Because rising sea levels would be an effect, not a cause (at least in the Global Warming model being used). Sea levels are rising *because* temperatures have increased. Temperatures have increased *because* of increases in CO2 emissions over time. Each cause must predate the effect (by a period of time).
Professor stupidmonkey wrote:
Actually, most climate change believers know that the spike in CO2 emissions, and thus the cause of the temperature increase, began in the 1800s when we started spewing coal into the atmosphere on industrial scales.
That chart certainly shows a continuing and relatively linear trend of sea water level change over the last century, but the point where the slope of that trend seems to change is just after 1800
Um... You even put the stuff in red. Do you see how "just after 1800" (the year) is not the same as "in the 1800s" (the century). The industrial revolution is generally considered to have started in the mid 1700s, but most of the increases and adoptions occurred in the mid 1800s (1830 to 1880). Which is why Cat spoke of CO2 levels beginning to rise "in the 1800s". Not before the 1800s, "in" the 1800s. Specifically in the mid 1800s.
I'll point out again that the assumption of global warming is that CO2 levels cause temperature increases and temperature increases cause water levels to rise (melting icecaps/glaciers/etc). If CO2 levels just started to spike in the 1800s, there's no way that this whole cause/effect process could have started a dramatic rise in sea levels in the first decade of the 1800s. Something else must have caused that, completely unrelated to human production of C02.
This should be logically apparent just because of the time constraints involved. If rising C02 levels is responsible for an increase in the rate at which sea levels are rising, shouldn't we see the most increase during the time period in which the most C02 is being released? And even if that logic isn't sufficient for you, then how about the temperatures? The time period during which this sudden shift in slope on the sea level chart occurs is at the tail end of what's known as the "little ice age". Temperatures were noticeably cooler then. Hell, it's part of the global warming argument itself. Temperatures significantly increased between the last couple decades of the 1800s and through the 20th century. That's where all the statistics about how global temperatures have increased by X degrees "over the last century" come from.
So how in hell, if our model assumes rising sea waters result from temperature increases (caused by C02 increases), can we see the largest shift in sea water level increase rates 60-70 years before
the temperature increases that global warming folks use as proof of their claim? Clearly, something other than temperature increases caused by industrial activity caused that water level shift. So yeah, there's no reason at all why those opposed to the nutty global warming people would want to hide this information. If there was any desire to hide the history of this data for global warming related reasons, I suspect that most people are looking at the wrong side of the issue.
That data pokes big holes in global warming theories. At least the parts that might attempt to attribute rising sea levels to human activity.
He's not going to let a little thing like reading what he's responding to get in the way of repeating someone else's opinion.
Yeah. There's some irony for ya. Edited, Jun 8th 2012 1:19pm by gbaji