Scientists study the scientific standing of pro and con global warmists and find:

[bfdd]

Negative.

That's all it is bud, a good guess. They don't know everything, they can't possibly account for everything and they haven't predicted the rate of the trend correctly(or like some believe the trend at all) so all they've done is make a good guess. I don't generally like to base life changing decisions off a good guess, but that's just me.

 

[dainthomas]

You're misreading both these graphs. The ice age graph shows sea level rise slowing down drastically and becoming almost level 7500 years ago. The rate it shows would be undetectable on the 100 year time scale.

The graph I showed is of a 125 year period, NOT 10 year.

Now consider this. It shows 125 years of rising sea level. That's not random fluctuation, it's a clear trend. There has to be a cause. Ask yourself what would cause that.

Am I misreading the fact that I can draw a straight line from the bottom left of the gray area to the top right of the orange area, thereby showing no change in rate? Not bad considering everything in gray is a rough guess at best.

And where's the graph going back to the last ice age (unless I missed it)?

 

[bfdd]

Am I misreading the fact that I can draw a straight line from the bottom left of the gray area to the top right of the orange area, thereby showing no change in rate? Not bad considering everything in gray is a rough guess at best.

And where's the graph going back to the last ice age (unless I missed it)?

Doc Savage posted it and that's basically what we've been going on about. Basically these last 10 years look damn near flat when looking back a couple thousand.

 

[sandorski]

That's all it is bud, a good guess. They don't know everything, they can't possibly account for everything and they haven't predicted the rate of the trend correctly(or like some believe the trend at all) so all they've done is make a good guess. I don't generally like to base life changing decisions off a good guess, but that's just me.

Many words don't cover the Fail.

 

[Throckmorton]

Am I misreading the fact that I can draw a straight line from the bottom left of the gray area to the top right of the orange area, thereby showing no change in rate? Not bad considering everything in gray is a rough guess at best.

And where's the graph going back to the last ice age (unless I missed it)?

The odds of the actual line before 1875 actually being that steep is pretty low. You're proposing a worst case scenario, which really wouldn't match reality because there wasn't an amount of warming to make that possible.

 

[Throckmorton]

Doc Savage posted it and that's basically what we've been going on about. Basically these last 10 years look damn near flat when looking back a couple thousand.

You're arguing against warming itself, which even denialists have moved on from.

 

[bfdd]

You're arguing against warming itself, which even denialists have moved on from.

I have said "may or may not be" because I'm not arguing for or against and I haven't. I've been talking about projections and how climate science is fucking terrible because they don't know everything yet act like they do. I'm saying I can make a 10 year chart look INSANE even if the sea level only rose 25 thousandths of an inch. When you put that into perspective over 1000 years it's fucking miniscule. You are saying these last 10 years absolutely prove we are the cause of the sea level rise, yet we look back a few thousand and see it's damn near flattened over the years and the rate of increase we're seeing now is nothing compared to what the planet has seen before.

 

[Throckmorton]

I have said "may or may not be" because I'm not arguing for or against and I haven't. I've been talking about projections and how climate science is fucking terrible because they don't know everything yet act like they do. I'm saying I can make a 10 year chart look INSANE even if the sea level only rose 25 thousandths of an inch. When you put that into perspective over 1000 years it's fucking miniscule. You are saying these last 10 years absolutely prove we are the cause of the sea level rise, yet we look back a few thousand and see it's damn near flattened over the years and the rate of increase we're seeing now is nothing compared to what the planet has seen before.

The rate of increase in sea level after the ice age was because the climate was warming as part of the Milankovitch cycle, which still wasn't as fast as the current warming. This isn't a 1 year blip we're talking about, it's a real warming trend that can only be explained by our effect on atmospheric chemistry.

 

[SparkyJJO]

I feel like burning a tire.

 

[William Gaatjes]

Nobody who would correct my post about the fact that the earth is rotating ?
How this would affect the flow of air ?
Or how the heating up and cooling down would affect the sea ?
Or how much influence the amount of salt in the sea at different levels is important ?

What does sunlight to salty water ?

