Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics > #508973 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2015-07-23 15:20 -0600 |
| Last post | 2015-07-25 13:08 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 70 — 17 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics
New research suggests rising oceans could swamp the world’s coasts by the end of the century—sooner than previously anticipated Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-07-23 15:20 -0600
Re: New research suggests rising oceans could swamp the world’s coasts by the end of the century—sooner than previously anticipated jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-07-23 22:13 +0000
Re: New research suggests rising oceans could swamp the worldâ?Ts coasts by the end of the centuryâ?"sooner than previously anticipated "Ringer" <byoung@peoplestel.net> - 2015-07-23 17:48 -0500
Re: New research suggests rising oceans could swamp the world??Ts coasts by the end of the century??"sooner than previously anticipated jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-07-24 00:27 +0000
Re: New research suggests rising oceans could swamp the worldâ?Ts coasts by the end of the centuryâ?"sooner than previously anticipated benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2015-07-24 00:15 -0400
Re: New research suggests rising oceans could swamp the world’s coasts by the end of the century—sooner than previously anticipated Simeom <invalid@invalid.com> - 2015-07-23 17:18 -0500
Re: New research suggests rising oceans could swamp the worlds coasts by the end of the centurysooner than previously anticipated "Ringer" <byoung@peoplestel.net> - 2015-07-23 17:48 -0500
Re: New research suggests rising oceans could swamp the world’s coasts by the end of the century—sooner than previously anticipated Simeom <invalid@invalid.com> - 2015-07-23 18:26 -0500
Re: New research suggests rising oceans could swamp the world’s coasts by the end of the century—sooner than previously anticipated Chom Noamsky <moose-riders-suck@bc.commmmm> - 2015-07-23 16:34 -0700
Re: New research suggests rising oceans could swamp the world’s coasts by the end of the century—sooner than previously anticipated Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-07-23 18:41 -0600
Re: New research suggests rising oceans could swamp the world’s coasts by the end of the century—sooner than previously anticipated Chom Noamsky <moose-riders-suck@bc.commmmm> - 2015-07-23 17:57 -0700
Re: New research suggests rising oceans could swamp the world’s coasts by the end of the century—sooner than previously anticipated Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-07-23 19:00 -0600
Re: New research suggests rising oceans could swamp the world’s coasts by the end of the century—sooner than previously anticipated Chom Noamsky <moose-riders-suck@bc.commmmm> - 2015-07-23 18:14 -0700
Re: New research suggests rising oceans could swamp the world’s coasts by the end of the century—sooner than previously anticipated Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-07-23 19:22 -0600
Re: New research suggests rising oceans could swamp the world’s coasts by the end of the century—sooner than previously anticipated Simeom <invalid@invalid.com> - 2015-07-23 20:40 -0500
Re: New research suggests rising oceans could swamp the world?s coasts by the end of the century?sooner than previously anticipated R Kym Horsell <kym@kymhorsell.com> - 2015-07-24 01:44 +0000
Re: New research suggests rising oceans could swamp the world’s coasts by the end of the century—sooner than previously anticipated Chom Noamsky <moose-riders-suck@bc.commmmm> - 2015-07-23 19:06 -0700
Re: New research suggests rising oceans could swamp the world’s coasts by the end of the century—sooner than previously anticipated Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-07-23 20:18 -0600
Re: New research suggests rising oceans could swamp the world’s coasts by the end of the century—sooner than previously anticipated Chom Noamsky <moose-riders-suck@bc.commmmm> - 2015-07-23 19:22 -0700
Re: New research suggests rising oceans could swamp the world’s coasts by the end of the century—sooner than previously anticipated Unum <noneof@yourbusiness.com> - 2015-07-23 23:23 -0500
Re: New research suggests rising oceans could swamp the world’s coasts by the end of the century—sooner than previously anticipated Unum <noneof@yourbusiness.com> - 2015-07-25 09:54 -0500
Re: New research suggests rising oceans could swamp the worlds coasts by the end of the centurysooner than previously anticipated Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2015-07-25 11:03 -0400
Re: New research suggests rising oceans could swamp the world’s coasts by the end of the century—sooner than previously anticipated Unum <noneof@yourbusiness.com> - 2015-07-25 11:32 -0500
Re: New research suggests rising oceans could swamp the world’s coasts by the end of the century—sooner than previously anticipated Chom Noamsky <moose-riders-suck@bc.commmmm> - 2015-07-25 10:00 -0700
Re: New research suggests rising oceans could swamp the world’s coasts by the end of the century—sooner than previously anticipated Unum <noneof@yourbusiness.com> - 2015-07-25 12:44 -0500
Re: New research suggests rising oceans could swamp the world's coasts by the end of the century--sooner than previously anticipated "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2015-07-25 10:54 -0700
Re: New research suggests rising oceans could swamp the world's coasts by the end of the century--sooner than previously anticipated HVAC <Mr.HVAC@gmail.com> - 2015-07-25 14:28 -0400
Re: New research suggests rising oceans could swamp the world’s coasts by the end of the century—sooner than previously anticipated Chom Noamsky <moose-riders-suck@bc.commmmm> - 2015-07-25 11:07 -0700
Re: New research suggests rising oceans could swamp the world’s coasts by the end of the century—sooner than previously anticipated Unum <noneof@yourbusiness.com> - 2015-07-26 12:19 -0500
Re: New research suggests rising oceans could swamp the world’s coasts by the end of the century—sooner than previously anticipated Chom Noamsky <moose-riders-suck@bc.commmmm> - 2015-07-26 10:38 -0700
Re: New research suggests rising oceans could swamp the world’s coasts by the end of the century—sooner than previously anticipated Unum <noneof@yourbusiness.com> - 2015-07-26 13:09 -0500
Re: New research suggests rising oceans could swamp the worlds coasts by the end of the centurysooner than previously anticipated Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2015-07-26 14:27 -0400
Re: New research suggests rising oceans could swamp the world’s coasts by the end of the century—sooner than previously anticipated Chom Noamsky <moose-riders-suck@bc.commmmm> - 2015-07-26 12:03 -0700
Re: New research suggests rising oceans could swamp the world’s coasts by the end of the century—sooner than previously anticipated Unum <noneof@yourbusiness.com> - 2015-07-26 14:36 -0500
Re: New research suggests rising oceans could swamp the world’s coasts by the end of the century—sooner than previously anticipated Chom Noamsky <moose-riders-suck@bc.commmmm> - 2015-07-26 13:38 -0700
Re: New research suggests rising oceans could swamp the world’s coasts by the end of the century—sooner than previously anticipated Unum <noneof@yourbusiness.com> - 2015-07-26 17:32 -0500
Re: New research suggests rising oceans could swamp the world’s coasts by the end of the century—sooner than previously anticipated Chom Noamsky <moose-riders-suck@bc.commmmm> - 2015-07-26 15:41 -0700
Re: New research suggests rising oceans could swamp the world’s coasts by the end of the century—sooner than previously anticipated Unum <noneof@yourbusiness.com> - 2015-07-26 18:37 -0500
Re: New research suggests rising oceans could swamp the world’s coasts by the end of the century—sooner than previously anticipated Chom Noamsky <moose-riders-suck@bc.commmmm> - 2015-07-26 18:39 -0700
Re: New research suggests rising oceans could swamp the world’s coasts by the end of the century—sooner than previously anticipated Unum <noneof@yourbusiness.com> - 2015-07-26 21:11 -0500
Re: New research suggests rising oceans could swamp the world’s coasts by the end of the century—sooner than previously anticipated Chom Noamsky <moose-riders-suck@bc.commmmm> - 2015-07-27 08:57 -0700
Re: New research suggests rising oceans could swamp the world’s coasts by the end of the century—sooner than previously anticipated Unum <noneof@yourbusiness.com> - 2015-07-27 17:53 -0500
Re: New research suggests rising oceans could swamp the world?s coasts by the end of the century?sooner than previously anticipated R Kym Horsell <kym@kymhorsell.com> - 2015-07-26 21:57 +0000
Re: New research suggests rising oceans could swamp the world?s coasts by the end of the century?sooner than previously anticipated R Kym Horsell <kym@kymhorsell.com> - 2015-07-27 00:17 +0000
Re: New research suggests rising oceans could swamp the world?s coasts by the end of the century?sooner than previously anticipated R Kym Horsell <kym@kymhorsell.com> - 2015-07-26 21:44 +0000
Re: New research suggests rising oceans could swamp the world’s coasts by the end of the century—sooner than previously anticipated Paul Aubrin <chu8i443@free.fr> - 2015-07-25 19:27 +0000
Re: New research suggests rising oceans could swamp the world’s coasts by the end of the century—sooner than previously anticipated Unum <noneof@yourbusiness.com> - 2015-07-26 12:29 -0500
Re: New research suggests rising oceans could swamp the world’s coasts by the end of the century—sooner than previously anticipated Paul Aubrin <chu8i443@free.fr> - 2015-07-26 18:40 +0000
Re: New research suggests rising oceans could swamp the world’s coasts by the end of the century—sooner than previously anticipated Unum <noneof@yourbusiness.com> - 2015-07-26 14:24 -0500
Re: New research suggests rising oceans could swamp the worlds coasts by the end of the centurysooner than previously anticipated Desertphile <Desertphile@nospam.org> - 2015-07-29 07:53 -0600
Re: New research suggests rising oceans could swamp the world’s coasts by the end of the century—sooner than previously anticipated benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2015-07-29 11:07 -0400
Re: New research suggests rising oceans could swamp the world’s coasts by the end of the century—sooner than previously anticipated HVAC <Mr.HVAC@gmail.com> - 2015-07-29 13:15 -0400
new noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2015-07-29 21:00 -0700
Re: New research suggests rising oceans could swamp the world¢s coasts by the end of the centurysooner than previously anticipated Desertphile <Desertphile@nospam.org> - 2015-07-29 13:33 -0600
Re: New research suggests rising oceans could swamp the world?s coasts by the end of the century?sooner than previously anticipated R Kym Horsell <kym@kymhorsell.com> - 2015-07-29 19:48 +0000
Re: New research suggests rising oceans could swamp the world?s coasts by the end of the century?sooner than previously anticipated R Kym Horsell <kym@kymhorsell.com> - 2015-07-25 21:04 +0000
Re: New research suggests rising oceans could swamp the world’s coasts by the end of the century—sooner than previously anticipated Paul Aubrin <chu8i443@free.fr> - 2015-07-25 18:34 +0000
Re: New research suggests rising oceans could swamp the world’s coasts by the end of the century---sooner than previously anticipated benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2015-07-25 16:04 -0400
Re: New research suggests rising oceans could swamp the world’s coasts by the end of the century—sooner than previously anticipated jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-07-24 03:18 +0000
Re: New research suggests rising oceans could swamp the world’s coasts by the end of the century—sooner than previously anticipated jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-07-24 00:51 +0000
Re: Re: New research suggests rising oceans could swamp the world’s coasts by the end of the century—sooner than previously anticipated Nobody <not@home.anymore> - 2015-07-24 01:49 +0000
