Global Warming Actually Still Accelerating - no "lull"

[Ropey]

Only Fox would write a headline like that for the contents of that article.

Yes, it is a catchy headline.

Look at the NOAA sea level elevations since 1857.

Sea Levels Online - Mean Sea Level Trending

There is a slow steady increase that sure doesn't presuppose influence by man. If there were influences then the slow steady trend would be disrupted because since 1857 population growth and so use of natural resources and industrial mechanization has sky-rocketed.

The relevant data does not exist to support these nonsensical and whimsical sky-is-falling conjectures.

"There is a slow steady increase that sure doesn't presuppose influence by man."

Nor does it deny AGW. You need more analysis to determine that.

It denies it by the very indifference of nature to it.

There's been no sharply dramatic change to the increase yet man's increase of natural resources has been sharply dramatic.

 

[PMZ]

Which you think is because of melted Artic ice.

Melted ice and warmer water expansion.

Floating ice melts and that raises sea levels?

You may be dimmer than I first thought.

The vast majority of ice is not floating. It's on land.

You are dimmer than I thought.

 

[PMZ]

Yes, it is a catchy headline.

Look at the NOAA sea level elevations since 1857.

Sea Levels Online - Mean Sea Level Trending

There is a slow steady increase that sure doesn't presuppose influence by man. If there were influences then the slow steady trend would be disrupted because since 1857 population growth and so use of natural resources and industrial mechanization has sky-rocketed.

The relevant data does not exist to support these nonsensical and whimsical sky-is-falling conjectures.

"There is a slow steady increase that sure doesn't presuppose influence by man."

Nor does it deny AGW. You need more analysis to determine that.

It denies it by the very indifference of nature to it.

There's been no sharply dramatic change to the increase yet man's increase of natural resources has been sharply dramatic.

You have, apparently, avoided reading any of my references. Is learning painful to you?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Melted ice and warmer water expansion.

Floating ice melts and that raises sea levels?

You may be dimmer than I first thought.

The vast majority of ice is not floating. It's on land.

You are dimmer than I thought.

How much of the Arctic Ice is on land?

 

[PMZ]

Floating ice melts and that raises sea levels?

You may be dimmer than I first thought.

The vast majority of ice is not floating. It's on land.

You are dimmer than I thought.

How much of the Arctic Ice is on land?

Don't be so lazy. Look it up.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

60% is easier to get when it is 60% of less.

I got an idea. You give me 90% of your paycheck, and I will give you back 160% of what you have left. That's the math you like, eh?

Let us know when volume and extent return to pre 1980 levels.

Why not the 1800 levels?
Or the 8000 BC levels?

Because we didn't build today's civilization around 1800 levels or 8000 BC levels.

Why do I need to look it up?
We're talking about Arctic Sea ice levels.......

 

[ScienceRocks]

It's CALLED THE PDO!!!

 

[PMZ]

Why not the 1800 levels?
Or the 8000 BC levels?

Because we didn't build today's civilization around 1800 levels or 8000 BC levels.

Why do I need to look it up?
We're talking about Arctic Sea ice levels.......

You don't need to look it up because your conclusions have no impact on the solution. Your dream of putting all of the energy costs of our generation on the next generation are kaput. We will take responsibility for our actions. We will help to solve the problems that we created.

What you do is your business.

 

[Ropey]

"There is a slow steady increase that sure doesn't presuppose influence by man."

Nor does it deny AGW. You need more analysis to determine that.

It denies it by the very indifference of nature to it.

There's been no sharply dramatic change to the increase yet man's increase of natural resources has been sharply dramatic.

You have, apparently, avoided reading any of my references. Is learning painful to you?

You lack relevant data and since you lack relevant data you ask for relevant data to disprove your opinionated conjectures and yes, some of those conjectures are by scientists who are conjecturing without relevant data.

Scientific extrapolations are still extrapolations and for every opinion you can gather, there's opposite views and extrapolations on that view as well.

Look at the NOAA sea level elevations since 1857.

Sea Levels Online - Mean Sea Level Trending

There is a slow steady increase that sure doesn't presuppose influence by man. If there were influences then the slow steady trend would be disrupted because since 1857 population growth and use of natural resources and industrial mechanization has sky-rocketed.

The relevant data does not exist to support these nonsensical and whimsical sky-is-falling conjectures.

Sea Level Trends

That's hard data.

 

[ScienceRocks]

Here's the data ;0

CU Sea Level Research Group | University of Colorado

 

[Ropey]

Yep, and if you look at that data in the long term, you will see the trending smoothen out. That's why it's taken out of the distribution and 'extrapolated'.

 

[PMZ]

Yep, and if you look at that data in the long term, you will see the trending smoothen out. That's why it's taken out of the distribution and 'extrapolated'.

Hard data is merely a pile of numbers. It's how it's interpreted that's meaningful. You want to believe that this data interprets in a way that makes what you want, true.

