• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The fever pitch of climate alarmism

I like the graph, all data is good.
I have real questions if the satellites with their 30 mm accuracy, and questionable reference capability, can accurately record a change of few 1/10th of a mm a year?
The errors accumulate!
Let's take for example a 1 square kilometer section of ocean of know latitude and longitude.
The satellite takes a snapshot every 10 days, but the tides are not on 10 day cycles, so the phase of the tide will be different
every time the satellite passes.
For a given fixed tide station the daily tidal prediction is usually off by 10 to 20 cm, because so many factors affect the tide.
If the error for a fixed station is so great, it is unlikely our predictions for the open ocean would be better.

Data is found here:



They have seven columns of data that say:

HDR 6 GMSL (Global Isostatic Adjustment (GIA) not applied) variation (mm) with respect to TOPEX collinear mean reference

HDR 7 standard deviation of GMSL (GIA not applied) variation estimate (mm)

HDR 8 smoothed (60-day Gaussian type filter) GMSL (GIA not applied) variation (mm)

HDR 9 GMSL (Global Isostatic Adjustment (GIA) applied) variation (mm) with respect to TOPEX collinear mean reference

HDR 10 standard deviation of GMSL (GIA applied) variation estimate (mm)

HDR 11 smoothed (60-day Gaussian type filter) GMSL (GIA applied) variation (mm)

HDR 12 smoothed (60-day Gaussian type filter) GMSL (GIA applied) variation (mm); annual and semi-annual signal removed
If removal of the annual and semi-annual signals constitutes an allowance for
the tide it doesn't say so. It is what it is.

Colorado University’s Sea Level Research Group hasn't updated their web page
in over a year now. If they ever do publish an update, it will be interesting to see
how much they massage the data to claim acceleration which I'm betting they will do.
 
Last edited:
Since Fiji is an area know to see a sea level rise from the up to 14 cm bulge of water in the central Pacific El Nino,
selecting an El Nino year as your end year is Cherry picking.

Nope! You are wrong yet again longview. The bulge in sea levels seen in the western Pacific is associated with the La Nina phase of the ENSO.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/El_Ni%C3%B1o%E2%80%93Southern_Oscillation#Walker_circulation

You are right the standard divination is between 45 and 55 cm, sea level is a very noisy environment, we have errors in daily tides of many cm.

Tidal readings are not errors. How many times do you have to be told that data anomalies are not necessarily errors. All you accomplish by repeatedly getting this kind of thing wrong is misinforming the scientifically illiterate. Please stop.

The global sea levels have been and will continue to rise, the question becomes has the rate of the rise changed?
The answer to that question remains highly uncertain.
We we can say is that the rate of rise necessary to reach the often quoted 1 meter by 2100 is several times greater that the observed rates,
that do not include subsidence.

Well... at least this statement is far more accurate than your initial statement that Fiji's sea levels are not really increasing. And while the rate of increase is far from certain the vast majority of the science of AGW says that it will likely increase.
 
...Well... at least this statement is far more accurate than your initial statement that Fiji's sea levels are not really increasing. And while the rate of increase is far from certain the vast majority of the science of AGW says that it will likely increase.

Not to put too fine of a point on it, the vast majority of the science of AGW is BS.
 
Sea levels have been rising for the last century, and the rate is increasing. It's time to stop listening to Bloggers and Fossil Fuel Industry representatives, and listen to the real scientists - in this case the NOAA.

https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-global-sea-level

Sea level has been rising over the past century, and the rate has increased in recent decades. In 2016, global sea level was 3.2 inches (82 mm) above the 1993 average—the highest annual average in the satellite record (1993-present).
 
Sea levels have been rising for the last century
Sea level has been rising since the end of the last ice age.

and the rate is increasing.
Your evidence for that claim is exactly what?

It's time to stop listening to Bloggers and Fossil Fuel Industry representatives
It's time to pay attention to actual uncompromised data - if you can find it.

and listen to the real scientists
Too many PhDs and government organizations have been shown to be manipulating data to fit an agenda.

in this case the NOAA.

Here's NOAA's graph for satellite sea level:

slr_sla_gbl_free_txj1j2_90_400.png


Did you think the high rate since the low point around 2012
was going to continue indefinitely?

I think it's kind of cute that Jason2 in green shows a recent
drop and Jason3 in Purple looks like it's going to erase that.
This is the kind of crap that goes on over and over and over
and over again with Global Warming Climate Change issues.

