Sea level rise

@wildgrass said
It's an academic journal that posts all peer reviews and authors' responses to reviewers alongside each of the articles they publish. The "link" as you put it is created by the journal for transparency purposes. Also, it keeps reviewers honest. There are many journals that do this now, so it's certainly not selective.

I was just asking if you read the ones you asked for and what you thought about them.

A few, but I would have to see the reviews of articles from both sides to know how meaningful it is.

https://www.climatedepot.com/2014/02/13/report-1350-peer-reviewed-papers-supporting-skeptic-arguments-against-man-made-global-warming-alarm/

@metal-brain said
A few, but I would have to see the reviews of articles from both sides to know how meaningful it is.

https://www.climatedepot.com/2014/02/13/report-1350-peer-reviewed-papers-supporting-skeptic-arguments-against-man-made-global-warming-alarm/

This isn't a competition in which sides are taken. It's about the data. Peer review subjects the science to critical interpretation and forces rigor. Compare that to your favorite Roy Spencer blog in which he posts whatever he's feeling on that day without stats or labels. You were interested in what peer review looks like, but when presented with a thorough review, did you read it?

@wildgrass
Another problem just found in association with increased CO2 in atmosphere:

https://phys.org/news/2019-08-threat-ocean-acidification-emerges-southern.html

@sonhouse said
@wildgrass
Another problem just found in association with increased CO2 in atmosphere:

https://phys.org/news/2019-08-threat-ocean-acidification-emerges-southern.html

Just ignore it and it will go away. Right?

@wildgrass said
This isn't a competition in which sides are taken. It's about the data. Peer review subjects the science to critical interpretation and forces rigor. Compare that to your favorite Roy Spencer blog in which he posts whatever he's feeling on that day without stats or labels. You were interested in what peer review looks like, but when presented with a thorough review, did you read it?

"This isn't a competition in which sides are taken. It's about the data."

You made a case about peer review that was nonsense and now you are digressing away from that to data.

"Peer review subjects the science to critical interpretation and forces rigor."

When it is not manipulated as happened with climate gate. Even despite that you have shown no evidence peer review has significantly favored alarmists, you merely say it with no proof at all.

You need to read all the reviews that include articles from skeptic climate scientists. You have not done that because it would not serve the interest of your confirmation bias.

Reading reviews is what matters more than scholarly peer review. Climate gate proved nefarious manipulation there. That cannot be denied.

You are constantly defending double standards that are unfair from your side and then make false claims of peer review. Read the reviews from peers. There are plenty of articles that passed the scholarly peer review process as I have shown to you. Stop pretending there is a consensus that doesn't exit. It doesn't exist in fair polls and it doesn't exist in peer review of either type.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scholarly_peer_review

@wildgrass said
Just ignore it and it will go away. Right?

You still ignore facts that I made clear many times. The ocean cannot hold as much CO2 when it gets warmer. Explain to me how ph will significantly lower to reduce the alkalinity of the ocean given this fact?

If CO2 is supposed to be the cause of reducing the alkalinity of the ocean and CO2 cannot increase when it gets warmer what the bloody hell are you thinking????????

This is the science forum, not the myth forum.

@metal-brain said
"This isn't a competition in which sides are taken. It's about the data."

You made a case about peer review that was nonsense and now you are digressing away from that to data.

"Peer review subjects the science to critical interpretation and forces rigor."

When it is not manipulated as happened with climate gate. Even despite that you have shown no evidence peer ...[text shortened]... doesn't exist in peer review of either type.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scholarly_peer_review

DId you read the peer reviews of the article? What did you think? It is very cool to see the maturation of the study. The title changes, figures change, interpretations must change based on what the reviewers determined to be insufficient evidence. Additional data is generated to respond to critical comments. Certainly the data comes out more rigorous than what Roy Spencer puts on his blog.

Of course no consensus exists in peer review. One cannot re-publish material that is already known. Why would peer review favor alarmists? Peer review exists to critically evaluate the merit of scientific work prior to public release. The consensus exists among peer reviewed published manuscripts, not within peer review itself.

What is the article you would like me to read? I had to Google 'climategate' since you refuse to explain it:

After 1,000 of climate scientists’ private emails were stolen and published online, snippets of text were taken out of context and misrepresented to falsely accuse the scientists of scandal, conspiracy, collusion, falsification, and illegal activities. Climate deniers and biased media outlets whipped up such froth over these misrepresentations that various organizations launched nine separate investigations to identify any possible scientific wrongdoing uncovered by the emails. They found none.

