  The grant is sized to conduct that research and the scientist will have to keep records of his expenditures for his grantor.  They do not include large sums of money that the researches gets to simply stick in his pocket and use to buy a new car.  If scientists were getting rich from research grants, why wouldn't we see scientists going solo?  Why do they maintain employment at universities and large corporations?
> 
> You people are SO goddamned stupid!


so how do scientist get paid so much?

If their income doesn't come from grants (our money), does it come from the money faerie?


----------



## SSDD (Aug 12, 2016)

Crick said:


> What money do you think scientists are getting?  Research grants?  When a scientists get a research grant, the purpose of the grant is to fund the conduct of specified research.  The grant is sized to conduct that research and the scientist will have to keep records of his expenditures for his grantor.  They do not include large sums of money that the researches gets to simply stick in his pocket and use to buy a new car.  If scientists were getting rich from research grants, why wouldn't we see scientists going solo?  Why do they maintain employment at universities and large corporations?
> 
> You people are SO goddamned stupid!



Here are michael mann's accepted proposals up to 2009 and the amounts...



> Funded Proposals
> 
> 2009-2013 Quantifying the influence of environmental temperature on transmission of vector-borne diseases, NSF-EF [Principal Investigator: M. Thomas; Co-Investigators: R.G. Crane, M.E. Mann, A. Read, T. Scott (Penn State Univ.)] $1,884,991
> 
> ...



That is just shy of 6 million dollars....ever see a picture of his house?....any idea what his net worth is?....are either commensurate with the salary of a climate science professor that has no family money?


----------



## Crick (Aug 12, 2016)

SSDD said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > What money do you think scientists are getting?  Research grants?  When a scientists get a research grant, the purpose of the grant is to fund the conduct of specified research.  The grant is sized to conduct that research and the scientist will have to keep records of his expenditures for his grantor.  They do not include large sums of money that the researches gets to simply stick in his pocket and use to buy a new car.  If scientists were getting rich from research grants, why wouldn't we see scientists going solo?  Why do they maintain employment at universities and large corporations?
> ...



You've gone back 20 years.  Each of those grants names multiple researchers and you've not made the slightest attempt to estimate the cost of actually conducting the research for any of them.  Why don't you show us a picture of his house and give us his net worth - perhaps you have his tax return.  My brother was a tenured professor.  I do have some idea what they make. Why don't you tell us what you think a department head earns.


----------



## SSDD (Aug 12, 2016)

Right...and the admissions of falsifying data aren't actually admissions either....you are full of shit crick...and attempting to defend the indefensible is just pitiful.


----------



## Crick (Aug 13, 2016)

Two Thumbs said:


> when GP is telling you your environmental bullshit is bullshit.....



What's bullshit is contending that Patrick Moore has EVER been anything but a sellout.


----------



## Crick (Aug 13, 2016)

SSDD said:


> Right...and the admissions of falsifying data aren't actually admissions either....you are full of shit crick...and attempting to defend the indefensible is just pitiful.



You have some reason to be changing the subject?


----------



## Two Thumbs (Aug 13, 2016)

Crick said:


> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> > when GP is telling you your environmental bullshit is bullshit.....
> ...


so the co-founder of the worlds leading environ group has always been a sellout


your flailing has reached a very high level


----------



## Old Rocks (Aug 13, 2016)

bear513 said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > What money do you think scientists are getting?  Research grants?  When a scientists get a research grant, the purpose of the grant is to fund the conduct of specified research.  The grant is sized to conduct that research and the scientist will have to keep records of his expenditures for his grantor.  They do not include large sums of money that the researches gets to simply stick in his pocket and use to buy a new car.  If scientists were getting rich from research grants, why wouldn't we see scientists going solo?  Why do they maintain employment at universities and large corporations?
> ...


Whatever I think concerning your intellect is irrelevant. You just demonstrated for the world to see the level of your intellect. 

The seas are rising, Greenland's ice is melting, and the surface of the earth is warming. Simple facts supported by evidence and observations around the world. Just because it disagrees with you dumb ass politics does not change the changes we are seeing one whit. The statements of the Scientific Societies, the Academies of Science, and the major Universities around the world all state that AGW is real, and a clear and present danger.


----------



## Old Rocks (Aug 13, 2016)

Two Thumbs said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > What money do you think scientists are getting?  Research grants?  When a scientists get a research grant, the purpose of the grant is to fund the conduct of specified research.  The grant is sized to conduct that research and the scientist will have to keep records of his expenditures for his grantor.  They do not include large sums of money that the researches gets to simply stick in his pocket and use to buy a new car.  If scientists were getting rich from research grants, why wouldn't we see scientists going solo?  Why do they maintain employment at universities and large corporations?
> ...



*Tenured/Tenure-Track Faculty Salaries*
Below are results of the 2012-13 Faculty in Higher Education Salary Survey by Discipline, Rank and Tenure Status in Four-Year Colleges and Universities conducted by The College and University Professional Association for Human Resources (CUPA-HR). Findings reflect the salaries of 184,924 tenured/tenure-track faculty members at 794 institutions nationwide. Salaries were reported by 794 institutions, including 478 private institutions and 316 public institutions, for 31 academic disciplines. View the CUPA-HR press release or order complete survey results.

*All Disciplines Combined*
Job Title All Institutions Research Doctoral Master's Baccalaureate
Professor $95,224 $115,579 $98,564 $87,008 $82,383
Associate Professor $74,473 $85,135 $76,868 $70,716 $66,107
Assistant Professor $64,414 $74,064 $66,811 $61,253 $56,619
New Assistant Professor $65,372 $74,692 $67,419 $60,814 $56,523 $64,823 $71,567 * $56,666 *

https://www.higheredjobs.com/salary/salaryDisplay.cfm?SurveyID=24

*What is your job? Burger flipper in a fast food joint? Because for the last 10 of 12 years I have made over 100K as a millwright in a steel mill. Only the very top end, Research professors make more than I have. And they make only a little more. Hardly high pay for the hours of class time that they put in.

Now as for Micheal Mann's income, he can thank idiots like you for that. Had you not lied and slandered him and his work for years, he would not be in demand as a guest lecturer. And, being a very intelligent man, would it surprise you to find out that maybe he is also a savvy investor? 

You 'Conservatives' are such envious little pussies. You get you panties in a knot whenever you see someone that has put in the time and effort to achieve a very high education, and hate the thought that they are getting paid for their effort. So you try to state that you ignorance should be regarded as credible as the decades of study they have put in. LOL*


----------



## LaDexter (Aug 13, 2016)

Crick said:


> When a scientists get a research grant, the purpose of the grant is to fund the conduct of specified research.




The "purpose" of climate "science" grants is to push the FRAUD.  If your grant does not produce a fraud/fudge filled load of BS pushing the FRAUD, you don't get another grant.




Crick said:


> . If scientists were getting rich from research grants, why wouldn't we see scientists going solo?



Because you have to be "part of the team..."  The climate "scientists" are rich as hell leeching off the taxpayer.  Why?  Because nobody in government or media holds them accountable.


The only people in this topic forum who are stupid are the ones who parrot and never question...


----------



## Crick (Aug 13, 2016)

God are you stupid.

Have you ever even CONSIDERED attempting to reinforce your arguments with logic, reason or (Heaven forbid) EVIDENCE?  Your simple, unsupported claims are easier to dismiss then they are for you to make.  And dismiss them we do.


----------



## Crick (Aug 13, 2016)

Two Thumbs said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > Two Thumbs said:
> ...



If you think so, I can only conclude you are actually completely unfamiliar with the history of Patrick Moore.  I'd suggest a little reading.


----------



## Ridgerunner (Aug 13, 2016)

The true measure of the rising of the levels of the worlds oceans is the beach front real estate market... When they start giving beach front property away, I will believe the possibility of the levels rising... Until then it is all just graft and corruption by the elitists... The free market is a wonderful thing...


----------



## Crick (Aug 13, 2016)

Wrong.

The true measure of rising sea levels are tidal gauges and satellite atlimetry.  And they all say it's rising.


----------



## Ridgerunner (Aug 13, 2016)

Hey crick have you ever seen a professional re: the serious case of Cranium Rectalitis you are suffering from? Quite sure pbo care will cover it...


----------



## Crick (Aug 13, 2016)

Gosh, no, but glad to discover you haven't got a single, goddamned meaningful thing to actually say about this topic.


----------



## Ridgerunner (Aug 13, 2016)

I believe what I said was very meaningful... Have you ever lived resided on ocean front property, crick? You do realize that it goes for a premium on the free market right? Show us, the sea level rising deniers where there is a sudden decrease in the value of any ocean front property in the world... I will wait patiently...

Oh and if you don't have the funds for you ailment and pbo care won't cover the cost, maybe we can start a go fund me page for you...


----------



## Crick (Aug 13, 2016)

I have lived on oceanfront property (4200 Ocean Blvd, Singer Island, Apr 1601).  I am aware that it goes for a premium.  That's not exactly rocket science.  And that sea level is rising currently at 3.3 mm/year is unlikely to temper the market.  If you'd rather choose that as a criteria than the actual measure and projections of sea level rise, feel free.  We are all free to go to hell in a handbasket of our own choosing.


----------



## Two Thumbs (Aug 13, 2016)

It's far easier to fool a leftist than convince him he's been fooled.

the anti nuke pukes finally admitted that their stance against nuke power was fear based and not based in any facts, yet leftist keep fearing it.

post facts showing that the world isn't dying, but the left demands that scientist are godlike beings above mere mortal greed.

the world is not warming b/c of us
we are still in an ice age
the world has been MUCH warmer, and is still here
warm weather would bring a longer growing season, this would bring down the cost of food, but no, leftist want the poor to suffer b/c ice melts.


----------



## Crick (Aug 14, 2016)

Two Thumbs said:


> It's far easier to fool a leftist than convince him he's been fooled.



A demonstrably more accurate statement would be "It's far easier to fool poster Two Thumbs than convince him he's been fooled."



Two Thumbs said:


> the anti nuke pukes finally admitted that their stance against nuke power was fear based and not based in any facts, yet leftist keep fearing it.



Chernobyl's meltdown is a fact.
Three Mile Island's leak is a fact.
The destruction of Fukushima is a fact
List of military nuclear accidents - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This article's list of 72 different accidents with nuclear materials consists of facts
List of civilian nuclear accidents - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This article's list of 33 different accidents with nuclear materials consists of facts
That radiation exposure is harmfully and potentially fatal is a fact

I favor safe nuclear power.  But pretending that it is harmless is a particularly stupid point of view.



Two Thumbs said:


> post facts showing that the world isn't dying, but the left demands that scientist are godlike beings above mere mortal greed.



No one has claimed the world is dying.  The science tells us that we will suffer a number of harms from rising temperatures.  The claims of a worldwide, perfect conspiracy among >97% of all climate scientists: people from different nations, different languages, different political and religious beliefs - is complete nonsense.  What is FAR more likely is that senior executives in the various branches of the fossil fuel industry, seeing their considerable livelihood threatened, have embarked on a well funded disinformation campaign by which you and others have been taken in.  Survival is a far greater motivation than is greed.



Two Thumbs said:


> the world is not warming b/c of us



That is precisely what the science tells us.



Two Thumbs said:


> we are still in an ice age



We are currently in an interglacial, not the popular definition of an ice age.  Besides, the point is irrelevant.  The changes observed over the last 150 years and particularly over the last 50 have not been produced by any glaciation cycle.



Two Thumbs said:


> the world has been MUCH warmer, and is still here



Not since long, long, long before the rise of human civilization.  Warming prior to that is irrelevant.



Two Thumbs said:


> warm weather would bring a longer growing season, this would bring down the cost of food, but no, leftist want the poor to suffer b/c ice melts.



The harm that will be caused by, say, a 2C rise in temperature will easily overwhelm any increase in food production.  Besides, as the cold limits of arable land move towards the poles, the hot limits do the same.  A band of the Earth with a given latitudinal height, grows _smaller _in area as it moves towards the poles.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Aug 14, 2016)

Crick said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...




Yea I know crick you live in a sterile world... Nothing psychology happening here, everyone in the 1800s can read and record a thermometer.

Every scientist don't think with his jhonson , fringe benefits, fame and fortune.

Stupid fuck.


----------



## LaDexter (Aug 14, 2016)

Crick said:


> The true measure of rising sea levels are tidal gauges and satellite atlimetry. And they all say it's rising.




How come only 3 island chains on the lip of the Pacific Ring of Fire are sinking while NOTHING ELSE ON EARTH IS???


----------



## Crick (Aug 14, 2016)

20 Countries Most At Risk From Sea Level Rise

Every global shore touches the same ocean, and the ocean is rising.

Climate Central just completed a novel analysis of worldwide exposure to sea level rise and coastal flooding. We found that 147 to 216 million people live on land that will be below sea level or regular flood levels by the end of the century, assuming emissions of heat-trapping gases continue on their current trend.

