Global sea level likely to rise as much as 70 feet for future generations

Mar 19, 2012

Even if humankind manages to limit global warming to 2 degrees C (3.6 degrees F), as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change recommends, future generations will have to deal with sea levels 12 to 22 meters (40 to 70 feet) higher than at present, according to research published in the journal Geology.

The researchers, led by Kenneth G. Miller, professor of earth and planetary sciences in the School of Arts and Sciences at Rutgers University, reached their conclusion by studying rock and soil cores in Virginia, Eniwetok Atoll in the Pacific and New Zealand. They looked at the late Pliocene epoch, 2.7 million to 3.2 million years ago, the last time the in the atmosphere was at its current level, and atmospheric temperatures were 2 degrees C higher than they are now.

"The difference in released is the equivalent of melting the entire Greenland and West Antarctic Ice Sheets, as well as some of the marine margin of the East ," said H. Richard Lane, program director of the National Science Foundation's Division of Earth Sciences, which funded the work. "Such a rise of the modern oceans would swamp the world's coasts and affect as much as 70 percent of the world's population."

"You don't need to sell your beach real estate yet, because melting of these large ice sheets will take from centuries to a few thousand years," Miller said. "The current trajectory for the 21st century global rise of is 2 to 3 feet (0.8 to1 meter) due to warming of the oceans, partial melting of , and partial melting of Greenland and Antarctica."

Miller said, however, that this research highlights the sensitivity of the earth's great ice sheets to temperature change, suggesting that even a modest rise in temperature results in a large sea-level rise. "The natural state of the earth with present carbon dioxide levels is one with sea levels about 20 meters higher than at present," he said.

Miller was joined in the research by Rutgers colleagues James G. Wright, associate professor of earth and planetary sciences; James V. Browning, assistant research professor of earth and planetary sciences; Yair Rosenthal, professor of marine science in the School of Environmental and Biological Sciences; Sindia Sosdian, research scientist in marine science and a postdoctoral scholar at Cardiff University in Wales; and Andrew Kulpecz, a Rutgers doctoral student when the work was done, now with Chevron Corp. Other co-authors were Michelle Kominz, professor of geophysics and basin dynamics at Western Michigan University; Tim R. Naish, director of the Antarctic Research Center at Victoria University of Wellington, in New Zealand; Benjamin S. Cramer of Theiss Research in Eugene, Ore.; and W. Richard Peltier, professor of physics and director of the Center for Global Change Science at the University of Toronto.

Explore further: Satellites sees a question mark in Tropical Storm Ana

Related Stories

Warming oceans threaten Antarctic glaciers

Mar 15, 2007

Scientists have identified four Antarctic glaciers that pose a threat to future sea levels using satellite observations, according to a study published in the journal Science.

Rising oceans - too late to turn the tide?

Jul 15, 2011

Melting ice sheets contributed much more to rising sea levels than thermal expansion of warming ocean waters during the Last Interglacial Period, a UA-led team of researchers has found. The results further ...

Sea level rise of 1 meter within 100 years

Jan 08, 2009

New research indicates that the ocean could rise in the next 100 years to a meter higher than the current sea level - which is three times higher than predictions from the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate ...

Greenland and Antarctic ice sheet melting, rate unknown

Feb 16, 2009

The Greenland and Antarctica ice sheets are melting, but the amounts that will melt and the time it will take are still unknown, according to Richard Alley, Evan Pugh professor of geosciences, Penn State.

Recommended for you

NASA image: Fires in the Egypt River Delta

6 hours ago

This NASA satellite image is of the Egyptian River Delta. Actively burning areas, detected by MODIS's thermal bands, are outlined in red. Each hot spot, which appears as a red mark, is an area where the thermal ...

Terra Satellite sees Tropical Storm Ana over Hawaii

6 hours ago

Tropical Storm Ana made a slow track west of the Hawaiian islands over the last couple of days, and by Oct. 20 was moving westward away from the main Hawaiian islands and heading toward the northwest Hawaiian ...

User comments : 256

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

deatopmg
1.9 / 5 (38) Mar 19, 2012
"Global sea level likely to rise as much as 70 feet for future generations"

is this a joke?
joefarah
2.3 / 5 (31) Mar 19, 2012
I hear 10. Do I have 20? 70! 70! from Rutger's Arts and Sciences! Do I hear 100, give me 100! Going once, going twice...
Xbw
2 / 5 (24) Mar 19, 2012
I was bummed as a kid when I found out that the sea could never rise as high as in "Waterworld". Turns out, it can't rise above 200-250 feet even with all the ice gone. http://www.johnst...rld.html
le_mig
3.9 / 5 (21) Mar 19, 2012
What? Did you think the worst that heating our planet would do was allow us fewer Frosty the Snowmen?

70ft is a conservative estimate... Notice, that's the normal sea level given our current state of CO2 in the past. It's just that now we're far ahead of the curve.

We'll have to lose entire cities to flood, drought, and storms before enough people care enough to substantially curb CO2 emissions in time to limit further temperature increases.
NotParker
1.9 / 5 (41) Mar 19, 2012
Only if you change the legal definition of 1 foot = 1 millimeter.

http://blogs.news...claimed/
NotParker
2.1 / 5 (40) Mar 19, 2012
And only if the next ice age never comes ... and it is overdue.
rubberman
2.9 / 5 (27) Mar 19, 2012
Three idiots, a comedian and a logical human being walk into an internet comment forum......
ccr5Delta32
2.8 / 5 (16) Mar 19, 2012
And only if the next ice age never comes ... and it is overdue.


Are you suggesting that human activity's are responsible for a delayed onset of an ice age ?
In other words ,while you say "we are not responsible the warming but we may be responsible for it not getting colder "
NotParker
1.8 / 5 (34) Mar 19, 2012
Are you suggesting that human activity's are responsible for a delayed onset of an ice age


No. The exact timing of an ice age is unknown.

If we do stave off an ice age by burning fossil fuels, that would be fantastic. But it won't happen.

The sun is possibly entering a Dalton or Maunder type minimum right now.

http://www.scienc...12000417
Billions may die.
Feldagast
1.9 / 5 (30) Mar 19, 2012
Lets go back to the 70's when the same doom and gloom prophets were still talking about the oncoming ice age instead of global warming.
MorganW
2.1 / 5 (18) Mar 19, 2012
You'd never know that the science was "settled" based on all these articles being published...
ccr5Delta32
3.2 / 5 (13) Mar 19, 2012


If we do stave off an ice age by burning fossil fuels, that would be fantastic. But it won't happen.

You don't reject outright the idea that human activity's can effect the climate

The sun is possibly entering a Dalton or Maunder type minimum right now.

http://www.scienc...12000417
Billions may die.

And if it's true and we experience no cooling ,it would be just a temporary stay . Lucky us !
mvg
2.4 / 5 (12) Mar 19, 2012
Not often discussed:--
What effect would the weight of even a few extra feet of depth spread over entire ocean basins have on earthquake activity?
rubberman
2.8 / 5 (22) Mar 19, 2012
Lets go back to the 70's when the same doom and gloom prophets were still talking about the oncoming ice age instead of global warming.


Neat...same guys eh? You might want to cross check the names of the scientists who reported the impending ice age in the 70's and the ones listed at the end of the above article....
RAF44
2.4 / 5 (14) Mar 19, 2012
The names may change, but the hysteria crowd will always live on.
rubberman
2.6 / 5 (22) Mar 19, 2012
"The sun is possibly entering a Dalton or Maunder type minimum right now."

Even though we all know better...I sincerely hope so.

"The names may change, but the hysteria crowd will always live on."

Not if they live on the coast.....
Noumenon
2 / 5 (33) Mar 19, 2012
"Global sea level likely to rise as much as 70 feet for future generations"

is this a joke?


As they said above "it will take from centuries to a few thousand years". A headline saying "70 feet for future generations" is more provocative than just saying a few feet, such is the nature of propaganda.

Our use of CO2 probably has an effect, though it's likely we will be off carbon based energy in plenty of time to avoid serious reprecusions. Technology moves relatively fast in comparison to global climate; a few hundred years is slight.

"Catastrophic global warming" claims are unsubstantiated and are pure speculation. No one is taking such claims seriously. This is a fact, as anyone can verify for themselves, since "it's business as usual" in the global market of energy use, and no government policies are being implemented with such hysteria as one would expect if any of the catastrophic climate change propaganda was taken seriously.
axemaster
3.3 / 5 (21) Mar 19, 2012
Unfortunately most current global warming models predict slow, gradual change, while in truth we know that change occurs extremely rapidly. Global temperature records show warming shifts of up to 10 degrees fahrenheit (5C) occurring in as little as 2-3 years. Clearly these are caused by intense feedback loops, but we probably won't understand what they are until we actually see them happen.

Given that the sea level predictions are probably based on the slow models, we can expect actual sea level rises to take place rather quickly. Think 3-5 meters (18 feet) by 2100, or possibly much more.

These rapid transition events are called Dansgaard-Oeschger events. Here's a wikipedia link:

http://en.wikiped...r_cycles
axemaster
3.5 / 5 (22) Mar 19, 2012
You'd never know that the science was "settled" based on all these articles being published...

The idea that global warming is happening, is caused by humans, and is a serious threat to our society is settled science. The only people arguing otherwise are politicians. Specifically, politicians in the USA.

Extremely precise statements like "California will rise 1.25 degrees" are still up for debate. Can you see the difference between broad consensus (97% of scientists) and minor details?

"Catastrophic global warming" claims are unsubstantiated and are pure speculation. No one is taking such claims seriously.

You'll have to define catastrophic more precisely if you want your statement to mean something.
Noumenon
1.9 / 5 (38) Mar 19, 2012
I'm not refering to language I'm using, thus I don't have to define anything. I'm refering to language used throughout the climate industry, and demonstrating that no government policies are being implemented which match the hysteria expressed by the climate scientists themselves;

http://www.physor...ity.html

Thus, world leaders are not in fact reacting as if climate change is an imminent doom for the earth. The collective genius of mankind is not buying into the such hysterical claims, and no one with a brain believes that climate scientists have such a handle on global temperature to the extent of a few tenths of one degree per few decades. That is fraud, not science.

It's a good thing to get off of dirty carbon, no doubt,... but no one is goin to live like a caveman waiting for cleaner energy to come along because of some climate speculation. Alternatives have a better chance if the economy is kept at full bore.
NotParker
1.5 / 5 (30) Mar 19, 2012
Tide Gauges show a deceleration in sea level rise.

The only rise in satellite sea level is the artificial adjustments added ... and sea level is still falling.
NotParker
1.5 / 5 (31) Mar 19, 2012
Global temperature records show warming shifts of up to 10 degrees fahrenheit (5C) occurring in as little as 2-3 years.


Heck, that happened this week where I live. One day it was 50F, and last night it went down to 27F.

As for the Dansgaard-Oeschger events:

"Some scientists (see below) claim that the events occur quasi-periodically with a recurrence time being a multiple of 1,470 years"

And they have ZERO to do with CO2.

They are like Bond Events. Always with us.

bewertow
1.9 / 5 (14) Mar 19, 2012
Are you suggesting that human activity's are responsible for a delayed onset of an ice age


No. The exact timing of an ice age is unknown.

If we do stave off an ice age by burning fossil fuels, that would be fantastic. But it won't happen.

The sun is possibly entering a Dalton or Maunder type minimum right now.

http://www.scienc...12000417
Billions may die.


Billions dead? Sounds good the world needs to sort out its population problems anyways.
DKA
2.8 / 5 (13) Mar 19, 2012
@deatopmg

try going to school, you will be less stupid and a cockroach for humanity. Please.
runrig
4.6 / 5 (11) Mar 19, 2012
Lets go back to the 70's when the same doom and gloom prophets were still talking about the oncoming ice age instead of global warming.


No, lets go back to 1633, shall we, when Gallileo was imprisoned for saying the Earth orbits the Sun. Idiot - science moves on and is ONLY the current consensus until another theory has observational evidence on its side. Yes, and 42 years counts just as much as the 379 since Pope Urbans edict, given the rate of scientific advance.
Noumenon
1.6 / 5 (28) Mar 19, 2012
ya but, the catholic church weren't the one's speculating about global cooling in he 70's.

You're correct though, as more knowledge is obtained theories are improved (usually not polar opposite though). Perhaps the next generation of climate scientists will render their own industry redundant by proclaiming nothing is happening. I doubt it though.
MorituriMax
2.3 / 5 (10) Mar 19, 2012
So we just start building everything 100ft above sea level.
axemaster
3.6 / 5 (13) Mar 19, 2012
As for the Dansgaard-Oeschger events:

"Some scientists (see below) claim that the events occur quasi-periodically with a recurrence time being a multiple of 1,470 years"

And they have ZERO to do with CO2.

You are correct, but you have managed to completely miss the point. The point is that there are feedback loops - CO2 being chief among them - that amplify small variations into huge effects. In the past the small variations were caused by solar cycles, Earth's orbit, etc. At the present time the small initial variation is being caused by humanity's release of CO2.

Heck, that happened this week where I live. One day it was 50F, and last night it went down to 27F.

This is a pretty dumb statement. I hope you knew that when you posted it, since otherwise...
ryggesogn2
1.8 / 5 (29) Mar 19, 2012
The point is that there are feedback loops - CO2 being chief among them - that amplify small variations into huge effects.

And this is based upon....very uncertain gcms, right?
How much heat is 'trapped' by CO2 at 15 um?
bluehigh
1.9 / 5 (18) Mar 19, 2012
... fewer Frosty the Snowmen!!

No way.

But he waved goodbye
Saying don't you cry
I'll be back again some day.
kochevnik
1.5 / 5 (15) Mar 19, 2012
If the Pacific were about 5 degrees warmer it would be like a pool. Right now it's too cold to my liking.
NotParker
1.8 / 5 (24) Mar 19, 2012
So we just start building everything 100ft above sea level.


And we have 130,000 years to do it (when the next ice age is over).

Vendicar_Decarian
4.4 / 5 (7) Mar 19, 2012
Nope.

"is this a joke?" - Joxer
Vendicar_Decarian
3.9 / 5 (11) Mar 19, 2012
ParkerTard posts an article from Congenital Liar Andrew Bolt.

Federal Court judge Mordy Bromberg has found right-wing scribe Andrew Bolt and his publisher Herald & Weekly Times guilty of a serious breach of the Racial Discrimination Act in Melbourne this morning.

And it wasnt just racial hatred at stakeBolt was also a sloppy journalist, Bromberg said, that had cynically penned the pieces in a bald-faced attempt to be destructive of racial tolerance.

Eatock also called on journalists to clean up their act: We expect truth and honesty from newspapers, whether its opinion or not it has to be based on fact, not on fiction.
Vendicar_Decarian
3.9 / 5 (11) Mar 19, 2012
"And only if the next ice age never comes" - ParkerTard

The amount of heating from CO2 has already guaranteed that the next ice age will not occurr.

Poor, ignorant, ParkerTard. He has proven himself to be innumerate, incapable of honesty and incapable of learning science past a kindergarten level.
RitchieGuy
1.3 / 5 (24) Mar 19, 2012
IMO. . .the particulate matter, mercury and other gases released into the atmosphere from coal-fired energy plants that finds its way into human and animal lungs, poisons water supplies and causes many types of cancers and emphysema are, and should be, the most immediate and pressing concern aka problem. . .far more than CO2, and needs to be addressed as quickly as possible.
This problem appears to be more of a stepchild to the AGW crowd, since their "meat and potatoes" issue is concentrated mostly on CO2 rather than where it should be, if lives are to be saved now and the immediate future.

