# No Sea Level Rise says Isle of the Dead



## elektra (Feb 26, 2016)

I have not noticed anybody mention the Isle of the Dead and the physical evidence that indicates the level of the Oceans are more or less constant.

In 1841 Captain Sir James Clark Ross, marked the mean level of the sea. It is funny to note, that back in 1841 that people had a better understanding of the Earth and Oceans, that they observed changes in Sea Level dramatic enough, that they determined a need to record a benchmark for future studies.



> Isle of the Dead
> 
> The ‘Isle of the Dead’ may yet prove to be another nail in the coffin of global warming and its gruesome companion, Disastrous Sea Level Rises.
> 
> ...












Tasmanian Sea Levels - Lessons from the Isle of the Dead

Measuring sea-level rise at Port Arthur

150 year old mark shows no ocean rise

*I added some links to the OP.*


----------



## frigidweirdo (Feb 26, 2016)

Sea level rises aren't what worry me the most.

If the Arctic melts sea levels will DROP. If the water on the land of the Antarctic melt, the then sea will rise. 

So, the reality is, if the Antarctic and Arctic melt a little, the effects might not be noticed at first. Later on when more and more land based ice is melting, then that is when problems will occur.

The problem is the PH levels of the oceans. I read about sea lions dying off because they can't cope with the level of change of the PH in the oceans. Other sea creatures will be the same, and this is the biggest and most worrying part of polluting the atmosphere we're going to see first.


----------



## elektra (Feb 26, 2016)

That would make an interesting thread, you should start one on Sea Lions, I would gladly contribute.


----------



## mamooth (Feb 26, 2016)

Elektra, now can you tell us the one about how scientists cut down a tree because they hated how it disproved sea level rise?  I think that's my all-time favorite denier fairy tale. 

Measuring sea-level rise at Port Arthur
---
A paper published in 1889 by Captain Shortt recorded the wording of the plaque, including the time the mark was struck and the height of the sea given by Lempriere's tide gauge. By taking a measurement of the height of the sea, and estimating what the tides were when the mark was made, Shortt determined that the mark was made near high water.
---

There can be only one explanation. The conspiracy goes back to 1889.

The Port Arthur area as a whole, including that island, is having gradually worsening tidal flooding problems. It didn't have those problems before. Hmm, I wonder what could be causing such a thing?


----------



## skookerasbil (Feb 26, 2016)

Only nutters worry about a few millimeter rise in the sea level anyway. This is just another of the long list of k00k hoaxes perpetuated by these OCD mental cases.. These people need some real responsibilities in their lives.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Feb 26, 2016)

frigidweirdo said:


> Sea level rises aren't what worry me the most.
> 
> If the Arctic melts sea levels will DROP. If the water on the land of the Antarctic melt, the then sea will rise.
> 
> ...



For Antartica to melt, we'd have to have a different orbit


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Feb 26, 2016)

elektra said:


> I have not noticed anybody mention the Isle of the Dead and the physical evidence that indicates the level of the Oceans are more or less constant.
> 
> In 1841 Captain Sir James Clark Ross, marked the mean level of the sea. It is funny to note, that back in 1841 that people had a better understanding of the Earth and Oceans, that they observed changes in Sea Level dramatic enough, that they determined a need to record a benchmark for future studies.
> 
> ...



Well the only conclusion is that this Island should be renamed the Isle of the DENIER!!!!


----------



## frigidweirdo (Feb 26, 2016)

CrusaderFrank said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> > Sea level rises aren't what worry me the most.
> ...



Not necessarily.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Feb 26, 2016)

frigidweirdo said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > frigidweirdo said:
> ...



Do you know anything about Earth's current orbit?

Well OK maybe the axis can tilt too


----------



## elektra (Feb 26, 2016)

mamooth said:


> Elektra, now can you tell us the one about how scientists cut down a tree because they hated how it disproved sea level rise?  I think that's my all-time favorite denier fairy tale.
> 
> Measuring sea-level rise at Port Arthur
> ---
> ...


We all know you are busy, posting fairy tales, it is hard to tell which on is your favorite.

And, high tide flooding is Weather, not Climate. Funny how those "scientific" Global Warming worshipers confuse the weather with climate (at their convenience).


----------



## elektra (Feb 26, 2016)

Seems I forgot to link the article I referenced.

150 year old mark shows no ocean rise


----------



## Old Rocks (Feb 26, 2016)

*Sea Level Rise and Australia | Climate Citizen*
*RECENT SEA LEVEL AROUND AUSTRALIA*
Recent Sea Level trend based upon National Tidal Centre, Australian Bureau of Meteorology Seaframe data gauges installed 1990-1993 and measured to June 2011; and net sea level trend after vertical movements in the observing platform relative to a local land benchmark and the inverted barometric pressure effect are taken into account.




Cocos Islands - 8.1mm/year - Net sea level trend: 3.4mm/year 

Groote Eylandt (NT) - 9.0mm/year - Net sea level trend: 8.9mm/year 

Darwin (NT) - 8.6mm/year - Net sea level trend: 8.3mm/year 

Broome (WA) - 9.1mm/year - Net sea level trend: 8.4mm/year 

Hillarys (near Perth WA) - 9.1mm/year - Net sea level trend: 9.0mm/year 

Esperance (WA)- 6.0mm/year - Net sea level trend: 5.5mm/year 

Thevenard (SA) - 4.5mm/year - Net sea level trend: 4.3mm/year 

Port Stanvac (near Adelaide SA) - 4.7mm/year - Net sea level trend: 4.3mm/year 

Portland (Vic) - 3.2mm/year - Net sea level trend: 3.1mm/year 

Lorne (Vic) - 2.7mm/year - Net sea level trend: 2.8mm/year 

Stony Point (Vic) - 2.6mm/year - Net sea level trend: 2.6mm/year 

Burnie (Tas) - 3.1mm/year - Net sea level trend: 2.9mm/year 

Spring Bay (Tas) - 3.5mm/year - Net sea level trend: 3.7mm/year 

Port Kembla (NSW) - 3.2mm/year - Net sea level trend: 2.6mm/year 

Rosslyn Bay (Qld) - 3.8mm/year - Net sea level trend: 3.5mm/year 

Cape Ferguson (Qld) - 4.8mm/year - Net sea level trend: 4.7mm/year
Source: National Tidal Centre, Australian Bureau of Meteorology June 2011 report (PDF)










*PROJECTIONS OF SEA LEVEL RISE*

*Reality!*


----------



## elektra (Feb 26, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> *Sea Level Rise and Australia | Climate Citizen*
> *RECENT SEA LEVEL AROUND AUSTRALIA*
> Recent Sea Level trend based upon National Tidal Centre, Australian Bureau of Meteorology Seaframe data gauges installed 1990-1993 and measured to June 2011; and net sea level trend after vertical movements in the observing platform relative to a local land benchmark and the inverted barometric pressure effect are taken into account.
> 
> ...


From a blog Old Crock? 

And what about that last post you ran from, where you gave the incorrect symbol or formula for calculating power? 

1 amp is used to create 12 watts, which you said was wrong, according to the formula though, P=IE, I was correct, that looks to be at the level of 2nd grade math, which apparently Old Crock is incapable of.

But on to your post, a blog is a really weak, a step below wikepedia


----------



## elektra (Feb 26, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> *Sea Level Rise and Australia | Climate Citizen*
> *RECENT SEA LEVEL AROUND AUSTRALIA*
> Recent Sea Level trend based upon National Tidal Centre, Australian Bureau of Meteorology Seaframe data gauges installed 1990-1993 and measured to June 2011; and net sea level trend after vertical movements in the observing platform relative to a local land benchmark and the inverted barometric pressure effect are taken into account.
> 
> ...


From your blog Old Crock, thanks again for helping.



> Please note that we changed the method of calculating relative sea level trends in 2015. The trends displayed here are not directly comparable with any calculated before that date. For a description of how the trends are now calculated, please see the methods page.


----------



## frigidweirdo (Feb 26, 2016)

CrusaderFrank said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



Yes, I know enough about the Earth's current orbit to know that the Antarctic could be ice free. It's been ice free before.


----------



## Old Rocks (Feb 26, 2016)

http://www.bom.gov.au/ntc/IDO60202/IDO60202.2011.pdf

This report was prepared by: National Tidal Centre Australian Bureau of Meteorology GPO Box 421 Kent Town SA 5071 Australia Tel: (+618) 8366 2730 Fax: (+618) 8366 2651 Email: ntc@bom.gov.au Website: Oceanography Quality Certification: I authorise the issue of this Australian Baseline Sea Level Monitoring Project Annual Sea Level Data Summary Report for July 2010 - June 2011 in accordance with the quality assurance procedures of the National Tidal Centre, Australian Bureau of Meteorology
.............................................................................................................................................................
It is important to emphasise that as the ABSLMP sea level records increase in length, the sea level trend estimates will continue to stabilise and become more indicative of longerterm changes. Caution must be exercised in interpreting the ‘short-term’ relative sea level trends (Table 2) as they are based on short records in climate terms and are still undergoing large year-to-year changes. Location Installation Date Sea Level Trend (mm/yr) Change in trend from June 2010 (mm/yr) 
Cocos Islands Sep 1992 8.1 -0.6
 Groote Eylandt Sep 1993 9.0 1.9 
Darwin May 1990 8.6 1.4 
Broome Nov 1991 9.1 1.3 
Hillarys Nov 1991 9.1 1.5
Esperance Mar 1992 6.0 0.7 
Thevenard Mar 1992 4.5 0.3 
Port Stanvac* Jun 1992 4.7 -0.3 
Portland Jul 1991 3.2 0.2 
Lorne Jan 1993 2.7 1.4 
Stony Point Jan 1993 2.6 1.3
 Burnie Sep 1992 3.1 0.2 
Spring Bay May 1991 3.5 0.1 
Port Kembla Jul 1991 3.2 0.2
 Rosslyn Bay Jun 1992 3.8 1.5 
Cape Ferguson Sep 1991 4.8 1.4 
Table 2. Recent short-term relative sea level trends based upon SEAFRAME data to June 2011.

*A very good and complete paper on the monitoring of the sea level in Australia. Real scientists, not denier frauds.*


----------



## Bob Blaylock (Feb 27, 2016)

frigidweirdo said:


> If the Arctic melts sea levels will DROP. If the water on the land of the Antarctic melt, the then sea will rise.



  No, it will not, and that basic bit of ignorance is enough to dismiss just about everything else you have to say on the subject.

  Floating ice will not change the level of water in which it floats, one way or the other, as the ice melts.  Ice displaces its weight in liquid water, not its volume.


----------



## Bob Blaylock (Feb 27, 2016)

skookerasbil said:


> Only nutters worry about a few millimeter rise in the sea level anyway. This is just another of the long list of k00k hoaxes perpetuated by these OCD mental cases.. These people need some real responsibilities in their lives.



  No, these people need to be kept away from any positions of power or responsibility; as they have proven themselves unfit for it.


----------



## IanC (Feb 27, 2016)

I think the actual tide gauge average is closer to 2mm/yr because there are more areas that are rising due to GIA than sinking due to land subsidence. but the idea is clear. tide gauges on the actual coastlines where we interact with the oceans is showing much less SLR than mid ocean where it cannot be checked and doesnt matter anyways. isnt it odd that there was a large step change exactly at the same time that satellite altimetry came online?


----------



## elektra (Feb 27, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> http://www.bom.gov.au/ntc/IDO60202/IDO60202.2011.pdf
> 
> This report was prepared by: National Tidal Centre Australian Bureau of Meteorology GPO Box 421 Kent Town SA 5071 Australia Tel: (+618) 8366 2730 Fax: (+618) 8366 2651 Email: ntc@bom.gov.au Website: Oceanography Quality Certification: I authorise the issue of this Australian Baseline Sea Level Monitoring Project Annual Sea Level Data Summary Report for July 2010 - June 2011 in accordance with the quality assurance procedures of the National Tidal Centre, Australian Bureau of Meteorology
> .............................................................................................................................................................
> ...


Old Crock, you must be kidding, more "studies" by the IPCC and its cherry picking minions. 

http://geoinfo.amu.edu.pl/qg/current/QG341_027-036.pdf



> Their analysis wrongly focuses on the latest positive oscillation of a multi-decadal natural movement disregarding the presence of the natural multi-decadal oscillations that influence the rate or rise of sea levels. Without cherry-picking procedures only selecting the time window or the tide gauge that supports positively accelerating sea level claims, there is not too much of positive acceleration measured by the Sydney tide gauge and the other tide gauges of the world of similar quality and length. The 170 world tide gauges with more than 60 years of data in the PSMSL data base presently show relative rate of rise of about +0.403 mm yr–1, constant, very likely the result of more subsidence than isostasy at the tide gauge locations, for an average absolute rate of rise very close to zero (Parker 2014c)





> Climate scientists are very clever to correct past records or cherry picking the information in the direction of producing warming temperatures and rising seas. However, their ability to predict the future is very poor, as clearly demonstrated by the comparison of climate model predictions and measurements of temperatures and sea levels during this century


----------



## frigidweirdo (Feb 27, 2016)

Bob Blaylock said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> > If the Arctic melts sea levels will DROP. If the water on the land of the Antarctic melt, the then sea will rise.
> ...



Ignorance? No, not ignorance. 

Though you are right, I got something wrong. Why I got it wrong you got wrong. Sea water and fresh water are different. Though I had a look and it said actually sea water would rise slightly because if you add fresh water to salt water the level will rise.

However the point I was making still stands. If the Antarctic melts, it'll cause a massive problem, not the arctic.


----------



## Crick (Feb 27, 2016)

frigidweirdo said:


> Though I had a look and it said actually sea water would rise slightly because if you add fresh water to salt water the level will rise.



Whether I add melted Snickers, shaving cream or pure liquid mercury to salt water, adding one liquid to another will make it's level rise.  I believe you are referring to the issue of non-linear molar property merging.  There are several liquids you can mix whose sum will be less than the sum of their component parts.  Water and saline solutions have such a relationship.  So when adding fresh water to salt water the resultant volume increase will be less than a simple addition would indicate.  It will NOT, however, under ANY circumstances, result in a combined volume LESS than that of either original component.  Adding fresh water to the ocean will not lower sea level particularly since doing so REDUCES the total salinity and the magnitude of this effect. The difference is minute in any case, a matter of fractions of a cc per mole (and a mole is 22.4 liters)


----------



## skookerasbil (Feb 27, 2016)

frigidweirdo said:


> Bob Blaylock said:
> 
> 
> > frigidweirdo said:
> ...



Sorry s0n......Antarctic gaining ice like nobody's business. People who actually worry about this shit have waaaaaaaaaaaaaay too little real responsibilities in life.


----------



## Searcher44 (Feb 27, 2016)

elektra said:


> Seems I forgot to link the article I referenced.
> 
> 150 year old mark shows no ocean rise




Thanks, when I read your OP last night I was curious what your source was but too tired to reply. Now this morning your link raises  more curiosity. You criticize another poster rather harshly for using a blog as source material;

_"From a blog Old Crock?.......But on to your post, a blog is a really weak, a step below wikepedia"_

And yet your link;




lists its source as a blog, as they state near the end, _"Extracted from here and its numerous links", _which leads us to this site,
*"JoNova",  *no doubt a blog which the author confirms by her request for donations, _"Jo appreciates your support to help her keep doing what she does. This blog is funded by donations. Thanks!" _So this is the ultimate root of my curiosity this morning and leads to a question; "Don't you think criticizing a reply to your OP as more or less worthless because of its blog referencing when the OP itself is based on blog material could encourage a reader to dismiss the OP as worthless and for him/her to conclude that you yourself have been very illogical and hypocritical?"


----------



## elektra (Feb 27, 2016)

Searcher44 said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> > Seems I forgot to link the article I referenced.
> ...


Searcher44, maybe your eyes are detecting something ordinary human beings can not see, but nothing in my OP comes from the Blog you mention, go ahead, go to the blog, and find something in my OP that you can quote, that is from the blog,  from the blog. Feel free. 

Talking about reaching, SEARCHing, the JoNova site has zero references to the Isle of the Dead or the Benchmark made by Ross in 1841.

Nice try, maybe in another 43 SEARCH's you can come up with something. 

My OP is not based on the Blog that you mention, in any way, shape, or form. Maybe next time read the page you reference, as I advice Old Crock to do.


----------



## Searcher44 (Feb 27, 2016)

elektra said:


> Searcher44 said:
> 
> 
> > elektra said:
> ...





Okay now you're not just being curiosity provoking, you're exhibiting either massive stupidity or a crude attempt to evade the charge of hypocrisy. You provided the link to the site from which you clipped and pasted the article in your OP. That site states uncategorically that they extracted this material from the JoNova Blog "and its numerous links", so obviously *everything* in your OP comes from the blog your link cites. The chain of evidence leading to the ultimate source of your OP could be followed by a child with a popsicle temperature I.Q. I don't know why you're having such a hard time following it. And if you think I'm going to slog around the internet searching out all JoNova blog posts and following "it's numerous links" to verify your OP, don't hold your breath. It's Searcher44, not Searcher4u.


----------



## elektra (Feb 27, 2016)

Searcher44 said:


> Okay now you're not just being curiosity provoking, you're exhibiting either massive stupidity or a crude attempt to evade the charge of hypocrisy. You provided the link to the site from which you clipped and pasted the article in your OP. That site states uncategorically that they extracted this material from the JoNova Blog "and its numerous links", so obviously *everything* in your OP comes from the blog your link cites. The chain of evidence leading to the ultimate source of your OP could be followed by a child with a popsicle temperature I.Q. I don't know why you're having such a hard time following it. And if you think I'm going to slog around the internet searching out all JoNova blog posts and following "it's numerous links" to verify your OP, don't hold your breath. It's Searcher44, not Searcher4u.


Not one bit of my content is from the "link" you claim proves your wild accusation. Go ahead follow/cut/paste/quote/link/post.

It is not there, you got busted, "searchinforfor" straws

SEARCHES44 times and comes up with nothing. But the accusation is valid?

