Sea level rise: It's worse than we thought

Jul 2, 2009 Full story: New Scientist 3,210

FOR a few minutes David Holland forgets about his work and screams like a kid on a roller coaster.

Full Story

“Denying those who deny nature”

Since: Jun 07

Norfolk va

#1783 Jun 1, 2012
SpaceBlues wrote:
<quoted text>LOL. Surely, yours had no chance like tina's, already wasted, that is.
You are always dishonest. I gave you opportunity to explain if you posted something relevant. Of course, as usual, you bluffed.
Your record speaks for itself, lies and misrepresentations like a committed denier that you are.
You are totally denier-blogging based. If they dissappeared, you would only talk about politics of the extreme right.
You mean a wasted chance to agree with you. It matters not if you were right or wrong but if one agrees with Space Blue. Then again Space Blue cannot imagine himself being wrong and any fact that disagrees must be wrong as well. It is also interesting about you giving others a chance to post something relevant when you should be trying to post something relevant yourself.

It is also funny how you talk about a record of lies and misrepresentations since you have long record of lies and misrepresentations like a committed alarmist. You claim that any thing is based on denier blog and yet you were the king of cut and paste and many of your cut and paste were from blogs. Not to mention all you want everyone to do is agree to your politics to the extreme left.

What can I say but keep of the great work. You are doing more to prove to the undecided how wrong man made climate change is. Far better than I can. Keeping acting like you have and soon the only people left who believes like you do will be considered by the masses as silly fools.
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#1784 Jun 1, 2012
LOL. tin tina is at war in this forum.

She takes no prisoners. Obviously, she is in the wrong place.

LOL.
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#1785 Jun 1, 2012
Modern science has identified and analyzed the greenhouse effect of the industrial age. The evidence has been documented along with its effects and implications for humans on Earth.

Hence, the science is available to study the man-made global warming and the climate change caused by it.

People like "tin tina"[sic] are waging a war to deny the science.

“Denying those who deny nature”

Since: Jun 07

Norfolk va

#1786 Jun 1, 2012
SpaceBlues wrote:
Modern science has identified and analyzed the greenhouse effect of the industrial age. The evidence has been documented along with its effects and implications for humans on Earth.
Hence, the science is available to study the man-made global warming and the climate change caused by it.
People like "tin tina"[sic] are waging a war to deny the science.
Has it or was it discovered that the green house effect was in error. Like how they discovered that CO2 level changes were the result of of temperature changes and not the other way around. Just because someone has documented something does not mean it is right.

So I will wage war with those who will deny science to promote that which supports a political/social agenda.
IAmDigitap

Marysville, CA

#1787 Jun 1, 2012
SpaceBlues wrote:
IT RILLY R REEL MAGIC GAS IT R IT R!!!!
YOU

and your church

suck.

“Happy, warm and comfortable”

Since: Oct 10

Mountain hideaway, SE Spain

#1788 Jun 2, 2012
SpamBot wrote:
LOL.
tin
LOL.
Try to learn something new.
Patriot AKA Bozo

Wichita, KS

#1789 Jun 2, 2012
tina anne wrote:
<quoted text>
Has it or was it discovered that the green house effect was in error. Like how they discovered that CO2 level changes were the result of of temperature changes and not the other way around. Just because someone has documented something does not mean it is right.
So I will wage war with those who will deny science to promote that which supports a political/social agenda.
Where have you been? We found evidence from new studies that have found that historically CO2 leads temperature change in sites in the northern hemisphere.
Fun Facts

Las Cruces, NM

#1790 Jun 2, 2012
SpaceBlues wrote:
<quoted text>LOL. Surely, yours had no chance like tina's, already wasted, that is.
You are always dishonest. I gave you opportunity to explain if you posted something relevant. Of course, as usual, you bluffed.
Your record speaks for itself, lies and misrepresentations like a committed denier that you are.
You are totally denier-blogging based. If they dissappeared, you would only talk about politics of the extreme right.
I gave you credit for being able to read, I guess I must reevaluate and explain at a different level.