Re: New research suggests rising oceans could swamp the world’s coasts by the end of the century—sooner than previously anticipated benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2015-07-24 00:18 -0400
Re: New research suggests rising oceans could swamp the world’s coasts by the end of the century—sooner than previously anticipated HVAC <Mr.HVAC@gmail.com> - 2015-07-24 07:32 -0400
Re: New research suggests rising oceans could swamp the world’s coasts by the end of the century—sooner than previously anticipated Chom Noamsky <moose-riders-suck@bc.commmmm> - 2015-07-23 16:14 -0700
Re: New research suggests rising oceans could swamp the world's coasts by the end of the century--sooner than previously anticipated "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2015-07-24 21:23 -0700
Re: New research suggests rising oceans could swamp the world’s coasts by the end of the century—sooner than previously anticipated jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-07-25 06:45 +0000
Re: New research suggests rising oceans could swamp the world’s coasts by the end of the century—sooner than previously anticipated Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-07-25 10:45 -0600
Re: New research suggests rising oceans could swamp the world’s coasts by the end of the century—sooner than previously anticipated jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-07-25 16:57 +0000
Re: New research suggests rising oceans could swamp the world's coasts by the end of the century--sooner than previously anticipated noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2015-07-25 20:56 -0700
Re: New research suggests rising oceans could swamp the world's coasts by the end of the century--sooner than previously anticipated Double-A <double-a3@hush.com> - 2015-07-25 13:08 -0700
Page 3 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 Next page →
| From | Chom Noamsky <moose-riders-suck@bc.commmmm> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-07-27 08:57 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <mp5kae$q9k$6@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #509774 |
On 7/26/2015 7:11 PM, Unum wrote: > On 7/26/2015 8:39 PM, Chom Noamsky wrote: >> On 7/26/2015 4:37 PM, Unum wrote: >>> On 7/26/2015 5:41 PM, Chom Noamsky wrote: >>>> On 7/26/2015 3:32 PM, Unum wrote: >>>>> On 7/26/2015 3:38 PM, Chom Noamsky wrote: >>>>>> On 7/26/2015 12:36 PM, Unum wrote: >>>>>>> On 7/26/2015 2:03 PM, Chom Noamsky wrote: >>>>>>>> On 7/26/2015 11:09 AM, Unum wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 7/26/2015 12:38 PM, Chom Noamsky wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 7/26/2015 10:19 AM, Unum wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On 7/25/2015 1:07 PM, Chom Noamsky wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/25/2015 10:44 AM, Unum wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/25/2015 12:00 PM, Chom Noamsky wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/25/2015 9:32 AM, Unum wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/25/2015 10:03 AM, Wally W. wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 25 Jul 2015 09:54:45 -0500, Unum wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/25/2015 3:28 AM, Paul Aubrin wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 23 Jul 2015 23:23:22 -0500, Unum wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/23/2015 9:22 PM, Chom Noamsky wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/23/2015 7:18 PM, Sam Wormley wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/23/15 8:06 PM, Chom Noamsky wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You mean the journal 'Atmospheric Chemistry and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Physics', >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> where the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> status is currently 1st stage 'discussion paper'. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> paper >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> has a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> long ways to go before acceptance for final >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> publication, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> if and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> when >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it passes 1st and 2nd stages of review, including >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> revisions, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> etc. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That may not happen until long after events like >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Paris >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2015. Oh >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wait, there's your answer right there for hyping a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pre-publication >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> draft in the media. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hey Chomp, Did you find anything in the content >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wasn't >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> scientifically correct? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -- Kevin Trenberth >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hilarious to see him cite Trenberth! Next week the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> chumpsky >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> attack >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Trenberth. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Chom knows that the rational (scientific) attitude is to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> examine >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ideas, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not the person. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Obvious lie, on alt.global-warming chumpsky has >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> attempted to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> smear Chris Turney and John Cook in just the past >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> couple of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> days. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Lessee ... did Unum's post examine the idea or the person? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Apparently chumpsky didn't "find anything in the content >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wasn't >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> scientifically correct". So what idea are you referring to? >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> In order to take Hansen seriously one has to imagine that >>>>>>>>>>>>>> SLR -- >>>>>>>>>>>>>> which >>>>>>>>>>>>>> has >>>>>>>>>>>>>> shown no acceleration since the end of the Maunder minimum -- >>>>>>>>>>>>>> will >>>>>>>>>>>>>> somehow, at >>>>>>>>>>>>>> some point, begin to exponentially increase over the next 85 >>>>>>>>>>>>>> years, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Redraw >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the exponential curve in your head as many times as >>>>>>>>>>>>>> necessary in >>>>>>>>>>>>>> order to >>>>>>>>>>>>>> acheive suspension of disbelief. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CKudLCwWwAIH8SP.png:large >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Presumably assumes the ice sheets on Greenland and the >>>>>>>>>>>>> Antarctic >>>>>>>>>>>>> melt into the ocean at increasing rates as many studies >>>>>>>>>>>>> predict. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> WTF does "presumably assumes" mean? Is that what yer regard as >>>>>>>>>>>> sciency >>>>>>>>>>>> language, lil buddy? >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> You didn't like my choice of words? Oh darn! >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Meanwhile, apparently you didn't "find anything in the content >>>>>>>>>>>>> that wasn't scientifically correct". >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Now we get a tedious parsing of some other words with an obvious >>>>>>>>>>> and clear meaning. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Hey, ice sheets will melt faster, and I mean definitely >>>>>>>>>> maybe! Yer >>>>>>>>>> unambiguously ambiguous language is the language of equivocating >>>>>>>>>> fruitcakes >>>>>>>>>> and weasels. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> First define what is meant by "scientifically correct". To >>>>>>>>>>>> me it >>>>>>>>>>>> should mean >>>>>>>>>>>> that you have some evidence that nobody has been able to >>>>>>>>>>>> refute. >>>>>>>>>>>> Hansen has >>>>>>>>>>>> been refuted by a number of fellow scientists, therefor one or >>>>>>>>>>>> more of >>>>>>>>>>>> his >>>>>>>>>>>> claims fails the criteria. In reality there is actually no >>>>>>>>>>>> such >>>>>>>>>>>> thing as >>>>>>>>>>>> "scientifically correct", only evidence, arguments and claims >>>>>>>>>>>> which >>>>>>>>>>>> have yet >>>>>>>>>>>> to be contradicted. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> It could well be that he's been refuted, but I'm noticing you >>>>>>>>>>> aren't citing any of it. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Yer go back and read agin, lil buddy! >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> All I see is a link to a chart, if that's all you got fine >>>>>>>>> by me! >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Keep looking. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Will I see something that isn't there? >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> I will be more than happy to oblige once you or Sam clarify >>>>>>>>>>>> what >>>>>>>>>>>> standard of >>>>>>>>>>>> evidence is required to satisfy the unscientific criteria of >>>>>>>>>>>> "scientifically >>>>>>>>>>>> correct". >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> If it isn't clear to you now, no amount of explanation will >>>>>>>>>>> help. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> A literal interpretation of "scientifically correct" is >>>>>>>>>> "having no >>>>>>>>>> errors" or >>>>>>>>>> "conforming to fact". How exactly do you assert that a future >>>>>>>>>> prediction >>>>>>>>>> involving high uncertainty "conforms to fact" or "has no errors"? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> So that's your personal bogus interpretation? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Nope, actually the dictionary definition of correct when used in >>>>>>>> adjective form. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> "conforming to fact or truth; free from error; accurate" >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I can understand why you would be so desperate to interpret the >>>>>>> phrase as something impossible to achieve. I'll stick with my >>>>>>> perfectly >>>>>>> reasonable definition below. >>>>>> >>>>>> And I'll stick to pointing out the unsciency foolishness of yer >>>>>> definition. >>>>> >>>>> You begged me on your knees for a clarification and I explained it to >>>>> you. Meanwhile land ice melting has accelerated, hasn't it. >>>>> >>>>> "On average, some 310 cubic kilometres of ice was lost from the ice >>>>> shelves each year during this time, and the rate of loss is increasing >>>>> rapidly." >>>> >>>> Keywest Florida didn't get the message: >>> >>> That the rate of loss is increasing rapidly? Other places seem to >>> be getting it. >>> >>>> https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CKudLCwWwAIH8SP.png:large >>> >>> So now Key West is the one place on Earth that reflects SLR all over >>> the planet? Your "conforming to fact or truth" didn't last very long. >>> >>> http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/searise.html >>> >>> http://www.grida.no/publications/vg/climate/page/3072.aspx >>> >>> http://www2.sunysuffolk.edu/mandias/global_warming/impact_sea_level_rise.html >>> > > Those cites blew your ass totally out of the water didn't they, lol! > >>>>>>>> We'll just say it >>>>>>>>> means "conforming with the principles of science". >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> So 10ft of SLR by 2100 is "scientifically correct", i.e., >>>>>>>> conforming >>>>>>>> to fact >>>>>>>> or truth, free from error, and accurate? