Support for the AGW Theory - or Not ...

Surface Detail wrote:

Wake wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:

Wake wrote:

still learning wrote:

Wake wrote:
......In 1999 Mann, Bradley & Hughes published a paper that showed that the Earth had warmed 3 degrees C. It predicted that by the year 2000 it would be up to 5 degrees C. And continuing their upward trend by 2010 it would be 10 degrees.......

In Mann, Bradley and Hughes, Geophysical Research Letters, March 15, 1999?

I looking over the article I don't see the 3 degree bit. I didn't see where they made any prediction at all about the next year. They do have a graph that somebody might extend to 2010, but the authors didn't. The article is about reconstructing northern-hemisphere temperatures from AD 1000 to 1999.

The article is at http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/1999GL900070/epdf

What became known as the hockey stick curve CLEARLY showed the 3 degree rise and the extension of that curve to the year 2000 showed the 5 degree rise and the extension to 2010 was made by the True Believers such as yourself.

still learning just posted a link to the paper to which you are, presumably, referring. There is no mention of a 3 degree rise in the text, and none of the graphs in the paper show anything like a 3 degree rise. Which graph do you think does show such a rise? Maybe you misread the axes?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:T_comp_61-90.pdf

This is attributed to: "The original northern hemisphere hockey stick graph of Mann, Bradley & Hughes 1999, smoothed curve shown in blue with its uncertainty range in light blue, overlaid with green dots showing the 30-year global average of the PAGES 2k Consortium 2013 reconstruction. The red curve shows measured global mean temperature, according to HadCRUT4 data from 1850 to 2013."

The real question is: why was "still learning" and "surface detail" unable to discover this when it was originally published in their 1999 paper?

More importantly, after that plain graph showing an over 3 degree shift, why does the NASA plots show:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming#/media/File:Global_Temperature_Anomaly.svg - a barely more than 1 degree rise.

Why were you talking about Mann being a dendrologist when he was nothing of the kind? The dendrologist of the three was, I believe, Malcolm K. Hughes.

Aha, now I can see why you're so confused. The green dots in the Wikipedia graph aren't in the 1999 paper, rather, they represent later data that has been overlaid on the blue curve, which is from the 1999 paper.

Also, you are misreading the graph. The scale on the right of the Wikipedia graph is in standard deviations, not degrees Celsius. The final point represents 3 standard deviations from the mean, not 3 degrees C, as you seem to have mistakenly assumed!

Surface Detail wrote:

Wake wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:

Wake wrote:

still learning wrote:

Wake wrote:
......In 1999 Mann, Bradley & Hughes published a paper that showed that the Earth had warmed 3 degrees C. It predicted that by the year 2000 it would be up to 5 degrees C. And continuing their upward trend by 2010 it would be 10 degrees.......

In Mann, Bradley and Hughes, Geophysical Research Letters, March 15, 1999?

I looking over the article I don't see the 3 degree bit. I didn't see where they made any prediction at all about the next year. They do have a graph that somebody might extend to 2010, but the authors didn't. The article is about reconstructing northern-hemisphere temperatures from AD 1000 to 1999.

The article is at http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/1999GL900070/epdf

What became known as the hockey stick curve CLEARLY showed the 3 degree rise and the extension of that curve to the year 2000 showed the 5 degree rise and the extension to 2010 was made by the True Believers such as yourself.

still learning just posted a link to the paper to which you are, presumably, referring. There is no mention of a 3 degree rise in the text, and none of the graphs in the paper show anything like a 3 degree rise. Which graph do you think does show such a rise? Maybe you misread the axes?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:T_comp_61-90.pdf

This is attributed to: "The original northern hemisphere hockey stick graph of Mann, Bradley & Hughes 1999, smoothed curve shown in blue with its uncertainty range in light blue, overlaid with green dots showing the 30-year global average of the PAGES 2k Consortium 2013 reconstruction. The red curve shows measured global mean temperature, according to HadCRUT4 data from 1850 to 2013."

