Hottest Year Ever????

[dogtowner]

Sorry, but if I have to choose between NOAA and NASA for sea level figures and those provided by NOAA more closely reflect observation while those of NASA stink of hand waving hysterics, I will go with those which are supported by observation. Interesting that you would choose those provided by the space agency which engages in blatant data fraud over those provided by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration which is not quite so blatant and are supported by observation....

NOAA has had its share of fraud but I noticed they have walked some of their sea level stuff back.

 

[Lagboltz]

Sorry, but if I have to choose between NOAA and NASA for sea level figures and those provided by NOAA more closely reflect observation while those of NASA stink of hand waving hysterics, I will go with those which are supported by observation. Interesting that you would choose those provided by the space agency which engages in blatant data fraud over those provided by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration which is not quite so blatant and are supported by observation....

NOAA has had its share of fraud but I noticed they have walked some of their sea level stuff back.

I don't see that they walked anything back. Do you have a source?
According to tide gauge data from NOAA they also found an accelerated pace of sea level rise. Their 2.8 mm rise agrees with the 3.1 mm rise of satellite data of NASA within the measurement error. If Palerider wants to believe in tide gauge data there isn't much difference between NOAA and NASA in the last 2 decades

According to tide gauge data:
Sea Level Rise (mm/yr) …. 2.8
Data Used (years) ............ 1993-2009
# of Tide Gauges ............. 200
References …............... Church & White (2011)
Do you have a reference for fraud in the tide gauge data of NOAA.

 

[palerider]

NOAA has had its share of fraud but I noticed they have walked some of their sea level stuff back.

There is plenty of fraud to go around within the climate science community....observation still rules and observation simply does not support the hysterics of the AGW wacko crowd.....with them, its all models all the time.

 

[palerider]

I don't see that they walked anything back. Do you have a source?
According to tide gauge data from NOAA they also found an accelerated pace of sea level rise. Their 2.8 mm rise agrees with the 3.1 mm rise of satellite data of NASA within the measurement error. If Palerider wants to believe in tide gauge data there isn't much difference between NOAA and NASA in the last 2 decades

According to tide gauge data:
Sea Level Rise (mm/yr) …. 2.8
Data Used (years) ............ 1993-2009
# of Tide Gauges ............. 200
References …............... Church & White (2011)
Do you have a reference for fraud in the tide gauge data of NOAA.

NOAA is saying that absolute global sea level increase is on the order of 1.7 to 1.8mm per year...your claims of more are apparently based on cherry picked material. I repeat, from NOAA

Global 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

Obama just provided a prime example of the idiocy of the AGW movement....he said that he flew over "Kivalina Island, an Arctic town that’s already losing land to the sea from erosion and further threatened by sea-level rise." The "island" is, in reality a sand bar in a river delta. What sort of idiot would not expect it to erode away? Reality simply does not support the claims of the AGW hysterics at any level...right down to the subatomic claims of heat or energy moving spontaneously from warm to cool as evidenced by the complete inability of anyone to provide an observed example.

 

[Lagboltz]

There is plenty of fraud to go around within the climate science community....observation still rules and observation simply does not support the hysterics of the AGW wacko crowd.....with them, its all models all the time.

NOAA is saying that absolute global sea level increase is on the order of 1.7 to 1.8mm per year...your claims of more are apparently based on cherry picked material. I repeat, from NOAA

You are thinking about the historical sea rise of the last century. Both tide gauge and satellite data now show that the sea level rate is around 3 mm per year, not the 2 mm per year of the last century.

Reality simply does not support the claims of the AGW hysterics at any level...right down to the subatomic claims of heat or energy moving spontaneously from warm to cool as evidenced by the complete inability of anyone to provide an observed example.

Reality absolutely does support the claim that heat and energy spontaneously moves from warm to cool. There are uncountable observed examples of heat moving from warm to cool. A simple observed example is that heat of a cup of coffee will always spontaneously move to a cooler room.

 

[palerider]

You are thinking about the historical sea rise of the last century. Both tide gauge and satellite data now show that the sea level rate is around 3 mm per year, not the 2 mm per year of the last century.

Simply not true...but then honesty isn't your best thing is it? Sea level is rising at roughly 1.7mm per year...not the 3 mm per year that fabrication + cherry picking + hand waving hysterics equals. The fact of the matter is that sea level is currently increasing at a slower rate than it did at the end of the 20th century.

