State of the Climate in 2013

[orogenicman]

Sea level continued to rise by about an eighth of an inch each year.

So we're still on a non-acclerating trend for, what, 9 inches by 2100?

Check your math...

 

[skookerasbil]

LMAO....so have the math genius's started building their emergency arks yet?

 

[Kosh]

As I predicted the AGW cult would do their best to down play that the Earth does not follow their religious beliefs..

What religious belief do YOU believe the Earth is following? Are you a rapturette?

Once again the AGW cult shows that religion trumps science..

 

[Kosh]

Sea level continued to rise by about an eighth of an inch each year.

So we're still on a non-acclerating trend for, what, 9 inches by 2100?

Check your math...

So coming out of a little ice age would not cause such things?

 

[orogenicman]

As I predicted the AGW cult would do their best to down play that the Earth does not follow their religious beliefs..

What religious belief do YOU believe the Earth is following? Are you a rapturette?

Once again the AGW cult shows that religion trumps science..

You are the one bringing religion into the conversation. So why are you deflecting my question?

 

[Kosh]

What religious belief do YOU believe the Earth is following? Are you a rapturette?

Once again the AGW cult shows that religion trumps science..

You are the one bringing religion into the conversation. So why are you deflecting my question?

Because you are attempting to use your religion as science. And thus negating any questions you may pose, because it has no bearing to actual real science.

When you wish to discuss real science on this subject and stop pushing AWG talking points and propaganda let us all know and it will be addressed accordingly..

 

[flacaltenn]

Sea level continued to rise by about an eighth of an inch each year.

So we're still on a non-acclerating trend for, what, 9 inches by 2100?

Check your math...

The math is far more accurate than the IPCC prediction error bars...

 

[orogenicman]

So we're still on a non-acclerating trend for, what, 9 inches by 2100?

Check your math...

The math is far more accurate than the IPCC prediction error bars...

I see that you didn't check the math either. No surprises here.

 

[Crick]

2100-2014=86 years

86 years * 0.125 inches/year = 10.75 inches

86 years * 3.3 mm/year = 28.38 cm = 11.17 inches

And, of course, these assume no change in rate. There are a number of reasons to assume that rate will increase, among them the rapid rate of warming in the Pacific Ocean, the irreversible destabilization of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet and the increased melt rate of the Greenland sheet.

 

[skookerasbil]

 

[Crick]

2100-2014=86 years

86 years * 0.125 inches/year = 10.75 inches

86 years * 3.3 mm/year = 28.38 cm = 11.17 inches

From 1993-2009, satellite data show a rate of 3.3mm/yr.

And, of course, these assume no change in rate. There are a number of reasons to assume that rate will increase, among them the rapid rate of warming in the Pacific Ocean, the irreversible destabilization of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet and the increased melt rate of the Greenland sheet.

 

[itfitzme]

Of course it is! Just the AGW cult can not accept facts based on real science.

The dara is correct. Nothing you said is. You cannot read.

Oh my another denier of real science, not surprising from the AGW cult!

CO2 does NOT drive climate...

There is a $10,000 reward for you to prove it. Just usng the word "science" in a sentence doesn't make it "scientific".

 

[flacaltenn]

2100-2014=86 years

86 years * 0.125 inches/year = 10.75 inches

86 years * 3.3 mm/year = 28.38 cm = 11.17 inches

From 1993-2009, satellite data show a rate of 3.3mm/yr.

And, of course, these assume no change in rate. There are a number of reasons to assume that rate will increase, among them the rapid rate of warming in the Pacific Ocean, the irreversible destabilization of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet and the increased melt rate of the Greenland sheet.

Wow man.. You even showed your work.. Now was it worth it? The rise by 2100 using PRE-industrial rates would have equaled 5 or 6 inches WITHOUT the Global Warming effect. And the JUMP from tidal guages to satellite data stays pretty much unresolved.
Unless it's matter of sampling mid-oceans more completely.

So to echo Hillary.. At this point what does it really matter?
You have certified scientists scaring the public with 4 and 8 foot rises by 2100..
Did ya really need to calculate to see the uncertainty??