The real question is: why was "still learning" and "surface detail" unable to discover this when it was originally published in their 1999 paper?

More importantly, after that plain graph showing an over 3 degree shift, why does the NASA plots show:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming#/media/File:Global_Temperature_Anomaly.svg - a barely more than 1 degree rise.

Why were you talking about Mann being a dendrologist when he was nothing of the kind? The dendrologist of the three was, I believe, Malcolm K. Hughes.

Aha, now I can see why you're so confused. The green dots in the Wikipedia graph aren't in the 1999 paper, rather, they represent later data that has been overlaid on the blue curve, which is from the 1999 paper.

Also, you are misreading the graph. The scale on the right of the Wikipedia graph is in standard deviations, not degrees Celsius. The final point represents 3 standard deviations from the mean, not 3 degrees C, as you seem to have mistakenly assumed!

Wake wrote:
... modern studies think that the oceanic rise is slowing and perhaps stopping altogether.

Surface Detail wrote:

Wake wrote:
... modern studies think that the oceanic rise is slowing and perhaps stopping altogether.

And which modern studies might those be? Are you sure you've not misread another scale?

Wake wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:

Wake wrote:
... modern studies think that the oceanic rise is slowing and perhaps stopping altogether.

And which modern studies might those be? Are you sure you've not misread another scale?

I could very easily have mistook your face as having teeth in it you POS. I would very much like to meet you and have to hire a lawyer.

Surface Detail wrote:

Wake wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:

Wake wrote:
... modern studies think that the oceanic rise is slowing and perhaps stopping altogether.

And which modern studies might those be? Are you sure you've not misread another scale?

I could very easily have mistook your face as having teeth in it you POS. I would very much like to meet you and have to hire a lawyer.

Given your very apparent cognitive impairment and propensity to delusion, hiring a mentally able person to speak on your behalf seems a wise idea.

(the studies don't actually exist, do they?)

spot wrote:
If precipitation is increasing in Antarctica why do you think that is.

In fact scratch that I don't want to know what you think.

Vague threats by mentally disturbed delusional geriatrics in different countries to their victims are not normally taken seriously by the authorities, lucky for you.

I'm sure Surface Detail will laugh it off but it does serve as a warning to anyone that posts too much personal information.

Wake wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:

Wake wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:

Wake wrote:
... modern studies think that the oceanic rise is slowing and perhaps stopping altogether.

And which modern studies might those be? Are you sure you've not misread another scale?

I could very easily have mistook your face as having teeth in it you POS. I would very much like to meet you and have to hire a lawyer.

Given your very apparent cognitive impairment and propensity to delusion, hiring a mentally able person to speak on your behalf seems a wise idea.

(the studies don't actually exist, do they?)

On your best day you were a POS. The rest of the time you aren't even that good.

http://nov79.com/gbwm/oceans.html

"Measurements are showing that over the past few years ocean levels have nearly stopped rising, the reason being that ice is accumulating over central Antarctica due to increased precipitation."

http://www.nbcnewyork.com/weather/stories/Thinning-Sea-Ice-Threatens-Rising-Oceans-Low-Lying-Land-417984933.html

http://www.businessinsider.com/why-sea-level-rise-not-equal-2016-4

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/barbara-hollingsworth/4-peer-reviewed-studies-find-no-observable-sea-level-effect-man

I really want to meet you. Up close and really personal.

spot wrote:
If precipitation is increasing in Antarctica why do you think that is.

In fact scratch that I don't want to know what you think.

Vague threats by mentally disturbed delusional geriatrics in different countries to their victims are not normally taken seriously by the authorities, lucky for you.

I'm sure Surface Detail will laugh it off but it does serve as a warning to anyone that posts too much personal information.

Surface Detail wrote:

spot wrote:
If precipitation is increasing in Antarctica why do you think that is.

In fact scratch that I don't want to know what you think.

Vague threats by mentally disturbed delusional geriatrics in different countries to their victims are not normally taken seriously by the authorities, lucky for you.

I'm sure Surface Detail will laugh it off but it does serve as a warning to anyone that posts too much personal information.

