So the Oceans are rising are they?

[IanC]

yah, prick sounds about right. I really cant understand how anyone can be so certain that they are on the right side of the debate when the evidence is so circumstantial. I guess there is no overestimating the power of quasi-religious fervor

 

[RollingThunder]

And yet we "denier cultists" are KICKING YOUR PUNK ASS ALL OVER THE PLAYGROUND!

LOLOLOL.....riiiight. But only in the sick, delusional brains of the very same denier cult douche-bags, like yourself, who have no actual science or evidence to support their ideologically driven denial of reality and who are regarded by all of the intelligent people of the world as the new 'flat-earthers'. LOL. You are such a delusional loon, walleyed. You lose every debate on AGW because you have no ability to counter the actual scientific evidence that debunks your denier cult myths and misinformation every time. And yet, part of your delusional system seems to be imagining that you have 'won'. LOL...such a retard.

The planet also seems to be ignoring you. Since 1997 the US average temp dropped at a per century cooling rate of 2.9 degrees, this in spite of two large El Nino events within the 15 year period.

Since the US is only about 2% of the Earth's surface, it is not even worth my time to look up your claim. True or false (probably false, given your track record), it makes no difference. Here is what is actually happening with our whole planet, not just your backyard.

NASA Research Finds Last Decade was Warmest on Record, 2009 One of Warmest Years

WASHINGTON -- Jan. 21, 2010 -- A new analysis of global surface temperatures by NASA scientists finds the past year was tied for the second warmest since 1880. In the Southern Hemisphere, 2009 was the warmest year on record.

Although 2008 was the coolest year of the decade because of a strong La Nina that cooled the tropical Pacific Ocean, 2009 saw a return to a near-record global temperatures as the La Nina diminished, according to the new analysis by NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) in New York. The past year was a small fraction of a degree cooler than 2005, the warmest on record, putting 2009 in a virtual tie with a cluster of other years --1998, 2002, 2003, 2006, and 2007 -- for the second warmest on record.

"There's always interest in the annual temperature numbers and a given year's ranking, but the ranking often misses the point," said James Hansen, GISS director. "There's substantial year-to-year variability of global temperature caused by the tropical El Nino-La Nina cycle. When we average temperature over five or ten years to minimize that variability, we find global warming is continuing unabated."

January 2000 to December 2009 was the warmest decade on record. Looking back to 1880, when modern scientific instrumentation became available to monitor temperatures precisely, a clear warming trend is present, although there was a leveling off between the 1940s and 1970s.

In the past three decades, the GISS surface temperature record shows an upward trend of about 0.36 degrees F (0.2 degrees C) per decade. In total, average global temperatures have increased by about 1.5 degrees F (0.8 degrees C) since 1880.

"That's the important number to keep in mind," said GISS climatologist Gavin Schmidt. "The difference between the second and sixth warmest years is trivial because the known uncertainty in the temperature measurement is larger than some of the differences between the warmest years."

The near-record global temperatures of 2009 occurred despite an unseasonably cool December in much of North America. High air pressures from the Arctic decreased the east-west flow of the jet stream, while increasing its tendency to blow from north to south. The result was an unusual effect that caused frigid air from the Arctic to rush into North America and warmer mid-latitude air to shift toward the north. This left North America cooler than normal, while the Arctic was warmer than normal.

"The contiguous 48 states cover only 1.5 percent of the world area, so the United States' temperature does not affect the global temperature much," Hansen said.

GISS uses publicly available data from three sources to conduct its temperature analysis. The sources are weather data from more than a thousand meteorological stations around the world, satellite observations of sea surface temperatures, and Antarctic research station measurements.

Other research groups also track global temperature trends but use different analysis techniques. The Met Office Hadley Centre in the United Kingdom uses similar input measurements as GISS, for example, but it omits large areas of the Arctic and Antarctic where monitoring stations are sparse.

Although the two methods produce slightly differing results in the annual rankings, the decadal trends in the two records are essentially identical.

"There's a contradiction between the results shown here and popular perceptions about climate trends," Hansen said. "In the last decade, global warming has not stopped."

NOAA: 2010 Tied For Warmest Year on Record

January 12, 2011

According to NOAA scientists, 2010 tied with 2005 as the warmest year of the global surface temperature record, beginning in 1880. This was the 34th consecutive year with global temperatures above the 20th century average. For the contiguous United States alone, the 2010 average annual temperature was above normal, resulting in the 23rd warmest year on record.

(government agency information - free for public use - not under copyright)


Top 11 Warmest Years On Record Have All Been In Last 13 Years
(short excerpt)

ScienceDaily (Dec. 13, 2007) — The decade of 1998-2007 is the warmest on record, according to data sources obtained by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO). The global mean surface temperature for 2007 is currently estimated at 0.41°C/0.74°F above the 1961-1990 annual average of 14.00°C/57.20°F. The University of East Anglia and the Met Office's Hadley Centre have released preliminary global temperature figures for 2007, which show the top 11 warmest years all occurring in the last 13 years. The provisional global figure for 2007 using data from January to November, currently places the year as the seventh warmest on records dating back to 1850.

