Climate Change skeptics? [ot]

Search
Go

Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List
Post a Reply
Messages 26121 - 26140 of total 28535 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
Splater

climber
Grey Matter
Oct 15, 2014 - 10:53pm PT
If you read about the other methods, you will find that NONE have good direct measurements for the Arctic, as I already said.

On sea level, look it up yourself before proclaiming your supreme instant homespun wisdom.

http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/gornitz_09/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Current_sea_level_rise#mediaviewer/File:Post-Glacial_Sea_Level.png

It took ~12 thousand years to make up most of the sea level recovery from the last ice age.

also that plot you keep posting is for the RATE of rise not the actual level. It says that three times - Rate, Rate, /kyr.
raymond phule

climber
Oct 15, 2014 - 10:56pm PT
Ok, I get it. 2-3 m sea level rise doesn't matter because the rate was higher after the last ice age.
The Chief

climber
Laughing at all you angry blinded asshat Sheep
Oct 15, 2014 - 10:57pm PT
If you read about the other methods, you will find that NONE have good direct measurements for the Arctic, as I already said.

Even more reason that they should ALL be pretty well married up and does NOT validate why GIStemp is a good .3C above the others consistently for the past 17 or so years.


Your ref's DO NOT give any indication as to what caused the enormous fall then spike of over 35m then an abrupt rise back up to 45min in less than 400 years at the 14K mark.


Wow!

We are fked. A whooping 9" in over 140 years.





At that rate, Manhattan might have some water, an inch or so, on it's streets by the year 2575-2600. Maybe.


What is even more amazing is the fact that the seas have been rising at a pretty steady rate since 1870. Yet humans can not be factored into the equation as real possible cause due to their FF emissions till after 1955 or so.

What then was the causation of the steady rise from 1870 through 1950, some 80 years when human emissions were less than 1/4 then of what they were in 1970 and beyond?


Splater

climber
Grey Matter
Oct 15, 2014 - 11:07pm PT
The change is in Level per KILOYEAR.
The graphs in my links are a better way to see it.

NONE of that change from 18000 to 6000 years ago has anything to do with today,
nor did billions of people in cities have to adjust major infrastructure 14000 years ago.
In fact, 14000 years ago peoples culture was adapted to Huge rises in sea level, for instance by not building skyscrapers on the coast.
Splater

climber
Grey Matter
Oct 15, 2014 - 11:09pm PT
All models of climate change have a quite delayed reaction for ice melting, so today's rate of 3.3mm per year is in no way a good predictor of the future.

Except that even now you can see that the rate is Accelerating.
The Chief

climber
Laughing at all you angry blinded asshat Sheep
Oct 15, 2014 - 11:12pm PT
The graphs in my links are a better way to see it.

Ah, the one I posted above IS from your link. Something wrong with that one now?

As is the one below which pretty much correlates to the 9 or so inches in the above graph in the 140 or so year time frame.

raymond phule

climber
Oct 15, 2014 - 11:15pm PT

Ah, the one I posted above IS from your link. Something wrong with that one now?

No, nothing wrong with it except that you don't understand what is shows.
Splater

climber
Grey Matter
Oct 15, 2014 - 11:16pm PT
Also, the sea level rise before 1955 does roughly track global temperatures, which rose from a combination of natural variation and some CO2.
The Chief

climber
Laughing at all you angry blinded asshat Sheep
Oct 15, 2014 - 11:22pm PT
Also, the sea level rise before 1955 does roughly track global temperatures, which rose from a combination of natural variation and some CO2.

Are you implying that prior to 1955 natural variation played a part in the temp rise? What percentage was that?



No, nothing wrong with it except that you don't understand what is shows.

Phoolle....

What does the graph imply other than a consistent and steady rise in sea levels since 1870? Even during the period leading up to 1955 when human emissions were 1/4 or less than they are today.

You do see how there is absolutely no increase in the pace/rate of the rise as we get closer to date. Why is that? Don't you think that the more humans shet C02 into the atmosphere, the pace/rate of sea rise would also increase in order to correlate with the C02.
Splater

climber
Grey Matter
Oct 15, 2014 - 11:28pm PT
Obviously we were talking about graphs showing what was happening 14000 years ago.
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/gornitz_09/slr.jpg

There is a slow natural rise in sea level,
but that is not an indicator of what will happen in 20-40 yrs.



