So the Oceans are rising are they?

[westwall]

Sorry but I can't take credit for that one. You were already cracked when I got here.




Well, walleyed, you've managed to sound like an even bigger idiot than you did before and I frankly didn't think that was possible. Congratulations, you win the "Biggest Moron of the Week" award, which must be much coveted in denier cult circles, considering how fiercely you all compete for it.

Meanwhile, the fossil fuel industry, which includes all of the oil producing nations and all of the many, many corporations worldwide that extract the oil, gas and coal, that refine and process it, that transport the raw materials to the refineries and processing plants, that transport the fuel to markets worldwide, that sell the fuels (gasoline, diesel, coal, natural gas, etc.), that use the fuels to run power plants and then sell the power to consumers and industry, plus maintenance and support for all that, their total yearly profits run over a trillion dollars right now. That is the profit stream that is in danger if the world gets serious about cutting carbon emissions. That is what motivates the propaganda campaign that the fossil fuel industry has mounted in an attempt to delay binding carbon emission restrictions. And sure, some oil companies, who are only a tiny fraction of the total, worldwide 'fossil fuel industry', are hedging their bets by trying to invest in some renewables, but hopes of some future profit on those investments counts very little in the boardrooms against the very real loss of very huge profits now if fossil fuels get priced out of the energy market by an appropriately high carbon tax.

How much profit does the fossil fuel industry pull in yearly? Here's some figures for just one corporation, out of many, that deals with just oil and gas, not coal, for just one year.

Exxon Mobil booked the biggest quarterly and annual profits in U.S. corporate history

Oil giant makes corporate history by booking $11.7 billion in quarterly profit. The company earned $10.25 billion in the year-ago period. Exxon also set an annual profit record by earning $40.61 billion last year - or nearly $1,300 per second in 2007. That exceeded its previous record of $39.5 billion in 2006.

Why thank you! In your company Moron is quite a nice appelation (that's name for you uneducated types) some day, if you're real lucky you might make it to this august level!

LOLOLOLOL. I guess that's what clueless morons say after they've gotten their ignorant asses whipped in every debate.

The only ass you've ever whipped is that of your inflatable sex doll!

 

[wirebender]

LOLOLOLOL....very ironic, coming from a uneducated denier cult retard like you who lets the oil corp propagandists lead him around by the nose. The hockey stick graph is and always has been a basically accurate and sound piece of science.

Sorry guy, but there is simply too much peer reviewed data proving that the MWP was not only warmer than the present, but global in nature for any graph that makes it disappear to be taken seriously.

It is the futile attempts of the fossil fuel industry propaganda machine to discredit the science behind the conclusions of the world's climate scientists that is the "crock o' crap". The problem is that you half-wit anti-science rightwingnuts must like the flavor of crap so you swallow it again and again no matter how often it is thoroughly debunked.

Are you aware that the alarmists are funded at more than 20:1 in relation to skeptics. If the inflow of money is a reason to distrust, then warmists are more than 20 times less trustworthy.

Do explain how you can accept something like the hockey stick when peer reviewed data from over 900 scientists representing over 400 research institutions and over 40 countries proves that the MWP was warmer than the present and global in nature. Your explanation should be interesting.

 

[RollingThunder]

LOLOLOLOL....very ironic, coming from a uneducated denier cult retard like you who lets the oil corp propagandists lead him around by the nose. The hockey stick graph is and always has been a basically accurate and sound piece of science.

Sorry guy, but there is simply too much peer reviewed data proving that the MWP was not only warmer than the present, but global in nature for any graph that makes it disappear to be taken seriously.

Only in the delusional brains of ignorant denier cultists like you, wirehead.

It is the futile attempts of the fossil fuel industry propaganda machine to discredit the science behind the conclusions of the world's climate scientists that is the "crock o' crap". The problem is that you half-wit anti-science rightwingnuts must like the flavor of crap so you swallow it again and again no matter how often it is thoroughly debunked.

Are you aware that the alarmists are funded at more than 20:1 in relation to skeptics. If the inflow of money is a reason to distrust, then warmists are more than 20 times less trustworthy.

More denier cult insanity. Scientists and research institutions get grants to do actual science. The money gets used for the research - equipment, personnel and travel. It is not going to 'profit' anyone. The fossil fuel industry gives money to PR firms and shills (who profit hugely) to create propaganda, misinformation and lies. It is not surprising that you denier cult nutjobs are too ignorant about science to understand this difference.

Do explain how you can accept something like the hockey stick when peer reviewed data from over 900 scientists representing over 400 research institutions and over 40 countries proves that the MWP was warmer than the present and global in nature. Your explanation should be interesting.

