Sea level rise

@metal-brain said
I already answered that previously on this thread. I divided the long term graph in half and it still was no more than 50% acceleration and that was a kind estimate. You had nothing in return.

You refused to make your own estimate based on the NASA long term graph and so did everyone else. I explained my methodology and invited all to use their own as they saw fit as ...[text shortened]... . That is what sore losers do. You lost and now you are lying to me and yourself. You are in denial.

Instead of kind estimates based on laymans logic, how about a published manuscript?

Like this one. https://www.nature.com/articles/nclimate2991

@wildgrass said
Instead of estimates based on laymans logic,

Judging from some past posts of his I have seen, in this case this "laymans logic" wouldn't even be typical laymans logic (let alone expert's logic) but something of a far far lower grade and so much so that saying that's your logic could be taken as a personal insult.

https://phys.org/news/2019-08-scientists-july-global.html
"...
July was the hottest month measured on Earth since records began in 1880, the latest in a long line of peaks that scientists say backs up predictions for man-made climate change.

The U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration said Thursday that July was 0.95 degrees Celsius (1.71 degrees Fahrenheit) warmer than the 20th century average of 15.8 C (60.4 F) for the month.

Because July is generally the warmest month on the calendar, meteorologists say this means it also set a new all-time monthly record for the past 140 years.
...
The record temperatures notched up in July were accompanied with other major landmarks. Average Arctic sea ice, for example, was almost 20% below average in July, less even than the previous historic low of July 2012.

@wildgrass said
Instead of kind estimates based on laymans logic, how about a published manuscript?

Like this one. https://www.nature.com/articles/nclimate2991

The article is called "Anthropogenic forcing dominates global mean sea-level rise since 1970"

Show me with Nasa's long term sea level rise chart where that is the case. I am assuming that means anthropogenic forcing is more than 50% by the title alone.

@humy said
https://phys.org/news/2019-08-scientists-july-global.html
"...
July was the hottest month measured on Earth since records began in 1880, the latest in a long line of peaks that scientists say backs up predictions for man-made climate change.

The U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration said Thursday that July was 0.95 degrees Celsius (1.71 degrees Fahrenheit) wa ...[text shortened]... xample, was almost 20% below average in July, less even than the previous historic low of July 2012.

That is because global warming is real. It has been happening since the end of the little ice age and we are in a natural warming trend. There will be more record breaking high temps because of natural causes alone. That has been the case for about 300 years. That is not proof of anthropogenic cause of over 50%.

Hottest records that are expected in warming trends are simpleton arguments in disregard of the main cause. It is an assumption based argument that simpletons always fall for.

@metal-brain said
The article is called "Anthropogenic forcing dominates global mean sea-level rise since 1970"

Show me with Nasa's long term sea level rise chart where that is the case. I am assuming that means anthropogenic forcing is more than 50% by the title alone.

The article is an example of peer-reviewed climate science literature supporting that claim. You'd have to ask NASA how NASA would view these findings. Are you having trouble finding articles that survived peer review showing the anthropogenic role is negligible? Maybe that says something about the consensus?

@wildgrass said
The article is an example of peer-reviewed climate science literature supporting that claim. You'd have to ask NASA how NASA would view these findings. Are you having trouble finding articles that survived peer review showing the anthropogenic role is negligible? Maybe that says something about the consensus?

Peer reviewed where all the peers benefit financially from global warming.

@wildgrass said
The article is an example of peer-reviewed climate science literature supporting that claim. You'd have to ask NASA how NASA would view these findings. Are you having trouble finding articles that survived peer review showing the anthropogenic role is negligible? Maybe that says something about the consensus?

I have never seen any peer-reviews. Don't you have to have a paid subscription in a science publication to see them?

Can you show me the peer reviews? Have you read any yourself? I'm not talking about articles that are peer reviewed, I'm talking about the reviews.

@metal-brain said
I have never seen any peer-reviews. Don't you have to have a paid subscription in a science publication to see them?

Can you show me the peer reviews? Have you read any yourself? I'm not talking about articles that are peer reviewed, I'm talking about the reviews.

Yes you can see the reviews. This one's open access: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-019-09265-z

Read through the peer review comments and the authors' response to peer review in the 'supplementary information' section. I'm pretty sure all articles in this journal (and many other journals) publish peer reviews if you're curious enough to look.

@eladar said
Peer reviewed where all the peers benefit financially from global warming.

Lol. I can't believe my bus driver is benefiting financially, either.

@wildgrass
He doesn't want his fantasy world destroyed so there is pretty much zero chance he will actually look at that paper, he already knows ahead of time he doesn't NEED to read it because he KNOWS everyone is wrong except him and his 90 yo buddies whom he reveres.

@wildgrass said
Yes you can see the reviews. This one's open access: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-019-09265-z

Read through the peer review comments and the authors' response to peer review in the 'supplementary information' section. I'm pretty sure all articles in this journal (and many other journals) publish peer reviews if you're curious enough to look.

I can find peer reviewed articles that disagree with you. Here are a few.

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs00254-006-0261-x

https://science.sciencemag.org/content/294/5546/1431.2.summary

https://www.cfa.harvard.edu/~wsoon/myownPapers-d/Aug27-PIPGreview2003.pdf

What have you proven? For every peer reviewed article that supports your opinion I can find another that supports mine. You have proven nothing. Furthermore, scholarly peer review can be very biased as “Climategate” has shown.

https://thefederalist.com/2014/07/17/global-warming-and-peer-review-the-fix-is-in/

Although there are some valid reasons for scholarly peer review it is not something you should put too much faith in.

@eladar said
Peer reviewed where all the peers benefit financially from global warming.

Some skeptics avoid posting reviews because they fear they will lose funding. Government simply doesn't have a habit of funding non-problems so they pay alarmists to scare them.

@metal-brain said
Some skeptics avoid posting reviews because they fear they will lose funding.

If that is true its because they know they would loose funding for posting their personal reviews because they would be exposed as fraudulent pseudoscientist loons or just loons in the same kind of category as flat-Earthers for posting only their own unscientific nonsense biased and warped reviews not supported by the evidence and generally not supported by other scientists. Flat-Earthers may also avoid posting their personal reviews about the shape of the Earth because they fear they will loose all credibility.

@humy said
If that is true its because they know they would loose funding for posting their personal reviews because they would be exposed as fraudulent pseudoscientist loons or just loons in the same kind of category as flat-Earthers for posting only their own unscientific nonsense biased and warped reviews not supported by the evidence and generally not supported by other scientists. Fla ...[text shortened]... eir personal reviews about the shape of the Earth because they fear they will loose all credibility.

I can find peer reviewed articles that disagree with you. Here are a few.

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs00254-006-0261-x

https://science.sciencemag.org/content/294/5546/1431.2.summary

https://www.cfa.harvard.edu/~wsoon/myownPapers-d/Aug27-PIPGreview2003.pdf

Skeptics manage to meet the standards of Scholarly peer review despite efforts to rig the process. This fact makes your assertions ridiculous.