Sea Level Rise by Satellite Altimetry

[SSDD]

Here is another multi proxy graph of sea level for the past few thousand years...

Figure 13.3: (a) Paleo sea level data for last 3000 years from Northern and Southern Hemisphere sites. The effects of glacial isostatic adjustment (GIA) have been removed from these records. Light green = Iceland (Gehrels et al., 2006), purple = Nova Scotia (Gehrels et al., 2005), bright blue = Connecticut (Donnelly et al., 2004), blue = Nova Scotia (Gehrels et al., 2005), red = United Kingdom (Gehrels et al., 2011), green = North Carolina (Kemp et al., 2011), brown = New Zealand (Gehrels et al., 2008), gray = mid-Pacific Ocean (Woodroffe et al., 2012).

You see a massive and global rise in sea level in this graph during the MWP? ! ? ! ? Better give me your car keys...

I have to also say I'm more than a little surprised to see you so reliant on proxies after so many of your other comments.

Who said anything about massive? Again, you can't respond to the actual argument being made, so you make up something to argue against.

As to proxies, I don't think they are so great, but when hundreds upon hundreds find that the RWP and MWP were warmer than the present and global in nature, while one, study and its spinoffs relying on inappopriate proxies and discarding whatever disagrees with it find that the MWP was local and not as warm as the present, I will go with the preponderance of the evidence till something better comes along.

 

[SSDD]

That is, the periods of sea level rise don't match at all. So, SSDD has conclusively disproved any global sea level rise during the MWP, but has shown that significant local fluctuations in sea levels are common all over the earth during many different eras.

You are living proof that you just can't fix stupid.

 

[jc456]

Being you're a denier, I understand how you could believe cherrypicking is normal, since it's all your side does.

You just need to understand that most people don't share the ethical failings so common to your cult.

I'll agree to disagree with you. altering data to meet a number, is cherry picking. Not using data from known good sources, cherry picking, and that ain't us.

 

[jc456]

Here is another multi proxy graph of sea level for the past few thousand years...

Figure 13.3: (a) Paleo sea level data for last 3000 years from Northern and Southern Hemisphere sites. The effects of glacial isostatic adjustment (GIA) have been removed from these records. Light green = Iceland (Gehrels et al., 2006), purple = Nova Scotia (Gehrels et al., 2005), bright blue = Connecticut (Donnelly et al., 2004), blue = Nova Scotia (Gehrels et al., 2005), red = United Kingdom (Gehrels et al., 2011), green = North Carolina (Kemp et al., 2011), brown = New Zealand (Gehrels et al., 2008), gray = mid-Pacific Ocean (Woodroffe et al., 2012).

You see a massive and global rise in sea level in this graph during the MWP? ! ? ! ? Better give me your car keys...

I have to also say I'm more than a little surprised to see you so reliant on proxies after so many of your other comments.

Who said anything about massive? Again, you can't respond to the actual argument being made, so you make up something to argue against.

As to proxies, I don't think they are so great, but when hundreds upon hundreds find that the RWP and MWP were warmer than the present and global in nature, while one, study and its spinoffs relying on inappopriate proxies and discarding whatever disagrees with it find that the MWP was local and not as warm as the present, I will go with the preponderance of the evidence till something better comes along.

meaning cherry picking!

 

[mamooth]

That is, the periods of sea level rise don't match at all. So, SSDD has conclusively disproved any global sea level rise during the MWP, but has shown that significant local fluctuations in sea levels are common all over the earth during many different eras.

You are living proof that you just can't fix stupid.

Your cherrypicked sources _still_ all contradict each other, making you look very stupid. And rather than address that, you pout and run. Again. Like you always do.

It's the way of the world, grasshopper. You will always be a mewling sacless thing, and everyone else will always be laughing hard at you because of it. To achieve enlightenment, you must accept that as your purpose in life. In order for someone to win, someone else has to lose, and that's your ordained place in this universe, to be the loser.

 

[IanC]

mamooth and crick think our sources are cherrypicked but have no problem with their own cherrypicked sources.

 

[SSDD]

mamooth and crick think our sources are cherrypicked but have no problem with their own cherrypicked sources.

And they deny studies done across the globe that find that the MWP and RWP were both warmer than the present and global in nature while accepting that mann's study which was limited to an area smaller than Texas proves that the MWP and RWP were local. The IPCC itself admitted that the RWP and MWP were warmer and global until mann attempted to erase that entire bit of history...

