Sea-levels rising at unprecedented rates
Harry Hope
http://www.alertnet.org/db/blogs/61974/2009/11/14-001826-1.htm
14 Dec 2009
Low-lying islands fighting to preserve their way of life
by: Meaghan Daly
............................................................................................................
With sea-levels rising at unprecedented rates, the people of low lying
islands, such as Kiribati in the Central Pacific, are fighting to
preserve their home and way of life.
The impacts of a changing climate have already hit island nations
hard.
Increased coastal erosion, higher tides, and compromised fresh water
supplies are making basic survival on these islands much more
difficult.
Pelenise Alofa, a citizen of Kiribati, stirred a crowd at the
Copenhagen climate talks, declaring, "Climate change is not my war,
but I am a victim!"
Behind her, images of withering bread-fruit trees, a source of
nourishment for many islanders, illustrated the effects salt-water
intrusion on the atolls.
Unfortunately, these island-dwellers may have little means of coping
with climate change.
In many cases, the predicted rates of sea-level rise suggest their
country eventually will be submerged, effectively wiping their culture
and way of life unless swift action is taken to limit the carbon
dioxide emitted into the atmosphere.
In light of the dire situation, Alofa and fellow inhabitants of
low-lying islands pointed to a need for climate justice and leaders
who will not be afraid to take bold action to curb green-house gas
emissions.
They implored larger countries not to forget the smaller countries.
During Alofa's final pleas, she urged the crowd to consider the youth
of Kiribati.
From the screen, the faces of children from the island nation smiled
out into the crowd, as if imploring each audience member to take
action.
"If nothing happens here in Copenhagen, what will happen to us, our
children, our children's children? What will their future be?" Alofa
asked.
With the outcome of the negotiations still up in the air, it's
important for negotiators to consider the plight of those who will
suffer the worst effects of climate change.
Despite the uncertainty looming as the final days of the conference
approach, Alofa left conference goers with a poignant summary of her
mission here.
"What do I want from Copenhagen? I want to go home with hope!" she
said.
_______________________________________________________
Harry
Bret Cahill
>
> 14 Dec 2009
>
> Low-lying islands fighting to preserve their way of life
>
> by: Meaghan Daly
>
AGW conspiracy theorists will just claim this article is part of the
global AGW conspiracy that includes every scientist and everyone on
the planet except the rightards who watch Faux Noise.
Being a conspiracy theorist means all you have to do is claim any one
who doesn't agree with your wacky conspiracy theory is part of the
conspiracy!
Bret Cahill
o b on
"Harry Hope" <riv...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:np2bi5l976msltdcb...@4ax.com...
>
> http://www.alertnet.org/db/blogs/61974/2009/11/14-001826-1.htm
>
> 14 Dec 2009
>
> Low-lying islands fighting to preserve their way of life
>
> by: Meaghan Daly
>
> ............................................................................................................
>
> With sea-levels rising at unprecedented rates, the people of low lying
> islands, such as Kiribati in the Central Pacific, are fighting to
> preserve their home and way of life.
>
How To Lie Convincingly On Sea Level Rises
More evidence of how Wrong faked her sea scare
November 18 2009
Climate Change Minister Penny Wrong this week released a suspiciously-timed
report claiming 250,000 Australian homes could be drowned by rising seas by
2100, thanks to global warming.
The report claimed that warming could cause the seas to rise not by the
59cms that the most gloomy IPCC model put as the upper limit, but by 1.1
metres - or even 1,90 metes.
More than three times as much.
In a post below, with the help of reader Lazlo, I show how Wrong's report,
produced by her own department, actually told untruths about the IPCC
predictions and relied on a discredited paper to justify its much more
alarmist figure.
LINK
Now Kris Sayce, editor of Money Morning, picks yet more trickery in the
report - trickery that should have been spotted by any competent, unbiased
scientist in Wrong's department.
Here's just one extract from his email mail-out:
But first I'll give you the (Wrong's) Department's interpretation of the
(Bureau of Meterology's) research (on sea level rises):
"Global mean sea level has risen about 20 centimetres since pre-industrial
times (Figure 2.6), at an average rate of 1.7 millimetres per year during
the 20th century. Since 1993, high-quality satellite observations of sea
levels have enabled more accurate modelling of global and regional sea-level
change. From 1993 to 2003, global sea level rose by about 3.1 millimetres
per year, compared to 1.8 millimetres per year from 1961 to 2003. These
rates of increase are an order of magnitude greater than the average rate of
sea-level rise over the previous several thousand years."
Is that enough to scare you?
An average of 3.1 millimetres per year between 1993 to 2003. But hold on,
let's see what the Bureau of Meteorology actually had to say...:
"A useful datum to distinguish abnormally high sea levels is the Highest
Astronomical Tide (HAT), the highest level that can be predicted to occur
under any combination of astronomical conditions. Likewise the Lowest
Astronomical Tide (LAT) is the lowest level that can be predicted under any
combination of astronomical conditions. To properly determine HAT and LAT
tidal predictions must span at least 18.6 years, which is the period of a
full rotation of the moon's orbital plane about the ecliptic."
In other words, using a ten year time frame is not scientifically valid as
it doesn't take into account the full 18.6 year orbit of the moon. And every
fifth grader knows that the moon influences the tides.
But look at the quote above from the Department again. It states, that since
pre-industrial times the global mean sea level has risen at "an average rate
of 1.7 millimetres per year during the 20th century."
It then says that between 1961 to 2003 the rate was "1.8 millimetres per
year."
But shock horror, between 1993 to 2003 (too short a period to measure
remember) it was "3.1 millimetres per year."
That surely proves the man-made effect and that it has increased rapidly
during the last sixteen years, right?
Only, there's one small sentence the Department didn't include in their
summary of the BoM's report. It's this, and it relates to the increase
between 1993 and 2003:
"Studies have shown that comparably large rates of average sea level rise
have been observed in previous decades."
In other words, far from this being a unique phenomena, BoM has "observed"
similar large increases in previous decades.
Why would the Department not include this in its report?
And it doesn't quite fit in with the Department's artistic licence when they
claim, "These rates of increase are an order of magnitude greater than the
average rate of sea-level rise over the previous several thousand years."
That's just not true as BoM says they've seen these increases observed in
previous decades.
The whole 'science' or the interpretation of the science behind climate
change is getting ropier and smellier the more we look.
Wrong should now withdraw her report and apologise for such shoddy
advocacy-by-scare, masquerading as science.
Shame on her.
Warmest Regards
B0n oz
"It is a remarkable fact that despite the worldwide expenditure of perhaps
US$50 billion since 1990, and the efforts of tens of thousands of scientists
worldwide, no human climate signal has yet been detected that is distinct
from natural variation."
Bob Carter, Research Professor of Geology, James Cook University, Townsville
o b on
"Bret Cahill" <BretC...@peoplepc.com> wrote in message
news:d4123caf-446f-413b...@f20g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
======================================
Democratic Teabagging Fag
Build a goddamn ark, then you can have the last laugh.
-
Teabagging is an erotic activity used within
the context of BDSM and male dominance, with
a dominant man teabagging his submissive
partner as one variation of facesitting and/or
as a means of inflicting erotic humiliation.
A favorite hobby amongst LIBERALS.
David Hartung
What has been the actual sea level rise around these islands?
Shrikeback
Where's the conspiracy here? You didn't quote a scientist. Look,
I understand that you've invested a lot of effort in saving the
planet,
keeping your carbon footprint at .0001% of Al Gore's and all, but
fashions change. It will soon be the case that nobody cares about
your great sacrifice. But you need to cope with that. Perhaps some
Ativan will help in the short term, but in the long term, you'll need
something more sustainable.
socialist that fear the truth and want the new Holocaust for 9/11
Harry....and hope for the best....
"Harry Hope" <riv...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:np2bi5l976msltdcb...@4ax.com...
>
socialist that fear the truth and want the new Holocaust for 9/11
"Bret Cahill" <BretC...@peoplepc.com> wrote in message
news:d4123caf-446f-413b...@f20g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
> http://www.alertnet.org/db/blogs/61974/2009/11/14-001826-1.htm
>Being a conspiracy theorist means all you have to do is claim any one
>who doesn't agree with your wacky conspiracy theory is part of the
>conspiracy!
So what does that say for government conspiracy theory nonsense that the sky
is falling.....
Bret Cahill
Don't worry. One of our AGW conspiracy theorists would come up with
one.
Bret Cahill
Bret Cahill
> >http://www.alertnet.org/db/blogs/61974/2009/11/14-001826-1.htm
> >Being a conspiracy theorist means all you have to do is claim any one
> >who doesn't agree with your wacky conspiracy theory is part of the
> >conspiracy!
> So what does that say for government conspiracy theory nonsense that the sky
> is falling.....
Who is in on it?
Bret Cahill
Shrikeback
>
> Bret Cahill
Um, again: no scientists were involved or harmed in
the production of your post. Just an employee of an
NGO. So what's your point?
And, if you must unabomb, go carbon-free, go nuke!
Shrikeback
Obviously, W. After causing 9-11, Karl Rove jumped through the
resulting wormhole and went back in time to prevent Kyoto from
being ratified by the US, thus bringing about Katrina and the
genocide of New Orleans. Everyone knows that global warming
is a Karl Rove plot to drown New Orleanders.
Shrikeback
The Governator was there too, he went back in time 1000 years
to drive a hundred million Humvees around North America running
over the natives and causing the Medieval Optimum, when it was
between .2 and .7 degrees warmer than it is now, according to
the boreholes, thus throwing off the data, and forcing the CRU to
apply Mann's hockey stick trick to hide the decline.
Bret Cahill
That sounds about as reasonable as anything else coming from the AGW
denier community.
Bat crap insane.
Bret Cahill
Shrikeback
> keyboard.
> Bat crap insane.
Exactly my point.
Then, of course, the corpwhore media gathered together to pump
and dump Obama, so's McCain could be President.
Bret Cahill
> > > >http://www.alertnet.org/db/blogs/61974/2009/11/14-001826-1.htm
> > > >Being a conspiracy theorist means all you have to do is claim any one
> > > >who doesn't agree with your wacky conspiracy theory is part of the
> > > >conspiracy!