I like objective, thorough interpretation better. It's much more likely to be correct.

That's why I posted those references yesterday.

 

[Ropey]

There is a slow steady increase that sure doesn't presuppose influence by man. If there were influences then the slow steady trend would be disrupted because since 1857 population growth and use of natural resources and industrial mechanization has sky-rocketed.

The relevant data does not exist to support these nonsensical and whimsical sky-is-falling conjectures.

Sea Level Trends

That's hard data.

Hard data is merely a pile of numbers. It's how it's interpreted that's meaningful. You want to believe that this data interprets in a way that makes what you want, true.

I like objective, thorough interpretation better. It's much more likely to be correct.

That's why I posted those references yesterday.

The hard data is compiled and trended from 1857 to 2012. There's no need for interpretation. The interpretation is necessary when you take the long term trending out of the distribution and extrapolate a small data upward trend that doesn't show in the long term trending.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Because we didn't build today's civilization around 1800 levels or 8000 BC levels.

Why do I need to look it up?
We're talking about Arctic Sea ice levels.......

You don't need to look it up because your conclusions have no impact on the solution. Your dream of putting all of the energy costs of our generation on the next generation are kaput. We will take responsibility for our actions. We will help to solve the problems that we created.

What you do is your business.

We will take responsibility for our actions.

Excellent!
You should spend all your own money on the next Solyndra and leave my tax dollars out of it.

 

[PMZ]

There is a slow steady increase that sure doesn't presuppose influence by man. If there were influences then the slow steady trend would be disrupted because since 1857 population growth and use of natural resources and industrial mechanization has sky-rocketed.

The relevant data does not exist to support these nonsensical and whimsical sky-is-falling conjectures.

Sea Level Trends

That's hard data.

Hard data is merely a pile of numbers. It's how it's interpreted that's meaningful. You want to believe that this data interprets in a way that makes what you want, true.

I like objective, thorough interpretation better. It's much more likely to be correct.

That's why I posted those references yesterday.

The hard data is compiled and trended from 1857 to 2012. There's no need for interpretation. The interpretation is necessary when you take the long term trending out of the distribution and extrapolate a small data upward trend that doesn't show in the long term trending.

Why are you avoiding my references that have a different interpretation?

 

[PMZ]

Why do I need to look it up?
We're talking about Arctic Sea ice levels.......

You don't need to look it up because your conclusions have no impact on the solution. Your dream of putting all of the energy costs of our generation on the next generation are kaput. We will take responsibility for our actions. We will help to solve the problems that we created.

What you do is your business.

We will take responsibility for our actions.

Excellent!
You should spend all your own money on the next Solyndra and leave my tax dollars out of it.

I'm sure that you'd love us to carry you across the finish line for free. The ultimate entitlement gig.

 

[PMZ]

There is a slow steady increase that sure doesn't presuppose influence by man. If there were influences then the slow steady trend would be disrupted because since 1857 population growth and use of natural resources and industrial mechanization has sky-rocketed.

The relevant data does not exist to support these nonsensical and whimsical sky-is-falling conjectures.

Sea Level Trends

That's hard data.

Hard data is merely a pile of numbers. It's how it's interpreted that's meaningful. You want to believe that this data interprets in a way that makes what you want, true.

I like objective, thorough interpretation better. It's much more likely to be correct.

That's why I posted those references yesterday.

The hard data is compiled and trended from 1857 to 2012. There's no need for interpretation. The interpretation is necessary when you take the long term trending out of the distribution and extrapolate a small data upward trend that doesn't show in the long term trending.

[/QUOTE

Here's the source of conservative scotoma.

'' There's no need for interpretation ''

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You don't need to look it up because your conclusions have no impact on the solution. Your dream of putting all of the energy costs of our generation on the next generation are kaput. We will take responsibility for our actions. We will help to solve the problems that we created.

What you do is your business.

We will take responsibility for our actions.

Excellent!
You should spend all your own money on the next Solyndra and leave my tax dollars out of it.

I'm sure that you'd love us to carry you across the finish line for free. The ultimate entitlement gig.

Yeah, you not wasting my money is an entitlement. LOL!

 

[PMZ]

We will take responsibility for our actions.

Excellent!
You should spend all your own money on the next Solyndra and leave my tax dollars out of it.

I'm sure that you'd love us to carry you across the finish line for free. The ultimate entitlement gig.

Yeah, you not wasting my money is an entitlement. LOL!

No. You thinking that you can live off of the work and responsibility and contributions of others is an entitlement.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I'm sure that you'd love us to carry you across the finish line for free. The ultimate entitlement gig.

Yeah, you not wasting my money is an entitlement. LOL!

No. You thinking that you can live off of the work and responsibility and contributions of others is an entitlement.

If I believed that, I'd be a liberal like you.