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Its simply in conformance with observed empirical evidence such as >>>>>>> accelerating melting of land ice as has been posted here many times. >>>>>> >>>>>> So 10ft of SLR by 2100 is a "scientifically correct" fact? >>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Greenmobbers normally make stupid statements, so you and Sam are >>>>>>>>>> perfectly in >>>>>>>>>> character... >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> When desperation sets in you get around to the personal attack >>>>>>>>> phase >>>>>>>>> pretty quick, don't you. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Coming from you, the most ironic statement ever. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> We'll just note that you did in fact resort to personal attack. >>>>>> >>>>>> The whore Unum takes one ettiquette class and suddenly she becomes >>>>>> self-righteous about courtesy and manners! Considering yer extensive >>>>>> history >>>>>> of Tourette syndrome, ironic doesn't begin to cover it. Have you >>>>>> been >>>>>> taking >>>>>> Tourette suppressants, or something? >>>>> >>>>> Getting a little excited? >>>>> >>>>>> And what's with the use of majestic plurals, did your ettiquette >>>>>> class >>>>>> elevate >>>>>> your caste to royalty? >>>>>> >>>>>> And not just >>>>> >>>>> Click send a little too soon? >>>> >>>> So 10ft of SLR by 2100 is a "scientifically correct" fact? >>> >>> You are welcome to try to find something in a lieblog that indicates >>> otherwise. Better scramble! 90% of the Florida keys are less than 5ft >>> above >>> sea level. Key West is at about 3 feet. >> >> That's not how it works, lil buddy, the onus is not on me to prove or >> disprove >> anything. If you claim 10ft of SLR by 2100 is a "scientifically correct" >> fact, the onus is entirely yours. > > Actually that is how it works. If you have a dispute with Hansens's > paper other than the nitwit little chart you posted (and which I > refuted) you can just bring it on out. Otherwise we can just assume > that you didn't "find anything in the content that wasn't scientifically > correct". So 10ft of SLR by 2100 is a "scientifically correct" fact? https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CKudLCwWwAIH8SP.png:large The possible answers are yes, no, or yet more waffling.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Unum <noneof@yourbusiness.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-07-27 17:53 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <mp6cll$ip7$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #509854 |
On 7/27/2015 10:57 AM, Chom Noamsky wrote: > On 7/26/2015 7:11 PM, Unum wrote: >> On 7/26/2015 8:39 PM, Chom Noamsky wrote: >>> On 7/26/2015 4:37 PM, Unum wrote: >>>> On 7/26/2015 5:41 PM, Chom Noamsky wrote: >>>>> On 7/26/2015 3:32 PM, Unum wrote: >>>>>> On 7/26/2015 3:38 PM, Chom Noamsky wrote: >>>>>>> On 7/26/2015 12:36 PM, Unum wrote: >>>>>>>> On 7/26/2015 2:03 PM, Chom Noamsky wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 7/26/2015 11:09 AM, Unum wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 7/26/2015 12:38 PM, Chom Noamsky wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On 7/26/2015 10:19 AM, Unum wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/25/2015 1:07 PM, Chom Noamsky wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/25/2015 10:44 AM, Unum wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/25/2015 12:00 PM, Chom Noamsky wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/25/2015 9:32 AM, Unum wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/25/2015 10:03 AM, Wally W. wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 25 Jul 2015 09:54:45 -0500, Unum wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/25/2015 3:28 AM, Paul Aubrin wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 23 Jul 2015 23:23:22 -0500, Unum wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/23/2015 9:22 PM, Chom Noamsky wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/23/2015 7:18 PM, Sam Wormley wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/23/15 8:06 PM, Chom Noamsky wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You mean the journal 'Atmospheric Chemistry and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Physics', >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> where the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> status is currently 1st stage 'discussion paper'. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> paper >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> has a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> long ways to go before acceptance for final >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> publication, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> if and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> when >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it passes 1st and 2nd stages of review, including >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> revisions, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> etc. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That may not happen until long after events like >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Paris >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2015. Oh >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wait, there's your answer right there for hyping a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pre-publication >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> draft in the media. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hey Chomp, Did you find anything in the content >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wasn't >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> scientifically correct? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -- Kevin Trenberth >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hilarious to see him cite Trenberth! Next week the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> chumpsky >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> attack >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Trenberth. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Chom knows that the rational (scientific) attitude is to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> examine >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ideas, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not the person. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Obvious lie, on alt.global-warming chumpsky has >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> attempted to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> smear Chris Turney and John Cook in just the past >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> couple of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> days. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Lessee ... did Unum's post examine the idea or the person? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Apparently chumpsky didn't "find anything in the content >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wasn't >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> scientifically correct". So what idea are you referring to? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In order to take Hansen seriously one has to imagine that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> SLR -- >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> has >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> shown no acceleration since the end of the Maunder minimum -- >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> somehow, at >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> some point, begin to exponentially increase over the next 85 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> years, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Redraw >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the exponential curve in your head as many times as >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> necessary in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> order to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> acheive suspension of disbelief. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CKudLCwWwAIH8SP.png:large >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Presumably assumes the ice sheets on Greenland and the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Antarctic >>>>>>>>>>>>>> melt into the ocean at increasing rates as many studies >>>>>>>>>>>>>> predict. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> WTF does "presumably assumes" mean? Is that what yer regard as >>>>>>>>>>>>> sciency >>>>>>>>>>>>> language, lil buddy? >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> You didn't like my choice of words? Oh darn! >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Meanwhile, apparently you didn't "find anything in the content >>>>>>>>>>>>>> that wasn't scientifically correct". >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Now we get a tedious parsing of some other words with an obvious >>>>>>>>>>>> and clear meaning. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Hey, ice sheets will melt faster, and I mean definitely >>>>>>>>>>> maybe! Yer >>>>>>>>>>> unambiguously ambiguous language is the language of equivocating >>>>>>>>>>> fruitcakes >>>>>>>>>>> and weasels. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> First define what is meant by "scientifically correct". To >>>>>>>>>>>>> me it >>>>>>>>>>>>> should mean >>>>>>>>>>>>> that you have some evidence that nobody has been able to >>>>>>>>>>>>> refute. >>>>>>>>>>>>> Hansen has >>>>>>>>>>>>> been refuted by a number of fellow scientists, therefor one or >>>>>>>>>>>>> more of >>>>>>>>>>>>> his >>>>>>>>>>>>> claims fails the criteria. In reality there is actually no >>>>>>>>>>>>> such >>>>>>>>>>>>> thing as >>>>>>>>>>>>> "scientifically correct", only evidence, arguments and claims >>>>>>>>>>>>> which >>>>>>>>>>>>> have yet >>>>>>>>>>>>> to be contradicted. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> It could well be that he's been refuted, but I'm noticing you >>>>>>>>>>>> aren't citing any of it. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Yer go back and read agin, lil buddy! >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> All I see is a link to a chart, if that's all you got fine >>>>>>>>>> by me! >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Keep looking. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Will I see something that isn't there? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> I will be more than happy to oblige once you or Sam clarify >>>>>>>>>>>>> what >>>>>>>>>>>>> standard of >>>>>>>>>>>>> evidence is required to satisfy the unscientific criteria of >>>>>>>>>>>>> "scientifically >>>>>>>>>>>>> correct". >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> If it isn't clear to you now, no amount of explanation will >>>>>>>>>>>> help. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> A literal interpretation of "scientifically correct" is >>>>>>>>>>> "having no >>>>>>>>>>> errors" or >>>>>>>>>>> "conforming to fact". How exactly do you assert that a future >>>>>>>>>>> prediction >>>>>>>>>>> involving high uncertainty "conforms to fact" or "has no errors"? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> So that's your personal bogus interpretation? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Nope, actually the dictionary definition of correct when used in >>>>>>>>> adjective form. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> "conforming to fact or truth; free from error; accurate" >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I can understand why you would be so desperate to interpret the >>>>>>>> phrase as something impossible to achieve. I'll stick with my >>>>>>>> perfectly >>>>>>>> reasonable definition below. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> And I'll stick to pointing out the unsciency foolishness of yer >>>>>>> definition. >>>>>> >>>>>> You begged me on your knees for a clarification and I explained it to >>>>>> you. Meanwhile land ice melting has accelerated, hasn't it. >>>>>> >>>>>> "On average, some 310 cubic kilometres of ice was lost from the ice >>>>>> shelves each year during this time, and the rate of loss is increasing >>>>>> rapidly." >>>>> >>>>> Keywest Florida didn't get the message: >>>> >>>> That the rate of loss is increasing rapidly? Other places seem to >>>> be getting it. >>>> >>>>> https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CKudLCwWwAIH8SP.png:large >>>> >>>> So now Key West is the one place on Earth that reflects SLR all over >>>> the planet? Your "conforming to fact or truth" didn't last very long. >>>> >>>> http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/searise.html >>>> >>>> http://www.grida.no/publications/vg/climate/page/3072.aspx >>>> >>>> http://www2.sunysuffolk.edu/mandias/global_warming/impact_sea_level_rise.html >>>> >> >> Those cites blew your ass totally out of the water didn't they, lol! >> >>>>>>>>> We'll just say it >>>>>>>>>> means "conforming with the principles of science". >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> So 10ft of SLR by 2100 is "scientifically correct", i.e., >>>>>>>>> conforming >>>>>>>>> to fact >>>>>>>>> or truth, free from error, and accurate? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Its simply in conformance with observed empirical evidence such as >>>>>>>> accelerating melting of land ice as has been posted here many times. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> So 10ft of SLR by 2100 is a "scientifically correct" fact? >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Greenmobbers normally make stupid statements, so you and Sam are >>>>>>>>>>> perfectly in >>>>>>>>>>> character... >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> When desperation sets in you get around to the personal attack >>>>>>>>>> phase >>>>>>>>>> pretty quick, don't you. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Coming from you, the most ironic statement ever. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> We'll just note that you did in fact resort to personal attack. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The whore Unum takes one ettiquette class and suddenly she becomes >>>>>>> self-righteous about courtesy and manners! Considering yer extensive >>>>>>> history >>>>>>> of Tourette syndrome, ironic doesn't begin to cover it. Have you >>>>>>> been >>>>>>> taking >>>>>>> Tourette suppressants, or something? >>>>>> >>>>>> Getting a little excited? >>>>>> >>>>>>> And what's with the use of majestic plurals, did your ettiquette >>>>>>> class >>>>>>> elevate >>>>>>> your caste to royalty? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> And not just >>>>>> >>>>>> Click send a little too soon? >>>>> >>>>> So 10ft of SLR by 2100 is a "scientifically correct" fact? >>>> >>>> You are welcome to try to find something in a lieblog that indicates >>>> otherwise. Better scramble! 90% of the Florida keys are less than 5ft >>>> above >>>> sea level. Key West is at about 3 feet. >>> >>> That's not how it works, lil buddy, the onus is not on me to prove or >>> disprove >>> anything. If you claim 10ft of SLR by 2100 is a "scientifically correct" >>> fact, the onus is entirely yours. >> >> Actually that is how it works. If you have a dispute with Hansens's >> paper other than the nitwit little chart you posted (and which I >> refuted) you can just bring it on out. Otherwise we can just assume >> that you didn't "find anything in the content that wasn't scientifically >> correct". > > So 10ft of SLR by 2100 is a "scientifically correct" fact? When did you stop beating your wife? > https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CKudLCwWwAIH8SP.png:large So now Key West is the one place on Earth that reflects SLR all over the planet? Your "conforming to fact or truth" didn't last very long. > The possible answers are yes, no, or yet more waffling. My cites blew your ass totally out of the water didn't they, lol! http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/searise.html http://www.grida.no/publications/vg/climate/page/3072.aspx http://www2.sunysuffolk.edu/mandias/global_warming/impact_sea_level_rise.html
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | R Kym Horsell <kym@kymhorsell.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-07-26 21:57 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: New research suggests rising oceans could swamp the world?s coasts by the end of the century?sooner than previously anticipated |
| Message-ID | <mp3l4n$50m$3@odin.sdf-eu.org> |
| In reply to | #509689 |
In alt.global-warming Unum <noneof@yourbusiness.com> wrote: > On 7/26/2015 2:03 PM, D'Oh D'Oh Dobranski wrote: >> On 7/26/2015 11:09 AM, Unum wrote: >>> On 7/26/2015 12:38 PM, D'Oh D'Oh Dobranski wrote: >>>> On 7/26/2015 10:19 AM, Unum wrote: >>>>> On 7/25/2015 1:07 PM, D'Oh D'Oh Dobranski wrote: >>>>>> On 7/25/2015 10:44 AM, Unum wrote: >>>>>>> On 7/25/2015 12:00 PM, D'Oh D'Oh Dobranski wrote: >>>>>>>> On 7/25/2015 9:32 AM, Unum wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 7/25/2015 10:03 AM, Wally W. wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 25 Jul 2015 09:54:45 -0500, Unum wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On 7/25/2015 3:28 AM, Paul /D\ubrin wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 23 Jul 2015 23:23:22 -0500, Unum wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/23/2015 9:22 PM, D'Oh D'Oh Dobranski wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/23/2015 7:18 PM, Sam Wormley wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/23/15 8:06 PM, D'Oh D'Oh Dobranski wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You mean the journal 'Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics', >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> where the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> status is currently 1st stage 'discussion paper'. The paper >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> has a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> long ways to go before acceptance for final publication, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> if and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> when >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it passes 1st and 2nd stages of review, including revisions, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> etc. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That may not happen until long after events like Paris >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2015. Oh >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wait, there's your answer right there for hyping a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pre-publication >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> draft in the media. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hey Chomp, Did you find anything in the content that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wasn't >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> scientifically correct? >>>>>>>>>>>>>> -- Kevin Trenberth >>>>>>>>>>>>> Hilarious to see him cite Trenberth! Next week the chumpsky will >>>>>>>>>>>>> attack >>>>>>>>>>>>> Trenberth. >>>>>>>>>>>> Chom knows that the rational (scientific) attitude is to examine >>>>>>>>>>>> ideas, >>>>>>>>>>>> not the person. >>>>>>>>>>> Obvious lie, on alt.global-warming chumpsky has attempted to >>>>>>>>>>> smear Chris Turney and John Cook in just the past couple of days. >>>>>>>>>> Lessee ... did Unum's post examine the idea or the person? >>>>>>>>> Apparently chumpsky didn't "find anything in the content that wasn't >>>>>>>>> scientifically correct". So what idea are you referring to? >>>>>>>> In order to take Hansen seriously one has to imagine that SLR -- >>>>>>>> which >>>>>>>> has >>>>>>>> shown no acceleration since the end of the Maunder minimum -- will >>>>>>>> somehow, at >>>>>>>> some point, begin to exponentially increase over the next 85 years, >>>>>>>> Redraw >>>>>>>> the exponential curve in your head as many times as necessary in >>>>>>>> order to >>>>>>>> acheive suspension of disbelief. >>>>>>>> https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CKudLCwWwAIH8SP.png:large >>>>>>> Presumably assumes the ice sheets on Greenland and the Antarctic >>>>>>> melt into the ocean at increasing rates as many studies predict. >>>>>> WTF does "presumably assumes" mean? Is that what yer regard as sciency >>>>>> language, lil buddy? >>>>> You didn't like my choice of words? Oh darn! >>>>>>> Meanwhile, apparently you didn't "find anything in the content >>>>>>> that wasn't scientifically correct". >>>>> Now we get a tedious parsing of some other words with an obvious >>>>> and clear meaning. >>>> Hey, ice sheets will melt faster, and I mean definitely maybe! Yer >>>> unambiguously ambiguous language is the language of equivocating >>>> fruitcakes >>>> and weasels. >>>>>> First define what is meant by "scientifically correct". To me it >>>>>> should mean >>>>>> that you have some evidence that nobody has been able to refute. >>>>>> Hansen has >>>>>> been refuted by a number of fellow scientists, therefor one or more of >>>>>> his >>>>>> claims fails the criteria. In reality there is actually no such >>>>>> thing as >>>>>> "scientifically correct", only evidence, arguments and claims which >>>>>> have yet >>>>>> to be contradicted. >>>>> It could well be that he's been refuted, but I'm noticing you >>>>> aren't citing any of it. >>>> Yer go back and read agin, lil buddy! >>> All I see is a link to a chart, if that's all you got fine >>> by me! >> Keep looking. > Will I see something that isn't there? >>>>>> I will be more than happy to oblige once you or Sam clarify what >>>>>> standard of >>>>>> evidence is required to satisfy the unscientific criteria of >>>>>> "scientifically >>>>>> correct". >>>>> If it isn't clear to you now, no amount of explanation will help. >>>> A literal interpretation of "scientifically correct" is "having no >>>> errors" or >>>> "conforming to fact". How exactly do you assert that a future prediction >>>> involving high uncertainty "conforms to fact" or "has no errors"? >>> So that's your personal bogus interpretation? >> Nope, actually the dictionary definition of correct when used in adjective form. >> "conforming to fact or truth; free from error; accurate" > I can understand why you would be so desperate to interpret the > phrase as something impossible to achieve. I'll stick with my perfectly > reasonable definition below. >> We'll just say it >>> means "conforming with the principles of science". >> So 10ft of SLR by 2100 is "scientifically correct", i.e., conforming to fact >> or truth, free from error, and accurate? > Its simply in conformance with observed empirical evidence such as > accelerating melting of land ice as has been posted here many times. ... I thought in the past I'd posted some pix about accelerating SLR showing numbers that agreed with a 2x increase over the past 50y, but for some reason I can't find the source material on any server. I can't remember who it was originally for -- I suspect some city council in Florida. But I just can locate it. So.... I can unveil new results with old data. I've worked up another horrendous s/w to smooth and adjust tide gague data to make it nice like satellite data. The program tries not to estimate too many parameters, but there are a few. E.g. a weight is determined for each gague to minimize the variation in the data over time. Underneath the adjusting some model is fit. At the moment I'm using 2 flavors -- 2 linear segments and an exponential. Both of these fit the data better than a single line oeven over the period 1950-2000. But here is one plot: <http://graphs.kymhorsell.com/fitexp.gif> Since it's based on 50 years of data and even back-casts a few decades (obviosuly doesn't extend back before the war too far) we can forward cast it a few decades and see what it's predicting: 2050: SLR 7.3m to 10.1m 95% CI And even 2100: SLR 30.8m to 63.0m 95% CI I figure the predictions may look outrageous, but should go down well with a crowd very concernedan ice age is starting in the next 30 years because the sun is predicted to go out. -- Investors could lose $4.2tn because of climate change, report warns ... The Guardian, 24 Jul 2015 18:12Z Investors could lose $4.2tn due to impact of climate change, report warns. Investments in fossil fuel companies face serious risk from global warming, research by the Economist Intelligence Unit shows. The future is grim for private holdings in fossil ... Witness Talks Huron Tornado KELOLAND TV, 24 Jul 2015 23:14Z From funnel cloud to touch down, a Huron woman says she will not forget seeing an actual tornado. Thursday night's twister south of Huron near State Highway 37 damaged buildings as well as power lines. 