25 Sep 19
@soothfast saidhttps://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/sea-level/
You acknowledge a positive correlation between atmospheric temperature and CO2 content.
I note you claim the dynamic is the other way around relative to the consensus (and there is a consensus). That is, CO2 is increasing because temperature is increasing. Partially true, as things stand.
All you have described is well-known to scientists. There are many instances ...[text shortened]... trust?
So the next question is: What has caused the air temperature to rise in the first place?
"Water warms more slowly than air. Increased atmospheric CO2 has caused a sustained elevated mean global atmospheric temperature"
I'm glad you brought that up. You can see on the long term graph that sea levels have been rising as far back as 1880. Since you acknowledge a lag time from temp rises to sea level rise then temps must have been rising prior to 1880.
What caused temps to rise before 1880? Simple question. If it is not natural causes what is it?
@metal-brain saidI have on many occasions. You don't accept any peer reviewed article that contradicts your moronic delusional opinions.
Try posting a peer reviewed article.
The scientific facts stated in that video have all come from peer-reviewed research elsewhere (else they wouldn't be the scientific facts).
And, WOW, what HYPOCRISY by you! -after YOU, in the past, gave countless number of NONE-peer-reviewed youtube links and NONE-peer-reviewed articles!
@humy saidPeer review is the standard. I don't accept climate model predictions just because they passed the scholarly peer review process because climate model predictions are always wrong. You proved that with the last article you posted from 7 or 8 years ago. The prediction was way off.
I have on many occasions. You don't accept any peer reviewed article that contradicts your moronic delusional opinions.
The scientific facts stated in that video have all come from peer-reviewed research elsewhere (else they wouldn't be the scientific facts).
And, WOW, what HYPOCRISY by you! -after YOU, in the past, gave countless number of NONE-peer-reviewed youtube links and NONE-peer-reviewed articles!
As long as it doesn't involve climate models go ahead and post peer reviewed articles that you like. I don't think you can find one that contradicts this one:
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2006GL028492
30 Sep 19
@metal-brain saidDoesn't involve climate models? Your reference is a widely read and highly cited article (more than 275 citations) from 2007 which uses the 18 year-old ICE-4G model reconstruction for correcting rates of change.
Peer review is the standard. I don't accept climate model predictions just because they passed the scholarly peer review process because climate model predictions are always wrong. You proved that with the last article you posted from 7 or 8 years ago. The prediction was way off.
As long as it doesn't involve climate models go ahead and post peer reviewed articles that ...[text shortened]... that contradicts this one:
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2006GL028492
Subsequent studies have updated the corrected rates of change and built upon those findings you presented, while citing your reference. For example:
https://www.nature.com/articles/nature14093
"the rate of GMSL rise during the last two decades represents a more significant increase than previously recognized"
https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/full/10.1146/annurev-environ-102017-025826
"A large portion of the twentieth-century rise, including most GMSL rise over the past quarter of the twentieth century, is tied to anthropogenic warming."
01 Oct 19
@wildgrass said"Doesn't involve climate models? Your reference is a widely read and highly cited article (more than 275 citations) from 2007 which uses the 18 year-old ICE-4G model reconstruction for correcting rates of change."
Doesn't involve climate models? Your reference is a widely read and highly cited article (more than 275 citations) from 2007 which uses the 18 year-old ICE-4G model reconstruction for correcting rates of change.
Subsequent studies have updated the corrected rates of change and built upon those findings you presented, while citing your reference. For example:
ht ...[text shortened]... ng most GMSL rise over the past quarter of the twentieth century, is tied to anthropogenic warming."
What are you trying to say?
"Subsequent studies have updated the corrected rates of change"
Updated how?
"the rate of GMSL rise during the last two decades represents a more significant increase than previously recognized"
How much?
Your last link looks like it is based on climate models. Junk!
01 Oct 19
@metal-brain saidWhat is ICE-4G from your study? (hint: it's not not a model)
"Doesn't involve climate models? Your reference is a widely read and highly cited article (more than 275 citations) from 2007 which uses the 18 year-old ICE-4G model reconstruction for correcting rates of change."
What are you trying to say?
"Subsequent studies have updated the corrected rates of change"
Updated how?
"the rate of GMSL rise during the last two ...[text shortened]... reviously recognized"
How much?
Your last link looks like it is based on climate models. Junk!
01 Oct 19
@wildgrass saidI don't know. Never heard of it.
What is ICE-4G from your study? (hint: it's not not a model)
06 Oct 19
@metal-brain saidIndustrial Revolution
https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/sea-level/
"Water warms more slowly than air. Increased atmospheric CO2 has caused a sustained elevated mean global atmospheric temperature"
I'm glad you brought that up. You can see on the long term graph that sea levels have been rising as far back as 1880. Since you acknowledge a lag time from temp rises to sea level rise th ...[text shortened]...
What caused temps to rise before 1880? Simple question. If it is not natural causes what is it?
06 Oct 19
@athousandyoung saidEvidence? Show the CO2 levels and correlating temp increase.
Industrial Revolution
@metal-brain saidYou seem to be asking for evidence that has been presented several thousand times in this forum.
Evidence? Show the CO2 levels and correlating temp increase.
07 Oct 19
@deepthought saidClimate model predictions do not count. You have presented no evidence and you know it. Stop making stuff up.
You seem to be asking for evidence that has been presented several thousand times in this forum.