Sea Level Rise by Satellite Altimetry

[jc456]

I wish the CAGW crowd would look at all the written historical records that often seem to disagree with their theories and 'reanalyzed' data. I have a lot more faith in the honesty of disinterested parties that were just recording events than I do in others who are trying to make their case by cherrypicking their evidence and using inappropriate methodologies to convince me of something that doesnt make sense.

I have more faith in indepedent and impartially collected data than I do in the deliberately distorted denier cherrypicking of historical anecdotes.

You're making your WUWT allegiance more prominent by the day. Have they managed to mindwipe you completely?

Manmoth, you can end this entire discussion today just by providing that experiment. The one I asked about 10 times now. You know that one? Or do you need me to repeat the question again?

 

[Crick]

That would be the one you've been provided repeatedly and which you continue to lie about. Just like your buddy Kosh and his datasets and computer code.

 

[Old Rocks]

Just Crazy, you, like Frankie Boy, are a liar. Everybody here with any kind of scientific education has provided you silly asses with the experiments demonstrating that CO2 is a GHG.

 

[SSDD]

That's true, 50% don't show that the MWP was warmer....100% do....

Yet you can't show one.

True, I can't show just one...I can show dozens.

just lying for your cult now. And everyone knows it.

What everyone knows is that you are a liar...and now everyone knows that perhaps you are going senile because I have given you this information several times before and you can't seem to remember. This time, I am only going to give you level I studies...do you have any idea what a level I study is? They are studies that allow a quantitative comparison to be made between the temperatures of the (MWP) and the present.

Lets begin with studies in Venezuela. That is about as far from mann's "local" event as you can get.,

Generation transport and preservation of the alkenone-based U37K prime sea surface temperature index in the water column and sediments of the Cariaco Basin Venezuela - Goni - 2004 - Global Biogeochemical Cycles - Wiley Online Library published in Global Biogeochemical Cycles

Here is one from Patagonia, Chile published in Quaternary Research

Late Holocene sea-surface temperature and precipitation variability in northern Patagonia Chile Jacaf Fjord 44 S

Southern South America

NOAA Paleoclimatology Program - Neukom et al. 2010 Gridded South American Temperature Reconstructions

New Zealand, published in Nature

Short-term climate change and New Zealand temperatures during the last millennium

Temperatures derived from an 18O/16O profile through a stalagmite found in a New Zealand cave (40.67°S, 172.43°E) revealed the Medieval Warm Period to have occurred between AD 1050 and 1400 and to have been 0.75°C warmer than the Current Warm Period.

South Africa, published in the South African Journal of Science

http://reference.sabinet.co.za/webx/access/electronic_journals/sajsci/sajsci_v97_n1_a12.pdf

Korea, published in The Holocene

A modern pollen-temperature calibration data set from Korea and quantitative temperature reconstructions for the Holocene

Japan, published in the International Journal of Biometeorology

http://repository.osakafu-u.ac.jp/dspace/bitstream/10466/11600/1/2010000033.pdf

And I could go on and on and on....there are literally dozens of papers covering the entire earth finding that the MWP was warmer than the present...and keep in mind, the ones I provided were just a few of the many level I studies that have been done...mann's paper was not a level I study and the IPCC overturned all previous research and refuses to consider research since mann in its continued efforts to erase the MWP.

How many more would you like to see and from which part of the world?

 

[jc456]

That would be the one you've been provided repeatedly and which you continue to lie about. Just like your buddy Kosh and his datasets and computer code.

Yet not one that explains:

What 120 of PPM CO2 added to he atmosphere does to temperature or climate. You can't, just admit and move on. This chart reflects the physics of CO2. You can't disprove this. As such, you are the liar. WiNNiNg

 

[jc456]

Just Crazy, you, like Frankie Boy, are a liar. Everybody here with any kind of scientific education has provided you silly asses with the experiments demonstrating that CO2 is a GHG.

 

[Crick]

That would be the one you've been provided repeatedly and which you continue to lie about. Just like your buddy Kosh and his datasets and computer code.

Yet not one that explains:

What 120 of PPM CO2 added to he atmosphere does to temperature or climate. You can't, just admit and move on. This chart reflects the physics of CO2. You can't disprove this. As such, you are the liar. WiNNiNg

Are you familiar with the terms dependent and independent variables? Your chart contains data demonstrating a function of photosynthesis, not one of CO2. And since it has no numbers attached to it, its value is limited. And, to anyone that had gotten through 6th grade science, it is completely obvious that it has no bearing on the greenhouse effect at all.

God are you stupid.

 

[IanC]

I wish the CAGW crowd would look at all the written historical records that often seem to disagree with their theories and 'reanalyzed' data. I have a lot more faith in the honesty of disinterested parties that were just recording events than I do in others who are trying to make their case by cherrypicking their evidence and using inappropriate methodologies to convince me of something that doesnt make sense.

The next stage in SLR propaganda is underway. Because sea level rise has some rather large discrepancies in the records and the supposed causes, the data has been 'reanalyzed' by a new computer model. the new story is that there was very little SLR until post 70's and especially in the satellite era.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nature14093.html

to fix the problem in -

Twentieth century sea level An enigma


basically the climate science establishment have known about glaring inconsistencies in their understanding of SLR for at least 15 years. and yet this is the first time this problem has surfaced publically that I have heard about.

 

[Crick]

According to the abstract of the Nature article, their work confirms the 3.0 +0.7 mm/yr that AR5 finds for 1990-2013 and concludes that the increase in recent times was greater than originally believed. The affect on projections, therefore, will be upward.

 

[IanC]

According to the abstract of the Nature article, their work confirms the 3.0 +0.7 mm/yr that AR5 finds for 1990-2013 and concludes that the increase in recent times was greater than originally believed. The affect on projections, therefore, will be upward.

yup, it does. it also drops pre-satellite SLR to 1.2mm/yr +/- 0.2mm. I havent seen the whole article so I dont know how they reconcile the new higher sea level in the 20th century to existing studies.