Old Crock, I must apologize, with people posting this kind of drivel Old Crock's posts from a Blog shine like a diamond in pile of Dog Crap.

I thought, Crack, Mattpew, MaMOOT, and Rollingblunder posted garbage, but not anymore, the person who searches44 times and comes up with nothing, sets a new benchmark for them all.

Uh, well, if it is that easy why have you not quoted from where that "chain of evidence" leads, quoted, posted, and provided the link to the content you claim comes from a blog?


> The chain of evidence leading to the ultimate source of your OP could be followed by a child with a popsicle temperature I.Q


----------



## Old Rocks (Feb 27, 2016)

150 year old mark shows no ocean rise

Extracted from here and its numerous links.

*Leftist media saturates the news. Fight back. Send articles to your friends, politicians, local media, and facebook.*

And where is here?

*The scandal of sea levels — rising trends, acceleration — largely created by adjustments « JoNova*

*The scandal of sea levels — rising trends, acceleration — largely created by adjustments*
*Headlines across Australia yesterday told us the dire news that a new study finds that “Sea level rising faster in past 20 years than in entire 20th century“.  A new paper by Watson et al is driving the headlines, but underneath this Nature paper is a swamp of adjustments, an error larger than the signal, and the result disagrees with many other studies and almost all the raw measurements. Paper after paper kept showing that sea levels rates had slowed (e.g Chen showed deceleration from 2004, Cazenave said in the last decade sea-levels had slowed 30% (but argued post hoc adjustments could solve that). Beenstock used 1000 tide gauges and found no acceleration of sea levels over the last 50 years. A different researcher — Phil Watson, found that Australian sea levels rose faster before World War II then slowed down.)*

*While my initial post was from a blog, it refered to this source, which I put in a later post. It is from real scientists, and not the denialists at Jo Nova.*

*http://www.bom.gov.au/ntc/IDO60202/IDO60202.2011.pdf*

*This report was prepared by: National Tidal Centre Australian Bureau of Meteorology GPO Box 421 Kent Town SA 5071 Australia Tel: (+618) 8366 2730 Fax: (+618) 8366 2651 Email: ntc@bom.gov.au Website: Oceanography Quality Certification: I authorise the issue of this Australian Baseline Sea Level Monitoring Project Annual Sea Level Data Summary Report for July 2010 - June 2011 in accordance with the quality assurance procedures of the National Tidal Centre, Australian Bureau of Meteorology.*

*Elektra, once again you have been outed as not so very intelligent. Really, start investigating before making a fool of yourself.*


----------



## Old Rocks (Feb 27, 2016)

Sea Level Rise and Australia | Climate Citizen

Recent Sea Level trend based upon National Tidal Centre, Australian Bureau of Meteorology Seaframe data gauges installed 1990-1993 and measured to June 2011; and net sea level trend after vertical movements in the observing platform relative to a local land benchmark and the inverted barometric pressure effect are taken into account.




Cocos Islands - 8.1mm/year - Net sea level trend: 3.4mm/year 

Groote Eylandt (NT) - 9.0mm/year - Net sea level trend: 8.9mm/year 

Darwin (NT) - 8.6mm/year - Net sea level trend: 8.3mm/year 

Broome (WA) - 9.1mm/year - Net sea level trend: 8.4mm/year 

Hillarys (near Perth WA) - 9.1mm/year - Net sea level trend: 9.0mm/year 

Esperance (WA)- 6.0mm/year - Net sea level trend: 5.5mm/year 

Thevenard (SA) - 4.5mm/year - Net sea level trend: 4.3mm/year 

Port Stanvac (near Adelaide SA) - 4.7mm/year - Net sea level trend: 4.3mm/year 

Portland (Vic) - 3.2mm/year - Net sea level trend: 3.1mm/year 

Lorne (Vic) - 2.7mm/year - Net sea level trend: 2.8mm/year 

Stony Point (Vic) - 2.6mm/year - Net sea level trend: 2.6mm/year 

Burnie (Tas) - 3.1mm/year - Net sea level trend: 2.9mm/year 

Spring Bay (Tas) - 3.5mm/year - Net sea level trend: 3.7mm/year 

Port Kembla (NSW) - 3.2mm/year - Net sea level trend: 2.6mm/year 

Rosslyn Bay (Qld) - 3.8mm/year - Net sea level trend: 3.5mm/year 

Cape Ferguson (Qld) - 4.8mm/year - Net sea level trend: 4.7mm/year
Source: National Tidal Centre, Australian Bureau of Meteorology June 2011 report (PDF)










*Now you have the blog and the source of the information in the blog side by side, so you can compare the two.*


----------



## mamooth (Feb 27, 2016)

elektra said:


> And, high tide flooding is Weather, not Climate. Funny how those "scientific" Global Warming worshipers confuse the weather with climate (at their convenience).



Ah, more of your belligerent ignorance routine, your standard response to having your attempts at fraud busted.

Tidal flooding is both weather and climate. An individual occurrence of it is weather. The long-term pattern of it is climate. The long-term pattern of increasing numbers of tidal flooding events is due to sea level rise.


----------



## elektra (Feb 27, 2016)

mamooth said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> > And, high tide flooding is Weather, not Climate. Funny how those "scientific" Global Warming worshipers confuse the weather with climate (at their convenience).
> ...


You won't live long enough to see if the occasional flood, or wave washing across a shore, is a change in climate. Funny how words like belligerent and ignorance suit yourself better than the people you throw them at, maMOOT. Was it not maMOOT who so elegantly explained climate is 1000's of years of our environment, but what you see on the news today is simply weather?


----------



## elektra (Feb 27, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> 150 year old mark shows no ocean rise
> 
> Extracted from here and its numerous links.
> 
> ...


Nothing in my OP is from this page, Old Crock, how about showing us where my quote is on this page or any page on the blog. Go ahead Old Crock, show where on this Blog they mention the Isle of the Dead, or simply wear your title of liar.

And well you are it, how about answering the last post you ran from, where you incorrectly posted W=IR for the formula for power, which is P=IE, Old Crock also stated 1 amp does not create 12 watts, yet according to the formula, P=IE, or
12w = 1 amp x 12 volts.

That will be two posts in a row Old Crock, if you can not copy/paste/link my OP quote from the blog you make the claim that it came from. So go ahead, show us how my quoted comment came from the link you are digging in. Or simply be the LIAR that you are.

Go, OLD CROCK THE LIAR, prove your claim.

None of the stuff you quote, have I used in this thread, none of the stuff I quote in my OP is anywhere on that Blog site. 

Nice try, idiot. But you let another idiot lead you down a dead end alley you can not get out of.


----------



## mamooth (Feb 27, 2016)

IanC said:


> I think the actual tide gauge average is closer to 2mm/yr because there are more areas that are rising due to GIA than sinking due to land subsidence. but the idea is clear. tide gauges on the actual coastlines where we interact with the oceans is showing much less SLR than mid ocean where it cannot be checked and doesnt matter anyways. isnt it odd that there was a large step change exactly at the same time that satellite altimetry came online?



The actual studies show a match between gauges and satellite data, so that's another conspiracy of yours debunked.

Recent sea level trends and accelerations: Comparison of tide gauge and satellite results

Now, the average change of tidal gauges should read lower than the calculated sea level rise, even after accounting for land rising and falling. And that reason is ... the oceans are getting deeper. All the post-ice-age melt water going into the oceans had weight, and that added weight is pushing down the ocean bottoms. If there was no current change in water mass in the ocean or water temperature, sea level would be dropping 0.3mm/year, until it gradually stabilized at a new equilibrium.

That is, measured at the shoreline, current sea level is rising at an average of 3.0mm/year, not 3.3mm year. The 0.3mm/year is tacked on to compensate. 3.3mm/year is the "what sea level rise would be if the shape of the oceans was fixed" number.

And  no, that's not cheating, because it's always been done that way, and because those same adjustments are used back to the distant past. So when graphs showed a sea level rate of change of 0.0mm /year, the sea level at the shoreline was actually falling slightly. The difference in the rate of sea level rise is unchanged.


----------



## westwall (Feb 27, 2016)

frigidweirdo said:


> Sea level rises aren't what worry me the most.
> 
> If the Arctic melts sea levels will DROP. If the water on the land of the Antarctic melt, the then sea will rise.
> 
> ...












Wrong kind of acid, dude.  The sea lions are possibly suffering from brain damage due to ingestion of DOMOIC ACID which is a product of dead critters.  

Sea lion deaths linked to severe brain damage caused by toxic algae bloom


----------



## elektra (Feb 27, 2016)

mamooth said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > I think the actual tide gauge average is closer to 2mm/yr because there are more areas that are rising due to GIA than sinking due to land subsidence. but the idea is clear. tide gauges on the actual coastlines where we interact with the oceans is showing much less SLR than mid ocean where it cannot be checked and doesnt matter anyways. isnt it odd that there was a large step change exactly at the same time that satellite altimetry came online?
> ...


Oh yea, like the mad scientists can not manipulate their studies to make the gauges and satellite data match. All it takes is their fancy "adjustments" of the data or a slight, "calibration" in their favor. 

MOOT point.


----------



## Crick (Feb 27, 2016)

Oh yea, like the uneducated, amoral bloggers can't simply lie out their joint asses to make it look as if the world were not getting warmer and that sea levels weren't rising.

Elektra, why do you think a single location: The Isle of the Dead - for which you don't have particularly good data - should hold more significance than data from tide gauges and satellite records assembled by the best experts on the planet, from the rest of the world over?  Particularly when no one has ever claimed the world's ocean rise and fall in lockstep and with no consideration whatsoever given to isostatic changes.


----------



## elektra (Feb 27, 2016)

mamooth said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > I think the actual tide gauge average is closer to 2mm/yr because there are more areas that are rising due to GIA than sinking due to land subsidence. but the idea is clear. tide gauges on the actual coastlines where we interact with the oceans is showing much less SLR than mid ocean where it cannot be checked and doesnt matter anyways. isnt it odd that there was a large step change exactly at the same time that satellite altimetry came online?
> ...


always the abstract, never the paper.


----------



## elektra (Feb 27, 2016)

Crick said:


> Oh yea, like the uneducated, amoral bloggers can't simply lie out their joint asses to make it look as if the world were not getting warmer and that sea levels weren't rising.
> 
> Elektra, why do you think the single location of Isle of Dead - for which you don't have particularly good data - should hold more significance than tide gauges and satellite records from the rest of the world over?


Because you can not adjust  a mark set in stone like you can cherry pick and manipulate tide gauges and satellite records.


----------



## Crick (Feb 27, 2016)

Do you understand what GIA even is?


----------



## elektra (Feb 27, 2016)

mamooth said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > I think the actual tide gauge average is closer to 2mm/yr because there are more areas that are rising due to GIA than sinking due to land subsidence. but the idea is clear. tide gauges on the actual coastlines where we interact with the oceans is showing much less SLR than mid ocean where it cannot be checked and doesnt matter anyways. isnt it odd that there was a large step change exactly at the same time that satellite altimetry came online?
> ...


Hey, maMOOT, you don't realize that R.G. Dean is DISAGREEING with what you cherry picked from the abstract!


----------



## elektra (Feb 27, 2016)

Crick said:


> Do you understand what GIA even is?


Grupo Islámico Armado


----------



## Old Rocks (Feb 27, 2016)

elektra said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > 150 year old mark shows no ocean rise
> ...


From the bottom of the OP.

Tasmanian Sea Levels - Lessons from the Isle of the Dead

Measuring sea-level rise at Port Arthur

150 year old mark shows no ocean rise

*I added some links to the OP.*
.................................................................................................................................

The above is from your OP. And, from 150 year old mark shows no ocean rise

Extracted from here and its numerous links.
.................................................................................................................................
*Leftist media saturates the news. Fight back. Send articles to your friends, politicians, local media, and facebook*
*............................................................................................................................*
*And if you link to 'here' you get  The scandal of sea levels — rising trends, acceleration — largely created by adjustments « JoNova*

*Two claims just proven, 1st that you article linked back to Jo Nova nonsense, 2nd, that you are one extremely unintelligent individual.*


----------



## elektra (Feb 27, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> From the bottom of the OP.
> 
> Tasmanian Sea Levels - Lessons from the Isle of the Dead
> 
> ...


Yes, and like I reiterated, Liar, nothing in my OP is found on that Blog, otherwise you could link to it. My Link is not to a blog, and the Content I posted is not from the blog you link to.

So again, unless you can find my picture and the Story of the Isle of the Dead on that Blog you are simply a LIAR, as you call others you are yourself.

Easy as PIE, Power equals Current times Voltage, OLD CROCK THE LIAR

Now go to the blog and find your smoking gun or simply be a liar.


----------



## Old Rocks (Feb 27, 2016)

westwall said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> > Sea level rises aren't what worry me the most.
> ...




The findings provide critical new information about the impacts of domoic acid, which has increasingly devastated wildlife – and fishermen – in recent years.

The toxin is the reason why the season for Dungeness crab, a well-known and lucrative fishery along the west coast, has been delayed this year and has increasingly become one of the main impacts of warmer waters along the west coast as domoic acid-producing algal blooms grow larger and longer-lasting.

Sea lion deaths linked to severe brain damage caused by toxic algae bloom

The findings provide critical new information about the impacts of domoic acid, which has increasingly devastated wildlife – and fishermen – in recent years.

The toxin is the reason why the season for Dungeness crab, a well-known and lucrative fishery along the west coast, has been delayed this year and has increasingly become one of the* main impacts of warmer waters along the west coast as domoic acid-producing algal blooms grow larger and longer-lasting.*

Those impacts have grown rapidly and recently.

In 1998, hundreds of sea lions experiencing seizures stranded off Monterey Bay, 75 miles south of San Francisco. At first, the reason for the seizures was a mystery. “People thought it was mercury poisoning,” said Kathi Lefebvre, a National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration scientist who was not involved in the new research. She happened to be looking at the effects of domoic acid in fish in 1998 and thought the toxin might be the cause for sea lion seizures.

It turned out to be the first documented case of domoic acid poisoning in marine life. Those cases have grown since, and this year could be the worst ever. “Every year since – for the last 17 years – there have been sick and dying sea lions, sometimes in the hundreds,” Lefebvre said.

This year was the first in which a sea lion affected by domoic acid poisoning was reported north of California, she said. “What we’re most concerned about right now is this year we have had the likely largest ever recorded algal bloom producing domoic acid on the US west coast, spanning the largest geographic range.”

Historically, the toxic algal bloom would last just a few weeks,* but due to warmer waters from climate change and this year’s El Niño weather phenomenon, this year’s bloom lasted for months.* She said that persistence and its northward expansion makes studying the “sub-lethal chronic effects” domoic acid has on animals particularly important.

*A text book case of a negative effect of global warming.*


----------



## Old Rocks (Feb 27, 2016)

elektra said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > From the bottom of the OP.
> ...


*Crap, talk about doubling down on stupid, here is quoted material in your original post in it's entirety. Notice at the bottom where it tells you the source of their article. My God, man, you are stupid!

150 year old mark shows no ocean rise



Isle of the Dead

The ‘Isle of the Dead’ may yet prove to be another nail in the coffin of global warming and its gruesome companion, Disastrous Sea Level Rises.

The `Isle of the Dead’ is over two acres in size and is situated within the harbor of Port Arthur opening directly to the Southern Ocean. The isle itself is actually a graveyard (thus its eerie name), containing the graves of some 2,000 British convicts and free persons from the 19th century who lived and died at the nearby convict colony of Port Arthur between 1832 and 1870.

In 1841. renowned British Antarctic explorer, Captain Sir James Clark Ross, sailed into Tassy after a 6-month voyage of discovery and exploration to the Antarctic.

Ross and Governor Franklin made a particular point of visiting Port Arthur, to meet Thomas Lempriere, a senior official of the convict colony there, but who was also a methodical observer and recorder of meteorological, tidal, and astronomical data. It is important to note what Captain Ross wrote about it.

“My principal object in visiting Port Arthur was to afford a comparison of our standard barometer with that which had been employed for several years by Mr. Lempriere, the Deputy Assistant Commissary General, in accordance with my instructions, and also to establish a permanent mark at the zero point, or general mean level of the sea as determined by the tidal observations which Mr. Lempriere had conducted with perseverance and exactness for some time: by which means any secular variation in the relative level of the land and sea, which is known to occur on some coasts, might at any future period be detected, and its amount determined.

The point chosen for this purpose was the perpendicular cliff of the small islet off Point Puer, which, being near to the tide register, rendered the operation more simple and exact. The Governor, whom I had accompanied on an official visit to the settlement, gave directions to afford Mr. Lempriere every assistance of labourers he required, to have the mark cut deeply in the rock in the exact spot which his tidal observations indicated as the mean level of the ocean.

That mark is still there today, as can be seen in the photo.The photo was taken at midway between high and low tides.

There is intensive research presently underway by several institutions including the now corrupt CSIRO assisted by the head of the Inter-Agency Committee on Marine Science & Technology, Dr David Pugh, who is based at the University of Southampton, UK. But in spite of plenty of time we have yet to see their detailed explanation of just why this mark confounds all the predictions about sea level rise.

Dr. Pugh airily waves his hands and says in effect that poor old confused Lempriere, in spite of the detailed instructions about getting a Mean Sea Level (half way between high and low tide), he just put in the high water mark. This, of course, sounds logical to anybody steeped in the Green religion.

But not to anyone else and not to real scientists who look at evidence unflinchingly.

Be that as it may, the Australian National Tidal Facility at Flinders University in Adelaide published a `Mean Sea Level Survey’ in 1998 to establish sea level trends around the Australian coast from tide gauges having more than 23 years of hourly data in their archive. This survey was particularly relevant for global application since Australia is tectonically stable and much less affected by Post Glacial Rebound (the tendency of land to rise once the burden of billions of tons of ice goes) than Europe, Asia or North America.

It did not include Tasmania possibly because University types do not recognise Tasmania as part of Australia, possibly because somehow the dumb Tasmanians had not yet got around to measuring sea levels in 1975.