The last laugh's on you buddy...

That must be one of your more comforting illusions when, in reality, the intelligent and educated people of the whole world are always laughing at silly, anti-science reality deniers like you fools in the fossil fuel industry's ginned up cult of denial and the 'flat-earthers' and the evolution-deniers. You're all 'birds of a feather' with small, frightened, ignorant, gullible, superstitious minds suffering (loudly) from an extreme case of the Dunning-Kruger Effect.

Well if you're so smart why are regulations controlling AGW being repealed and halted all over the world? Hmmmm? The only anti science people are you twits with your "the science is settled BS". That is one of the most virulently anti scientific positions ever seen on this planet. You guys screwed the pooch with that and antagonised(sic) too many good real scientists to the point where they had had enough...that's why yu are having your asses handed to you. Get used to it boyo, you aren't going to have any good positive news for a very long time...you people missed your window.

ROTFLMAO....you are really hilarious, walleyedretard. I've rebutted every idiotic denier cult myth you've come up with by linking to the actual scientific work that is getting published in peer reviewed science journals, so now you want to switch the argument to the temporary success in certain places of the political machinations of the fossil fuel industry to sabotage or delay governmental efforts to curb CO2 emissions. As if that had anything to do with the overwhelming scientific evidence for accelerating human caused global warming and the still very strong, almost unanimous, world scientific consensus, based on that evidence, on the reality and dangers of anthropogenic global warming/climate changes. The science is settled, you flaming nitwit. You've got nothing but your myths and the lies told to you by the stooges for the fossil fuel industry.

And, BTW, your contention that "regulations controlling AGW being repealed and halted all over the world" is another one of your denier cult myths. Many countries are taking strong steps to reduce or eliminate CO2 emissions. All European countries have ratified the Kyoto Protocol, and all have supported strong reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. Many countries have implemented carbon taxes or emission trading schemes.

Nations split on route to reduce carbon emissions

* Rowan Callick
* From: The Australian
* March 02, 2011

GLOBAL consensus is emerging around the goal of a less carbon-dependent world, but there is much less agreement about the route this requires.

Only 31 countries are operating emissions trading schemes, and about half this number are administering carbon taxes that are aimed at reducing the use of fossil fuels.

The European Union will next year extend its carbon scheme to include an impost on all flights leaving from or arriving in the region. At present, its ETS covers about 10,000 industrial operations in energy-intensive sectors such as electricity and heat generation, metal production and chemicals.

Several countries have said they will introduce an ETS or carbon tax in the next year or two. China is expected to declare in its new five-year plan, due out in a few days, that cleaner energy and environmental services are "priority industries", and commit up to $500 billion to combating pollution over the next five years.

In addition, it will set a target of reducing the intensity of energy consumption and carbon dioxide emissions per unit of GDP by 16-17 per cent during the plan.

India is to introduce next month a mandatory national energy efficiency trading scheme covering more than 700 companies in nine sectors responsible for 65 per cent of industrial energy consumption. The firms will be allocated energy intensity targets, based on previous performance, and rewarded with credits or penalised.

But other countries, such as France, Japan and South Korea, have postponed schemes in the face of opposition, and Taiwan's government has faced strong business reservations that have made it waver.

French President Nicolas Sarkozy last year dropped a carbon tax plan because he said "the tax would put French companies at a disadvantage" and that it should be "Europe-wide or not (exist) at all".

The core supporter of both ETS and carbon tax routes for combating climate change, the European Union, has only recently reopened some of its carbon market after a month-long closure.

California, one of the world's great emitters, has legislated for a cap-and-trade ETS next year. But that is now on hold.

Under New Zealand's ETS, which came into effect last July 1 -- the first nationwide scheme outside Europe -- businesses that operate in the sectors that emit greenhouse gases are required to surrender one NZ Unit to match each tonne of emissions that they produce. They have to buy their emission units from the government for the fixed price of $NZ25. But during this transition phase they buy one and get one free. They need only surrender a single NZU for every two tonnes of emissions they produce. All sectors of the NZ economy, including agriculture, will be brought in to the ETS by 2015 under the current plan, which is now under review.

Copyright 2011 News Limited.

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.)

 

[Mr. Shaman]

So the Oceans are rising are they?

Nahhhhhhhh....that's another o' those bullshit talking-points (you Teabaggers create), so you have something to dispel.

"One of the starkest effects of climate change is the anticipated rise in sea level worldwide. This occurs for two main reasons – the expansion of the ocean as it warms, and the increased melt from ice sheets, ice caps and glaciers. Along with alarming threats to coastal communities, infrastructure, economies and ecosystems, this rise has implications for available freshwater, as rising sea levels drive saltwater into freshwater aquifers. To be useful for drinking or irrigating, more water from our aquifers, then, would need to be treated, usually by energy-intensive processes. Given the wide range of human activities that depend – directly or indirectly – on water, future climate-driven changes in water resources will affect many aspects of our lives."