By far the largest group — 41 to 63 million — lives in China. The ranges depend on the ultimate sensitivity of sea level to warming.

But even these figures may be two to three times too low, meaning as many as 650 million people may be threatened.






Did it not occur to you to check your claim before you made it?


----------



## Two Thumbs (Aug 14, 2016)

Crick said:


> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> > It's far easier to fool a leftist than convince him he's been fooled.
> ...


omg you are so fucking ignorant you should get paid.

this is not russia, fact
this is not japan, fact

not a fucking thing went bad at 3 mile, fact


you're a fear mongering twat, fact


didn't bother with the rest of your ignorant, tiresome, retarded, uninformed, uneducated bullshit


----------



## Weatherman2020 (Aug 14, 2016)

Doing a pisspoor time rising.  Amphitheater and Hippodrome built by Herrod over 2,000 years ago with coastline in same location.


----------



## Crick (Aug 15, 2016)

In the same location?  Can you tell that from the Herrod's footprints in the sand?


----------



## Crick (Aug 15, 2016)

Two Thumbs said:


> omg you are so fucking ignorant you should get paid.
> this is not russia, fact
> this is not japan, fact
> not a fucking thing went bad at 3 mile, fact
> ...



That's one of the most stupid and least worthwhile retorts I believe I've ever received.  "This is not Japan, fact"  HAHAHAHAHAaaaaa

"Didn't bother with the rest..."  *HAAHA*HAHAHAAAHAHAaaaaaa


----------



## Weatherman2020 (Aug 15, 2016)

Crick said:


> In the same location?  Can you tell that from the Herrod's footprints in the sand?


Herods palace swimming pool right by the sea on that little peninsula just as historical records tell us.  Here's a closeup for you.
Try using this thing called science in your posts, it's really cool stuff.


----------



## jc456 (Aug 15, 2016)

Crick said:


> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> > when GP is telling you your environmental bullshit is bullshit.....
> ...


ah, the typical crick answer.  Nothing to debate with just a slam at the source.  Dude you have zero credibility.  you sk.  Post up one paragraph from ipcc AR5 and let's debate. See, you won't.  my proof.


----------



## jc456 (Aug 15, 2016)

Crick said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Right...and the admissions of falsifying data aren't actually admissions either....you are full of shit crick...and attempting to defend the indefensible is just pitiful.
> ...


how's that changing the subject, the OP is sea level rise, and he's saying the data is falsified. Explain  how that isn't related to the OP?


----------



## jc456 (Aug 15, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...


all BS, and you can't prove it.  more meandering on a message forum with no evidence to back a statement.  Prove it rocks, prove sea level rise and not some manufactured chart, name somewhere where it is.  Mine and everyone elses position hasn't changed and you've posted up goose eggs.


----------



## mamooth (Aug 15, 2016)

Weatherman2020 said:


> Herods palace swimming pool right by the sea on that little peninsula just as historical records tell us.



Thank you for that irrefutable evidence of sea-level rise.

It was a freshwater pool. That means in Herod's day, it had to be well above the high-tide level. It's certainly not well above the high-tide level now.


----------



## jc456 (Aug 15, 2016)

Crick said:


> God are you stupid.
> 
> Have you ever even CONSIDERED attempting to reinforce your arguments with logic, reason or (Heaven forbid) EVIDENCE?  Your simple, unsupported claims are easier to dismiss then they are for you to make.  And dismiss them we do.


well have you?


----------



## jc456 (Aug 15, 2016)

Crick said:


> Wrong.
> 
> The true measure of rising sea levels are tidal gauges and satellite atlimetry.  And they all say it's rising.


OMG,  Really, so observation in your book is a fallacy?


----------



## jc456 (Aug 15, 2016)

Crick said:


> Gosh, no, but glad to discover you haven't got a single, goddamned meaningful thing to actually say about this topic.


and you have?  name a place where there has been sea level rise.  One, that's all.  And don't name the atolls


----------



## jc456 (Aug 15, 2016)

Crick said:


> I have lived on oceanfront property (4200 Ocean Blvd, Singer Island, Apr 1601).  I am aware that it goes for a premium.  That's not exactly rocket science.  And that sea level is rising currently at 3.3 mm/year is unlikely to temper the market.  If you'd rather choose that as a criteria than the actual measure and projections of sea level rise, feel free.  We are all free to go to hell in a handbasket of our own choosing.


singer island photo:






Yep looks like the rising is accelerating, look at that dude fleeing for his life.  

Video: The Best Seats in the House on Singer Island in Palm Beach


----------



## Weatherman2020 (Aug 15, 2016)

mamooth said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> > Herods palace swimming pool right by the sea on that little peninsula just as historical records tell us.
> ...


More dumbass lies.  Freshwater. 
The seaport dock used 2,000 years ago in Ceaserea.  High and dry.
Try embrassing science, it's really cool stuff.


----------



## Weatherman2020 (Aug 15, 2016)

Fort Sumter seems to be doing just fine.


----------



## LaDexter (Aug 15, 2016)

Way to go Weatherman!!!!!!!!!!

I love it.  Where is Plymouth Rock?  Right on the edge where it was 400 years ago...


----------



## depotoo (Aug 15, 2016)

It has to do with redistribution  of wealth, right into the hands of certain wealthy.





Two Thumbs said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > This what gets me is the AGW cult said they eliminated every known variable ...and there was no warming pause..
> ...


----------



## westwall (Aug 15, 2016)

Crick said:


> In the same location?  Can you tell that from the Herrod's footprints in the sand?







How about their docks?  Why lookey here.  THOUSANDS of years ago they were.....ummmm.....well, they were....where they are now!  Holy shit!  They're still in the exact same place.  Now how is that possible.  According to you morons they are 5 feet under water.  How is that possible!







Caesarea Maritima - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## westwall (Aug 15, 2016)

LaDexter said:


> Way to go Weatherman!!!!!!!!!!
> 
> I love it.  Where is Plymouth Rock?  Right on the edge where it was 400 years ago...








Umm.  No, it isn't.  No one even knows for sure which rock IS Plymouth rock, and the original was moved centuries ago in the first place.


----------



## westwall (Aug 15, 2016)

mamooth said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> > Herods palace swimming pool right by the sea on that little peninsula just as historical records tell us.
> ...









It was?  How do you know that?  We care about freshwater pools.  They didn't seem to care as much.  What's interesting is many places today still use salt water pools.


----------



## Weatherman2020 (Aug 15, 2016)

westwall said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > Weatherman2020 said:
> ...


Have a friend with a saltwater swimming pool. Getting very popular again.


----------



## Weatherman2020 (Aug 15, 2016)

westwall said:


> LaDexter said:
> 
> 
> > Way to go Weatherman!!!!!!!!!!
> ...


But the rock there has been above water how many decades now?


----------



## depotoo (Aug 15, 2016)

Small world.  Building 1 or 2?  The Viadelfina!  Love that place.





Crick said:


> I have lived on oceanfront property (4200 Ocean Blvd, Singer Island, Apr 1601).  I am aware that it goes for a premium.  That's not exactly rocket science.  And that sea level is rising currently at 3.3 mm/year is unlikely to temper the market.  If you'd rather choose that as a criteria than the actual measure and projections of sea level rise, feel free.  We are all free to go to hell in a handbasket of our own choosing.


----------



## depotoo (Aug 15, 2016)

They are real popular  here.





westwall said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > Weatherman2020 said:
> ...


----------



## LaDexter (Aug 15, 2016)

mamooth said:


> Thank you for that irrefutable evidence of sea-level rise.
> 
> It was a freshwater pool. That means in Herod's day, it had to be well above the high-tide level. It's certainly not well above the high-tide level now.





LOL!!!

You levite you....

Where is the ancient scroll about Herrod's freshwater pool, and what brand of chlorine did he use to keep it blue?


----------



## jc456 (Aug 15, 2016)

westwall said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > Weatherman2020 said:
> ...


cause it wouldn't fit his bullshit if it wasn't.  So therefore, it had to be freshwater.


----------



## LaDexter (Aug 15, 2016)

Actually, that was Herrod's pet shark tank, where those infidels who did not believe CO2 caused Earth climate change were slowly lowered in...


----------



## westwall (Aug 15, 2016)

Weatherman2020 said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > mamooth said:
> ...








Yes, they are.  They are a natural anti bacterial pool.  No need for chlorine.


----------



## westwall (Aug 15, 2016)

Weatherman2020 said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > LaDexter said:
> ...





Eight that I know of.


----------



## mamooth (Aug 15, 2016)

BAR (Biblical Archeology Review) 19:03, May/June 1993, as quoted by the following link:
March | 2011 | Leon's Message Board
---
. . .  was once the centerpiece of Herod’s palace, the nearly Olympic-sized swimming pool. The rectangular pool measures 115 feet long, 59 feet wide and at least 8 feet deep. Water channels leading into the pool from the shore have led excavators to surmise that the pool, though surrounded on three sides by the Mediterranean, had been filled by fresh water. If they are correct, the pool is further indication that Herod thrived on building in the face of natural obstacles.
---

Now, admitting they've been proven totally wrong yet another time isn't in the realm of possibility for deniers. Honesty just isn't in their DNA. If they were honest, they couldn't be deniers.

Hence, I'm waiting to be amused by the contortions they'll go into now. I'm sure it will involve more insults thrown my way, along with other creative evasions on their part. Their own picture shot down their loopy conspiracy theory, as does all the science and all the evidence, and that's got to sting, so they'll be angry. Maybe they'll invite some more deniers and try to mob me, like a pack of jackals going after a lion.


----------



## jc456 (Aug 15, 2016)

mamooth said:


> BAR (Biblical Archeology Review) 19:03, May/June 1993, as quoted by the following link:
> March | 2011 | Leon's Message Board
> ---
> . . .  was once the centerpiece of Herod’s palace, the nearly Olympic-sized swimming pool. The rectangular pool measures 115 feet long, 59 feet wide and at least 8 feet deep. Water channels leading into the pool from the shore have led excavators to surmise that the pool, though surrounded on three sides by the Mediterranean, had been filled by fresh water. If they are correct, the pool is further indication that Herod thrived on building in the face of natural obstacles.
> ...



how is that evidence?  Highlight the parts that fit your point.  Cause here is what I see:
_have led excavators to *surmise* that the pool_
_*If*_ _they are correct,
_
Far from any glaring evidence I'll tell ya.


----------



## mamooth (Aug 15, 2016)

Weatherman2020 said:


> The seaport dock used 2,000 years ago in Ceaserea.  High and dry.



Caesarea Maritima - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
---
today the jetties lie more than 5 meters underwater
---

As failures go, that was a rather spectacular one on your part.


----------



## westwall (Aug 15, 2016)

mamooth said:


> BAR (Biblical Archeology Review) 19:03, May/June 1993, as quoted by the following link:
> March | 2011 | Leon's Message Board
> ---
> . . .  was once the centerpiece of Herod’s palace, the nearly Olympic-sized swimming pool. The rectangular pool measures 115 feet long, 59 feet wide and at least 8 feet deep. Water channels leading into the pool from the shore have led excavators to surmise that the pool, though surrounded on three sides by the Mediterranean, had been filled by fresh water. If they are correct, the pool is further indication that Herod thrived on building in the face of natural obstacles.
> ...









"Into the pool from the shore".....  Sounds like a climatologist claiming that cold actually makes it warm,....


----------



## westwall (Aug 15, 2016)

mamooth said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> > The seaport dock used 2,000 years ago in Ceaserea.  High and dry.
> ...







Funny how you didn't post the reason for their demise....

Also, large lumps of lime were found in all five of the cores studied at Caesarea, which shows that the mixture was not mixed thoroughly.[33] However, stability would not have been seriously affected if the harbor had not been constructed over a geological fault line that runs along the coast. *Seismic action gradually took its toll on the breakwaters, causing them to tilt down and settle into the seabed.[35] Also, studies of seabed deposits at Caesarea have shown that a tsunami struck the area sometime during the 1st or 2nd century CE*.[36] Although it is unknown if this tsunami simply damaged or completely destroyed the harbor, it is known that by the 6th century the harbor was unusable and today the jetties lie more than 5 meters underwater.[37]





*DOH!  *That's called a lie by omission doofus.


----------



## mamooth (Aug 15, 2016)

Weatherman said the port facilities were high and dry.

I pointed out they're under the ocean, hence his story was nonsense and a big fail.

You're now running cover for his embarrassing failure. Poorly, I might add.

Shall I now talk about the Roman fish holding tanks, carefully constructed to be 20 cm about the high tide line (on a stable shoreline), which are now more than a meter below the surface? You really don't want to get into archeology, being how all of it contradicts your conspiracy theories.