Since nearly two-thirds of the world’s total oceanic area is in the southern hemisphere, Australia is best placed to monitor southern hemisphere trends and probably best represents the true Mean Sea Level globally. Also, the Australian coast adjoins the Indian, Pacific, and Southern Oceans, making its data indicative of sea levels in three oceans, not just one.

The National Tidal Facility identified tide gauges in stations running anti-clockwise around Australia starting with Darwin.

Eleven of the 27 stations recorded a sea level fall, while the mean rate of sea level rise for all the stations combined is only +0.3 mm/yr, with an average record length of 36.4 years. This is only one sixth of the IPCC figure. There was also no obvious geographical pattern of falls versus rises as both were distributed along all parts of the coast.

But there’s more. It was shown earlier that Adelaide was a prime example of local sea level rise due to urban subsidence [3]. It’s two stations in the above list are the only ones to record a sea level rise greater than the IPCC estimate. The same NTF survey pointed out the Adelaide anomaly and directly attributed it to local subsidence, not sea level rise, on the grounds that the neighboring stations of Port Lincoln, Port Pirie and Victor Harbour only show a rise of +0.3 mm/yr between them. If we exclude Adelaide from the list, the average sea level rise for the other 25 stations is then only +0.16 mm/yr, or less than one tenth of the IPCC estimate.

If this world tour, ending with the Australian survey, were not convincing enough, there is one further piece of evidence from Australia which demonstrates that the IPCC, and the ICE-3G model which underpins their predictions, is wrong about the magnitude of 20th century sea level rise.

So do your best to memorise this and whenever Fairfax runs its monthly big scare about burning cities, desert, and huge sea levels that will affect our (great x 15o) grandchildren if we leave the porch light on, write into them and point all this out.

Or write to the Councils around Australia who are running like Chicken Little drawing imaginary lines where the sea will come up to and forbidding anyone to build their home or repair it beyond them.

And a fat lot of good it will do you.


Extracted from here and its numerous links.

Leftist media saturates the news. Fight back. Send articles to your friends, politicians, local media, and facebook.
*


----------



## elektra (Feb 27, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...


Nice, you can quote from a website that is not the blog where you are making the claim my content came from, it is not my problem you are reaching for straws again old crock. 

Copy and Paste from the blog, you can not show that any of my content came from that blog, cause it did not.


----------



## Old Rocks (Feb 27, 2016)

Damn. Tripling down on stupid. Oh well, from Elektra, that is the norm. Your OP came from the Australian Morning Mail, which stated at the bottom of the article that the source of it's information was Jo Nova, and the links at Jo Nova. Even a moron can follow a two step link. Please work hard and try to achieve that status.


----------



## elektra (Feb 27, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> Damn. Tripling down on stupid. Oh well, from Elektra, that is the norm. Your OP came from the Australian Morning Mail, which stated at the bottom of the article that the source of it's information was Jo Nova, and the links at Jo Nova. Even a moron can follow a two step link. Please work hard and try to achieve that status.



Follow the two step link, copy and paste and link showing my content came from the blog, and prove you are not a moron, old crock the liar.

Even a moron can do it, as you state Old Crock, so do it!


----------



## elektra (Feb 27, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> *A text book case of a negative effect of global warming.*


No, A textbook case of Old Crock cherry picking. Textbook is one word, Old Crock, 4th grade stuff, idiot.

Now educate us on the difference between, fact, theory, and a hypotheses and what does it mean when they state they have no data to test the hypotheses? 

If I can quote from Old Crock's link.
US west coast toxic algae bloom might be largest ever, say scientists



> “But we also agreed we don’t really have the data yet to test those hypotheses.”


----------



## flacaltenn (Feb 27, 2016)

mamooth said:


> Elektra, now can you tell us the one about how scientists cut down a tree because they hated how it disproved sea level rise?  I think that's my all-time favorite denier fairy tale.
> 
> Measuring sea-level rise at Port Arthur
> ---
> ...



So where's the pic of this "mark" at HIGH tide? and LOW tide for that matter. Let us judge for ourselves. 

So many links --- so many articles and NOT ONE high tide pic??


----------



## flacaltenn (Feb 27, 2016)

If you really want your head to hurt -- there's been several real papers written and about 19 brawls broken out about debating this ancient artifact. Some jerks even use the mark to attempt to justify the IPCC estimates (modeling) of sea level rise since the 1800s. 

Lot more complicated than taking a few pics and comparing. First of all, you'd have to match lunar cycles with the date the mark was set and get the proper interpretation of where it was put (high./mean/ low/ect).. And if the original guys "averaged" the mean observation over what period. Because the NATURAL variation in high or low tide exceeds the SLR since that period. 

On top of it ALL --- the drama gets better. There was a major EARTHQUAKE changing the coast height by about 10cm..   Good luck with all that. I'm sure there's an answer. Let me know when you find it there Captain Blight. 

Tasmanian Sea Levels - Lessons from the Isle of the Dead      Real interesting reading. And there's a Part2 for those determined to figure out what all this means and where the bootie is buried.


----------



## frigidweirdo (Feb 28, 2016)

Crick said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> > Though I had a look and it said actually sea water would rise slightly because if you add fresh water to salt water the level will rise.
> ...



I didn't say the effect was big, but the effect is there. Not that it's that important. The issue was that the Antarctic melting is the biggest issue. 

What would happen if the Antarctic ice melted and went into the sea? Not only from the level of the sea, but PH levels, the impact on animal life etc etc.


----------



## frigidweirdo (Feb 28, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...



Funny, you show where the sea level was and then an hour later it's much higher or lower, and you think you can show a line and prove something 1000 years later.... er......


----------



## Crick (Feb 28, 2016)

Really?  Do you actually think that argument has merit?  I guess no one ever noticed waves and tides and wind surges before. What an astounding discovery you've made.  It will revolutionize the field.

Do you know what a modern wave gauge looks like?  How it works.Are you familiar with capacitors?  The capacitance of a capacitor is dependent on a few things, one of which is the area of its plates.  If you take a metal rod, cover it with plastic, it forms one plate and the electrolytic barrier of a capacitor.  The other plate is formed by our conductive sea water.  The rod is installed sticking down through mean sea level.  As the water rises and falls, the capacitance of the assembly is altered directly by the rise and fall of the water.  Thus sea level can be monitored continuously (with an analog circuit) or extremely rapidly (with a fast-sampling digital circuit) and the results both recorded as frequently as you like and fed into an integrator to determine the mean value over any running time span you care to use.


----------



## elektra (Feb 28, 2016)

Crick said:


> Really?  Do you actually think that argument has merit?  I guess no one ever noticed waves and tides and wind surges before. What an astounding discovery you've made.  It will revolutionize the field.
> 
> Do you know what a modern wave gauge looks like?  How it works.Are you familiar with capacitors?  The capacitance of a capacitor is dependent on a few things, one of which is the area of its plates.  If you take a metal rod, cover it with plastic, it forms one plate and the electrolytic barrier of a capacitor.  The other plate is formed by our conductive sea water.  The rod is installed sticking down through mean sea level.  As the water rises and falls, the capacitance of the assembly is altered directly by the rise and fall of the water.  Thus sea level can be monitored continuously (with an analog circuit) or extremely rapidly (with a fast-sampling digital circuit) and the results both recorded as frequently as you like and fed into an integrator to determine the mean value over any running time span you care to use.


How about a link to this gauge, which would be interesting to see what you got wrong.

The one glaring error I see is you begin by speaking of a wave gauge, last I checked TIDE gauges are what are used to measure the Sea Level, not Wave Gauges.

Either way a link to your idea would be interesting.

[I am adding this comment after 2 hours of reading, Sea level is not measured with capacitance, maybe Salinity, not sea level or tide levels]


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Feb 28, 2016)

frigidweirdo said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > frigidweirdo said:
> ...



Antarctica is not melting


----------



## frigidweirdo (Feb 28, 2016)

CrusaderFrank said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...



Christ, this is like one giant game of Chinese whispers. 

My initial post said that the main point to worry about was the PH level of the sea changing, and not the ice caps melting. So everyone just goes of the thing that wasn't so important.

However.....

Antarctic ice shelves are melting dramatically, study finds

"A team of US scientists looked at 18 years’ worth of satellite data and found the floating ice shelves that skirt the continent are losing 310km3 of ice every year. One shelf lost 18% of its thickness during the period."

NASA -  Is Antarctica Melting?

"One new paper 1, which states there’s less surface melting recently than in past years, has been cited as "proof" that there’s no global warming. Other evidence that the amount of sea ice around Antarctica seems to be increasing slightly 2-4 is being used in the same way. But both of these data points are misleading."

"Gravity data collected from space using NASA's Grace satellite show that Antarctica has been losing more than a hundred cubic kilometers (24 cubic miles) of ice each year since 2002."

Yes, it's melting. However it's not melting in a manner which makes sense to some people, and some facts are often misinterpreted and then passed on to other people who then claim that this is total proof it's not melting. 

And all that shit.


----------



## elektra (Feb 28, 2016)

What is apparent, is there is a thousand different ways to measure things on Earth, and that the Earth is always changing.

Are the Ice Caps melting, sometimes yes and sometimes no.

Is the Sea Level rising? Maybe, Maybe not, how can you measure something that is always changing and effected by so many different things. The more I read about Sea Level the more I understand that it is a very subjective measurement at best.


----------



## elektra (Feb 28, 2016)

To save this link in a place for future reference, it is interesting to note the accuracy of sea level measurements in the 19th Century.

Reading between the tides: 200 years of measuring global sea level | NOAA Climate.gov



> Compared with the old technologies, the microwave sensors are more reliable and much cheaper to install and maintain—no boats, divers or regular manual attention required. However, the data they provide is only marginally more accurate. In fact, the accuracy of the monthly mean sea level observations—which most climate scientists use as a starting data point when looking at long-term ocean trends—as calculated using measurements from the microwave sensors is almost exactly the same as what scientists calculated using tide gauges in the 1800s, Bushnell says. That’s a testament to the painstaking, detail-obsessed work done by generations of tide gauge observers, technicians taking care of the equipment, and NOAA analysts putting together the results from all the nation’s gauges every month, according to Gill.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Feb 28, 2016)

flacaltenn said:


> If you really want your head to hurt -- there's been several real papers written and about 19 brawls broken out about debating this ancient artifact. Some jerks even use the mark to attempt to justify the IPCC estimates (modeling) of sea level rise since the 1800s.
> 
> Lot more complicated than taking a few pics and comparing. First of all, you'd have to match lunar cycles with the date the mark was set and get the proper interpretation of where it was put (high./mean/ low/ect).. And if the original guys "averaged" the mean observation over what period. Because the NATURAL variation in high or low tide exceeds the SLR since that period.
> 
> ...



...and the earthquake was caused by global warming


----------



## Crick (Feb 28, 2016)

CrusaderFrank said:


> *Antarctica is not melting*


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Feb 28, 2016)

Crick said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > *Antarctica is not melting*


Crick, is this the same NASA that said in Nov 2015 that the Antarctic ice was growing?


----------



## 9aces (Feb 28, 2016)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...




Are we on Climate Change or Global Warming today?  I thought Climate change was Sun/Wed/Fri?


----------



## Old Rocks (Feb 28, 2016)

Crick said:


> Really?  Do you actually think that argument has merit?  I guess no one ever noticed waves and tides and wind surges before. What an astounding discovery you've made.  It will revolutionize the field.
> 
> Do you know what a modern wave gauge looks like?  How it works.Are you familiar with capacitors?  The capacitance of a capacitor is dependent on a few things, one of which is the area of its plates.  If you take a metal rod, cover it with plastic, it forms one plate and the electrolytic barrier of a capacitor.  The other plate is formed by our conductive sea water.  The rod is installed sticking down through mean sea level.  As the water rises and falls, the capacitance of the assembly is altered directly by the rise and fall of the water.  Thus sea level can be monitored continuously (with an analog circuit) or extremely rapidly (with a fast-sampling digital circuit) and the results both recorded as frequently as you like and fed into an integrator to determine the mean value over any running time span you care to use.


Now Crick, you are posting in answer to someone that claimed that 12 amps = 1 watt. Do you expect him to even vaguely understand how a capacitor works? 

Most of the deniers are woefully ignorant of basic science, especially when it come to understanding how the measuring instrumentation works.


----------



## elektra (Feb 28, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> Now Crick, you are posting in answer to someone that claimed that 12 amps = 1 watt. Do you expect him to even vaguely understand how a capacitor works?
> 
> Most of the deniers are woefully ignorant of basic science, especially when it come to understanding how the measuring instrumentation works.


You even get that wrong you Old Liar

1. 12 watts = 1 amp x 12 volts which is P=IE, which old crock disagreed with

now watch this you complete moron

2. 1 watt = 12 amps x .08333334 volts

How stupid can you possibly be Old Crock, it is simple MATH, not even algebra! At 72 old crock is back in college? It sure ain't forth grade math the old man is studying.

I see mattpew agrees with Old Crock, mattpew can't do 4th grade math either. At least mattpew is smart enough not to respond to Posts that are over his head.


----------



## Old Rocks (Feb 28, 2016)

*Oh well, OK, off topic, but here goes;*

Wind Power Extreme Costs Hidden, Maintenance, Consumers must pay

1 amp equals 12 watts, if using Wind Turbines it takes 3 amps to equal 1 watt, or 36 amps to create 12 watts, given the capacity factor. 

Even your jokes are a huge waste of resources, I bet your down for maintenance, now.

*That is where you can find this post from Elektra. Judge for yourself what he or she is stating.*


----------



## elektra (Feb 28, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> *Oh well, OK, off topic, but here goes;*
> 
> Wind Power Extreme Costs Hidden, Maintenance, Consumers must pay
> 
> ...


Old Crock you really got burnt, P=IE, you tried to turn a little humor into a derogatory comment, and you lost.

12 watts = 1 amp x 12 volts, Old Crock said this was wrong!

Nope not down for maintenance, Old Crock, just laughing at your stupidity. Old Crock's intelligence has a negative capacity factor.

At 72 Old Crock is in college, telling the 19 year olds that the formula for power is, W=IR, I had to correct Old Crock and tell him it is as easy as PIE, or P=IE

Old Crock came back and stated W=IV? Volts is represented by E Old Crock, How about E over IR, try that one old crock. Power, or Watts, is represented by P


----------



## Crick (Feb 29, 2016)

Do you believe using different variable names makes the equation wrong?


----------



## elektra (Feb 29, 2016)

Crick said:


> Do you believe using different variable names makes the equation wrong?


Yes, by using the Variable of Resistance for Voltage, the equation for P=IE is wrong.


----------



## 9aces (Feb 29, 2016)

elektra said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > Do you believe using different variable names makes the equation wrong?
> ...



And here you find the difference between the person who has to use information...and the one who looks it up on google.


----------



## jc456 (Feb 29, 2016)

skookerasbil said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> > Bob Blaylock said:
> ...


skooks,  again, I read today about the earth axis is changing and why the Arctic may be seeing more sun which would directly correlate in the Antarctic building ice.  Just saying, I have to do some research, but it seems logical.  Seems 100 times more logical than adding CO2 to the air.


----------



## jc456 (Feb 29, 2016)

mamooth said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> > And, high tide flooding is Weather, not Climate. Funny how those "scientific" Global Warming worshipers confuse the weather with climate (at their convenience).
> ...


where?


----------



## Old Rocks (Feb 29, 2016)

jc456 said:


> skookerasbil said:
> 
> 
> > frigidweirdo said:
> ...


O..........K.......................................


----------



## frigidweirdo (Feb 29, 2016)

jc456 said:


> skookerasbil said:
> 
> 
> > frigidweirdo said:
> ...



The Antarctic is losing ice though. It was building ice on one side of the continent while the other side lost ice, this is probably just something to do with the way things go, however it was still losing ice in its totality.


----------



## elektra (Mar 1, 2016)

frigidweirdo said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > skookerasbil said:
> ...


And then it will gain ice? And lose some, and gain some?


----------



## frigidweirdo (Mar 1, 2016)

elektra said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



And every year it has less ice than the year before, or at least over a period of time there is less ice, on average, every year.


----------



## elektra (Mar 1, 2016)

frigidweirdo said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> > frigidweirdo said:
> ...


yet, in the other thread, nasa was quoted as saying different, and predicted it will now grow. 

You may not of noticed, but I am not much into arguing the daily changes in weather. Climate changes, that takes 1000's of years to change. 

Every year? Are we talking, "Sea Ice" or "Polar Ice".


----------



## frigidweirdo (Mar 1, 2016)

elektra said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> > elektra said:
> ...



Did they? Were were they quoted as saying this? 

Antarctic Sea Ice Reaches New Maximum Extent : Image of the Day

What NASA said was that the sea ice level had reached a record. This IS NOT the amount of ice there is, this is how wide the ice spreads. Now, we all know if you have a sandwich and you put some peanut butter in the middle, a big dollop, there will be the same amount of peanut butter as if you spread it around the bread, yes, the peanut butter is now over a wider area, but not more peanut putter.

Their belief why this happened...

"Geography and winds are thought to be especially important. Unlike the Arctic, where sea ice is confined in a basin, Antarctica is a continent surrounded by open ocean. Since its sea ice is unconfined, it is particularly sensitive to changes in the winds."

Why is Antarctic sea ice at record levels despite global warming?

One of the effects of ozone loss on the Antarctic has been the increasing frequency and ferocity of winds and storms around the continent. According to Turner, ozone depletion has caused winds in the Southern Ocean to increase by 15-20%. In particular, the cooling trend may have caused a low pressure system in the Amundsen sea to increase in intensity or frequency.


Wind. Not cold. But wind.

Antarctic sea ice level breaks record, NASA says

"Snowfall could also be behind the growing ice pattern. NASA explains: "Snow landing on thin ice can actually push the thin ice below the water, which then allows cold ocean water to seep up through the ice and flood the snow - leading to a slushy mixture that freezes in the cold atmosphere and adds to the thickness of the ice.""

