Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

Sea Level Rise Pt. 2

Re: When will the mass dieoff begin? Pt. 3

Unread postby Cog » Wed 20 Jun 2018, 11:26:09

3.3 mm X 9 = 29.7 mm or 2.97 cm not 30 centimeters. But doomers do weird math so who knows what Planty meant.
User avatar
Cog
Fission
Fission
 
Posts: 10742
Joined: Sat 17 May 2008, 02:00:00
Location: Northern Kekistan

Re: Sea Level Rise Pt. 2

Unread postby rockdoc123 » Wed 20 Jun 2018, 11:31:05

What seems to be lost on many panic artists is that the IPCC AR5 (2013) noted that for RCP 8.5 which is the absolute worst scenario in terms of emissions the prediction for sea level rise by 2100 was 0.6 to 1.0 m. That includes substantial acceleration and an emission profile that is way over the top if you believe in Peak OIl and the notion that more and more fossil fuel consumption will be replaced with alternatives (Which RCP 2.6 and RCP 4.5 assume). When you take into account that at some point this century total anthropogenic radiative forcing will start to level off then the projected range of sea level rise is 0.2m to 0.6m according to AR5.
The current sea level rise of around 3.5 mm/yr, if it were to remain constant at this rate, would result in 28.7 cm or 0.3 m of sea level rise by 2100. RCP 2.6 replicates this by having forcing increase through to the middle of the century and then decrease steadily to the end of the century. This is in keeping with the thought that it is possible a lot of fossil fuel consumption can be offset by alternatives in that time period largely driven by lack of supply and higher commodity prices. RCP 4.5 imagines that the replacement of fossil fuel consumption is less effective and that it simply flattens off by 2060 whereas RCP 6.0 assumes there is a steady continual increase at the current rate in fossil fuel consumption. RCP 8.5 imagines that fossil fuel consumption increases at an accelerating rate through to 2100 which doesn't seem to fit with the concept of Peak Oil where the resource becomes more limited prices rise and alternatives become more accessible.
User avatar
rockdoc123
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 6112
Joined: Mon 16 May 2005, 02:00:00

Re: Sea Level Rise Pt. 2

Unread postby Plantagenet » Wed 20 Jun 2018, 12:07:57

rockdoc123 wrote:RCP 8.5 imagines that fossil fuel consumption increases at an accelerating rate through to 2100 which doesn't seem to fit with the concept of Peak Oil where the resource becomes more limited prices rise and alternatives become more accessible.


You can't just look at oil when talking about "fossil fuel consumption." Coal is also a fossil fuel, and it puts out even more CO2 then oil per Btu. Most of the massive increase in CO2 production globally over the last 20 years is due to increased coal use in China. Right now the use of coal is increasing rapidly in India.

You also have to consider increasing consumption of natural gas. NG releases less CO2 per Btu then either coal or oil, but some CO2 is emitted. In addition, more methane is released, and methane is a much more powerful greenhouse gas then CO2.

Cheers!
User avatar
Plantagenet
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 21485
Joined: Mon 09 Apr 2007, 02:00:00
Location: Alaska (its much bigger than Texas).

Re: Sea Level Rise Pt. 2

Unread postby rockdoc123 » Wed 20 Jun 2018, 12:55:47

You can't just look at oil when talking about "fossil fuel consumption." Coal is also a fossil fuel, and it puts out even more CO2 then oil per Btu. Most of the massive increase in CO2 production globally over the last 20 years is due to increased coal use in China. Right now the use of coal is increasing rapidly in India.

You also have to consider increasing consumption of natural gas. NG releases less CO2 per Btu then either coal or oil, but some CO2 is emitted. In addition, more methane is released, and methane is a much more powerful greenhouse gas then CO2.


this is all accounted for in the various RCP scenarios (coal, Natural gas, Oil etc), CO2, CH4 and N2O are all handled separately in the projections. The models assume (as I stated) a range of scenarios from continuing increasing consumption and the resultant emissions down to decreasing consumption and emissions being offset. There are lots of publications dealing with the representative concentration pathways (RCP) and the assumptions behind them. AR5 in the technical section has a good discussion.
User avatar
rockdoc123
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 6112
Joined: Mon 16 May 2005, 02:00:00

Re: When will the mass dieoff begin? Pt. 3

Unread postby Plantagenet » Wed 20 Jun 2018, 15:35:02

rockdoc123 wrote: .... 117 mm contribution by 2100.


