h/t to Marc Morano
Disrupting the Borg is expensive and time consuming!
Google Search
-
Recent Posts
- Doubling Energy Costs
- “You Can’t Hide Your Lying Eyes”
- Australia Permanent Drought Update
- Let Them Burn Wood
- “New computer modeling”
- Climate Destroying Shrimp
- What’s At Stake?
- Too Hot To Live
- What’s At Stake?
- “The world began to end on 12th May 2024”
- “Climate change is a myth”
- Racist Gas
- RFK Jr. Discusses The Green New Deal And Climate
- “world is on edge of climate abyss, UN warns”
- Ivy Echo Chamber
- Climate Homicide
- Much Ado About Nothing
- Homophobic Gas
- World Bank Expectations
- Trained Not To Learn
- Protecting Endangered Species
- Record Climate Cynicism
- Record Cynicism
- The Latest In Climate Science Rhetoric
- Climate Desperation
Recent Comments
- Laurie on “You Can’t Hide Your Lying Eyes”
- Joe on “The world began to end on 12th May 2024”
- Conrad Ziefle on Australia Permanent Drought Update
- Ivan G Wainwright on Australia Permanent Drought Update
- Conrad Ziefle on “Climate change is a myth”
- Mike on Too Hot To Live
- Mike on Climate Destroying Shrimp
- Mike on Climate Destroying Shrimp
- Mike on “New computer modeling”
- John on “Climate change is a myth”
The sea level was also rising on the Titanic, right?
They do understand that the majority of their audience is illiterate, otherwise they’d be hunted down like wild beasts with pitchforks and torches:)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qLvGnro4Cgw
This announcement hits 99% on the Stupid-o-meter.
Their school physics teacher would be probably be flabbergasted and depressed at how badly they failed. Einstein got it right – “Two things are infinite. The universe and human stupidity, and I’m not certain about the Universe.”
I thought dear leader messiah was going to lower the ocean levels after converting Chicago toilet water to wine and giving everyone a rainbow unicorn?
I was struck, reading that Tweet, by the adage: “The only thing which exceeds their ignorance, is their arrogant flaunting of it.”
The Union Of Concerned Scientists is a political activist group. They insert the word ‘science’ in their title because they hope people will convolute scientific reasoning with political ideology.
For much the same reason why Scientology has the word ‘science’ inserted into the name of their religion. 😉
In 2007 the Union of Concerned Scientists issued a report called “ExxonMobil’s Tobacco-like Disinformation Campaign on Global Warming Science”.
The Union of Concerned Scientists has in the past received funding from the Grantham Foundation, which is bankrolled by hedge-fund manager Jeremy Grantham. At the time of the funding the foundation had holdings in tobacco giant Philip Morris. In August of 2011 his fund owned millions of shares in fossil fuel companies such as Exxon Mobil.
The Union of Concerned Scientists are indeed “Masters of Hypocrisy” as well put by nofrakkingconsensus.com.
They were big in the 80’s on every news channel telling the world that Ronald Reagan was crazy because missile defence was a technical impossibility. It would be like ‘trying to hit a bullet with a bullet’ they hold the media about 10,000 times. I’m fairly certain the US now has multiple working missile defence systems… It would be interesting to go through all the proclamations of the UCS to see if they ever got anything right.
This is the President of the Union of Flat Earth Climate Scientists and I want to endorse the concerns of the Union of Concerned Scientists. Without the concern they would be a Union of Scientists and that simply wouldn’t make sense.
So get concerned today, find something, do something, learn to be concerned today.
Wasn’t Anthony Watt’s dog Kenji enrolled as a member of the UCS ?
And they sent Kenji Watts a renewal notice for his membership.
We should all feel secure with their “scientific verbiage” shouldn’t we ? (not)
Jefft,
By that logic, we should judge Harvard’s medical education by how many letters the admin send out to the booster club.
not quite
Steve,
I have to repost. Why does the Panama canal need locks if the sea level is the same height everywhere?