'Brain-Eating' Amoeba Reappears in Louisiana Parish's Water Supply ABC News, 24 Jul 2015 23:16Z A potentially deadly amoeba has been found in the water supply of a parish outside New Orleans for the second time in two years, officials said. America's Cup event cancelled due to extreme weather TVNZ, 26 Jul 2015 12:35Z The America's Cup World Series races in Portsmouth have been cancelled because of the weather conditions.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | R Kym Horsell <kym@kymhorsell.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-07-27 00:17 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: New research suggests rising oceans could swamp the world?s coasts by the end of the century?sooner than previously anticipated |
| Message-ID | <mp3tah$331$1@odin.sdf-eu.org> |
| In reply to | #509725 |
In alt.global-warming R Kym Horsell <kym@kymhorsell.com> wrote: ... > Underneath the adjusting some model is fit. At the moment I'm using > 2 flavors -- 2 linear segments and an exponential. Both of these > fit the data better than a single line oeven over the period 1950-2000. > But here is one plot: > <http://graphs.kymhorsell.com/fitexp.gif> > Since it's based on 50 years of data and even back-casts a few decades > (obviosuly doesn't extend back before the war too far) > we can forward cast it a few decades and see what it's predicting: > 2050: > SLR 7.3m to 10.1m 95% CI > And even > 2100: > SLR 30.8m to 63.0m 95% CI > I figure the predictions may look outrageous, but should go down well > with a crowd very concernedan ice age is starting in the next 30 years > because the sun is predicted to go out. Well this is distressing. In the last day an old s/w package I've been using for 30+ years started SEGFAULTing instead of politely (it was written in France before France went to Hell on the manners thing) telling me my problem was ill-conditioned, and now it seems I've hit a bug in that excellent spreadsheet product written for PC's. Clipping a formula into a box on the spreadsheet gets ONE answer, but it seems to be completely different from the answer if you clip the formula into a file and feed the file into the spreadsheet. Do computers do that kind of thing often? :) Anyway, the results from the model are more mundane than they first appeared. 2050: 95% ci slr above mid 20th cent -- 24.1-44.4 cm 2100: 95% ci slr above mid 20th cent -- 80.6cm to 2.83m The SLR doubling time according to the expon fit is around 25-30years. I.e. between 1950-1975 the pac and atl stations saw about a 3.5 cm rise. Between 1975 and 2000 that doubled to about 7cm. We can expect between 2000 and 2025 about 14cm. -- [Sea level fall.... not.] Rome's original harbour was Ostia. Claudius constructed the first harbour on the Portus site, 4 km (2.5 mi) north of Ostia, enclosing an area of 69 hectares (170 acres), with two long curving moles projecting into the sea, and an artificial island, bearing a lighthouse, in the centre of the space between them. The foundation of this lighthouse was provided by filling one of the massive Obelisk ships, used to transport an obelisk from Egypt to adorn the spina of Vatican Circus, built during the reign of Caligula. The harbour thus opened directly to the sea on the northwest and communicated with the Tiber by a channel on the southeast. --wikipedia The ancient Roman city of Ostia [near Fiumicino, on the other bank of the Tiber] was in antiquity situated at the mouth of the river Tiber, some 30 kilometres to the west of Rome. The shoreline moved seawards, due to silting, from the Middle Ages until the 19th century. Therefore Ostia is today still lying next to the Tiber, but at a distance of some three kilometers from the beach. Ostia is Latin for "mouth", the mouth of the Tiber. The river was used as harbour, but in the Imperial period two harbour basins were added to the north, near Leonardo da Vinci airport. The harbour district was called Portus, Latin for "harbour". Ostia is home to a collection of ruins waiting to be visited. -- wikivoyage
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | R Kym Horsell <kym@kymhorsell.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-07-26 21:44 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: New research suggests rising oceans could swamp the world?s coasts by the end of the century?sooner than previously anticipated |
| Message-ID | <mp3kb5$50m$2@odin.sdf-eu.org> |
| In reply to | #509655 |
In alt.global-warming Unum <noneof@yourbusiness.com> wrote: > On 7/26/2015 12:38 PM, D'Oh D'Oh Dobrainsky wrote: ... >> "conforming to fact". How exactly do you assert that a future prediction >> involving high uncertainty "conforms to fact" or "has no errors"? > So that's your personal bogus interpretation? We'll just say it > means "conforming with the principles of science". One second he's parroting an article boosting a prediction based on unproven methodology about an unprecedented change in solar activity in 30 years time that will allegedly bring on an ice age; the next he questions whether prediction can be done at all. Such is the life of a social media shill and the motile bundle of neuroses we label science denial. >> Greenmobbers normally make stupid statements, so you and Sam are perfectly in >> character... > When desperation sets in you get around to the personal attack phase > pretty quick, don't you. I think it's Dobranski's way of annoucing failure. Scapegoating is just a natural human defence mechanism for monumental failure. -- Chumpski aka K Dobranski, 28 Feb 2015 -- The IPCC rapes science in order to justify a political agenda, it has done more damage to the reputation and credibility of science than anything else. -- Chumpski, 1 Apr 2015
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paul Aubrin <chu8i443@free.fr> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-07-25 19:27 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <55b3e33a$0$3305$426a74cc@news.free.fr> |
| In reply to | #509393 |
On Sat, 25 Jul 2015 12:44:38 -0500, Unum wrote: >> In order to take Hansen seriously one has to imagine that SLR -- which >> has shown no acceleration since the end of the Maunder minimum -- will >> somehow, at some point, begin to exponentially increase over the next >> 85 years, Redraw the exponential curve in your head as many times as >> necessary in order to acheive suspension of disbelief. >> >> https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CKudLCwWwAIH8SP.png:large > > Presumably assumes the ice sheets on Greenland and the Antarctic melt > into the ocean at increasing rates as many studies predict. > > Meanwhile, apparently you didn't "find anything in the content that > wasn't scientifically correct". https://nsidc.org/cryosphere/sotc/ice_sheets.html "Together, the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets hold about 99 percent of the world's freshwater ice. If the Greenland Ice Sheet melted away completely, sea level would rise roughly 7 meters, or 23 feet (Gregory et al. 2004). If the entire Antarctic Ice Sheet melted, sea level would rise by about 57 meters, or 187 feet (Lythe et al. 2001). While this is unlikely for the foreseeable future, even a partial loss of these huge ice masses could have a significant effect on coastal areas. At present, both ice sheets are shrinking, but the rate is small (in terms of sea level contribution, on the order of about 1 millimeter per year)." Nowhere they mention any acceleration.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Unum <noneof@yourbusiness.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-07-26 12:29 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <mp35b4$6jv$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #509415 |
On 7/25/2015 2:27 PM, Paul Aubrin wrote: > On Sat, 25 Jul 2015 12:44:38 -0500, Unum wrote: > >>> In order to take Hansen seriously one has to imagine that SLR -- which >>> has shown no acceleration since the end of the Maunder minimum -- will >>> somehow, at some point, begin to exponentially increase over the next >>> 85 years, Redraw the exponential curve in your head as many times as >>> necessary in order to acheive suspension of disbelief. >>> >>> https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CKudLCwWwAIH8SP.png:large >> >> Presumably assumes the ice sheets on Greenland and the Antarctic melt >> into the ocean at increasing rates as many studies predict. >> >> Meanwhile, apparently you didn't "find anything in the content that >> wasn't scientifically correct". > > https://nsidc.org/cryosphere/sotc/ice_sheets.html > "Together, the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets hold about 99 percent > of the world's freshwater ice. If the Greenland Ice Sheet melted away > completely, sea level would rise roughly 7 meters, or 23 feet (Gregory et > al. 2004). If the entire Antarctic Ice Sheet melted, sea level would rise > by about 57 meters, or 187 feet (Lythe et al. 2001). While this is > unlikely for the foreseeable future, even a partial loss of these huge > ice masses could have a significant effect on coastal areas. At present, > both ice sheets are shrinking, but the rate is small (in terms of sea > level contribution, on the order of about 1 millimeter per year)." > > Nowhere they mention any acceleration. They mention it here though, don't they. https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn27247-major-antarctic-ice-survey-reveals-dramatic-melting/ For the first nine years the average thinning of the ice shelves across Antarctica was negligible. Consistent losses in vulnerable West Antarctica were mostly offset by gains in East Antarctica, which Paolo says might be a result of increased snowfall there – itself something that is forecast to happen as the globe warms. But the second half of the study period, from 2003 to 2012, was completely different. Ice shelf loss off West Antarctica increased by 70 per cent and even East Antarctica showed a small loss. On average, some 310 cubic kilometres of ice was lost from the ice shelves each year during this time, and the rate of loss is increasing rapidly.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paul Aubrin <chu8i443@free.fr> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-07-26 18:40 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <55b52984$0$3061$426a74cc@news.free.fr> |
