Any debate on global warming now OVER!?

[RoshawnMarkwees]

Is it though? Has anything materially changed other than political rallying cries that even the one's swallowing aren't doing anything different?

The reality is there is a 3 million year trend of glacial-interglacial cycles that exists for logical reasons for which the conditions still exist today. It is only a matter of time before the AMOC switches off and ends the AGW charade. At which time everyone will be arguing they knew different.

Plenty has changed. I’m out over $70k the past four years alone.

 

[ding]

why is there still ice?

Because it hasn't melted yet.

Why are you disputing glacial-interglacial cycles?

 

[jc456]

so you think the temperature of the ocean is one temperature?

No. Did someone claim it was?

your post showed volume, well that's all of it. Is all of the ocean warming at the same time? no. So the rate of change is inconsistent.

 

[jc456]

You haven't understood one word I have written.

I don't think you know what you have written.

 

[ding]

Plenty has changed. I’m out over $70k the past four years alone.

I paid 90 grand last year. But I doubt AGW was responsible for all of that. For that we have government spending to blame.

 

[jc456]

Because it hasn't melted yet.

Why are you disputing glacial-interglacial cycles?

so how is it mixing in the northern water as warmth?

 

[jc456]

I paid 90 grand last year. But I doubt AGW was responsible for all of that. For that we have government spending to blame.

Because?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

your post showed volume, well that's all of it. Is all of the ocean warming at the same time? no. So the rate of change is inconsistent.

your post showed volume, well that's all of it.

It showed that warming water causes it to expand.

Is all of the ocean warming at the same time?

Of course not. Some of it may not be warming at all.

So the rate of change is inconsistent.

Who claimed otherwise?

 

[ding]

I don't think you know what you have written.

I've studied paleoclimates for over 20 years, am a degreed engineer and practiced engineering for over 38 years. I'm pretty sure I know what I have written. Who are you that I should throw out the empirical climate evidence of the geologic record in favor of your batshit idiotic feelings?

 

[ding]

Because?

Because I'm not emotional over this.

 

[ding]

so how is it mixing in the northern water as warmth?

Like this.

 

[jc456]

your post showed volume, well that's all of it.

It showed that warming water causes it to expand.

Is all of the ocean warming at the same time?

Of course not. Some of it may not be warming at all.

So the rate of change is inconsistent.

Who claimed otherwise?

Those claiming sea level rise

 

[jc456]

I've studied paleoclimates for over 20 years, am a degreed engineer and practiced engineering for over 38 years. I'm pretty sure I know what I have written. Who are you that I should throw out the empirical climate evidence of the geologic record in favor of your batshit idiotic feelings?

Ask Michael Mann.

 

[jc456]

Like this.
View attachment 1065878
View attachment 1065879

Sea level - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Precise determination of a "mean sea level" is difficult because of the many factors that affect sea level.[4] Instantaneous sea level varies substantially on several scales of time and space. This is because the sea is in constant motion, affected by the tides, wind, atmospheric pressure, local gravitational differences, temperature, salinity, and so forth. The mean sea level at a particular location may be calculated over an extended time period and used as a datum. For example, hourly measurements may be averaged over a full Metonic 19-year lunar cycle to determine the mean sea level at an official tide gauge.[5]
.
.
.

Local mean sea level (LMSL) is defined as the height of the sea with respect to a land benchmark, averaged over a period of time long enough that fluctuations caused by waves and tides are smoothed out, typically a year or more. One must adjust perceived changes in LMSL to account for vertical movements of the land, which can occur at rates similar to sea level changes (millimetres per year).

 

[ding]

Ask Michael Mann.

It's pretty obvious from your posts that you have about as much of background in science as he did.

 

[ding]

Sea level - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Precise determination of a "mean sea level" is difficult because of the many factors that affect sea level.[4] Instantaneous sea level varies substantially on several scales of time and space. This is because the sea is in constant motion, affected by the tides, wind, atmospheric pressure, local gravitational differences, temperature, salinity, and so forth. The mean sea level at a particular location may be calculated over an extended time period and used as a datum. For example, hourly measurements may be averaged over a full Metonic 19-year lunar cycle to determine the mean sea level at an official tide gauge.[5]
.
.
.

Local mean sea level (LMSL) is defined as the height of the sea with respect to a land benchmark, averaged over a period of time long enough that fluctuations caused by waves and tides are smoothed out, typically a year or more. One must adjust perceived changes in LMSL to account for vertical movements of the land, which can occur at rates similar to sea level changes (millimetres per year).

Yes, it is complicated. You know what's not complicated? The earth warming and seas rising in interglacial periods. So why would you dispute they are happening?

 

[jc456]

It's pretty obvious from your posts that you have about as much of background in science as he did.

I would never do what he did. He fudged data. He didn't follow any kind of science.

BTW, I posted a few lines from Wikipedia about sea level, take a look. Note the words land benchmark, now ask yourself, what do you supposed that means? Tell me and I see if you get it.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

I paid 90 grand last year. But I doubt AGW was responsible for all of that. For that we have government spending to blame.

The AGW agenda is responsible for my lost money. AGW itself is a scam.

 

[ding]

I would never do what he did. He fudged data. He didn't follow any kind of science.

BTW, I posted a few lines from Wikipedia about sea level, take a look. Note the words land benchmark, now ask yourself, what do you supposed that means? Tell me and I see if you get it.

That it's complicated. Which I already acknowledged.

What science are you following? Because I don't see any. Your photograph argument is idiotic and anti-scientific. You are hell bent on arguing the planet isn't warming and the seas aren't rising which is blatantly untrue.

Whereas I am arguing the planet is warming and the seas are rising and it's perfectly natural and normal that they would as they always do during interglacial periods. And I have the data to back it up.

 

[ding]

The AGW agenda is responsible for my lost money.

How so?