Don't Go Being Politically Insane You Climate Change Skeptics

[Mobius]

There has been been record rainfall in australia for years. They they have record heatwaves and record fires. How often does all these need to keep happening before someone finally concedes that gee, something bad is happening? The other day they recorded a rapid extinction event on insects of all things. This is on top of year on year declines on bee's, all across Europe.

 

If you want to know how fragile the ecosystem is, archaeologists have detected a layer in the Greenland Glacier that shows a layer of burning. They time dated it and found it was ash from slash and burning at the time of the Roman Empire. You have to only look on flightradar 24 and reflect on how many airliners are in the air at any one time and how much co2 is going in the atmosphere, and reflect what those Greenland glaciers are going to look like 100 years from now. If they are still here.

 

Climate change might be a religion in some quarters, but so is climate change denial. And of late, on evidence, there is a hell of a lot more going for the idea the climate is changing rapidly, rather than the denialists.

There were other empires burning wood at the same time. The Chinese and Mayans. And the ice is increasing in the center of Greenland.

 

Extreme weather is not climate. It just is weather. Like one denier says. What is the prefect temperature of earth? Wouldn't it be almost an uncanny fortune that it is just like it is right now?

Why nor ask what is the perfect economy for our country? It would be like answering It is just like it is right now.

Edited February 14, 2019 by Mobius

[DKTanker]

Climate change might be a religion in some quarters, but so is climate change denial. And of late, on evidence, there is a hell of a lot more going for the idea the climate is changing rapidly, rather than the denialists.

The only people that deny that climate can change are from the Church of Climatscientology. It is they that are completely and emotionally invested in the idea that climate change can only occur due to human interference.

 

Help us out, Stuart. Help us to understand our original sins. Help us to understand how the ancient city of Ur, which currently lies 200 miles from the nearest ocean and 77 feet above sea level, used to be a bustling port city. What did we humans do to force sea levels down to such an extent? What can we humans do to raise those sea levels so that Ur can again become a bustling port city?

[Leo Niehorster]

 

Climate change might be a religion in some quarters, but so is climate change denial. And of late, on evidence, there is a hell of a lot more going for the idea the climate is changing rapidly, rather than the denialists.

The only people that deny that climate can change are from the Church of Climatscientology. It is they that are completely and emotionally invested in the idea that climate change can only occur due to human interference.

 

Help us out, Stuart. Help us to understand our original sins. Help us to understand how the ancient city of Ur, which currently lies 200 miles from the nearest ocean and 77 feet above sea level, used to be a bustling port city. What did we humans do to force sea levels down to such an extent? What can we humans do to raise those sea levels so that Ur can again become a bustling port city?

 

And then there was Pangaea — until it broke up.

[DKTanker]

 

 

Climate change might be a religion in some quarters, but so is climate change denial. And of late, on evidence, there is a hell of a lot more going for the idea the climate is changing rapidly, rather than the denialists.

The only people that deny that climate can change are from the Church of Climatscientology. It is they that are completely and emotionally invested in the idea that climate change can only occur due to human interference.

 

Help us out, Stuart. Help us to understand our original sins. Help us to understand how the ancient city of Ur, which currently lies 200 miles from the nearest ocean and 77 feet above sea level, used to be a bustling port city. What did we humans do to force sea levels down to such an extent? What can we humans do to raise those sea levels so that Ur can again become a bustling port city?

 

And then there was Pangaea — until it broke up.

 

Because 175 million years = 5000 years and it is duly noted that you purposely deflected from the issue at hand.

 

5000 years ago the sea level of the Persian Gulf was 250 centimeters higher than it is now. If sea levels were to rise at a pace of 10 cm each century going forward, it would take 2500 years before Ur could again be that bustling metropolis it once was. All of which raises an interesting question, how did humanity manage to not only live, but to prosper and flourish with with such high sea levels?

 

The second interesting question is what was it the Assyrians did that sea levels dropped so dramatically?

Edited February 14, 2019 by DKTanker

[NickM]

Enjoy.

