Report: US to get seas rising by 2030 (Update)

Jun 22, 2012 by JEFF BARNARD
Global sea levels could rise two to three times higher over the next century than previously estimated, according to a study released Friday by the US National Research Council.

The West Coast will see an ocean several inches (centimeters higher in coming decades, with most of California expected to get sea levels a half foot higher by 2030, according a report released Friday.

The study by the National Research Council gives planners their best look yet at how melting ice sheets and warming oceans associated with climate change will raise sea levels along the country's Pacific coast. It is generally consistent with earlier global projections, but takes a closer look at California, Oregon and Washington.

Although the six inches expected for California by 2030 seem minor, the report estimated that sea levels there will be an average of three feet higher by 2100. About 72 percent of the state's coast is covered by sandy cliffs, and the rest include beaches, sand dunes, bays and estuaries.

Seaside cliffs will be cut back about 30 yards (meters) over the next 100 years, and sand dunes will be driven back even more, said Robert A. Dalrymple, a professor of civil engineering at Johns Hopkins University and chairman of the group that wrote the report. Coastal wetlands will be able to keep pace for about 50 years, but will eventually be overwhelmed without new sources of sand, and room to move inland.

The report noted that dams hold back about a third of that sand, which once washed into the sea from the Klamath River in Northern California.

Northern California, Oregon and Washington can expect a less dramatic increase — about four inches by 2030 and two feet by 2100 — because seismic activity is causing land to rise north of the San Andreas Fault, offsetting increasing sea levels, and drop south of it. The fault runs out to sea at Cape Mendocino.

Oregon has the advantage of tough basalt formations on much of the coast, but long stretches of Washington are low-lying sandy beaches.

"Anything close to the seas is vulnerable," Dalrymple said.

The most immediate threat over the next few decades will come from periodic ocean-warming El Nino events, said Gary Griggs, director of the Institute for Marine Sciences at the University of California at Santa Cruz, who was one of the scientists assembled by the council to produce the report.

"During those events, sea level is elevated as much as a foot above normal and then we've got typically larger waves coming in with the high tides," particularly in the Northwest, he said.

The report noted that some computer models suggest storms will be stronger as global warming progresses. But Dalrymple said there was no clear consensus in scientific literature, and data from ocean buoys showing waves getting bigger in the Northwest don't go back far enough to conclude that trend will continue.

If a major earthquake occurs beneath the Pacific Ocean off Oregon and Washington, in what is known as the Cascadia subduction zone, that would cause the land to drop, allowing sea level to rise another three to 6 feet (1.8 meters) immediately, the report said. Such a major temblor occurred 300 years ago, but becomes more likely as time passes.

The report was commissioned by states and federal agencies looking for detailed information so they can plan for an accelerated rate of erosion along beaches, bluffs and sand dunes that are already crumbling into the sea. It projected that sea level will rise a little lower in 2100 than the projections currently used by California officials.

"A lot of the data we had before was worldwide data or has the caveat, 'Can't be used for planning purposes,'" said Susan Hansch, chief deputy director of the California Coastal Commission. "It all comes down to the better data you have, the better decisions you can make."

Sea levels rise for two reasons due to global warming.

Warmer water expands, which can cause as many as 23 inches (58 centimeters) of sea level to rise by 2100, according to the Nobel Prize winning Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Warmer temperatures also cause ice sheets in Greenland and west Antarctica to melt slowly, adding another foot or more to sea levels by 2100, scientists said.

Those estimates, however, were for the planet as a whole. Some places will see higher seas, while others will get less dramatic increases.

Globally, sea levels have risen about eight inches over the last century, but the rate has been increasing significantly, said Griggs.

The report summarized published projections and updated it with an analysis of tidal gauge readings and satellite measurements along specific sites on the West Coast.

Explore further: Climate change 'secrets' recovered from bottom of Greenland lake

4.1 /5 (26 votes)
add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Experts mull future of Thames Barrier

Mar 24, 2008

Sea levels are rising much faster than when the Thames Barrier was designed, and British officials are looking ahead to new consider flood defenses.

Recommended for you

Aging Africa

8 hours ago

In the September issue of GSA Today, Paul Bierman of the University of Vermont–Burlington and colleagues present a cosmogenic view of erosion, relief generation, and the age of faulting in southernmost Africa ...

NASA animation shows Hurricane Marie winding down

9 hours ago

NOAA's GOES-West satellite keeps a continuous eye on the Eastern Pacific and has been covering Hurricane Marie since birth. NASA's GOES Project uses NOAA data and creates animations and did so to show the end of Hurricane ...

EU project sails off to study Arctic sea ice

14 hours ago

A one-of-a-kind scientific expedition is currently heading to the Arctic, aboard the South Korean icebreaker Araon. This joint initiative of the US and Korea will measure atmospheric, sea ice and ocean properties with technology ...

User comments : 143

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

freethinking
2.8 / 5 (32) Jun 22, 2012
Anyone want to take the bet that by 2050 the sea level wont rise seven or more inches?
derfolo
2.5 / 5 (21) Jun 22, 2012
Sure.
Sean_W
2.6 / 5 (23) Jun 22, 2012
Al Gore and company still not selling beachfront property.
Tangent2
2.1 / 5 (22) Jun 22, 2012
Just like weather reporters, they can't make up their minds.
A2G
2.1 / 5 (29) Jun 22, 2012
I live in Palm Springs Ca and so we here are obviously concerned about high temps. So I checked here to get the facts for myself about the temps rising.

http://www.weathe...oMonth=8

There I find that most of the high temps were long before 2000 and not after as many would want me to believe. The real data is there and you don't need a computer sim to figure it out.

Do it for your area and see what you find for yourself. But if figure that an area like Palm Springs when high temps are a big deal would really want to watch this. Does not look like a problem to me. But then again I am not getting $$$$$ to run a study.
A2G
2.3 / 5 (28) Jun 22, 2012
SO then I checked on NYC, NY and found the same thing.

http://www.weathe...oMonth=8

So where are all these rising temps at?

Maybe I just don't see it because I am not getting paid to see the data in the way I am told to.

AGW is a real money maker that is for sure, but not for honest people.
ryggesogn2
2.7 / 5 (30) Jun 22, 2012
"Basically, if the IPCC wanted to provide ammunition for climate change skeptics, they just handed over an entire arsenal. They are now saying the IPCC never had the best scientists in the field, they picked them based on how diverse it made the IPCC look. "
http://www.scienc...al-91262
NotParker
3.1 / 5 (29) Jun 22, 2012
Las Angeles disagrees.

"The mean sea level trend is 0.83 millimeters/year with a 95% confidence
interval of /- 0.27 mm/yr based on monthly mean sea level data from
1923 to 2006 which is equivalent to a change of 0.27 feet in 100 years."

http://tidesandcu...es,%20CA

As does San Francisco

"The mean sea level trend is 2.01 millimeters/year with a 95% confidence
interval of /- 0.21 mm/yr based on monthly mean sea level data from
1897 to 2006 which is equivalent to a change of 0.66 feet in 100 years."

http://tidesandcu...co,%20CA
Howhot
3.6 / 5 (14) Jun 22, 2012
Ahh man! Now I'll have to sell my house. (or wifi enabled beach shack).

Al Gore and company still not selling beachfront property.


Howhot
3.5 / 5 (13) Jun 22, 2012
Do it for your area

I did it for New York City and it looks like a feakin Hockey Stick.
NotParker
2.5 / 5 (22) Jun 22, 2012

There I find that most of the high temps were long before 2000


I tabulated the warmest month for each state. At the bottom are summaries for regions.

http://sunshineho...h-state/

All the yellow ones were set before 2000.

And thats with the NOAA manipulating the older data to make is cooler.

3 of Arizona's (and another 30 or so) are from the 1800s.
Vendicar_Decarian
3.2 / 5 (20) Jun 22, 2012
Who is Hank Campbell?

He is another Conservative nobody who writes a nonsense, anti-science blog.

Found on Hank's blog... under "articles"

"Viagra for sale online"
"Of the many viagra for sale online firm I depends upon the preferred the reuptake ED products..."

http://www.hankca...rticles/

Does more need to be said?

