1/7. Paul, Sealevel.info is my very sunny site. If you find errors on it I'll be sincerely grateful if you tell me. (See "About" for contact info.)
But the graph I used is from NOAA.
My caption says, "Illustration omitted from Slangen et al (2016)โฆ"
Is that unclear?
sealevel.info
But the graph I used is from NOAA.
My caption says, "Illustration omitted from Slangen et al (2016)โฆ"
Is that unclear?
sealevel.info
@_PrinceOfMilk @JoeTegerdine @NASAClimate 2/7. I gave you the link to the source for NOAA's graph:
tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov
Did you overlook it?
I added the red, green & brown annotation, and bottommost caption, based on Slangen's reported conclusions.
tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov
Did you overlook it?
I added the red, green & brown annotation, and bottommost caption, based on Slangen's reported conclusions.
3/7. I also gave you the link to the graph on my site:
sealevel.info
As both sites report, the linear trend is 1.54 ยฑ0.20 mm/yr (which is 6 inches per century).
NOAA doesn't calculate/report acceleration, but I do. The acceleration there is 0.000 ยฑ0.013 mm/yrยฒ.
sealevel.info
sealevel.info
As both sites report, the linear trend is 1.54 ยฑ0.20 mm/yr (which is 6 inches per century).
NOAA doesn't calculate/report acceleration, but I do. The acceleration there is 0.000 ยฑ0.013 mm/yrยฒ.
sealevel.info
@_PrinceOfMilk @JoeTegerdine @NASAClimate 4/7. My point was that Slangen should have included a graph like that, which shows what her conclusion implies about the causes of measured sea-level trends. She didn't, of course, presumably because that would've made it too obvious how absurd her conclusion was.
@_PrinceOfMilk @JoeTegerdine @NASAClimate 5/7. Here's how Slangen attributes Sydney's sea-level rise:
sealevel.info
Here's how Slangen attributes Honolulu's sea-level rise:
sealevel.info
I hope it is clear how nonsensical that is.
sealevel.info
Here's how Slangen attributes Honolulu's sea-level rise:
sealevel.info
I hope it is clear how nonsensical that is.
6/7. I have no idea why you think "measuring in Honolulu is not viable."
I disagree.
NOAA obviously disagrees, too, because they've been doing it for 119 years.
x.com
I disagree.
NOAA obviously disagrees, too, because they've been doing it for 119 years.
x.com
7/7. To understand a contentious & politicized topic like climate change, you need balanced information. To that end, I've compiled a little list of high quality resources, here:
sealevel.info
It has:
โ accurate introductory climatology information
โ in-depth science from BOTHโ skeptics & alarmists
โ links to balanced debates between experts on BOTHโ sides
โ accurate information about impacts of CO2 & climate change, such as the effects on crop yields
โ links to the best blogs on BOTHโ sides of the climate debate
sealevel.info
It has:
โ accurate introductory climatology information
โ in-depth science from BOTHโ skeptics & alarmists
โ links to balanced debates between experts on BOTHโ sides
โ accurate information about impacts of CO2 & climate change, such as the effects on crop yields
โ links to the best blogs on BOTHโ sides of the climate debate
@_PrinceOfMilk @JoeTegerdine @NASAClimate Compilation:
twitter-thread.com
@ThreadReaderApp @Rattibha @threaddotblue unroll
@reSeeIt save thread
twitter-thread.com
@ThreadReaderApp @Rattibha @threaddotblue unroll
@reSeeIt save thread
Loading suggestions...