Don't worry about me. Wake's hilariously pathetic threats of violence merely illustrate just how deranged he really is. Par for the course for a science denier.

Surface Detail wrote:

Wake wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:

Wake wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:

Wake wrote:
... modern studies think that the oceanic rise is slowing and perhaps stopping altogether.

And which modern studies might those be? Are you sure you've not misread another scale?

I could very easily have mistook your face as having teeth in it you POS. I would very much like to meet you and have to hire a lawyer.

Given your very apparent cognitive impairment and propensity to delusion, hiring a mentally able person to speak on your behalf seems a wise idea.

(the studies don't actually exist, do they?)

On your best day you were a POS. The rest of the time you aren't even that good.

http://nov79.com/gbwm/oceans.html

"Measurements are showing that over the past few years ocean levels have nearly stopped rising, the reason being that ice is accumulating over central Antarctica due to increased precipitation."

http://www.nbcnewyork.com/weather/stories/Thinning-Sea-Ice-Threatens-Rising-Oceans-Low-Lying-Land-417984933.html

http://www.businessinsider.com/why-sea-level-rise-not-equal-2016-4

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/barbara-hollingsworth/4-peer-reviewed-studies-find-no-observable-sea-level-effect-man

I really want to meet you. Up close and really personal.

You appear to be unable to read your own references. From your third reference:

"In 2013, when the study on geographically disparate sea-level rise was published, the authors estimated that the areas least affected would see about a foot of increase by the end of the century.

More recent projections, however, have the oceans rising faster and higher. Newer models indicate that we may be on track to reach that level as soon as 2050, with a total rise of nearly 6 feet by the end of the century.

The hardest-hit areas will be low-lying islands and coastal cities, like New Orleans, which are already seeing the more catastrophic effects of a rising ocean. An increase in sea level could displace an estimated 13 million people in the US alone."

Wake wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:

Wake wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:

Wake wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:

Wake wrote:
... modern studies think that the oceanic rise is slowing and perhaps stopping altogether.

And which modern studies might those be? Are you sure you've not misread another scale?

I could very easily have mistook your face as having teeth in it you POS. I would very much like to meet you and have to hire a lawyer.

Given your very apparent cognitive impairment and propensity to delusion, hiring a mentally able person to speak on your behalf seems a wise idea.

(the studies don't actually exist, do they?)

On your best day you were a POS. The rest of the time you aren't even that good.

http://nov79.com/gbwm/oceans.html

"Measurements are showing that over the past few years ocean levels have nearly stopped rising, the reason being that ice is accumulating over central Antarctica due to increased precipitation."

http://www.nbcnewyork.com/weather/stories/Thinning-Sea-Ice-Threatens-Rising-Oceans-Low-Lying-Land-417984933.html

http://www.businessinsider.com/why-sea-level-rise-not-equal-2016-4

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/barbara-hollingsworth/4-peer-reviewed-studies-find-no-observable-sea-level-effect-man

I really want to meet you. Up close and really personal.

You appear to be unable to read your own references. From your third reference:

"In 2013, when the study on geographically disparate sea-level rise was published, the authors estimated that the areas least affected would see about a foot of increase by the end of the century.

More recent projections, however, have the oceans rising faster and higher. Newer models indicate that we may be on track to reach that level as soon as 2050, with a total rise of nearly 6 feet by the end of the century.

The hardest-hit areas will be low-lying islands and coastal cities, like New Orleans, which are already seeing the more catastrophic effects of a rising ocean. An increase in sea level could displace an estimated 13 million people in the US alone."

And you're too stupid to go any further than that. Isn't it interesting that 4 peer reviewed studies said that they could find no sea level rise. But then you prefer to do your science with your eyes and ears tightly closed.

Surface Detail wrote:

Wake wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:

Wake wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:

Wake wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:

Wake wrote:
... modern studies think that the oceanic rise is slowing and perhaps stopping altogether.

And which modern studies might those be? Are you sure you've not misread another scale?

