Jovial Monk wrote on Aug 16^th, 2017 at 4:43pm:



Despite the uncertainties you describe in the "data"?

Jovial Monk wrote on Aug 17^th, 2017 at 5:17am:



So funny. We have no comprehensive measurement of temperatures at the poles, which creates uncertainty, but there is no doubt.

Jovial Monk wrote on Aug 17^th, 2017 at 5:17am:


Yes and you can ignore historical variations because you don't have the data.

You know like old tree stumps revealed by retreating ice, old Roman mines etc, etc.

Jovial Monk wrote on Aug 17^th, 2017 at 5:17am:



Yeah. Now quantify it and separate out the Minoan Warm Period, Roman Warm Period, Mediaeval Warm Period. And show conclusively that your suppositions are correct.

Jovial Monk wrote on Aug 17^th, 2017 at 4:08pm:



Another of you favourite subjects. Pure speculation. So scientific.

Jovial Monk wrote on Aug 17^th, 2017 at 4:08pm:



Because you don't want to compare it to te past. This is the new earth, we are in a new paradigm.

Jovial Monk wrote on Aug 17^th, 2017 at 4:08pm:


What were they caused by? Not speculation please.

Jovial Monk wrote on Aug 17^th, 2017 at 4:08pm:


Can you show us a graphic of that? Remember what smoothing did to Marcott's graph and that only went back 2,000 years? The smoothing caused it to not show anything less than 300 years.

Jovial Monk wrote on Aug 17^th, 2017 at 4:08pm:


Nope. I am debunking your constant fear campaign. Why are you so afraid?

Jovial Monk wrote on Aug 17^th, 2017 at 4:08pm:


Please tell us where the ocean is acid.

Jovial Monk wrote on Aug 17^th, 2017 at 4:47pm:



Now show the testing.

Jovial Monk wrote on Aug 17^th, 2017 at 4:47pm:



Again Speculation. Please show the paper with the appropriate error bars, smoothings and proof that these were taken into account. What you have said is merely an assertion without proof.

Jovial Monk wrote on Aug 17^th, 2017 at 4:47pm:



So no FACTS. Goodo. Not scientific but good try.

Jovial Monk wrote on Aug 17^th, 2017 at 4:47pm:


But you forget the time frame and the necessary smoothing to fit the data.

Jovial Monk wrote on Aug 17^th, 2017 at 4:47pm:


AH, the problematic sea levels.

Seeing as you are moving to Tassie have a look at the tide marking at Port Arthur.

" However, the man responsible for putting the mark there, explorer Sir James Clark Ross stated explicitly and

several times in his 1846 book [3] that the mark was placed at MSL (as he estimated it to be), not at a point 44.5cm above, near the high tide point, as claimed by the study. Other evidence surrounding the original placing of the benchmark is less clear, but we do have one positive measurement of where the benchmark stood relative to sea level taken in 1888 by the then Government meteorologist, Commander J. Shortt R.N.  He found the mark to be 34cm above sea level - only 2½ cm different to its current position [7] [5]."

"This suggests a sea level rise since 1888 of only 2½cm, not 13cm as claimed by the study.  "

http://www.john-daly.com/deadisle/
Dated Feb 2003.
Ref  - [3] Ross, Sir J.C., (1847), "A Voyage of Discovery and Research in the Southern and Antarctic Regions, During
     the Years 1839-43", John Murray, London, pp.22-32.

Jovial Monk wrote on Aug 17^th, 2017 at 4:47pm:


Please show the paper that explicitly labels increased heat events.

Jovial Monk wrote on Aug 17^th, 2017 at 4:47pm:


Citation needed on them being more common and destructive. Apart from dollar amounts as prices go up.

Jovial Monk wrote on Aug 17^th, 2017 at 4:47pm:



Wrong. Acidification as used by you maybe. You should read up on titration. Acidification is making a base acidic, not less alkaline,

Jovial Monk wrote on Aug 17^th, 2017 at 4:47pm:



Everything is dead easy if you are brain dead.

How much did it cost you to “fund” that?

Better go “fund” a few more cases.   

Come on, one case and you expect me to believe CO2 concentrations were 410ppm  whenever that case was? CO2 hasn’t been near 410ppm for a VERY long time.

A very long time. Not going to bother checking exactly how long because you will just cover it up.