"Basically, if the IPCC wanted to provide ammunition for climate change skeptics, they just handed over an entire arsenal." - RyggTrd quoting Hank Campbell.
Ronan
4.1 / 5 (14) Jun 22, 2012
NotParker: Interesting, but as it is that doesn't really say much; it'd be a bit clearer whether there was any sort of trend if one were to look at, say, the number of records broken by decade. Going from your data, then, we have:
1890s: 35
1900s: 33
1910s: 44
1920s: 49
1930s: 113 (Why hello there, Dust Bowl!)
1940s: 45
1950s: 66
1960s: 45
1970s: 13
1980s: 46
1990s: 53
2000s: 87
2010s (and we're only two years in, mark you): 59

It's...hot now. Much hotter than usual. The 2010s have made a great start towards besting the 1930s as the United States' hottest decade, and the 2000s made a game try at it--and came a darn sight closer than any other decade. If this continues...well, it won't be pleasant. I doubt I need to remind you, but the 1930s were not a particularly fun time for the US, climatologically speaking, and we do NOT need a replay of that.
ryggesogn2
2.2 / 5 (21) Jun 23, 2012
but the 1930s were not a particularly fun time for the US, climatologically speaking, and we do NOT need a replay of that.

That is not all that is replaying from the 30s.
The US has Neville Chamberlain as president and there are NAZI equivalents threatening the world while the west 'fiddles' and destroys the economy, just as they did in the 30s.
Ronan
4.5 / 5 (8) Jun 23, 2012
Ah, well there you venture into waters that I'm not comfortable swimming in; far, far too subjective for my tastes.
Vendicar_Decarian
2.7 / 5 (19) Jun 23, 2012
Even though ParkerTard has biased the results with his treatment of ties, I have re-colored his chart showing records broken in the last 50 years.

https://docs.goog...mb1k4RFE

If there was no warming trend virtually all of the record highs should have happened within the first 100 years and virtually no red would appear in the chart at all.

"I tabulated the warmest month for each state. At the bottom are summaries for regions." - ParkerTard

Poor mentally diseased ParkerTard. He thinks that he can cherry pick his way to make his delusions, reality.
Vendicar_Decarian
2.8 / 5 (22) Jun 23, 2012
Link corrected

Even though ParkerTard has biased the results with his treatment of ties, I have re-colored his chart showing records broken in the last 50 years.

https://docs.goog...jdM/edit

If there was no warming trend virtually all of the record highs should have happened within the first 100 years and virtually no red would appear in the chart at all.

"I tabulated the warmest month for each state. At the bottom are summaries for regions." - ParkerTard

Poor mentally diseased ParkerTard. He thinks that he can cherry pick his way to make his delusions, reality.
Vendicar_Decarian
2.9 / 5 (19) Jun 23, 2012
Indeed. Demands by Repubican and Libertarians for economic austerity programs are threatening to push the U.S. into a grand depression similar to that seen in the 1930's.

"That is not all that is replaying from the 30s." - RyggTard
Vendicar_Decarian
2.8 / 5 (18) Jun 23, 2012
And posted it to your nonsense anti-science blog.

"I tabulated the warmest month for each state." - parkerTard

You are mentally diseased ParkerTard = Sunshinehours1.

Get psychiatric help.

Howhot
3.5 / 5 (21) Jun 23, 2012
You know what Vendi; You are right, Between R2, and Noparks (he hates parks btw), these people are mentally diseased! They must have ringworm in the brain. These people actually are cheering for the destruction of Earth or its take over by some goof-ball form of unregulated free-form free-for-all fascism! YEA R2!
djr
4.6 / 5 (9) Jun 23, 2012
Interesting quote from the NOAA web site -

"The probability of a record high being broken should decrease over time, but as the large amount of RED shows, it is increasing over time indicative of a warming trend."

I would think 'case closed' if we are trying to determine if there s a warming trend in the U.S. or not. Of course the U.S. is just a sub set of the whole picture - which as we have often discussed is cherry picking our data.

Here is the full picture. I guess it is supported by our sub set of data - but still more honest to look at the whole picture.

http://www.ncdc.n...-3-6.gif
BaconBits
4.4 / 5 (19) Jun 23, 2012
AG, Ryg, NP - constantly pandering to ignorance and shoddy thinking isn't helping your case.

It's possible you truly believe that eyeballing some numbers and looking for some anecdotes to buttress your pre-existing belief that there can't be any human caused warming is a valid way to make an argument - but even that's begun to strain credibility. Your persistence at making the same error ridden claims and denying 50 years of climate science by trying to assert that proper statistical methods and rigorous science should be supplanted by "its just so" story telling is tedious. You attempt to sow doubt, probably to serve your employer's selfish agenda, on a science news website with logic and reasoning that is antithetical to science. I'd ask you to stop, but you are either paid not to or so dogmatically blinded by your biases that you are willing to trash the only pragmatically useful tool humans have developed to make sense of the world.
seb
2.3 / 5 (3) Jun 23, 2012
So I am curious what happens when all that ice-weight is moved from the poles/mountains to the oceans, how that affects the weight distribution of the land masses and how they will react? Pole would rise, rest would fall? That could be dangerously earth shaking heh
Noumenon
1.9 / 5 (17) Jun 23, 2012
OK, VD, how about a direct quote from your prophet himself...

"The problem is we don't know what the climate is doing. We thought we knew 20 years ago. That led to some alarmist books mine included because it looked clear-cut, but it hasnt happened,..... The world has not warmed up very much since the millennium. Twelve years is a reasonable time ... it has stayed almost constant, whereas it "should have" been rising - carbon dioxide is rising, no question about that . . . Theres nothing much really happening yet. We were supposed to be halfway toward a frying world now," -

Quote from James Lovelock (April 2012), founder of the Gaia religion, and AGW propaganda alarmist extraordinaire.
PussyCat_Eyes
1.5 / 5 (15) Jun 23, 2012
So I am curious what happens when all that ice-weight is moved from the poles/mountains to the oceans, how that affects the weight distribution of the land masses and how they will react? Pole would rise, rest would fall? That could be dangerously earth shaking heh
- SEB

Obviously, there will be floods everywhere as the weight of ice mass enters the oceans and raises the water levels to 70 feet higher than we're used to. It will continue to get warmer with no cooling breezes and very little shade as roofs start to melt and tree tops turn brown. Humans will continue to cut down trees for fuel that will result in desertification everywhere that isn't flooded. The oceans themselves will start to boil as the temps approach 212* F.
As AlGore himself has said, the earth's core is very hot...millions of degrees hot. Those millions of degrees will come up through the mantle and boil the earth's atmosphere and regolith into a syrup.
There will be no place to hide. We are all doomed.
PussyCat_Eyes
1.9 / 5 (13) Jun 23, 2012
Millions of polar bears and seal pups have drowned already and their bodies feed the fishes. There will be others. As the temps in the oceans approach the boiling point, millions of humans in their underwear will flock to the shorelines to eat the crabs and lobsters cooked in seawater. Melted butter will be plentiful. The snow and ice runoff in the Himalayas will provide a playground for those with rubber tubes and rafts to float down the rivers and paddle to avoid whitewater rocks. People who never sweated before will be blinded. No longer will dry pits be fashionable as antiperspirants would be banned through regulations as to their chemical content.
Movie theaters and restaurants will be packed to take advantage of the air conditioning until nightfall when the sun goes down and the wind can't turn the props.
freethinking
3.2 / 5 (13) Jun 23, 2012
VD you need to stick your head out of your mothers basement sometime. Maybe your hate of all that is good will disapear when you actually see the sun.
ryggesogn2
2.3 / 5 (12) Jun 23, 2012
These people actually are cheering for the destruction of Earth

"Having observed that global temperatures since the turn of the millennium have not gone up in the way computer-based climate models predicted, Lovelock acknowledged, the problem is we dont know what the climate is doing. We thought we knew 20 years ago. Now, Lovelock has given a follow-up interview to the UKs Guardian newspaper in which he delivers more bombshells sure to anger the global green movement, which for years worshipped his Gaia theory and apocalyptic predictions that billions would die from man-made climate change by the end of this century."
"Lovelock blasted greens for treating global warming like a religion.

It just so happens that the green religion is now taking over from the Christian religion, Lovelock observed."
http://www.toront...n-drivel
ryggesogn2
2.2 / 5 (13) Jun 23, 2012
What the watermelons (green on the outside, red/socialist on the inside) will now do is treat Lovelock as a heretic as they did with Lomborg.
All that counts to the true believers is their cause, power.
Vendicar_Decarian
3.4 / 5 (15) Jun 23, 2012
First: Lovelock has been played up by the Conservative media as a "Guru of Global Warming", when in fact, his contributions to the field are essentially non-existent.

Second: He is 92, and the fact that his views have recently changed tells us more about changes in his brain than changes in the environment.