Another reason. (from the link below)

Antarctic sea ice level breaks record, NASA says

"Despite this trend, sea ice as a whole is decreasing on a global scale."


----------



## elektra (Mar 1, 2016)

frigidweirdo said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> > frigidweirdo said:
> ...


In the following thread, Mattpew used the New York Times as his source, in the New York Times article they linked to the link I am quoting from. So from the thread where they claim the Ice Disappeared, those scientist claim the opposite from what the headline stated.
Scientists are floored by what’s happening in the Arctic right now

Arctic Sea Ice News and Analysis | Sea ice data updated daily with one-day lag


> The observed trend over the period 2005 to 2015 is actually positive (a tendency for more ice). In a paper recently published in _Geophysical Research Letters_, scientists at the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) show that the Community Earth System Model (CESM) was able to predict this period of winter ice growth in the North Atlantic. The study further suggests that in the near future, sea ice extent in this part of the Arctic is likely to remain steady or even increase (Figure 4).


----------



## Crick (Mar 2, 2016)

Latest from NSIDC.org

*February continues streak of record low Arctic sea ice extent*
March 2, 2016


Arctic sea ice was at a satellite-record low for the second month in a row. The first three weeks of February saw little ice growth, but extent rose during the last week of the month. Arctic sea ice typically reaches its maximum extent for the year in mid to late March.

*Overview of conditions*



Figure 1. Arctic sea ice extent for February 2016 was 14.22 million square kilometers (5.48 million square miles). The magenta line shows the 1981 to 2010 median extent for that month. The black cross indicates the geographic North Pole. Sea Ice Index data.About the data

Credit: National Snow and Ice Data Center
High-resolution image

Arctic sea ice extent for February averaged 14.22 million square kilometers (5.48 million square miles), the lowest February extent in the satellite record. It is 1.16 million square kilometers (448,000 square miles) below the 1981 to 2010 long-term average of 15.4 million square kilometers (5.94 million square miles) and is 200,000 square kilometers (77,000 square miles) below the previous record low for the month recorded in 2005.

The first three weeks of February saw little ice growth, but extent rose during the last week of the month primarily due to growth in the Sea of Okhotsk (180,000 square kilometers or 70,000 square miles) and to a lesser extent in Baffin Bay (35,000 square kilometers or 13,500 square miles). Extent is presently below average in the Barents and Kara seas, as well as the Bering Sea and the East Greenland Sea. Extent decreased in the Barents and East Greenland seas during the month of February. In other regions, such as the Sea of Okhotsk, Baffin Bay, and the Labrador Sea, ice conditions are near average to slightly above average for this time of year. An exception is the Gulf of St. Lawrence, which remains largely ice free.

In the Antarctic, sea ice reached its minimum extent for the year on February 19, averaging 2.6 million square kilometers (1 million square miles). It is the ninth lowest Antarctic sea ice minimum extent in the satellite record.


----------



## elektra (Mar 2, 2016)

Crick said:


> Latest from NSIDC.org
> 
> The first three weeks of February saw little ice growth, but extent rose during the last week of the month primarily due to growth in the Sea of Okhotsk (180,000 square kilometers or 70,000 square miles) and to a lesser extent in Baffin Bay (35,000 square kilometers or 13,500 square miles). Extent is presently below average in the Barents and Kara seas, as well as the Bering Sea and the East Greenland Sea. Extent decreased in the Barents and East Greenland seas during the month of February. In other regions, such as the Sea of Okhotsk, Baffin Bay, and the Labrador Sea, ice conditions are near average to slightly above average for this time of year. An exception is the Gulf of St. Lawrence, which remains largely ice free.
> 
> In the Antarctic, sea ice reached its minimum extent for the year on February 19, averaging 2.6 million square kilometers (1 million square miles). It is the ninth lowest Antarctic sea ice minimum extent in the satellite record.


Great, the Sea Ice GREW in February, as your link states.  Who's side you arguing?

Growth is growth, despite the headline.


----------



## Crick (Mar 2, 2016)

It's SUPPOSED to be growing.  It's the fooking WINTER numbnuts!


----------



## elektra (Mar 2, 2016)

Crick said:


> It's SUPPOSED to be growing.  It's the fooking WINTER numbnuts!


Okay, we agree the Arctic Ice is growing.


----------



## Old Rocks (Mar 3, 2016)

Arctic Sea Ice News and Analysis | Sea ice data updated daily with one-day lag

*Well below the two sigma mark, and the melt season will start in about two weeks. Looks like this will be the first year that the ice does not reach 13 million square kilometer mark.

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.area.arctic.png*


----------



## Old Rocks (Mar 3, 2016)

Figure 3. Monthly February sea ice extent for 1979 to 2016 shows a decline of 3.0 percent per decade.

Arctic Sea Ice News and Analysis | Sea ice data updated daily with one-day lag

*Pretty damned clear which way the ice is going. Except for those of room temperature IQ's. *


----------



## elektra (Mar 3, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> Arctic Sea Ice News and Analysis | Sea ice data updated daily with one-day lag
> 
> *Well below the two sigma mark, and the melt season will start in about two weeks. Looks like this will be the first year that the ice does not reach 13 million square kilometer mark.
> 
> http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.area.arctic.png*


yet no sea level rise, in relation to the Isle of the Dead benchmark. At least we know we have no worries about the ice melting and flooding our cities


----------



## elektra (Mar 3, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> Figure 3. Monthly February sea ice extent for 1979 to 2016 shows a decline of 3.0 percent per decade.
> 
> Arctic Sea Ice News and Analysis | Sea ice data updated daily with one-day lag
> 
> *Pretty damned clear which way the ice is going. Except for those of room temperature IQ's. *


 In other regions, such as the Sea of Okhotsk, Baffin Bay, and the Labrador Sea, ice conditions are near average to slightly above average for this time of year.


----------



## Old Rocks (Mar 3, 2016)

Which means, of course, that there are vast areas that are way below normal. Old girl, you are demonstrating a room temperature IQ.


----------



## elektra (Mar 13, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> Which means, of course, that there are vast areas that are way below normal. Old girl, you are demonstrating a room temperature IQ.


Thanks, my thread is about, "no sea level rise". And the fact that you agree vast areas are way below normal makes me question, who's side are you on?


----------



## Crick (Mar 14, 2016)

Did you miss the fact that he was talking about sea ice extents or were you hoping no one else remembers two posts back?


----------



## elektra (Mar 14, 2016)

Crick said:


> Did you miss the fact that he was talking about sea ice extents or were you hoping no one else remembers two posts back?


I missed no facts, Old Crock stated that the Sea Level was below normal, had Old Crock meant otherwise in a Sea Level thread he would of posted as such. 

Crick, your thoughts are like a baby boy's


----------



## Old Rocks (Mar 15, 2016)

No, dumb lying little fuck, that is not at all what I stated in post # 88.

Elektra's post # 87;

In other regions, such as the Sea of Okhotsk, Baffin Bay, and the Labrador Sea, ice conditions are near average to slightly above average for this time of year.

My post in reply, # 88;

Which means, of course, that there are vast areas that are way below normal. Old girl, you are demonstrating a room temperature IQ.

Now how do you twist that to mean sea level? The subject was ice.


----------



## elektra (Mar 15, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> No, dumb lying little fuck, that is not at all what I stated in post # 88.
> Elektra's post # 87;
> In other regions, such as the Sea of Okhotsk, Baffin Bay, and the Labrador Sea, ice conditions are near average to slightly above average for this time of year.
> My post in reply, # 88;
> ...



Oh, the subject was ice, I forgot that was what I meant when I titled the thread, "NO SEA LEVEL RISE SAYS THE ISLE OF THE DEAD

Say what you mean Old Crock, it is that simple, I would say easy as PIE (inside joke). So, some regions are above average and some are below average, and if you do that math (easy as pie), they come out as average.


----------



## RollingThunder (Mar 15, 2016)

elektra said:


> *No Sea Level Rise says Isle of the Dead....*


*No Sea Level Rise says Isle of the Brain-Dead...AKA Denierstan Bizarro-world....where up is down and black is white and our heads are safely tucked into our asses....*


----------



## xband (Mar 15, 2016)

RollingThunder said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> > *No Sea Level Rise says Isle of the Dead....*
> ...



I like swimming in the ocean, what is wrong with that?


----------



## elektra (Mar 15, 2016)

RollingThunder said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> > *No Sea Level Rise says Isle of the Dead....*
> ...


You say your head is in your ass, do you think about what you post or is it all just off the top of your head from within your rectal canal?


----------



## RollingThunder (Mar 15, 2016)

elektra said:


> *No Sea Level Rise says Isle of the Dead....*


*


RollingThunder said:



			No Sea Level Rise says Isle of the Brain-Dead...AKA Denierstan Bizarro-world....
		
Click to expand...




RollingThunder said:



where up is down and black is white and our heads are safely tucked into our asses....

Click to expand...

*


elektra said:


> You say your head is in your ass, do you think about what you post or is it all just off the top of your head from within your rectal canal?



Nope! As usual, Ejakulatra, your retarded inability to understand what you read has betrayed you.....I SAID that you denier cult retards on the *Isle of the Brain-Dead...AKA Denierstan Bizarro-World*, have your heads tucked safely up your asses where the nasty real world can't upset your demented delusions.


----------



## elektra (Mar 21, 2016)

RollingThunder said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> > *No Sea Level Rise says Isle of the Dead....*
> ...



How do you explain this? No significant rise, despite the Doomsday claims of Global Warming nuts.
C3: Xtra Catg: Are Oceans Rising



> Using the satellite observations, compiled by the leading sea level research group's site, one can download sea surface height anomalies from the beginning of the 21st century. This empirical evidence should clarify if civilization's massive CO2 emissions over the last 15+ years have caused a dangerous sea rise surge of ever higher waves.
> 
> And it does clarify.
> 
> ...


----------



## Crick (Mar 21, 2016)

Why are we wasting our time looking at sea level trends at specific locations?  Has the Earths population all moved to Wake Island while no one was looking?

Here is the data we need to look at.  Yours is meaningless.


----------



## jc456 (Mar 22, 2016)

Crick said:


> Why are we wasting our time looking at sea level trends at specific locations?  Has the Earths population all moved to Wake Island while no one was looking?
> 
> Here is the data we need to look at.  Yours is meaningless.


nice graph, but the fact is the water isn't rising.  So a pretty little graph.  Did you color it?


----------



## Crick (Mar 22, 2016)

Is that your response?  The water isn't rising?  Who says so?  Who says so with more credibility than the University of Colorado Sea Level Group?


----------



## Old Rocks (Mar 22, 2016)

jc456 said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > Why are we wasting our time looking at sea level trends at specific locations?  Has the Earths population all moved to Wake Island while no one was looking?
> ...


And you say that why? What is your education such that you are capable of making a credible judgement. Perhaps you are more capable than all the scientists whose work created that graph?


----------



## jc456 (Mar 23, 2016)

Crick said:


> Is that your response?  The water isn't rising?  Who says so?  Who says so with more credibility than the University of Colorado Sea Level Group?


dude, look around the globe and you see no exodus of people away from the ocean.  It ain't happening no matter how much you want it to.  The reason?  No sea rise. BTW, you still haven't posted where there has been sea rise.


----------



## jc456 (Mar 23, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


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


Life observation and research.  I haven't found anywhere in the globe where your line matches up.  Name a place.

you can point to the sky and say green all day, I know it is blue.  You can post graphs and charts to show why and I'll look up and see blue.  You are competing against reality not some mumbo jumbo book.


----------



## saveliberty (Mar 23, 2016)

My favorite part is when they claim the sea level is rising in some places, but not others.


----------



## jc456 (Mar 23, 2016)

saveliberty said:


> My favorite part is when they claim the sea level is rising in some places, but not others.


i know, it cracks me up. Their best response is that it is.  That's it.  It is, no proof, they pull these records out someone's ass and then post in here smelling up the forum.  Should leave it in their asses and save us the smell. Cause the shit stinks in here.  Are you aware of anyone leaving their home due to sea rise? I know Key West is still as active as evah.  If there was sea rise, there wouldn't be keys anymore.  Hawaii still has beaches, so the water hasn't made it to the streets, so where the fk is it rising?  in the satellites?  Shit those are in space.  Me thinks that would be impossible.  I'm stepping out there. (sarc)


----------



## Crick (Mar 24, 2016)

If either of you had a better grasp of basic science you might not make such ignorant observations.

We have tides because of the moon. The moon may be a sizeable object, but it is a long ways away.  Look how small it actually appears in our sky.  Now take the mass of a mountain range near a coast line or the lack of mass presented by a deep ocean trench.  What effect do you think they might have on the contours of the ocean surface?  On the gravitic normal?


----------



## jc456 (Mar 24, 2016)

Crick said:


> If either of you had a better grasp of basic science you might not make such ignorant observations.
> 
> We have tides because of the moon. The moon may be a sizeable object, but it is a long ways away.  Look how small it actually appears in our sky.  Now take the mass of a mountain range near a coast line or the lack of mass presented by a deep ocean trench.  What effect do you think they might have on the contours of the ocean surface?  On the gravitic normal?


Perhaps if there really was evidence, it would be available. Hawaii and Key West still there and no one is panicking. My evidence.


----------



## Old Rocks (Mar 25, 2016)

:: Sea-level Rise :: CSIRO ::

*Regional trends*
Sea level does not rise (or fall) uniformly over the oceans. This is illustrated by the map (below) showing sea-level trends from 1993 to 2015. There is a clear pattern of sea-level change that is also reflected in patterns of ocean heat storage.








This pattern reflects interannual climate variability associated with the El Niño/La Niña cycle and the Indian Ocean Dipole, but also longer term changes such as the increase in sea levels in the Western Tropical Pacific due to changes in the Trade Winds. During El Niño years sea level rises in the eastern Pacific and falls in the western Pacific, whereas in La Niña years the opposite is true.






Perhaps some people should really look at the evidence instead of mindlessly flapping yap.


----------



## Old Rocks (Mar 25, 2016)

Encroaching Tides in the Florida Keys
 © Rob O’Neal/Florida Trend Magazine

 Parts of Key West’s famous Duval Street now fail to drain after rainstorms.

 Sea Level rise and Tidal Flooding along the Atlantic Coast By 2045, the sea level in the Florida Keys will rise 15 inches, according to a projection by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (SFRCCC Sea Level Rise Working Group 2015). As a result, the city of Key West—the economic powerhouse of Monroe County, Florida—would see more than 300 tidal flooding events per year within the lifetime of today’s 30-year mortgages. The flooding that wreaks periodic havoc on the city’s small business hubs like Duval Street, for example, would occur regularly. Key West already suffers from flooding during extreme high tides, with water washing into streets, businesses, and homes, particularly when those tides combine with rainfall (Sweet et al. 2014). The flooding will worsen as the sea level rises, threatening the county’s primary economic driver: a $2.2 billion tourism industry that attracts almost 3 million people to the Keys each year (Monroe County 2014; Monroe County n.d.). Moreover, the intrusion of salt water that can accompany rising sea levels threatens the region’s unique ecosystems and the Keys’ primary freshwater supply (Obeysekera et al. 2011). And storms riding on higher seas can flood larger areas, putting more residential and commercial property at risk. Yet some of this vulnerability can be reduced: investing in coastal preparedness measures can go a long way toward protecting the infrastructure, private property, and livelihood of Keys residents.

http://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/files/attach/2015/10/encroaching-tides-florida-keys.pdf

*Ah yes, the Corps of Engineers are very worried about the Florida Keys. With good reason.*


----------



## jc456 (Mar 25, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> Encroaching Tides in the Florida Keys
> © Rob O’Neal/Florida Trend Magazine
> 
> Parts of Key West’s famous Duval Street now fail to drain after rainstorms.
> ...


Thanks for agreeing the sea levels haven't risen.


----------



## elektra (Apr 28, 2016)

jc456 said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Encroaching Tides in the Florida Keys
> ...


I would think Old Crock would give up, whenever the Crock posts a link, it shows himself to be wrong.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Apr 28, 2016)

Crick said:


> Is that your response?  The water isn't rising?  Who says so?  Who says so with more credibility than the University of Colorado Sea Level Group?



Colorado doesn't even border an ocean! WTF Do they know about sea levels!??


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Apr 28, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> :: Sea-level Rise :: CSIRO ::
> 
> *Regional trends*
> Sea level does not rise (or fall) uniformly over the oceans. This is illustrated by the map (below) showing sea-level trends from 1993 to 2015. There is a clear pattern of sea-level change that is also reflected in patterns of ocean heat storage.
> ...








^Guam, a DENIER!!! Island that refuses to acknowledge rising sea levels


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Apr 28, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> :: Sea-level Rise :: CSIRO ::
> 
> *Regional trends*
> Sea level does not rise (or fall) uniformly over the oceans. This is illustrated by the map (below) showing sea-level trends from 1993 to 2015. There is a clear pattern of sea-level change that is also reflected in patterns of ocean heat storage.
> ...



Do you know the difference between evidence and an observation?


----------



## Old Rocks (Apr 28, 2016)

saveliberty said:


> My favorite part is when they claim the sea level is rising in some places, but not others.


*Ah, another of my favorite really dumb asses chimes in. Thanks for once again demonstrating the vastness of the ignorance on the far right. Yes, the sea level does vary from place to place for a number of different reasons. 

Sea Levels Rising Fast on U.S. East Coast

Sea levels worldwide are expected to rise as global warming melts ice and causes water to expand. Those levels, though, are expected to vary from place to place, due to factors such as ocean currents, differences in seawater temperature and saltiness, and the Earth's shape.

Now it seems scientists have pinpointed just such a variance.

Analyzing tide-level data from much of North America, U.S. Geological Survey scientists unexpectedly found that sea levels in the 600-mile (1,000-kilometer) stretch of coast from Cape Hatteras (map), North Carolina, to the Boston area climbed by about 2 to 3.8 millimeters a year, on average, between 1950 and 2009.

Global sea level rise averaged about 0.6 to 1 millimeter annually over the same period.

