Hottest Year Ever????

[PLC1]

I think it is a bad idea for a court to grant special rights based on sexual preference.



Didn't even wet a line....to windy to fish....swam a bit but currents were running hard so mostly just hung out.

Must be due to global warming.

Just kidding... this time.

 

[Walter]

http://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa-science-zeros-in-on-ocean-rise-how-much-how-soon

 

[palerider]

Data from sources like NASA, and NOAA is no longer reliable...The record has been adjusted and adjusted and then there are the adjustments on the adjustments...So much data tampering has been done in an effort to support the AGW narrative that I don't know whether there is any trustworthy data to be had any more...

Thanks to the internet, there is still data from pre AGW cult tampering but is is incomplete and not much good for anything beyond demonstrating how much and how extensive the tampering has been.

 

[Lagboltz]

http://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa-science-zeros-in-on-ocean-rise-how-much-how-soon

Very interesting. That link showed another link of sea levels measured by tide gauges, and how it compares to satellite data. The sea level is rising at an ever accelerating pace since the year 2000. That seems to indicate that more heat is going into the ocean.
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/NASASeaLevel/

 

[palerider]

Among warmers, there seems to b e a serious deficiency in the ability to read a graph...if one looks at the graph of sea level, one sees a pretty steady rise for a very long time...not the "ever accelerating" pace that the handwaving hysterics of the AGW cult claim.

 

[PLC1]

Among warmers, there seems to b e a serious deficiency in the ability to read a graph...if one looks at the graph of sea level, one sees a pretty steady rise for a very long time...not the "ever accelerating" pace that the handwaving hysterics of the AGW cult claim.

Sure. Anyone can see that the above graph is showing a decline. Were sea levels increasing, then the trend would be upward. In your face, NASA! Limbaugh is right!

They probably faked the moon landing as well.

 

[palerider]

Sure. Anyone can see that the above graph is showing a decline. Were sea levels increasing, then the trend would be upward. In your face, NASA! Limbaugh is right!

They probably faked the moon landing as well.

Missing the point seems to be your strong point...Who said anything at all about sea levels declining? The fact is that sea level has been increasing at between 2 and 4 mm per year for as long as anyone has been measuring. That trend continues at about the same rate as for the past couple of decades....A rate that, if you were able to read a chart and grasp it's meaning, that is slower than was the case in the ending decades of the 20th century. Increasing sea level is business as usual on planet earth as it emerges from an ice age which is what is happening in the long term...history tells us that warming and cooling periods happen over a very long time with the overall trend being towards deep ice age and then towards warming to the point where no ice exits at one or both poles....

It is this general ignorance of the historical norm of earth that allows people like you to be snookered into believing that there is something going on today that is unprecedented in the history of the earth when the fact is that there is nothing going on today that is even remotely approaching the boundaries of natural variability.

 

[Lagboltz]

Among climate deniers there seems to be a serious deficiency in the ability to avoid cherry-picking data.
Look at the straight edge on the data between 1880 and 1920. Notice the slope of the data.
Next look at the straight edge on the data from 1920 to 1990 to 1990. Notice a further increase in slope. Finally look at the red straight edge from 1910 to present. Notice a further increase in slope.
That's what physicists call an accelerated pace. Your graph only shows the data from 1992 to present - the "red" slope at the end.

Furthermore, the caption of your picture "over the past two years, sea levels have not increased at all" was quoted in the Guardian in 2008. The graph goes on to show Bjorn was totally wrong in the long term (see the circled area in your graph that he was referring to.) Palerider, don't you realize that the whole idea of your graph was really a joke against deniers like you? Two years? The joke is that Bjorn seemed to think that two years was a sufficient for predicting the future.

Finally look at the man in your picture wiping his eyes in disgust at the stupid remark made by Bjorn. Your graph was joke poking fun at deniers, and you didn't get it, but tried to use it to prove your point!!! That was a total fail on your part!!!

