No, you can't. That graph shows the rise over the last 24,000 years, but your claim was about last 2000 years, and on that curve the last 2000 years are flat. The curve I linked from the same Wikipedia page is a blow-up of the same data over just the last 2000 years, and shows more clearly that it there is no increase visible over the last 2000 years.

And my point is that the data you linked shows that we are in a post-glacial period after the glacial-melt sea level rise.

There's your problem right there. First, CO2 rise is not exponential, and second, you seem to be assuming a model saying in which sea level should be linear in instantaneous CO2 concentration.

Dealing with the first point CO2 concentration in the air is an exponential plus a constant . Look again at the CO2 graph and look at the y axis. That constant is critical, because delta temperature is not linear in CO2 concentration; it is proportional to the logarithm of greenhouse gas concentration (this is why climate sensitivity is always quoted in degrees per doubling.) So the constant is a critical factor. This has been known since Arrhenius. Basically, since we haven't even hit doubling yet, we're still on the linear part of the curve.

Yes, as for the second factor, what model of glacial melting are you using to ground your hypothesis that glacial melt rate and subsequent sea level change should be proportional to CO2?

Overall, I'd say that the data is not over a long enough time scale and is too noisy to accurately measure the second derivative of the curve. And, overall, you want global sea level, not one or two selected spots. There's good satellite data on that now, but the time scale is too short to measure second derivative.

Actually, you can. Sea level is not uniform, and sea level rise is even more not uniform. Yes, the sea level can rise a lot in one place, a little in another place, and not at all in others. So, yes, some places will be outliers high, and some outliers low. On the average, however, sea level is rising.

And it's all complicated by the fact that in places the land is subsiding, in others it's rising, and in some places parts of it are rising and others sinking.
For more, see: https://ancillary-proxy.atarimworker.io?url=https%3A%2F%2Fclimate.esa.int%2Fen%2FSci...

OK, I did what you asked. Click on the Post Glacial sea level rise graph in that wikipedia article and you see it in more detail: https://ancillary-proxy.atarimworker.io?url=https%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2F...
Contradicting what you stated, the graph shows no sea level rise over the past 2000 years (although it doesn't have enough detail to show the most recent 30 years discussed in the article.)

Citation needed as to exactly what image. An overall discussion is here: https://ancillary-proxy.atarimworker.io?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.usatoday.com%2Fstory...
And NASA data on sea level rise is here: https://ancillary-proxy.atarimworker.io?url=https%3A%2F%2Fearthobservatory.nasa....

They buy oceanfront property on top of bluffs fifty feet above the water.

Not really news; we've known for a long time that the sea level is rising, and that global warming is contributing to this. The interesting thing about this article is that it does acknowledge the uncertainty in estimates, something that's often missing from science popularizations.

This is a long-term effect. Don't expect New York to be underwater in the next decade, or the one after.

You really think that buying one cup of coffee means you ought to get a table at the coffee shop as your personal remote office all day?

Maybe if you're there at a slack time, when plenty of tables are free, but if you're hogging a table for hours and hours when other people can't sit down, you're a moocher.

If that had been your point, it might have made sense, but what you actually said-- in response to somebody talking about small business CEOs-- was " I don't care if the corporation is 2 people or 2000 people."

What you said had nothing to do with CEOs of corporations of 2 people.

It "changes" nothing, but it does point out that your comment is irrelevant to the post you were responding to.

Congrats, you pointed out the basic issue with using averages.

You were the one who gave an average. I was just pointing out the flaw in that.

You are talking about different things. You're talking about CEOs of gigantic corporations. He's talking about CEOs of tiny corporations.

And without a source, I have no idea what that number came from or what it refers to. But if the top, say, ten CEOs are paid $101.5 million, and the next 90 are paid nothing at all, the average pay of a CEO is over a million dollars, even though most of the CEOs are unpaid.

No CEO of a 2 person corporation is getting $725,553/year

...so people would know what this is about. Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency: https://ancillary-proxy.atarimworker.io?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.cisa.gov%2F

https://ancillary-proxy.atarimworker.io?url=https%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FCybersecurity_and_Infrastructure_Security_Agency

Genes are DNA. RNA is not DNA. No vaccines are "gene therapy".

Having a gun will only protect you against somebody else with a gun if you shoot them first (and accurately). In most situations, the person who shoots first is the one who cares least about verifying who they shoot.

Citation needed.

I know of a lot of University programs that are only open to US Citizens, but don't know of any US university programs that are available only to foreign students.

Federal student loans are not available to international students.

Not at all unreasonable; several geophysicists have suggested that the Earth has a lot of deep water bonded to the mantle rocks; and possibly more water deep than there is on the surface.

Do keep in mind that the Earth is quite well differentiated, so unless the water is dissolved in the mineral at equilibrium concentration for the pressure and temperature, it will have differentiated out (which, because it's so low density, means to the surface).

The suggestion here was the hydrogen was not in the form of water, H2O, but in the form of hydrogen sulfide, H2S. Which is also a gas, but the hypothesis here is that the H2S is dissolved in the molten silicate of the accretion disk. https://ancillary-proxy.atarimworker.io?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdoi.org%2F10.1016%2Fj.icar...

Not mentioned in the abstract is how this leads to water (*), but presumably after the Earth cools a bit, the H2S outgasses from the silicate rock (possibly as volcanic or thermal vent emissions) and reacts H2S + O2 --> H2O + SO
(and the SO then goes on to oxidize further into sulfate).