The Chief

climber
Laughing at all you angry blinded asshat Sheep
Oct 15, 2014 - 11:33pm PT
Obviously we are not now.


There is a slow natural rise in sea level,
but that is not an indicator of what will happen in 20-40 yrs.

Sure isn't is it. Could go either way. No one knows. So why you all worried about something you have no clue which way it may go.






So, can you answer the question presented to you regarding your comment...


Also, the sea level rise before 1955 does roughly track global temperatures, which rose from a combination of natural variation and some CO2.

Are you implying that prior to 1955 natural variation played a part in the temp rise? What percentage was that natural variation compared to the C02?
Splater

climber
Grey Matter
Oct 15, 2014 - 11:50pm PT
Here is what is important:

for now:
When averaged over all the world’s oceans, absolute sea level increased at an average rate of 0.06 inches per year from 1880 to 2012 (see Figure 1). Since 1993, however, average sea level has risen at a rate of 0.11 to 0.12 inches per year—roughly twice as fast as the long-term trend.

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/indicators/oceans/sea-level.html

http://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/land-ice/

for the future:
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/images/science/ScenarioSLRGraph-large.jpg
YOu can see that no matter what scenario is assumed as input,
Sea level Change ACCELERATES over the next 60 years.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/10/sea-level-in-the-5th-ipcc-report/
Gnome Ofthe Diabase

climber
Out Of Bed
Oct 16, 2014 - 04:21am PT
never been here I have not read a word

The only thing constant is change

I throw that pebble out into rough waters so it should not make

a change

Now I will go back not likely all the way

and read
see if this post works here
raymond phule

climber
Oct 16, 2014 - 05:48am PT

What does the graph imply other than a consistent and steady rise in sea levels since 1870? Even during the period leading up to 1955 when human emissions were 1/4 or less than they are today.

It is kind of meaningless to try to discuss with you when we talked about one graph and you change to another graph in the middle of the discussion. My comment were not about your understanding of that graph.


You do see how there is absolutely no increase in the pace/rate of the rise as we get closer to date. Why is that?

No, I don't see that. Explanation for why you see that might be for example:
You don't understand the graph
You don't understand pace/rate
You need glasses
You are drunk
Your "thinking" is clouded by what you want to see
The Chief

climber
Laughing at all you angry blinded asshat Sheep
Oct 16, 2014 - 06:37am PT
raymond phule

climber

Oct 16, 2014 - 05:48am PT


It is kind of meaningless to try to discuss with you when we talked about one graph and you change to another graph in the middle of the discussion. My comment were not about your understanding of that graph.




No, I don't see that. Explanation for why you see that might be for example:
You don't understand the graph
You don't understand pace/rate
You need glasses
You are drunk
Your "thinking" is clouded by what you want to see

Why of course you do not see it in. If you did, you would clearly understand that the rate of increase is pretty steady since it all started in 1880 according to your graph. In doing so, it would totally nullify any thought that human emissions play a MAJOR role in the current CC and it's correlation with the current slow and steady rise in global sea levels.

The recorded whopping 9.1" in over 140 years.

Typical post by a Warmist ideologist. Precisely why 63% (and rising btw) of Americans have put CC and anything to do with it, at the bottom of their priority list.


When averaged over all the world’s oceans, absolute sea level increased at an average rate of 0.06 inches per year from 1880 to 2012 (see Figure 1). Since 1993, however, average sea level has risen at a rate of 0.11 to 0.12 inches per year—roughly twice as fast as the long-term trend.

According to MONO and the others, that short amount of time does NOT constitute a trend. Thus your worrisome thought basis is a moot one.


ONLY THE LOOOOOOOOOOOOOONG Term COUNTS, per the other AGWists here.

ie... Pause/Hiatus confirmed by the IPCC, NASA, UK MET etal since 1997/98 doesn't mean jackshet..