Easy to explain, wirehead. You're an ignorant, very deluded denier cultist who believes a lot of crap that just isn't true. There is no scientifically validated evidence showing that the MWP was warmer globally than the present. That's a denier cult myth based on cherry-picked distortions of the scientific research. Try coming up with all those citations and showing that they actually agree with your claims.


How does the Medieval Warm Period compare to current global temperatures?
(excerpt)

What the science says...

While the Medieval Warm Period saw unusually warm temperatures in some regions, globally the planet was cooler than current conditions.

One of the most often cited arguments of those skeptical of global warming is that the Medieval Warm Period (800-1200 AD) was as warm as or warmer than today. Using this as proof to say that we cannot be causing current warming is a faulty notion based upon rhetoric rather than science. So what are the holes in this line of thinking?

Firstly, evidence suggests that the Medieval Warm Period was in fact warmer than today in many parts of the globe such as in the North Atlantic. This warming thereby allowed Vikings to travel further north than had been previously possible because of reductions in sea ice and land ice in the Arctic. However, evidence also suggests that some places were very much cooler than today including the tropical pacific. All in all, when the warm places are averaged out with the cool places, it becomes clear that the overall warmth was likely similar to early to mid 20th century warming. Since that early century warming, temperatures have risen well-beyond those achieved during the Medieval Warm Period across most of the Globe. This has been confirmed by the National Academy of Sciences Report on Climate Reconstructions. Further evidence (Figure 1) suggests that even in the Northern Hemisphere where the Medieval Warm Period was the most visible, temperatures are now beyond those experienced during Medieval times.

Secondly, the Medieval Warm Period has known causes which explain both the scale of the warmth and the pattern. It has now become clear to scientists that the Medieval Warm Period occurred during a time which had higher than average solar radiation and less volcanic activity (both resulting in warming). New evidence is also suggesting that changes in ocean circulation patterns played a very important role in bringing warmer seawater into the North Atlantic. This explains much of the extraordinary warmth in that region. These causes of warming contrast significantly with today's warming, which we know cannot be caused by the same mechanisms.

Overall, our conclusions are:
a) Globally temperatures are warmer than they have been during the last 2000 years, and
b) the causes of Medieval warming are not the same as those causing late 20th century warming.

© Copyright 2011 John Cook

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.)

 

[Old Rocks]

Here is a denier site that, like Walleyes, will lie about what is right in front of your eyes. They state that the Woods Hole study confirms that the MWP was warmer than present, then present a graph that shows that at no time during the MWP did the temperature match that of the present.

In fact, it does not even match the 1997-2007 mean, let alone where we are at today.

Woods Hole embraces the Medieval Warm Period – contradict Mann’s proxy data

 

[RollingThunder]

Title of thread - "So the Oceans are rising are they?"

Answer - Yup, they sure are.

Melting Ice Sheets Now Largest Contributor to Sea Level Rise

ScienceDaily (Mar. 8, 2011)
(excerpt)

The Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets are losing mass at an accelerating pace, according to a new NASA-funded satellite study. The findings of the study -- the longest to date of changes in polar ice sheet mass -- suggest these ice sheets are overtaking ice loss from Earth's mountain glaciers and ice caps to become the dominant contributor to global sea level rise, much sooner than model forecasts have predicted. The results of the study will be published this month in Geophysical Research Letters, a journal of the American Geophysical Union. The nearly 20-year study reveals that in 2006, a year in which comparable results for mass loss in mountain glaciers and ice caps are available from a separate study conducted using other methods, the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets lost a combined mass of 475 gigatonnes a year on average. That's enough to raise global sea level by an average of 1.3 millimeters (.05 inches) a year. (A gigatonne is one billion metric tons, or more than 2.2 trillion pounds.) The pace at which the polar ice sheets are losing mass was found to be accelerating rapidly. Each year over the course of the study, the two ice sheets lost a combined average of 36.3 gigatonnes more than they did the year before. ..."If present trends continue, sea level is likely to be significantly higher than levels projected by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in 2007." The team found that for each year over the 18-year study, the Greenland ice sheet lost mass faster than it did the year before, by an average of 21.9 gigatonnes a year. In Antarctica, the year-over-year speedup in ice mass lost averaged 14.5 gigatonnes.

Copyright © 1995-2010 ScienceDaily LLC

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.)

 

[wirebender]

More denier cult insanity. Scientists and research institutions get grants to do actual science. The money gets used for the research - equipment, personnel and travel. It is not going to 'profit' anyone. The fossil fuel industry gives money to PR firms and shills (who profit hugely) to create propaganda, misinformation and lies. It is not surprising that you denier cult nutjobs are too ignorant about science to understand this difference.

I suggest that you do a bit of actual research on where that money goes. Not so very long ago, climatologists were viewed as weather geeks who didn't have much earning potential. At present, so long as they can maintain a state of crisis in the minds of people like you, they make 6 to 7 figures a year, live in upscale neighborhoods, drive expensive cars, and have wives an girlfriends with expensive boob jobs. If the crisis ends, the lifestyle ends. Do the math.