 

[PLC1]

Missing the point seems to be your strong point...Who said anything at all about sea levels declining? The fact is that sea level has been increasing at between 2 and 4 mm per year for as long as anyone has been measuring. That trend continues at about the same rate as for the past couple of decades....A rate that, if you were able to read a chart and grasp it's meaning, that is slower than was the case in the ending decades of the 20th century. Increasing sea level is business as usual on planet earth as it emerges from an ice age which is what is happening in the long term...history tells us that warming and cooling periods happen over a very long time with the overall trend being towards deep ice age and then towards warming to the point where no ice exits at one or both poles....

It is this general ignorance of the historical norm of earth that allows people like you to be snookered into believing that there is something going on today that is unprecedented in the history of the earth when the fact is that there is nothing going on today that is even remotely approaching the boundaries of natural variability.

Mega dittos, Rush

 

[palerider]

Among climate deniers there seems to be a serious deficiency in the ability to avoid cherry-picking data.
Look at the straight edge on the data between 1880 and 1920. Notice the slope of the data.
Next look at the straight edge on the data from 1920 to 1990 to 1990. Notice a further increase in slope. Finally look at the red straight edge from 1910 to present. Notice a further increase in slope.
That's what physicists call an accelerated pace. Your graph only shows the data from 1992 to present - the "red" slope at the end.

Furthermore, the caption of your picture "over the past two years, sea levels have not increased at all" was quoted in the Guardian in 2008. The graph goes on to show Bjorn was totally wrong in the long term (see the circled area in your graph that he was referring to.) Palerider, don't you realize that the whole idea of your graph was really a joke against deniers like you? Two years? The joke is that Bjorn seemed to think that two years was a sufficient for predicting the future.

Finally look at the man in your picture wiping his eyes in disgust at the stupid remark made by Bjorn. Your graph was joke poking fun at deniers, and you didn't get it, but tried to use it to prove your point!!! That was a total fail on your part!!!

A graph demonstrating how dishonest one can be with statistics via blatant cherry picking....brilliant. Curve fitting at its best. The first bar covering the period of 1880 to 1920 covers 40 years...then the second bar covering the period fro 1920 to about 1980 covers 60 years...then the third bar from 1980 - 1990 covers 10 and the last bar from 1990 - 2010 covers 20 years...broken up so as to make it appear that sea level increase is accelerating when in fact, it isn't...sea level increase, as you can see by the graph today is increasing at a rate slower than it was at the end of the 20th century...if you can read a graph that is...and get past the dishonest statistical cherrypicking that the graph actually represents. Typical of warmers. hand waving hysterics with no basis in fact.

Plot your entire graph...from beginning to end and you will find an average sea level increase from 1880 to present of about 3mm per year which is exactly what I said. As to the man supposedly " wiping his eyes in disgust" ...typical of a warmer...See no evil...the picture should have had one with his ears clamped firmly over his ears as well...the truth to warmers is like sunlight to vampires. Interesting that you, who believes yourself to be the smartest guy in the room...any room...failed to see the blatant statistical chicanery in your graph.

 

[palerider]

Mega dittos, Rush

No actual response? Congratulations. At least lagboltz posted some statistical chicanery in an attempt to respond. The fact is that accelerated sea level claims are demonstrably false.

 

[palerider]

By the way, just for fun I went over to the NOAA site and they say that globally, the absolute rate of sea level rise is, at present 1.7 - 1.8 mm per year....quite a difference from the 3.0 mm per year as claimed by lagboltz's chart.

http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/globalregional.htm

lobal Regional Trends Comparison (4 Main Regions, various subregions)[/B]
The graphs compare the 95% confidence intervals of relative mean sea level trends for CO-OPS and global stations. Trends with the narrowest confidence intervals are based on the longest data sets. Trends with the widest confidence intervals are based on only 30-40 years of data. The graphs can provide an overarching indication of the differing rates of regional vertical land motion, given that the absolute global sea level rise is believed to be 1.7-1.8 millimeters/year. Note that they are relative sea level trends, and are not corrected for local land movement