A 70 foot rise in sea level somewhere off in the distant future is of no concern to the man, woman or child who is breathing in toxic particulates and is unable to fill their lungs with fresh, clear air in order to stay alive.
AGWites, in their selfishness and total disrespect for the living are suffering from skewed priorities because it is of major importance to their Socialist agenda.

Vendicar_Decarian
4.1 / 5 (9) Mar 19, 2012
Nope. It's all quit firm.

"And this is based upon....very uncertain gcms, right?" - RyggTard

But you do insist on lying about it.

"How much heat is 'trapped' by CO2 at 15 um?"

Already answered several times Tard Boy. Why do you keep dishonestly asking the same question over and over again when it was answered?

The answer is since 15 um is a fixed, point value and not a range. How much rain collects on the tip of a pin?

As always RyggTard. You are an idiot's idiot.
Vendicar_Decarian
4.2 / 5 (10) Mar 19, 2012
True, but then neither were the climatologists.

"the catholic church weren't the one's speculating about global cooling in he 70's." - NumenTard
Vendicar_Decarian
3.9 / 5 (7) Mar 19, 2012
Sorry Tard Boy, but ice ages aren't caused by variations in solar output.

"The sun is possibly entering a Dalton or Maunder type minimum right now." - Numentard

Do you intend to remain an idiot for the rest of your life?
Vendicar_Decarian
4.1 / 5 (9) Mar 19, 2012
Climate scientists weren't warning of an imminent onset of an ice age in the 70's Tard boy.

If that is what you believe, then you are a fool to be duped so easily.

Educate yourself Tard Boy.

http://www.youtub...pp_video

"Lets go back to the 70's when the same doom and gloom prophets were still talking about the oncoming ice age" - FeldaTard
Vendicar_Decarian
4.1 / 5 (9) Mar 19, 2012
Poor Morgan. He can't distinguish between settled science and science that confirms and adds to the settled science.

"You'd never know that the science was "settled"" - MorganTard

One wonders why he has come here if he is so ignorant of science.

Anyone care to speculate?
Vendicar_Decarian
4.1 / 5 (9) Mar 19, 2012
Wrong again Tard Boy.

"Tide Gauges show a deceleration in sea level rise." - ParkerTard

Tidal gages show that over the last few months sea levels have fallen.

This fall is known to have been caused by massive rainfalls in Indonesia and Australia, among other places

The flood waters still haven't percolated through the soild and reached the ocean yet. Although it is starting to as evidenced by the steep rebound in ocean levels over the last month or two.

Poor Tard boy.

You have nothing but lies and denialist stupidity.

RitchieGuy
1.2 / 5 (20) Mar 19, 2012
Climate science, just like political science, is only a pseudo science, and is based mainly on biased and incomplete information that is collated and published by some for dissemination to avid and excitable consumers who are salivating eagerly for that AGW information in order to prove that mankind is no good and must be controlled either by coercion, monetary penalty or force, but not by educating them to utilize their natural common sense.
kochevnik
2.7 / 5 (12) Mar 19, 2012
based mainly on biased and incomplete information
If you had complete information, you would be a dimensionless quantum singularity. Also you wouldn't be able to act on anything, but only interact in superpositions. Apart from that I say go for it!

Closer to home, open systems are by definition incomplete. Best to stick with your sorghum farm.
RitchieGuy
1 / 5 (18) Mar 19, 2012
KKK. . .all the analyses is conjecture on AGW. . .any averages are false because at what point do you start to prove your point. . .10 years ago? 10 million yago?
RitchieGuy
1.3 / 5 (23) Mar 19, 2012
The Earth is dynamic and always changing. If, instead of being so antagonistic toward valid and informed opposition, the AGWites such as Venditardcard were able to figure out and comprehend that there is no one cause of the alleged Global Warming, but that it is from many causes and not just from fossil fuel emissions, although that too is a reason.
The Earth revolving around the sun is warmed by it and receives an onslaught of radiation from both solar and cosmic. And the Earth's surface also gets warmed by geothermal and hydrothermal causes, as welll as from natural radioactive decay.

But to put the blame for the alleged Global Warming squarely on mankind's shoulders and give all the other causes a pass, is foolish and doesn't bring all solutions to the table. Instead, it just causes animosity.
kochevnik
3 / 5 (13) Mar 20, 2012
at what point do you start to prove your point. . .10 years ago? 10 million yago?
Central limit theorem and the chi square test are a good starting point to decide a confidence interval. Sorry I can't say anything specific. I'm no more a climatologist than a gynecologist.
RitchieGuy
1 / 5 (17) Mar 20, 2012
@KKK. . .the seeds are in the ground; my drip irrigation system is working well, and it rains now and then here. Life is good, thank you. Ethanol, here we come. . . :)
RitchieGuy
1 / 5 (18) Mar 20, 2012
Central limit theorem? chi square test? I'll leave all that to the more knowledgeable like Rygg2, MM, and others who have my complete confidence.
BTW. . .how are Vlad and Lyudmila?
RitchieGuy
1 / 5 (17) Mar 20, 2012
KKK says:
Sorry I can't say anything specific. I'm no more a climatologist than a gynecologist.


See. . . .that's why I call you Komrade. . .we are not that different from each other. Americans and Russians have very much the same common goals.
Short bloke
1.3 / 5 (13) Mar 20, 2012
There are no freebies in physical transactions and an energy price must be payed; changes to gravitation requires an energy price to be payed in conformity to the law of the conservation of energy and so there must be a presently unknown Gravitational Thermodynamic Effect.
Although CO2 is a greenhouse gas and would contribute to the total heat energy temporally retained on Earth, there is the fact that the knowledge of physics and consequently climate science is far from being fully understood so cool it folks.
Excalibur
2.2 / 5 (20) Mar 20, 2012
The collective genius of mankind ...

Oxymoronic
Excalibur
2.8 / 5 (24) Mar 20, 2012
Central limit theorem? chi square test? I'll leave all that to the more knowledgeable like Rygg2, MM, and others who have my complete confidence.

Translation: Not only am I clueless as to the significance the cited items, but I don't even know enough about them to know who does, so I'll just side with those who support my foregone conclusions.

Dimwit.
Estevan57
2.1 / 5 (28) Mar 20, 2012
If you don't believe in the science Ritchie, why do you provoke an argument every fargin day when you post your dissenting opinion on every Earth Science and Environment article?

djr
4.5 / 5 (8) Mar 20, 2012
"The collective genius of mankind is not buying into the such hysterical claims" So it seems to me that you believe that the human race - collectively acts intelligently. I would question that. Take - just as an example - the sectarian violence of Iraq. Thousands murdered - becuz they belonged to a different religious group. Our collective decision making is clearly not intelligent. Look at Hitler and the 2nd world war. I believe we are in the process of developing an appropriate response to what the scientists are warning us about in terms of climate change. Reality is that our political machine does not care about science - it cares about money and power. The private sector is doing far more in terms of responding to the concerns about climate change. We are close to a tipping point - solar panels are about to break the grid parity line - and will be escaping gravity over the next decade. Then the politicians will claim responsibility for our new energy economy.
RitchieGuy
1 / 5 (21) Mar 20, 2012
Excalibur the weird says:
Central limit theorem? chi square test? I'll leave all that to the more knowledgeable like Rygg2, MM, and others who have my complete confidence.

Translation: Not only am I clueless as to the significance the cited items, but I don't even know enough about them to know who does, so I'll just side with those who support my foregone conclusions.

Dimwit.


Yes. . .you are a dimwit. . .very true. . .you translate poorly and are highly imaginative in your own mind. Where's your buttbuddy, deepsand? Or is he/she lurking and waiting for my answer? LOL
kochevnik
3 / 5 (10) Mar 20, 2012
Translation: Not only am I clueless as to the significance the cited items, but I don't even know enough about them to know who does, so I'll just side with those who support my foregone conclusions.
So why do you use my open source statistics and signal analysis package? Oh, must be because you're cheap and can't afford SPSS, as it is clearly apparent you couldn't write one yourself any more than you can manage a coherent retort here.
Au-Pu
1.6 / 5 (19) Mar 20, 2012
Sadly there has not been one intelligent posting.
Ice ages over the past few billions of years have a periodicity of around 41,000 years.
With the last ice age around 12,000 years ago we ARE in an interglacial warming period that will continue (with or without humans) for another 8,000 or so years.
That means our global climate WILL get warmer.
But in nature nothing is done in a straight line.
So temperatures will rise but there will be periodic ups and downs.
Giving every idiot fuel for their craziest theories.
But over periods of hundreds of years the general trend will be up until we reach our tipping point which will trigger the cooling process that will, some 20,000 or so years later, bring us our next glaciation (ice age).
RitchieGuy
1.2 / 5 (21) Mar 20, 2012
Esteban says:
If you don't believe in the science Ritchie, why do you provoke an argument every fargin day when you post your dissenting opinion on every Earth Science and Environment article?



I don't ever provoke arguments. It's apparent you don't know what you're talking about. Like everyone else, I voice my opinion. You are free to skip over my opinion if you don't like it.
RitchieGuy
1.4 / 5 (22) Mar 20, 2012
I believe in science. However, I don't believe in inconclusive "science" that is promoted mainly through politics and Socialism and fails to weigh all other evidence and instead is concentrated on anthropogenic causes to the exclusion of all others.
RitchieGuy
1.4 / 5 (20) Mar 20, 2012
I prefer open and honest science, which is why I am in Physorg to learn as much as I can from those who are more knowledgeable about science than I am and are not egotistical about it. I don't pretend to know a lot about science since I came into it late in the day, so to speak.
Since I am not a scientist, nor ever will be, it is not in my nature to provoke arguments on anything of which I am not expert. I ask questions and voice my opinions. And I learn a lot.
RitchieGuy
1 / 5 (18) Mar 20, 2012
Au-Pu says:
Ice ages over the past few billions of years have a periodicity of around 41,000 years.
With the last ice age around 12,000 years ago we ARE in an interglacial warming period that will continue (with or without humans) for another 8,000 or so years.
That means our global climate WILL get warmer.
But in nature nothing is done in a straight line.
So temperatures will rise but there will be periodic ups and downs.

But over periods of hundreds of years the general trend will be up until we reach our tipping point which will trigger the cooling process that will, some 20,000 or so years later, bring us our next glaciation (ice age).


Au Pu. . . .that's why I cannot side with one or the other. . .it's like staring at a hazy picture and trying to see any sharp, clear lines. It just can't be done and AGW is like that. I don't agree with the political side of AGW and the attempt at extortion.
CardacianNeverid
3.9 / 5 (19) Mar 20, 2012
I cannot side with one or the other. . .it's like staring at a hazy picture and trying to see any sharp, clear lines -RitchieTard

Science can help with that.

It just can't be done and AGW is like that -RitchieTard

It can, and it isn't tard boy. But what can one expect from a Martian transparent cattle rancher, lol.
RitchieGuy
1.2 / 5 (21) Mar 20, 2012
LOL. . .that is so funny, Venditard. . .you should be a standup comic. Your Martian cattle are all over the place, cowboy.

Try THIS science for size to go with what I said earlier:

http://www.psr.or...ants.pdf
Excalibur
2.6 / 5 (17) Mar 20, 2012
Excalibur the weird says:
Central limit theorem? chi square test? I'll leave all that to the more knowledgeable like Rygg2, MM, and others who have my complete confidence.

Translation: Not only am I clueless as to the significance the cited items, but I don't even know enough about them to know who does, so I'll just side with those who support my foregone conclusions.

Dimwit.


Yes. . .you are a dimwit. . .very true. . .you translate poorly and are highly imaginative in your own mind. Where's your buttbuddy, deepsand? Or is he/she lurking and waiting for my answer? LOL

Still have that anal sex fetish, I see. Do you take it with or without grease?
kochevnik
1.6 / 5 (13) Mar 20, 2012
@Excalibur Reported for mindless trolling.
RitchieGuy
1 / 5 (18) Mar 20, 2012
Excalibur the weird says:
Central limit theorem? chi square test? I'll leave all that to the more knowledgeable like Rygg2, MM, and others who have my complete confidence.

Translation: Not only am I clueless as to the significance the cited items, but I don't even know enough about them to know who does, so I'll just side with those who support my foregone conclusions.

Dimwit.


Yes. . .you are a dimwit. . .very true. . .you translate poorly and are highly imaginative in your own mind. Where's your buttbuddy, deepsand? Or is he/she lurking and waiting for my answer? LOL

Still have that anal sex fetish, I see. Do you take it with or without grease?


LOL. . . .deepsand said the same exact thing the other night about his obsession with anal sex. I didn't know what he was talking about and it turns out he was talking about "buttbuddy", , LOL
This should give them a clue.

http://wiki.answe...tt_buddy
RitchieGuy
1 / 5 (17) Mar 20, 2012
Another definition of buttbuddy is the passenger that sits behind the driver of a motorcycle who sits right up against the driver's butt. ..LMAO
Have no idea what it's got to do with AGW. . .omg. . LOL
bluehigh
1.8 / 5 (16) Mar 20, 2012
This fall is known to have been caused by massive rainfalls in Indonesia and Australia, among other places.
The flood waters still haven't percolated through the soild and reached the ocean yet.
- Vendi

Indeed. The dams are full and spillways um ... spilling. I've got mould growing on the deck for the first time in several years and ants everywhere.

The Sydney desalination plant is winding down operation after years of drought and I wonder ... what holistic effect has sucking in seawater, zapping it and introducing extra water into the cycle. Theres plenty of other large desal plants around the world too. Anyway its going to be turned off soon after about 1 years operation and a multibillion dollar money burn.

On the positive side my electricity use for cooling has fallen and my Pineapple plantation looks healthy.

bluehigh
1.7 / 5 (17) Mar 20, 2012
Not much visible or infrared sunlight for the solar heating though. I love my spa, bubbles and rubber ducks. We get heaps of UV even in wet cool summers. Why can't I buy solar panels 'tuned' to UV instead of visible? A small marketplace victim of global economies of scale?
Excalibur
2.5 / 5 (16) Mar 20, 2012
@Excalibur Reported for mindless trolling.

kochevnik reported for simply being mindlessly ignoring of PottyMouth's continuing foul history here.
Urgelt
4.6 / 5 (10) Mar 20, 2012
This serious article is catnip for crazy people; they're rolling on the rug in delirium.

Increasing greenhouse gases will warm the planet. That's settled science. We've injected enough CO2 into the atmosphere to put it into a state which hasn't been seen in two million years. The study just tells us what sea levels were like during that high CO2 era.

But it's not concluding that our climate future will resemble what happened two million years ago. It can't conclude that. We're still pumping CO2 and other greenhouse gases into the atmosphere; concentrations are still going up. And nobody really knows how that will play out.

We know there are feedback loops. There may also be tipping points. We aren't sure if a phase change could happen, or when, but if it does, extinctions could become dramatic.

If you enjoy worrying, read up on arctic methane clathrates. They might not remain stable during a prolonged period of warming, and the total mass of them is enormous.
Lurker2358
2.3 / 5 (9) Mar 20, 2012
Not often discussed:--
What effect would the weight of even a few extra feet of depth spread over entire ocean basins have on earthquake activity?


A foot wouldn't matter much, but about 32feet of water equals 1 atmosphere of pressure, which is still only about 1% to 0.1% of the ocean depth near most continents.

