patrick.net

HappyGilmore says

The lower windows have obviously changed. The height of them is much different.

Really?? Not on my computer?

Someone went in and changed all the brickwork 100 years later? Was that because of a higher $1T annual deficit?

HappyGilmore says

We're almost at peak idiocracy...

Nope, long past it on the Blue "TDS" team.

Sniper says

Really?? Not on my computer?

So you think this:



looks identical to this:



Look at the different sizes of the top vs. bottom windows in the two pictures. You really don't see a difference there? In the old picture, the top windows look smaller than the bottom. In the new picture, the bottom look much smaller than the top.

That's a hexagonal fort I think I have the wrong side and the wrong angle. The cameras in those days didn't take 12 megapixle images, in HD color.
here's the correct angle, looks like they keep repairing the facade. It's the same windws the B&W photo has moss and crud growing right click on the image and open in new tab, then zoom in on it.

The lower windows are still much smaller in the new picture than in the old picture. I imagine they did some masonry in the 100+ years between the two pictures.

HappyGilmore says

The lower windows are still much smaller in the new picture than in the old picture. I imagine they did some masonry in the 100+ years between the two pictures.

So do you believe the graph that you posted showing only 10 inches of sea level rise over the last 140 years?
How much do you think the sea has risen?

HappyGilmore says

Look at the different sizes of the top vs. bottom windows in the two pictures. You really don't see a difference there?

Oh wait. If you zoom in on the older pic you can see a bricklayer with a crooked arm!

Just teasing.

Onvacation says

So do you believe the graph that you posted showing only 10 inches of sea level rise over the last 140 years?
How much do you think the sea has risen?

OK--no more games. You asked for data and data was given.

If you have a point, make it.

anon_3b28c says

If you have a point, make it.

Is the point not obvious? I can spell it out for you:
Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming is a fraud.
I am attempting to educate the uninformed.
The sea has risen very little. 10 inches in a century and a half.

One question answered

Onvacation says

The sea has risen very little. 10 inches in a century and a half.

One question answered

There was no pollution 150 years ago. It's entirely possible most of the 10 inch increase happened very recently.
I don't see global warming as a serious problem though, because alternative energy and electric cars will soon arrive like an avalanche, and the problem will be solved.

Onvacation says

anon_3b28c says

If you have a point, make it.

Is the point not obvious? I can spell it out for you:
Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming is a fraud.
I am attempting to educate the uninformed.
The sea has risen very little. 10 inches in a century and a half.

One question answered

10 inches in a century and a half is very little? Seriously? What is the general trend? When did most of the increase occur? What qualifications do you possess and what research have you done that makes you more of an expert than the scientists actually doing that work?

Next questions:

Onvacation says

How much has the temp and sea level risen in the last hundred years?
How much did the temp rise between 2015 (2nd hottest year) and 2016 ( hottest year EVER)?
How can they measure such a small increase over the entire globe?
If the earth is warming why is the hottest temp ever recorded over a century old?
What is the ideal temp for human habitation?

Still waiting for answers to these important questions.

The answers point out the fraud of CAGW.

anon_b8f55 says

10 inches in a century and a half is very little? Seriously?

It hasn't risen nothign SERIOUSLY!!!

After a hurricane swell or king tide I've seen South Florida beaches several times. Carved a dead line drawn in the sand. Past that point the sand drops 90 degrees and it is a about a 8 foot fall. The next full moon high tide the tide goes only to the edge of the bottom. Meaning it is the sand pushed on the beach that makes sea levels. Otherwise the sea level would be 6 to 8 feet lower in most coastal beach towns. The Beach is an illusion the developers made. The reality is less consistent over the decades.

Tenpoundbass says

I call bullshit that the sea level rose at all in the last 140 years. I use Fort Jefferson as undisputed truth.

Let me get this straight. Tides cause a range in sea levels of about 24 inches, and you're going to use a couple photos to argue that sea level hasn't gone up by 8 inches ?

What kind of an ego does it take to think you can make a compelling argument refuting the experts, that wouldn't have already been made by thousands of people and fairly easily proven if true ?

Here's a piece of propaganda put out by one of them thar folks with their fancy pants book larnin.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=9&v=dBs_K59K6GY

https://www.skepticalscience.com/sea-level-rise.htm

Strategist says

There was no pollution 150 years ago.

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/air-pollution-has-been-a-problem-since-the-days-of-ancient-rome-3950678/ Strategist says

I don't see global warming as a serious problem

Technology will save humanity!

marcus says

you're going to use a couple photos to argue that sea level hasn't gone up by 8 inches ?