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The dara is correct. Nothing you said is. You cannot read.

Oh my another denier of real science, not surprising from the AGW cult!

CO2 does NOT drive climate...

There is a $10,000 reward for you to prove it. Just usng the word "science" in a sentence doesn't make it "scientific".

Proves there's no BigFoot, you BigFoot Denier!!

 

[Crick]

2100-2014=86 years

86 years * 0.125 inches/year = 10.75 inches

86 years * 3.3 mm/year = 28.38 cm = 11.17 inches

From 1993-2009, satellite data show a rate of 3.3mm/yr.

And, of course, these assume no change in rate. There are a number of reasons to assume that rate will increase, among them the rapid rate of warming in the Pacific Ocean, the irreversible destabilization of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet and the increased melt rate of the Greenland sheet.

Wow man.. You even showed your work..

Necessary for most of the audience here

Now was it worth it?

To show him his math error? Yes.

The rise by 2100 using PRE-industrial rates would have equaled 5 or 6 inches WITHOUT the Global Warming effect.

The rate for the prior 7-8,000 years before the Industrial Revolution was about 0.57mm/yr. Over 86 years that would raise sea level by less than 2 inches.

And the JUMP from tidal guages (sic) to satellite data stays pretty much unresolved.
Unless it's matter of sampling mid-oceans more completely.

Not a lot of tidal gauges out in the briny deep.

So to echo Hillary.. At this point what does it really matter?

It matters because the rate is accelerating and we have very good reason to believe it will continue to accelerate for several more centuries. The conservatively projected rise in sea level is going to require that millions of people in the next century be relocated. Enormous pieces of infrastructure and land are going to go bye-bye and will require replacement. The cost of that will make the cost we COULD have paid since Kyoto to prevent it look like a small portion of a small hill of beans.

You have certified scientists scaring the public with 4 and 8 foot rises by 2100..
Did ya really need to calculate to see the uncertainty??

I made no use of uncertainties in my calculation and thus we learn nothing about them from my results.

 

[Kosh]

The dara is correct. Nothing you said is. You cannot read.

Oh my another denier of real science, not surprising from the AGW cult!

CO2 does NOT drive climate...

There is a $10,000 reward for you to prove it. Just usng the word "science" in a sentence doesn't make it "scientific".

Once again the AGW cult proves that they want people to prove a negative, must be because they are far left Obama drones as well..

 

[Kosh]

2100-2014=86 years

86 years * 0.125 inches/year = 10.75 inches

86 years * 3.3 mm/year = 28.38 cm = 11.17 inches

From 1993-2009, satellite data show a rate of 3.3mm/yr.

And, of course, these assume no change in rate. There are a number of reasons to assume that rate will increase, among them the rapid rate of warming in the Pacific Ocean, the irreversible destabilization of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet and the increased melt rate of the Greenland sheet.

Wow man.. You even showed your work..

Necessary for most of the audience here



To show him his math error? Yes.



The rate for the prior 7-8,000 years before the Industrial Revolution was about 0.57mm/yr. Over 86 years that would raise sea level by less than 2 inches.



Not a lot of tidal gauges out in the briny deep.

So to echo Hillary.. At this point what does it really matter?

It matters because the rate is accelerating and we have very good reason to believe it will continue to accelerate for several more centuries. The conservatively projected rise in sea level is going to require that millions of people in the next century be relocated. Enormous pieces of infrastructure and land are going to go bye-bye and will require replacement. The cost of that will make the cost we COULD have paid since Kyoto to prevent it look like a small portion of a small hill of beans.

You have certified scientists scaring the public with 4 and 8 foot rises by 2100..
Did ya really need to calculate to see the uncertainty??

I made no use of uncertainties in my calculation and thus we learn nothing about them from my results.

Just because you make numbers as you go along as a part of the AGW charter, proves nothing. It is like one AGW cult member agreeing with another AGW cult member that CO2 drives climate, even though it has been debunked and the real science shows otherwise.

