+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 LastLast
Posts 1 to 10 of 27
  1. #1

    Double Godlike!

    BlasterBates is NOT a disguised employee

    BlasterBates's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Trump University
    Posts
    10,055
    Thanks (Given)
    21
    Thanks (Received)
    118
    Likes (Given)
    193
    Likes (Received)
    520
    Author of the best seller "How to get Poor quickly"

  2. #2

    Richer than sasguru

    DimPrawn - scorchio!

    DimPrawn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Brexit Britain
    Posts
    32,343
    Thanks (Given)
    263
    Thanks (Received)
    661
    Likes (Given)
    4083
    Likes (Received)
    3386

    Default

    Hang on, I'm just going to log in to my sasguru account and call you a cretin.

    Stand by.
    Patiently waiting for the much publicised and feared Brexit Doom.....

  3. #3

    Double Godlike!

    BlasterBates is NOT a disguised employee

    BlasterBates's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Trump University
    Posts
    10,055
    Thanks (Given)
    21
    Thanks (Received)
    118
    Likes (Given)
    193
    Likes (Received)
    520

    Default

    It was uncertain actually.

    Since 1992, a number of satellites have been recording the change in sea level;[17][18] they display an acceleration in the rate of sea level change, but they have not been operating for long enough to work out whether this is a real signal, or just an artefact of short-term variation[citation needed].
    But now it is.

    Another nail in the AGW coffin
    Author of the best seller "How to get Poor quickly"

  4. #4

    Double Godlike!

    BlasterBates is NOT a disguised employee

    BlasterBates's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Trump University
    Posts
    10,055
    Thanks (Given)
    21
    Thanks (Received)
    118
    Likes (Given)
    193
    Likes (Received)
    520

    Default

    Indeed there is like one of the thousands of scientists that has been beavering away on climate change research budgets and contributing to the consensus. But what does he really think about AGW.

    This is so obviously a scam now.
    Dr David Evans

    David Evans, Carbon Accounting Modeler, Says It’s a Scam « JoNova

    I can guarantee you as the climate cools, scientists previously on the gravy train will be queueing up to denounce AGW.
    Author of the best seller "How to get Poor quickly"

  5. #5

    Richer than sasguru

    DimPrawn - scorchio!

    DimPrawn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Brexit Britain
    Posts
    32,343
    Thanks (Given)
    263
    Thanks (Received)
    661
    Likes (Given)
    4083
    Likes (Received)
    3386

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by pjclarke View Post
    David Evans

    Evans is married to Joanne Nova, btw.
    “To those of us who have been unknowingly made to turn a blind eye to the terrifying and true facts about global warming, there’s no time left for ignorance. Please read this shocking and incredible book, learn how we’ve been manipulated, get angry and take action.”


    THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!!!

    BACK TO THE CAVES, QUIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIICK!!!




    meanwhile the Indians and Chinese enjoy space travel, and nuclear weapons.
    Patiently waiting for the much publicised and feared Brexit Doom.....

  6. #6

    Double Godlike!

    BlasterBates is NOT a disguised employee

    BlasterBates's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Trump University
    Posts
    10,055
    Thanks (Given)
    21
    Thanks (Received)
    118
    Likes (Given)
    193
    Likes (Received)
    520

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by pjclarke View Post
    David Evans

    Evans is married to Joanne Nova, btw.
    Phil Jones is also married.

    Just to get handle on this should we only be listening to scientists that are unmarried.
    Author of the best seller "How to get Poor quickly"

  7. #7

    Double Godlike!

    BlasterBates is NOT a disguised employee

    BlasterBates's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Trump University
    Posts
    10,055
    Thanks (Given)
    21
    Thanks (Received)
    118
    Likes (Given)
    193
    Likes (Received)
    520

    Default

    I always find it interesting how all these "cranks" get PhD's at prestigious Universities, or have distinguished careers behind them.

    He spent 10 years in the dept for climate change modelling the carbon cycle, and used to be a warmist. I think with a PhD in Electrical Engineering he's perfectly capable of understanding it.

    I noticed the rebuttal was written by a Computer Scientist.

    :
    Last edited by BlasterBates; 28th March 2011 at 15:32.
    Author of the best seller "How to get Poor quickly"

  8. #8

    Double Godlike!