How does the Medieval Warm Period compare to current global temperatures?
(excerpt)

Firstly, evidence suggests that the Medieval Warm Period was in fact warmer than today in many parts of the globe such as in the North Atlantic. This warming thereby allowed Vikings to travel further north than had been previously possible because of reductions in sea ice and land ice in the Arctic. However, evidence also suggests that some places were very much cooler than today including the tropical pacific.

So the tropical Pacific was colder? Interesting. I note that you simply accept the claim made by a kook site. Here is some peer reviewed science that says otherwise.

Climate and hydrographic variability in the Indo-Pacific Warm Pool during the last millennium

From the abstract: The warmest temperatures and highest salinities occurred during the Medieval Warm Period (MWP), while the coolest temperatures and lowest salinities occurred during the Little Ice Age (LIA). These changes in the western Pacific, along with observations from other high resolution records indicate a regionally coherent southern displacement of the Inter-tropical Convergence Zone during the LIA, with more arid conditions in the northern tropics and wetter conditions in the southern tropics.

Changes in the Indonesian Throughflow during the past 2000 yr

From the abstract: Maximum SST and SSS occurred at both sites between 850 and 700 yr ago, coinciding with the Medieval Solar Maximum and Medieval Warm Period (ca. 1000–700 yr ago). SST and SSS declined at both locations after 700 yr ago and reached minimum values during the Little Ice Age, between 300 and 100 yr ago

ScienceDirect - Quaternary International : A Holocene paleotemperature record based on radiolaria from the northern Okinawa Trough (East China Sea)


SpringerLink - Chinese Journal of Geochemistry, Volume 22, Number 2

From the abstract: The highly precise age sequence of the corals determined has revealed that there occurred three phases of high sea level in the South China Sea waters, which are dated at 6799-6307 a B. P., 4472-4285 a B. P. and 1279-1012 a B. P., respectively. The three phases lasted 492 a, 187 a and 267 a, respectively. These three phases of high sea level are corresponding to the warm environments that had appeared in China during the Megathermal Period and the Medieval Warm Period in the past ten thousand years.

Need more? I can provide these all day.

All in all, when the warm places are averaged out with the cool places, it becomes clear that the overall warmth was likely similar to early to mid 20th century warming.

Which "cool" places are you referring to during the MWP? I can provide peer reviewed papaers stating that the MWP was considrably warmer than the present in Africa, Antartica, Asia, Australia and New Zealand, Europe, North America, all of the oceans, and South America. Where else in the world is there?

Your admission that the overall warmth of the MWP was likely similar to early to mid 20th century warming reqires a dismissal on your part of the hockey stick as it reflects temperatures during the MWP that are considerably cooler than at any time in the 20th century.

Secondly, the Medieval Warm Period has known causes which explain both the scale of the warmth and the pattern. It has now become clear to scientists that the Medieval Warm Period occurred during a time which had higher than average solar radiation and less volcanic activity (both resulting in warming).

If the warming during the MWP was due to higher solar radiance and less volcanic activity, how is it that you claim that the warming was confined to only a few places on the globe. Such causes would certainly result in a global phenomenon. Your claim doesn't jibe with the evidence you are supposedly presenting.

 

[wirebender]

Here is a denier site that, like Walleyes, will lie about what is right in front of your eyes. They state that the Woods Hole study confirms that the MWP was warmer than present, then present a graph that shows that at no time during the MWP did the temperature match that of the present.

In fact, it does not even match the 1997-2007 mean, let alone where we are at today.

Woods Hole embraces the Medieval Warm Period – contradict Mann’s proxy data

You poor guy. Aren't you even able to read a graph. The only line on that graph that reflects warmer temps today than during the MWP is the Mann data which has been completely discredited.

 

[Old Rocks]

Here is a denier site that, like Walleyes, will lie about what is right in front of your eyes. They state that the Woods Hole study confirms that the MWP was warmer than present, then present a graph that shows that at no time during the MWP did the temperature match that of the present.

In fact, it does not even match the 1997-2007 mean, let alone where we are at today.

Woods Hole embraces the Medieval Warm Period – contradict Mann’s proxy data

You poor guy. Aren't you even able to read a graph. The only line on that graph that reflects warmer temps today than during the MWP is the Mann data which has been completely discredited.

You are one dimbulb. The temperature in the last 60 years of the Mann Graph is from direct measurements. Measurements that Muller call good data.

