25 Mar 19
This thread is about sea level rise for a reason. Sea level data is not highly disputed like other data. That is why dishonest people like to obfuscate with junk data they either know is crap or don't care about facts when posting their junk.
https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/sea-level/
Alarmists hate sea level data because it causes them cognitive dissonance. They are too cowardly to face the data of sea level rise from NASA. It bothers them to no end. That is why they refuse to talk about it honestly.
@metal-brain saidThose #'s are in line with most other measurements. Since 1880, about 1/2 meter rise. 3 odd mm per year rise.
This thread is about sea level rise for a reason. Sea level data is not highly disputed like other data. That is why dishonest people like to obfuscate with junk data they either know is crap or don't care about facts when posting their junk.
https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/sea-level/
Alarmists hate sea level data because it causes them cognitive dissonance. Th ...[text shortened]... level rise from NASA. It bothers them to no end. That is why they refuse to talk about it honestly.
25 Mar 19
@sonhouse saidHow much has sea level increased because of CO2 since 1950 for example? All you have to do is compare pre 1950 level of increase to post 1950 level of increase and estimate the % of increase in the post 1950 half. It is simple math. What do you get?
Those #'s are in line with most other measurements. Since 1880, about 1/2 meter rise. 3 odd mm per year rise.
https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/sea-level/
This isn't rocket science. It is easy to do. Why are alarmists so reluctant to do simple math?
@metal-brain saidOh my god! Surely you cannot be THAT stupid!
How much has sea level increased because of CO2 since 1950 for example? All you have to do is compare pre 1950 level of increase to post 1950 level of increase and estimate the % of increase in the post 1950 half. It is simple math.
So you think the 'correct' way to calculate how much has sea level increased because of CO2 since 1950 is to "compare pre 1950 level of increase to post 1950 level of increase"? How the hell does that supposed to work? Sorry! Don't believe you! You lie. That's just your made-up crap.
OK then, YOU show us this "simple maths" we can do to give us that percentage and explain to us how that works...
We all know failure to show us that 'simple maths' means you lie; there is no such valid 'simple maths' that can do it via "compare pre 1950 level of increase to post 1950 level of increase". If it is so "simple", why don't you prove you aren't a liar by showing it to all of us here? It should be NO effort on your part if, as you claim, it is "simple" maths! Answer; you obviously lie and we all know it.
Properly mathematically modelling climate change (including sea level rise) is very complex as it requires simultaneously taking into account MANY variables (not JUST CO2!) and thus generally does NOT involve only "simple" maths but complex equations that always take account a lot more than something really simple like just "compare pre 1950 level of increase to post 1950 level of increase" -Wow! Is that ALL we have to do!?
25 Mar 19
@humy saidI get less than 50%
Oh my god! Surely you cannot be THAT stupid!
So you think the 'correct' way to calculate how much has sea level increased because of CO2 since 1950 is to "compare pre 1950 level of increase to post 1950 level of increase"? How the hell does that supposed to work? Sorry! Don't believe you! You lie. That's just your made-up crap.
OK then, YOU show us this "simple maths" we can d ...[text shortened]... compare pre 1950 level of increase to post 1950 level of increase" -Wow! Is that ALL we have to do!?
What do you get?
Is 1950 a sticking point with you? That is about half.
Would 1980 be better for you? If so, how do you propose comparing that to another time period? I'm open to an open minded debate on it. Are you?
@metal-brain saidHOW?
I get less than 50%
And what percentage DO you get?
I give you just one last-chance;
Prove to us all you are not a liar like we believe you are by showing us your maths calculation...
@humy saidThe graph is a few years out of date so I'm giving a rough estimate just by looking at the graph. From 1880 to 1950 was about 100. From 1950 to 2020 would be the same time period. It would be best to find the data for the last 4 years or so that is not on the NASA long term graph, but it looks like it is close to 150
HOW?
And what percentage DO you get?
I give you just one last-chance;
Prove to us all you are not a liar like we believe you are by showing us your maths calculation...