Third: He is correct in that the year to year weather is not predictable. Longer term climate trends in which the year to year weather noise can be ignored, is however predictable.

Forth: Recent climate has numerous periods which can be cherry picked to show periods of apparent cooling. This is the natural nature of noisy systems.

The trend however, remains up.

Fifth: Attribution studies concluded recently have shown that the reduced rate of warming seen over the last decade is principally caused by some extended La-Nina events which bring cooler water to the surface of the pacific.

"how about a direct quote from your prophet himself..." = NumenTard
Vendicar_Decarian
3.9 / 5 (11) Jun 23, 2012
If one presumes that there is no rise in temperature, then after 100 years of temperature records the probability of breaking a record is essentially zero, since the records will all have been broken earlier.

The fact that the data in your list has dozens of examples of records being broken over the last 20 years, indicates clearly that temperatures are rising.

"There I find that most of the high temps were long before 2000 and not after as many would want me to believe." - A2G

You are clueless, and ignorant of basic statistics.

Noumenon
1.9 / 5 (17) Jun 23, 2012
First: Lovelock has been played up by the Conservative media as a "Guru of Global Warming", when in fact, his contributions to the field are essentially non-existent. - VD


"Lovelocks invention of the electron capture detector in 1957 first enabled scientists to measure CFCs (chlorofluorocarbons) and other pollutants in the atmosphere, leading, in many ways, to the birth of the modern environmental movement.".

Second: He is 92, and the fact that his views have recently changed tells us more about changes in his brain than changes in the environment.


Why doesn't it tell you more about his scientific integrity and response to previous failed predictions?

This same ad hominem was used against the opinions of the great Freeman Dyson, and is typical of religious apologists in general.
Noumenon
1.5 / 5 (15) Jun 23, 2012
Third: He is correct in that the year to year weather is not predictable. Longer term climate trends in which the year to year weather noise can be ignored, is however predictable.


This failure he cited was not "year to year", it was over two decades. The salient point being, that alarmists such as Lovelock, MADE THE PREDICTIONS.
djr
4.3 / 5 (15) Jun 23, 2012
Noumenon - once again you deflect the argument - by throwing out noise. It does not matter what one person (James Lovelock) says. He is one person. I regard him as a fruit cake - that is not relevant to this discussion. Neither is Al Gore, or Dyson, or any one else you present to deflect the argument. When asking the question - is the earth warming or not? - we need to look at the data. I presented a long term - global data set. http://www.ncdc.n...-3-6.gif

Stop throwing out your noise - and starting meaningless spats over individual commentators. What if Lovelock has dementia? What if he is an attention seeker - who will change his story to get media attention. You guys are so frustrating with your diversionary nonsense - it does not matter what Al Gore says - what matters is the facts. Stick to the facts - not stupid diversions.
Noumenon
1.5 / 5 (17) Jun 23, 2012
it does not matter what Al Gore says - what matters is the facts. Stick to the facts - not stupid diversions.


The facts did not lead to alarmist predictions, as admitted by Lovelock. That is the point. You are the one tossing up noise via ad hominem attacks that Locklock has dementia, to side step the salient point made by me.

When asking the question - is the earth warming or not? - we need to look at the data.


This is not the only question, of course. More relevant questions are how fast is the global temperature supposedly rising, ..how severe will be the threat to humanity, ...is there is a serious threat at all,... and what should be done about it.

The alarmists answers were speculative, scientifically unfounded, and empirically incorrect as admitted by Locklock himself. Btw, Locklock is not "just some guy" in the climate industry.
ryggesogn2
2 / 5 (12) Jun 23, 2012
It does not matter what one person (James Lovelock) says.

That's correct. What matters is the data one person can collect to validate a theory.
What does not matter is what a 'consensus' believes.
djr
3.8 / 5 (10) Jun 23, 2012
"What does not matter is what a 'consensus' believes."

You need to explain more - because I think that what you just said is bull shit. For example - the current consensus is that vaccinating children is justified from a scientific perspective. There are individuals who claim to have data to support their own pet theory that mercury in vaccinations causes autism, and other disorders in children. Would you have your children vaccinated? I would - because I subscribe to the process of science - I believe in evidenciary based reasoning - how think you? I also think that you guys will do anything you can to muddy the waters - and throw out noise and distraction - because the evidence is not on your side.
wealthychef
3.7 / 5 (12) Jun 23, 2012
Just like weather reporters, they can't make up their minds.

LOL -- and just like climate deniers, you can't tell the difference between weather and climate. :-)
ryggesogn2
2.1 / 5 (11) Jun 23, 2012
justified from a scientific perspective.

AGW is not 'justified' by data.
djr
4.1 / 5 (13) Jun 23, 2012
"AGW is not 'justified' by data." Your statements are meaningless. Scientists are studying our climate - trying to advance our understanding of an incredibly complex system - trying to develop models that will help us predict future trends. You cannot produce data to contradict the notion that our globe is warming - the data is clear. What is the cause? The science points at greenhouse gases as the most likely culprit. All you have is meaningless statements such as AGW is not justified by the data. You have nothing to back it up. Grow up...
ubavontuba
1.9 / 5 (13) Jun 23, 2012
From the article:

Globally, sea levels have risen about eight inches over the last century, but the rate has been increasing significantly, said Griggs.
This just serves to show AGW scientists are liars. Does Griggs think we're so stupid we wouldn't check?

The sea level rise rate HASN'T been increasing and certainly not "significantly." In fact, quite the opposite.

http://sealevel.colorado.edu/

And what's with the all too pervasive, and fraudulently touted "accelerating effects of AGW" bull that's been all the rage in the headlines lately? Who thinks of these gimmicks?

If the AGW science is so strong, quit with the fraudulent claims of doom and gloom and show us the science. Where's the data supporting an "accelerating" effect? Just saying so in spite of the data isn't science. It's poppycock.

djr
4.1 / 5 (13) Jun 23, 2012
"The sea level rise rate HASN'T been increasing" Shit this stuff gets tiresome. You show us a 20 year graph - instead of doing a little more looking. Here's a quote for you. " Global average sea level rose at an average rate of around 1.7 ± 0.3 mm per year over 1950 to 2009 and at a satellite-measured average rate of about 3.3 ± 0.4 mm per year from 1993 to 2009, That is called an accelerating increase... My source - http://en.wikiped...vel_rise With all the data references you could want attached.
Vendicar_Decarian
3.2 / 5 (11) Jun 23, 2012
The Toronto SUN isn't known for it's accurate or ethical reporting, and the paragraph quoted below shows why.

"Lovelocks invention of the electron capture detector in 1957 first enabled scientists to measure CFCs (chlorofluorocarbons) and other pollutants in the atmosphere, leading, in many ways, to the birth of the modern environmental movement." - NumenTard

Tards like NumenTard believe anthing that supports their conservative liedeology.

In reality Lovelock initially claimed after finding CFC's in the atmosphere that "CFCs constituted "no conceivable hazard", recanting once it was shown that the UV breakdown of CFC's releases chlorine into the upper atmosphere.

Lovelock did produce the Gaia hypothesis, a hypothesis villified by Conservatives, and other Malfunctionals, but Lovelock was never responsible for the birth of the environmental movement, which which is actually centuries old.

ryggesogn2
1.7 / 5 (11) Jun 23, 2012
What is the cause?

Yes, what is the cause of the MWP, which was warmer than today.
Why did Mann et al and other AGWites feel the need to hide the MWP with the hockey stick?
The real inconvenient truth is the AGWites don't have the data to explain the climate changes that occurred 1200 years ago with millions fewer people and NO SUVs.

A model must explain past data AND predict future observations. Global climate models can't do that.
Vendicar_Decarian
3.2 / 5 (13) Jun 23, 2012
Because at 92, he doesn't have enough brain cells left to know enough science to know what he is talking about.

There is a reason that Climate Change denialists promote the vapid proclimations of very, very old men or very, very corrupt men, or very old, corrupt men.

"Why doesn't it tell you more about his scientific integrity and response to previous failed predictions?" - NumenTard

In the case of Lovelock he is just very, very old and growing ever more confused with age.

http://health.une..._Se.html

http://www.trutv....kes.html
seb
4 / 5 (3) Jun 23, 2012
So I am curious what happens when all that ice-weight is moved from the poles/mountains to the oceans, how that affects the weight distribution of the land masses and how they will react?
- SEB

Obviously, there will be floods everywhere as the weight of ice mass enters the oceans and raises the water levels


No, the landmass. If say you removed all the ice from Antarctica, the land underneath would rise by x amount (all that ice is heavy!). So if this kind of thing happens and large landmasses start moving around down there, maybe knocking around the continental plate next to it, and so on.. see? Nevermind the level of the ocean water:

"The weight of the ice has caused the underlying rock to sink by between 0.5 and 1 kilometres in a process known as isostatic depression." Says Wikipedia about the West Antartic Ice Sheet, as an example
Vendicar_Decarian
3.2 / 5 (11) Jun 23, 2012
The MWP was largely regional and seems to have been caused by reduced volcanic activity, but there is really insufficient data to provide a cause.

