Remember me
▼ Content

Support for the AGW Theory - or Not ...



Page 2 of 3<123>
07-07-2017 19:30
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10281)
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!


The scale is meaningless, as is the entire graph, which comes from manufactured data.


The Parrot Killer
07-07-2017 19:58
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
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!


Indeed I did misread the scale. But that reference to the right SHOWED that Mann et al. were cherry picking data since the temperature was recovering from the medieval warm period - a warmer period than the present warming.

And http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg2/index.php?idp=29 demonstrates AGAIN that the IPCC reports were concerned with income levels of countries and not actual effects of increased CO2.

You will notice the 88 cm ocean rise prediction (3 feet). This has not been shown to be true and modern studies think that the oceanic rise is slowing and perhaps stopping altogether.

https://skepticalscience.com/pages2k-confirms-hockey-stick.html makes the insane comment: "Their two main results are a confirmation that current global surface temperatures are hotter than at any time in the past 1,400 years (the general 'hockey stick' shape, as shown in Figure 1), and that while the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) and Little Ice Age (LIA) are clearly visible events in their reconstruction, they were not globally synchronized events." Or in other words, "THE SKY IS FALLING THE SKY IS FALLING".
07-07-2017 21:27
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
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?
08-07-2017 00:16
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
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.
08-07-2017 01:24
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
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?)
Edited on 08-07-2017 01:43
08-07-2017 06:54
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
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.
08-07-2017 13:56
spot
★★★★☆
(1233)
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.
08-07-2017 19:37
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
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.


Considering that you don't even have the power to "think" it's no surprise that none of you True Believers can spend the several moments it takes to actually find the papers pertinent to the questions you moronic POS pose.
08-07-2017 22:23
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
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."
08-07-2017 22:27
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
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.
09-07-2017 19:31
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10281)
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.


Your bigotry is par for the course for you.


The Parrot Killer
09-07-2017 21:19
James_
★★★☆☆
(801)
The 2nd graph shows how much the IPCC changed it's claims of 1998 - 2013 by changing the way they collect data. Before 1998 it seems no changes were made. Into the Night, this is why I trust my own opinion. yet you say I need to think fro myself and this starts by doing what you tell me to do. You should apply for a job with the IPCC.

https://goo.gl/photos/LrBEPBGbkdm9FpK4A

https://goo.gl/photos/NodhWa8iVjqriv6Y8
10-07-2017 00:52
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
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.
10-07-2017 01:09
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
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.
10-07-2017 01:13
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
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.
10-07-2017 11:43
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
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.

This is the journalist's quote of the third paper (my bold):

"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!
10-07-2017 18:14
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Just to add that this is just like the Chinese Whispers game:

Scientist: A small part of the observed sea level rise is not due to AGW.
Journalist: None of the observed sea level rise is due to AGW.
Wake: No sea level rise has been observed.

10-07-2017 18:38
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
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.
10-07-2017 19:02
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
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.
10-07-2017 20:05
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
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.
10-07-2017 20:32
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
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.

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.
10-07-2017 21:29
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
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?
10-07-2017 23:53
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
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?

It means that the variability of the sea level in the tropical Pacific too great to allow the detection of human-induced sea level rise in that particular region yet. It does not mean that the global sea level isn't rising! As the author herself states earlier in the abstract:

Over the 20th century, 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.

It's rather funny how you always ignore the parts that contradict your claims and then misinterpret other parts to mean what you want them to mean.
11-07-2017 00:39
GasGuzzler
★★★★☆
(1535)
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?
11-07-2017 00:48
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
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?

What makes you think that Wake's source is crap?
11-07-2017 00:57
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
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?


You can't talk any sense to people who read that there is no sea level rise in the pacific and then says that there are more than one ocean.

As you note. Radio altimetry measuring "sea level rise" of 1/3048th the average wave height might be a little tricky. Not to mention that wave heights are NEVER the same from hour to hour. But tricky is what True Believers are.

