Sea-level rise threatens Miami

Ralfy is a internet renowned parrot, started out on peak oil religious forums. There is no thinking involved, he is sent forth on a mission, and his MO is that he posts a link, and claims whatever he has been ordered to about it. Whenever someone knows something about the reference, or reads it, and discovers that it doesn't support anything he has claimed, his MO is to endlessly repeat "just go check that link obviously it says what I claimed it says"…..

He has been at it for better than half a decade now. He does it so badly I'm still not sure he isn't a bot.

 

Global warming is real. It's science. People add in politics to it, and it perverts science, like religion pervets science. I could present the best evidence to people, and you may still deny it.

I remember watching a film by CNN about this island in the Pacific. This elder said, "When I was a boy, the shore line was way down there", pointing 100-300ft away into the ocean. It's been receeding, the island, and the people have noticed. They will have to evacuate soon. Some people are stupid, by the time people realize the problem and start fixing it, we'll of screwed ourselves over a bit.

 

Global warming is real, so is global cooling. The politics pervert the science as is being done now by silencing skepticism, the basis for real science. Also global no warming is real like the last almost two decades.

 

No one can deny this…because obviously the world has globally warmed before…and has globally cooled before….and when it isn't doing one, it is usually doing the other. Call this axiomatic masquerading as a straw man setup.

No, it isn't. It is an observation of 50% of the things that can be happening to the climate at any particular point in time. Science is…well…don't take my word for it:

sci·ence
ˈsīəns/Submit
noun
the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.

Perhaps because to you "science" appears to mean "whatever I tell you is right today, without any consideration of how the answer may be different…tomorrow".

Changes in ocean levels, in either direction, have been going on for far longer than CNN has been watching some microscopic time frame of the overall process.

 

A meeting of climatologists from around the world was done several years ago, and most agreed it was real.

I will give you two more examples, which you'll probabily rebutt.

I knew a vet, who dealt with heartworm in dogs. I lived in New Hampshire at the time, and she had been a vet for 20-30 years. Only in the previous five years had heartworms been in the dogs. Normally, before, it was too cold for them, but temperatures have changed, and now they inhabit New Hampshire dogs.

Another; my teacher used to live in western Mass. When he was kid, he'd get blanketed with blizzards every year, now, maybe once a year if that,

Statistics say something like 4 out of the top 10 hottest years on record have occured within the past decade. It's real. Man made? I think so.

 

Of course it is real. The world has been warming since the end of the Little Ice Age. The top hottest year is 1934 according to the NOAA. Unfortunately for the alarmists, El Nino is fizzling out for this year. They were hoping for a big one to push their agenda.

 

"Perhaps because to you "science" appears to mean "whatever I tell you is right today, without any consideration of how the answer may be different…tomorrow"."

See, I've researched this topic a lot. It is real. With what you said, in the quote above me, I don't understand what that has do with my post, or how relates to what I said. I understand though, many people seem to believe just about anything that is said to them, or listen to anything people say. They blindly follow leadership, creating problems like WWII, the holocaust, and the Iraq War.



A meeting of climatologists from around the world was done several years ago, and most agreed it was real.

I will give you two more examples, which you'll probabily rebutt.

I knew a vet, who dealt with heartworm in dogs. I lived in New Hampshire at the time, and she had been a vet for 20-30 years. Only in the previous five years had heartworms been in the dogs. Normally, before, it was too cold for them, but temperatures have changed, and now they inhabit New Hampshire dogs.

Another; my teacher used to live in western Mass. When he was kid, he'd get blanketed with blizzards every year, now, maybe once a year if that,

Statistics say something like 4 out of the top 10 hottest years on record have occured within the past decade. It's real. Man made? I think so.

- - - Updated - - -

Global warming will create problems, but I think the left exaggerates it too much. I would agree.

 

The dowsing accusation exists on his wiki stub. It is pure libel put there by William Connelly. You will find no actual evidence for this outside of Wiki's libel just people repeating the same wiki claim. The links are just references to what some guy name James Randi said about Moner. No evidence what so ever.

 

Pot meet kettle.

 

Explain. I'm confident global is real, you're not. I'm not blindly following what you tell me, I know it's real.