Sea level has been rising over the past century, and the rate has increased in recent decades.
It's the same as it was for the several decade prior to 1950.

In 2016, global sea level was 3.2 inches (82 mm) above the 1993 average—the highest annual average in the satellite record (1993-present).
That's right, sea level is going up, and at any particular point
along any graph you choose to construct, sea level will most
likely be at it's highest point. It does wiggle a little bit, sea
levels dropped around 2012.
 
Nope! You are wrong yet again longview. The bulge in sea levels seen in the western Pacific is associated with the La Nina phase of the ENSO.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/El_Ni%C3%B1o%E2%80%93Southern_Oscillation#Walker_circulation



Tidal readings are not errors. How many times do you have to be told that data anomalies are not necessarily errors. All you accomplish by repeatedly getting this kind of thing wrong is misinforming the scientifically illiterate. Please stop.



Well... at least this statement is far more accurate than your initial statement that Fiji's sea levels are not really increasing. And while the rate of increase is far from certain the vast majority of the science of AGW says that it will likely increase.

So tell me again what a 6.1 cm increase in 23 years means with a standard deviation of 45 to 55 cm?
As to what portions of the Pacific raise during an El Nino,
PIA20009_hires.jpg

Most people would agree that the 2015-2016 El Nino was ramping up in Oct of 2015, and there is a large raised bulge of water
in the area of Fuji.

Tidal readings are not errors, the difference between the predictions and the actual readings, show that we cannot accurately
predict the sea level in a given area. (Tide gauges are about 30 times more accurate than satellites)
 
So tell me again what a 6.1 cm increase in 23 years means with a standard deviation of 45 to 55 cm?

It's not the increase that has the standard deviation. It's the data that has it. Maybe you should go learn about standard deviation and how it would be related to the tides.

As to what portions of the Pacific raise during an El Nino,
PIA20009_hires.jpg

Most people would agree that the 2015-2016 El Nino was ramping up in Oct of 2015, and there is a large raised bulge of water
in the area of Fuji.

But is that bulge really on Fiji? Hard to say. Instead of trying to figure out exactly where Fiji is on those images why not just go back to the data? What do you know.... no anomalously large spikes in October of 1997 or 2015.

Tidal readings are not errors, the difference between the predictions and the actual readings, show that we cannot accurately
predict the sea level in a given area. (Tide gauges are about 30 times more accurate than satellites)

What does predicted tidal readings have to do with anything? The data isn't based on predictions. Even NASA's numbers don't use them. Do you think that just because we can't predict tides exact amounts mean that we can't make any predictions on what will happen to average sea levels in the future? I don't think so.
 
It's not the increase that has the standard deviation. It's the data that has it. Maybe you should go learn about standard deviation and how it would be related to the tides.
If the standard deviation is 45 to 55 CM then saying there was an actual increase of 6 cm is simply speculation.
there likely was an increase, but not to a scientific certainty.



But is that bulge really on Fiji? Hard to say. Instead of trying to figure out exactly where Fiji is on those images why not just go back to the data? What do you know.... no anomalously large spikes in October of 1997 or 2015.
There is a increase in the data in the end of both years, it is more visible in the low tide readings.


What does predicted tidal readings have to do with anything? The data isn't based on predictions. Even NASA's numbers don't use them. Do you think that just because we can't predict tides exact amounts mean that we can't make any predictions on what will happen to average sea levels in the future? I don't think so.
Think about it for a second, for a given one square kilometer of ocean, that has a twice daily tide swing of more than 100 cm.
At which phase of the tide did the satellite pass and record the sea level?
Since they cannot time the satellite passing with the tides phases, they must use the tide predictions to add or subtract from their measurement.
If the prediction is not accurate, neither is the measurement.
I have shown that there is large errors in the daily tide predictions for a fixed station with a much greater accuracy than the satellites.
The satellite data is amazing considering the limits of the technology and physics, but it does have it's limits.
 
If the standard deviation is 45 to 55 CM then saying there was an actual increase of 6 cm is simply speculation.
there likely was an increase, but not to a scientific certainty.

You didn't go and read about standard deviation... did you? You're just going to continue and get your facts wrong because you think you know everything. The fact of the matter is averaging the data smoothes out the bumps from the tides so that we can see what the increase actually is. You know this longview so quit being dishonest.

There is a increase in the data in the end of both years, it is more visible in the low tide readings.

