Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Of course I read it.....they are claiming the rate of sea level rise is increasing ...and the only way they can get that is by cherry picking their start and finish dates
When you start with a La Nina....2010-2011...sea level normally falls
...and end with a El Nino... 2016.....when sea level normally rises
..and then using that cherry picking of dates...to go on and say sea level is rising faster ""Sea level continues to rise at a rate of about one-eighth of an inch per year.""
....That's a little over 1 inch a decade.....which is exactly the rate from the La Nina to the El Nino
since they published that article in 2014.....5 years ago....sea level rise has gone back to exactly what it was before.....less than 1 inch a decade
2011 was unusually low......2016 was unusually high...and it's gone right back to where it was
Except that they didn't cherry pick anything. First, the fact that your even mentioning La Nina and El Nino illustrates that you should really read up on the primary causes of sea level rise. Second, your doing the same thing with this link that you did in your other post. You are posting it to support your opinion when the chart is irrelevant. You keep ignoring data that refutes everything you say. For example, you mentioned La Nina and El Nino when those are not even close to the primary culprits of sea level rise. Even the link I gave you mentions the causes. So if you read the whole thing objectively how did you miss this part which shows that they are not cherry picking the data:
Quote:
From the 1970s up through the last decade, melting and thermal expansion were contributing roughly equally to the observed sea level rise. But the melting of glaciers and ice sheets has accelerated, and over the past decade, the amount of sea level rise due to melting—with a small addition from groundwater transfer and other water storage shifts—has been nearly twice the amount of sea level rise due to thermal expansion.
Glacier mass loss accelerated from 226 gigatons/year between 1971 and 2009 to 275 gigatons/year between 1993 and 2009. Ice loss from the Greenland Ice Sheet increased six-fold, from 34 gigatons/year between 1992-2001 to 215 gigatons/year between 2002 and 2011. Antarctic ice loss more than quadrupled, from 30 gigatons/year between 1992 and 2001 to 147 gigatons/year from 2002 to 2011.
You cant have your cake and eat it too. YOU are the one who originally used the NOAA to support your view. Meaning you clearly believe they are a credible source of information. So when their data goes against your opinion you can't just change your tune to "they are using cherry picked data." The fact is that you were misinformed about this subject. And there is nothing wrong with that. I have been misinformed many times in my life, was corrected and was happy to know the actual facts. Its just part of being human and growing as an individual.
Last edited by griffon652; 06-04-2019 at 07:37 AM..
griffoooon.....what website did I "try" to use? Both links I posted are NOAA.....and no one said sea level isn't rising....try harder..you can slam someone much better than that
The link I posted is NOAA tide gauge at Key West...the oldest most accurate gauge in Florida
...and it says sea level is rising at "2.42mm/year" "0.79ft in 100 years"...around 9 inches a century
That's a direct measurement of sea level rise.....
..don't like it?...take it up with NOAA
....soooooo, the entire state of Florida is looking at less than 1ft of sea level rise in the next 100 years
I think we're cool with that
What's funny is that the climate crisis fanatics have been making claims for decades now. And for decades, it's always "just wait" and "our computer models"... yet decade after decade, no acceleration. The tide gauges and trends are ACTUAL data of what has happened. Not projections and models.
And still, they'll cherry pick a couple of years, extrapolate it, model it, and tell us the sky is falling. And a few years from now, it'll still be the same old thing. No acceleration, maybe even a pause. And they'll keep peddling the same alarmist nonsense.
CO2, which gives us life, is somehow a boogieman that's going to kill us all.... These people are nuts!
Funny thing about these sea level trends, is that you can pull data from all over the world. And that data ALL shows no acceleration or catastrophic sea level rise.
Fine...call it the worst case of confirmation bias in history...LOL
Your article says it was written in 2014...
....then NOAA gets real specific..."in the past few decades"
You can pick any past date..."in the past few decades"....draw a straight line to 2014....and say sea level rise has accelerated...
2014 was a huge abnormal anomaly...caused by thermal expansion...caused by a Super El Nino..and NOAA's graph proves it
...obviously...NOAA agrees with that...it's their graph
The 2014 = 2016 El Nino was so strong....it's call the Super El Nino
In 2014, when your article was published.....NOAA though they had confirmed "accelerated" sea level rise...
...all they did was jump the shark....again
The next 5 years...sea level rise went right back to the same rate... where it was before
Except that they didn't cherry pick anything. First, the fact that your even mentioning La Nina and El Nino illustrates that you should really read up on the primary causes of sea level rise. Second, your doing the same thing with this link that you did in your other post. You are posting it to support your opinion when the chart is irrelevant. You keep ignoring data that refutes everything you say. For example, you mentioned La Nina and El Nino when those are not even close to the primary culprits of sea level rise. Even the link I gave you mentions the causes. So if you read the whole thing objectively how did you miss this part which shows that they are not cherry picking the data:
You cant have your cake and eat it too. YOU are the one who originally used the NOAA to support your view. Meaning you clearly believe they are a credible source of information. So when their data goes against your opinion you can't just change your tune to "they are using cherry picked data." The fact is that you were misinformed about this subject. And there is nothing wrong with that. I have been misinformed many times in my life, was corrected and was happy to know the actual facts. Its just part of being human and growing as an individual.
