Sea-level rise threatens Miami

Doesn't change the fact that East Antarctica is gaining ice mass and that is most of Antarctica.

 

As usual, no. East Antarctica is gaining a little ice, but Antarctica as a whole is losing ice.

Shepherd et al. (2012) "A Reconciled Estimate of Ice-Sheet Mass Balance"
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/338/6111/1183
---
Between 1992 and 2011, the ice sheets of Greenland, East Antarctica, West Antarctica, and the Antarctic Peninsula changed in mass by –142 ± 49, +14 ± 43, –65 ± 26, and –20 ± 14 gigatonnes/year, respectively. Since 1992, the polar ice sheets have contributed, on average, 0.59 ± 0.20 millimeter/year to the rate of global sea-level rise
---

 

I think we still need to consider the two recent studies mentioned.

 

So, the amount of sea level rise up to 2012 was .464567 inches if we believe their numbers. so in 20 years not even a half an inch of rise. hmmm, now that is catastrophic.

 

The rate is accelerating:

http://ocean.nationalgeographic.com/ocean/critical-issues-sea-level-rise/

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/impacts/causes-of-sea-level-rise.html

and can amplify other factors, such as storm surges.

 

It's called being a parrot Ralfy. We are more interested in those who can think.

- - - Updated - - -

We can. Parrots cannot. They just post links, pretend they say...anything really...and then refer to them endlessly because parroting them and understanding them are completely different things.

 

Your last link is not a paper or scientific but speculation and overconfident speculation at that.

 

Don't be surprised when it comes to Ralfy. Religious zealots sent out of the mission of finding converts aren't heavy on thinking, just cutting and pasting links, and reciting whatever dogma they have been programmed with. This guy has been at it for years, all over the web.

 

The references are given in the PDF link.

 

Yes, man can't possibly be doing anything bad to effect climate change, we know.

 

or....... support a peace deal between the nations of Jordan and Israel that includes turning the deserts of Jordan green which would displace at least some of all that water being added to the world's oceans from Greenland, the glaciers and now even from parts of Antarctica?!


http://saharaforestproject.com/projects/jordan.html

Geoff Lawton did an amazing series of videos on how part of the desert of Jordan has already been turned green partly through getting the locals.... to NOT burn the stalks from last years crops... but instead use them to make a compost mulch that holds moisture..... Google Geoff Lawton permaculture Jordan... and you will find it.......

 

But you can't discuss those either. Nor the conclusions themselves. Can you do ANYTHING except be a parrot?

 

Let the sea reclaim Miami. Nothing of value will be lost. Same could be said for the rest of Florida.

 

Well, while true, there are bound to be some unhappy Miamians. Of course, if they understood ANYTHING about climate they would realize that this isn't the first time Miami has been underwater because of a warming world.

 

Thank you for proving my point. You've never read it and you dont even have a copy sitting on your computer.

 

One more time: the book is linked in the page that I shared.

I have a copy of the book taken from the same page.

I searched the book and looked for the point that you raised, and did not find what you said.

Please indicate the page numbers that contain your point.

 

You have searched the book. Im sorry ctrl+f does not count as reading.

 

Since you read the book, then you can easily give the page numbers where your point was made. Go ahead.

 

Criticism of the use of bristle cone pines is on page 107. They use the term "great basin region in the western united states" this is why your ctrl+f version of reading produced no result.

 

please...Ralf is a drive-by parrot...he doesn't think about anything.....he does it so much that one might think he is a bot. He reads titles, and then posts the article, and pretends it contains all the proof in the world for whatever point he is claiming. And he DOESN'T ever claim to have thought about it...which is good...because he doesn't.

 

You pulled this nonsense with reserve definitions as well halfwit. Turns out, you just proved that no such information was contained in your links. Why are you doing this again? Why can't you even READ your own references. It is as though you continuously point at the definition to the word "rat" and proclaim with great fanfare..."LOOK!! THIS PROVES THE WORLD IS ROUND!!!" and when challenged by those who can think, read the definition, and realize you are full of crap, the rest of your response is ALWAYS.."The world is round...I've already provided the reference three posts ago..."