 

[mamooth]

There are no such studies. You're just lying again. A collection of contradictory cherrypicks does not make for a global study.

We understand the correctness of the hockey stick because multiple data sources across many different scientific disciplines support it. You're lying again when you say we only look at Mann.

And finally, you're lying about the IPCC supposedly saying the MWP was warmer and erasing data.

So why are you such a flagrantly dishonest POS, and why do you think you can get away with it? Is it your insatiable desire to see millions of brown people die which drives you to do it?

 

[SSDD]

There are no such studies. You're just lying again. A collection of contradictory cherrypicks does not make for a global study.

Sorry hairball but literally dozens of studies have been presented on this forum from all corners of the globe finding that the MWP was warmer than the present...It is you who is the liar and the world class denier

And finally, you're lying about the IPCC supposedly saying the MWP was warmer and erasing data.

Again, you prove that you only know what your priests tell you. You have not done the first bit of looking on your own to determine the veracity of what you are being told...even school children know that the ipcc acknowledged that the MWP was warmer than the present till they erased it based on mann's fraudulent hockey stick. This is what the IPCC said that the temperature history of the past thousand of years or so looked like in 1995 till it was overturned by a single paper whose sole purpose was to disappear that inconvenient MWP.

So why are you such a flagrantly dishonest POS, and why do you think you can get away with it? Is it your insatiable desire to see millions of brown people die which drives you to do it?

Precisely the question you should be asked...The facts are that the blood of millions is on your hands....greens are out to deny the third world the energy which makes their own lifestyle possible. Personally, I don't think any "endangered" species is worth saving if protecting it is going to result in the deaths of millions who might otherwise start making the move out of the iron age to the increased life span that we enjoy...what is your position?

 

[Crick]

It doesn't bother you that the only copy of "data" you can obtain, supporting your line, is an obvious xerox copy?

 

[jc456]

It doesn't bother you that the only copy of "data" you can obtain, supporting your line, is an obvious xerox copy?

thumbs down. that's it? That's all you got. hahahahahhahahahahahaha knee slappen fun today!!!!

 

[SSDD]

It doesn't bother you that the only copy of "data" you can obtain, supporting your line, is an obvious xerox copy?

Not at all since it is a xerox from the original IPCC report which can be found here....you are clearly to stupid to look it up yourself so I will provide you with a link...

http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/far/wg_I/ipcc_far_wg_I_full_report.pdf

Page 202 Observed Climate Variation and Change 7

Parts of Australasia and Chile were also warmer. The late tenth to early thirteenth centuries (about AD 950-1250) appear to have been exceptionally warm in western Europe, Iceland and Greenland (Alexandre 1987, Lamb, 1988) This period is known as the Medieval Climatic Optimum China was, however, cold at this time (mainly in winter) but South Japan was warm (Yoshino, 1978) This period of widespread warmth is notable in that there is no evidence that it was accompanied by an increase of greenhouse gases

If you would like some published studies that contradict the claim that china was cold during the MWP, I can provide them for you again although you have seen them several times already.

 

[SSDD]

It doesn't bother you that the only copy of "data" you can obtain, supporting your line, is an obvious xerox copy?

thumbs down. that's it? That's all you got. hahahahahhahahahahahaha knee slappen fun today!!!!

I gave him a link to the actual IPCC report that contained the photo...in a week or so he will be claiming that no such link was ever posted. They just can't stop losing.

 

[mamooth]

Sorry hairball but literally dozens of studies have been presented on this forum from all corners of the globe finding that the MWP was warmer than the present...It is you who is the liar and the world class denier

Still trying to pass off your debunked fudgy crap from "CO2 Science"? I guess if crap is all you have, you have to use crap.

Half of your cherrypicked sources don't show the warming.

The other half of your cherrypicked sources contradict each other as to the date of this supposed warming, differing from each other by many centuries, and showing no warming for most of the period. Your sources show the precise opposite of your big lie, that there was no global warmup during the MWP.

This is what the IPCC said that the temperature history of the past thousand of years or so looked like in 1995.

And there wasn't anything better in 1995. If you're crazy, stupid or dishonest, you could make the claim you make. Normal honest humans, on the other hand, refer to replacing incomplete data with better data as "science".

till it was overturned by a single paper whose sole purpose was to disappear that inconvenient MWP.