----------



## Moonglow (Aug 15, 2016)

bear513 said:


> This what gets me is the AGW cult said they eliminated every known variable ...and there was no warming pause..
> 
> Yea ok
> 
> ...








Space aliens are siphoning water from  the melted ice and that is why the sea levels are not rising...


----------



## Weatherman2020 (Aug 15, 2016)

mamooth said:


> Weatherman said the port facilities were high and dry.
> 
> I pointed out they're under the ocean, hence his story was nonsense and a big fail.
> 
> ...


The dock is right there in the middle of the picture to the left of the fence, dufus.
He's referring to the breakwater. 
Please, try embracing science.


----------



## SSDD (Aug 18, 2016)

Weatherman2020 said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > Weatherman said the port facilities were high and dry.
> ...




Good luck getting that crazy old cat lady to embrace anything other than the warmer cult dogma.


----------



## Crick (Aug 18, 2016)

So, where do you think these data came from?






And,  before you give in to temptation to just call it all bullshit, let me remind you that the RAW and processed data from TOPEX, Jason-1 and Jason-2 are all legally required to be (and are) freely available to the public.


----------



## jc456 (Aug 18, 2016)

Crick said:


> So, where do you think these data came from?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I have no fking idea.  why don't you give me a location on the globe that can verify it? Can you do that or not?  nope.


----------



## LaDexter (Aug 18, 2016)

Crick said:


> So, where do you think these data came from?


----------



## SSDD (Aug 18, 2016)

Crick said:


> So, where do you think these data came from?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Tell me crick...are your eyes brown?...they must be....one couldn't be as full of $h!t as you and not have brown eyes.

You aren't seeing 3.3mm of sea level rise per year...not in the actual ocean anyway.  You are seeing 3.22mm of sea level rise in graphs...and models produced by those who are perpetuating the AGW narrative and raking in the money for it but in the ocean...sorry....just not there.  Not that I think you warmers will be interested in seeing actual evidence of the level of fraud happening within mainstream climate science, but let me show an example for the benefit of those who aren't taking their kook-aid intravenously.  Observe....the blatant altering of past sea level data in an effort to reinforce the imminent climate disaster narrative.  Much like the blatant alteration of past temperatures to support the current narrative, but that's another post....

Luckily, old data is still hanging around to be found to bring the fraud of the climate science modern climate science community into high relief.  This is the sea level increase between 1880 and 1980 shown by NASA in 1980.  The graph shows an increase of just over 3 inches of sea level increase between 1880 and 1980....*NOTE the sharp decrease in the rate of increase after 1950.*






You can't really scare people with a 3 inch sea level increase over a 100 year period so the frauds in climate pseudoscience increased the figure to 6 inches per century with nothing more than adjustments....  NOTE the completely FAKE acceleration after 1950.






Here is an overlay of the two graphs on the same time scale.  One is scientific in nature...showing actual observed sea level increases...the other is a piece of alarmist propaganda that has nothing whatsoever to do with science and everything to do with supporting a fraudulent narrative.






Then in 2004, the University of Colorado showed 2.8 mm per year rate of sea level increase.  This is what the RAW Jason and TOPEX data look like...not similar in the least to what you claim to be the RAW data.






2.8 mm per year?  Not very scary...even to alarmists so again, the data is heavily massaged using inappropriate, and completely fraudulent methods to achieve a 3.3mm per year rate of increase.  A global isostatic adjustment was applied which is blatantly fraudulent in the context of sea level increase.  Such adjustments are correct in the context of calculating ocean depth as the sea floor sinks and have absolutely no relationship to measuring sea level by satellites.  Here is what the adjustments look like...recognize the POS graph as the same garbage you posted and claimed to be the RAW data.....what a laugh....and what a liar.






Here is an overlay of the two graphs at the same time scale....one using valid methodology and one using calculations that are not appropriate for determining sea level increase for no other reason than to support the AGW narrative.






So some numbers got a massage and a picture was painted to give the appearance of imminent disaster.  Shit happens...right?  But when the "spokes agency" for modern climate science repeats the fraud as truth....we have real evidence of deliberate data corruption with the intent to deceive regarding climate change.  In 1990 the IPCC said:






Then in 2013 using blatantly massaged data and obviously fraudulent graphs, the IPCC said exactly the opposite of what they said in 1990.  You guys are lairs crick...guilty of malfeasance, and deliberate fraud for no other reason than to gain political power.  You have damaged the reputation of science so deeply that it will take many many decades after this circus is over to restore the trust in science that you climate wackos have destroyed for political reasons


----------



## Crick (Aug 18, 2016)

That you should think mainstream science guilty of fraud and malfeasance - having a fair idea of your actual technical competence - worries me not in the slightest.

PS, you might familiarize yourself with the difference removing seasonal signals makes to graphs like these.  And how about you point out where I said that UC data was "raw"..

PPS, dude, you are really a pathetic dick.


----------



## SSDD (Aug 19, 2016)

That isn't what happened crick....they applied a completely unjustified global isostatic adjustment in the case of your POS graph...and do you call completely erasing the obvious slowdown in the rate of sea level rise shown post 1950 in the graph from 1980 a seasonable adjustment?...for that matter, how do you possibly call any of the adjustments shown in the graphs seasonal adjustment...how about showing some data that shows exactly what the seasonal difference in sea level is and then lets compare it to the graphs...

You are a bald faced liar crick...you say and claim whatever you think is necessary to support the AGW narrative...and don't seem to be able to post anything that doesn't include at least one logical fallacy....must suck to be you.


----------



## jillian (Aug 19, 2016)

bear513 said:


> Check out this part of the story...
> 
> Seas aren’t just rising, scientists say — it’s worse than that. They’re speeding up.
> 
> ...



see, this is the problem with science deniers. "open access" journals mean that the articles aren't vetted and are largely nonsense.....which is why this is where science deniers get their supportive "studies".

thanks though.


----------



## SSDD (Aug 19, 2016)

jillian said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > Check out this part of the story...
> ...



What you mean is that they bypass the well documented pal review system put in place by the gatekeepers and present data that is considered to be heresy by the high church of AGW.

thanks though.


----------



## Crick (Aug 19, 2016)

Well, that's one viewpoint.  It perfectly matches the viewpoint of fools griping that the experts are aware they're fools, but take it however you want.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Aug 19, 2016)

jillian said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > Check out this part of the story...
> ...




Is that your word of the day sweetheart...vetted?

Vetted by whom...Michael Mann or John Cook?

Who are nourtous for suppressing real science?

This is a damn sattalite that proves there was a cold pulse produced by a little volcano.  They keep on saying there was no lull.


----------



## jillian (Aug 19, 2016)

SSDD said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > bear513 said:
> ...



No. What I mean is that they aren't legitimate


----------



## jillian (Aug 19, 2016)

bear513 said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > bear513 said:
> ...



Aw teddy bear. Was vetted a big word for you. 

Science exists whether you believe it or not. It's sad how somewhere anti-intellectualism tells you that the people who know what they're talking about should be ignored but people who don't should be listened to. 

It's bizarre


----------



## jc456 (Aug 19, 2016)

Crick said:


> That you should think mainstream science guilty of fraud and malfeasance - having a fair idea of your actual technical competence - worries me not in the slightest.
> 
> PS, you might familiarize yourself with the difference removing seasonal signals makes to graphs like these.  And how about you point out where I said that UC data was "raw"..
> 
> PPS, dude, you are really a pathetic dick.


although the mainstream science as you like to boast about is pseudoscience, massaged and manipulated.  Stated so by those who you boast about.  Evidence presented in here repeatedly.  So, what say you?


----------



## jc456 (Aug 19, 2016)

jillian said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > Check out this part of the story...
> ...


so dude/dudette, post up some spot on this planet with sea level rise.  That seems simple don't you think?  Also, explain where this extra water source is.


----------



## jc456 (Aug 19, 2016)

Crick said:


> Well, that's one viewpoint.  It perfectly matches the viewpoint of fools griping that the experts are aware they're fools, but take it however you want.


and factual.


----------



## jc456 (Aug 19, 2016)

jillian said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > jillian said:
> ...


legitimate by whose standards? If you're going to say your team, hah,


----------



## jc456 (Aug 19, 2016)

jillian said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > jillian said:
> ...


we all agree, so when is it you're coming to use the science?  have any experiments or actual factual information you can share in the forum today?  I didn't think so.


----------



## hunarcy (Aug 19, 2016)

bear513 said:


> Check out this part of the story...
> 
> Seas aren’t just rising, scientists say — it’s worse than that. They’re speeding up.
> 
> ...



Climate change helps slow, not quicken, rising sea levels – NASA


----------



## LaDexter (Aug 19, 2016)

jillian said:


> see, this is the problem with science deniers.




Indeed, it is your side that denies science.  You are absolutely certain of something that is the most obvious science related fraud in human history.  Every time the actuality of what these fudgebaking liars claim is checked, they're busted lying again.

And the unimaginably stupid parroting moron supporters like you cannot answer THE FIRST QUESTION of Earth Climate Change....

Why does one Earth polar circle, the Antarctic, have 9 times the ice of the other, the Arctic?

Until you answer that question, you are the "denier" of the fact that you are a worthless moron who doesn't understand anything regarding the issue of Earth climate change.


----------



## Crick (Aug 19, 2016)

LaDexter said:


> Indeed, it is your side that denies science.



By accepting the opinion of the overwhelming majority of the scientific experts in the field?



LaDexter said:


> You are absolutely certain of something that is the most obvious science related fraud in human history.



1) You have presented ZERO evidence of fraud
2) Your fraud requires a conspiracy that defies reality
3) You haven't placed the slightest doubt on the opinions of climate scientists worldwide.



LaDexter said:


> Every time the actuality of what these fudgebaking liars claim is checked, they're busted lying again.



That is a lie.  



LaDexter said:


> And the unimaginably stupid parroting moron supporters like you cannot answer THE FIRST QUESTION of Earth Climate Change....Why does one Earth polar circle, the Antarctic, have 9 times the ice of the other, the Arctic?



We have two groups here.  One reads and generally accepts the views of mainstream science.  This group holds that the consensus opinion of scientific experts in the field of climate science are the most likely to be right on issues involving the areas of their expertise.  The other group assumes they are more intelligent and knowledgeable than many thousand degreed researchers  who've spent their lives studying these questions AND assumes that virtually every single climate scientist on the planet is involved in a massive, perfectly executed and perfectly secure conspiracy to defraud the human race for monetary gain. 



LaDexter said:


> Until you answer that question, you are the "denier" of the fact that you are a worthless moron who doesn't understand anything regarding the issue of Earth climate change.



You are the worthless moron.  You appear to understand absolutely nothing about absolutely anything.


----------



## jc456 (Aug 19, 2016)

Crick said:


> LaDexter said:
> 
> 
> > Indeed, it is your side that denies science.
> ...


How about everything you post?


----------



## SSDD (Aug 20, 2016)

jillian said:


> No. What I mean is that they aren't legitimate



All scientific papers are legitimate till such time as proven otherwise.... So lets see some observed, measured, quantified, empirical data that supports the anthropogenic component of AGW therefore proving the skeptical papers illegitimate.  I have only been asking for such data for about 2 decades now and have yet to see the first scrap of it...perhaps you can find some.


----------



## jillian (Aug 20, 2016)

SSDD said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > No. What I mean is that they aren't legitimate
> ...



no. all scientific papers are NOT legitimate.

seriously. you sound absurd.


----------



## SSDD (Aug 20, 2016)

jillian said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > jillian said:
> ...



Of course they aren't...if there is actual evidence that renders them illegitimate.  Again, can you provide observed, measured, quantified evidence that would make a paper skeptical of the AGW hypothesis illegitimate?...a consensus view on a topic certainly isn't enough to make a skeptical view on the same topic illegitimate.


----------



## Crick (Aug 20, 2016)

I don't believe innocent till proven guilty is part of the scientific method.  I rather think it goes the other way.


----------



## SSDD (Aug 20, 2016)

Crick said:


> I don't believe innocent till proven guilty is part of the scientific method.  I rather think it goes the other way.



Clearly, you don't know the first thing about the scientific method if you believe it has any place within the climate science community....if it did, either the AGW hypothesis would have been scrapped, or there would be abundant observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence for you to post supporting the A in AGW.


----------



## LaDexter (Aug 20, 2016)

Crick said:


> By accepting the opinion of the overwhelming majority of the scientific experts in the field?




"Hide the decline" is not science.  The only "expertise" your heroes have is FUDGING.




Crick said:


> You have presented ZERO evidence of fraud



LOL!!!

Two and only two instruments measure one thing, returning highly correlated data.  Your side didn't like the answer those two instruments returned, so your side FUDGED both with UNCORRELATED "corrections."  That's not science, crick, that's FRAUD.  The two instruments = satellites and balloons.  The highly correlated data = no warming in the atmosphere.

Increasing CO2 caused NO WARMING in the atmosphere until your side FUDGED the data...





