An interesting article on sea levels rising..

[jc456]

That you should think mainstream science guilty of fraud and malfeasance - having a fair idea of your actual technical competence - worries me not in the slightest.

PS, you might familiarize yourself with the difference removing seasonal signals makes to graphs like these. And how about you point out where I said that UC data was "raw"..

PPS, dude, you are really a pathetic dick.

although the mainstream science as you like to boast about is pseudoscience, massaged and manipulated. Stated so by those who you boast about. Evidence presented in here repeatedly. So, what say you?

 

[jc456]

Check out this part of the story...

Seas aren’t just rising, scientists say — it’s worse than that. They’re speeding up.



The problem, or even mystery, is that scientists haven’t seen an unambiguous acceleration of sea level rise in a data record that’s considered the best for observing the problem — the one that began with the TOPEX/Poseidon satellite, which launched in late 1992 and carried an instrument, called a radar altimeter, that gives a very precise measurement of sea level around the globe. (It has since been succeeded by other satellites providing similar measurements.)

This record actually shows a decrease in the rate of sea level rise from the first decade measured by satellites (1993 to 2002) to the second one (2003 to 2012). “We’ve been looking at the altimeter records and scratching our heads, and saying, ‘why aren’t we seeing an acceleration in the satellite record?’ We should be,” said John Fasullo, a climate scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colorado.

In a new study in the open-access journal Scientific Reports, however, Fasullo and two colleagues say they have now resolved this problem. It turns out, they say, that sea level rise was artificially masked in the satellite record by the fact that one year before the satellite launched, the Earth experienced a major cooling pulse.

see, this is the problem with science deniers. "open access" journals mean that the articles aren't vetted and are largely nonsense.....which is why this is where science deniers get their supportive "studies".

thanks though.

so dude/dudette, post up some spot on this planet with sea level rise. That seems simple don't you think? Also, explain where this extra water source is.

 

[jc456]

Well, that's one viewpoint. It perfectly matches the viewpoint of fools griping that the experts are aware they're fools, but take it however you want.

and factual.

 

[jc456]

Check out this part of the story...

Seas aren’t just rising, scientists say — it’s worse than that. They’re speeding up.



The problem, or even mystery, is that scientists haven’t seen an unambiguous acceleration of sea level rise in a data record that’s considered the best for observing the problem — the one that began with the TOPEX/Poseidon satellite, which launched in late 1992 and carried an instrument, called a radar altimeter, that gives a very precise measurement of sea level around the globe. (It has since been succeeded by other satellites providing similar measurements.)

This record actually shows a decrease in the rate of sea level rise from the first decade measured by satellites (1993 to 2002) to the second one (2003 to 2012). “We’ve been looking at the altimeter records and scratching our heads, and saying, ‘why aren’t we seeing an acceleration in the satellite record?’ We should be,” said John Fasullo, a climate scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colorado.

In a new study in the open-access journal Scientific Reports, however, Fasullo and two colleagues say they have now resolved this problem. It turns out, they say, that sea level rise was artificially masked in the satellite record by the fact that one year before the satellite launched, the Earth experienced a major cooling pulse.

see, this is the problem with science deniers. "open access" journals mean that the articles aren't vetted and are largely nonsense.....which is why this is where science deniers get their supportive "studies".

thanks though.

What you mean is that they bypass the well documented pal review system put in place by the gatekeepers and present data that is considered to be heresy by the high church of AGW.

thanks though.

No. What I mean is that they aren't legitimate

legitimate by whose standards? If you're going to say your team, hah,

 

[jc456]

Check out this part of the story...

Seas aren’t just rising, scientists say — it’s worse than that. They’re speeding up.



The problem, or even mystery, is that scientists haven’t seen an unambiguous acceleration of sea level rise in a data record that’s considered the best for observing the problem — the one that began with the TOPEX/Poseidon satellite, which launched in late 1992 and carried an instrument, called a radar altimeter, that gives a very precise measurement of sea level around the globe. (It has since been succeeded by other satellites providing similar measurements.)

This record actually shows a decrease in the rate of sea level rise from the first decade measured by satellites (1993 to 2002) to the second one (2003 to 2012). “We’ve been looking at the altimeter records and scratching our heads, and saying, ‘why aren’t we seeing an acceleration in the satellite record?’ We should be,” said John Fasullo, a climate scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colorado.