Now you're just resorting to cherry-picking again. Sorry longview but there are no significant increases in sea levels at Fiji associated with the El Nino events of 1997/1998 or 2015/2016 like you incorrectly state. You are wrong yet again. Deal with it!

Think about it for a second, for a given one square kilometer of ocean, that has a twice daily tide swing of more than 100 cm.
At which phase of the tide did the satellite pass and record the sea level?
Since they cannot time the satellite passing with the tides phases, they must use the tide predictions to add or subtract from their measurement.
If the prediction is not accurate, neither is the measurement.
I have shown that there is large errors in the daily tide predictions for a fixed station with a much greater accuracy than the satellites.[/QUO
The satellite data is amazing considering the limits of the technology and physics, but it does have it's limits.

How about instead of just making unsupported assumptions about how the satellite data is adjusted why don't you go and learn something for once that doesn't come from denialists with an agenda of misinforming the public.

Here is an article that discusses the satellite data:

https://earthdata.nasa.gov/community/community-data-system-programs/measures-projects/climate-data-record-of-altimetric-slc
 
You didn't go and read about standard deviation... did you?
Now you're just resorting to cherry-picking again.
why don't you go and learn something for once
UhHuh,


Josh Willis and John Church?

That's the same Josh Willis who adjusted Ocean Temperatures from the Argo floats to agree with his hypothesis:

Correcting Ocean Cooling


The Church and White papers that come up with 3.2 mm/yr from Tide Gauges in 2001?
Here's what that looks like compared to a straight forward analysis of the PSMSL Tide Gauge Records

ab78d5.jpg


The retained and excluded data refers to the tide gauges that Church & White
retained and tossed out you can download a list of the tide gauges they used here
:: Sea-level Rise :: CSIRO ::

Scroll down to mid page to, "A list of the tide gauges used is available here (zipfile, 21,008 bytes)"


Did I shoot the messenger? Sue me.

Besides all that, the satellite record has been adjusted several time resulting in nearly a mm/yr bump up:

2s7yxxz.jpg


Each plotted point represents the rate of sea level rise since the beginning of the satellite record in late 1992.

As you can see, the adjustments are monotonously upward.
 
And if you really want to know who Josh Willis is:



Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha! I get a Hillary Logo

13-hillary-logo.w190.h190.2x.png


as the "Click to Play" button.
 
Last edited:
You didn't go and read about standard deviation... did you? You're just going to continue and get your facts wrong because you think you know everything. The fact of the matter is averaging the data smoothes out the bumps from the tides so that we can see what the increase actually is. You know this longview so quit being dishonest.
It's not that simple, by a longshot. There are still corrections made with are often incorrect by our lack of complete understanding, and filled in with confirmation bias.

longview said:
Think about it for a second, for a given one square kilometer of ocean, that has a twice daily tide swing of more than 100 cm.
At which phase of the tide did the satellite pass and record the sea level?
Since they cannot time the satellite passing with the tides phases, they must use the tide predictions to add or subtract from their measurement.
If the prediction is not accurate, neither is the measurement.
I have shown that there is large errors in the daily tide predictions for a fixed station with a much greater accuracy than the satellites.

How about instead of just making unsupported assumptions about how the satellite data is adjusted why don't you go and learn something for once that doesn't come from denialists with an agenda of misinforming the public.

Here is an article that discusses the satellite data:

https://earthdata.nasa.gov/community/community-data-system-programs/measures-projects/climate-data-record-of-altimetric-slc

Wouldn't it be prudent for you to quote that part showing how Longview is wrong, considering you have the link? I should assume you read it, right?

Or is this another instance of you just throwing out TMI, hoping you win an argument that way?

Quote please...

You see, Longview is correct about the adjustments, and the inaccuracies of the satellites.

When applying statistics to the measurements to increase the accuracy, you cannot do this with moving points. Only with fixed land points. The wind is another factor that displaces the water height. There are simply too many factors to accurately account for.

Please trace and find the sublink that supports your contention.

I don't believe you ever verified what you claim, and there are too many sublinks for any of us to go on a wild goose chase over, with your proven track record of being wrong.
 
The fever pitch of climate alarmism

It most certainly is a contagious fever.

Yale 360 has a new posting claiming the warmer temperatures are killing the Kelp. Well... indirectly...

They are claiming that the warmer waters are allowing urchins to take over, but if you read enough of the article, they acknowledge that the harvesting of lobsters has disrupted the food chain in such a way that is allowing the urchins to take over.