I could very easily have mistook your face as having teeth in it you POS. I would very much like to meet you and have to hire a lawyer.

Given your very apparent cognitive impairment and propensity to delusion, hiring a mentally able person to speak on your behalf seems a wise idea.

(the studies don't actually exist, do they?)

On your best day you were a POS. The rest of the time you aren't even that good.

http://nov79.com/gbwm/oceans.html

"Measurements are showing that over the past few years ocean levels have nearly stopped rising, the reason being that ice is accumulating over central Antarctica due to increased precipitation."

http://www.nbcnewyork.com/weather/stories/Thinning-Sea-Ice-Threatens-Rising-Oceans-Low-Lying-Land-417984933.html

http://www.businessinsider.com/why-sea-level-rise-not-equal-2016-4

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/barbara-hollingsworth/4-peer-reviewed-studies-find-no-observable-sea-level-effect-man

I really want to meet you. Up close and really personal.

You appear to be unable to read your own references. From your third reference:

"In 2013, when the study on geographically disparate sea-level rise was published, the authors estimated that the areas least affected would see about a foot of increase by the end of the century.

More recent projections, however, have the oceans rising faster and higher. Newer models indicate that we may be on track to reach that level as soon as 2050, with a total rise of nearly 6 feet by the end of the century.

The hardest-hit areas will be low-lying islands and coastal cities, like New Orleans, which are already seeing the more catastrophic effects of a rising ocean. An increase in sea level could displace an estimated 13 million people in the US alone."

And you're too stupid to go any further than that. Isn't it interesting that 4 peer reviewed studies said that they could find no sea level rise. But then you prefer to do your science with your eyes and ears tightly closed.

No, the studies didn't say that. Barbara Hollingsworth, a journalist for CNSNews.com said that. Unfortunately, journalists are sometimes not good at interpreting scientific papers, but idiots like you still swallow everything they say.

Wake wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:

Wake wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:

Wake wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:

Wake wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:

Wake wrote:
... modern studies think that the oceanic rise is slowing and perhaps stopping altogether.

And which modern studies might those be? Are you sure you've not misread another scale?

I could very easily have mistook your face as having teeth in it you POS. I would very much like to meet you and have to hire a lawyer.

Given your very apparent cognitive impairment and propensity to delusion, hiring a mentally able person to speak on your behalf seems a wise idea.

(the studies don't actually exist, do they?)

On your best day you were a POS. The rest of the time you aren't even that good.

http://nov79.com/gbwm/oceans.html

"Measurements are showing that over the past few years ocean levels have nearly stopped rising, the reason being that ice is accumulating over central Antarctica due to increased precipitation."

http://www.nbcnewyork.com/weather/stories/Thinning-Sea-Ice-Threatens-Rising-Oceans-Low-Lying-Land-417984933.html

http://www.businessinsider.com/why-sea-level-rise-not-equal-2016-4

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/barbara-hollingsworth/4-peer-reviewed-studies-find-no-observable-sea-level-effect-man

I really want to meet you. Up close and really personal.

You appear to be unable to read your own references. From your third reference:

"In 2013, when the study on geographically disparate sea-level rise was published, the authors estimated that the areas least affected would see about a foot of increase by the end of the century.

More recent projections, however, have the oceans rising faster and higher. Newer models indicate that we may be on track to reach that level as soon as 2050, with a total rise of nearly 6 feet by the end of the century.

The hardest-hit areas will be low-lying islands and coastal cities, like New Orleans, which are already seeing the more catastrophic effects of a rising ocean. An increase in sea level could displace an estimated 13 million people in the US alone."

And you're too stupid to go any further than that. Isn't it interesting that 4 peer reviewed studies said that they could find no sea level rise. But then you prefer to do your science with your eyes and ears tightly closed.

No, the studies didn't say that. Barbara Hollingsworth, a journalist for CNSNews.com said that. Unfortunately, journalists are sometimes not good at interpreting scientific papers, but idiots like you still swallow everything they say.

Well, gee, I didn't see you correcting her by quoting the studies.