See if I can decipher that rant>>>
Did the La Nina cause sea level rise to slow down and stop...yes
..did the Super El Nino that came after cause sea level rise to accelerate...yes
Did the rate of sea level rise return to normal after those two events...yes
OCTOBER 29, 2012
La Nina caused global sea level drop
"The 2011 La Niña was so strong that it caused global mean sea level to drop by 5 millimeters (0.2 inches), a new study shows."
"Previous studies have shown that strong El Niño events can increase sea level temporarily."
No, the chart is very relevant...and NOAA's sea level measurements do not support their hypothesis that sea level rise accelerated....5 years after they said that....sea level rise went right back where it was
Of course I believe NOAA is a credible source...but it's their data that goes against their opinion...not mine
unless you think NOAA's sea level measurements don't count...and only NOAA's predictions count...because their actual measurements do not support their opinion
NOAA's actual measurements say there has been no increase in the rate of sea level rise...
The average temperatures on the planet are getting warmer.
The glaciers all over the planet are melting, as are the ice caps at the north and south poles.
And in rebuttal to the uneducated person in this thread who said carbon dioxide gives life, the only life that CO2 give is to plants that convert it to oxygen because humans and animals can't live on CO2 and considering the vast amounts of rain forest and other forests around the world that have been burned down to make room for crops, it might be a good idea to plant as many trees as possible where we can while scientists try to figure out some method to take the excess carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere that's causing temperatures to rise worldwide that's been contributing to droughts that contribute to massive wildfires that burn up trees that have been converting CO2 to oxygen.
It might also be a good idea to start a massive fresh water conservation program like the U.S. had in the 1930's to divert some of the water from rivers that empty into the oceans to irrigate crop land and maybe in the process slow down the sea level rise by having less river water emptying into the oceans.
We've already see the effects of Red Tide with dead fish all over the beaches on the west coast of Florida because of algae blooms fed by fertilizers running into the ocean from the farmlands along the rivers in Florida so it would probably help to keep Florida river water out of the ocean.
Our beaches are now getting regularly filled up with seaweed from massive seaweed growth in the Gulf of Mexico that has been attributed to fertilizer run off from farmlands into rivers that drain into the Gulf. that seaweed grows in the Gulf but then gets carried to the east coast of Florida by ocean currents.
What's funny is that the climate crisis fanatics have been making claims for decades now. And for decades, it's always "just wait" and "our computer models"... yet decade after decade, no acceleration. The tide gauges and trends are ACTUAL data of what has happened. Not projections and models.
And still, they'll cherry pick a couple of years, extrapolate it, model it, and tell us the sky is falling. And a few years from now, it'll still be the same old thing. No acceleration, maybe even a pause. And they'll keep peddling the same alarmist nonsense.
Its amazing how you post links but you don't understand what they mean, how to interpret them or how they can determine future weather pattern. Its like a layman looking at a brain scan, studying how to read a brain scan on google and then proceed to say that they can interpret that data just as well as an MD who specializes in neurosurgery. Its just silly. Lucky for you, since you like actual data so much here are some helpful links for NOAA to help you understand those links you posted. But I'm sure you will say these links from NOAA that I'm posting are "not facts" even though its the same data you posted. Even though the guys from NOAA have been doing this for their entire lives I'm sure your interpretation of the data is wrong and your right:
Before you scream that the link below is only FUTURE predictions, just know that they have an entire section dedicated to the data you posted:
Did the La Nina cause sea level rise to slow down and stop...yes
..did the Super El Nino that came after cause sea level rise to accelerate...yes
Did the rate of sea level rise return to normal after those two events...yes
OCTOBER 29, 2012
La Nina caused global sea level drop
"The 2011 La Niña was so strong that it caused global mean sea level to drop by 5 millimeters (0.2 inches), a new study shows."
"Previous studies have shown that strong El Niño events can increase sea level temporarily."
No, the chart is very relevant...and NOAA's sea level measurements do not support their hypothesis that sea level rise accelerated....5 years after they said that....sea level rise went right back where it was
Of course I believe NOAA is a credible source...but it's their data that goes against their opinion...not mine
unless you think NOAA's sea level measurements don't count...and only NOAA's predictions count...because their actual measurements do not support their opinion
NOAA's actual measurements say there has been no increase in the rate of sea level rise...
Feel free to read the above two links from NOAA that I posted to BNBR. It answers all your concerns from the last two posts. Their data does not go against their opinion. The data shows that the rate of sea level rise has doubled. You confusing regional sea level rise with global sea level rise. In the links above NOAA specifically addresses those subjects so people stop thinking that their data and opinions don't match. On a side note this will be my last post on this matter. The data from the NOAA is clear and its been interpreted so everyone can understand it. So it would be pointless for me to continue to respond to either of you if you continue to refute everything.
