Trump sums up Global Warming in one Savage Tweet

originally posted by: EvidenceNibbler

originally posted by: alphabetaone

originally posted by: EvidenceNibbler
a reply to: wmd_2008

Sea level has been rising for 200 years, are you saying this is all caused by rising C02 levels?

If you'd kindly post your peer-reviewed scientific evidence that clearly shows why it wouldn't be, it would be appreciated.

Sure, not a problem.
If you'd like some links to learn about sea level change, just ask, I can help you out.

Here's some quotes from a recent paper, the links at the bottom to the entire paper, if you have any questions, fire away, maybe I can help you understand.

Abstract
Background
Long records of sea level show decadal and multi-decadal oscillations of synchronous and asynchronous phases, which cannot be detected in short-term records. Without incorporating these oscillations, it is impossible to make useful assessments of present global accelerations and reliable predictions of future changes of sea level. Furthermore, it is well known that local sea-level changes occur also because of local factors such as subsidence due to groundwater or oil extraction, or tectonic movements that may be either up or down.

Purpose
Limited data from limited areas of study are, therefore, unsuitable for making predictions about the whole world sea level. Yet, people continue to make such predictions, often on an alarming scale. Here, we use one example to illustrate the problems associated with trying to make sea-level predictions based on a short record (25 years) in a limited region.

Methods
Linear and parabolic fittings of monthly average mean sea levels (MSL) of global as well as different local (United States Atlantic Coast, United States Pacific Coast) data sets of long tide gauge records.

Results
It is clear from the analyses of the tide gauges of the “NOAA-120”, “US 39”, “PSMSL-162”, “Mitrovica-23”, “Holgate-9”, and “California-8” data sets and the United States Pacific and Atlantic coasts that the sea level has been oscillating about the same almost perfectly linear trend line all over the 20th century and the first 17 years of this century.

Conclusion
It is of paramount importance to discuss the proper way to assess the present acceleration of sea levels. This can not be done by focusing on the short-term upward oscillations in selected locations. The information from the tide gauges of the United States does not support any claim of rapidly changing ice mass in Greenland and Antarctica. The data only suggest the sea levels have been oscillating about the same trend line during the last century and this century..

Read the entire paper here:
link.springer.com...

I have a question. How does that paper show that rising sea levels are not linked to CO2?

a reply to: mrthumpy

I have a question. How does that paper show that rising sea levels are not linked to CO2?

Here is the data from tide gauges going back 300 years from a paper by Jevrejeva et al 2008.

The null hypothesis (natural process is the cause) is sustained and ANY man produced CO2 causality remains undetectable. You don’t need 100,000 words to say it.

a reply to: EvidenceNibbler

I was asking about the paper you posted

a reply to: mrthumpy

The paper I posted relies upon the same tidal gage data as the infographic.

originally posted by: EvidenceNibbler
a reply to: mrthumpy

The paper I posted relies upon the same tidal gage data as the infographic.

And?

How does that paper show that rising sea levels are not linked to CO2?

a reply to: mrthumpy

And there has been no acceleration in the rate of MSLR in the last couple hundred years, which is clearly shown on the infographic, since I doubt you have taken time to read the paper itself.

originally posted by: EvidenceNibbler
a reply to: mrthumpy

And there has been no acceleration in the rate of MSLR in the last couple hundred years, which is clearly shown on the infographic, since I doubt you have taken time to read the paper itself.

You mean the paper "Short-Term Tide Gauge Records from One Location are Inadequate to Infer Global Sea-Level Acceleration" ?

originally posted by: mrthumpy

originally posted by: EvidenceNibbler
a reply to: mrthumpy

And there has been no acceleration in the rate of MSLR in the last couple hundred years, which is clearly shown on the infographic, since I doubt you have taken time to read the paper itself.

You mean the paper "Short-Term Tide Gauge Records from One Location are Inadequate to Infer Global Sea-Level Acceleration" ?

Yes, thats the one, see here: www.abovetopsecret.com...

You should read the entire paper, it's informative, might clear up some of your misconceptions about sea level rise. I've included the link, it's hard to find the actual science, thought I'd help you out.

