Climate Change Puts Buildings, Coastlines, The North At Most Risk: Report Extreme wea

[AlbertaFarmer5]

https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/sea-level/

NASA satellite data shows since 1993 that sea level has risen 93 mm.

"Sea level rise is caused primarily by two factors related to global warming: the added water from melting ice sheets and glaciers and the expansion of seawater as it warms. The first graph tracks the change in sea level since 1993 as observed by satellites.

The second graph, derived from coastal tide gauge data, shows how much sea level changed from about 1870 to 2000."

A5 no doubt you have the evidence to disprove NASA's data and conclusions on sea level rise. LOL

As I keep saying, I'm not doubting or denying any data about sea level rise. I'm acknowledging that it really is happening, and that is why it is such a sacred cow to the alarmists, because unlike all the other predictions they have made that stubbornly refuse to cooperate, sea levels just keep on rising, and makes for really dramatic propaganda to scare the masses with, your originally posted report being a perfect example.

All I am asking is how much worse is it thanks to CAGW vs. without? Do you think 100% of SLR is the result of human activities, because that is always the impression the alarmist try to give? Do you "believe" that without elevated CO2, SLR would be zero, and coastal communities would never have to worry about SLR displacing them? How many different ways can I word this simple question?

Instead of answering, all you and DML keep doing is proving my point that you can't possibly question this one because it is all you have left.

[jazz]

And a farmer that doesn't know the water cycle is a scary thing. If ice melts it doesn't just go into the ocean and sit there. A percentage goes to evaporation and water vapour, some will return to ground water, inland lakes could grow. More abundant moisture in the atmosphere could allow some drier areas of the earth to return to permanent vegetation which will then use up that C02 we are so scared of.

[AlbertaFarmer5]

And a farmer that doesn't know the water cycle is a scary thing. If ice melts it doesn't just go into the ocean and sit there. A percentage goes to evaporation and water vapour, some will return to ground water, inland lakes could grow. More abundant moisture in the atmosphere could allow some drier areas of the earth to return to permanent vegetation which will then use up that C02 we are so scared of.

What is even scarier, is someone claiming to be a farmer who doesn't comprehend photosynthesis and the carbon cycle...

[AlbertaFarmer5]

More abundant moisture in the atmosphere could allow some drier areas of the earth to return to permanent vegetation which will then use up that C02 we are so scared of.

Remove the word COULD from that statement, global greening is happening at an embarrassing rate as a result of increased CO2, and changing weather patterns. See the Sahel on the border of the Sahara desert as a great example of the myriad benefits of higher CO2. One of those feedbacks that just keeps on giving.

[jazz]

The amount of available freshwater could rise as a result. That would be handy as we add another 4 billion people to the planet that the IPCC doesnt seem to think is a problem.

Its all garbage and it has ensnared some of our least critical thinking people. A group that is growing by leaps and bounds as they drink the MSM pablum daily.

[AlbertaFarmer5]

Back on topic now. Thanks Chuck for taking the time to post the NASA link. Their data proves what we both agreed upon to start with, Sea levels are rising, and have been doing so since at least 1870.

But, since I am an uneducated backwoods hillbilly farmer and denier, I am obviously not qualified to make any scientific conclusions based on those two charts. Could you possibly apply some of you SLR expertise and explain to me how those two graphs answer my question about the human caused component of SLR as compared to the natural component.

When I read the craftily worded text accompanying the graphs, Sea level rise is caused primarily by two factors related to global warming: the added water from melting ice sheets and glaciers and the expansion of seawater as it warms.
I am left with the impression that all of it is caused by global warming. Which seems like a reasonable conclusion, even to a backwoods hick like me. If the globe wasn't warning, neither of those phenomenon would be occurring.

But what the average reader without the benefit of the grade 6 education from the prestigious one room backwoods school house where my mother who also happens to be my sister and aunt, might not notice is the absence of the word human or Anthropogenic. When most people see the words global warming, the CAGW type is the only connection they make, since that is theonly type the media and the alarmists ever mention. But yet the graph seems to show sea levels rising as far back as 1870, that was even before Arrhenius had postulated that CO2 could act as a greenhouse gas, let alone the invention of global warming.

So if NASA forgot, neglected to, or purposely avoided attributing the cause of the warming, how am I to use this information to answer the question about how much would sea levels be rising without human input? This is why I have enlisted your help.

And, as Micheal Mann discovered the hard way, the scientific community does not take kindly to splicing unrelated datasets together, especially when a continuous dataset is available, in this case tide gauge data. Can you find a continuous tide gauge graph and then show me the rate of acceleration, and when it started accelerating, so we can attempt to figure out the human influence?

[chuckChuck]

As I keep saying, I'm not doubting or denying any data about sea level rise. I'm acknowledging that it really is happening, and that is why it is such a sacred cow to the alarmists, because unlike all the other predictions they have made that stubbornly refuse to cooperate, sea levels just keep on rising, and makes for really dramatic propaganda to scare the masses with, your originally posted report being a perfect example.

All I am asking is how much worse is it thanks to CAGW vs. without? Do you think 100% of SLR is the result of human activities, because that is always the impression the alarmist try to give? Do you "believe" that without elevated CO2, SLR would be zero, and coastal communities would never have to worry about SLR displacing them? How many different ways can I word this simple question?

