New climate change research indicates rate of sea level increase is accelerating

[bamscram]

Originally Posted by LexusLover

Mojo you can readily see why not to ask a parrot. They live in trees and don't really know how to tell ...

if the ground is getting lower or the water is rising!

So you get nonsensical squawking like the quote above.

Did you notice the water getting deeper in Texas last summer?
Or was it cased by your BS? Maybe was just an event.

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by bamscram

Did you notice the water getting deeper in Texas last summer?
Or was it cased by your BS? Maybe was just an event.

Did you "believe" it was caused by "global warming"?

Do you still believe that?

You can just squawk some more if the questions stump you.

[Mr MojoRisin]

Originally Posted by bamscram

The water is rising, areas flood which didn't several years ago.
How would you determine water is deeper? when your ass goes under?

Water present in Rivers, Lakes and streams don't just rise and over flow it's banks and flood low lying areas for no reason. There must be a force acting upon it to cause the displacement of water to cause flooding. That force would have to come from heavy prolonged torrential rains, high winds, and the breaching of dams and any other restraining structure that control the flow of water away from land masses that are heavily populated. The idea that Climate change in and of itself is responsible for natural disasters caused by mankind's carelessness in the use of Fossil Fuels is a very lame assumption.

Jim

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by Mr MojoRisin

.... very lame assumption.

Jim

There are few "assumptions" in the topic that are not "lame"!

Parrots and people who act like parrots trying to assert that an increase in the tide CAUSED the flooding in the Gulf Coast AND Northeastern Texas and Western Louisiana merely demonstrates the lameness of those theories and their lack of logic.

Short version: Buttscramble doesn't have a clue what this area endured, or why. He's just talking shit.

[Mr MojoRisin]

Originally Posted by LexusLover

There are few "assumptions" in the topic that are not "lame"!

Parrots and people who act like parrots trying to assert that an increase in the tide CAUSED the flooding in the Gulf Coast AND Northeastern Texas and Western Louisiana merely demonstrates the lameness of those theories and their lack of logic.

Short version: Buttscramble doesn't have a clue what this area endured, or why. He's just talking shit.

I know it. They think the earth has warmed up so much that Ice Bergs are melting to the extent the oceans are rising to flood proportions. I don't think when Louisiana and Texas flooded last year it was the result of the Gulf Of Mexico over flowing it's banks because of Global Warming. I we both know what caused the flooding.

Jim

[bamscram]

Originally Posted by LexusLover

Did you "believe" it was caused by "global warming"?

Do you still believe that?

You can just squawk some more if the questions stump you.

If I didn't say it quit acting like I did, Polly.

You Alt-right like putting words in others mouths. Mostly because you have no answers.

[bamscram]

Originally Posted by Mr MojoRisin

Water present in Rivers, Lakes and streams don't just rise and over flow it's banks and flood low lying areas for no reason. There must be a force acting upon it to cause the displacement of water to cause flooding. That force would have to come from heavy prolonged torrential rains, high winds, and the breaching of dams and any other restraining structure that control the flow of water away from land masses that are heavily populated. The idea that Climate change in and of itself is responsible for natural disasters caused by mankind's carelessness in the use of Fossil Fuels is a very lame assumption.

Jim

Subject was about the ocean not lakes and rivers.
If you have no answers deflect.

[friendly fred]

Originally Posted by Munchmasterman

One of the papers referenced by your link (links inside the link you added that supposedly support the conclusion).

A link in the report you gave a link for said,

"The latest findings glaringly contradict alarmist claims of accelerating sea level rise. For example the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) here wrote sea levels would “likely rise for many centuries at rates higher than that of the current century”, due to global warming."
Following the link in this paragraph takes you to a article that contradicts the contradiction of accelerating rates.

Is sea level rising?
Yes, sea level is rising at an increasing rate.

https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/sealevel.html

A link found in Comparison of satellite altimetry against a high-quality network of tide gauges suggests that sea-surface heights from the TOPEX altimeter may be biased by ±5 mm, in an approximate piecewise linear, or U-shaped, drift. This has been previously reported in at least two other studies. The bias is probably caused by use of an internal calibration-mode range correction, included in the TOPEX “net instrument” correction, which is suspect owing to changes in the altimeter's point target response. Removal of this correction appears to mitigate most of the drift problem. In addition, a new time series based on retracking the TOPEX waveforms, again without the calibration-mode correction, also reduces the drift aside for a clear problem during the first 2 years. With revision, the TOPEX measurements, combined with successor Jason altimeter measurements, show global mean sea level rising fairly steadily throughout most of 24 year time period, with rates around 3 mm/yr, although higher over the last few years.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/1...13090/abstract

The main PIK report starts out,

"Expert assessment: Sea-level rise could exceed one meter in this century
11/22/2013 - Sea-level rise in this century is likely to be 70-120 centimeters by 2100 if greenhouse-gas emissions are not mitigated, a broad assessment of the most active scientific publishers on that topic has revealed."

