Originally posted by Metal Brain There is no evidence sea levels will rise to the level alarmists (scientists who know vastly more about science than know-it-all Metal Brain) have been predicting.
http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/sealevel.html
"...
While studies show that sea levels changed little from AD 0 until 1900, sea levels began to climb in the 20th century.
...
Records and research show that sea level has been steadily rising at a rate of 0.04 to 0.1 inches per year since 1900.
.... Since 1992, new methods of satellite altimetry (the measurement of elevation or altitude) indicate a rate of rise of 0.12 inches per year.
This is a significantly larger rate than the sea-level rise averaged over the last several thousand years.
..."
Originally posted by humy http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/sealevel.html
"...
While studies show that sea levels changed little from AD 0 until 1900, sea levels began to climb in the 20th century.
...
Records and research show that sea level has been steadily rising at a rate of 0.04 to 0.1 inches per year since 1900.
.... Since 1992, new methods of satellite altimetry (the mea ...[text shortened]... the sea-level rise averaged over the last several thousand years.
..."
-just as predicted.
The 20th century is what is important. Look at any graph and you will see that there is no significant rise. CO2 levels were very low in the first half of the 20th century and despite a significant rise in CO2 in the last half there is no significant sea level rise. The last several thousand years is not relevant. More bait and switch tactics to mislead idiots like you and sadly it worked.
You have failed again. Your critical thinking skills suck big time!
Originally posted by Metal Brain You are the moron. How long has man been increasing CO2 levels significantly? Pre 20th century is irrelevant.
So in your view, if CO2 was involved with global warming, in January, say, a big increase in worldwide CO2 happens and then in February there should be an increase in temperature?
It's funny you are not concerned with the actual sea level rise we already have seen, you must be thinking, maybe the seas will sink and we will be back where we were a hundred years ago in anther 50 years?
The thing I see here, you are not an expert on climate so you are just parroting your favorite denier. So you yourself have no independent input here.
Originally posted by sonhouse So in your view, if CO2 was involved with global warming, in January, say, a big increase in worldwide CO2 happens and then in February there should be an increase in temperature?
It's funny you are not concerned with the actual sea level rise we already have seen, you must be thinking, maybe the seas will sink and we will be back where we were a hundre ...[text shortened]... so you are just parroting your favorite denier. So you yourself have no independent input here.
Sea level rise has been unremarkable and consistent at any measure. You are a silly duck. The facts do not support your alarmist nonsense at all. You are not a climate scientist. You have no idea what you are talking about. You are just repeating nonsense from fringe websites that do not represent true science.
Originally posted by Metal Brain Sea level rise has been unremarkable and consistent at any measure. You are a silly duck. The facts do not support your alarmist nonsense at all. You are not a climate scientist. You have no idea what you are talking about. You are just repeating nonsense from fringe websites that do not represent true science.
Here is one analysis that says there will be at least a half meter more rise by 2100 and maybe more and addresses the arguments of deniers:
Originally posted by sonhouse Here is one analysis that says there will be at least a half meter more rise by 2100 and maybe more and addresses the arguments of deniers:
if one scrolls down to page 12 of that above link, one can see a graph showing the curve for global measurements of sea level that very CLEARLY show a general trend in a rise in sea level from back in 1870 all the way to 2006 -just like one would expect if CO2 released my man, which has been released into the atmosphere at a much greater rate than well before 1870, causes global warming. And that was before the more recent measurements that show the sea level rise has continued unabated.
The problem is, for the same kind of reasons why religious nuts choose to have selective blindness to any evidence against their beliefs, climate change deniers choose to have selective blindness to such data that disproves there beliefs. And you can't force them to look at the data! Pity.
if one scrolls down to page 12 of that above link, one can see a graph showing the curve for global measurements of sea level that very CLEARLY show a general trend in a rise in sea level from back in 1870 all the way to 2006 -j ...[text shortened]... s to such data that disproves there beliefs. And you can't force them to look at the data! Pity.
Until it's way too late. 'Oh, the sea IS 1 meter higher now, wow. How could THAT have happened?'
Originally posted by sonhouse Here is one analysis that says there will be at least a half meter more rise by 2100 and maybe more and addresses the arguments of deniers:
More faith based rubbish in climate models that have been proven unreliable many times. The trend does not confirm any of that rubbish from that nut website you cling to like the bible.
I've asked this question before and I'll ask it again, what do these climate model based predictions point to as the cause of out of control sea level rise? If it is CO2 they are pointing to it is obvious rubbish. There is no correlation between sea level rise and increased CO2 levels. Look at a chart for the 20th century. The rise has been consistent and unremarkable. You are forming an opinion without any logic. Nut websites are not a good reference. Science proves sea level rise is not a concern if you actually look at the data without biased nonsense from your nutjob weblinks.
Originally posted by Metal Brain More faith based rubbish in climate models that have been proven unreliable many times. The trend does not confirm any of that rubbish from that nut website you cling to like the bible.
I've asked this question before and I'll ask it again, what do these climate model based predictions point to as the cause of out of control sea level rise? If it is CO2 ...[text shortened]... ot a concern if you actually look at the data without biased nonsense from your nutjob weblinks.
The next ten years wills show just who the nutjob really is.
Originally posted by sonhouse The next ten years wills show just who the nutjob really is.
Are you a betting man? 10 years will make little difference. Look at a 20th century chart showing the unremarkable rise despite higher co2 levels. The rise has been steady and no reason for panic at all.
If it isn't co2 what will cause your dire prediction? Explain yourself.
Originally posted by Metal Brain and no reason for panic at all.
.
-and obviously nobody is suggesting we should "panic", moron. Only a complete moron like you would come up with such an incredibly stupid comment. Scientists/laypeople analyzing a preventable potential problem and suggesting solutions doesn't equate with "panic".
Originally posted by Metal Brain Are you a betting man? 10 years will make little difference. Look at a 20th century chart showing the unremarkable rise despite higher co2 levels. The rise has been steady and no reason for panic at all.
If it isn't co2 what will cause your dire prediction? Explain yourself.
I didn't say dire prediction, I said the next ten years will add evidence as to which way the climate is swinging.
Pre-industrial anthropogenic climate change?
20 Aug '15 06:404 edits
Back to Top