As to the extent of the warming, it was significantly lower than what is seen today.

https://docs.goog...vbUxuNGc

"Yes, what is the cause of the MWP, which was warmer than today." - RyggTard

Why do you feel a need to lie Libertarian Boy?
ryggesogn2
1.4 / 5 (9) Jun 23, 2012
"The report was commissioned by states and federal agencies looking for detailed information so they can plan for an accelerated rate of erosion along beaches, bluffs and sand dunes that are already crumbling into the sea. "

This should have been the intent of any wild climate projections, preparation, adaptation.
Not world socialism.
ubavontuba
1.9 / 5 (9) Jun 23, 2012
You show us a 20 year graph - instead of doing a little more looking. Here's a quote for you. " Global average sea level rose at an average rate of around 1.7 ± 0.3 mm per year over 1950 to 2009 and at a satellite-measured average rate of about 3.3 ± 0.4 mm per year from 1993 to 2009, That is called an accelerating increase...
Bull. This is from 2009 and references a change in measurement. And, 3.3mm a year is nowhere near 6 inches in 18 years ("half foot higher by 2030").

As shown in my reference, since 2010, the sea level "rise" has seen a dramatic deceleration.

And the acceleration claim was investigated by J.R. Houston and R.G. Dean:

"Our analyses do not indicate acceleration in sea level in U.S.
tide gauge records during the 20th century. Instead, for each
time period we consider, the records show small decelerations
that are consistent with a number of earlier studies of
worldwide-gauge records."

http://www.jcronl...-00157.1

Vendicar_Decarian
3.5 / 5 (11) Jun 23, 2012
NRC Exonerates "Hockey Stick" Graph, Ending "Mann-Hunt" by Two Canadian Skeptics

http://www.desmog...skeptics

"Why did Mann et al and other AGWites feel the need to hide the MWP with the hockey stick?" - RyggTard

Why hasn't Denialist Ross McKitrick been able to produce a reconstruction that is any different than Mann's?

He has had 20 years to do so.

What's keeping him?
ryggesogn2
2.5 / 5 (16) Jun 23, 2012
Just as predicted, Lovelock is being branded a heretic in attempts to discredit his comments.
This is the 'liberal'/socialist way.
gregor1
2.1 / 5 (11) Jun 23, 2012
Interesting post today here http://wattsupwit...he-plot/
Vendicar_Decarian
3.5 / 5 (13) Jun 23, 2012
3.3 mm per year sustained over 18 years is 2.3 inches.

"3.3mm a year is nowhere near 6 inches in 18 years" - NumenTard

What makes you think that ice melt and ocean expansion are going to remain the same when science tells us that they will and are accelerating?

https://docs.goog...xNEJYZFU
ubavontuba
2.1 / 5 (11) Jun 23, 2012
Interesting post today here http://wattsupwit...he-plot/


I love it!
Vendicar_Decarian
3.3 / 5 (12) Jun 23, 2012
Lies lies lies lies. That is what Libertarians and Randies do...

"Just as predicted, Lovelock is being branded a heretic" - RyggTard

Not a heritic. Just very, very old.

The real question is why Denialists are always seen relying on the long discredited claims of well paid liars, and very, very old men?
ubavontuba
2.4 / 5 (11) Jun 23, 2012
3.3 mm per year sustained over 18 years is 2.3 inches.
So you think less than 40% of a quantity is nearly the same as the whole quantity?

Good. Give me 60% of your money and property. Apparently, you won't miss it.
Vendicar_Decarian
3.5 / 5 (13) Jun 23, 2012
What the Denialist Circle Jerk website claims...

"In 20 years, sea level off state to rise up to 1 foot"

And then provides a nice graphic for San Francisco.

http://wattsupwit...pg?w=640

With the graphic showing a 1 foot rise.

But that is not what the NAS claims. In fact the NAS (National Academy of Sciences) has claimed nothing. The report was produced by the NRC the National Research Council.

Further the claim made by the NRC is ...

"Sea level along the California coast south of Cape Mendocino is projected to rise 4-30 cm (2-12 in) by 2030, relative to 2000 levels"

The dishonest graphic posted on Whatts Up With That starts his rise not from 2000 but from current levels, and then compounds his deception by not plotting to the median expected value but to the most extreme value considered by the NRC.

So as usual, Whatts is found to be a circle jerk web site for liars to post lies and tripe to other liars.
ryggesogn2
1.4 / 5 (10) Jun 23, 2012
"When Lenin fell ill and died, Trotsky was easily outmanoeuvred by Stalin. In 1927, he was thrown out of the party. Internal and then foreign exile followed, but Trotsky continued to write and to criticise Stalin.

Trotsky settled in Mexico in 1936. On 20 August 1940, an assassin called Ramon Mercader, acting on Stalin's orders, stabbed Trotsky with an ice pick, fatally wounding him. He died the next day."
http://www.bbc.co...on.shtml

ryggesogn2
1.7 / 5 (11) Jun 23, 2012
"Twelve members of the California State Legislature have written UCLA Chancellor Gene D. Block and Provost Scott Waugh a letter decrying UCLA's treatment of longtime Department of Environmental Health Sciences faculty member James E. Enstrom. Professor Enstrom was let go from UCLA after some 34 years under circumstances detailed by FIRE and described in a video released yesterday from Reason.tv.

Led by Chief Republican Whip Dan Logue, Assemblymember, Third District, the legislators write that they "remain deeply troubled by the University's inability to provide credible cause for Dr. Enstrom's dismissal, and the appearance of political interference in the University's academic discourse.""
http://thefire.or...019.html
ubavontuba
2.1 / 5 (11) Jun 23, 2012
The dishonest graphic posted on Whatts Up With That starts his rise not from 2000 but from current levels,
There is no upward change from 2000 to 2012. In fact, there's a slight decline. Therefore starting from where he did was giving the advantage to the claim.

Sure, he shows the extreme, but even if you cut it to 6 inches, it still looks ridiculous (considering it's the trend line and not the data line).
djr
3.8 / 5 (13) Jun 23, 2012
"You are the one tossing up noise via ad hominem attacks that Locklock has dementia, to side step the salient point made by me"

You are the one who is incapable of understanding a point of argument. I did not assert that Lovelock has dementia. I said that the opinion of one person is not relevant - what if that person has dementia? Do you understand the difference??? The point is that the data is what is relevant - the opinion of any one individual is neither here nor there. Address the data - not noise thrown up my morons - trying to deflect the issues - because the data does not support their preconceived opinions.
ryggesogn2
1.8 / 5 (12) Jun 23, 2012
"Harvard Law School professor Roberto Unger, who taught President Barack Obama classes such as Jurisprudence and Reinventing Democracy, said last month that his former student has betrayed liberals and should lose the presidency in November. "
http://news.yahoo...104.html

"there is a discernible trend occurring among the liberal media. They are beginning to abandon Obama and, if that continues, it will erode his base and the electoral turnout he needs to be reelected.

New York Times columnist, Maureen Dowd, is one of my barometers and she has been backing away from Obama for weeks. In an August 6 column, Downgrade Blues, she opined that Barack Obama blazed like Luke Skywalker in 2008, but he never learned to channel the Force. "
http://www.canada...le/39302
djr
3.3 / 5 (14) Jun 23, 2012
ubavonatuba attacks this article because it asserted that sea level rise is accelerating. ubavonatuba provides a 20 year graph to support his outrage at the author's dishonesty. I refute his nonsense with a 100 year graph - and documentation that the sea level rise is in fact accelerating. Silence - but then he moves on to new subjects - and starts the whole game over. You guys would be funny - except the potential consequences to all of this are serious - check out the wild fires going on it western U.S. right now. I am just pointing out that the potential consequences are very serious. Will you please let the scientists do their job - better still - go peddle your stupid shit on Whatsupwiththat - leave us to study reality.
ryggesogn2
1.7 / 5 (11) Jun 23, 2012
The point is that the data is what is relevant

And Lovelock agrees:
"its now clear the doomsday predictions, including his own (and Al Gores) were incorrect."
"One thing that being a scientist has taught me is that you can never be certain about anything. You never know the truth. You can only approach it and hope to get a bit nearer to it each time. You iterate towards the truth. You dont know it. "
http://www.toront...n-drivel
djr
4 / 5 (9) Jun 23, 2012
rygg - what the f**k does your post have to do with sea level rise???. Just joining NotParker with sending up stupid noise to deflect the issue at hand I guess.

ubavontuba
2.1 / 5 (11) Jun 23, 2012
ubavonatuba attacks this article because it asserted that sea level rise is accelerating. ubavonatuba provides a 20 year graph to support his outrage at the author's dishonesty. I refute his nonsense with a 100 year graph - and documentation that the sea level rise is in fact accelerating. Silence - but then he moves on to new subjects - and starts the whole game over.
Liar. I discussed your refutations and proved you're wrong. How did you miss it?

ryggesogn2
1.7 / 5 (11) Jun 23, 2012
heck out the wild fires going on it western U.S. right now.