Beware 'Bagger Bullshit​

 

[RollingThunder]

Mmmmm, maybe, but probably not...

"Notice that the satellite-derived 10-yr average rate of sea level rise continues to fall.

This is how Houston and Dean describe their take on the situation:

When viewed in this historical perspective, the [satellite] altimeter measurements appear similar to several decadal oscillations over the past 100 years, and it is not possible to determine if the increased trend measured by the altimeters is the leading edge of acceleration or merely a typical decadal oscillation; however, the decreasing average suggests an oscillation. [emphasis added]

And since one good deed deserves another, we thought we’d take the opportunity to bring the Houston and Dean figure even more up to date by adding in the satellite altimeter data through September 2010—the most recent data available (see here for data source) (Figure 3)–and even more data should be available soon."

World Climate Report » Sea Level Rise: Still Slowing Down

You denier cult freaks are a hoot. First you deny the validity of most of the scientific research that has been done on global warming/climate change for the last 60 years and then you turn around and embrace one paper that supports your politically determined but really insane 'opinions' on the subject. You deny the validity of the work done by NASA, NOAA and the NSIDC and then you accept the junk put out by websites supported by the fossil fuel industry. LOL...you halfwits are a joke.

NOAA Laboratory for Satellite Altimetry / Sea level rise

***

NASA - Global Climate Change - Sea Level

***

Jevrejeva et al, 2008

***

Church and White 2011

***

Visual depictions of Sea Level Rise
(excerpt)

Most recently, corrected tidal station data from the satellite altimeter period of 1993 to 2010 is in good agreement (within the error budget) with the satellite altimeter data, which gives 3.3mm/year ±0.4mm once GIA corrections are added. These values are considered “robust”. The overall message is clear. Sea levels are rising.

Both tidal station data and altimeter data show decadal and shorter term variations in the rate of rise, but there is a significant weight of evidence of a recent acceleration in rate of sea level rise towards the end of the last century (Jevrejeva 2008, Merrifield 2009, Vermeer 2009), whilst the “slowing down” reported by some observers (around 2008) has proved short lived (judging from 2009/2010 data).

***

What are your sources, walleyedretard?

"worldclimatereport.com"?

World Climate Report, a newsletter edited by Patrick Michaels, was produced by the Greening Earth Society, a non-profit organization created by the Western Fuels Association.

Western Fuels Association currently owns two mining operations that supply coal to its members... The Western Fuels Association has played a controversial role in the debate over global warming. They have established groups such as the Greening Earth Society which promote various forms of climate change skepticism and have funded individual skeptics, such as Patrick Michaels[2], Craig D. Idso and Sherwood Idso. Groups established by industry bodies like the Western Fuels Association have been criticized as Astroturf organizations, since they appear superficially to be grassroots initiatives. In addition to Patrick Michaels (chief editor), the staff is listed as Robert C. Balling, Jr (contributing editor)...


The Cato Institute and Patrick Michaels - It's a Small World After All
26 May 09

It’s not often the public gets to follow the money trail, so it was a treat this week when PR Watch revealed the Cato Institute has been bankrolling a consulting company owned by notorious climate denier Patrick Michaels to the tune of $242,900 since April 2006.

Michaels is a Senior Fellow at the Cato Institute and according to tax documents uncovered by PR Watch for 2006 and 2007, Cato ponyed up almost a quarter million to Michaels’ firm New Hope Environmental Services for "environmental policy" services.

Small world eh?

Both Cato and Michaels have a long and reprehensible history of questioning the link between carbon emissions and climate change. Last month, Cato bankrolled full-page ads in the Washington Post, the New York Times, the Chicago Tribune, the Washington Times, and the Los Angeles Times, opining that climate change was “grossly overstated”.

Their statement was naturally targeted at decision makers in advance of the cap and trade legislation moving through Congress. It was signed by the usual suspects, including Patrick Michaels, who has made a lucrative career of challenging climate science on behalf of a variety of vested interests.

Real scientists were of course disgusted by this tactic, as well as the baseless claims being spread around the nation. A scientific evisceration of the Cato letter is available here.

For a more in-depth journey into the bowels of the carbon-funded campaign to confuse the public on climate change, you may want to peruse a remarkable affidavit filed by Patrick Michaels in 2006. He was weaseling out of testifying as an expert witness in court after learning he might be forced to unmask his funding sources.

It seems Michaels was hired by a number of auto companies and lobby groups, including General Motors and the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, in a legal bid aimed at preventing the government of Vermont from regulating greenhouse gases.

Greenpeace intervened in the case seeking to have Michaels’ consulting company reveal its shadowy clients. Dr. Michaels quickly bid a hasty and undignified retreat. Rather than risk exposing who was bankrolling him as a professional climate expert he filed this remarkable document in court outlining the reasons why this would endanger his livelihood.