Crick said:


> One reads and generally accepts the views of mainstream science.



The moronic sub human state of being a science invalid PARROT, usually a LEFT WING one....




Crick said:


> The other group



... notices the lies, fraud, fudge, and cherry picking of the "experts" you parrot.  Take Antarctic ice, for example.  The data always showed growth.  Your side always LIED.  When brought to court, your side was BUSTED LYING and WAS TOO CHICKEN TO APPEAL, instead content to continue fudging and relying on biased media coverage.

Oh, BTW, with 90% of Earth ice GROWING, where is the NET ICE MELT causing the SEA LEVEL "rise?"

YOU DO NOT HAVE ANY SEA LEVEL RISE, WHICH IS WHY YOUR "SINKING ISLANDS" are right on the lip of the PROF...


----------



## SSDD (Aug 20, 2016)

LaDexter said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > By accepting the opinion of the overwhelming majority of the scientific experts in the field?
> ...



Don't forget that they took about 70% of the temperature data stations off line....interestingly enough, they were predominantly rural stations not effected by UHI and therefore not requiring much adjustment.


----------



## Crick (Aug 20, 2016)

Crick said:


> By accepting the opinion of the overwhelming majority of the scientific experts in the field?





LaDexter said:


> "Hide the decline" is not science.  The only "expertise" your heroes have is FUDGING.



Deniers still calling out "Hide the decline" mark themselves as fools.  The meaning of the phrase (referring to the decline in proportionality factors for tree ring proxies in the 20th century) is well known (but not to you)).  If you actually believe your wee quip serves to disregard all climate science, you're an even greater fool.




Crick said:


> You have presented ZERO evidence of fraud





LaDexter said:


> Two and only two instruments measure one thing, returning highly correlated data.  Your side didn't like the answer those two instruments returned, so your side FUDGED both with UNCORRELATED "corrections."  That's not science, crick, that's FRAUD.  The two instruments = satellites and balloons.  The highly correlated data = no warming in the atmosphere.



You seem to have this fantasy in your head as to how climate science has been conducted for the last few decades.  You keep talking about highly correlated satellite and balloon data.  What satellite data?  What balloon data?  You've not been so good at actually identifying this mystical source.  Your suggestion that all climate science should have stopped because of two measurement sets is absolutely asinine.



LaDexter said:


> Increasing CO2 caused NO WARMING in the atmosphere until your side FUDGED the data...



You are one of the most outstanding idiots I've ever had the pleasure to engage here.  There's not a man, woman or child here that can match the level of pride you hold in your own intellectual failings.



Crick said:


> One reads and generally accepts the views of mainstream science.





LaDexter said:


> The moronic sub human state of being a science invalid PARROT, usually a LEFT WING one....



If you had shown a single error in mainstream science findings or had demonstrated anything but abysmal ignorance coupled with an horribly inflated ego, you might have made a point.  But, you haven't.  So far, the only point you've succeeded in making (and that to an admirable degree) is that you don't have the faintest fuck of an idea what you're talking about... On ANY topic to which you've turned your attention.



Crick said:


> The other group





LaDexter said:


> ... notices the lies, fraud, fudge, and cherry picking of the "experts" you parrot.



This comes very close to a misquote, asshole, a practice strictly forbidden by USMB rules.  You have yet to demonstrate that ANYTHING I post is "lies, fraud, fudge or cherry picking".  You refer to any reference to outside sources as PARROTING, no matter who they are.  You live inside your own head and refuse to leave.  You do not listen to others.  ANY others.  You assume you are the smartest person on the planet.  There are names for folks who behave like you but I'm not going to bother.  Everyone here knows you're whacked.



LaDexter said:


> Take Antarctic ice, for example.  The data always showed growth.



What data would that be?



LaDexter said:


> Your side always LIED.



It was mainstream science, NASA - whom you've badmouthed at every other opportunity - that presented the one and only data showing a positive ice mass balance.  How is it that they are your hero at this one and only point and lying criminals at every other?  How does that work out?



LaDexter said:


> When brought to court, your side was BUSTED LYING and WAS TOO CHICKEN TO APPEAL, instead content to continue fudging and relying on biased media coverage.



The court case you think the climate debate revolves around was brought by Stuart Dimmock, a father of two, against the British Secretary of State for Education.  Your comments about the case are absolute nonsense.  You just do not have a single solitary fucking CLUE.



LaDexter said:


> Oh, BTW, with 90% of Earth ice GROWING, where is the NET ICE MELT causing the SEA LEVEL "rise?"
> 
> YOU DO NOT HAVE ANY SEA LEVEL RISE, WHICH IS WHY YOUR "SINKING ISLANDS" are right on the lip of the PROF...



God, are you STUPID.


----------



## SSDD (Aug 21, 2016)

Crick said:


> You seem to have this fantasy in your head as to how climate science has been conducted for the last few decades.  You keep talking about highly correlated satellite and balloon data.  What satellite data?  What balloon data?  You've not been so good at actually identifying this mystical source.  Your suggestion that all climate science should have stopped because of two measurement sets is absolutely asinine.



One thing us skeptics have no fantasy about is how climate pseudoscience has been conducted for the past few decades....the fact that there is any degree of consensus among the climate pseudoscience community that man is altering the global climate with his CO2 emissions while there remains not the first shred of observed, measured, quantified data supporting the claim brings how climate pseudoscience has been conducted for the past few decades into sharp relief.

You and yours, on the other hand hold dearly to a fantasy that climate pseudoscience has been operating strictly within the boundaries of the scientific method....nothing could be further from the truth.


----------



## Crick (Aug 21, 2016)

Crick said:


> You seem to have this fantasy in your head as to how climate science has been conducted for the last few decades.  You keep talking about highly correlated satellite and balloon data.  What satellite data?  What balloon data?  You've not been so good at actually identifying this mystical source.  Your suggestion that all climate science should have stopped because of two measurement sets is absolutely asinine.





SSDD said:


> One thing us skeptics have no fantasy about is how climate pseudoscience has been conducted for the past few decades.



The first problem there is that you're not the least bit skeptical.



SSDD said:


> the fact that there is any degree of consensus among the climate pseudoscience community that man is altering the global climate with his CO2 emissions while there remains not the first shred of observed, measured, quantified data supporting the claim brings how climate pseudoscience has been conducted for the past few decades into sharp relief.



Wrong.  What it "brings" is that you are completely dishonest and have freely chosen to lie about what exists and what has been presented to you. 



SSDD said:


> You and yours, on the other hand hold dearly to a fantasy that climate pseudoscience has been operating strictly within the boundaries of the scientific method....nothing could be further from the truth.



Paranoia.  Delusions of grandeur.  Those are your problems.  

The world is getting warming at rates not seen in over a million years and that warming represents a real and significant threat to the well being of human culture: our children, our grandchildren and theirs for generations to come.  Thousands of peer reviewed studies have found that the only viable cause for the majority of that warming is human GHG emissions and deforestaton.  CO2 gas, released by the combustion of fossil fuels and not removed when land is deforested, is a powerful greenhouse gas with an atmospheric lifespan of decades to centuries

That you, the author of such wonderments as hollow moons, self-guided,intelligent photons and greenhouse gas cooling have some incredible nerve to deride the science being conducted on the Earth's climate.  And then there's your lying.


----------



## SSDD (Aug 21, 2016)

Crick said:


> The first problem there is that you're not the least bit skeptical.



Deliberate lie?  Or are you just that stupid?   Here, let me help you out with the definition of skeptical....

adjective
1.
inclined to skepticism; having an attitude of doubt: 
2.doubtful about a particular thing: 
3.showing doubt: 
4.denying or questioning the tenets of a religion: 



Crick said:


> Wrong.  What it "brings" is that you are completely dishonest and have freely chosen to lie about what exists and what has been presented to you.



No crick...either you are too stupid to understand that the data you present isn't observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence supporting the A in AGW...or you present it anyway hoping that you might fool someone...



Crick said:


> The world is getting warming at rates not seen in over a million years and that warming represents a real and significant threat to the well being of human culture: our children, our grandchildren and theirs for generations to come.



Really?  Which proxy are you using that would provide such resolution to allow you to make that sort of claim regarding half a century?...the truth is that there is no proxy record that provides such resolution so again...you are deliberately lying and making hysterical alarmist claims that you simply can not support with anything like actual evidence...such is the nature of climate pseudoscience and its cultish followers.



Crick said:


> Thousands of peer reviewed studies have found that the only viable cause for the majority of that warming is human GHG emissions and deforestaton.  CO2 gas, released by the combustion of fossil fuels and not removed when land is deforested, is a powerful greenhouse gas with an atmospheric lifespan of decades to centuries



All without the first shred of observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence to support the most basic tenet of the AGW hypothesis...absolutely amazing...and a testament to the fraudulent nature of climate pseudoscience.


----------



## LaDexter (Aug 21, 2016)

Crick said:


> Deniers still calling out "Hide the decline" mark themselves as fools. The meaning of the phrase (referring to the decline in proportionality factors for tree ring proxies in the 20th century) is well known (but not to you)). If you actually believe your wee quip serves to disregard all climate science, you're an even greater fool.




LMFAO!!!


Crick's "Science" = hide the TRUTH (that there was a decline) because we're in the business of LYING and FUDGING


----------



## LaDexter (Aug 21, 2016)

For the 1,674,352nd time....  folks, Crick makes me repeat it over and over.... because Crick is not in the business of ascertaining truth, rather, he is in the completely opposite business = Crick is a taxpayer funded truth obfuscation person...



Crick said:


> You keep talking about highly correlated satellite and balloon data. What satellite data? What balloon data?



http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1462036/posts

"For years, skeptics of global warming have used satellite and weather balloon data to argue that climate models were wrong and that global warming isn't really happening.

Now, according to three new studies published in the journal Science, it turns out those conclusions based on satellite and weather balloon data were based on faulty analyses.

The atmosphere is indeed warming, *not cooling as the data previously showed*."


and that data was highly correlated from both sources.  The "warmer" "corrections" were uncorrelated, and totally fabricated FUDGE.


----------



## Crick (Aug 21, 2016)

"The atmosphere is indeed warming"?  Is that what you wanted to say?


----------



## SSDD (Aug 22, 2016)

Warming....cooling...it is always doing one or the other except when it isn't....natural variation on display.  Why are you so afraid of natural variation?  Why do you demand that the climate remain static when there is nothing you can possibly do about it?


----------



## Crick (Aug 22, 2016)

LaDexter said:


> For the 1,674,352nd time....  folks, Crick makes me repeat it over and over.... because Crick is not in the business of ascertaining truth, rather, he is in the completely opposite business = Crick is a taxpayer funded truth obfuscation person...
> 
> 
> 
> ...



So, do you consider THIS to be a link to the specific data you've been touting?

PS: if you say "highly correlated" one more time, I've going to spew a great spew in your face


----------



## jc456 (Aug 22, 2016)

Crick said:


> I don't believe innocent till proven guilty is part of the scientific method.  I rather think it goes the other way.


no it's test measure and observe.  thanks.


----------



## SSDD (Aug 23, 2016)

Crick said:


> LaDexter said:
> 
> 
> > For the 1,674,352nd time....  folks, Crick makes me repeat it over and over.... because Crick is not in the business of ascertaining truth, rather, he is in the completely opposite business = Crick is a taxpayer funded truth obfuscation person...
> ...



It must suck when you rely entirely on correlatory data and someone else shows correlation that doesn't agree with your correlation....that's the problem with believing a branch of science that doesn't have any observed, measured, quantified, empirical data in support of their hypothesis....his correlation is just as valid as yours...more valid in fact, because your correlation only holds true for a very short period of time...a mere wink...and then it falls apart...his holds back as long as tectonic plates have been moving.


----------



## Crick (Aug 23, 2016)

Crick said:


> Deniers still calling out "Hide the decline" mark themselves as fools. The meaning of the phrase (referring to the decline in proportionality factors for tree ring proxies in the 20th century) is well known (but not to you)). If you actually believe your wee quip serves to disregard all climate science, you're an even greater fool.





