Science Forum

Science Forum

  1. Standard memberHandyAndy
    Non sum qualis eram
    At the edge
    Joined
    23 Sep '06
    Moves
    18031
    03 Nov '19 21:01
    @metal-brain said
    Obviously, the reason why you reject sea level measurements is because they prove you wrong and us scientists right.
    What are your credentials as a scientist?
  2. Joined
    07 Dec '05
    Moves
    14825
    04 Nov '19 00:26
    @handyandy said
    What are your credentials as a scientist?
    If you don't trust your own eyes nothing will convince you.

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

    What are your credentials as a scientist?
  3. Standard memberHandyAndy
    Non sum qualis eram
    At the edge
    Joined
    23 Sep '06
    Moves
    18031
    04 Nov '19 02:30
    @metal-brain said
    If you don't trust your own eyes nothing will convince you.

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

    What are your credentials as a scientist?
    I didn't refer to myself as "us scientists." But you did.

    You're just another moronic quack with a blind spot for facts and an ax to grind.
  4. Joined
    07 Dec '05
    Moves
    14825
    04 Nov '19 03:07
    @handyandy said
    I didn't refer to myself as "us scientists." But you did.

    You're just another moronic quack with a blind spot for facts and an ax to grind.
    Nope, I never said that. You are thinking of humy.

    Ad hominem attacks just prove how frustrated you are. It is a symptom of failure. You ignoring the data and failing to make your case is not impressing anyone here. Better luck next time.
  5. Standard memberHandyAndy
    Non sum qualis eram
    At the edge
    Joined
    23 Sep '06
    Moves
    18031
    04 Nov '19 05:00
    @metal-brain said
    Obviously, the reason why you reject sea level measurements is because they prove you wrong and us scientists right. Sea level rise is caused by temperature rise. I provided you with a peer reviewed article from a respected science journal. Even your groundwater article said it was less than previously calculated. It is negligible.
    Here it is again, just to refresh your negligible memory.

    You're not impressing anyone here either.
  6. Standard memberDeepThought
    Losing the Thread
    Cosmopolis
    Joined
    27 Oct '04
    Moves
    81942
    04 Nov '19 06:25
    @metal-brain said
    Nope, I never said that. You are thinking of humy.

    Ad hominem attacks just prove how frustrated you are. It is a symptom of failure. You ignoring the data and failing to make your case is not impressing anyone here. Better luck next time.
    You used the expression in the 9th post on page 4. Admittedly it was in imitation of humy so your intent may have been mockery rather than to make a claim of scientific credentials, however you did write that. You seem quite liberal with the word "liar" when applied to other people, so I suggest not denying writing things that you did in fact write.
  7. Joined
    07 Dec '05
    Moves
    14825
    04 Nov '19 13:402 edits
    @deepthought said
    You used the expression in the 9th post on page 4. Admittedly it was in imitation of humy so your intent may have been mockery rather than to make a claim of scientific credentials, however you did write that. You seem quite liberal with the word "liar" when applied to other people, so I suggest not denying writing things that you did in fact write.
    Okay. Yes, it was a copy and paste of most of what he wrote. It was my way of turning it around on him since he was falsely claiming most scientists agree with him when he has no evidence of that. We all know we have been though the false consensus claim many times before. No poll exists that has polled a majority of scientists. It is merely a persistent myth perpetuated by GW propaganda.

    Alarmists are resorting to propaganda. If the truth was on their side they would not have to resort to that. Humy does not speak for scientists in general. He has a lot of nerve claiming he does.

    The truth is that nobody has polled a majority of climate scientists to find a valid consensus, so nobody really knows what most climate scientists believe in regards to natural causes vs. anthropogenic causes.

    I strongly believe most climate scientists would agree with me that natural causes are the main reason for GW today. Only basic math is required to estimate that sea level rise has not accelerated much from the natural trend. I posted a peer reviewed article confirming that and I posted NASA's own long term sea level rise graph for anybody that doubts the legitimacy of the article.

    You don't need to be a climate scientist to see Nasa's own graph shows the climate was warming before the invention of the automobile. 20 year accelerations are normal as you can see between 1940 and 1960. These are followed by deceleration s which appear to be cyclical and normal.

    If you won't accept the conclusion of a peer reviewed article from a respected science journal and you will not accept what you see with your own eyes on the long term sea level rise graph then you are in deep denial of the obvious. I cannot cure illogical dogmatism. If you are bent on believing a myth you will keep doing it. I can't help the hopelessly dogmatic.
  8. Joined
    07 Dec '05
    Moves
    14825
    04 Nov '19 13:58
    @handyandy said
    Here it is again, just to refresh your negligible memory.

    You're not impressing anyone here either.
    Okay. Yes, it was a copy and paste of most of what he wrote. It was my way of turning it around on him since he was falsely claiming most scientists agree with him when he has no evidence of that. We all know we have been though the false consensus claim many times before. No poll exists that has polled a majority of scientists. It is merely a persistent myth perpetuated by GW propaganda.

    Alarmists are resorting to propaganda. If the truth was on their side they would not have to resort to that. Humy does not speak for scientists in general. He has a lot of nerve claiming he does.

    The truth is that nobody has polled a majority of climate scientists to find a valid consensus, so nobody really knows what most climate scientists believe in regards to natural causes vs. anthropogenic causes.

