Simple Question for Those Who Subscribe to AGW....

[SSDD]

Sorry but it isn't....what's the matter...can't read a graph? If you could, you would see that the amount of change, and the rate of change have been far greater than anything we have seen multiple times over the past 10,000 years....what's the matter? Aren't you smart enough to even read a simple graph?

Your graph has modeling and adjustments, it's wrong.


Next.

So lets see some peer reviewed evidence to contradict it...mine is peer reviewed..yours was from an alarmist blog...given a choice, I will go with the peer reviewed science till some better peer reviewed science comes along...you stick with your alarmist blog...they will give you just the opinion they think you should have. No effort on your part necessary...of course it does leave you looking like a clueless idiot when you try to talk to someone who can actually provide real science to support their position, but luckily you won't be bright enough to even recognize the fact that you are taking a real drubbing in public...

You have not disproved any of the peer reviewed data that Desmog cited. You have used some cut and paste BS backed by nothing.

Actually, I disproved it all...do I expect that you would be bright enough to recognize that fact? No...not a chance in hell. You keep reading your blogs and stay just as ignorant as you are...it is precisely what you deserve.

You have not disproved this peer reviewed paper from 2018.

Climate-change–driven accelerated sea-level rise detected in the altimeter era


You have NOT disproved anything from NASA.


You have offered bullshit and paraded around in a little skirt.

Of course I did...as I pointed out already:

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...

Here is an overlay of the two graphs at the same time scale.

You are so far out of your depth (and you reside in the very shallow end of the pool) that you don't even know when your questions have been answered...The acceleration happened when they applied a global isostatic adjustment. Isostatic adjustments are used to determine if the sea floor is sinking...it has nothing to do with sea level rise... And the graphs show the effect of the adjustment...there is no acceleration in sea level rise...there is only fraudulent adjustments...which tide gages....do not agree with...

 

[SSDD]

If you could, you would see that the amount of change, and the rate of change have been far greater than anything we have seen multiple times over the past 10,000 years...

That's the problem genius. It proves that the warming we're experiencing is greater that what can be accounted for by solar variations or volcanism. Exactly what I said before, stupid.

Explain how greater changes and faster changes in the past prove that the relatively small changes we have seen are greater than natural variability could account for? This should be interesting...and f'ing hilarious...but go ahead...Im all ears....I love comedy.

So now you're reversing yourself. Proving once again you're nothing but a babbling idiot.

You really are a piece of work...First you claim that because nature has shown us larger temperature increases in shorter periods of time than anything we have seen that that is evidence that the small change we have seen over the past 150 years is larger than natural variability could produce....then you claim I have changed my position? How stupid are you?

My position stands where it has always been...since nature has shown us that it can change the temperature to a greater degree and faster

 

[SSDD]

More issues with your "gold standard" GISP2 data set.

https://skepticalscience.com/print.php?r=337

Can you address those.

Sure...skeptical science...run by a cartoonist...caught lying and fabricating data more times than one cares to count. Here is the fearless leader of skeptical science..John Cook who likes to dress up as a nazi...

Source: Skeptical Scinece Forums

It is moderated by hysterical, handwaving, hyperventilating alarmists who heavily censor any data that disagrees with the topic thread out of existence...if you want to know the problems with the data on that thread, ask them what they edited out..

Am I surprised that this sort of place is where you get your opinion given to you? Not at all. You are a prize graduate of that joke of a site...congratulations.

 

[SSDD]

Sea level has been increasing at about 3mm per year for about a good long while now with no real indication that it is accelerating...the big sea level increases happened some while back... As you can see, at about 14,000 years ago sea level really started going and increased by about 300 feet...that much ice melted at the end of the glacial...Chicago was under 2 miles of ice at the time...and about 600 years ago it sort of leveled off and hasn't changed much since...it may vary by 1 mm a year or so, but not much beyond that... Anyone who claims otherwise is an alarmist with no evidence to support his claims.