10 inches.

Onvacation says

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/air-pollution-has-been-a-problem-since-the-days-of-ancient-rome-3950678/ Strategist says

Does any air pollution 2,000 years ago compare to the pollution we have today?
We burn 100 million barrels of oil every single day. The Romans burnt Zero.
We burn incredible amounts of coal every single day. The Romans burnt zero.
We burn an ever increasing amount of natural gas every single day. The Romans burnt zero.
Are you sure the pollution of of 2,000 ago is comparable to the pollution we have today?

Why do you keep asking 'what is the ideal temp for human habitation?' Are you attempting to argue something because it just seems like an utterly ridiculous question to me?
The importance of climate change is in the consequemces of the trends, not the temperature between one year and another or one outlying year a century ago. I presume you know this, so I'm not quite sure what you are trying to do.

The stats for the past 100 years were:
+1.7 mm a year (plus or minus 0.5mm)
+1.33°F (0.74ºC) in the past century

... but you don't believe in NOAA, the USGS, the FBI, or much of anything anymore, do you? Experts are waved away. Hard truths are ignored. Why? Because they challenge your ideology so deeply you cannot face them.

No one on PNet is going to change your mind. But look, you found that Tenpound is "one of your people", so you can feel a little less threatened.

Onvacation says

Technology will save humanity!

You ever look at the causes of civilization collapse? They have markers and commonalities. The civilizations were all at the height of their technological peak, masters of their known world, and pretty confident in their longevity ... until ... ooops! But we aren't those primitive backwater beings of thousands of years ago, right? After all that is so so long ago! (Except for that fact that in the history of life, the planet, and actual meaningful timescales it is a blink fo an eye.)

Tenpoundbass says

I've seen South Florida beaches several times.

If you look out at the horizon too Tenpound, you can clearly see the world is flat. No curve dude! No curve!!!!

You feel the air outside recently too? It's freaking cold!

Onvacation says

Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming is a fraud.

How many people are committing this fraud/knowingly lying? What is their purpose and motivation?

You've got nothing but internet conspiracy theories, because they make you feel safe and justified. It's a lot easier than being open to the possibility you are wrong.

Your hashtag is correct though: #politics ... as the people who deny the current science fall into a pretty narrow wedge in political belief.

http://news.gallup.com/topic/category_climate_change.aspx
Looks like those beliefs are dying out quickly, too.

Strategist says

Are you sure the pollution of of 2,000 ago is comparable to the pollution we have today?

Never said that. Never implied that.

anon_b8f55 says

I'm not quite sure what you are trying to do.

Expose the fraud of CAGW and educate the uninformed.
No hope for the true believers.

Onvacation says

Expose the fraud of CAGW and educate the uninformed.

Let's see--you've established that the sea levels and global temperature are steadily rising.

What exactly have you exposed as fraud?

Rew says

Your hashtag is correct though: #politics ... as the people who deny the current science fall into a pretty narrow wedge in political belief.

http://news.gallup.com/topic/category_climate_change.aspx
Looks like those beliefs are dying out quickly, too.

Science does not care about popularity contests.
Onvacation says

If the earth is warming why is the hottest temp ever recorded over a century old?

HappyGilmore says

Let's see--you've established that the sea levels and global temperature are steadily rising.

Not exponentually. And the solar minimum is here. I'm not arguing against stopping polution but this co2 CAGW is a fraud.

Can you answer the other questions?

Onvacation says

Not exponentually.

I don't believe you've established that especially w.r.t global temperature rise.

So, let's take a step back here. Are you saying:

1. The earth isn't warming?
2. It may be warming, but it's just natural variation and has nothing to do with humans?
3. It is warming, but who cares--it's been this warm in the past so there's nothing to worry about?
4. It is warming but there's nothing we can do about it so why worry?

“Science does not care about popularity contests.” It’s hilarious that you say that. What does the science say about climate change? Not your ‘science’ by the way, but what the actual researchers in the field say.

HappyGilmore says

1. The earth isn't warming?
2. It may be warming, but it's just natural variation and has nothing to do with humans?
3. It is warming, but who cares--it's been this warm in the past so there's nothing to worry about?
4. It is warming but there's nothing we can do about it so why worry?

Indeed, lets take a step back.

1. The temperature trend over the past ten thousand years is negative. Yes, that includes contemporary "Global Warming", which is 0.6 degree rise over four decades. No, hocky sticks do not prove the contrary, they were exposed as a fraud during climategate, and that's why the hockey sticks disappeared from all the official reports.