 

[flacaltenn]

2100-2014=86 years

86 years * 0.125 inches/year = 10.75 inches

86 years * 3.3 mm/year = 28.38 cm = 11.17 inches

From 1993-2009, satellite data show a rate of 3.3mm/yr.

And, of course, these assume no change in rate. There are a number of reasons to assume that rate will increase, among them the rapid rate of warming in the Pacific Ocean, the irreversible destabilization of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet and the increased melt rate of the Greenland sheet.

Wow man.. You even showed your work..

Necessary for most of the audience here



To show him his math error? Yes.



The rate for the prior 7-8,000 years before the Industrial Revolution was about 0.57mm/yr. Over 86 years that would raise sea level by less than 2 inches.



Not a lot of tidal gauges out in the briny deep.

So to echo Hillary.. At this point what does it really matter?

It matters because the rate is accelerating and we have very good reason to believe it will continue to accelerate for several more centuries. The conservatively projected rise in sea level is going to require that millions of people in the next century be relocated. Enormous pieces of infrastructure and land are going to go bye-bye and will require replacement. The cost of that will make the cost we COULD have paid since Kyoto to prevent it look like a small portion of a small hill of beans.

You have certified scientists scaring the public with 4 and 8 foot rises by 2100..
Did ya really need to calculate to see the uncertainty??

I made no use of uncertainties in my calculation and thus we learn nothing about them from my results.

Quote function dropped your response at the point where I stopped reading your post..

The rate for the prior 7-8,000 years before the Industrial Revolution was about 0.57mm/yr. Over 86 years that would raise sea level by less than 2 inches.

The amount of CO2 in the atmos was not sufficient to CAUSE any changes in climate prior to about 1940s.. So I don't really care about 7000 yrs BEFORE the steam engine was built. (and nobody else does either)..

Responses lijke this one is why I've tired of this forum.. We really need a few SKILLED warmers to actually debate and not just to bluster and posture. Some who preferably realize that there are enviro issues that have nothing to do with the silly Global Warming theory and haven't invested all their time patronizing crap websites with Atom Bomb counters to pick up tons of misinformation. Enough.. I'll be brief.. You are full of shit about 0.57mm/yr...

https://www.ngs.noaa.gov/GRD/GPS/Projects/CB/SEALEVEL/sealevel.html

For the last century, the global level of the sea appears to have risen at an average rate of nearly two mm/yr

And...... . the graph that goes with that statement..
Only off by nearly a factor of 4..

Over and out of here..

 

[orogenicman]

Once again the AGW cult shows that religion trumps science..

You are the one bringing religion into the conversation. So why are you deflecting my question?

Because you are attempting to use your religion as science. And thus negating any questions you may pose, because it has no bearing to actual real science.

When you wish to discuss real science on this subject and stop pushing AWG talking points and propaganda let us all know and it will be addressed accordingly..

Straw man arguments such as yours are a dime a dozen, and utterly useless. But then, you knew that already. When you decide to have a discussion about the content of the OP, do let me know. That goes for the rest of your denier butt buddies as well.

 

[orogenicman]

Wow man.. You even showed your work..

Necessary for most of the audience here



To show him his math error? Yes.



The rate for the prior 7-8,000 years before the Industrial Revolution was about 0.57mm/yr. Over 86 years that would raise sea level by less than 2 inches.



Not a lot of tidal gauges out in the briny deep.



It matters because the rate is accelerating and we have very good reason to believe it will continue to accelerate for several more centuries. The conservatively projected rise in sea level is going to require that millions of people in the next century be relocated. Enormous pieces of infrastructure and land are going to go bye-bye and will require replacement. The cost of that will make the cost we COULD have paid since Kyoto to prevent it look like a small portion of a small hill of beans.

You have certified scientists scaring the public with 4 and 8 foot rises by 2100..
Did ya really need to calculate to see the uncertainty??

I made no use of uncertainties in my calculation and thus we learn nothing about them from my results.

Just because you make numbers as you go along as a part of the AGW charter, proves nothing. It is like one AGW cult member agreeing with another AGW cult member that CO2 drives climate, even though it has been debunked and the real science shows otherwise.

Translation: He flunked 3rd grade math.