Woods Hole embraces the Medieval Warm Period – contradict Mann’s proxy data
Temperature reconstructions suggest that the Northern Hemisphere may have been slightly cooler (by about 0.5 degrees Celsius) during the ‘Medieval Warm Period’ (~AD 800-1300) than during the late-20th century. However, these temperature reconstructions are based on, in large part, data compiled from high latitude or high altitude terrestrial proxy records, such as tree rings and ice cores, from the Northern Hemisphere (NH). Little pre-historical temperature data from tropical regions like the IPWP has been incorporated into these analyses, and the global extent of warm temperatures during this interval is unclear. As a result, conclusions regarding past global temperatures still have some uncertainties.




Sea surface temperature reconstructions from the Indo-Pacific Warm Pool. Different colored symbols indicate data from different cores used in the reconstruction. A northern hemisphere temperature reconstruction from Mann et al. (2008) is shown in the black curve. The previously published data is from Newton et al. (2006). Colored lines are the average of the data points. Triangles at the bottom of the figure show where age control exists. The horizontal black line labeled 1997-2007 Mean Annual SST shows the value of the annual average sea surface temperature for the same time period. The Little Ice Age, which occurred around A.D. 1700, was a cool period, but its magnitude was only about 0.5 to 1˚C cooler than modern winter temperatures. Water temperature during the late Medieval Warm Period, between about A.D. 1000 to 1250, was within error of modern annual sea surface temperatures. (Oppo, Rosenthal, Linsley; 2009)

The multi-corer data goes right up to about the last 50 years, and shows the same rise as the Mann line. All the rest of the data also follow the Mann line. And nowhere is there any indication of a period as warm as we are right now.

 

[RollingThunder]

More denier cult insanity. Scientists and research institutions get grants to do actual science. The money gets used for the research - equipment, personnel and travel. It is not going to 'profit' anyone. The fossil fuel industry gives money to PR firms and shills (who profit hugely) to create propaganda, misinformation and lies. It is not surprising that you denier cult nutjobs are too ignorant about science to understand this difference.

I suggest that you do a bit of actual research on where that money goes. Not so very long ago, climatologists were viewed as weather geeks who didn't have much earning potential. At present, so long as they can maintain a state of crisis in the minds of people like you, they make 6 to 7 figures a year, live in upscale neighborhoods, drive expensive cars, and have wives an girlfriends with expensive boob jobs. If the crisis ends, the lifestyle ends. Do the math.

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL........(gasp)...climatologists are making "7 figure" incomes but only because they're 'fudging' the science so they "can maintain a state of crisis in the minds" of all of the millions of other non-climatology scientists (who aren't in on the 'conspiracy') and in the minds of all of those government and industry leaders who are, after all, so easily fooled. LOLOLOLOL. Jeez, but you dingbat crazy denier cultists are sooooooo idiotic and gullible. Your ideas about how science works and where the grant money goes are totally insane and only reflect how very little any of you know about science.

 

[westwall]

More denier cult insanity. Scientists and research institutions get grants to do actual science. The money gets used for the research - equipment, personnel and travel. It is not going to 'profit' anyone. The fossil fuel industry gives money to PR firms and shills (who profit hugely) to create propaganda, misinformation and lies. It is not surprising that you denier cult nutjobs are too ignorant about science to understand this difference.

I suggest that you do a bit of actual research on where that money goes. Not so very long ago, climatologists were viewed as weather geeks who didn't have much earning potential. At present, so long as they can maintain a state of crisis in the minds of people like you, they make 6 to 7 figures a year, live in upscale neighborhoods, drive expensive cars, and have wives an girlfriends with expensive boob jobs. If the crisis ends, the lifestyle ends. Do the math.

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL........(gasp)...climatologists are making "7 figure" incomes but only because they're 'fudging' the science so they "can maintain a state of crisis in the minds" of all of the millions of other non-climatology scientists (who aren't in on the 'conspiracy') and in the minds of all of those government and industry leaders who are, after all, so easily fooled. LOLOLOLOL. Jeez, but you dingbat crazy denier cultists are sooooooo idiotic and gullible. Your ideas about how science works and where the grant money goes are totally insane and only reflect how very little any of you know about science.

And yet we "denier cultists" are KICKING YOUR PUNK ASS ALL OVER THE PLAYGROUND! The planet also seems to be ignoring you. Since 1997 the US average temp dropped
at a per century cooling rate of 2.9 degrees, this in spite of two large El Nino events within the 15 year period.

The last laugh's on you buddy...

Climate Prediction Center - Monitoring & Data: ENSO Impacts on the U.S. - Previous Events

 

[RollingThunder]

I suggest that you do a bit of actual research on where that money goes. Not so very long ago, climatologists were viewed as weather geeks who didn't have much earning potential. At present, so long as they can maintain a state of crisis in the minds of people like you, they make 6 to 7 figures a year, live in upscale neighborhoods, drive expensive cars, and have wives an girlfriends with expensive boob jobs. If the crisis ends, the lifestyle ends. Do the math.

