Hottest Year Ever????

[Lagboltz]

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.

If you think so. My emphasis was in the technical (mis)interpretation of the graphs, and not natural variability.
Rather using linear regression, NOAA should have used a quadratic regression analysis. That would have given a better picture of trends over the industrialized history, and would give a more statistically significant fit to the data.

 

[palerider]

If you think so. My emphasis was in the technical (mis)interpretation of the graphs, and not natural variability.
Rather using linear regression, NOAA should have used a quadratic regression analysis. That would have given a better picture of trends over the industrialized history, and would give a more statistically significant fit to the data.

NOAA did whatever would produce the most anxiety and bring in the most grant money... And no, I don't "think" that there is nothing whatsoever going on in either the climate or sea level that is unprecedented or even approaching the bounds of natural variability...I know that there is nothing whatsoever going on in either the climate or sea level that is unprecedented or even approaching the limits of natural variability...if you think there is then feel free to point it out....there is no anthropogenic fingerprint anywhere within the climate or sea level to be found.

 

[Lagboltz]

NOAA did whatever would produce the most anxiety and bring in the most grant money

That is a very odd conclusion. The NOAA quoted 1.7 - 1.8 mm per year since 1870 as a long term linear average. If they really wanted to "produce the most anxiety" they should have quoted the most recent trend of 3 mm per year since 1992. I would think 3 mm is more scary than 1.8. I don't see where you are coming from. You seem to have a penchant for looking at data and coming up with a wrong interpretation as in your graph in post #185 where you adamantly denied an accelerated pace of rising sea level on the basis of the last two decades rather than the obviously accelerated pace of the last 14 decades.

 

[palerider]

Perhaps NOAA has not become quite as dishonest as NASA at this point in time, although it would not surprise me in the least to see NOAA alter its data to reflect the claims made by NASA...that is, after all, the scientific method according to climate science. I will remind myself to keep an eye on NOAA and post the change for you when it happens and direct you back to this prediction....

And the fact is that there is no accelerated rate of sea level increase...you know, in order to determine the rate of increase one looks at how quickly the line goes up as it moves across the graph...clearly the slope since 2000 is more gentle than during previous times....aside from the fact that the 3.0 mm per year your graph claims is a bald faced lie.

 

[Lagboltz]

And the fact is that there is no accelerated rate of sea level increase...you know, in order to determine the rate of increase one looks at how quickly the line goes up as it moves across the graph...clearly the slope since 2000 is more gentle than during previous times....aside from the fact that the 3.0 mm per year your graph claims is a bald faced lie.

Again, I don't know where you are coming from. Your graph is posted below. It is a blowup starting from a later date than the graph I posted.

Notice that in 1993 the baseline sea level is -5 mm. In 2015 the sea level is shown to be 65 mm. That is a delta of 70 mm over a period of 22 years.
70 mm/22 years = 3.18 mm per year.

If you do the same simple arithmetic to the graph I posted you also get around 3 mm per year. You can do it your self: use a straight edge on your screen to project the final two decades to the zero point. Measure the delta values of the x and y axes and you will find that the slope, which is defined as delta y divided by delta x, is around 3. I measured 3.3, but admittedly the graph is too small on the computer screen to do it very accurately.

So both our graphs show the same result; that the sea level rise is has been about 3 mm per year over the past 2 decades. What makes you think that 3 mm per year is a bald faced lie?

 

[palerider]

Again, I don't know where you are coming from. Your graph is posted below. It is a blowup starting from a later date than the graph I posted.

Notice that in 1993 the baseline sea level is -5 mm. In 2015 the sea level is shown to be 65 mm. That is a delta of 70 mm over a period of 22 years.
70 mm/22 years = 3.18 mm per year.

If you do the same simple arithmetic to the graph I posted you also get around 3 mm per year. You can do it your self: use a straight edge on your screen to project the final two decades to the zero point. Measure the delta values of the x and y axes and you will find that the slope, which is defined as delta y divided by delta x, is around 3. I measured 3.3, but admittedly the graph is too small on the computer screen to do it very accurately.