Image

Once again you demonstrate that you can't do math. You just don't get it, do you? :lol:

The most recent data on sea level rise shows its currently going up by 3.5 mm per year. But the rate is accelerating so mostly likely the rate of sea level rise will be higher in the future.

If for a moment we ignore the acceleration in sea level rise rates, the MINIMUM sea level rise by 2100 can be calculated by assuming a continuation of the current 3.5 mm/year for the next 82 years. That yields a MINIMUM of sea level increase of ca. 287 mm, or 28.7 cm by 2100. This is more than twice the number you determined. This clearly demonstrates you can't do even the simplest math---your result is wildly inaccurate and inconsistent with the observations.

--------------

Now lets consider a more sophisticated mathematical treatment of the data. Lets fit a curve to the trend of accelerating sea level rise, and use this to predict where sea level will be by the year 2100. I've referred to this calculation several times already, but obviously it is completely beyond your comprehension. Using this approach, it is estimated that sea level rise by the year 2100 will be over 650 mm, i.e. more than five times your bizarrely low estimate. This demonstrates even more clearly that you can't do simple math, and shows once again that your result is wildly inaccurate and totally inconsistent with the observations.

Get it now?

Cheers!
User avatar
Plantagenet
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 21485
Joined: Mon 09 Apr 2007, 02:00:00
Location: Alaska (its much bigger than Texas).

Re: When will the mass dieoff begin? Pt. 3

Unread postby rockdoc123 » Wed 20 Jun 2018, 16:14:30

Once again you demonstrate that you can't do math. You just don't get it, do you? :lol:

The most recent data on sea level rise shows its currently going up by 3.5 mm per year. But the rate is accelerating so mostly likely the rate of sea level rise will be higher in the future.

If for a moment we ignore the acceleration in sea level rise rates, the MINIMUM sea level rise by 2100 can be calculated by assuming a continuation of the current 3.5 mm/year for the next 82 years. That yields a MINIMUM of sea level increase of ca. 287 mm, or 28.7 cm by 2100. This is more than twice the number you determined. This clearly demonstrates you can't do even the simplest math---your result is wildly inaccurate and inconsistent with the observations.


And is always the case you didn't read what I wrote you dolt. I mentioned the 117 mm (typo it was 137 mm as I captured in my original post) in light of the projection for Antarctica based on the recent Shepherd et al paper as the contribution from Antarctica. That was all outlined for you in detail in several of my posts on the Antarctic thread at which point I mentioned 28.7 mm by 2100 for the global sea level rise if it stayed the same....do I really have to post all of this once again? Why are you making false claims here?

here is what I just said above

And as I said I already took into account acceleration in Antarctica when I quoted the 117 mm contribution by 2100.


and in the Antarctic thread of numerous days ago here is what I said in response to your really stupid comment that 3.5 mm/yr equates to 30 cm of sea level rise in less than a decade:

your problem is you can't read. I was referring to the contribution from Antarctica which when you use the acceleration suggested as continuing (which the data is already showing it isn't) then you get 137 mm of sea level rise total over the period from now to 2100 attributed to Antarctica. Antarctica contributes somewhere between 13 and 17% of total current sea level rise. Do the numbers yourself. And if current sea level rise continues as you suggest then the total amount of sea level rise by 2100 is about 30 cm, less than predicted at the most likely case in AR5. The argument isn't about what is going on elsewhere it is about Antartica and it's contribution. Clean your reading glasses.


Please acknowledge the fact it was you who not once, but twice posted that current rate of 3.5 mm/yr equates to 30 cm in 9 years.

Do you really think by continuing to muddy the waters, claiming I am saying one thing when it is pretty clear I am not will somehow make everyone forget that you have difficulty not only converting metric units but when pointed out you are incorrect stand steadfastly by the claim that 30 mm is the same thing as 30 cm. :roll:

And you have the gall to claim anyone else doesn't understand math??? :lol:
User avatar
rockdoc123
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 6112
Joined: Mon 16 May 2005, 02:00:00

Re: When will the mass dieoff begin? Pt. 3

Unread postby rockdoc123 » Wed 20 Jun 2018, 16:18:45

Once again you demonstrate that you can't do math. You just don't get it, do you? :lol:

The most recent data on sea level rise shows its currently going up by 3.5 mm per year. But the rate is accelerating so mostly likely the rate of sea level rise will be higher in the future.