Surface Detail wrote:
"This result is consistent with recent findings that beside the anthropogenic signature, a non-negligible fraction of the observed 20th century sea level rise still represents a response to pre-industrial natural climate variations such as the Little Ice Age"

Anyone with the ability to comprehend English can see that the author of the paper is stating here that a small portion of the rise in sea level is due to non-AGW effects, not that AGW effects are not observed. Barbara Hollingsworth is clearly assuming that her target audience is not very bright.

In your case, her assumption is obviously justified, given that you have somehow read this as claiming there is no sea level rise at all!

Wake wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:
"This result is consistent with recent findings that beside the anthropogenic signature, a non-negligible fraction of the observed 20th century sea level rise still represents a response to pre-industrial natural climate variations such as the Little Ice Age"

Anyone with the ability to comprehend English can see that the author of the paper is stating here that a small portion of the rise in sea level is due to non-AGW effects, not that AGW effects are not observed. Barbara Hollingsworth is clearly assuming that her target audience is not very bright.

In your case, her assumption is obviously justified, given that you have somehow read this as claiming there is no sea level rise at all!

However, by studying "sea level spatial trend patterns in the tropical Pacific and attempting to eliminate signal corresponding to the main internal climate mode, we show that the remaining residual sea level trend pattern does not correspond to externally forced anthropogenic sea level signal."

So you want to pick your comments instead of what they actually said? Or you want to go to OTHER papers to get your comments? This plainly displays what a scum bucket you are and as I have said - you will say absolutely anything.

Surface Detail wrote:

Wake wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:
"This result is consistent with recent findings that beside the anthropogenic signature, a non-negligible fraction of the observed 20th century sea level rise still represents a response to pre-industrial natural climate variations such as the Little Ice Age"

Anyone with the ability to comprehend English can see that the author of the paper is stating here that a small portion of the rise in sea level is due to non-AGW effects, not that AGW effects are not observed. Barbara Hollingsworth is clearly assuming that her target audience is not very bright.

In your case, her assumption is obviously justified, given that you have somehow read this as claiming there is no sea level rise at all!

However, by studying "sea level spatial trend patterns in the tropical Pacific and attempting to eliminate signal corresponding to the main internal climate mode, we show that the remaining residual sea level trend pattern does not correspond to externally forced anthropogenic sea level signal."

So you want to pick your comments instead of what they actually said? Or you want to go to OTHER papers to get your comments? This plainly displays what a scum bucket you are and as I have said - you will say absolutely anything.

My quote was taken directly from the abstract of the third paper mentioned in the article, you utter fool.

Wake wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:

Wake wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:
"This result is consistent with recent findings that beside the anthropogenic signature, a non-negligible fraction of the observed 20th century sea level rise still represents a response to pre-industrial natural climate variations such as the Little Ice Age"

Anyone with the ability to comprehend English can see that the author of the paper is stating here that a small portion of the rise in sea level is due to non-AGW effects, not that AGW effects are not observed. Barbara Hollingsworth is clearly assuming that her target audience is not very bright.

In your case, her assumption is obviously justified, given that you have somehow read this as claiming there is no sea level rise at all!

However, by studying "sea level spatial trend patterns in the tropical Pacific and attempting to eliminate signal corresponding to the main internal climate mode, we show that the remaining residual sea level trend pattern does not correspond to externally forced anthropogenic sea level signal."

So you want to pick your comments instead of what they actually said? Or you want to go to OTHER papers to get your comments? This plainly displays what a scum bucket you are and as I have said - you will say absolutely anything.

My quote was taken directly from the abstract of the third paper mentioned in the article, you utter fool.

So when you have papers that disagree you want to pick and chose which one's you are going to believe? Why is no one surprised? There is a highway to hell and a stairway to heaven which demonstrates the expected traffic patterns.

Surface Detail wrote: The links are yours, you blithering idiot. None of the papers support your claim that there is no sea level rise. I suggest actually reading your references in future before making claims based on them.

