Seas are rising way faster than any time in past 2,800 years

[TBoneTX 45,273]

C'mon, guys...

[Expat1 971]

Global warming "science" is no better described than in sciencemag.org, where a group of NOAA "scientists" in June, 2015 published an article with the "updated temperature analysis" describing the methodogies used to adjust the temperature readings upwards in the post-1998 data and downwards in the pre-hiatus period (since 1880) to reduce the base average and inflate the post-1998 averages.

The current global warming charts are generated from this adjusted data.

No scientiic method on the planet Involves taking actual instrument readings, adjust them, and draw conclusions based on those adjustments. Once a challenge to this was declared BS and this methodology was dubbed "science" these guys regretfully made themselves fair game.

The article is titles "Possible artifacts of data biases in the recent global surface warming hiatus" and the contact email on the article is an NOAA.gov address. I dont have to accept being insulted for dismissing this nonsense.

It was followed up by an article "Lost and Found, the Earth's Missing Heat" LOL. So they took the temperature readings, penciled in higher numbers, and declared that they found the heat that was missing (an admission that the "accumulation of energy" in the global warming theory is missing if temperature readings are used but re-appears when you type in a higher number). No kidding, anybody can pencil in an old lower number and new higher number and declare temperature is rising LOL. Global warming theorists are NOT using raw instrument readings and were originally caught by a scientist who did.

Edited February 25, 2016 by Expat1

[Expat1 971]

A recurring theme-who was he?

They all look alike to me

[Jacque67 7,328]

They all look alike to me

Guess that's what booze does;)

[Expat1 971]

Guess that's what booze does;)

In Saudi all booze does is get you jail time and lashes. Its part of the kind, peaceful, and tolerant culture here.

Edited February 25, 2016 by Expat1

[The Nature Boy 7,659]

10 - Got nothing? Standard liberal arts slur to end discussion.

I mean, you might as well add that to your number system if your going to use it that much.

I will add liberal arts to my list of banned politically incorrect words not to use.

[Dakine10 5,452]

I will add liberal arts to my list of banned politically incorrect words not to use.

Nothing wrong with liberal arts, although certain posters - and one mod included IIRC - seem to have decided it's OK taking a demeaning approach towards it.

[Rob L 3,811]

Just a GED. Qualifies me to read a frickin thermometer.

And a masters in environmental engineering (chemical, not civil). My reasearch was on inorganic hazardous waste inertion by bonding, cement kilns. That was 1996. While i was working as a process/process design engineer.

You got something hotshot? Lemme guess, your liberal arts degree makes you a "social scientist" lmao

Me Personally...NADA....I am just pointing to what is the overwhelming consensus of scientists publishing in this area, which you continue to maintain are not real scientists doing real research. I hope that you had someone else spell check your thesis.

[Póg mo 1,749]

Someone thinks that "looking for clues about sea levels around the seashore" can be passed off as science

I took a course in geophysics in University, so yes I do have at least an elementary understanding of the science involved.

[Expat1 971]

Me Personally...NADA....I am just pointing to what is the overwhelming consensus of scientists publishing in this area, which you continue to maintain are not real scientists doing real research. I hope that you had someone else spell check your thesis.

My thesis wasn't done on a smartphone

With that said riddle me this:

Which mixture has the highest internal energy:

Pure air at 100 F with 70 F dewpoint?

Air with 400 ppm CO2 at 100 F with 70 F dewpoint?

[Expat1 971]

Nothing wrong with liberal arts, although certain posters - and one mod included IIRC - seem to have decided it's OK taking a demeaning approach towards it.

It's not demeaning at all behind the McDonald's counter but it is demeaning in a discussion involving facts of a mathematical or technical or scientific nature.

Please sign all global warming related posts with this NOAA explanation, issued in 2015 after they were cold busted doing it, as follows:

To increase the rate in warming, NOAA scientists put more weight on certain ocean buoy arrays, adjusted ship-based temperature readings upward, and slightly raised land-based temperatures as well. Scientists said adjusted ship-based temperature data “had the largest impact on trends for the 2000-2014 time period, accounting for 0.030°C of the 0.064°C trend difference.” They added that the “buoy offset correction contributed 0.014°C… to the difference, and the additional weight given to the buoys because of their greater accuracy contributed 0.012°C.”

Let me help with the interpretation: 50% of the "increase" (.03 deg C) was due to ship-based temperature data corrections. Another .026 deg C was due to buoy and buoy weighting corrections.

NOAA says for the years 1998 to 2012, the “new analysis exhibits more than twice as much warming as the old analysis at the global scale,” at 0.086 degrees Celsius per decade compared to 0.039 degrees per decade.

Your "scientists" aren't "scientists" at all - they are con artists.

[Expat1 971]

I took a course in geophysics in University, so yes I do have at least an elementary understanding of the science involved.

Good then maybe you can explain subsidence and what happens to the water level on the seashore while shoreline communities are sucking groundwater out of area aquifers.

Here's a good example, however Miami and any number of coastal cities / communities would suffice

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2014-11-11/sinking-jakarta-starts-building-giant-wall-as-sea-rises-cities

[Dakine10 5,452]

It's not demeaning at all behind the McDonald's counter but it is demeaning in a discussion involving facts of a mathematical or technical or scientific nature.

Please sign all global warming related posts with this NOAA explanation, issued in 2015 after they were cold busted doing it, as follows:

To increase the rate in warming, NOAA scientists put more weight on certain ocean buoy arrays, adjusted ship-based temperature readings upward, and slightly raised land-based temperatures as well. Scientists said adjusted ship-based temperature data “had the largest impact on trends for the 2000-2014 time period, accounting for 0.030°C of the 0.064°C trend difference.” They added that the “buoy offset correction contributed 0.014°C… to the difference, and the additional weight given to the buoys because of their greater accuracy contributed 0.012°C.”

Let me help with the interpretation: 50% of the "increase" (.03 deg C) was due to ship-based temperature data corrections. Another .026 deg C was due to buoy and buoy weighting corrections.

NOAA says for the years 1998 to 2012, the “new analysis exhibits more than twice as much warming as the old analysis at the global scale,” at 0.086 degrees Celsius per decade compared to 0.039 degrees per decade.

Your "scientists" aren't "scientists" at all - they are con artists.

The topic is rising sea levels. Perhaps you could use the analytical skills of your giant M.BS brain and stay with that. Jumping around to random articles and factoids the way you do is reminiscent of a monkey flinging poop just to see what sticks. You can do better.

[The Nature Boy 7,659]

My thesis wasn't done on a smartphone

With that said riddle me this:

Which mixture has the highest internal energy:

Pure air at 100 F with 70 F dewpoint?

Air with 400 ppm CO2 at 100 F with 70 F dewpoint?

What the frig is pure air. Lol

[Dakine10 5,452]

What the frig is pure air. Lol