24 Apr 19
@athousandyoung saidRight. Also notice the acceleration between 1940 and 1960. It is comparable to the recent acceleration but alarmists usually omit anything past 1960 to mislead. A pathetic tactic to use, but alarmists have no shame it seems.
That 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.
Since there were low CO2 levels before the automobile was mass produced the warming before that was obviously from natural causes. You may have heard of "the pause" in warming that alarmists claim wasn't really a pause after revising some data. I suspect a lag effect has caused sea level rise to decelerate lately because of that but I am waiting for humy to provide those last 6 years of data that is not on the NASA Graphs. Perhaps he found it and doesn't want us to know he found out what I suspect is right. That would explain why he broke his agreement and is throwing a tantrum over it.
@humy saidYou agreed. Page 13.
Agreed.
Still waiting for you to show us your maths formula you would use for that...If you find the missing data from the NASA link
What "missing data"?
And what would your maths formula you would use for that if you had that "missing data"? -Very simple question you will not answer and we all know why.
Stop your bloody lying!
You are a pathetic liar!!!!!!!!!
24 Apr 19
4 edits
@metal-brain saidNo, I CLEARLY didn't. You are just so obtuse.
You did agree.
On that page what you ACTUALLY asked was;
"I can start from 1949 if that will satisfy you and I will provide the math for you. Agreed?" Yes or no, was that your EXACT words?
I answered;
"agreed".
So what I agreed to is if you start calculating from 1949 then I will accept the maths from you. You said nothing about wanting me to give some "missing data" in that question so I clearly didn't agree to that.
Where did I agree to giving you the "missing data"? Answer, I clearly didn't. And that was confirmed by my very next quote which was:
"What "missing data"?
thus clearly indicating I didn't know what you were referring to by "missing data" thus I never agreed to give it.
24 Apr 19
@metal-brain saidFacts that require a youtube video to "prove" are not facts. If it's a fact, the evidence would be clearly represented in credible source materials.
Another "attack the source" tactic.
The evidence has been provided. Just because it is presented on youtube does not discredit the facts. You are in denial of the facts.
Denial of facts is for kids.
24 Apr 19
@metal-brain saidPeople have been burning coal for hundreds of years now. Human caused greenhouse gases didn’t start with the automobile.
Right. Also notice the acceleration between 1940 and 1960. It is comparable to the recent acceleration but alarmists usually omit anything past 1960 to mislead. A pathetic tactic to use, but alarmists have no shame it seems.
Since there were low CO2 levels before the automobile was mass produced the warming before that was obviously from natural causes. You may have he ...[text shortened]... I suspect is right. That would explain why he broke his agreement and is throwing a tantrum over it.
24 Apr 19
@athousandyoung saidOthers have claimed that, but failed because the CO2 records did not show it. Show me the CO2 records in the ice core samples. If you cannot stop your false claims. I'm sick of false assertions.
People have been burning coal for hundreds of years now. Human caused greenhouse gases didn’t start with the automobile.
25 Apr 19
https://www.nature.com/articles/nature19082
Here we use post-AD 1500 palaeoclimate records to show that sustained industrial-era warming of the tropical oceans first developed during the mid-nineteenth century and was nearly synchronous with Northern Hemisphere continental warming. The early onset of sustained, significant warming in palaeoclimate records and model simulations suggests that greenhouse forcing of industrial-era warming commenced as early as the mid-nineteenth century
25 Apr 19
@athousandyoung saidWildgrass pointed out the same thing, but when I insisted backing up the claim with proof of higher CO2 levels he could not provide it. I pointed out that if it were true the ice core samples would prove it to be true, yet no reference to that in the article. Nothing, just an empty assertion.https://www.nature.com/articles/nature19082
Here we use post-AD 1500 palaeoclimate records to show that sustained industrial-era warming of the tropical oceans first developed during the mid-nineteenth century and was nearly synchronous with Northern Hemisphere continental warming. The early onset of sustained, significant warming in palaeoclimate records and ...[text shortened]... reenhouse forcing of industrial-era warming commenced as early as the mid-nineteenth century
It is a bunk theory with absolutely no evidence at all. Although I don't have a subscription and cannot read the peer reviews I'm sure they were brutally critical of such an assertion without evidence. Absolutely absurd!
25 Apr 19
@metal-brain saidhttps://www.co2.earth/co2-ice-core-data
Wildgrass pointed out the same thing, but when I insisted backing up the claim with proof of higher CO2 levels he could not provide it. I pointed out that if it were true the ice core samples would prove it to be true, yet no reference to that in the article. Nothing, just an empty assertion.
It is a bunk theory with absolutely no evidence at all. Although I don't have ...[text shortened]... views I'm sure they were brutally critical of such an assertion without evidence. Absolutely absurd!
25 Apr 19
@athousandyoung saidYou have your cause and effect backwards. Higher temperatures caused CO2 levels to rise because a warmer ocean cannot hold as much CO2 as a cooler one.
https://www.co2.earth/co2-ice-core-data
In order to prove CO2 caused temps to rise you must show which lagged behind the other. This is also evident in the ice core samples.
It is not enough to show a correlation, you must show cause and effect.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/ice-core-data-help-solve/
@athousandyoung said
People have been burning coal for hundreds of years now. Human caused greenhouse gases didn’t start with the automobile.
@metal-brain said
Others have claimed that, but failed because the CO2 records did not show it. Show me the CO2 records in the ice core samples. If you cannot stop your false claims. I'm sick of false assertions.
The CO2 records in the ice core samples DO show exactly what I wrote above. Stop being such a pretentious douchebag.
26 Apr 19
Now, for your comment about CO2 lagging temperature rise:
https://skepticalscience.com/co2-lags-temperature.htm
The initial changes in temperature during this period are explained by changes in the Earth’s orbit around the sun, which affects the amount of seasonal sunlight reaching the Earth’s surface. In the case of warming, the lag between temperature and CO2 is explained as follows: as ocean temperatures rise, oceans release CO2 into the atmosphere. In turn, this release amplifies the warming trend, leading to yet more CO2 being released. In other words, increasing CO2 levels become both the cause and effect of further warming. This positive feedback is necessary to trigger the shifts between glacials and interglacials as the effect of orbital changes is too weak to cause such variation.
26 Apr 19
6 edits
@athousandyoung saidand the critical words there are;
Now, for your comment about CO2 lagging temperature rise:
https://skepticalscience.com/co2-lags-temperature.htm
The initial changes in temperature during this period are explained by changes in the Earth’s orbit around the sun, which affects the amount of seasonal sunlight reaching the Earth’s surface. In the case of warming, the lag between temperature an ...[text shortened]... als and interglacials as the effect of orbital changes is too weak to cause such variation.
"In other words, increasing CO2 levels become BOTH the cause and effect of further warming."(my emphasis)
Thus debunking the usual nonsense propaganda claim made by some generally-science-ignorant people, such as metalbrain, that the CO2 lagging temperature shows that CO2 doesn't cause any significant warming for there is no logical contradiction in CO2 being BOTH the cause and the effect of warming and none of those people have ever explained any contradiction of it being both.
More generally, there are also other examples of known causality working both ways; it sometimes happens. For example, vegetation drying out might cause it to easily catch fire and thus then catch fire but then the radiant heat from the fire may cause more vegetation to try out at a distance which then allows the fire to spread to that now dry vegetation thus vegetation drying out because both the cause and the effect of the fire. I have actually once witnessed this effect in real life on an unfortunate farm and it caused some serious problems for the fire fighters.