"If you talk with residents of this hot spot area in their 70s or 80s who've lived there all their lives, they'll tell you water is coming higher now in winter storms than it ever did before," said study co-author Peter Howd, an oceanographer contracted with the USGS.

*


----------



## jc456 (Apr 28, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> > My favorite part is when they claim the sea level is rising in some places, but not others.
> ...


----------



## saveliberty (Apr 28, 2016)

I come here for the special type of stupid only Faithers can provide.


----------



## Old Rocks (Apr 28, 2016)

I see. So, scientists don't know anything, and you know everything. LOL


----------



## jc456 (Apr 28, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> I see. So, scientists don't know anything, and you know everything. LOL


you might just have a point there.


----------



## elektra (Apr 29, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> > My favorite part is when they claim the sea level is rising in some places, but not others.
> ...


But, there have been less winter storms, the weather has been mild, so what are you talking about Old Crock? No link to al those winter storms? I guess you are a filthy liar, your rule old crock, no link makes you a filthy liar, your words, you rule. Link to all the storms, or you are a liar (which we all know you are anyways).


----------



## elektra (Apr 29, 2016)

I had lived on the West Coast for 30 years, nothing has disappeared, steps to the beach, piers, harbors, they are all there, the beach is the same, the rich homes have their beach, nothing has experienced any loss, there has been no sea level rise in Southern California or around Monterey, two places I have lived. Since 1981.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Apr 29, 2016)

jc456 said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > I see. So, scientists don't know anything, and you know everything. LOL
> ...



Some water is more equal than other. The places were it refuses to rise are "denier seas"


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Apr 29, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> I see. So, scientists don't know anything, and you know everything. LOL



Some sea level is more equal than others, right?


----------



## Crick (Apr 30, 2016)

elektra said:


> I had lived on the West Coast for 30 years, nothing has disappeared, steps to the beach, piers, harbors, they are all there, the beach is the same, the rich homes have their beach, nothing has experienced any loss, there has been no sea level rise in Southern California or around Monterey, two places I have lived. Since 1981.



Good for you.  Here's what the world as a whole has been doing.







At 3.3 mm/yr, the world's ocean have risen 112 mm since 1981.


----------



## elektra (Apr 30, 2016)

Crick said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> > I had lived on the West Coast for 30 years, nothing has disappeared, steps to the beach, piers, harbors, they are all there, the beach is the same, the rich homes have their beach, nothing has experienced any loss, there has been no sea level rise in Southern California or around Monterey, two places I have lived. Since 1981.
> ...


That is an awful pretty drawing, not to scale, which means nothing compared to a mark etched into a rock on the Isle of the Dead.

Ever notice how all the AGW nutters have is pretty pictures not drawn to scale.


----------



## Crick (Apr 30, 2016)

Are you REALLY that stupid?  No one seems to know what that mark actually signifies?  Was it high tide?  Was it MSL?  Was it a fucking chicken scratch?  What was the pertinent knowledge level of the fellow who made it?  How long did he observe the ocean before he concluded he knew where MSL actually was? Or high tide for that matter.  Has any subsistence taken place there?  Uplift?  Tilt?

And no matter what is actually happening at Devils Dead or wherever the fuck this is, how can you possibly think that it trumps tide gauge and satellite data from across the planet, corrected for isostasy and the lot?  This is like you telling me that the national average for a gallon of gas is wrong because you've found some different number at the Hess station down the street. C'mon, engage your fucking brain.


----------



## elektra (Apr 30, 2016)

Crick said:


> Are you REALLY that stupid?  No one seems to know what that mark actually signifies?  Was it high tide?  Was it MSL?  Was it a fucking chicken scratch?  What was the pertinent knowledge level of the fellow who made it?  How long did he observe the ocean before he concluded he knew where MSL actually was? Or high tide for that matter.  Has any subsistence taken place there?  Uplift?  Tilt?
> 
> And no matter what is actually happening at Devils Dead or wherever the fuck this is, how can you possibly think that it trumps tide gauge and satellite data from across the planet, corrected for isostasy and the lot?  This is like you telling me that the national average for a gallon of gas is wrong because you've found some different number at the Hess station down the street. C'mon, engage your fucking brain.


Yet, that is all explained and linked to in my thread, you are the only one in denial Crick. The mark is not in question, historically it stands as a testament that the sea has not risen.


----------



## Crick (Apr 30, 2016)

I read your article.  Your mark is one big fucking question mark.  And, again, let me emphasize the "ONE".  What do you believe the odds to be that this one mark is the truth and that thousands of tide gauges and the data from a dozen satellites is all wrong?  You obviously believe those odds to be high.  WHY?


----------



## elektra (Apr 30, 2016)

Crick said:


> I read your article.  Your mark is one big fucking question mark.  And, again, let me emphasize the "ONE".  What do you believe the odds to be that this one mark is the truth and that thousands of tide gauges and the data from a dozen satellites is all wrong?  You obviously believe those odds to be high.  WHY?


Why, because this Sea Level mark is set in stone and it is not underwater.


----------



## Crick (Apr 30, 2016)

You've got to be one of the stupidest individuals I've ever come across.

Did you not say you had some sort of business degree from FAU?


----------



## elektra (May 8, 2016)

Crick said:


> I read your article.  Your mark is one big fucking question mark.  And, again, let me emphasize the "ONE".  What do you believe the odds to be that this one mark is the truth and that thousands of tide gauges and the data from a dozen satellites is all wrong?  You obviously believe those odds to be high.  WHY?



Well, cricket, lets go through your post, item by item.

1. "a dozen satellites", which dozen satellites do you speak of? Do they have names, is there a link to these, "dozen" of satellites?

2. "thousands of tide gauges", we only need to address one, that one being at the Isle of the Dead, which this thread is about. 

3. "Your mark is one big @#$$%#% question mark", no, it is a simple mark set in stone


----------



## jc456 (May 9, 2016)

Crick said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> > I had lived on the West Coast for 30 years, nothing has disappeared, steps to the beach, piers, harbors, they are all there, the beach is the same, the rich homes have their beach, nothing has experienced any loss, there has been no sea level rise in Southern California or around Monterey, two places I have lived. Since 1981.
> ...


where is this information taken from?  Please, posting a graph with a line in it doesn't make your post anything more than crap collected and plotted.  yet the actual data that created was made up.  DOH!!!!!


----------



## jc456 (May 9, 2016)

Crick said:


> I read your article.  Your mark is one big fucking question mark.  And, again, let me emphasize the "ONE".  What do you believe the odds to be that this one mark is the truth and that thousands of tide gauges and the data from a dozen satellites is all wrong?  You obviously believe those odds to be high.  WHY?


because everything you point out as reason to not trust his site, is true for every, every gauge in the world.  Do you think that the oceans are a constant and there are no waves or tides or anything else that causes water to go up and down?  Really?  Dude, I don't get you.  I thought you were smarter than that. Look at photos say Pearl harbor where there are sunk ships, they have platforms and they are unchanged since being built.  Since being built.  now point to some location anywhere on the planet where there is past pictures and current ones, let's see your rise in levels there.


----------



## ClosedCaption (May 9, 2016)

elektra said:


> I have not noticed anybody mention the Isle of the Dead and the physical evidence that indicates the level of the Oceans are more or less constant.
> 
> In 1841 Captain Sir James Clark Ross, marked the mean level of the sea. It is funny to note, that back in 1841 that people had a better understanding of the Earth and Oceans, that they observed changes in Sea Level dramatic enough, that they determined a need to record a benchmark for future studies.
> 
> ...



Dude.  From the article you posted it says this.  Do you stand by your links or nah?

Dramatic changes in sea-level are possible during the next hundred years as the release of greenhouse gases enhance the Earth's natural greenhouse effect. *While there may be some extra water added to the oceans by melting of ice caps and glaciers, much of the initial sea-level rise will be caused by the oceans expanding as they warm up *(thermal expansion).


----------



## elektra (May 9, 2016)

ClosedCaption said:


> Dude.  From the article you posted it says this.  Do you stand by your links or nah?
> 
> Dramatic changes in sea-level are possible during the next hundred years as the release of greenhouse gases enhance the Earth's natural greenhouse effect. *While there may be some extra water added to the oceans by melting of ice caps and glaciers, much of the initial sea-level rise will be caused by the oceans expanding as they warm up *(thermal expansion).


Did you post in the right thread? Could you quote and link, cause the post you replied to contains nothing you attribute to it?


----------



## jc456 (May 9, 2016)

ClosedCaption said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> > I have not noticed anybody mention the Isle of the Dead and the physical evidence that indicates the level of the Oceans are more or less constant.
> ...


it stated possible.  And we now know that it won't.  your point?


----------



## ClosedCaption (May 9, 2016)

elektra said:


> ClosedCaption said:
> 
> 
> > Dude.  From the article you posted it says this.  Do you stand by your links or nah?
> ...


Measuring sea-level rise at Port Arthur

Its your second link:

Measuring sea-level rise at Port Arthur


----------



## elektra (May 9, 2016)

ClosedCaption said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> > ClosedCaption said:
> ...


I still do not see that picture in the link? 

The link is not mine, the MOD added it after I made the thread, I had forgotten to add my link so they did me a favor, right? You can tell it is the mod's because he added the big red letters. 

Yes, that article in a link that was not part of my OP, states what you claim, "Possible". It is possible? Is it likely? Will it definitely happen? If it does it will have nothing to do with CO2, that is clear.


----------



## ClosedCaption (May 9, 2016)

elektra said:


> ClosedCaption said:
> 
> 
> > elektra said:
> ...




The photos is Texas and what it looks like when oceans expand into areas they werent previously.

But if you say that is possible then you cant at the same time say that the waters have to "rise" over that mark as proof either, right?


----------



## elektra (May 9, 2016)

ClosedCaption said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> > ClosedCaption said:
> ...


I did not say those two things at the same time. Either way, the mark stands on the Isle of the Dead as proof that oceans have not expanded or rose. 

Your pic is of flooding from rain, you claim it is from the ocean expanding in texas? Bet you can't link to that.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (May 9, 2016)

^ Guam, a DENIER!! Island refusing to acknowledge the AGW spawned rising seas


----------



## CrusaderFrank (May 9, 2016)

ClosedCaption said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> > I have not noticed anybody mention the Isle of the Dead and the physical evidence that indicates the level of the Oceans are more or less constant.
> ...




What ocean is that supposed to be, Honey Boo Boo?


----------



## jc456 (May 9, 2016)

ClosedCaption said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> > ClosedCaption said:
> ...


it did?  where, not that photo you posted, nope, that is what happens when 15 inches of rain drops over the course of 48 hours.  Has nothing to do with the sea.  So try again.


----------



## jc456 (May 9, 2016)

CrusaderFrank said:


> ^ Guam, a DENIER!! Island refusing to acknowledge the AGW spawned rising seas


Frank, the island looks like it's tipping to the right a little.  I don't know bro!!


----------



## ClosedCaption (May 9, 2016)

elektra said:


> ClosedCaption said:
> 
> 
> > elektra said:
> ...



I know, I said if its possible then you cannot present no rising as proof of anything since you already said the rising COULD occur as expansion.



> Either way, the mark stands on the Isle of the Dead as proof that oceans have not expanded or rose.



NO...See what you did there?  The water mark proves it did not RISE.  NOT that it did not expand.  You just threw that in once it was shown to you.



> Your pic is of flooding from rain, you claim it is from the ocean expanding in texas? Bet you can't link to that.




If the Oceans are expanding they are expanding all over.  Not just Texas.  Something has happened in the picture below.  Either the ocean moved or the house moved.


----------



## Weatherman2020 (May 9, 2016)

ClosedCaption said:


> If the Oceans are expanding they are expanding all over. Not just Texas. Something has happened in the picture below. Either the ocean moved or the house moved.


There you have it, ladies and gentlemen. Leftist logic.  A bubble world where erosion does not exist.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (May 9, 2016)

ClosedCaption said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> > ClosedCaption said:
> ...




CO2 causes beach erosion?


----------



## jc456 (May 9, 2016)

ClosedCaption said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> > ClosedCaption said:
> ...


Is that the same place?  I mean the house is near a road that is flat on the top photo and then the house is on a beach with dunes behind it and no road anymore and it's hilly on the bottom photo.  WTF is this, photo shopping?  ehhhhhhhhhhhhh?  hhahahahhahaahahahahahaha, wow you are one stupid dude that isn't too fking obvious bozo.


----------



## jc456 (May 9, 2016)

CrusaderFrank said:


> ClosedCaption said:
> 
> 
> > elektra said:
> ...


dude the beach erosion turned into sand dunes behind the house, so the ocean must have been throwing up while it ate the beach.

And look the house is no closer to the water in the five years.  so even the photo shop can't move the water closer to the house. Dude it's fking hilarious the level of the stupes.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (May 9, 2016)

jc456 said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > ClosedCaption said:
> ...



Beaches never eroded before CO2 -- true story because like everything else about AGW, I just made it up


----------



## Weatherman2020 (May 9, 2016)

ClosedCaption said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> > ClosedCaption said:
> ...


Wowzers, look at that rising ocean about to submerge a national heritage site.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (May 9, 2016)

Weatherman2020 said:


> ClosedCaption said:
> 
> 
> > elektra said:
> ...



Low Tide is a DENIER!!!


----------



## jc456 (May 9, 2016)

And the fun never stops.  Sk00ks this is a really good one for you to take a looky at.  This stuff these goofs pass off as evidence is hilarious.  I laughed my balls off that the ocean threw up sand dunes behind a house.  Frank still has the Guam photo of the island still there, and they continue to post the stupid.  Dude we are indeed WINNING!!!!!!! Thanks Frank and Weatherdude!!!!!


----------



## ClosedCaption (May 9, 2016)

Weatherman2020 said:


> ClosedCaption said:
> 
> 
> > If the Oceans are expanding they are expanding all over. Not just Texas. Something has happened in the picture below. Either the ocean moved or the house moved.
> ...



There you have it completely ignoring that it occurs from sea level changes.  Gotcha


----------



## jc456 (May 9, 2016)

ClosedCaption said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> > ClosedCaption said:
> ...


huh?  Where did you find that photo shopped picture at anyway?  You should complain cause it didn't achieve at all what you thought it would.


----------



## RollingThunder (May 9, 2016)

elektra said:


> I have not noticed anybody mention the Isle of the Dead and the physical evidence that indicates the level of the Oceans are more or less constant.



Your posts indicate that you are completely brain-dead, Ejakulatra.

In the real world....

*Seas Are Rising at Fastest Rate in Last 28 Centuries*
The New York Times
FEB. 22, 2016


----------



## ClosedCaption (May 9, 2016)

jc456 said:


> You should complain cause it didn't achieve at all what you thought it would.



not to you.

So whenever someone shows you sea levels rising you'll just say its erosion and thats that.

Got it.

How about Bangladesh?






What will you blame?  Bad Juju?  The incredible engineering of the Bangladeshi Water people?

New Orleans : DNews

How about all 9 of these cities?  Everyone is the fault of something you can think of on the fly?


----------



## jc456 (May 9, 2016)

ClosedCaption said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > You should complain cause it didn't achieve at all what you thought it would.
> ...


I blammma a flood, weather system, Typhony thingy.  you know right?  Please tell me you know this.  please?


----------



## ClosedCaption (May 9, 2016)

jc456 said:


> ClosedCaption said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



Thats not an answer.  I'll wait


----------



## ClosedCaption (May 9, 2016)

Weatherman2020 said:


> ClosedCaption said:
> 
> 
> > elektra said:
> ...




So you missed the OP's link where it stated oceans can rise throught expansion, right?  You quoted it but missed it huh?


----------



## jc456 (May 9, 2016)

ClosedCaption said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > ClosedCaption said:
> ...


what's not an answer?


----------



## Weatherman2020 (May 9, 2016)

RollingThunder said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> > I have not noticed anybody mention the Isle of the Dead and the physical evidence that indicates the level of the Oceans are more or less constant.
> ...


Fastest in 2,800 years?
How fast did the sea rise in 1056 AD?


----------



## Weatherman2020 (May 9, 2016)

ClosedCaption said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> > ClosedCaption said:
> ...


I'm just curious about your physics that allows oceans to rise 10 feet in one location but not a hundred miles away.
Please, tell us of this newly discovered law of nature.


----------



## Weatherman2020 (May 9, 2016)

ClosedCaption said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > You should complain cause it didn't achieve at all what you thought it would.
> ...


Tell us, how is it that I can stand on what was a dock 2,000 years ago and the ocean is hundreds of feet away?  Caesarea, built by Harod.


----------



## ClosedCaption (May 9, 2016)

Weatherman2020 said:


> ClosedCaption said:
> 
> 
> > Weatherman2020 said:
> ...



Did you see the link that said oceans can rise through expansion or not?  As far as your question you cant show that happening you just made it up.  If you didnt make it up what are the locations you speak of?


----------



## Weatherman2020 (May 9, 2016)

ClosedCaption said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> > ClosedCaption said:
> ...


I asked how an ocean can rise 10 feet in one location but not 100 miles up the coast.
Puzzles me why you can't answer that said no one ever.


----------



## jc456 (May 9, 2016)

ClosedCaption said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > You should complain cause it didn't achieve at all what you thought it would.
> ...


BTW, I love how the sand dunes formed behind your house in that first set of photos.  dude that is special.  What happened to the road from picture #1 to #2?


----------



## Weatherman2020 (May 9, 2016)

ClosedCaption said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> > I have not noticed anybody mention the Isle of the Dead and the physical evidence that indicates the level of the Oceans are more or less constant.
> ...


So the ocean has reached Houston?
The science of the left is mind boggling.


----------



## ClosedCaption (May 9, 2016)

Weatherman2020 said:


> ClosedCaption said:
> 
> 
> > Weatherman2020 said:
> ...




What location has those characteristics?


----------



## Weatherman2020 (May 9, 2016)

ClosedCaption said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> > ClosedCaption said:
> ...


The house you showed.
Bangladesh you showed.
Any other pic you showed.
All BS anti-science.