In a new study in the open-access journal Scientific Reports, however, Fasullo and two colleagues say they have now resolved this problem. It turns out, they say, that sea level rise was artificially masked in the satellite record by the fact that one year before the satellite launched, the Earth experienced a major cooling pulse.

see, this is the problem with science deniers. "open access" journals mean that the articles aren't vetted and are largely nonsense.....which is why this is where science deniers get their supportive "studies".

thanks though.

Is that your word of the day sweetheart...vetted?

Vetted by whom...Michael Mann or John Cook?

Who are nourtous for suppressing real science?

This is a damn sattalite that proves there was a cold pulse produced by a little volcano. They keep on saying there was no lull.

Aw teddy bear. Was vetted a big word for you.

Science exists whether you believe it or not. It's sad how somewhere anti-intellectualism tells you that the people who know what they're talking about should be ignored but people who don't should be listened to.

It's bizarre

we all agree, so when is it you're coming to use the science? have any experiments or actual factual information you can share in the forum today? I didn't think so.

 

[hunarcy]

Check out this part of the story...

Seas aren’t just rising, scientists say — it’s worse than that. They’re speeding up.



The problem, or even mystery, is that scientists haven’t seen an unambiguous acceleration of sea level rise in a data record that’s considered the best for observing the problem — the one that began with the TOPEX/Poseidon satellite, which launched in late 1992 and carried an instrument, called a radar altimeter, that gives a very precise measurement of sea level around the globe. (It has since been succeeded by other satellites providing similar measurements.)

This record actually shows a decrease in the rate of sea level rise from the first decade measured by satellites (1993 to 2002) to the second one (2003 to 2012). “We’ve been looking at the altimeter records and scratching our heads, and saying, ‘why aren’t we seeing an acceleration in the satellite record?’ We should be,” said John Fasullo, a climate scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colorado.

In a new study in the open-access journal Scientific Reports, however, Fasullo and two colleagues say they have now resolved this problem. It turns out, they say, that sea level rise was artificially masked in the satellite record by the fact that one year before the satellite launched, the Earth experienced a major cooling pulse.

Climate change helps slow, not quicken, rising sea levels – NASA

 

[LaDexter]

see, this is the problem with science deniers.

Indeed, it is your side that denies science. You are absolutely certain of something that is the most obvious science related fraud in human history. Every time the actuality of what these fudgebaking liars claim is checked, they're busted lying again.

And the unimaginably stupid parroting moron supporters like you cannot answer THE FIRST QUESTION of Earth Climate Change....

Why does one Earth polar circle, the Antarctic, have 9 times the ice of the other, the Arctic?

Until you answer that question, you are the "denier" of the fact that you are a worthless moron who doesn't understand anything regarding the issue of Earth climate change.

 

[Crick]

Indeed, it is your side that denies science.

By accepting the opinion of the overwhelming majority of the scientific experts in the field?

You are absolutely certain of something that is the most obvious science related fraud in human history.

1) You have presented ZERO evidence of fraud
2) Your fraud requires a conspiracy that defies reality
3) You haven't placed the slightest doubt on the opinions of climate scientists worldwide.

Every time the actuality of what these fudgebaking liars claim is checked, they're busted lying again.

That is a lie.

And the unimaginably stupid parroting moron supporters like you cannot answer THE FIRST QUESTION of Earth Climate Change....Why does one Earth polar circle, the Antarctic, have 9 times the ice of the other, the Arctic?

We have two groups here. One reads and generally accepts the views of mainstream science. This group holds that the consensus opinion of scientific experts in the field of climate science are the most likely to be right on issues involving the areas of their expertise. The other group assumes they are more intelligent and knowledgeable than many thousand degreed researchers who've spent their lives studying these questions AND assumes that virtually every single climate scientist on the planet is involved in a massive, perfectly executed and perfectly secure conspiracy to defraud the human race for monetary gain.

Until you answer that question, you are the "denier" of the fact that you are a worthless moron who doesn't understand anything regarding the issue of Earth climate change.

You are the worthless moron. You appear to understand absolutely nothing about absolutely anything.

 

[jc456]

Indeed, it is your side that denies science.

By accepting the opinion of the overwhelming majority of the scientific experts in the field?

You are absolutely certain of something that is the most obvious science related fraud in human history.