From the previous post:

"Verification because we have known for a while about the cold time periods and the effect such time periods have had on civilization. The ice core data indicates a cold climate at the same time period in the article.

Another layer because the information presented provides more data about what we already know."

I posted a reference to the Greenland Ice Core data that showed decreasing temps at the same time period as the article was referring to.

When a temperature chart from one proxy study shows low temps and the article states low temps from a different proxy study, then we would say that one proxy study provides a level of verification of the other.

A simple example would be if you read the therometer in your backyard and your neighbor reads his backyard therometer and both of you discover it is 70*F, then one temp reading would provide a level of verification for the other. Capish?
Fun Facts

Las Cruces, NM

#1791 Jun 2, 2012
SpaceBlues wrote:
<quoted text>LOL. Surely, yours had no chance like tina's, already wasted, that is.
You are always dishonest. I gave you opportunity to explain if you posted something relevant. Of course, as usual, you bluffed.
Your record speaks for itself, lies and misrepresentations like a committed denier that you are.
You are totally denier-blogging based. If they dissappeared, you would only talk about politics of the extreme right.
Maybe it's proxy studies you don't understand. Do you know what a proxy study is? Do you understand the relative value and limitations of proxy studies? They are somewhat complicated if you do not understand what you are looking at.

If not, let me know and I will explain what they are.
Fun Facts

Las Cruces, NM

#1792 Jun 2, 2012
SpaceBlues wrote:
<quoted text>LOL. Surely, yours had no chance like tina's, already wasted, that is.
You are always dishonest. I gave you opportunity to explain if you posted something relevant. Of course, as usual, you bluffed.
Your record speaks for itself, lies and misrepresentations like a committed denier that you are.
You are totally denier-blogging based. If they dissappeared, you would only talk about politics of the extreme right.
Space Blues, the only person you are harming with your negative posts is yourself.
Fun Facts

Las Cruces, NM

#1793 Jun 2, 2012
Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
<quoted text>
Where have you been? We found evidence from new studies that have found that historically CO2 leads temperature change in sites in the northern hemisphere.
Try to post a study that verifies your statement. Be careful of that one posted in Nature, the blogosphere has mislead you. Read the real thing.
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#1794 Jun 2, 2012
Fun Facts wrote:
<quoted text>
Try to post a study that verifies your statement. Be careful of that one posted in Nature, the blogosphere has mislead[sic] you. Read the real thing.
You are misled* easily. Haha when I first published about the study that Mr Patriot is talking about, you were speechless.

You stayed speechless until a blog appeared. Now you start all over again.

Just like you did about man-induced climate change. You stay silent just to make it fun for you again. But we remember you!

* Your English sucks!
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#1795 Jun 2, 2012
Fun Facts wrote:
<quoted text>
Maybe it's proxy studies you don't understand. Do you know what a proxy study is? Do you understand the relative value and limitations of proxy studies? They are somewhat complicated if you do not understand what you are looking at.
If not, let me know and I will explain what they are.
LOL.

Read my last post.
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#1796 Jun 2, 2012
Fun Facts wrote:
<quoted text>
I gave you credit for being able to read, I guess I must reevaluate and explain at a different level.
From the previous post:
"Verification because we have known for a while about the cold time periods and the effect such time periods have had on civilization. The ice core data indicates a cold climate at the same time period in the article.
Another layer because the information presented provides more data about what we already know."
I posted a reference to the Greenland Ice Core data that showed decreasing temps at the same time period as the article was referring to.
When a temperature chart from one proxy study shows low temps and the article states low temps from a different proxy study, then we would say that one proxy study provides a level of verification of the other.
A simple example would be if you read the therometer in your backyard and your neighbor reads his backyard therometer and both of you discover it is 70*F, then one temp reading would provide a level of verification for the other. Capish?
blah blah you are WRONG!

Repetition does not correct your status.

You and science don't mix!

