An interesting article on sea levels rising..

[Crick]

Quick, jc, define ISOSTATIC for us

 

[jc456]

Quick, jc, define ISOSTATIC for us

why don't you know?

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

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

 

[SSDD]

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

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

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Just saying ...

 

[SSDD]

Just saying ...

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

 

[Crick]

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

 

[SSDD]

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

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

 

[Crick]

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

 

[SSDD]

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

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

 

[Crick]

That sounds like a claim. Prove it.

 

[SSDD]

That sounds like a claim. Prove it.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Crick]

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

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

 

[SSDD]

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

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

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

 

[Crick]

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

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

My fucking god are you fucking stupid.

You didn't answer the question:

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

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

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

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

Now THAT is an accurate measure... NOT

 

[CrusaderFrank]

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

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

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

 

[Crick]

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

Do you?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

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

Do you?

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

 

[Crick]

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

Do you?

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

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

 

[SSDD]

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

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

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

 

[Crick]

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

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