 

https://wattsupwiththat.com/reference-pages/

 

My favorite botch of CO2 came from IMDB (RIP) where a poster linked TWO stories from the same day and same paper: that humboldt squid were so 'intolerant' to Co2 they were going to fall prey to predators much more easily than before--but the other story said Humboldt Squid were so tolerant to Co2 they were going to overrun the oceans and strip it clean of prey.

[DKTanker]

 

Enjoy.

 

https://wattsupwiththat.com/reference-pages/

 

My favorite botch of CO2 came from IMDB (RIP) where a poster linked TWO stories from the same day and same paper: that humboldt squid were so 'intolerant' to Co2 they were going to fall prey to predators much more easily than before--but the other story said Humboldt Squid were so tolerant to Co2 they were going to overrun the oceans and strip it clean of prey.

 

That's from the Climatscientology Book of Humpty Dumpty which opens with:

 

“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.” “The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.” “The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master—that's all.”

[Mobius]

 

 

 

Climate change might be a religion in some quarters, but so is climate change denial. And of late, on evidence, there is a hell of a lot more going for the idea the climate is changing rapidly, rather than the denialists.

The only people that deny that climate can change are from the Church of Climatscientology. It is they that are completely and emotionally invested in the idea that climate change can only occur due to human interference.

 

Help us out, Stuart. Help us to understand our original sins. Help us to understand how the ancient city of Ur, which currently lies 200 miles from the nearest ocean and 77 feet above sea level, used to be a bustling port city. What did we humans do to force sea levels down to such an extent? What can we humans do to raise those sea levels so that Ur can again become a bustling port city?

 

And then there was Pangaea — until it broke up.

 

Because 175 million years = 5000 years and it is duly noted that you purposely deflected from the issue at hand.

 

5000 years ago the sea level of the Persian Gulf was 250 centimeters higher than it is now. If sea levels were to rise at a pace of 10 cm each century going forward, it would take 2500 years before Ur could again be that bustling metropolis it once was. All of which raises an interesting question, how did humanity manage to not only live, but to prosper and flourish with with such high sea levels?

 

The second interesting question is what was it the Assyrians did that sea levels dropped so dramatically?

 

In the last century the sea level has risen 22 centimeters. This might be alarming except in the previous 3 centuries the sea has also risen on average 22 centimeters per century.

[rmgill]

Here's a clue. Climate change is a dogwhistle for "anthropogenic climate change".


Yes the climate changes. it's been changing ever since the earth formed. Why is the question. Sea's rise and fall for more reasons that just climate changes. Techtonic plate movement, subduction zones and even plastic deformation of the plates will change the sea levels. Just look at Doggerland.

Edited February 15, 2019 by rmgill

[Leo Niehorster]

 

 

 

Climate change might be a religion in some quarters, but so is climate change denial. And of late, on evidence, there is a hell of a lot more going for the idea the climate is changing rapidly, rather than the denialists.

The only people that deny that climate can change are from the Church of Climatscientology. It is they that are completely and emotionally invested in the idea that climate change can only occur due to human interference.

 

Help us out, Stuart. Help us to understand our original sins. Help us to understand how the ancient city of Ur, which currently lies 200 miles from the nearest ocean and 77 feet above sea level, used to be a bustling port city. What did we humans do to force sea levels down to such an extent? What can we humans do to raise those sea levels so that Ur can again become a bustling port city?

 

And then there was Pangaea — until it broke up.

 

Because 175 million years = 5000 years and it is duly noted that you purposely deflected from the issue at hand.

 

5000 years ago the sea level of the Persian Gulf was 250 centimeters higher than it is now. If sea levels were to rise at a pace of 10 cm each century going forward, it would take 2500 years before Ur could again be that bustling metropolis it once was. All of which raises an interesting question, how did humanity manage to not only live, but to prosper and flourish with with such high sea levels?

 

The second interesting question is what was it the Assyrians did that sea levels dropped so dramatically?

 

The earth has been changing ever since it was created and is still active.

So picking 5000 years ago (although interesting in itself) as relevant to today — how?

[DKTanker]

 

 

So picking 5000 years ago (although interesting in itself) as relevant to today — how?