> > > So what does that say for government conspiracy theory nonsense that the sky
> > > is falling.....
> > Who is in on it?
> > Bret Cahill
> Obviously, W. After causing 9-11, Karl Rove jumped through the
> resulting wormhole and went back in time to prevent Kyoto from
> being ratified by the US, thus bringing about Katrina and the
> genocide of New Orleans. Everyone knows that global warming
> is a Karl Rove plot to drown New Orleanders.
That sounds about as reasonable as anything else coming from the AGW
Bret Cahill
> and dump Obama, so's McCain could be President.
It's sad things didn't work out for rightards.
Try not to spree . . .
Bret Cahill
socialist that fear the truth and want the new Holocaust for 9/11
"Bret Cahill" <Bret_E...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:53f318d4-b794-47ea...@y10g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
EU, UN, WTO, global elite kooks, and the Hitler youth chilken little wankers
>
>
> Bret Cahill
>
>
Shrikeback
> > Then, of course, the corpwhore media gathered together to pump
> > and dump Obama, so's McCain could be President.
>
> It's sad things didn't work out for rightards.
It seems they are working out quite well. It's sad that your
conspiracy theory about the corpwhores was debunked
by reality. Unless you count Obama's current underwater
approval ratings as the final dump of your pump-and-dump
conspiracy theory.
> Try not to spree . . .
Try not to unabomb, but if you must unabomb, go carbon-free,
go nuke!
Shrikeback
> Bat crap insane.
Exactly my point. Undermedicated.
David Hartung
To repeat, exactly how much has the sea level risen in these areas?
I M @ good guy
wrote:
Harry, tell them that sea level will continue to
rise, no matter what the atmospheric CO2 concentrations
are, erosion silt, delta building, underwater volcanos,
more ships, and perhaps other things will be causing
sea level rise.
Hopefully it will be less than an inch per decade,
but the islands with no high ground at all should be
evacuated at some point.
Last Post
> http://www.alertnet.org/db/blogs/61974/2009/11/14-001826-1.htm
>
>
> With sea-levels rising at unprecedented rates,
•• With sea levels rising 1± mm I wonder
what they mean by "unprecedented".
Obviously it must be a load of cow plop.
the people of low lying
> islands, such as Kiribati in the Central Pacific, are fighting to
> preserve their home and way of life.
•• More cow plop
>
> The impacts of a changing climate have already hit island nations
> hard.
>
> Increased coastal erosion, higher tides, and compromised fresh water
> supplies are making basic survival on these islands much more
> difficult.
•• That is all propaganda looking for big
buck$ handouts
>
> Unfortunately, these island-dwellers may have little means of coping
> with climate change.
>
> In many cases, the predicted rates of sea-level rise
•• Those predicted rates of sea-level rise
have as much seriousness and the
whistle in a cracker jack box.
suggest their
> country eventually will be submerged, effectively wiping their culture
•• We have 'predicted', 'suggests',
eventually (perhaps 90 thousand years
from now?), could, might, etc, etc, etc.
It is all a panhandler's party.
> and way of life unless swift action is taken to limit the carbon
> dioxide emitted into the atmosphere.
•• Now here is the first outright lie. Each
year as the population increases the
need for CO2 increases. Today the levels
are measured by a device inside the
Mauna Loa Volcano crater and then
adjusted to produce the desired increases.
Accurate or not it is irrelevant. CO2
measurements in the 19th century until
1950 were done by hand and many of
then exceeded our "current levels".
However in today's climate and
population levels, 385ppm it is not "all
the atmospheric CO2" it is a small
fraction waiting in that cloud above, for
the trigger to start the rain to fall— with
it carrying the CO2 and NO2 that will
become fertilizer on contact. 96.5% of
the CO2 comes from natural sources.
3.5% from human activity including
what we exhale.
Photosynthetic organisms convert around
100,000,000,000 tonnes of carbon into
biomass per year
>
> In light of the dire situation, Alofa and fellow inhabitants of
> low-lying islands pointed to a need for climate justice and leaders
> who will not be afraid to take bold action to curb green-house gas
> emissions.
•• Cutting greenhouse gas emissions will do
nothing to to the climate except perhaps
some cooling. Howevber any reduction in
atmospheric CO2 will severely reduce
agricultural production.
— —
| In real science the burden of proof is always
| on the proposer, never on the sceptics. So far
| neither IPCC nor anyone else has provided one
| iota of valid data for global warming nor have
| they provided data that climate change is being
| effected by commerce and industry, and not by
| natural phenomena
Last Post
> >http://www.alertnet.org/db/blogs/61974/2009/11/14-001826-1.htm
>
> AGW conspiracy theorists will just claim this article is part of the
> global AGW conspiracy that includes every scientist and everyone on
> the planet except the rightards who watch Faux Noise.
>
> Being a conspiracy theorist means all you have to do is claim any one
> who doesn't agree with your wacky conspiracy theory is part of the
> conspiracy!
•• Bret Cahill is a conspiracy theorist without a clue
bvallely
> http://www.alertnet.org/db/blogs/61974/2009/11/14-001826-1.htm
>
> 14 Dec 2009
>
> Low-lying islands fighting to preserve their way of life
>
> by: Meaghan Daly
>
> ............................................................................................................
>
> With sea-levels rising at unprecedented rates, the people of low lying
> islands, such as Kiribati in the Central Pacific, are fighting to
> preserve their home and way of life.
>
> The impacts of a changing climate have already hit island nations
> hard.
Why is it always islands in the middle of the Pacific, or some other
remote area, that are in danger? We have tons of low lying islands in
California - why haven't any of THOSE bad boys gone belly up?
Last Post
> > > >http://www.alertnet.org/db/blogs/61974/2009/11/14-001826-1.htm
>
> > Where's the conspiracy here?
>
> Don't worry. One of our AGW conspiracy theorists would come up with
> one.
>
•• ROTFLMAO
HO HO HO that's rich.
Jared
> >http://www.alertnet.org/db/blogs/61974/2009/11/14-001826-1.htm
>
> > 14 Dec 2009
>
> > Low-lying islands fighting to preserve their way of life
Isn't erosion, which means land shrinking, distinct from the sea level
rising?
Men_of_Mind
Why don't you go look it up, David?
It's not a simple numerical quantity, in black-or-white dimensions..
--And I know you frightie-righties suck horribly at even simple math..
Bret Cahill
>
> > > 14 Dec 2009
>
> > > Low-lying islands fighting to preserve their way of life
>
> Isn't erosion, which means land shrinking, distinct from the sea level
> rising?
Erosion isn't so much a problem if you aren't submerged.
Bret Cahill
Michael Gordge
> Sea-levels rising at unprecedented rates
Hahahhahahaha hahahahahhaha where abouts is that happening apart from
in your head? From what level to what level? Fuck ewe man makes the
globe hot and cold clowns are a laugh a minute, hahahahah ewe crack me
up.
MG
1Z
> The Governator was there too, he went back in time 1000 years
> to drive a hundred million Humvees around North America running
> over the natives and causing the Medieval Optimum, when it was
> between .2 and .7 degrees warmer than it is now,
If it was natural then it must be be natural now...not.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Several years of talking to people about climate change means that I
have come across my fair share of people who don’t believe that there
is such a thing as human induced climate change; that this is all in
fact just one of many natural cycles the earth goes through. For the
most part, they fall back on to one of several arguments to
demonstrate their point.
It would be easy for a bystander to take these arguments on board as
scientific fact; however, each and everyone one of these arguments I
have heard has actually been rejected by the vast majority of the
scientific community. I’m planning to go through the biggest climate
change myths over the next few months, trying to seperate the truths,
the partial truths, and the outright lies. Keep in mind, that it’s not
only the climate change deniers who are guilty of exageration;
sometimes the advocates of climate change are just as guilty of
distorting the truth to get their point across.
So, in the words of Campbell Brown, we’ll be taking a ‘No bias. No
bull’ approach.
The Medieval Warm Period (MWP) is often cited as an example of a time
when the earth went through a period of global warming, and
temperatures escalated above their climatic averages. Usually, I’ve
also heard that the average global temperature during the MWP was
higher than it is today.
This is a case of a partial truth. There was indeed a Medieval Warm
Period (from about 900-1300 A.D), and temperatures were indeed higher
than their climatic averages for the time. However, was it global, and
were the average temperatures higher than todays? Evidence suggests
otherwise.
The initial research into the MWP was done using data from the North
Atlantic/European region, where the effect was most clearly
observable.
However, by looking at other regions of the world during the same time
period, we can that climate patterns opposite to those occuring in the
North Atlantic and European region were happening elsewhere. We have
to remember that what we are faced with now, is the prospect of global
climate change, not regional, so we have to look at what was happening
on a global basis during the MWP.
So how warm was the Medieval Warm Period?
By looking at tree rings, and ice core sample, scientists are able to
draw up an approximation of a regions climates. As temperature is a
regional phenomenon, each sample can only tell us about what was
happening in that region. As I mentioned earlier, the MWP is thought
to have been most prominent in the Northern Hemisphere, yet even
there, the warmest period during the MWP is thought to have been 0.35C
cooler than the average temperature from 1970-2000.
So in conclusion?
Yes, there was a Medieval Warm Period, likely caused by natural
fluctuations in the Earth’s climate (like El Nino, increased volcanic
activity).
But, it was likely only regional, and even at it’s peak, still cooler
than the global average temperatures we are seeing today.
The current level of global average temperature is unlike those ever
witnessed by humankind, and it is still increasing. We have moved
beyond natural climatic cycles, and into man-made climate change.
David Hartung
I think that you miss my point.
The article speaks of the results of sea level rise, but doesn't
actually tell us how much, and over what period of time th esea level
has risen.
I am simply asking that the poster support his statements, if possible.
In other words, I am skeptical of the whole article, and would like to
see something in the way of firm information. I am not, however
interested enough, nor do I have the time to research it myself.
Zorro
.> Yes, there was a Medieval Warm Period, likely caused by natural
.> fluctuations in the Earth’s climate (like El Nino, increased
volcanic
.> activity).
.>
.> But, it was likely only regional, and even at it’s peak, still
cooler
.> than the global average temperatures we are seeing today.