But hey....you believe whatever you want to believe...that is your MO anyway...right? You believe that energy moves spontaneously from cool to warm even though there are no observations of it ever happening...you are a believer and your faith is strong. Far be it from me to try to change your religion...even if it is a cult.

absolutely does support the claim that heat and energy spontaneously moves from warm to cool. There are uncountable observed examples of heat moving from warm to cool. A simple observed example is that heat of a cup of coffee will always spontaneously move to a cooler room.

Who0000oppppppeeeeee...you get a point because I mistyped and said warm to cool instead of cool to warm... Make you feel better? Like having a bone thrown to you? Now provide an example of energy or heat spontaneously moving from cool to warm. My bet is that none will be forthcoming. Maybe you can provide another idiot example like that last one where the entire experiment was work and the only part that wasn't was where you watched the results of all the work. Still laughing over that one.

 

[dogtowner]

1.7 or 3 mm ? Either way it's trivial and I would not be surprised if it fit the MOE.
No one disputes that this average varies greatly by specific location but no one disputes that it's been like this as long as there have been seas.
Warmers do themselves no favors with predictions that never happen based on "facts" that turn out to be fabrications (or lies in unpolitically correct lingo).
You want to "spread it (someone else's money) around so just be honest with yourselves.

 

[Lagboltz]

Sea level is rising at roughly 1.7mm per year...not the 3 mm per year that fabrication + cherry picking + hand waving hysterics equals. The fact of the matter is that sea level is currently increasing at a slower rate than it did at the end of the 20th century.

I agree the sea level was increasing around 1.7 mm/yr last century. According to data you, yourself, posted, the sea level is now rising over 3 mm/yr this century.

But hey....you believe whatever you want to believe...that is your MO anyway...right? You believe that energy moves spontaneously from cool to warm even though there are no observations of it ever happening...you are a believer and your faith is strong. Far be it from me to try to change your religion...even if it is a cult.

Yes, I already know your anti-science stance. You once said modern physics is a fantasy.

Who0000oppppppeeeeee...you get a point because I mistyped and said warm to cool instead of cool to warm...

I have no idea how you think. You are always changing your mind from one ludicrous concept in science to another. You once said you think there is a black streak between light bulbs because the light waves cancel each other out! That obviously results from your thinking that modern science is fantasy?

Now provide an example of energy or heat spontaneously moving from cool to warm. My bet is that none will be forthcoming. Maybe you can provide another idiot example like that last one where the entire experiment was work and the only part that wasn't was where you watched the results of all the work. Still laughing over that one.

Nope. That continues to show your ignorance in science.

Here is another example of radiation energy spontaneously moving form a cold to a warm substance.

“The cosmic ray background (CRB) was discovered with a radio telescope. The CRB is a cold 2.725 deg K. Radio telescopes are at ambient outdoor temperatures, averaging 15 deg C. The very cold radiation from the CRB must strike the much warmer parabola dish in order for it to reflect to a detector at the focal point.

This illustrates that radiation energy from a cold substance can strike a much warmer substance and be detected to have done so.“

 

[Lagboltz]

1.7 or 3 mm ? Either way it's trivial and I would not be surprised if it fit the MOE.
No one disputes that this average varies greatly by specific location but no one disputes that it's been like this as long as there have been seas.
Warmers do themselves no favors with predictions that never happen based on "facts" that turn out to be fabrications (or lies in unpolitically correct lingo).
You want to "spread it (someone else's money) around so just be honest with yourselves.

I wouldn't say that a near factor of 2 increase is trivial. I also have no idea what the sea level change will be in the next century, contrary to what some alarmists think.

To me, most deniers spread as much crap as most warmers. I have never advocated spending money on curtailing CO2 emission.

My interest here is to look at the issues objectively while trying to keep my insults to a minimum. Some here are so used to scoffing at the bad science that they also scoff at the good science. If people want to scoff at the "97%" science believers, fine. But my objection is that they use twisted versions of science to do so.

 

[dogtowner]

I wouldn't say that a near factor of 2 increase is trivial. I also have no idea what the sea level change will be in the next century, contrary to what some alarmists think.

