State of the Climate in 2013

[Crick]

It would seem so.

And, speaking of like minded people having worthless conversations, have you seen that "Why Us Skeptics are Winning" thread? Wow.

 

[skookerasbil]

It would seem so.

And, speaking of like minded people having worthless conversations, have you seen that "Why Us Skeptics are Winning" thread? Wow.

 

[orogenicman]

It would seem so.

And, speaking of like minded people having worthless conversations, have you seen that "Why Us Skeptics are Winning" thread? Wow.

Indeed.

 

[itfitzme]

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..

I was just pointing out the reward. Seems like eassy money.

Science can and does prove negatives all the time. Einstein said, " No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong.”

The foundation of hypthesis testing rests on proving the hypothesis wrong. It is called the null hypothesis. Generally, the prefered hypothesis is restates as the opposite. This is called the null hypothesis and the prefered hypothesis is taken as the altenet hypothesis. The other experimenter then makes every attempt to prove the null hypothesis. Technically, the null hypothesis is specified as u=0. That basicaly translates to it's not true.

 

[skookerasbil]

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..

I was just pointing out the reward. Seems like eassy money.

Science can and does prove negatives all the time. Einstein said, " No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong.”

The foundation of hypthesis testing rests on proving the hypothesis wrong. It is called the null hypothesis. Generally, the prefered hypothesis is restates as the opposite. This is called the null hypothesis and the prefered hypothesis is taken as the altenet hypothesis. The other experimenter then makes every attempt to prove the null hypothesis. Technically, the null hypothesis is specified as u=0. That basicaly translates to it's not true.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

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..

I was just pointing out the reward. Seems like eassy money.

Science can and does prove negatives all the time. Einstein said, " No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong.”

The foundation of hypthesis testing rests on proving the hypothesis wrong. It is called the null hypothesis. Generally, the prefered hypothesis is restates as the opposite. This is called the null hypothesis and the prefered hypothesis is taken as the altenet hypothesis. The other experimenter then makes every attempt to prove the null hypothesis. Technically, the null hypothesis is specified as u=0. That basicaly translates to it's not true.

Prove there's no Bigfoot, you Bigfoot Denier!!!

 

[itfitzme]

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.



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..

70 years x 2mm/year = 140 mm.

Take Baltamore, for instance, that is an increase of about 140mm over 70 years.

So, where is this factor of four?

 

[flacaltenn]

CrickHam was claiming a pre-industrial rate of only 0.57mm/yr.. Just to be ornery.

The rates on that graph have been constant at 2mm/yr for over century. Only changing when we started to measure by satellite in the 90s..

Not enough CO2 around before 1940 or so to make a plausible cause for GWarming induced sea level rise. It was what it was. It is what it is..

 

[westwall]

Well, that's not correct.

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

Yet ever single Scientific Society, every National Academy of Science, and ever major University states that AGW is real and a clear and present danger. Then you state that is not real science? What then is real science? The rants of an obese junkie on AM radio? The mouthing of a fake English Lord? The blog of an undegreed ex-TV weatherman?

Ever bother to read a real peer reviewed scientific journal from any discipline? I really doubt that you have. From the ignorance displayed in your posts I think the Weekly Reader was about as far as you got.

And they all require the fraud to continue to make their billions. Follow the money honey. You bleat about Big Oil making a few hundred billion dollars for delivering a necessary product and these assholes stand to make trillions for merely shuffling paper.

You're a fucking moron.

 

[Crick]

The people doing research will not be making trillions. The people whose businesses will be saved by stopping all AGW efforts (the fossil fuel industry) WILL BE MAKING TRILLIONS.

But you ignore that obvious point because it interferes with your politics.

 

[skookerasbil]

The people doing research will not be making trillions. The people whose businesses will be saved by stopping all AGW efforts (the fossil fuel industry) WILL BE MAKING TRILLIONS.

But you ignore that obvious point because it interferes with your politics.

Are you referring to Mars s0n??

 

[jc456]

​

The people doing research will not be making trillions. The people whose businesses will be saved by stopping all AGW efforts (the fossil fuel industry) WILL BE MAKING TRILLIONS.