The evidence would seem to show that you are wrong.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_Warm_Period#Other_regions
"Temperatures derived from an 18O/16O profile through a stalagmite
found in a New Zealand cave (40.67°S, 172.43°E) suggested the Medieval
Warm Period to have occurred between AD 1050 and 1400 and to have been
0.75°C warmer than the Current Warm Period."
Adhikari and Kumon (2001), whilst investigating sediments in Lake
Nakatsuna in central Japan, verified the existence there of both the
Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age.
The climate in equatorial east Africa has alternated between drier
than today, and relatively wet. The drier climate took place during
the Medieval Warm Period (~AD 1000–1270).
An ice core from the eastern Bransfield Basin, Antarctic Peninsula,
identifies events of the Little Ice Age and Medieval Warm Period.
It seems that people are very good at overlooking evidence that they
don't want to find.
Fred Weiss
Indeed they are.
The MWP is an Inconvenient Truth that the AGW hoaxers have been
desperate to deny.
http://joannenova.com.au/2009/12/fraudulent-hockey-sticks-and-hidden-data/#more-4660
Fred Weiss
I M @ good guy
I think there are conflicting measurements,
in addition to the problem of land rising and
falling and wind and barometric pressure causing
difficult measurements, there is also the moon and
the sun that cause variations in tides over many
years.
But I would assume maybe a real sea level
rise of 2 millimeters per year until a better
number comes along.
The islands that have problems were fairly
recently as time scales go inhabited by people
trying to get away from their homeland on one
of the continents.
There will be problems, AGW or not.
Man_of_Mind
>
> Man_of_Mind wrote:
>>
>> On 12/13/2009 9:49 PM, David Hartung wrote:
>>>
>>> socialist that fear the truth and want the new Holocaust for 9/11 wrote:
>>>> bhahahahahahha, the sky is falling chicken little....make a boat
>>>> Harry....and hope for the best....
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> http://www.alertnet.org/db/blogs/61974/2009/11/14-001826-1.htm
>>>>>
>>>>> 14 Dec 2009
>>>>>
>>>>> Low-lying islands fighting to preserve their way of life.
>>>
>>> To repeat, exactly how much has the sea level risen in these areas?
>>
>> Why don't you go look it up, David?
>>
>> It's not a simple numerical quantity, in black-or-white dimensions..
>
> I think that you miss my point.
I think, and your "point" wasn't 'missed', it was ignored entirely..
> The article speaks of the results of sea level rise,
> but doesn't actually tell us how much
There's the little thing called 'tides' that comes into play..
> and over what period of time th esea level has risen.
Why don't you go look it up, David?
> I am simply asking that the poster support his statements
Why don't you go look it up, David?
> In other words, I am skeptical of the whole article
Why don't you go look it up, David?
> and would like to see something in the way of firm information
Why don't you go look it up, David?
> I am not, however interested enough,
I see. You have a habit of lacking enough "interest" in subjects
that you seem to prefer a false 'black-or-white' dichotomy for
an answer, rather than actual facts. Then, when the complete
set of facts are presented to you..
--You stubbornly cling to your failed political ideologies..
lab~rat >:-)
<baron.v...@gmail.com> puked:
Funny, but real science *is* numerical quantities and black or white
dimensions. Global warming isn't, but real science is.
Why waste time blathering about nebulous unverifiable claims and at
the same time call it settled science? If you can't quantify it, you
can't prove it.
--
lab~rat >:-)
Do you want polite or do you want sincere?
lab~rat >:-)
puked:
>On Sun, 13 Dec 2009 21:49:04 -0600, David Hartung
><d_ha...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>socialist that fear the truth and want the new Holocaust for 9/11 wrote:
>>> bhahahahahahha, the sky is falling chicken little....make a boat
>>> Harry....and hope for the best....
>>>
>>>
>>> "Harry Hope" <riv...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
>>> news:np2bi5l976msltdcb...@4ax.com...
>>>> http://www.alertnet.org/db/blogs/61974/2009/11/14-001826-1.htm
>>>>
>>>> 14 Dec 2009
>>>>
>>>> Low-lying islands fighting to preserve their way of life.
>>
>>To repeat, exactly how much has the sea level risen in these areas?
>
> I think there are conflicting measurements,
>in addition to the problem of land rising and
>falling and wind and barometric pressure causing
>difficult measurements, there is also the moon and
>the sun that cause variations in tides over many
>years.
You forgot about the ManBearPig variable...
Man_of_Mind
>
> Man_of_Mind was excoriating the intentional ignorance exhibited by:
>>
>> On 12/14/2009 4:53 AM, David Hartung writhed in denials:
>>>
>>> Man_of_Mind wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 12/13/2009 9:49 PM, David Hartung was heard whining about:
>>>>>
>>>>> socialist that fear the truth and want the new Holocaust for 9/11 wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> bhahahahahahha, the sky is falling chicken little....make a boat
>>>>>> Harry....and hope for the best....
>>>>
>>>> >
>>>>> http://www.alertnet.org/db/blogs/61974/2009/11/14-001826-1.htm
>>>>>
>>>>> 14 Dec 2009
>>>>>
>>>>> Low-lying islands fighting to preserve their way of life.
>>>
>>> To repeat, exactly how much has the sea level risen in these areas?
>>
>> Why don't you go look it up, David?
>>
>> It's not a simple numerical quantity, in black-or-white dimensions..
>>
>> --And I know you frightie-righties suck horribly at even simple math..
>
> Funny, but real science *is* numerical quantities and black or white
> dimensions
You're completely incorrect.. What part of 'controls' and
'variables' did you not understand in junior high school, le brat?
> Why waste time blathering about nebulous unverifiable claims
Because I enjoy watching you make a fool of yourself..
--And you're so very accomplished at it.. *>LOL!<*
lab~rat >:-)
<baron.v...@gmail.com> puked:
>le brat was sniveling/groveling for more attention from:
>>
>> Man_of_Mind was excoriating the intentional ignorance exhibited by:
>>>
>>> On 12/14/2009 4:53 AM, David Hartung writhed in denials:
>>>>
>>>> Man_of_Mind wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On 12/13/2009 9:49 PM, David Hartung was heard whining about:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> socialist that fear the truth and want the new Holocaust for 9/11 wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> bhahahahahahha, the sky is falling chicken little....make a boat
>>>>>>> Harry....and hope for the best....
>>>>>
>>>>> "Harry Hope" <riv...@ix.netcom.com> quoted from:
>>>>> >
>>>>>> http://www.alertnet.org/db/blogs/61974/2009/11/14-001826-1.htm
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 14 Dec 2009
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Low-lying islands fighting to preserve their way of life.
>>>>
>>>> To repeat, exactly how much has the sea level risen in these areas?
>>>
>>> Why don't you go look it up, David?
>>>
>>> It's not a simple numerical quantity, in black-or-white dimensions..
>>>
>>> --And I know you frightie-righties suck horribly at even simple math..
>>
>> Funny, but real science *is* numerical quantities and black or white
>> dimensions
>
>You're completely incorrect.. What part of 'controls' and
>'variables' did you not understand in junior high school, le brat?
I understand all of that, those variables are used to construct the
hypothesis. They are used to formulate a conclusion which means that
there should be some information garnered from these variables that
show a trend, or at least a current milepost.
Who funds a study that ends with a conclusion that says nothing?
And since you know so much about it, why not post the study and
accompanying scientific method used to determine the outcome?
>
>> Why waste time blathering about nebulous unverifiable claims
>
>Because I enjoy watching you make a fool of yourself..
>
>--And you're so very accomplished at it.. *>LOL!<*
--
socialist that fear the truth and want the new Holocaust for 9/11
"David Hartung" <d_ha...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4b25b5b0$0$5332$bbae...@news.suddenlink.net...
where in the flood stag now and the islands are sinking, but poor Harry's
made his boat, but the poor lad forgot to put a plug in it and now it is
going down under..
socialist that fear the truth and want the new Holocaust for 9/11
"Men_of_Mind" <baron.v...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:hg4ht6$oc3$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
if only the kooks had enough smarts to check for volcanic activity over the
ice fields
Man_of_Mind
>
> Man_of_Mind was excoriating the intentional ignorance exhibited by:
>>
>> le brat was sniveling/groveling for more attention from:
>>>
>>> Man_of_Mind was excoriating the intentional ignorance exhibited by:
>>>>
>>>> On 12/14/2009 4:53 AM, David Hartung writhed in denials:
>>>>>
>>>>> Man_of_Mind wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> socialist that fear the truth and want the new Holocaust for 9/11 wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> bhahahahahahha, the sky is falling chicken little....make a boat
>>>>>>>> Harry....and hope for the best....
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> http://www.alertnet.org/db/blogs/61974/2009/11/14-001826-1.htm
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 14 Dec 2009
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Low-lying islands fighting to preserve their way of life.
>>>>>
>>>>> To repeat, exactly how much has the sea level risen in these areas?
>>>>
>>>> Why don't you go look it up, David?
>>>>
>>>> It's not a simple numerical quantity, in black-or-white dimensions..
>>>>
>>>> --And I know you frightie-righties suck horribly at even simple math..
>>>
>>> dimensions
>>
>> You're completely incorrect.. What part of 'controls' and
>> 'variables' did you not understand in junior high school, le brat?
>>
>>
>> Because I enjoy watching you make a fool of yourself..
>>
>> --And you're so very accomplished at it.. *>LOL!<*
>
And you think that hasn't been checked?
--Look at the bore-hole temperature readings, for example..
lab~rat >:-)
want the new Holocaust for 9/11"
puked:
Wait, the water's rising AND the islands are sinking? If you want my
opinion, I'd say those people are fucked...
pyjamarama
>
> 14 Dec 2009
>
> Low-lying islands fighting to preserve their way of life
>
>
> ........................................................................... .................................
>
> With sea-levels rising at unprecedented rates, the people of low lying
> islands, such as Kiribati in the Central Pacific, are fighting to
> preserve their home and way of life.
>
> The impacts of a changing climate have already hit island nations
> hard.
>
> supplies are making basic survival on these islands much more
> difficult.
>
> Copenhagen climate talks, declaring, "Climate change is not my war,
> but I am a victim!"
