@wildgrasssaid When you say something from peer reviewed research isn't true you should explain why. As is, it seems you are guessing that the comparisons are cherry picked. My statement was a summation from the Hay et al. paper that's been posted here nearly a dozen times, and it is accurate. Holgate's analysis was interesting but it was older data and limited in scope. Lead us in the ri ...[text shortened]... direction. Why declare something untruthful without a rationale or knowledge of the subject matter?
Give me the link so I can read it. I doubt it says what you claim it does.
@metal-brainsaid Give me the link so I can read it. I doubt it says what you claim it does.
You have the link. the reference was pasted and quoted and discussed over and over. How can you say something isn't true without reading relevant materials?
@wildgrasssaid You have the link. the reference was pasted and quoted and discussed over and over. How can you say something isn't true without reading relevant materials?
Stop playing games. I have no idea which link you posted and when. I think you know I am right and you would rather I not read it. You fear I will prove you wrong again.
@metal-brainsaid Stop playing games. I have no idea which link you posted and when. I think you know I am right and you would rather I not read it. You fear I will prove you wrong again.
Post the link or admit you are wrong.
If you don't know then you're in no place to say something is untrue.
@metal-brainsaid Look at the graph I have posted literally dozens of times on this forum:
https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/sea-level/
You can see with your own bloody eyes it isn't rising 3x in the last decade. I already know your claim is BS!
Youre kidding around? I've seen this of course. It looks like a ski jump. Rough eyeball estimate from 1880 to 1980 ~1.3 mm/year and the rate is clearly a lot more than that now (~3.3 mm/yr according to this). You don't see that?
@wildgrasssaid Youre kidding around? I've seen this of course. It looks like a ski jump. Rough eyeball estimate from 1880 to 1980 ~1.3 mm/year and the rate is clearly a lot more than that now (~3.3 mm/yr according to this). You don't see that?
I see a rise in sea level that is consistent with the natural trend we know started the trend after the little ice age. I do notice the first half of the long term graph has less sea level rise than the last half. It is still less than 50% more though.
There is also the possibility that the acceleration is natural as well. Our records of sea level do not go back far enough to judge.
You took a 100 year period and compared it to a 40 year period? That is called cherry picking data. Take a 75 year period and compare it to a previous 75 year period.
@metal-brainsaid I see a rise in sea level that is consistent with the natural trend we know started the trend after the little ice age. I do notice the first half of the long term graph has less sea level rise than the last half. It is still less than 50% more though.
There is also the possibility that the acceleration is natural as well. Our records of sea level do not go back far e ...[text shortened]... at is called cherry picking data. Take a 75 year period and compare it to a previous 75 year period.
If one were to measure acceleration of a car over a 1 mile stretch, would you only compare the first half mile to the last?
Of course it's accelerating. The statement you deemed "not true" had nothing to do with natural vs. non-natural. You're speculating if you think it's temporary. Ice caps are melting for crying out loud. We have sea level measurements from structures built 2,000 years ago and it has not been going up at all until the past 100 years. If it was going up naturally at this rate it would all be underwater.
@wildgrasssaid If one were to measure acceleration of a car over a 1 mile stretch, would you only compare the first half mile to the last?
Of course it's accelerating. The statement you deemed "not true" had nothing to do with natural vs. non-natural. You're speculating if you think it's temporary. Ice caps are melting for crying out loud. We have sea level measurements from structures ...[text shortened]... all until the past 100 years. If it was going up naturally at this rate it would all be underwater.
Ice caps melt in a warming trend. It has been happening since the end of the little ice age. Don't panic. Man has created more land than sea level rise has taken away. Nobody is losing their homes to sea level rise.
@metal-brainsaid Ice caps melt in a warming trend. It has been happening since the end of the little ice age. Don't panic. Man has created more land than sea level rise has taken away. Nobody is losing their homes to sea level rise.
You can hedge any way you like, but my statement was accurate. Rate of sea level rise is accelerating.
@wildgrasssaid You can hedge any way you like, but my statement was accurate. Rate of sea level rise is accelerating.
Accelerations and decelerations are cyclical and normal. You are cherry picking the acceleration periods in the cycle and you know that fully well. That is why you are too chicken shyte to post the link. I'll bet it isn't even from a peer reviewed article. Did you read it on a hack website known for lying like skeptical science? Is that why you are afraid to post your source?
@wildgrasssaid If one were to measure acceleration of a car over a 1 mile stretch, would you only compare the first half mile to the last?
Of course it's accelerating. The statement you deemed "not true" had nothing to do with natural vs. non-natural. You're speculating if you think it's temporary. Ice caps are melting for crying out loud. We have sea level measurements from structures ...[text shortened]... all until the past 100 years. If it was going up naturally at this rate it would all be underwater.
"We have sea level measurements from structures built 2,000 years ago and it has not been going up at all until the past 100 years. If it was going up naturally at this rate it would all be underwater."
That is a lie. Sea levels have been rising for the past 200 years at least, before the industrial revolution. You need to stop lying!
@metal-brainsaid "We have sea level measurements from structures built 2,000 years ago and it has not been going up at all until the past 100 years. If it was going up naturally at this rate it would all be underwater."
That is a lie. Sea levels have been rising for the past 200 years at least, before the industrial revolution. You need to stop lying!
I'm not writing these things off-the-cuff. The data comes from peer reviewed literature. Please stop calling people liars (and randomly calling data you disagree with untrue) when you've not read the materials. It makes you sound silly. If the information is inaccurate, you need to say why.
The comparison of the Roman piscinae and tide-gauge results for eustatic sea level indicate that the present-day rate of change can only be representative of a short interval of time unless sea levels in the intervening period were actually lower than the Roman values. In the absence of evidence for this, the comparison indicates that this duration was of the order 100±50 years and, while the uncertainties in this estimate remain large, the results are consistent with an onset of the present sea-level rise in the late nineteenth century or early twentieth century.
@wildgrasssaid I'm not writing these things off-the-cuff. The data comes from peer reviewed literature. Please stop calling people liars (and randomly calling data you disagree with untrue) when you've not read the materials. It makes you sound silly. If the information is inaccurate, you need to say why.
The ...[text shortened]... set of the present sea-level rise in the late nineteenth century or early twentieth century.
Sea level in Roman time? Now I see why you didn't want to post it.
They rely on model predictions, probably hindcasts that cannot be proven because sea level data does not go back that far. You can see when the little ice age ended and the warming trend began by using methane and CO2 levels in the ice core sample data. It was about 200 years ago that sea levels started to rise again. I am certain of it.
@metal-brainsaid Sea level in Roman time? Now I see why you didn't want to post it.
They rely on model predictions, probably hindcasts that cannot be proven because sea level data does not go back that far. You can see when the little ice age ended and the warming trend began by using methane and CO2 levels in the ice core sample data. It was about 200 years ago that sea levels started to rise again. I am certain of it.
You are certain it was about 200 years ago? Using the word "about" sows a lot of doubt.
Judging by your response and response time, you didn't read the article. Sea level data does go back that far, it is right there pasted on the side of a 2,000 year old man-made structure. We've been over the use of modeling ad nauseum. It's required to account for tectonic plate movements, isostatic pressure etc. to accurate gauge sea level independent of other variables. Articles you've posted use the same models.
One big caveat of this data is it is from the Mediterranean, which may not be an optimal gauge of global sea level. But it very clearly indicates that Mediterranean sea level rise did not happen until very recently.
Sea level rise
10 Dec '19 06:391 edit
Back to Top