New study confirms the oceans are warming rapidly

Nonsense. These are very long global, natural cycles. Just because you have a life time that is less than a hundred years, does not mean that brief instant is the only time frame that is meaningful. These natural earth cycles are much much longer and it's the fool that does not look into them and then plan his 50-60 years of existence, which is generally the portion of your life where you full decision making control, in accordance to these much longer cycles.

So, let's lift up our eyes and have a look. In this current ice-age, which is unlikely to end in any measure of time that is meaningful to either one of us, the oscillation is between glacial advances and glacial retreat. Glaciers have retreated to the point and to the extent that our current period is described as an "interglacial". Note that its not described as "post glacial" because no one expects our ice age to end, the next move will be glacial advance, hopefully that too is on a time scale well beyond anything time span that is meaningful to us, but that's a variable, and while a hope, it is not necessarily so. Were we to enter a period of glacial advance, we likely wouldn't realize it at first.

That last glacial advance peaked about 20,000 years ago and Chicago, for example, was under a mile of ice. Sea levels were a good 400 feet lower than today, you could walk, on foot, from China to the West Coast of North America. So that gives us the trough of the interglacial period. To find the most recent peak of sea level, during an inter-glacial, one looks back 125,000 years and finds that sea levels were 20 feet higher than today.

At the 20,000 year rate of 1/4" a year, it will take nearly a 1,000 years for sea levels to rise that high, At the current rate of an 1/8" a year, twice that. So, what's the wise thing to do? I'd go with the more rapid rate of 1/4" of year, which gives on a cushion for surprise and hedge against storm surge, which is always an issue, take a look at your meaningful time frame, and plan accordingly. If you are looking to will valuable things to your posterity, then your meaningful time-span extends much further than your own lifetime. Get a fkn elevation map and plan accordingly, enough of the endless whining.

I have very close friends and family, who I love dearly, who are always squawking about how "concerned" they are about global warming and rising sea levels, and then they plunk down a solid seven or eight figures for a piece of property, on sand, on the sea shore, mere inches above sea level, and now they are demanding concerted global action on this pipe-dream that we can stop the oceans from rising to protect their property. It's an incredibly self-indulgent, mistaken conceit. So shriek all you want, we aren't going to pretend with you. And all these fkrs with the private plane travel while they lecture us on our thermostat settings, it's all bull ****. Take the Obama's while they went to great pains to lecture us, it wasn't uncommon for them, rather than to coordinate their travel so they only needed one Jet, to travel about in his and her Separate Jets!

So, a theory is useful if it can produce meaningful predictions. I can more accurately predict the actions of the folks who claim this near hysterical acceptance of catastrophic global warming if I assume they could give less of a ****, than I can if I assume they are deeply convinced that its a real danger.

They will use his and her jets. They travel about in motorcades when they could tele-commute and they will spend multiple million dollars to own property, on sand, on the coast line, mere inches about sea level. So what's the truth? If I can more accurately predict their actions with the assumption that they really could give less of a **** and don't believe this crap at all, then I'm going with that, not the incongruent shrieks they emit at cocktail parties that loudly signals virtue to the others in attendance. Wake The Fk Up!

And just as I have no pity on an animal that builds a home in the path of rising seas or in a dry riverbed, and by the way, they generally don't, so similarly, I tend to ignore the virtue signally shrieks of these that claim to have a more highly evolved moral conscience than the rest of us that they view as low rent slobs.

The main outworking of their concern is that they remain free to run about indulgently, while speaking out about how important it is for the rest of us to live quite prudently, which they seem to think gives them the margin and the justification for their grand self-indulgence. Can you see which finger we are holding up?

They fool no one. We see right through them and they can bugger off. If they want lives led with a miserly level of energy use, they can start with their own and lead by example. Enough of the finger wagging lectures!

Go Trump!
Go Deplorables!
Go America!

 

the time frame in which fossil fuels have been burned for energy, by mankind, isn't a very long and it's certainly not natural

 

Yes and we were warming up before it was significant.

 

in the distant past, the earth wasn't warming because of co2 from burning fossil fuels, like it is now

 

One we just left/still leaving an ice age, glaciers have been receding way before the 1800s


Two once again you ignore science and is fixated on burning fossil fuels as your bogey man

What does NASA new C02 satellite tell you? I am no scientist but it looks like it's coming from the southern hemisphere..




.

 

here's what nasa says:

"As the Earth moved out of ice ages over the past million years, the global temperature rose a total of 4 to 7 degrees Celsius over about 5,000 years. In the past century alone, the temperature has climbed 0.7 degrees Celsius, roughly ten times faster than the average rate of ice-age-recovery warming."