>
> Behind her, images of withering bread-fruit trees, a source of
> nourishment for many islanders, illustrated the effects salt-water
> intrusion on the atolls.
>
> with climate change.
>
> country eventually will be submerged, effectively wiping their culture
> dioxide emitted into the atmosphere.
>
> low-lying islands pointed to a need for climate justice and leaders
> who will not be afraid to take bold action to curb green-house gas
> emissions.
>
>
> During Alofa's final pleas, she urged the crowd to consider the youth
> of Kiribati.
>
> From the screen, the faces of children from the island nation smiled
> out into the crowd, as if imploring each audience member to take
> action.
>
> "If nothing happens here in Copenhagen, what will happen to us, our
> children, our children's children? What will their future be?" Alofa
> asked.
>
> With the outcome of the negotiations still up in the air, it's
> important for negotiators to consider the plight of those who will
> suffer the worst effects of climate change.
>
> Despite the uncertainty looming as the final days of the conference
> approach, Alofa left conference goers with a poignant summary of her
> mission here.
>
> "What do I want from Copenhagen? I want to go home with hope!" she
> said.
>
> _______________________________________________________
>
> Harry
You lost, Harry...
'Copenhagen' is widely seen a sad propaganda exercise...
Massive, politically-motivated data manipulation will do that.
Time for the left to find a new 'crisis'...
This one is spent.
socialist that fear the truth and want the new Holocaust for 9/11
"Man_of_Mind" <baron.v...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:hg5vif$aba$1...@sickpuppy.eternal-september.org...
LOL's, I was beinbg sarcastic
Van Chocstraw
>
> by: Meaghan Daly
>
> ............................................................................................................
>
> islands, such as Kiribati in the Central Pacific, are fighting to
> preserve their home and way of life.
>
Fact Attack
in one spot and not in others, if it rises then it would rise
EVERYWHERE, not just in Maldives, it would rise along the New Jersey
coast, and along the LA beaches, because water is a fucking liquid and
socialist that fear the truth and want the new Holocaust for 9/11
"Doppler China Blue Shift" <chine...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:chine.bleu-9A1BB...@news.eternal-september.org...
> In article <2%uVm.57561$PH1.27102@edtnps82>,
> "socialist that fear the truth and want the new Holocaust for 9/11"
>
on.
> gcmail> wrote:
>
> > if only the kooks had enough smarts to check for volcanic activity over
the
> > ice fields
>
got space alien bugs crawling all over you, from global warming hay...no
need to worry china doll, gw bush monkey can save you....
Last Post
> > > >http://www.alertnet.org/db/blogs/61974/2009/11/14-001826-1.htm
>
> > > > 14 Dec 2009
>
> > > > Low-lying islands fighting to preserve their way of life
>
> > Isn't erosion, which means land shrinking, distinct from the sea level
> > rising?
•• It certainly
>
> Erosion isn't so much a problem if you aren't submerged.
•• ROTFLMAO
There are no islands being submerged.
Where there are islands in trouble is in the
Ganges delta where no trees or insufficient
trees have grown to anchor the soil
comprised solely of river silt. If the Bangla
Desh authorities cared for their people they
could sink rip rap steel at the top and bottom
of each island. But they do not care.
Frogwatch
Well, I DID go look up the rate of sea level rise:
http://www.climate.org/topics/sea-level/index.html#sealevelrise
Look at the graph, completely linear since 1900 and no increase in
rate due to AGW.
Man_of_Mind
>
> Man_of_Mind corrected the fallacy arguments presented pompously by:
>>
>> le brat was sniveling/groveling for more attention from:
>>>
>>> Man_of_Mind was excoriating the intentional ignorance exhibited by:
>>>>
>>>> On 12/14/2009 4:53 AM, David Hartung writhed in denials:
>>>>>> "Harry Hope"<riv...@ix.netcom.com> quoted from:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> http://www.alertnet.org/db/blogs/61974/2009/11/14-001826-1.htm
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 14 Dec 2009
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Low-lying islands fighting to preserve their way of life.
>>>>>
>>>>> To repeat, exactly how much has the sea level risen in these areas?
>>>>
>>>> Why don't you go look it up, David?
>>>>
>>>> It's not a simple numerical quantity, in black-or-white dimensions..
>>>>
>>>> --And I know you frightie-righties suck horribly at even simple math..
>>>
>>> Funny, but real science *is* numerical quantities and black or white
>>> dimensions
>>
>> You're completely incorrect.. What part of 'controls' and
>> 'variables' did you not understand in junior high school, le brat?
>
> I understand all of that
Yet, it's very clear that you don't..
Example follows..
> those variables are used to construct the hypothesis.
> They are used to formulate a conclusion which means that
> there should be some information garnered from these
> variables that show a trend, or at least a current milepost.
You completely forgot about the 'control' and its context
in all of your word-magic, baffle-gab and hand-waving..
> Who funds a study that ends with a conclusion that says nothing?
Your premise is flawed, and that's because your biased question
is rhetorical in nature.
> And since you know so much about it
My degree is in physics, my graduate work is in physics,
so precisely what are pretending you can understand now
with but a few paragraphs and a quick perusal of Google?
> why not post the study and accompanying scientific method
> used to determine the outcome?
Why are you incapable of looking that up yourself, before
you go about the pretense of being able to actually refute
all of the studies that indicate that the sea-levels are
rising at "unprecedented rates"?
In case you had conveniently 'forgotten', I have no obligation
to re-prove that which has already been proven, and continues
to be proven even startlingly correct than first estimated..
--Do you need some help looking up those studies. le brat?
Shrikeback
That's not quite true, and El Nino and La Nina both impact
the sea level in areas of the Pacific.
turtoni
There's a bunch of other phenomena that impact sea levels too. That's
one big problem with this climate science. It's extremely complicated
and still a work in progress with huge parts still far from understood.
I M @ good guy
water.
You are right as far as a base sea level, but
wind, sea currents, and differences in barometric
pressure can cause up to 2 feet difference in
normal weather, a lot more in storms.
Also, in many places the land is rising (from
the removal of the weight of ice sheets 18,000
years ago), or falling (Long Beach in California
fell many feet from pumping out oil, they had
pumps about 10 feet apart all over the place.
But atmospheric CO2 reduction will not
help, the idea of even trying is silly.
There are plenty of boats to move people
if needed, the paranoid AGW nuts need to
calm down, nobody will let them drown.
lab~rat >:-)
<baron.v...@gmail.com> puked:
At the end of the day, you're telling me that there is no clear data
that confirms what a supposed study tells about sea levels rising. If
there were to be conclusive proof, there would be a conclusion
indicating what degree the ocean appears to be rising and at what
rate.
I'm sure your vast background in physics would lend itself to bringing
you to the same opinion. Unless, of course, you had an interest in
keeping the data nebulous. Why would anyone have an interest in
keeping data from a study nebulous? Huh?
Man_of_Mind
>
> Man_of_Mind administered yet another bitch-slapping to:
>>
>> le brat was still sniveling/groveling for more attention from:
>>>
>>> Man_of_Mind corrected the fallacy arguments presented pompously by:
>>>>
>>>> le brat was sniveling/groveling for more attention from:
>>>>>
>>>>> Man_of_Mind was excoriating the intentional ignorance exhibited by:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 12/14/2009 4:53 AM, David Hartung writhed in denials:
That would be a false 'conclusion' on your behalf, le brat, as
this has been known for quite some time, and is published..
F'rinstance..
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/04/0420_040420_earthday.html
"From the melting of the ice cap on Mount Kilimanjaro,
Africa's tallest peak, to the loss of coral reefs as
oceans become warmer, the effects of global warming
are often clear.
However, the biggest danger, many experts warn, is that
global warming will cause sea levels to rise dramatically.
Thermal expansion has already raised the oceans 4 to 8 inches
(10 to 20 centimeters). But that's nothing compared to what
would happen if, for example, Greenland's massive ice sheet
were to melt.
"The consequences would be catastrophic," said Jonathan Overpeck,
director of the Institute for the Study of Planet Earth at the
University of Arizona in Tucson. "Even with a small sea level
rise, we're going to destroy whole nations and their cultures
that have existed for thousands of years."
Overpeck and his colleagues have used computer models to create
a series of maps that show how susceptible coastal cities and
island countries are to the sea rising at different levels. The
maps show that a 1-meter (3-foot) rise would swamp cities all
along the U.S. eastern seaboard. A 6-meter (20-foot) sea level
rise would submerge a large part of Florida."
Look at the date, that was two years ago..
> If there were to be conclusive proof
Sorry to inform you of this, but the criteria for a "conclusive
proof" isn't going to be decided by your self-inflicted ignorant
requirements, such as follows..
> there would be a conclusion indicating what degree the ocean
> appears to be rising and at what rate.
Scientific "conclusions" are based on data, measurements and
testable hypothesis', you silly anti-intellectual right-tard..
> I'm sure your vast background in physics
I'm sure my background in physics is "vast" compared to yours..
--That's why you resort to false rhetorical questions..
lab~rat >:-)
<baron.v...@gmail.com> puked:
> However, the biggest danger, many experts warn, is that
> global warming will cause sea levels to rise dramatically.
> Thermal expansion has already raised the oceans 4 to 8 inches
> (10 to 20 centimeters).
Ok, here's what I'm talking about. You're citing National Geographic,
which I happen to subscribe to, yet realize it is a mouthpiece of the
GW campaign. This brilliant piece of scientific data is lacking one
minor thing, they don't give a time frame in which this has occurred.
Then they go on to state that will be nothing compared to the ice on
Greenland melting, and give no time frame NOR any specific increments
of the rising water. Clearly scientists have a clear view of the mass
of the ice sheet by borings or some other method, why wouldn't the
volume be contemplated and the subsequent rise calculated?
Seriously, if I posted a response to you that was comprised of nothing
more than nebulous rhetoric, I'd be ashamed of myself.
Does this article from NG look to you like a scientific conclusion?
David Hartung
If the oceans have already risen 4 to 8 inches, then somone ought to be
able to provide examples of locations where this has been measures, and
the time frame involved.