You see... Lobsters would normally eat the invading urchins. But the lobsters are being over-fished.

As Oceans Warm, the World?s Kelp Forests Begin to Disappear - Yale E360


In Tasmania, Johnson and Ling are leading an effort to protect areas that haven’t yet been overwhelmed by the long-spine urchin. The best chance they see is to boost localized populations of predatory rock lobsters. Fishery officials are on board with the plan, Johnson says, and have tightly restricted lobster harvest in order to help increase their numbers. Johnson and Ling have also been directing the translocation of large lobsters into test site barrens.

They acknowledge the loss of lobster populations is a known cause, yet blame warming anyway...

Another thing not mentioned, but you see it in studies if you look. The way we mass harvest from the sea bottom destroys the ecosystem as well. They could have easily had illegal harvesting, or poor regulations regarding the harvesting of sea food.
 
Last edited:
It's not that simple, by a longshot. There are still corrections made with are often incorrect by our lack of complete understanding, and filled in with confirmation bias.

You're right... it's not that simple for satellite data but that isn't what we are talking about. This is about the fixed station in Fiji. And longview is trying to use a statistic to suggest that the data is wrong.

Wouldn't it be prudent for you to quote that part showing how Longview is wrong, considering you have the link? I should assume you read it, right?

Or is this another instance of you just throwing out TMI, hoping you win an argument that way?

Quote please...

Damn Lord... how lazy can you get? The article is only 4 paragraphs long and the 2nd one is chock full of adjustments and methods of verification. Do you really need to be spoon feed?

You see, Longview is correct about the adjustments, and the inaccuracies of the satellites.

When applying statistics to the measurements to increase the accuracy, you cannot do this with moving points. Only with fixed land points. The wind is another factor that displaces the water height. There are simply too many factors to accurately account for.

Please trace and find the sublink that supports your contention.

I don't believe you ever verified what you claim, and there are too many sublinks for any of us to go on a wild goose chase over, with your proven track record of being wrong.

Again, this debate isn't really about the accuracy of the satellite record. longview started this whole thread based on false information and I have shown him to be wrong based on fixed station data. And now you and longview want to make the argument about the accuracy of the satellite data.

Admit longview was wrong and maybe we can move on to whether the satellite data is accurate enough or not.

Oh... and I would love it if you could cite any instances of where you or anyone else has proven me wrong. I know there are a few minor points I have been wrong on but I doubt you could even find any of them.
 
Josh Willis and John Church?

That's the same Josh Willis who adjusted Ocean Temperatures from the Argo floats to agree with his hypothesis:

Correcting Ocean Cooling

The Church and White papers that come up with 3.2 mm/yr from Tide Gauges in 2001?
Here's what that looks like compared to a straight forward analysis of the PSMSL Tide Gauge Records

ab78d5.jpg


The retained and excluded data refers to the tide gauges that Church & White
retained and tossed out you can download a list of the tide gauges they used here
:: Sea-level Rise :: CSIRO ::

Scroll down to mid page to, "A list of the tide gauges used is available here (zipfile, 21,008 bytes)"

Did I shoot the messenger? Sue me.

Besides all that, the satellite record has been adjusted several time resulting in nearly a mm/yr bump up:

2s7yxxz.jpg


Each plotted point represents the rate of sea level rise since the beginning of the satellite record in late 1992.

As you can see, the adjustments are monotonously upward.

So... is that all you've got? Just because scientists have adjusted the records up you think that is proof alone that it is wrong? Well... it isn't. If you want to show they are wrong then provide some proof or even evidence that they are wrong.
 
So... is that all you've got? Just because scientists have adjusted the records up you think that is proof alone that it is wrong? Well... it isn't. If you want to show they are wrong then provide some proof or even evidence that they are wrong.

I don't have proof of rightness or wrongness, what those graphs and news items show is that
adjustments seem to only go one way. How many times have you seen the headline in the
popular press, "...worse than previously thought." Really how many times?

Here's a graph of the changes that GISS has made to world temperatures over the years:

wck4lc.jpg


All the changes since 1980 are up and most of the changes prior to that date are down.

Here's Figure 7.1 from the IPCC's first Assessment report

ipcc_1990_panel3.jpg


The medieval Warm Period has since been erased in subsequent IPCC Reports.
 
Sea level has been rising since the end of the last ice age.


Your evidence for that claim is exactly what?


It's time to pay attention to actual uncompromised data - if you can find it.