| In reply to | #509634 |
On Sun, 26 Jul 2015 12:29:32 -0500, Unum wrote: > On 7/25/2015 2:27 PM, Paul Aubrin wrote: >> On Sat, 25 Jul 2015 12:44:38 -0500, Unum wrote: >> >>>> In order to take Hansen seriously one has to imagine that SLR -- >>>> which has shown no acceleration since the end of the Maunder minimum >>>> -- will somehow, at some point, begin to exponentially increase over >>>> the next 85 years, Redraw the exponential curve in your head as many >>>> times as necessary in order to acheive suspension of disbelief. >>>> >>>> https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CKudLCwWwAIH8SP.png:large >>> >>> Presumably assumes the ice sheets on Greenland and the Antarctic melt >>> into the ocean at increasing rates as many studies predict. >>> >>> Meanwhile, apparently you didn't "find anything in the content that >>> wasn't scientifically correct". >> >> https://nsidc.org/cryosphere/sotc/ice_sheets.html "Together, the >> Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets hold about 99 percent of the world's >> freshwater ice. If the Greenland Ice Sheet melted away completely, sea >> level would rise roughly 7 meters, or 23 feet (Gregory et al. 2004). If >> the entire Antarctic Ice Sheet melted, sea level would rise by about 57 >> meters, or 187 feet (Lythe et al. 2001). While this is unlikely for the >> foreseeable future, even a partial loss of these huge ice masses could >> have a significant effect on coastal areas. At present, both ice sheets >> are shrinking, but the rate is small (in terms of sea level >> contribution, on the order of about 1 millimeter per year)." >> >> Nowhere they mention any acceleration. > > They mention it here though, don't they. > > https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn27247-major-antarctic-ice-survey- reveals-dramatic-melting/ > > For the first nine years the average thinning of the ice shelves across > Antarctica was negligible. Consistent losses in vulnerable West > Antarctica were mostly offset by gains in East Antarctica, which Paolo > says might be a result of increased snowfall there – itself something > that is forecast to happen as the globe warms. > > But the second half of the study period, from 2003 to 2012, was > completely different. Ice shelf loss off West Antarctica increased by 70 > per cent and even East Antarctica showed a small loss. On average, some > 310 cubic kilometres of ice was lost from the ice shelves each year > during this time, > and the rate of loss is increasing rapidly. I provided you a reliable source.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Unum <noneof@yourbusiness.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-07-26 14:24 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <mp3c2j$v0l$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #509676 |
On 7/26/2015 1:40 PM, Paul Aubrin wrote: > On Sun, 26 Jul 2015 12:29:32 -0500, Unum wrote: > >> On 7/25/2015 2:27 PM, Paul Aubrin wrote: >>> On Sat, 25 Jul 2015 12:44:38 -0500, Unum wrote: >>> >>>>> In order to take Hansen seriously one has to imagine that SLR -- >>>>> which has shown no acceleration since the end of the Maunder minimum >>>>> -- will somehow, at some point, begin to exponentially increase over >>>>> the next 85 years, Redraw the exponential curve in your head as many >>>>> times as necessary in order to acheive suspension of disbelief. >>>>> >>>>> https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CKudLCwWwAIH8SP.png:large >>>> >>>> Presumably assumes the ice sheets on Greenland and the Antarctic melt >>>> into the ocean at increasing rates as many studies predict. >>>> >>>> Meanwhile, apparently you didn't "find anything in the content that >>>> wasn't scientifically correct". >>> >>> https://nsidc.org/cryosphere/sotc/ice_sheets.html "Together, the >>> Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets hold about 99 percent of the world's >>> freshwater ice. If the Greenland Ice Sheet melted away completely, sea >>> level would rise roughly 7 meters, or 23 feet (Gregory et al. 2004). If >>> the entire Antarctic Ice Sheet melted, sea level would rise by about 57 >>> meters, or 187 feet (Lythe et al. 2001). While this is unlikely for the >>> foreseeable future, even a partial loss of these huge ice masses could >>> have a significant effect on coastal areas. At present, both ice sheets >>> are shrinking, but the rate is small (in terms of sea level >>> contribution, on the order of about 1 millimeter per year)." >>> >>> Nowhere they mention any acceleration. >> >> They mention it here though, don't they. >> >> https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn27247-major-antarctic-ice-survey- > reveals-dramatic-melting/ >> >> For the first nine years the average thinning of the ice shelves across >> Antarctica was negligible. Consistent losses in vulnerable West >> Antarctica were mostly offset by gains in East Antarctica, which Paolo >> says might be a result of increased snowfall there – itself something >> that is forecast to happen as the globe warms. >> >> But the second half of the study period, from 2003 to 2012, was >> completely different. Ice shelf loss off West Antarctica increased by 70 >> per cent and even East Antarctica showed a small loss. On average, some >> 310 cubic kilometres of ice was lost from the ice shelves each year >> during this time, >> and the rate of loss is increasing rapidly. > > I provided you a reliable source. Cites from your source appear to stop at 2004.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Desertphile <Desertphile@nospam.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-07-29 07:53 -0600 |
| Subject | Re: New research suggests rising oceans could swamp the worlds coasts by the end of the centurysooner than previously anticipated |
| Message-ID | <4imhra5efrga3a5gfmde7fpnd59uss8pr6@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #509683 |
On Sun, 26 Jul 2015 14:24:28 -0500, Unum <noneof@yourbusiness.com> wrote: > On 7/26/2015 1:40 PM, Paul Aubrin wrote: > > On Sun, 26 Jul 2015 12:29:32 -0500, Unum wrote: > > > >> On 7/25/2015 2:27 PM, Paul Aubrin wrote: > >>> On Sat, 25 Jul 2015 12:44:38 -0500, Unum wrote: > >>> > >>>>> In order to take Hansen seriously one has to imagine that SLR -- > >>>>> which has shown no acceleration since the end of the Maunder minimum > >>>>> -- will somehow, at some point, begin to exponentially increase over > >>>>> the next 85 years, Redraw the exponential curve in your head as many > >>>>> times as necessary in order to acheive suspension of disbelief. > >>>>> > >>>>> https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CKudLCwWwAIH8SP.png:large > >>>> > >>>> Presumably assumes the ice sheets on Greenland and the Antarctic melt > >>>> into the ocean at increasing rates as many studies predict. > >>>> > >>>> Meanwhile, apparently you didn't "find anything in the content that > >>>> wasn't scientifically correct". > >>> > >>> https://nsidc.org/cryosphere/sotc/ice_sheets.html "Together, the > >>> Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets hold about 99 percent of the world's > >>> freshwater ice. If the Greenland Ice Sheet melted away completely, sea > >>> level would rise roughly 7 meters, or 23 feet (Gregory et al. 2004). If > >>> the entire Antarctic Ice Sheet melted, sea level would rise by about 57 > >>> meters, or 187 feet (Lythe et al. 2001). While this is unlikely for the > >>> foreseeable future, even a partial loss of these huge ice masses could > >>> have a significant effect on coastal areas. At present, both ice sheets > >>> are shrinking, but the rate is small (in terms of sea level > >>> contribution, on the order of about 1 millimeter per year)." > >>> > >>> Nowhere they mention any acceleration. > >> > >> They mention it here though, don't they. > >> > >> https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn27247-major-antarctic-ice-survey- > > reveals-dramatic-melting/ > >> > >> For the first nine years the average thinning of the ice shelves across > >> Antarctica was negligible. Consistent losses in vulnerable West > >> Antarctica were mostly offset by gains in East Antarctica, which Paolo > >> says might be a result of increased snowfall there – itself something > >> that is forecast to happen as the globe warms. > >> > >> But the second half of the study period, from 2003 to 2012, was > >> completely different. Ice shelf loss off West Antarctica increased by 70 > >> per cent and even East Antarctica showed a small loss. On average, some > >> 310 cubic kilometres of ice was lost from the ice shelves each year > >> during this time, and the rate of loss is increasing rapidly. > > I provided you a reliable source. His anus. > Cites from your source appear to stop at 2004. Since year 2004, Antarctic ice melting has been measured by GRACE and other technologies. 19 areas of Antarctic have lost at least 5% of their ice mass; 6 areas have gained ice mass. -- "I get it, you don’t like science. And you don’t like science that interferes with the interests of your corporate clients. But we need science to protect public health and the environment." -- Representative Jim McGovern, to The America Treason Party
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <nobody@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-07-29 11:07 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <2%5ux.900$AZ3.849@fx27.iad> |
| In reply to | #510185 |
On 07/29/2015 09:53 AM, Desertphile wrote:
> On Sun, 26 Jul 2015 14:24:28 -0500, Unum <noneof@yourbusiness.com> wrote:
>
>> On 7/26/2015 1:40 PM, Paul Aubrin wrote:
>>> On Sun, 26 Jul 2015 12:29:32 -0500, Unum wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 7/25/2015 2:27 PM, Paul Aubrin wrote:
>>>>> On Sat, 25 Jul 2015 12:44:38 -0500, Unum wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>> In order to take Hansen seriously one has to imagine that SLR --
>>>>>>> which has shown no acceleration since the end of the Maunder minimum
>>>>>>> -- will somehow, at some point, begin to exponentially increase over
>>>>>>> the next 85 years, Redraw the exponential curve in your head as many
>>>>>>> times as necessary in order to acheive suspension of disbelief.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CKudLCwWwAIH8SP.png:large
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Presumably assumes the ice sheets on Greenland and the Antarctic melt
>>>>>> into the ocean at increasing rates as many studies predict.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Meanwhile, apparently you didn't "find anything in the content that
>>>>>> wasn't scientifically correct".
>>>>>
>>>>> https://nsidc.org/cryosphere/sotc/ice_sheets.html "Together, the
>>>>> Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets hold about 99 percent of the world's
>>>>> freshwater ice. If the Greenland Ice Sheet melted away completely, sea
>>>>> level would rise roughly 7 meters, or 23 feet (Gregory et al. 2004). If
>>>>> the entire Antarctic Ice Sheet melted, sea level would rise by about 57
>>>>> meters, or 187 feet (Lythe et al. 2001). While this is unlikely for the
>>>>> foreseeable future, even a partial loss of these huge ice masses could
>>>>> have a significant effect on coastal areas. At present, both ice sheets
>>>>> are shrinking, but the rate is small (in terms of sea level
>>>>> contribution, on the order of about 1 millimeter per year)."
>>>>>
>>>>> Nowhere they mention any acceleration.
>>>>
>>>> They mention it here though, don't they.
>>>>
>>>> https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn27247-major-antarctic-ice-survey-
>>> reveals-dramatic-melting/
>>>>
>>>> For the first nine years the average thinning of the ice shelves across
>>>> Antarctica was negligible. Consistent losses in vulnerable West
>>>> Antarctica were mostly offset by gains in East Antarctica, which Paolo
>>>> says might be a result of increased snowfall there – itself something
>>>> that is forecast to happen as the globe warms.
