Re: GIMP 3.0.0-RC1

On 1/3/25 8:57 PM, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

On 03/01/2025 18:37, -hh wrote:

On 1/3/25 11:43 AM, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

On 03/01/2025 16:31, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:

The Natural Philosopher wrote this post while blinking in Morse code:
>

On 03/01/2025 13:32, -hh wrote:

Sea levels have already risen by 4 inches since 1993, and hard science
has found the primary energy imbalance reason why:  its anthropometric.

>
Sea level rise has been 3mm/yr for the last 4000 years. Nothing has changed

>
This source disagrees:
>
     https://ocean.si.edu/through-time/ancient-seas/sea-level-rise
>
Also, sea level is *not* the same all over the world. The article mentions that
as well.
>
It's an interesting read.

>
Well I will merely quote from the Wiki:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Past_sea_level
>
"Sea level has changed over geologic time. As the graph shows, sea level today is very near the *lowest level ever attained*  (the lowest level occurred at the Permian-Triassic boundary about 250 million years ago)."
>
"Recently, it has become widely accepted that late Holocene, 3,000 calendar years ago to present, sea level was nearly stable prior to an acceleration of rate of rise that is variously dated between 1850 and 1900 AD."
>
*Long before any CO2 excess was present*.

>
Yes, the rate of raise was nearly stable **before** the Industrial Age.
>
Which is the point:  the contemporary acceleration in the rate of rise is a change, and it is coincident with the advent of the Industrial Age.
>

But LONG before any distinctive rise in CO2, which really dint start until post WWII

You have a lot relying on that qualifier of "distinctive", because there was indeed a rise in global CO2 prior to WW2:  from 1000 AD to 1850, it was essentially steady at ~280 ppm, but between 1860-1900, it rose +5% to 295 ppm in just 50 years.
And yes, it did grow faster thereafter:  it is characteristic of an Exponential growth curve:  1950 was 310 ppm, another +5% since 1900 (and +11% from 1850) and 2000 was 370 ppm, another +20%.
<https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-atmospheric-carbon-dioxide>
<https://www.co2levels.org>

So no correlation with CO2 at all.
Try not to be a climate denier

Incorrect, for the correlation is present and is positive.
I think that you're just trying to incorrectly conflate the now-visible exponential growth trend of an input (CO2 ppm) to the less visible growth trend of the output mentioned here of sea level rise, which has a huge response lag in addition to conflation factors.  From an endpoint, seawater has a huge thermal capacity and sea level rise relies on water's thermal expansion coefficient, so it effectively has been integrated twice vs what's being used as the system input.  Likewise, the input of CO2 is time-dependent too, as its mode is via an accumulation of atmospheric heat trapping over time.  Plus there also was conflating factors too.  One that gathered more recent research attention was that of atmospheric particulates that were effectively causing a response lag, as they provide a transient cooling effect which didn't become sufficiently apparent until air pollution start to be cleared until the 1970s, and more so after 2012 when shipping bunker fuel sulphur levels were cleaned up...the latter's effect's change has been most noticeable over the north Atlantic ocean & more definitive proof of the anthropmetric contribution.
-hh