My guess is that much water would alter the behavior of oceanic plates near subduction zones, but it might not be that big of a deal. After all, trenches are several miles deep, so maybe a few dozen feet of water doesn't make much difference.

One of hte things I disagree with on this article is how long this takes. Based on the TREND in melting day anomalies, it's possible for Alaska and Canada to gain 141 ANNUAL melting days in 88 years, if the present trend continues, which is nearly half a year, which means winter would be wiped out!

At present rates, it's possible for Greenland, Europe, and Asia to gain 105 ANNUAL melting days by 2100, wiping out winter.
Egleton
3 / 5 (12) Mar 20, 2012
Oh goodie. I thought the climate change pseudo-skeptics were a dying breed. They are still here to entertain us.

So, what's you take on Abiotic Oil? Creationism? The Rothchilds conspiracy? The Rapture? Have I left anything out? Necromancy? Zionist plots?

No secrets now. Do tell. You are amongst friends.
Lurker2358
2.8 / 5 (9) Mar 20, 2012
If you have melting days balanced with freezing days, then that is 182.5 days in a typical year, which is a little silly since it's usually not freezing for half the year in most places, except right at the poles.

If you add a melting day, you also lose a freezing day, since the year doesn't change.

So it's like this, ignoring the 0.5s:

182/182
183/181
184/180
185/179

Etc.

As I've explained elsewhere, every melting day you gain is a freezing day you also lose. It's like a turnover in basketball. It is not worth one score. It makes a two score difference: One score you would have made, and one score the opponent makes.

Even if the rate of change in melting day anomaly TREND slowed to half of what it is now, it would be possible to totally wipe out "winter" in North America by the year 2200. At present rates, it will be gone around 2100, give or take a few years. By "gone" I mean it will be almost impossible for snow or ice to accumulate. It may fall in storms, but won't "stick".
Lurker2358
2.8 / 5 (9) Mar 20, 2012
If you enjoy worrying, read up on arctic methane clathrates. They might not remain stable during a prolonged period of warming, and the total mass of them is enormous.


Personally, I think the Methane Bomb started releasing some time in 2005 or 2006.

Why?

Look at this:

http://www.esrl.n...;type=ts

Set it to a scale between the years 2001 and present.

During the second half of 2006, the peak of melt season, the methane curve hits an inflection point and starts rising rapidly again, after it had previously plateaued for nearly a decade.

The other thing about Methane is that since it's one of the lightest gases in the atmosphere, MOST of it should be in the upper levels of the atmosphere, which means flask measurements on the surface or on mountains severely under-estimate methane concentrations.

Methane top-heats the atmosphere, while CO2 bottom-heats the atmosphere.
Shelgeyr
1.6 / 5 (21) Mar 20, 2012
@axemaster said:
The idea that global warming is happening, is caused by humans, and is a serious threat to our society is settled science.


No, you are completely wrong, starting with the popular propagandistic yet still fictional (due to being a conflict in terms) phrase "settled science".

The only people arguing otherwise are politicians.


Wrong again, and although I don't have the metrics handy - and I bet they don't exist - I'm willing to speculate that of the people "arguing otherwise", likely far less than one percent are politicians.

Since it only takes a single contrary example to negate an unqualified statement, and since I'm not a politician, your statement is false. And it is repeatedly falsified by everyone who knows that AGW is a fraudulent scam, and doesn't simultaneously hold elected office. Again, I'm betting that's almost all of them.
Shelgeyr
1.7 / 5 (22) Mar 20, 2012
@Egleton asked:
So, what's you(sic) take on Abiotic Oil?


It tastes great, it's less filling, and it is SO good for you!

Enjoy!
http://www.americ...ces.html
NotParker
1.4 / 5 (19) Mar 20, 2012
Ice ages over the past few billions of years have a periodicity of around 41,000 years.


The most recent interglacials lasted 11,500 years.

The orange bars are interglacials.

http://www.ncdc.n...i-lg.gif

Our time is up.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.8 / 5 (15) Mar 20, 2012
the seeds are in the ground; my drip irrigation system is working well, and it rains now and then here. Life is good, thank you. Ethanol, here we come. . . :)
Little richard is being coy - isnt that cute? Perhaps mr green jeans is selling his crops to the only commercial producer in the US?

"Currently, U.S. EnviroFuels serves as founder, owner and project development manager of Highlands EnviroFuels, LLC located in Highlands County, Florida. Highlands EnviroFuels, LLC is a planned 30 million gallon per year sugar-based, low carbon, Advanced Biofuel ethanol plant which will use LOCALLY-GROWN Sweet Sorghum and Biofuel Cane feedstocks in Highlands County and the surrounding counties. The process design technology for Highlands EnviroFuels, LLC is based upon conventional Brazilian-style sugar cane-to-ethanol plant process, which uses traditional, well-proven, commercial processing technology."

-Plenty of rain in central FL tho... something dont smell right.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (12) Mar 20, 2012
As I've explained elsewhere, every melting day you gain is a freezing day you also lose. It's like a turnover in basketball. It is not worth one score. It makes a two score difference: One score you would have made, and one score the opponent makes.
You sure its not just a little more complicated than this, eniac? There are factors like duration and degree of above or below temps, elevation, latent heat, sun exposure, etc etc. For instance if your melting days average more extreme temps than your freezing days then they need not be equal in number to have a comparable overall effect.

Perhaps someone trained in these things would be a more reliable source?
Vendicar_Decarian
3.4 / 5 (5) Mar 20, 2012
Well, certainly it isn't settled with you.

But since you are non-scientist who knows very little about science or much of anything else, what you feel is settled is
completely inconsequential.

One might as well ask a neo-nazi if it is settled that Hitler was a Nazi.

"No, you are completely wrong, starting with the popular propagandistic yet still fictional (due to being a conflict in terms) phrase "settled science"." - Shelgeyr
Vendicar_Decarian
3.4 / 5 (5) Mar 20, 2012
That is a nice graphic there ParkerTard. Note how the CO2 levels have been increasing and as a result temperatures over the current interglacial have been roughly flat.

Until now of course.

On the other hand, temperatures are not tracking solar insolation, contrary to your earlier childish proclamations.

Poor ParkerTard. Try as he might, he can't find a respectable reference that actually supports his anti-science position.

"http://www.ncdc.n...i-lg.gif

Our time is up." - ParkerTard
Vendicar_Decarian
3.9 / 5 (7) Mar 20, 2012
The abiotic oil hypothesis is an attempt to explain the source and formation of petroleum. As the name suggests, the hypothesis proposes that oil originates from non-biological origins.
The hypothesis is mostly Soviet, mostly archaic, and entirely debunked.

No oil company has ever successfully found a well using the theory and it is generally considered pseudoscience on the order of global warming denial.

Abiotic oil Nonsense = Shelgeyr
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.5 / 5 (15) Mar 20, 2012
The hypothesis is mostly Soviet, mostly archaic, and entirely debunked.

No oil company has ever successfully found a well using the theory and it is generally considered pseudoscience
Yah except that since hydrocarbons are found throughout the solar system in great quantities, including on mars and earths moon, then we should expect to find the same sort of stuff here too, yes?

"Scientists have also reported the presence of hydrocarbons, such as ethylene, in the LCROSS impact plume. Dr Colaprete said any hydrocarbons were likely to have been delivered to the lunar surface by comets and asteroids - another vital source of lunar water.

However, he added, some of these chemical species could arise through "cold chemistry" on interstellar dust grains accumulated on the Moon."

Also not nearly debunked:
http://en.wikiped...enic_oil
ryggesogn2
1.6 / 5 (20) Mar 20, 2012
Aren't most major oil fields near major volcanic regions and faults?

What happens to all the organic matter at the bottom of the ocean as it subducts?
Vendicar_Decarian
3.9 / 5 (7) Mar 20, 2012
You mean like the volcanoes in Alberta, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Iran, and the ones Erupting in the Gulf of Mexico?

"Aren't most major oil fields near major volcanic regions and faults?" - RyggTard

Moron.
ryggesogn2
1.7 / 5 (23) Mar 20, 2012
"Rift zones are also important for oil exploration as many oil rich areas have arisen as a result of rift processes. This is true, for example, of the area around the Central Graben in the North Sea which is a former rift zone whose development halted. The Central Graben is the location where the countries bordering the North Sea obtain most of their oil. It is therefore important to understand the processes that lead to rift formation, as it may give us an opportunity to pump more oil up from underground."
http://www.scienc...2136.htm
"A large number of metallic mineral occurrences and deposits exist in southwest Alberta, in southeast British Columbia and in the adjacent areas of the northwestern United States of America. Many of them are spatially related to the Southern Alberta Rift."
http://www.ags.go..._13.html
Vendicar_Decarian
3.7 / 5 (6) Mar 20, 2012
The Central Grabin in the North Sea wasn't formed through volcanism.

Poor RyggTard. Even his own references can't substantiate his Libertaraian/Randite nonsense.
Vendicar_Decarian
3.9 / 5 (7) Mar 20, 2012
Great quantities of hydrocarbons on the moon and mars?

How many gigatonnes have been found on the moon or mars?

Numbers please.

"Yah except that since hydrocarbons are found throughout the solar system in great quantities, including on mars and earths moon" - Ghost
RitchieGuy
1 / 5 (14) Mar 20, 2012
http://www.vision...p?mid=95

I found this page very informative even though it is geared toward promoting VendiTard's AGW fantasy. One paragraph tells us that we are in an interglacial warm period and that atmospheric CO2 concentrations in an interglacial warm period are relatively high anyway compared to a glacial period with a low amount of CO2. And then it tells that "human activities are pushing CO2 concentrations higher than they have been for hundreds of thousands of years". But, being that the Earth is now in a warm interglacial period, that should mean that the Earth itself is causing the CO2 to increase whether or not humans are burning fossil fuels. Therefore, during a warming period, the CO2 in the atmosphere is increasing BECAUSE OF THE INTERGLACIAL WARMING and NOT due to any extra CO2 emissions by humans.
RitchieGuy
1 / 5 (14) Mar 20, 2012
That's not to say that humans should keep on polluting, making the air unhealthy to breathe. But the biggest blame goes to the Earth cycle which is causing the warming by going through a warming period. The CO2 is also going through a cycle of renewal as well as other gases. Matter goes through subduction and comes back up as CO2 and other gases. The particulates in the air are far more dangerous that CO2.
RitchieGuy
1 / 5 (14) Mar 20, 2012
The Earth is warming, therefore the CO2 emerges out of the Earth as a result of that warming. It's a gas, so it rises and increases its volume in the atmosphere. Due to the Earth being in a warming cycle, more plants grow and take in that excess CO2. The more plants there are, the less atmospheric CO2. That's what I see in that page.
Vendicar_Decarian
3.7 / 5 (6) Mar 20, 2012
Yup, it's not only the Illuminati and the Climatologists that are in on the conspiracy, the Biologists are in on it too.

"I found this page very informative even though it is geared toward promoting VendiTard's AGW fantasy." - RichieTard

Moron.
Vendicar_Decarian
3.7 / 5 (6) Mar 20, 2012
What causes the explosion in CO2 concentration that just happens to correspond in time and magnitude with human emissions? And what causes those human emissions to vanish into the arse you call a brain?

http://www.skepti...ears.gif

"But, being that the Earth is now in a warm interglacial period, that should mean that the Earth itself is causing the CO2 to increase" - RichieTard
Vendicar_Decarian
4.2 / 5 (5) Mar 20, 2012
"Due to the Earth being in a warming cycle, more plants grow and take in that excess CO2. The more plants there are, the less atmospheric CO2." - RichieTard

More Co2 due to warming or less due to plant growth.

Make up your mind Tard Boy.
RitchieGuy
1 / 5 (14) Mar 20, 2012
The page says: "Without substantive changes in global patterns of fossil fuel consumption and deforestation, warming trends are likely to continue."
This sentence forms the basis of the AGW hysteria, and a large part of the information does promote the accusation of humans as a causal agent of global warming.

However, it does not also reveal that the globe is warming in any case BECAUSE we are in an interglacial period, and pretends that the world could not possibly be warming except for the human factor that is causing it.
Other than the "blame the humans" propaganda, the science of the cycles is interesting.
RitchieGuy
1 / 5 (13) Mar 20, 2012
Venditard exhales:
"Due to the Earth being in a warming cycle, more plants grow and take in that excess CO2. The more plants there are, the less atmospheric CO2." - RichieTard

More Co2 due to warming or less due to plant growth.

Make up your mind Tard Boy.


Venditard really should practice absorbing information as the print gives the evidence that the largest amount of CO2 emerges from the Earth AFTER the start of the warming cycle during an interglacial period. That CO2 has to go somewhere, so it rises up to the atmosphere from undersea and underground sources.
The CO2 is only a RESULT of the global warming from natural causes, and once it's in the atmosphere, plants use the photosynthesis process to absorb the gas, just like Venditard's brain does.
Vendicar_Decarian
3.7 / 5 (6) Mar 20, 2012
RichieTard is right. If there are substantive reductions in global patterns of fossil fuel consumption and deforestaton then computed global warming trends will change.

So far, emission rates have continued to increase, as is the temperature increases from CO2.

"This sentence forms the basis of the AGW hysteria..." - RichieTard

"However, it does not also reveal that the globe is warming in any case BECAUSE we are in an interglacial period" - RichieTard

RichieTard needs to explain why temperatures have over the long term been falling over the current interglacial, from it's beginning 12,000 years ago, and are now spiking upward coincident with a spike in the CO2 content of the atmosphere.

No doubt he believes it is an Illuminati plot promoted by a Luceferian one world Gubderments.
Vendicar_Decarian
4.2 / 5 (5) Mar 20, 2012
RichieTard is confuses the outgassing of CO2 from the cold ocean at the end of a glacial cycle, and which causes the rapid switch from glacial to interglacial period over several thousand years, with the rapid spike in CO2 levels which are similar in magnitude and which have occurred over the last 100 years.

RichieTard, don't do science. Cause dats evils gubderment is so dang evils.

"Venditard really should practice absorbing information as the print gives the evidence that the largest amount of CO2 emerges from the Earth AFTER the start of the warming cycle during an interglacial period." - RichieTard
RitchieGuy
1 / 5 (14) Mar 20, 2012
Venditard. . .its as plain as the nose in your face. . .interglacial period > the Earth warms > warming causes CO2, methane, et al to emerge from undersea and underground > CO2 become a part of atmosphere > plants grow due to the warming > plants take in sunshine, water and CO2 > plants die > CO2 goes back to atmosphere > it rains > CO2 joins with other gases, etc. > falls down as acid rain > acid rain changes rocks > calcite from rocks flows into rivers, streams to the ocean > calcite is taken up by coral and other sea life > sea life dies and shells fall to the bottom becoming part of the sediment > sediment gets subducted and melts > melted calcite, etc. becomes CO 2
hmmm. . . .did I include everything?
Vendicar_Decarian
3.7 / 5 (6) Mar 20, 2012
Nope.

"did I include everything?" - RichieTard

And you also excluded the relevance to the article at hand.

RitchieGuy
1.2 / 5 (19) Mar 20, 2012
I have the perfect (I believe) label for VendiTardo and company. Misanthrope describes well the necessity for ascribing the world's ills on humanity.

The Hatred of Humanity is a profoundly unnatural state. It takes years of indoctrination by Liberal ideologues and EcoNazis. You must be told repeatedly that humanity is a blight on the Earth. That our technology is the source of all evil.

