CBS News have published an Associated Press (AP) story entitled: ‘Today’s Quakes Deadlier Than In Past,’ Study: Seismic Activity 5 Times More Energetic Than 20 Years Ago Because Of Global Warming:
(AP) New research compiled by Australian scientist Dr. Tom Chalko shows that global seismic activity on Earth is now five times more energetic than it was just 20 years ago
The research proves that destructive ability of earthquakes on Earth increases alarmingly fast and that this trend is set to continue, unless the problem of “global warming” is comprehensively and urgently addressed……
What a pity an earlier study by Chalko seems to have gone unnoticed: ‘Can Earth explode as a result of Global Warming?’
NU Journal of Discovery is an unknown journal, with only a handful of publications, all of them by Chalko, who happens to be on the journal editorial board. NU (or Nature University) isn’t a real university.
Here are a few more things Chalko has been involved in:
Aliens! http://thiaoouba.com/faq.htm
Auras: http://thiaoouba.com/seeau.htm
Astral Travel? http://thiaoouba.com/astr.htm
He even sells “bioresonant” shirts:
http://bioresonant.com/dress.html?PHPSESSID=1a7fd4e1219326e73544904d8d1ac67d
Now they are groovy! I might even get one myself.
Global warming causing earthquakes and exploding planet earth. What next?
Hat tip to MM and JP.
UPDATE: The CBS News article has now been pulled – the link is dead.
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
That is hilarious! Good job investigating that one. I have seen a lot of sites today quoting the ABC article.
HAHA all duped.
They pulled it.
That is crazy. No retraction or anything. all the comments and everything. GONE.
Chalko is simply sad – making fun of him is like poking a cripple with a sharp stick. I wish him safe haven somewhere …
But the “meeja” !! Truly disgraceful – and there is no shame in them.
Who knows… Tom may sell some t-shirts and be laughing his way to the bank!
Just shows how gullible they are, and how complete their fact checking is. If the story fits the template, run with it. You learn a lot by these kinds of experiments.
The Media? They’ll even show TGGWS. That’s how bad they are.
All part of the plan my friends.
The question is do you have an annoying ecological pet peeve, and isn’t AGW the cause of that too?
Well write it up. ABC will make you famous.
SJT can’t help himself, poor thing. Compared to ‘Six Degrees’, TGGWS is a example of sobriety.
The above is an excellent example of the power of framing upon those with feeble minds.
Too bad the myriads of other “studies” weren’t given the same scrutiny. After all, global warming causes everything doesn’t it?
http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm
Finally, someone has developed a shirt that will disguise the pizza vomit after a night of binge drinking. And as long as the stench of the climate conspirators remains all pervasive then the unique camoflage of the shit-faced bozo (Bozanthropus shitfaccia) will be complete.
Luke bought a dozen of them for his next CSIRO workshop. Do they come with a DNRM logo?
Well drip up and laugh loud guys. But just remember you guys still have David Archibald on your team. ROTFL !
And thanks for mentioning CSIRO Mottsa (aka Know All, Mr Envelope, I’m a hard man and Mr Biffo) as some great new science on ocean warming – while gigglers diddle the real work gets done.
http://csiro.au/news/OceansWarming.html
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v453/n7198/abs/nature07080.html
Tends to wipe the smiles off your moronic mugs doesn’t it.
And now we’re in so much trouble Mottsa wants to kill off the entire population of Adelaide as an answer to climate change induced drought. And who’s funny?
Sorry; but I just can’t help being more interested in recent comments by Lucia elsewhere since the thread itself is a red herring in the general scheme of things.
Drop by posts from a bevy of old ladies from other blogs also tend to fill the spectrum.
It is intersting that the CSIRO news link forgot to metnion that the increased in ocean warming is all of 1.6 mm per year. OK they did mention/highlight that it is double the projected warming of model simulations. So over 100 years that would be 160mm, surely that would hardly be a cause for concern as it would be less than the daily tidal difference even for the most low lying of areas. I also suspect that it would be within the limits of natural variability.
Luke,
You’re gonna seriously believe those CSIRO “estimates”?
“Now whose funny”?
Ooops…that should read sea level rise not warming
Excellent work. But a close reading of the abstract is well worth while.