That would make it close to a 50% increase but falling short of the alarmist claim that man is the main cause. There you go, but I think close to 50% is too kind of an estimate since accelerations like the recent one have happened in the past (1940 to 1960 for example with less CO2 in the atmosphere), just to a lesser extent.
https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/sea-level/
@metal-brain said
The graph is a few years out of date so I'm giving a rough estimate just by looking at the graph. From 1880 to 1950 was about 100.
The graph is a few years out of date...WHICH graph? -there are several in that link I provided. By how many years "out of date" and how do you know this? And is the info in it wrong or invalid if it was made a few years ago? If so, WHY so?
From 1880 to 1950 was about 100.WHAT was "about 100" and in WHICH graph? And "100 " what? Meters? Light-years? Teddy bears? Where are your units of measurement (pretty basic stuff!) and of what TYPE of quantity?
So you now prove to all of us without a doubt you are a LIAR by NOT showing your "simple maths" you claim is all that is required ; No surprises there!
If, as you claim, it is just a matter of doing "simple maths" then WHY don't you show it and show YOUR arithmetic calculation that gives a figure of, as you claimed "less than 50%"? -answer, you obviously lie and we all know it; there is no "simple maths" for that.
We demand you show us the actual formula for that YOU claim we should use and then show the actual numbers YOU put into it and the actual numerical percentage you get out; trying to distract as from that with just some extremely vague and confused references to graphs without even specifying WHICH graphs will not do it and will fool NONE of us.
Here is your quote again;
"How much has sea level increased because of CO2 since 1950 for example? All you have to do is compare pre 1950 level of increase to post 1950 level of increase and estimate the % of increase in the post 1950 half. It is simple math."(your quote)
LIAR!
@humy saidThe NASA graph I provided you in my previous post you moron!The graph is a few years out of date...WHICH graph? -there are several in that link I provided. By how many years "out of date" and how do you know this? And is the info in it wrong or invalid if it was made a few years ago? If so, WHY so?From 1880 to 1950 was about 100.WHAT was "about 100" and in WHICH graph? And "100 " what? Meters? Ligh ...[text shortened]... rease and estimate the % of increase in the post 1950 half. It is simple math."(your quote)
LIAR!
You can see for yourself in is in mm
The graph stops short of 2020 making it impossible to do the exact math, but you can see for yourself I gave a very accurate description that any moron can understand......except those that ignore the link provided by me. It is the only link I provided in that post. Are you freaking blind?
26 Mar 19
@metal-brain saidBut the slope of the graph allows one to extrapolate to 2020. I saw that and saw the slope will give a good estimate of the 2020 time frame.
The NASA graph I provided you in my previous post you moron!
You can see for yourself in is in mm
The graph stops short of 2020 making it impossible to do the exact math, but you can see for yourself I gave a very accurate description that any moron can understand......except those that ignore the link provided by me. It is the only link I provided in that post. Are you freaking blind?
@metal-brain saidWhy are you such a moron to think we are all mind readers by not bothering to say WHICH graph straight after I just showed a link with MANY graphs thus giving the obvious impression it was one of THOSE graphs?
The NASA graph I provided you in my previous post
You can see for yourself in is in mmSo that "100" you quoted is 100mm ? At least! OK then, from exactly which year to which other year is there that 100mm difference? And why select those two particular years and not some other particular pair of years? -I mean, what is so 'special' about those two years? And HOW do YOU say we, as you claimed, can use that info to estimate what percentage of sea level rise is caused by CO2 increase? What do you say is this "simple" (as you claimed) maths formula for that? Answer, You LIE; there is obviously NO such simple formula that can do that.
The graph stops short of 2020 making it impossible to do the exact math,
1, "exact math" using exactly WHAT maths formula and maths? Why do you refuse to give this "simple" formula? Answer; it obviously doesn't exist.
2, Lets say the graph hypothetically DID show it all the way up to this current year (year 2019); what maths formula would you use? Answer; none; it would STILL be "...impossible to do the exact math" for it so it is irrelevant that "The graph stops short of 2020".
