Climate Alarmists are Meeeellllltttting.....melllllllttttttinnnnng

[ding]

This is why you're correctly classified as a denier. When presented with any data that shows how totally wrong you are, you simply deny it.

Dear, that paper does not say what you think it says. That’s how big of a dummy you are.

 

[The Duke]

Sea levels are rising and Florida is sinking. Think about that.

Sure it is, yeah, that's the ticket. Now show your proof.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Sure it is, yeah, that's the ticket. Now show your proof.

Somehow you missed it: {link included}

Why is the Atlantic coast particularly vulnerable to sea level rise?

Much of the land along the Atlantic coast is flat and close to sea level—including thousands of square miles of marshes and other productive wetlands, plus many low-lying cities. In addition, much of the land along the Atlantic coast is sinking, which magnifies the local effect of sea level rise. The land in North America is actually still adjusting to the loss of ice after the last ice age, which peaked about 20,000 years ago. Back then, thick sheets of ice covered areas of what is now Canada and the northern United States. The weight of all that ice depressed the land beneath it, but caused the land farther south (particularly the Mid-Atlantic region from North Carolina to New York) to bulge upward. After the ice melted and the extra weight was lifted, northern areas began to rise, and the Mid-Atlantic region started to sink. This very slow process continues today.

You're welcome.

 

[The Duke]

Somehow you missed it: {link included}

You're welcome.

Erosion is not sea rise, buttnugget. 20 square miles eroded on the entire Eastern seaboard? That's nothing, moron.

Mangroves to be planted and the land would grow.

 

[Crick]

Sure it is, yeah, that's the ticket. Now show your proof.

You have repeatedly been shown data of sea level rise. I ask again, what do you believe is causing it?

 

[Sunsettommy]

No, they haven't. They had basically stopped. For god's sake, learn the basics.

And then, suddenly, for no apparent reason, they accelerated wildly.

Oh wait, we do know the reason. It's the CO2.

Once again his lies flows deeply since it is NOT going up wildly at all not only that the rate goes up and down over time:


Tide gauges show no acceleration in the rate of sea-level rise, merely the up-and-down that’s been going on for a century and more …

… and the claimed acceleration in satellite-measured sea level is merely an artifact of changing satellites.

You need to improve.

 

[Sunsettommy]

This is why you're correctly classified as a denier. When presented with any data that shows how totally wrong you are, you simply deny it.

NASA says you are wrong as they say it has been rising all along:

From about 3,000 years ago to about 100 years ago, sea levels naturally rose and declined slightly, with little change in the overall trend. Over the past 100 years, global temperatures have risen about 1 degree C (1.8 degrees F), with sea level response to that warming totaling about 160 to 210 mm (with about half of that amount occurring since 1993), or about 6 to 8 inches. And the current rate of sea-level rise is unprecedented over the past several millennia.

LINK

But NASA isn't fully correct either as there are plenty of more recent published papers shows

The Holocene Sea Level Highstand​

This chart shows the rise started around 1860,

Many charts in the link showing much higher sea level than now,

LINK

 

[Crick]

Once again his lies flows deeply since it is NOT going up wildly at all not only that the rate goes up and down over time:

Sea level rise is not linear but it is accelerating.

Tide gauges show no acceleration in the rate of sea-level rise, merely the up-and-down that’s been going on for a century and more …

View attachment 948207

Tide gauge data? And another Eschenbach special from WUWT. Here's the abstract from Church & White

They certainly don't agree with you or Eschenbach or WUWT.

Church and White's conclusions:

… and the claimed acceleration in satellite-measured sea level is merely an artifact of changing satellites.

View attachment 948208


You need to improve.

Here's an improvement. Data from the University of Colorado Sea Level Research Lab.

Data fitted quadratically vice a series of linear fits providing an average rate and acceleration.. The acceleration is NOT an artifact of satellite change. The data you've just presented doesn't even support that.

 

[Grumblenuts]

You have repeatedly been shown data of sea level rise. I ask again, what do you believe is causing it?

Tommy's confident NOAA is just lying about it all and couldn't read a chart to save his life. "The Duke" was apparently like two years old when Marion Morrison died, but, ya know, he's just sure of things for no apparent reason.. like John Wayne!