The sum of the observed contributions has also not adequately explained the overall multi-decadal rise2. Here we report improved estimates of near-global ocean heat content and thermal expansion for the upper 300 m and 700 m of the ocean for 1950–2003 [I’m curious, however, why does it end in 2003?] , using statistical techniques that allow for sparse data coverage5, 6, 7 [I look forward to the audit of these statistical techniques] and applying recent corrections8 to reduce systematic biases in the most common ocean temperature observations9 . Our ocean warming and thermal expansion trends for 1961–2003 are about 50 per cent larger than earlier estimates but about 40 per cent smaller for 1993–2003, which is consistent with the recognition that previously estimated rates for the 1990s had a positive bias as a result of instrumental errors8, 9,
I’m looking forward to Pielke Snr’s opinion of this work, as he’s been spruking for ocean heat content as the appropriate climate metric amongst others and been informally exchanging views on his blog about this with a contributor to this paper, Josh Willis.
Luke; gavin has already posted the reporting of the Domingues and Gleckler paper; it is a joint effort between PCMDI and CSIRO and BoM; PCMDI are a model diagnostic mob and I won’t say anything about the track record of CSIRO and BoM because you don’t like Warwick Hughes.
But, since you raised Josh Willis’s name, I remind you that he and Lyman and Johnson and Gilson have done a recent paper on bias in ocean temp recording which notes;
“a large cold bias in a small fraction of the ARGO floats and a smaller but more prevalent warm bias in the XBT data” has been found.
McIntyre looks at sea temp everywhere;
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=1100
and sea temp in the southern oceans has been looked at by these guys;
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/04/080421111622.htm
To me this ‘bias’ has the smell of revisionism, which of course has never been done before by IPCC or the AGW crowd, has it?
“Tends to wipe the smiles off your moronic mugs doesn’t it.”
Given that the CSIRO study only goes to 2003 when the Argo, which showed some cooling since then, was launched. I think the miles can stay right where they are. We can continue to enjoy this side show put on by Chalko.
Chalko and the Associated Press are obviously taking money from Exxon for the purpose of circulating “stories” and “findings” which make AGW look ridiculous.
Makes perfect sense.
I don’t get it. How do you tell when the AGW-pliant are just loons? Is it the voices, multiple personalities, pet rocks, what?
I figured Luke and Chalko for D&D partners, what am I missing?
Quality science – and it’s quite pulled the rug out from under you all. Serious data analysis not blog bilge. Enjoy.
Why 2003 – you’re not going to work with flaky later stuff that’s having the bugs ironed out. Just another repeat of that dreadful UAH saga. And why worry about noise bumps when there’s a much bigger trend story. AGW is baaaccckkk !
“And why worry about noise bumps when there’s a much bigger trend story”
Indeed a .14 K per millenium cooling since the Holocene optimum.
Enough of your short term cherry picking data Luke.
luke, this is avoidance syndrome; what about the Polarstern conclusions? And what about McIntyre? and how bout taking 1995-1998 out of the graphs as an outlier; with that done, it’s down, down, down.
“To me this ‘bias’ has the smell of revisionism, which of course has never been done before by IPCC or the AGW crowd, has it?”
Science is always being revised and refined. It wouldn’t be science if it wasn’t.
“Compared to ‘Six Degrees’, TGGWS is a example of sobriety.”
You think so? Amazing.
Central to unlocking more accurate estimates of sea-level rise were ways of correcting small but systematic biases recently discovered in 70 per cent of measurements in the global ocean observing system.
Coauthor Dr John Church, CSIRO Marine & Atmospheric Research, says: “Our estimates of ocean warming are in much better agreement with the ocean component of climate models than previously – this is a strong confirmation of these models.
“However, there is a suggestion that the models have slightly underestimated (30 per cent in the upper 300m and 10 per cent in the upper 700m) the amount of ocean warming.”
While scientists agree that sea levels rose by six inches over the course of the 20th century and are currently rising at the upper end of the IPCC projections, estimates of future rises remain alarmingly hazy.
There are still major outstanding questions about how ice sheets will behave in a warmer world. “Unfortunately, our work does not resolve the major questions about future ice sheet contributions.”
Amazing? Not in the least. ‘Six Degrees’ is political propoganda masquerading as scientific documentary.
It’s not going down – you would have said that before too. Merely a spell in the relentless upward trend. Just a decadal wobble. It’s clearly warming like anything. Reality is that this paper puts AGW right back on track.
Above from “Top of sea warming 50% faster than thought” By Roger Highfield, Science Editor “Telegraph” UK
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?xml=/earth/2008/06/18/scisea118.xml
NB some more good homework too
Prof Nathan Bindoff, Director of the Tasmanian Partnership for Advanced Computing, adds: “This paper resolves a long standing problem in fully understanding all of the contributions to sea-level rise.