>>>>
>>>> But the second half of the study period, from 2003 to 2012, was
>>>> completely different. Ice shelf loss off West Antarctica increased by 70
>>>> per cent and even East Antarctica showed a small loss. On average, some
>>>> 310 cubic kilometres of ice was lost from the ice shelves each year
>>>> during this time, and the rate of loss is increasing rapidly.
>
>>> I provided you a reliable source.
>
> His anus.
>
>> Cites from your source appear to stop at 2004.
>
> Since year 2004, Antarctic ice melting has been measured by GRACE and
> other technologies. 19 areas of Antarctic have lost at least 5% of their
> ice mass; 6 areas have gained ice mass.
And the net effect is? Oh Wait! I forgot, you Greens are all "idea men"
and don't do quantity!
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/antarctic.sea.ice.interactive.html
Looks like normal variations to me! And even better this year's ice is
at nearly record highs! Why do you lie so much Ricearoni?
Got any of those new energy taxes to spend yet?
--
___ ___ ___ ___
/\ \ /\ \ /\__\ /\ \
/::\ \ /::\ \ /::| | \:\ \
/:/\:\ \ /:/\:\ \ /:|:| | ___ /::\__\
/::\~\:\__\ /::\~\:\ \ /:/|:| |__ /\ /:/\/__/
/:/\:\ \:|__| /:/\:\ \:\__\ /:/ |:| /\__\ \:\/:/ /
\:\~\:\/:/ / \:\~\:\ \/__/ \/__|:|/:/ / \::/ /
\:\ \::/ / \:\ \:\__\ |:/:/ / \/__/
\:\/:/ / \:\ \/__/ |::/ /
\_:/__/ \:\__\ /:/ /
\/__/ \/__/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HVAC <Mr.HVAC@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-07-29 13:15 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <mpb1k3$bem$4@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #510196 |
On 7/29/2015 11:07 AM, benj wrote: > > And the net effect is? Oh Wait! I forgot, you Greens are all "idea men" > and don't do quantity! > > http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/antarctic.sea.ice.interactive.html > > Looks like normal variations to me! Of course when the facts agree with BJ, he pounds the facts. When the data is in BJ's favor, he pounds the data. When the facts and data are against him, he pounds the table. -- Cut off one head, two more shall take its place. HAIL HYDRA! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FZcG5UOY224
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-07-29 21:00 -0700 |
| Subject | new |
| Message-ID | <5fbbaada-37e7-4bc6-9a40-eef382b0fd3a@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #510185 |
sounds quantumfiable; so, what is the difference between the rate of calving, and the heighth of the ice sheets > year 2004, Antarctic ice melting has been measured by GRACE and > other technologies. 19 areas of Antarctic have lost at least 5% of their > ice mass; 6 areas have gained ice mass. > > -- > "I get it, you don't like science. And you don't like science that interferes with the > interests of your corporate clients. But we need science to protect public health and > the environment." -- Representative Jim McGovern, to The America Treason Party
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Desertphile <Desertphile@nospam.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-07-29 13:33 -0600 |
| Subject | Re: New research suggests rising oceans could swamp the world¢s coasts by the end of the centurysooner than previously anticipated |
| Message-ID | <miairal2khcdf3tvao5q2sjcqhii12o70d@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #509676 |
On 26 Jul 2015 18:40:04 GMT, Paul Aubrin <chu8i443@free.fr> wrote: > On Sun, 26 Jul 2015 12:29:32 -0500, Unum wrote: > > > On 7/25/2015 2:27 PM, Paul Aubrin wrote: > >> On Sat, 25 Jul 2015 12:44:38 -0500, Unum wrote: > >> > >>>> In order to take Hansen seriously one has to imagine that SLR -- > >>>> which has shown no acceleration since the end of the Maunder minimum > >>>> -- will somehow, at some point, begin to exponentially increase over > >>>> the next 85 years, Redraw the exponential curve in your head as many > >>>> times as necessary in order to acheive suspension of disbelief. > >>>> > >>>> https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CKudLCwWwAIH8SP.png:large > >>> > >>> Presumably assumes the ice sheets on Greenland and the Antarctic melt > >>> into the ocean at increasing rates as many studies predict. > >>> > >>> Meanwhile, apparently you didn't "find anything in the content that > >>> wasn't scientifically correct". > >> > >> https://nsidc.org/cryosphere/sotc/ice_sheets.html "Together, the > >> Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets hold about 99 percent of the world's > >> freshwater ice. If the Greenland Ice Sheet melted away completely, sea > >> level would rise roughly 7 meters, or 23 feet (Gregory et al. 2004). If > >> the entire Antarctic Ice Sheet melted, sea level would rise by about 57 > >> meters, or 187 feet (Lythe et al. 2001). While this is unlikely for the > >> foreseeable future, even a partial loss of these huge ice masses could > >> have a significant effect on coastal areas. At present, both ice sheets > >> are shrinking, but the rate is small (in terms of sea level > >> contribution, on the order of about 1 millimeter per year)." > >> > >> Nowhere they mention any acceleration. > > > > They mention it here though, don't they. > > > > https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn27247-major-antarctic-ice-survey- > reveals-dramatic-melting/ > > > > For the first nine years the average thinning of the ice shelves across > > Antarctica was negligible. Consistent losses in vulnerable West > > Antarctica were mostly offset by gains in East Antarctica, which Paolo > > says might be a result of increased snowfall there – itself something > > that is forecast to happen as the globe warms. > > > > But the second half of the study period, from 2003 to 2012, was > > completely different. Ice shelf loss off West Antarctica increased by 70 > > per cent and even East Antarctica showed a small loss. On average, some > > 310 cubic kilometres of ice was lost from the ice shelves each year > > during this time, > > and the rate of loss is increasing rapidly. > > I provided you a reliable source. Where? Did you see all of the peer-reviewed papers posted here that show sea level rise has accelerated to 4.4mm/year? -- "I get it, you don’t like science. And you don’t like science that interferes with the interests of your corporate clients. But we need science to protect public health and the environment." -- Representative Jim McGovern, to The America Treason Party
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | R Kym Horsell <kym@kymhorsell.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-07-29 19:48 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: New research suggests rising oceans could swamp the world?s coasts by the end of the century?sooner than previously anticipated |
| Message-ID | <mpbalv$s77$1@odin.sdf-eu.org> |
| In reply to | #510244 |
In alt.global-warming Desertphile <Desertphile@nospam.org> wrote: > On 26 Jul 2015 18:40:04 GMT, Paul /D\ubrin <chu8i443@free.fr> wrote: >> On Sun, 26 Jul 2015 12:29:32 -0500, Unum wrote: >> > On 7/25/2015 2:27 PM, Paul /D\ubrin wrote: >> >> On Sat, 25 Jul 2015 12:44:38 -0500, Unum wrote: >> >>>> In order to take Hansen seriously one has to imagine that SLR -- >> >>>> which has shown no acceleration since the end of the Maunder minimum >> >>>> -- will somehow, at some point, begin to exponentially increase over >> >>>> the next 85 years, Redraw the exponential curve in your head as many >> >>>> times as necessary in order to acheive suspension of disbelief. >> >>>> https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CKudLCwWwAIH8SP.png:large >> >>> Presumably assumes the ice sheets on Greenland and the Antarctic melt >> >>> into the ocean at increasing rates as many studies predict. >> >>> Meanwhile, apparently you didn't "find anything in the content that >> >>> wasn't scientifically correct". >> >> https://nsidc.org/cryosphere/sotc/ice_sheets.html "Together, the >> >> Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets hold about 99 percent of the world's >> >> freshwater ice. If the Greenland Ice Sheet melted away completely, sea >> >> level would rise roughly 7 meters, or 23 feet (Gregory et al. 2004). If >> >> the entire Antarctic Ice Sheet melted, sea level would rise by about 57 >> >> meters, or 187 feet (Lythe et al. 2001). While this is unlikely for the >> >> foreseeable future, even a partial loss of these huge ice masses could >> >> have a significant effect on coastal areas. At present, both ice sheets >> >> are shrinking, but the rate is small (in terms of sea level >> >> contribution, on the order of about 1 millimeter per year)." >> >> Nowhere they mention any acceleration. >> > They mention it here though, don't they. >> > https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn27247-major-antarctic-ice-survey- >> reveals-dramatic-melting/ >> > For the first nine years the average thinning of the ice shelves across >> > Antarctica was negligible. Consistent losses in vulnerable West >> > Antarctica were mostly offset by gains in East Antarctica, which Paolo >> > says might be a result of increased snowfall there ? itself something >> > that is forecast to happen as the globe warms. >> > But the second half of the study period, from 2003 to 2012, was >> > completely different. Ice shelf loss off West Antarctica increased by 70 >> > per cent and even East Antarctica showed a small loss. On average, some >> > 310 cubic kilometres of ice was lost from the ice shelves each year >> > during this time, >> > and the rate of loss is increasing rapidly. >> I provided you a reliable source. > Where? Did you see all of the peer-reviewed papers posted here that show > sea level rise has accelerated to 4.4mm/year? Whaaaa? Le Homer Simpson Francaise? It's all he can do to concentrate on one outliar (sic) at a time. -- Iraqi Government Declares 4-Day Holiday Over Severe Heatwave - ABC News ABC News, 29 Jul 2015 10:16Z Iraq's Council of Ministers has declared a four-day mandatory holiday beginning Thursday as temperatures are set to soar above 50 degrees Celsius (123 degrees Fahrenheit). E.P.A. meets with state, city leaders on climate change | Capital New York Capital New York, 29 Jul 2015 10:16Z Federal, state and city officials met Tuesday morning in Manhattan to voice concerns on the threat of climate change and urge New York to use every tool they have to prepare for global warming and mitigate its hazards. "Your staff is to be commended ... Record rain falls on Iowa triggering flood warnings KCCI Des Moines, 29 Jul 2015 12:15Z The storms triggered flood warnings across the state -- check county-by- county alerts. 3-hour Canadian tornado likely one of world's longest USA TODAY, 29 Jul 2015 17:16Z The massive tornado that roared across the Canadian province of Manitoba late Monday was on the ground for nearly 3 hours - likely one of the longest- lasting on record in Cantada and perhaps the world. July cyclone swirls into Cantada after whipping Northern Rockies and High Plains Washington Post, 29 Jul 2015 17:17Z This storm brought it all to the Northern Rockies and High Plains: snow, severe thunderstorms, accumulating hail, raging winds and fires.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | R Kym Horsell <kym@kymhorsell.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-07-25 21:04 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: New research suggests rising oceans could swamp the world?s coasts by the end of the century?sooner than previously anticipated |