 

I assume you mean you are confident global warming is real. So is everyone else. It has been warming since the end of the Little Ice Age up until 1998. It warmed before CO2 was the culprit. Since then it has not warmed for near two decades.

 

Do you have evidence that this is the case? I'm pretty sure the past 10 years, or 20, has seen multiple record breakers for the heat.....

 

Would you agree that Global Dimming is masking/ decreasing a general Global Warming trend?

You might just find the following related discussion rather amusing!


http://www.politicalforum.com/humor...2000-election-but-negates-global-dimming.html

In alternate time line Mr. Gore wins the 2000 election but negates Global Dimming....
I personally loved the film "An Inconvenient Truth." I have watched it four or five times at least. It played a huge role in my deciding to join a political party that takes climate change very seriously.

Largely due to his film I actually put in two submissions for The Virgin Earth Challenge.

I do have one criticism for his film though..... the diplomacy quotient was extremely low and America is more divided than ever partly because of the flavor of his film.

……

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/tvradio/programmes/horizon/dimming_trans.shtml

………..

post #7….Could a win by Mr. Al Gore in 2000 have led to America being 15% submerged under the oceans by January 1, 2013?

Time does look like a menorah....... or tree with branches and roots... … and is not confined to being a straight line...…

In theory....... Mr. Gore's policy could have ended up greatly decreasing the Global Dimming Effect..... at the same time that it might do little to reduce a general Global Warming trend.... which could lead to rapid warming.....and of course increased cracking and sliding on the land based Greenland Ice Pack.... the world's glaciers and the outer regions of Antarctica......

Prime Minister Stephen Harper and President Bush may have deliberately allowed somewhat bad policy to continue...… because they probably had been told that the factors that increase Global Dimming..... do tend to mask Global Warming.... .which could mean within five decades we may know that that they may have had a basically good idea..... in comparison to worst possible alternative.....??????!!!

http://www.baproducts.com/chetmap.htm

 

and temperature records have been collected for….what near insignificant fraction of chronological time since the end of the last Ice Age……..?

And I hate to bring it up, but are we talking about temperature records from sensors installed near the jet wash on runways, or the more regular, non screwed with kind?

 

That is actually a misconception due to new stations always being built. For records that date back to the early half of the 20th century the highs tend to be in the first half of the 20th century. For stations built after WWII the highs tend to be more recent.

Station history and length is very important in the context. Most stations are young stations so record highs are very probable. If you were to go out tomorrow and install 1000 new stations you would have 1000 new high temperature records set in a single day. I guess that makes it the hottest day ever. But it would also set 1000 new low records too. So would it be the hottest and coldest day ever?

Here is a graph of the 424 stations with the longest record in the US.



As we can see those stations that have long records arent setting very many new highs. The record high argument is simply an artifact of newly installed station and means absolutely nothing.

 

#1, you forgot to mention that you're just parroting Watt.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/03/10/record-temperatrures-placed-in-context-with-station-history/

#2, Since later record highs must necessarily be higher than previous record highs, your chart doesn't prove what you think it proves. One would expect fewer record highs as time went on, simply because the bar for records gets higher as each new record is set. It says nothing about whether warming is occurring or not. Indeed, the fact that the number of record highs has been relatively constant since the 1930s implies a warming trend.

 

It was posted in an arcitle by watts but it wasn't written by him. I knew full well that some warmmonger would make an ad hom argument.

Thank you for proving my point. Number of record highs is a meaningless statistic that tells us nothing of temperature trends.

 

Just thought you should be upfront about your source.

Not exactly what I said. I said that a higher number of record highs in the early part of the record doesn't tell us anything about warming trends. However, a steady or increasing number of record highs later in the record certainly implies a warming trend, as one would normally expect a declining number of record highs in a static or cooling temperature scenario.

I am curious, however, why you chose to post a junk chart instead of taking that same station data and looking at actual temperatures recorded. It's almost as if your source took a dataset that could easily establish whether warming is taking place, and deliberately re-sorted the data in order to obscure those clear facts.

 

Your point?

 

He doesn't' have one. He is basically confirming what I said.

 

Yeah, sorry, his post went up when mine did. I chuckled.