Too many PhDs and government organizations have been shown to be manipulating data to fit an agenda.



Here's NOAA's graph for satellite sea level:

slr_sla_gbl_free_txj1j2_90_400.png


Did you think the high rate since the low point around 2012
was going to continue indefinitely?

I think it's kind of cute that Jason2 in green shows a recent
drop and Jason3 in Purple looks like it's going to erase that.
This is the kind of crap that goes on over and over and over
and over again with Global Warming Climate Change issues.


It's the same as it was for the several decade prior to 1950.


That's right, sea level is going up, and at any particular point
along any graph you choose to construct, sea level will most
likely be at it's highest point. It does wiggle a little bit, sea
levels dropped around 2012.

You continue to state that all these scientists are LIVING A LIE. That is a conspiracy theory right up there with Flat Earth and probably more foolish than the 9/11 Inside Job conspiracy. All those scientists living a lie, and the heroic Heartland Institute and FOX News will expose it.

And thank you for posting the NOAA graph, as it will save me the trouble of looking it up. It shows the sea level rise quite nicely. And if you're using that graph to argue against rate increases, it's not very convincing.
 
Damn Lord... how lazy can you get? The article is only 4 paragraphs long and the 2nd one is chock full of adjustments and methods of verification. Do you really need to be spoon feed?

Contention after contention, with more than a dozen links. It is unwise to believe the contentions of an article without verifying the source material actually says what they claim.

Haven't you learned this yet? This should be "debate 101." Always verify! Don't trust others, just because it fits your confirmation bias.
 
You continue to state that all these scientists are LIVING A LIE.
I've pointed out that climate data is changed in a one-sided manner.
You have interpreted that as "scientists are LIVING A LIE" not me.

That is a conspiracy theory right up there with Flat Earth and probably
more foolish than the 9/11 Inside Job conspiracy.
It is a matter of fact that climate data has been changed.
Why it has been changed is a matter of opinion.

All those scientists living a lie, and the heroic Heartland Institute and FOX News will expose it.
I don't quote Heartland or FOX News. You chose to bring them up as a topic, not me.

And thank you for posting the NOAA graph, as it will save me the trouble of looking it up.
You are very welcome.

It shows the sea level rise quite nicely.
Yes, it looks like it's up to date. Other outlets like NASA and especially
Colorado University’s Sea Level Research Group are slow to publish the latest.

And if you're using that graph to argue against rate increases, it's not very convincing.
This graph:

slr_sla_gbl_free_txj1j2_90_400.png


Isn't about the change in rate. Oh you can look at the five years since 2012
and see a sharp up-tick alright. And it looks like the largest such up-tick since
the beginning of the data in 1992. Does that short five year spurt represent
the future? Only time will tell. You guys make graphs that project rates in
the future. Here's the first one up on a Google search on "Sea Level Projections"

CS_SLR-scenarios_v8.png


I point out that a rise of four feet by 2100 is ridiculous. It requires over a
threefold increase in today's rate. Do you really expect that to happen?
This coming June 2018 it will be thirty years since Dr. Hansen testified
before congress. His testimony just isn't coming true. A few years ago he
put out a paper saying five METERS is possible by 2100. When the numbers
based on his scenario are run it comes to nearly a millimeter per day by 2099.

People on your side of the issue make preposterous claims and they are getting
away with it. You could say it has reached a "Fever Pitch".
 
You didn't go and read about standard deviation... did you? You're just going to continue and get your facts wrong because you think you know everything. The fact of the matter is averaging the data smoothes out the bumps from the tides so that we can see what the increase actually is. You know this longview so quit being dishonest.
You know like I know, that all of the increases occurred well within the error bars.

Now you're just resorting to cherry-picking again. Sorry longview but there are no significant increases in sea levels at Fiji associated with the El Nino events of 1997/1998 or 2015/2016 like you incorrectly state. You are wrong yet again. Deal with it!
Actually your reference was to the mean sea level, which would be affected by an increase in ether the low of the high reading.


How about instead of just making unsupported assumptions about how the satellite data is adjusted why don't you go and learn something for once that doesn't come from denialists with an agenda of misinforming the public.

Here is an article that discusses the satellite data:
If you think about it like I said, you would see that the satellite data would require a tide removal adjustment to show anything.
 
I've pointed out that climate data is changed in a one-sided manner.
You have interpreted that as "scientists are LIVING A LIE" not me.
Same thing. Your just mincing words.