THAT is the relevance of the article at hand.
Vendicar_Decarian
3.7 / 5 (6) Mar 20, 2012
RichieTard is projecting himself again.

"The Hatred of Humanity is a profoundly unnatural state." - RichieTard

He is so transparent.
RitchieGuy
1.2 / 5 (20) Mar 20, 2012
As usual, Venditard makes no sense.
But here is something that does:
http://www.techno...y/17274/
Vendicar_Decarian
3.7 / 5 (6) Mar 20, 2012
Thinking people aren't opposed to the idea of the disposal of CO2 under the ocean floor, but they do require that the technology be proven before any faith is given in it's use.

RichieTard, like all Conservatives, constantly think by faith rather than logic.

This is why they are perpetual failures and should never be given political power.
Vendicar_Decarian
3.7 / 5 (6) Mar 21, 2012
RichieTard is projecting himself again...

"As usual, Venditard makes no sense." - RichieTard
RitchieGuy
1 / 5 (15) Mar 21, 2012
Venitardo says:
Thinking people aren't opposed to the idea of the disposal of CO2 under the ocean floor, but they do require that the technology be proven before any faith is given in it's use.

RichieTard, like all Conservatives, constantly think by faith rather than logic.

This is why they are perpetual failures and should never be given political power.


A big undertaking like undersea sequestration of CO2 has nothing to do with faith of any type except on the part of the investors. Burial of CO2 as liquid makes more sense than just blaming the whole human species and resorting to extortion and threats of monetary punishment, as in this:
http://www.ft.com...phMvrcZP
RitchieGuy
1.2 / 5 (19) Mar 21, 2012
Venditardo says:
RichieTard is projecting himself again...

"As usual, Venditard makes no sense." - RichieTard


That's twice. You are repeating your babble like an autistic child.
From the link:
""The biggest source of controversy has been the EU's insistance that other nations' airlines pay for their carbon emissions on flights that take off or land in Europe, for which Washington , Beijing and Moscow decry as an infringement on their sovereignty.""

This part alone is evidence that it is money that AGWites are after. . .and the scrubbing of the atmosphere to free it from CO2 is only incidental. You refuse to acknowledge that the greater part of the CO2 generating is caused by the Earth itself, since the industrial revolution began less than 500 years ago and CO2 production by Earth has been going on for many thousands of years. You AGWites refuse to acknowledge the obvious, that your panic and hysteria is laughable and doesn't address the best methods of sequestration.

RitchieGuy
1.2 / 5 (18) Mar 21, 2012
And yet you don't condemn those Liberals and AGWites who make use of those airlines to fly all over the world to attend their silly little conferences in order to find more ways to extort and spread more propaganda lies. . . .while leaving certain sacred cows alone like AlGore because he is a rich Liberal and draws plenty of crowds.
The AGW mantra is "do as I say. . .not as I do".
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.5 / 5 (15) Mar 21, 2012
Great quantities of hydrocarbons on the moon and mars?

How many gigatonnes have been found on the moon or mars?

Numbers please.

"Yah except that since hydrocarbons are found throughout the solar system in great quantities, including on mars and earths moon" - Ghost
Oh I see I left some words out. Hydrocarbons are found in great quantities throughout the solar system. They have also been found on mars and earths moon, and there is no reason to think that great quantities exist there also, waiting to be found, as this seems to be the norm throughout the solar system and the greater universe; ie, everywhere.

Hope this helps.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.8 / 5 (15) Mar 21, 2012
The Earth is warming, therefore the CO2 emerges out of the Earth as a result of that warming. It's a gas, so it rises and increases its volume in the atmosphere. Due to the Earth being in a warming cycle, more plants grow and take in that excess CO2. The more plants there are, the less atmospheric CO2. That's what I see in that page.
So uh Ritchie are you saying that the earth is warming from the inside? Because this is the only way to affect CO2 release from earths interior. Is this yet one more incredibly dumbass concoction of yours? Ahaaahaaaahaahahaha.

Global warming causes volcanos ahaaahaaahaahaahaha. Man I should really be keeping a list.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (11) Mar 21, 2012
Oh and I see I left some additional words out.
They have also been found on mars and earths moon, and there is no reason to
doubt
that great quantities exist there also, waiting to be found, as this seems to be the norm throughout the solar system and the greater universe; ie, everywhere.
Sorry VD
hagger
1.4 / 5 (10) Mar 21, 2012
axemaster..your wrong..it is not settled..C02 levels were way higher in the past..and we did not have 70ft of water laping at our roof tops..read ' Climate change the missing science ' by Ian pilmer..and see for a fact how the stats are massaged to suit..and any one who is anti warming are considered ' climate fascists ' the can not even predict a warm week end in june a week hence..never mind the end of the world in a 100 years or less..and the fact no vulcanism or the sun is included in any models should make you go ' AHH '...
RitchieGuy
1 / 5 (13) Mar 21, 2012
GhostofShitto says:
""So uh Ritchie are you saying that the earth is warming from the inside? Because this is the only way to affect CO2 release from earths interior. Is this yet one more incredibly dumbass concoction of yours? Ahaaahaaaahaahahaha."" and

""Global warming causes volcanos ahaaahaaahaahaahaha. Man I should really be keeping a list.""

The GhostofShitto1923 is suffering from lunacy amongst other things, and an obvious lack of reading comprehension skills just like his buttbuddy, FrankHerbert aka bewertow, et al, has done in the past.
Apparently, GhostofShitto has skimmed over my discussion with Venditard regarding the natural causes of global warming versus anthropogenic causes. Without FrankHerbert to research things that were actually said, now GhostofShitto flails to make a case, making things up as it goes along while never trying to understand the actual ensued conversation and its meanings and definitions. And it demands recognition for its misquotes. LMAO
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.9 / 5 (14) Mar 21, 2012
The GhostofShitto1923 is suffering from lunacy amongst other things, and an obvious lack of reading comprehension skills
Oh Im sorry mr green jeans but did you not say these things?
The Earth is warming, therefore the CO2 emerges out of the Earth as a result of that warming...Matter goes through subduction and comes back up as CO2 and other gases. The particulates in the air are far more dangerous that CO2.
You couldnt be talking about clathrates because they are not IN the earth. So you must be talking about something which you have no knowledge of. Just so you know, atmospheric and ocean temps have absolutely no effect on natural gas deposits either, which are actually IN the earth. LMAO
RitchieGuy
1 / 5 (14) Mar 21, 2012
and GhostofShitto says: """How young is too young for life in prison?"

How young is too young to be preventing the kind of damage and fixing the kind of defects which cause this kind of behavior? Brain science should be busy quantifying and categorizing the kinds of damage done to fetuses by ignorant, selfish, careless mothers who think that getting drunk, smoking, or doing drugs while pregnant is somehow their prerogative.

And once the public becomes aware that this is the overwhelming source of criminal behavior in people, not to mention lifetimes of suffering, confusion, compulsion, and self-medication, then they can be compelled to enact laws requiring continuous real-time electronic monitoring of expectant mothers in order to prevent this abuse.

It is not just one life ruined but all of society which suffers. Tech will soon exist to detect it and immediately incarcerate expectant mothers to prevent further abuse. This WILL happen; it's only a matter of when."" LMAO
Vendicar_Decarian
5 / 5 (4) Mar 21, 2012
Sorry. Tard Boy... But Pilmer is a washed up nut job.

Plimer has long argued[25] that volcanic eruptions release more carbon dioxide (CO2) than human activity; in particular that submarine volcanoes[26] emit huge amounts of CO2 and that the influence of the gases from these volcanoes on the Earth's climate is drastically underrepresented in climate models.[27] The United States Geological Survey has calculated that human emissions of CO2 are about 130 times larger than volcanic emissions, including submarine emissions.[28][29][30] The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) stated that Plimer's claim "has no factual basis."[31] This was confirmed in a 2011 survey published in the Eos journal of the American Geophysical Union, which found that anthropogenic emissions of CO2 are 135 times larger than those from all volcanoes on Earth.[32]

http://en.wikiped...n_Plimer
Vendicar_Decarian
4.2 / 5 (5) Mar 21, 2012
Sorry Tard Boy, but Climate scientists don't make weather forecasts.

"climate fascists ' the can not even predict a warm week end in june a week" = HaggerTard
RitchieGuy
1 / 5 (14) Mar 21, 2012
Ghost wants expectant mothers to be immediately thrown in jail for smoking pot. LOL
Like I said:
The GhostofShitto1923 is suffering from lunacy amongst other things, and an obvious lack of reading comprehension skills just like his buttbuddy, FrankHerbert aka bewertow, et al, has done in the past.
Apparently, GhostofShitto has skimmed over my discussion with Venditard regarding the natural causes of global warming versus anthropogenic causes. Without FrankHerbert to research things that were actually said, now GhostofShitto flails to make a case, making things up as it goes along while never trying to understand the actual ensued conversation and its meanings and definitions. And it demands recognition for its misquotes. LMAO
RitchieGuy
1.2 / 5 (19) Mar 21, 2012
"" Plimer believes that climate scientists ignore the science of geology, its theories and history of the natural world, exaggerate modern warming levels compared to previous temperatures in the geological record, conflate carbon dioxide's impact on climate, as well as humanity's contribution to carbon dioxide levels""

I agree with his estimation.
RitchieGuy
1 / 5 (15) Mar 21, 2012
also ""Plimer has long argued[25] that volcanic eruptions release more carbon dioxide (CO2) than human activity; in particular that submarine volcanoes[26] emit huge amounts of CO2 and that the influence of the gases from these volcanoes on the Earth's climate is drastically underrepresented in climate models.[27] The United States Geological Survey has calculated that human emissions of CO2 are about 130 times larger than volcanic emissions, including submarine emissions.[28][29][30] The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) stated that Plimer's claim "has no factual basis."""
I agree with this too. . . .and the EPA is a government agency that has ties to Liberal politics and Green Peace which has been taken over by Socialists. It's all political and Venditard knows this.
RitchieGuy
1 / 5 (14) Mar 21, 2012
""submarine volcanoes[26] emit huge amounts of CO2 and that the influence of the gases from these volcanoes on the Earth's climate is drastically underrepresented in climate models.""

Drastically underrepresented is correct. . .and that's the Tipping Point in the whole farce that is AGW. Only the figures that will present AGW in a favorable light is presented to the public. . . .and all the rest which are natural causes are ignored or swept under the rug.
ryggesogn2
1.5 / 5 (16) Mar 21, 2012
"New evidence deep beneath the Arctic ice suggests a series of underwater volcanoes have erupted in violent explosions in the past decade.

Hidden 2.5 miles (4,000 meters) beneath the Arctic surface, the volcanoes are up to a mile (2,000 meters) in diameter and a few hundred yards tall.
The eruptions discharge large amounts of carbon dioxide, helium, trace metals and heat into the water over long distances, he said.

Read more: http://www.foxnew...pncC09gD
ryggesogn2
1.6 / 5 (21) Mar 21, 2012
"A string of a dozen volcanoes, at least several of them active, has been found beneath the frigid seas near Antarctica, the first such discovery in that region. "
http://www.msnbc....sjPWibSg
Vendicar_Decarian
3.9 / 5 (7) Mar 21, 2012
Let us know when you find a million or so more - enough to account for the observed warming.

"A string of a dozen volcanoes, at least several of them active, has been found beneath the frigid seas near Antarctica" - RyggTard

Idiot.
Vendicar_Decarian
3.9 / 5 (7) Mar 21, 2012
No rational person would do so. You have to spend money to make money. Similarly you have to burn fuel to reduce fuel consumption.

"And yet you don't condemn those Liberals and AGWites who make use of those airlines to fly all over the world to attend their silly little conferences" - RichieTard

Idiot.
Noumenon
1.6 / 5 (26) Mar 21, 2012
For anyone with any doubt left that AGW is all about implementing socialism, redistribution of wealth, and behavior control of the masses,,....

http://blogs.scie...strophe/

This sort of rhetoric is why no one takes these idiots seriously, and is far more of a threat to humanity than "climate change". Don't blame the republicans or the "deniers", blame the mush-headed political left.

They're getting desperate , and are no longer hiding their ultimate plan of one world government and social engineering. These people almost have to be morons to think it is even remotely possible to convince free people to submit to world government control of any sort.

As I've said repeatably, there is no way to get people to voluntarily decrease their life style and energy use, because this cuts across the grain of human egoistic nature. We must evolve off of oil economically, naturally.
Excalibur
2.3 / 5 (16) Mar 22, 2012
Seems that PottyMouth also has a fecal matter fetish, which has been duly reported.
RitchieGuy
1.3 / 5 (23) Mar 22, 2012
AGWites are in a great desperate rush to push everyone off the cliff before we're even ready to take the plunge and get off fossil fuels. There is no soft pillow at the bottom to cushion our fall since alternative energy is still not in the ready stage in terms of efficiency, reliability and low cost and affordable replacement parts.
AGWites insist that we must get off fossil fuels NOW or they will force us to do it. But they can't come up with a logical solution on how to keep people from freezing to death in their own homes due to lack of electricity from coal-fired plants or home delivery of oil for an oil furnace. They also can't solve the problem of the government investing taxpayer money in bogus solar and wind companies that fold soon after they get our money. They expect us to believe all the lies that solar and wind power will be everywhere without it costing so much that only the wealthy can afford tp buy the panels for their homes. . .and night time use is not available yet
Vendicar_Decarian
3.3 / 5 (7) Mar 22, 2012
You have been repeatedly asked to conduct yourself in a rational and sustainable manner.

You have refused.

Now you will be compelled by all manner necessary to do so.

And by all manner necessary, I include the options of fines, imprisonment, and or execution as needed for crimes against humanity and nature.

You have only yourself to blame.

"For anyone with any doubt left that AGW is all about implementing socialism, redistribution of wealth, and behavior control of the masses," - NumenTard
RitchieGuy
1 / 5 (18) Mar 22, 2012
except for huge arrays out West in desert areas and that only supplies electricity to a small number of homes per array and tower.
RitchieGuy
1.2 / 5 (21) Mar 22, 2012
Venditardo says:
No rational person would do so. You have to spend money to make money. Similarly you have to burn fuel to reduce fuel consumption.

"And yet you don't condemn those Liberals and AGWites who make use of those airlines to fly all over the world to attend their silly little conferences" - RichieTard

Idiot.


Of course Venditard and company wouldn't think to ostracize someone like Gore and other phony baloneys whose main source of income is AGW speaking engagements to the gullible fools. AlGore spends money to make money, that's for sure. He spends money on his plane trips in his personal airplane using up a lot of fossil fuel, and then makes money from all his appearances and donations from big corporations who are tied in with the Obama administration and Liberal/Socialist groups like Green Peace, Occupy, and corrupt union thugs.
RitchieGuy
1.2 / 5 (21) Mar 22, 2012
Venditard says:
You have been repeatedly asked to conduct yourself in a rational and sustainable manner.

You have refused.

Now you will be compelled by all manner necessary to do so.

And by all manner necessary, I include the options of fines, imprisonment, and or execution as needed for crimes against humanity and nature.

You have only yourself to blame.

"For anyone with any doubt left that AGW is all about implementing socialism, redistribution of wealth, and behavior control of the masses," - NumenTard


Venditard and company will never bite the hand that feeds them all their AGW crap. Nobody wants to get thrown out of the AGW club. It's so nice to belong, isn't it? What strange bedfellows.