Man_of_Mind
>
> Man_of_Mind restored the hilarious bitch-slappings administered to:
>>
>> le brat continued sniveling/groveling for more attention from:
>>>
>>> Man_of_Mind administered yet another bitch-slapping to:
>>>>
>>>> le brat was still sniveling/groveling for more attention from:
>>>>>
>>>>> Man_of_Mind corrected the fallacy arguments presented pompously by:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> le brat was sniveling/groveling for more attention from:
>> global warming will cause sea levels to rise dramatically.
>> Thermal expansion has already raised the oceans 4 to 8 inches
>> would happen if, for example, Greenland's massive ice sheet
>> were to melt.
>>
>> "The consequences would be catastrophic," said Jonathan Overpeck,
>> director of the Institute for the Study of Planet Earth at the
>> University of Arizona in Tucson. "Even with a small sea level
>> rise, we're going to destroy whole nations and their cultures
>> that have existed for thousands of years."
>>
>> Overpeck and his colleagues have used computer models to create
>> a series of maps that show how susceptible coastal cities and
>> island countries are to the sea rising at different levels. The
>> maps show that a 1-meter (3-foot) rise would swamp cities all
>> along the U.S. eastern seaboard. A 6-meter (20-foot) sea level
>> rise would submerge a large part of Florida."
>>
>> Look at the date, that was two years ago..
>
No, you're just casting aspersions as to the veracity of the
basis for this quote from National Geographic.
Example follows..
> You're citing National Geographic,
Which, in turn, was citing an article from the NSF..
http://www.nsf.gov/news/news_summ.jsp?cntn_id=109759&org=NSF&from=news
July 19, 2007
"Ice loss from glaciers and ice caps is expected to cause
more global sea rise during this century than the massive
Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets, according to a new
University of Colorado at Boulder study.
The researcher, primarily funded by the National Science
Foundation (NSF) and NASA, concluded that glaciers and ice
caps are currently contributing about 60 percent of the
world's ice to the oceans and the rate has been markedly
accelerating in the past decade, said Emeritus Professor
Mark Meier of CU-Boulder's Institute of Arctic and Alpine
Research, lead study author. The contribution is presently
about 100 cubic miles of ice annually -- a volume nearly
equal to the water in Lake Erie -- and is rising by about
three cubic miles per year.
In contrast, the CU-Boulder team estimated Greenland is now
contributing about 28 percent of the total global sea rise
from ice loss and Antarctica is contributing about 12 percent.
Greenland is not expected to catch up to glaciers and ice caps
in terms of sea level rise contributions until the end of the
century, according to the study.
A paper on the subject appears in the July 19 issue of Science
Express, the online edition of Science magazine. Co-authors
include CU-Boulder INSTAAR researchers Mark Dyurgerov, Ursula
Rick, Shad O'Neel, Tad Pfeffer, Robert Anderson and Suzanne
Anderson, as well as Russian Academy of Sciences scientist
Andrey Glazovsky."
Now, that was two years ago..
> This brilliant piece of scientific data is lacking one minor thing,
> they don't give a time frame in which this has occurred.
Nor does it include the uncertainty of the measurement systems
used, nor the principal investigators names, CV's and background..
So fascking what!?
> Then they go on to state that will be nothing compared to the ice
> on Greenland melting, and give no time frame NOR any specific
So, you're rather incurious about the specifics, and prefer to
cast false generalities with your insinuations, rather than
look long and hard at the data and interpretations..
That's consistent with you being a lackey of the construction
industry, especially in Fart Louder_Wail, Floriduh..
> Clearly scientists have a clear view of the mass of the ice sheet
Yes, as I've cited from the NSF above.. Read this one next..
http://www.nsf.gov/news/special_reports/climate/index.jsp
> Seriously, if I posted a response to you that was comprised
> of nothing more than nebulous rhetoric, I'd be ashamed of myself.
*>LOL!<* As you should be, presently..
--You've just hoisted yourself with your own petard..
Man_of_Mind
>
> le brat whimpered and squirmed when replied to by:
>>
>> Man_of_Mind restored the details and context deleted by:
>>>
>>> le brat continued sniveling/groveling for more attention from:
>>>>
>>>> Man_of_Mind administered yet another bitch-slapping to:
>>>>>
>>>>> le brat was still sniveling/groveling for more attention from:
>>>>>> why not post the study and accompanying scientific method
>>>>>> used to determine the outcome?
>>>>>
>>>>> Why are you incapable of looking that up yourself, before
>>>>> you go about the pretense of being able to actually refute
>>>>> all of the studies that indicate that the sea-levels are
>>>>> rising at "unprecedented rates"?
>>>>>
>>>>> In case you had conveniently 'forgotten', I have no obligation
>>>>> to re-prove that which has already been proven, and continues
>>>>> to be proven even startlingly correct than first estimated..
>>>>>
>>>>> --Do you need some help looking up those studies. le brat?
>>>>
>>>> At the end of the day, you're telling me that there is no
>>>> clear data that confirms what a supposed study tells about
>>>> sea levels rising.
>>>
>>> That would be a false 'conclusion' on your behalf, le brat, as
>>> this has been known for quite some time, and is published..
>>>
>>> F'rinstance..
>>>
>>> http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/04/0420_040420_earthday.html
>>>
>>> "From the melting of the ice cap on Mount Kilimanjaro,
>>> Africa's tallest peak, to the loss of coral reefs as
>>> oceans become warmer, the effects of global warming
>>> are often clear.
>>>
>>> global warming will cause sea levels to rise dramatically.
>>> Thermal expansion has already raised the oceans 4 to 8 inches
>>> would happen if, for example, Greenland's massive ice sheet
>>> were to melt.
>>>
>>> "The consequences would be catastrophic," said Jonathan Overpeck,
>>> director of the Institute for the Study of Planet Earth at the
>>> University of Arizona in Tucson. "Even with a small sea level
>>> rise, we're going to destroy whole nations and their cultures
>>> that have existed for thousands of years."
>>>
>>> Overpeck and his colleagues have used computer models to create
>>> a series of maps that show how susceptible coastal cities and
>>> island countries are to the sea rising at different levels. The
>>> maps show that a 1-meter (3-foot) rise would swamp cities all
>>> along the U.S. eastern seaboard. A 6-meter (20-foot) sea level
>>> rise would submerge a large part of Florida."
>>
>> which I happen to subscribe to, yet realize it is a mouthpiece of the
>> GW campaign. This brilliant piece of scientific data is lacking one
>> minor thing, they don't give a time frame in which this has occurred.
>>
>> Then they go on to state that will be nothing compared to the ice on
>> Greenland melting, and give no time frame NOR any specific increments
>> of the rising water. Clearly scientists have a clear view of the mass
>> of the ice sheet by borings or some other method, why wouldn't the
>> volume be contemplated and the subsequent rise calculated?
>>
>> Seriously, if I posted a response to you that was comprised of nothing
>> more than nebulous rhetoric, I'd be ashamed of myself.
>>
>> Does this article from NG look to you like a scientific conclusion?
>
> If the oceans have already risen 4 to 8 inches, then somone ought to
> be able to provide examples of locations where this has been measures,
As was already presented by Harry Hope..
http://www.alertnet.org/db/blogs/61974/2009/11/14-001826-1.htm
Also, some background information..
http://uwnews.washington.edu/ni/article.asp?articleID=38531
http://www.nsf.gov/news/news_summ.jsp?cntn_id=110906
http://www.nsf.gov/discoveries/disc_summ.jsp?cntn_id=112253&org=NSF
If the premises and numbers are simply too much for you, as
I have demonstrated several times over apparently, you might
try this nice multimedia presentation instead..
http://www.nsf.gov/news/special_reports/degree/heat_balance.jsp
I note in closing that neither of you has yet to present any
kind of substantiated refutation of the subject at hand..
--Your skepticism is healthy, but your ignorance invalidates it..
David Hartung
Completely lacking in detail and hard fact.
> Also, some background information..
>
> http://uwnews.washington.edu/ni/article.asp?articleID=38531
1. Out of date. Since 2007, the ice cover has returned to what it was
when measurements began.
2. melting Arctic ice will not change sea levels.
> http://www.nsf.gov/news/news_summ.jsp?cntn_id=110906
Once again, old information.
> http://www.nsf.gov/discoveries/disc_summ.jsp?cntn_id=112253&org=NSF
This piece speaks to the forecasts of rising sea levels, it does not
give specifics of how much and when the sea levels have actually risen.
>
> If the premises and numbers are simply too much for you, as
> I have demonstrated several times over apparently, you might
> try this nice multimedia presentation instead..
>
> http://www.nsf.gov/news/special_reports/degree/heat_balance.jsp
>
> I note in closing that neither of you has yet to present any
> kind of substantiated refutation of the subject at hand..
At this point, I am refuting nothing, but instead am trying to determine
the validity of the claim.
To repeat, if sea levels have actually risen in the amount indicated, it
should be relatively easy to give examples of locations where the sea
level has risen, by how much, and the time frame during which this
occurred. The journalist who wrote the initial article cose not to
include such specifics.
Joe Irvin
There seems to be physicists that disagree with you: "As physicists who are
familiar with the science issue, and as current and past members of the
American Physical Society, we the undersigned urge the council to revise its
current statement on climate change as follows, so as to more accurately
represent the current state of science: Greenhouse gas emissions, such as
carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide, accompany human industrial and
agricultural activity. While substantial concern has been expressed that
emissions may cause significant climate change, measured or reconstructed
temperature records indicate that 20th 21st century changes are neither
exceptional nor persistent, and the historical and geological records show
many periods warmer than today. In addition, there is an extensive
scientific literature that examines beneficial effects of increased levels
of carbon dioxide for both plants and animals."
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/commentaries/american_physical_society.pdf
lab~rat >:-)
<baron.v...@gmail.com> puked:
Ok, I went through the first two and neither addressed the amount or
time frame of rising sea levels. Don't waste my time. Post a link
with a direct cite or don't bother. I can go through google and throw
up a huge subterfuge of links for you to chase as well.
>http://www.nsf.gov/discoveries/disc_summ.jsp?cntn_id=112253&org=NSF
>
>If the premises and numbers are simply too much for you, as
>I have demonstrated several times over apparently, you might
>try this nice multimedia presentation instead..