The fact you refuse to tell us and show us the maths means you are a LIAR; EVEN if that graph was extended up to this current year, there is no such maths that you can use using just the limited info in that graph to, as you falsely claimed, estimate how much sea level rise is caused by CO2 increase by comparing "pre 1950 level of increase to post 1950 level of increase and estimate the % of increase in the post 1950 half. It is simple math."(your quote)
How, according to you, did you get your "...less than 50%" figure as you claimed? Show us your (claimed) 'simple' maths ... yet another failure to do this will yet again just confirms to us all yet again what we already know; you are a LIAR.
It was extremely tricky to do this because it wasn't visually very clear and I had to resort to use a ruler and then my calculator but I was able to determine that the first (top) graph in;
https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/sea-level/
is up to date only specifically up to about one-third through year 2018 (so only a bit less than a year 'out of date'. Not bad! )
while the second (bottom) graph in;
https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/sea-level/
is up to date only specifically up to about one-half through year 2018 (so, again, only a bit less than a year 'out of date'. Not bad! ).
I would say overall, its pretty good data.
26 Mar 19
@sonhouse saidThat is exactly what I was doing. That is why I pointed out that the graph was missing some recent years. If you can find the data you would only have to extrapolate one year instead of 10.
But the slope of the graph allows one to extrapolate to 2020. I saw that and saw the slope will give a good estimate of the 2020 time frame.
Did you notice the slight dip right before the data ended? It is possible that could have continued to some extent.
What do you think of my estimate?
26 Mar 19
@humy saidI gave you the link you moron. Do you seriously think I am going to read an article unrelated to this thread? I told you to create another thread and everything.
Why are you such a moron to think we are all mind readers by not bothering to say WHICH graph straight after I just showed a link with MANY graphs thus giving the obvious impression it was one of THOSE graphs?You can see for yourself in is in mmSo that "100" you quoted is 100mm ? At least! OK then, from exactly which year to which other year is there that 100m ...[text shortened]... re to do this will yet again just confirms to us all yet again what we already know; you are a LIAR.
You know what graph I was talking about all along. You are just so frustrated you are pretending to not understand the obvious so you don't have to admit I was right all along, something that pains you.
I told you I cannot do exact math without the data missing from the graph from NASA. If you want exact math find me the missing data from recent years or shut up and look at the NASA graph following the description I posted earlier. A child could understand it. Aspire to be as smart as a child.
Also, if you want to do your own analysis differently than I did then go ahead and do it while explaining why you are changing the time periods for comparison. For example, if you want to point out CO2 levels increasing a significant amount around 1980 or some other year explain your reason and we can look at it. Posting nothing and nitpicking in a nonsensical way is not going to win you any praise here. Any moron (or child) can do that.
26 Mar 19
11 edits
Metal brain's continued irrelevant usual strawman ranting and ravings do nothing to distract attention from him being exposed here as a liar.
The only possible reason he refuses to prove he isn't a liar for claiming to do that so-called "simple" maths he claims he can do by showing that maths here couldn't be more obvious to anyone here that is reading these posts; he can't because he lied.
He first claimed he calculated with "simple maths" the result of "less than 50%" but still refusing to show that maths here. Now he backtracks by claiming there isn't enough data to make that calculation. So if there isn't enough data to make that calculation, how did he get that "...less than 50%" result and how can he, like he did, complain to us for not doing the calculation ourselves when it is impossible to do due to lack of data?
Answer; 'lack of data' has nothing to do with it; he is just making crap up.
I cannot do exact math without the data missing from the graph from NASAIf that's right, why do you still refuse to prove you aren't a liar simply by telling us all the maths FORMULA (as opposed to the maths CALCULATION) for doing the "simple" maths (like you claimed)? -Not having enough data to use the formula obviously won't stop you SHOWING the maths formula! Why should it? You can easily give a maths formula and just say, if you really think it is necessary to say so, that there isn't yet enough data to use it BUT there it (the stated formula) still is thus proving you aren't a liar.
Answer, you obviously cannot give that maths formula because there is no such formula. In other words, you lie.