It is a matter of fact that climate data has been changed.
Why it has been changed is a matter of opinion.
Provide your proof...

I don't quote Heartland or FOX News. You chose to bring them up as a topic, not me.
You are a walking testimony to the playbook of the fossil-fuel industry, which is endeared to these organizations.

You are very welcome.


Yes, it looks like it's up to date. Other outlets like NASA and especially
Colorado University’s Sea Level Research Group are slow to publish the latest.


This graph:

slr_sla_gbl_free_txj1j2_90_400.png


Isn't about the change in rate. Oh you can look at the five years since 2012
and see a sharp up-tick alright. And it looks like the largest such up-tick since
the beginning of the data in 1992. Does that short five year spurt represent
the future? Only time will tell. You guys make graphs that project rates in
the future. Here's the first one up on a Google search on "Sea Level Projections"

This "guy" doesn't make up any graphs. Why don't you find something from a reputable scientific organization that states that there will be no negative future consequences from either a steady continuous rate of sea level rise or an accelerated rate of sea level rise. I'll be waiting.

CS_SLR-scenarios_v8.png


I point out that a rise of four feet by 2100 is ridiculous. It requires over a
threefold increase in today's rate. Do you really expect that to happen?
This coming June 2018 it will be thirty years since Dr. Hansen testified
before congress. His testimony just isn't coming true. A few years ago he
put out a paper saying five METERS is possible by 2100. When the numbers
based on his scenario are run it comes to nearly a millimeter per day by 2099.

People on your side of the issue make preposterous claims and they are getting
away with it. You could say it has reached a "Fever Pitch".

Arguing some individual model, is a ridiculous way to argue the overall consensus of all major scientific organizations. It is a prediction - that's all.
 
Last edited:
I wrote:

It is a matter of fact that climate data has been changed.
Why it has been changed is a matter of opinion.​

Provide your proof...

That's easy enough:

Sea Level Then
https://web.archive.org/web/2004071...2004_rel1.2/sl_ib_ns_cu2004_rel1.2_global.txt

Sea Level now
http://sealevel.colorado.edu/files/2016_rel4/sl_ns_global.txt

Giss Temp Then
https://web.archive.org/web/2005091...ss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt

Giss Temp now
https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt

GISS Temp is a bit difficult to compare then and now because you have to unscramble the table data, but it can be done

The Sea Level is easy just drop them into Excel and generate the graph

If you use 365 day smoothing it looks like this:

24e8482.jpg


That comparison is a few years old but a reproduction would look pretty much the same.

Here's a graph that compares the GISSTEMP data;

wck4lc.jpg


That the historical data has been rewritten, is a matter of fact.
Why it's been rewritten is a matter of opinion.



 
I don't have proof of rightness or wrongness, what those graphs and news items show is that
adjustments seem to only go one way. How many times have you seen the headline in the
popular press, "...worse than previously thought." Really how many times?

Adjustments seem to only go one way? I don't think so. I know for a fact that some adjustments have also been downwards as well.

Here's a graph of the changes that GISS has made to world temperatures over the years:

wck4lc.jpg


All the changes since 1980 are up and most of the changes prior to that date are down.

Actually, your graph says changes since 2005. Did you miss that?

Here's Figure 7.1 from the IPCC's first Assessment report

ipcc_1990_panel3.jpg


The medieval Warm Period has since been erased in subsequent IPCC Reports.

Nice... another denialist talking point.
 
Contention after contention, with more than a dozen links. It is unwise to believe the contentions of an article without verifying the source material actually says what they claim.

Haven't you learned this yet? This should be "debate 101." Always verify! Don't trust others, just because it fits your confirmation bias.

Says the guy who can almost never back up anything he says. And the last time you tried it was with a pay-walled paper that nobody could read other than the abstract. At least my information has links that you could use to verify. But we all know you are too lazy to go and do something like that.
 
You know like I know, that all of the increases occurred well within the error bars.

Error bars? What error bars are you talking about? I hate to break it to you long but the standard deviation is not an error bar. Please, go look up standard deviation before you make a fool of yourself any more than you have already.

Actually your reference was to the mean sea level, which would be affected by an increase in ether the low of the high reading.

But a bulge created by an El Nino would affect all of them and not just one.

If you think about it like I said, you would see that the satellite data would require a tide removal adjustment to show anything.

And the link I provided says there is one. You don't read anything I link to do you?
 
Back
Top Bottom