lost_shaman Posted May 27, 2019 #3176 Share Posted May 27, 2019 (edited) 14 minutes ago, Doc Socks Junior said: Uh...no. You realize that Parker and Collier disagree with that sea-level trend, right? The entire point of the paper is to disagree with it. Oops. Yes they do make an estimate that is lower than that but what they do NOT DO Doc is say there is NO Sea Level rise. Nor does the fact that I agreed with that earlier statment mean that I don't believe Sea Levels can rise. Edited May 27, 2019 by lost_shaman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Socks Junior Posted May 27, 2019 #3177 Share Posted May 27, 2019 (edited) 5 minutes ago, lost_shaman said: Yes they do make an estimate that is lower than that but what they do NOT DO Doc is say there is NO Sea Level rise. Nor does the fact that I agreed with that earlier statment mean that I don't believe Sea Levels can rise. How much is 0? Because they say the sea level trend there is "zero mm/yr" and sea levels are "stable". Maybe you can enlighten me about the quantitative meaning of 0. I'm thrilled you believe sea levels can rise. Really making a bold statement. Edited May 27, 2019 by Doc Socks Junior Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lost_shaman Posted May 27, 2019 #3178 Share Posted May 27, 2019 Just now, Doc Socks Junior said: I'm thrilled you believe sea levels can rise. I NEVER said it could not you implied that was a belief of mine. 2 minutes ago, Doc Socks Junior said: Because they say "0 mm/yr" and "stable" quite a bit. Here is what they actually say. "By revising the alignment of the data up to 1969, and neglecting the misaligned new measurements, the sea levels are only very weekly rising at - 0.05 to 0.24 mm/ year in Aden over the 20th century." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Socks Junior Posted May 27, 2019 #3179 Share Posted May 27, 2019 8 minutes ago, lost_shaman said: I NEVER said it could not you implied that was a belief of mine. I pointed out a statement you agreed with. 8 minutes ago, lost_shaman said: Here is what they actually say. "By revising the alignment of the data up to 1969, and neglecting the misaligned new measurements, the sea levels are only very weekly rising at - 0.05 to 0.24 mm/ year in Aden over the 20th century." Huh. The paper's misspelling is funny in that context. From the paper: Quote Results Analysis of the tide gauge data of Aden, Yemen shows that without arbitrary alignment of data, Aden exhibits very stable sea level conditions like those in Mumbai, India and Karachi, Pakistan, without any significant sea level trend. Conclusion The reconstructed tide gauge records of Aden, Mumbai and Karachi are perfectly consistent with multiple lines of evidence from other key sites of the Indian Ocean including Qatar, Maldives, Bangladesh and Visakhapatnam. The sea levels have been stable since the start of the twentieth century in Aden similar to Karachi and Mumbai. I also realized, thanks to your quote, that the paper stated that sea levels were rising at a negative rate. A humor piece, maybe? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Essan Posted May 27, 2019 #3180 Share Posted May 27, 2019 45 minutes ago, tortugabob said: Haven't watched it (perhaps you could explain why we should?) but I assume the gist is that because an American politician is (arguably) a hypocrite it proves that scientists for the past 150 have all been lying to us This thread is beyond a farce. You really should try proving the Earth is flat, hollow, expanding and only 6,000 years old. Scientists disagree with all that too (So it must be true!) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lost_shaman Posted May 27, 2019 #3181 Share Posted May 27, 2019 9 minutes ago, Doc Socks Junior said: I pointed out a statement you agreed with. And I still agree with it. Of course that statement did not mean what you "imagine" it to mean. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lost_shaman Posted May 27, 2019 #3182 Share Posted May 27, 2019 (edited) And here is what the Paper was arguing against that has Doc all up in Arms. Edited May 27, 2019 by lost_shaman 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tortugabob Posted May 27, 2019 #3183 Share Posted May 27, 2019 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lost_shaman Posted May 27, 2019 #3184 Share Posted May 27, 2019 Oh and see that long streak of Data in the center of Fig. 3 Doc. That's a negative trend. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Socks Junior Posted May 27, 2019 #3185 Share Posted May 27, 2019 8 minutes ago, lost_shaman said: Oh and see that long streak of Data in the center of Fig. 3 Doc. That's a negative trend. Mind-bottling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Socks Junior Posted May 27, 2019 #3186 Share Posted May 27, 2019 Do you mind just posting the graphs themselves. Maybe with a year-axis? The GIF is meaningless. EDIT: That isn't what the argument was about, that was simply what you made it into to avoid discussing any of the claims you brought up. For instance,the corrections being 'arbitrary' and the rise being 'artificial'. As I said, you're not interested in an honest discussion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lost_shaman Posted May 27, 2019 #3187 Share Posted May 27, 2019 1 minute ago, Doc Socks Junior said: Do you mind just posting the graphs themselves. Maybe with a year-axis? The GIF is meaningless. I gave you the link yesterday. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Socks Junior Posted May 27, 2019 #3188 Share Posted May 27, 2019 1 minute ago, lost_shaman said: I gave you the link yesterday. Yes. The main point was to avoid the juvenile flashing GIFs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lost_shaman Posted May 27, 2019 #3189 Share Posted May 27, 2019 3 minutes ago, Doc Socks Junior said: Yes. The main point was to avoid the juvenile flashing GIFs. Do you have a point to make? My gif. simply shows the same data being bent a bit to show a rather Dull looking incline to a rather dramatic looking incline in just the last few years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Socks Junior Posted May 27, 2019 #3190 Share Posted May 27, 2019 Just now, lost_shaman said: Do you have a point to make? My gif. simply shows the same data being bent a bit to show a rather Dull looking incline to a rather dramatic looking incline in just the last few years. Your GIF doesn't show both axes of the graph. It's unclear where in the general link you gave the data is actually coming from. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lost_shaman Posted May 27, 2019 #3191 Share Posted May 27, 2019 1 minute ago, Doc Socks Junior said: Your GIF doesn't show both axes of the graph. It's unclear where in the general link you gave the data is actually coming from. In my link there is only Two Graphs. I think it's obvious which one I used. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Socks Junior Posted May 27, 2019 #3192 Share Posted May 27, 2019 1 minute ago, lost_shaman said: In my link there is only Two Graphs. I think it's obvious which one I used. Yes. Indeed. For 1 of the flashing images. Where'd the one labelled NASA 2015 come from? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lost_shaman Posted May 27, 2019 #3193 Share Posted May 27, 2019 1 minute ago, Doc Socks Junior said: Where'd the one labelled NASA 2015 come from? From the Same graph on the Same NASA page in 2015. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Socks Junior Posted May 27, 2019 #3194 Share Posted May 27, 2019 3 minutes ago, lost_shaman said: From the Same graph on the Same NASA page in 2015. So link to it! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lost_shaman Posted May 27, 2019 #3195 Share Posted May 27, 2019 2 minutes ago, Doc Socks Junior said: So link to it! So demanding... like I'm one of your minions. Here guy. http://archive.is/WRuIL 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Socks Junior Posted May 27, 2019 #3196 Share Posted May 27, 2019 (edited) 1 hour ago, lost_shaman said: So demanding... like I'm one of your minions. Here guy. http://archive.is/WRuIL No, you're not. If you were, I'd fail you on this quiz for misunderstanding scale. I do see the problem now, of course. It was pretty obvious from the way you tried to mask the horizontal scale. Hey, everybody. This will be useful for some of you. @lost_shaman already probably understands this, however, since he carefully tried to obfuscate it. The graphs in his GIF have a different horizontal scale. but the same vertical scale. This, obviously, is why one apparently shows a steeper trend than the other. Quote This whole portion of this NASA graph between 10 cm and 20 cm has been adulterated in the last 4 years (3 years actually). These are from the same NASA site https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/sea-level/ . Clearly if you visit this site today it simply even looks more "scary" than it did a few years ago, and we are looking at the exact same part of the graph! Also they've changed the decades that are labeled. I assume this was done to confuse their target audience? There is no data adulteration in what NASA did. If you compare the graphs at the same horizontal scale, they are very comparable. EDIT: Two bad options. 1) @lost_shaman doesn't know what scale is 2) @lost_shaman knowingly created a misleading series of images in an attempt to accuse NASA of data manipulation Either way...not too good. Edited May 27, 2019 by Doc Socks Junior Being more nice Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lost_shaman Posted May 27, 2019 #3197 Share Posted May 27, 2019 59 minutes ago, Doc Socks Junior said: @lost_shaman knowingly created a misleading series of images in an attempt to accuse NASA of data manipulation Ok. Guy's,... Sorry for showing you NASA's charts and thus misleading you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Socks Junior Posted May 27, 2019 #3198 Share Posted May 27, 2019 33 minutes ago, lost_shaman said: Ok. Guy's,... Sorry for showing you NASA's charts and thus misleading you. No. You should apologize for cropping them to hid the mismatching scales, then accusing NASA of data manipulation. You just can't help the lies, can you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tortugabob Posted May 27, 2019 #3199 Share Posted May 27, 2019 (edited) Here is a short video of an interview with a scientist who believes in AGW but who tells the truth. Around 5:40 he speaks of sea level rise. It's a short statement about the people pushing this aspect of global warming. The whole video is worth watching. He basically says that the IPCC is a political organization and not a scientific organization. Edited May 27, 2019 by tortugabob Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tortugabob Posted May 27, 2019 #3200 Share Posted May 27, 2019 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now