...then it will show in any seal level station with at least a century of recording. So I checked for that and so will you if you genuinely want to know what's actually happening. NOAA site is currently down (thx shutdown..) so I'll give you the summary /4
-
-
Replying to @GregoryMakles @geoffmprice and
Here's Brest, France for you, but it's roughly the same think in UK or USA. Nothing. Happened. Nothing at all. The sea level fluctuation aren't out of the noise level. http://refmar.shom.fr/documents/10227/141011/Evolution-niveau-mer-Brest-depuis-300-ans.pdf … … /5
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @GregoryMakles @geoffmprice and
The vast majority of stations have only 50 years of measurements. Some go up. Some down. But I don't think I even found one with a slope change to bigger rise. So how comes they put an average that do? /6
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @GregoryMakles @geoffmprice and
I have some hypothesis but bottomline is: it's not really our problem to know, it's for the ppl who make that claim that isn't compatible with observations. Bc if seal level rise is a thing that doesn't end up in measurements locally it doesn't exist. Now it gets more real: /7
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @GregoryMakles @geoffmprice and
My GF owns a sea mill from XVth century. Keep in mind this thing has been at sea level for 5 centuries. In the biggest of the high tide, every 20 years of something, see actually gets in the house. In the 90s I was desperate. The family house was about to go under water... /8
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @GregoryMakles @geoffmprice and
You get where this goes, right? At the last super high tide, the level was actually lower than two decades ago. There hasn't been any visible change to see level there for 30 years. Well, all those stations tells the same story. Seal level is mainly stabilised. /9
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Sea level changes vary radically according to ocean patterns, subsidence and other local factors. This is why this sort of anecdotal analysis is easy to get wrong, and why the flooding engineers in Miami, Guangzhou, Shanghai, Mumbai etc. etc. are and should be freaking out.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @geoffmprice @GregoryMakles and
There are many lines of evidence here. The sea has to rise – we measure it getting warmer, and can calculate the thermal expansion. We directly watch and measure the acceleration of ice sheet melt. You're resisting physics. Physics wins. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-018-0752-4.epdf …
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Scientific approach also implies accounting for cognitivie science. CS says we're all subject to confirmation bias, submission to group, authority. This predicts searchers under such bias will product an array of weak evidence.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @GregoryMakles @geoffmprice and
So "Many Lines" can be real or expected by product of known human behavior. Which means it can't be a proof. We can only use strong specific evidence. I am the first to admit it's unfortunate bc the topic don't exactly produce those easily.
2 replies 0 retweets 5 likes
Well said.
-
-
For good reasons. This angle I was confusingly pursuing until you clarified it for me. Now it wasn't super comfortable to rethink all the things I supported based on an array fo evidence (which is always weak), but I don't resent you. :P
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Scientific method is the *best* approach to weed out human bias. Science *never* relied on an assumption of unbiased researchers. The focus is on reproducible empiricism.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes - Show replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.