Wake wrote:

Surface Detail wrote: The links are yours, you blithering idiot. None of the papers support your claim that there is no sea level rise. I suggest actually reading your references in future before making claims based on them.

Tell me: what does "However, by studying "sea level spatial trend patterns in the tropical Pacific and attempting to eliminate signal corresponding to the main internal climate mode, we show that the remaining residual sea level trend pattern does not correspond to externally forced anthropogenic sea level signal.""

mean?

tide gauge records indicate a rise in global sea level between 1.6mm/yr and 1.8 mm/yr. Since 1993, sea level variations have been measured precisely by satellite altimetry. They indicate a faster sea level rise of 3.3 mm/yr over 1993-2015.

GasGuzzler wrote:

tide gauge records indicate a rise in global sea level between 1.6mm/yr and 1.8 mm/yr. Since 1993, sea level variations have been measured precisely by satellite altimetry. They indicate a faster sea level rise of 3.3 mm/yr over 1993-2015.

I'm thinking it's time to throw away the tape measure and launch one of those "precisely accurate" measuring devices for my construction business. My income will double!!

Seriously, how can it possibly be more accurate to measure a 1/2 a millimeter from space than from 2 ft right in front of it??

How do you read this crap and just suck it up??!! How does someone with your ability to learn and understand stil not get it?

GasGuzzler wrote:

tide gauge records indicate a rise in global sea level between 1.6mm/yr and 1.8 mm/yr. Since 1993, sea level variations have been measured precisely by satellite altimetry. They indicate a faster sea level rise of 3.3 mm/yr over 1993-2015.

I'm thinking it's time to throw away the tape measure and launch one of those "precisely accurate" measuring devices for my construction business. My income will double!!

Seriously, how can it possibly be more accurate to measure a 1/2 a millimeter from space than from 2 ft right in front of it??

How do you read this crap and just suck it up??!! How does someone with your ability to learn and understand stil not get it?

GasGuzzler wrote:
It may have been Wakes source but it was your quote and your point. I don't give a donkey's south end where it came from, point is the satallite measurement is double the tape measure, of something that really can't be accurately measured due to known and unknown variables. But I'll go ahead and run my landscape business on batteries because Spot thinks I should according to this "data".

GasGuzzler wrote:
It may have been Wakes source but it was your quote and your point. I don't give a donkey's south end where it came from, point is the satallite measurement is double the tape measure, of something that really can't be accurately measured due to known and unknown variables. But I'll go ahead and run my landscape business on batteries because Spot thinks I should according to this "data".

Surface Detail wrote:

The accuracy of the Jason-2 radar altimeter is about 3 cm, not 1/2 mm.

Surface Detail wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:
It may have been Wakes source but it was your quote and your point. I don't give a donkey's south end where it came from, point is the satallite measurement is double the tape measure, of something that really can't be accurately measured due to known and unknown variables. But I'll go ahead and run my landscape business on batteries because Spot thinks I should according to this "data".

The accuracy of the Jason-2 radar altimeter is about 3 cm, not 1/2 mm. And I don't have to take their word for this since I have sufficient scientific training to understand their explanations as to how this is achieved. I suspect that a tape measure is more suitable than a radar altimeter for your work though, primarily on cost grounds.

GasGuzzler wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:

The accuracy of the Jason-2 radar altimeter is about 3 cm, not 1/2 mm.

Why then are they reporting to the 10th of a millimeter?

That's like the US gov reporting national debt in single dollars and cents. Laughable. No one really knows the exact number and it's constantly changing.

Wake wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:
It may have been Wakes source but it was your quote and your point. I don't give a donkey's south end where it came from, point is the satallite measurement is double the tape measure, of something that really can't be accurately measured due to known and unknown variables. But I'll go ahead and run my landscape business on batteries because Spot thinks I should according to this "data".

The accuracy of the Jason-2 radar altimeter is about 3 cm, not 1/2 mm. And I don't have to take their word for this since I have sufficient scientific training to understand their explanations as to how this is achieved. I suspect that a tape measure is more suitable than a radar altimeter for your work though, primarily on cost grounds.