LaDexter said:


> Crick's "Science" = hide the TRUTH (that there was a decline) because we're in the business of LYING and FUDGING



Climatic Research Unit email controversy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Many commentators quoted one email in which Phil Jones said he had used "Mike's _Nature_ trick" in a 1999 graph for the World Meteorological Organization "to hide the decline" in proxy temperatures derived from tree ring analyses when measured temperatures were actually rising. This 'decline' referred to the well-discussed tree ring divergence problem, but these two phrases were taken out of context by global warming sceptics, including US Senator Jim Inhofe and former Governor of Alaska Sarah Palin, as though they referred to some decline in measured global temperatures, even though they were written when temperatures were at a record high.1] John Tierney, writing in the _New York Times_ in November 2009, said that the claims by sceptics of "hoax" or "fraud" were incorrect, but that the graph on the cover of a report for policy makers and journalists did not show these non-experts where proxy measurements changed to measured temperatures.[2] *The final analyses from various subsequent inquiries concluded that in this context 'trick' was normal scientific or mathematical jargon for a neat way of handling data, in this case a statistical method used to bring two or more different kinds of data sets together in a legitimate fashion.*[3][4] *The EPA notes that in fact, the evidence shows that the research community was fully aware of these issues and that no one was hiding or concealing them*.[5]

*References*

Pearce, Fred (9 February 2010). "Part two: How the 'climategate' scandal is bogus and based on climate sceptics' lies". _The Guardian_. UK. Retrieved 20 March 2010.
Tierney, John. "E-Mail Fracas Shows Peril of Trying to Spin Science." _The New York Times._ 1 December 2009.
Randerson, James (31 March 2010). "Climate researchers 'secrecy' criticised – but MPs say science remains intact". _The Guardian_. London. Retrieved 26 July 2010.
Foley, Henry C.; Scaroni, Alan W.; Yekel, Candice A. (3 February 2010). "RA-10 Inquiry Report: Concerning the Allegations of Research Misconduct Against Dr. Michael E. Mann, Department of Meteorology, College of Earth and Mineral Sciences, The Pennsylvania State University" (PDF). The Pennsylvania State University. Retrieved7 February 2010.
"Denial of Petitions for Reconsideration of the Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gases under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act | Regulatory Initiatives | Climate Change". United States Environmental Protection Agency. 29 September 2010. pp. 1.1.4. Retrieved 26 October 2010.
You are an absolute, fucking, shit-for-brains, idiot


----------



## LaDexter (Aug 23, 2016)

"Hide the decline" is "normal" only when tens of billions of taxdollars are at stake...


----------



## Crick (Aug 23, 2016)

Did you even read the text I posted?  Do you have any comments about it?  Do you have any evidence that actually supports your claim as to the meaning of the phrase in that context?  Eh?


----------



## SSDD (Aug 24, 2016)

Crick said:


> Did you even read the text I posted?  Do you have any comments about it?  Do you have any evidence that actually supports your claim as to the meaning of the phrase in that context?  Eh?




Explanations by the people who cooked up the plan to hide the decline?....tell me crick...did you believe the tobacco industry's explanations and excuses re cigarette smoking?


----------



## Crick (Aug 24, 2016)

Crick said:


> Did you even read the text I posted?  Do you have any comments about it?  Do you have any evidence that actually supports your claim as to the meaning of the phrase in that context?  Eh?



I guess you did not read the text I posted or you have no comments about it and you lack any evidence whatsoever to support your claim as to the meaning of the phrase.

Got it.


----------



## SSDD (Aug 24, 2016)

Crick said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > Did you even read the text I posted?  Do you have any comments about it?  Do you have any evidence that actually supports your claim as to the meaning of the phrase in that context?  Eh?
> ...



You clearly accept any explanation...and when no explanation is given...as in the examples I gave you of a clear admission of falsifying data...you make up excuses for them.


----------



## Crick (Aug 24, 2016)

And for Dex, who doesn't seem to understand seasonal effects


----------



## SSDD (Aug 24, 2016)

Both of those graphs purportedly show a yearly rate of increase....and have nothing whatsoever to do with seasonal effects...not only can you not read graphs...but apparently don't even understand what they are trying to show...although in the case of those...they are obviously flawed...

This is what the Jason and TOPEX data show prior to the fraudulent isostatic adjustments made to them...






2.8m per year....business as usual and not scary at all


Here are the actual data and the fraudulent adjustments overlaid at the same time scale.







Your graph is pure bullshit....much like all of your argument.


----------



## Crick (Aug 24, 2016)

Check your dates.  Can we say   *C H E R R Y - P I C K I N G*


----------



## jc456 (Aug 24, 2016)

Crick said:


> Check your dates.  Can we say   *C H E R R Y - P I C K I N G*


they're the same dates that you had on yours.  Are you on drugs?


----------



## Crick (Aug 24, 2016)

1992 - 2004 is not the same date range as 1992 - 2016.  Are YOU on drugs?


----------



## jc456 (Aug 24, 2016)

Crick said:


> 1992 - 2004 is not the same date range as 1992 - 2016.  Are YOU on drugs?


what does that have to do with the data reference line between 1992 and 2004?


----------



## SSDD (Aug 25, 2016)

jc456 said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > 1992 - 2004 is not the same date range as 1992 - 2016.  Are YOU on drugs?
> ...




Crick doesn't do graphs you know...he can't read them...he has no idea what they are showing...in short...crick doesn't understand graphs...he is the only ocean engineer on the planet that can't read a simple graph and understand what it means...he can't look at the uniform change created by the fraudulent isostatic adjustment across the period between 1992 and 2004 and see that the diversion from the earlier sea level only continues to diverge further and further as time goes on...


----------



## Crick (Aug 25, 2016)

Quick, jc, define ISOSTATIC for us


----------



## jc456 (Aug 25, 2016)

Crick said:


> Quick, jc, define ISOSTATIC for us


why don't you know?

Do you think I'm your bitch?  hahahaahahahahaha you sorry ass loser you have a screw loose to think that thought.

I'd rather that you just post up the paragraph from the AR5 report that you claim backs your story of observed empirical data.  That would be sweet to see you actually make a fking effort.


----------



## SSDD (Aug 25, 2016)

Since crick doesn't know...Ill tell him...isostatic adjustments are entirely fraudulent with regard to sea level height....such adjustments are appropriate when the sea bed is dropping or for ocean depth or volume...but has nothing whatsoever to do with satellite measurements or sea level height....unless of course all you want to do is create a false sense of alarm...then I suppose they would be justified as if you could justify fraud.

An ocean engineer should be screaming at the top of his lungs that isostatic adjustments have nothing to do with sea level height...and yet...crick simply accepts...probably because he is no ocean engineer...just another useful idiot.


----------



## Luddly Neddite (Aug 25, 2016)

Just saying ...


----------



## SSDD (Aug 25, 2016)

Luddly Neddite said:


> Just saying ...




Saying what?... you don't like natural variability?


----------



## Crick (Aug 25, 2016)

What those two trend lines indicate is that sea level rise, as mainstream science has shown, is accelerating.  He didn't want to show you the rest of the 2015 data, because it was obvious that the rate line fit the data.  Use your head, jc.  Don't let these people lie to you and lead you down the primrose path.


----------



## SSDD (Aug 26, 2016)

Crick said:


> What those two trend lines indicate is that sea level rise, as mainstream science has shown, is accelerating.  He didn't want to show you the rest of the 2015 data, because it was obvious that the rate line fit the data.  Use your head, jc.  Don't let these people lie to you and lead you down the primrose path.



The sea level rise has been less than 3 mm per year as long as we have been measuring it...it remains at less than 3mm per year but that wasn't scary enough to support the alarmist narrative, so some fraudulent adjustments were made producing a graph which supported the "worse than we thought" narrative.  No one has argued that sea level isn't rising...the argument is that the rise isn't accelerating...is there any topic on earth that you are prepared to discuss in a straight forward honest manner or do you find that you simply must lie about everything?


----------



## Crick (Aug 26, 2016)

If you'd like to cherry-pick, the rate from 2011 to 2016 is 6.8 mm/yr,


----------



## SSDD (Aug 29, 2016)

Crick said:


> If you'd like to cherry-pick, the rate from 2011 to 2016 is 6.8 mm/yr,




Except that your graph is bullshit from one end to the other...manipulated data with no other purpose than to support an alarmist narrative.


----------



## Crick (Aug 29, 2016)

That sounds like a claim.  Prove it.


----------



## SSDD (Aug 29, 2016)

Crick said:


> That sounds like a claim.  Prove it.




Already did..but I will gladly post it again...unfortunately it contains graphs and since you can't understand graphs no matter how hard you try...it looks like you are just stuck believing the sham...

Luckily, old data is still hanging around to be found to bring the fraud of the climate science modern climate science community into high relief. This is the sea level increase between 1880 and 1980 shown by NASA in 1980. The graph shows an increase of just over 3 inches of sea level increase between 1880 and 1980....*NOTE the sharp decrease in the rate of increase after 1950.*






You can't really scare people with a 3 inch sea level increase over a 100 year period so the frauds in climate pseudoscience increased the figure to 6 inches per century with nothing more than adjustments.... NOTE the completely FAKE acceleration after 1950.






Here is an overlay of the two graphs on the same time scale. One is scientific in nature...showing actual observed sea level increases...the other is a piece of alarmist propaganda that has nothing whatsoever to do with science and everything to do with supporting a fraudulent narrative.






Then in 2004, the University of Colorado showed 2.8 mm per year rate of sea level increase. This is what the RAW Jason and TOPEX data look like...not similar in the least to what you claim to be the RAW data.






2.8 mm per year? Not very scary...even to alarmists so again, the data is heavily massaged using inappropriate, and completely fraudulent methods to achieve a 3.3mm per year rate of increase. A global isostatic adjustment was applied which is blatantly fraudulent in the context of sea level increase. Such adjustments are correct in the context of calculating ocean depth as the sea floor sinks and have absolutely no relationship to measuring sea level by satellites. Here is what the adjustments look like...recognize the POS graph as the same garbage you posted and claimed to be the RAW data.....what a laugh....and what a liar.






Here is an overlay of the two graphs at the same time scale....one using valid methodology and one using calculations that are not appropriate for determining sea level increase for no other reason than to support the AGW narrative.






So some numbers got a massage and a picture was painted to give the appearance of imminent disaster. Shit happens...right? But when the "spokes agency" for modern climate science repeats the fraud as truth....we have real evidence of deliberate data corruption with the intent to deceive regarding climate change. In 1990 the IPCC said:






Then in 2013 using blatantly massaged data and obviously fraudulent graphs, the IPCC said exactly the opposite of what they said in 1990. You guys are lairs crick...guilty of malfeasance, and deliberate fraud for no other reason than to gain political power. You have damaged the reputation of science so deeply that it will take many many decades after this circus is over to restore the trust in science that you climate wackos have destroyed for political reasons


----------



## Crick (Aug 29, 2016)

So you'd rather trust data from 1980, with NO satellite altimetry, with NO open ocean data points, with a tiny fraction of the tidal records, to what can be produced today.  Sounds to me as if you decided what you wanted too see long before you saw any data.

If you rely solely on tidal gauges SID, how much of the ocean have you actually measured?


----------



## SSDD (Aug 30, 2016)

Crick said:


> So you'd rather trust data from 1980, with NO satellite altimetry, with NO open ocean data points, with a tiny fraction of the tidal records, to what can be produced today.  Sounds to me as if you decided what you wanted too see long before you saw any data.
> 
> If you rely solely on tidal gauges SID, how much of the ocean have you actually measured?



I trust data that actually matches observations....and I don't trust data that makes wholesale changes to data from decades and decades ago which do not match known observations...and I certainly don't trust a fledgling branch of pseudoscience with a long track record of activism and just making it up as they go.


----------



## Crick (Aug 30, 2016)

"I trust data that actually matches observations"?!?!?  What the fuck does that mean?  The observations ARE the fucking data you lying dimwit.

You think satellite observations are a fledgling branch of pseudoscience?  You think the scientists involved have a long track record of activism?  You think they're just making it up as the go?

My fucking god are you fucking stupid.

You didn't answer the question:

If you rely solely on tide gauges, what percentage of the ocean actually gets measured?  I'll give you a hand.  Let's be generous and say that tidal gauges monitor everywhere up to 100 feet deep, though 18 would be a more accurate figure.






*Figure 10p-1*: The following image displays the topography of the Earth's terrestrial land surface and ocean basins. Data for the image comes from satellite altimetry and ship depth soundings, and U.S. Geological Survey digital elevation maps (DEM) of the Earth's land surface. In the ocean basin, the gradation from red to yellow to green to blue indicates increasing depth. A number of topographic features associated with the ocean basin can be seen in this image. The red area that borders the various landmasses is the *continental shelf*. This feature is structurally part of the continental landmasses despite the fact that it is under water. The yellow to green zone around the continental shelf is the *continental slope* and *continental* *rise*. The blue region in the various ocean basins constitutes the *ocean floor*. In the center of ocean basins, the *mid-oceanic* *ridges* can be seen with a color ranging from green to yellow to orange. (*Modified *from image available at the Seafloor Topography Website, _Institute of Geophysics and Planetary Physics, University of California at San Diego_).
10(p) Physiography of the Ocean Basins

So, the red area is the Continental Shelf.  For a rough estimate, we can take the innermost one-sixth of that area as being 100 feet deep or shallower.