| Message-ID | <mp0tlq$kqj$1@odin.sdf-eu.org> |
| In reply to | #509393 |
In alt.global-warming Unum <noneof@yourbusiness.com> wrote: > On 7/25/2015 12:00 PM, D'Oh D'Oh Dobrainsky wrote: >> On 7/25/2015 9:32 AM, Unum wrote: >>> On 7/25/2015 10:03 AM, Wally W. wrote: >>>> On Sat, 25 Jul 2015 09:54:45 -0500, Unum wrote: >>>>> On 7/25/2015 3:28 AM, Paul /D\ubrin wrote: >>>>>> On Thu, 23 Jul 2015 23:23:22 -0500, Unum wrote: >>>>>>> On 7/23/2015 9:22 PM, D'Oh D'Oh Dobrainsky wrote: >>>>>>>> On 7/23/2015 7:18 PM, Sam Wormley wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 7/23/15 8:06 PM, D'Oh D'Oh Dobrainsky wrote: >>>>>>>>>> You mean the journal 'Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics', where the >>>>>>>>>> status is currently 1st stage 'discussion paper'. The paper has a >>>>>>>>>> long ways to go before acceptance for final publication, if and >>>>>>>>>> when >>>>>>>>>> it passes 1st and 2nd stages of review, including revisions, etc. >>>>>>>>>> That may not happen until long after events like Paris 2015. Oh >>>>>>>>>> wait, there's your answer right there for hyping a pre-publication >>>>>>>>>> draft in the media. >>>>>>>>> Hey Chomp, Did you find anything in the content that wasn't >>>>>>>>> scientifically correct? >>>>>>>> -- Kevin Trenberth >>>>>>> Hilarious to see him cite Trenberth! Next week the chumpsky will >>>>>>> attack >>>>>>> Trenberth. >>>>>> Chom knows that the rational (scientific) attitude is to examine ideas, >>>>>> not the person. >>>>> Obvious lie, on alt.global-warming chumpsky has attempted to >>>>> smear Chris Turney and John Cook in just the past couple of days. >>>> Lessee ... did Unum's post examine the idea or the person? >>> Apparently chumpsky didn't "find anything in the content that wasn't >>> scientifically correct". So what idea are you referring to? >> In order to take Hansen seriously one has to imagine that SLR -- which has >> shown no acceleration since the end of the Maunder minimum -- will somehow, at >> some point, begin to exponentially increase over the next 85 years, Redraw >> the exponential curve in your head as many times as necessary in order to >> acheive suspension of disbelief. >> https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CKudLCwWwAIH8SP.png:large > Presumably assumes the ice sheets on Greenland and the Antarctic > melt into the ocean at increasing rates as many studies predict. > Meanwhile, apparently you didn't "find anything in the content > that wasn't scientifically correct". And then we have this: https://www.skepticalscience.com/print.php?r=365 -- Virginia city's floods may be preview of US coast as sea levels rise Press Herald, 20 Dec 2014 09:50Z Flooding has become such a part of everyday life that Norfolk residents are raising their properties about 10 feet off the ground. By 2045, within the lifetime of a 30-year mortgage, sea levels will rise about a foot along the Gulf of Mexico and the eastern shoreline, increasing tidal flooding in places including Atlantic City, New Jersey; Ocean City, Maryland; and Myrtle Beach ... Storms bring forth prehistoric treasures SFGate, 20 Dec 2014 18:52Z In the wake of December's storms, treasure hunters and scientists have found fossils on beaches and in sandstone cliffs in the Bay Area and elsewhere along the Pacific Coast that date back anywhere from 5,000 to 10 mn y. Pacific storm could mark floods, landslides, early holiday woe Q13 FOX, 20 Dec 2014 21:07Z Another Pacific storm is expected to pound the West Coast this weekend and could unleash flash flooding, mudslides and debris flows, just a week after similar rains left widespread devastation. Big storm over Eastern US threatens holiday travel plans The Westside Story, 20 Dec 2014 21:11Z A massive storm that is building up could ruin the holiday plans of a large number of Americans. Travel plans, in particular, may go topsy-turvy for nearly 2/3 of the residents of the country.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paul Aubrin <chu8i443@free.fr> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-07-25 18:34 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <55b3d6c7$0$3299$426a74cc@news.free.fr> |
| In reply to | #509357 |
On Sat, 25 Jul 2015 09:54:45 -0500, Unum wrote: > On 7/25/2015 3:28 AM, Paul Aubrin wrote: >> On Thu, 23 Jul 2015 23:23:22 -0500, Unum wrote: >> >>> On 7/23/2015 9:22 PM, Chom Noamsky wrote: >>>> On 7/23/2015 7:18 PM, Sam Wormley wrote: >>>>> On 7/23/15 8:06 PM, Chom Noamsky wrote: >>>>>> You mean the journal 'Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics', where the >>>>>> status is currently 1st stage 'discussion paper'. The paper has a >>>>>> long ways to go before acceptance for final publication, if and >>>>>> when it passes 1st and 2nd stages of review, including revisions, >>>>>> etc. That may not happen until long after events like Paris 2015. >>>>>> Oh wait, there's your answer right there for hyping a >>>>>> pre-publication draft in the media. >>>>> >>>>> Hey Chomp, Did you find anything in the content that wasn't >>>>> scientifically correct? >>> >>>> -- Kevin Trenberth >>> >>> Hilarious to see him cite Trenberth! Next week the chumpsky will >>> attack Trenberth. >> >> Chom knows that the rational (scientific) attitude is to examine ideas, >> not the person. > > Obvious lie, on alt.global-warming chumpsky has attempted to smear Chris > Turney and John Cook in just the past couple of days. He mocked Chris Turney, famous as the leader of the ship of fools cruise. He didn't smear him.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <nobody@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-07-25 16:04 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: New research suggests rising oceans could swamp the world’s coasts by the end of the century---sooner than previously anticipated |
| Message-ID | <4ZRsx.256949$DJ3.44106@fx05.iad> |
| In reply to | #509115 |
On 07/25/2015 04:28 AM, Paul Aubrin wrote:
> On Thu, 23 Jul 2015 23:23:22 -0500, Unum wrote:
>
>> On 7/23/2015 9:22 PM, Chom Noamsky wrote:
>>> On 7/23/2015 7:18 PM, Sam Wormley wrote:
>>>> On 7/23/15 8:06 PM, Chom Noamsky wrote:
>>>>> You mean the journal 'Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics', where the
>>>>> status is currently 1st stage 'discussion paper'. The paper has a
>>>>> long ways to go before acceptance for final publication, if and when
>>>>> it passes 1st and 2nd stages of review, including revisions, etc.
>>>>> That may not happen until long after events like Paris 2015. Oh
>>>>> wait, there's your answer right there for hyping a pre-publication
>>>>> draft in the media.
>>>>
>>>> Hey Chomp, Did you find anything in the content that wasn't
>>>> scientifically correct?
>>
>>> -- Kevin Trenberth
>>
>> Hilarious to see him cite Trenberth! Next week the chumpsky will attack
>> Trenberth.
>
> Chom knows that the rational (scientific) attitude is to examine ideas,
> not the person.
Not here! Standard science here is to determine credibility by how many
people call the researcher "insane". The more calling "kook" the more
right your position is! That is internet science!
--
___ ___ ___ ___
/\ \ /\ \ /\__\ /\ \
/::\ \ /::\ \ /::| | \:\ \
/:/\:\ \ /:/\:\ \ /:|:| | ___ /::\__\
/::\~\:\__\ /::\~\:\ \ /:/|:| |__ /\ /:/\/__/
/:/\:\ \:|__| /:/\:\ \:\__\ /:/ |:| /\__\ \:\/:/ /
\:\~\:\/:/ / \:\~\:\ \/__/ \/__|:|/:/ / \::/ /
\:\ \::/ / \:\ \:\__\ |:/:/ / \/__/
\:\/:/ / \:\ \/__/ |::/ /
\_:/__/ \:\__\ /:/ /
\/__/ \/__/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-07-24 03:18 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <3en88c-en8.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #509085 |
In sci.physics Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> wrote: > On 7/23/15 8:06 PM, Chom Noamsky wrote: >> You mean the journal 'Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics', where the >> status is currently 1st stage 'discussion paper'. The paper has a long >> ways to go before acceptance for final publication, if and when it >> passes 1st and 2nd stages of review, including revisions, etc. That may >> not happen until long after events like Paris 2015. Oh wait, there's >> your answer right there for hyping a pre-publication draft in the media. > > Hey Chomp, Did you find anything in the content that wasn't > scientifically correct? Hey ass hole, how many timees are you going to paste in the same shit? -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-07-24 00:51 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <7qe88c-vc1.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #509025 |
In sci.physics Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> wrote: > On 7/23/15 5:34 PM, Chom Noamsky wrote: >> The paper hasn't even passed the test of peer review. Greenmobbers >> always swear the gold standard of science is peer review, but Hansen and >> company are so elite now they don't need no stinking peer review! > > Peer review of the Hansen paper is in progress. So what ass hole? It doesn't change the fact that it is off topic, speculative FUD that hasn't been peer reviewed ass hole. -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 3 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics
csiph-web