Warming nears point of no return, scientists say

Judged:

2

2

2

LessHypeMoreFact wrote:

The 3.2 mm/year is the most reliable and accurate measurement of global sea level rise available. Tidal analysis uses it as a 'benchmark' to ensure against errors in their own analysis.
And the factors that go into it are well defined, legitimate and supported by the rest of the science. That you don't understand it or call it 'fudge factors' just illustrates that you are not a science researcher or capable of judging their work.
The fact that teh 'average' rate of rise is significantly smaller than the present rate of rise just illustrates that global sea level rise is accelerating, not decelerating.
But you guys keep talking to yourselves. Circle jerks are all you have. The science doesn't support your claims and your posts just illustrate how little you read.

Judged:

2

1

1

LessFactMoreHype wrote:

The 3.2 mm/year is the most reliable and accurate measurement of global sea level rise available. Tidal analysis uses it as a 'benchmark' to ensure against errors in their own analysis.

Judged:

2

1

1

Fun Facts wrote:

It doesn't come back?

Judged:

2

2

2

IAmDigitap wrote:

<quoted text>
N.O.N.E. of them add up. Temperatures have N.E.V.E.R left the norm E.V.E.R. at A.N.Y. time in the last 100 years.
A.L.L. of it is S.Y.N.T.H.E.S.I.Z.E.D.

Judged:

3

2

2

Steve Case wrote:

<quoted text>
I don't really fault you for believing that because the amount of one-way adjustments made by the various weather statistic keepers around the world is staggering. It seems that 1950 is the teeter board center where all temperatures prior to that date are adjusted downward and those after up. Someone should make a montage of all the animated GIFs people have made to illustrate the point. I've made a few myself:
http://i43.tinypic.com/2i8vhb9.jpg
http://i41.tinypic.com/104npcj.jpg

Judged:

2

2

2

Fun Facts wrote:

<quoted text>
Latest adjustment to temps was November 2011 version 3.1. for the GHCN data set and as stated, the temps prior to 1950 went down and temps after 1950 went up.
It appears to be in 'homogenizing' temps that the data is changed. This is where they take grids of temps and try to make them the same, homogenize.
May in my area average is 87*F, actual for 2012 84.93*F, yet on the maps my area shows above average.

Judged:

2

2

2

Fun Facts wrote:

Latest adjustment to temps was November 2011 version 3.1. for the GHCN data set and as stated, the temps prior to 1950 went down and temps after 1950 went up.
It appears to be in 'homogenizing' temps that the data is changed. This is where they take grids of temps and try to make them the same, homogenize.
May in my area average is 87*F, actual for 2012 84.93*F, yet on the maps my area shows above average.

Judged:

3

2

2

Earthling-1 wrote:

<quoted text>The CET record is probably the best indictaion[sic] of global temperature change available, and in my opinion, the human race has no need to panic for at least a few thousand years.

Judged:

2

2

2

SpaceBlues wrote:

Fake-named deniers post here lies about science and scientists. Take "kal," a welder by his own free admission. Just one read of his posts is enough for what he's about, hatred that is.
In the mean time, scientists publish their research. Their papers are available for study. If errors are spotted, discourse resolves the issues. This is part of scientific progress.

Judged:

2

2

1

SpamBot wrote:

Fake-named deniers post here<[]>lies about science and scientists.

SpamBot wrote:

Take "kal," a welder by his own free admission.

SpamBot wrote:

Just one read of his posts is enough for what he's about

Judged:

2

2

2

SpaceBlues wrote:

Fake-named deniers post here lies about science and scientists. Take "kal," a welder by his own free admission. Just one read of his posts is enough for what he's about, hatred that is.
In the mean time, scientists publish their research. Their papers are available for study. If errors are spotted, discourse resolves the issues. This is part of scientific progress.

Judged:

1

1

1

SpaceBlues wrote:

Fake-named deniers post here lies about science and scientists. Take "kal," a welder by his own free admission. Just one read of his posts is enough for what he's about, hatred that is.
In the mean time, scientists publish their research. Their papers are available for study. If errors are spotted, discourse resolves the issues. This is part of scientific progress.

Judged:

2

2

2

SpaceBlues wrote:

<quoted text>Really?
No evidence for science or accuracy like "at least a few thousand years" but there's evidence that your English worsens each hour.
LOL.

Judged:

2

2

2

Quantummist wrote:

<quoted text>
Heres the question that should be asked.. Which comes first... Global temperature change or CO2 atmospheric levels....
That question actually should settle the debate on Man made global warming...
As it's easy to Prove that a rise in temp causes a faster rate of decomp in organics and a faster rate of CO2 release from carbonaceous rocks... I can find no evidence that a CO2 rise of less than .002% of atmospheric content causes a rise in global temps...

Judged:

3

3

3

steenking piddling diddling middling mudling mudslinger dirtling wrote:

what is "Tidal analysis......

Judged:

2

2

2

Steve Case wrote:

<quoted text>
And whatever the answer, the next question should be, "Is it a problem?" Well, it ought to be the first question. And if the answer is "No, it's not a problem." then the whole thing becomes a matter of academic concern and nothing else.