Misleading or wrong again.

From NASA.
"Global sea level rose about 8 inches in the last century. The rate in the last two decades, however, is nearly double that of the last century and is accelerating slightly every year."

Climate-change–driven accelerated sea-level rise detected in the altimeter era


Refute that.

Sorry...its bullshit...they adjusted a hundred years worth of sea level when they went to satellites and the oldest tide gages in the world...several hundred years worth of records don't agree with the adjustments...

What adjustments are ranting about exactly.

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...even if folks like you are going to deny the reality.... This is the sea level increase between 1880 and 1980 shown by NASA. 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 science 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.

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...

Here is an overlay of the two graphs at the same time scale.

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.

And just for fun...take a look at the very early tide information...what sort of new information do you think would require changing tide data from 60, 70, 80, and even 100 years ago?

The fact is that the sea level claims are fraudulent...and anyone who believes them has either been fooled, or is being nothing more than one of the legion of useful idiots.

I think you're comparing apples and oranges.

In the first graph according to the text below the graph, the measurements are taken from tidal gauges. To really compare these 2 graphs the same gauges at the same locations would have to be used. Until sometime in the 20th tidal gauges were basically mechanic devices and measuring sticks. The early tide gauges were expensive and difficult to maintain, and accuracy was always a problem. In the 1960's, the first digital tidal gauges were automated recording of data became widely used improving the accuracy and reliability.

In the second graph, more recent data was taken from satellite altimeters which are much more accurate than tidal gauges and tidal gauges for prior dates. The data collection for the second graph is described on the cmar.csiro website. It states the data prior to 1992 is uncertain because of the use of tidal gauges. The following graph from their website was created form satellite altimeter data which shows 3.5 mm/yr rise or 350 mm over a hundred years which translates to 13.8 inches over a century.

I would think a global average rise in sea level of a 13.8 per century would be pretty alarming.

Past sea level changes - Sea Level, Waves and Coastal Extremes

It might be if it were real..it isn't..your graph is comparing models to models...tide gages don't agree with them...do you get your opinion from skeptical science as well?

Sea level rise is just one more example of the abject failure of climate models...

 

[Cosmos]

If you could, you would see that the amount of change, and the rate of change have been far greater than anything we have seen multiple times over the past 10,000 years...

That's the problem genius. It proves that the warming we're experiencing is greater that what can be accounted for by solar variations or volcanism. Exactly what I said before, stupid.

Explain how greater changes and faster changes in the past prove that the relatively small changes we have seen are greater than natural variability could account for? This should be interesting...and f'ing hilarious...but go ahead...Im all ears....I love comedy.

So now you're reversing yourself. Proving once again you're nothing but a babbling idiot.

You really are a piece of work...First you claim that because nature has shown us larger temperature increases in shorter periods of time than anything we have seen that that is evidence that the small change we have seen over the past 150 years is larger than natural variability could produce....then you claim I have changed my position? How stupid are you?

My position stands where it has always been...since nature has shown us that it can change the temperature to a greater degree and faster

You got it all backwards, dipshit. If you actually knew anything instead of how to cut and paste maybe you wouldn't come off as such an idiot.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

If you could, you would see that the amount of change, and the rate of change have been far greater than anything we have seen multiple times over the past 10,000 years...

That's the problem genius. It proves that the warming we're experiencing is greater that what can be accounted for by solar variations or volcanism. Exactly what I said before, stupid.

Explain how greater changes and faster changes in the past prove that the relatively small changes we have seen are greater than natural variability could account for? This should be interesting...and f'ing hilarious...but go ahead...Im all ears....I love comedy.

So now you're reversing yourself. Proving once again you're nothing but a babbling idiot.

You really are a piece of work...First you claim that because nature has shown us larger temperature increases in shorter periods of time than anything we have seen that that is evidence that the small change we have seen over the past 150 years is larger than natural variability could produce....then you claim I have changed my position? How stupid are you?