It is the AGWites who are and will be guilty of the crime against humanity and nature for attempting to box humans into a corner and blame them for all the ills of the world.

AGWites will never push against the Chinese government to speed up their energy reforms.
RitchieGuy
1.2 / 5 (21) Mar 22, 2012
Nor will they insist that the Russian government also reform the usage of fossil fuels. It is only in the western countries where their silly threats, radical rhetoric and pseudo militancy can be acted out because they believe that they can bring the full force of their constituency to bear against approximately 250 million people in the United States and Canada.

However, AGWites will avoid like a plague the possibility of a confrontation with oil drilling countries like Hugo Chavez's Venezuela. . .since Hugo is a professed Communist.
CardacianNeverid
4.3 / 5 (12) Mar 22, 2012
Conservitard Ritchie/Pirouette/Xbw aspires to be affluent, but can only spew potty mouthed effluent.
Vendicar_Decarian
4.2 / 5 (5) Mar 22, 2012
RichieTard is incapable of responding to science or reason. His Conservative ideology makes it impossible.

His ideology has no place in a rational, modern world, and it will have to be eradicated if rationality and reason are to be expanded.

RitchieGuy
1.2 / 5 (20) Mar 22, 2012
250 million Americans and Canadians approx., and the other 50 or so million could be those who will either side with the ridiculous pomposity of AGWite self-importance, or remove to Mexico City or Guadalahara for the duration.
And as I've said before, men, women, and children couldn't care less about a 70 foot rise in seawater when their lungs are filled with particulate matter from coal-fired furnaces in China and the only thing that AGWites are concerned with is the CO2 content of the atmosphere while people are struggling to breathe. It isn't the CO2 that gives them emphysema and lung cancer, it's the particulates in the air. I have already advised you to be more concerned about the sick and dying, and less about an iceberg melting in the ocean with warmer temperatures at some distant future when it won't even matter as you will all be dead a long time already.
RitchieGuy
1.2 / 5 (20) Mar 22, 2012
Of course, Venditard/kardashian cares not a whit for lung cancer and emphysema victims if it doesn't further a cause in which there is much evidence that any sort of global warming is caused by nature more often than exhaling and the usage of gasoline in a car's engine cylinders. It is surprising that Venditard and fellow AGWites still haven't stormed General Motors or Rolls Royce factories, smashing everything in sight. Or how about running into coal mines to force all the coalminers out with a promise of better pay in a white collar job. Of course, AGWites wouldn't dream of hurting a hair on the heads of Occupiers, and actually applaud and favor those Occupiers who love to urinate and defecate in public rather than use a public restroom. THAT meets with their approval and love, even.
RitchieGuy
1.2 / 5 (20) Mar 22, 2012
From what I read in this thread alone, not even counting all the others, I have come to the conclusion that AGWites are definitely misanthropic misfits who chide others for wanting to maintain their comfortable style of living with present usage of the only real available sources of energy available to the masses. It is also evident that AGWites like Venditard consider themselves the elite of the world because they pretend to care so very much about humanity, while promoting eugenics on the other side of the spectrum. They also promote enslavement of the world's population in the disguise of knowing what's best for everyone. Strange, indeed!!
Vendicar_Decarian
3.7 / 5 (6) Mar 22, 2012
Who would? Gore's comments are strongly supported by the available science.

"Of course Venditard and company wouldn't think to ostracize someone like Gore and other phony baloneys.." - RichieTard

This is unlike your comments which are only supported by your own nonsense rhetoric and pointless blogs written by professional denialists (watts) on the payroll of Koch, Oil, etc. or blogs written by sycophants who are as clueless and as anti-science as you are.

Don't worry Tard Boy. In the end, you will be compelled to act rationally or be fined, imprisoned, or executed.

Your choice.
Vendicar_Decarian
4.2 / 5 (5) Mar 22, 2012
RichieTard likes to froth at the mouth.

I don't understand his attraction to it.

"Of course, Venditard/kardashian cares not a whit for lung cancer and emphysema victims if it doesn't further a cause in which there is much evidence that any sort of global warming is caused by nature more often than exhaling and the usage of gasoline in a car's engine cylinders." - RichieTard

Global Warming is indeed natural in the sense that it is the very natural consequence of man adding Gigatonnes of CO2 to the atmosphere.

Poor Richie Tard. He just doesn't have the intellectual capacity to understand.

And that is why ignorant buffoons like he, must not be permitted to retain positions of power where their decisions will undoubtedly take the lives of millions of people, and leave the natural environment a waste land.


Vendicar_Decarian
3.7 / 5 (6) Mar 22, 2012
"Conservitard Ritchie/Pirouette/Xbw aspires to be affluent.." - Cardacian

Richie Tard probably aspires to be many things. But his pointless verbiage and childish rage suggests he has been a failure at attaining his goals.

Noumenon
1.3 / 5 (23) Mar 22, 2012
Now you will be compelled by all manner necessary to do so.

And by all manner necessary, I include the options of fines, imprisonment, and or execution as needed for crimes against humanity and nature. - Scott Dougles


Bhahahahahha. Dude, you are simply not living in reality, nor are you paying attention. Even if I thought AGW was serious, I would still recognize the same reality; There is simply zero chance that free societies will allow a socialistic government, nor to subordinate their countries energy use to a global governance, nor should they. Force will NOT be the solution; this is a fact.

Think for once in your life; There has never been a global institution which successfully accomplished anything for humanity,... there are still wars, oppression, genecide, religious fanatics developing nukes, etc. Having failed to agree on these Real things, you still expect success on speculative AGW effects?

Your posts are motivated by fantasy & idealism, mine are by reality.
Noumenon
1.5 / 5 (23) Mar 22, 2012
Socialism, communism, and social behavior engineering will NOT play a role in any solutions in reduction of co2. Only the market will decide when and what the solution will be. If you don't understand this, your just plan ignorant of reality.

VD is clearly not serious about AGW since he advocates things which even a third grader can see will never be allowed to occur in free societies, and since there is no force stronger than free societies, they cannot be compelled to accept force.

RitchieGuy
1.2 / 5 (21) Mar 22, 2012
Venditard says:
RichieTard likes to froth at the mouth.

I don't understand his attraction to it.

"Of course, Venditard/kardashian cares not a whit for lung cancer and emphysema victims if it doesn't further a cause in which there is much evidence that any sort of global warming is caused by nature more often than exhaling and the usage of gasoline in a car's engine cylinders." - RichieTard

Global Warming is indeed natural in the sense that it is the very natural consequence of man adding Gigatonnes of CO2 to the atmosphere.

Poor Richie Tard. He just doesn't have the intellectual capacity to understand.

And that is why ignorant buffoons like he, must not be permitted to retain positions of power where their decisions will undoubtedly take the lives of millions of people, and leave the natural environment a waste land.




Global warming in the context of an Interglacial Period IS VERY natural. Within a GLACIAL period, it is not. Buffoonery is most often found in AGWites.
Noumenon
1.5 / 5 (24) Mar 22, 2012
You can no more remove oil/coal from the world economic engine overnight, than you can remove the cardiovascular system from a human without killing it.

We will have to evolve off of carbon based energy, and this will take a few generations.

Further, this will only occur because people are naturally motivated to participate based on their own best interests; i.e. the alternative is better for the individual, so he chooses it.

Oppressing this natural and evolved survival mechanism of egoism, is also NOT an workable option either.

This nature of man is NOT an evil. It has resulted in every technological and medical advance existent today.

It is irresponsible of the far left "progressives" to continue with their religious idealism of controlling the masses, as a solution to AGW.

It is past time to become mature about the problem and recognize the economic, personal liberty, and free market forces involved and work with them, not against them.

Over the top propaganda does not work.
RitchieGuy
1.4 / 5 (22) Mar 22, 2012
Venditard says:
"Conservitard Ritchie/Pirouette/Xbw aspires to be affluent.." - Cardacian

Richie Tard probably aspires to be many things. But his pointless verbiage and childish rage suggests he has been a failure at attaining his goals.



LMAO. . .now you're REALLY getting silly. What I aspire to or ever have aspired to is my own business and none of your concern. Your attacks of a personal nature rather than sticking to the issue at hand is evidence that you are not as lucid as you might think.

Your argument degenerates into playground politics and you still have no idea of the enormity of that which you believe to be sound solutions to your perceived imminent death of humanity and the environment.

Your insistence that humans on the planet can only be saved by initializing and instituting a process governed by a body of highly-paid deluded elite bureaucrats that will rule over all from the lofty heights of, perhaps, somewhere in Brussels or Copenhagen. . . .is evidence
RitchieGuy
1.3 / 5 (23) Mar 22, 2012
cont'd
that it is your fondest aspirations to have the masses enslaved and imprisoned for living their lives as they choose and only wish to be left alone and to be independent.
Of course, you AGWites in your Socialistic insanity abhor the independence of the individual, wishing instead, to take over the lives of those individuals with smothering regulations and threats.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.1 / 5 (15) Mar 22, 2012
Ritchie Im confused. You said:
The Earth is warming, therefore the CO2 emerges out of the Earth as a result of that warming...Matter goes through subduction and comes back up as CO2 and other gases. The particulates in the air are far more dangerous that CO2.
-Which means you think global warming causes volcanos right? And then you post:
"submarine volcanoes emit huge amounts of CO2 and that the influence of the gases from these volcanoes on the Earth's climate is drastically underrepresented in climate models."
-in apparent response. As you did not claim to refute your first statements, you nevertheless declared them in error by your second statements, thereby in effect calling yourself a dumbass.

You also seem to be mixing up entire threads. You post ottos comments from another thread:
Ghost wants expectant mothers to be immediately thrown in jail for smoking pot. LOL
-This level of confusion would explain why you think you are on 4chan. This is not 4chan ritchie.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.8 / 5 (16) Mar 22, 2012
-But thanks for the crosspost, as most people do agree with me and I feel it is necessary to get the word out. Maybe your mom was a pothead? which would explain a lot. Or perhaps sweet sorghum hooch... that stuff can wreak havoc on developing brains.
NotParker
1.6 / 5 (20) Mar 22, 2012
-Which means you think global warming causes volcanos right?


"The true extent to which the ocean bed is dotted with volcanoes has been revealed by researchers who have counted 201,055 underwater cones. This is over 10 times more than have been found before.

The team estimates that in total there could be about 3 million submarine volcanoes, 39,000 of which rise more than 1000 metres over the sea bed."

http://www.newsci...ves.html

"Underwater volcano releasing liquid droplets of carbon dioxide. Yellow parts of the plume contain tiny droplets of molten sulfur."

http://www.physor...179.html
gregor1
1.9 / 5 (23) Mar 24, 2012
This quote may help to explain this nonsense

"We need to get some broad based support,
to capture the public's imagination...
So we have to offer up scary scenarios,
make simplified, dramatic statements
and make little mention of any doubts...
Each of us has to decide what the right balance
is between being effective and being honest."
- Prof. Stephen Schneider,
Stanford Professor of Climatology,
lead author of many IPCC reports
Vendicar_Decarian
4.3 / 5 (6) Mar 24, 2012
Ya, 400 on land and 3 million under the ocean. Probability zero.

Sorry Tard Boy, but an undersea cone is just a fumerole, not a volcano as you dishonestly project.

"The team estimates that in total there could be about 3 million submarine volcanoe" - NumenTard
Vendicar_Decarian
4 / 5 (8) Mar 24, 2012
Gregor's quote of Dr. Stephen Schneider is of course edited and incomplete.

Here is the full quote.

"On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but which means that we must include all the doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands, and buts. On the other hand, we are not just scientists but human beings as well. And like most people we'd like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climatic change. To do that we need to get some broadbased support, to capture the public's imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. This 'double ethical bind' we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Cont...
Vendicar_Decarian
4 / 5 (9) Mar 24, 2012
Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both." - Stephen Schneider - Discover, pp. 4548, Oct. 1989

Poor Gregor. He would rather lie than tell the truth.
ubavontuba
1.4 / 5 (27) Mar 24, 2012
For sea levels to rise as much as the article claims, sea level rising trends would need to increase drastically. This simply isn't happening. Lately, sea level rise has even "hit a pothole."

Interestingly, the CU Sea Level Research Group (official sea level record keepers) blame this pothole on La Niña, without bothering to explain why there are no similarly sgnificant potholes on their graph from previous La Niña events.

Sea (pun!) the official graph and article:

http://sealevel.colorado.edu/

Here's a timeline of La Niña events to compare with the graph:

http://en.wikiped...urrences

Where are the potholes?
ubavontuba
1.5 / 5 (26) Mar 24, 2012
For sea levels to rise as much as the article claims, sea level rising trends would need to increase drastically. This simply isn't happening. Lately, sea level rise has even "hit a pothole."

Interestingly, the CU Sea Level Research Group (official sea level record keepers) blame this pothole on La Niña, without bothering to explain why there are no similarly significant potholes on their graph from previous La Niña events.

Sea (pun!) the official graph and article:

http://sealevel.colorado.edu/

Here's a timeline of La Niña events to compare with the graph:

http://en.wikiped...urrences

Where are the corresponding potholes?
Vendicar_Decarian
3.5 / 5 (8) Mar 24, 2012
In another thread UbvonTard was caught selecting a specific range of years to show cooling when almost any other range of years shows warming. In addition he knowingly selected a temperature reconstruction that mostly avoids the polar regions where warming has been greatest.

Now UbvonTard compounds his lie with the following additional lie...

"For sea levels to rise as much as the article claims, sea level rising trends would need to increase drastically. This simply isn't happening" - UbvonTard

Here are the facts.

http://upload.wik...Rise.png

One wonders what motivates people to lie repeatedly as UbvonTard has done.

Is it money? Or is it simply a sick adherence to his Conservative Ideology?

Filth.

Vendicar_Decarian
Mar 24, 2012
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
NotParker
1.9 / 5 (27) Mar 24, 2012
Previous LaNina events didn't include record flooding in south America and Australia


And yet AGW fanatics claimed Australia would be gripped by a permanent drought.

AGW causes drought, except when it causes flooding.

AGW causes flooding, except when it causes drought.

Neither of the above get to the core.

AGW causes lying. AGW fanatics lie about everything, everyday.
NotParker
1.8 / 5 (25) Mar 24, 2012
Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both." - Stephen Schneider - Discover, pp. 4548, Oct. 1989


Translation: Lie. And don't get caught.

Too bad VD gets caught lying everyday.
sigma six
1.8 / 5 (10) Mar 24, 2012
To those who believe global warming is directly caused by human interaction watch this video thoroughly;
pbs.org/wgbh/nova/earth/secrets-beneath-ice.html

The video clearly indicates that Earth has a natural oscillating climate where there are warmer periods which cause sea levels to rise via melting the ice within Antarctica. After a certain period the climate shifts into a cooler state which lowers the sea level...The ice doesn't lie, global warming is nothing new to Earth. However, with the onset of humans, we seem to be speeding up the warming process which melts more ice than the natural process tends to.
Excalibur
2.6 / 5 (20) Mar 24, 2012
And a pendulum in a vacuum in a steady force field has a regular period.

That doesn't meant that its movements cannot be affected by something other than the accelerating force.
sigma six
2.3 / 5 (10) Mar 24, 2012
Seems like users hate scientific data on this website, what irony. Turn a blind eye to the facts and keep holding on to the naive notion of global warming.
NotParker
1.7 / 5 (23) Mar 24, 2012
However, with the onset of humans, we seem to be speeding up the warming process which melts more ice than the natural process tends to.