 

I understand that further research is needed, which I think is the point of this statement, but how is it an assertion that the information gathered is "spurious"? You made that point in

http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=355180&p=1064006986#post1064006986

My intention is not to take the statement out of context but to mention what the NAS said about statistical analysis, which is the second point in your initial message. Don't you remember that?

The point is that the type of analysis is not recommended, but how is that the same as claiming that the practice is "spurious"? If by that you mean "invalid," then wasn't that a point raised in No. 1 of the Realclimate summary?

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/06/national-academies-synthesis-report/

Recall that you claimed that the summary is incorrect. But the summary of what you've said so far is seen in No. 1. Recall that a summary cannot give all of the details of a report. Therefore, it obviously has to omit details and focus on the conclusion.

But my assertion is the same as what is seen in No. 1 of the Realclimate summary. My question is, where does it show in the report that the content and analysis are "spurious"?

Please point out where this appears in the report.

I referred to points made in page numbers given in sequence: 51, 113, and 115.

It's the other way round. If you take things out of context, then you focus only on one point of the report and ignore the conclusions. In fact, that point is made in No. 3 of the Realclimate article:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/06/national-academies-synthesis-report/

How is it "all wrong" when problems referring to precision refer to information for the period prior to 1600? In fact, you even stated in your initial message that the evidence for the period after 1400 is right.

Unlikely, as the synthesis report looked at different reconstructions.

 

You don't know what research is. You parrot, and make no distinction between the research of others, and religious organizations from which you retrieve your "data". So you have already demonstrated that you understand nothing, let alone the difference between research and your religious bias.

You are doing it again You need to read and understand before you play "pin the tail on a post where I avoided the question before because it doesn't fit in with my religious beliefs".

Some of us call it "reading headlines" and in your case, its "reading headlines and misrepresenting the body of work as well as the conclusion". You should stop.

Yes. We know you do this. Will you stop please.

 

Spurious - not being what it purports to be

PCA purports to find a strong signal within data, however Mann's short centered PCA does not find strong signals. It is by definition spurious.

Your intention was absolutely to take the statement out of context

You are now back tracking trying to claim that you were referring to the PCA the entire time.

See above about what PCA is purported to do.

As was said before that is called reading headlines.

See above.

They agreed that short centered PCA will select non significant signals. This is the opposite of what PCA is purported to do hence its is spurious.

You refereed to the page number only and then took the quotes on those pages out of context and out of order. To create the impression that the quote was about one thing when it was actually about something else.

Point 3 is just the whitewash. It has 0 significance on the issue of weather or not Mann's hockey stick is a fraud or not. If you cheat on a test and get the right answer that doesn't mean you didn't cheat.

Science is not results its method. The method of a statistical reconstruction has 2 parts, data and statistical analysis. The data was wrong, it was dependent on a CO2 proxy not temperature, the statistics was wrong, it mined for hockey sticks. Since both parts of the method were wrong the hockey stick is all wrong.

It purports to be a graph of global temperature but it really is a graph of CO2 in northern Colorado.

As per Burger et. al. which the NAS panel referenced but somehow ignored statistical reconstructions of temperature will tend towards hockey sticks. This is an artificial of the underlining method. Every hockey stick reconstruction suffers from the same problems identified by Burger. Such statistical reconstructions of time series are not intended to back fill out as far as you want to go. They are intended to in-fill gaps, using them to back-fill will inevitably result in spurious trends.

 

According to Nature and other articles linked in this one:

"Much-vindicated Michael Mann and Hockey Stick get final exoneration from Penn State — time for some major media apologies and retractions"

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2010/07/01/206340/michael-mann-hockey-stick-exonerated-penn-state/

the analysis was not considered spurious. You can see the same on p. 113 of the report.

You did refer to both data and analysis in your initial message.

Read your initial message which refers to two topics.

Read the conclusion from the same report in p. 113.

The summary does not refer to headlines.

The quotations you gave from the report does not say anything concerning data or analysis being spurious.

There's more to PCA than that. See this article and the links in it for details:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.ph...-regarding-the-mann-et-al-1998reconstruction/

Each quote comes from the page number indicated. The page numbers are given in sequence.