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL........(gasp)...climatologists are making "7 figure" incomes but only because they're 'fudging' the science so they "can maintain a state of crisis in the minds" of all of the millions of other non-climatology scientists (who aren't in on the 'conspiracy') and in the minds of all of those government and industry leaders who are, after all, so easily fooled. LOLOLOLOL. Jeez, but you dingbat crazy denier cultists are sooooooo idiotic and gullible. Your ideas about how science works and where the grant money goes are totally insane and only reflect how very little any of you know about science.

And yet we "denier cultists" are KICKING YOUR PUNK ASS ALL OVER THE PLAYGROUND!

LOLOLOL.....riiiight. But only in the sick, delusional brains of the very same denier cult douche-bags, like yourself, who have no actual science or evidence to support their ideologically driven denial of reality and who are regarded by all of the intelligent people of the world as the new 'flat-earthers'. LOL. You are such a delusional loon, walleyed. You lose every debate on AGW because you have no ability to counter the actual scientific evidence that debunks your denier cult myths and misinformation every time. And yet, part of your delusional system seems to be imagining that you have 'won'. LOL...such a retard.

The planet also seems to be ignoring you. Since 1997 the US average temp dropped at a per century cooling rate of 2.9 degrees, this in spite of two large El Nino events within the 15 year period.

Since the US is only about 2% of the Earth's surface, it is not even worth my time to look up your claim. True or false (probably false, given your track record), it makes no difference. Here is what is actually happening with our whole planet, not just your backyard.

NASA Research Finds Last Decade was Warmest on Record, 2009 One of Warmest Years

WASHINGTON -- Jan. 21, 2010 -- A new analysis of global surface temperatures by NASA scientists finds the past year was tied for the second warmest since 1880. In the Southern Hemisphere, 2009 was the warmest year on record.

Although 2008 was the coolest year of the decade because of a strong La Nina that cooled the tropical Pacific Ocean, 2009 saw a return to a near-record global temperatures as the La Nina diminished, according to the new analysis by NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) in New York. The past year was a small fraction of a degree cooler than 2005, the warmest on record, putting 2009 in a virtual tie with a cluster of other years --1998, 2002, 2003, 2006, and 2007 -- for the second warmest on record.

"There's always interest in the annual temperature numbers and a given year's ranking, but the ranking often misses the point," said James Hansen, GISS director. "There's substantial year-to-year variability of global temperature caused by the tropical El Nino-La Nina cycle. When we average temperature over five or ten years to minimize that variability, we find global warming is continuing unabated."

January 2000 to December 2009 was the warmest decade on record. Looking back to 1880, when modern scientific instrumentation became available to monitor temperatures precisely, a clear warming trend is present, although there was a leveling off between the 1940s and 1970s.

In the past three decades, the GISS surface temperature record shows an upward trend of about 0.36 degrees F (0.2 degrees C) per decade. In total, average global temperatures have increased by about 1.5 degrees F (0.8 degrees C) since 1880.

"That's the important number to keep in mind," said GISS climatologist Gavin Schmidt. "The difference between the second and sixth warmest years is trivial because the known uncertainty in the temperature measurement is larger than some of the differences between the warmest years."

The near-record global temperatures of 2009 occurred despite an unseasonably cool December in much of North America. High air pressures from the Arctic decreased the east-west flow of the jet stream, while increasing its tendency to blow from north to south. The result was an unusual effect that caused frigid air from the Arctic to rush into North America and warmer mid-latitude air to shift toward the north. This left North America cooler than normal, while the Arctic was warmer than normal.

"The contiguous 48 states cover only 1.5 percent of the world area, so the United States' temperature does not affect the global temperature much," Hansen said.

GISS uses publicly available data from three sources to conduct its temperature analysis. The sources are weather data from more than a thousand meteorological stations around the world, satellite observations of sea surface temperatures, and Antarctic research station measurements.

Other research groups also track global temperature trends but use different analysis techniques. The Met Office Hadley Centre in the United Kingdom uses similar input measurements as GISS, for example, but it omits large areas of the Arctic and Antarctic where monitoring stations are sparse.

Although the two methods produce slightly differing results in the annual rankings, the decadal trends in the two records are essentially identical.

"There's a contradiction between the results shown here and popular perceptions about climate trends," Hansen said. "In the last decade, global warming has not stopped."

NOAA: 2010 Tied For Warmest Year on Record

January 12, 2011

According to NOAA scientists, 2010 tied with 2005 as the warmest year of the global surface temperature record, beginning in 1880. This was the 34th consecutive year with global temperatures above the 20th century average. For the contiguous United States alone, the 2010 average annual temperature was above normal, resulting in the 23rd warmest year on record.