 

 

It is relevant because it is a time of higher historic sea levels, sea levels that your religion says would be catastrophic to humanity. It is relevant because until your religion can accurately model what occurred in the past, nobody should trust any of your religion's models going forward. The simple fact is your theologians can't model the past without massaging the numbers or entirely ignoring historical evidence. Massaging the numbers to make it seem the earth was never warmer, that recent times of the earth being colder weren't really that cold. Climatscientologists have flattened the temperature curves from the last 2000 years and then they simply ignore anything that happened before that.

 

Why would they do that? Why indeed. The reason is simple, they can't begin to model what did happen and they can't credibly blame pre-industrial mankind. And that's the agenda, that has always been the agenda, to blame mankind for the changing climate. To do so they have to sell simple minds on the idea that the ideal global temperature and climate was that of the 1870s or so, just as the industrial revolution started kicking into high gear. Evidently that sales job has worked well on many people. So well have they sold that idea that very few people understand, let alone believe, that global temperatures were significantly higher 7,000 years ago and that we are currently on a cooling trend line.

[sunday]

DKTanker, I am not so sure about the stance of Leo in this matter.

[Leo Niehorster]

My religion? My theologians? I don't believe I wrote anything mentioning belief(s).

 

I used Pangaea as reductio ad absurdum — or sarcasm, if you prefer— to show what I think of your example of 5000 (now 7000) years ago as compared to today.

[rmgill]

They key thing for me is the absolute treatment of proxy measurements for average temperatures with modern day, accurate to a hundreth of a degree temperature gauges placed on many places on the globe, while, 150 years ago we had mercury bulb thermometers that I suspect were MAYBE accurate (vis a vis calibration and precision) to a degree or two. And the distribution of those thermometers was not as diverse as they are today. AND the readings of those were manual and at bet multiple times a day and not constantly measured as they are today with electronic gauges with high degree's of precision and calibration.

Edited February 15, 2019 by rmgill

[APF]

 

 

 

 

Climate change might be a religion in some quarters, but so is climate change denial. And of late, on evidence, there is a hell of a lot more going for the idea the climate is changing rapidly, rather than the denialists.

The only people that deny that climate can change are from the Church of Climatscientology. It is they that are completely and emotionally invested in the idea that climate change can only occur due to human interference.

 

Help us out, Stuart. Help us to understand our original sins. Help us to understand how the ancient city of Ur, which currently lies 200 miles from the nearest ocean and 77 feet above sea level, used to be a bustling port city. What did we humans do to force sea levels down to such an extent? What can we humans do to raise those sea levels so that Ur can again become a bustling port city?

 

And then there was Pangaea — until it broke up.

 

Because 175 million years = 5000 years and it is duly noted that you purposely deflected from the issue at hand.

 

5000 years ago the sea level of the Persian Gulf was 250 centimeters higher than it is now. If sea levels were to rise at a pace of 10 cm each century going forward, it would take 2500 years before Ur could again be that bustling metropolis it once was. All of which raises an interesting question, how did humanity manage to not only live, but to prosper and flourish with with such high sea levels?

 

The second interesting question is what was it the Assyrians did that sea levels dropped so dramatically?

 

In the last century the sea level has risen 22 centimeters. This might be alarming except in the previous 3 centuries the sea has also risen on average 22 centimeters per century.

 

I see

Source: https://climatefeedback.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/sea-level-rise.png

 

Where's your data from?

[Mobius]

 

 

 

 

 

Climate change might be a religion in some quarters, but so is climate change denial. And of late, on evidence, there is a hell of a lot more going for the idea the climate is changing rapidly, rather than the denialists.

The only people that deny that climate can change are from the Church of Climatscientology. It is they that are completely and emotionally invested in the idea that climate change can only occur due to human interference.

 

Help us out, Stuart. Help us to understand our original sins. Help us to understand how the ancient city of Ur, which currently lies 200 miles from the nearest ocean and 77 feet above sea level, used to be a bustling port city. What did we humans do to force sea levels down to such an extent? What can we humans do to raise those sea levels so that Ur can again become a bustling port city?

 

And then there was Pangaea — until it broke up.

 

Because 175 million years = 5000 years and it is duly noted that you purposely deflected from the issue at hand.