Because it goes over a hill.
The sea level isn’t the same everywhere usually because of gravity anomalies. But if I pour a cup of water in the ocean, it spreads out consistently across the oceans. So you can’t have the oceans go down in one area and not another. They have to react equally.
SMS,
So the gravity on the Atlantic side of Panama is different to the Pacific only 40 miles away?
Do you think that the elevation of the Pacific Ocean is controlled by Panama, or are you just pretending to be an idiot?
Now it´s getting clear!
Panama controls the level of the Pacific Ocean and Noriega was going to play with it, thats why he had to go.
How does this fit with chemtrails and aliens building the Pyramids? Maybe they built the Panama Canal too?
Hopefully the truth will be revealed for those who have understanding of AR5
That’s some crazy ______.
“The Panama Canal locks is a lock system that lifts a ship up 85 feet (26 metres) to the main elevation of the Panama Canal and down again.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panama_Canal_Locks
I find it hard to believe that a few manmade locks could hold back the weight of the pacific ocean.
Go away for awhile and the peanut gallery chimes up.
There is only a 20cc difference between the Atlantic and Pacific. As I read it, mostly due to density differences in the water. But if you do your reading you’ll see where gravity comes in to account for many of the differences in sea levels throughout the world.
And yes, the sea levels are coming up…at the same modest rate long before AGW became your crisis of choice.
Wait…..maybe not. Turns out that much of the rise is due to evacuation of the worlds aquifers. Pielke Sr calculates the rate increase due to aquifer evacuation may be as much as 1.8 mm/yr. About half of the total that is being recorded now.
For the scientifically illiterate…
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/facility/images/panama-canal-profile.jpg
You beat me to it Billy. I’m so continually amazed and concerned with how dumb Laz2.0 is that I think I’ll join the union of concerned scientists to see if we can find a cure for dumbness. That will be my first tweet.
Too has just posted the dumbest question I’ve ever read and I’ve read a lot of activist nonsense in 30 years as a sceptic.
Yes Will.
Too has proven Einstein’s theory that human stupidity is infinite. He should be given a Nobel prize for that. Obama and Gore got one for doing nothing whatsoever.
[snip Lying about what I said is the cardinal sin here]
Steve,
I disagree. Pointing out precisely what you said so that others are witness to it is the cardinal sin here. And apparently lying about what others said (i.e. Obama and the sea level rise) is to be promoted.
You still have not answered the question as to why there is an observed increase of sea level rise along the East Coast (as described in the USGS study) or why the Pacific side of Panama is higher than the Atlantic if water is such a low viscosity fluid.
Does he still think the locks are there to account for the height difference between the oceans or did his dad explain to him that this was silly?
No Will,
Of course not. You need to pay attention to what I have written. Steve has said that water is of low viscosity and that therefore no one area can rise more or faster than another. However the USGS has done observations along the East Coast which refute that and it is well know that oceans are of different height even if they are only 40 miles apart.
When I try and get Steve to address these points he shifts the conversation to Obama and that it is insignificant because the pacific is 10 kilometres deep.
Here is a proper study of sea levels that apparently only “dumb” people read. http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v3/n4/full/nclimate1778.html
T.O.O. said:
“…You still have not answered the question as to why there is an observed increase of sea level rise along the East Coast (as described in the USGS study) or why the Pacific side of Panama is higher than the Atlantic if water is such a low viscosity fluid…”
Maybe you can explain the differences in “sea level trends” at the following two locations:
Grand Isle LA “…The mean sea level trend is 9.24 mm/year with a 95% confidence interval of +/- 0.59 mm/yr based on monthly mean sea level data from 1947 to 2006 which is equivalent to a change of 3.03 feet in 100 years…”
and
Skagway, AK “…The mean sea level trend is -17.12 mm/year with a 95% confidence interval of +/- 0.65 mm/yr based on monthly mean sea level data from 1944 to 2006 which is equivalent to a change of -5.62 feet in 100 years…”
If water is a low viscosity fluid, and sea levels are rising the same everywhere, why don’t the above sea level trends match each other? How does increased CO2 make these trends so radically different?
