And you present no evidence, despite me linking to charts which show your claim is false.
I was referring to your own bleeding link!
Again, no evidence with time scales from you, despite me linked to evidence your claim is false.
It's one of the most well known and understood natural phenomena related to the bleeding topic!
You repeat this claim, and never have substantiated it. Whereas I keep showing your claim is wrong.[/quote]
Your own data proves you wrong!
Again, you offer no evidence, despite me linking to information which shows you have no credible case.
Good grief, here, I'll get some data.
The above shows sea levels over the last few hundred thousand years (only a very recent part of climate history, no one disputes this overall picture, note that the scale is in ***HUNDREDS OF FEET*** not a few cm)
Note that the pattern is not a smooth one, it is jagged with sudden movements. Keep in mind that in this time scale we can not even see trivial movements such as ones you are calling significant, because they simply wouldn't even show up.
Okay, here is a quote from the Smithsonian institute, you can see the page here:
https://ocean.si.edu/through-time/ancient-seas/sea-level-rise
Over the past 20,000 years or so, sea level has climbed some 400 feet (120 meters). As the climate warmed as part of a natural cycle, ice melted and glaciers retreated until ice sheets remained only at the poles and at the peaks of mountains. Early on, the sea rose rapidly, sometimes at rates greater than 10 feet (3 meters) per century, and then continued to grow
in spurts of rapid sea level rise until about 7,000 years ago. Then, the climate stabilized and sea level rise slowed, holding largely steady for most of the last 2,000 years, based on records from corals and sediment cores. Now, however, sea level is on the rise again,
rising faster now than it has in the past 6,000 years
Note that they make reference to the fact that the rate of change is not constant. If you're a clever cookie you'll understand that means some periods are more rapid than others. This is just what has happened over the recent times. You're quite welcome to calculate the figures and analyse them, because a lot of the data makes it very obvious that there have been many many periods where the rate was more rapid but simply not recorded, however, the Smithsonian institute acknowledges that the rate of sea level change was greater 6,000 years ago than it is now (they make the 'mistake' of admitting this when they try to make it sound extreme by saying 'it's rising faster now than it has for 6,000 years, which means 6,000 years ago it was faster, and clearly humans weren't doing anything relevant 6,000 years ago). If you're a clever cookie you will understand that even if it actually is true that the sea levels were changing at a faster rate just 6,000 years ago with no human influence, it makes sense that this probably happens something in the ball park of every 6,000 years or so. Although, the data actually makes it very obvious that it is much more extreme much more often.
Again, note that their own data describes the natural state of change to be in "spurts of rapid sea level rise" - their direct quote of what was happening thousands of years ago, during an event completely unremarkable in terms of what occurred many times over the last 100,000 years (the timescale on my chart makes a lot of this movement obscure because of *even larger and more extreme change* over that period, and if we zoom out to a scale of millions of years (which I thoroughly encourage everyone to do!) it gets even more extreme, and if you actually bother to do this it becomes clear that to say the current rate of change is unprecedented it is so absurd it's beyond words and difficult to respond to.
120,000 years ago the sea level was about 5 metres higher than today. 20,000 years ago it was about 120 ***METRES*** lower than that, with a lot of huge fluctuations in between (literally multiple times going up an down to utterly extreme amounts and at extreme rates far greater than the current rate).
Again, literally no climate scientists disagree with this. Your blind, baseless insistence to the contrary don't make it reality. The media pushes a narrative of extreme misrepresentation of climate science which is inherently biased, then it gets exaggerated and the deliberate misrepresentations get remembered as facts, and people like you then insist that they are. I continually say that even the actual climate scientists themselves do not agree with these myths, and you can see that clearly here.
I correspond with several who also are uploaders on Youtube, so I know that is a bald-faced lie.
See, this sort of comment just demonstrates the level of intelligence of people who believe this nonsense. Honestly, think about that. You could use the same argument, word for word, with equal validity, defending flat Earth theory.
And yet you cannot show that is true.
What exactly are you talking about and where exactly is your evidence.
How many times are you going to make claims which are not supported by science, and which you consistently say are, but never offer evidence?
You're hardly worth it, and actually providing evidence takes time you're really not worth, clearly addressing all these points with drawn out explanations as I have done with just one would get unworkable, but hopefully it gives you some perspective.