July 07, 2021
"Unprecedented" Sea Level Rise?
This from John Lees:
20m of sea level rise over less than 500 years.
So an average rate of around 60mm/yr. Equal to over 20x the rate observed during the 1930's-40's or estimated for the last few decades.
Now - that's what I call climate change.
Somebody remind me, why is it that we are always being told that 20th-21st century climate change is more rapid than at any time in history?
Only if we conveniently ignore the many other far more rapid periods of change, it seems.
An Ancient Meltwater Pulse Raised Sea Levels by 18 Meters
I always feel that statements along the lines of "changes in the past were less rapid" should be read as "records of changes in the past tend to be of lower resolution".
i.e.. the further that you go back in time the more the lumps on the graph get smoothed out.
20m of sea level rise over less than 500 years.
So an average rate of around 60mm/yr. Equal to over 20x the rate observed during the 1930's-40's or estimated for the last few decades.
Now - that's what I call climate change.
Somebody remind me, why is it that we are always being told that 20th-21st century climate change is more rapid than at any time in history?
Only if we conveniently ignore the many other far more rapid periods of change, it seems.
An Ancient Meltwater Pulse Raised Sea Levels by 18 Meters
I always feel that statements along the lines of "changes in the past were less rapid" should be read as "records of changes in the past tend to be of lower resolution".
i.e.. the further that you go back in time the more the lumps on the graph get smoothed out.
Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at
08:58 AM
| Comments (2)
| Add Comment
Post contains 153 words, total size 1 kb.
1
He sure nailed it at the end! The records from the past are less precise than the ones we have now, and every honest person should factor that idea in.
Of course, some of our modern measuring methods leave a lot to be desired in terms of accuracy...
Of course, some of our modern measuring methods leave a lot to be desired in terms of accuracy...
Posted by: Dana Mathewson at July 07, 2021 10:30 PM (QSsdw)
2
Amen to all Dana. The historic record is spotty at best, and is done with proxy data i.e. assumed based on things like tree rings or ice core samples.
It was the infamous "Mike's Nature Trick" btw; Michael Mann spliced actual and proxy data together because the proxy data did not show warming in the present time while the "actual" data - which has been "smoothed" aka messaged - did. So he stopped the proxy data around 1950 and spliced in the actual data without telling anyone, in order for it to show a smooth curve upward. It was a lie, plain and simple.
It was the infamous "Mike's Nature Trick" btw; Michael Mann spliced actual and proxy data together because the proxy data did not show warming in the present time while the "actual" data - which has been "smoothed" aka messaged - did. So he stopped the proxy data around 1950 and spliced in the actual data without telling anyone, in order for it to show a smooth curve upward. It was a lie, plain and simple.
Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at July 08, 2021 06:19 AM (AOCI8)
23kb generated in CPU 0.1018, elapsed 0.3127 seconds.
37 queries taking 0.2979 seconds, 186 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
37 queries taking 0.2979 seconds, 186 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