1) You have presented ZERO evidence of fraud
2) Your fraud requires a conspiracy that defies reality
3) You haven't placed the slightest doubt on the opinions of climate scientists worldwide.

Every time the actuality of what these fudgebaking liars claim is checked, they're busted lying again.

That is a lie.

And the unimaginably stupid parroting moron supporters like you cannot answer THE FIRST QUESTION of Earth Climate Change....Why does one Earth polar circle, the Antarctic, have 9 times the ice of the other, the Arctic?

We have two groups here. One reads and generally accepts the views of mainstream science. This group holds that the consensus opinion of scientific experts in the field of climate science are the most likely to be right on issues involving the areas of their expertise. The other group assumes they are more intelligent and knowledgeable than many thousand degreed researchers who've spent their lives studying these questions AND assumes that virtually every single climate scientist on the planet is involved in a massive, perfectly executed and perfectly secure conspiracy to defraud the human race for monetary gain.

Until you answer that question, you are the "denier" of the fact that you are a worthless moron who doesn't understand anything regarding the issue of Earth climate change.

You are the worthless moron. You appear to understand absolutely nothing about absolutely anything.

How about everything you post?

 

[SSDD]

No. What I mean is that they aren't legitimate

All scientific papers are legitimate till such time as proven otherwise.... So lets see some observed, measured, quantified, empirical data that supports the anthropogenic component of AGW therefore proving the skeptical papers illegitimate. I have only been asking for such data for about 2 decades now and have yet to see the first scrap of it...perhaps you can find some.

 

[jillian]

No. What I mean is that they aren't legitimate

All scientific papers are legitimate till such time as proven otherwise.... So lets see some observed, measured, quantified, empirical data that supports the anthropogenic component of AGW therefore proving the skeptical papers illegitimate. I have only been asking for such data for about 2 decades now and have yet to see the first scrap of it...perhaps you can find some.

no. all scientific papers are NOT legitimate.

seriously. you sound absurd.

 

[SSDD]

No. What I mean is that they aren't legitimate

All scientific papers are legitimate till such time as proven otherwise.... So lets see some observed, measured, quantified, empirical data that supports the anthropogenic component of AGW therefore proving the skeptical papers illegitimate. I have only been asking for such data for about 2 decades now and have yet to see the first scrap of it...perhaps you can find some.

no. all scientific papers are NOT legitimate.

seriously. you sound absurd.

Of course they aren't...if there is actual evidence that renders them illegitimate. Again, can you provide observed, measured, quantified evidence that would make a paper skeptical of the AGW hypothesis illegitimate?...a consensus view on a topic certainly isn't enough to make a skeptical view on the same topic illegitimate.

 

[Crick]

I don't believe innocent till proven guilty is part of the scientific method. I rather think it goes the other way.

 

[SSDD]

I don't believe innocent till proven guilty is part of the scientific method. I rather think it goes the other way.

Clearly, you don't know the first thing about the scientific method if you believe it has any place within the climate science community....if it did, either the AGW hypothesis would have been scrapped, or there would be abundant observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence for you to post supporting the A in AGW.

 

[LaDexter]

By accepting the opinion of the overwhelming majority of the scientific experts in the field?

"Hide the decline" is not science. The only "expertise" your heroes have is FUDGING.

You have presented ZERO evidence of fraud

LOL!!!

Two and only two instruments measure one thing, returning highly correlated data. Your side didn't like the answer those two instruments returned, so your side FUDGED both with UNCORRELATED "corrections." That's not science, crick, that's FRAUD. The two instruments = satellites and balloons. The highly correlated data = no warming in the atmosphere.

Increasing CO2 caused NO WARMING in the atmosphere until your side FUDGED the data...

One reads and generally accepts the views of mainstream science.

The moronic sub human state of being a science invalid PARROT, usually a LEFT WING one....

The other group

... notices the lies, fraud, fudge, and cherry picking of the "experts" you parrot. Take Antarctic ice, for example. The data always showed growth. Your side always LIED. When brought to court, your side was BUSTED LYING and WAS TOO CHICKEN TO APPEAL, instead content to continue fudging and relying on biased media coverage.

Oh, BTW, with 90% of Earth ice GROWING, where is the NET ICE MELT causing the SEA LEVEL "rise?"

YOU DO NOT HAVE ANY SEA LEVEL RISE, WHICH IS WHY YOUR "SINKING ISLANDS" are right on the lip of the PROF...

