The rising sea level myth[W:565]

[MoSurveyor]

You have done nothing of the sort and I am more than happy to let others judge your evasions for what they really are

I'm never going to get an answer to why budgets have so massively increased in a period more than half of which showed no warming at all, so I'm happy to let those facts speak for themslves

I'm content with that outcome as well. All Americans are well aware of the ways government funding and politics are done and spun in this country.

That you and your Sheila cite are ignorant of such things is not unexpected but it's certainly dishonesty on your part to continue to ignore it.

 

[flogger]

I'm content with that outcome as well. All Americans are well aware of the ways government funding and politics are done and spun in this country.

That you and your Sheila cite are ignorant of such things is not unexpected but it's certainly dishonesty on your part to continue to ignore it.

You were provided with a link to the full GAO report those figures came from and they had nothing whatsoever to do with 'me and my Sheila'

Learn to take it on the chin with a bit more dignity next time :lol:

 

[Occam's Razor]

The flood will recede.

In the case of temperature, i'd be tempted to see if there was an alternate explanations and, by jimmy, there is:

http://people.duke.edu/~ns2002/pdf/Mazzarella-Scafetta-60-yr.pdf


This paper cites the evidence for a 60 year cycle that has been at work since 1700. It explains how it works and why it has been affecting climate. If there was actually a cycle in effect that worked in this way, we would have seen a flattening of temperature in about the year 2000.

Unlike the AGW Notion, this cycle actually matches the performance of temperature and predicts what will actually happen with temperature before it happens. By the standards of AGW Science, this is hardly worth looking at since it works in the real world.

From the paper...

However, 160 years of global surface temperature data
(since 1850) may be not sufficient to demonstrate that the
climate is characterized by a major ~60-year oscillation.
Longer global climate records should confirm this claim, but
instrumental global surface records before 1850 do not exist.

This natural oscillation was in its warm phase
during the period 1970–2000 and has likely largely
contributed to the global warming during this period. Scafetta (2010)
evaluated that about 60% of the warming observed since
1970s could be associated to a 60-year oscillation

Traditionally, the NAO has been used to describe and predict european and northeastern US sea level rises due to barometric pressure and to a lessor degree, warming and cooling cycles for those local regions. The paper is interesting, yet hardly more than a hypothesis at this point. Expanding this regional effect in the northern hemisphere to the entire globe is going to take much more research.

However, there are several regional oscillations at work on the planet, like the 10 year pacific oscillation to name one.

Here is a prediction... if this peaked in 2000, we should be well into the downslope of this trend. If temps stay flat, it's either not the right model, or it has been supplanted by other factors.

The paper also says that this cycle is easily disrupted by relatively small events, such as volcanic activity. So... let's do the math... how much and what kind of crap does a volcano spew, and how much and what kind of crap do we spew into the atmosphere?

Now, suppose 40% of the temp rise that the paper admits it can't account for, is not cyclical, and instead is a value that has been on an upward trend and for a short time will be masked by the cyclical downtrend in the NAO...

There simply is not enough data yet to make any long term predictions. We have only been major carbon emitters for the last 60 years... the within the boundaries of the NAO cycle.

Look, most people never have a major car accident, yet all of us plan for and take precautions against it happening with seatbelts, airbags and insurance.

The same common sense, pragmatic, protect the future thinking should be used here as well...

 

[Lord of Planar]

Four decades of rising temps and we're supposed to throw a party because they, at their peak, are flat?

If it were a flood... would you jump up and down because your basement is only half filled with water?

Maybe the difference is we were never scared like little school girls, like the warmer community is. No party because nothing unexpected.

 

[Occam's Razor]

Maybe the difference is we were never scared like little school girls, like the warmer community is. No party because nothing unexpected.

All you can muster are little school boy name calling fits, isn't it.

Is that somehow supposed to make you look less ignorant? Hint: it's not working...

 

[Lord of Planar]

All you can muster are little school boy name calling fits, isn't it.

Is that somehow supposed to make you look less ignorant? Hint: it's not working...

I'm sorry, you're right. That wasn't very nice of me. It is simply this. I cannot understand the mind of you guys. There never was more than correlation equals causation for CO2 being the cause of climate change. You guys have effectively built a religion around it.

Climate warming, does not scare me. Why does it scare you? Can you point to a past time when it did anything devastation to the world? We have five past instances since coming out of the last ice age that we had warmer temperatures. We know that at least one of these times, the sea level was higher. We will adapt as a race!

Change is natural, and there is no way mankind could have been the cause then. Far less money would be spent than to drag the world economies down to try to prevent, what we probably cannot prevent.