(government agency information - free for public use - not under copyright)


Top 11 Warmest Years On Record Have All Been In Last 13 Years
(short excerpt)

ScienceDaily (Dec. 13, 2007) — The decade of 1998-2007 is the warmest on record, according to data sources obtained by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO). The global mean surface temperature for 2007 is currently estimated at 0.41°C/0.74°F above the 1961-1990 annual average of 14.00°C/57.20°F. The University of East Anglia and the Met Office's Hadley Centre have released preliminary global temperature figures for 2007, which show the top 11 warmest years all occurring in the last 13 years. The provisional global figure for 2007 using data from January to November, currently places the year as the seventh warmest on records dating back to 1850.

The last laugh's on you buddy...

That must be one of your more comforting illusions when, in reality, the intelligent and educated people of the whole world are always laughing at silly, anti-science reality deniers like you fools in the fossil fuel industry's ginned up cult of denial and the 'flat-earthers' and the evolution-deniers. You're all 'birds of a feather' with small, frightened, ignorant, gullible, superstitious minds suffering (loudly) from an extreme case of the Dunning-Kruger Effect.

 

[westwall]

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL........(gasp)...climatologists are making "7 figure" incomes but only because they're 'fudging' the science so they "can maintain a state of crisis in the minds" of all of the millions of other non-climatology scientists (who aren't in on the 'conspiracy') and in the minds of all of those government and industry leaders who are, after all, so easily fooled. LOLOLOLOL. Jeez, but you dingbat crazy denier cultists are sooooooo idiotic and gullible. Your ideas about how science works and where the grant money goes are totally insane and only reflect how very little any of you know about science.

And yet we "denier cultists" are KICKING YOUR PUNK ASS ALL OVER THE PLAYGROUND!

LOLOLOL.....riiiight. But only in the sick, delusional brains of the very same denier cult douche-bags, like yourself, who have no actual science or evidence to support their ideologically driven denial of reality and who are regarded by all of the intelligent people of the world as the new 'flat-earthers'. LOL. You are such a delusional loon, walleyed. You lose every debate on AGW because you have no ability to counter the actual scientific evidence that debunks your denier cult myths and misinformation every time. And yet, part of your delusional system seems to be imagining that you have 'won'. LOL...such a retard.

The planet also seems to be ignoring you. Since 1997 the US average temp dropped at a per century cooling rate of 2.9 degrees, this in spite of two large El Nino events within the 15 year period.

Since the US is only about 2% of the Earth's surface, it is not even worth my time to look up your claim. True or false (probably false, given your track record), it makes no difference. Here is what is actually happening with our whole planet, not just your backyard.

NASA Research Finds Last Decade was Warmest on Record, 2009 One of Warmest Years

WASHINGTON -- Jan. 21, 2010 -- A new analysis of global surface temperatures by NASA scientists finds the past year was tied for the second warmest since 1880. In the Southern Hemisphere, 2009 was the warmest year on record.

Although 2008 was the coolest year of the decade because of a strong La Nina that cooled the tropical Pacific Ocean, 2009 saw a return to a near-record global temperatures as the La Nina diminished, according to the new analysis by NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) in New York. The past year was a small fraction of a degree cooler than 2005, the warmest on record, putting 2009 in a virtual tie with a cluster of other years --1998, 2002, 2003, 2006, and 2007 -- for the second warmest on record.

"There's always interest in the annual temperature numbers and a given year's ranking, but the ranking often misses the point," said James Hansen, GISS director. "There's substantial year-to-year variability of global temperature caused by the tropical El Nino-La Nina cycle. When we average temperature over five or ten years to minimize that variability, we find global warming is continuing unabated."

January 2000 to December 2009 was the warmest decade on record. Looking back to 1880, when modern scientific instrumentation became available to monitor temperatures precisely, a clear warming trend is present, although there was a leveling off between the 1940s and 1970s.

In the past three decades, the GISS surface temperature record shows an upward trend of about 0.36 degrees F (0.2 degrees C) per decade. In total, average global temperatures have increased by about 1.5 degrees F (0.8 degrees C) since 1880.

"That's the important number to keep in mind," said GISS climatologist Gavin Schmidt. "The difference between the second and sixth warmest years is trivial because the known uncertainty in the temperature measurement is larger than some of the differences between the warmest years."

The near-record global temperatures of 2009 occurred despite an unseasonably cool December in much of North America. High air pressures from the Arctic decreased the east-west flow of the jet stream, while increasing its tendency to blow from north to south. The result was an unusual effect that caused frigid air from the Arctic to rush into North America and warmer mid-latitude air to shift toward the north. This left North America cooler than normal, while the Arctic was warmer than normal.

"The contiguous 48 states cover only 1.5 percent of the world area, so the United States' temperature does not affect the global temperature much," Hansen said.