 

[SSDD]

By accepting the opinion of the overwhelming majority of the scientific experts in the field?

"Hide the decline" is not science. The only "expertise" your heroes have is FUDGING.

You have presented ZERO evidence of fraud

LOL!!!

Two and only two instruments measure one thing, returning highly correlated data. Your side didn't like the answer those two instruments returned, so your side FUDGED both with UNCORRELATED "corrections." That's not science, crick, that's FRAUD. The two instruments = satellites and balloons. The highly correlated data = no warming in the atmosphere.

Increasing CO2 caused NO WARMING in the atmosphere until your side FUDGED the data...

One reads and generally accepts the views of mainstream science.

The moronic sub human state of being a science invalid PARROT, usually a LEFT WING one....

The other group

... notices the lies, fraud, fudge, and cherry picking of the "experts" you parrot. Take Antarctic ice, for example. The data always showed growth. Your side always LIED. When brought to court, your side was BUSTED LYING and WAS TOO CHICKEN TO APPEAL, instead content to continue fudging and relying on biased media coverage.

Oh, BTW, with 90% of Earth ice GROWING, where is the NET ICE MELT causing the SEA LEVEL "rise?"

YOU DO NOT HAVE ANY SEA LEVEL RISE, WHICH IS WHY YOUR "SINKING ISLANDS" are right on the lip of the PROF...

Don't forget that they took about 70% of the temperature data stations off line....interestingly enough, they were predominantly rural stations not effected by UHI and therefore not requiring much adjustment.

 

[Crick]

By accepting the opinion of the overwhelming majority of the scientific experts in the field?

"Hide the decline" is not science. The only "expertise" your heroes have is FUDGING.

Deniers still calling out "Hide the decline" mark themselves as fools. The meaning of the phrase (referring to the decline in proportionality factors for tree ring proxies in the 20th century) is well known (but not to you)). If you actually believe your wee quip serves to disregard all climate science, you're an even greater fool.

You have presented ZERO evidence of fraud

Two and only two instruments measure one thing, returning highly correlated data. Your side didn't like the answer those two instruments returned, so your side FUDGED both with UNCORRELATED "corrections." That's not science, crick, that's FRAUD. The two instruments = satellites and balloons. The highly correlated data = no warming in the atmosphere.

You seem to have this fantasy in your head as to how climate science has been conducted for the last few decades. You keep talking about highly correlated satellite and balloon data. What satellite data? What balloon data? You've not been so good at actually identifying this mystical source. Your suggestion that all climate science should have stopped because of two measurement sets is absolutely asinine.

Increasing CO2 caused NO WARMING in the atmosphere until your side FUDGED the data...

You are one of the most outstanding idiots I've ever had the pleasure to engage here. There's not a man, woman or child here that can match the level of pride you hold in your own intellectual failings.

One reads and generally accepts the views of mainstream science.

The moronic sub human state of being a science invalid PARROT, usually a LEFT WING one....

If you had shown a single error in mainstream science findings or had demonstrated anything but abysmal ignorance coupled with an horribly inflated ego, you might have made a point. But, you haven't. So far, the only point you've succeeded in making (and that to an admirable degree) is that you don't have the faintest **** of an idea what you're talking about... On ANY topic to which you've turned your attention.

The other group

... notices the lies, fraud, fudge, and cherry picking of the "experts" you parrot.

This comes very close to a misquote, asshole, a practice strictly forbidden by USMB rules. You have yet to demonstrate that ANYTHING I post is "lies, fraud, fudge or cherry picking". You refer to any reference to outside sources as PARROTING, no matter who they are. You live inside your own head and refuse to leave. You do not listen to others. ANY others. You assume you are the smartest person on the planet. There are names for folks who behave like you but I'm not going to bother. Everyone here knows you're whacked.

Take Antarctic ice, for example. The data always showed growth.

What data would that be?

Your side always LIED.

It was mainstream science, NASA - whom you've badmouthed at every other opportunity - that presented the one and only data showing a positive ice mass balance. How is it that they are your hero at this one and only point and lying criminals at every other? How does that work out?

When brought to court, your side was BUSTED LYING and WAS TOO CHICKEN TO APPEAL, instead content to continue fudging and relying on biased media coverage.