So?
What's new?
Forest fires and prairie fires have been very common in the US west for centuries. Some trees REQUIRE fire to propagate.
"On October 8, 1871, the Peshtigo, Wisconsin forest fire consumed over 1.2 million acres of timberland. In its wake, 1,182 people were killed. This fire is considered to be the most deadly fire on American historical record. The 1910 "Big Blowup" fire in northeast Washington, northern Idaho, and western Montana sucked up 3 million acres...3 MILLION. This is more than the size of several American states. "
http://forestry.a...ugly.htm

"U.S. Forest Service suspends prescribed burns in Colorado in wake of wildfire

Read more: U.S. Forest Service suspends prescribed burns in Colorado in wake of wildfire - The Denver Post http://www.denver...yfzXHVIn
djr
3.3 / 5 (12) Jun 23, 2012
So rygg - who elected Lovelock as the "godfather of global warming?" This is a straw man - I am very concerned about global warming - I happen to think Lovelock and Gore are both assholes - so what?
ryggesogn2
2 / 5 (12) Jun 23, 2012
So rygg - who elected Lovelock as the "godfather of global warming?" This is a straw man - I am very concerned about global warming - I happen to think Lovelock and Gore are both assholes - so what?


Consensus.

"Gaia
A new look at life on Earth"
http://www.marxis...gaia.htm
djr
3.4 / 5 (11) Jun 23, 2012
Liar. I discussed your refutations and proved you're wrong. How did you miss it?

Apologies - I missed your post - so now your paper says the sea level rise did not accelerate - and my references say they did - I guess that is the best place to leave it...
Vendicar_Decarian
3.5 / 5 (11) Jun 23, 2012
What is most interesting about the Watt's graphic though is that if the average sea level rise persists until 2030 then by 2030, ocean levels are seen to rise 5.8 inches and are roughly at the median value projected by the NRC. A rise of 6 inches from their levels recorded at 2000.

https://docs.goog...hVXRiMnM

So the median value projected by the NRC is quite clearly correct.

Their minimum value presumes no change in the ocean level.

The value of "1 foot" isn't mentioned by the NRC.

Vendicar_Decarian
3.1 / 5 (11) Jun 23, 2012
RyggTard provides a link...

http://www.marxis...gaia.htm

"If we hunt them heedlessly to extinction it must surely be a form of genocide..." - James Lovelock

Well Said Mr Lovelock.

I take it that RyggTard agrees with him.

Vendicar_Decarian
3.5 / 5 (11) Jun 23, 2012
No one of course. Lovelock has barely been associated with global warming, and has produced no scientific research on the subject.

"So rygg - who elected Lovelock as the "godfather of global warming?" - Dir

You are right. It is just more dishonest bullshit from dishonest Bullshitters and ignorantly parroted by RyggTard, and NumenTard who also have a history of being chronic liars.

Noumenon
1.8 / 5 (16) Jun 23, 2012
"You are the one tossing up noise via ad hominem attacks that Locklock has dementia, to side step the salient point made by me"


..... I did not assert that Lovelock has dementia. I said that the opinion of one person is not relevant - what if that person has dementia? Do you understand the difference???


I understand that there is no effective difference.

The point is that the data is what is relevant - the opinion of any one individual is neither here nor there. Address the data - not noise thrown up my morons - trying to deflect the issues - because the data does not support their preconceived opinions.


The speculative nature of the predictions of cataclysmic AGW requires interpretation of the data, which of course implies opinion. My purpose in quoting Lovelock was to demonstrate that such wild speculation failed to match reality. Lovelock was not unique. He fully supports AGW, and merely admits faulty predictions. Why does that make him an a$$ or senile
Vendicar_Decarian
3 / 5 (12) Jun 23, 2012
I can't think of a single 92 year old who has a sharp mind.

Yet 92 year olds are on the "scientific" forefront of Global Warming Denialism.

Hell, even dead scientists like Frederick Seitz who died in 2009 at the grand old age of 97 still seem to be doing good scientific research for climate denial organizations like OISM.

"Why does that make him an a$$ or senile." - NumenTard
Vendicar_Decarian
3.3 / 5 (10) Jun 23, 2012
Sorry, but you seem to have confused idiocy with refutation.

"Liar. I discussed your refutations and proved you're wrong." - UbVonTard

Here is a graphical refutation of your idiocy.

https://docs.goog...xNEJYZFU
Vendicar_Decarian
3.3 / 5 (12) Jun 23, 2012
UbvonTard = ParkerTard = sunshinehours1 = Paid carbon industry shill.

"Just joining NotParker with sending up stupid noise to deflect the issue at hand I guess." - dir
Vendicar_Decarian
3.1 / 5 (9) Jun 23, 2012
Enstrom is a controversial figure who has accepted funding from the Philip Morris tobacco company and the Center for Indoor Air Research (a tobacco industry front group), and subsequently published research that contradicted scientific consensus about the health effects of secondhand tobacco smoke, also known as environmental tobacco smoke, or ETS.

"Twelve members of the California State Legislature have written UCLA Chancellor Gene D. Block and Provost Scott Waugh a letter decrying UCLA's treatment of longtime Department of Environmental Health Sciences faculty member James E. Enstrom" - RyggTard
Vendicar_Decarian
3.3 / 5 (10) Jun 24, 2012
In 1997 Enstrom wrote to Richard Carchman, Director of Scientific Affairs at Philip Morris, asking for $150,000 to study the link between environmental tobacco smoke and mortality rates. Enstrom wrote, "A substantial research commitment on your part is necessary in order for me to effectively compete against the large mountain of epidemiologic data and opinions that already exist regarding the health effects of ETS and active smoking."

Odd how Libertarians, Randites and Republicans always seem to be trying to cover up the link between smoking and cancer.

Death is too good for them.
Vendicar_Decarian
3.5 / 5 (11) Jun 24, 2012
I think that it is 80 percent of the median value projected, with the other 20 percent coming from the fact that your source of information dishonestly misrepresents the projected rise from current levels rather the baseline used by the real report which is the ocean level at year 2000.

"So you think less than 40% of a quantity is nearly the same as the whole quantity?" - UbVonTard

So you are a fool who has been lied to by yet another fool.

And you are too stupid to even know it, even when it is pointed out to you.

Pathetic.

And people wonder why you are referred to as a "tard".

NotParker
2.3 / 5 (15) Jun 24, 2012
It is clear that the National Academy of Sciences is more deranged than VD and his STDs. It boggles the mind.

Actual Sea Level changes:

http://wattsupwit...-now.jpg

Insane prediction from NAS:

http://wattsupwit...ist1.jpg

http://wattsupwit...he-plot/
Noumenon
2.2 / 5 (17) Jun 24, 2012
Yet 92 year olds are on the "scientific" forefront of Global Warming Denialism. - Vendicar Liar


Lovelock is not a "denialist", ... quit on the contrary, he is a environmental fanatic and supporter of AGW, and even supports suspending democracy to solve it. Your meaningless ad hominem attack causes you to mss the point yet again.

Lovelock made AGW cataclysmic predictions, which did not come to fruition. He recently, simply admitted this failure.

Should he have lied and claimed such predictions came about despite reality to the contrary? What is your objection here?

Do you propose that he was senile when he made the original hysterical AGW predictions? At 92 he recognizes that his alarmism was faulty,... he would rationally be deemed senile had he still maintained them despite facts to the contrary.
Vendicar_Decarian
3.4 / 5 (13) Jun 24, 2012
It appears that Parkertard is interested in perpetuating the lie.