Data taken from here: http://www.tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/
You cannot be serious…..oh, by reading your other posts, you probably were.
In fact sea level is’nt the same everywhere due to differences in the gravity field: http://www.macpurity.net/geodsci/grace.htm
When the issue of sea level rise first arose, it was in Louisiana and California. Portions of the Louisiana coast were falling because of oil extraction and California was sliding into the ocean. This didn’t stop the AGW crowd from claiming the oceans were rising. They are so pitifully stupid, and/or, are guessing the public is so pitifully stupid as to believe they can get away with these phony claims. Our current president and his party are one example.
SMS,
So sea levels aren’t actually rising at all anywhere in the world?
It is impossible to have a discussion with a terminally stupid person.
Steve,
SMS has just said that because Louisiana is subsiding and California is sliding the stupid AGW crowd believe that sea levels are rising. I want to know if he, himself, believes that sea levels are rising anywhere. Its a fair question.
And while you are here, what about your statement that sea levels can’t vary much because water is a low viscosity fluid — how then do you explain the 20 cm difference on either side of Panama?
20 cm out of 1,000,000 cm depth of the Pacific Ocean is a 0.002% difference. That is almost as small as the IQ of most alarmists.
If sea level rises 20 cm on one side, it has to rise about the same on the other side.
Steve,
Why do you avoid the questions?
Why bring Obama into the discussion?
Why are you too dense to see the answers?
They are likely to be rising at the same level they’ve been rising for the last 300 years or so. For people like Too this is smoking gun evidence that AGW theory has been vindicated.
Will,
If sea level rise is accelerating, then I will see that as a “warming” gun. That would either indicate thermal expansion or land ice depletion either of which indicates warming. And according a U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) report published in Nature Climate Change in June 2012 by Asbury (Abby) Sallenger, Kara Doran, and Peter Howd.Rates, a sea-level rise are increasing 3 to 4 times faster along parts of the U.S. Atlantic coast than globally.
How do you explain that Steve?
Obama says that sea level rise began to slow in June, 2008. Do you consider yourself qualified to disagree with the chosen one?
Steve,
I just found the Obama clip and he never said that the ocean rise was slowing. Why make up such a thing?
What he said was that if the American people worked together FROM TODAY ( June 2008) to address common problems then they could tell future generations that this was the same day that they began to remedy those problems (including the sea level rise due to man’s actions).
Another of your comparing grapes to watermelon moments?
I can’t help you with your reading and listening comprehension problem
“I am absolutely certain that generations from now, we will be able to look back and tell our children that this was the moment when we began to provide care for the sick and good jobs to the jobless; this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow”
Steve,
It is hard to comprehend what you choose to dish out when you omit so much that was relevant. You know, the part before your part — the context part.
“But I also face it with limitless faith in the CAPACITY OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE because if WE are willing to work for it and fight for it and believe in it then I absolutely certain that generations from now . . . .”
See? Makes sense now.
T.O.O., but Obama was elected and we passed Obamacare, so all that should be in effect, right?
Yes Joe,
Obamacare = increased sea level rise along the East Coast. I am surprised Steve missed the connection.
Steve,
Your answer was so non-nonsensical that I took it to be a non answer. You seriously can’t be making the argument that the height of one ocean compared to another is due to its relative depth.
Or are you?
And still no answer.
I guess for some people I need to be clearer in my posts. Yes, the sea levels are rising, but at the same rate they have been for long before AGW became your crisis of choice. You knew this all along. You know there is no AGW signal in sea level rise; not without using subsidence as a faux reason to point out an imaginary enhanced sea level rise.
Yea, but what about that Panama Canal? TOO seems to think the locks are there because the sea level is different on either end! LMFAO.