    BlasterBates is NOT a disguised employee

    BlasterBates's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Trump University
    Posts
    10,055
    Thanks (Given)
    21
    Thanks (Received)
    118
    Likes (Given)
    193
    Likes (Received)
    520

    Default

    Satellite measurements over thirty years show no hot spot.

    That's just complete BS.

    Have you noticed the caveat. The tropospheric hot-spot isn't a sign of AGW anyway



    Why do you think they say that?

    I'll tell you...because it doesn't show up on the Satellite.

    If it showed up on the Troposhere Satellite temps they'd be bleating it from the rooftops.

    Real-world temperatures in the upper atmosphere have been measured with balloons since at least the 1960's and with microwave satellite sensors since 1979. However, the Hadley Centre’s plot of real-world radiosonde observations does not demonstrate the “global warming hot-spot” at all. The predicted phenomenon is startlingly and entirely absent from the observational record –
    http://www.john-daly.com/sonde.htm
    Last edited by BlasterBates; 28th March 2011 at 16:47.
    Author of the best seller "How to get Poor quickly"

  9. #9

    The beerded one

    EternalOptimist is NOT a disguised employee

    EternalOptimist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Castle Saburac
    Posts
    22,442
    Thanks (Given)
    9
    Thanks (Received)
    182
    Likes (Given)
    76
    Likes (Received)
    985

    Default

    Hang on a moment.
    If sea levels rise is constant(to all intents and purposes), and even the cagw crowd(as in pj clarke) agree, then it follows that we can make a pretty good prediction.

    because an accelerating rise brought in a lot of uncertainty. If both sides agree there is no uncertainty, thats brilliant. that is truly good news.

    the last time i checked, sea levels were rising at 1.7mm per year, so by the year 2100, the sea level will have risen by
    1.7 * 90 = 153 mm or six inches.

    if this is truly beyond dispute, I want to know 4 things

    1. why is the IPCC saying sea levels may rise up to 23 inches by 2100

    2. why did Hansen(the hockey stick man) speculate that the rise would be 16 feet

    3. why did Al Gore say it would be 20 feet

    4. if sea level rises are caused by C02, why is the sea level rise linear, when CO2 in the atmosphere is exponential. why is there no correlation ?



    (\__/)
    (>'.'<)
    ("")("") Born to Drink. Forced to Work

  10. #10

    Super poster

    pjclarke is a permanent contractor


    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    2,684
    Thanks (Given)
    3
    Thanks (Received)
    32
    Likes (Given)
    67
    Likes (Received)
    145

    Default

    BB Your quote is 14 years old. Things have moved on.

    EO - no acceleration is unequivocally present in the SLR trend since 1900, however the estimates range widely:-

    Interannual or longer variability is a major reason why no long-term acceleration of sea level has been identified using 20th-century data alone (Woodworth, 1990; Douglas, 1992). Another possibility is that the sparse tide gauge network may have been inadequate to detect it if present (Gregory et al., 2001). The longest records available from Europe and North America contain accelerations of the order of 0.4 mm yr–1 per century between the 19th and 20th century (Ekman, 1988; Woodworth et al., 1999). For the reconstruction shown in Figure 5.13, Church and White (2006) found an acceleration of 1.3 ± 0.5 mm yr–1 per century over the period 1870 to 2000. These data support an inference that the onset of acceleration occurred during the 19th century
    (from the IPCC section linked earlier)

    During the satellite era, the SLR has been of the order 3mm/yr



    so a linear extrapolation gives a further rise of c27cm by 2100, but the increase is unlikely to remain linear, as ice sheets melt and ocean heat content increases.



    Hansen's full argument is here It is based on a nonlinear response from the ice sheets, plus his own paleoclimatic research. Hansen has no connection to the Hockey Stick studies, btw.

    Gore, I believe, was talking about the consequent SLR if one of the major ice sheets (Greenland or West Antarctica) melted entirely, which is not likely in under a millennium.

    BTW there is a poster at WUWT also named EternalOptimist who can usually be relied upon uncritically to suck up Watts' balony. Small world!
    The Pygmy Shrew of Wall St.

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts

Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.6.0 ©2011, Crawlability, Inc.