To me, most deniers spread as much crap as most warmers. I have never advocated spending money on curtailing CO2 emission.

My interest here is to look at the issues objectively while trying to keep my insults to a minimum. Some here are so used to scoffing at the bad science that they also scoff at the good science. If people want to scoff at the "97%" science believers, fine. But my objection is that they use twisted versions of science to do so.

Twisted as in how they obtained the 97% ?
I just looked at a tape measure to remind myself what a millimeter looks like. That factor of two (aka doubling or 100% increase) sounds startling but in real terms 2 x next to nothing is still next to nothing. None of it us in any danger of flooding anything.

 

[Lagboltz]

Twisted as in how they obtained the 97% ?
I just looked at a tape measure to remind myself what a millimeter looks like. That factor of two (aka doubling or 100% increase) sounds startling but in real terms 2 x next to nothing is still next to nothing. None of it us in any danger of flooding anything.

Some scoff at the presumed figure of “97%” consensus of scientists who believe AGW is real. I was saying those scoffers often use twisted versions of science in their scoffing, like you and palerider.

The factor of 2 is no big deal for now, but it would be if that trend continues to accelerate for the remaining century. You are right, the sea level rise is measured to be a piddling 1/8 inch per year if you want to use the English system of measurement. That means the sea level rises 1 inch every 8 years, or 1 foot every century if the rate stays constant. Big deal.

However, what some scientists are saying is that the level is accelerating and their range of calculations are that at the end of the century the sea level will be 3 feet to 20 feet higher depending on their version of ice melt. You can take it or leave it. I won't form any opinion until maybe another 20 years from now when we have more data.

 

[dogtowner]

Some scoff at the presumed figure of “97%” consensus of scientists who believe AGW is real. I was saying those scoffers often use twisted versions of science in their scoffing, like you and palerider.

The factor of 2 is no big deal for now, but it would be if that trend continues to accelerate for the remaining century. You are right, the sea level rise is measured to be a piddling 1/8 inch per year if you want to use the English system of measurement. That means the sea level rises 1 inch every 8 years, or 1 foot every century if the rate stays constant. Big deal.

However, what some scientists are saying is that the level is accelerating and their range of calculations are that at the end of the century the sea level will be 3 feet to 20 feet higher depending on their version of ice melt. You can take it or leave it. I won't form any opinion until maybe another 20 years from now when we have more data.

If.
And how important is rising Temps to the rising seas ? Greater than zero I would imagine. And it's been what 18 years since any increase ? And was the dire prediction made when they were still pretending it was getting warmer ?
If
We are moving into a cooling cycle as some actual scientists tell us I guess all bets would be off.
For me it's perspective and there just isn't enough of anything happening to fret about.
Now feeding all these people we have now on what food is available is for real. And with no solution. And despite Dan Brown's book "Infirno", it's nonfiction.

 

[Lagboltz]

And how important is rising Temps to the rising seas ? Greater than zero I would imagine. And it's been what 18 years since any increase ? And was the dire prediction made when they were still pretending it was getting warmer ?

Some say the seas and melting ice are absorbing the heat and moderating the air temperature. That still implies global warming although the warming isn't in the atmosphere.

We are moving into a cooling cycle as some actual scientists tell us I guess all bets would be off.
For me it's perspective and there just isn't enough of anything happening to fret about.
Now feeding all these people we have now on what food is available is for real. And with no solution. And despite Dan Brown's book "Infirno", it's nonfiction.

Cooling cycle? You must be reading different publications than I am. Who says that?

I agree there isn't anything to fret about in my lifetime. I don't know how old you are.

I haven't read Inferno. I agree that the population explosion is a more important problem right now.

 

[dogtowner]

A recent article.
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2015/07/scientists_warning_of_global_cooling_once_again.html

A couple Russians made a little stir by offering a 10,000 dollar bet that things would cool rather than warm some years back. Still no takers.

 

[Lagboltz]

That whole thing came from a paper at the National Astronomy Meeting. Valentina Zharkova has a model of solar activity and said that predictions from the model suggest that solar activity will fall by 60 per cent during the 2030s. I have no idea about what other scientists think about the integrity of her model.

It's ironic that the same people who criticize climate models would take stock in another model. As I said before, I'm not going to have an opinion about climate for another 20 years.