How much of the oceans overlies the Continental Shelves? According to continental shelf it's less than 10%.  Thus our hundred feet boundary includes much less than 1.67% of the world's oceans.  If we used 18 feet as the cutoff, it would be less than 0.3%

Now THAT is an accurate measure... NOT


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Aug 30, 2016)

Crick said:


> So you'd rather trust data from 1980, with NO satellite altimetry, with NO open ocean data points, with a tiny fraction of the tidal records, to what can be produced today.  Sounds to me as if you decided what you wanted too see long before you saw any data.
> 
> If you rely solely on tidal gauges SID, how much of the ocean have you actually measured?



We all have complete faith that the data from 1880 is spot on, right?


----------



## Crick (Aug 30, 2016)

Temperature data on the land's surface and a limited amount of ocean temperature data, yes.  Sea level data from anywhere in deep water, NO.

Do you?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Aug 30, 2016)

Crick said:


> Temperature data on the land's surface and a limited amount of ocean temperature data, yes.  Sea level data from anywhere in deep water, NO.
> 
> Do you?



No, but I'm not the one pretending I have accurate temperature and sea level data using wooden buckets


----------



## Crick (Aug 30, 2016)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > Temperature data on the land's surface and a limited amount of ocean temperature data, yes.  Sea level data from anywhere in deep water, NO.
> ...



You're the one pretending to have accurate sea level data using nothing but 1980s tide gauge records.  I have accurate temperature from the ARGO floats, hundreds of thousands of XBTs, CTD casts, and continuous records from sea water intakes on numerous vessels plying the oceans. I have 37 years of satellite altimetry covering every inch of the ocean's surface.


----------



## SSDD (Aug 31, 2016)

Crick said:


> You're the one pretending to have accurate sea level data using nothing but 1980s tide gauge records.



You think that we were incapable of accurately measuring the tides in 1980?...You think those measurements required wholesale alteration?  You think applying global isostatic adjustments to sea level measurements is valid.

You claim to be an ocean engineer....explain how you think adjustments used for measuring ocean depth and sinking sea floors is valid for measuring ocean height.


----------



## Crick (Aug 31, 2016)

Why it is necessary to take changes of the shape of the ocean basins into account is blatantly obvious.  I'm curious to hear why you think it is not.

I'm also curious to hear why you think an estimate of the ocean's volume based solely on tide gauges measuring the height of the ocean's very rim is more accurate than one which measures the geocentric height of the ocean's surface worldwide.


----------



## jc456 (Aug 31, 2016)

Crick said:


> Why it is necessary to take changes of the shape of the ocean basins into account is blatantly obvious.  I'm curious to hear why you think it is not.
> 
> I'm also curious to hear why you think an estimate of the ocean's volume based solely on tide gauges measuring the height of the ocean's very rim is more accurate than one which measures the geocentric height of the ocean's surface worldwide.


well me personally, I'd just like for you to post up one place on earth that has seen a rise in it's coastal lines.  can you say alligators?


----------



## SSDD (Aug 31, 2016)

Crick said:


> Why it is necessary to take changes of the shape of the ocean basins into account is blatantly obvious.  I'm curious to hear why you think it is not.



And the dishonesty continues...Let me ask again...why do you think it is necessary to use adjustments meant for measuring depth and sinking sea floors to sea height adjustments when there are adjustments meant exactly for that purpose but don't result in crazy increases in sea level rise?

Jeff Masters article on the tropospheric hotspotI'm also curious to hear why you think an estimate of the ocean's volume based solely on tide gauges measuring the height of the ocean's very rim is more accurate than one which measures the geocentric height of the ocean's surface worldwide.[/QUOTE]

Again...isostatic adjustments have nothing to do with sea level rise...that is not what that sort of adjustment is for and when such adjustments are not used...sea level rise drops back to where it has been for as long as we have been measuring....


----------



## Crick (Aug 31, 2016)

Another question!  Do you believe that changing the shape of a container of water can change its level?  Yes or no.


----------



## SSDD (Sep 1, 2016)

Crick said:


> Another question!  Do you believe that changing the shape of a container of water can change its level?  Yes or no.




Again....isostatic adjustments are used primarily when the floor of a body of water is thought to be sinking....the sea level chart you provided used GLOBAL isostatic adjustments...do you believe the sea floor is sinking globally?...any evidence to support that line of thought?...if you don't think that the sea floor is sinking globally, then the GLOBAL isostatic adjustments represent fraud.

It is entertaining watching you attempt to defend the indefensible...and you are so bad at it.


----------



## Crick (Sep 1, 2016)

I guarantee you the people at the UC Sea Level Laboratory are not as stupid as you'd like to believe they are.

*What is glacial isostatic adjustment (GIA), and why do you correct for it?*

Edited: 2011-07-29

Share
The correction for glacial isostatic adjustment (GIA) accounts for the fact that the ocean basins are getting slightly larger since the end of the last glacial cycle. GIA is not caused by current glacier melt, but by the rebound of the Earth from the several kilometer thick ice sheets that covered much of North America and Europe around 20,000 years ago. Mantle material is still moving from under the oceans into previously glaciated regions on land. The effect is that currently some land surfaces are rising and some ocean bottoms are falling relative to the center of the Earth (the center of the reference frame of the satellite altimeter). Averaged over the global ocean surface, the mean rate of sea level change due to GIA is independently estimated from models at -0.3 mm/yr (Peltier, 2001,2002, 2009; Peltier & Luthcke, 2009). The magnitude of this correction is small (smaller than the ±0.4 mm/yr uncertainty of the estimated GMSL rate), but the GIA uncertainty is at least 50 percent. *However, since the ocean basins are getting larger due to GIA, this will reduce by a very small amount the relative sea level rise that is seen along the coasts.* *To understand the relative sea level effects of global oceanic volume changes (as estimated by the GMSL) at a specific location, issues such as GIA, tectonic uplift, and self attraction and loading (SAL, e.g., Tamisiea et al., 2010), must also be considered*. For more discussion on the GMSL and how it relates to tide gauges, see theGMSL and tide gauge FAQs.
What is glacial isostatic adjustment (GIA), and why do you correct for it? | CU Sea Level Research Group

*Why is the GMSL different than local tide gauge measurements?*

Edited: 2015-10-16

Share
The global mean sea level (GMSL) we estimate is an average over the oceans (limited by the satellite inclination to ± 66 degrees latitude), and it cannot be used to predict relative sea level changes along the coasts. As an average, it indicates the general state of the sea level across the oceans and not any specific location. Local tide gauges measure the sea level at a single location relative to the local land surface, a measurement referred to as "relative sea level" (RSL).* Because the land surfaces are dynamic, with some locations rising (e.g., Hudson Bay due to GIA) or sinking (e.g., New Orleans due to subsidence), relative sea level changes are different across world coasts.* To understand the relative sea level effects of global oceanic volume changes (as estimated by the GMSL) at a specific location, issues such as GIA, tectonic uplift, and self attraction and loading (SAL, e.g., Tamisiea et al., 2010), must also be considered.

We do compare the altimeter sea level measurements against a network tide gauges to discover and monitor drift in the satellite (and sometimes tide gauge) measurements. This is discussed further in the tide gauge discussion.

GMSL is a good indicator of changes in the volume of water in the oceans due to mass influx (e.g., land ice melt) and density changes (e.g., thermal expansion), and is therefore of interest in detecting climate change.
Why is the GMSL different than local tide gauge measurements? | CU Sea Level Research Group

*Tide Gauge Sea Level*

Edited: 2011-05-17

Share
*Historical Tide Gauge Measurements*
Traditionally, global sea level change has been estimated from tide gauge measurements collected over the last century. Tide gauges, usually placed on piers, measure the sea level relative to a nearby geodetic benchmark. The figure below is the most commonly used tide gauge measurement system, a float operating in a stilling well. Surveys of the tide gauge site are performed regularly to account for any settling of the site. *Tide gauges may also move vertically with the region as a result of post-glacial rebound, tectonic uplift or crustal subsidence. *This greatly complicates the problem of determining global sea level change from tide gauge data. Differences in global sea level estimates from tide gauge data usually reflect the investigator's approach in considering these vertical crustal movements. Tide gauges also monitor meteorological factors that affect sea levels, such as barometric pressure and wind speed, so that these variable factors can be eliminated from long-term assessments of sea level change.* Although the global network of tide gauges comprises of a poorly distributed sea level measurement system, it offers the only source of historical, precise, long-term sea level data.* Major conclusions from tide gauge data have been that global sea level has risen approximately 10-25 cm during the past century.
Tide Gauge Sea Level | CU Sea Level Research Group


----------



## SSDD (Sep 2, 2016)

Crick said:


> I guarantee you the people at the UC Sea Level Laboratory are not as stupid as you'd like to believe they are.



All you have done is prove that you are as stupid as they hope you are....


----------



## Crick (Sep 2, 2016)

Yet I post up article and article, study after study, data after data.  What do we get from you?  Insults and.... nothing else.  VERY CONVINCING


----------



## LaDexter (Sep 2, 2016)

Beware "warmers" with "corrections.."


... and notice all the fudge stains around them...


----------



## Crick (Sep 2, 2016)

Still no data about ANYTHING.  

Here is what global sea levels are doing.






Do you have CURRENT data showing something different?


----------



## LaDexter (Sep 3, 2016)

We've been through this a zillion times, crick.  Your side has loads of color fudge charts.  Whoopie...

Meanwhile...

1. 90% of the Earth's ice on Antarctica adds at least 80 billion tons of ice every year, and your side doesn't have anywhere near that amount "melting" elsewhere.
2. Your side has cherry picked three "sinking" islands on the lip of the Pacific Ring of Fire.
3. Nothing but islands on the lip of the Pacific Ring of Fire is sinking, not Ellis Island, not Ft. Sumter, not the beach used for both series of Hawaii 50, nothing...
4. Antarctica is hardly the only piece of ice on Earth growing...

Himalayan glaciers growing despite global warming

New Zealand Glaciers Growing


----------



## jc456 (Sep 3, 2016)

Crick said:


> Yet I post up article and article, study after study, data after data.  What do we get from you?  Insults and.... nothing else.  VERY CONVINCING


Yet, every post is fudged just as we say. So, the stupid that is you, your own posts make our point! D'OH


----------



## Crick (Sep 4, 2016)

None of you have ever shown that ANY mainstream climate data is "fudged" (and, surely JC, you can do better than copy LaDumpster).  You keep saying it is.  You assume that any and all adjustments are unwarranted and intended to deceive, yet none of you have ever shown that.  You just assume that any change that makes things appear worse is false and you completely ignore the many adjustments that have lessened the observed warming.  And now, you just assume that your point is made, when the truth of the matter is that none of you have ever done shit here but make unsubstantiated assertions.


----------



## LaDexter (Sep 4, 2016)

Crick said:


> None of you have ever shown that ANY mainstream climate data is "fudged"



LMFAO!!!


The British Court ruling.

Climategate

The "need" to alter two highly correlated data sets (the ones showing NO WARMING in the atmosphere despite rising CO2...)

Yeah, nothing is fudged... about those "studies" claiming Antarctic ice is "melting..." what did the COURT RULE???


----------



## jc456 (Sep 4, 2016)

Crick said:


> None of you have ever shown that ANY mainstream climate data is "fudged" (and, surely JC, you can do better than copy LaDumpster).  You keep saying it is.  You assume that any and all adjustments are unwarranted and intended to deceive, yet none of you have ever shown that.  You just assume that any change that makes things appear worse is false and you completely ignore the many adjustments that have lessened the observed warming.  And now, you just assume that your point is made, when the truth of the matter is that none of you have ever done shit here but make unsubstantiated assertions.


You and I did this before and I posted my 2014 post using fudge. So, again you're wrong. Try something new. I've also posted admittance of manipulation. So try again again. You're still 0 for. When might we see something factual. From you?


----------



## hunarcy (Sep 4, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...



If the sea levels are rising, then why did Al Gore buy ocean front property 6 years ago?  Think he paid all that money so he could have a houseboat?

Al Gore Buys $8.9 Million Ocean-view Villa


----------



## Crick (Sep 5, 2016)

Al Gore's property is probably several hundred feet above sea level.  It's in southern California, not New Orleans.


----------



## LaDexter (Sep 6, 2016)

Nobody is more certain the oceans are NOT rising than the biggest liar in human history, Algore.


----------



## Crick (Sep 6, 2016)

Evidence?

I didn't think so.


----------



## LaDexter (Sep 6, 2016)

Once again...

90% of Earth ice on Antarctica adding at least 80 billion tons of ice every year...

http://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/nasa-study-mass-gains-of-antarctic-ice-sheet-greater-than-losses


To get a sea level rise, you need more than 80 billion tons of net ice melt from the remaining 10% of Earth's ice, and you aren't even close...


----------



## Crick (Sep 6, 2016)

That article makes absolutely NO suggestion that sea levels are not increasing.  Besides, as you've been informed several times now, Zwally is by himself on this.  Not a single other scientist has come out in support of his work and dozens, both before and after, flatly disagree with his findings.