>
>http://www.nsf.gov/news/special_reports/degree/heat_balance.jsp
>
>I note in closing that neither of you has yet to present any
>kind of substantiated refutation of the subject at hand..
>
>--Your skepticism is healthy, but your ignorance invalidates it..
--
lab~rat >:-)
<baron.v...@gmail.com> puked:
>> This brilliant piece of scientific data is lacking one minor thing,
>> they don't give a time frame in which this has occurred.
>
>Nor does it include the uncertainty of the measurement systems
>used, nor the principal investigators names, CV's and background..
>
>So fascking what!?
It was the whole point of the debate. Sorry you missed it, maybe
you're better at physics, but I reckon you're just as good...
Man_of_Mind
>
> Man_of_Mind wrote:
>>
>> Vapid Fartung tried to weasel around the facts established previously:
>>>
>>> le brat whimpered and squirmed when replied to by:
>>>>
>>>> Man_of_Mind restored the details and context deleted by:
>>>>>
>>>>> le brat continued sniveling/groveling for more attention from:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Man_of_Mind administered yet another bitch-slapping to:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> le brat was still sniveling/groveling for more attention from:
Incorrect, on your behalf..
>> Also, some background information..
>>
>> http://uwnews.washington.edu/ni/article.asp?articleID=38531
>
> 1. Out of date
You said that you wanted to know how long this had been
studied, and you must've missed the details on that fact..
> 2. melting Arctic ice will not change sea levels.
If it's on land (eg Greenland) it certainly will..
>> http://www.nsf.gov/news/news_summ.jsp?cntn_id=110906
>
> Once again, old information.
Once again, you've presented no refutation..
>> http://www.nsf.gov/discoveries/disc_summ.jsp?cntn_id=112253&org=NSF
>
> This piece speaks to the forecasts of rising sea levels
Indeed, it also speaks about how unpredictable it will
be to forecast such, and presents reasons why. That you're
unable to comprehend such methodological approaches to this
impending problems bespeaks a certain intentional ignorance..
Example follows..
>> If the premises and numbers are simply too much for you, as
>> I have demonstrated several times over apparently, you might
>> try this nice multimedia presentation instead..
>>
>> http://www.nsf.gov/news/special_reports/degree/heat_balance.jsp
>>
>> I note in closing that neither of you has yet to present any
>> kind of substantiated refutation of the subject at hand..
>
> At this point, I am refuting nothing
That's correct, you seem to be incapable of the critical
reasoning that is required to do observational science..
> To repeat, if sea levels have actually risen
They have, and you've again refused to examine the cites
that I've presented to you that confirm the amounts, effects
and quantitative analysis related to this phenomena..
--You've again chosen to ignore that which refutes your opinions..
mr_antone
<snip>
>Also, some background information..
>
>http://uwnews.washington.edu/ni/article.asp?articleID=38531
>
>http://www.nsf.gov/news/news_summ.jsp?cntn_id=110906
>
>http://www.nsf.gov/discoveries/disc_summ.jsp?cntn_id=112253&org=NSF
>
>If the premises and numbers are simply too much for you, as
>I have demonstrated several times over apparently, you might
>try this nice multimedia presentation instead..
>
>http://www.nsf.gov/news/special_reports/degree/heat_balance.jsp
Excellent link for the non-technical layman.
A keeper....
Thanks
--
A Libertarian society is an oxymoron.
mr_antone
Man_of_Mind
>
> Man_of_Mind restored the hilarious bitch-slappings administered to:
>>
>> le brat deleted and bleated, like an anti-intellectual right-winger:
>>>
>>> Man_of_Mind restored the hilarious bitch-slappings administered to:
>>>>
>>>> le brat continued sniveling/groveling for more attention from:
>>>>>
>>>>> Man_of_Mind administered yet another bitch-slapping to:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> le brat was still sniveling/groveling for more attention from:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Man_of_Mind corrected the fallacy arguments presented pompously by:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> le brat was sniveling/groveling for more attention from:
>>> they don't give a time frame in which this has occurred.
>>
>> Nor does it include the uncertainty of the measurement systems
>> used, nor the principal investigators names, CV's and background..
>>
>> So fascking what!?
>
> It was the whole point
Incorrect.. The "whole point" was that oceans and seas around
the planet are rising, despite your 'redefining' this fact..
Example follows..
> It was the whole point of the debate
It's not being 'debated' that the seas/oceans are rising, except
in your fragile, 'black-or-white' pseudoverse..
> Sorry you missed it
Apparently, you didn't read the cites at the web-sites I
included in my reply to your unimaginative drivel..
--See subject header for details..
Man_of_Mind
>
> Man_of_Mind administered yet another bitch-slapping to:
>>
>> Vapid Fartung tried to weasel around the facts established previously:
>>>
>>> le brat whimpered and squirmed when replied to by:
>>>>
>>>> Man_of_Mind restored the details and context deleted by:
>>>>>
>>>>> le brat continued sniveling/groveling for more attention from:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Man_of_Mind administered yet another bitch-slapping to:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> le brat was still sniveling/groveling for more attention from:
I see that you didn't read the but the description
of the article (published in Science Sept. 5, 2008)
at that web-site..
What a lame excuse, as if I actually expected any sort
of honest curiosity on your behalf.. *>LOL!<*
> I can go through google and throw up a huge subterfuge of links
Which, you emotionally retarded, anti-intellectual right-wingers
do, without a second thought, which exposes your weak-mindedness
with your narrow-minded approach to everything around you..
Hell, you all suck at math, for the most part..
That's why the year 1995 doesn't register with you..
http://www.nsf.gov/news/news_summ.jsp?cntn_id=110906
"Warming is particularly pronounced since 1995, and especially
since 2000," the authors write. The spot where waters were 5 C
above average was in the region just north of the Chakchi Sea.
The historical average temperature there is -1 C -- remember
that the salt in ocean water keeps it liquid at temperatures
that would cause fresh water to freeze. This year water in
that area warmed to 4 C, for a 5-degree change from the average."
Jared
>
> > Isn't erosion, which means land shrinking, distinct from the sea level
> > rising?
>
So these islands are about 6-10 inches high?
lab~rat >:-)
<baron.v...@gmail.com> puked:
>>>
>>> As was already presented by Harry Hope..
>>>
>>> http://www.alertnet.org/db/blogs/61974/2009/11/14-001826-1.htm
>>>
>>> Also, some background information..
>>>
>>> http://uwnews.washington.edu/ni/article.asp?articleID=38531
>>>
>>> http://www.nsf.gov/news/news_summ.jsp?cntn_id=110906
>>
>> Ok, I went through the first two and neither addressed
>> the amount or time frame of rising sea levels
>
>I see that you didn't read the but the description
>of the article (published in Science Sept. 5, 2008)
>at that web-site..
>
>What a lame excuse, as if I actually expected any sort
>of honest curiosity on your behalf.. *>LOL!<*
Was there some information I missed in the first two links? If not, I
missed it because I smelled subterfuge. If I have a point to make
from a link that isn't painfully obvious, I post the cite and then the
link.
I find it suspicious, after going to the first two there was just a
list of generalities with no data specific to the issue, and I call
bullshit.
If you have a point to make, indulge my ADD and cite it specifically.
Don't give me a list of web sites that may or may not (in the case of
the first two) make your point.
lab~rat >:-)
<baron.v...@gmail.com> puked:
>> It was the whole point
>
>Incorrect.. The "whole point" was that oceans and seas around
>the planet are rising, despite your 'redefining' this fact..
>
>Example follows..
>
>> It was the whole point of the debate
>
>It's not being 'debated' that the seas/oceans are rising, except
>in your fragile, 'black-or-white' pseudoverse..
>
>> Sorry you missed it
>
>Apparently, you didn't read the cites at the web-sites I
>included in my reply to your unimaginative drivel..
>
>--See subject header for details..
The subject header doesn't match any information given by you or
anyone else. There are no specifics as to how fast or how much it's
rising, just general information like Al Gore's phoney "75% of the
polar caps will be melted before you know it"...
I guess the physics you're used to doesn't have numerical answers.
The only physics I'm familiar with does.
Man_of_Mind
>
> Man_of_Mind restored the hilarious bitch-slappings administered to:
>>>>
>>>> http://www.alertnet.org/db/blogs/61974/2009/11/14-001826-1.htm
>>>>
>>>> Also, some background information..
>>>>
>>>> http://uwnews.washington.edu/ni/article.asp?articleID=38531
>>>>
>>>> http://www.nsf.gov/news/news_summ.jsp?cntn_id=110906
>>>
>>> Ok, I went through the first two and neither addressed
>>> the amount or time frame of rising sea levels
>>
>> I see that you didn't read the but the description
>> of the article (published in Science Sept. 5, 2008)
>> at that web-site..
>>
>> What a lame excuse, as if I actually expected any sort
>> of honest curiosity on your behalf.. *>LOL!<*
>
> Was there some information I missed in the first two links?
Yes..
http://uwnews.washington.edu/ni/article.asp?articleID=38531
"A comparison of 2000 and 2007 shows how the ice edge has
retreated as the ice cap has shrunk and how surface waters
have warmed compared to the 100-year average. For example,
parts of the Bering Strait and Chukchi Sea were 3 and 3.5
degrees warmer than the historical average. The spot that
was 5 degrees above average was found at the center of the
4 degree area of water north of the Chukchi Sea."
http://www.nsf.gov/news/news_summ.jsp?cntn_id=110906
"Record-breaking amounts of ice-free water have deprived
the Arctic of more of its natural "sunscreen" than ever
in recent summers. The effect is so pronounced that sea
surface temperatures rose to 5 degrees C above average
in one place this year, a high never before observed says
a University of Washington oceanographer who has compiled
the first-ever look at average sea surface temperatures
for the region."
> If I have a point to make from a link that isn't painfully
> obvious, I post the cite and then the link.
I do not have any obligation to obey your artificial constraints..
> I find it suspicious
That's because you're conditioned, psychologically-speaking,
to respond in a knee-jerk manner to all sorts of fears, doubts
and uncertainties (eg Marketing 101), in spite your self-awarded
accolades about how you can 'think for yourself'..
Examples follow..
