Sea level rise

@humy said
So you contradict yourself by admitting that discussion of sea level rise is also about increasing temperatures, just as I said; Thank you. So what is the bases of your ranting complaint of me injecting a link about evidence for increasing temperatures (more specifically, evidence for man made global warming) into this thread? Why shouldn't any of us be allowed to do that?
And ...[text shortened]... rrelevancy (the heat island effect) to this thread but YOU; -such are your stupid false accusations.

I never contradicted myself at all and you know it. Sea level rise represents temp rise pretty well. Are you going to argue that temps do not cause sea level rise in a predictable way?

There is no need to pollute the discussion with questionable temp data unless your goal is to mislead and digress away from sea level rise. That is exactly what you are doing. You want to ignore sea level rise as if it does not matter. That is why you are interjecting the irrelevant temp data.

Newsflash: Higher temps lead to higher sea levels. Unless you want to argue there is no correlation sea levels represent temps just fine. A lag effect is reasonable, but that just makes the pre 1900 sea level rise support my view, not yours. That would mean temps must have risen prior to 1880 making man made causes an even more absurd assertion.

You are just digging a hole for yourself. It is obvious you hate this sea level rise thread and you want to sabotage it with digression tactics. It is a petty thing to do. You cannot suppress this forever. The data is from NASA, alarmist central. I'll bet you would like to censor the data. You cannot stand it.

@metal-brain said
I never contradicted myself at all and you know it.

first you said;

"This thread is about sea level rise, not temperatures" (your quote)

and complained to me about me posting a link in this thread about temperature thus clearly implying temperature cannot have something to do with sea level rise else why would you say it is wrong for me to post a link about temperature in this thread?

Then you said;

"Increased temps cause sea level rise."(your quote)

thus implying temperature CAN have something to do with sea level rise + this invalidates your complaint to me about me posting a link in this thread about temperature; if temperature CAN have something to do with sea level rise then why would it be wrong for me to post a link about temperature in this thread?

You cannot have it both ways.

That's contradicting yourself and we know it.

Are you going to argue that temps do not cause sea level rise in a predictable way?

No. Next stupid question...

There is no need to pollute the discussion with questionable temp data unless your goal is to mislead and digress away from sea level rise.

1, in what way is that temperature data in that link "questionable" in particular? It isn't.

2, so talk of temperature does "...mislead and digress away from sea level rise"? So now you yet again imply temperature cannot have something to do with sea level rise? What just happened to your "Increased temps cause sea level rise."(your quote) assertion? Did you just forget it just now?

@humy said
first you said;

"This thread is about sea level rise, not temperatures" (your quote)

and complained to me about me posting a link in this thread about temperature thus clearly implying temperature cannot have something to do with sea level rise else why would you say it is wrong for me to post a link about temperature in this thread?

Then you said;

"Increased temps ...[text shortened]... your "Increased temps cause sea level rise."(your quote) assertion? Did you just forget it just now?

Temp increases result in sea level rise. Is there a variable in that result that you are claiming? If not, you are being illogical. There is no reason to focus on questionable temp data when sea level rise data from NASA is not questionable. Do you question sea level data from NASA? If not you are deliberately obfuscating and you know it.

It is not temperature that is irrelevant, it is the data from the heat island effect. Every link you and sonhouse post about temps is cherry picked heat island BS. It is worthless crap and you know it.

Just what is it about sea level rise data from NASA that you have a problem with? Why are you so determined to digress away from it? Is it your cognitive dissonance?

Only idiots defend the heat island effect, competent scientists dismiss it.

@metal-brain said
Temp increases result in sea level rise. Is there a variable in that result that you are claiming? If not, you are being illogical. There is no reason to focus on questionable temp data when sea level rise data from NASA is not questionable. Do you question sea level data from NASA? If not you are deliberately obfuscating and you know it.

It is not temperature that is ...[text shortened]... ognitive dissonance?

Only idiots defend the heat island effect, competent scientists dismiss it.

Heat ISLAND? Are you daft? The entire PLANET is heating up, not just the heat around cities. Besides, there are large areas with higher than normal temps and lower than normal temps. That has nothing to do with overall temperature increase and mankind is certainly one cause, a large one in fact. All the jaw grinding on your part won't change that.

metal-brain

Just like I said/implied NOTHING about "heat islands", I said/implied NOTHING about "NASA" or data from NASA. What are you on?

Just what is it about sea level rise data from NASA that you have a problem with?

When did I say/imply I had a "problem" about sea level rise data from NASA? I haven't seen or know anything about "data from NASA" and I said NOTHING to you about it. Why are you hallucinating fictitious conversations from me?

Only idiots defend the heat island effect, competent scientists dismiss it.