How badly did Michaels want to keep his backers secret? He states himself that dropping the trial “resulted in short-term loss of income to me.” How much, he did not say. However other parts of his affidavit show how lucrative it can be to hang a shingle a professional climate skeptic.

According to his sworn statement to the court, Michaels outlines previous clients that were lost due that pesky substance called “the light of day”. He states for the record:

“Tri-State Generation & Transmission Association, Inc., an electric utility, had requested that its support of $50,000 to New Hope be held confidential. After this support was inadvertently made public by another New Hope client, Tri-State informed me that it would no longer support New Hope because of adverse publicity. Also, in 2006, when a $100,000 contract between New Hope and electric utility Intermountain Rural Electric Association to synthesize and research new findings on global warming became public knowledge, a public campaign was initiated to change the composition of the board of directors so that there would be no additional funding. That campaign was successful, as Intermountain has not provided further funding."

It is not often this sophisticated network of industrial obfuscation is glimpsed by the public.

That washed up scientists are willing to testify in court for money, or shill for industry in the media is certainly not news. Many “experts” gladly took filthy lucre from Big Tobacco to cast doubt on the well-known link between smoking and cancer.

But the next time you see Patrick Michaels pop up in mainstream media as a so-called climate expert, bear in mind who is paying is meal ticket.

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.)

The Cato Institute was founded in 1977 by Edward H. Crane and Charles Koch, [2] the billionaire co-owner of Koch Industries known for its financing of the Tea Party and various extreme right front groups. David Koch is currently on Cato's Board of Directors. "According to the Center for Public Integrity, between 1986 and 1993 the Koch family gave eleven million dollars to the [Cato] institute. It has consistently pushed for corporate tax cuts, reductions in social services, and laissez-faire environmental policies."[3]

Koch Industries (pronounced "coke") is the largest privately owned company in the United States[1]; though diversified, it amassed most of its fortune in oil trading and refining.[1] In spring 2010, Koch Industries was named one of the United States' top 10 air polluters in a study released by the University of Massachusetts at Amherst’s Political Economy Research Institute. [2]. The company was started in 1927 by Fred Koch, a charter member of the John Birch Society and father of the current owners, who appear to be the most active orchestrators of anti-regulation efforts in the United States.

Robert C. Balling, Jr. is a professor of geography at Arizona State University, and the former director of its Office of Climatology. Balling has declared himself one of the scientists who oppose the consensus on global warming, arguing in a 2009 book that anthropogenic global warming "is indeed real, but relatively modest",[2]...
Balling was mentioned as a fossil fuel industry - funded scientist in Ross Gelbspan's 1997 book The Heat is On. ...Balling "acknowledged that he had received $408,000 in research funding from the fossil fuel industry over the last decade... Between December 1998[5] and September 2001[6] Balling was listed as a "Scientific Adviser" to the Greening Earth Society, a group that was funded and controlled by the Western Fuels Association (WFA), an association of coal-burning utility companies. WFA founded the group in 1997, according to an archived version of its website, "as a vehicle for advocacy on climate change, the environmental impact of CO2, and fossil fuel use."[7]

 

[RollingThunder]

The Dunning–Kruger effect is a cognitive bias in which unskilled people make poor decisions and reach erroneous conclusions, but their incompetence denies them the metacognitive ability to appreciate their mistakes.[1] The unskilled therefore suffer from illusory superiority, rating their ability as above average, much higher than it actually is, while the highly skilled underrate their own abilities, suffering from illusory inferiority.

I wonder which side of the D-K effect Rolling Thunder imagines himself on? other than fluency in name-calling and googling links has he shown any signs of intelligence in any posts yet?

Says the numbskull who can never back up his climate change denial delusions with any actual evidence that would support his ignorant, idiotic, ideologically determined 'opinions' on the subject. LOLOLOL. You are a classic example of the Dunning-Kruger Effect in action, you poor deluded dupe.

 

[GunZawga]

Is this one of those "how many morons does it take to screw in a light bulb" threads?

Scientists track the ocean's rise as the globe warms

NASA - Scientists Get a Real "Rise" Out of Breakthroughs in How We Understand Changes in Sea Level

 

[westwall]

Is this one of those "how many morons does it take to screw in a light bulb" threads?

Scientists track the ocean's rise as the globe warms

NASA - Scientists Get a Real "Rise" Out of Breakthroughs in How We Understand Changes in Sea Level

I suggest you read the OP.

 

[RollingThunder]

Is this one of those "how many morons does it take to screw in a light bulb" threads?

Scientists track the ocean's rise as the globe warms

NASA - Scientists Get a Real "Rise" Out of Breakthroughs in How We Understand Changes in Sea Level

I suggest you read the OP.

I suggest you read the rest of the thread and all of the scientific evidence debunking not only your retarded and obviously mistaken take on the paper in question but also the conclusions of the paper itself.
Your words, walleyed, from the OP: "So the Oceans are rising are they? Well no, it appears they are not."
What the study authors said: Study Author James R. Houston stated in an email: ""Latest report shows oceans are not rising" is a mischaracterization of our work. Sea levels are rising...".
(Study author) Robert Dean stated via email: "Because the satellite altimetry has concluded that since 1992, the rate of rise has been more rapid than in the 20th Century (which would imply a recent acceleration), we are now examining more than 400 gauge records over the last 20 years or so."