So both our graphs show the same result; that the sea level rise is has been about 3 mm per year over the past 2 decades. What makes you think that 3 mm per year is a bald faced lie?

So your claim is that the end of that graph shows an acceleration of sea level rise? Right...and again, sea level is actually rising at less than 2mm per year so any claim of accelerating sea level is nothing more than alarmist claptrap.

 

[Lagboltz]

So your claim is that the end of that graph shows an acceleration of sea level rise? Right...and again, sea level is actually rising at less than 2mm per year so any claim of accelerating sea level is nothing more than alarmist claptrap.

First of all, I can't take credit for that claim. It was the NOAA that discovered the 3mm rate for the last two decades. Secondly, I'm surprised you were unable to do the math to make your own judgement and be able to corroborate outside sources. The math is really quite simple.

 

[palerider]

First of all, I can't take credit for that claim. It was the NOAA that discovered the 3mm rate for the last two decades. Secondly, I'm surprised you were unable to do the math to make your own judgement and be able to corroborate outside sources. The math is really quite simple.

NOAA says sea level rise is about 1.7 to 1.8 mm per year.

And reading a graph is even easier than math....and yet, you look at the graph and see accelerating sea level.

Perhaps you didn't even look...most likely you, like all those duped by the AGW hoax just repeat what you are spoon fed by your high priests.

 

[Lagboltz]

NOAA says sea level rise is about 1.7 to 1.8 mm per year.

And reading a graph is even easier than math....and yet, you look at the graph and see accelerating sea level.

Perhaps you didn't even look...most likely you, like all those duped by the AGW hoax just repeat what you are spoon fed by your high priests.

Is that the best you can do? You didn't look at the math did you. C'mon look at your graph and tell me what you come up with. It really isn't that hard.

But of course you won't look at the math yourself. No you now choose to trust NOAA without checking what they actually did. That is very odd because just a few days ago you said, and I quote,

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....

So, a few days ago you said NOAA has done "So much data tampering ... to support the AGW narrative". And today you religiously trust the NOAA "AGW narrative". My my, you are oozing with hypocrisy. I can see that you are totally confused and don't really have any cogent arguments.

Ya ain't thinkin real good these days Palerider.

 

[palerider]

Is that the best you can do? You didn't look at the math did you. C'mon look at your graph and tell me what you come up with. It really isn't that hard.

Funny...still trying to play the smartest guy in the room while you lose on every point..

So, a few days ago you said NOAA has done "So much data tampering ... to support the AGW narrative". And today you religiously trust the NOAA "AGW narrative". My my, you are oozing with hypocrisy. I can see that you are totally confused and don't really have any cogent arguments.

Sorry guy but you lose on another point...I trust very little of what any major player in climate science has to say...observation puts the rise at considerably less than the major players claim...and far less than the hand waving hysterics claim..

Ya ain't thinkin real good these days Palerider.

And yet, I win on every point...where does that put your level of thinking?

 

[Lagboltz]

Funny...still trying to play the smartest guy in the room while you lose on every point..

Sorry guy but you lose on another point...I trust very little of what any major player in climate science has to say...observation puts the rise at considerably less than the major players claim...and far less than the hand waving hysterics claim..

And yet, I win on every point...where does that put your level of thinking?

That's all you got? Awarding yourself points? You can't find the slope of the graph you posted? That's the subject of discussion right now. You don't trust the NOAA but you religiously adhere to their results? You are full of self contradictions. I know you are not that dumb. That makes you a troll.

Internet Troll: An internet troll is a one using anonymity to attempt to cause, anger, impatience or generally to be disruptive for no seemingly good reason except simply to be a nuisance.

That definition fits you perfectly Mr. PaleTroll.

 

[palerider]

That's all you got? Awarding yourself points? You can't find the slope of the graph you posted? That's the subject of discussion right now. You don't trust the NOAA but you religiously adhere to their results? You are full of self contradictions. I know you are not that dumb. That makes you a troll.