 

5000 years ago the sea level of the Persian Gulf was 250 centimeters higher than it is now. If sea levels were to rise at a pace of 10 cm each century going forward, it would take 2500 years before Ur could again be that bustling metropolis it once was. All of which raises an interesting question, how did humanity manage to not only live, but to prosper and flourish with with such high sea levels?

 

The second interesting question is what was it the Assyrians did that sea levels dropped so dramatically?

 

In the last century the sea level has risen 22 centimeters. This might be alarming except in the previous 3 centuries the sea has also risen on average 22 centimeters per century.

 

I see

Source: https://climatefeedback.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/sea-level-rise.png

 

Where's your data from?

 

http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/Sea-level-data-since-1855.jpg

It's not 'adjusted' or in other words fake.

From 1900 to 2000 a total of 184mm increase. or 1.84mm a year.

 

 

 

Satellite altimeters can measure the sea level with a root-mean-square error of about 5cm

Conclusion

For accuracy, satellite measurements of sea level cannot beat the decades-long hourly records collected at main ports. However, now they can favourably compete with 1-month dedicated measurement campaigns to retrieve tidal constants. As satellites measure worldwide, and just as easily in remote areas that are difficult to access with traditional sensors, they provide a cost-effective alternative.

 

https://www.hydro-international.com/content/article/satellite-observations-to-retrieve-tidal-sea-level-and-tidal-currents?output=pdf

Edited February 15, 2019 by Mobius

[DKTanker]

My religion? My theologians? I don't believe I wrote anything mentioning belief(s).

 

I used Pangaea as reductio ad absurdum — or sarcasm, if you prefer— to show what I think of your example of 5000 (now 7000) years ago as compared to today.

Because when you can't dispute the facts you resort to childish retorts.

 

You write in support of Anthropogenic Global Warming, you write in support of a theology. A religion if you like.

[JWB]

 

https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/climate-change-indicators-sea-level

[Leo Niehorster]

 

My religion? My theologians? I don't believe I wrote anything mentioning belief(s).

 

I used Pangaea as reductio ad absurdum — or sarcasm, if you prefer— to show what I think of your example of 5000 (now 7000) years ago as compared to today.

Because when you can't dispute the facts you resort to childish retorts.

 

You write in support of Anthropogenic Global Warming, you write in support of a theology. A religion if you like.

 

I thought we were having an adult discussion. You resort to name-calling. Appears to me you are resorting to argumentum ad hominem, and not arguing your case on merit.

 

I am not disputing your facts, merely pointing out that you use facts 5000–7000 years in the past to prove a modern theory. I don't see the point, validity, or relevance.

Anyway, You keep putting words in my mouth. I nowhere support "Anthropogenic Global Warming". I was merely pointing out the absurdity of your argument(s).

[sunday]

 

 

My religion? My theologians? I don't believe I wrote anything mentioning belief(s).

 

I used Pangaea as reductio ad absurdum — or sarcasm, if you prefer— to show what I think of your example of 5000 (now 7000) years ago as compared to today.

Because when you can't dispute the facts you resort to childish retorts.

 

You write in support of Anthropogenic Global Warming, you write in support of a theology. A religion if you like.

 

I thought we were having an adult discussion. You resort to name-calling. Appears to me you are resorting to argumentum ad hominem, and not arguing your case on merit.

 

I am not disputing your facts, merely pointing out that you use facts 5000–7000 years in the past to prove a modern theory. I don't see the point, validity, or relevance.

Anyway, You keep putting words in my mouth. I nowhere support "Anthropogenic Global Warming". I was merely pointing out the absurdity of your argument(s).

 

Exactly. Wrong reasoning supporting a worthy cause is still wrong reasoning. Moreover, that wrong reasoning could very well diminish the apparent worthiness of the cause, by showing that supporters of that cause are able to resort to use disputable techniques, something they would not do if they were sure about their cause.

 

Fortunately, this here grate sight is not Gab, so I feel free to make that argument without fear of some right wing SJW-like calling me names.

Edited February 15, 2019 by sunday

[APF]

 

 

 

 

 

 

Climate change might be a religion in some quarters, but so is climate change denial. And of late, on evidence, there is a hell of a lot more going for the idea the climate is changing rapidly, rather than the denialists.

The only people that deny that climate can change are from the Church of Climatscientology. It is they that are completely and emotionally invested in the idea that climate change can only occur due to human interference.

 

Help us out, Stuart. Help us to understand our original sins. Help us to understand how the ancient city of Ur, which currently lies 200 miles from the nearest ocean and 77 feet above sea level, used to be a bustling port city. What did we humans do to force sea levels down to such an extent? What can we humans do to raise those sea levels so that Ur can again become a bustling port city?

 

And then there was Pangaea — until it broke up.

 

Because 175 million years = 5000 years and it is duly noted that you purposely deflected from the issue at hand.

 

5000 years ago the sea level of the Persian Gulf was 250 centimeters higher than it is now. If sea levels were to rise at a pace of 10 cm each century going forward, it would take 2500 years before Ur could again be that bustling metropolis it once was. All of which raises an interesting question, how did humanity manage to not only live, but to prosper and flourish with with such high sea levels?

 

The second interesting question is what was it the Assyrians did that sea levels dropped so dramatically?

 

In the last century the sea level has risen 22 centimeters. This might be alarming except in the previous 3 centuries the sea has also risen on average 22 centimeters per century.

 

I see

Source: https://climatefeedback.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/sea-level-rise.png

 

Where's your data from?

 

http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/Sea-level-data-since-1855.jpg

It's not 'adjusted' or in other words fake.

From 1900 to 2000 a total of 184mm increase. or 1.84mm a year.

 

Satellite altimeters can measure the sea level with a root-mean-square error of about 5cm

 

Conclusion

For accuracy, satellite measurements of sea level cannot beat the decades-long hourly records collected at main ports. However, now they can favourably compete with 1-month dedicated measurement campaigns to retrieve tidal constants. As satellites measure worldwide, and just as easily in remote areas that are difficult to access with traditional sensors, they provide a cost-effective alternative.

https://www.hydro-international.com/content/article/satellite-observations-to-retrieve-tidal-sea-level-and-tidal-currents?output=pdf

 

Hm. I wonder why Dr. Roy Spencer started his graph at 1860'ish when the database he referres to starts at 1806:

I guess his program didn't manage to calculate any more lines of data. Yes, must be like this. Because, well, the linear rise of the sea level is still pretty obvious once you included all the data points there are, isn't it? Otherwise you might even be inclined to see a kind of hockey stick which we all know is simply fake news.

 

But maybe I'm just missing something. Do you have a link to the article the graph belongs to?

Thanks

 

OTOH I mailed the guy who both compiled the data Dr. Spencer referres to and who wrote a paper about it. Maybe he'll send me a copy and we can continue the discussion afterwards.

[APF]

double tap

Edited February 15, 2019 by APF

[APF]

...and triple tap.

You know, it's really annoing if you try to send a post and the system seemingly ignores you.

Addendum:

[source for the data]
http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/Sea-level-data-since-1855.jpg
It's not 'adjusted' or in other words fake.

..must be among the most BSty things I've read here. You might want to check where his data came from.

Edited February 15, 2019 by APF

[sunday]

...and triple tap.

 

You know, it's really annoing if you try to send a post and the system seemingly ignores you.

 

Addendum:

[source for the data]

http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/Sea-level-data-since-1855.jpg

It's not 'adjusted' or in other words fake.

..must be among the most BSty things I've read here. You might want to check where his data came from.

 

Could you explain in plain words the implications of this fragment from the abstract of the Jevrejeva paper?

 

We calculate an acceleration of 0.02 ± 0.01 mm·yr− 2 in global sea level (1807–2009). In comparison the steric component of sea level shows an acceleration of 0.006 mm·yr− 2 and mass loss of glaciers accelerates at 0.003 mm·yr− 2 over 200 year long time series.

Edited February 15, 2019 by sunday

[sunday]

(...)

Source: https://climatefeedback.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/sea-level-rise.png

 

Where's your data from?

Hmmm...