Fucking idiot


----------



## jc456 (Sep 6, 2016)

Crick said:


> That article makes absolutely NO suggestion that sea levels are not increasing.  Besides, as you've been informed several times now, Zwally is by himself on this.  Not a single other scientist has come out in support of his work and dozens, both before and after, flatly disagree with his findings.
> 
> Fucking idiot


so you think the sea levels are rising, I ask where and you give me zip.  wow,


----------



## IanC (Sep 6, 2016)

jc456 said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > That article makes absolutely NO suggestion that sea levels are not increasing.  Besides, as you've been informed several times now, Zwally is by himself on this.  Not a single other scientist has come out in support of his work and dozens, both before and after, flatly disagree with his findings.
> ...




Have you now moved on to denying SLR?

Tide gauge data may be getting a massage but it still would show an increase. A lot of ice has melted in the last 150 years. The oceans have also warmed up somewhat. And aquifers have been pumped out. 

Where did the water go?

As usual, the difference between legitimate skeptics and the warmers is in the size of the change not the direction. Tide gauges on the shore say about 2mm/yr, satellite data from mid ocean where it cannot be verified is calculated via assumptions to be 3mm/yr.


----------



## jc456 (Sep 6, 2016)

IanC said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...


Yeah, yeah, yeah and still nothing evidence wise. Dude, I stated, I've been reading, posting what I've learned, and you nothing. Why?


----------



## IanC (Sep 6, 2016)

jc456 said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...




You read somewhere that SLR is not rising???

Where did you read that? What period of time was considered and was the globe represented or just certain localities?

I have read quite a bit on the subject but I don't recall anyone stating your position. I think it is more likely that you are confused.


----------



## jc456 (Sep 6, 2016)

IanC said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...


I think you're confused, condescending comments like that are unbecoming. Too bad. I've always answered your question even when you were tried playing gotchyouball


----------



## IanC (Sep 6, 2016)

jc456 said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...




I have spent a fair amount of time over the past few years patiently explaining simple concepts to you. With close to zero effect. I now feel that I am entitled to point out your stupidity.


----------



## jc456 (Sep 6, 2016)

IanC said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...


And I'll return the stupid back at ya, cause you have now proven without a doubt you can't produce evidence to your equation. Another condescending punk. I owe you shit you fk


----------



## IanC (Sep 6, 2016)

Hahahaha!!!!!


----------



## jc456 (Sep 6, 2016)

IanC said:


> Hahahaha!!!!!


It's exactly what I do when people can't provide backup material required by science. It's why you fail!


----------



## SSDD (Sep 7, 2016)

jc456 said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > Hahahaha!!!!!
> ...



Ian is starting to feel the same frustration that the big time wackos have been feeling for a good long time now...The climate hasn't been cooperating with them for a good long time now...but the minor wackos...the guys like Ian who believe in the magic...but just believe that it isn't as strong have had a pass because none of the big changes have happened and the were predicting little changes...now even the small changes aren't coming to pass so he is seeing his belief dashed on the rocks of reality....so he is getting frustrated and lashing out...

Maybe it is a sign of progress.....give him a few years and maybe he will give up on his failed hypothesis and be ready to start looking for the actual causes of climate change.


----------



## IanC (Sep 7, 2016)

jc refuses to say who,exactly, told him sea level wasn't rising.

SSDD goes on a rant against his strawman impression of my position. 

These two whackjobs never actually say anything of substance that they are willing explain and defend. They just have 'feelings' about things. Undefined non specific things.


----------



## jc456 (Sep 7, 2016)

IanC said:


> jc refuses to say who,exactly, told him sea level wasn't rising.
> 
> SSDD goes on a rant against his strawman impression of my position.
> 
> These two whackjobs never actually say anything of substance that they are willing explain and defend. They just have 'feelings' about things. Undefined non specific things.


why is that more important to you than you posting up actual figures of sea  levels?  Maybe post up some coast that is gaining water.  Is Antarctica melting?  Is Greenland melting?  See, in order for there to be sea level rise bubba, you have to have more water.  Where's it coming from mr. Whipple?

You post up where either of those land bodies are melting.


----------



## SSDD (Sep 7, 2016)

IanC said:


> jc refuses to say who,exactly, told him sea level wasn't rising.
> 
> SSDD goes on a rant against his strawman impression of my position.
> 
> These two whackjobs never actually say anything of substance that they are willing explain and defend. They just have 'feelings' about things. Undefined non specific things.




Still waiting for any observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence of the magic you believe in Ian...since none is, or ever will be forthcoming, what else should we talk about?


----------



## IanC (Sep 7, 2016)

Define this 'magic' that you say I believe in. Preferably with a quote of mine but if you are specific enough we can dispense with that.


----------



## IanC (Sep 7, 2016)

jc456 said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > jc refuses to say who,exactly, told him sea level wasn't rising.
> ...




Are you asking me to bump up some of my old threads? 

I have been scoffing at altimetry calibration since they became popular to measure such things as Antarctic ice mass. I was the first to bring up Zwally's contrary findings, well before he finally released them in a paper.

I criticise mistakes and exaggerations. You guys deny basic physics.


----------



## SSDD (Sep 7, 2016)

IanC said:


> Define this 'magic' that you say I believe in. Preferably with a quote of mine but if you are specific enough we can dispense with that.



Back radiation would be a fine magical occurrence to start with.  Also you seem to be dodging my repeated question so I will ask again...how many predictive failures do you think a hypothesis should be allowed before it is scrapped?


----------



## IanC (Sep 7, 2016)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > Define this 'magic' that you say I believe in. Preferably with a quote of mine but if you are specific enough we can dispense with that.
> ...




What predictive failure of mine are you referencing? I cannot argue against some phantom thought rattling around in your head.


----------



## jc456 (Sep 7, 2016)

IanC said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...


Well Ian, I am a person who needs logical explanations on why someone believes what they believe.  If it isn't logical, I can't trust it as fact.  Period.  It has to pass a smell test for me.  So far, there hasn't been one iota's worth of evidence presented in this Environmental forum on CO2 affecting climate.  There are many bullshit posts in here on how psuedoscience works, but none on actual science being done.  And one simple one for all is, that for science to be done after a hypothesis is developed, one must validate that hypothesis to become an actual theory.  So far, there is no actual CO2 theory that I can tell from all the published crap in here.

Back to sea level, in order for sea levels to rise, you must have more water. That seems fairly straight forward don't you think?  And the fact is, that until the two land masses covered in ice actually start melting, I have no idea where you think additional water is coming from to raise sea levels.  So the discussion doesn't pass my smell test.

The links I've read concern CO2 and affects on ice, which I can't find one source that can claim CO2 melts ice.  So, failure number one.  Two, since the temperatures at the poles hasn't gone up, from resources I've read on the internet, I don't expect those two land masses to lose ice anytime soon.  And finally, since CO2 does not increase warming, I have no idea why anyone would need to shut down power plants and spend trillions of dollars on useless renewable options causing economic chaos.

And i know you like to fall back on  physics, physics, physics, but physics is also about validation, and your sources have presented zip validation that CO2 can magically warm the surface of this planet.  So I'm not exactly sure I know what you'd need from me.  I don't claim anything.  I say there is no warming, we've been on a pause for almost 20 years.  IPCC even stated so in AR5.  I've posted that excerpt many times in the past in here.  I say there is no sea level rise cause there is no validation that coast line water levels has risen.  The ocean wave cycles that exist makes it impossible to accurately read the levels of the sea. The seas surge, there are tides, and on and on.  I trust none of the climate scientists who are funded by governments money.  None.  It's a scam and a half.  Climategate proved them as untrustworthy.


----------



## IanC (Sep 7, 2016)

Tide gauges have been around for a long time. While I think there has been some 'modifications' to squeeze out the most rise, and to reduce inconvenient past bumps, on the whole I am satisfied that there has been an increase during the last 150 years. Perhaps about a foot in total.

This coincides with the observed glacial loss, presumed but uncertain ocean warming, pumped aquifers, etc. I think SLR is rising, just not at the exaggerated rate put forward by the warmers.


----------



## jc456 (Sep 7, 2016)

IanC said:


> Tide gauges have been around for a long time. While I think there has been some 'modifications' to squeeze out the most rise, and to reduce inconvenient past bumps, on the whole I am satisfied that there has been an increase during the last 150 years. Perhaps about a foot in total.
> 
> This coincides with the observed glacial loss, presumed but uncertain ocean warming, pumped aquifers, etc. I think SLR is rising, just not at the exaggerated rate put forward by the warmers.


How often do you suppose the oceans are calm for a reading?  I believe the oceans are mostly always actively agitating/ moving.  How do you believe they squeeze out these inconsistencies? 75% of the planet is water and it's mostly always moving.  I highly doubt humankind has figured out how to measure all the sea.  I have little faith here. Doesn't seem logical to be able to do that. Depth finders on ships and buoys can tell how deep, but the ocean floor is not flat and it is imperfect. Shorelines can be monitored and measured and IMO the best place to measure the height of the sea.  I haven't found much of any level changes anywhere other than sinking islands/ atolls in the pacific ring. 

I don't get the glacier mention from you.  Which glaciers are you referencing as a source of input?

Me personally, believe that the oceans rise and fall all the time.  Storms and river run offs maybe add, but then because there is so much water, evaporation is most likely very high when it is warm.  Since much of the ocean is warm, I'd expect quite a bit of evaporation.


----------



## IanC (Sep 7, 2016)

I'm sure you have seen the Alaskan graph showing glacier retreat, much of it in the 19th century. European glaciers have also retreated from LIA highs.

I will let you investigate satellite altimetry and gravity effects on your own. You can believe or not, I don't care.

Tide gauge data is out there to explore. Many areas are rebounding or subsiding but the stable areas show mild SLR rise. Again, you can believe or not, I don't care.

You can reject all data from all sources if you want. And replace them with your feelings. I simply don't care.


----------



## SSDD (Sep 8, 2016)

IanC said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...



You are getting to be as good a dancer as crick...you must be so proud....Are you going to deny that predictions based on the greenhouse hypothesis have failed to come to pass....like the tropospheric hot spot for instance?  There are plenty of others that have been made in the past and yet, they never happened.  So again..how many predictive failures do you think a hypothesis should be allowed before it is scrapped and the work begins for a more viable hypothesis?


----------



## LaDexter (Sep 8, 2016)

IanC said:


> on the whole I am satisfied that there has been an increase during the last 150 years




That's a pretty darn LOW standard to overcome...

Where is the SLR originating, given that 90% of Earth's ice on Antarctica has added at least 80 billion tons of ice every year since Algore first started lying about CO2, and the Himalayas, New Zealand, Mongolia etc. are also experiencing ice growth?


----------



## Crick (Sep 8, 2016)

The SLR is in the world's oceans.  It is originating in thermal expansion and runoff from the melting of Antarctica, Greenland and almost all the world's glaciers.


----------



## LaDexter (Sep 8, 2016)

Crick said:


> from the melting of Antarctica




We went to COURT on that, and your side was TOO CHICKEN to appeal...

Court Identifies Eleven Inaccuracies in Al Gore’s ‘An Inconvenient Truth’


How marvelous. And what are those inaccuracies?


The film claims that melting snows on Mount Kilimanjaro evidence global warming. The Government's expert was forced to concede that this is not correct.
The film suggests that evidence from ice cores proves that rising CO2 causes temperature increases over 650,000 years. The Court found that the film was misleading: over that period the rises in CO2 lagged behind the temperature rises by 800-2000 years.
The film uses emotive images of Hurricane Katrina and suggests that this has been caused by global warming. The Government's expert had to accept that it was "not possible" to attribute one-off events to global warming.
The film shows the drying up of Lake Chad and claims that this was caused by global warming. The Government's expert had to accept that this was not the case.
The film claims that a study showed that polar bears had drowned due to disappearing arctic ice. It turned out that Mr Gore had misread the study: in fact four polar bears drowned and this was because of a particularly violent storm.
The film threatens that global warming could stop the Gulf Stream throwing Europe into an ice age: the Claimant's evidence was that this was a scientific impossibility.
The film blames global warming for species losses including coral reef bleaching. The Government could not find any evidence to support this claim.
The film suggests that the Greenland ice covering could melt causing sea levels to rise dangerously. The evidence is that Greenland will not melt for millennia.
*The film suggests that the Antarctic ice covering is melting, the evidence was that it is in fact increasing.*
The film suggests that sea levels could rise by 7m causing the displacement of millions of people. In fact the evidence is that sea levels are expected to rise by about 40cm over the next hundred years and that there is no such threat of massive migration.
The film claims that rising sea levels has caused the evacuation of certain Pacific islands to New Zealand. The Government are unable to substantiate this and the Court observed that this appears to be a false claim.