"Temperature histories from paleoclimate data (green line) compared to the history based on modern instruments (blue line) suggest that global temperature is warmer now than it has been in the past 1,000 years, and possibly longer."

https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/GlobalWarming/page3.php

 

I am showing you exact data from NASA new C02 satellite and you want to talk proxy's..

 

notice how the blue line, in the graph i posted, falsifies your assertion

i want you to start making sense and stop making fallacious arguments

 

Uhh... in just the last interglacial they were 25 feet higher than today.


During the last warm earth conditions, 1300 feet higher than today. "unprecedented". That word, you keep using it, I do not think it means what you think it means.

Polar bears all over the place now, Native Alaskans say

Climate Depot:

2 New Papers: 92% Of Polar Bear Subpopulations Stable, Increasing – Inuit Observe ‘Too Many Polar Bears Now’
and

Inuit observations of polar bear ecology: “Last year he said that there’s more bears that are more fat … they rarely see unhealthy bears… back in early 80s, and mid 90s, there were hardly any bears … there’s too many polar bears now."

bear populations are exploding everywhere:

In Russia, near its Chukotka peninsula, AFP reports:

MOSCOW: A boatload of tourists in the far eastern Russian Arctic thought they were seeing clumps of ice on the shore, before the jaw-dropping realisation that some 200 polar bears were roaming on the mountain slope.

"It was a completely unique situation," said Alexander Gruzdev, director of the Wrangel Island nature reserve where the encounter in September happened. "We were all gobsmacked, to be honest."

The Financial Post of Canada's Terence Corcoran notes this bear issue and the left's shifting story on it is a magic talking point for global warmers who go after anyone who deviates from their party line:

It’s all part of an escalating epic of polar bear junk science. It begins with a paper in which Amstrup, who heads the activist group Polar Bears International, and other climate scientists — including famed temperature hockey-stick maker Michael Mann — produce what must be one of the most pathetic scientific smear jobs in the already sorry history of climate change science smear campaigns. Also along for the hatchet job was Stephan Lewandowsky, an Australian psychologist who asserts that people who have doubts about climate policy are wacky conspiracy theorists who would also tend to believe the 1969 moon landing was faked.

So instead of starving, global warming is now causing bears to proliferate. We are supposed to be upset about it no matter what the truth is. It just goes to show that global warmers just can't get their stories straight. And they want to have their bears and starve them, too!

 

People with megaphones really don't like people with facts.
Reminds me of the photo that Gore had photoshopped to show a lonely polar bear on a small ice floe instead of the vast expanse of snow on land that the bear actually occupied.

 

It's just like that.

 

Alarmist scientists have been caught red-handed tampering with raw data in order to exaggerate sea level rise.

The raw (unadjusted) data from three Indian Ocean gauges – Aden, Karachi and Mumbai – showed that local sea level trends in the last 140 years had been very gently rising, neutral or negative (ie sea levels had fallen).


But after the evidence had been adjusted by tidal records gatekeepers at the global databank Permanent Service for Mean Sea Level (PSMSL) it suddenly showed a sharp and dramatic rise.

The whistle was blown by two Australian scientists Dr. Albert Parker and Dr. Clifford Ollier in a paper for Earth Systems and Environment.

The paper – Is the Sea Level Stable at Aden, Yemen? – examines the discrepancies between raw and adjusted sea level data in Aden, Karachi and Mumbai.

Kenneth Richard at No Tricks Zone reports:

The authors expose how PSMSL data-adjusters make it appear that stable sea levels can be rendered to look like they are nonetheless rising at an accelerated pace.

The data-adjusters take misaligned and incomplete sea level data from tide gauges that show no sea level rise (or even a falling trend). Then, they subjectively and arbitrarily cobble them together, or realign them. In each case assessed, PSMSL data-adjusters lower the earlier misaligned rates and raise the more recent measurements. By doing so, they concoct a new linearly-rising trend.

Here is a before/after from Karachi:



The authors do not mince their words. They refer to these 'adjustments' as “highly questionable” and “suspicious.”

That’s because they can find no plausible scientific explanation for the 'adjustments'.

Tide gauges are often the result of multiple sets of data, taken over different time periods using different instruments, which are then spliced together.

