WTF?

Still wrong mhaze,

It doesn't matter how much you drone on about the 2100 predictions (although there are obvious implications that follow on from there) Törnqvist's analysis is for the predictions up to 2025.

He is commenting on how the current (2025) data matches predictions made 30 years ago. He cannot do that for 2100 because... well you know...der... 2100 has not happened yet.

mhaze states: "The other hilarious part here is that WTF thinks you can eyeball a graph where the only numbers are for 2100."

This is the most bizarre of mhaze's mental contortions I have seen. There is this concept called interpreting information from a graph -it's not just about the end point.

You need to realise that the graphs contain predictions for every year from 1995 onwards. That's one of the reasons why information is graphed.

It's obvious to Törnqvist and the four other scientists he did the analysis with and it's obvious to me that there is a predicted sea level rise of 8 cm for 2025.

mhaze if you are going to present information present that information with with fidelity.

You are wrong again mhaze.

Global sea levels have risen about nine centimetres – very close to the eight predicted by the U.N. report.

So WTF, you're going to just pretend to NOT see that there were any number of sea level rises predicted for 2100 in SAR ranging from a 15cm rise through to a 95cm rise. You're just going to pretend that none of them exist, even though I directly quoted from SAR about those rises.

You're just going to pretend that the only prediction that exists is the one that tells you what you want to hear. Mind you, I'm not surprised that you are playing pretend with uncooperative data, since that's been the go-to approach for most of the we're-all-gunna-die community for decades. I'm just surprised that you're doing it so blatantly.

So again, if you read the SAR chapter 7 report (and as predicted you obviously haven't) then you'd see these multitude of predictions based on all sorts of what the IPCC have come to quaintly call scenarios.

And almost all of those predictions put the lie to what you and your sources are saying. Just one of these multitude of predictions gives the answer you want and that becomes the only one that you pretend exists.

And this is called science. Go figure.

If playing pretend with the predictions wasn't enough, then you play pretend with the actual data. Again, there are quite a few ways to measure sea level rise. You take one of those that best matches the pretend data you got from SAR, and declare victory.

You say sea levels rose 9 cm from 1995 to 2025. But the NASA Sea Level Change Portal says it was 10.4cm through to 2024. The Copernicus Climate Change Service (EU) says it was 10.8cm. NOAA (which takes Continental Rebound in to account) says it was 10-11cm. Indeed I couldn't find any reputable data set that said it was 9cm. Just another made up assertion?

IF I were you WTF, I'd stop digging.

WTF?

Once again mhaze, this study is about data collected to 2025 and how well they match the 1995 predictions.

Once again 2100 has not happened yet so there is no data from 1995 - 2100.

As you seem to struggle with nuanced scientific evaluation I'll provide you with what Törnqvist calls a "Plain Language Summary".

The ultimate test of climate projections occurs by means of subsequent observations. Three decades of satellite-based measurements of global sea-level change now enable such a comparison and show that early IPCC climate projections were remarkably accurate. Predictions of glacier mass loss and thermal expansion of seawater were comparatively successful, but the ice-sheet contributions were underestimated. Nevertheless, these findings provide confidence in model-based climate projections".

Any number of distractions, deflections and denials will not change the data and its analysis.

Global sea levels have risen about nine centimetres – very close to the eight predicted by the U.N. report.

"Once again 2100 has not happened yet so there is no data from 1995 - 2100."

Playing dumb isn't a good look WTF.

The data you rely on went through to 2100. Please have a try at reading the SAR Chapter 7 even if most of it goes over your head.

You are claiming to be able to discern 2025 data from the 2100 graph and that's sorta/kinda correct. But only marginally so and to claim as you do that you can read with precision what the 2025 data was from the graph of 2100 data is bonkers.

Even so I was prepared to go along with that. But what you fail to acknowledge (and I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt in thinking this isn't too hard for you)...what you fail to acknowledge is that there are lots of graphs and data in the SAR report which show all sorts of data through to 2100 and therefore, using you own claims, lots of data about what 2025 would look like. Only one of those many options suits your claims and that's the one you want to pretend is the only one. But it isn't and pretending otherwise as you do is either dishonest or just too complex for you. Which is it?

The same with the actual 2025 (really 2024) sea level readings. None that I can find and none that you have provided actually show what you claim to be the actual rise. Yet you persist in just reiterating what have now been comprehensively debunked assertions. Sad.

So what do we end up with:

1. A claim that SAR predicted an 8cm rise when in fact only one of the dozen or so predictions in SAR comes close to that. Yet you want to pretend otherwise.

2. A claim that actual sea levels rose 9cm when none of the major agencies and data sets show such a number. Yet you want to pretend otherwise.

And you claim to understand the science. Oh dear!

WTF?

mhaze said "The data you rely on went through to 2100".

No the prediction when through to 2100, there is no data for 2100 because 2100 has not happened yet. Neither has 2026, 2027, 2028........ so no data for those years - predictions yes but no data.

The data goes through to 2025 and hence Törnqvist's analysis.

mhaze, you made this statement: "And what did SAR predict for sea levels through to 2025. Nothing".

You later provided a source to add some authoritative weight to that statement only to find that your source predicted an 8cm change and proved your statement to be false.

The claims I'm making here are that Törnqvist's analysis supports the predictions made back in 1995.... oh, and the fact that I can read a figure from a graph myself.

Törnqvist's analysis remains the most recent analysis of the data:

Global sea levels have risen about nine centimetres – very close to the eight predicted by the U.N. report

"so no data for those years - predictions yes but no data."

And the predictions were based on data. Just playing semantic games is rather childish.

I'm doing you the courtesy of assuming that all this isn't too hard for you and you are just playing dumb rather than admit you fell for a rubbish report. Not a good look but we see it a lot with those who fall for the latest scare without understanding the facts or lack thereof behind it.

Again, there is no valid data to support the claim about a 9cm rise in sea levels. And the data that you eyeballed to make the 8cm prediction claim is based on one AND ONLY ONE graph-line out of the dozen or so in the SAR Chapter 7 report.

So cherry-pick one claim. Make up another. And claim victory. Funny and sad at the same time.

And he still thinks he understands 'science'.