The Arctic melted in the 1920s/30s/40s too.

http://wattsupwit...view.png

No satellites to notice.
deepsand
2.1 / 5 (19) Mar 24, 2012
Seems like users hate scientific data on this website, what irony. Turn a blind eye to the facts ...

How very self-descriptive, given your evading the point made re. a pendulum's natural periodicity not being descriptive of the entirety of its possible movements.

ubavontuba
1.7 / 5 (24) Mar 25, 2012
@Venditard_Detardian
In another thread Ubvontuba was caught selecting a specific range of years to show cooling when almost any other range of years shows warming.
Intentionally misleading.

I selected the specific range relevant to the article in question ("2001-2010 warmest decade on record: WMO" http://www.physor...o.html). I even admitted it's been "the warmest decade on record."

In addition he knowingly selected a temperature reconstruction that mostly avoids the polar regions where warming has been greatest.
I used the official HADCRUT3 unadjusted global mean data which is the combination of the sea surface temperature records compiled by the Hadley Centre of the UK Met Office and the land surface temperature records compiled by the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia.

Are you suggesting these scientists are lying to show cooling?
GuruShabu
1.4 / 5 (20) Mar 25, 2012
Unbelievable how much nonsense is written and published about it!
But this one reminds me of the 70s when they "predicted"in 2000 the planet would be facing starvation and 4.3 degrees C above...
All present weather models do not take into account the "El Niño" phenomenon that is the greatest influencer of the weather on earth after the Sun! Please check yourself before putting on a stake and burning me off!
BTW, did you notice that I not even mentioned CO2?
Yes, it is NOT relevant. (Water vapour is much more relevant for weather but cannot be charged $$$$!)
ubavontuba
1.6 / 5 (25) Mar 25, 2012
Contd:
Now Ubvontuba compounds his lie with the following additional lie...

"For sea levels to rise as much as the article claims, sea level rising trends would need to increase drastically. This simply isn't happening" - Ubvontuba

Here are the facts.

http://upload.wik...Rise.png
Your "facts" is a Wikipedia graph that's about 7 years out of date! My up to date facts came straight from the official source for sea level measurement in the U.S. Are you suggesting these scientists are lying now too?

One wonders what motivates people to lie repeatedly
Yes. Why are you lying?

Is it money? Or is it simply a sick adherence to his Conservative Ideology?
I'm proud to say, I voted for (and continue to support) Barack Obama.

Filth.
Now that's certainly a valid, efficacious, and cogent argument (not!)

What's the matter? Are the facts interfering with your belief system?

ubavontuba
1.6 / 5 (25) Mar 25, 2012
Previous LaNina events didn't include record flooding in south America and Australia that has saturated the soil with water which has not yet finished returning to the ocean.
Do you even bother to check ANY data before you spout off? Here's a list of "notable recorded floods" in Australia:

http://en.wikiped...ustralia

and here's the La Niña history:

http://en.wikiped...urrences

Let's see, floods in 1950-52, La Niña period.

Floods in 1955-56, La Niña period.

Floods in 1970-71, La Niña again!

...and so on. The corollaries abound!

It is slowly doing so, as evidenced by the uptick in sea surface levels.
Uh, you don't that would be due to the intermediate period (fall/spring) between winters in both hemispheres? You did notice the tail end of the graph shows it dropping again, didn't you?

Poor Uba
Poor, lying Venditard. He thinks he's fooling everyone. So sorry to disappoint you, Venditard.

ubavontuba
1.6 / 5 (25) Mar 25, 2012
Previous LaNina events didn't include record flooding in south America and Australia that has saturated the soil with water which has not yet finished returning to the ocean.
Do you even bother to check ANY data before you spout off? Here's a list of "notable recorded floods" in Australia:

http://en.wikiped...ustralia

and here's the La Niña history:

http://en.wikiped...urrences

Let's see, floods in 1950-52, La Niña period.

Floods in 1955-56, La Niña period.

Floods in 1970-71, La Niña again!

...and so on. The corollaries abound!

It is slowly doing so, as evidenced by the uptick in sea surface levels.
Uh, you don't think that would be due to the intermediate period (fall/spring) between winters in both hemispheres? You did notice the tail end of the graph shows it dropping again, didn't you?

Poor Uba
Poor, lying Venditard. He thinks he's fooling everyone. So sorry to disappoint you, Venditard.
Excalibur
2.4 / 5 (20) Mar 25, 2012
But this one reminds me of the 70s when they "predicted"in 2000 the planet would be facing starvation and 4.3 degrees C above...

While the Club of Rome may have gotten the "when" wrong, they did not err on the "what."

... the greatest influencer of the weather on earth after the Sun!

ROFTLMAO. Did you just come out of a centuries long coma?
packrat
2 / 5 (16) Mar 25, 2012
I have lived in Wilmington NC most of my 53 years and I know is the first time we have ever had to cut the grass here in the middle of Feb. Call it what ever you want and for whatever reasons why but it's warming up here. We've been having odd weather for a number of years now.
NotParker
1.6 / 5 (19) Mar 25, 2012
I have lived in Wilmington NC most of my 53 years and I know is the first time we have ever had to cut the grass here in the middle of Feb.


One bit of global warming in 53 years?

Actually, its been warmer.

http://weather-wa...ary.html
RitchieGuy
1.3 / 5 (14) Mar 26, 2012
GhostofShitto says:
-But thanks for the crosspost, as most people do agree with me and I feel it is necessary to get the word out. Maybe your mom was a pothead? which would explain a lot. Or perhaps sweet sorghum hooch... that stuff can wreak havoc on developing brains.


Does your mom know that she has an imbecile factory between her thighs?
CardacianNeverid
4.2 / 5 (10) Mar 26, 2012
GhostofShitto says:
-But thanks for the crosspost, as most people do agree with me and I feel it is necessary to get the word out. Maybe your mom was a pothead? which would explain a lot. Or perhaps sweet sorghum hooch... that stuff can wreak havoc on developing brains.


Does your mom know that she has an imbecile factory between her thighs? -RitchieTard

What a truly foul and worthless individual you are. Post reported.
Vendicar_Decarian
3 / 5 (4) Mar 26, 2012
LaNina - the cooling of the surface waters of the pacific ocean, and which caused weather patterns that dumped torrential rains on Australia, will of course reduce in duration and extent at the ocean continues to warm.

So less water for Australia.

"And yet AGW fanatics claimed Australia would be gripped by a permanent drought." - ParkerTard

Once again ParkerTard can't fathom the difference between long term trends and short term noise.

Vendicar_Decarian
2.6 / 5 (5) Mar 26, 2012
Sorry Tard Boy... You are wrong yet again.

The article doesn't state that the 70 meter rise will occur over the next 100 years. The total rise is estimated from the amount of ice that can stably exist when temperatures stabilize at around 5'C higher than they are today.



"For sea levels to rise as much as the article claims, sea level rising trends would need to increase drastically" - UbVonTard
Vendicar_Decarian
3 / 5 (4) Mar 26, 2012
Yes. As weather patterns change due to Global Warming, areas that were dry will become and are becoming wet. Areas that are now wet will become and are becoming dry.

Such conceptually simple ideas are rocket science only to those who are very stupid, or who are paid to act very stupid.

"AGW causes drought, except when it causes flooding.
AGW causes flooding, except when it causes drought." - ParkerTard
Vendicar_Decarian
3 / 5 (4) Mar 26, 2012
"Translation: Lie. And don't get caught." - ParkerTard

While that is clearly your method of operation, scientists find themselves having to communicate with simpletons like yourself. And when communicating with a simpleton one has to dumb down concepts in order to make them understandable to the fool.

As a fool, you no doubt find it very easy to communicate foolishness to other fools.

We do not have that luxury.
Vendicar_Decarian
3 / 5 (4) Mar 26, 2012
No where in the video does it state that the earth's climate oscillates.

Americans have grown so stupid that they can't even figure out what a documentary is telling them.

Game over Batman.

"The video clearly indicates that Earth has a natural oscillating climate" - sigmaTard
Vendicar_Decarian
3 / 5 (4) Mar 26, 2012
Wow, melting that was never recorded in any records.

"The Arctic melted in the 1920s/30s/40s too." - Parker Tard

What a moron.
Vendicar_Decarian
2.6 / 5 (5) Mar 26, 2012
I am stating - not suggesting - that you have engaged in a lie by knowingly attempting to compare a change in the weather with (delta t) with the current average global temperature (T).

"Are you suggesting these scientists are lying to show cooling?" - UbvonTard

Perhaps you would like to use the excuse that you didn't know the difference between a temperature and a change in temperature?

Perhaps you would like to state that your 9 year trend was not only pointless, but it was statistically dishonest since any statisically valid year produces the exact opposite result.

Even moving your start point to the previous year does so.
Vendicar_Decarian
3 / 5 (4) Mar 26, 2012
The projections made in the year 2000 are not much different than they are today, which are a 3.5'C rise by 2100 and an additional 3.5'C rise in the following several centuries provide that CO2 emissions drop to zero at 2100.

"But this one reminds me of the 70s when they "predicted"in 2000 the planet would be facing starvation and 4.3 degrees C above.." - ClownBoy

One wonders what planet of Tards, ClownBoy comes from.
ubavontuba
1.5 / 5 (23) Mar 26, 2012
Sorry... You are wrong yet again.
Nope. Again, that'd be you.

The article doesn't state that the 70 meter rise will occur over the next 100 years.
Another VDitard strawman. When did I supposedly say the article states it'll rise 70 feet in 100 years?

All I said was:

"For sea levels to rise as much as the article claims, sea level rising trends would need to increase drastically. This simply isn't happening."

It's simple math even you can do. Their best case scenario (2 feet by the end of the 21st century) would require a rate of nearly 7 millimeters a year. The (so called) mean adjusted average rate is only about 3.1mm. Lately though, official sea levels have been falling (not rising). Therefore, sea level rates would actually have to make an about face!

Worse, everyone should know sea level data is corrupted with an added fudge factor (GIA correction). Even if it doesn't rise at all relative to land, they'll claim .3mm a year.
ubavontuba
1.5 / 5 (23) Mar 26, 2012
I am stating - not suggesting - that you have engaged in a lie by knowingly attempting to compare a change in the weather with (delta t) with the current average global temperature (T).
That's simply a lie. And, you're commenting on it in the wrong article thread. Is it really that hard for you to stay in context?

Anyway the article in question states:

Climate change has accelerated in the past decade,
All I did was prove that climate change has stalled, rather than "accelerated" as they and you claim. So, perhaps you might like to define this "acceleration?"

Perhaps you would like to use the excuse that you didn't know the difference between a temperature and a change in temperature?
I used global mean temperature graphs. Do you even know what a mean temperature is?

ubavontuba
1.5 / 5 (23) Mar 26, 2012
Perhaps you would like to state that your 9 year trend was not only pointless, but it was statistically dishonest since any statisically valid year produces the exact opposite result.
My trend graphs were relevant to the context of the article, yours were not. The article clearly defined the period from "2001 to 2010." Therefore yours were at best irrelevant, and at worst, bold-faced lies.

Even moving your start point to the previous year does so.

To stay within the defined period, at most, you could show the full year for 2010 (but not 2000).

So, if they meant from the beginning of 2001 to the end of 2010, it looks like this:

http://www.woodfo...11/trend

Like I said, no matter how you slice it, the period in question saw no global warming. Will you admit it now?

RitchieGuy
1.2 / 5 (18) Mar 28, 2012
@ubavontuba
It's a proven fact that AGWites like Venditard will lie through their teeth and steal your grandma's eyeballs if it could further their crimes against humanity. They also blame corporations when it is the corporate bigshots that they should lean on, not the corporation itself. These and other things have been told to them again and again but to no avail. AGWites are proven to not see nor hear the truth, and they refuse even to acknowledge the role of natural causes in global warming. . .such as the active volcanoes under the ice in Antarctica that are the real reasons for the ice sheet melting. We are all hoping for Venditard's redemption and coming away from the dark side, but it will most likely never happen. So we just give him a virtual pat on the head, say good boy, and tell him to eat his spinach. That is all we can do. (shrug)
ryggesogn2
1.6 / 5 (20) Mar 28, 2012
I have lived in Wilmington NC most of my 53 years and I know is the first time we have ever had to cut the grass here in the middle of Feb. Call it what ever you want and for whatever reasons why but it's warming up here. We've been having odd weather for a number of years now.

If you must cut the grass in mid Feb for the next 30 years then you may be able to call it climate change.
Vendicar_Decarian
2.6 / 5 (5) Mar 28, 2012
So, all you are saying is that the ocean level can't rise to level x, because the rate of rise isn't high enough.

All you said was that magnitude <> rate of change * time.

"All I said was:

"For sea levels to rise as much as the article claims, sea level rising trends would need to increase drastically. This simply isn't happening." - UbVonTard

Moron
Vendicar_Decarian
2.6 / 5 (5) Mar 28, 2012
Tard Boy shows that he has a tiny capability to learn.

"If you must cut the grass in mid Feb for the next 30 years then you may be able to call it climate change." - Ryggtard

A decade or so of such a change would be sufficient to show that the climate system had passed through a "tipping point".

Such a dramatic change of 20'C every year would not require 30 years to be proof of climate change when 0.5'C is the natural variability in the climate over shorter periods.

NotParker
1.6 / 5 (20) Mar 28, 2012
125 inches of snow in 3 days in Washington State

http://iceagenow....y-night/

4 feet of snow for California

http://iceagenow....ifornia/

Ice 20 to 30 percent above 1979 to 2000 average.

http://iceagenow....-1979-2/
NotParker
1.6 / 5 (20) Mar 28, 2012
A decade or so of such a change would be sufficient to show that the climate system had passed through a "tipping point".


Ice area has hit the blue dotted line despite one person cutting his grass in Wlmington!

Arctic Ice Area increasing!!!!!!

Ice Age Now!!!!!!!

http://arctic-roo...area.png
NotParker
1.6 / 5 (20) Mar 28, 2012
... despite one person cutting his grass in Wlmington!


Sea surface temperatures around Greenland and Alaska are far below normal, indicating a delayed start to the Arctic melt season.

http://www.real-s...larmists
ubavontuba
1.5 / 5 (22) Mar 28, 2012
@VDtard
So, all you are saying is that the ocean level can't rise to level x, because the rate of rise isn't high enough.

All you said was that magnitude <> rate of change * time.

What's the context? Have you forgotten?

Also, support you own cause and please explain how a decade of declining global temperatures is actually "accelerated" global warming. Can you?
RitchieGuy
1 / 5 (14) Mar 29, 2012
http://www.physor...led.html
Scientists have revealed details of the world's most extreme deep-sea volcanic vents, 5 kilometres down in a rift in the Caribbean seafloor.

http://www.physor...ght.html
The recycling of the Earth's crust in volcanoes happens much faster than scientists have previously assumed. Rock of the oceanic crust, which sinks deep into the earth due to the movement of tectonic plates, reemerges through volcanic eruptions after around 500 million years. German researchers from the Max Planck Institute for Chemistry in Mainz obtained this result using volcanic rock samples. Previously, geologists thought this process would take about two billion years.