Before you scream that the link below is only FUTURE predictions, .
ROTFL...but that's exactly all it is....and NOAA is so certain of their predictions....they give 6 different scenarios
BTW...they did it again...this is from your link
"Global sea level has been rising over the past century, and we’ve seen the rate increase in recent decades. Global tidal records from 1900 to 1990 show an estimated 4- to 5-inch rise in global mean sea level. Then, in the 25 years from 1990 to 2015, this global tide gauge network showed global sea level rising 3 inches,"
Pick any date...in the recent past decades....draw a straight line to the Super El Nino...2014-2016
...and you will show sea level rise getting faster
The average temperatures on the planet are getting warmer.
The glaciers all over the planet are melting, as are the ice caps at the north and south poles.
And in rebuttal to the uneducated person in this thread who said carbon dioxide gives life, the only life that CO2 give is to plants that convert it to oxygen because humans and animals can't live on CO2 and considering the vast amounts of rain forest and other forests around the world that have been burned down to make room for crops, it might be a good idea to plant as many trees as possible where we can while scientists try to figure out some method to take the excess carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere that's causing temperatures to rise worldwide that's been contributing to droughts that contribute to massive wildfires that burn up trees that have been converting CO2 to oxygen.
It might also be a good idea to start a massive fresh water conservation program like the U.S. had in the 1930's to divert some of the water from rivers that empty into the oceans to irrigate crop land and maybe in the process slow down the sea level rise by having less river water emptying into the oceans.
We've already see the effects of Red Tide with dead fish all over the beaches on the west coast of Florida because of algae blooms fed by fertilizers running into the ocean from the farmlands along the rivers in Florida so it would probably help to keep Florida river water out of the ocean.
Our beaches are now getting regularly filled up with seaweed from massive seaweed growth in the Gulf of Mexico that has been attributed to fertilizer run off from farmlands into rivers that drain into the Gulf. that seaweed grows in the Gulf but then gets carried to the east coast of Florida by ocean currents.
OMG. Lol. CO2 is still not proven to cause temperature rise. Seriously. It makes up a tiny, tiny portion of GHC's. Green houses artificially inflate CO2 substantially more than what we are currently breathing. Why? Because it helps crops grow. CO2 is causing global greening, it's a fantastic thing. And lastly, we do NOT have excess CO2. Right now CO2 is at a historic LOW, to the point where plants are starving. Releasing carbon in to the atmosphere is not necessarily a bad thing. Carbon is a beautiful thing. Don't let actual science get in the way of your talking points, though.
As for red tide, again, you are like a talking point machine with no basis in facts. Red tide was reported, possibly at worse levels, LONG before Florida had fertilizer runoff. It's not a new phenomena. But don't let a good crisis go to waste, huh? Don't take my word for it, just ask FWC: "red tides were documented in the southern Gulf of Mexico as far back as the 1700s and along Florida's Gulf coast in the 1840s. Fish kills near Tampa Bay were even mentioned in the records of Spanish explorers."
Those bastards and all their fertilizer in the 1700's! And it gets better... "Florida red tides develop 10-40 miles offshore, away from man-made nutrient sources. In contrast to the many red tide species that are fueled by nutrient pollution associated with urban or agricultural runoff, there is no direct link between nutrient pollution and the frequency or initiation of red tides caused by K. brevis. Red tides occurred in Florida long before human settlement, and severe red tides were observed in the mid-1900s before the state’s coastlines were heavily developed."
Whoops. Time to rethink your positions, huh? Maybe you will come to the unfortunate realization that it's YOU who is "uneducated"...
Its amazing how you post links but you don't understand what they mean, how to interpret them or how they can determine future weather pattern. Its like a layman looking at a brain scan, studying how to read a brain scan on google and then proceed to say that they can interpret that data just as well as an MD who specializes in neurosurgery. Its just silly. Lucky for you, since you like actual data so much here are some helpful links for NOAA to help you understand those links you posted. But I'm sure you will say these links from NOAA that I'm posting are "not facts" even though its the same data you posted. Even though the guys from NOAA have been doing this for their entire lives I'm sure your interpretation of the data is wrong and your right:
Before you scream that the link below is only FUTURE predictions, just know that they have an entire section dedicated to the data you posted:
Feel free to read the above two links from NOAA that I posted to BNBR. It answers all your concerns from the last two posts. Their data does not go against their opinion. The data shows that the rate of sea level rise has doubled. You confusing regional sea level rise with global sea level rise. In the links above NOAA specifically addresses those subjects so people stop thinking that their data and opinions don't match. On a side note this will be my last post on this matter. The data from the NOAA is clear and its been interpreted so everyone can understand it. So it would be pointless for me to continue to respond to either of you if you continue to refute everything.
You seem to have a problem with differentiating opinion/projections and fact.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It's Still Rising