 

[Lagboltz]

A graph demonstrating how dishonest one can be with statistics via blatant cherry picking....brilliant. Curve fitting at its best. The first bar covering the period of 1880 to 1920 covers 40 years...then the second bar covering the period fro 1920 to about 1980 covers 60 years...then the third bar from 1980 - 1990 covers 10 and the last bar from 1990 - 2010 covers 20 years...broken up so as to make it appear that sea level increase is accelerating when in fact, it isn't...sea level increase, as you can see by the graph today is increasing at a rate slower than it was at the end of the 20th century...if you can read a graph that is...and get past the dishonest statistical cherrypicking that the graph actually represents. Typical of warmers. hand waving hysterics with no basis in fact..

Try looking at the graph I posted more closely. It illustrates that a straight line can't accurately fit the graph from beginning to end. It starts a .9mm per year in the early part, then goes to 3 mm per year at the end. When that factor of three change in slope happens, it illustrates that it is non linear. That means you can fit the data with a curved line more accurately than a single straight line.

Plot your entire graph...from beginning to end and you will find an average sea level increase from 1880 to present of about 3mm per year which is exactly what I said. As to the man supposedly " wiping his eyes in disgust" ...typical of a warmer...See no evil...the picture should have had one with his ears clamped firmly over his ears as well...the truth to warmers is like sunlight to vampires. Interesting that you, who believes yourself to be the smartest guy in the room...any room...failed to see the blatant statistical chicanery in your graph.

Yes you can compare any graph from beginning to end to a straight line. But that gives no information about it's curvature. Your graph was too short to show statistically reliable curvature. You still don't understand the irony of your graph. Bjorn's comment was about only 2 years, and he drew a linear conclusion about it - the same sort of thing that you are doing. Your comment in post #185, "one sees a pretty steady rise for a very long time...not the "ever accelerating" pace" was committing the same error as Bjorn by using too short of a segment for analysis.

 

[Lagboltz]

By the way, just for fun I went over to the NOAA site and they say that globally, the absolute rate of sea level rise is, at present 1.7 - 1.8 mm per year....quite a difference from the 3.0 mm per year as claimed by lagboltz's chart.

Yes, I agree that if you fit the curved sea level measurements from beginning to end with a single straight line the slope is close to 2mm per year. The slope at the beginning is .9 mm; the slope at the end is 3 mm. The average slope over the whole range is slightly less than 2 mm/yr. I think we both agree on that. But as I pointed out, that is a rather inaccurate way of looking at sea level trends. It is the last 10 or 15 years of 3 mm/yr that we should be worried about.

 

[palerider]

Yes, I agree that if you fit the curved sea level measurements from beginning to end with a single straight line the slope is close to 2mm per year. The slope at the beginning is .9 mm; the slope at the end is 3 mm. The average slope over the whole range is slightly less than 2 mm/yr. I think we both agree on that. But as I pointed out, that is a rather inaccurate way of looking at sea level trends. It is the last 10 or 15 years of 3 mm/yr that we should be worried about.

obal Regional Trends Comparison (4 Main Regions, various subregions)[/B][/B]
The graphs compare the 95% confidence intervals of relative mean sea level trends for CO-OPS and global stations. Trends with the narrowest confidence intervals are based on the longest data sets. Trends with the widest confidence intervals are based on only 30-40 years of data. The graphs can provide an overarching indication of the differing rates of regional vertical land motion, given that the absolute global sea level rise is believed to be 1.7-1.8 millimeters/year. Note that they are relative sea level trends, and are not corrected for local land movement

There is nothing whatsoever unusual, unprecedented, 0r even approaching the boundaries of natural variability in either the climate or sea level today, nor has there been during the entire industrialized history of humanity.