> after going to the first two there was just a list of
> generalities with no data specific to the issue
Your abject lack of curiosity, along with your anxious
efforts to 'call bullshit' on anything that disagrees
with your narrow-minded, myopic ideological blindness,
is what prevents you from finding the data sets and
peer-reviewed publications that prove your opinions
are not only wrong, but also deliberately disinformed..
--And you thought you 'smelled subterfuge'.. *>LOL!<*
Man_of_Mind
>
> Man_of_Mind restored the hilarious bitch-slappings administered to:
>>
>> le brat deleted and bleated, like an anti-intellectual right-winger:
>>>
>>> Man_of_Mind restored the hilarious bitch-slappings administered to:
>>>>
>>>> le brat deleted and bleated, like an anti-intellectual right-winger:
>>>>>
>>>>> Man_of_Mind restored the hilarious bitch-slappings administered to:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> le brat continued sniveling/groveling for more attention from:
>>
>> Incorrect.. The "whole point" was that oceans and seas around
>> the planet are rising, despite your 'redefining' this fact..
>>
>> Example follows..
>>
>>> It was the whole point of the debate
>>
>> It's not being 'debated' that the seas/oceans are rising, except
>> in your fragile, 'black-or-white' pseudoverse..
>>
>>> Sorry you missed it
>>
>> Apparently, you didn't read the cites at the web-sites I
>> included in my reply to your unimaginative drivel..
>>
>> --See subject header for details..
>
> The subject header doesn't match any information given by you
That would be incorrect, on your behalf..
> There are no specifics as to how fast or how much it's rising
You'd just try to quibble and micro-debate those details,
as if you were objective enough, which you demonstrably aren't..
Example follows..
> I guess the physics you're used to doesn't have numerical answers.
But, that's because all you can do is guess..
> The only physics I'm familiar with does.
But, what little "physics" you're 'familiar' with doesn't matter
to me. You've demonstrated that you're "integrity-challenged"
and I have no obligation to play using your moving goal-posts..
--And the physics you're 'familiar with' hasn't refuted anything..
lab~rat >:-)
<baron.v...@gmail.com> puked:
So now we're changing the topic from how much the water has risen in
how long of time to temperatures? Convenient.
>
>http://www.nsf.gov/news/news_summ.jsp?cntn_id=110906
>
>"Record-breaking amounts of ice-free water have deprived
> the Arctic of more of its natural "sunscreen" than ever
> in recent summers. The effect is so pronounced that sea
> surface temperatures rose to 5 degrees C above average
> in one place this year, a high never before observed says
> a University of Washington oceanographer who has compiled
> the first-ever look at average sea surface temperatures
> for the region."
>
>--And you thought you 'smelled subterfuge'.. *>LOL!<*
I clearly did. Your link didn't state anything about the oceans
rising, just about a localized temperature change. Your other link
did the same thing, and as I stated, I stopped reading when I realized
it wasn't germane to the discussion.
Nice try.
Man_of_Mind
>
> Man_of_Mind wrote:
>
> <snip>
>>
>> Also, some background information..
>>
>> http://uwnews.washington.edu/ni/article.asp?articleID=38531
>>
>> http://www.nsf.gov/news/news_summ.jsp?cntn_id=110906
>>
>> http://www.nsf.gov/discoveries/disc_summ.jsp?cntn_id=112253&org=NSF
>>
>> If the premises and numbers are simply too much for you, as
>> I have demonstrated several times over apparently, you might
>> try this nice multimedia presentation instead..
>>
>> http://www.nsf.gov/news/special_reports/degree/heat_balance.jsp
>
> Excellent link for the non-technical layman.
>
> A keeper....
>
> Thanks
Ya welcome!..
> A Libertarian society is an oxymoron.
--*>chuckle<* No shirt..
Man_of_Mind
>
> Man_of_Mind continued excoriating the malignant disinformation from:
>>
>> le brat deleted and bleated like a brown-shirted thug:
>>>
>>> Man_of_Mind restored the hilarious bitch-slappings administered to:
>>>>
>>>> le brat was still sniveling/groveling for more attention from:
>>>>>
>>>>> Man_of_Mind administered yet another bitch-slapping to:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Vapid Fartung tried to weasel around the facts established previously:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> le brat whimpered and squirmed when replied to by:
No, that would be you dishonestly suggesting that I've
not posted the amounts and time-frames, as you wanted
and now are complaining I'm changing the subject with..
>> http://www.nsf.gov/news/news_summ.jsp?cntn_id=110906
>>
>> "Record-breaking amounts of ice-free water have deprived
>> the Arctic of more of its natural "sunscreen" than ever
>> in recent summers. The effect is so pronounced that sea
>> surface temperatures rose to 5 degrees C above average
>> in one place this year, a high never before observed says
>> a University of Washington oceanographer who has compiled
>> the first-ever look at average sea surface temperatures
>> for the region."
>>
>>> If I have a point to make from a link that isn't painfully
>>> obvious, I post the cite and then the link.
>>
>> I do not have any obligation to obey your artificial constraints..
>>
>>> I find it suspicious
>>
>> That's because you're conditioned, psychologically-speaking,
>> to respond in a knee-jerk manner to all sorts of fears, doubts
>> and uncertainties (eg Marketing 101), in spite your self-awarded
>> accolades about how you can 'think for yourself'..
>>
>> Examples follow..
>>
>>> after going to the first two there was just a list of
>>> generalities with no data specific to the issue
>>
>> Your abject lack of curiosity, along with your anxious
>> efforts to 'call bullshit' on anything that disagrees
>> with your narrow-minded, myopic ideological blindness,
>> is what prevents you from finding the data sets and
>> peer-reviewed publications that prove your opinions
>> are not only wrong, but also deliberately disinformed..
>>
>> --And you thought you 'smelled subterfuge'.. *>LOL!<*
>
> I clearly did.
That would clearly be your own 'subterfuge' then..
> Your link didn't state anything about the oceans rising
You've clearly lost sight of the cause for the effect..
--Thus again proving you're neither polite nor sincere..
lab~rat >:-)
<baron.v...@gmail.com> puked:
A. Your ridiculous assertion that "record breaking amounts" and "in
recent summers" are amounts and time frames is tenuous at best.
B. Unless it's mentioned somewhere else in that third link that I
told you I didn't visit, you got nothing.
>>>
>>>> If I have a point to make from a link that isn't painfully
>>>> obvious, I post the cite and then the link.
>>>
>>> I do not have any obligation to obey your artificial constraints..
>>>
>>>> I find it suspicious
>>>
>>> That's because you're conditioned, psychologically-speaking,
>>> to respond in a knee-jerk manner to all sorts of fears, doubts
>>> and uncertainties (eg Marketing 101), in spite your self-awarded
>>> accolades about how you can 'think for yourself'..
>>>
>>> Examples follow..
>>>
>>>> after going to the first two there was just a list of
>>>> generalities with no data specific to the issue
>>>
>>> Your abject lack of curiosity, along with your anxious
>>> efforts to 'call bullshit' on anything that disagrees
>>> with your narrow-minded, myopic ideological blindness,
>>> is what prevents you from finding the data sets and
>>> peer-reviewed publications that prove your opinions
>>> are not only wrong, but also deliberately disinformed..
>>>
>>> --And you thought you 'smelled subterfuge'.. *>LOL!<*
>>
>> I clearly did.
>
>That would clearly be your own 'subterfuge' then..
>
>> Your link didn't state anything about the oceans rising
>
>You've clearly lost sight of the cause for the effect..
Just for the record, this is an exercise in honesty from my
standpoint. I wanted to see if you'd concede the point that no
specific numbers were listed in those sites.
To be honest with you, Harry Hope posted an article earlier that
actually did have some numbers. If you like, I can repost it and we
can discuss.
>
>--Thus again proving you're neither polite nor sincere..
IKYABWAI
lab~rat >:-)
<baron.v...@gmail.com> puked:
>
>But, what little "physics" you're 'familiar' with doesn't matter
>to me. You've demonstrated that you're "integrity-challenged"
>and I have no obligation to play using your moving goal-posts..
Go back, read the thread, and tell me exactly where I've moved the
goal posts. I take offense at the notion that I don't have integrity
when this entire discussion has been about the lack of specific
information (ie time and amount) and the only moving of the goal posts
have been when you tried to change the subject to melting ice.
socialist that fear the truth and want the new Holocaust for 9/11
"Jared" <jare...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:6dff1cb6-670b-4ecc...@m11g2000vbo.googlegroups.com...
plastic models made for global warming kooks, to play in the bath tub with.
Man_of_Mind
>
> Man_of_Mind continued excoriating the malignant disinformation from:
>>
>> le brat started quibbling and tried again to move the goalposts when:
>>>
>>> Man_of_Mind continued excoriating the malignant disinformation from:
>>>>
>>>> le brat deleted and bleated like a brown-shirted thug:
>>>>>
>>>>> Man_of_Mind restored the hilarious bitch-slappings administered to:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> le brat was still sniveling/groveling for more attention from:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Man_of_Mind administered yet another bitch-slapping to:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Vapid Fartung tried to weasel around the facts established previously:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> le brat whimpered and squirmed when replied to by:
To wit..
"If the oceans have already risen 4 to 8 inches, then somone
ought to be able to provide examples of locations where this
has been measures,"
Try to stay on-task next time, neophyte..
>>>> http://www.nsf.gov/news/news_summ.jsp?cntn_id=110906
>>>>
>>>> "Record-breaking amounts of ice-free water have deprived
>>>> the Arctic of more of its natural "sunscreen" than ever
>>>> in recent summers. The effect is so pronounced that sea
>>>> surface temperatures rose to 5 degrees C above average
>>>> in one place this year, a high never before observed says
>>>> a University of Washington oceanographer who has compiled
>>>> the first-ever look at average sea surface temperatures
>>>> for the region."
>
> A. Your ridiculous assertion that "record breaking amounts"
First off, I'm not making an "assertion", I'm simply
establishing the background by stating an over-view
so that you don't get lost in all of your lies, ad hom's
and juvenile insinuations, like you just did previously..