Apparently the convicted Russian hacker bots had something to do with it.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2016/dec/22/russian-email-hackers-keep-playing-us-for-fools

@Metal-Brain
So those folks talking about the southern ocean getting more acidic are full of shyte?
Let's see YOUR papers on your hypothesis the ocean can't hold as much CO2 when warm but give me numbers.
Are you saying at say whatever, 80 degrees F, and the oceans can no longer store CO2? 70? 60 degrees? What?
Do you deny the effect of acidification on those diatoms? You don't think an increase in the sinking of such life forms can't be documented and quantified?
If so, show us YOUR proof, not some paper from a 90 year old who hasn't tested water for 50 years.

@wildgrass said
DId you read the peer reviews of the article? What did you think? It is very cool to see the maturation of the study. The title changes, figures change, interpretations must change based on what the reviewers determined to be insufficient evidence. Additional data is generated to respond to critical comments. Certainly the data comes out more rigorous than what Roy Spencer ...[text shortened]... nvironment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2016/dec/22/russian-email-hackers-keep-playing-us-for-fools

"Additional data is generated to respond to critical comments"

I've not seen it in anything you have posted. Certainly nothing significant as you imply. You only look at the peer reviews that appeal to your confirmation bias and ignore the rest. As long as you keep doing that I can't help you. You are far too dogmatic to let facts influence you.

@sonhouse said
@Metal-Brain
So those folks talking about the southern ocean getting more acidic are full of shyte?
Let's see YOUR papers on your hypothesis the ocean can't hold as much CO2 when warm but give me numbers.
Are you saying at say whatever, 80 degrees F, and the oceans can no longer store CO2? 70? 60 degrees? What?
Do you deny the effect of acidification on those diatoms? ...[text shortened]...
If so, show us YOUR proof, not some paper from a 90 year old who hasn't tested water for 50 years.

Don't be a fool. I already proved to you the real cause of damage to coral reefs. Fertilizer runoff and cyanide fishing. You are full of shyte!!!!

None of you are worth responding to. All you all are interested in is proving yourself right with confirmation bias that is false. Keep fooling yourselves into believing that. I have better things to do that waste my time with dogmatic fools!

Just as I predicted ( based on past experience) all of the overly emotional alarmists digressed into nonsense to avoid the whole subject of this thread.

This thread is called sea level rise for a very good reason. It is not about anything else. Sea level rise is the weakest lie alarmists have ever put forth in an attempt to blame man when it is nature that is the main cause.

Sea level data simply exposes them as liars. They even know they are liars. They even proposed it is necessary to fight natural global warming (as if it were possible) which exposes their own doubt man as the main cause. Nobody confident that man is the main cause would ever do that.

https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/sea-level/

Every alarmist that has ever tried to prove man is the main cause with the NASA long term graph above has failed. That is why they digress. They know they are wrong. People that are confident they are right have no need to digress.

Global warming is real. The long term ( going back to 1880) sea level rise chart proves that. It also shows it started from natural causes. Digression is all they have. They hate the title of this thread because they cannot conform to the entire point of this thread, to prove it using sea level rise and nothing else.

Digression is failure. That is evident. It is not worth responding to fools that failed and once again resorted to digression.

@Metal-Brain
I was talking about diatoms in ill health from south seas turning acidic from too much CO2.
Do you deny CO2 causes water to form carbonic acid?
This has nothing to do with coral reefs in oceans thousands of miles from them. This is a specific example of damage to a bottom life form. Quantifiable damage because the shells are thinner and they sink.
So tell me what that has to do with corals?

Also, do you deny ocean waters heating up increases evaporation? That adds energy to hurricanes no matter how you want to slant it.

@sonhouse said
@Metal-Brain
I was talking about diatoms in ill health from south seas turning acidic from too much CO2.
Do you deny CO2 causes water to form carbonic acid?
This has nothing to do with coral reefs in oceans thousands of miles from them. This is a specific example of damage to a bottom life form. Quantifiable damage because the shells are thinner and they sink.
So tell ...[text shortened]... heating up increases evaporation? That adds energy to hurricanes no matter how you want to slant it.

"Also, do you deny ocean waters heating up increases evaporation? That adds energy to hurricanes no matter how you want to slant it."