Perhaps it is time to put all variables down in a list.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

You're misreading both these graphs. The ice age graph shows sea level rise slowing down drastically and becoming almost level 7500 years ago. The rate it shows would be undetectable on the 100 year time scale.

The graph I showed is of a 125 year period, NOT 10 year.

Now consider this. It shows 125 years of rising sea level. That's not random fluctuation, it's a clear trend. There has to be a cause. Ask yourself what would cause that.

More like 15,000 years of rising sea levels...the rise has moderated the last several thousands years but it continues to rise. Extrapolating 60 years of data when thousands of years of data is available is BS.

http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/environment/sealevel.html
"Limited data suggests that around the mid 1800s the rate of sea level rise increased to about 15 centimeters per century. This rate has apparently remained constant for the past 150 years; various tidal gauge measurements during the last two decades give results comparable to this rate. While some suggest a link between this and current man-made carbon dioxide emissions, note the following: the observations suggest a constant rate of sea level rise for the past 150 years, while rate of man-made carbon dioxide emissions has increased over 100-fold. Additionally, most of the cumulative rise in sea level preceded the majority of cumulative carbon dioxide emissions. Global temperature change and sea level rise do correlate with each other, but not with human activities; thus it appears that both temperature and sea level are changing principally due to natural phenomena."

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Extrapolate this.

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2007/2006GL028492.shtml
On the decadal rates of sea level change during the twentieth century - S. J. Holgate (Proudman Oceanographic Laboratory, Liverpool, UK)

"Nine long and nearly continuous sea level records were chosen from around the world to explore rates of change in sea level for 1904–2003. These records were found to capture the variability found in a larger number of stations over the last half century studied previously. Extending the sea level record back over the entire century suggests that the high variability in the rates of sea level change observed over the past 20 years were not particularly unusual. The rate of sea level change was found to be larger in the early part of last century (2.03 ± 0.35 mm/yr 1904–1953), in comparison with the latter part (1.45 ± 0.34 mm/yr 1954–2003). The highest decadal rate of rise occurred in the decade centred on 1980 (5.31 mm/yr) with the lowest rate of rise occurring in the decade centred on 1964 (−1.49 mm/yr). Over the entire century the mean rate of change was 1.74 ± 0.16 mm/yr."

 

[shira]

What false extrapolation? The graph shows a RECORD of sea level rise since around 1875. Do you understand what a historic record is?

Doc Savage thinks we need to collect 10,000 years of data before we can come to meaningful conclusions. And in the meantime, let's do nothing to mitigate the projected catastrophe.

 

[Moonbeam]

Garbage or banquet table, it's all the same to a hog.

 

[chucky2]

Well, when we look at the 10000 years of data and we realize that the MM in MMCC doesn't appear to be driving the CC, and then we've got you folks looking at 100 years of data only and screaming death and doom, we have to start putting on our adult thinking caps and calling BS.

The graphs/data that Doc has posted basically blow your arguments out of the water. You've proved nothing so far in regards to MMCC, only generate more skepticism due to Doc's graphs.

Where is the chart I've been asking for that shows the models being used accuracy? That should be the first thing you post as proof, as that's what needed to determine if we are causing a problem, and how severe it will be.

Does this chart I'm asking for not exist? Why does it not exist if that's so?

Chuck

 

[Genx87]

Doc Savage thinks we need to collect 10,000 years of data before we can come to meaningful conclusions. And in the meantime, let's do nothing to mitigate the projected catastrophe.

What is wrong with collecting more data?

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Doc Savage thinks we need to collect 10,000 years of data before we can come to meaningful conclusions. And in the meantime, let's do nothing to mitigate the projected catastrophe.

If you want to discuss this...I'm game. However, if your incapable of intelligent discussion and want to make up shit about what I think...then by all means carry on living in your little fantasy world of self righteous delusions.

 

[Jaskalas]

The rate of increase in sea level after the ice age was because the climate was warming as part of the Milankovitch cycle, which still wasn't as fast as the current warming. This isn't a 1 year blip we're talking about, it's a real warming trend that can only be explained by our effect on atmospheric chemistry.

We've certainly been warmer in the past. Though it depends on where you're looking, as with all the variations you can be as selective as you'd like to come up with the outcome you need for your argument.

