23 Nov 19
@metal-brain saidI'm clearly refering to the recent acceleration. The relevant time period is from the Industrial Revolution. You are disputing that sea level is rising at an accelerating rate. So prove it's not.
You are a liar. I never claimed there was no acceleration. In fact, I said there was several of them and that it was not unusual. I pointed out that they were cyclical with accelerations that lasted roughly a little over 17 years in a 60 year oscillation. Furthermore, you have not provided a complete argument. That is also a lie.
It is time for you to stop lying. As long as you keep lying I will call you a liar. Stop being a cry baby.
Going into denial about any piece of evidence presented to you and falsely accusing your adversaries of lying every other post demonstrates the weakness of your position. I'm tempted to believe your habit of making lying accusations is pathological. Why do you do it? It's certainly not correlated with the veracity of your adversary's statements.
23 Nov 19
@DeepThought
I’d do indeed. I’ve heard the then energy Secretary Nigel Lawson admit this and it’s in at least two documentaries that I’ve seen. I’m out and around in Newcastle at the moment but will both post the link to the documentary and pm you. I wouldn’t come out with stuff like that (you obviously wouldn’t know as we’ve never spoken before) unless I could substantiate the claim. Hope that ok 😁
23 Nov 19
@deepthought saidFine. Compare the recent acceleration with the others. It isn't a big difference. Certainly not a 50% or more rise.
I'm clearly refering to the recent acceleration. The relevant time period is from the Industrial Revolution. You are disputing that sea level is rising at an accelerating rate. So prove it's not.
Going into denial about any piece of evidence presented to you and falsely accusing your adversaries of lying every other post demonstrates the weakness of your position. ...[text shortened]... Why do you do it? It's certainly not correlated with the veracity of your adversary's statements.
I told you countless times that this warming trend started before the industrial revolution. That is a fact you refuse to accept for some stupid reason. If you are going to deny facts it demonstrates the weakness of your position.
Your lying is pathological. This isn't the first time you have lied and I'm sure it will not be the last since you clearly have no honor. You have had your head up your ass for so long it has deprived oxygen from your brain.
BTW, time dilation still causes gravity, captain denial.
23 Nov 19
1 edit
@humy saidYou said the buoys from the article I posted had less than a subsequent article and later said that was probably all there was at the time. If that is true (and I am not convinced it is) then there was no fault or bias involved. Certainly no cherry picking as you claimed before you changed your story. Now that you say that was all the buoys there were no cherry picking is possible. You are contradicting your first claim because you made up another story when it failed you.
I was dismissing your assertion of "Now you are claiming the buoys didn't exist?", which is clearly false and now you have just implied it is indeed false by responding to what I just said with "Obviously.". That's my point.
You are nitpicking over an irrelevancy. Unless you can prove the extra buoys made a big difference in the data overall you are bitching over nothing.
23 Nov 19
1 edit
@metal-brain saidSo now you are proven wrong about your claim that sea level is not rising at an accelerating rate, rather than just for once be a man and admit you were wrong, you now try and move the goal posts by claiming "It isn't a big difference" in the vain hope nobody here would notice your earlier claim was proven wrong. Sorry! We noticed! I don't care if "It isn't a big difference" (how 'big' is "big"?); the fact that there is an observed accelerating rate is still just as relevant and also proves you wrong.
Fine. Compare the recent acceleration with the others. It isn't a big difference.
23 Nov 19
@humy saidI was never proven wrong at all. I never claimed sea level is not rising at an accelerating rate. Stop lying!
So now you are proven wrong about your claim that sea level is not rising at an accelerating rate, rather than just for once be a man and admit you were wrong, you now try and move the goal posts by claiming "It isn't a big difference" in the vain hope nobody here would notice your earlier claim was proven wrong. Sorry! We noticed! I don't care if "It isn't a big difference" (ho ...[text shortened]... act that there is an observed accelerating rate is still just as relevant and also proves you wrong.
23 Nov 19
@metal-brain saidIn the abstract to Hay et. al [1] they quote sea level rises of 1.2mm/yr from 1901 to 1990 and 3.0mm/yr from 1993 to 2010. Which gives an increase of rate of over 100%.
Fine. Compare the recent acceleration with the others. It isn't a big difference. Certainly not a 50% or more rise.
I told you countless times that this warming trend started before the industrial revolution. That is a fact you refuse to accept for some stupid reason. If you are going to deny facts it demonstrates the weakness of your position.
Your lying is patholo ...[text shortened]... it has deprived oxygen from your brain.
BTW, time dilation still causes gravity, captain denial.
The start of the industrial era was an arbitrarily chosen date. For the purposes of this Sea Level rise discussion we need an era where reliable measurements of sea level are available. This effectively rules out most of human history and prehistory. Really, I imagine, that 1900 is an effective barrier on those grounds. If you can find sea level measurements from before the start of the industrial revolution then we'll consider them, but I severely doubt that any are available. There certainly won't be from before then.
