Sea level rise

@metal-brain said
None of them.

QED

@sonhouse said
@Metal-Brain
Like I said, we put up ANY kind of data refuting your claims, you just move the goalpost. Where are your COUNTER claims backed up by scientific study, MODERN studies?

False! You did no such thing.

@wolfgang59 said
QED

Quantum electrodynamics has nothing to do with this subject. Stop tying to pretending to you know what you are talking about.

@metal-brain said
Quantum electrodynamics has nothing to do with this subject. Stop tying to pretending to you know what you are talking about.

Was that a joke? 🤔

@metal-brain said
I already posted a NASA link with sea level data. I selected NASA so you would be unlikely to question the data. Here it is again.

https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/sea-level/

Accelerations have happened in the past, followed by decelerations. That is normal.

You need to prove something relevant.

The graph shows a increase of 0 to about 50 from 1880 to 1930 or about 1 mm a year.

It than shows an increase from 50 to about 150 for 1930-1993 or about 1.6 mm a year.

It then shows an average increase of 3.2 mm per year from 1993 to 2018.

In other words, it shows exactly what you are claiming it doesn't; an accelerated rise in sea level.

@no1marauder said
The graph shows a increase of 0 to about 50 from 1880 to 1930 or about 1 mm a year.

It than shows an increase from 50 to about 150 for 1930-1993 or about 1.6 mm a year.

It then shows an average increase of 3.2 mm per year from 1993 to 2018.

In other words, it shows exactly what you are claiming it doesn't; an accelerated rise in sea level.

You picked a 50 year period and then compare it to a 63 year period? Are you retarded?

The graph shows an acceleration between 1880 and about 1920. Then it shows a deceleration between 1920 and 1940. Then another acceleration between 1940 and 1960 followed by another deceleration period. Then a recent acceleration that is commonly cherry picked instead of showing the whole long term graph.

"In other words, it shows exactly what you are claiming it doesn't; an accelerated rise in sea level."

You are a liar. I never claimed there was no acceleration in sea level rise. Try and find a quote from me saying that. It does not exist. I have always been very consistent on this issue that AGW exists and that it is mostly natural causes driving GW. That is all I ever claimed.

Why don't you do the math and show me how much GW is man made compared to natural causes using sea level rise. Show your work. Comparing 50 years to 63 years is deliberately misleading and you know it.

Show how much sea level rise has increased due to co2 increases in the atmosphere. Give me a good estimate based on unbiased cherry picking of data.

Regardless of whether the sea level rise is currently accelerated, the fact that it is happening at all right now is yet more evidence for global warming.

@metal-brain said
You picked a 50 year period and then compare it to a 63 year period? Are you retarded?

The graph shows an acceleration between 1880 and about 1920. Then it shows a deceleration between 1920 and 1940. Then another acceleration between 1940 and 1960 followed by another deceleration period. Then a recent acceleration that is commonly cherry picked instead of showing the w ...[text shortened]... o co2 increases in the atmosphere. Give me a good estimate based on unbiased cherry picking of data.

No, comparing an average yearly increase for 50 years to the next 63 when another graph picks up the difference isn't misleading at all.

You're obviously trying to move the goalposts from your original assertion.

@humy said
Regardless of whether the sea level rise is currently accelerated, the fact that it is happening at all right now is yet more evidence for global warming.

When have I ever said there was not global warming? I never said that and you know it.

@no1marauder said
No, comparing an average yearly increase for 50 years to the next 63 when another graph picks up the difference isn't misleading at all.

You're obviously trying to move the goalposts from your original assertion.

50 and 63 are the same? LOL!!!!!!!!!!

Am I supposed to be impressed that 63 years has a greater increase than 50 years? I pointed out the acceleration periods followed by deceleration periods long before significant co2 increases. There is a pattern of it.

Where is the proof that AGW is more than natural causes? I am waiting.

@metal-brain said
50 and 63 are the same? LOL!!!!!!!!!!

Am I supposed to be impressed that 63 years has a greater increase than 50 years? I pointed out the acceleration periods followed by deceleration periods long before significant co2 increases. There is a pattern of it.

Where is the proof that AGW is more than natural causes? I am waiting.

I don't know what impresses you, but obviously math doesn't. I gave yearly averages over both periods.

If you want to believe it's a massive coincidence that the Earth has warmed at the same time that Man has steadily increased his emissions of greenhouse gases, that's up to you. You can ignore that that result is exactly what the scientific models predict if you desire. Just don't expect rational people to take you seriously when you do.

@no1marauder said
I don't know what impresses you, but obviously math doesn't. I gave yearly averages over both periods.

If you want to believe it's a massive coincidence that the Earth has warmed at the same time that Man has steadily increased his emissions of greenhouse gases, that's up to you. You can ignore that that result is exactly what the scientific models predict if you desire. Just don't expect rational people to take you seriously when you do.

50 and 63 are the same?

What impresses me is someone who doesn't cherry pick periods of unequal value. If that is what you claim passes as proper math you are on the wrong forum. This is the science forum. You are not fooling anybody here.

Climate models are a guess. Predictions from them are poor at best. Hindcasts don't count. They are not predictions of the future. Hindcasts are always right after trial and error. If you omit hindcasts climate models are a joke.

Rational people know that a 50 year period needs to be compared to another 50 year period. Don't expect people to take you seriously until you do.

@metal-brain said
50 and 63 are the same?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

@humy said
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

Leave it to a moron like you to defend other morons.