Write smaller words. You’ll just confuse him more.
SMS,
Please cite one scientist or organization that has said that. I, myself, can find 100 references that will say the exact opposite.
TOO, go to the U of Colorado satellite record. It shows the sea level rise. Pretty constant if you ask me. Unless you think AGW is only attacking isolated parts of the coast of Louisiana.
Maybe CO2 only gathers where you find lots of oil rigs.
Maybe CO2 only gathers where there is a lot of cement and asphalt and there really isn’t UHI. OK, since the other AGW theory isn’t working out so well, let’s define another theory. The new theory says that CO2 is drawn to areas where there is cement and asphalt. Test the theory. The temperature records for urban vs rural communities will show that my theory holds more water than the current AGW theory.
TOO, give my new theory some thought. Use the Scientific Principle. Your AGW theory is crap under the under the Scientific Principle and mine is testable (in your world). Like AGW you really have to limit what you test against though. Just use the temperature record of urban vs rural areas. Nothing else. If you do this you’ll see that my theory is valid.
SMS,
“TOO, go to the U of Colorado satellite record. It shows the sea level rise. Pretty constant if you ask me.”
Thanks for the tip:
“The computed rate of global mean sea level rise from the reconstructed time series is 1.97 mm/yr from 1950 to 2009 and 3.22 mm/yr from 1993 to 2009.” http://sealevel.colorado.edu/content/map-sea-level-trends
Got any more?
How were those satellites working back in the 50’s? TOO, you need help. If you look at the graph, the average rate of sea level increase in 3.2 mm/yr for the satellite era. Been pretty steady too. But if you take the 3.2mm/yr and subtract the 1.8 mm/yr that Pielke Sr. says is due to borehole extraction; you get a decent answer. But I suspect you can’t splice on land gauges to satellite readings and get an answer you can believe. It would be like splicing tree rings to degrees and expecting to get a meaningful graph. Wasn’t that a laugh.
Relative sea level is rising in Southeast Britain an falling in Northwest Britain. For two entirely natural and geological reasons.
Careful, she may be starting to tip. 😉
Isn’t that where Jamie Oliver is trying to get people to lose weight by eating healthily? I wondered why he was so worried. As Gator said, the old Isle might tip over.
And according a U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) report published in Nature Climate Change in June 2012 by Asbury (Abby) Sallenger, Kara Doran, and Peter Howd. Rates, a sea-level rise are increasing 3 to 4 times faster along parts of the U.S. Atlantic coast than globally. – T O O
——————————————————–
#1 If the report states what you claim I’d say that our methodology of determining sea-level rise needs some work.
#2 I’d also ask if they are suggesting that AGW is selectively targeting “parts of the U.S. Atlantic coast,” and if so what does AGW think that will achieve with this tactic since it apparently has a sentient will and a grudge against the USA.
Well Justa Joe,
The report is online and all you have to is review it, find the errors in methodology, then submit them for review. If you are correct, then the paper will adjust accordingly.
T.O.O., will it make Obama’s job to slow the rise of the oceans easier if he has to worry only about the Atlantic coast for now?
Hey Will,
Check out Joe’s questions. In your 30 years of being a sceptic, where do his rank?
By the way, T.O.O, I’m not a global warming skeptic. I’m a skeptic of the notion that politicians can stabilize the climate.
T.O.O., answer this question without obfuscation or redirection, do you believe Panama, from the Atlantic to the Pacific, is at sea level from coast to coast? Do you believe the Panama Canal is just a manmade river and is at sea level its entire length?
Brad
The coast is at sea level wherever that coast may be whether is be Panama, Peru or Portugal. However, the sea level of the Pacific (near Panama) is 20cm higher than the Atlantic side of Panama.
No, the Panama Canal is a series of lakes, rivers and locks that transport ships over a varying topography from the Pacific to the Atlantic or vice versa.
Did I pass?
