ohdearno

3 ms·

1. 1.▲
   by ohdearno 3y ago

   You... really have no idea how to read that graph, do you? Or what a lagging indicator is, I'm guessing. The fact is - we can see the rate of change of the sea levels start changing in the mid-90s, though the graph you're using co
2. 2.▲
   by ohdearno 3y ago

   It's risen ~97mm since 1993. The rate of increase in that rise has been increasing steadily since ~1993. The consistency of our data has also been much better since then (previously it was only the highly noisy coastal tide gauge data)
3. 3.▲
   by ohdearno 3y ago

   Yeah, and that's good locally, but globally we see a rise overall.
4. 4.▲
   by ohdearno 3y ago

   It shows nothing of the sort. It shows that melting glacial ice causes rising sea levels. That is all it shows. We know that. Guess what (eventually) causes glacial ice to melt? CO2.
5. 5.▲
   by ohdearno 3y ago

   > I'm old enough to remember we were all "science" supposed to be entirely underwater by now. The science never really said that. Bad PopSci reporting did. The science said that was a worst case possibility . Kind of &q
6. 6.▲
   by ohdearno 3y ago

   I mean, "plenty" isn't really true based on that link. A best you could say "a few, in areas that are losing glaciers, which is expected due to basic physics"