My position stands where it has always been...since nature has shown us that it can change the temperature to a greater degree and faster

You got it all backwards, dipshit. If you actually knew anything instead of how to cut and paste maybe you wouldn't come off as such an idiot.

Ask him why photons can't travel from cooler matter toward warmer matter. It's a trip.

 

[SSDD]

If you could, you would see that the amount of change, and the rate of change have been far greater than anything we have seen multiple times over the past 10,000 years...

That's the problem genius. It proves that the warming we're experiencing is greater that what can be accounted for by solar variations or volcanism. Exactly what I said before, stupid.

Explain how greater changes and faster changes in the past prove that the relatively small changes we have seen are greater than natural variability could account for? This should be interesting...and f'ing hilarious...but go ahead...Im all ears....I love comedy.

So now you're reversing yourself. Proving once again you're nothing but a babbling idiot.

You really are a piece of work...First you claim that because nature has shown us larger temperature increases in shorter periods of time than anything we have seen that that is evidence that the small change we have seen over the past 150 years is larger than natural variability could produce....then you claim I have changed my position? How stupid are you?

My position stands where it has always been...since nature has shown us that it can change the temperature to a greater degree and faster

You got it all backwards, dipshit. If you actually knew anything instead of how to cut and paste maybe you wouldn't come off as such an idiot.

Still waiting....If natural variability is capable of changing temperatures to a greater, or lesser degree than anything we have seen in a shorter or longer period of time than anything we have seen...how does that support the claim that the changes we have seen must be due to mankind's activities? You made the claim, lets hear an explanation? Or do you not have one beause the claim is just something you made up because you could't think of anything else to say? You seem to be claiming that you know something that I don't....so lets hear it...

 

[Billy_Bob]

If you could, you would see that the amount of change, and the rate of change have been far greater than anything we have seen multiple times over the past 10,000 years...

That's the problem genius. It proves that the warming we're experiencing is greater that what can be accounted for by solar variations or volcanism. Exactly what I said before, stupid.

Explain how greater changes and faster changes in the past prove that the relatively small changes we have seen are greater than natural variability could account for? This should be interesting...and f'ing hilarious...but go ahead...Im all ears....I love comedy.

So now you're reversing yourself. Proving once again you're nothing but a babbling idiot.

You really are a piece of work...First you claim that because nature has shown us larger temperature increases in shorter periods of time than anything we have seen that that is evidence that the small change we have seen over the past 150 years is larger than natural variability could produce....then you claim I have changed my position? How stupid are you?

My position stands where it has always been...since nature has shown us that it can change the temperature to a greater degree and faster

SSDD;

You are dealing with religious zealots who will not respond to facts. They believe because they are told to believe. Nothing will make them doubt the Gia religion. No amount of Empirical Evidence will change their minds and they will kill themselves and billions more to keep the lie alive.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

If you could, you would see that the amount of change, and the rate of change have been far greater than anything we have seen multiple times over the past 10,000 years...

That's the problem genius. It proves that the warming we're experiencing is greater that what can be accounted for by solar variations or volcanism. Exactly what I said before, stupid.

Explain how greater changes and faster changes in the past prove that the relatively small changes we have seen are greater than natural variability could account for? This should be interesting...and f'ing hilarious...but go ahead...Im all ears....I love comedy.

So now you're reversing yourself. Proving once again you're nothing but a babbling idiot.

You really are a piece of work...First you claim that because nature has shown us larger temperature increases in shorter periods of time than anything we have seen that that is evidence that the small change we have seen over the past 150 years is larger than natural variability could produce....then you claim I have changed my position? How stupid are you?

My position stands where it has always been...since nature has shown us that it can change the temperature to a greater degree and faster

SSDD;

You are dealing with religious zealots who will not respond to facts. They believe because they are told to believe. Nothing will make them doubt the Gia religion. No amount of Empirical Evidence will change their minds and they will kill themselves and billions more to keep the lie alive.