----------



## RollingThunder (May 9, 2016)

elektra said:


> I have not noticed anybody mention the Isle of the Dead and the physical evidence that indicates the level of the Oceans are more or less constant.





RollingThunder said:


> Your posts indicate that you are completely brain-dead, Ejakulatra.
> 
> In the real world....
> 
> ...





Weatherman2020 said:


> Fastest in 2,800 years?
> How fast did the sea rise in 1056 AD?


You mean a clueless ignorant retard like you doesn't already know the answer, WitheredMan?

Or are you just employing the denier cult 'argument' of 'ignorant incredulous disbelief' in science? As usual.


----------



## ClosedCaption (May 9, 2016)

Weatherman2020 said:


> ClosedCaption said:
> 
> 
> > Weatherman2020 said:
> ...




Ok, I'm referring to specifically where you asked "I asked how an ocean can rise 10 feet in one location but not 100 miles up the coast."

If you have a location where that is happening then let me know, but it sounds like another storytime campfire tale you made up.


----------



## RollingThunder (May 9, 2016)

Weatherman2020 said:


> Tell us, how is it that I can stand on what was a dock 2,000 years ago and the ocean is hundreds of feet away?  Caesarea, built by Harod.
> View attachment 74256



Your photo shows the sea still completely filling the harbor, dumbass.

There may be some slight variation depending on whether the tide is in or out, but Caesarea is still right on the coast, you poor delusional troll.


----------



## Weatherman2020 (May 9, 2016)

RollingThunder said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> > I have not noticed anybody mention the Isle of the Dead and the physical evidence that indicates the level of the Oceans are more or less constant.
> ...


Can't tell us how fast the sea was rising in 1056AD?  Surprise Surprise


----------



## Weatherman2020 (May 9, 2016)

RollingThunder said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> > ClosedCaption said:
> ...


Wow, a sea filling a harbor!  
And he calls me a dumbass!


----------



## Weatherman2020 (May 9, 2016)

ClosedCaption said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> > ClosedCaption said:
> ...


It's your claim the sea rose 10 feet.  Back it up.


----------



## ClosedCaption (May 9, 2016)

Weatherman2020 said:


> ClosedCaption said:
> 
> 
> > Weatherman2020 said:
> ...




  I never made that claim.  

Now when I ask you to quote where I said that will you run?  I can quote exactly where YOU DID.  Here it is:


Weatherman2020 said:


> I'm just curious about your physics that allows oceans to rise 10 feet in one location but not a hundred miles away.
> Please, tell us of this newly discovered law of nature.



Now who made you say that?  And why dont you know the location of this mysterious phenomenon?


----------



## Wyatt earp (May 9, 2016)

ClosedCaption said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > You should complain cause it didn't achieve at all what you thought it would.
> ...




Uh oh good thing they stopped driving cars 1,000 plus years ago


----------



## Weatherman2020 (May 9, 2016)

ClosedCaption said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> > ClosedCaption said:
> ...


Oh, so your photos you posted were BS.
Who woulda thunk.


----------



## RollingThunder (May 9, 2016)

Weatherman2020 said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > elektra said:
> ...


Another idiotic response from the troll WitheredMan.

Your assumption that the scientists responsible for the study I cited don't know what they are talking about is just more denier cult anti-science bullshit.

*Temperature-driven global sea-level variability in the Common Era*
*Current Issue - > vol. 113 no. 11 - > Robert E. Kopp, E1434–E1441, doi: 10.1073/pnas.1517056113*

Robert E. Koppa,b,c,1,
Andrew C. Kempd,
Klaus Bittermanne,
Benjamin P. Hortonb,f,g,h,
Jeffrey P. Donnellyi,
W. Roland Gehrelsj,
Carling C. Haya,b,k,
Jerry X. Mitrovicak,
Eric D. Morrowa,b, and
Stefan Rahmstorfe(Author Affiliations)
* Edited by Anny Cazenave, Centre National d'Etudes Spatiales, Toulouse, France, and approved January 4, 2016 (received for review August 27, 2015)

*

Abstract

Full Text

Authors & Info

Figures

SI

Metrics

Related Content

PDF

PDF + SI
*
*Significance
We present the first, to our knowledge, estimate of global sea-level (GSL) change over the last ∼3,000 years that is based upon statistical synthesis of a global database of regional sea-level reconstructions. GSL varied by ∼±8 cm over the pre-Industrial Common Era, with a notable decline over 1000–1400 CE coinciding with ∼0.2 °C of global cooling. The 20th century rise was extremely likely faster than during any of the 27 previous centuries. Semiempirical modeling indicates that, without global warming, GSL in the 20th century very likely would have risen by between −3 cm and +7 cm, rather than the ∼14 cm observed. Semiempirical 21st century projections largely reconcile differences between Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change projections and semiempirical models.*


----------



## Weatherman2020 (May 9, 2016)

RollingThunder said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...


I will politely ask a third time.
What was the sea level rise in 1056AD.


----------



## RollingThunder (May 9, 2016)

Weatherman2020 said:


> Tell us, how is it that I can stand on what was a dock 2,000 years ago and the ocean is hundreds of feet away?  Caesarea, built by Harod.





RollingThunder said:


> Your photo shows the sea still completely filling the harbor, dumbass.
> 
> There may be some slight variation depending on whether the tide is in or out, but Caesarea is still right on the coast, you poor delusional troll.





Weatherman2020 said:


> Wow, a sea filling a harbor!
> And he calls me a dumbass!


And, indeed, you are a *major dumbass*, since you were the one trying to claim that the sea no longer filled the harbor but was "_hundreds of feet away_". DUMBASS!!!


----------



## ClosedCaption (May 9, 2016)

Weatherman2020 said:


> ClosedCaption said:
> 
> 
> > Weatherman2020 said:
> ...




So I didnt say it like you claimed.  Good boy!  Now stop lying


----------



## Weatherman2020 (May 9, 2016)

RollingThunder said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> > Tell us, how is it that I can stand on what was a dock 2,000 years ago and the ocean is hundreds of feet away?  Caesarea, built by Harod.
> ...


Find the inner harbor.
View attachment 74275
- Weatherman, educating Leftards since 1978.


RollingThunder said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> > Tell us, how is it that I can stand on what was a dock 2,000 years ago and the ocean is hundreds of feet away?  Caesarea, built by Harod.
> ...


Well, *General Dumbass*, find the inner harbor.



-Weatherman, educating leftards since 1978


----------



## Weatherman2020 (May 9, 2016)

ClosedCaption said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> > ClosedCaption said:
> ...


I agree, you're just full of lies and deception.  Everything a Gorebal Warmer requires.


----------



## elektra (May 9, 2016)

ClosedCaption said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> > ClosedCaption said:
> ...


Nice try, idiot. The Sea Level on the Isle of the Dead is set in stone, it is not something Scientists can manipulate, maybe you can start a thread when the Sea Level rises and the mark can no longer be seen. Until then it is enough for me to see that it is ignored by the Government Funded Scientists.


----------



## elektra (May 9, 2016)

ClosedCaption said:


> If the Oceans are expanding they are expanding all over.  Not just Texas.  Something has happened in the picture below.  Either the ocean moved or the house moved.


??? You equate seasonal beach erosion as sea level rising, in the picture the sea level is the same, and the sand is piled up next to the road? 

I imagine if you posted a recent picture, we would see more sand and beach, hence the cherry picking of pictures over 12 years old. 

Either way, the level of the sea in the picture has not changed, not in the least, unless you are telling us you can see an 1/8th of an inch difference in the picture which only proves you got some seriously ignorant bias going for you.


----------



## elektra (May 9, 2016)

RollingThunder said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> > I have not noticed anybody mention the Isle of the Dead and the physical evidence that indicates the level of the Oceans are more or less constant.
> ...


Thank you, for validating my post, by attacking me personally and deflecting from the content of my thread.


----------



## elektra (May 9, 2016)

ClosedCaption said:


> Did you see the link that said oceans can rise through expansion or not?  As far as your question you cant show that happening you just made it up.  If you didnt make it up what are the locations you speak of?


And there you have it, the new Global Nut reasoning, if it can possibly happen, then Man-Made Global Warming did happen.

Can the Ocean rise through expansion, sure, but it would result in a rise that is imperceptible. The Earth is huge, which the "run, the ocean is rising" nuts fail to comprehend. 

Even a difference of 150 degrees would not be noticeable.


----------



## elektra (May 9, 2016)

RollingThunder said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> > Tell us, how is it that I can stand on what was a dock 2,000 years ago and the ocean is hundreds of feet away?  Caesarea, built by Harod.
> ...


A slight variation is not sea level rise. Thank you for helping.


----------



## Wyatt earp (May 9, 2016)

RollingThunder said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...



*We present the first, to our knowledge, estimate of global sea-level (GSL) change over the last ∼3,000 years that is based upon statistical synthesis of a global database of regional sea-level reconstructions.*
*


 
*


----------



## RollingThunder (May 9, 2016)

bear513 said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > Weatherman2020 said:
> ...


And the denier cult retards laugh at the scientific language that they are too stupid and far too ignorant to even begin to understand.


----------



## ClosedCaption (May 9, 2016)

elektra said:


> ClosedCaption said:
> 
> 
> > Did you see the link that said oceans can rise through expansion or not?  As far as your question you cant show that happening you just made it up.  If you didnt make it up what are the locations you speak of?
> ...



What would guys have if you didn't make up what others say?  I didn't say it was happening.  I said that if expansion can happen then looking for a rise on a water mark can't be the only option.  Since expansion is possible. If you're confused, you need to start at a lower level.



> Can the Ocean rise through expansion, sure, but it would result in a rise that is imperceptible. The Earth is huge, which the "run, the ocean is rising" nuts fail to comprehend.



So you're saying the same thing that it's possible?  Well using your logic above you're saying IT IS HAPPENING, right?  Oh your words are different, right?

So if expansion is possible why would you only say one outcome would show rising and ignore the possibilities you say can happen?


----------



## Weatherman2020 (May 9, 2016)

elektra said:


> A slight variation is not sea level rise. Thank you for helping


Dumbass gets busted in his lack of knowledge and his best response ends up mocking closed captioned.


----------



## Weatherman2020 (May 9, 2016)

ClosedCaption said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> > ClosedCaption said:
> ...


All of the oceans disappearing tomorrow is possible too, is that your next alarmist rant?


----------



## Weatherman2020 (May 9, 2016)

RollingThunder said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> > Tell us, how is it that I can stand on what was a dock 2,000 years ago and the ocean is hundreds of feet away?  Caesarea, built by Harod.
> ...


Oh boy, editing what people say.  Sure sign you're a loser who doesn't have anything to stand on but fiction.


----------



## ClosedCaption (May 9, 2016)

Weatherman2020 said:


> ClosedCaption said:
> 
> 
> > elektra said:
> ...



That's impossible.  See the difference?

And if you say that is possible are you saying it's happening?  Or this time it's different?


----------



## elektra (May 9, 2016)

RollingThunder said:


> And the denier cult retards laugh at the scientific language that they are too stupid and far too ignorant to even begin to understand.


Ha, ha, rollinblunder, the language you use is very scientific, thank you much for such technical responses. How about a nice wikipedia quote with big fonts and fancy colors. Dazzle us once again.


----------



## elektra (May 9, 2016)

ClosedCaption said:


> Since expansion is possible. If you're confused, you need to start at a lower level.
> 
> So you're saying the same thing that it's possible?  Well using your logic above you're saying IT IS HAPPENING, right?  Oh your words are different, right?
> 
> So if expansion is possible why would you only say one outcome would show rising and ignore the possibilities you say can happen?



What are you, a words-smith, hammering out convoluted interpretations, of cherry picked sentences, ignoring what is relevant.

If the average ocean temperature is raised by 1 degree, the expansion will be impossible to measure, if the ocean temperature is raised by 10 degrees, it will be impossible to measure. Will expansion occur, sure, absolutely, will it raise the level of the ocean 1 inch, no, not at all. Will it raise the level of the ocean by a 1/8th of an inch, no, not at all. Raising the temperature of the ocean a few degrees, ten degrees, will do nothing to the level of the Ocean. Nothing detectable but certainly, in theory.

Care for an experiment?


----------



## ClosedCaption (May 9, 2016)

No, what I would prefer is if you would stop saying possibilities exist while ignoring the conclusions of those possibilities.

Thanks tho.


----------



## elektra (May 10, 2016)

ClosedCaption said:


> No, what I would prefer is if you would stop saying possibilities exist while ignoring the conclusions of those possibilities.
> 
> Thanks tho.


The conclusion is simple as heating water on a stove, a rise of 100 degrees will not expand a pot of water to overflowing on a stove, and a rise of 1-10 degrees in the Oceans will not expand the Ocean water to a measurable difference.

I need to go out and buy a nice candy thermometer for my pot of water experiment, I did it without the thermometer, filled the pot to the brim, brought the temperature up to boiling, and the water did not expand and overflow, it will be better tomorrow after I get the thermometer. 

I bet you can't wait, can you CC?


----------



## ClosedCaption (May 10, 2016)

elektra said:


> ClosedCaption said:
> 
> 
> > No, what I would prefer is if you would stop saying possibilities exist while ignoring the conclusions of those possibilities.
> ...



LMAO.....Now put a glacier in the pot and fill the water up to the top.  When you heat it what happens with the glacier?  Does it stay there?

You thought someone was saying water heats and expands to take up more area and that is NOT what I said or implied.



> I need to go out and buy a nice candy thermometer for my pot of water experiment, I did it without the thermometer, filled the pot to the brim, brought the temperature up to boiling, and the water did not expand and overflow, it will be better tomorrow after I get the thermometer.
> 
> I bet you can't wait, can you CC?



You forgot about the Glaciers brah!


----------



## jon_berzerk (May 10, 2016)

elektra said:


> I have not noticed anybody mention the Isle of the Dead and the physical evidence that indicates the level of the Oceans are more or less constant.
> 
> In 1841 Captain Sir James Clark Ross, marked the mean level of the sea. It is funny to note, that back in 1841 that people had a better understanding of the Earth and Oceans, that they observed changes in Sea Level dramatic enough, that they determined a need to record a benchmark for future studies.
> 
> ...




in libtard science the water level rises everywhere else except there 

in much the same way the sun causes global warming on all the other planets except Earth 

hope that helps


----------



## jc456 (May 10, 2016)

elektra said:


> ClosedCaption said:
> 
> 
> > No, what I would prefer is if you would stop saying possibilities exist while ignoring the conclusions of those possibilities.
> ...


heating water will make it evaporate faster.


----------



## jc456 (May 10, 2016)

ClosedCaption said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> > ClosedCaption said:
> ...


are you saying that if you put ice in water that the water will expand?  I'm missing your point with the ice.  ?


----------



## ClosedCaption (May 10, 2016)

jc456 said:


> ClosedCaption said:
> 
> 
> > elektra said:
> ...



I'm missing who said water when heated will expand.  The temp heats the glaciers, causing them to do something heated ice does, which results in either more or less water...something like that.  And that OCEANS can rise by EXPANDING.  Not that water expands when heated


----------



## jc456 (May 10, 2016)

ClosedCaption said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > ClosedCaption said:
> ...


what is expanding?  Ice melt will not increase volume.  You should test it out.  It's fun. Take a glass, fill it completely with ice, then add water to the brim, and let it sit.  I bet it melts at room temperature over time.  And then,  Will it spill?


----------



## ClosedCaption (May 10, 2016)

jc456 said:


> ClosedCaption said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...





ClosedCaption said:


> And that OCEANS can rise by EXPANDING.






> Ice melt will not increase volume.  You should test it out.  It's fun. Take a glass, fill it completely with ice, then add water to the brim, and let it sit.  I bet it melts at room temperature over time.  And then,  Will it spill?



No, but when the Glaciers melt the resulting water goes somewhere and has some effect.  I mean, more water does have SOME effect doesnt it?


----------



## Wyatt earp (May 10, 2016)

ClosedCaption said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > ClosedCaption said:
> ...




Glaciers on water? No you didn't seriously say that.


And liberals have the nerve to call us anti science....




.


.


----------



## ClosedCaption (May 10, 2016)

bear513 said:


> ClosedCaption said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



No I didnt say that, nice try tho




> And liberals have the nerve to call us anti science....
> .



Maybe you're just anti reading or pro seeing things that no one said


----------



## jc456 (May 10, 2016)

ClosedCaption said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > ClosedCaption said:
> ...


well it rains over the oceans, does that add water?


----------



## jc456 (May 10, 2016)

bear513 said:


> ClosedCaption said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


It's why I replied how I did.


----------



## jc456 (May 10, 2016)

ClosedCaption said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > ClosedCaption said:
> ...


dude, why do you supposed I replied as I did?  Yep, you said it. Go back and reread your post.


----------



## ClosedCaption (May 10, 2016)

jc456 said:


> ClosedCaption said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



Lets pretend I asked you a question first.  I am talking about Glaciers and so far you havent disagreed with me.  Thats enough proof for me.


----------



## ClosedCaption (May 10, 2016)

jc456 said:


> ClosedCaption said:
> 
> 
> > bear513 said:
> ...



Thats simple.  Because you're misrepresenting what I said.  Go ahead and quote it


----------



## jc456 (May 10, 2016)

ClosedCaption said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > ClosedCaption said:
> ...


I did and how I responded.


----------



## ClosedCaption (May 10, 2016)

I know bro...thanks for playing


----------



## jc456 (May 10, 2016)

ClosedCaption said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > ClosedCaption said:
> ...


yep, glacier melt to the ocean from land will cause more water added to the ocean.  Yep, so does rain right?  Do the oceans evaporate?  Can you answer that simple question?


----------



## jc456 (May 10, 2016)

ClosedCaption said:


> I know bro...thanks for playing


so now you agree you posted it then?


----------



## skookerasbil (May 10, 2016)

The science on sea level rise is in its infancy. Nobody knows for certain if it is linear. Its a guess.......like all the other climate change shit. Look at any abstract with this shit.......always says, "the best science we have at this time says........". Which is to say, "Cant be sure but its a pretty good guess!!"

NOT science s0ns!!!