100 centimeters is a meter. The reports share a common level of @100 cm by 2100. And a big reduction in emissions won't significantly change 2100 levels. But they can have a big impact on 2200

Who cares about the world in 2200?

[Mr MojoRisin]

Originally Posted by bamscram

Subject was about the ocean not lakes and rivers.
If you have no answers deflect.

Forget about Oceans flooding large land masses because it doesn't happen. You've been indoctrinated to believe the burning of fossil fuels warms the earth to consequential proportions, and it doesn't. What's responsible for climate change is the sun, volcanic and seismographic activity. There is no such thing as man induced Global Warming or Climate change. What man is responsible for is pollution there is a difference between pollution and climate change. If man stopped using fossil fuels Climate Change would still occur, I guarantee it.


Jim

[Ducbutter]

[QUOTE=Munchmasterman;106049674 6][FONT="Arial"][SIZE="3"][COLOR="blue"]One of the papers referenced by your link (links inside the link you added that supposedly support the conclusion).

A link in the report you gave a link for said,

"The latest findings glaringly contradict alarmist claims of accelerating sea level rise. For example the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) here wrote sea levels would “likely rise for many centuries at rates higher than that of the current century”, due to global warming."
Following the link in this paragraph takes you to a article that contradicts the contradiction of accelerating rates.



You are misinterpreting the article. The link occurs in a portion of the article titled "Scary scenarios abound". The link is to an article containing the "scary scenario" referenced in the title. Capiche?

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by bamscram

Subject was about the ocean not lakes and rivers.
If you have no answers deflect.

I wouldn't expect a parrot to have any reading comprehension ability.

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by Mr MojoRisin

If man stopped using fossil fuels Climate Change would still occur, I guarantee it.


Jim

And you can, because for billions of years the Earth's "climate" has changed and there were no signs of "Man," much less any of Man's MACHINES that used fossil fuel to operate.

Of course, the "scientists" claiming "man made" changes could have an "abbreviated" view of the time line of Earth based on Adam and Eve versions in the Old Testament. That would probably be worthwhile investigating (their particularly religious beliefs!).

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by bamscram

Did you notice the water getting deeper in Texas last summer?
Or was it cased by your BS? Maybe was just an event.

Originally Posted by LexusLover

There are few "assumptions" in the topic that are not "lame"!

Parrots and people who act like parrots trying to assert that an increase in the tide CAUSED the flooding in the Gulf Coast AND Northeastern Texas and Western Louisiana merely demonstrates the lameness of those theories and their lack of logic.

Short version: Buttscramble doesn't have a clue what this area endured, or why. He's just talking shit.

Originally Posted by bamscram

If I didn't say it quit acting like I did, Polly.

You Alt-right like putting words in others mouths. Mostly because you have no answers.

Originally Posted by bamscram

Subject was about the ocean not lakes and rivers.
If you have no answers deflect.

Originally Posted by LexusLover

I wouldn't expect a parrot to have any reading comprehension ability.

Like I've said so many times before: Parrots are mindless! ButtScramble is no exception as a parrot.

[bamscram]

Originally Posted by Mr MojoRisin

Forget about Oceans flooding large land masses because it doesn't happen. You've been indoctrinated to believe the burning of fossil fuels warms the earth to consequential proportions, and it doesn't. What's responsible for climate change is the sun, volcanic and seismographic activity. There is no such thing as man induced Global Warming or Climate change. What man is responsible for is pollution there is a difference between pollution and climate change. If man stopped using fossil fuels Climate Change would still occur, I guarantee it.


Jim

There are some who will disagree with you.

[Munchmasterman]

Stop and think about it. How do those fossils end up in mountains (ones much higher than any in Texas. The Rockies, the Alps). Was the water level 10000 feet or higher at some point?
Of course not. It looks like you don't know how mountains are formed. Oil either.
Climate has little to do, if anything at all, with the creation of mountains or oil. Oil forms in the absence of oxygen and other gases. Main parts of climate.
As far as the research goes, the climate is constantly changing. That and new observations drive new research. You collect data and then analyze it.
Where did you hear the conclusions are reached before data is collected? You make it sound like there is one research program. There are thousands and the majority back each other up.
You don't know shit about science, the scientific method and your hubris keeps you from learning anything. Plate tectonics raise or lower the sea floor creating or changing where seas are at

Originally Posted by LexusLover

The prior "climate change research" didn't "indicate" a rise?

Oh, ok! When the research fails to prove what one wants it to prove, then by all means conduct another research project until one gets the results one desires to fit their agenda and bullshit.

What made the "sea level" rise before when all the sea animals were left to be fossilized in the Texas Hill Country? Not to mention all those sea animals that died and turned into "oil" in West Texas. Doesn't it just piss you off, Munchie, when every 50 to 100 million years the fucking beach changes location? No wonder you can't get flood insurance for your beach cottage!