If for a moment we ignore the acceleration in sea level rise rates, the MINIMUM sea level rise by 2100 can be calculated by assuming a continuation of the current 3.5 mm/year for the next 82 years. That yields a MINIMUM of sea level increase of ca. 287 mm, or 28.7 cm by 2100. This is more than twice the number you determined. This clearly demonstrates you can't do even the simplest math---your result is wildly inaccurate and inconsistent with the observations.


And is always the case you didn't read what I wrote you dolt. I mentioned the 117 mm (typo it was 137 mm as I captured in my original post) in light of the projection for Antarctica based on the recent Shepherd et al paper as the contribution from Antarctica. That was all outlined for you in detail in several of my posts on the Antarctic thread at which point I mentioned 28.7 cm by 2100 for the global sea level rise if it stayed the same....do I really have to post all of this once again? Why are you making false claims here?

here is what I just said above

And as I said I already took into account acceleration in Antarctica when I quoted the 117 mm contribution by 2100.


and in the Antarctic thread of numerous days ago here is what I said in response to your really stupid comment that 3.5 mm/yr equates to 30 cm of sea level rise in less than a decade:

your problem is you can't read. I was referring to the contribution from Antarctica which when you use the acceleration suggested as continuing (which the data is already showing it isn't) then you get 137 mm of sea level rise total over the period from now to 2100 attributed to Antarctica. Antarctica contributes somewhere between 13 and 17% of total current sea level rise. Do the numbers yourself. And if current sea level rise continues as you suggest then the total amount of sea level rise by 2100 is about 30 cm, less than predicted at the most likely case in AR5. The argument isn't about what is going on elsewhere it is about Antartica and it's contribution. Clean your reading glasses.


Please acknowledge the fact it was you who not once, but twice posted that current rate of 3.5 mm/yr equates to 30 cm in 9 years.

Do you really think by continuing to muddy the waters, claiming I am saying one thing when it is pretty clear I am not will somehow make everyone forget that you have difficulty not only converting metric units but when pointed out you are incorrect stand steadfastly by the claim that 30 mm is the same thing as 30 cm. :roll:

And you have the gall to claim anyone else doesn't understand math??? :lol:[/quote]
User avatar
rockdoc123
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 6112
Joined: Mon 16 May 2005, 02:00:00

Re: Sea Level Rise Pt. 2

Unread postby dissident » Wed 20 Jun 2018, 16:53:19

Cog wrote:What was the sea level change last year and for the past ten years? To speculate on meter rises when millimeter rises are actually occurring is simply ludicrous doomerism.


That is an epic logic fail. Just because you feel nothing from the out of control truck headed for you on the highway before impact does not imply that the collision will not happen and that you will get off without a scratch of your vehicle and your body.

Deniers are such idiots. They understand nothing of lagged response and expect every process to deliver 100% of the change at time equal zero. Deniers can't even pay attention. The current sea level rise is clearly accelerating and exhibiting an e-folding response, i.e. by 2050 the sea level rise per year will be much higher than today.
User avatar
dissident
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 5276
Joined: Sat 08 Apr 2006, 02:00:00

Re: When will the mass dieoff begin? Pt. 3

Unread postby Plantagenet » Wed 20 Jun 2018, 17:05:54

rockdoc123 wrote:you dolt


You double dolt.

rockdoc123 wrote: your really stupid


No, you're really stupid.

rockdoc123 wrote:Clean your reading glasses.


Scrub your computer screen clean.

rockdoc123 wrote: ...current rate of 3.5 mm/yr equates to 30 cm in 9 years.


Once again, you can't do math. Try this: 3.5 mm/yr over 9 years equates to 31.5 mm, or 3.5 cm. And thats a MINIMUM number because it doesn't include the effects of the observed ongoing acceleration in the rate of sea level rise.

Get it now?

Cheers!
"Its a brave new world"
---President Obama, 4/25/16
User avatar
Plantagenet
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 21485
Joined: Mon 09 Apr 2007, 02:00:00
Location: Alaska (its much bigger than Texas).

Re: When will the mass dieoff begin? Pt. 3

Unread postby rockdoc123 » Wed 20 Jun 2018, 17:36:23

Once again, you can't do math. Try this: 3.5 mm/yr over 9 years equates to 31.5 mm, or 3.5 cm. And thats a MINIMUM number because it doesn't include the effects of the observed ongoing acceleration in the rate of sea level rise.


You were the one who suggested this you twit, Not me, not anyone else. You did it not once but twice (see up thread assuming you can actually read).