Wait a minute. Isn’t the “20 cm higher” an average over the whole Pacific?
No Joe,
Gravitational forces and differing salinity causes “bumps” to occur over the entire surface of the hydrosphere.
T.O.O, but you said, and I quote, “the sea level of the Pacific (near Panama) is 20cm higher than the Atlantic side of Panama.” Is the Pacific coast at Panama 20 cm higher than the Atlantic coast on the other side of it, or is that 20 cm difference just between average levels of each ocean?
Joe,
From what I gather, the Pacific Ocean is 42 cm — on average — higher than the Atlantic, but that difference is only 20cm on either side of the Panama Isthmus.
Perhaps this has something to do with the low viscosity of water. Ask Steve.
T.O.O. said:
“…Joe,
From what I gather, the Pacific Ocean is 42 cm — on average — higher than the Atlantic, but that difference is only 20cm on either side of the Panama Isthmus.
Perhaps this has something to do with the low viscosity of water. Ask Steve…”
So as long as there is no land between two points, there should be no difference in sea level trends, right?
So let’s try this grouping:
Furuogrund, Sweden: The mean sea level trend is -8.10 mm/year.
Ratan, Sweden: The mean sea level trend is -7.75 mm/year.
Kaskinen/Kasko, Finland: The mean sea level trend is -6.50 mm/year.
Vaasa/Vasa, Finland: The mean sea level trend is -7.33 mm/year.
Pietarsaari/Jakobstad, Finland: The mean sea level trend is -7.29 mm/year.
Raahe/Brahestad, Finland: The mean sea level trend is -6.85 mm/year.
Oulu/Uleaborg, Finland: The mean sea level trend is -6.38 mm/year.
Kemi, Finland: The mean sea level trend is -6.99 mm/year.
They’re all stations on the Gulf of Bothnia (between Sweden and Finland).
It’s amazing that CO2 is able to selectively cause sea level trends to increase at certain points (such as your East Coast example), and amazing how alarmists tend to ignore sea level trend DECLINES.
And I assume that NOAA is a reliable source: http://www.tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/
TOO, it looks like your doing a little back pedaling. So tell me, if I pour a bucket of water in the ocean does that water spread out consistently or does it just lay on the surface of the ocean in the shape of the bucket it came out of? Are you thinking that someone poured out some buckets of water and our surface sea level gauges are measuring the shape of the bucket as it floats by? TOO, you really do need some help with your chemistry and physics.
You really can’t be as stupid as you pretend to be.
Henry,
It seems you just destroyed Steve’s and SMS’s arguments with your Swedish data.
Only a complete imbecile would argue that sea level rise can vary significantly from one location to another. Did you suffer a head injury recently?
T.O.O, you are missing Steve’s basic and simple point. If you poured a lot of water on the Pacific side of the Panama canal, both the Pacific and Atlantic oceans would (eventually) rise the same amount. The 20 cm difference between the two wouldn’t change. (It might change a bit for other reasons like gravitational effects on the additional water. I’m not sure.)
To argue otherwise is to suggest that the water you added has an affinity for the Pacific side of the Panama canal.
Joe,
Henry just proved that that is not correct. The east coast of America is showing a larger rise of sea level than, say South America and parts of Scandinavia (the other side of the same ocean) are showing a decline and we have just discussed how one ocean has a different height to another. Steve’s simple point is so simple as to be incorrect. Sea level rise is a complex interaction between many factors, but thanks to SMS’s tip about the University of Colorado, at least we know that global sea level rise is on the increase.
T.O.O, follow and read Henry’s link: “The mean sea level (MSL) trends measured by tide gauges that are presented on this web site are local relative MSL trends as opposed to the global sea level trend. Tide gauge measurements are made with respect to a local fixed reference level on land; therefore, if there is some long-term vertical land motion occurring at that location, the relative MSL trend measured there is a combination of the global sea level rate and the local vertical land motion.”