Billy, when you get a chance, post the molar mass of photons. Thanks!

 

[otto105]

You deniers have no facts to offer.

Name one scientific organization which supports YOUR position that Global Climate change is happening and is not cause by human activity.


Just one.


I'll wait.

 

[SSDD]

If you could, you would see that the amount of change, and the rate of change have been far greater than anything we have seen multiple times over the past 10,000 years...

That's the problem genius. It proves that the warming we're experiencing is greater that what can be accounted for by solar variations or volcanism. Exactly what I said before, stupid.

Explain how greater changes and faster changes in the past prove that the relatively small changes we have seen are greater than natural variability could account for? This should be interesting...and f'ing hilarious...but go ahead...Im all ears....I love comedy.

So now you're reversing yourself. Proving once again you're nothing but a babbling idiot.

You really are a piece of work...First you claim that because nature has shown us larger temperature increases in shorter periods of time than anything we have seen that that is evidence that the small change we have seen over the past 150 years is larger than natural variability could produce....then you claim I have changed my position? How stupid are you?

My position stands where it has always been...since nature has shown us that it can change the temperature to a greater degree and faster

SSDD;

You are dealing with religious zealots who will not respond to facts. They believe because they are told to believe. Nothing will make them doubt the Gia religion. No amount of Empirical Evidence will change their minds and they will kill themselves and billions more to keep the lie alive.

Yeah...but some people who don't necessarily ever post anything read these posts and are swayed...I occasionally get a PM regarding a discussion with one of these types and they appreciate seeing alarmists arguments torn down with actual science rather than talking points and hysterics...so although the useful idiots like otto and cosmos will never be convinced, tearing down their arguments does serve a purpose.

 

[otto105]

That's the problem genius. It proves that the warming we're experiencing is greater that what can be accounted for by solar variations or volcanism. Exactly what I said before, stupid.

Explain how greater changes and faster changes in the past prove that the relatively small changes we have seen are greater than natural variability could account for? This should be interesting...and f'ing hilarious...but go ahead...Im all ears....I love comedy.

So now you're reversing yourself. Proving once again you're nothing but a babbling idiot.

You really are a piece of work...First you claim that because nature has shown us larger temperature increases in shorter periods of time than anything we have seen that that is evidence that the small change we have seen over the past 150 years is larger than natural variability could produce....then you claim I have changed my position? How stupid are you?

My position stands where it has always been...since nature has shown us that it can change the temperature to a greater degree and faster

SSDD;

You are dealing with religious zealots who will not respond to facts. They believe because they are told to believe. Nothing will make them doubt the Gia religion. No amount of Empirical Evidence will change their minds and they will kill themselves and billions more to keep the lie alive.

Yeah...but some people who don't necessarily ever post anything read these posts and are swayed...I occasionally get a PM regarding a discussion with one of these types and they appreciate seeing alarmists arguments torn down with actual science rather than talking points and hysterics...so although the useful idiots like otto and cosmos will never be convinced, tearing down their arguments does serve a purpose.

Still working on that one scientific organization that supports your opinion.

 

[otto105]

Er....denial.

 

[SSDD]

You deniers have no facts to offer.

Name one scientific organization which supports YOUR position that Global Climate change is happening and is not cause by human activity.


Just one.


I'll wait.

Funny thing...most heads of scientific organizations never ask their membership about what their "official" position on man made climate change should be. The heads of organizations are political after all.
The American Physical Society the most influential organization of all decided to ask its membership for advice on what their official policy should be...they found out in short order that the working scientists that made up the organization had an entirely different idea about what the society should say about man made climate change than what the political head thought...so they quietly closed the whole thing down and went against the working scientists that made up the membership and toned down their rhetoric, but maintained a consensus view...