If you have any other questions, feel free to ask.

originally posted by: mrthumpy

originally posted by: EvidenceNibbler
a reply to: mrthumpy

And there has been no acceleration in the rate of MSLR in the last couple hundred years, which is clearly shown on the infographic, since I doubt you have taken time to read the paper itself.

You mean the paper "Short-Term Tide Gauge Records from One Location are Inadequate to Infer Global Sea-Level Acceleration" ?

How does that show that rising sea levels are not linked to CO2?

originally posted by: EvidenceNibbler

originally posted by: mrthumpy

originally posted by: EvidenceNibbler
a reply to: mrthumpy

And there has been no acceleration in the rate of MSLR in the last couple hundred years, which is clearly shown on the infographic, since I doubt you have taken time to read the paper itself.

You mean the paper "Short-Term Tide Gauge Records from One Location are Inadequate to Infer Global Sea-Level Acceleration" ?

If you have any other questions, feel free to ask.

See above.

a reply to: mrthumpy

Riddle me this, if there is no acceleration in the rate of sea level rise in the last 200 years, how can C02 be the cause Mr. Thumpy?

originally posted by: EvidenceNibbler
a reply to: mrthumpy

Riddle me this, if there is no acceleration in the rate of sea level rise in the last 200 years, how can C02 be the cause Mr. Thumpy?

Could you answer the question please?

How does this paper show that CO2 cannot be linked to CO2

link.springer.com...

a reply to: mrthumpy

The paper shows there is no acceleration in RSL rise.
Since there is no correlation to rising C02 levels, there is no causation, it's rather simple isn't it?
You may be more interested in this paper it seems.
But again, it's best to read the papers themselves instead of just blindly asking questions based upon their titles.

Gervais F (2016) Anthropogenic CO2 warming challenged by 60-year cycle. Earth Sci Rev 155:129–135

www.kin152.org...

originally posted by: EvidenceNibbler
a reply to: mrthumpy


But again, it's best to read the papers themselves instead of just blindly asking questions based upon their titles.

Since you posted I would expect you to have read it and understood it. You did invite questions after all.

a reply to: mrthumpy

Sure, and I have answered your question. If you don't understand causation and correlation, it's beyond me.
You are pushing an agenda, I am providing you with papers that show there has been no acceleration in RSL rise.
Do you have an issue with the papers method of showing there has been no acceleration in RSL rise?

originally posted by: EvidenceNibbler
a reply to: mrthumpy

Sure, and I have answered your question. If you don't understand causation and correlation, it's beyond me.
You are pushing an agenda, I am providing you with papers that show there has been no acceleration in RSL rise.
Do you have an issue with the papers method of showing there has been no acceleration in RSL rise?

You posted with a paper that disagrees on how some people have calculated sea level rise. I'm asking you how that shows that sea level rise cannot be linked to CO2

a reply to: bjarneorn

That is literally pure, unrelated babble.

a reply to: mrthumpy

Not sure how many different ways I can say it Mr. Thumpy. I see you do the same thing in the 911 forum, just going round in circles. So agree or disagree with the following, quit asking the same question over and over and try to find something to prove me wrong.

Since atmospheric CO2 levels have been increasing substantially for about seventy years, mostly because of fossil fuel use, the lack of acceleration in sea-level rise over that period means that anthropogenic GHG emissions have not detectably affected sea-level.

originally posted by: EvidenceNibbler
a reply to: mrthumpy

Not sure how many different ways I can say it Mr. Thumpy.

You could try just answering the question

originally posted by: mrthumpy

originally posted by: EvidenceNibbler
a reply to: mrthumpy

Not sure how many different ways I can say it Mr. Thumpy.

You could try just answering the question

See here:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

I even bolded the answer, how could you miss it? What part of the answer do you have an issue with?

Although many climate models predict that rising CO2 levels should cause accelerated sea level rise, sea level measurements show that, thus far, in response to roughly 3/4 century of substantial anthropogenically-driven CO2 increases, there has been no detectable acceleration in the rate of sea level rise. In fact, some studies have detected small a deceleration (slowing). Here are some papers which have reported the lack of acceleration in rate of sea level rise (h/t to Alberto Boretti, Robert Dean & Doug Lord):

www.sealevel.info...