Is it starting to click now what those trend numbers represent? They are local measurements relative to tide gauges, gauges anchored to land.
My God TOO. Where are you coming from? There are a lot of people here trying to help you and you are off on tangents. Start listening to what you are being told. There has been enough information given by others to clear up all the confusion you are living with concerning sea levels. Sea levels have been STEADY for the length of the satellite record. There is no exponential increase in sea level rise. It is pretty consistent. You can’t take a line with a 1.9 mm/yr rise and splice it to a line with a 3.2 mm/yr rise. Are you assuming that AGW took place January 1992? At the point where the two lines are spliced????? You’re making yourself look pretty stupid.
T.O.O. said:
“…Sea level rise is a complex interaction between many factors, but thanks to SMS’s tip about the University of Colorado, at least we know that global sea level rise is on the increase…”
Except in the Gulf of Bothnia, right? Somehow, they’ve gotten separated from the global mean.
Your orignial question to Steve:
Steve,
I have to repost. Why does the Panama canal need locks if the sea level is the same height everywhere?
Why did you ask such a stupendously idiotic question if you knew the answer as well as everyone else on the planet? You have made yourself irrelevant. But you are relevant in showing just how superfluous your stupidity is for sea level rise.
The canal rises to 85 feet above sea level – you moron.
It would appear T.O.O. was unaware of that fact until it was pointed out to him.
Good news. I’ve just been banned by the Guardian. I was going to comment on more of their crap.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/planet-oz/2013/jun/06/fossil-fuel-bosses-climate-change
Check it out.
The last time I checked Sweden was a member of the EU and its northern most point is in the Arctic Circle. Same for Norway.
A friend of mine on a cruise through Milford Sound, upon seeing the mountains rise up out of the ocean inlet, turned and asked me: “How high up do you think we are?”
I replied, “If you want my best estimate, I’d say sea level.”
Of course, for my friend this was a momentary lapse of intelligence. For Too, the stupidity appears inbred.
Will,
Have you noticed that Steve still has not responded to the USGS study? I think he just wants us to forget about it — don’t you?
BTW, your joke was funny.
You are an idiot.
People have responded, either substantively or mockingly, because (a) you’re a moron and (b) you’re too stupid to understand any intelligent response you’re given anyway. If you’re between the ages of 12-15 then I apologise. If you’re older than that, you have no excuses.
Will,
I get all the mocking — apparently you don’t get mine. I shouldn’t have gone down that road. So, simply put, you are making a fool of your collective selves by supporting Steve’s faulty reasoning.
Lets back up a bit. This post began with Steve explaining away observed sea level rises along the East Coast by saying that it could not happen as water is a low viscosity fluid and therefore the sea cannot be higher in one place and not another. I pointed out that this is not the case between oceans (Panama was the example). Henry shows us that the other side of the Atlantic is showing a decrease in sea levels. Both examples disproves Steve’s reasoning. Then there is the USGS series of observations — not theory — which also disproves Steve’s reasoning. I have asked Steve to comment on the observations and he would rather call me an idiot than address the paper.
Bottom line, not only do sea levels vary from place to place (even within the same ocean), they have also been rising more quickly since 1992 (globally speaking). You just need to visit the data provided by the U of Colorado, USGS or any other organization that tracks this information.
I am surprised that no one has yet mentioned the obvious effect on local MSL of converging and diverging currents. It seems to me that these situations can create what might be thought of as a very-long-wavelength standing wave at the surface, sometimes stretching thousands of km across an ocean.
Another impact could be the direction and speed of prevailing winds. This could affect local sea level in contradiction to whatever effect the local currents are having.
These are both circulation phenomena, for which we cannot automatically say “warmer climate does X to them, and cooler climate does the opposite.” They unfortunately have to be modeled by supercomputer, with forced inputs of temperature, in order to make any predictions.
And of course, the models have to be programmed by honest scientists without any known political axe to grind, and the entire code and input data made available to the public, or else their results are useless to us.