Science Forum

Science Forum

  1. Joined
    07 Dec '05
    Moves
    14798
    08 Jan '19 11:15
    If you can't prove anthropogenic global warming with a long term sea level rise graph you never will. Alarmists always use short term data to mislead, so a long term graph is the only way to really see what has happened historically.
    Anybody can claim sea levels are rising at an alarming rate, but to show it on a long term chart is the real proof.

    Talk is cheap. Show me using a long term graph. If you cannot do that there is a name for you, denier of science. Don't be a denier.
  2. Subscribersonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    slatington, pa, usa
    Joined
    28 Dec '04
    Moves
    52865
    08 Jan '19 18:01
    @metal-brain said
    If you can't prove anthropogenic global warming with a long term sea level rise graph you never will. Alarmists always use short term data to mislead, so a long term graph is the only way to really see what has happened historically.
    Anybody can claim sea levels are rising at an alarming rate, but to show it on a long term chart is the real proof.

    Talk is cheap. Show ...[text shortened]... ong term graph. If you cannot do that there is a name for you, denier of science. Don't be a denier.
    In other words, since the seas ARE rising, human caused or not, if not caused by humans, there must be nothing we can do so just relax, be happy, as long as you move out of your waterfront house in time.......
  3. Joined
    07 Dec '05
    Moves
    14798
    08 Jan '19 20:13
    @sonhouse said
    In other words, since the seas ARE rising, human caused or not, if not caused by humans, there must be nothing we can do so just relax, be happy, as long as you move out of your waterfront house in time.......
    No. If you want to prove AGW is more than negligible sea level rise is the best way to do that. All you have to do is compare the sea level rise when CO2 was relatively low to SLR when it was relatively high.
    I have already proved there is no correlation between CO2 and temperatures in the 20th century.
    All that is left for you is to prove is this: Is CO2 accelerating the natural fluctuations of temperatures and if so how much? It should not be hard for you to do. All you need is an accurate long term graph that goes back to about 1880. I looked at one from the NASA website a while back to compare the data and as you know they are not skeptics at all. I saw nothing significant. I did notice patterns of acceleration and deceleration that seem ordinary. Nothing that alarming at all.
  4. Joined
    20 Oct '06
    Moves
    7472
    08 Jan '19 20:371 edit
    @metal-brain said
    If you can't prove anthropogenic global warming with a long term sea level rise graph you never will. Alarmists always use short term data to mislead, so a long term graph is the only way to really see what has happened historically.
    Anybody can claim sea levels are rising at an alarming rate, but to show it on a long term chart is the real proof.

    Talk is cheap. Show ...[text shortened]... ong term graph. If you cannot do that there is a name for you, denier of science. Don't be a denier.
    I think this is what you're looking for. 40 million years of geological time correlating CO2 to sea level. The relationship appears to be sigmoidal. The study predicts a 24 meter rise in sea level over the next 5-25 centuries.

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3557064/
  5. Joined
    07 Dec '05
    Moves
    14798
    08 Jan '19 20:43
    @wildgrass said
    I think this is what you're looking for. 40 million years of geological time correlating CO2 to sea level. The relationship appears to be sigmoidal. The study predicts a 24 meter rise in sea level over the next 5-25 centuries.

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3557064/
    No, we already know temps drive CO2 historically. If there are some exceptions I am willing to look at them, but this is about AGW. Sea level rise data doesn't go back farther than (more or less) 1880. That is what we are looking for.
  6. Joined
    20 Oct '06
    Moves
    7472
    08 Jan '19 20:50
    @metal-brain said
    No, we already know temps drive CO2 historically. If there are some exceptions I am willing to look at them, but this is about AGW. Sea level rise data doesn't go back farther than (more or less) 1880. That is what we are looking for.
    I can't read your mind. 40 million years seems like a pretty long-range time scale in my opinion.
  7. Joined
    07 Dec '05
    Moves
    14798
    08 Jan '19 21:20
    @wildgrass said
    I can't read your mind. 40 million years seems like a pretty long-range time scale in my opinion.
    People existed 40 million years ago?

    We are trying to find out how much warming is Anthropogenic. How is that going to help? I told you there is a data that goes back to about 1880. If there is accurate sea level data before then that is great, but I have never found it.

    Keep in mind we are looking for a graph, not pages of numbers.
  8. Joined
    20 Oct '06
    Moves
    7472
    08 Jan '19 22:40
    @metal-brain said
    People existed 40 million years ago?