"It is clear that the National Academy of Sciences is more deranged than VD and his STDs" - ParkerTard

It is not the NAS but the NRC.

Lies, Lies, Lies, Lies. That is all Parkertard/Ubvontard/sunshinehours1 has.
Vendicar_Decarian
3.2 / 5 (13) Jun 24, 2012
No one said he was.

"Lovelock is not a "denialist" - NumenTard

But you wish to exploit this 92 year old man as the centerpiece of your denialist idiocy along with a gaggle of other very old men, who are also too old to reason clearly.

Denialist Filth.

Vendicar_Decarian
3.3 / 5 (12) Jun 24, 2012
I am unaware of any cataclysm that he predicted to take place before 2013.

Enlighten us will you.... Filthy Liar.

"Lovelock made AGW cataclysmic predictions, which did not come to fruition." - NumenTard
gregor1
2.2 / 5 (13) Jun 24, 2012
Name calling and ad hominem attacks.... gee you must be right!
Vendicar_Decarian
3.5 / 5 (11) Jun 24, 2012
Possibly. Can you find a single climate scientist who agreed with him?

The fact is, Lovelock is a very, very old man who knows very, very little if anything about climate change, and never has.

"Do you propose that he was senile when he made the original hysterical AGW predictions?" - NumenTard

Lovelock speculated about conditions for 2100, not 2013, and while no one in the scientific community took his projections for 2100 seriously, everyone expects his vision of future existence to be realized without reductions in CO2 emissions, although not at 2100, but most likely for 2300 with business as usual and emissions dropping to zero at 2150. The increased warming coming due to thermal inertia.

Your claim that he is recanting because his "predictions" haven't come true is nothing but filthy lying.

Denialist Filth.

Vendicar_Decarian
3.5 / 5 (11) Jun 24, 2012
I call filthy liars, "Filthy Liars" because they are filthy liars.

If you don't like it, eat a bullet.

"Name calling and ad hominem attacks" - Gregor

Denialist Scum.
Vendicar_Decarian
3.5 / 5 (11) Jun 24, 2012
Yet another lie from Parkertard

Lie 1. It isn't the NAS but the NRC.

And the graphic is a lie too, since the article it claims to represent starts with ocean heights at the year 2000, not 2012 as the graphic dishonestly shows.

Historical rise alone will bring the ocean level very close to the median value projected by the NRC, as shown by this graphic.

https://docs.goog...hVXRiMnM

"Insane prediction from NAS:

http://wattsupwit...ist1.jpg" - Parkertard

Lying is parkertard's reason for existance. It is in large part, how he makes a living.

Denialist Scumbag.
gregor1
2.1 / 5 (14) Jun 24, 2012
Recently the pejorative label 'denier' was used in an article in Nature by a Dr Paul Bain and the backlash has been very interesting. Many find this term very abusive and in my opinion those who resort to abuse have lost the argument. This reply by Dr Robert Brown is well worth a read.http://wattsupwit...erature/
Vendicar_Decarian
3.6 / 5 (12) Jun 24, 2012
Here is another good read.

https://docs.goog...Ta2NlX0k

And it isn't written by whack tard denialist Dr. Robert G. Brown
djr
3.4 / 5 (13) Jun 24, 2012
"those who resort to abuse have lost the argument." Well - my interpretation of your post - is that you feel that - reality is not about facts, it is about who uses a pejorative term. Example - if you argue that the earth is flat - and I argue that is more of a sphere - I have lost the argument if I call you ignorant..... I read Brown's article - and in my opinion it is nonsense. It characterizes skeptics as reasonable. Posters like yourself and Notparker etc. on this web site are not reasonable. You take every opportunity - to attack every article that mentions climate change. You throw up noise, cherry pick data, etc. etc. You do not 'win' the argument because I may get frustrated and use a pejorative label - any more than I 'win' the argument if you call me an 'agwite'.
NotParker
2.2 / 5 (13) Jun 24, 2012
It is clear that the National Academy of Sciences is more deranged than VD and his STDs. It boggles the mind.

Actual Sea Level changes:

http://wattsupwit...-now.jpg


NAS Press Release:

http://www8.natio...ID=13389

"For the California coast south of Cape Mendocino, the committee projected that sea level will rise 4 to 30 centimeters by 2030, 12 to 61 centimeters by 2050, and 42 to 167 centimeters by 2100."

Closest Tide Gauge: Monterey.

"The mean sea level trend is 1.34 millimeters/year with a 95% confidence
interval of /- 1.35 mm/yr based on monthly mean sea level data from
1973 to 2006 which is equivalent to a change of 0.44 feet in 100 years."

NAS (2 x VDs on the insane-O-Meter) Over 5 Feet.

NOAA: .44 feet

Ha ha ha ha ha. The cult is getting more and more deranged!!!!!!!!!!
1.67 meters by 2100?

They are twice as insane as VD.
NotParker
2.3 / 5 (12) Jun 24, 2012
It is clear that the National Academy of Sciences is more deranged than VD and his STDs. It boggles the mind.

Actual Sea Level changes:

http://wattsupwit...-now.jpg

"For the California coast south of Cape Mendocino, the committee projected that sea level will rise 4 to 30 centimeters by 2030, 12 to 61 centimeters by 2050, and 42 to 167 centimeters by 2100."

Closest Tide Gauge: Monterey.

"The mean sea level trend is 1.34 millimeters/year with a 95% confidence
interval of /- 1.35 mm/yr based on monthly mean sea level data from
1973 to 2006 which is equivalent to a change of 0.44 feet in 100 years."

NAS (2 x VDs on the insane-O-Meter) Over 5 Feet.

NOAA: .44 feet

Ha ha ha ha ha. The cult is getting more and more deranged!!!!!!!!!!
1.67 meters by 2100?

They are twice as insane as VD.


NOAA Tide Gauge:

http://tidesandcu...=9413450
ubavontuba
2.1 / 5 (11) Jun 24, 2012
Apologies - I missed your post - so now your paper says the sea level rise did not accelerate - and my references say they did - I guess that is the best place to leave it...
No it isn't. Your reference was an outdated WIKI article, mine were a current University of Colorado Sea Level Research Group graph and a recent paper written by the Director Emeritus Engineer Research and Development Center, Corps of Engineers and the Professor Emeritus Department of Civil and Coastal Civil Engineering University of Florida (the real deals).

What, do the REAL facts scare you now?

Ignoring the facts doesn't change the facts. Sea level alarmism is a scam. If you buy into it, you're a fool.

ubavontuba
2.2 / 5 (13) Jun 24, 2012
@VD,

Why do your links seldom work?

What is most interesting about the Watt's graphic though is that if the average sea level rise persists until 2030 then by 2030, ocean levels are seen to rise 5.8 inches and are roughly at the median value projected by the NRC. A rise of 6 inches from their levels recorded at 2000.
I couldn't see your graph, but clearly this statement is false. San Francisco sea level has been falling for more than a decade.

ubavontuba
2.2 / 5 (13) Jun 24, 2012
I think that it is 80 percent of the median value projected, with the other 20 percent coming from the fact that your source of information dishonestly misrepresents the projected rise from current levels rather the baseline used by the real report which is the ocean level at year 2000.
Are you really this stupid? In light of the fact the sea level is relatively unchanged from 2000, please explain how this matters to your argument.

So you are a fool who has been lied to by yet another fool.

And you are too stupid to even know it, even when it is pointed out to you.
It appears you're the foolish one.

Pathetic.

And people wonder why you are referred to as a "tard".
Your childish personal attacks only speak to your personality disorder(s).

ubavontuba
2.4 / 5 (14) Jun 24, 2012
Your claim that he is recanting because his "predictions" haven't come true is nothing but filthy lying.
I guess you really are this stupid. He said himself he was recanting because his dire predictions failed to materialize.

"The problem is we dont know what the climate is doing. We thought we knew 20 years ago. That led to some alarmist books mine included because it looked clear-cut, but it hasnt happened," - James Lovelock

http://worldnews....nge?lite

ubavontuba
1.9 / 5 (13) Jun 24, 2012
@djr:

I read Brown's article - and in my opinion it is nonsense. It characterizes skeptics as reasonable. Posters like yourself and Notparker etc. on this web site are not reasonable. You take every opportunity - to attack every article that mentions climate change. You throw up noise, cherry pick data, etc. etc. You do not 'win' the argument because I may get frustrated and use a pejorative label - any more than I 'win' the argument if you call me an 'agwite'.
Says the "denier" of solid science.

