If you think so. My emphasis was in the technical (mis)interpretation of the graphs, and not natural variability.
That is a very odd conclusion. The NOAA quoted 1.7 - 1.8 mm per year since 1870 as a long term linear average. If they really wanted to "produce the most anxiety" they should have quoted the most recent trend of 3 mm per year since 1992. I would think 3 mm is more scary than 1.8. I don't see where you are coming from. You seem to have a penchant for looking at data and coming up with a wrong interpretation as in your graph in post #185 where you adamantly denied an accelerated pace of rising sea level on the basis of the last two decades rather than the obviously accelerated pace of the last 14 decades.
Again, I don't know where you are coming from. Your graph is posted below. It is a blowup starting from a later date than the graph I posted.
Again, I don't know where you are coming from. Your graph is posted below. It is a blowup starting from a later date than the graph I posted.
Notice that in 1993 the baseline sea level is -5 mm. In 2015 the sea level is shown to be 65 mm. That is a delta of 70 mm over a period of 22 years.
70 mm/22 years = 3.18 mm per year.
If you do the same simple arithmetic to the graph I posted you also get around 3 mm per year. You can do it your self: use a straight edge on your screen to project the final two decades to the zero point. Measure the delta values of the x and y axes and you will find that the slope, which is defined as delta y divided by delta x, is around 3. I measured 3.3, but admittedly the graph is too small on the computer screen to do it very accurately.
So both our graphs show the same result; that the sea level rise is has been about 3 mm per year over the past 2 decades. What makes you think that 3 mm per year is a bald faced lie?
First of all, I can't take credit for that claim. It was the NOAA that discovered the 3mm rate for the last two decades. Secondly, I'm surprised you were unable to do the math to make your own judgement and be able to corroborate outside sources. The math is really quite simple.
Is that the best you can do? You didn't look at the math did you. C'mon look at your graph and tell me what you come up with. It really isn't that hard.
So, a few days ago you said NOAA has done "So much data tampering ... to support the AGW narrative". And today you religiously trust the NOAA "AGW narrative". My my, you are oozing with hypocrisy. I can see that you are totally confused and don't really have any cogent arguments.
That's all you got? Awarding yourself points? You can't find the slope of the graph you posted? That's the subject of discussion right now. You don't trust the NOAA but you religiously adhere to their results? You are full of self contradictions. I know you are not that dumb. That makes you a troll.
Ah, the Troll is back with snide remarks as a method of discourse. A while ago, we both agreed that the average sea level rise derived from span from around 1880 to present is 2 mm per year. We are now looking at the average sea level rise from 1992 to present. That is above 3 mm per year as seen from the following graph which is compilation of several sources:
Ah, the Troll is back with snide remarks as a method of discourse. A while ago, we both agreed that the average sea level rise derived from span from around 1880 to present is 2 mm per year. We are now looking at the average sea level rise from 1992 to present. That is above 3 mm per year as seen from the following graph which is compilation of several sources:
The above graph comes from the site wattsupwiththat. Anthony Watts, who runs the site, is a well known skeptic of AGW. It should be clear that Watts would always present the smallest most conservative side of the issue. Like you Watts complains about the adjustments to data. His current complaint is that over the years Colorado University research upward adjusted the sea level rate from 3.15 mm (in 2011) to 3.23 mm (2011 to 2012) and then to 3.28 (2013). http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/01/...own-to-be-partially-a-product-of-adjustments/
If you want to complain about upward adjustments I'm sure you will. But remember the full upward adjustment is only 0.13 mm out of 3.23 mm. That is a 4% adjustment from 2011 to 2013, yet the rate of sea level rise was still found to be more than 3 mm per year from 1992 to present.
Ah, the Troll is back with snide remarks as a method of discourse. A while ago, we both agreed that the average sea level rise derived from span from around 1880 to present is 2 mm per year. We are now looking at the average sea level rise from 1992 to present. That is above 3 mm per year as seen from the following graph which is compilation of several sources:
The above graph comes from the site wattsupwiththat. Anthony Watts, who runs the site, is a well known skeptic of AGW. It should be clear that Watts would always present the smallest most conservative side of the issue. Like you Watts complains about the adjustments to data. His current complaint is that over the years Colorado University research upward adjusted the sea level rate from 3.15 mm (in 2011) to 3.23 mm (2011 to 2012) and then to 3.28 (2013). http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/01/...own-to-be-partially-a-product-of-adjustments/
If you want to complain about upward adjustments I'm sure you will. But remember the full upward adjustment is only 0.13 mm out of 3.23 mm. That is a 4% adjustment from 2011 to 2013, yet the rate of sea level rise was still found to be more than 3 mm per year from 1992 to present.