I say, if we with to combat AGW, then combat what we know is AGW... Black carbon in the atmosphere and that which falls on snow and ice. Until we combat the simple things, and assess what impact they may have in change, the rest is meaningless.

It is also meaningless for us to change unless the rest of the would with high outputs do too.

Do you wish to start a war with developing Asia to stop their CO2 output?

 

[Threegoofs]

Well planar, I can't understand your position.

You deny that scientists have shown AGW to be real, despite 30 years of said highly trained scientists telling you this.

You deny there is a very solid belief among scientists (97% of climatologists, etc) that tells you this is real.

You pretend that you have 'disproved' this massive glut of evidence, which grows with every journal issue of Nature Climate, with some back of tge envelope calculations that somehow legions of PhDs with postdoctoral fellowships never got around to discovering.

And after displaying this stubborn ignorance, you then tell us we are scared little girls and that climate changes are fine because the world will survive.

You apparently forget that our civilization is adapted to a fairly stable climate and the rapidity of the change is unprecedented in human times. Those are the two key pieces of the puzzle you seem to be missing.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Well planar, I can't understand your position.

If that's the case, it's because you don't consider my words, but dismiss them out of hand. I have been cl;ear on my position and reasoning.

Ever hear the term in one ear and out the other?

You deny that scientists have shown AGW to be real, despite 30 years of said highly trained scientists telling you this.

No, I never said AGW isn't real. As long as you fail to comprehend what I say, you are... Well, I will not continue that thought to words.

You deny there is a very solid belief among scientists (97% of climatologists, etc) that tells you this is real.

No I don't. I'm one of the 97%, but you cannot comprehend that.

You pretend that you have 'disproved' this massive glut of evidence, which grows with every journal issue of Nature Climate, with some back of tge envelope calculations that somehow legions of PhDs with postdoctoral fellowships never got around to discovering.

And I have explained that the climate sciences are being taught wrong, like once, people were taught the earth is flat. Also that peer reviews in the climate sciences are closed reviews.

Can you show me a paper that was done in an open review process?

And after displaying this stubborn ignorance, you then tell us we are scared little girls and that climate changes are fine because the world will survive.

It is you who are ignorant. Once again, I understand the sciences involved. I ask again, that in your words, you tell me why I am wrong on specific points I addressed pertaining to warming levels.

You apparently forget that our civilization is adapted to a fairly stable climate and the rapidity of the change is unprecedented in human times. Those are the two key pieces of the puzzle you seem to be missing.

Hundreds of years is rapid?

You give the human race less credit than we deserve.

 

[Threegoofs]

Hundreds of years is quite rapid when you consider civilization is 15000 years old.

You do accept consensus? I must have confused you with everyone else. Odd how you never chimed in on those threads then.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Hundreds of years is quite rapid when you consider civilization is 15000 years old.

You do accept consensus? I must have confused you with everyone else. Odd how you never chimed in on those threads then.

So.

You don't believe we can adapt fast enough?

I disagree. I believe we are a very adaptive race.

No.

I do not accept consensus. The world is not flat.

 

[Threegoofs]

So.

You don't believe we can adapt fast enough?

I disagree. I believe we are a very adaptive race.

No.

I do not accept consensus. The world is not flat.

I'm not sure Miami can adapt that fast. Or Wheat. Or a whole lot of ecosystems that will be in flux for quite a while adapting to the new normal.
Just look at the mountain lodge pole pine beetle kill in Colorado, for example. Things will be fine there in a couple hundred years, but don't walk thru a beetle kill forest without a helmet.

So you are a 97%er, but don't accept it's a consensus that AGW is a significant issue.

 

[Dittohead not!]

Your post:

" Originally Posted by Dittohead not!
Climate change is a much more accurate description. Some parts of the Earth may actually get colder due to changes in ocean currents and winds. Other parts are already warming.

But the notion that the average temperatures are doing anything but increasing simply goes against observation and measurement."


You say that some parts of the Earth are changing in one way while others are changing in others. Nothing new here.

Then you say that "the average temperatures" what ever that is, are increasing when in truth according to the data from every data gathering agency on the planet, the temperatures are falling.

I have shown you, or rather given you the opportunity to follow the link to, the data from GISS, HADCRUT, RSS and UAH. I don't know of any others with world recognized credibility. Do you?

All of these provide data that shows the temperature for the globe is flat or falling over the last decade.

What source do you have that temperatures are rising over the last decade?