"so now your (highly respected) paper (and an official sea level graph) says the sea level rise did not accelerate - and my references (single, outdated Wikipedia reference) say they did - I guess that is the best place to leave it... " -djr
Vendicar_Decarian
3 / 5 (12) Jun 24, 2012
ParkerTard's latest lie is easy to expose.

"NAS Press Release:" - ParkerTard

The press release isn't from the NAS, but from the National Academy, based on research done by the NRC.

This is no more a NAS press release than it is a NAE press release or an Institute of Medicine Press release.

ParkerTard = UbvonTard = sunshinedays1 is a congenital liar.

Vendicar_Decarian
3.2 / 5 (14) Jun 24, 2012
ParkerTard's latest idiocy is easy to expose.

He quotes...

"The mean sea level trend is 1.34 millimeters/year with a 95% confidence" = ParkerTard

1.34 mm per year over 90 years corrsesponds to an ocean level increase of 4 feet, or 1.3 or 1.2 meters.

This presumes that there is no increase in the rate of ocean expansion as the world continues to heat, and no increase in the rate of glacier and ice cap melting as the polar regions continue to warm.

"1.67 meters by 2100?" - ParkerTard

An increased rate of warming will of course increase the rate of expansion and melting, and given that current rates of expansion and melting will produce a rise of 1.2 meters of sea level rise, it doesn't take much thought to realize that with increased rates of warming ocean level rise of 1.6m by 2100 (over 2000 levels) is quite possible.

ParkerTard also leaves out the fact that the NRC takes the base line sea level from the year 2,000 which is about 2 inches lower than the present. CONT...
Vendicar_Decarian
3.2 / 5 (14) Jun 24, 2012
So another 1.2 meters of rise obtained from historical rates of warming is actually 1.25 as measured from the year 2,000.

And of course ParkerTard repeats his lie that the report is a report from the NAS, when in fact it is a report by the NRC.

Lies, Fabrications, and distortion is all that ParkerTard = UbvonTard = sunshinehours1 has.

Lying is how he makes a substantial part of his living.
Vendicar_Decarian
3.2 / 5 (14) Jun 24, 2012
Delusional lies.

"mine were a current University of Colorado Sea Level Research Group graph" - UbVonTard

UbVonTard = ParkerTard = sunshinehours1 is mentally diseased as his numerous fake persona clearly indicate.
Vendicar_Decarian
3.2 / 5 (14) Jun 24, 2012
Probably because you aren't smart enough to use a browser.

https://docs.goog...hVXRiMnM

"Why do your links seldom work?" - UbvonTard

What is most interesting about the Watt's graphic though is that if the average sea level rise persists until 2030 then by 2030, ocean levels are seen to rise 5.8 inches and are roughly at the median value projected by the NRC. A rise of 6 inches from their levels recorded at 2000.

"clearly this statement is false." - UbVonTard

Clearly you are a moron.

"San Francisco sea level has been falling for more than a decade" - UbVonTard

Yes, and it will continue to fall as ocean levels continue to rise.

Water of course flows uphill.
Vendicar_Decarian
3.2 / 5 (13) Jun 24, 2012
You are absolutely right. Water flows uphill.

"Are you really this stupid? In light of the fact the sea level is relatively unchanged from 2000" - Ubvontard

Must be due to the cooling on Mars.
Vendicar_Decarian
3.2 / 5 (13) Jun 24, 2012
The problem is that James Lovelock is 92 years old.

"The problem is we dont know what the climate is doing." - UbvonTard

It is shameful that denialists would so exploit the confused comments made by this old man for their own sick, genocidal, political ends.

ubavontuba
2.2 / 5 (13) Jun 25, 2012
1.34 mm per year over 90 years corrsesponds to an ocean level increase of 4 feet, or 1.3 or 1.2 meters.
LOL! Idiot. Try again.

1.34mm over 90 years is 4.7 inches.
ubavontuba
2.2 / 5 (13) Jun 25, 2012
mine were a current University of Colorado Sea Level Research Group graph


Delusional lies.
So now the OFFICIAL record keepers for satellte sea level data in the United States are delusional? Perhaps it is you who are delusional.

UbVonTard = ParkerTard = sunshinehours1 is mentally diseased as his numerous fake persona clearly indicate.
So now everyone who disagrees with you is just one person?

Unlike you, I have no sockpuppets.
ubavontuba
2.3 / 5 (12) Jun 25, 2012
Probably because you aren't smart enough to use a browser.
Everyone else's links work, and mine work. So what is it about your links that they don't work?

Yes, and it will continue to fall as ocean levels continue to rise.

Water of course flows uphill.
So you've simply lost all reason then? That's sad.

ubavontuba
2.3 / 5 (12) Jun 25, 2012
Are you really this stupid? In light of the fact the sea level is relatively unchanged from 2000


You are absolutely right. Water flows uphill.
And you'd call ME delusional?

Please explain how you interpret comments on sea level as a claim water flows up hill.

Must be due to the cooling on Mars.
Wow.
cacortez
1 / 5 (4) Jun 28, 2012


as Eddie implied I'm blown away that a person able to profit $7977 in four weeks on the internet. did you look at this site NuttyRich.com
Vendicar_Decarian
4.4 / 5 (7) Jun 28, 2012
North Carolina Sea Level Rises Despite State Senators

Less than two weeks after the state's senate passed a climate science-squelching bill, research shows that sea level along the coast between N.C. and Massachusetts is rising faster than anywhere on Earth

God hates Republicans.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (6) Jun 30, 2012
research shows that sea level along the coast between N.C. and Massachusetts is rising faster than anywhere on Earth
Interesting article, but it's from a biased journal (you don't get published in "Nature Climate Change" without complaining about climate change):

http://www.nature...597.html

But it doesn't look all that significant in the satellite data:

http://sealevel.c...l-trends

And though they blamed a slowing of the Gulf Stream, NASA scientists state the Gulf Stream has not been slowing:

http://www.agu.or...72.shtml

Perhaps the land is subsiding, or the prevailing winds have changed (exaggerating the tide gauge readings)?
gregor1
1 / 5 (6) Jun 30, 2012
Just an aside for you vendicar. Is this you?

"Ever hear this guy say something like, "The only good Republican is a
dead Republican." Or how about, "torture Bush, execute Bush." Or
"shoot a Republican today!" Well, it seems Vendicar has finally gone
too far. Not only has Google vowed to boot him from Usenet, but
Canadian authorites are rapidly closing in on him. Apparently he has
been operating a terrorist cell just across the border in Canada.
Surprise surprise, the guy is from Palestine. Others have claimed his
real name is Scott Nudds aka Scott Douglas, dubbed VD Nudds. My guess
its more like Achmed. Whoever and whatever he is, enjoy his felonious
postings while you can. He is about to become history on Usenet."
http://www.mombu....458.html
gregor1
1 / 5 (7) Jun 30, 2012
It seems the death threats you've issued against me in these threads puts me in good company. Apparently you've done time for threatening George Bush as well! I'm truly honored
"Wow.... we have a guy using the name Scott Nudds (Scott Douglas)
(Vendicar Decarian etc. etc. )
posting to the alt.global-warming group, and possibly others. The
American that ran away to Canada, working as a janitor at a school in
Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.

Apparently he got arrested once or twice for threats to one of the
Bush presidents of the U.S. and the Canadian R.C.M.P. police picked
him up for their friends in U.S. security.

Is he out of prison and back posting again ? ?"
http://www.freag....t_nudds.
NotParker
1 / 5 (6) Jun 30, 2012
North Carolina Sea Level Rises Despite State Senators

Less than two weeks after the state's senate passed a climate science-squelching bill, research shows that sea level along the coast between N.C. and Massachusetts is rising faster than anywhere on Earth

God hates Republicans.


"they reported in Nature Climate Change that since 1980, sea-level rise between Cape Hatteras, North Carolina, and Boston, Massachusetts, has accelerated to between 2 and 3.7 millimetres per year. That is three to four times the global average,"

So the global average is .5mm to .9mm.

AGW is so demolished!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Vendicar_Decarian
4.3 / 5 (6) Jun 30, 2012
"The only good Republican is a dead Republican." - Gregor1

Very true Gregor.. Very true.
gregor1
1.5 / 5 (8) Jun 30, 2012
So you're still on the loose then?
Howhot
5 / 5 (4) Jul 01, 2012
Mr. Noparks (he hates parks BTW) will probably explain this by waving his denier ferry magic

http://www.nasa.g...nUS.html

ubavontuba
1 / 5 (5) Jul 01, 2012
Mr. Noparks (he hates parks BTW) will probably explain this by waving his denier ferry magic

http://www.nasa.g...nUS.html

Gee, heatwaves in the summer. Who would ever imagine that?
NotParker
1 / 5 (5) Jul 01, 2012
Mr. Noparks (he hates parks BTW) will probably explain this by waving his denier ferry magic

http://www.nasa.g...nUS.html



The blue parts (half of North America) are up to -12C colder than normal.

