24 Apr 19
@athousandyoung saidI have been asking for that for a very long time and they avoid it like the plague. They really are terrified of the facts being presented in an honest way.Show me using a long term graph
There's nothing unreasonable about this request. Sea level vs date without any BS complications.
In the end they will support a carbon tax. Not because it makes any sense, but because that is what the corporate news media will lead them to think is the solution.
Notice how they intermittently bring up methane but still support a carbon tax. A carbon tax will do nothing about methane, yet they still repeat the propaganda line of demonizing carbon.
This is a good example of double think. When they believe a carbon tax solves a methane problem you know they have been brainwashed.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doublethink
24 Apr 19
@sonhouse saidThat is not true. Pure propaganda!
You know full well there are already villages overrun with Ocean, like the one in Alaska and that is just the start. You are in the minority and you will remain in the minority fringe and WILL be judged by history for that.
24 Apr 19
7 edits
@metal-brain saidThe graph you ask for, with those exact set of characteristics you defined including the ability to directly visually show us what proportion of recent warming is man made, doesn't exist, moron. That's because such a said graph would be just pure nonsense. Thus there is nothing there for us science experts to "avoid" "like the plague". Perhaps you would cure to show us this graph that you say we "avoid"? No? Well, that proves it doesn't exist and you are just being a complete moron; why else would you refuse to show us this graph you say we just "avoid"? How can we try and "avoid" an impossible graph that doesn't exist?
I have been asking for that for a very long time and they avoid it like the plague.
To determine what proportion of recent warming is man made requires taking into account MANY variables simultaneously thus all those variables cannot be graphed on just one simple 2D graph.
24 Apr 19
Here is the graph humy claims doesn't exist. Anybody can see sea level has been rising all along. It is mostly natural. There were low CO2 levels in the 19th century.
https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/sea-level/
Global warming is happening, but it started over 200 years ago from natural causes. That trend has continued, so you can't just say man must be the cause because there is warming. You have to determine which is the main cause before you claim it is man.
Humy wants it both ways. He wants to claim man is the main cause while claiming it is impossible to tell using a long term sea level graph. He clearly feels threatened by the NASA graph. He wants to dismiss it as meaningless.
Double think.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doublethink
@metal-brain saidFalse. That graph, which contrary to your claim I claim IS perfectly valid i.e. I do NOT dismiss as "meaningless" (your usual straw man lies), ONLY shows sea level rise; that is all. Thus that graph, contrary to your claim, doesn't show what proportion of the recent warming is man made. That is because, just as I said, contrary to your claim, no such graph exists. And you are a complete MORON to suggest that you can determine what proportion of the recent warming is man made just by looking at a graph showing only sea level rise alone i.e. without showing any other variable, because that's just completely STUPID and you know it. And I repeatedly asked you to show what maths formula you would use for that, which you always refuse to show thus proving you are a LIAR; there is no maths formula you can use for that. Try again. We are still waiting...
Here is the graph humy claims doesn't exist.
24 Apr 19
@humy saidYou said this:
False. That graph, which contrary to your claim I claim IS perfectly valid i.e. I do NOT dismiss as "meaningless" (your usual straw man lies), ONLY shows sea level rise; that is all. Thus that graph, contrary to your claim, doesn't show what proportion of the recent warming is man made. That is because, just as I said, contrary to your claim, no such graph exists. And you are a ...[text shortened]... g you are a LIAR; there is no maths formula you can use for that. Try again. We are still waiting...
"That's because such a said graph would be just pure nonsense. Thus there is nothing there for us science experts to "avoid" "like the plague"."
Nonsense isn't much different than meaningless. You now say the graph is valid, so make your case using the graph. When glaciers melt they end up in the ocean. I fail to see how that is nonsense.
Look up straw man. Like sonhouse you are misusing the term. Warming leads to glaciers melting which leads to sea level rise. Sea level rise results from higher temperatures.
Clearly you would rather rely on cherry picked temp data from airports and cities that reflect the heat island effect. Since there is nothing to cherry pick with sea level data you hate it. That is why you are constantly trying to sabotage this thread with digression tactics and mindless trolling.
Show me the missing last 6 years of data from the NASA graph and I will show you the math just as I pledged to do before. You agree to do that and never followed through. Why did you lie?
24 Apr 19
9 edits
@metal-brain saidNow you are just being obtuse pretending to not understand my assertions by taking them out of context. As you obviously know, I obviously wasn't referring there to that graph of sea level rise but rather I was referring to the said graph you falsly claims exists, which is a graph claimed by you to show what proportions of warming is caused by man made causes and thus clearly couldn't be the graph that shows nothing but sea level rise. The graph that shows nothing but sea level rise does just that; it clearly doesn't by itself show or even hint in any way what proportion of warming is man made. You claim that it does is proven false by your refusal to show your maths formula for that. Obviously the only reason why you refuse to show the maths formula for that is because you lie; no such maths formula exists for that and you fool nobody here. I have never said/implied in any way that graph of sea level rise was invalid or "meaningless" and in fact I have always maintained it is perfectly valid and correct and excellent as data for sea level rise; STOP LYING.
