In some places both. Depends on where it is you're asking about. Globally, the sea water is rising and expanding.
AGW Denial, The Greatest Scam in History?
- Thread starter Avro
- Start date
In some places both. Depends on where it is you're asking about. Globally, the sea water is rising and expanding.
People will believe only that which they are willing to believe. 56 pages of people stating what they believe and not one has changed their mind. Change is the one constant in the Universe. Only humans try to stand still in the stream of life.
Too many conflicting 'reports' that allow people to support their position
Chaos Theory dictates that order will come out of confusion... In a way, 'order' is the constant that defies change
Saw a moose once stand in the stream for a pretty long time, took-off a short time later through the forest and left a very visible trail in his wake.... Seems to me he did what he wanted and nature had to bend to his rules
Have you ever tried to stand still in a swift current? The water will wash the gravel right out from under you and you will take a swim.
I get what you're saying.... Everything is in a state of perpetual change and assuming otherwise is nothing short of believing in an illusion.
My point is that there are counter balances to everything.
Yup. It would seem that both sides of this argument have balanced each other out about 50 pages ago.
probably has something to do with unpaid carbon taxes.
Just guessin' here, but undoubtedly, the IPCC will be able to shed some light on this most perplexing mystery
How about sea rising but land not subsiding? As for negative numbers, that's going to happen. There is no time series anywhere in the climate system that shows a monotonic rise. The La Nina associated weather in South America, Australia and Southeast Asia caused a big dip in 2010. That La Nina was the strongest in nearly 6 decades. The beauty of the satellites is that they can correlate the negative measurements from the GRACE satellites spatially with increased rainfall over the adjacent land.
There's no valid reason to expect a long straight line in the data.
See:NASA Satellites Detect Pothole on Road to Higher Seas - NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory
Also, depending on how the sea level is measured, it's expected that there will be negative numbers. "Relative" sea level measurements are those where the level of the water is measured against land. So if the land is rebounding faster than the sea level rises, then you can very easily get relative sea level falling. Or, you can have very high relative sea level rise, such as the Southern US coast where the land is subsiding into the Gulf of Mexico.
The Sky is Falling brings gales of laughter The sea is Rising brings the scientific seal of approval. The truth is that the sky is falling into the sea.
Falling towards the sea, yes it is in fact. To top it all off, that is in fact a prediction of climate change caused by enhanced greenhouse warming. It comes from first principles.
Some reading for you if you can crawl out from under the tinfoil:
J. Lastovicka, R. A. Akmaev, G. Beig, J. Bremer, J. T. Emmert, 2006. Global Change in the Upper Atmosphere. Science, 314: 1253-4.
Southern hemisphere observations of a long-term decrease in F region altitude and thermospheric wind providing possible evidence for global thermospheric cooling - Jarvis - 2012 - Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics (1978–2012) - Wil
If it's true enough for ultra right wing Bush, shouldn't it be equally true for everyone else?
Look man I told you before I don't want any Global Climate Repair tickets to help send your youth group to Cern to discover the future.
The sky falls for a bit and then it get pushed up for a bit and then it gets pushed down for a bit and then, it's called an atmospheric cycle why are you hysterical about natural cycles.
I can tell you went to university cuz you got the top quality tinfoil you paid for. Nothing can ever get you cuz you got chart savy.
And what cycles are you referring to that cause the upper atmosphere to cool while the lower atmosphere warms?
I've told you before, you need evidence. You can't just invoke some imaginary cycle. I'm sure it's real in your mind...but for the rest of us, we require evidence of your fairy cycles.
Solar of course, there is no other source for any cycle in this system except that one. I'm usually not surprised by your posts but you seem to be implying that there is some unique atmospheric temperature fluctuation never before witnessed possibly associated with anthropocentric CO2 emissions. I don't know where you've been but you seem to have missed the facts concerning the now positively discredited anthropocentric climate change disaster crisis commitee. ACCDSCC from here on. This loose collection of common yard idiots are being captured in nets as we speak. You should hide under the steps with your bundle of carbon stocks.
Last edited:
So which solar cycle is causing warming in the lower atmosphere, but cooling the upper atmosphere? You're going to need some creative physics to explain that one.
