Alarmists Fail to Refute Realistic Climate Report

[mamooth]

Ok, the seas have been rising since the end of the last glacial period about 22,000 years ago. About 6,000 years ago the rate of rise leveled off at 3 to 4 mm per year.

No, that' not even close to correct. The premise of your question is completely wrong, so your question is invalid.

About 6000 years ago, sea level rise leveled out to near 0.

About 100 years ago, it started shooting up.

In 2024, it was actually 5.9mm/year. I don't expect that crazy high rate to continue every year, but it does show evidence as to how the rate of rise isn't slowing, and how the predictions by mainstream science were a bit on the low side, if anything.

When you fail this badly at the basics, how do you expect to be taken seriously?

 

[ding]

No, that' not even close to correct. The premise of your question is completely wrong, so your question is invalid.

About 6000 years ago, sea level rise leveled out to near 0.

About 100 years ago, it started shooting up.

In 2024, it was actually 5.9mm/year. I don't expect that crazy high rate to continue every year, but it does show evidence as to how the rate of rise isn't slowing, and how the predictions by mainstream science were a bit on the low side, if anything.

When you fail this badly at the basics, how do you expect to be taken seriously?

You are an idiot.

No, sea levels did not completely stop rising 6,000 years ago; they slowed significantly, approaching modern levels.

 

[mamooth]

As is so often the case, I thank Ding for providing the evidence that proves how right I was, and how clueless he was. He's got a talent for debunking himself, due to his inability to read a graph, or understand pretty much anything.

Now, about the doubling rate. Ding's claim of 1.0C/doubling is cuckoobananas, given that it's flately contradicted by the hard data.

A 40% increase in CO2 -- half a doubling, logarithmically -- has resulted in at least 1.0 C of warming. We can quibble about where to start measuring the temp rise. We could go as high as 1.47C, but I'll go extremely conservative and say 1.0C.

That it, TCS -- transient climate sensitivity -- is, observably, at least 2.0C per doubling. Again, the hard data says that, and it's not really up for debate.

But we're not talking about TCS, we're talking about ECS, equilibrium climate sensitively, how hot it gets a century later when everything has reached equilibrium. ECS will be significantly higher than TCS, so ECS has to be well over 2.0C/doubling, and Ding's 1.0C/doubling figure is fantasy.

 

[Hafar1014]

Venice? ... here's what Rick Stevens has to say about that:

--- "Is Venice Sinking?"

Rick Stevens would never lie to us ...

Venice is not under water and it would be if the ice was melting

 

[EMH]

Physics back it up. It’s literally a calculated number.

A "lab test" done by the taxpayer funded fudgebaking conflicted liars, or the actual satellite and balloon data...

hmmmmmmmm....

 

[EMH]

About 100 years ago, it started shooting up

Then surely you can show us photos of land sinking because of it...

 

[EMH]

has resulted in at least 1.0 C of warming.

not according to the highly correlated satellite and balloon data...

and not according to Surface Air Pressure...


There is, in fact, no warming, proving that adding small amounts of CO2 to atmosphere did ABSOLUTELY NOTHING...

 

[EMH]

Venice is not under water and it would be if the ice was melting

All of the old photos document no ocean rise...


and do not forget, man does two things that are microscopically pushing ocean levels higher...

1. burning hydrocarbons
2. adding new ships and anything like oil rigs that displaces water tonnage.

With that, there is still no ocean rise, because Earth continues to add net ice...

 

[ReinyDays]

Venice is not under water and it would be if the ice was melting

Subsidence has nothing to do with melting ice ...

 

[EMH]

Subsidence has nothing to do with melting ice ...

And your evidence of "Venice sinking" is??

 

[Sunsettommy]

And your evidence of "Venice sinking" is??

I posted the geologic reports showing that Venice is indeed sinking slowly under the weight of the city that was sited on damp grounds thus know there is some subsidence occurring and the people there have been working on reducing it over time.

 

[EMH]

I posted the geologic reports showing that Venice is indeed sinking slowly under the weight of the city that was sited on damp grounds.

And just how many years have humans lived there??


Don't see how this fits your narrative either...

Venice's dry canals: what travelers need to know

If you’ve seen photos of Venice over the past few weeks, there’s one thing you won’t have missed: the half-dry canals. Here's what you need to know.

www.lonelyplanet.com

 

[ding]

A "lab test" done by the taxpayer funded fudgebaking conflicted liars, or the actual satellite and balloon data...

hmmmmmmmm....

A calculation based upon the principles of physics.

 

[EMH]

A calculation based upon the principles of physics.

nevermind completely refuted by highly correlated satellite and balloon data.

 

[ding]

nevermind completely refuted by highly correlated satellite and balloon data.

Yes, never mind your bullshit idiotic arguments.

 

[EMH]

Yes, never mind your bullshit idiotic arguments.

... aka THE ACTUAL DATA...

 

[ding]

... aka THE ACTUAL DATA...

No. If you used actual data you'd know it's normal for the planet to warm up after a glacial period before the next glacial period is triggered by changing ocean currents due to disruption of the thermohaline circulation which is temperature dependent.

 

[EMH]

No. If you used actual data you'd know it's normal for the planet to warm up after a glacial period before the next glacial period is triggered by changing ocean currents due to disruption of the thermohaline circulation which is temperature dependent.

The ACTUAL DATA...

Key claim against global warming evaporates

Satellite and weather balloon data used to argue that climate models were wrong and that global warming isn't really happening turns out to be based on faulty analyses, according to three new studies.

www.nbcnews.com

"satellite and weather balloon data have actually suggested the opposite, that the atmosphere was cooling.

Scientists were left with two choices: either the atmosphere wasn't warming up, or something was wrong with the data."


NO CONFLICT OF INTEREST THERE, FUDGE THE DATA, THE MEDIA WILL LOVE IT...

 

[ding]

The ACTUAL DATA...

Key claim against global warming evaporates

Satellite and weather balloon data used to argue that climate models were wrong and that global warming isn't really happening turns out to be based on faulty analyses, according to three new studies.

www.nbcnews.com

"satellite and weather balloon data have actually suggested the opposite, that the atmosphere was cooling.

Scientists were left with two choices: either the atmosphere wasn't warming up, or something was wrong with the data."


NO CONFLICT OF INTEREST THERE, FUDGE THE DATA, THE MEDIA WILL LOVE IT...

Did you even read your link, dumbass? It says the opposite of what you are claiming.

 

[EMH]

Did you even read your link, dumbass? It says the opposite of what you are claiming.

No, it documents


1. the actual data showed no warming in atmosphere despite 3 decades of rising CO2
2. the CO2 FRAUD fudged the data to show "warming" with unimaginably stupid excuses