... price check on tinfoil needed on aisle 9 ...

...what is your position?

That I am morally bound to oppose your genocide campaign. Your lunacy is not harmless. If we allowed your cult to have its way, millions would die. It doesn't matter if you claim your intentions were good; those people would still be just as dead, so your actions are still immoral. Therefore, every decent person is morally bound to oppose you.

 

[IanC]

It doesn't bother you that the only copy of "data" you can obtain, supporting your line, is an obvious xerox copy?

how do you rationalize attacking a graph that you know to be in existence in the first IPCC report? why the dishonesty? would you actually be happy if some of the readers of this MB believed that Lamb's graph was fake because of your comment?

 

[SSDD]

It doesn't bother you that the only copy of "data" you can obtain, supporting your line, is an obvious xerox copy?

how do you rationalize attacking a graph that you know to be in existence in the first IPCC report? why the dishonesty? would you actually be happy if some of the readers of this MB believed that Lamb's graph was fake because of your comment?

Because he believes that character assassination, ad hominem, and whatever you would like to call a personal attack on a graph in an effort to discredit it is actual argument. The first copy came from a xerox machine so it must be flawed somehow in his skewed thinking....the IPCC has worked so hard to make the MWP disappear, maybe he thought that the pre mann reports could no longer be obtained.

And of course he would be happy...lying is what he is all about and when one of his lies succeed, he gets a rush of accomplishment....why else continue to do it?

 

[SSDD]

Still trying to pass off your debunked fudgy crap from "CO2 Science"? I guess if crap is all you have, you have to use crap.

So now published papers that are mentioned on skeptical sites are crap....not surprising coming from you.

Half of your cherrypicked sources don't show the warming.

That's true, 50% don't show that the MWP was warmer....100% do....

And there wasn't anything better in 1995. If you're crazy, stupid or dishonest, you could make the claim you make. Normal honest humans, on the other hand, refer to replacing incomplete data with better data as "science".

There were the hundreds of peer reviewed published papers that demonstrated that the MWP was both warmer than the present and global in nature...you think the mann paper and it's spin offs are better than all the honest science that came before?

I am morally bound to oppose your genocide campaign. Your lunacy is not harmless. If we allowed your cult to have its way, millions would die. It doesn't matter if you claim your intentions were good; those people would still be just as dead, so your actions are still immoral. Therefore, every decent person is morally bound to oppose you.

If you were just a wee bit smarter than you are, you would be able to look down at your hands and see the blood of millions of third world brown people dripping off them....deaths that were not necessary but happened non the less because of the actions of leftist wackos like yourself. Your claims of human caused climate catastrophe are lies and simply add more death to what you and yours have already done...The money being wasted on your hoax could be put to some use that would actually address the problems of the world.

 

[IanC]

I wish the CAGW crowd would look at all the written historical records that often seem to disagree with their theories and 'reanalyzed' data. I have a lot more faith in the honesty of disinterested parties that were just recording events than I do in others who are trying to make their case by cherrypicking their evidence and using inappropriate methodologies to convince me of something that doesnt make sense.

 

[mamooth]

That's true, 50% don't show that the MWP was warmer....100% do....

Yet you can't show one.

You're just lying for your cult now. And everyone knows it.

There were the hundreds of peer reviewed published papers that demonstrated that the MWP was both warmer than the present and global in nature...you think the mann paper and it's spin offs are better than all the honest science that came before?

Of course, there are no hundreds of papers. You're just making crap up. Your liar website complies a list of papers that show the opposite of what they claim, and you go along with the scam.

Go on, post more of your list of crap from _CO2 Science_, so I can start going down the list, showing all the fudging, cherrypicking and outright lying your precious website is engaging in.

 

[mamooth]

I wish the CAGW crowd would look at all the written historical records that often seem to disagree with their theories and 'reanalyzed' data. I have a lot more faith in the honesty of disinterested parties that were just recording events than I do in others who are trying to make their case by cherrypicking their evidence and using inappropriate methodologies to convince me of something that doesnt make sense.

I have more faith in indepedent and impartially collected data than I do in the deliberately distorted denier cherrypicking of historical anecdotes.

You're making your WUWT allegiance more prominent by the day. Have they managed to mindwipe you completely?