[1] Abstract can be viewed for free at: https://www.nature.com/articles/nature14093
23 Nov 19
@metal-brain saidThat's EXTREMELY badly worded with such terrible grammar as to be almost unintelligible and so to make me unsure of your intended meaning. So until you start speaking in normal PLAIN ENGLISH, I cannot confirm or deny that assertion. Are you saying I said the earlier study using data from less buoys? If so, do you dispute that claim?
You said the buoys from the article I posted had less than a subsequent article and later said that was probably all there was at the time.
If that is true (and I am not convinced it is) then there was no fault or bias involved.If you are talking about the earlier study using data from less buoys (are you?) False inference; "there was no fault or bias involved" doesn't logically follow from the earlier study using data from less buoys. HOW would one logically follow from the other?
Certainly no cherry picking as you claimedIf you are talking about the earlier study (are you?), I NEVER claimed the earlier study involved "cherry picking".
before you changed your story.Exactly which part of my "story" have I "changed"?
Now that you say that was all the buoys thereAt the time of the earlier study? If that's what you are saying, No, I am saying the exact opposite. I NEVER said all the buoys that exist NOW also existed at the time of the earlier study. I have no idea were you got that from. If that's NOT what you are saying, SPEAK PLAIN ENGLISH please and not this vague encrypted crap.
were no cherry picking is possible.What is it with this "cherry picking"? I never CLAIMED/think there was "cherry picking" of the buoys, if that's what you are saying here (is it?). I have no idea were you got that from.
You are contradicting your first claim because you made up another story when it failed you.Exactly WHAT was this "first claim" that I am "contradicting" and "contradicting" with exactly WHAT other "story"? I have absolutely NO IDEA what you are talking about.
Unless you can prove the extra buoys made a big difference in the data overall...We just did. Just read the links. The earlier study that used only a few buoys concluded no clear evidence for an acceleration while the later studies that used more buoys concluded clear evidence for an acceleration. That proves "extra buoys made a big difference in the data overall".
23 Nov 19
@deepthought saidYou already said that. Once again, compare that 17 years to the other 17 year accelerations.
In the abstract to Hay et. al [1] they quote sea level rises of 1.2mm/yr from 1901 to 1990 and 3.0mm/yr from 1993 to 2010. Which gives an increase of rate of over 100%.
The start of the industrial era was an arbitrarily chosen date. For the purposes of this Sea Level rise discussion we need an era where reliable measurements of sea level are available. This effectiv ...[text shortened]... before then.
[1] Abstract can be viewed for free at: https://www.nature.com/articles/nature14093
Comparing a 99 period to a 17 year period and calling it an increase of over 100% is one of the most boneheaded mistakes you have made on here. Do math much?
23 Nov 19
@medullah saidDon't worry about it. You've given me the important information, which is that your source is Nigel Lawson. Any idea if there's any verification of this independent of Lord Lawson? The reason I ask is that Lord Lawson is a committed opponent of the theory of anthropogenic climate change. I find it unlikely that he'd tell an outright lie, least ways if there's any chance of being called on it, but I do think he'll present facts in as approximate a manner as required to make his case.
@DeepThought
I’d do indeed. I’ve heard the then energy Secretary Nigel Lawson admit this and it’s in at least two documentaries that I’ve seen. I’m out and around in Newcastle at the moment but will both post the link to the documentary and pm you. I wouldn’t come out with stuff like that (you obviously wouldn’t know as we’ve never spoken before) unless I could substantiate the claim. Hope that ok 😁
Like I said, it's entirely plausible to me that this is the case, except I remember a teacher talking about the greenhouse effect before the miner's strike had started.
Hope you enjoy your break in Newcastle.
23 Nov 19
@metal-brain saidExplain in simple terms why it's a mistake.
You already said that. Once again, compare that 17 years to the other 17 year accelerations.
Comparing a 99 period to a 17 year period and calling it an increase of over 100% is one of the most boneheaded mistakes you have made on here. Do math much?
23 Nov 19
@humy saidSo anything before the extra buoys were put in place is illegitimate data? If sea level data before the 20th century is illegitimate then there is no possible way to reach a conclusion.
That's EXTREMELY badly worded with such terrible grammar as to be almost unintelligible and so to make me unsure of your intended meaning. So until you start speaking in normal PLAIN ENGLISH, I cannot confirm or deny that assertion. Are you saying I said the earlier study using data from less buoys? If so, do you dispute that claim?
[quote] If that is true (and I am not convin ...[text shortened]... r evidence for an acceleration. That proves "extra buoys made a big difference in the data overall".
You have hoisted yourself by your own petard. Now according to your logic all studies are irrelevant and it is pointless to try and conclude anything. I'm done with you
23 Nov 19
1 edit
@metal-brain saidNo. And that's clearly NOT what I just said and you know it.
So anything before the extra buoys were put in place is illegitimate data?
Yet ANOTHER of your MANY straw mans you constantly making all the time.
You resorting to making even more that usual; a sign you know you have lost the argument.
23 Nov 19
@deepthought saidOnce again, compare that 17 years to the other 17 year accelerations. Look at the NASA long term graph I have post countless times as you know. 1940 -1957 is one of them. How much of a difference is there?
Explain in simple terms why it's a mistake.
Answer that question and I will explain why it is a mistake. I'm sure you will realize it on your own though.