"I have sufficient scientific training"??? Funny you never told us what it is. By the way - changing florescent lights for a company isn't "scientific training".

When I read your entries I have to wonder who ties your shoe laces for you.

Surface Detail wrote:

Wake wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:
It may have been Wakes source but it was your quote and your point. I don't give a donkey's south end where it came from, point is the satallite measurement is double the tape measure, of something that really can't be accurately measured due to known and unknown variables. But I'll go ahead and run my landscape business on batteries because Spot thinks I should according to this "data".

The accuracy of the Jason-2 radar altimeter is about 3 cm, not 1/2 mm. And I don't have to take their word for this since I have sufficient scientific training to understand their explanations as to how this is achieved. I suspect that a tape measure is more suitable than a radar altimeter for your work though, primarily on cost grounds.

"I have sufficient scientific training"??? Funny you never told us what it is. By the way - changing florescent lights for a company isn't "scientific training".

When I read your entries I have to wonder who ties your shoe laces for you.

FWIW, I have a PhD in plasma physics. But I prefer to rely on my arguments, not my qualifications, when making a point.

Wake wrote:


And this is exceptionally so about AGW. Exactly what is behind this I can only guess but it is certainly grotesque and reminds one of one-world government or national socialism since the media supports it every inch of the way as they did in pre-war Germany.

Spot and Surface Defect plainly are those who are clicking their heals together and shouting "Seig Heil".

RealityCheck wrote:

Wake wrote:


And this is exceptionally so about AGW. Exactly what is behind this I can only guess but it is certainly grotesque and reminds one of one-world government or national socialism since the media supports it every inch of the way as they did in pre-war Germany.

Spot and Surface Defect plainly are those who are clicking their heals together and shouting "Seig Heil".

Not just in Germany.. the eugenics movement was thriving and influential in USA policy in the early 20th century, the paralells to AGW propaganda and hype are there for anyone to see... the difference now is that there is a central, global organization(the UN) driving the junk science and subsequent policy ... so it is far more dangerous...

Surface Detail wrote:

Wake wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:
It may have been Wakes source but it was your quote and your point. I don't give a donkey's south end where it came from, point is the satallite measurement is double the tape measure, of something that really can't be accurately measured due to known and unknown variables. But I'll go ahead and run my landscape business on batteries because Spot thinks I should according to this "data".

The accuracy of the Jason-2 radar altimeter is about 3 cm, not 1/2 mm. And I don't have to take their word for this since I have sufficient scientific training to understand their explanations as to how this is achieved. I suspect that a tape measure is more suitable than a radar altimeter for your work though, primarily on cost grounds.

"I have sufficient scientific training"??? Funny you never told us what it is. By the way - changing florescent lights for a company isn't "scientific training".

When I read your entries I have to wonder who ties your shoe laces for you.

FWIW, I have a PhD in plasma physics. But I prefer to rely on my arguments, not my qualifications, when making a point.

Wake wrote:

This is dated Jul 5, 2017:

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2017/07/scientist-michael-mann-commits-contempt-court-climate-science-trial-century/

If this is true and not a hoax of some kind this has very deep meaning to the entire IPCC revelations.

Wake wrote:

RealityCheck wrote:

Wake wrote:


And this is exceptionally so about AGW. Exactly what is behind this I can only guess but it is certainly grotesque and reminds one of one-world government or national socialism since the media supports it every inch of the way as they did in pre-war Germany.

Spot and Surface Defect plainly are those who are clicking their heals together and shouting "Seig Heil".

Not just in Germany.. the eugenics movement was thriving and influential in USA policy in the early 20th century, the paralells to AGW propaganda and hype are there for anyone to see... the difference now is that there is a central, global organization(the UN) driving the junk science and subsequent policy ... so it is far more dangerous...

This is dated Jul 5, 2017:

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2017/07/scientist-michael-mann-commits-contempt-court-climate-science-trial-century/

If this is true and not a hoax of some kind this has very deep meaning to the entire IPCC revelations.