[DrCaleb]

BRAH BRAH:

This is from 2012 and still amazing to watch.

On Netflix there is a Documentary called 'Chasing Ice' and it's full of that kind of stuff. A chunk the size of Manhattan breaks off a glacier in Alaska and it's friggen awesome!

[BartSimpson]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

It is 'cherry picking' because the numbers for November 2015 are not available yet.

You didn't even look at the fucking link, did you?

It's the raw, unadjusted data from actual monitoring stations. It updates DAILY. You can make your own charts from it instead of waiting for someone else to 'adjust' them for you.

Scary having to think for yourself, isn't it?

[BRAH]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

BRAH BRAH:

This is from 2012 and still amazing to watch.

On Netflix there is a Documentary called 'Chasing Ice' and it's full of that kind of stuff. A chunk the size of Manhattan breaks off a glacier in Alaska and it's friggen awesome!

Screw chasing tornadoes this is more interesting.

[N_Fiddledog]

That is wild. I want to see it. I'm going to download it, turn off the sound so I don't have to listen to Hollywood moron talk and watch it.

Maybe I'll give it some AC/DC for a soundtrack or something. Yeah, I know. Highway to Hell, right?

[DrCaleb]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

It is 'cherry picking' because the numbers for November 2015 are not available yet.

You didn't even look at the fucking link, did you?

It's the raw, unadjusted data from actual monitoring stations. It updates DAILY. You can make your own charts from it instead of waiting for someone else to 'adjust' them for you.

Scary having to think for yourself, isn't it?

I always open your links, but what to choose? What were you referring to specifically? All of those stations present 30 day data only. If you want to make a point, you have to articulate it out loud.

0:

Adak Station.JPG [ 72.04 KiB | Viewed 157 times ]

How can I do historical analysis on them to confirm or refute your claim?

It really doesn't matter, because like the video I posted said, different places will experience ocean rise (or fall) differently. (you watched the video, right?) In order to dispute the claim that ocean levels are rising, we'd have to take all that data and analyze it. But someone already did.

What matters, as always is the average. And the average is what's rising, as all of the links I gave show.

[N_Fiddledog]

I think I might have to disagree with Bart if he's saying sea level isn't rising at all. Even if he's saying it hasn't risen over two years. I don't think the evidence shows that. Maybe one year. Oh wait, I just looked again. That's a year old. Maybe Bart's right. Doesn't matter.



My point was sea level has been rising for thousands of years. In general, I thought what we were talking about was rise in the rate of increase.

My argument to that is even if we accept data represented, by say, Wikipedia (which loves them some global warming alarmism) the increase in the supposed increasing trend of the last twenty years (usually a trend is supposed to be thirty but why nitpick) is just 6 inches in a century.

Like I say I wouldn't bother selling my beachfront property over that.

As to the what did you call it? The study of what would happen if the right glacier fell into the ocean fast enough, mentioned in the OP. It isn't that I disagree with it. It's that I recognize it for what it is. A prophecy of catastrophe imagined in a computer based on the confirmation bias of the programmer. GIGO.

[DrCaleb]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

It's the raw, unadjusted data from actual monitoring stations. It updates DAILY. You can make your own charts from it instead of waiting for someone else to 'adjust' them for you.

Scary having to think for yourself, isn't it?

Speaking of thinking for yourself, let's have a look at why tidal gauge monitoring isn't the preferred method. Firstly - accuracy.



This method generates error rates between .1 and .8 mm/year. There are also errors introduced called "Steric Effects" which is basically corrosion eating away at the components used for measurement.

The other problem is distribution:



Not very easy to map trends in parts of the ocean where there is no record, is it?

Satellites have their errors too, but not nearly as bad as tidal gauges. And their records cover the entire ocean, so they can produce trends like this:



It's also much easier to use the data collected and find trends for it. Like this:



The trend line slope still rises to the right. Whether you choose to believe the randomness of that graph, the trend line says it all.

[N_Fiddledog]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

It's also much easier to use the data collected and find trends for it. Like this:



The trend line slope still rises to the right. Whether you choose to believe the randomness of that graph, the trend line says it all.

But again, I used that data, and only get an increase in rate of increase of sea level rise of 6 inches per century from that twenty year "trend". So again, again even if that's what you got, it's a big fat, so what?

[N_Fiddledog]

Ever seen this?



It's an animated graph of how Boston adapted to sea level rise over the 19th century through the use of land fill.

http://www.bc.edu/bc_org/avp/cas/fnart/ ... uence.html

[DrCaleb]

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

It isn't that I disagree with it. It's that I recognize it for what it is. A prophecy of catastrophe imagined in a computer based on the confirmation bias of the programmer. GIGO.

Speaking of confirmation bias, you don't want to see what's right in front of you, so why should I bother? What else explains the huge melts we see now every year?

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

It's also much easier to use the data collected and find trends for it. Like this:

But again, I used that data, and only get an increase in rate of increase of sea level rise of 6 inches per century from that twenty year "trend". So again, again even if that's what you got, it's a big fat, so what?

The study says it all, glacial melt is accelerating. We'll know in the coming decades whether this is true or not.

[N_Fiddledog]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

Speaking of confirmation bias, you don't want to see what's right in front of you, so why should I bother?

But again, if you want to steal my material for crying out loud, could you use at least one of terms correctly. Sometime... Anytime?

Confirmation bias is not disagreeing with you. Seeing it as such, is.

[BartSimpson]

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

Ever seen this?



It's an animated graph of how Boston adapted to sea level rise over the 19th century through the use of land fill.

http://www.bc.edu/bc_org/avp/cas/fnart/ ... uence.html

No, it's an animated graph of how enterprising Bostonians made more salable land by filling in the Back Bay and etc. The same thing has been done extensively in San Francisco, too, and no one is saying that it was done because of sea level rise.

[N_Fiddledog]

It's adaptation.

"Look water. Let's add some landfill and turn it into property."

[N_Fiddledog]

And BTW the way Doc, because you also have problems with the difference between adaptation and mitigation. That was adaptation.

Here's the light bringer showing you what mitigation would be.



Don't feel bad Barry. King Canute couldn't do it either.

[DrCaleb]

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

Speaking of confirmation bias, you don't want to see what's right in front of you, so why should I bother?

But again, if you want to steal my material for crying out loud, could you use at least one of terms correctly. Sometime... Anytime?

Confirmation bias is not disagreeing with you. Seeing it as such, is.

Your material? Did you write it? Did you research it?

Confirmation bias is you assuming the people generating the computer model are dishonestly doing so, when you don't believe the results to begin with. Pretty much the definition of 'confirmation bias'.

And, no it's not disagreeing with me. How can a trend that hasn't happen yet disagree with me? Give your head a shake!