 

For my copy, page 107 refers to volcanic eruptions. Bristlecone pines are mentioned on pp. 51 and 113. The first page states that the use of this source of data was first proposed in 1984. Page 113 states criticism of this source of data and others necessitated further research.

The "Great Basin region" is mentioned only once in the report, and also on page 113. The same paragraph where the phrase appears also points out that although the method used by Mann is not recommended it "does not appear to unduly influence reconstructions of hemispheric mean temperature."

Also, on page 115, the report points out that Mann's argument concerning "unprecedented" warming in the northern hemisphere has been supported by subsequent studies.

 

You do realize that right about here, anyone familiar with the hockey stick argument brings out the statistics of the assembly and beats you to death with it, don't you? Or really...more likely...you don't. Parrot is as parrot does, and can't be bothered with assemblage of data that with the inclusion of only ONE data set delivers the desired, and known to be incorrect result. And when THAT is the data set chosen...well....its OOPSY time for Mann.

Parrots not understanding the basics of this...well.... that is expected...versus scientists choosing outliers to make a point.

As far as "unprecedented", well OBVIOUSLY when Mann disappeared the entire science of paleoclimatology in order to make all the past warmings and coolings disappear....this one falls under...DUH.

 

Then we have different versions of the report. Mine I have read yours you are using ctlr+f.

On my version page 107 says.

"the Mann et al. (1999) reconstruction that uses this particular principal component analysis technique is strongly dependent on data from the Great Basin region in the western United States.”

They go on to say of the Great Basin series.

"such issues of robustness need to be taken into account in estimates of statistical uncertainties.”

You go on to quote your page 113 that says

But that quote is taken out of context as they are talking about the bristle cone pines. They are talking about Mann's use of stepwise PCA which isn't a valid statistical technique.

On this statement I would agree with the NAS because Mann's method of recalibrating principle components after the analysis is done basically undoes the PCA. This also isn't valid statistical practice.

The reference they make to bristle cones directly contradicts you assertion.

"For periods prior to the 16th century, the Mann et al. (1999) reconstruction that uses this particular principal component analysis technique is strongly dependent on data from the Great Basin region in the western United States."

This is further confirmed by the Mann's "censored" folder sitting on his ftp server that proved beyond any shadow of a doubt that his hockey stick was dependent on the inclusion of the bristle cone pine(Graybill) series.

In short you are moving quotes out of order to suit your argument which is a form of lying.

The use of such data was first proposed by Lamarche et al [1984] and later confirmed by Graybill that bristlecones were insentive to temperature making them a valid CO2 proxy for the industrial revolution. Mann basically ignored Graybill and used the series as a temperature proxy which it physically isn't. Mann's hockey stick is a graph of CO2 not temperature.

Again you are taking things out of context. The "does not appear to unduly influence reconstructions of hemispheric mean temperature." Deals with Mann's use of stepwise PCA of the bristle cones it says

" the Mann et al. (1999) reconstruction that uses this particular principal component analysis technique is strongly dependent on data from the Great Basin region in the western United States.”

You saw that clearly so your post is a lie.

Where the NAS report deals with CO2 fertalization of bristle cones they say quite conclusivily

As to your statements of confirmation

I agree the report was a white wash where they agree on one hand that Mann's hockey stick was all wrong yet may have gotten the right answer anyways. Such as cheating on a test is okay because you got the right answer. Of course the panel never bother to check if the other studies made the same mistakes or other mistakes which they all did.

What I found odd was that the pannel specifically quoted Burger et. al. which proved definitively that hockey stick results are a byproduct of the method and that such results are to be an expected error. Yet the panel ignored this with the above statement.

The NAS panel was always intended to be a white wash. It was convened solely to muddy the waters and provide some cover for warmmongers in the coming wake of the Wegman report. Which is why the report is so nonsensical they cant come up with a valid scientific reason to justify Mann so they simply conclude that he may have gotten the right answer even though his method was all wrong. But science is the method not the answer.

 

lol

He cant win. I'm way better than him on this issue. I know it front to back.