----------



## Crick (May 10, 2016)

God, are you still that stupid?  Yes you are.

Hey, has anyone tried finding "Isle of the Dead" on Google?  It seems not to exist except as a painting and a novel.


----------



## elektra (May 10, 2016)

Crick said:


> God, are you still that stupid?  Yes you are.
> 
> Hey, has anyone tried finding "Isle of the Dead" on Google?  It seems not to exist except as a painting and a novel.


Your intellect and ability to reason is only as good as a google search? If the liberals at google do not allow you to find it, it does not exist? Or, it is only Google that defines what is?


----------



## jon_berzerk (May 10, 2016)

elektra said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > God, are you still that stupid?  Yes you are.
> ...




it is the second  one

*If the liberals at google do not allow you to find it, it does not exist?*


----------



## elektra (May 10, 2016)

Crick said:


> God, are you still that stupid?  Yes you are.
> 
> Hey, has anyone tried finding "Isle of the Dead" on Google?  It seems not to exist except as a painting and a novel.


Google Maps

Let me hold your hand and lead to where you seek, when you get old enough, I will let go, but until then it is safer for me to hold your hand.


----------



## elektra (May 10, 2016)

Crick said:


> God, are you still that stupid?  Yes you are.
> 
> Hey, has anyone tried finding "Isle of the Dead" on Google?  It seems not to exist except as a painting and a novel.


And of course, the location of the Isle of the Dead is stated in the OP.

No Sea Level Rise says Isle of the Dead


> The `Isle of the Dead’ is over two acres in size and is situated within the harbor of Port Arthur opening directly to the Southern Ocean


----------



## Crick (May 11, 2016)

A discussion of the tidal mark at Isle of the Dead, Port Arthur harbor, Tasmania.

The Origins of the `Isle of the Dead' Benchmark


----------



## elektra (May 11, 2016)

Crick said:


> A discussion of the tidal mark at Isle of the Dead, Port Arthur harbor, Tasmania.
> 
> The Origins of the `Isle of the Dead' Benchmark


But the Isle of the Dead is only a painting! As you state, impossible to find a thing about it. But now you came up with something?


----------



## Crick (May 12, 2016)

Do you have any comments about the contents of the article to which I linked?  It makes a well-evidenced argument that the mark was placed at HIGH WATER, not MSL.


----------



## elektra (May 12, 2016)

Crick said:


> Do you have any comments about the contents of the article to which I linked?  It makes a well-evidenced argument that the mark was placed at HIGH WATER, not MSL.


Yea, you should quote it, and say something relevant.


----------



## Crick (May 13, 2016)

As the rules of this website require, I provided a link to it.  The mark at the Isle of the Dead represents the high water mark of 1841, not MSL, and shows as much sea level rise as any other tide gauge in the area.

And, as I have stated here before, to contend that a single, poorly provenanced mark in what was very close to the middle of nowhere at the time, refutes the thousands of other tide gauges worldwide and millions of satellite records all showing the world's sea levels rising and that rise accelerating, is as asinine as only someone with your appalling ignorance could be.


----------



## elektra (May 13, 2016)

Crick said:


> As the rules of this website require, I provided a link to it.  The mark at the Isle of the Dead represents the high water mark of 1841, not MSL, and shows as much sea level rise as any other tide gauge in the area.
> 
> And, as I have stated here before, to contend that a single, poorly  provenanced  mark in what was very close to the middle of nowhere at the time, refutes the thousands of other tide gauges worldwide and millions of satellite records all showing the world's sea levels rising and that rise accelerating, is as asinine as only someone with your appalling ignorance could be.


??? Because you can not find your answer with google, you proclaim you are right! 
The mark was well documented at the time. By people who sailed aboard ancient ships, without GPS or depth sounders, by Men who were experts, the new their stuff and little marks on a rock were important, they did not do it to prove the ocean was rising, they did it so they knew the depth of the water, to prevent destruction of their ship.


----------



## jc456 (May 13, 2016)

Crick said:


> Do you have any comments about the contents of the article to which I linked?  It makes a well-evidenced argument that the mark was placed at HIGH WATER, not MSL.


how is it evidence?  cause someone said it?  OMG, crickster you've been bamboozled again.


----------



## jc456 (May 13, 2016)

Crick said:


> As the rules of this website require, I provided a link to it.  The mark at the Isle of the Dead represents the high water mark of 1841, not MSL, and shows as much sea level rise as any other tide gauge in the area.
> 
> And, as I have stated here before, to contend that a single, poorly provenanced mark in what was very close to the middle of nowhere at the time, refutes the thousands of other tide gauges worldwide and millions of satellite records all showing the world's sea levels rising and that rise accelerating, is as asinine as only someone with your appalling ignorance could be.


you didn't however post up the excerpt that proves your statement from the link.  Post it up.


----------



## PredFan (May 13, 2016)

Of course, AGW is a complete fabrication.


----------



## Crick (May 13, 2016)

Crick said:


> As the rules of this website require, I provided a link to it.  The mark at the Isle of the Dead represents the high water mark of 1841, not MSL, and shows as much sea level rise as any other tide gauge in the area.
> 
> And, as I have stated here before, to contend that a single, poorly  provenanced  mark in what was very close to the middle of nowhere at the time, refutes the thousands of other tide gauges worldwide and millions of satellite records all showing the world's sea levels rising and that rise accelerating, is as asinine as only someone with your appalling ignorance could be.





elektra said:


> ??? Because you can not find your answer with google, you proclaim you are right!
> The mark was well documented at the time. By people who sailed aboard ancient ships, without GPS or depth sounders, by Men who were experts, the new their stuff and little marks on a rock were important, they did not do it to prove the ocean was rising, they did it so they knew the depth of the water, to prevent destruction of their ship.



Then you should be able to review the linked article and tell us where it errs.


----------



## Crick (May 13, 2016)

PredFan said:


> Of course, AGW is a complete fabrication.



Of course, you are an ignorant fool.  And guess which one of us has the most evidence supporting our charge?


----------



## elektra (May 13, 2016)

Crick said:


> Then you should be able to review the linked article and tell us where it errs.


I seen the article, I was waiting for you quote, people typically quote and comment, but not you, you simply offer google searches as "wild cards", as if that wins your crazy argument.

The article you linked to states that the Sea Level has not changed, which is one reason I did not comment on it. It also states that the IPCC is ignoring the mark.



> the IPCC can choose to ignore even of the existence of the benchmark, let alone integrate it into their assessments of past and present sea level change.


----------



## PredFan (May 13, 2016)

Crick said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> > Of course, AGW is a complete fabrication.
> ...



That would be me, moron.


----------



## Crick (May 13, 2016)

I have all of AR1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and all your posts.  What have you got?


----------



## Muhammed (May 13, 2016)

frigidweirdo said:


> Sea level rises aren't what worry me the most.
> 
> If the Arctic melts sea levels will DROP. If the water on the land of the Antarctic melt, the then sea will rise.
> 
> ...


Ph levels have been lower in past, therefore these sea lions you speak about must be figments of your imagination. They went extinct a long time ago.


----------



## frigidweirdo (May 13, 2016)

Muhammed said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> > Sea level rises aren't what worry me the most.
> ...



Lower in the past? Yeah, lower 5 million years ago, for example, before sea lions existed.


----------



## Crick (May 14, 2016)

Almost any change that takes place slowly enough can be survived.  CO2 levels have been far higher in the past but did NOT result in significant changes to ocean pH because those levels rose slowly enough that weathering of calcium carbonate rocks buffered the change and pH did not change rapidly.  On at least one occasion in which CO2 levels and the resulting pH drops changed rapidly, the result was a massive marine extinction event.

I would like to see a link that shows sea lions to be a species vulnerable to pH changes.  They are mammals who hold their breath, swim and eat fish.  The only impact I can see would be a loss of food species, but by that point, the marine biota would have far more to worry about than a loss of sea lions.


----------



## elektra (Jun 18, 2016)

And the sea remains calm, according to the Alarmists, the Arctic Ice has melted, Greenland's Ice is disappearing, yet the sea is calm. 

Los Angeles has not disappeared and we have record ice lost? Rhode Island's shores remain the same, Providence is not threatened but we are to believe that an alarming amount of ice has melted and is a threat?


----------



## Vandalshandle (Jun 18, 2016)

elektra said:


> And the sea remains calm, according to the Alarmists, the Arctic Ice has melted, Greenland's Ice is disappearing, yet the sea is calm.
> 
> Los Angeles has not disappeared and we have record ice lost? Rhode Island's shores remain the same, Providence is not threatened but we are to believe that an alarming amount of ice has melted and is a threat?



It is true that we have not yet convinced members of the Flat Earth Society.


----------



## westwall (Jun 18, 2016)

Vandalshandle said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> > And the sea remains calm, according to the Alarmists, the Arctic Ice has melted, Greenland's Ice is disappearing, yet the sea is calm.
> ...






Yes, it is very hard to educate you flat earthers about anything.


----------



## frigidweirdo (Jun 18, 2016)

elektra said:


> And the sea remains calm, according to the Alarmists, the Arctic Ice has melted, Greenland's Ice is disappearing, yet the sea is calm.
> 
> Los Angeles has not disappeared and we have record ice lost? Rhode Island's shores remain the same, Providence is not threatened but we are to believe that an alarming amount of ice has melted and is a threat?



Yeah, if it hasn't happened now, it never will, right?


----------



## Vandalshandle (Jun 19, 2016)

frigidweirdo said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> > And the sea remains calm, according to the Alarmists, the Arctic Ice has melted, Greenland's Ice is disappearing, yet the sea is calm.
> ...



Maybe I got this wrong in high school, but I am pretty sure that if water is in the form of ice, and if it is dropped into water and melts, the water level rises. At least, that is what Mr. Wilson told is in the 9th grade.


----------



## frigidweirdo (Jun 19, 2016)

Vandalshandle said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> > elektra said:
> ...



Well, it doesn't matter what is dropped into water, it will raise the level of the water. You drop a piano in there, it will rise, right? 

So, sea levels probably will rise as the level of ice increases. Just because LA isn't 30 feet under doesn't mean it's not happening.


----------



## Vandalshandle (Jun 19, 2016)

frigidweirdo said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> > frigidweirdo said:
> ...



Shhhhhhhhhhh.... The party line is that all of this is an Al Gore conspiracy. Didn't you get the memo?


----------



## frigidweirdo (Jun 19, 2016)

Vandalshandle said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> > Vandalshandle said:
> ...



I just heard the insults.....


----------



## jc456 (Jun 19, 2016)

frigidweirdo said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> > And the sea remains calm, according to the Alarmists, the Arctic Ice has melted, Greenland's Ice is disappearing, yet the sea is calm.
> ...


When then? Wasn't the earth supposed to end in 2012? Are you going to predict? Hahahaha


----------



## jc456 (Jun 19, 2016)

frigidweirdo said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> > frigidweirdo said:
> ...


Which one, the denier one? That insult?


----------



## jc456 (Jun 19, 2016)

frigidweirdo said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> > frigidweirdo said:
> ...


Just cause you think it should doesn't make it so either.


----------



## Vandalshandle (Jun 19, 2016)

jc456 said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> > Vandalshandle said:
> ...



Damn! I guess that Mr. Wilson was wrong about that! Yet, when I performed an experiment, by dropping ice cubes from the freezer into a glass of half filled with water, the melted water level did rise by exactly the same amount as the same number of melted cubes in an empty glass! The only explanation I can think of is that Al Gore had something to do with this optical illusion....


----------



## jc456 (Jun 19, 2016)

Vandalshandle said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > frigidweirdo said:
> ...


You didn't say when that happens. BTW, adding ice cubes will always increase the volume in a glass of liquid. But that takes someone putting them in. Now, when does the ice get added?


----------



## Vandalshandle (Jun 19, 2016)

jc456 said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



You have not seen Al Gore recently have you? I know for a fact that he is in Greenland with a pick ax, chopping ice off of the land and throwing it into the sea.


----------



## edthecynic (Jun 19, 2016)

elektra said:


> I have not noticed anybody mention the Isle of the Dead and the physical evidence that indicates the level of the Oceans are more or less constant.


What is nuisance flooding?

*As relative sea level increases, it no longer takes a strong storm or a hurricane to cause coastal flooding.* Flooding now occurs with high tides in many locations due to climate-related sea level rise, land subsidence, and the loss of natural barriers.

*Nuisance flooding*—which causes such public inconveniences as frequent road closures, overwhelmed storm drains and compromised infrastructure—*has increased on all three U.S. coasts, between 300 and 925 percent since the 1960s.*


----------



## LaDexter (Jun 19, 2016)

which explains fully why the NYT and CNN are telling us that the Marshall Islands are sinking because of "sea level rise" and not the Pacific Ring of Fire...


----------



## Crick (Jun 19, 2016)

Let's see what we can do with some cherry-picking.  From that dip in early 2011 (42mm) to the terminus of this data set in mid 2016 (80mm),  I get 38mm/5.25 yr or 7.24 mm/yr. At that rate, with no further acceleration, sea level rise by 2100 will be 84 yr * 7.24mm/yr or 608.16 mm or two feet above the 1997 level.


----------



## LaDexter (Jun 19, 2016)

Fudge with all the colored sprinkles!!!

Yummy!!!


----------



## Crick (Jun 19, 2016)

Let's see what we can do with some cherry-picking.  From that dip in early 2011 (42mm) to the terminus of this data set in mid 2016 (80mm),  I get 38mm/5.25 yr or 7.24 mm/yr. At that rate, with no further acceleration, sea level rise by 2100 will be 84 yr * 7.24mm/yr or 608.16 mm or two feet above the 1997 level.

And we could make it worse. I could have cherry-picked from 2011 to 2013 and gotten, what 21mm/2yr or 10.5 mm/yr.  That would put 2100 at almost 35 inches above 1997.


----------



## jc456 (Jun 19, 2016)

Crick said:


> Let's see what we can do with some cherry-picking.  From that dip in early 2011 (42mm) to the terminus of this data set in mid 2016 (80mm),  I get 38mm/5.25 yr or 7.24 mm/yr. At that rate, with no further acceleration, sea level rise by 2100 will be 84 yr * 7.24mm/yr or 608.16 mm or two feet above the 1997 level.
> 
> And we could make it worse. I could have cherry-picked from 2011 to 2013 and gotten, what 21mm/2yr or 10.5 mm/yr.  That would put 2100 at almost 35 inches above 1997.


You could, but then you'd have to say where that actually happened. Oops


----------



## LaDexter (Jun 19, 2016)

Indeed, during the fudging of Crick's chart, this happened...

NASA Study: Mass Gains of Antarctic Ice Sheet Greater than Losses

90% of Earth's ice on Antarctica added at least 80 billion tons of ice every year since the satellites went up in the 1970s to measure it...

NO WONDER the Tippys have to LIE and show us tectonically sinking islands to document a fictitious "sea level rise," because there ain't no sea level rise with 90% of Earth ice growing....


----------



## Crick (Jun 19, 2016)

Crick said:


> Let's see what we can do with some cherry-picking.  From that dip in early 2011 (42mm) to the terminus of this data set in mid 2016 (80mm),  I get 38mm/5.25 yr or 7.24 mm/yr. At that rate, with no further acceleration, sea level rise by 2100 will be 84 yr * 7.24mm/yr or 608.16 mm or two feet above the 1997 level.
> 
> And we could make it worse. I could have cherry-picked from 2011 to 2013 and gotten, what 21mm/2yr or 10.5 mm/yr.  That would put 2100 at almost 35 inches above 1997.





jc456 said:


> You could, but then you'd have to say where that actually happened. Oops



Globally, jc, G-L-O-B-A-L-L-Y.


----------



## jc456 (Jun 19, 2016)

Crick said:


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


Put up a story, not some smudge graphics, of coarse you can't.


----------



## Crick (Jun 19, 2016)

A story?

Once upon a time, little jc was in school.  He had a science class and it frightened him very much.  Everything he knew about science (which wasn't very much) involved explosions and acids and nuclear radiation and horrible stuff that he did not understand. 

The end.


----------



## LaDexter (Jun 19, 2016)

Once upon a time, the "sea level was rising," except it wasn't rising, because the ice wasn't melting, and the atmosphere wasn't warming, so the liars behind the FRAUD chose three island chains on the lip of the Pacific Ring of Fire, and nobody noticed that their "sinking" was caused by the fact that the tectonic plate they are anchored to is sinking, and hence blamed it on "rising sea levels..."


----------



## jc456 (Jun 19, 2016)

Crick said:


> A story?
> 
> Once upon a time, little jc was in school.  He had a science class and it frightened him very much.  Everything he knew about science (which wasn't very much) involved explosions and acids and nuclear radiation and horrible stuff that he did not understand.
> 
> The end.


And there is jc's proof. You got.....wait for it.... nothing oh my!


----------



## Crick (Jun 19, 2016)

What sort of "story" were you looking for?


----------



## jc456 (Jun 19, 2016)

Crick said:


> What sort of "story" were you looking for?


One that validates sea level increases. Especially one with pictures of past and current shore lines. which islands are complaining? Hawaii? Hmm story?


----------



## Crick (Jun 19, 2016)

Global sea level is compiled from thousands of data records from all over the planet.  Tidal gauges, satellite altimetry, isostatic data from melting ice masses, geological changes, vulcanism, plate tectonics, the works.  The idea some of you have that you can tell whether or not global sea level rise is happening from an 1890 photograph of a rock on the shoreline is just ignorant nonsense.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jun 19, 2016)

jc456 said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


At the terminus of glaciers that begin above sea level. Pretty damned obvious to anyone with above a room temperature IQ


----------



## Old Rocks (Jun 19, 2016)

The Secret of Sea Level Rise: It Will Vary Greatly By Region by Michael D. Lemonick: Yale Environment 360

And among the most powerful influences on regional sea level is a surprising force: the massive polar ice sheets and their gravitational pull, which will lessen as the ice caps melt and shrink, with profoundly different effects on sea level in various parts of the globe.