Never heard of orbital cycles?
bullsh*t
Climategate Posted: November 23, 2009, 8:40 PM
*
climate change, University of East Anglia
*
What the climate scientists wrote and when they wrote it
*
On Friday, news broke that a hacker had broken in to the computer systems used by the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia in Britain, obtaining more than 1,000 e-mails and 3,000 documents. The material, which covers a period of more than a decade, has led many to conclude that climate scientists associated with the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and various government agencies have been cooking the books to make the case for man-made global warming. Climate researchers deny any wrongdoing, explaining that the e-mails are innocent and have been taken out of context. The University, while confirming the hacking, cannot confirm the authenticity of all the stolen documents. Here is a sampling of some of the exchanges.
*
•From Phil Jones, head of the Climatic Research Unit at East Anglia University, to Ray Bradley, Michael Mann, and Malcolm Hughes, three U.S. scientists who have produced the controversial “hockey-stick graphs” that purport to show rapidly increasing temperatures in recent decades. Nov, 16, 1999.
*
“I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (i.e. from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.”
*
Translation:- I've copied Mike Mann's method of lying.
*
•From Kevin Trenberth, a lead author with the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, to Michael Mann, on Oct 12. 2009. The email, titled “BBC U-turn on climate,” laments a BBC article that reversed its long-held position on man-made global warming.
*
“The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t. ... Our observing system is inadequate.”*
*
But they keep telling the outside world that their is a consensus and that the 'science is in'. -that's lying.*
*
---------------------------------------------------------------------
**
•From: Edward Cook, June 4, 2003
*
“I got a paper to review (submitted to the Journal of Agricultural, Biological, and Environmental Sciences), written by a Korean guy and someone from Berkeley, that claims that the method of reconstruction that we use in dendroclimatology (reverse regression) is wrong, biased, lousy, horrible, etc. ... If published as is, this paper could really do some damage … It won’t be easy to dismiss out of hand as the math appears to be correct theoretically (...) I am really sorry but I have to nag about that review — Confidentially I now need a hard and if required extensive case for rejecting.”
*
Lets create something -invent data? -that's lying.*
•From: Tom Wigley, Sep 27, 2009
*
“So, if we could reduce the ocean blip by, say, 0.15 C, then this would be significant for the global mean — but we’d still have to explain the land blip. I’ve chosen 0.15 here deliberately. This still leaves an ocean blip, and i think one needs to have some form of ocean blip to explain the land blip (via either some common forcing, or ocean forcing land, or vice versa, or all of these).”
*
Trying to change reality and invent data -that's lying.
*
•From: Phil Jones, Feb 2, 2005
*
“The two MMs [Canadian skeptics Steve McIntyre and Ross McKitrick] have been after the CRU station data for years. If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I’ll delete the file rather than send to anyone.”
*
•From: Phil Jones, May 29, 2008
*
“Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4? Keith will do likewise. He’s not in at the moment – minor family crisis. Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same? I don’t have his new email address. We will be getting Caspar to do likewise.”
*
This is not lying I admit. * It smells of something equally bad or even worse. *LOL.
*
•From: Keith Briffa, Sep 22, 1999
*
“I know there is pressure to present a nice tidy story as regards ‘apparent unprecedented warming in a thousand years or more in the proxy data’ but in reality the situation is not quite so simple. We don’t have a lot of proxies that come right up to date and those that do (at least a significant number of tree proxies ) some unexpected changes in response that do not match the recent warming.”
*
"But we won't tell anyone that". -that's lying.
*
•From: Michael E. Mann, Mar 11, 2003
*
“I think we have to stop considering Climate Research as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal. We would also need to consider what we tell or request of our more reasonable colleagues who currently sit on the editorial board.”
*
That isn't lying. It is thuggery and an attempt to squelch freedom of information.
*
•From: Tom Wigley, Apr24, 2003
*
“Mike’s idea to get editorial board members to resign will probably not work — must get rid of von Storch too, otherwise holes will eventually fill up with people like Legates, Balling, Lindzen, Michaels, Singer, etc.”
!!!!!!!!!!!!!! again!!!!!!!!!!!
•From: Phil Jones, July 5, 2005
*
“If anything, I would like to see the climate change happen, so the science could be proved right, regardless of the consequences. This isn’t being political, it is being selfish.”
*
At least he is finally honest. He is admitting that reality isn't what they have been saying it is -hmm, that's lying!
*
So it doesnt matter whether or not they were exonerated. They were, and are lying SOB's.