CO2 is continuously released into the Earth's atmosphere from the sea floor through hydrothermal vents and tectonic plate subduction. What gases were sequestered in the oceans during Glacial Period are coming up now. . .
RitchieGuy
1 / 5 (13) Mar 29, 2012
the amount of gases from these vents and subduction are exacerbated by active undersea volcanism. That volcanism is usually compounded by seawater flowing into hydrothermal vents and being turned into steam when mixed with magma from below. This steam contains the CO2 and other gases which rise up from the vents to the ocean surfaces. . .along with magma. Fumaroles are potential volcanoes and will gradually build up cones, depending on the amount of magma in the chambers and pressure from below the sea floor.
To ignore and/or sweep volcanism under the rug as a dangerous source of toxic gases is sheer stupidity. It will happen anyway no matter what is done to people above ground and above the seas. It is the natural order of the Earth's cycles and will continue long after and in spite of the extinction of the human species, if that ever happens. The process has been happening long before the first single celled organism and will continue always. Life on Earth is an anomaly . . .and it
RitchieGuy
1 / 5 (13) Mar 29, 2012
is in our best interest to admit that we and other life on Earth are all anomalous creatures. It would be best to acknowledge that we are here only by accident and that we have no power over the natural order of the Earth's cycles. Then try to live within the Earth's rules, if that is at all possible. To struggle against the Earth is useless. It is not possible to win.
It may be best to just educate the masses AND their leaders, and try to mitigate the problems that the masses create through their not adhering to good conservation practices. AND, it would be best for world leaders and GW preachers like AlGore to live the way they want the masses to live.
I.E. . .BE good role models for the rest of humanity. It is ridiculous to expect the masses to be good conservationists when AlGore himself is not following his own advice. He may THINK the joke is on us, but we do understand his scheme nevertheless.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.3 / 5 (15) Mar 29, 2012
uh nice book report ritchie. So youre saying now that AGW is not causing volcanos? Maybe it is causing fumaroles which are potential volcanos (?)

Anomalous adj
: inconsistent with or deviating from what is usual, normal, or expected : irregular, unusual

-This would describe you would it not?
RitchieGuy
1 / 5 (12) Mar 30, 2012
LOL. . .the GhostofShitto cannot prove its point, so it has to look in a dictionary to find out a definition of a word that any fifth grader already understands. It proves time after time that its mom wasn't aware that she had an imbecile factory between her t-h-i-g-h-s .

As I have said before and will continue to say again. . .geothermal and hydrothermal volcanic eruptions are the main causes of GW and the CO2 and other gases are a product of that volcanic action.
GhostofShitto, as usual, has misinterpreted what I have said previously due to a severe lack of reading comprehension skills and chooses to compound its mistakes by misquoting me time and time again, in the hopes of making itself popular with Physorg administrators and commenters.
TheGhostofShitto is a certified troll and follows people into threads and misquotes them. It is part of the bully factor, god complex and the Dunning-Kruger effect combined that GhostofShitto suffers from. FrankHerbert, et al must be lurking.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.8 / 5 (15) Mar 30, 2012
GhostofShitto, as usual, has misinterpreted what I have said previously due to a severe lack of reading comprehension skills
-You have a severe lack of comprehension skills.
and chooses to compound its mistakes by misquoting me time and time again
-What you SAID was:
The Earth is warming, therefore the CO2 emerges out of the Earth as a result of that warming. It's a gas, so it rises and increases its volume in the atmosphere. Due to the Earth being in a warming cycle, more plants grow and take in that excess CO2. The more plants there are, the less atmospheric CO2. That's what I see in that page.
-To which I wondered:
So uh Ritchie are you saying that the earth is warming from the inside? Because this is the only way to affect CO2 release from earths interior.
-To which I added:
You couldnt be talking about clathrates because they are not IN the earth
-Remember ritchie?

-Caught you in another lie, trying to cover up yet one more dumbass faux pas. Au Revoir.
RitchieGuy
1.3 / 5 (16) Mar 30, 2012
LOL. . .GhostofShitto misquotes me about the clathrates. I had said that the clathrates were with the LIQUID CO2 FROM DEEP HYDROTHERMAL VENTS AND WERE IN THE BUBBLES THAT FORMED FROM THOSE VENTS IN UNDERSEA VOLCANOES. . .AND WHEN THE BUBBLES ROSE UP FROM THE VENTS, AT A CERTAIN DEPTH, THE CLATHRATES DISSOLVED AND THE CO2 BOILED INTO A GAS AND THAT GAS BROKE THE SURFACE INTO THE ATMOSPHERE.
LMAO. . . .(snicker) :P
That is yet another instance of GhostofShitto's lack of reading comprehension skills. Somehow, I am starting to believe that GhostofShitto and FrankHerbert are one and the same person. . .along with FrankHerbert's many sockpuppets.
Everyone else understood what I said. . .even my bro VendiTard
RitchieGuy
1.2 / 5 (17) Mar 30, 2012
the Earth may, indeed, be warming, but it is due mostly to volcanic action, as I've said before in other threads. The magma flows upward into hydrothermal vents, and the pressure from that magma pushes the gases (in the form of bubbles) up and out through those vents. and into the atmosphere.
Now how hard is that to comprehend? Even my bro VendiTard must understand the process of the gas bubbles floating up from the sea floor if he has done the saltwater bathtub experiment like I advised him to do. :)
Vendicar_Decarian
4 / 5 (4) Mar 30, 2012
You mean the volcanic action that is measured to produce less than 1 percent of man's CO2 emissions?

Or are you jabbering about Volcanic Emissions on your home planet of ConservaDopia?

"The Earth may, indeed, be warming, but it is due mostly to volcanic action" - Richie Tard
Vendicar_Decarian
4 / 5 (4) Mar 30, 2012
An amusing speculation for which there is negative evidence.

If this were the case then CO2 concentrations in ocean water would increase with depth, but they do not.

http://www.seafri...nph1.jpg

Poor Tard Boy. Always wrong. Always anti-science.

That is what you get when you replace logic and reason with mindless Libertarian/Randite/Conservative ideology.

"Even my bro VendiTard must understand the process of the gas bubbles floating up from the sea floor..." - RichieTard
Vendicar_Decarian
3 / 5 (4) Mar 30, 2012
Like all Conservatives, Richie Tard gets caught telling a lot of lies.

"Caught you in another lie, trying to cover up yet one more dumbass faux pas." - Otto
Vendicar_Decarian
3.7 / 5 (3) Mar 30, 2012
On top of Mt. Raneir.

"4 feet of snow for California" - ParkerTard

From your own reference...

Mt Rainier Expecting 125 inches (more than 10 ft) of new snow by Friday night

Oh... And Mt. Rainier isn't in California moron. It is in Washington State.

Why do you feel a need to lie with every breath ParkerTard?
Vendicar_Decarian
3 / 5 (4) Mar 30, 2012
Tard Boy... Every grade school student learns that a sample size of 9 is not a statistically significant sample size.

"My trend graphs were relevant to the context of the article" - UbVonTard

You need a sample size of around 32 elements even to compute a statistically significant mean in a large population.

Poor UbVon... You really are dumber than a grade 7 student who has a passing grade.

Do you intend to remain that ignorant for the rest of your life?

Vendicar_Decarian
3 / 5 (4) Mar 30, 2012
"Their best case scenario (2 feet by the end of the 21st century) would require a rate of nearly 7 millimeters a year." - RbVonTard

Once again you are presuming a 100 (approx) year span of time after claiming that you had not done so.

Do you blame your congenital need to lie on poor parenting? A psychological disorder? Or brain cancer?
Vendicar_Decarian
3 / 5 (4) Mar 30, 2012
The correction for glacial isostatic adjustment (GIA) accounts for the fact that the ocean basins are getting slightly larger since the end of the last glacial cycle.

"Worse, everyone should know sea level data is corrupted with an added fudge factor (GIA correction)." - UbVonTard

I see, so in your bizzaro world the plastic flow of the earth's crust changes on at least a yearly basis or is random for some reason, even when satellites have measured never measured any such thing.

Does your claimed global warming Conspiracy now include the Satellite manufacturers and operators?

Vendicar_Decarian
3 / 5 (4) Mar 30, 2012
Sorry Tard Boy, but you don't even have enough data to compute a statistically valid average temperature over your roughly decade long data set that is cherry picked to have 1998 as a warm year to pull up the low end.

"All I did was prove that climate change has stalled" - UbVonTard

Odd how your "proof" vanishes when the year 1997 is used as a starting point or 1999, or virtually any other year.

Perhaps you don't know what "proof" means.
Vendicar_Decarian
3 / 5 (4) Mar 30, 2012
But when you select a start point that starts a year earlier, or later, it did.

And that is why your Tard Boy claim isn't supported by reality.

"Like I said, no matter how you slice it, the period in question saw no global warming" - UbVonTard

You have no statistically valid argument.

No, global warming hasn't stopped

http://www.newsci...ppe.html

Sceptical climate scientists concede Earth has warmed

http://www.newsci...med.html
Vendicar_Decarian
3 / 5 (4) Mar 30, 2012
Faith in the face of contrary evidence is a wondrous thing to behold. And something that needs to be eradicated from the face of the earth.

"As I have said before and will continue to say again. . .geothermal and hydrothermal volcanic eruptions are the main causes of GW and the CO2 and other gases are a product of that volcanic action. " - RichieTard

You poor, delusional Tard.
ubavontuba
1.7 / 5 (22) Mar 31, 2012
@VDtard,
Once again you are presuming a 100 (approx) year span of time after claiming that you had not done so.

Do you blame your congenital need to lie on poor parenting? A psychological disorder? Or brain cancer?
Moron. You've completely lost the context.

You complained when I stated the rate would need to increase dramatically over the current rate to match the article. The article gives its best (least severe) case as 2 feet by 2100.

What's the matter VDtard, is the math too difficult for you?
ubavontuba
1.7 / 5 (23) Mar 31, 2012
Tard Boy... Every grade school student learns that a sample size of 9 is not a statistically significant sample size.
Another VDtard lie. My 9-year graph was created to match the claim period of the article. Are you suggesting the article is wrong?

Why don't you answer my question: Where's this supposed "accelerated" global warming the article claims?

You need a sample size of around 32 elements even to compute a statistically significant mean in a large population.
It depends what you're graphing. In climate, 14 years is nearly half of a standard climate cycle. That's significant, and enough to show trends.

You really are dumber than a grade 7 student who has a passing grade.
That'd be you. You still believe in global warming, even though it stalled out 14 years ago!

Do you intend to remain that ignorant for the rest of your life?
Just because you don't understand it, doesn't mean it isn't true.
ubavontuba
1.7 / 5 (24) Mar 31, 2012
The correction for glacial isostatic adjustment (GIA) accounts for the fact that the ocean basins are getting slightly larger since the end of the last glacial cycle.
Which has absolutely nothing to do with the sea level relative to land.

I see, so in your bizzaro world the plastic flow of the earth's crust changes on at least a yearly basis or is random for some reason, even when satellites have measured never measured any such thing.

Does your claimed global warming Conspiracy now include the Satellite manufacturers and operators?
They've added the irrelevant .3 just to justify clams the sea is rising (currently, it's falling, even including their stupid .3mm GIA correction).
ubavontuba
1.8 / 5 (25) Mar 31, 2012
Sorry, but you don't even have enough data to compute a statistically valid average temperature over your roughly decade long data set that is cherry picked to have 1998 as a warm year to pull up the low end.
That's a lie, and you know it. Let's go back and use the article's claim of "accelerated" global warming from 2001 - 2010. What happens then, VDtard? It might be accelerating, but it's accelerating downward!

Odd how your "proof" vanishes when the year 1997 is used as a starting point or 1999, or virtually any other year.
Idiot. That would be because the stall began in 1998. Not 1997 or 1999.

Perhaps you don't know what "proof" means.
Perhaps you don't know what a trend is.

Periodic ups and downs are normal. The trend has been flat (no net global warming) since 1/1/1998.

You're panicking over an effect which hasn't existed in 14 years!
Vendicar_Decarian
3 / 5 (4) Mar 31, 2012
You stated...

"For sea levels to rise as much as the article claims, sea level rising trends would need to increase drastically."

And as we know that for sea levels to rise as the article claims, then any rate of change will do since no date is specified by the article for the 70 meter claim.

On the other hand your 2 foot claim does have a date back computed from your stated rate of rise, And that date is approximately 100 years from now.

So you are once again lying when you claim....

"You complained when I stated the rate would need to increase " - UbvonTard

And since the rate need not change at all, your statement remains a lie.
Vendicar_Decarian
3 / 5 (4) Mar 31, 2012
Re: GIA

"Which has absolutely nothing to do with the sea level relative to land." - UbVonTard

If the ocean basins are getting larger my little moron where do you think the downswelling rock of the mantle is going?

You are almost as stupid as Conservative ParkerTard.

Given that you are probably the same person I don't find it a surprise at all.

Vendicar_Decarian
3.7 / 5 (3) Mar 31, 2012
It is measured directly by satellite. You pathetic Moron.

"They've added the irrelevant .3 just to justify clams the sea is rising."

Do you intend to be a liar for the rest of your life?
Vendicar_Decarian
3.7 / 5 (3) Mar 31, 2012
Educate yourself.. Moron.

"That's a lie, and you know it." - UbVonTard

http://www.statso...oncepts/

http://en.wikiped...ificance

http://en.wikiped...mination
Vendicar_Decarian
3.7 / 5 (3) Mar 31, 2012
A "stall" that extends through the period 1-14, but not 2-14.

Ahahahahahahahah.....................

You really are one special kind of ParkerTard type Moron aren't you?

"That would be because the stall began in 1998. Not 1997 or 1999." - UbVonTard

You just keep on digging yourself deeper and deeper into a hole.

You trying to tunnel your way back to planet Conesrvadopia?
Vendicar_Decarian
3.7 / 5 (3) Mar 31, 2012
And that... Tard Boy, is why there is no statistical significance to your 14 entry list.

"Periodic ups and downs are normal." - UbVonTard

Natural climate variability produces a natural noise level of about 0.5'C. Any change within that range can not be distinguished from normal climate noise.

You poor Ignorant Tard.
Vendicar_Decarian
3 / 5 (4) Mar 31, 2012
Your two sentences contradict each other and you aren't even bright enough to know it.

Ahaahahahahahah.......... Use the above links and educate your own dumb ass. Or find a grade 10 student to explain it to you.

MOOOOOOOOORRRRRRRRRROOOOOOOOOONNNNNNNNNNN

"Periodic ups and downs are normal. The trend has been flat (no net global warming) since 1/1/1998." - UbVonTard
ubavontuba
1.5 / 5 (17) Mar 31, 2012
You stated...

"For sea levels to rise as much as the article claims, sea level rising trends would need to increase drastically."

And as we know that for sea levels to rise as the article claims, then any rate of change will do since no date is specified by the article for the 70 meter claim.
That's a lie. They give "from centuries to a few thousand years," This is sufficient to reasonably work out a worst case scenario.

On the other hand your 2 foot claim does have a date back computed from your stated rate of rise, And that date is approximately 100 years from now.
Another lie. It's about 88 years from now.

So you are once again lying when you claim....
Obviously, that's you.

And since the rate need not change at all, your statement remains a lie.
Wow. You're terrible at math ...and facts ...and truth, aren't you?

So tell us. Just how long will the sea level need to fall for it to achieve a two foot rise? (snicker)

ubavontuba
1.5 / 5 (16) Mar 31, 2012
Re: GIA

"Which has absolutely nothing to do with the sea level relative to land." - Uba

If the ocean basins are getting larger my little moron where do you think the downswelling rock of the mantle is going?
It doesn't matter. AGWites are using this correction to support their claims the oceans are going to overrun the land. It's irrelevant to land.