The court case you think the climate debate revolves around was brought by Stuart Dimmock, a father of two, against the British Secretary of State for Education. Your comments about the case are absolute nonsense. You just do not have a single solitary ******* CLUE.

Oh, BTW, with 90% of Earth ice GROWING, where is the NET ICE MELT causing the SEA LEVEL "rise?"

YOU DO NOT HAVE ANY SEA LEVEL RISE, WHICH IS WHY YOUR "SINKING ISLANDS" are right on the lip of the PROF...

God, are you STUPID.

 

[SSDD]

You seem to have this fantasy in your head as to how climate science has been conducted for the last few decades. You keep talking about highly correlated satellite and balloon data. What satellite data? What balloon data? You've not been so good at actually identifying this mystical source. Your suggestion that all climate science should have stopped because of two measurement sets is absolutely asinine.

One thing us skeptics have no fantasy about is how climate pseudoscience has been conducted for the past few decades....the fact that there is any degree of consensus among the climate pseudoscience community that man is altering the global climate with his CO2 emissions while there remains not the first shred of observed, measured, quantified data supporting the claim brings how climate pseudoscience has been conducted for the past few decades into sharp relief.

You and yours, on the other hand hold dearly to a fantasy that climate pseudoscience has been operating strictly within the boundaries of the scientific method....nothing could be further from the truth.

 

[Crick]

You seem to have this fantasy in your head as to how climate science has been conducted for the last few decades. You keep talking about highly correlated satellite and balloon data. What satellite data? What balloon data? You've not been so good at actually identifying this mystical source. Your suggestion that all climate science should have stopped because of two measurement sets is absolutely asinine.

One thing us skeptics have no fantasy about is how climate pseudoscience has been conducted for the past few decades.

The first problem there is that you're not the least bit skeptical.

the fact that there is any degree of consensus among the climate pseudoscience community that man is altering the global climate with his CO2 emissions while there remains not the first shred of observed, measured, quantified data supporting the claim brings how climate pseudoscience has been conducted for the past few decades into sharp relief.

Wrong. What it "brings" is that you are completely dishonest and have freely chosen to lie about what exists and what has been presented to you.

You and yours, on the other hand hold dearly to a fantasy that climate pseudoscience has been operating strictly within the boundaries of the scientific method....nothing could be further from the truth.

Paranoia. Delusions of grandeur. Those are your problems.

The world is getting warming at rates not seen in over a million years and that warming represents a real and significant threat to the well being of human culture: our children, our grandchildren and theirs for generations to come. Thousands of peer reviewed studies have found that the only viable cause for the majority of that warming is human GHG emissions and deforestaton. CO2 gas, released by the combustion of fossil fuels and not removed when land is deforested, is a powerful greenhouse gas with an atmospheric lifespan of decades to centuries

That you, the author of such wonderments as hollow moons, self-guided,intelligent photons and greenhouse gas cooling have some incredible nerve to deride the science being conducted on the Earth's climate. And then there's your lying.

 

[SSDD]

The first problem there is that you're not the least bit skeptical.

Deliberate lie? Or are you just that stupid? Here, let me help you out with the definition of skeptical....

adjective
1.
inclined to skepticism; having an attitude of doubt:
2.doubtful about a particular thing:
3.showing doubt:
4.denying or questioning the tenets of a religion:

Wrong. What it "brings" is that you are completely dishonest and have freely chosen to lie about what exists and what has been presented to you.

No crick...either you are too stupid to understand that the data you present isn't observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence supporting the A in AGW...or you present it anyway hoping that you might fool someone...

The world is getting warming at rates not seen in over a million years and that warming represents a real and significant threat to the well being of human culture: our children, our grandchildren and theirs for generations to come.

Really? Which proxy are you using that would provide such resolution to allow you to make that sort of claim regarding half a century?...the truth is that there is no proxy record that provides such resolution so again...you are deliberately lying and making hysterical alarmist claims that you simply can not support with anything like actual evidence...such is the nature of climate pseudoscience and its cultish followers.

Thousands of peer reviewed studies have found that the only viable cause for the majority of that warming is human GHG emissions and deforestaton. CO2 gas, released by the combustion of fossil fuels and not removed when land is deforested, is a powerful greenhouse gas with an atmospheric lifespan of decades to centuries

All without the first shred of observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence to support the most basic tenet of the AGW hypothesis...absolutely amazing...and a testament to the fraudulent nature of climate pseudoscience.