Sea level rise: It's worse than we thought

Judged:

4

4

4

Steve Case wrote:

Hmmm, let's see, if I paste one over the other and adjust the scale and time span then they should come out the same right? Let's see what that looks like:

Judged:

3

3

3

LessHypeMoreFact wrote:

<quoted text>
So someone let out a graph with a mislabelled scale.

Judged:

4

3

3

I Am DIGITAP wrote:

<quoted text>
THERE ARE SO MANY FLASHING .GIFs ON THE INTERNET of "HANSEN BEFORE 1999/AFTER 2000" and "NOAHH FOUND COOLING RECORDS OF PAST BY COMPARING PAPER ARCHIVES" and "AUSTRALIAN GOVERNMENT CAUGHT ALTERING RECORDS, COOLING PAST to MAKE PRESENT LOOK HOT"
that I DON'T EVEN HAVE TO LINK THEM: THEY are E.V.E.R.Y.W.H.E.R.E.
WHY DIDN'T YEW and YER FRINDS GIT THUH EMAIL?

Judged:

3

3

3

LessFactMoreHype wrote:

So someone let out a graph with a mislabelled scale.

Judged:

4

4

4

SpamBotty wrote:

http://sealevel.colorado.edu/f iles/2012_rel3/sl_ns_global.pn g
See already Jason-2 measured higher rates for 2012 than 2010.

Judged:

2

2

2

Earthling-1 wrote:

<quoted text>WOW, that's amazing non news, especially considering sea level fell over 5 mm in 2010.
-
How many more times are you going to spam the same link?

Judged:

3

2

1

SpaceBlues wrote:

<quoted text>Hey dirtie you play dirtily.
It is news but you got it wrong here and elsewhere.
Also, you are confused because it was Steve who posted first. I brought it here as it belongs here.
Yep, Jason-2 measured steep acceleration of sealevel rise in 2012.
MYOB, dirtie.

Judged:

2

2

2

Earthling-1 wrote:

NobodyYouEverWantToKnow, alias:
<quoted text>Who did?
Is it acceptable?
How many more simple errors are out there, Mr Undoubtably Spelt Fourty?
Forty is spelt with a U
Etymology is not a serious subject
Deforestations is a consequence of AGW
Epistemologists compile dictionaries
Epystemologists compile dictionaries
Samuel Johnson was an American
Ice calving is restricted by size
Spelt is only an ancient grain
The equator doesn't have season
Cars can be charged with road collisions
Vikings didn't know how to live in a warmer Greenland
How much heat you are transferring at one time has NO relationship to the temperature of any objects
Alberta is a country
New Moore island is in the MOUTH of the several rivers
Insects and plants don't qualify as species
Enercon install offshore wind generators
Scientific laws are not science
Climate and weather are not 'linked'
Predictions are for astrologers
Ethanol is a very workable and effective solution
AGW is just the warming of the global average surface temperature due to GHGs
AGW is the global average
The science says that human emissions are responsible for MOST of AGW, which has SOME unknown but significant part of climate change
The IPCC report of 2001 and 2007 clearly show that GHGs are by far the largest contributor but not the exclusive contributor to AGW
America has two political parties
Climate and weather are not 'linked'
'nondenier' is a real word
Fruiting plants are especially chosen by bees for, "polination"
We acted on CFCs in the 70s
CO2 is not vital for life on planet Earth.
CO2 causes, "thermal pollution"
CO2 is a 'thermal pollutant'
CO2 levels are rising faster than the temperature can react
AGW is comparable to the Holocaust
Please show this 'ararmist club' and membership list.
And theory is the endpoint of science.
The 'unproven' stuff is 'hypothesis'.
The fact that all the scientific authorities confirm AGW as theory means that it IS science fact as defined.
There are no 'laws of science'
Scientific laws are NOT science
the science isn't going to change
While the science doesn't change rapidly it does change
And nowhere is there 'skepticism' of the science
Experiment is NOT science
Experiment can only give you data. It cannot PROVE anything

Judged:

2

2

2

Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:

<quoted text>
.. very tiring, get a life you old dropout.

Judged:

1

1

1

Steve Case wrote:

<quoted text>
And what I posted over at that other thread was that yearly values don't mean anything.
Cherry picking one year as you have done is a meaningless exercise. If you take the entire satellite record all the way back to 1992 you will find that acceleration is a bit negative. Here's that Colorado U screenshot again:
http://i39.tinypic.com/nr14bq.jpg
You guys can try and spin that anyway you want, and the numbers will still say that over the last 20 years the rate of sea level rise is decreasing.

Judged:

2

2

2

SpamBotty wrote:

I could say a whole more

Judged:

3

2

2

Steve Case wrote:

And what I posted over at that other thread was that yearly values don't mean anything.
Cherry picking one year as you have done is a meaningless exercise. If you take the entire satellite record all the way back to 1992 you will find that acceleration is a bit negative. Here's that Colorado U screenshot again:
http://i39.tinypic.com/nr14bq.jpg
You guys can try and spin that anyway you want, and the numbers will still say that over the last 20 years the rate of sea level rise is decreasing.

Judged:

2

2

2

SpaceBlues wrote:

<quoted text>So why did you do it?
You are wrong. I could say a whole more but why educate you! You are no skeptic, contrary to one poster..

Judged:

3

3

3

Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:

<quoted text>
You are very tiring, get a life you old dropout.

Judged:

3

3

3

SpaceBlues wrote:

<quoted text>So why did you do it?
You are wrong. I could say a whole more but why educate you! You are no skeptic, contrary to one poster..

Judged:

3

2

1

tina anne wrote:

<quoted text>
You should follow your own advice and get a life. Take some time off Topix and spend a day at the beach or take a walk in the part or the woods.