> B. Unless it's mentioned somewhere else in that third link
That would be the case, though to be honest, the NSF link
goes to an article on the University of Washington's site,
and the by-line under the graphics speak to your question,
had you actually looked at it, just once..
http://uwnews.washington.edu/ni/article.asp?articleID=38531
"A comparison of 2000 and 2007 shows how the ice edge has
retreated as the ice cap has shrunk and how surface waters
have warmed compared to the 100-year average. For example,
parts of the Bering Strait and Chukchi Sea were 3 and 3.5
degrees warmer than the historical average. The spot that
was 5 degrees above average was found at the center of the
4 degree area of water north of the Chukchi Sea."
>>>>> I find it suspicious
>>>>
>>>> That's because you're conditioned, psychologically-speaking,
>>>> to respond in a knee-jerk manner to all sorts of fears, doubts
>>>> and uncertainties (eg Marketing 101), in spite your self-awarded
>>>> accolades about how you can 'think for yourself'..
>>>>
>>>> Examples follow..
>>>>
>>>>> after going to the first two there was just a list of
>>>>> generalities with no data specific to the issue
>>>>
>>>> Your abject lack of curiosity, along with your anxious
>>>> efforts to 'call bullshit' on anything that disagrees
>>>> with your narrow-minded, myopic ideological blindness,
>>>> is what prevents you from finding the data sets and
>>>> peer-reviewed publications that prove your opinions
>>>> are not only wrong, but also deliberately disinformed..
>>>>
>>>> --And you thought you 'smelled subterfuge'.. *>LOL!<*
>>>
>>> I clearly did.
>>
>> That would clearly be your own 'subterfuge' then..
>>
>>> Your link didn't state anything about the oceans rising
>>
>> You've clearly lost sight of the cause for the effect..
>>
>> --Thus again proving you're neither polite nor sincere..
>
> Just for the record, this is an exercise in honesty
You failed..
> To be honest with you, Harry Hope posted an article earlier
> that actually did have some numbers
I've seen it, and will ignore further nonsense from you..
--Because you are neither "polite" nor "sincere" about this..
Man_of_Mind
>
> Man_of_Mind restored the hilarious bitch-slappings administered to:
>>
>> le brat deleted and bleated, like an anti-intellectual right-winger:
>>>
>>> Man_of_Mind restored the hilarious bitch-slappings administered to:
>>>>
>>>> le brat deleted and bleated, like an anti-intellectual right-winger:
>>>>>
>>>>> Man_of_Mind restored the hilarious bitch-slappings administered to:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> le brat deleted and bleated, like an anti-intellectual right-winger:
>> to me. You've demonstrated that you're "integrity-challenged"
>> and I have no obligation to play using your moving goal-posts..
>>
>
> Go back, read the thread
Take your own advice, just this once, before you embarrass
yourself any further..
> I take offense at the notion that I don't have integrity
Good!..
> when this entire discussion has been about the lack of
> specific information (ie time and amount)
No, you're the one that has made the assertion that there
is a specific lack of information, which resulted from
your own failed comprehension..
--Now, let's see you dance around the facts one last time..
lab~rat >:-)
<baron.v...@gmail.com> puked:
Just curious, does this tell how much sea levels have risen in a given
period of time? Because that's what we're discussing here.
lab~rat >:-)
<baron.v...@gmail.com> puked:
>> when this entire discussion has been about the lack of
>> specific information (ie time and amount)
>
>No, you're the one that has made the assertion that there
>is a specific lack of information, which resulted from
>your own failed comprehension..
You criticize my comprehension, yet you give me cites of rising
temperature when I clearly stated there was no information on how high
the sea has risen and in what period of time.
I don't know if you are being intentionally obtuse or if you really
don't realize that you aren't providing the information I asked about.
In any event, it's been fun.
Man_of_Mind
>
> Man_of_Mind continued exploiting the fallacy arguments posted by:
>>
>> le brat went into denials about moving the goalposts when:
>>>
>>> Man_of_Mind continued excoriating the malignant disinformation from:
>>>>
>>>> le brat started quibbling and tried again to move the goalposts when:
>>>>>
>>>>> Man_of_Mind continued excoriating the malignant disinformation from:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> le brat deleted and bleated like a brown-shirted thug:
I doubt that entirely..
> does this tell how much sea levels have risen
I see that your right-wing ideologically-induced mathorexia
has kicked in, again..
"Warming is particularly pronounced since 1995, and especially
since 2000," the authors write. The spot where waters were 5 C
above average was in the region just north of the Chakchi Sea.
The historical average temperature there is -1 C -- remember
that the salt in ocean water keeps it liquid at temperatures
that would cause fresh water to freeze. This year water in that
area warmed to 4 C, for a 5-degree change from the average."
--You didn't even look at the graphs, did you..
lab~rat >:-)
<baron.v...@gmail.com> puked:
>le brat continued the usual right-wing histrionics when confronted by:
Yep, it showed ice shrinkage and temperature anomalies.
Are you trolling me?
Man_of_Mind
>
>>
>> le brat continued the usual right-wing histrionics when confronted by:
>>>
>>> Man_of_Mind continued exploiting the fallacy arguments posted by:
>>>>
>>>> le brat went into denials about moving the goalposts when:
>>>>>
>>>>> Man_of_Mind continued excoriating the malignant disinformation from:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> le brat started quibbling and tried again to move the goalposts when:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Man_of_Mind continued excoriating the malignant disinformation from:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> le brat deleted and bleated like a brown-shirted thug:
Are you less than 10 miles from the coastline and maybe just
a few feet above sea-level?
--And posting from a construction company's computer?
lab~rat >:-)
Man_of_Mind
>
> Man_of_Mind continued exploiting the dishonest rhetorical questions from:
>>
>> le brat continued the usual right-wing histrionics when confronted by:
>>>
>>> Man_of_Mind continued exploiting the dishonest rhetorical questions from:
>>>>
>>>> le brat continued the usual right-wing histrionics when confronted by:
>>>>>
>>>>> Man_of_Mind continued exploiting the fallacy arguments posted by:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> le brat went into denials about moving the goalposts when:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Man_of_Mind continued excoriating the malignant disinformation from:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> le brat started quibbling and tried again to move the goalposts when:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Man_of_Mind continued excoriating the malignant disinformation from:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> le brat deleted and bleated like a brown-shirted thug:
Is that a denial?
Last Post
> On Dec 13, 4:47 pm, Harry Hope <riv...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> >http://www.alertnet.org/db/blogs/61974/2009/11/14-001826-1.htm
>
> > 14 Dec 2009
>
> > Low-lying islands fighting to preserve their way of life
>
>
> > ............................................................................................................
>
> > With sea-levels rising at unprecedented rates, the people of low lying
> > islands, such as Kiribati in the Central Pacific, are fighting to
> > preserve their home and way of life.
>
> > The impacts of a changing climate have already hit island nations
> > hard.
>
> .
> Why is it always islands in the middle of the Pacific, or some other
> remote area, that are in danger? We have tons of low lying islands in
> California - why haven't any of THOSE bad boys gone belly up?
•• It is simple~~ nothing but nothing, and nobody
but nobody is going to suffer from rising seas.
They are wailing because if they wail loudly
enough they will get an handout
•• All the islands in California are all sitting
on hard volcanic rock.
Man_of_Mind
>
> Man_of_Mind restored the hilarious bitch-slappings administered to:
>>
>> le brat deleted and bleated, like an ambitiously ignorant right-winger:
>>>
>>> Man_of_Mind restored the hilarious bitch-slappings administered to:
>>>>
>>>> le brat deleted and bleated, like an anti-intellectual right-winger:
>>>>>
>>>>> Man_of_Mind restored the hilarious bitch-slappings administered to:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> le brat deleted and bleated, like an anti-intellectual right-winger:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Man_of_Mind restored the hilarious bitch-slappings administered to:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> le brat deleted and bleated, like an anti-intellectual right-winger:
>>> specific information (ie time and amount)
>>
>> No, you're the one that has made the assertion that there
>> is a specific lack of information, which resulted from
>> your own failed comprehension..
>>
>
And with good reason. You don't seem to understand the facts
that I've presented you with.. Of course, I know that you
really suck wind when it comes to even simple arithmetic..
Most right-wingers are contemptuous of higher mathematics..
> yet you give me cites of rising temperature when I clearly
> stated there was no information on how high the sea has risen
If you'd look at the subject header, you'd understand..
> I don't know if you are being intentionally obtuse
Nope, just not interested in co-operating with your moving
goal-posts. The time-frame involved, varies from study to
study, and the amounts vary as well. But, what I've presented
for you compared 1995, 2001 and also as recently as 2007,
yet you've failed to take notice of those numbers each time..
As for actual amount of sea-rise? That has to be averaged across
several kinds of parameters, which I know you'd try to feign
your usual disinterest in, but what's puzzling to me is that
you appear to live within 10 miles of the eastern shore-line,
at maybe an altitude of perhaps 50' above sea level, and you
don't have the slightest curiosity about figuring this out
for yourself..
--Now, that's really an example of being ambitiously ignorant..
Errol
> who are these crazy people who dont' understand the ocean can't rise
> in one spot and not in others, if it rises then it would rise
> EVERYWHERE, not just in Maldives, it would rise along the New Jersey
> coast, and along the LA beaches, because water is a fucking liquid and
It's more noticable in the Maldives because the whole place is barely
above sea level
Michael Gordge
> It's more noticable in the Maldives because the whole place is barely
> above sea level
Oh my god, people will have to sail up hill to get into the Maldives
as well as into New York?
Hahahha, fuck ewe Kantians are a laugh a post Ewolly.
MG
Errol
I regret that your tiny brain cannot process the simple idea of height
above sea-level.
How to explain this in moron? hmmm!
Ewe see! da maldive like da tiny ant.
Da cliff like da elefant
Big wave him no kill elefant but ant he in big trouble
tg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_level
In fact, sea level can rise in different places at different rates,
-tg
Michael Gordge
> I regret that your tiny brain cannot process the simple idea of height
> above sea-level.
There is a sea level above sea level? hahahahha fuck ewe Kantians are
funny.
MG
Michael Gordge
>
> In fact, sea level can rise in different places at different rates,
Is that called a wave perhaps?
MG
Errol
Duh!
Maldives is an archipelago of coral reef islands. Islands are normally
above sea-level.
If they weren't, they would be under the water. If they were under the
water they would not be land.
Boy you are thick!