Stop the "Climate Change is Real" brow beating

try looking at reality, the trend is up

"Sea level rise is caused primarily by two factors related to global warming: the added water from melting ice sheets and glaciers and the expansion of sea water as it warms. The first graph tracks the change in sea level since 1993 as observed by satellites."

https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/sea-level/

 

So think about it this way. You're making an averages assumption. Clearly, in this case, your assumption was wrong, or at least unsubstantiated. So, instead of understanding that your generalization/normalization exercise was faulty, you keep coming back to it, and refuse to allow that, well, you're wrong. And not only are you wrong, you're unwilling to remediate it. Even better. Thanks.

So, when you now triple down on this "people like you" line of offensive behavior, you are demonstrating yet another annoying trait which is pejorative over reach. Now, you'll notice that I have not made a generalization here, I am merely making the observation about your behavior. The fact that it is your behavior and not an average, or a mean, or potentially skewed by other behaviors, it isn't something that can be smoothed or otherwise normalized. This is one of those times that just demonstrates what you have in your character. Face it. Embrace it. For some here, it is immensely amusing and entertaining.

So, no. I don't insist that global warming is a religious idea. I ascribe the dogmatic anthropogenic idea as an example of one, though. And yet, you still cannot disassociate your own commentary from the idea that during an interglacial period that nature itself might be the lever that we are witnessing. For you, it seems, it must be some apocalyptic man made result. You believe that. That isn't scientific, it's emotional. And given the level of fervor that comes with it, is remarkably akin to any evangelicized religion out there today. It's positively rabid. Dissent must be eradicated in order to march purposefully towards the apocalyptic deliverance you believe that you can provide. I'm reminded of a cult. And not a nice one at that.

 

climatology science has refuted that, over and over

 

Which, only depends on the time frame with which you look at it from. Since your sample is so small, it's irrelevant. As in, insignificant.

I mean, really. compared to 22000 years ago, your assertion is laughable.

 

Show us one tide gauge that shows any acceleration. Remember, coastal communities only use tide gauges for planning, not what some org wants to put out to scare the gullible.

 

I don't think you are able to say that, nor have climate scientists. For anthropogenic influence to be real, it must be calculated in terms of additional warming produced. And, as you've so tirelessly been willing to demonstrate, neither can climate scientists.

It is incredibly amusing to watch though, so don't stop.....

 

the gullible ones don't accept the fact that sea-level is rising

as i've shown, satellites make the rise clear and they're more accurate, too

 

. Not really. Typically science begins with a problem to solve, or an interesting phenomenon to investigate. A scientist will study the problem and compile data and reference data and present it in a paper. No hypothesis about it, it is just what is. The next scientist will read the previous paper and add to it or formulate arguments against it. A third and forth will come along and do a similar thing. It is through this back and forth that science is done.

Quantum mechanics has been a collaboration between thousands of physicists, over several decades. Most of it having nothing to with a hypothesis. Rather just lots of people finding little clues that add up to a rather clear picture.

 

i already said it and climate scientists back it up

Forster, P., V. Ramaswamy, P. Artaxo, T. Berntsen, R. Betts, D.W. Fahey, J. Haywood, J. Lean, D.C. Lowe, G. Myhre, J. Nganga, R. Prinn, G. Raga, M. Schulz and R. Van Dorland. 2007. Changes in Atmospheric Constituents and in Radiative Forcing. In: Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Solomon, S., D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K.B. Averyt, M.Tignor and H.L. Miller (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA.



Bowen, G.J., J. B. West, B. H. Vaugh n, T. E. Dawson, J. R. Ehleringer, M. L. Fogel, K. Hobson, J. Hoogewerff , C. Kendall, C.-T. Lai, C. C. Miller, D. Noone, H. Sch warc z, and C. J. Still. 2009. Isoscapes to Address Large-Scale Earth Science Challenges EOS, Transactions, American Geophysical Union, 90:109-116.

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warmin...uman-contribution-to-gw-faq.html#.WXeT11Pyv5Z

 

And yet, it does not....



You seem to have this denial thing.... hope it's not catching....

 

No I am exactly correct. In fact, a few weeks ago you posted a crazy post telling me that I didn't understand how your religiousity mattered in people's lives, and specifically as to global warming. I also know that your attempts at sounding intellectual are rather on the phoney side too. Not only the fact that you post the party line, your facts are on the iffy side. They may sound fine in your church group, but sound rather silly elsewhere. And let us not forget that in a thread complaining about educated people, you were clearly on the uneducated side, even sounding rather jealous of those with an education.

And yes, it is people like you that deny global warming. Not exactly the intellectual type.

 

Funny. But continue to run with this. It is quite amusing. It does rather hide the fact that when pressed on the actual "science" that you'd rather have an ad hominem attack fest instead. But, please, don't stop on my account. This is enormously fun.

 

you're obviously not being honest

i have a thing for seeing the truth told

"anthropogenic global warming is the greatest concern" ~ robert a rohde



"This figure was prepared by Robert A. Rohde from published data and is incorporated into the Global Warming Art project."

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Holocene_Sea_Level.png

 

Who knew that graph reading was this complicated? LOL. Again, this is the perspective:



Expressed in a much broader view, your graph is meaningless. It continues to be meaningless. But by all means, carry on....

 

i know that you're not being honest

robert rohde says global warming is from anthropogenic sources

of course you won't watch him say it

 

Of course you could always go over the the science section of this forum where I have written extensively? But no you'd rather sit there and play the clown.

 

Which doesn't change the fact that his data assessment doesn't support your breathless contention of imminent flooding. Does it? Just because he has an opinion about an anthropogenic source doesn't invalidate his otherwise insightful graph, does it?

 

At the top of Robert Rohde's web page it says, "2016 Hottest Year on Record"

 

Insistence isn't your friend here... Just saying. I've seen this behavior before on other forums. It is usually perpetrated by a disgruntled poster who attempts to bait someone into inflammatory behavior to then report them to get them banned.

Of course, this isn't you, right?

 

It does. Does it then disqualify his data set in your mind?

 

Who says flooding is imminent? If you paid attention to real news you'd know persons living along the east coast are seeing higher water levels every time it does flood. Also, with all the extra floods and tornados ripping across the red muck states, especially in the south, you'd think that god didn't like you evangelicals.

 

I always knew that you didn't want to discuss real science. But then that is typical of you evangelicals.

 

It is quite the opposite of what you claim. But then dujac pointed that out to you earlier.

 

Yet one would think it would show up somewhere in the world other than a graph of two disparate processes glued together after having been run through a model to average tide gauges. Nope. Nowhere does observed science shows what you claim.

 

So, quickly change the subject cause this dog can't hunt any more. You realize how your simply conflating now, right? You realize that when you say "flooding" you're not referring to sea state rise, you can't associate tornadic weather to millimeters of sea state rise, can you? So, you change the subject on the hopes that spreading the conversation, one might not address all of your baseless breathless what ifs as if it becomes agreement. Laughable. Truly.