1, I said/implied NOTHING about the heat island effect. Did you hallucinate that fictitious conversation as well?

2, why are you suddenly attacking the heat island effect? Do you equate it with CO2-induced global warming? If so, you are confused.

3, given the heat island effect is observed and a scientific fact, only INcompetent scientists dismiss it.
Here is what the science says;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urban_heat_island

and there is no shortage of observations confirming it, such as;

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urban_heat_island#/media/File:HeatIsland_Kanto_en.png

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urban_heat_island#/media/File:Atlanta_thermal.jpg

etc.

Even many laypeople, many of which don't know much about science, have noticed and say it is often noticeably warmer in cities (especially in winter) than in the countryside. That is because of the heat island effect that, for some mysterious reason only known to you, you suddenly and randomly insist doesn't exist.

@humy said
metal-brain

Just like I said/implied NOTHING about "heat islands", I said/implied NOTHING about "NASA" or data from NASA. What are you on?

Just what is it about sea level rise data from NASA that you have a problem with?

When did I say/imply I had a "problem" about sea level rise data from NASA? I haven't seen or know anything about "data from NASA" and I ...[text shortened]... that, for some mysterious reason only known to you, you suddenly and randomly insist doesn't exist.

What kind of temp data is used? Do you even know?

Where do all the glaciers end up when they melt? In the ocean! Tell me why sea level data is not important. Why are you so terrified of sea level data? You act like a cobra is about to bite you. What are you afraid of? Why are you trying to marginalize sea level data?

@sonhouse said
Heat ISLAND? Are you daft? The entire PLANET is heating up, not just the heat around cities. Besides, there are large areas with higher than normal temps and lower than normal temps. That has nothing to do with overall temperature increase and mankind is certainly one cause, a large one in fact. All the jaw grinding on your part won't change that.

Once again, I know the climate is warming. The planet has been in this warming trend for over 200 years and it started from natural causes.

Where is your proof man is the main cause? Use sea level rise, not the heat island effect. Any moron can cherry pick the heat island effect and claim it represents the entire planet. That is called fraud and that is what alarmists resort to instead of science.

Why are you ignoring sea level rise? Show AGW with that, not heat island crap.

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

I see from metal-brain's last post he is on crack yet again; hallucinating yet more imaginary conversations I never had.

@humy said
I see metal-brain is on crack yet again; hallucinating yet more imaginary conversations I never had.

What kind of temp data is used? Do you even know?

@metal-brain said
What kind of temp data is used?

Why ask? Now trying to desperately change the subject to distract attention away from your moronic claims that I am "ignoring sea level rise" (your quote) from a fictitious conversation from me that never took place between me and you because you hallucinated it? You still need to get off the crack.
What categories do you imply by the word 'kind' above? Sea temperature data as opposed to land temperature data? From satellite as opposed by from non-satellite sources? Or what categories of data, exactly?
Data 'used' where? If in my link, read my link yourself and see for yourself. The data would obviously come from many sources thus many categories of data.
Relevance? Your point?

@humy said
Why ask? Now trying to desperately change the subject to distract attention away from your moronic claims that I am "ignoring sea level rise" (your quote) from a fictitious conversation from me that never took place between me and you because you hallucinated it? You still need to get off the crack.
What categories do you imply by the word 'kind' above? Sea temperature data as ...[text shortened]... e data would obviously come from many sources thus many categories of data.
Relevance? Your point?

I ask because every so called evidence of warming you bring forth in an article has cherry picked data reflecting the heat island effect.
Do you know how many times some moron like you posted an article only for me to find it is based on heat island BS? Do you really expect me to do that anymore? I'm not. Back up your own claims if you have the balls to.

Why don't you want to prove AGW with sea level rise? Why are you avoiding it like the plague by digressing into the heat island effect again? You know fully well the heat island effect is cherry picked by alarmists to dupe people.

Are you duped and repeating crap like a parrot or are you the one trying to dupe others on here?
You are avoiding sea level rise. It was an observation, not a quote and you know that. More obfuscating on your part. Your tactics are getting increasingly desperate to the point they are pathetic.
You need to learn when to give up. You are embarrassing yourself again, all because you are like a dog who can't let go of a bone.

The subject is sea level rise. If you want to talk about global temps rise create your own thread about it and I might contribute. There is simply no place for that here.

@metal-brain said
I ask because every so called evidence of warming you bring forth in an article has cherry picked data reflecting the heat island effect.