 

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/04/21/leaked-email-shows-website-climate-feedback-plans-a-propaganda-push-under-guise-of-standwithscience/

 

Climate Feedback works like this: Using the new web-annotation platform Hypothesis, scientists verify facts and annotate online climate articles, layering their insights and comments on top of the original story. They then issue a “5-star” rating so readers can quickly judge stories’ scientific credibility. Recognized by NASA, the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change and California Gov. Jerry Brown among others, Climate Feedback is already improving journalistic standards by flagging misreported climate science in mainstream outlets; earlier this month, for example, scientists took apart Bjorn Lomborg’s misleading op-ed in the Wall Street Journal. This is only a hint of what Climate Feedback has in store as it begins to aggregate those credibility scores into a wider index, rating major news sources on their reporting of climate change as part of a new Scientific Trust Tracker.

 

To that end, Climate Feedback is launching a crowd funding campaign on April 27 around the hashtag #StandWithScience, supported by leading climate minds like Profs. Michael Mann, Naomi Oreskes and others. I invite you to take a look at this sneak preview of our campaign (NOTE: please do not share publicly before April 27). The Exxon climate scandal has already made its way into the 2016 election season, but few have discussed the role the media has played enabling corporate interests to sow doubt about the science of climate change, which has long confused the public and undermined political support for dealing with the issue. As 350.org founder Bill McKibben said of Climate Feedback: Scientists are just about ready to come out of the lab and get more active and when they do, it will make a remarkable difference.

Michael Mann, Michael Mann... Where I have heard that name?

Edited February 15, 2019 by sunday

[Mobius]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Climate change might be a religion in some quarters, but so is climate change denial. And of late, on evidence, there is a hell of a lot more going for the idea the climate is changing rapidly, rather than the denialists.

The only people that deny that climate can change are from the Church of Climatscientology. It is they that are completely and emotionally invested in the idea that climate change can only occur due to human interference.

 

Help us out, Stuart. Help us to understand our original sins. Help us to understand how the ancient city of Ur, which currently lies 200 miles from the nearest ocean and 77 feet above sea level, used to be a bustling port city. What did we humans do to force sea levels down to such an extent? What can we humans do to raise those sea levels so that Ur can again become a bustling port city?

 

And then there was Pangaea — until it broke up.

 

Because 175 million years = 5000 years and it is duly noted that you purposely deflected from the issue at hand.

 

5000 years ago the sea level of the Persian Gulf was 250 centimeters higher than it is now. If sea levels were to rise at a pace of 10 cm each century going forward, it would take 2500 years before Ur could again be that bustling metropolis it once was. All of which raises an interesting question, how did humanity manage to not only live, but to prosper and flourish with with such high sea levels?

 

The second interesting question is what was it the Assyrians did that sea levels dropped so dramatically?

 

In the last century the sea level has risen 22 centimeters. This might be alarming except in the previous 3 centuries the sea has also risen on average 22 centimeters per century.

 

I see

Source: https://climatefeedback.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/sea-level-rise.png

 

Where's your data from?

 

http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/Sea-level-data-since-1855.jpg

It's not 'adjusted' or in other words fake.

From 1900 to 2000 a total of 184mm increase. or 1.84mm a year.

 

Satellite altimeters can measure the sea level with a root-mean-square error of about 5cm

 

Conclusion

For accuracy, satellite measurements of sea level cannot beat the decades-long hourly records collected at main ports. However, now they can favourably compete with 1-month dedicated measurement campaigns to retrieve tidal constants. As satellites measure worldwide, and just as easily in remote areas that are difficult to access with traditional sensors, they provide a cost-effective alternative.

https://www.hydro-international.com/content/article/satellite-observations-to-retrieve-tidal-sea-level-and-tidal-currents?output=pdf

 

Hm. I wonder why Dr. Roy Spencer started his graph at 1860'ish when the database he referres to starts at 1806:

I guess his program didn't manage to calculate any more lines of data. Yes, must be like this. Because, well, the linear rise of the sea level is still pretty obvious once you included all the data points there are, isn't it? Otherwise you might even be inclined to see a kind of hockey stick which we all know is simply fake news.

 

But maybe I'm just missing something. Do you have a link to the article the graph belongs to?

Thanks

 

OTOH I mailed the guy who both compiled the data Dr. Spencer referres to and who wrote a paper about it. Maybe he'll send me a copy and we can continue the discussion afterwards.

 

If you want to go back to 1720 we can do that.

So going from 1720 to 1820 we gave a 1 mm/yr increase;

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2008GL033611