This doesn't even mention that every single day some 300 tonnes of space dust falls upon this planet.

https://www.universetoday.com/94392/getting-a-handle-on-how-much-cosmic-dust-hits-earth/

As you can see - this is so important that billions of research dollars should be spent upon it.
Edited on 11-07-2017 01:03
11-07-2017 01:02
GasGuzzler
★★★★☆
(1535)
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".
11-07-2017 01:30
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
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".


What we're seeing is NASA and NOAA flying so far away from their original missions that they no longer deserve public support.

The average wave height in open oceans is about 10 feet. The sea level changes from minute to minute because of tidal actions that are NOT reliable. (This unreliability of tidal actions is why people have looked so closely for some sort of minor moon.) Sea levels just happen to be something you cannot take a large sample of and average. And more and more science is being shown to be wild ass guesses.

As of today more than HALF of all published research papers will be disproved within 10 years.

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".
11-07-2017 02:05
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
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.
11-07-2017 02:08
GasGuzzler
★★★★☆
(1535)
All I need to do is convince my client that I built a 120 ft house even though the tape says 60 and my profits will skyrocket. No?
11-07-2017 02:14
GasGuzzler
★★★★☆
(1535)
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.


spot-
Into the Night is also has delusions of comptance
11-07-2017 02:15
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
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.
11-07-2017 02:16
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
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.

They're not. They're reporting to the 10th of a millimeter per year. Big difference.
11-07-2017 02:20
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
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.
11-07-2017 03:17
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10281)
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.


Apparently you never learned about mathematical references when obtaining your 'degree'.

None of the Jason series of satellites is capable of measuring the absolute sea level. They are only capable of measuring relative sea level changes due to things like storm surges, thermal expansion, tidal forces, etc.

There is no useful reference for absolute sea level available.


The Parrot Killer
11-07-2017 03:26
RealityCheck
☆☆☆☆☆
(28)
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...


You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can not fool all of the people all of the time.
Abraham Lincoln, (attributed)
16th president of US (1809 - 1865)



When a PROPHET SPEAKS and his words DO NOT come to pass

"If what a prophet proclaims in the name of the Lord does not take place or come true, that is a message the Lord has not spoken. That prophet has spoken presumptuously. Do not be afraid of him" (Deut. 18:22).
11-07-2017 04:33
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
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.
11-07-2017 04:39
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
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.


FWIW I have worked in plasma physics. I don't remember even a PhD being as stupid as you have shown yourself. Do you even know what plasma physics encompasses? Have you EVER worked at it? Having a PhD would of necessity force you to work at it. There are a VERY limited number of locations for that so where did you work and when since I have a lot of friends in the field?
Edited on 11-07-2017 04:39
11-07-2017 09:45
RealityCheck
☆☆☆☆☆
(28)
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.


I've known Dr. Ball since I was a kid (my dad is good friends with him).. so I know he is a man of integrity... it's sad hpw he has been villified and attacked... but kudos to him for speaking out anyway (helps being retired they can't really destroy him)


You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can not fool all of the people all of the time.
Abraham Lincoln, (attributed)
16th president of US (1809 - 1865)



When a PROPHET SPEAKS and his words DO NOT come to pass

"If what a prophet proclaims in the name of the Lord does not take place or come true, that is a message the Lord has not spoken. That prophet has spoken presumptuously. Do not be afraid of him" (Deut. 18:22).
11-07-2017 11:25
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
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.


Of course it's a hoax. We've already been through this:

http://www.climate-debate.com/forum/michael-mann-loses-his-court-case-and-faces-costs-d6-e1452.php#post_21305

It seems the deniers have given up any pretence of scientific argument and are now resorting to simple deceit and character defamation to advance their evil propaganda aims.
Page 2 of 3<123>





Join the debate Support for the AGW Theory - or Not ...:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
There is no scientific theory or evidence that suggest CO2 traps heat better than O2 or N226815-12-2019 20:47
What exactly is the evidence that AGW is happening or5625-11-2019 15:53
GUYS I NEED SUPPORT IN ASUTRALIA924-10-2019 20:33
The only straw the Church of AGW can grasp is Venus8826-09-2019 05:49
Revealing the 160 year systematic error behind greenhouse theory with Raman Spectroscopy2422-09-2019 22:20
Articles
Theory
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2019 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact