Global Warming is happening...on Mars

[freshie]

Introduction
A very brief history of sea level:

Over the last 140,000 years sea level has varied over a range of more than 120 metres. The most recent large change was an increase of more than 120 metres as the last ice age ended
Sea level stabilised over the last few thousand years, and there was little change between about 1AD and 1800AD
Sea level began to rise again in the 19th century and accelerated again in the early 20th century
Satellite altimeter measurements show a rate of sea-level rise of about 3 mm/year since the early 1990s - a further increase in the rate

Do you even look at the links you provide?

The first graph shows sea levels 120,000 years ago equal to what we have now. Those SUVs now have the power to time travel I guess.

The second graph, with the scary red hockey stick is a quadratic fit to tide gauge estimates. It's a freakin' best fit to an estimate. For someone that likes to admonish people that the argument is settled, that's some pretty weak sauce.

The best thing about this site is there is no mention of the above adjustment.

Here's a link to OBSERVED sea levels. They also show where the adjustments were made to help further the AGW argument:

***.21stcenturysciencetech.com/Articles_2011/Winter-2010/Morner.pdf*** (can't post links)

It's hilarious. The AGW crowd is once again placing all their marbles in another theoretical "hockey stick model". If you need a theoretical model, it's nowhere near settled.

Climate change - always has, always will

 

[Meister]

Introduction
A very brief history of sea level:

Over the last 140,000 years sea level has varied over a range of more than 120 metres. The most recent large change was an increase of more than 120 metres as the last ice age ended
Sea level stabilised over the last few thousand years, and there was little change between about 1AD and 1800AD
Sea level began to rise again in the 19th century and accelerated again in the early 20th century
Satellite altimeter measurements show a rate of sea-level rise of about 3 mm/year since the early 1990s - a further increase in the rate

Do you even look at the links you provide?

The first graph shows sea levels 120,000 years ago equal to what we have now. Those SUVs now have the power to time travel I guess.

The second graph, with the scary red hockey stick is a quadratic fit to tide gauge estimates. It's a freakin' best fit to an estimate. For someone that likes to admonish people that the argument is settled, that's some pretty weak sauce.

The best thing about this site is there is no mention of the above adjustment.

Here's a link to OBSERVED sea levels. They also show where the adjustments were made to help further the AGW argument:

***.21stcenturysciencetech.com/Articles_2011/Winter-2010/Morner.pdf*** (can't post links)

It's hilarious. The AGW crowd is once again placing all their marbles in another theoretical "hockey stick model". If you need a theoretical model, it's nowhere near settled.

Climate change - always has, always will

Here ya go:
http://21stcenturysciencetech.com/Articles_2011/Winter-2010/Morner.pdf

 

[RWatt]

Introduction
A very brief history of sea level:

Over the last 140,000 years sea level has varied over a range of more than 120 metres. The most recent large change was an increase of more than 120 metres as the last ice age ended
Sea level stabilised over the last few thousand years, and there was little change between about 1AD and 1800AD
Sea level began to rise again in the 19th century and accelerated again in the early 20th century
Satellite altimeter measurements show a rate of sea-level rise of about 3 mm/year since the early 1990s - a further increase in the rate

Do you even look at the links you provide?

The first graph shows sea levels 120,000 years ago equal to what we have now. Those SUVs now have the power to time travel I guess.

No-one is arguing the recent sea level is higher than any point in history, just that sea level is rising and if it rises far enough there will be detrimental effects due to us having built a lot of our stuff just above present day sea level.

120,000 years ago sea levels were not the same as today, they were about 15 feet higher than today. Well it must be fine then if it's happened before. If cities like New York survived 15 feet sea level rise 120,000 years ago there must be no problem if 6ft sea level rise happens today!

Well that's obviously illogical because New York wasn't around 120,000 years ago, but this is a great example of how things-happening-naturally-in-the-past doesn't automatically mean they are fine if they happen again today. A lot of global warming effects have happened at a greater scale in the past, not just sea level rise. The unique point today which makes such changes risky is this is the first time they will impact a civilization of 6 billion humans.

The second graph, with the scary red hockey stick is a quadratic fit to tide gauge estimates. It's a freakin' best fit to an estimate. For someone that likes to admonish people that the argument is settled, that's some pretty weak sauce.

I would think the red line was the most accurate.

Here's a link to OBSERVED sea levels. They also show where the adjustments were made to help further the AGW argument:

***.21stcenturysciencetech.com/Articles_2011/Winter-2010/Morner.pdf*** (can't post links)

The PDF claims there has been no sea level rise since the 50s. This defies the ice sheet mass losses, and the warming since 1950 - both ocean surface and ocean heat content. Both of which would cause a sea level rise. Zero sea level rise since 1950 makes no sense.

And look at figure 10 in that PDF. Tilting graphs to remove the trend? I recommend the previous source over this one.

 

[freshie]

Introduction
A very brief history of sea level:

Over the last 140,000 years sea level has varied over a range of more than 120 metres. The most recent large change was an increase of more than 120 metres as the last ice age ended
Sea level stabilised over the last few thousand years, and there was little change between about 1AD and 1800AD
Sea level began to rise again in the 19th century and accelerated again in the early 20th century
Satellite altimeter measurements show a rate of sea-level rise of about 3 mm/year since the early 1990s - a further increase in the rate

Do you even look at the links you provide?

The first graph shows sea levels 120,000 years ago equal to what we have now. Those SUVs now have the power to time travel I guess.

No-one is arguing the recent sea level is higher than any point in history, just that sea level is rising and if it rises far enough there will be detrimental effects due to us having built a lot of our stuff just above present day sea level.

120,000 years ago sea levels were not the same as today, they were about 15 feet higher than today. Well it must be fine then if it's happened before. If cities like New York survived 15 feet sea level rise 120,000 years ago there must be no problem if 6ft sea level rise happens today!

Well that's obviously illogical because New York wasn't around 120,000 years ago, but this is a great example of how things-happening-naturally-in-the-past doesn't automatically mean they are fine if they happen again today. A lot of global warming effects have happened at a greater scale in the past, not just sea level rise. The unique point today which makes such changes risky is this is the first time they will impact a civilization of 6 billion humans.

The second graph, with the scary red hockey stick is a quadratic fit to tide gauge estimates. It's a freakin' best fit to an estimate. For someone that likes to admonish people that the argument is settled, that's some pretty weak sauce.

I would think the red line was the most accurate.

Here's a link to OBSERVED sea levels. They also show where the adjustments were made to help further the AGW argument:

***.21stcenturysciencetech.com/Articles_2011/Winter-2010/Morner.pdf*** (can't post links)

The PDF claims there has been no sea level rise since the 50s. This defies the ice sheet mass losses, and the warming since 1950 - both ocean surface and ocean heat content. Both of which would cause a sea level rise. Zero sea level rise since 1950 makes no sense.

And look at figure 10 in that PDF. Tilting graphs to remove the trend? I recommend the previous source over this one.

You did notice that the red line is an ESTIMATE, yet you offer up that is the most accurate. That's completely laughable that someone would offer up an ESTIMATE as more accurate than observed empirical data.

Well that's ok. If you look at the second graph, there is virtually no sea level rise in the last 40-50 years. The red line is what a model tells you is going to happen. Just like the Mann hockey stick. Models aren't settled, otherwise they wouldn't call it a model, but a mathematical law.

So yeah, I'm ok with those figures because the observed sea rise in the last 40-50 years is flat. It's just the scary red hockey stick ESTIMATE that is based on a model that is complete trash. The only place these two links different is the doom and gloom red line ESTIMATE. Warmists may want to actually provide links that support their arguments.

Now let's talk about how warmists think it's insignificant that sea levels were actually higher 120,000 years ago. Are you serious? It's VERY significant. If they were actually higher 120,000 years ago then what caused it? It wasn't SUVs or anything else that has to do with the human race, so what was it? You don't think it's significant that there were sets of forces, completely non-human, that made the oceans rise that high? Do you reject the possibility that these forces could be at work as we speak? Guess what, if these non-human forces are at work their isn't a damn thing we can do about it except move inland. I think it's absolutely hilarious that your commander in chief (Al Gore) is moving to the beach while his blind followers try to convince us that AGW is causing the oceans to swallow us up.

Climate Change - Always has, always will (Even 120,000 years ago)

 

[Old Rocks]

Satellite altimetry is measuring a 3 mm+ change per year at present. And, by almost everybodies measurements, it is accelerating.

 

[freshie]

Satellite altimetry is measuring a 3 mm+ change per year at present. And, by almost everybodies measurements, it is accelerating.

Don't think so. If you use a model or estimate you might be able to justify that.

Let's look at unadjusted empirical data:

***sealevel.colorado.edu*** (can't post links yet)

This is from a source the warmists have loved until the data started changing. For those of you who know how to read a simple graph, notice the trend? That's right, the oceans are actually receding now, just like they did 120,000 years ago.

Why do you think they decided to add the .3mm adjustment? When you look at unadjusted empirical evidence, the oceans are in a receding trend. You need to actually fabricate data to support the oceans rising. It's freakin' hilarious all you guys are arguing with me while your commander in chief (Al Gore) moves into his $9,000,000.00 ocean front propeprty. The guy's a complete genious.

Some would argue we shouldn't be looking at short term events. A model is not settled until it can predict the short term. The short term AGW model for the ocean rising is failing, yet people want to argue that the science is settled. It's not settled, it's not a scientific law, and it fails the test of a theorem. AGW is just another unproven postulate. If you don't know what a theorem or postulate is, I once again laugh at you for telling us the science is settled.

Climate Change - always has, always will

 

[Meister]

Satellite altimetry is measuring a 3 mm+ change per year at present. And, by almost everybodies measurements, it is accelerating.

Don't think so. If you use a model or estimate you might be able to justify that.

Let's look at unadjusted empirical data:

***sealevel.colorado.edu*** (can't post links yet)

This is from a source the warmists have loved until the data started changing. For those of you who know how to read a simple graph, notice the trend? That's right, the oceans are actually receding now, just like they did 120,000 years ago.

Why do you think they decided to add the .3mm adjustment? When you look at unadjusted empirical evidence, the oceans are in a receding trend. You need to actually fabricate data to support the oceans rising. It's freakin' hilarious all you guys are arguing with me while your commander in chief (Al Gore) moves into his $9,000,000.00 ocean front propeprty. The guy's a complete genious.

Some would argue we shouldn't be looking at short term events. A model is not settled until it can predict the short term. The short term AGW model for the ocean rising is failing, yet people want to argue that the science is settled. It's not settled, it's not a scientific law, and it fails the test of a theorem. AGW is just another unproven postulate. If you don't know what a theorem or postulate is, I once again laugh at you for telling us the science is settled.

Climate Change - always has, always will

Let me help you with that:
CU Sea Level Research Group | University of Colorado

 

[daveman]

Satellite altimetry is measuring a 3 mm+ change per year at present. And, by almost everybodies measurements, it is accelerating.

Yeah. Remember that episode of Gilligan's Island where the Professor said the island was sinking? Turns out Gilligan was tying a lobster trap to the Professor's gage and moving it our further into the lagoon every day.

 

[Trakar]

Satellite altimetry is measuring a 3 mm+ change per year at present. And, by almost everybodies measurements, it is accelerating.

Yeah. Remember that episode of Gilligan's Island where the Professor said the island was sinking? Turns out Gilligan was tying a lobster trap to the Professor's gage and moving it our further into the lagoon every day.

And you see this sitcom slapstick situation as analogous to multiple and continuous international satellite measurements over the last 3-4 decades how?

 

[Old Rocks]

It is the only answer that Daveboy has.

CU Sea Level Research Group | University of Colorado

Nice graph on this site. Note the run above the linear line from 2002 to 2007. The recent run from 2007 to 2010 has a steeper slope than the line. And the drop for 2011, due to a very strong La Nina, will have a steeper line yet, and rise significantly above the line. And by 2025, they will either have to make a new line, or bend that one upward at about 2012 or 2013.

Now how is that for hanging my neck out? Are you willing to make a predicition that the sea level will decrease, or at least not accelerate?

 

[daveman]

Satellite altimetry is measuring a 3 mm+ change per year at present. And, by almost everybodies measurements, it is accelerating.

Yeah. Remember that episode of Gilligan's Island where the Professor said the island was sinking? Turns out Gilligan was tying a lobster trap to the Professor's gage and moving it our further into the lagoon every day.

And you see this sitcom slapstick situation as analogous to multiple and continuous international satellite measurements over the last 3-4 decades how?

It is the only answer that Daveboy has.

CU Sea Level Research Group | University of Colorado

Nice graph on this site. Note the run above the linear line from 2002 to 2007. The recent run from 2007 to 2010 has a steeper slope than the line. And the drop for 2011, due to a very strong La Nina, will have a steeper line yet, and rise significantly above the line. And by 2025, they will either have to make a new line, or bend that one upward at about 2012 or 2013.

Now how is that for hanging my neck out? Are you willing to make a predicition that the sea level will decrease, or at least not accelerate?

This may come as a complete shock to you two, but sea levels went up and down long before man showed up.

 

[Old Rocks]

My, my, so that will be consolation for drowning the world's great seaports? Sea level rises and falls for various reasons over geological time. The reason at present that we are seeing an accelerating sea level rise is the GHGs that we are pumping into the atmosphere.

 

[Trakar]

Yeah. Remember that episode of Gilligan's Island where the Professor said the island was sinking? Turns out Gilligan was tying a lobster trap to the Professor's gage and moving it our further into the lagoon every day.

And you see this sitcom slapstick situation as analogous to multiple and continuous international satellite measurements over the last 3-4 decades how?

It is the only answer that Daveboy has.

CU Sea Level Research Group | University of Colorado

Nice graph on this site. Note the run above the linear line from 2002 to 2007. The recent run from 2007 to 2010 has a steeper slope than the line. And the drop for 2011, due to a very strong La Nina, will have a steeper line yet, and rise significantly above the line. And by 2025, they will either have to make a new line, or bend that one upward at about 2012 or 2013.

Now how is that for hanging my neck out? Are you willing to make a predicition that the sea level will decrease, or at least not accelerate?

This may come as a complete shock to you two, but sea levels went up and down long before man showed up.

Indeed they did, in response to planetary warming and cooling, just as is happening now.

 

[daveman]

My, my, so that will be consolation for drowning the world's great seaports? Sea level rises and falls for various reasons over geological time. The reason at present that we are seeing an accelerating sea level rise is the GHGs that we are pumping into the atmosphere.

And how long will it take to drown the world's seaports at 3 millimeters a year?

 

[daveman]

And you see this sitcom slapstick situation as analogous to multiple and continuous international satellite measurements over the last 3-4 decades how?

It is the only answer that Daveboy has.

CU Sea Level Research Group | University of Colorado

Nice graph on this site. Note the run above the linear line from 2002 to 2007. The recent run from 2007 to 2010 has a steeper slope than the line. And the drop for 2011, due to a very strong La Nina, will have a steeper line yet, and rise significantly above the line. And by 2025, they will either have to make a new line, or bend that one upward at about 2012 or 2013.

Now how is that for hanging my neck out? Are you willing to make a predicition that the sea level will decrease, or at least not accelerate?

This may come as a complete shock to you two, but sea levels went up and down long before man showed up.

Indeed they did, in response to planetary warming and cooling, just as is happening now.

Yes. And the planet warmed and cooled long before man showed up, too.

 

[Old Rocks]

It was 1.8 mm per year not that long ago. And nature tends to do things in spurts, not the nice even lines you see on graphs. A 2 meter rise, which is likely by 2100 would critically damage many of the present ports.

 

[daveman]

It was 1.8 mm per year not that long ago. And nature tends to do things in spurts, not the nice even lines you see on graphs. A 2 meter rise, which is likely by 2100 would critically damage many of the present ports.

Obviously, global socialism is the only thing that will save us!

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Yes, maybe the sea levels are rising. All over the planet there are massive, ancient cities now underwater.

Can you show me one repeatable laboratory experiment demonstrating how a 60PPM increase causes melting ice caps and raising seas? If not, why not?

 

[Trakar]

Yes. And the planet warmed and cooled long before man showed up, too.

And?

Presumably you have a reason for stating the obvious and well evidenced.

 

[Trakar]

It was 1.8 mm per year not that long ago. And nature tends to do things in spurts, not the nice even lines you see on graphs. A 2 meter rise, which is likely by 2100 would critically damage many of the present ports.

Obviously, global socialism is the only thing that will save us!

Who, beyond the strawman above, is proposing such?