    We are trying to find out how much warming is Anthropogenic. How is that going to help? I told you there is a data that goes back to about 1880. If there is accurate sea level data before then that is great, but I have never found it.

    Keep in mind we are looking for a graph, not pages of numbers.
    Ok, but your question is misleading. 140 years is clearly not long-term. My great grandfather was alive then. His house is still standing.

    Furthermore you have consistently propped up pre-historic Pliocene ice core data as evidence that burning fossil fuels cannot cause climate change. Now you are saying all that data is irrelevant and we can only look at Anthropocene data to form climate conclusions?
  9. Joined
    07 Dec '05
    Moves
    14798
    09 Jan '19 01:35
    @wildgrass said
    Ok, but your question is misleading. 140 years is clearly not long-term. My great grandfather was alive then. His house is still standing.

    Furthermore you have consistently propped up pre-historic Pliocene ice core data as evidence that burning fossil fuels cannot cause climate change. Now you are saying all that data is irrelevant and we can only look at Anthropocene data to form climate conclusions?
    When there is only 140 years of sea level data it is long term. How many time do I have to tell you that is all that exists?

    The rest of your crap is false. Stop making up false quotes!!!!!!!

    If you can't copy and paste what I said you don't know what the fuk I said! MORON!
  10. Joined
    20 Oct '06
    Moves
    7472
    09 Jan '19 05:14
    @metal-brain said
    When there is only 140 years of sea level data it is long term. How many time do I have to tell you that is all that exists?

    The rest of your crap is false. Stop making up false quotes!!!!!!!

    If you can't copy and paste what I said you don't know what the fuk I said! MORON!
    good job killing the thread.
  11. Joined
    07 Dec '05
    Moves
    14798
    09 Jan '19 14:06
    @wildgrass said
    good job killing the thread.
    Good job making up lies!
  12. Subscribersonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    slatington, pa, usa
    Joined
    28 Dec '04
    Moves
    52865
    09 Jan '19 20:31
    @metal-brain said
    People existed 40 million years ago?

    We are trying to find out how much warming is Anthropogenic. How is that going to help? I told you there is a data that goes back to about 1880. If there is accurate sea level data before then that is great, but I have never found it.

    Keep in mind we are looking for a graph, not pages of numbers.
    So your real problem is you don't understand science and just go with opinion since you have no science of your own and instead depend on ancient buddies.
  13. Joined
    07 Dec '05
    Moves
    14798
    10 Jan '19 02:31
    @sonhouse said
    So your real problem is you don't understand science and just go with opinion since you have no science of your own and instead depend on ancient buddies.
    Ah, the " I can't prove you wrong so prove yourself right" tactic. Your attempt to shift the burden of proof has been noted. That doesn't fly, dude.

    Sorry Charlie. You are wrong and merely frustrated because sea level rise shows no significant anthropogenic warming. It sucks being wrong doesn't it?
  14. Subscribersonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    slatington, pa, usa
    Joined
    28 Dec '04
    Moves
    52865
    10 Jan '19 21:53
    @metal-brain said
    Ah, the " I can't prove you wrong so prove yourself right" tactic. Your attempt to shift the burden of proof has been noted. That doesn't fly, dude.

    Sorry Charlie. You are wrong and merely frustrated because sea level rise shows no significant anthropogenic warming. It sucks being wrong doesn't it?
    You didn't get the part where I specifically said human cause or otherwise, sea levels are rising. If so, then humans are obviously too meek to be able to either cause sea level rise or temperature rise which means we should just have business as usual and let the chips fall where they may, don't worry, be happy.
  15. Joined
    07 Dec '05
    Moves
    14798
    11 Jan '19 00:49
    @sonhouse said
    You didn't get the part where I specifically said human cause or otherwise, sea levels are rising. If so, then humans are obviously too meek to be able to either cause sea level rise or temperature rise which means we should just have business as usual and let the chips fall where they may, don't worry, be happy.
    It is almost all naturally caused. Sea level has been rising for over 200 years. Even the sea level data that goes back the farthest shows rise and that was before automobiles were mass produced. Obviously from natural causes.

    There is nothing you can do about it. A carbon tax would do nothing. Sea level rise is so slow it isn't a problem. We can easily adapt to it. Nothing to worry about.
Back to Top