Here is your first post (this is a quote from you not anyone else):

As I said, you can't do math, and as a result you make dumb mistakes post wildly inaccurate numbers. In this case you are so wrong it is absurd. The annual rate of sea level rise is now about 3.5 mm per year. That means there will be 30 cm of sea level rise in just 9 years.....not the 82 year you postulate. So now your math is wrong by a factor of 10.


and then when told that 3.5 mm times 9 years is actually not 30 cm you jumped back in and dug yourself into a deeper hole
when you said (again a direct quote from you)

Your claim it will take 82 years to generate 30 cm of sea level rise in year 2100 is moronic. Right now sea level is going up something like 3.3 to 3.5 mm per year. Do the math...its will take about 9 years to get ca. 30 cm of sea level rise.


exactly what is it you think you are gaining here other than to look a complete and utter fool? Do you really think that nobody else saw your ridiculous posts on the Antarctic thread and that somehow you can lie your way out of it all?

Are you not going to admit you made those posts? :x
User avatar
rockdoc123
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 6112
Joined: Mon 16 May 2005, 02:00:00

Re: Sea Level Rise Pt. 2

Unread postby Newfie » Wed 20 Jun 2018, 18:19:15

Cog wrote:What was the sea level change last year and for the past ten years? To speculate on meter rises when millimeter rises are actually occurring is simply ludicrous doomerism.


Cog,

It’s not quite as simple as that because the SLR is not the same everywhere and SL is effected by many things. So I don’t think it is easy to measure.

I personally don’t worry about SLR because I’m old. Also I think it’s relatively gradual, so the changes over angeneration are small. We don’t seem to be able to imagine anything over a generation.

I do think it is occurring, I’ve been to too many places where it is creating an actual effect.

It’s pretty clear something is going on in Miami for instance. Also Annapolis is below regularally flooded. They bring portable walkways to the boat shows because the parking lots where the displays are go under at high tide.

It’s not feet, inches, but as Dis says, it’s the start. And it’s pretty clear if you clock for the signal.
User avatar
Newfie
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 10940
Joined: Thu 15 Nov 2007, 03:00:00
Location: US East Coast

Re: Sea Level Rise Pt. 2

Unread postby rockdoc123 » Wed 20 Jun 2018, 19:45:15

The current sea level rise is clearly accelerating and exhibiting an e-folding response, i


Depends on how you analyze it and some are saying that isn't the case

Watson, P.J., 2017. Acceleration in European Mean Sea Level? A New Insight Using Improved Tools. Jour Coast Res, V 33, 1, pp 23 – 38

Research into sea-level rise has taken on particular prominence in more recent times owing to the global threat posed by climate change and the fact that mean sea level and temperature remain the key proxies by which we can measure changes to the climate system. Under various climate change scenarios, it has been estimated that the threat posed by the effects of sea-level rise might lead to annual damage costs across Europe on the order of €25 billion by the 2080s. European mean sea-level records are among the best time series data available globally by which to detect the presence of necessary accelerations forecast by physics-based projection models to elevate current rates of global sea-level rise (≈3 mm/y) to anywhere in the vicinity of 10–20 mm/y by 2100. The analysis in this paper is based on a recently developed analytical package titled “msltrend,” specifically designed to enhance estimates of trend, real-time velocity, and acceleration in the relative mean sea-level signal derived from long annual average ocean water level time series. Key findings are that at the 95% confidence level, no consistent or compelling evidence (yet) exists that recent rates of rise are higher or abnormal in the context of the historical records available across Europe, nor is there any evidence that geocentric rates of rise are above the global average. It is likely a further 20 years of data will distinguish whether recent increases are evidence of the onset of climate change–induced acceleration.
User avatar
rockdoc123
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 6112
Joined: Mon 16 May 2005, 02:00:00

Re: When will the mass dieoff begin? Pt. 3

Unread postby rockdoc123 » Wed 20 Jun 2018, 19:59:08

Admit you bungled the math and miscalculated the amount of likely future sea level rise in your posts.


Acutally I didn't as anyone wanting to read the interchange on the Antarctic thread would see.

You are obviously claiming the quotes I show are not from you is that correct? Please answer that simple question....did you or did you not start the whole thing by claiming that 3.3 to 3.5 mm/yr equates to 30 cm in 9 years and that my estimate of 28.7 cm by 2100 was off by a factor of 10?

Once and for all here is one (of the several times you made that claim, this one from Sunday) that I responded to. The first quote in here is from you as I have pointed out several times here:

rockdoc123 wrote:
Your claim it will take 82 years to generate 30 cm of sea level rise in the year 2100 is moronic. Right now sea level is going up something like 3.3 to 3.5 mm per year. Do the math----it will only take about 9 years to get ca. 30 cm of sea level rise.