I live in one of the blue parts. June will be 2C colder than the long time average and 4C colder than 7-8 years ago.
Vendicar_Decarian
2.5 / 5 (4) Jul 01, 2012
"how about, "torture Bush, execute Bush." - gregor1

Sounds great. When do you start? Do you need any help?
Vendicar_Decarian
2.3 / 5 (3) Jul 01, 2012
I have? Did I do it when I've been sleeping or something, cause I haven't noticed any time missing.

"Apparently you've done time for threatening George Bush as well!" - Gregor1

I have never encountered a Conservative who wasn't a congenital and perpetual liar.

Gregor is no exception to that rule.
Vendicar_Decarian
3.2 / 5 (5) Jul 01, 2012
The odd thing is that the summer heat waves started at the start of spring, and winter was entirely absent.

"Gee, heatwaves in the summer. Who would ever imagine that?" - ParkerTard/UbvonTard/sunshinehours1

Vendicar_Decarian
3.7 / 5 (3) Jul 01, 2012
Of course. It is only in Capitalist America that you can get arrested for telling the truth.

That doesn't happen in the Democratic Socialist states.

"So you're still on the loose then?" - Gregor1
ubavontuba
1.8 / 5 (5) Jul 02, 2012
The odd thing is that the summer heat waves started at the start of spring, and winter was entirely absent.
Is this true where you live? Or has it been unusually cold and deadly?

http://en.wikiped...old_wave
Vendicar_Decarian
4 / 5 (4) Jul 02, 2012
NOAA: Fourth Warmest Winter on Record

http://www.weathe...12-03-07

Winter of 2011-12 warmest ever

http://thetimes-t....1287838

Apple Crop Destroyed. 90 Percent loss in Michigan, Ontario due to Bizarre Spring.

http://climatecro...-needed/

And finally....

http://www.youtub...ure=plcp
Vendicar_Decarian
5 / 5 (2) Jul 02, 2012
Hopes fade for Russia, Ukraine grain harvests

http://www.agrimo...680.html

U.S. wheat, corn stocks down 14%

http://www.world-...px?cck=1

Great Lakes Fruit Crop Devastated

http://planet3.or...astated/

Blistering drought threatens Kentucky crops

http://www.courie..._check=1
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (5) Jul 02, 2012
NOAA: Fourth Warmest Winter on Record
This sis a dihonest attempt to raise a false sense of alarm based on regional weather. Globally, this simply isn't true.

"The globally-averaged land and ocean temperature for JanuaryMarch 2012 was 0.39°C (0.70°F) above the 20th century average of 12.3°C (54.1°F), the coolest such period since 1996 and tying with 1991 as the 21st warmest such period in the 133-year record."

http://www.weathe...12-03-07

Why are AGW alarmists so dishonest with the data?
NotParker
1 / 5 (5) Jul 02, 2012
Frost has damaged a lot of crops this year.

http://www.wivb.c...disaster
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (5) Jul 02, 2012
Hopes fade for Russia, Ukraine grain harvests
Raisng false alarms again? Crop production is normally variable by region.
Vendicar_Decarian
5 / 5 (3) Jul 03, 2012
Yes. A winter without winter temperatures had the crops sprouting and flowering a month or more early. And when cold seasonal weather did arrive for a short time, the frost destroyed those flowers and sprouts.

Extreme heat in the U.S. has additionally reduced expected corn crop yields by 18 percent, and summer is less than a week old.

"Frost has damaged a lot of crops this year." - ParkerTard

There is no cure for ParkerTard's mental disease.
Vendicar_Decarian
5 / 5 (3) Jul 03, 2012
"Raisng false alarms again?" - Earlier you claimed that there had been no damage to cherry production due to frost, and that I was a liar for having claimed so.

Ontario's fruit farmers devastated by April frost..

"The cherry and plum crops are close to a 100 per cent loss in Ontario, Tregunno said.
About 70 per cent of the peach crop survived the April frost."

Read more: http://www.ctvnew...zXIEl9qm

So once again UbVonTard is exposed as a denialist fraud who is detached from reality.

Vendicar_Decarian
5 / 5 (3) Jul 03, 2012
"Globally, this simply isn't true." - UbVonTard

GISS temperatures May 2012 are tied for the hottest ever recorded globally. 14.65'C, tied with those of 2010 and 1998.

Arctic ice extent is tracking at it's lowest point in recorded history for this date.

http://arctic.atm...ive.html

Vendicar_Decarian
5 / 5 (3) Jul 03, 2012
Heatwave threatens US grain harvest

High quality global journalism requires investment. Please share this article with others using the link below, do not cut & paste the article. See our Ts&Cs and Copyright Policy for more detail. Email ftsales.support@ft.com to buy additional rights. http://www.ft.com...zXTK1lBK

The US Department of Agriculture on Monday said less than half of US corn was in good or excellent condition while 22 per cent was in poor condition, downgrading estimates from a week ago.

http://www.ft.com...zXQr9mj9
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (5) Jul 03, 2012
Earlier you claimed that there had been no damage to cherry production due to frost, and that I was a liar for having claimed so.
You were lying, and I proved it. Your claim preceded the freeze by several weeks.

Besides, only tart cherry production was damaged (about 1/3 of the total cherry crop in a good year). Sweet cherry production is up 11% this year (after being up .

http://www.nass.u...hery.pdf

So once again Venditard DeTard of Tards, is exposed as an AGW alarmist fraud who is detached from reality.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (6) Jul 03, 2012
"Globally, this simply isn't true." - Uba

GISS temperatures May 2012 are tied for the hottest ever recorded globally. 14.65'C, tied with those of 2010 and 1998.
Straw man argument. You've changed the timebase.

Arctic ice extent is tracking at it's lowest point in recorded history for this date.
Well, I guess it had to sometime (considering how little "recorded history" we actually have).

ubavontuba
1 / 5 (6) Jul 03, 2012
Heatwave threatens US grain harvest
This sucks, but the Dust Bowl was much worse.

And besides, global agricultural productivity has been steadily increasing for years:

http://www.plantp...1/7.full

Why are AGW alarmists always cherry-picking regional data?
Tangent2
1 / 5 (4) Jul 06, 2012
Just like weather reporters, they can't make up their minds.

LOL -- and just like climate deniers, you can't tell the difference between weather and climate. :-)


Not sure how you came to that conclusion, given that I have not said anything about my current perception/understanding of the issue. Do not speak on my behalf if you are just going to adlib.
Vendicar_Decarian
4.7 / 5 (3) Jul 06, 2012
Then why are you promoting policies that will revert the U.S. to much dryer conditions than the dust bowl era?

"This sucks, but the Dust Bowl was much worse." - UbVonTard

Your goal must be to destroy America.

Have you been a traitor all of your life?

Vendicar_Decarian
5 / 5 (3) Jul 06, 2012
And grain reserves steadily decreasing for years.

"And besides, global agricultural productivity has been steadily increasing for years:" - UbVonTard

Do you still claim that you are going to grow corn and wheat on the barren rock of the Canadian Shield?

http://www.raydw....ocks.jpg

Or have you decided to stop lying about that?
Vendicar_Decarian
5 / 5 (2) Jul 06, 2012
Yes, but it is more likely to have happened in the past since an unbiased, un-trended data set produces a distribution that is highly biased to the past.

"Well, I guess it had to sometime" - UbVonTard

And yet we find that more and more arctic ice is melting every year. In fact the polar ice cap is collapsing.

http://arctic.atm...ries.jpg

A trend easily seen in the link above.
Vendicar_Decarian
5 / 5 (2) Jul 06, 2012
No. You are the liar for claiming it never occurred when I told you.

In fact you referred to the possibility as laughable.

And here we are a few months later with virtually all of the crop wiped out by frost, exactly as I said it was.

"You were lying, and I proved it. Your claim preceded the freeze by several weeks." - UbVonTard

The several weeks of delay is what it took to report the results of the frost. I reported them to you on the nights in which they occurred.

Honesty, credibility, reliability, reason, logic, coherence, rationalism, integrity, just don't appear to be part of your personality.

Have you been mentally diseased all your life, or was it triggered by a blow to the head? Chemical abuse, or surgery?