From the available evidence, sea levels started rising in the early 1800's after being fairly stable for thousands of years and they are now, in the last four decades or so, rising faster than they were in the first part of the twentieth century. Many studies support this conclusion, as has been demonstrated by myself and a number of other posters on this thread. Most climate scientists think that the rate of sea level rise will continue to increase as the world's glaciers, Greenland and Antarctica continue to melt at ever increasing rates and global warming continues to drive thermal expansion of the oceans. As is so common with you denier cult dingbats, you attempt to cherry-pick one study that seems to support your delusions out of the many studies that used larger, worldwide data sets to show an accelerating rise in sea levels.

 

[westwall]

Is this one of those "how many morons does it take to screw in a light bulb" threads?

Scientists track the ocean's rise as the globe warms

NASA - Scientists Get a Real "Rise" Out of Breakthroughs in How We Understand Changes in Sea Level

I suggest you read the OP.

I suggest you read the rest of the thread and all of the scientific evidence debunking not only your retarded and obviously mistaken take on the paper in question but also the conclusions of the paper itself.
Your words, walleyed, from the OP: "So the Oceans are rising are they? Well no, it appears they are not."
What the study authors said: Study Author James R. Houston stated in an email: ""Latest report shows oceans are not rising" is a mischaracterization of our work. Sea levels are rising...".
(Study author) Robert Dean stated via email: "Because the satellite altimetry has concluded that since 1992, the rate of rise has been more rapid than in the 20th Century (which would imply a recent acceleration), we are now examining more than 400 gauge records over the last 20 years or so."


From the available evidence, sea levels started rising in the early 1800's after being fairly stable for thousands of years and they are now, in the last four decades or so, rising faster than they were in the first part of the twentieth century. Many studies support this conclusion, as has been demonstrated by myself and a number of other posters on this thread. Most climate scientists think that the rate of sea level rise will continue to increase as the world's glaciers, Greenland and Antarctica continue to melt at ever increasing rates and global warming continues to drive thermal expansion of the oceans. As is so common with you denier cult dingbats, you attempt to cherry-pick one study that seems to support your delusions out of the many studies that used larger, worldwide data sets to show an accelerating rise in sea levels.

You mean the thousands of feet of ice they just recently discovered being added to the BOTTOM of the continental ice sheets they had no idea about? That loss...errr increase?

"We went to the middle of East Antarctica because this was the last unexplored mountain range on our planet," Bell says.

This is actually a mountain range of rock, buried under up to 2 miles of solid ice. They flew over this area with airplanes equipped with lasers, radars and other sensors that allowed them to peer through the ice to the rock that lay far below.

"First we were just surprised at how rough the mountains were underneath," she says.


Enlarge
Robin E. Bell/Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory
This ice-penetrating radar shows a plume of ice forming far below the ice surface. The sharp peaks at the bottom of the image are mountains, and the bulge in the center is an ice plume 1,100 meters thick. The normally flat ice layers above the mountains have been deflected 400 meters upward.


Robin E. Bell/Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory This ice-penetrating radar shows a plume of ice forming far below the ice surface. The sharp peaks at the bottom of the image are mountains, and the bulge in the center is an ice plume 1,100 meters thick. The normally flat ice layers above the mountains have been deflected 400 meters upward.
Lots of the bedrock in Antarctica is flat and boring, but certainly not here, and as Bell took a close look at her radar images of the ice piled high atop the mountains, she noticed some extraordinary, strange features — blobs that she describes as beehives, or maybe jelly doughnuts.

"It turns out these big blobs underneath the ice sheet were ice that had frozen on from the bottom of the ice sheet," she says. "There was water moving around underneath the ice sheet and it had frozen back onto the bottom of the ice sheet."

Ice in Antarctica isn't supposed to form that way — it's supposed to fall from the sky as snow, and form from the top down. But here Bell saw unusual ice structures, thousands of feet thick in places.

Heat from the Earth had melted the bottom of the glaciers, and then that water refroze, and it created what you could think of as gigantic frost heaves, so powerful that they actually altered the shape of the surface, half a mile to 2 miles above.

It's Bottoms Up For Antarctic Ice Sheets : NPR

 

[RollingThunder]

I suggest you read the OP.

I suggest you read the rest of the thread and all of the scientific evidence debunking not only your retarded and obviously mistaken take on the paper in question but also the conclusions of the paper itself.
Your words, walleyed, from the OP: "So the Oceans are rising are they? Well no, it appears they are not."
What the study authors said: Study Author James R. Houston stated in an email: ""Latest report shows oceans are not rising" is a mischaracterization of our work. Sea levels are rising...".
(Study author) Robert Dean stated via email: "Because the satellite altimetry has concluded that since 1992, the rate of rise has been more rapid than in the 20th Century (which would imply a recent acceleration), we are now examining more than 400 gauge records over the last 20 years or so."