Have fun, now!
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#1797 Jun 2, 2012
Fun Facts wrote:
<quoted text>
Space Blues, the only person you are harming with your negative posts is yourself.
LOL you lie, twist, and misrepresent!

You and science don't mix.:)
Fun Facts

Las Cruces, NM

#1798 Jun 2, 2012
SpaceBlues wrote:
<quoted text>You are misled* easily. Haha when I first published about the study that Mr Patriot is talking about, you were speechless.
You stayed speechless until a blog appeared. Now you start all over again.
Just like you did about man-induced climate change. You stay silent just to make it fun for you again. But we remember you!
* Your English sucks!
I think the press release for that study was first published at the beginning of April.

http://www.topix.com/forum/news/global-warmin...

“Happy, warm and comfortable”

Since: Oct 10

Mountain hideaway, SE Spain

#1799 Jun 3, 2012
Fun Facts wrote:
I think the press release for that study was first published at the beginning of April.
http://www.topix.com/forum/news/global-warmin...
DNFTT.

“Happy, warm and comfortable”

Since: Oct 10

Mountain hideaway, SE Spain

#1800 Jun 3, 2012
Fun Facts wrote:
Try to post a study that verifies your statement. Be careful of that one posted in Nature, the blogosphere has misled you. Read the real thing.
You're right:
Does the global temperature lag CO2? More flaws in the Shakun et al. paper in Nature.
http://www.sciencebits.com/Shakun_in_Nature
Patriot AKA Bozo

Wichita, KS

#1801 Jun 3, 2012
Earthling-1 wrote:
<quoted text>You're right:
Does the global temperature lag CO2? More flaws in the Shakun et al. paper in Nature.
http://www.sciencebits.com/Shakun_in_Nature
No matter how is 'tis spun, the study shows that CO2 leads warming.
Fun Facts

Las Cruces, NM

#1802 Jun 3, 2012
Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
<quoted text>
No matter how is 'tis spun, the study shows that CO2 leads warming.
No it doesn't. Not even the author of the study says it does.

What the study does show is all climate is local. The study points out that the antarctic data is local. And if you take proxy studies from a variety of locations throughout the globe what you get is a variety of warming events at varying intervals.

http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/20...

We have seen this before in the graphs of the MWP, not all temp changes happen at the same time all over the world.

We also see it in the Greenland and Antarctic ice core data, not all temp changes happen at the same time.

You can homogenize milk, you can't do the same to climate.

After stating the ice core data is local, they take the various proxy studies from all over the globe and compare each to the antarctic ice core data for the dating of CO2 increases.

Well you can't have it both ways. Either the antarctic data is local, my position, or it's global.

If you think it's global then a comparison of a local proxy temp record is revelant. If you think the ice core data is local then comparing it to another local data set is apples to oranges.

The study's author has stated that the proxy studies indicated that some areas warmed before the antarctic ice core data indicates an increase in CO2.

That's a really different statement than the one you made.

And this is after, the earth warmed because of orbital dynamics.

First the earth warmed from a combination of precession, obliquity and eccentricity. Then the warming caused a melt down of ice in the NE Canadian ice fields which shut down the MOC.

The first thing this study says is the earth warmed. The original press releases didn't get this quite right.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

World News Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
'Thousands of Russian troops in Ukraine' 7 min FILTHY RUSSIAN LIARS 130
20,000 protest in Ukraine's capital (Jan '14) 9 min FILTHY RUSSIAN LIARS 4,819
In chilly Hanoi, Vietnam, US welcome burgeoning... 9 min bac ky thu hoan d... 21
Russia's top 20 lies about Ukraine (Jun '14) 11 min FILTHY RUSSIAN LIARS 3,626
Is Vladimir Putin Another Adolf Hitler? (Jul '14) 13 min Dimitri100 3,209
US and Cuba move to normalize ties, open embassy 13 min U S MALE 687
Why we need to address population growth's effe... 14 min IB DaMann 24
Islam Will Conquer Italy and the Entire West (Sep '10) 17 min Aristofanis 403,238
More from around the web