False.
As I had clearly said before, My link had extremely little if anything to do with the heat island effect and certainly didn't even mention it. Apparently you cannot read.
Here we go again;

Here is that link again; just state to us all exactly which part of it you think implies specifically the heat island effect;

https://www.nature.com/articles/srep21691?fbclid=IwAR22W_ew3QeDhDT4D5fu7iTTFYJQwx09BJbBC7kwy96wGorxtoo2cdomB-w

Now compare that with what the heat island effect is by definition;

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

Explain to us all how the first one above is actually about the second one above...

Why don't you want to prove AGW with sea level rise?

I never said/implied in any way that sea level rise isn't evidence for AGW or that I wouldn't want to use it as evidence for AGW in particular. Yet again, you are hallucinating conversations from me to you that never took place. Get off the crack.

Why are you avoiding it like the plague by digressing into the heat island effect again?

"again"? When was the first time? It was YOU who first mentioned the heat island effect, NOT me. Why don't you quote where I mentioned it to you first? In fact, when was the second time? I have never said/implied this thread should be about the heat island effect, which I see as pretty irrelevant to this thread which is why it wasn't me but you that injected the irrelevant heat island effect into this thread, and you continue to do so, not me. So it is YOU that is "digressing into the heat island effect again".
Yet again, you are hallucinating conversations from me to you that never took place. Get off the crack.

@humy said
False.
As I had clearly said before, My link had extremely little if anything to do with the heat island effect and certainly didn't even mention it. Apparently you cannot read.
Here we go again;

Here is that link again; just state to us all exactly which part of it you think implies specifically the heat island effect;

https://www.nature.com/articles/srep21691?fbclid=Iw ...[text shortened]... again, you are hallucinating conversations from me to you that never took place. Get off the crack.

Which temp data was used? Until you can tell us that you have no idea it is not the heat island effect. You expect them to mention it? They never do because the whole goal is to mislead. Did you mention it?

Find out which temp data is used before you endorse an article. You are completely ignorant of which temp data is used. I realize you want to me to waste time finding out what you don't want to waste time finding out. That is called selfishness and I'm sure you have no motivation to prove yourself wrong.

I don't even know what your article proves. Does it prove there is global warming? We already know that. This warming trend started over 200 years ago from natural causes. Nobody disputes there is warming. Sea level rise proves that.

What does you article supposedly prove? A child could prove there is GW. Am I supposed to be impressed?

@metal-brain said
Which temp data was used? Until you can tell us that you have no idea it is not the heat island effect.

The link clearly says "...observed in both field and model data" so it is both field and model temperature data as well as CO2 data and a few other types of data.
And the link clearly illiterates these data sets in the form of graphs with these sub-links;

https://www.nature.com/articles/srep21691/tables/1

https://www.nature.com/articles/srep21691/tables/2

https://www.nature.com/articles/srep21691/figures/1

https://www.nature.com/articles/srep21691/figures/2

https://www.nature.com/articles/srep21691/figures/3

https://www.nature.com/articles/srep21691/figures/4

and each of the above data sets obviously comes from numerous measurements, many from inferred satellites + temperature measurements from thermometers on the land/sea surfaces + CO2 measurements etc, to give info on the WHOLE globe and therefore NOT just in towns and cities and therefore the observed effects can NOT be explained by the heat island effect in particular, which has little if anything to do with it and isn't mentioned or implied anywhere in that link.
Next stupid question...

You expect them to mention it?

Not so specifically, no, because if you had half a brain you would already know how temperature data is taken and therefore what type it is in terms of how it was taken, if that is what you mean by 'type'; it is taken with thermometers and infrared cameras thus, to answer your incredibly stupid question, the type of temperature data they use is thermometers and infrared camera temperature data collected from many sources around the world and it includes ocean-surface and atmospheric temperature measurements thus indicating the further sub-types of data. OK, now what are you going to do with the answer?

I don't even know what your article proves.

Let me help you with that; It, via something called 'science', something you don't know much about, shows and explains some very strong evidence indicating CO2-induced man made global warming. And nowhere does it mention/imply heat island effect which, obviously, isn't caused by CO2.

@humy said
The link clearly says "...observed in both field and model data" so it is both field and model temperature data as well as CO2 data and a few other types of data.
And the link clearly illiterates these data sets in the form of graphs with these sub-links;

https://www.nature.com/articles/srep21691/tables/1

https://www.nature.com/articles/srep21691/tables/2

https://www. ...[text shortened]... warming. And nowhere does it mention/imply heat island effect which, obviously, isn't caused by CO2.

Model data? LOL!
We have been over climate modeling before. Guesses are not science.

Do you know what field data is? I'll bet you have no idea what that means. How do you know it does not include the heat island effect?

In any case your link is irrelevant because it relies on climate modeling. That is even worse than the heat island effect. You have completely embarrassed yourself again. Stop cluttering this thread with climate modeling crap!