From the available evidence, sea levels started rising in the early 1800's after being fairly stable for thousands of years and they are now, in the last four decades or so, rising faster than they were in the first part of the twentieth century. Many studies support this conclusion, as has been demonstrated by myself and a number of other posters on this thread. Most climate scientists think that the rate of sea level rise will continue to increase as the world's glaciers, Greenland and Antarctica continue to melt at ever increasing rates and global warming continues to drive thermal expansion of the oceans. As is so common with you denier cult dingbats, you attempt to cherry-pick one study that seems to support your delusions out of the many studies that used larger, worldwide data sets to show an accelerating rise in sea levels.

You mean the thousands of feet of ice they just recently discovered being added to the BOTTOM of the continental ice sheets they had no idea about?

No, walleyedretard, I don't mean that because that isn't what that article says, it's just your own idiotic misinterpretation of what the article says.

The research described in this article studies a very small part of Antarctica (see the map in the article) and found that some water had refrozen in some places, not, as you want to believe, to the bottom of the entire ice sheet. "But here Bell saw unusual ice structures, thousands of feet thick in places."

Enlarge Robin E. Bell/Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory
This ice-penetrating radar shows a plume of ice forming far below the ice surface. The sharp peaks at the bottom of the image are mountains, and the bulge in the center is an ice plume 1,100 meters thick. The normally flat ice layers above the mountains have been deflected 400 meters upward.

You can see from the image in that article that this 'ice plume' covers only a portion of the sub-ice mountains pictured. They amount to little bumps on the bottom of a huge ice sheet.

Your unsupported assumption that some water that melted and refroze under the ice sheets in some limited areas will somehow balance the vastly larger and ever increasing ice mass loss at the coasts of Antarctic is ludicrous and extremely stupid but very typical for you ignorant denier cult retards. Where do you imagine that that melted water under the ice sheet is coming from anyway, and why do you think(?) that it represents a gain in ice mass? It's just water from the ice sheet that has melted and refrozen in a different place. It is not a gain in ice mass, just a redistribution from one place to another under the ice sheet.

 

[westwall]

I suggest you read the rest of the thread and all of the scientific evidence debunking not only your retarded and obviously mistaken take on the paper in question but also the conclusions of the paper itself.
Your words, walleyed, from the OP: "So the Oceans are rising are they? Well no, it appears they are not."
What the study authors said: Study Author James R. Houston stated in an email: ""Latest report shows oceans are not rising" is a mischaracterization of our work. Sea levels are rising...".
(Study author) Robert Dean stated via email: "Because the satellite altimetry has concluded that since 1992, the rate of rise has been more rapid than in the 20th Century (which would imply a recent acceleration), we are now examining more than 400 gauge records over the last 20 years or so."


From the available evidence, sea levels started rising in the early 1800's after being fairly stable for thousands of years and they are now, in the last four decades or so, rising faster than they were in the first part of the twentieth century. Many studies support this conclusion, as has been demonstrated by myself and a number of other posters on this thread. Most climate scientists think that the rate of sea level rise will continue to increase as the world's glaciers, Greenland and Antarctica continue to melt at ever increasing rates and global warming continues to drive thermal expansion of the oceans. As is so common with you denier cult dingbats, you attempt to cherry-pick one study that seems to support your delusions out of the many studies that used larger, worldwide data sets to show an accelerating rise in sea levels.

You mean the thousands of feet of ice they just recently discovered being added to the BOTTOM of the continental ice sheets they had no idea about?

No, walleyedretard, I don't mean that because that isn't what that article says, it's just your own idiotic misinterpretation of what the article says.

The research described in this article studies a very small part of Antarctica (see the map in the article) and found that some water had refrozen in some places, not, as you want to believe, to the bottom of the entire ice sheet. "But here Bell saw unusual ice structures, thousands of feet thick in places."

Enlarge Robin E. Bell/Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory
This ice-penetrating radar shows a plume of ice forming far below the ice surface. The sharp peaks at the bottom of the image are mountains, and the bulge in the center is an ice plume 1,100 meters thick. The normally flat ice layers above the mountains have been deflected 400 meters upward.

You can see from the image in that article that this 'ice plume' covers only a portion of the sub-ice mountains pictured. They amount to little bumps on the bottom of a huge ice sheet.

Your unsupported assumption that some water that melted and refroze under the ice sheets in some limited areas will somehow balance the vastly larger and ever increasing ice mass loss at the coasts of Antarctic is ludicrous and extremely stupid but very typical for you ignorant denier cult retards. Where do you imagine that that melted water under the ice sheet is coming from anyway, and why do you think(?) that it represents a gain in ice mass? It's just water from the ice sheet that has melted and refrozen in a different place. It is not a gain in ice mass, just a redistribution from one place to another under the ice sheet.