“This work feeds into issues around the rate of sea-level rise by 2100 and whether there will be decreases in the oceans capacity to absorb carbon dioxide.”
Experts are not concerned about sea ice: just as the level of a gin and tonic remains unchanged as the ice cubes in it melt, so the fate of sea ice is mostly irrelevant to sea levels.
It is land ice that is the problem: if it all melted, sea levels would rise a staggering 70m. Fortunately, 57 of those metres are locked up in Eastern Antarctica, which has been stable for 20 million years and looks likely to cope with global warming.
But there are bodies of land-borne ice that give cause for concern in Greenland and Western Antarctica, which could contribute up to seven and five metres respectively
Article cached here http://lubos.motl.googlepages.com/agw-earthquake-ap-cache.htm
HadCrut3 is finally out with it’s May data, so I put a new chart together. Looks like we now have 11 years with no global warming.
http://reallyrealclimate.blogspot.com/2008/06/11-year-temperature-anomoly.html
Luke,
I wonder how those sea temps were measured?
Land and sea surface temps are difficult and dodgy enough but what about 300 and 700 metres?
When you lower the thermometer what do you suppose gets measured first and last?
That’s right! The warmer stuff.
Yea but that doesn’t include the Arctic does it – you need GISS mate. And there’s more to climate than temperature. Drought’s so bad Mottsa wants to dynamite the Murray Mouth barrages. Drought being going since the late 1990s. It’s the yanks fault. Their bloody CO2.
And the oceans are still expanding and warming. Thank heavens Jason-2 is going up !
Tilo,
I bet the ABC’s pestering you at the moment to make a statement about that.
I recall another article by Roger Highfield “Climate change: Rising tides” late last year with that dramatic “pic” of greater London going under –
“Later this month, in the Natural History Museum’s annual science lecture, Prof Vaughan will explain how the IPCC, the pre-eminent body engaged in crystal-ball gazing, cannot make firm predictions about sea-level rises – because scientists remain in the dark about how the Earth’s ice will behave, despite the efforts of 2,500 experts in more than 130 countries, including Prof Vaughan himself.
Understanding the effects of vanishing ice sheets “is the number one priority in the coming decade”, he insists. These experts are not concerned about sea ice: just as the level of a gin and tonic remains unchanged as the ice cubes in it melt, so the fate of sea ice is mostly irrelevant to sea levels.
It is land ice that is the problem: if it all melted, sea levels would rise a staggering 70m. Fortunately, 57 of those metres are locked up in Eastern Antarctica, which has been stable for 20 million years and looks likely to cope with global warming.
But there are bodies of land-borne ice that give cause for concern in Greenland and Western Antarctica, which could contribute up to seven and five metres respectively. Prof Vaughan’s research focuses on the ice sheet cloaking 99 per cent of Antarctica, the coldest, windiest and most remote spot on Earth, which holds 70 per cent of the planet’s fresh water.
Previously, it was thought that the 6,500ft-thick blanket was gaining more ice than it was losing. In recent years, however, sophisticated satellite measurements have revealed that the West Antarctic ice sheet, which is some eight times smaller than that in the east, is thinning over an area the size of Texas.
The ice lost, up to two metres a year, is enough to add 0.4mm annually to sea levels, though it is hard to say whether this is part of the natural life cycle of the continent. That is also why experts remain sceptical when Green groups join the dots between TV footage of vast icebergs “calving” and global warming; icebergs are launched every decade or so as glaciers – great rivers of ice – slide into the ocean”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?xml=/earth/2007/11/06/scidoom106.xml
CSIRO used statistical methods which compensate for lack of data?
“Yea but that doesn’t include the Arctic does it – you need GISS mate.”
Rubbish. These datasets are meant to be *observed* temp., not obs. temps + interpolated temps. If you haven’t *actually* observed temps. in that region, don’t pretend you have. That is the only honest thing to do.
In the real world, data quality is always an issue.
