Originally Posted by Earthling

Yep, if you can't beat em, join em.
Ö¿Ö

Might be better to start with something a bit less extreme.Start with slightly annoying third world countries, and then work your way up to genocide.Just a thought.

Originally Posted by ManUnited

Might be better to start with something a bit less extreme.Start with slightly annoying third world countries, and then work your way up to genocide.Just a thought.

Did you read the article?

Originally Posted by Earthling

Do you have reading comprehension issues?
Let's try again.

Got it?

And what comprehension problems do you have? Billions rely on snow melt for water. The city of Ls Angeles relies on snow melt, Half of India and Pakistan rely on snow mely. Hundreds of millions in China rely on snow melt.

And, if you live where your signature says, you probably rely on snow melt.

Originally Posted by Agrotologist

And what comprehension problems do you have? Billions rely on snow melt for water. The city of Ls[sic] Angeles relies on snow melt, Half of India and Pakistan rely on snow mely[sic]. Hundreds of millions in China rely on snow melt.

Hmmm.

I'll try to make it simple for you.

"Places" are not people.
Now do you get it?

Originally Posted by Agrotologist

And, if you live where your signature says, you probably rely on snow melt.

Not here, it snows once in a blue moon.
In the last 16 years, we've had 1cm of snowfall that lasted almost a whole morning before it melted.

PS: I gather your "snow mely" was supposed to be snow melt?

Originally Posted by Earthling

Hmmm.

I'll try to make it simple for you.

"Places" are not people.
Now do you get it?

Ah, a literal minded man. To each his own.

Originally Posted by Earthling

Hmmm.

I'll try to make it simple for you.

"Places" are not people.
Now do you get it?

Not here, it snows once in a blue moon.
In the last 16 years, we've had 1cm of snowfall that lasted almost a whole morning before it melted.

PS: I gather your "snow mely" was supposed to be snow melt?

Do you really think I would take the time to correct a typo for fear that you might spot it? You are a waste of time as it is.

Places do depend on water. Some are are where people live. Others are isolated. They are dependent on water for those places to function. The first to support the population; the second for the flora and fauna.

So, stuff your misplaced pedagogy.

Originally Posted by barry schwarz

When adjusted for GIA and other land changes (a sinking tide
guage will add a bias to measuring global mean sea level),
the tide guage trends match the satellite trend within the
margin of error. Depending on the period chosen and the
methodology applied, tide guage trends are higher, lower,
or the same as satellite - but almost every analysis finds
that they are consistent with each other within the margin
of error. Ie, Church and White's 3.2mm/yr (+/-0.4) is within
the margin of error for their tide guage analysis for the
same period, 2.8mm/yr (+/-0.8)

If they are consistent with each other then that means that
somewhere, where there isn't a suite of tide gauges or any
at all, the water is piling up. There isn't any other answer.

Originally Posted by barry schwarz

I thought you had read these papers. Callibrating satellite
data to tide guages is done repeatedly (described in some
papers upthread and many others I haven't linked here).
A common method is to choose a suite of tide guages where
the land level change is well quantified (and therefore the
sea level change is a function of the change in the sea, not
the land), and then isolate the altimeter data corresponding
to those locations. I read quite a few papers over the last
day or so that callibrate/compare in this way.

I've read snippetts that satellites are tied to tide gauges
through calibration somehow.

Originally Posted by barry schwarz

The satellite data is universally regarded as superior. The
coverage is complete between 66S and 66N, there are orders
of magnitude more data, and there are no gaps in the data
over time. There are fewer factors causing bias, and they
are systematic (eg, orbital drift is constant) The only
drawback is that the full period is so short (since1993).
It is the tide guage record that is less certain.

The satellite data is universally regarded as superior for what?
Mayors and harbor masters need to know exactly what their local
situation is. The satellite numbers don't tell them that and the
Peltier GIA information is generated from a computer model. But
a local well engineered local tide gauge will serve them very well
for planning. I believe that's what those North Carolina legislators
want to do.

By the way, new Peltier GIA numbers are out earlier this month.
You heard it first from me if you didn't already know (-:

Peltier's GIA Predictions Updated

They didn't change a whole lot. One interesting factoid, they
removed 57 stations from thier prior list and 80% were negative
values which would tend to run up reported sea level when GIA
adjusted.

Originally Posted by Earthling

Did you read the article?

Yes

Originally Posted by ManUnited

Genocide? Little bit hysterical, almost alarmist don't you think?

Well, we have had hysterical followers of Lyndon Larouche, and an incoherent glibertarian calling himself Cassandra Syndrome, turn up here occasionally yelling imprecations about genocide.

I never bothered much with them - and they did not seem to know what they were talking about either.

This is the first for a while, ... just remember it the next time you hear climate scientists called "alarmists" and "hysterical".

The animation covers the amazing change in Arctic Sea Ice since the 17th July, only one short month ago.



Sea Ice Extent is now at about 4.35m km^2 - only about 10,000 km^2 above the former record minimum set in 2007. And there are about 2 weeks or so of melting left, possibly 3, to this year's minimum. It is hard to see how a first-ever collapse to below 3m km^2 can be avoided.

http://neven1.typepad.com/blog/2012/08/peeking-th.html