I never said the whole ice sheet my good man, I merely pointed out that in the area surveyed they had found massive amounts of ice re-freezing to the bottom of the ice sheet.
Imagine what it's like elsewhere. I would wager a very large sum of cash that similar re-freezing is going on all over the continent. A completely NEW ICE CREATION PROCESS THAT NO ONE HAD EVER WITNESSED BEFORE. Responsible for the creation of thousands of feet of ice that in areas affected the surface ice 2 MILES ABOVE IT! Yeah, that is a real insignificant discovery there

You would discount the fire burning your clothes off if it ran counter to your religious ideals.

 

[RollingThunder]

You mean the thousands of feet of ice they just recently discovered being added to the BOTTOM of the continental ice sheets they had no idea about?

No, walleyedretard, I don't mean that because that isn't what that article says, it's just your own idiotic misinterpretation of what the article says.

The research described in this article studies a very small part of Antarctica (see the map in the article) and found that some water had refrozen in some places, not, as you want to believe, to the bottom of the entire ice sheet. "But here Bell saw unusual ice structures, thousands of feet thick in places."

Enlarge Robin E. Bell/Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory
This ice-penetrating radar shows a plume of ice forming far below the ice surface. The sharp peaks at the bottom of the image are mountains, and the bulge in the center is an ice plume 1,100 meters thick. The normally flat ice layers above the mountains have been deflected 400 meters upward.

You can see from the image in that article that this 'ice plume' covers only a portion of the sub-ice mountains pictured. They amount to little bumps on the bottom of a huge ice sheet.

Your unsupported assumption that some water that melted and refroze under the ice sheets in some limited areas will somehow balance the vastly larger and ever increasing ice mass loss at the coasts of Antarctic is ludicrous and extremely stupid but very typical for you ignorant denier cult retards. Where do you imagine that that melted water under the ice sheet is coming from anyway, and why do you think(?) that it represents a gain in ice mass? It's just water from the ice sheet that has melted and refrozen in a different place. It is not a gain in ice mass, just a redistribution from one place to another under the ice sheet.

I never said the whole ice sheet my good man,

Oh really..."...the thousands of feet of ice they just recently discovered being added to the BOTTOM of the continental ice sheets"...you certainly tried to imply it.

I merely pointed out that in the area surveyed they had found massive amounts of ice re-freezing to the bottom of the ice sheet.

LOL. Nice try. But "massive" compared to what exactly? Certainly not the total mass of the ice sheets. This ice you're blabbing about is a drop in the bucket (or maybe the swimming pool) compared to that.

And again, walleyedretard, just where do you think this meltwater that is refreezing comes from anyway? Do you fantasize that it flows uphill from the ocean to these mountains in the far interior of Antarctica? The article you cited said that the water is meltwater from the bottom of the ice sheets that has flowed to a new place and refrozen. So, no net gain in ice mass there. Meanwhile Antarctica is still losing ever increasing amounts of ice mass from the borders of the continent. The paper you're citing in no way disputes this and presents no challenge to previous studies I cited showing increasing ice mass loss.

Imagine what it's like elsewhere. I would wager a very large sum of cash that similar re-freezing is going on all over the continent. A completely NEW ICE CREATION PROCESS THAT NO ONE HAD EVER WITNESSED BEFORE. Responsible for the creation of thousands of feet of ice that in areas affected the surface ice 2 MILES ABOVE IT! Yeah, that is a real insignificant discovery there.

OK, I imagined it. So what??? It may be interesting scientifically but it has nothing to do with the accelerating loss of ice mass from Antarctica and Greenland due to global warming.

You would discount the fire burning your clothes off if it ran counter to your religious ideals.

Oh, walleyed, you shouldn't talk about yourself like that. I'm sure you would eventually feel the heat. As you will here on Earth if you live long enough.

 

[Old Rocks]

Westwall;


So the Oceans are rising are they?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Well no, it appears they are not. Surprise surprise. And looky here a real peer reviewed study by real scientists. Poor oltrakarfraud.

.................................................................................................................................
Once again, as demonstrated in the OP, you are unable to understand what you read. The authors of that article stated unequivocally that the sea level is rising, but that, by their measurement, the rise was not accelerating.

Once again, you are either lying or unable to comprehend a scientific paper.

Sea Level Researchers Debunk Wash. Times' Distortion Of Their Work | Media Matters for America

Study Authors: "Sea Levels Are Rising"
Study Author James R. Houston: Wash. Times' Claim "Is A Mischaracterization Of Our Work." James Houston, Director Emeritus of the Corps of Engineers' Engineer Research and Development Center and an author of the study cited by the Washington Times stated in an email:

Saying, "Latest report shows oceans are not rising" is a mischaracterization of our work. Sea levels are rising. Our study showed that the rise is not accelerating - it is actually slightly decelerating over at least the last 80 years.