Gnome Ofthe Diabase

climber
Out Of Bed

Oct 16, 2014 - 04:21am PT

The only thing constant is change

I throw that pebble out into rough waters so it should not make

a change


Now I will go back not likely all the way

and read
see if this post works here

Oh you are soooooooooooooooo fuked with that method of thinking here.
raymond phule

climber
Oct 16, 2014 - 07:14am PT
It is strange to discuss with someone that both says that you are wrong and prove that you are right in the same post.

One thing worth noting is that the length needed to determine if the trend in a signal has changed depends on the variability in the signal. The temperature data has a lot of variability so a long time period is needed to calculate a relevant trend. The sea level has much less variability so a shorter time interval is needed.

Not that the chief understands or care and it is neither relevant in this case as the the trend for longer time intervals than 21 years show the same thing.
The Chief

climber
Laughing at all you angry blinded asshat Sheep
Oct 16, 2014 - 07:42am PT
Where did I post anything about being "Right or Wrong", Phoole?


I simply asked you a question about the post graph that clearly indiactes a steady rate of sea level rise since 1880 and why is it so prior to 1955 when human emissions were 1/4 or less than they are today.

And your response to that simple question was NOT an answer concerning the question. Rather, the consistent form of RHETORIC that you "warmist" all seem to produce as a clear deflection so as not to answer the question presented.

No, I don't see that. Explanation for why you see that might be for example:
You don't understand the graph
You don't understand pace/rate
You need glasses
You are drunk
Your "thinking" is clouded by what you want to see


Once again, here is the sea level rise plot that indicates a steady rise that is as obvious as your bullshet rhetorical ideologically based answer.




PS: These two NATURAL variations most assuredly played a major role in the current sea level rise AND temp rises...




TEMPS





The Chief

climber
Laughing at all you angry blinded asshat Sheep
Oct 16, 2014 - 08:05am PT
Long Term MONO... LONG TERM... remember. That is all you insist is valid.



Unless of course, like the weather that may play into your favor, the protocol is changed in order to fit your game plan.


But then again, like the rate of increase in the C02, neither the rate of increase in atmospheric C02 nor Sea Level Rise correlate with this time frame in the obvious lack of temp rise since 1998 that NASA, IPCC, NOAA all agree exists...






You can also see the rate of rise rose for the section from about 1940-1990's is steeper then the previous

By how much, MONO????



The overall LONG TERM is a mere 9.1" in over 140 years. At that "Long Term" rate of rise, it will take at least 350-400 years to achieve any level of rise that is at the lower threshold of your supposed dooms day forecast of 1-2 meters.

Bruce Kay

Gym climber
BC
Oct 16, 2014 - 08:11am PT
Go easy on the chuff. I doubt he had a lot of practice in the navy.

Rick Sumner however has been graphing his profit margins for decades using his rafter lay out skills.... which likely explains why he's still scratching his head about how his rise over run dosn't match his bank account.

Sketch can show the rate of probability in moving out of his moms basement and Dave can plot his annual income by the "blog post multiplier" formula, kindly provided by the Heritage Foundation ..... which as in Ricks case also dosn't quite stack up as they promise.

But hey.... thats the beauty of the Invisible Hand, the one factor you can't capture on paper!
The Chief

climber
Laughing at all you angry blinded asshat Sheep
Oct 16, 2014 - 08:20am PT
rate of probability


Probability is all you base this on.


Because REALITY/OBSERVED data is killing your ideology.


Thanks for confirming the consistent rhetoric and philosophy that you base all this horsehet AGW fear mongering on, Brucee KY... "probability".



Temps have been as flat as your azz Brucee KY for the past 16plus years...




Yet CO2 just keeps on going up and up and up....







A whopping 3.2" of global sea level rise in 50 years from 1960-2010. Do the math and see how long it will take to reach the dooms day forecast of 2-3 Meters of sea rise.

Off the top of my head, hmmm, using a calculator now, at 6.4" per 100 years, it will take a min of .... you don't want to know.
Messages 26121 - 26140 of total 28535 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
Return to Forum List
Post a Reply
 
Our Guidebooks
Check 'em out!
SuperTopo Guidebooks


Try a free sample topo!

 
SuperTopo on the Web

Review Categories
Recent Trip Report and Articles
Recent Route Beta
Recent Gear Reviews