----------



## Crick (Sep 8, 2016)

Those are NOT the court's conclusions and the court's conclusions did NOT say Antarctic ice was increasing.  It can clearly and factually be demonstrated that you are a *LIAR*.

The facts regarding sea level rise are clearly demonstrated here:











Since mid 2011, sea level rise has been 6.8 mm/yr per UC and 7.2 mm/yr per NOAA


----------



## Crick (Sep 8, 2016)

10 Things you should know about sea level rise and how bad it could be

10 things you should know about sea level rise and how bad it could be

Sea level rise has been in the news a lot lately. Recent research has raised concerns about the possible collapse of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet and how this could double sea level rise projections for 2100.

Sea level rise is potentially one of the most damaging results of climate change, but few people understand its risks. Its impacts — financial and otherwise — will spread far from the coasts.

Here are 10 things you should know about sea level rise, what causes it and how bad it might get._[Go to the link to read the explanatory text under each point]_

*1. There is enough water stored as ice to raise sea level 230 feet.*

*2. Sea levels have changed by hundreds of feet in the past.*

*3. We are changing sea level at a very rapid rate.*

*4. We could melt it all.

5. Scientists are racing to better understand how sea level will rise as temperatures climb higher and higher.*

*6. The last time sea levels changed significantly, there weren’t a lot of people around*.

*7. Sea level rise is not going to stop anytime soon*.
*
8. Sea level rise will not be the same everywhere.*

*9. Melting Arctic sea ice does not contribute directly to sea level rise.*

*10. The cost of sea level rise will go up faster than sea level itself*.

_Motta has worked in the energy and environment field as a program manager at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory. He is currently an affiliate at the Institute of Arctic and Alpine Research working on the communication of sea level rise risks and impacts._

_White is professor of geological sciences, professor in the environmental studies program, and fellow and director of the Institute of Arctic and Alpine Research at the University of Colorado in Boulder. He is a Web of Science most highly cited scientist (one of the top 1 percent most highly cited authors in his field). _

_Nerem is a professor of aerospace engineering Sciences at the University of Colorado in Boulder, and leader of NASA’s sea level change team._


----------



## jc456 (Sep 8, 2016)

Crick said:


> The SLR is in the world's oceans.  It is originating in thermal expansion and runoff from the melting of Antarctica, Greenland and almost all the world's glaciers.


well since there is no run off of Greenland of Antarctica, not sure where your water comes from.  expansion due to heat.  first the oceans should heat up to actually work.


----------



## jc456 (Sep 8, 2016)

Crick said:


> 10 Things you should know about sea level rise and how bad it could be
> 
> 10 things you should know about sea level rise and how bad it could be
> 
> ...


no validity in any of that.  useless drivel.


----------



## IanC (Sep 9, 2016)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...




SameShitDifferentDay - why are you asking me to defend the very things that I have been attacking for the last seven years? 

What I will not do is LIE to promote the 'Noble Cause'. for you it is denial of backradiation, for crick and old rocks it is catastrophic warming. you guys will say anything if you think it supports your side, no matter how stupid it is.

I have explained my position dozens of times. find, and then quote, something that I have said that you dont agree with. stop with the bullshit accusations of things you _think_ I have said but in actuality only exist inside your head.


----------



## SSDD (Sep 9, 2016)

IanC said:


> SameShitDifferentDay - why are you asking me to defend the very things that I have been attacking for the last seven years?



So you have been attacking the greenhouse hypothesis for 7 years?  I don't think so and would ask you to bring forward any quote by yourself attacking said hypothesis.  You believe the hypothesis....but believe that it isn't as powerful as your completely wacko brethren...but you do believe.

So lets try this again....considering that the tropospheric hot spot... has not materialized, you have a serious predictive failure of the greenhouse hypothesis itself.  I am not talking about CAGW...which is so disproved at this point that it doesn't even warrant discussion...I am talking about the greenhouse hypothesis itself and its own failed predictions..  The hot spot is predicted by the greenhouse hypothesis....the ice cores fly in the face of the predictions of the greenhouse hypothesis...showing us that increased CO2 lags behind increased temperatures...not the other way around....there is no correlation between the increase of so called greenhouse gasses, and temperatures...another failure of the greenhouse hypothesis itself...The miserably failed CAGW hypothesis is just a dingleberry on the equally failed greenhouse hypothesis claiming catastrophe resulting from the greenhouse effect itself as the concentration of so called greenhouse gasses increases in the atmosphere.

So again...how many predictive failures do you think a hypothesis should be allowed before it is scrapped and the search for an actual explanation for the temperature on the planet and the actual drivers of our climate moves on?


----------



## Crick (Sep 9, 2016)

SSDD said:


> considering that the tropospheric hot spot... has not materialized, you have a serious predictive failure of the greenhouse hypothesis itself.



No we don't.  We have either your ignorance or your lies.  The greenhouse effect does not predict a tropospheric hotspot.  It does predict cooling of the lower stratosphere, an effect produced by no other atmospheric process.  Cooling of the lower stratosphere has been seen worldwide.

Got it?


----------



## LaDexter (Sep 9, 2016)

Crick said:


> The greenhouse effect does not predict a tropospheric hotspot. It does *predict cooling*




and there you have it.  Global Warming models PREDICT COOLING just in case it does cool and some smart humans notice it COOLING instead of WARMING.


----------



## jc456 (Sep 9, 2016)

IanC said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...


explained by us many times, back radiation.


----------



## jc456 (Sep 9, 2016)

Crick said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > considering that the tropospheric hot spot... has not materialized, you have a serious predictive failure of the greenhouse hypothesis itself.
> ...


If IR is energy and energy is converted to heat, why do two same sized  ice cubes flat face to flat face take longer to melt than one?


----------



## Crick (Sep 9, 2016)

Your premise is meaningless nonsense.  IR is a band of frequencies for electromagnetic radiation. 

Heat is:

1) added or external energy that causes a rise in temperature, expansion,evaporation, or other physical change.

2) Physics. a nonmechanical energy transfer with reference to a temperature difference between a system and its surroundings
or between two parts of the same system.

Two ice cubes placed face to face become a single ice cube of twice the mass.  A larger mass of ice takes longer to melt in a glass sitting on a table as the heat transfer into the glass is the same in both cases.  There's also the point that the combined cubes have a lower surface area to volume ratio than does the single cube.


----------



## SSDD (Sep 10, 2016)

Crick said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > considering that the tropospheric hot spot... has not materialized, you have a serious predictive failure of the greenhouse hypothesis itself.
> ...



Of course it does crick...here...from your high priests...the IPCC...

9.2.2 Spatial and Temporal Patterns of the Response to Different Forcings and their Uncertainties - AR4 WGI Chapter 9: Understanding and Attributing Climate Change


> Greenhouse gas forcing is expected to produc*e warming in the tropospher*e, cooling in the stratosphere, and, for transient simulations, somewhat more warming near the surface in the NH due to its larger land fraction, which has a shorter surface response time to the warming than do ocean regions (Figure 9.1c).


----------



## jc456 (Sep 10, 2016)

Crick said:


> Your premise is meaningless nonsense.  IR is a band of frequencies for electromagnetic radiation.
> 
> Heat is:
> 
> ...


Does all matter emit or not. If it does, than each cube emits toward each other right? Isn't that your position? LOL.


----------



## IanC (Sep 11, 2016)

jc456 said:


> explained by us many times, back radiation.




explained by us many times, radiation.


radiation, backradiation.

racism, reverse racism.

same type of idea, same type of vehement denial by illogical wackos


----------



## IanC (Sep 11, 2016)

jc456 said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > Your premise is meaningless nonsense.  IR is a band of frequencies for electromagnetic radiation.
> ...




holy fuck but you are stupid. why do you keep bringing up an example that proves our case and disproves yours?

if the environment is warmer than 0C then an ice cube is radiating at 0C but getting back radiation at room temp. it is losing (x) radiation but getting back (x+y) radiation, times six faces, total of 6 (y). if you put two ice cubes together then one face on each cube is radiating (x) and absorbing (x) for no change, while the other five faces are receiving (x+y) for a total of 5 (y) for each cube. 5(y) is less than 6(y) therefore the two ice cubes next to each other will take longer to melt.

what is so hard to understand about the simple relationship of warming/cooling being a function of both input and output? net transfer of energy. in the case of radiation there is energy going in both directions because photons do not interact with anything but matter.


----------



## Crick (Sep 15, 2016)

I think you'll find I've been talking net heat transfer since the very beginning Ian.  If I place two cubes of ice into identical environments, one of mass M and total surface area X, the next of mass 2M and total surface area 1.67X, which will finish melting first?

The mass increased by a larger factor than the surface area.


----------



## IanC (Sep 16, 2016)

It's a stupid poorly defined experiment. Obviously if we are looking to examine the radiative effects then the two ice cubes must have some minimal separation to remove conduction. I don't think jc was thinking about comparing small ice cubes to larger ones, where of course the ratio of surface area to volume is important.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Sep 16, 2016)

bear513 said:


> Check out this part of the story...
> 
> Seas aren’t just rising, scientists say — it’s worse than that. They’re speeding up.
> 
> ...



The amusing fact is that the most rapid rise in the sea level was during the 1940's.

Man has no control of the climate, and scant understanding of the mechanism. The Shamans claiming that sacrifice to them will change anything are nothing but crooks.


----------



## Crick (Sep 20, 2016)

SSDD said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



And thus
_
*The average temperature of the lower troposphere has increased between 0.13 and 0.22 °C (0.23 and 0.40 °F) per decade since 1979, according to satellite temperature measurements.* Climate proxies show the temperature to have been relatively stable over the one or two thousand years before 1850, with regionally varying fluctuations such as the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age._[Jansen _et al._, [URL='http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch6.html']Ch. 6, Palaeoclimate, Section 6.6.1.1: What Do Reconstructions Based on Palaeoclimatic Proxies Show?, pp. 466–478, in IPCC AR4 WG1 2007.][/URL]

Tropospheric hotspots are created by changes in the lapse rate which can be caused by ANY form of warming which increases evaporation at the surface and thus deceases the lapse rate.  They are neither unique nor indicative of greenhouse warming specifically.  The best indicator of the greenhouse effect in action is cooling of the lower stratosphere - as you've been informed on numerous occasions and continue to pretend you didn't hear.

_Greenhouse gases have also led to the cooling of the atmosphere at levels higher than the stratosphere. Over the past 30 years, the Earth's surface temperature has increased 0.2-0.4 °C, while the temperature in the mesosphere, about 50-80 km above ground, has cooled 5-10 °C (Beig et al., 2006). There is no appreciable cooling due to ozone destruction at these altitudes, so nearly all of this dramatic cooling is due to the addition of greenhouse gases to the atmosphere. Even greater cooling of 17 °C per decade has been observed high in the ionosphere, at 350 km altitude. This has affected the orbits of orbiting satellites, due to decreased drag, since the upper atmosphere has shrunk and moved closer to the surface (Lastovicka et al., 2006). The density of the air has declined 2-3% per decade the past 30 years at 350 km altitude. So, in a sense, the sky IS falling!_

Global Warming Causes Stratospheric Cooling | Weather Underground


----------



## Crick (Sep 20, 2016)

Uncensored2008 said:


> The amusing fact is that the most rapid rise in the sea level was during the 1940's.



Let's see data that shows the most rapid rise in the 1940s.


----------



## LaDexter (Sep 20, 2016)

crick claims the oceans are rising.

Let's review that suggestion...

1. 90% of Earth ice on Antarctica is adding at least 80 billion tons of ice every year since Algore started lying about CO2 - http://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/nasa-study-mass-gains-of-antarctic-ice-sheet-greater-than-losses

2. other Earth icy spots like the Himalayas and Mongolia have growing ice - Google

(seems like we are rapidly running out of potential sources of "melt" to cause a rise in ocean levels....)

3. Greenland methodically keeps thickening every year as it adds its annual ice core layer...   Study Reveals The Inconvenient Truth About Greenland’s Ice Sheet — It’s Thickening!



Do the warmers have any evidence of any land sinking?

A: they have THREE island chains, all on the lip of the Pacific Ring of Fire....



Conclusion - there is no net ice melt ongoing on Earth, which makes a claim of ocean rise total bullshit, and of course the FRAUD uses more FRAUD to con the public that islands are sinking, which they are... because the tectonic plate on which they are attached is being pushed under the adjacent plate.

There is no better example as to why everyone should consider Global Warming a total FRAUD than the ocean rise claim, which is absolute BULLSHIT.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Sep 20, 2016)

LaDexter said:


> crick claims the oceans are rising.
> 
> Let's review that suggestion...
> 
> ...



Crick is full of fabricated graphs and contrived data.

I rarely pay attention to him.


----------



## Crick (Sep 22, 2016)

Uncensored, YOU claimed that the most rapid sea level rise took place in the 1940s.  Let's see your data.


----------