An analogy would be driving a car. If you are driving at a constant speed of 60 miles per hour, the car is not accelerating, but obviously moving. Sea level has been rising at a rate of about 1.7 millimeters per year for the past 100 years. We considered whether the 60 mile per hour speed of the car was accelerating (you are pushing on the gas pedal) or decelerating (you are pushing on the brake). We found a slight deceleration - sea level over the past 100 years, in particularly the past 80 years, has decelerated slightly, but it is rising. [Email to Media Matters, 3/29/11]

 

[wirebender]

You are one dimbulb. The temperature in the last 60 years of the Mann Graph is from direct measurements. Measurements that Muller call good data.

Sorry guy, but the measurements you cite are nothing more than the output of very poorly written simulations. Actual data refutes you every time.

As to the indo-Pacific during the MWP, I have provided several peer reviewed studies that state explicitly that the MWP was warmer than today. Sorry guy, you just can't win because your argument is based on fantasy.

I suggest that you learn to read a graph, it will reduce your public humiliation quotient. Funny thing is, you have such a feeble grasp on the science that you don't even know how badly you are losing the arguments you engage.

The fact is that it is only your profound ignorance that keeps you from being embarassed off this board.

 

[wirebender]

westwall wrote: "Notice that the satellite-derived 10-yr average rate of sea level rise continues to fall.

Where all dat water goin'?

And maybe it is piling up on Antarctica. The ice is growing thicker all the time.

 

[wirebender]

I wonder which side of the D-K effect Rolling Thunder imagines himself on? other than fluency in name-calling and googling links has he shown any signs of intelligence in any posts yet?

None that I have seen. I have asked him and rocks a few very specific and very basic questions with regard to CO2 and neither of them have even attempted an answer. They reveal a very great deal about their understanding of the subject by the questions they do not answer.

 

[wirebender]

Says the numbskull who can never back up his climate change denial delusions with any actual evidence that would support his ignorant, idiotic, ideologically determined 'opinions' on the subject. LOLOLOL. You are a classic example of the Dunning-Kruger Effect in action, you poor deluded dupe.

Here guy, have some actual peer reviewed science with regard to sea level rise. In short, your claims that the sky is falling and the oceans are rising are nothing more than hysterical hand wringing.

ScienceDirect - Global and Planetary Change : Estimating future sea level changes from past records

From the abstract: The late 20th century lack any sign of acceleration. Satellite altimetry indicates virtually no changes in the last decade. Therefore, observationally based predictions of future sea level in the year 2100 will give a value of +10±10 cm (or +5±15 cm), by this discarding model outputs by IPCC as well as global loading models. This implies that there is no fear of any massive future flooding as claimed in most global warming scenarios.


ScienceDirect - Global and Planetary Change : Geocentric sea-level trend estimates from GPS analyses at relevant tide gauges world-wide

From the abstract: The results show a reduced dispersion of the estimated sea-level trends after application of the GPS corrections. They reveal that the reference frame implementation is now achieved within the millimetre accuracy on a weekly basis. Regardless of the application, whether local or global, we have shown that GPS data analysis has reached the maturity to provide useful information to separate land motion from oceanic processes recorded by the tide gauges or to correct these latter.


ScienceDirect - Global and Planetary Change : New perspectives for the future of the Maldives

From the abstract: The present trend lack signs of a sea level rise. On the contrary, there is firm morphological evidence of a significant sea level fall in the last 30 years. This sea level fall is likely to be the effect of increased evaporation and an intensification of the NE-monsoon over the central Indian Ocean.


http://www.sasnet.lu.se/mornertext.pdf

From the conclusion: Modelling has a high risk of producing out-put data far from the real world (e.g. IPCC, 2001). Our sea level investigations of the Maldives (detailed, well-dated and conducted by a team of specialists) have shown that the sea in not at all in a rapidly rising mode, probably not rising at all, and with a significant fall in the 1970s (Mörner, Tooley, Possnert, 2004; Mörner, 2004; 2005). We are, therefore, not able to subscribe to the view that certain areas of the world are liable to extensive flooding in the near future. This is a novel finding with farreaching implications for future planning.


Multi-Science Publishing - Journal Article

From the abstract: Morphological and stratigraphical observational facts in the Sundarban delta provide data for a novel sea level reconstruction of the area. This sea level documentation lacks traces of a global sea level rise


ScienceDirect - Quaternary International : Some problems in the reconstruction of mean sea level and its changes with time


Multi-Science Publishing - Journal Article

I notice that you tend to ignore peer reviewed material in favor of dire proclamations by the press. Why might that be?

 

[wirebender]

I suggest you read the rest of the thread and all of the scientific evidence debunking not only your retarded and obviously mistaken take on the paper in question but also the conclusions of the paper itself.

You might try reading some actual sceince yourself rather than the proclamations of political bodies

 

[IanC]

hahaha. as usual incovenient data is verrrrrrry slow to be made public. check out Watts Up With That for stories on the latest suppression of bad news. the satellite data on sea levels isnt cooperating with the accepted theories so the information is being sat on. unfortunately for some, data is hard to hide in the internet era.

 

[IanC]

http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2011/04/sealevel_lines1.jpeg