So the statements that scientific organizations make are from the political heads of the organizations...not the working scientists that make up the membership of the society...and they reflect the political heads need to raise funds...and collect political capital...you can't get any money or political capital if you go against the consensus so they sell out to money and power over scientific truth.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Explain how greater changes and faster changes in the past prove that the relatively small changes we have seen are greater than natural variability could account for? This should be interesting...and f'ing hilarious...but go ahead...Im all ears....I love comedy.

So now you're reversing yourself. Proving once again you're nothing but a babbling idiot.

You really are a piece of work...First you claim that because nature has shown us larger temperature increases in shorter periods of time than anything we have seen that that is evidence that the small change we have seen over the past 150 years is larger than natural variability could produce....then you claim I have changed my position? How stupid are you?

My position stands where it has always been...since nature has shown us that it can change the temperature to a greater degree and faster

SSDD;

You are dealing with religious zealots who will not respond to facts. They believe because they are told to believe. Nothing will make them doubt the Gia religion. No amount of Empirical Evidence will change their minds and they will kill themselves and billions more to keep the lie alive.

Yeah...but some people who don't necessarily ever post anything read these posts and are swayed...I occasionally get a PM regarding a discussion with one of these types and they appreciate seeing alarmists arguments torn down with actual science rather than talking points and hysterics...so although the useful idiots like otto and cosmos will never be convinced, tearing down their arguments does serve a purpose.

Still working on that one scientific organization that supports your opinion.

Last time I checked, the list of scientist who do not agree with the AGW hype has grown to over 56,000. While not an official organization it dwarfs all of your organizations put together.. But then you folks like to throw out science that doesn't fit your narrative...

You folks like to throw away papers who do not toe the line....

 

[otto105]

You deniers have no facts to offer.

Name one scientific organization which supports YOUR position that Global Climate change is happening and is not cause by human activity.


Just one.


I'll wait.

Funny thing...most heads of scientific organizations never ask their membership about what their "official" position on man made climate change should be. The heads of organizations are political after all.
The American Physical Society the most influential organization of all decided to ask its membership for advice on what their official policy should be...they found out in short order that the working scientists that made up the organization had an entirely different idea about what the society should say about man made climate change than what the political head thought...so they quietly closed the whole thing down and went against the working scientists that made up the membership and toned down their rhetoric, but maintained a consensus view...

So the statements that scientific organizations make are from the political heads of the organizations...not the working scientists that make up the membership of the society...and they reflect the political heads need to raise funds...and collect political capital...you can't get any money or political capital if you go against the consensus so they sell out to money and power over scientific truth.

So you realize that you can't find one scientific organization that supports your denial position instead offer an organization for physics... as something. Or rather as the "MOST INFLUENTIAL ORGANIZATION OF ALL" to convince of of anything.

Well your source supports my position on Climate Change... www.aps.org/policy/issues/upload/CVD-Climate-Change-2019.pdf

Why is that?

 

[Sunsettommy]

Says the guy who doesn't seem to be able to produce any science to the guy who has backed every claim he has made with published science... laughable....and pitiful...

You have provided nothing which will refute what has been established as scientific fact in regard to AGW.

You have not refuted a single fact on the NASA website.


When do you think that will happen?

I addressed your NASA link not long ago, you ignored it. You also ignored a QUESTION I asked you several times about something in that link, you ignored it.

You never did bother to discuss YOUR link at all, you ran away instead, to spread your ignorant spittle in other threads.

You have not proved any argument which convinces anyone (outside the denial bubble) that NASA has it wrong.


Post away

Just the fact that NASA is having to falsify data in order to support their narrative is evidence that they have it wrong....why else falsify data?

Again, what data has been falsified?