Dr Tom Chalko, Senior Scientist, “Scientific Engineering Research Pty Ltd” ? home biz IMO
http://www.research.unimelb.edu.au/rpag/reports/research/1999/436.html
Some Engineering papers and the odd book Booksellers Inc, lets go hey –
“Since its release in January 2000, e-book edition of “The Freedom of Choice” (ISBN 09577882 0 7) attracts ecstatic comments from readers around the world – from school kids and housewives to intellectuals and scientists. Based on positive comments arriving everyday, the world’s first paperback edition has been urgently printed in Australia to meet the emerging worldwide demand
About the Author
Dr Tom Chalko holds Master degree in engineering and a Ph.D. in physics (laser holography). His current academic appointment is with the University of Melbourne in Australia. Dr Chalko professional interests span from lasers and vibration engineering to physics of consciousness. His passions include meditation, exploring limits of human perception, awareness and self healing, playing classical guitar and conducting controversial seminars”
About the book
http://books.google.com.au/books?hl=en&id=zhglMCmHdnEC&dq=The+Freedom+of+Choice+Chalko&printsec=frontcover&source=web&ots=df3qkRMmOF&sig=OE2xjQLXkdZ3hDPJjwlWR4SzVJU&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=6&ct=result#PPA16,M1
Chalko is certainly an interesting character and I know a few people who have exchanged polite emails with him.
Wasn’t it Luke who introduced the thought that AGW was causing increased earthquacks and vulcano activity a few months back on the pages of this blog?
It would explain his chest thumping over cherrypicked, unverifiable, guestimates, on sea levels. Misdirection, slight of hand, prestidigitation, in order to cover up a wee bit of embarassment.
James, you calling Luke an “Earthquack”?
Yes indeed James I did mention earthquakes. I invited you to ask me why. So I guess you now are. James, the reason there are earthquakes is that there are so many wankers in the world (like you) that occasionally they get into sync and cause an harmonic. (Bet this gets deleted). But it’s true. Yourself and Louis and all your loopy mates cause earthquakes. Drongo misses out coz he’s salt of the earth and probably does a days work.
We cause earhquakes.
Luke, yhou just dismissed yourself from any futher deliberations of your posts on Jennifer’s blog.
Start your own, (or have you got one under the masthead of CSIRO).
Gavin,
That was 1999. What about now, 2008?
By the way AP were apparently mis-attributed by CBS – the story was not source from AP.
Oh dear, last night the good ol’ ABC ran hard on ‘the oceans warming and rising faster then ever. A great beat up by, amongst others, Luke’s mates at the CSIRO, led by none other than that great champion of un-biased scientific research, John Church. Of course there were no difficult questions asked, such as what was this new data from the Argo robotic floats benchmarked against?
And of course this “unbiased scientific research” was backed and promoted by those wonderful extremist fundamentalists at the WWF.
But of course out here in the real world, the make-believe scenarios of ‘rising sea-levels’ is just not happening; except in the virtual reality world of John Church and his cohorts.
Sid: I reckon JC & c left a stick or two out on the beach then worked backwards.
Simple hey
Says Sid – some unpublished hick from the sticks. What would you know SId?
“backed and promoted by those wonderful extremist fundamentalists at the WWF.” – no it was not you lying creep. You have a funding linkage do you?
Pity the satellite altimeters make you one of the great liars of all time Reynolds. The sea level rise evidence is compelling. So how do you justify your blatant lies Reynolds?
The paper’s acknowledgements:
This paper is a contribution to the Commonwealth Scientific
Industrial Research Organization (CSIRO) Climate Change Research Program and
Wealth from Oceans Flagship and was supported by the Australian Government’s
Cooperative Research Centres Programme through the Antarctic Climate and
Ecosystems Cooperative Research Centre. C.M.D., J.A.C., N.J.W. and S.E.W. were
partly funded by the Australian Climate Change Science Program. We
acknowledge the modelling groups, the Program for Climate Model Diagnosis and
Intercomparison (PCMDI) and the WCRP’sWorking Group on Coupled Modelling
(WGCM) for their roles in making available the WCRP CMIP-3 multi-model data
set. Support for P.J.G. and this data set at the Lawrence Livermore National
Laboratory was provided by the Office of Science, US Department of Energy. The
Centre for Australian Weather and Climate Research is a partnership between
CSIRO and the Australian Bureau of Meteorology.
Luke:
“And the oceans are still expanding and warming. Thank heavens Jason-2 is going up !”
No, they are not!
http://reallyrealclimate.blogspot.com/2008/06/university-of-colorado-global-sea-level.html
“I bet the ABC’s pestering you at the moment to make a statement about that.”
Of course they are. But only Jennifer gets the exclusives, no matter how much they offer me.