 

[Sunsettommy]

Crick shows that he didn't read the post exposing a problem made by Church and White

Tide gauge data? And another Eschenbach special from WUWT. Here's the abstract from Church & White

Here is what Willis showed:

Figure 6. Comparison between the values and the errors of the difference between the 21-year trend before the 1993 start of the satellite record, and the succeeding 21-year trend from 1993 to the end of the Church and White records. The C&W trends are shown in Figure 3 above.

Since the error bars (orange and red) do not overlap, we can say that the C&W estimate does NOT agree with the tide gauge data. And that, of course, means that it has been artificially increased by cross-pollution with satellite data.

Let me close by saying that I think that it is very bad scientific practice to splice together a terrestrial and a satellite record unless they agree well during the period of overlap. In this case, they disagree greatly over the period of record. For the detrended values over the period of overlap (1993-2013), the R^2 value is 0.01 and the P-value is 0.37 … in other words, there is absolutely no significant correlation between the satellite data and the C&W estimate.

===============

I left some out to see if you continue to shoot yourself in the foot again.

 

[Crick]

Crick shows that he didn't read the post exposing a problem made by Church and White



Here is what Willis showed:

View attachment 948228

Figure 6. Comparison between the values and the errors of the difference between the 21-year trend before the 1993 start of the satellite record, and the succeeding 21-year trend from 1993 to the end of the Church and White records. The C&W trends are shown in Figure 3 above.

Since the error bars (orange and red) do not overlap, we can say that the C&W estimate does NOT agree with the tide gauge data. And that, of course, means that it has been artificially increased by cross-pollution with satellite data.

Let me close by saying that I think that it is very bad scientific practice to splice together a terrestrial and a satellite record unless they agree well during the period of overlap. In this case, they disagree greatly over the period of record. For the detrended values over the period of overlap (1993-2013), the R^2 value is 0.01 and the P-value is 0.37 … in other words, there is absolutely no significant correlation between the satellite data and the C&W estimate.

===============

I left some out to see if you continue to shoot yourself in the foot again.

Can you explain why this formed no part of their conclusions?

 

[The Duke]

Here's an improvement. Data from the University of Colorado Sea Level Research Lab.

View attachment 948215
Data fitted quadratically vice a series of linear fits providing an average rate and acceleration.. The acceleration is NOT an artifact of satellite change. The data you've just presented doesn't even support that.

What sea is there in Colorado?

Pardon my geographical ignorance, but I never heard of one being there. Also isn't all of Colorado at least 800 feet above sea level?

Do they do Earth Mantle core studies from the moon there too?

 

[Sunsettommy]

Can you explain why this formed no part of their conclusions?

Just as I expected you didn't read the explanation, I gave you...... but here is what I left out to for this very reason to expose your laziness:

=====

So … here was my thought about how to get around these issues: You’ll note in Figure 3 above that the increase in trend between the 21 years before the satellite era and the 21-year overlap during the satellite era was 2.1 ± 0.5 mm per year. And while the trends in the tide gauges are all over the place … I can look at the difference in the trends for each individual dataset over the same period. This gets rid of the problem of vertical land movement, which is constant over such a geologically short time period. So here was my procedure.

First, from the 1,512 tide gauge records in the PSMSL dataset, I selected all the records that contained 90% data over the 21 year period before the satellite era and also had 90% data over the succeeding 21 year period during the satellite era. This left me with 258 tide gauge datasets with coverage over the full 42-year period.

Next, I calculated the trend for each of these datasets for the period before and during the satellite era.

Then, for each tide station, I subtracted the pre-satellite trend from the satellite trend. And finally, I got the median and the uncertainty of those 258 trend differences. Figure 6 shows a graphic of those results.

this is so over your small head it is pathetic, he showed they were MIXING two sets of data to create the artificial increase:

=====

For the detrended values over the period of overlap (1993-2013), the R^2 value is 0.01 and the P-value is 0.37 … in other words, there is absolutely no significant correlation between the satellite data and the C&W estimate.

And this makes it very likely that Church and White are manufacturing sea level acceleration where none exists … bad scientists, no cookies.

 

[Crick]

Just as I expected you didn't read the explanation, I gave you...... but here is what I left out to for this very reason to expose your laziness:

=====

So … here was my thought about how to get around these issues: You’ll note in Figure 3 above that the increase in trend between the 21 years before the satellite era and the 21-year overlap during the satellite era was 2.1 ± 0.5 mm per year. And while the trends in the tide gauges are all over the place … I can look at the difference in the trends for each individual dataset over the same period. This gets rid of the problem of vertical land movement, which is constant over such a geologically short time period. So here was my procedure.

