Sea level rise not alarming

Sea level rise not alarming

Science

Cookies help us deliver our Services. By using our Services or clicking I agree, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn More.

MB

Joined
07 Dec 05
Moves
22048
02 May 21

Here is an excerpt from the link below:

"5. Summary and Conclusions

[22] Based on a selection of nine long, high quality tide gauge records, the mean rate of sea level rise over the period 1904–2003 was found to be 1.74 ± 0.16 mm/yr after correction for GIA using the ICE‐4G model [Peltier, 2001] and for inverse barometer effects using HadSLP2 [Allan and Ansell, 2006]. The mean rate of rise was greater in the first half of this period than the latter half, though the difference in rates was not found to be significant. The use of a reduced number of high quality sea level records was found to be as suitable in this type of analysis as using a larger number of regionally averaged gauges.

[23] Finally, in extending the work of HW04 to cover the whole century, it is found that the high decadal rates of change in global mean sea level observed during the last 20 years of the record were not particularly unusual in the longer term context."


https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2006GL028492

Less than 2 mm per year on average. I think Florida is safe.

s
Fast and Curious

slatington, pa, usa

Joined
28 Dec 04
Moves
53223
17 May 21

@Metal-Brain
NASA says different. Like TWICE that number.

https://www.nasa.gov/specials/sea-level-rise-2020/

Oh, wait, I forgot, you are a conspiracy troll so you won't believe anything NASA says.
That of course is YOUR problem not ours.

w

Joined
20 Oct 06
Moves
9553
19 May 21

@metal-brain said
Here is an excerpt from the link below:

"5. Summary and Conclusions

[22] Based on a selection of nine long, high quality tide gauge records, the mean rate of sea level rise over the period 1904–2003 was found to be 1.74 ± 0.16 mm/yr after correction for GIA using the ICE‐4G model [Peltier, 2001] and for inverse barometer effects using HadSLP2 [Allan and Ansell, 2006 ...[text shortened]... ey.com/doi/full/10.1029/2006GL028492

Less than 2 mm per year on average. I think Florida is safe.
You've posted this same article multiple times over. Did you know that there are lots of articles written about sea level rise, with much more comprehensive and up to date information and technology? Is there any particular reason you choose to post this one over and over?

A more comprehensive analysis of the data and literature should be conducted before "not alarming" would be an acceptable conclusion.

MB

Joined
07 Dec 05
Moves
22048
19 May 21

@sonhouse said
@Metal-Brain
NASA says different. Like TWICE that number.

https://www.nasa.gov/specials/sea-level-rise-2020/

Oh, wait, I forgot, you are a conspiracy troll so you won't believe anything NASA says.
That of course is YOUR problem not ours.
Which years did they use to find that average?
Even 3.3 mm per year on average is not alarming.

MB

Joined
07 Dec 05
Moves
22048
19 May 21

@wildgrass said
You've posted this same article multiple times over. Did you know that there are lots of articles written about sea level rise, with much more comprehensive and up to date information and technology? Is there any particular reason you choose to post this one over and over?

A more comprehensive analysis of the data and literature should be conducted before "not alarming" would be an acceptable conclusion.
Are you alarmed? Even 3 mm is not very much. I suggest you pull out a ruler and see how much of your fingernail is 3 mm. Now do you understand why ocean front property is still in high demand? The buyers are not alarmed and the banks still loan money to them so they are not alarmed either.

Feel free to post a recent peer reviewed article.

w

Joined
20 Oct 06
Moves
9553
20 May 21

@metal-brain said
Are you alarmed? Even 3 mm is not very much. I suggest you pull out a ruler and see how much of your fingernail is 3 mm. Now do you understand why ocean front property is still in high demand? The buyers are not alarmed and the banks still loan money to them so they are not alarmed either.

Feel free to post a recent peer reviewed article.
We've been through many long threads on this subject, with appropriate references. You are welcome to review those. Your assertion of 'not alarming' was not a scientific statement, was not even used in the article you posted, nor is it justified by data in the article you posted.

MB

Joined
07 Dec 05
Moves
22048
20 May 21

@wildgrass said
We've been through many long threads on this subject, with appropriate references. You are welcome to review those. Your assertion of 'not alarming' was not a scientific statement, was not even used in the article you posted, nor is it justified by data in the article you posted.
Ocean front property is still in high demand. Are people foolish for buying it or not? Yes or no?

w

Joined
20 Oct 06
Moves
9553
21 May 21

@metal-brain said
Ocean front property is still in high demand. Are people foolish for buying it or not? Yes or no?
No.

MB

Joined
07 Dec 05
Moves
22048
21 May 21

@wildgrass said
No.
Then there is nothing alarming about sea level rise.

w

Joined
20 Oct 06
Moves
9553
21 May 21

@metal-brain said
Then there is nothing alarming about sea level rise.
LOL. This is turning into a thread on spirituality, no? If we believe that climate change is fake news, then it must be.

MB

Joined
07 Dec 05
Moves
22048
22 May 21

@wildgrass said
LOL. This is turning into a thread on spirituality, no? If we believe that climate change is fake news, then it must be.
Where is your peer reviewed science article to prove your case?
It is fake news and the motive is a carbon tax. Money is a powerful motive.
Most of the people that are pushing a carbon tax are flying on carbon emitting jets and support increasing military spending, the main carbon emitters. BTW, all the carbon tax proposals exempt the military and big oil started the global warming movement. Maurice Strong and the Rockefellers started it all.

If it isn't propaganda why no mention of the blatant hypocrisy? Why did the big oil tycoons start something that is supposedly against their own interests? Every AGW alarmist has a conspiracy theory regarding big oil, yet it is completely backwards. Big oil started the whole thing.

w

Joined
20 Oct 06
Moves
9553
26 May 21
1 edit

@metal-brain said
Where is your peer reviewed science article to prove your case?
It is fake news and the motive is a carbon tax. Money is a powerful motive.
Most of the people that are pushing a carbon tax are flying on carbon emitting jets and support increasing military spending, the main carbon emitters. BTW, all the carbon tax proposals exempt the military and big oil started the gl ...[text shortened]... onspiracy theory regarding big oil, yet it is completely backwards. Big oil started the whole thing.
Read all the other threads you started on the same subject. All these arguments (especially the weird conspiracy ones) were completely dismantled.

MB

Joined
07 Dec 05
Moves
22048
26 May 21

@wildgrass said
Read all the other threads you started on the same subject. All these arguments (especially the weird conspiracy ones) were completely dismantled.
You are lying again.

I presented no conspiracy theories and you know it. You also never presented any of your own peer reviewed science articles like I did. Calling legitimate peer reviewed science articles conspiracy theories is a flat out lie and you know that.

Tell the truth for once. Losing a foolish bet does not justify lying. Get over it.

s
Fast and Curious

slatington, pa, usa

Joined
28 Dec 04
Moves
53223
06 Jun 21

@Metal-Brain
Tell that to the coastal communities like in Alaska where an entire village is now underwater.

But hey, no big deal, right? Just a bunch of subhuman indignes, who gives a shyte about THEM, right?

MB

Joined
07 Dec 05
Moves
22048
06 Jun 21

@sonhouse said
@Metal-Brain
Tell that to the coastal communities like in Alaska where an entire village is now underwater.

But hey, no big deal, right? Just a bunch of subhuman indignes, who gives a shyte about THEM, right?
That is NOT because of sea level rise. We have been over that before.