“The ice lost, up to two metres a year, is enough to add 0.4mm annually to sea levels, ”
Since there has been no sea level rise for the past three years, where has that 1.2 mm gone?
http://reallyrealclimate.blogspot.com/2008/06/university-of-colorado-global-sea-level.html
“Pity the satellite altimeters make you one of the great liars of all time Reynolds. ”
Pity the satellite altimeters make you one of the great fools of all time Luke.
http://reallyrealclimate.blogspot.com/2008/06/university-of-colorado-global-sea-level.html
For the pulled story, try this cached link: http://209.85.215.104/search?q=cache:rkAygt79WGYJ:www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/06/18/tech/main4191556.shtml+http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/06/18/tech/main4191556.shtml&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us
]James, you calling Luke an “Earthquack”?[
Nah spangle, just a slip of the finger.
Tilo – what sort of hillbilly un-peer reviewed trash is that. Do better. Come on Tilo coming up with blog bilge isn’t serious science. You need to be reminded. perhaps you cause earthquakes too. Joke was lost on Louis – he’s too sour.
r-squared =0.007 2005-2008 HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA !!!
Oh it hurts – I can hardly walk….
Mate you’re not a scientist’s armpit
“The sea-rise evidence is compelling”.
In 1942 the spring tides would just break over the rock pool, where we bathed as kids, near our beach house on the NSW Central Coast.
In 2008 the spring tides just break over the same rock pool where our grandchildren bathe today.
Tilo; great graphs.
Luke; if you’re going to go the ad hom, then you’ve got to cop it too;
http://www.abc.net.au/science/planetslayer/greenhouse_calc.htm
Plus all the censorship, obfuscation, paranoia, lunatic science, Flannery, Mann, The BBC and Fairfax still calling CO2 a pollutant. Aren’t you just a tad embarrassed to be in the same gene pool as this lot? And I haven’t even mentioned PETA and Lovelock, and Benny’s appraisal of the economic devastation that AGW is going to cause; is causing now.
Which is also why Kevin Rudd and his wife purchased a beach front property last year.
“Fairfax still calling CO2 a pollutant”
CO2 is a pollutant.
“Pollution is the introduction of contaminants into an environment, of whatever predetermined or agreed upon proportions or frame of reference; these contaminants cause instability, disorder, harm or discomfort to the physical systems or living organisms therein.[1] Pollution can take the form of chemical substances, or energy, such as noise, heat, or light energy. Pollutants, the elements of pollution, can be foreign substances or energies, or naturally occurring; when naturally occurring, they are considered contaminants when they exceed natural levels. Pollution is often classed as point source or nonpoint source pollution.”
From Wikipedia. Other defintions are similar. A pollutant can be a nuturally occuring substance.
Luke: “Tilo – what sort of hillbilly un-peer reviewed trash is that. Do better. Come on Tilo coming up with blog bilge isn’t serious science.”
If you want to consider University of Colorado satellite data as blog bilge, then produce something better microbrain. Do you think that GISS is “peer reviewed”? Why should ordinary satellite data transferred to a graph require a peer review you cretin. Does your mother peer review your shoping list before you trust yourself to go out of the house?
“r-squared =0.007” It’s not meant to be a predictive model dip wad. It’s simply a trend line for a collection of points.
What’s the matter Luke? Now that all of your idiotic blustering about sea level rise has been exposed as just so much more brain dead garbage, you feel the need to try to save yourself by pretending that a simple plot of some simple data points are somehow mistaken about what they obviously say? Shows the world what a total wanker you really are.
SJT:
“they are considered contaminants when they exceed natural levels.”
A. It’s an idiotic definition, because what is “natural” is arbitrary. Are moose farts natural? Is rotting vegetation natural? Are volcanoes natural?
B. It’s an idiotic definition because world CO2 levels have been ten times as high as today without any contribution from man.
C. It’s idiotic because it comes from Wiki and because the Wiki global warming editor is William Connolly, a man who ran for office on the green ticket, an honorary hockey team member, and a know AGW nut case.
CO2 is necessary for life, and until it reaches levels of harmfullnes – a level it isn’t even close to, it is not a pollutant.
Come off it Tilo – ya got nothing. A short term dribble of data showing noise – get into something serious eh?
“Why should ordinary satellite data transferred to a graph require a peer review” – well moron if you don’t know heaven help you. Are you mental?
How about e.g. http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/1154580
check the decadal variability dweeb
http://www.pol.ac.uk/psmsl/author_archive/church_white/GRL_Church_White_2006_024826.pdf
And for something of real quality up-to-date instead of Tilo blog bilge
http://www.springerlink.com/content/v65402564j02170h/fulltext.pdf read it and weep mate.