2. The trend is not a straight line, it has 60 and 600 year cycles imposed on it, which manifests=s in events such as Minoan warm period, Roman warm period, LIttle Ice age. The warm periods were all warmer than current warm period -- as mentioned before, the global, ten thousand year long trend is negative. What Hansen declared to be "OMG GLOBAL WARMING" in mid 80s is one of those 30 year periods.

3, At current rates, we will hit technological singularity before warming becomes a problem. At the moment, warming results in greener planet, fewer extreme weather events (read the most recent IPCC report) and higher crop yields.

4. Indeed, what can we do? Seriously, what the alarmists want us to do? They want us spend trillions to mitigate 0.02 degree increase by years 2100. I am not kidding, look it up. (IPCC, in its official report, is, of course, not alarmist at all, they recomment nuclear among other things. Again, read the latest report).

anon_b8f55 says

“Science does not care about popularity contests.” It’s hilarious that you say that. What does the science say about climate change? Not your ‘science’ by the way, but what the actual researchers in the field say.

The actual researches in the field have lowered the ECS to 1.5. Of course, that fact is downplayed in all the usual newspapers so that likes of you can dismiss and ignore it.
Here is an example https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/ipcc-revises-climate-sensitivity/

Onvacation says

anon_b8f55 says

I'm not quite sure what you are trying to do.

Expose the fraud of CAGW and educate the uninformed.
No hope for the true believers.

The only “True Believers” are the Religious Morons who still cling to fables about that whore Mary and her bastard baby. Coincidentally they all vote Republican and deny science. Bizarre

anon_1bd09 says

4. It is warming but there's nothing we can do about it so why worry?

What difference does it make as long as you have air-conditioning?

Rew says

The stats for the past 100 years were:
+1.7 mm a year (plus or minus 0.5mm)
+1.33°F (0.74ºC) in the past century

So, what's the average temperature at the Arctic Circle?

What's the average temperature at the Equator?

People adapt and live at both places year round.

So in the big picture of logic, a 1.33 degree rise F over 130 years is a BIG nothingburger.

anon_1bd09 says

Seriously, what the alarmists want us to do? They want us spend trillions to mitigate 0.02 degree increase by years 2100.

It's sad that what appear to be intelligent people get sucked into the fraud and hoax known as Global Warming, oops Climate Change with this data.

Extreme Weather Conditions: "Record Cold Weather is NOT the Climate, retard!"
Extreme Weather Conditions: "See! Tornadoes! Believe in Climate change now, retards?"

marcus says

Let me get this straight. Tides cause a range in sea levels of about 24 inches, and you're going to use a couple photos to argue that sea level hasn't gone up by 8 inches ?

You can see the high tide line in the photos I don't know what you're going on about.

Onvacation says

Science does not care about popularity contests.

It does and it doesn't.
It cares about what can be peer reviewed and proven. In a way, that's the greatest popularity contest of all.

Onvacation says

If the earth is warming why is the hottest temp ever recorded over a century old?

You confuse a single data point with a net trend.

If I have a sheet of steel, 1 inch thick and 1 square mile surface area, and I raise the temperature of a single localized point on that plate to 100 degrees ... how much energy did that take? What if I raised the entire surface 40 degrees over the entire plate? How much energy did that take? How much net heat is transferred to the air as the plate cools to the air temperature in each case?

Sort these by year:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_weather_records
The mean Earth temperature has been proven to be going up.

Rew says

The mean Earth temperature has been proven to be going up.

Onvacation says

How much did the temp rise between 2015 (2nd hottest year) and 2016 ( hottest year EVER)?
How can they measure such a small increase over the entire globe?

I assume you alarmists know the answer as you keep talking about "the warming".

Rew says

Sort these by year:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_weather_records
The mean Earth temperature has been proven to be going up.

So when was the hottest temp ever?

[Rew says

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

From your link
"Christopher C. Burt, the weather historian writing for Weather Underground who shepherded the Libya reading's 2012 disqualification, believes that the 1913 Death Valley reading is "a myth", and is at least 2.2 or 2.8 °C (4 or 5 °F) too high."

The weather underground is a well known alarmist site.
Try this
http://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/world-records/highest-recorded-temperature

Rew says

The mean Earth temperature has been proven to be going up.

Yes, by 1.4 degrees F over 130 years.

We're all going to be 'Wet Bulbed" to death!!

RUN......................................

I seem to have forgotten the Media assault on Bernie for connecting "Weather" to "Climate"

TwoScoopsPlissken says

I seem to have forgotten the Media assault on Bernie for connecting "Weather" to "Climate"

Where did Bernie connect weather to climate?