If the idea of local differences in sea level comes as a surprise, it’s probably because the experts themselves are only now beginning to fully realize what might cause such differences, and how significant they might be. One Prevailing winds can push water consistently toward the land or keep it at bay.factor, which they’ve have been aware of for decades, is that the land is actually rising in some places, including northern Canada and Scandinavia, which are still recovering from the crushing weight of the Ice Age glaciers that melted 10,000 years ago. That makes sea-level increases less than the global average would suggest, since these land areas are rising a few millimeters a year.

Around the periphery of where the glaciers sat, by contrast — places like Chesapeake Bay and the south of England — the land was actually squeezed upward during the Ice Age by the downward pressure nearby. The resulting “glacial forebulge” has been sinking back ever since, also at an average rate of a few millimeters a year, so sea level rise is greater than average in these regions.

And in some coastal areas — most notably along the Gulf of Mexico in Louisiana — the land is falling as well: Thanks to massive oil and gas extraction, the continental shelf is collapsing like a deflated balloon. “The rate of subsidence measured at Grand Isle, Louisiana,” says Rui Ponte, of the private consulting firm Atmospheric and Environmental Research, Inc, “is almost 10 millimeters per year, compared with two or three in other areas.” That’s especially problematic for a city like New Orleans, which already lies partly below sea level.

*Only someone totally ignorant of what we have learned of plate tectonics in the last 50 years could believe that the sea level rise would be the same, compared to the adjacent land, the world over. The you add in things like the gravatational anomalies over the rift ridges and places where there are plates subducting beneath other plates, and you have differances in absolute sea level as compared to the distance of the sea level from the center of the earth.*


----------



## frigidweirdo (Jun 19, 2016)

jc456 said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> > elektra said:
> ...



When? I don't know. 

You demand people make predictions just so you can then point out their predictions are not exact? 

If the ice melts in the Antarctic then the sea levels will rise. Unless of course the Antarctic is made up of sugar and not ice.


----------



## frigidweirdo (Jun 19, 2016)

jc456 said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> > Vandalshandle said:
> ...



I re-read what I wrote and it should say "decreases" and not "increases".

However, physics is still at play here, if the Antarctic melts, then it will put water into the sea, which will make sea levels rise. 

Perhaps other factors will come into play here. The PH levels of the sea or other things. Who knows?


----------



## LaDexter (Jun 20, 2016)

Crick said:


> Global sea level is compiled from thousands of data records from all over the planet.  Tidal gauges, satellite altimetry, isostatic data from melting ice masses, geological changes, vulcanism, plate tectonics, the works.  The idea some of you have that you can tell whether or not global sea level rise is happening from an 1890 photograph of a rock on the shoreline is just ignorant nonsense.




That statement is 100% false and Crick would not make that statement under oath.  The "rising sea level" stuff comes from ONE "study" in the southwest Pacific,..


----------



## LaDexter (Jun 20, 2016)

And then rockhead parrots a "sea level rise will vary" by whether or not the plate beneath the island is sinking...

JUST HOW STUPID DOES ONE HAVE TO BE???

A true sea level rise would affect all islands, not just those on the lip of the Pacific Ring of Fire...


----------



## jc456 (Jun 20, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Vandalshandle said:
> ...


so when is it you think that glacier ice will make its way to the sea off of the land?  Calving happens every year from Greenland.  so what changes?


----------



## jc456 (Jun 20, 2016)

frigidweirdo said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > frigidweirdo said:
> ...


well if you don't know, then you don't know.  So it may never happen right?  Why are you panicking the public if you don't know?


----------



## frigidweirdo (Jun 20, 2016)

jc456 said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



So your argument is, either you can predict the future with 100% certainty, or you just ignore it completely and utterly?


----------



## jc456 (Jun 20, 2016)

frigidweirdo said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > frigidweirdo said:
> ...


no, I never said that, I want accuracy, and to date, you have no accurate way to make such a statement.  None, what evidence do you have that Armageddon will happen?  See, we have historical records and they show that ice has been there for a very long time.  And there is nothing that shows how and when it will stop being ice.  Unless you are a gawd I supposed.  Are you a gawd?  I know there is a possibility that anything can happen.  I must have accuracy to determine a next step.  What is your next step?  I don't have one, cause I don't know what is actually the concern.


----------



## Vandalshandle (Jun 20, 2016)

In Greenland, the ice of top of the land mass is starting to melt due to warmer weather. When that happens, more of the island land is exposed to the sun. Land, being dark, absorbs more heat than ice, which is white and reflects heat back to space. The land, being warmer, starts to accelerate the ice loss from below, that was beginning at the top due to warmer weather. The exact same process happens at the ends of ice ages.


----------



## jc456 (Jun 20, 2016)

Vandalshandle said:


> In Greenland, the ice of top of the land mass is starting to melt due to warmer weather. When that happens, more of the island land is exposed to the sun. Land, being dark, absorbs more heat than ice, which is white and reflects heat back to space. The land, being warmer, starts to accelerate the ice loss from below, that was beginning at the top due to warmer weather. The exact same process happens at the ends of ice ages.


and you have evidence to that?  I mean outside normal warming patterns on the edges of the continent?  Are you saying land ice in Greenland has never melted when it is summer there?  Come now, I find that ridiculous since calving has been happening for a very long time.


----------



## Vandalshandle (Jun 20, 2016)

jc456 said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> > In Greenland, the ice of top of the land mass is starting to melt due to warmer weather. When that happens, more of the island land is exposed to the sun. Land, being dark, absorbs more heat than ice, which is white and reflects heat back to space. The land, being warmer, starts to accelerate the ice loss from below, that was beginning at the top due to warmer weather. The exact same process happens at the ends of ice ages.
> ...



This has nothing to do with calving of icebergs. And, yes. I have evidence:

NASA - Satellites See Unprecedented Greenland Ice Sheet Surface Melt


----------



## LaDexter (Jun 20, 2016)

Anyone who understands that Greenland manufactures a new ice core every year quickly realizes the "its melting" crowd is 100% full of something yet again...


----------



## Vandalshandle (Jun 20, 2016)

LaDexter said:


> Anyone who understands that Greenland manufactures a new ice core every year quickly realizes the "its melting" crowd is 100% full of something yet again...



Get your resume into NASA immediately. They obviously need you to straighten them out....


----------



## LaDexter (Jun 20, 2016)

Tell us how Greenland is both "melting" and manufacturing a new annual ice core.

I HAVE to hear this one...


----------



## Vandalshandle (Jun 20, 2016)

LaDexter said:


> Tell us how Greenland is both "melting" and manufacturing a new annual ice core.
> 
> I HAVE to hear this one...



I'm sure that Al Gore has something to do with it.....


----------



## jc456 (Jun 20, 2016)

Vandalshandle said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Vandalshandle said:
> ...


dude that's 2012.  huh?


----------



## Vandalshandle (Jun 20, 2016)

jc456 said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



Don't know. Haven't had time to read it all, because my shift starts in about half an hour at the Sheriff Auxiliary. This did catch my eye, though:

"Even the area around Summit Station in central Greenland, which at 2 miles above sea level is near the highest point of the ice sheet, showed signs of melting. Such pronounced melting at Summit and across the ice sheet has not occurred since 1889, according to ice cores analyzed by Kaitlin Keegan at Dartmouth College in Hanover, N.H. A National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration weather station at Summit confirmed air temperatures hovered above or within a degree of freezing for several hours July 11-12."


----------



## jc456 (Jun 20, 2016)

Vandalshandle said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Vandalshandle said:
> ...


so it did it when CO2 was not as much as today and today is much more than then and it is the same.  So, what is it that you think is driving any melt besides saying warm.  What is causing more warm then?  You can't say CO2, cause 1889 calls that a liar.


----------



## mamooth (Jun 20, 2016)

LaDexter said:


> Tell us how Greenland is both "melting" and manufacturing a new annual ice core.
> 
> I HAVE to hear this one...



So you're that ignorant of the basic science again. And nobody is surprised.

Previously, little to no melt in the interior. Snow piles up, compacts to ice, then flows out to the sea in glaciers. Mass is roughly balanced, (ice out) equaling (snow in).

Now, melt in the interior. Not enough to melt all of that year's snow, so it still adds to the ice core. It is enough to change the mass balance significantly, so that (ice out + melt) > (snow in), meaning a net loss of ice mass.

Fourth graders can grasp this stuff. You can't. You need to stop annoying the grownups until you up your game.


----------



## LaDexter (Jun 20, 2016)

"Now, melt in the interior. Not enough to melt all of that year's snow, so it still adds to the ice core"


Hopefully nobody is still confused why I use the phrase "THE IDIOCY OF THE FRAUD."

In other words, it is ADDING ICE LAYERS EVERY YEAR the "warmers" claim it is "melting."

The only "melting" here is the credibility of the "warmers."


----------



## Vandalshandle (Jun 20, 2016)

LaDexter said:


> "Now, melt in the interior. Not enough to melt all of that year's snow, so it still adds to the ice core"
> 
> 
> Hopefully nobody is still confused why I use the phrase "THE IDIOCY OF THE FRAUD."
> ...



Well, I guess you win. I certainly am in no position to challenge someone with the  knowledge that exceeds the entire scietific credentials, technology, instrumentation, statistics, and satellite information of NASA!


----------



## Vandalshandle (Jun 20, 2016)

jc456 said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



In 1889, Al Gore's grandfather planted fake ice samples in Greenland in order to try to prove that train steam engines were causing global warming, so that he could get rich selling boats to people who lived near the ocean.


----------



## frigidweirdo (Jun 20, 2016)

jc456 said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



What can be more accurate than saying that if you put more water into the sea, then sea levels will rise?


----------



## Crick (Jun 20, 2016)

jc, you have an annoying habit of asking for evidence for things that fifth graders know to be factual.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jun 20, 2016)

jc456 said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...





Fig. 3.4. Cumulative change in the total mass (in Gigatonnes, Gt) of the Greenland Ice Sheet between April 2002 and April 2015 estimated from GRACE measurements. Each symbol is an individual month and the orange asterisks denote April values for reference.

Arctic Report Card - Greenland Ice Sheet - Tedesco, et al.

*What changes is that Greenland has lost several thousands of Giga-tonnes of ice. *


----------



## Old Rocks (Jun 20, 2016)

jc456 said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


Care to say that again, maybe in English? Or maybe after you sober up.


----------



## frigidweirdo (Jun 20, 2016)

Crick said:


> jc, you have an annoying habit of asking for evidence for things that fifth graders know to be factual.



Then it shouldn't be hard to show the evidence then, should it?

In fact many fifth graders know stuff to be factual that simply isn't factual.


----------



## jc456 (Jun 20, 2016)

Vandalshandle said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Vandalshandle said:
> ...


Zip as usual Hahahaha


----------



## jc456 (Jun 20, 2016)

Crick said:


> jc, you have an annoying habit of asking for evidence for things that fifth graders know to be factual.


And you can ever produce! 1889 less CO2 same result. You fking lose


----------



## Crick (Jun 21, 2016)

Greenland's ice melt rate has not slowed.


----------



## jc456 (Jun 21, 2016)

Crick said:


> Greenland's ice melt rate has not slowed.


I thought the satellites was down, so how are you getting the graph you are showing?


----------



## LaDexter (Jun 21, 2016)

Greenland manufactures an ice core every year.  That means the annual snow/frost accumulation gets sealed in by a thin layer of ice, allowing us to detail atmospheric gas concentrations from the past.  If the entire inside of Greenland is growing ice, precisely what is "melting," since icebergs are STILL FROZEN.

Greenland and Antarctica are both ICE AGES, and as long as both manufacture ice cores, as each does every year, neither will melt, and neither will do anything but GAIN ICE.  It takes a REAL MORON without a clue to believe Crick's above FUDGE...


----------



## Old Rocks (Jun 21, 2016)

Damn you are a dumb ass. The thin skin of the yearly accumulation is not a 'Core'. And the icebergs are the result of the glaciers dumping ice into the ocean. Where they melt. And when the amount of ice dumped into the ocean exceeds the accumulation from snowfall, you have a net loss of ice in the ice cap, and a gain of water in the oceans.


----------



## LaDexter (Jun 21, 2016)

LMAO!!!

The history of both Greenland and Antarctica completely refutes your parroted BS, and you clearly do not understand what an ice core is, or how it forms.  Greenland and Antarctica have grown ice for hundreds of thousands of years, every year, way before you started parroted fudge as "data."


" The thin skin of the yearly accumulation is not a 'Core'."

Explain and elaborate for us... LMAO!!!


----------



## Old Rocks (Jun 21, 2016)

If, each year, there is little melting of the additional snow, then, over the centuries, that layer is added to the ice. But if the melting exceeds the accumulation, has it has several time during interglacials, then the ice around the shore melts, and the glaciers dump more ice into the ocean than accumulates from the snow that does not melt.


----------



## LaDexter (Jun 21, 2016)

LMFAO!!!!

WHAT A MORON!!!


----------



## Vandalshandle (Jun 21, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> If, each year, there is little melting of the additional snow, then, over the centuries, that layer is added to the ice. But if the melting exceeds the accumulation, has it has several time during interglacials, then the ice around the shore melts, and the glaciers dump more ice into the ocean than accumulates from the snow that does not melt.



Careful, Rocks. This guy has more knowledge on Greenland ice than NASA. He got it from AM radio, which has been around MUCH longer than weather satellites!


----------



## LaDexter (Jun 21, 2016)

At least I understand the following

1. ice core
2. ice age
3. glacier
4. an ice age manufacturing an annual ice core IS NOT MELTING


----------



## jc456 (Jun 21, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> Damn you are a dumb ass. The thin skin of the yearly accumulation is not a 'Core'. And the icebergs are the result of the glaciers dumping ice into the ocean. Where they melt. And when the amount of ice dumped into the ocean exceeds the accumulation from snowfall, you have a net loss of ice in the ice cap, and a gain of water in the oceans.


dude, icebergs are not from glacier melt, they are from cracking off due to the land moving.  Look up ice calving, the internet explains it well.


----------



## jc456 (Jun 21, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> If, each year, there is little melting of the additional snow, then, over the centuries, that layer is added to the ice. But if the melting exceeds the accumulation, has it has several time during interglacials, then the ice around the shore melts, and the glaciers dump more ice into the ocean than accumulates from the snow that does not melt.


what does that have to do with where ice cores are pulled from?  You know they aren't from the shore right?  each layer of ice is a frikn core bubba.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jun 21, 2016)

Really, jc and LaDexter, I think you need to share your revolutionary thinking with the USGS. I am sure they would be so impressed. LOL


----------



## LaDexter (Jun 22, 2016)

I already shared it with Feds, and that produced this period of left wing hypocrisy, treason, and bigotry...

obama silence climate 2010 2012 - Google Search

The Silence of US President Obama on Climate Change-A Serious Ethical Lapse?

"US President Obama has been silent on climate change for two years"

So the timeline reads as follows -

Affirmative Action Parrot and Bigot Barack Obama was parroting all the standard BS that Crick and Rocks do, then in 2010 he shut up, and then in 2012 he started parroting again.  Amazing.  What could possibly have caused that behavior??

A: an FBI case against the Tippys for FRAUD


----------



## Vandalshandle (Jun 22, 2016)

Climate change= "...treason and bigotry..."Oh MY!


----------



## LaDexter (Jun 22, 2016)

Indeed, bigotry against those who out our Affirmative Action President as just that, an "Ivy League" student who doesn't understand basic science at all. 

Treason is about selling out the US to an international court.  The Marshall Islands are suing us for sea level rise, except the sea isn't rising, the Marshall Islands are sinking - see PACIFIC RING OF FIRE...


----------



## Crick (Jun 22, 2016)

Vandalshandle said:


> Climate change= "...treason and bigotry..."Oh MY!



Whose treason and whose bigotry?


----------



## Vandalshandle (Jun 22, 2016)

Crick said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> > Climate change= "...treason and bigotry..."Oh MY!
> ...



I haven't figured that out yet. I guess that Obama is a bigot for being only half black, and probably treasonist, too, for being a sleeper agent for the Marshall Islanders.


----------



## LaDexter (Jun 23, 2016)

Obama is bigoted against whites who do not support the Democrats, especially against whites who out him as the Ivy League affirmative action science invalid he is...

Anyone who sells out US Sovereignty over something he knows is FRAUD is a TRAITOR, and that describes Obama perfectly on this issue...


----------



## Vandalshandle (Jun 23, 2016)

LaDexter said:


> Obama is bigoted against whites who do not support the Democrats, especially against whites who out him as the Ivy League affirmative action science invalid he is...
> 
> Anyone who sells out US Sovereignty over something he knows is FRAUD is a TRAITOR, and that describes Obama perfectly on this issue...



I'll add that to my list. Obama is a gay, Muslim, America hating, fraud and traitor who was born in Kenya. Did I forget anything/


----------



## LaDexter (Jun 23, 2016)

You qualify fully as a sub human who parrots fraud, shouts down truth, and doesn't have a molecule of patriotism to the US in his body...


----------



## Vandalshandle (Jun 23, 2016)

LaDexter said:


> You qualify fully as a sub human who parrots fraud, shouts down truth, and doesn't have a molecule of patriotism to the US in his body...



I beg your pardon! Trump only wears one American flag lapel pin. I never leave home without wearing at least 10 of them! My cell phone rings, "Yankee Doodle Dandy". Every time I see an American flag, I stop, salute, and sing, "The Star Spangled Banner". Admittedly, this makes people mad when I am in traffic, and everyone behind me has to stop until I finish....


----------



## Crick (Jun 25, 2016)

Vandalshandle said:


> LaDexter said:
> 
> 
> > Obama is bigoted against whites who do not support the Democrats, especially against whites who out him as the Ivy League affirmative action science invalid he is...
> ...



He loves terrorists and Mexicans. His wife wants to starve American school children.  He doesn't like our new leader Herr Drumpf and has insulted him.


----------



## flacaltenn (Jun 27, 2016)

*Wow --- would ya look at the time !!! This place should have closed pages ago..  Before all those illegal posts started.*

*Always happens at closing time.. *


----------