GISS uses publicly available data from three sources to conduct its temperature analysis. The sources are weather data from more than a thousand meteorological stations around the world, satellite observations of sea surface temperatures, and Antarctic research station measurements.

Other research groups also track global temperature trends but use different analysis techniques. The Met Office Hadley Centre in the United Kingdom uses similar input measurements as GISS, for example, but it omits large areas of the Arctic and Antarctic where monitoring stations are sparse.

Although the two methods produce slightly differing results in the annual rankings, the decadal trends in the two records are essentially identical.

"There's a contradiction between the results shown here and popular perceptions about climate trends," Hansen said. "In the last decade, global warming has not stopped."

NOAA: 2010 Tied For Warmest Year on Record

January 12, 2011

According to NOAA scientists, 2010 tied with 2005 as the warmest year of the global surface temperature record, beginning in 1880. This was the 34th consecutive year with global temperatures above the 20th century average. For the contiguous United States alone, the 2010 average annual temperature was above normal, resulting in the 23rd warmest year on record.

(government agency information - free for public use - not under copyright)


Top 11 Warmest Years On Record Have All Been In Last 13 Years
(short excerpt)

ScienceDaily (Dec. 13, 2007) — The decade of 1998-2007 is the warmest on record, according to data sources obtained by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO). The global mean surface temperature for 2007 is currently estimated at 0.41°C/0.74°F above the 1961-1990 annual average of 14.00°C/57.20°F. The University of East Anglia and the Met Office's Hadley Centre have released preliminary global temperature figures for 2007, which show the top 11 warmest years all occurring in the last 13 years. The provisional global figure for 2007 using data from January to November, currently places the year as the seventh warmest on records dating back to 1850.

The last laugh's on you buddy...

That must be one of your more comforting illusions when, in reality, the intelligent and educated people of the whole world are always laughing at silly, anti-science reality deniers like you fools in the fossil fuel industry's ginned up cult of denial and the 'flat-earthers' and the evolution-deniers. You're all 'birds of a feather' with small, frightened, ignorant, gullible, superstitious minds suffering (loudly) from an extreme case of the Dunning-Kruger Effect.

Well if you're so smart why are regulations controlling AGW being repealed and halted all over the world? Hmmmm? The only anti science people are you twits with your "the science is settled BS". That is one of the most virulently anti scientific positions ever seen on this planet. You guys screwed the pooch with that and antagonised too many good real scientists to the point where they had had enough...that's why yu are having your asses handed to you. Get used to it boyo, you aren't going to have any good positive news for a very long time...you people missed your window.

 

[waltky]

Granny says, "Dat's right - an' dem yankees is gonna drown...

New York set to be big loser as sea levels rise
8 April 2011 - Places like New York are projected to experience an above average sea level increase

New York is a major loser and Reykjavik a winner from new forecasts of sea level rise in different regions. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) said in 2007 that sea levels would rise at least 28cm (1ft) by the year 2100. But this is a global average; and now a Dutch team has made what appears to be the first attempt to model all the factors leading to regional variations. Other researchers say the IPCC's figure is likely to be a huge under-estimate.

Whatever the global figure turns out to be, there will be regional differences. Ocean currents and differences in the temperature and salinity of seawater are among the factors that mean sea level currently varies by up a metre across the oceans - this does not include short-term changes due to tides or winds. So if currents change with global warming, which is expected - and if regions such as the Arctic Ocean become less saline as ice sheets discharge their contents into the sea - the regional patterns of peaks and troughs will also change.

"Everybody will still have the impact, and in many places they will get the average rise," said Roderik van der Wal from the University of Utrecht, one of the team presenting their regional projections at the European Geosciences Union (EGU) meeting in Vienna. "But places like New York are going to have a larger contribution than the average - 20% more in this case - and Reykjavik will be better off." Of the 13 regions where the team makes specific projections, New York sees the biggest increase from the global average, although Vancouver, Tasmania and The Maldives are also forecast to see above-average impacts.

Gravity trap

 

[westwall]

Granny says, "Dat's right - an' dem yankees is gonna drown...

New York set to be big loser as sea levels rise
8 April 2011 - Places like New York are projected to experience an above average sea level increase

New York is a major loser and Reykjavik a winner from new forecasts of sea level rise in different regions. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) said in 2007 that sea levels would rise at least 28cm (1ft) by the year 2100. But this is a global average; and now a Dutch team has made what appears to be the first attempt to model all the factors leading to regional variations. Other researchers say the IPCC's figure is likely to be a huge under-estimate.

Whatever the global figure turns out to be, there will be regional differences. Ocean currents and differences in the temperature and salinity of seawater are among the factors that mean sea level currently varies by up a metre across the oceans - this does not include short-term changes due to tides or winds. So if currents change with global warming, which is expected - and if regions such as the Arctic Ocean become less saline as ice sheets discharge their contents into the sea - the regional patterns of peaks and troughs will also change.