OK....once again read what you wrote. 3.5 mm per year time over 9 years does not give you 30 cm it gives you 30 mm or 3 cm.
Honestly, you claim to be a geophysicist and you can't convert mm to cm? I laid this out pretty simply before. Do you actually think mm and cm are the same thing?

So once again....3.5 mm/yr over 82 years is 287 mm or 28.7 cm if you can't understand simple math like this you have a problem. The projections into the future are model based on various representative concentration pathways....they are not a continuation of current trends.
Unfortunately, it doesn't seem to stop you from coming back and repeating your nonsense....but I guess making a fool of yourself isn't a problem for you. :roll:



so please explain to everyone here why you are now claiming you never said any of this and instead suggesting someone else did? Please enlighten us.

But go ahead dig yourself deeper.
User avatar
rockdoc123
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 6112
Joined: Mon 16 May 2005, 02:00:00

Re: Sea Level Rise Pt. 2

Unread postby rockdoc123 » Wed 20 Jun 2018, 20:05:25

It’s pretty clear something is going on in Miami for instance. Also Annapolis is below regularally flooded. They bring portable walkways to the boat shows because the parking lots where the displays are go under at high tide.


one has to distinguish between relative sea level rise and absolute sea level rise.
In Miami, as an example as in much of the coastal areas in SE USA subsidence is a huge problem. The land is lowering faster than sea level is rising resulting in a significant rise in relative sea level. On the other hand, there are places along the West Coast of the US and Canada where relative sea level is dropping because the land is rising isostatically, a response to plate tectonics in the region.

As a consequence, the sea level rise or fall we see when wandering around the world is a product of not just controls on sea level (heat, melt contributions etc) but also land rise and fall.
User avatar
rockdoc123
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 6112
Joined: Mon 16 May 2005, 02:00:00

Re: When will the mass dieoff begin? Pt. 3

Unread postby Plantagenet » Wed 20 Jun 2018, 22:20:22

rockdoc123 wrote: why you are now claiming you never said any of this


You are a liar. I never claimed I didn't say "any of this". Yes I typed 30 cm instead of 3.0 cm. Wow!

And I've already corrected my typo several times. For instance, just above I posted

Try this: 3.5 mm/yr over 9 years equates to 31.5 mm, or 3.5 cm. And thats a MINIMUM number because it doesn't include the effects of the observed ongoing acceleration in the rate of sea level rise.

Get it now?


OK, now I've corrected the typo again.

Get it now again?
User avatar
Plantagenet
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 21485
Joined: Mon 09 Apr 2007, 02:00:00
Location: Alaska (its much bigger than Texas).

Re: When will the mass dieoff begin? Pt. 3

Unread postby rockdoc123 » Wed 20 Jun 2018, 22:39:54

You are a liar. I never claimed I didn't say "any of this". Yes I typed 30 cm instead of 3.0 cm. Wow!

And I've already corrected my typo several times. For instance, just above I posted

I've already admitted I made a typo, and I've already posted the correction several times in the two days since rocdoc got all wee-wee'd up about the typo.


What a complete load of horse manure. It is hardly a "typo" when you write it down in two separate posts and then are adamant that I need to admit I am wrong about my calculations (which of course were correct), post some silly cartoons and then get all girly gleeful about it.
And then you proceeded to pretend I was the one who claimed what you had said and avoided completely taking any responsibility for your statements.
At no point did you say....well I was wrong....apparently twice. Rather now you claim somehow you made a typo and somehow your attempt to claim I was responsible for making the claim you did was your way of "correcting" it.
Give us all a break....we aren't as stupid as you think. Reading comprehension might be your problem, it isn't ours.

I will leave this with a couple of quotes I think pertinent

The only thing worse than a liar is a liar that is a hypocrite
-Tennesee Williams

I'm not upset that you lied to me, I'm upset that from now on I can't believe you.” 
― Friedrich Nietzsche
User avatar
rockdoc123
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 6112
Joined: Mon 16 May 2005, 02:00:00

Re: When will the mass dieoff begin? Pt. 3

Unread postby Plantagenet » Wed 20 Jun 2018, 22:53:33

rockdoc123 wrote:It is hardly a "typo"....


When you type ca. 60 words a minute like I do, typos like typing 30 instead of 3.0 happen all the time.

Once I realized I had made a typo, I corrected it in all subsequent posts.

Which you missed, in your agitated state.