You said this:
"That's because such a said graph would be just pure nonsense.
24 Apr 19
@humy saidShow me the missing last 6 years of data from the NASA graph and I will show you the math just as I pledged to do before. You agree to do that and never followed through. Why did you lie?
Now you are just being obtuse pretending to not understand my assertions by taking them out of context. As you obviously know, I obviously wasn't referring there to that graph of sea level rise but rather I was referring to the said graph you falsly claims exists, which is a graph claimed by you to show what proportions of warming is caused by man made causes and thus clearly co ...[text shortened]... s maintained it is perfectly valid and correct and excellent as data for sea level rise; STOP LYING.
24 Apr 19
3 edits
@metal-brain saidHow, just as you claimed, did you do the maths to work out what proportion of warming is man made from that graph if, just as you imply above, you do not have sufficient data from the graph to do the maths? You contradict yourself.
Show me the missing last 6 years of data from the NASA graph and I will show you the math just as I pledged to do before.
So, that's go through this yet again just one step at a time shall we?
1, Are you claiming that you cannot do the maths without that "missing data" (your exact words) ?
A simple "yes" or "no" answer is all that is required and anything else proves you are talking crap.
2, If the answer to 1 above is "yes", then how is it possible, just as you claimed earlier, you did the "simple maths" (your exact words) when you now claim you cannot do the maths without that "missing data"?
Failure to answer 2 proves you LIED; you didn't do the maths (and cannot).
3, If the answer to 1 above is "no" and you didn't lie about doing the maths, then why cannot you prove yourself NOT to be a liar just by show me (and all of us) the maths you did?
Failure to answer 3 and failure to show your maths proves, again, you LIED; you didn't do the maths (and cannot).
4, Lets say you where given the "missing data". What maths FORMULA (as apposed to the maths CALCULATION) would you then use?
Since you don't have to have the "missing data" to show as the maths FORMULA you would use if you hypothetically had the data, failure to answer 4 proves you LIED; you cannot do the maths even if you had that "missing data" because there is no maths FORMULA for that.
Your expected failure to answer any of the above questions just confirms what I and we all already know; you are a perpetual LIAR.
24 Apr 19
@metal-brain saidThat graph only goes back 20 years but yes that’s the basic idea. Now we need to see sea level over the last few centuries.
Here is the graph humy claims doesn't exist. Anybody can see sea level has been rising all along. It is mostly natural. There were low CO2 levels in the 19th century.
https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/sea-level/
Global warming is happening, but it started over 200 years ago from natural causes. That trend has continued, so you can't just say man must be the caus ...[text shortened]... e wants to dismiss it as meaningless.
Double think.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doublethink
24 Apr 19
@athousandyoung saidThere are two graphs on that link. Scroll down to the one that goes back as far as 1880. Records may not go back much farther than 1880. If you can find one that does let us know.
That graph only goes back 20 years but yes that’s the basic idea. Now we need to see sea level over the last few centuries.
https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/sea-level/
24 Apr 19
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1d/Post-Glacial_Sea_Level.png
I am suspicious of the phrase “sea level change” in the vertical axis of this chart as well as the one MB offered. Is that different from sea level or are these graphs of rate of change of sea level?
Assuming they are just graphs of sea level, we can see a massive sea level rise about 10,000 years ago (roughly the time civilization began) but no recent changes within the last few thousand years.
24 Apr 19
@humy said"Are you claiming that you cannot do the maths without that "missing data" (your exact words) ?
How, just as you claimed, did you do the maths to work out what proportion of warming is man made from that graph if, just as you imply above, you do not have sufficient data from the graph to do the maths? You contradict yourself.
So, that's go through this yet again just one step at a time shall we?
1, Are you claiming that you cannot do the maths without that "missing dat ...[text shortened]... r any of the above questions just confirms what I and we all already know; you are a perpetual LIAR.
A simple "yes" or "no" answer is all that is required and anything else proves you are talking crap."
You agreed to provide it and now you are making excuses for breaking your agreement. Recent data is the most important data of all. Stop being a cad and provide the data you agreed to provide.
24 Apr 19
@metal-brain saidThat second graph does show an increase in the rate of sea level change. Between 1880 and 1920 we see a 50mm increase. Between 1880 and 2020 we are a 100mm increase.
There are two graphs on that link. Scroll down to the one that goes back as far as 1880. Records may not go back much farther than 1880. If you can find one that does let us know.
https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/sea-level/
24 Apr 19
@metal-brain saidSo you refuse to answer any of my questions thus prove yourself to be a liar. No surprises there.
"Are you claiming that you cannot do the maths without that "missing data" (your exact words) ?
A simple "yes" or "no" answer is all that is required and anything else proves you are talking crap."
You agreed to provide it and now you are making excuses for breaking your agreement. Recent data is the most important data of all. Stop being a cad and provide the data you agreed to provide.
You agreed to provide it
No, I didn't.