Well now.....A 45 second lecture destroying the global warming argument.

[Crick]

why would they increase? no ice melting off any continent to make more than mm of change. Plymouth rock, still exposed.

They would increase because the oceans have warmed and Greenland and Antarctica have lost over 7,000 gigatonnes of ice just since 1992. And, as you've already been told. That Plymouth Rock was installed in 1921 and Plymouth Harbor has risen a foot and a half since 1620.

 

[jc456]

They would increase because the oceans have warmed and Greenland and Antarctica have lost over 7,000 gigatonnes of ice just since 1992. And, as you've already been told. That Plymouth Rock was installed in 1921 and Plymouth Harbor has risen a foot and a half since 1620.

how much ice lost per year since 1900?

 

[jc456]

They would increase because the oceans have warmed and Greenland and Antarctica have lost over 7,000 gigatonnes of ice just since 1992. And, as you've already been told. That Plymouth Rock was installed in 1921 and Plymouth Harbor has risen a foot and a half since 1620.

One interesting title I found stated warming seas accelerating ice lost on greenland. How? It's land ice

 

[Crick]

One interesting title I found stated warming seas accelerating ice lost on greenland. How? It's land ice

By melting the sea ice restraining the glaciers, just like in Antarctica perhaps. Or by warming the air blowing over Greenland.

 

[mamooth]

Very strange selection of data there, The first graph is NORMALIZED to data from 1983 - 2001

That's an odd thing to focus on. You do understand that where you put the zero line doesn't affect the amount of change or the rate of change, right?

(where zero on that graph is the MEAN for that period) -- but it only shows the DATA until 1979???? Did you you question THAT?

It's not that big of a deal that one particular tidal gauge station stopped reporting in 1981. The topic was sea level rise in Miami, and he showed data showing a great deal of seal level rise in Miami. What conspiracy theory are you trying to push?

And the 2nd graph is zeroed at about 1935. But you can estimate about 0.2 inch rise from 1935 to 2009. IF IT IS IN INCHES -- because your graph doesn't even give a vertical scale. SO -- let's assume its in feet.

It's meters. Your calculations are all off by 3.3, and therefore your conclusion is wrong.

TELL ME PLEASE if you see any indications of "acceleration" in SLRise in ANY of the data graphs that you pull up that LOOK LIKE THIS !!!!!

Well, yeah. It's pretty obvious.

BUT--- we're running out of time to drown Miami by 2100 with their WORST CASE projection.

The IPCC projections have been excellent.

Here's another clue you're clueless about. I fetched a "custom" graph of Miami

Your argument here seems to be that since you found one noisy graph, all the data is just as noisy, and therefore we know nothing. Do you understand why your argument is bad?