You have shown a lot of bogus nonsense purporting to show that the average temperature of the Earth is actually declining, but none of it seems to actually show that. Then, when pressed about "global cooling" and "global warming having ended", you then shift the conversation to carbon dioxide.

Once again, even though I'm getting tired of repeating it, how is it t hat the past decade is the warmest on record if the average temperature of the Earth is actually declining?

Not that any one of us actually expects a straight answer to that one this time around, either.

Perhaps instead of following "GISS, HADCRUT, RSS and UAH" you should try NOAA, NASA, CERN, and t he National Geographic Society.

 

[Lord of Planar]

I'm not sure Miami can adapt that fast. Or Wheat. Or a whole lot of ecosystems that will be in flux for quite a while adapting to the new normal.

And...

You can prove that mankind is responsible?

Just look at the mountain lodge pole pine beetle kill in Colorado, for example. Things will be fine there in a couple hundred years, but don't walk thru a beetle kill forest without a helmet.

Ans...

You can prove mankind is responsible?

So you are a 97%er, but don't accept it's a consensus that AGW is a significant issue.

I am one who agrees AGW is real. That makes me part of the 97%. It does not mean that I believe CO2 is the primary driver of climate change.

Please show me a study that concludes 97% believe it's a "significant issue." I'm sure you will find 97% believe in AGW, and you will find that 97% believe global warming/climate change is a significant issue.

What you will not find is this: That 97% believe that AGW is a significant issue.

 

[MoSurveyor]

You were provided with a link to the full GAO report those figures came from and they had nothing whatsoever to do with 'me and my Sheila'

Learn to take it on the chin with a bit more dignity next time :lol:

And I quoted that GAO report, which showed the flaws in your reasoning. Don't blame me because you don't like the information it contained. Try reading all of what you cite instead of just the stuff you think supports your case. You act like the blog sites you read, showing only half the data - it's no wonder you like them. LOL!

 

[code1211]

From the paper...





Traditionally, the NAO has been used to describe and predict european and northeastern US sea level rises due to barometric pressure and to a lessor degree, warming and cooling cycles for those local regions. The paper is interesting, yet hardly more than a hypothesis at this point. Expanding this regional effect in the northern hemisphere to the entire globe is going to take much more research.

However, there are several regional oscillations at work on the planet, like the 10 year pacific oscillation to name one.

Here is a prediction... if this peaked in 2000, we should be well into the downslope of this trend. If temps stay flat, it's either not the right model, or it has been supplanted by other factors.

The paper also says that this cycle is easily disrupted by relatively small events, such as volcanic activity. So... let's do the math... how much and what kind of crap does a volcano spew, and how much and what kind of crap do we spew into the atmosphere?

Now, suppose 40% of the temp rise that the paper admits it can't account for, is not cyclical, and instead is a value that has been on an upward trend and for a short time will be masked by the cyclical downtrend in the NAO...

There simply is not enough data yet to make any long term predictions. We have only been major carbon emitters for the last 60 years... the within the boundaries of the NAO cycle.

Look, most people never have a major car accident, yet all of us plan for and take precautions against it happening with seatbelts, airbags and insurance.

The same common sense, pragmatic, protect the future thinking should be used here as well...

I'm not at all sure what you are saying.

You seem to want to dismiss this hypothesis because it has not had enough time to be proven- 400+ years. You seem to want to accept the cause of CO2 which you say has had a shorter span to prove it- you say 60 years.

Volcanic activity has a global cooling effect due to the ash and the sulfur.

The AGW crowd says that at least 50% of the warming is due to the activities of Man. This is hard to swallow, but if we accept that and we accept that 60% is due to the 60 year cycle, then we hit 110%. It's even worse than we thought.

We are are obviously doomed.

Auto accidents actually happen. There is real world proof of their occurrence. AGW is pretty much just someone's idea of what might be happening and rests on a foundation of if's and but's.

You suggest action and I don't know why. The impact of increasing CO2 is so small at this point in the progression that any effect on climate change would be hard to find.

The fact that there is no reliable way to measure the impact of all of the 50 or so factors that impact climate and assign a value for the component contributions they each provide reveals the utter incompetence of those that present themselves as experts.

Preparing to prevent something in the future that may or may not be happening then or now is a little foolish, don't you think?

 

[code1211]

You have shown a lot of bogus nonsense purporting to show that the average temperature of the Earth is actually declining, but none of it seems to actually show that. Then, when pressed about "global cooling" and "global warming having ended", you then shift the conversation to carbon dioxide.