What is proposed as a single record in databases such as the Permanent Service for Mean Sea Level (PSMSL) (PSMSL 2017a) is often the composition of data collected by different instruments, sometimes in different locations or over different time windows, with significant gaps in between one measurement and the others. This is the case of the Aden, Yemen tide gauge that is the only tidal location of the Arabian Peninsula spanning a time window long enough to infer a trend and acceleration of the relative sea level (assuming there was continuous measurement and no quality issue). In Aden, similar to Karachi and Mumbai and other tide gauges of the area, a single-tide gauge record is the result of multiple sets of data subjectively coupled together. While a new tide gauge is recording since about 2007, the alignment of the previous data is continuously changing.

So there is nothing per se wrong with PSMSL making adjustments in order to make the different datasets align.

What is wrong is the way that the scientists at PSMSL have adjusted them. In every case, they have revised them in order to make them produce a sharp upward trend in sea level rise – despite the fact that global records do not support this.

The truth, Parker and Ollier conclude in their paper, is that sea level has changed very little in the three sites examined:

The reconstructed tide gauge records of Aden, Mumbai and Karachi are perfectly consistent with multiple lines of evidence from other key sites of the Indian Ocean including Qatar, Maldives, Bangladesh and Visakhapatnam. The sea levels have been stable since the start of the twentieth century in Aden similar to Karachi and Mumbai.

But the official PSMSL data – as used by other global data-keeping bodies such as NOAA – claims that there has been a sharp increase.

In Aden, for example, the alarmists have turned a modest 1.21 mm/year rise into a 3.02 mm/year rise.

In Aden, with data 1880–1969, the trend was + 1.21 mm/year.

There is no plausible scientific explanation for these adjustments.

As the authors put it:

“It is always highly questionable to shift data collected in the far past without any proven new supporting material.”

Indeed, but it is perfectly consistent with the behavior of alarmist scientists in other fields, notably those concerning surface temperature data records. As we have reported herebefore, there is copious evidence to suggest that the gatekeepers of global warming have consistently and shamelessly cooked the books and rigged the data in order to give the impression that “climate change” is a major and unprecedented phenomenon.

A major part of the global warming scare narrative is that melting ice caps will cause sea levels to rise at a dangerous and unprecedented rate, enveloping low-lying Pacific islands, flooding vulnerable countries like Bangladesh and perhaps one day drowning even places like Manhattan.

There is little if any scientific evidence that this is actually happening.

What’s extraordinary is the desperation of scientists at what ought to be impeccably neutral and trustworthy institutions such as NASA, NOAA and PSMSL to pretend that it is.

When alarmists in charge of surface temperature datasets make dishonest adjustments to exaggerate the appearance of global warming, it looks like corruption.

When alarmists in the entirely separate field of sea level measurement make precisely the same sort of dishonest adjustments in order to accord with the same global warming narrative, it starts to look like a conspiracy.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-govern...imate-alarmists-caught-faking-sea-level-rise/

 

Very informative. One of my difficulties is basic and simple: I have never understand how sea level measurements can be taken to the tenth of a millimeter.

 

Study finds that warming will improve human personalities

http://www.viralnova.com/climate-affecting-personality/

 

I have to admit. It's pretty astonishing. I'm skeptical myself.

One thing I've learned though is that people will bet there lives on signal processing and noise cancelling techniques on a daily basis when it comes to running your cell phone, wifi connection, gps location, imaging, etc. and countless other conveniences that we use in our daily lives, but they'll balk when you tell them the same techniques are used (sometimes even in a less sophisticated way) for things like detecting subatomic particles or, in this particular case, measuring mean sea level. We can do some pretty amazing things. It never ceases to amaze me what humanity can achieve and the problems we can solve.

 

Yes, one can take an accurate measurement of the distance from the satellite to the ocean surface and calculate a fairly accurate sea level. But what of the mean? That sea level that was measured in a millisecond will now change over the next second or two by 6 inches to 2 or 3 feet. Did the satellite measure the trough, the peak or something in between. It is all a bit mind boggling, getting a mean within a tenth of a millimeter, even though that millisecond measurement is very precise.

 

Right wingers don't care.

 

Why are you asking? You don't care. If you did, you wouldn't be asking someone else.

 

Good - I live in a cold place, so I'm looking forward to being able to surf/sunbathe on a nice warm beach.

 

Yes. It does.

 

No, but if temperature is changing, that could potentially make life on earth a little harder. That much is true even if you believe the human contribution to that change is negligible.

 

Cool, the last time I went swimming in the ocean, it was freezing cold, it could stand to be a little warmer.

 

Troll posts.

 

No.

 

More global warming bs?
Don't you know that is based on computer models?