You are stupid. Evaporation alone cannot form a hurricane. You are the most dogmatic idiot I have ever wasted my time on. You are a science denier incapable of intelligent thought. Any hurricane expert will tell you a colder climate causes more hurricanes and makes them stronger. You will never do that though. You are too cowardly to find out the truth or more likely you are just lying again.

What idiotic website are you getting that crap from? Do you like being made a fool of? Ask them for their source of information. They have none.

Stop resorting to confirmation bias! Any idiot can do that and that is why you keep clinging to lies. It is impossible for you to confirm it with the truth. You can only find the lies with a search engine.

I dare you to post your source. You are begging for embarrassment. You do this every time. I proved you wrong so many times already. You must be stupid.

@Metal-Brain
NOBODY said ANYTHING about evaporation starting a hurricane, you are just posting strawman BS.
We KNOW warmer waters makes for more evaporation and IF a hurricane goes by those waters like right now with Dorian, now a level 2, the water evaporating will add head energy to that storm as it makes its way past the Bahamas and such and make landfall in Florida somewhere unless it hangs a right and goes of harmlessly into the northern atlantic. That has NOTHING to do with the fact hotter water evaporates at a greater rate over the ocean and passing storms will ALWAYS pick up energy and intensify because of the increased evaporation.

If you think otherwise, show me YOUR data, you always want data.

@sonhouse said
@Metal-Brain
NOBODY said ANYTHING about evaporation starting a hurricane, you are just posting strawman BS.
We KNOW warmer waters makes for more evaporation and IF a hurricane goes by those waters like right now with Dorian, now a level 2, the water evaporating will add head energy to that storm as it makes its way past the Bahamas and such and make landfall in Florida so ...[text shortened]... se of the increased evaporation.

If you think otherwise, show me YOUR data, you always want data.

"with the fact hotter water evaporates at a greater rate over the ocean and passing storms will ALWAYS pick up energy and intensify because of the increased evaporation."


You are full of crap. That is a false statement based on ignorance.

Water always evaporates a lot in the summer months in the northern tropical region of the Atlantic ocean. It takes condensation in addition to that to form and fuel a hurricane. That requires a colder upper atmosphere. That is why hurricanes form more frequently in a colder climate.

If evaporation alone could form and fuel a hurricane they would be endless and the Atlantic Ocean would be impossible to sail safely to the new world from the old world like Columbus did. Without condensation from a colder upper atmosphere there would be no hurricanes. It takes both evaporation and condensation and the evaporation is always happening this time of year. All that is needed is the condensation part. Any hurricane expert will tell you that.

You need to learn the science of hurricanes or ask a hurricane expert. I already proved you wrong about this before. It is a fact that hurricanes are more frequent in a colder climate. Even though PBS' Nova likes to spread myths like you are, they even stated the data proves that. It directly contradicts their own alarmist rhetoric, but that is Nova. Nova also said that ice core samples show that CO2 drove temps higher in the past. That is also false, but PBS is claiming the data shows that you are wrong and that is not the only source of information out there. I just think it is worth pointing out how NOVA contradicted their own data.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Hurricane_of_1780

The Great Hurricane of 1780 proves they have not become stronger in a warmer climate.

https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/video/killer-hurricanes

Notice this excerpt from the link above:

"NOVA’s experts recover traces of tempests stretching back over more than 1,000 years. The picture they paint is disturbing: mega-hurricanes were not only more frequent in the past but are likely to strike again in our near future, as climate change warms the oceans and fuels more intense hurricanes."

That statement is contradictory. It states "mega-hurricanes were not only more frequent in the past" but stupidly insists what you are insisting, that "climate change warms the oceans and fuels more intense hurricanes".

I already told you why they were more frequent in the past and that is because the climate was cooler. Nova admits the data proves that and they also admit that the The Great Hurricane of 1780 was more destructive than recent hurricanes.

You have to prove The Great Hurricane of 1780 was weaker than hurricanes in recent history and you cannot do that. It is no coincidence that happened during the little ice age. Water always evaporates during hurricane season. What is needed is a colder upper atmosphere for a strong hurricane. A colder climate brings that more often so condensation can fuel the cycle of evaporation AND condensation. You need both!!!!!!!!!!!

If you want the data ask Nova for it or you show me the data. Just like NASA, their data does not back up their contradictory claims. Nobody can prove hurricanes are now worse than they were in the little ice age. You have no evidence so stop being dogmatic and stupid until you find some. The Great Hurricane of 1780 is evidence you are wrong.