"Everybody will still have the impact, and in many places they will get the average rise," said Roderik van der Wal from the University of Utrecht, one of the team presenting their regional projections at the European Geosciences Union (EGU) meeting in Vienna. "But places like New York are going to have a larger contribution than the average - 20% more in this case - and Reykjavik will be better off." Of the 13 regions where the team makes specific projections, New York sees the biggest increase from the global average, although Vancouver, Tasmania and The Maldives are also forecast to see above-average impacts.

Gravity trap

Mmmmm, maybe, but probably not...


"Notice that the satellite-derived 10-yr average rate of sea level rise continues to fall.

This is how Houston and Dean describe their take on the situation:

When viewed in this historical perspective, the [satellite] altimeter measurements appear similar to several decadal oscillations over the past 100 years, and it is not possible to determine if the increased trend measured by the altimeters is the leading edge of acceleration or merely a typical decadal oscillation; however, the decreasing average suggests an oscillation. [emphasis added]

And since one good deed deserves another, we thought we’d take the opportunity to bring the Houston and Dean figure even more up to date by adding in the satellite altimeter data through September 2010—the most recent data available (see here for data source) (Figure 3)–and even more data should be available soon."




World Climate Report » Sea Level Rise: Still Slowing Down

 

[waltky]

westwall wrote: "Notice that the satellite-derived 10-yr average rate of sea level rise continues to fall.

Where all dat water goin'?

possum thinks mebbe its goin' down inna ground...

... an' loosenin' things up...

... an' dats why all dem earthquakes is happenin'.

 

[westwall]

westwall wrote: "Notice that the satellite-derived 10-yr average rate of sea level rise continues to fall.

Where all dat water goin'?

possum thinks mebbe its goin' down inna ground...

... an' loosenin' things up...

... an' dats why all dem earthquakes is happenin'.

Nope, it's changing back into ice. It is possible to use water as a lubricant in fault zones that are under strain and that will cause minor earthquakes. Major quakes like you saw in Japan and New Zealand are the result of tectonic plates being subducted under other tectonic plates which generates tremendous pressures and water could release the strain (if we could get the water down to those depths, you must remember these quakes occur over 10 miles deep, the other problem is of course the extreme temperatures you see at depth...far above the boiling point of water...me thinks possum needs to take some geology classes) which would LESSEN the power of the quakes.

"You can think of Antarctica as an amazing layer cake, made from millions of layers of snow that gradually turns to ice. But a new study finds that's not always the case. Some of the ice in Antarctica is actually forming from underneath the glaciers, instead of being piled on from the top, according to a report published online by Science magazine."

"It turns out these big blobs underneath the ice sheet were ice that had frozen on from the bottom of the ice sheet," she says. "There was water moving around underneath the ice sheet and it had frozen back onto the bottom of the ice sheet."

Ice in Antarctica isn't supposed to form that way — it's supposed to fall from the sky as snow, and form from the top down. But here Bell saw unusual ice structures, thousands of feet thick in places.
Heat from the Earth had melted the bottom of the glaciers, and then that water refroze, and it created what you could think of as gigantic frost heaves, so powerful that they actually altered the shape of the surface, half a mile to 2 miles above."



It's Bottoms Up For Antarctic Ice Sheets : NPR

 

[waltky]

Granny says, "Well...

... dat's nice to know."

 

[westwall]

Granny says, "Well...

... dat's nice to know."

Glad to be of service Granny!

 

[IanC]

The Dunning–Kruger effect is a cognitive bias in which unskilled people make poor decisions and reach erroneous conclusions, but their incompetence denies them the metacognitive ability to appreciate their mistakes.[1] The unskilled therefore suffer from illusory superiority, rating their ability as above average, much higher than it actually is, while the highly skilled underrate their own abilities, suffering from illusory inferiority.

I wonder which side of the D-K effect Rolling Thunder imagines himself on? other than fluency in name-calling and googling links has he shown any signs of intelligence in any posts yet?

 

[westwall]

The Dunning–Kruger effect is a cognitive bias in which unskilled people make poor decisions and reach erroneous conclusions, but their incompetence denies them the metacognitive ability to appreciate their mistakes.[1] The unskilled therefore suffer from illusory superiority, rating their ability as above average, much higher than it actually is, while the highly skilled underrate their own abilities, suffering from illusory inferiority.

I wonder which side of the D-K effect Rolling Thunder imagines himself on? other than fluency in name-calling and googling links has he shown any signs of intelligence in any posts yet?

Nope, I started off trying to be nice to blunder but he is a right proper prick. I now treat him like I would any juvenile delinquent.