But your ad homming was good though. LOL
The following appears to be yet another news report on the evidence and impact of global warming:
“Mean global temperature could reach 2°C above pre- industrial levels by 2042, leading to significant impacts on Southern Ocean whales. According to state-of-the-art climate models, under 2°C global warming, the area of the Southern Ocean covered by sea ice is projected to shrink by an average of 10-15%. This reduction could be up to 30% in some regions, meaning that species that are heavily dependent on sea ice, such as the Antarctic minke whale (Balaenoptera bonaerensis) are projected to lose between 5-30% of ice-associated habitat within 40 years – little more than the life time of an individual whale.”
I wonder why words like “could” and “projected” are used in such reporting of the crisis that could be projected from such a report.
“I wonder why words like “could” and “projected” are used in such reporting of the crisis that could be projected from such a report.”
Science is about the journey, not the destination, because we never arrive at the final truth of everything. “Could” is often as good as it gets. That’s not the fault of the scientists, that’s just our lot in life. No point criticising them.
“well moron if you don’t know heaven help you.”
You can reach out for heaven all you want, pea brain, but you can’t answer the question because you are too dumb. I could care less about a little water being held in resevoirs. A negative rate of -0.55mm per year still only totals out to -1.65mm in three years. And if you added that into my graph, it would still be flat.
“check the decadal variability dweeb”
Screw your decadal variability Gomer, if you can find another 20th Century three year period where there was no sea level rise then produce it – otherwise, shut the hell up.
“read it and weep mate.”
Weep about what yokel? Outdated information? Try to catch up to the idea that conditions are in the process of changing and you won’t look like such an idiot.
Tilo you really are too tedious for words.
“Why should ordinary satellite data transferred to a graph require a peer review” – this would have to be one of your great comments that illustrates your ignorance – you have no idea obviously of the difficulties working with satellite data. You have no critical faculty. A science ignoramus and a remote sensing git.
You put your piddly quality-unknown fragment of history into the overall historical pattern. I mean mate just sit yourself down, stop smoking hooch, and think about this – after a century of sea level rise, nature has suddenly pulled on the handbrake and things have come to a skidding halt.
You really has lost it. After that disgraceful guest session on Deltoid you’ve got yourself into quite a lather haven’t you. There are plenty of periods where rates have varied. If you want to stay an banjo-plucking hillbilly and divorce yourself from the mainstream literature that’s your problem doofus.
“this would have to be one of your great comments that illustrates your ignorance – you have no idea obviously of the difficulties working with satellite data. You have no critical faculty. A science ignoramus and a remote sensing git.”
My god, your stupidity is simply boundless. All of the work that is required to be done on the satellite data has already been done. The prceedures have been reviewed. The filters have been put in place. The data that the University of Colorado publishes has been past the best experts in the field. Look at the chart that the University presents. They did exactly what I did. They took the data, plugged it into a plotting program, and put the results on the net. Nobody peer reviewed the chart because the data behind it was already quality controlled. So you put your big stinking foot in your big ignorant mouth and now you can’t figure out how to get it out. So you’re waving your arms like a scarecrow in the wind, thinking that if you make enough of a show you won’t look as stupid as you actually are.
“after a century of sea level rise, nature has suddenly pulled on the handbrake and things have come to a skidding halt. ”
Eh, yeah, it’s only happened a million times in the past brick brain.
“There are plenty of periods where rates have varied.”
So stop flapping your ignorant lips and show me another three year flat trend in the 20th century Gomer.
Tilo is now doing stats on 3 year “trends”. Oh my aching sides – I can hardly stand up. ROTL !
The data were probably quality controlled like the Spencer and Christy’s UAH data were? Has Macca personally sussed it out?
Have a look at Church & White – Figure 2 – of course it’s happened before. You’re a moron – go back to your banjo hick.
3 year TREND !!! HAHAHAHAHAHA – what with an r-squared of 0.007 ROTFLMAO !
Ya got nuttin’ you wiggle watcher.
Tilo, you’ve got to realise that the AGW Nutters can not have any data released that has not been “peer reviewed” by their fraternity…. That is, data corrected, truth massaged and figures fudged, until it fits their AGW Creed.
And oh noooooo, not Church and White being quoted again…Now there is some “hard unbiased science” for you.
An (apparently poorly atributed) reworking of the original article which is still live (is a “print” page so asks you if you want to print when you click on it)
http://wbal.com/stories/templates/default.aspx?a=8232&template=print-article.htm
Got the link from “Watts up with that”.
DS
Says church going Sid from whoop whoop. Anything more than bulldust Sid? Any facts or analysis to tender?