Once again, even though I'm getting tired of repeating it, how is it t hat the past decade is the warmest on record if the average temperature of the Earth is actually declining?

Not that any one of us actually expects a straight answer to that one this time around, either.

Perhaps instead of following "GISS, HADCRUT, RSS and UAH" you should try NOAA, NASA, CERN, and t he National Geographic Society.

The organizations you cite use the data from the organization that I listed. I would have thought an expert such as you would have known this. By quoting GISS, you quote NASA and also NOAA since these organizations use the data provided by GISS.

GISS, UAH and RSS all work together to produce a product that is recognized by every climate organization on Earth. HADCRUT is the source for much of what CERN uses.

The past decade contains a record of cooling. That you don't know what the word means does not change the fact that it applies to the direction of climate.

Again, I am asking you to present the data from any recognized climate research organization that shows that there has been warming over the last decade. You're welcome to use the sites of the actual data gathering organizations shown below:

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/

Wood for Trees: Interactive Graphs

 

[code1211]

You have done nothing of the sort and I am more than happy to let others judge your evasions for what they really are

I'm never going to get an answer to why budgets have so massively increased in a period more than half of which showed no warming at all, so I'm happy to let those facts speak for themslves

US climate research funding

1989 budget $0.134 Billion
2009 budget $7.420 Billion

With budgets continuing to increase this self perpetuating 'research' gravy train is still well on track so expect to be paying even more for a new climate scare in the near future

Theres really no way of waffling round the math here much as you no doubt wish there were :lol:

As an American, I am offended that you think that this is the only place in the Federal Budget that we waste money.

We waste money on everything you can think of from researching the sex lives of snail darters to researching the effects of the lyrics of the Star Spangles Banner on the sensibilities of Islamist terrorists.

We are profligate wasters of money and to not waste money on this would be the same as saying that this is not something.

 

[code1211]

Well planar, I can't understand your position.

You deny that scientists have shown AGW to be real, despite 30 years of said highly trained scientists telling you this.

You deny there is a very solid belief among scientists (97% of climatologists, etc) that tells you this is real.

You pretend that you have 'disproved' this massive glut of evidence, which grows with every journal issue of Nature Climate, with some back of tge envelope calculations that somehow legions of PhDs with postdoctoral fellowships never got around to discovering.

And after displaying this stubborn ignorance, you then tell us we are scared little girls and that climate changes are fine because the world will survive.

You apparently forget that our civilization is adapted to a fairly stable climate and the rapidity of the change is unprecedented in human times. Those are the two key pieces of the puzzle you seem to be missing.

The sum total of the change is 0.7 degrees in 2000 years.

The cooling that occurred in the Little Ice Age brought us such delights as the Black Death, the Dark Age purges and the various famines that drove otherwise happy folks from their homes to find refuge in the Americas.

The Global Cooling you are campaigning to produce is not a very good thing.

 

[Occam's Razor]

Well planar, I can't understand your position.

You deny that scientists have shown AGW to be real, despite 30 years of said highly trained scientists telling you this.

You deny there is a very solid belief among scientists (97% of climatologists, etc) that tells you this is real.

You pretend that you have 'disproved' this massive glut of evidence, which grows with every journal issue of Nature Climate, with some back of tge envelope calculations that somehow legions of PhDs with postdoctoral fellowships never got around to discovering.

And after displaying this stubborn ignorance, you then tell us we are scared little girls and that climate changes are fine because the world will survive.

You apparently forget that our civilization is adapted to a fairly stable climate and the rapidity of the change is unprecedented in human times. Those are the two key pieces of the puzzle you seem to be missing.

While I agree in varying degrees with the rest of your post, I have to fill in some details on your last paragraph...

"Modern civilization" is adapted to a relatively stable climate. But the whole 8000 years of human civilization? Mesopotamia and east africa underwent desertification following ancient thriving civs. And it's interesting that civilization really didn't get going until after the last major ice age. I think there is substantial evidence for wild climate swings during and following the last ice age, intersecting with the beginnings of civ.

On one hand it's foolish to think that earths climate is eden like stable all the time, we know it's not.. on the other hand, we couldn't have developed our civilizations any other way than being molded by the forces of nature until we could overcome them. Or think we have.

These are incredibly complicated and interconnected sciences, that we really don't understand fully. It always bugged me that the oceans are 70% of our surface, yet no one takes measurements of it's ability to reflect or absorb light or heat as the do in the atmosphere with CO2. anyway... just my two cents...

 

[Threegoofs]

While I agree in varying degrees with the rest of your post, I have to fill in some details on your last paragraph...