But you ignore that obvious point because it interferes with your politics.

yo, yo, crick s0n, where's that experiment? You know the one I'm referring to? The one that shows that 120 PPM of CO2 drives temperature? While you're at it show how warm 10 pPM of CO2 is, or 20 or 40 or 280 PPM? Come on mate, we've all been waiting. Why not simply admit you have none?

 

[Old Rocks]

​

The people doing research will not be making trillions. The people whose businesses will be saved by stopping all AGW efforts (the fossil fuel industry) WILL BE MAKING TRILLIONS.

But you ignore that obvious point because it interferes with your politics.

yo, yo, crick s0n, where's that experiment? You know the one I'm referring to? The one that shows that 120 PPM of CO2 drives temperature? While you're at it show how warm 10 pPM of CO2 is, or 20 or 40 or 280 PPM? Come on mate, we've all been waiting. Why not simply admit you have none?

Look, you stupid fuck, the experiment was done a few thousand years ago. 180 ppm to 280 ppm and the continental glaciers melted, the sea rose more than 120 meters. Now we have increased the CO2 level from 280 ppm to 400 ppm. And you think that is going to have no effect? The CO2 level has not been that high in millions of years.

 

[jc456]

​

The people doing research will not be making trillions. The people whose businesses will be saved by stopping all AGW efforts (the fossil fuel industry) WILL BE MAKING TRILLIONS.

But you ignore that obvious point because it interferes with your politics.

yo, yo, crick s0n, where's that experiment? You know the one I'm referring to? The one that shows that 120 PPM of CO2 drives temperature? While you're at it show how warm 10 pPM of CO2 is, or 20 or 40 or 280 PPM? Come on mate, we've all been waiting. Why not simply admit you have none?

Look, you stupid fuck, the experiment was done a few thousand years ago. 180 ppm to 280 ppm and the continental glaciers melted, the sea rose more than 120 meters. Now we have increased the CO2 level from 280 ppm to 400 ppm. And you think that is going to have no effect? The CO2 level has not been that high in millions of years.

Looks like the rock rolled off the cliff. Hah!!! Typical from you. you can't prove any of it. nothing. You are failing s0n. LOSING

 

[Old Rocks]

When faced with facts, flap ignorant yap, and say nothing at all.

 

[jc456]

When faced with facts, flap ignorant yap, and say nothing at all.

Still LOSING

 

[Crick]

​

The people doing research will not be making trillions. The people whose businesses will be saved by stopping all AGW efforts (the fossil fuel industry) WILL BE MAKING TRILLIONS.

But you ignore that obvious point because it interferes with your politics.

yo, yo, crick s0n, where's that experiment? You know the one I'm referring to? The one that shows that 120 PPM of CO2 drives temperature? While you're at it show how warm 10 pPM of CO2 is, or 20 or 40 or 280 PPM? Come on mate, we've all been waiting. Why not simply admit you have none?

Yo, yo, jc, it's right where it was the first, second and third time you saw it. Why not simply admit you lie like a dog? Because you do.

 

[skookerasbil]

100,527 S0NS!!!






Who's not winning??!!!!

 

[jc456]

​

The people doing research will not be making trillions. The people whose businesses will be saved by stopping all AGW efforts (the fossil fuel industry) WILL BE MAKING TRILLIONS.

But you ignore that obvious point because it interferes with your politics.

yo, yo, crick s0n, where's that experiment? You know the one I'm referring to? The one that shows that 120 PPM of CO2 drives temperature? While you're at it show how warm 10 pPM of CO2 is, or 20 or 40 or 280 PPM? Come on mate, we've all been waiting. Why not simply admit you have none?

Yo, yo, jc, it's right where it was the first, second and third time you saw it. Why not simply admit you lie like a dog? Because you do.

Nope!!!!! what was that noise? Oh it is PACman death! That's called LoSiNG!!!!!!

 

[MomofOne]

Global Warming

Climate Change

Climate Disruption

Uh huh.

It's real science

This is the reason why I don't like science in the first place.