You are almost as stupid as Conservative ParkerTard.
And he's brilliant, as opposed to you.

Given that you are probably the same person I don't find it a surprise at all.
Nope. I'm my own person, with no sockpuppets (unlike you).

ubavontuba
1.5 / 5 (17) Mar 31, 2012
It is measured directly by satellite.
No it's not. The .3 is a fudge factor added to the measurements, nimrod.

You pathetic Moron.
Yes you are, but what am I?

Do you intend to be a liar for the rest of your life?
Unlike you, I'm not into that sort of thing.

Again, please explain how a decade of cooling is "accelerated" global warming.

ubavontuba
1.5 / 5 (17) Mar 31, 2012
Educate yourself.. Moron.
You need to read your own references. My graphs meet all the criteria of being statistically significant.

A "stall" that extends through the period 1-14, but not 2-14.

Ahahahahahahahah.....................

You really are one special kind of ParkerTard type Moron aren't you?
It's called a "dependent variable." Again, read your own references.

I never claimed there weren't any hotter or cooler years during the trend. This comes from you. All I've claimed is there's been no net global warming for 14 years. You've yet to prove otherwise. You're reduced to cherry picking the data just to show one anomalous year of warming. What does that say about the other years? Can you say, "cooling."

You just keep on digging yourself deeper and deeper into a hole.
No, that'd be you.

You trying to tunnel your way back to planet Conesrvadopia?
I'm a lifelong democrat. How about you? Green Party kook, I'm guessing.
ubavontuba
1.5 / 5 (16) Mar 31, 2012
And that, is why there is no statistical significance to your 14 entry list.
Isn't it interesting you can't actually argue against the 14 year trend, but can only cherry pick the data to create an alternative and statistically invalid trend?

And please, kindly explain how a decade long cooling trend is "accelerated" global warming. We really want to know how that works. Is it something like you magical oceans which rise while falling?

"Periodic ups and downs are normal." - Uba

Natural climate variability produces a natural noise level of about 0.5'C. Any change within that range can not be distinguished from normal climate noise.
In a single year, but not over 14 years.

You poor Ignorant Tard.
Talking about yourself again? You really shouldn't be so hard on yourself.

ubavontuba
1.5 / 5 (16) Mar 31, 2012
Your two sentences contradict each other and you aren't even bright enough to know it.
Apaprently, you don't even know the difference between data, and trends.

Ahaahahahahahah.......... Use the above links and educate your own dumb ass. Or find a grade 10 student to explain it to you.
I suggest you follow your own advice. And while you're at it, please provide any clause from your references which invalidates my graphs. Can you? (snicker)

MOOOOOOOOORRRRRRRRRROOOOOOOOOONNNNNNNNNNN
Ah, the call of the dawn moron. Species name: Venditard ditardius

"Periodic ups and downs are normal.
This is data (represented by points on a graph - normally linked by lines to demonstrate movement), and...

The trend has been flat (no net global warming) since 1/1/1998."
...this is the trend (an averaging of the data points over time).

Are we learning yet?

Russkiycremepuff
1 / 5 (13) Mar 31, 2012
This serious article is catnip for crazy people; they're rolling on the rug in delirium.

Increasing greenhouse gases will warm the planet. That's settled science. We've injected enough CO2 into the atmosphere to put it into a state which hasn't been seen in two million years. The study just tells us what sea levels were like during that high CO2 era.

But it's not concluding that our climate future will resemble what happened two million years ago. It can't conclude that. We're still pumping CO2 and other greenhouse gases into the atmosphere; concentrations are still going up. And nobody really knows how that will play out.

We know there are feedback loops. There may also be tipping points. We aren't sure if a phase change could happen, or when, but if it does, extinctions could become dramatic.

If you enjoy worrying, read up on arctic methane clathrates. They might not remain stable during a prolonged period of warming, and the total mass of them is enormous.


yes
Vendicar_Decarian
3 / 5 (4) Apr 01, 2012
"That's a lie. They give "from centuries to a few thousand years," - UbVonTard

For the melting of various ice sheets. Your lie comes from the false presumption that they claim all will melt in 88 years (your claim). In fact 88 years is never mentioned by anyone but you.

So you lie twice.

This is not surprising given your recent admission that you intend to continue to be a congenital liar for the rest of your life.

Vendicar_Decarian
3.7 / 5 (3) Apr 01, 2012
"Another lie. It's about 88 years from now." - UbVonTard

The article never mentions 88 years. That is your lie.

The article uses the term "centuries" which you then dishonestly claim means a single century and then dishonestly presume to mean a calendar century rather than an interval and compute to be 88 years.

Lying is pretty much all you do at this point.

Vendicar_Decarian
3.7 / 5 (3) Apr 01, 2012
"It doesn't matter." - UbVonTard

It doesn't matter where the volume of rock under the ocean is going? when it comes to measuring ocean levels?

God you are stupid.

It is going to pushing up the continents.

They are still rebounding from the last ice age. And as they rise, the ocean basins become slightly deeper.

So if you are interested in the rate at which the ocean's are filling with melt water, then you had better take that into account.

Which is precisely what the GIA does.

You whined about it. Iv'e now twice explained it.

Suck it up. Moron.
Vendicar_Decarian
3.7 / 5 (3) Apr 01, 2012
"No it's not. The .3 is a fudge factor added to the measurements, nimrod." - UbVonTard

Yes, to compensate for the increasing depth of the ocean basins.

Obviously it's too complicated for your tiny little brain to comprehend.
Vendicar_Decarian
3.7 / 5 (3) Apr 01, 2012
It's kinda like the difference between peas and love.

"Apaprently, you don't even know the difference between data, and trends." - UbVonTard

It is sad that you have recently admitted that you intend to remain a congenital liar for the rest of your life.

It makes you less than worthless.

Vendicar_Decarian
3.7 / 5 (3) Apr 01, 2012
Odd how your trend goes away when you consider the same data over 15 years or 13 years.

The fact that the results change character so dramatically between over those three years screams out that your "trend" in the weather is statistically insignificant.

"Isn't it interesting you can't actually argue against the 14 year trend" - UbVonTard

I have send you to a link where you could have taught yourself about statistical significance. Yet you remain completely ignorant.

The failure - as always - is yours.
Vendicar_Decarian
3.7 / 5 (3) Apr 01, 2012
Natural climate variability produces a natural noise level of about 0.5'C. Any change within that range can not be distinguished from normal climate noise.

"In a single year, but not over 14 years." - UbVonTard

Since climate changes so slowly 1 year, 10 years 20 years, it's all pretty much the same. The natural variance is around 0.5'C over the minimim climatological period of roughly 30 years.

Any change less than this is attributable to noise.

More precisely, any trend (on non trend) within that range is statistically indistinguishable from noise.

A plateau in the data for example might very well be natural variations in the climate masking a real increase. The opposite can also be true, an observed warming of that amount may be spurious and really be caused by noise.

You have been told this many ways, many different times.
And still you persist in childishly lying about it.

Vendicar_Decarian
3.7 / 5 (3) Apr 01, 2012
"I'm a lifelong democrat" - UbVonTard

And in another tread admitted that it is your goal to continue to be a congenital liar for the rest of your life.

So, we know you aren't a Democrat.
Vendicar_Decarian
3.7 / 5 (3) Apr 01, 2012
"Again, please explain how a decade of cooling is "accelerated" global warming." - UbVonTard

Talk of "global cooling" based on bogus statistics

http://arstechnic...tics.ars

Statisticians: "Global Cooling" a Myth
http://www.cbsnew...035.html

The Stats Are In: No Global Cooling
http://www.univer...cooling/

Recent global cooling isn't in the statistics
http://climatespi...-in.html

No Global Cooling Despite Skeptic Spin
http://www.desmog...tic-spin

Global cooling scam debunked yet again
http://grist.org/...t-again/
ubavontuba
1.6 / 5 (14) Apr 01, 2012
"That's a lie. They give "from centuries to a few thousand years," - Uba

For the melting of various ice sheets.
Wrong, for the 70 foot rise (which requires the icesheets to melt).

Your lie comes from the false presumption that they claim all will melt in 88 years (your claim).
Straw man. when did I claim that?

In fact 88 years is never mentioned by anyone but you.
Just how many years do you think lie between now and the year 2100? Can't you do even the simplest math?

So you lie twice.
Your failure at comprehension does not indicate a lie on my part.

This is not surprising given your recent admission that you intend to continue to be a congenital liar for the rest of your life.
Another straw man. When did I say exactly that? Please, give it to us in context.
ubavontuba
1.5 / 5 (15) Apr 01, 2012
"Another lie. It's about 88 years from now." - Uba

The article never mentions 88 years. That is your lie.

The article uses the term "centuries" which you then dishonestly claim means a single century and then dishonestly presume to mean a calendar century rather than an interval and compute to be 88 years.
Idiot. The article uses "The current trajectory for the 21st century" in the context of the 2 foot rise. The 21st century ends in 2100, nimrod. So, it's 88 years or less (I gave them the benefit of the maximum period).

Lying is pretty much all you do at this point.
Again, your failure to comprehend does not indicate a lie on my part.

All you're doing is showing you're so stupid you can't comprehend context, and can't even do simple math!
ubavontuba
1.5 / 5 (15) Apr 01, 2012
"It doesn't matter." - Uba

It doesn't matter where the volume of rock under the ocean is going? when it comes to measuring ocean levels?
Not to us land dwellers.

God you are stupid.
Says the idiot who can't even do simple math.

It is going to pushing up the continents.
Keeping 'em high and dry, right?

They are still rebounding from the last ice age. And as they rise, the ocean basins become slightly deeper.
So?

So if you are interested in the rate at which the ocean's are filling with melt water, then you had better take that into account.
Sure, but that's not the contest. The context was in relation to coastal flooding.

Which is precisely what the GIA does.
It's just a guess.

You whined about it. Iv'e now twice explained it.
out of context.

Suck it up. Moron.
Ah, you shouldn't be so hard on yourself. It's okay that you're learning disabled. No one is good at everything.
ubavontuba
1.5 / 5 (15) Apr 01, 2012
"No it's not. The .3 is a fudge factor added to the measurements, nimrod." - Uba

Yes, to compensate for the increasing depth of the ocean basins.

Obviously it's too complicated for your tiny little brain to comprehend.
Obviously, it's too complicated for you to understand context. Are you a 'bot?
ubavontuba
1.5 / 5 (15) Apr 01, 2012
It's kinda like the difference between peas and love.

"Apaprently, you don't even know the difference between data, and trends." - Uba

It is sad that you have recently admitted that you intend to remain a congenital liar for the rest of your life.

It makes you less than worthless.
It's sad you revealed yourself to be a murderous, nut-job, eco-terrorist.
ubavontuba
1.5 / 5 (15) Apr 01, 2012
Odd how your trend goes away when you consider the same data over 15 years or 13 years.
It's only odd to you, because you don't understand statistics.

The fact that the results change character so dramatically between over those three years screams out that your "trend" in the weather is statistically insignificant.
14 years isn't insignificant.

"Isn't it interesting you can't actually argue against the 14 year trend" - Uba

I have send you to a link where you could have taught yourself about statistical significance. Yet you remain completely ignorant.
And I pointed out how you needed to learn from your own links.

The failure - as always - is yours.
Nope, that'd be you again. You even just recently admitted I was right, all along.
ubavontuba
1.5 / 5 (15) Apr 01, 2012
Natural climate variability produces a natural noise level of about 0.5'C. Any change within that range can not be distinguished from normal climate noise.

"In a single year, but not over 14 years." - Uba

Since climate changes so slowly 1 year, 10 years 20 years, it's all pretty much the same. The natural variance is around 0.5'C over the minimim climatological period of roughly 30 years.

Any change less than this is attributable to noise.

More precisely, any trend (on non trend) within that range is statistically indistinguishable from noise.

A plateau in the data for example might very well be natural variations in the climate masking a real increase. The opposite can also be true, an observed warming of that amount may be spurious and really be caused by noise.

You have been told this many ways, many different times.
And still you persist in childishly lying about it.
I never said things couldn't change. All I've said is global warming stalled out about 14 years ago.
ubavontuba
1.5 / 5 (15) Apr 01, 2012
"I'm a lifelong democrat" - UbVonTard

And in another tread admitted that it is your goal to continue to be a congenital liar for the rest of your life.
That's a lie.

So, we know you aren't a Democrat. Whatever.

You admitted to being a murderous, nut-job eco-terrorist. Seek help, VD.
ubavontuba
1.5 / 5 (15) Apr 01, 2012
"Again, please explain how a decade of cooling is "accelerated" global warming." - UbVonTard

Talk of "global cooling" based on bogus statistics
Why are the statistics only "bogus" when they show a cooling trend?

Anyway, I'm not claiming a cooling trend, only no net global warming for 14 years.

You already admitted I'm right.

TheGhostofOtto1923
1.3 / 5 (12) Apr 01, 2012
clathrates were with the LIQUID CO2 FROM DEEP HYDROTHERMAL VENTS AND WERE IN THE BUBBLES THAT FORMED FROM THOSE VENTS IN UNDERSEA VOLCANOES. . .AND WHEN blah
Clathrates in bubbles? You sure this is right Ritchie? Maybe you would do better linking to people who actually understand this stuff?

"Methane clathrate, also called methane hydrate, hydromethane, methane ice,"Fire ice natural gas hydrate or just gas hydrate, is a solid clathrate compound (more specifically, a clathrate hydrate) in which a large amount of methane is trapped within a crystal structure of water, forming a solid similar to ice."
Vendicar_Decarian
3.7 / 5 (3) Apr 01, 2012
The exact opposite is true of course. See the link below...

"Tide Gauges show a deceleration in sea level rise." - ParkerTard

http://www.skepti...lite.jpg

ParkerTard is a well known congenital liar.
Vendicar_Decarian
5 / 5 (1) Apr 01, 2012
a
NotParker
1.7 / 5 (18) Apr 01, 2012
"Tide Gauges show a deceleration in sea level rise."


Correct.

"In the December 11, 2008, issue of NRC/Handelsblad (Rotterdams counterpart to the Australian), Wilco Hazeleger, a senior scientist in the global climate research group at the Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute, wrote:

In the past century the sea level has risen 20 cm. There is no evidence for accelerated sea-level rise."

http://wattsupwit...ections/
Vendicar_Decarian
3.7 / 5 (3) Apr 01, 2012
Parker Tard makes the following statement.

"Tide Gauges show a deceleration in sea level rise." - Parker Tard

and then when provided with evidence that he is lying, provides the following 4 year old claim made in a disreputable denialist blog in yet another dishonest attempt to prove that he wasn't lying.

"There is no evidence for accelerated sea-level rise." - Disreputable denialist blog

No evidence of acceleration = deceleration according to ParkerTard

Comments from 2008 document events in 2012 according to ParkerTard

Comments from known liars are reputable according to ParkerTard

Like all Denialists, Parker Tard is well known as being a congenital liar.
ubavontuba
1.6 / 5 (14) Apr 02, 2012
The exact opposite is true of course. See the link below...
Try this one instead:

http://sealevel.c...obal.pdf
NotParker
1.5 / 5 (15) Apr 02, 2012
"Tide Gauges show a deceleration in sea level rise."


Correct.

"ONE of Australia's foremost experts on the relationship between climate change and sea levels has written a peer-reviewed paper concluding that rises in sea levels are "decelerating"."

http://www.theaus...99350056