 

[Jaskalas]

Doc Savage thinks we need to collect 10,000 years of data before we can come to meaningful conclusions. And in the meantime, let's do nothing to mitigate the projected catastrophe.

The projections from last decade completely failed to predict this decade. We don't need 10,000 years if you fail to get just the next 10 accurate.

 

[bfdd]

Doc Savage thinks we need to collect 10,000 years of data before we can come to meaningful conclusions. And in the meantime, let's do nothing to mitigate the projected catastrophe.

Considering the age of the planet, how long humans have been on the planet and how many changes in climate have occurred over our planets life time yeah 10,000 years of data should do. 10 or 20 years is ridiculously irrelevant when you're talking about something that has been changing for 5,000,000,000+ years.

 

[bfdd]

Nobody who would correct my post about the fact that the earth is rotating ?
How this would affect the flow of air ?
Or how the heating up and cooling down would affect the sea ?
Or how much influence the amount of salt in the sea at different levels is important ?

What does sunlight to salty water ?

Perhaps it is time to put all variables down in a list.

Here's the fun thing, they can't possibly account for every variable because it would be impossible to account for every possible butterfly effect.

 

[Moonbeam]

What is wrong with collecting more data?

Hehe, way to isolate the point of his post.

It's sort of like this:

Five of the world's leading oncologists diagnose you as having cancer and your local chiropractor wants to give you a 3 year treatment of vitamin C because the only treatment available otherwise is experimental and you opt for C in lieu of further trial results, that would be fine by me, but when it's my planet that is sick and you try to block such treatment, then you become dangerous to future children.

Because you have a perverse and psychotic need not to face scientific truths and thereby endanger the lives of the others puts you in the category of criminally insane.

 

[bfdd]

Hehe, way to isolate the point of his post.

It's sort of like this:

Five of the world's leading oncologists diagnose you as having cancer and your local chiropractor wants to give you a 3 year treatment of vitamin C because the only treatment available otherwise is experimental and you opt for C in lieu of further trial results, that would be fine by me, but when it's my planet that is sick and you try to block such treatment, then you become dangerous to future children.

Because you have a perverse and psychotic need not to face scientific truths and thereby endanger the lives of the others puts you in the category of criminally insane.

That analogy sucks because most already assume there is a cancer, it's what caused the cancer. We need more data to figure out what is causing or has caused the cancer in order to cure it. You can just throw caution to the wind or you might have the wrong treatment.

 

[Moonbeam]

Well, when we look at the 10000 years of data and we realize that the MM in MMCC doesn't appear to be driving the CC, and then we've got you folks looking at 100 years of data only and screaming death and doom, we have to start putting on our adult thinking caps and calling BS.

The graphs/data that Doc has posted basically blow your arguments out of the water. You've proved nothing so far in regards to MMCC, only generate more skepticism due to Doc's graphs.

Where is the chart I've been asking for that shows the models being used accuracy? That should be the first thing you post as proof, as that's what needed to determine if we are causing a problem, and how severe it will be.

Does this chart I'm asking for not exist? Why does it not exist if that's so?

Chuck

You don't have an adult thinking cap. You think like an egotistical child. The best of the world's leading climate scientists have determined that MMGW is real. That it. Get in fucking line. You yourself are unfit to offer alternate opinions because you are unqualified. Only an imbecile arrogates to himself expertise he hasn't got and argues with folk who do. You lack organic shame and modesty. You embarrass the human race.

 

[Genx87]

Hehe, way to isolate the point of his post.

It's sort of like this:

Five of the world's leading oncologists diagnose you as having cancer and your local chiropractor wants to give you a 3 year treatment of vitamin C because the only treatment available otherwise is experimental and you opt for C in lieu of further trial results, that would be fine by me, but when it's my planet that is sick and you try to block such treatment, then you become dangerous to future children.

Because you have a perverse and psychotic need not to face scientific truths and thereby endanger the lives of the others puts you in the category of criminally insane.

That is rather amusing considering Shira clearly doesnt believe we should look at more data and come to a scientific truth. He would rather we look at a cherry picked data set that favors his own idelogy. But I am the one who doesnt want to face scientific truths?

Drugs are bad mmkay?