"Modern civilization" is adapted to a relatively stable climate. But the whole 8000 years of human civilization? Mesopotamia and east africa underwent desertification following ancient thriving civs.
These are incredibly complicated and interconnected sciences, that we really don't understand fully. It always bugged me that the oceans are 70% of our surface, yet no one takes measurements of it's ability to reflect or absorb light or heat as the do in the atmosphere with CO2. anyway... just my two cents...

Well, I guess I consider plant domestication to be the key of civilization. And wherever plants grow now, we farm it.

You tick up the thermostat a few degrees, and many of those growing regions are gone. The new regions that appear may not have good soil, etc.


And there is quite a bit of research going on with the oceans and AGW. Entire journals devoted to it.

 

[Dittohead not!]

The organizations you cite use the data from the organization that I listed. I would have thought an expert such as you would have known this. By quoting GISS, you quote NASA and also NOAA since these organizations use the data provided by GISS.

GISS, UAH and RSS all work together to produce a product that is recognized by every climate organization on Earth. HADCRUT is the source for much of what CERN uses.

The past decade contains a record of cooling. That you don't know what the word means does not change the fact that it applies to the direction of climate.

Again, I am asking you to present the data from any recognized climate research organization that shows that there has been warming over the last decade. You're welcome to use the sites of the actual data gathering organizations shown below:

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/

Wood for Trees: Interactive Graphs

Is this really the sort of graph you're referring to showing that global warming ended? It's from your first set of initials, GISS:

Seems to me to take a bit of creativity to equate the flattening of the curve at the top with a stopping of global warming. I see a couple of downturns. It looks a lot like a stock market report, showing a portfolio t hat is a good, solid investment over the long haul.


And the past decade was still the warmest on record.

 

[code1211]

Is this really the sort of graph you're referring to showing that global warming ended? It's from your first set of initials, GISS:

Seems to me to take a bit of creativity to equate the flattening of the curve at the top with a stopping of global warming. I see a couple of downturns. It looks a lot like a stock market report, showing a portfolio t hat is a good, solid investment over the long haul.


And the past decade was still the warmest on record.

I see you have posted a graph from GISS. *Have you determined that this is not a voodoo magic organization after all?

In fairness, the downward curve at the end, otherwise defined as cooling, is 3 years short of current which has continued the lack of warming. It should go on for another 30 or so years if the 60 year cycle is correct and repeats again for the sixth time.

The graph you have posted demonstrates that the sixth 60-year cycle may have started. The cooling curve of the post 2000 years is similar to the start of the curves in 1880 and in 1940.

40 years of stability or cooling from 1880 to 1920.

20 years of warming from 1920 to 1940.

40 years of stability or cooling after that to 1980.

20 years of warming after that to 2000.

The idea of the 60 year cycle says it tracks back to 1700 and that pre-dates any possible effect of post industrial CO2 increase. Please peruse the peer reviewed paper in the link attached.

http://people.duke.edu/~ns2002/pdf/Mazzarella-Scafetta-60-yr.pdf

 

[Threegoofs]

You keep referencing one paper. There are dozens/hundreds published after that one confirming AGW.

Not to mention Scafetta won't release the software code he used. Sounds like Reinhart/Rogoff all over again.

http://www.newscientist.com/article...er-wont-divulge-key-program.html#.UdoLI6a9LCQ

 

[Dittohead not!]

I see you have posted a graph from GISS. *Have you determined that this is not a voodoo magic organization after all?

In fairness, the downward curve at the end, otherwise defined as cooling, is 3 years short of current which has continued the lack of warming. It should go on for another 30 or so years if the 60 year cycle is correct and repeats again for the sixth time.

The graph you have posted demonstrates that the sixth 60-year cycle may have started. The cooling curve of the post 2000 years is similar to the start of the curves in 1880 and in 1940.

40 years of stability or cooling from 1880 to 1920.

20 years of warming from 1920 to 1940.

40 years of stability or cooling after that to 1980.

20 years of warming after that to 2000.

The idea of the 60 year cycle says it tracks back to 1700 and that pre-dates any possible effect of post industrial CO2 increase. Please peruse the peer reviewed paper in the link attached.

http://people.duke.edu/~ns2002/pdf/Mazzarella-Scafetta-60-yr.pdf

There are several periods of cooling shown on the graph, the most notable around 1942 or so, but the general trend is upward, as anyone can see.

 

[Lord of Planar]

There are several periods of cooling shown on the graph, the most notable around 1942 or so, but the general trend is upward, as anyone can see.

Past performance is no guarantee of future results.