First, from the 1,512 tide gauge records in the PSMSL dataset, I selected all the records that contained 90% data over the 21 year period before the satellite era and also had 90% data over the succeeding 21 year period during the satellite era. This left me with 258 tide gauge datasets with coverage over the full 42-year period.

Next, I calculated the trend for each of these datasets for the period before and during the satellite era.

Then, for each tide station, I subtracted the pre-satellite trend from the satellite trend. And finally, I got the median and the uncertainty of those 258 trend differences. Figure 6 shows a graphic of those results.

View attachment 948241


this is so over your small head it is pathetic, he showed they were MIXING two sets of data to create the artificial increase:

=====

For the detrended values over the period of overlap (1993-2013), the R^2 value is 0.01 and the P-value is 0.37 … in other words, there is absolutely no significant correlation between the satellite data and the C&W estimate.

And this makes it very likely that Church and White are manufacturing sea level acceleration where none exists … bad scientists, no cookies.

Then why are you using their work?

 

[The Duke]

Then why are you using their work?

Dude, you're the tool in the shed that needs sharpening.

 

[mamooth]

this is so over your small head it is pathetic, he showed they were MIXING two sets of data to create the artificial increase:

Six years later, sea level keeps increasing at an increasing rate.

Willis won't rerun his method with the new data, because it would clearly show his claims are wrong, even using his own bad method.

Every denier conspiracy theory always gets disproved by time and more data. Curve-fitting errors, which form the basis of many denier conspiracy theories, have that property. You can fudge a trend to match the data, but the fudging only works inside of your data period. Once you go outside of it, the fudge will no longer match reality.

NASA says you are wrong as they say it has been rising all along:

From about 3,000 years ago to about 100 years ago, sea levels naturally rose and declined slightly, with little change in the overall trend. Over the past 100 years, global temperatures have risen about 1 degree C (1.8 degrees F), with sea level response to that warming totaling about 160 to 210 mm (with about half of that amount occurring since 1993), or about 6 to 8 inches. And the current rate of sea-level rise is unprecedented over the past several millennia.

I can read, so I know that's NASA saying I'm right. Sea level, after rising big time after the end of the last ice age, had finally pretty much leveled off. Then, after humans warmed things up, it came roaring back. Ding's claim that sea level was always rising was a big steaming pile.

Has your gaslighting ever worked on anyone outside of your cult?

 

[Sunsettommy]

Six years later, sea level keeps increasing at an increasing rate.

Willis won't rerun his method with the new data, because it would clearly show his claims are wrong, even using his own bad method.

Every denier conspiracy theory always gets disproved by time and more data. Curve-fitting errors, which form the basis of many denier conspiracy theories, have that property. You can fudge a trend to match the data, but the fudging only works inside of your data period. Once you go outside of it, the fudge will no longer match reality.



I can read, so I know that's NASA saying I'm right. Sea level, after rising big time after the end of the last ice age, had finally pretty much leveled off. Then, after humans warmed things up, it came roaring back. Ding's claim that sea level was always rising was a big steaming pile.

Has your gaslighting ever worked on anyone outside of your cult?

LOL, in your deluded dreams you didn't counter ANYTHING I posted thus your post was dead on arrival.

 

[Sunsettommy]

Dude, you're the tool in the shed that needs sharpening.

His reply means he realized that he can't address what I posted, it was a deflated response.

He asked me a loaded question not going to play his game he already lost.

What a fool he is.

 

[HikerGuy83]

I can read,

You don't even read your own links.

 

[ding]

Six years later, sea level keeps increasing at an increasing rate.

Willis won't rerun his method with the new data, because it would clearly show his claims are wrong, even using his own bad method.

Every denier conspiracy theory always gets disproved by time and more data. Curve-fitting errors, which form the basis of many denier conspiracy theories, have that property. You can fudge a trend to match the data, but the fudging only works inside of your data period. Once you go outside of it, the fudge will no longer match reality.



I can read, so I know that's NASA saying I'm right. Sea level, after rising big time after the end of the last ice age, had finally pretty much leveled off. Then, after humans warmed things up, it came roaring back. Ding's claim that sea level was always rising was a big steaming pile.

Has your gaslighting ever worked on anyone outside of your cult?

But it’s not. It’s been 3 to 4 mm per year for the last 6000 years.