Sea Levels are dropping

All I see is some cherry picked qualitative statements, and some info
from a very recent couple of years. 2 year blips don't begin to say
anything valid about trends. You've got to present quantitative
numbers from at least a decade or more to support anything, and that's
what I did. You guys should try that !

SteveGG wrote:
All I see is some cherry picked qualitative statements, and some info
from a very recent couple of years. 2 year blips don't begin to say
anything valid about trends. You've got to present quantitative
numbers from at least a decade or more to support anything, and that's
what I did. You guys should try that !






On something that goes in 10 billion year cycles.
You won't find accurate measurements from the start.
Measurements even from ten years ago prove nothing.


BTW they say during the ice ages when 2/3 of the earth was covered with ice
and snow.
The oceans were about 20-30 feet lower
But now we are supposed to believe a bit of melting in Greenland and the
south pole is going to raise ocean levels any measureable amount ?

And you still won't allow for crustal shifting that would also throw your
results off.

Did you know that during the fukushima quake the ground level on much of
the coast DROPPED about 3 feet, which is why the later tidal wave
destruction was so massive.
Land goes up and down,....and even in less active areas can move a lot over
a decade, so your figures can not be accurate.

SteveGG wrote:

All I see is some cherry picked qualitative statements, and some info
from a very recent couple of years. 2 year blips don't begin to say
anything valid about trends. You've got to present quantative numbers
from at least a decade or more to support anything, and that's what I
did. You guys should try that !

Lying and snipping the facts might convince you, but it won't
convince anyone with more than half a brain.

"Look at something unequivocal, like for example, that the total land
loss in the Solomon Islands over the last 30 years or so is zero".

Just WHAT about that is a "2 year blip"? Just HOW do you justify
calling it cherry-p;icked, when it's about a lowlying island nation
in the Pacific which has been bleating about being inundated ever
since the GW scare was first published?

"Fur seal numbers and polar bears numbers have increased since
the club-hunting of fur seals was stopped".

Where do you get off calling that a "2 year blip"? People gave
been tracking their numbers for decades, and the downward trend
when clubhunting was allowed, and the upward trend since it was
stopped are bith well establushed.

"The absence of iceberg menace in North Altlantc sea lanes".

The TOTAL absence ever since the GW scare's emergencer. Where
do you get off calling that contradiction of a long-standing
prediction "some info from a very recent couple of years"?

Or the complete absence of transarctic trade activity, despite
efforts still in progress (and still unsuccessful) to open the
Arctic Ocean to shipping.

Read what's in front of you, idiot. And assess it honestly.

SteveGG wrote:

All I see is

.... what you want to see.

Take your childish lying fantasies elsewhere.

I presented the clear trend of 1880 through 2013 :

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_le... 1880-2013.png

Can you really believe that the trend is somehow going to reverse ?!

Anything limited to only the past 2 years is indeed only a blip in the
face of the clear trend.

Cherry picking is when you select only the data that supports your
position, and that stuff is only qualative statements.

Show me your DATA, like I showed you mine !

I presented the clear trend of 1880 through 2013 :

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_le... 1880-2013.png

Can you really believe that the trend is somehow going to reverse ?!

Anything limited to only the past 2 years is indeed only a blip in the
face of the clear trend.

Cherry picking is when you select only the data that supports your
position, and that stuff is only qualative statements.

Show me your DATA, like I showed you mine !

SteveGG wrote nothing worth while.

He's a liar and a lunatic.

SteveGG wrote:
I presented the clear trend of 1880 through 2013 :

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_le... 1880-2013.png

Can you really believe that the trend is somehow going to reverse ?!

Anything limited to only the past 2 years is indeed only a blip in the
face of the clear trend.

Cherry picking is when you select only the data that supports your
position, and that stuff is only qualative statements.

Show me your DATA, like I showed you mine !







I don't have any data, as there none that would prove anything since there
are no accurate sea level figures from thousands or even millions of years
ago to compare to.

But tell you what......Why don't you show me photos of coastal cities that
have disappeared, because they are now underwater, because of your global
warming sea rise.
......Even places like Venice Italy that are hundreds of years old, and very
literally built at water level on the very edge of the sea,.....ARE STILL
THERE.

NOTE: Venice has been proven to be actually sinking, because it was built on
sediment mud with no proper foundations into bedrock.

I don't have any data, as there none that would prove anything since there
are no accurate sea level figures from thousands or even millions of years
ago to compare to.

We're not talking millions or even thousands of years, just the trend
of sea level in meaningfully recent times, which clearly shows
increasing, nor dropping.

But tell you what......Why don't you show me photos of coastal cities that
have disappeared, because they are now underwater, because of your global
warming sea rise.

Not very fast and not enough to change coastlines significantly yet.

I see you don't believe in global warming either. Must be a hoax like
the fool president claims. You no doubt voted for him, so you'll have
a lot to answer for !

.... increasing not dropping ...