    I strongly believe most climate scientists would agree with me that natural causes are the main reason for GW today. Only basic math is required to estimate that sea level rise has not accelerated much from the natural trend. I posted a peer reviewed article confirming that and I posted NASA's own long term sea level rise graph for anybody that doubts the legitimacy of the article.

    You don't need to be a climate scientist to see Nasa's own graph shows the climate was warming before the invention of the automobile. 20 year accelerations are normal as you can see between 1940 and 1960. These are followed by deceleration s which appear to be cyclical and normal.

    If you won't accept the conclusion of a peer reviewed article from a respected science journal and you will not accept what you see with your own eyes on the long term sea level rise graph then you are in deep denial of the obvious. I cannot cure illogical dogmatism. If you are bent on believing a myth you will keep doing it. I can't help the hopelessly dogmatic.
  9. Standard memberDeepThought
    Losing the Thread
    Cosmopolis
    Joined
    27 Oct '04
    Moves
    81942
    05 Nov '19 03:29
    @metal-brain said
    Okay. Yes, it was a copy and paste of most of what he wrote. It was my way of turning it around on him since he was falsely claiming most scientists agree with him when he has no evidence of that. We all know we have been though the false consensus claim many times before. No poll exists that has polled a majority of scientists. It is merely a persistent myth perpetuated ...[text shortened]... m. If you are bent on believing a myth you will keep doing it. I can't help the hopelessly dogmatic.
    I'm confused about a point here. The graph clearly shows an increase in sea level of about 225mm since 1880 - intriguingly with a flattening around the time of the First World War. By visual inspection alone there is no sign of acceleration, but we'd need the raw data to rule that in or out.

    So your claim is that there is no acceleration in the rise in sea level?
  10. Joined
    07 Dec '05
    Moves
    14825
    05 Nov '19 04:00
    @deepthought said
    I'm confused about a point here. The graph clearly shows an increase in sea level of about 225mm since 1880 - intriguingly with a flattening around the time of the First World War. By visual inspection alone there is no sign of acceleration, but we'd need the raw data to rule that in or out.

    So your claim is that there is no acceleration in the rise in sea level?
    Can't you read? Here is an excerpt from my last post:

    "You don't need to be a climate scientist to see Nasa's own graph shows the climate was warming before the invention of the automobile. 20 year accelerations are normal as you can see between 1940 and 1960. These are followed by deceleration s which appear to be cyclical and normal."

    I clearly acknowledged accelerations. Can't you fargin read?????
  11. Standard memberDeepThought
    Losing the Thread
    Cosmopolis
    Joined
    27 Oct '04
    Moves
    81942
    05 Nov '19 06:43
    @metal-brain said
    Can't you read? Here is an excerpt from my last post:

    "You don't need to be a climate scientist to see Nasa's own graph shows the climate was warming before the invention of the automobile. 20 year accelerations are normal as you can see between 1940 and 1960. These are followed by deceleration s which appear to be cyclical and normal."

    I clearly acknowledged accelerations. Can't you fargin read?????
    As a matter of fact the first car (=automobile) dates from 1769, and the first one with an internal combustion engine, instead of steam powered, dates from 1808. It used hydrogen. The first one to use petrol (=gasoline) dates from 1870.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_automobile
  12. Joined
    07 Dec '05
    Moves
    14825
    05 Nov '19 08:08
    @deepthought said
    As a matter of fact the first car (=automobile) dates from 1769, and the first one with an internal combustion engine, instead of steam powered, dates from 1808. It used hydrogen. The first one to use petrol (=gasoline) dates from 1870.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_automobile
    In 1885, Karl Benz developed a petrol or gasoline powered automobile. Even if you went by 1870 there was GW before that as well. There is some lag time between warming and sea level rise.
    If you look at methane levels in the ice core samples you will conclude this warming trend started at about 1700. That was before the industrial revolution. This warming trend clearly started from natural causes.
  13. Subscribersonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    slatington, pa, usa
    Joined
    28 Dec '04
    Moves
    52874
    05 Nov '19 10:25
    @Metal-Brain
    Methane is a very potent GH gas but only lasts a few decades. The industrial revolution exacerbated that rise and it is getting worse by the year and will get even more severe both from rising CO2 levels and the release of even more methane.
    It may already be too late and even if we stop using fossil fuels completely it may be too late. Only time will tell.
  14. Joined
    07 Dec '05
    Moves
    14825
    05 Nov '19 12:54
    @sonhouse said
    @Metal-Brain
    Methane is a very potent GH gas but only lasts a few decades. The industrial revolution exacerbated that rise and it is getting worse by the year and will get even more severe both from rising CO2 levels and the release of even more methane.
    It may already be too late and even if we stop using fossil fuels completely it may be too late. Only time will tell.
    If you look at methane levels in the ice core samples you will conclude this warming trend started at about 1700. Like CO2, methane lagged behind temperatures in those ice core samples. Before the industrial revolution methane levels can be used to estimate temps if you account for the lag time.

    Al Gore omitted methane from his propaganda film because methane does not result from fossil fuel burning. The goal was to tax fossil fuels, not cow farts and fertilizer.
  15. Subscribersonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    slatington, pa, usa
    Joined
    28 Dec '04
    Moves
    52874
    08 Nov '19 21:03
    @Metal-Brain
    Times have changed after Al Gore made An Inconvenient Truth.
    If anything I think it is worse now than he thought.
Back to Top