Internet Troll: An internet troll is a one using anonymity to attempt to cause, anger, impatience or generally to be disruptive for no seemingly good reason except simply to be a nuisance.

That definition fits you perfectly Mr. PaleTroll.

Idgit....guess you didn't notice that I provided the average sea level increase way back...but then who would expect the smartest guy in the room to actually read anything anyone else had to say anyway.

And again, observation tells us that sea level increase is not anywhere near where hand waving alarmists claim...

Trying to distract from the fact that you lost on every point regarding sea level....I understand....you go ahead and try to save whatever face you can if it makes you feel better.

 

[Lagboltz]

Idgit....guess you didn't notice that I provided the average sea level increase way back...but then who would expect the smartest guy in the room to actually read anything anyone else had to say anyway.

And again, observation tells us that sea level increase is not anywhere near where hand waving alarmists claim...

Trying to distract from the fact that you lost on every point regarding sea level....I understand....you go ahead and try to save whatever face you can if it makes you feel better.

Ah, the Troll is back with snide remarks as a method of discourse. A while ago, we both agreed that the average sea level rise derived from span from around 1880 to present is 2 mm per year. We are now looking at the average sea level rise from 1992 to present. That is above 3 mm per year as seen from the following graph which is compilation of several sources:

The above graph comes from the site wattsupwiththat. Anthony Watts, who runs the site, is a well known skeptic of AGW. It should be clear that Watts would always present the smallest most conservative side of the issue. Like you Watts complains about the adjustments to data. His current complaint is that over the years Colorado University research upward adjusted the sea level rate from 3.15 mm (in 2011) to 3.23 mm (2011 to 2012) and then to 3.28 (2013). http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/01/...own-to-be-partially-a-product-of-adjustments/

If you want to complain about upward adjustments I'm sure you will. But remember the full upward adjustment is only 0.13 mm out of 3.23 mm. That is a 4% adjustment from 2011 to 2013, yet the rate of sea level rise was still found to be more than 3 mm per year from 1992 to present.

 

[palerider]

Ah, the Troll is back with snide remarks as a method of discourse. A while ago, we both agreed that the average sea level rise derived from span from around 1880 to present is 2 mm per year. We are now looking at the average sea level rise from 1992 to present. That is above 3 mm per year as seen from the following graph which is compilation of several sources:

The above graph comes from the site wattsupwiththat. Anthony Watts, who runs the site, is a well known skeptic of AGW. It should be clear that Watts would always present the smallest most conservative side of the issue. Like you Watts complains about the adjustments to data. His current complaint is that over the years Colorado University research upward adjusted the sea level rate from 3.15 mm (in 2011) to 3.23 mm (2011 to 2012) and then to 3.28 (2013). http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/01/...own-to-be-partially-a-product-of-adjustments/

If you want to complain about upward adjustments I'm sure you will. But remember the full upward adjustment is only 0.13 mm out of 3.23 mm. That is a 4% adjustment from 2011 to 2013, yet the rate of sea level rise was still found to be more than 3 mm per year from 1992 to present.

 

[palerider]

Ah, the Troll is back with snide remarks as a method of discourse. A while ago, we both agreed that the average sea level rise derived from span from around 1880 to present is 2 mm per year. We are now looking at the average sea level rise from 1992 to present. That is above 3 mm per year as seen from the following graph which is compilation of several sources:

The above graph comes from the site wattsupwiththat. Anthony Watts, who runs the site, is a well known skeptic of AGW. It should be clear that Watts would always present the smallest most conservative side of the issue. Like you Watts complains about the adjustments to data. His current complaint is that over the years Colorado University research upward adjusted the sea level rate from 3.15 mm (in 2011) to 3.23 mm (2011 to 2012) and then to 3.28 (2013). http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/01/...own-to-be-partially-a-product-of-adjustments/

If you want to complain about upward adjustments I'm sure you will. But remember the full upward adjustment is only 0.13 mm out of 3.23 mm. That is a 4% adjustment from 2011 to 2013, yet the rate of sea level rise was still found to be more than 3 mm per year from 1992 to present.

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....