It has been posted in this forum a number of times only to be ignored by warmists who KNOW they can't address it, here is one that is a new expose of PISS temperature data. From No Tricks Zone:

NASA GISS Surface Station Temperature Trends Based On Sheer Guess Work, Made-Up Data, Says Japanese Climate Expert

Short Excerpt:

Whenever NASA GISS announces how recent global temperatures are much hotter than, for example, 100 years ago, just how statistically reliable are such statements?

Most will agree, based mainly on sundry observations, that today is indeed warmer than it was when surface temperatures began to be recorded back in 1880. But we will never really know by how much.

Surface station datasets full of gigantic voids
When we look at NASA GISS’s site here, we can see how many surface stations have data going back to earlier years. Today we see that 2089 stations are at work in Version 3 unadjusted data.

Yet, when we go back 100 years (to 1919), we see only 997 of these surface stations have Version 3 unadjusted data that is complete:

 

[Sunsettommy]

LOL..

Which set of facts? You post up shit without a clue and runaway like a little bitch... Please be specific as to what you believe is true.

Okay, I believe the scientists at NASA over a troll on the internet.

Unfortunate to be in a position where you feel that you must believe people who have been caught falsifying data....

What data has been falsified? Well, outside of the denial bubble.

Glad to provide you with some...it isn't as if were hard to find....

Here is a fine example...the temperature was adjusted down from the raw data in order to give the appearance of more warming than has actually happened and it completely eliminates the hot period of the 1930's (the dust bowl years) which were warmer than the present and makes them appear much cooler than the present.

Here is another fine example of the "adjustment" happening at NASA.. Want more? There's plenty out there.

Post the source where you pulled these "graphs" from.

Lets see if you ignore these charts from PISS using THEIR source links. It is all PISS/NASA here.


NASA 1998



NASA 2019

Cooling the past, warming the present is obvious here.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Okay, I believe the scientists at NASA over a troll on the internet.

Unfortunate to be in a position where you feel that you must believe people who have been caught falsifying data....

What data has been falsified? Well, outside of the denial bubble.

Glad to provide you with some...it isn't as if were hard to find....

Here is a fine example...the temperature was adjusted down from the raw data in order to give the appearance of more warming than has actually happened and it completely eliminates the hot period of the 1930's (the dust bowl years) which were warmer than the present and makes them appear much cooler than the present.

Here is another fine example of the "adjustment" happening at NASA.. Want more? There's plenty out there.

Post the source where you pulled these "graphs" from.

Lets see if you ignore these charts from PISS using THEIR source links. It is all PISS/NASA here.


NASA 1998



NASA 2019

Cooling the past, warming the present is obvious here.

Karl Et Al made the data useless for any purpose except propaganda.

 

[otto105]

So now you're reversing yourself. Proving once again you're nothing but a babbling idiot.

You really are a piece of work...First you claim that because nature has shown us larger temperature increases in shorter periods of time than anything we have seen that that is evidence that the small change we have seen over the past 150 years is larger than natural variability could produce....then you claim I have changed my position? How stupid are you?

My position stands where it has always been...since nature has shown us that it can change the temperature to a greater degree and faster

SSDD;

You are dealing with religious zealots who will not respond to facts. They believe because they are told to believe. Nothing will make them doubt the Gia religion. No amount of Empirical Evidence will change their minds and they will kill themselves and billions more to keep the lie alive.

Yeah...but some people who don't necessarily ever post anything read these posts and are swayed...I occasionally get a PM regarding a discussion with one of these types and they appreciate seeing alarmists arguments torn down with actual science rather than talking points and hysterics...so although the useful idiots like otto and cosmos will never be convinced, tearing down their arguments does serve a purpose.

Still working on that one scientific organization that supports your opinion.

Last time I checked, the list of scientist who do not agree with the AGW hype has grown to over 56,000. While not an official organization it dwarfs all of your organizations put together.. But then you folks like to throw out science that doesn't fit your narrative...

View attachment 269591

You folks like to throw away papers who do not toe the line....

The graph you cited from Legates et al is a joke.