Image
Cheers!
User avatar
Plantagenet
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 21485
Joined: Mon 09 Apr 2007, 02:00:00
Location: Alaska (its much bigger than Texas).

Re: When will the mass dieoff begin? Pt. 3

Unread postby rockdoc123 » Wed 20 Jun 2018, 23:01:34

Once I realized there I had made a typo, I corrected it in all subsequent posts.

Which you missed, in your agitated state.


OH please, give us all a break. Look at your post....you were adamant that I was wrong, you were completely adamant that 3.5 mm per year resulted in 30 cm in 9 years. You posted it twice. If it was a typo you would have said in the second post....oops I miscalculated, sorry. But no you doubled down with another HA HA picture from the Simpsons trying to enforce how superior you are.

If you had understood you made a mistake (or actually cared) you would have posted a correction on the Antarctica thread after twice posting vehemently that you were correct. You did not. And in this thread when again confronted with this you seemed to claim I was the one who suggested the incorrect calculation.

God deliver me from those who are insincere. You are not fooling anyone here, please stop. I'm done.
User avatar
rockdoc123
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 6112
Joined: Mon 16 May 2005, 02:00:00

Re: When will the mass dieoff begin? Pt. 3

Unread postby Plantagenet » Thu 21 Jun 2018, 00:43:08

rockdoc123 wrote:If it was a typo .... in the second post....


You are as ignorant about typos as you are about most things.

Typos are very commonly repeated. For instance the word "the" is commonly mistyped as "teh," with the exact same typo appearing over and over again in some people's manuscripts.

In this case I typed "30" instead of "3.0" twice and then I caught the typo and I corrected it in all subsequent posts, but for some reason you got so wee-wee'd up over the typo that you've reposted the bit with the typo again and again and again for two solid days now and have remained quite oblivious to the corrections.

Its amusing that you got so agitated over a typo that you have ranted about it for two days now. And much to my amazement, you are still wee-wee'd up about it.

Two days of your ranting so far. Can you do three days? Four? A week of ranting over a typo?

Inquiring minds want to know. :)

Cheers!
"Its a brave new world"
---President Obama, 4/25/16
User avatar
Plantagenet
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 21485
Joined: Mon 09 Apr 2007, 02:00:00
Location: Alaska (its much bigger than Texas).

Re: When will the mass dieoff begin? Pt. 3

Unread postby rockdoc123 » Thu 21 Jun 2018, 08:59:52

You are as ignorant about typos as you are about most things.

Typos are very commonly repeated. For instance the word "the" is commonly mistyped as "teh," with the exact same typo appearing over and over again in some people's manuscripts.


how dumb do you think everyone here is?

Here is your first quote:

Plantagenet wrote:
rockdoc123 wrote: if current sea level rise continues .....then the total amount of sea level rise by 2100 is about 30 cm


As I said, you can't do math, and as a result you make dumb mistakes post wildly inaccurate numbers. In this case you are so wrong it is absurd. The annual rate of sea level rise is now about 3.5 mm per year. That means there will be 30 cm of sea level rise in just 9 years----not the 82 years you postulate. So now your math is wrong by a factor of 10. I'm afraid you are hopeless when it comes to math.

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Cheers!


If it was a "typo" you would not have said my estimate of 30 cm was wrong and then stated I was off by a factor of 10. What that means is for whatever reason, at the time, you actually thought your calculation was correct.

and your second quote which you posted after I pointed out that your calculation was incorrect:

Plantagenet wrote:
rockdoc123 wrote:if current sea level rise continues .....then the total amount of sea level rise by 2100 is about 30 cm


You're just making a complete fool out of yourself on this one.

Your claim it will take 82 years to generate 30 cm of sea level rise in the year 2100 is moronic. Right now sea level is going up something like 3.3 to 3.5 mm per year. Do the math----it will only take about 9 years to get ca. 30 cm of sea level rise.

Do you get it now? If so, then please man up and acknowledge your error. :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Cheers!


So you defended your contention that I was "moronic" about suggesting 30 cm was correct and then repeat your calculation error once again. Not a typo at all....a stupid math error for sure but a "typo", hardly.

You aren't convincing anyone by continuing down this path of avoiding ownership of your incompetent error/misunderstanding etc. so please stop, the hole you are continuing to dig will only go so deep. Please stop.
User avatar
rockdoc123
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 6112
Joined: Mon 16 May 2005, 02:00:00

PreviousNext

Return to Environment, Weather & Climate

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 22 guests

cron