Instead of answering, all you and DML keep doing is proving my point that you can't possibly question this one because it is all you have left.

Check this link out and it will answer a lot of your questions. Unless you want me do all your homework?

https://sealevel.nasa.gov/understanding-sea-level/global-sea-level/thermal-expansion

You could even try doing your own google search and find your own answers. But that would be expecting too much I guess?

There is no benefit from sea level increases when you factor in the cost of displacing millions and/or mitigating the flooding of numerous coastal cities around the world.

[furrowtickler]

Check this link out and it will answer a lot of your questions. Unless you want me do all your homework?

https://sealevel.nasa.gov/understanding-sea-level/global-sea-level/thermal-expansion

You could even try doing your own google search and find your own answers. But that would be expecting too much I guess?

There is no benefit from sea level increases when you factor in the cost of displacing millions and/or mitigating the flooding of numerous coastal cities around the world.

They can displace themselves, everyone has a choice to live ocean front or not
But I have a feeling this is all b/S anyway ... fear mongeing at its best .

[jazz]

Canada doesnt need to do a thing.

And that doesn't even include what farmers sequester. Other countries should be paying us. Lets see chuck dispute these facts with his cut and paste skills.

[furrowtickler]

[AlbertaFarmer5]

Check this link out and it will answer a lot of your questions. Unless you want me do all your homework?

https://sealevel.nasa.gov/understanding-sea-level/global-sea-level/thermal-expansion

You could even try doing your own google search and find your own answers. But that would be expecting too much I guess?

There is no benefit from sea level increases when you factor in the cost of displacing millions and/or mitigating the flooding of numerous coastal cities around the world.

Did I miss part of this conversation, or why are you suddenly discussing the benefits of SLR, I haven't seen anyone making any such claims on this thread? While it is likely a worthwhile discussion to have, can we at least solve the question of manmade vs. natural SLR first? Or is this an attempt at deflecting from the topic at hand?

As for homework, I submitted your response to my grade 6 teacher, and she immediately graded it as a fail, for not being relevant to the original question, then to add insult to injury, she wrapped my knuckles with a ruler for plagarism.

After following all of your links on this topic, however, I am beginning to think it is me who is doing your homework. And that you didn't even bother to open the links, let alone read them, or you would have noticed that they in no way address the question. After reading the last one, I am however much more informed about the mechanism of thermal expansion of sea water, and the confidence intervals of the estimations. A very interesting article.

For example, there is this gem:

By comparison, an estimate using Argo floats found the thermosteric component of sea level rise above a depth of 2000 meters to be 0.5 millimeters per year, plus or minus 0.5 millimeters

So they are certain that it is somewhere between none ( zero) and 1 mm per year. I am going to be so bold as to predict the annual rainfall on Chucks cricket farm in 2020, as being 500mm of precipitation, plus or minus 500mm. And I am going to give that estimation a 99% chance of being true. You will get no less than zero precipitation next year, and no more than 1 meter. And this is in an article from NASA, that seems accurate enough to get a man onto the moon, don't you think? And you want us to panic and spend money to prevent this catastrophe when NASA provides a range of errors equivalent to twice the magnitude of the prediction?

Everyone should read the following statement from Chucks NASA link:

This increases confidence that these models are reliable under present-day conditions, despite the fact that the models’ current rate of rise, 3.7 millimeters per year, is significantly higher than shown by observations. Since these coupled models do not include ice sheet instabilities, their projections very likely represent a “lower bound” for future sea level rise.

They only contradict themselves three times in two sentences. Now, obviously it is the real world observations which must be incorrect for not aligning with the models, since they have such increasing confidence in the models, and the models likely are underestimating future sea level. Next time Chuck attempts to refute any evidence contrary to his beliefs, please feel free to bring this to his attention, this is the type of garbage which passes for evidence in his world. AND THIS IS FROM NASA!!! The foremost authority according to Chuck.

I am beginning to think that I don't want you to do my homework for me after all, if this is the result.



Perhaps I have been too vague in my questions, and the questions too long winded and complicated. I shall try another approach. A simple true or false question:

Based on all of your exhaustive research, is it true that all sea level rise in 1870 was natural, and all sea level rise in 2019 is human caused?

[furrowtickler]

At least NASA has confirmed the the rise is C02 has led to a healthy greener planet

[chuckChuck]

Everyone is well aware that there are natural climate cycles that are also warming the planet and causing sea level rise. If you want to know what percentage is natural or man made look up the research. I don't have the answer.

Scientists and policy makers around the world are worried about the rapid increase in greenhouse gases that are accelerating human caused climate change which could lead to out of control warming that will last for 1000s of years.

Yes their may be benefits for some regions but the assumption this is going to be good for the planet and all residents is just absolute bullshit coming from flat earthers who are mostly too stupid to understand the science.

You have had ample opportunity to provide evidence that human caused climate change is not occurring and you have provided no credible scientific evidence to back up your claims. End of story.

[furrowtickler]

Everyone is well aware that there are natural climate cycles that are also warming the planet and causing sea level rise. If you want to know what percentage is natural or man made look up the research. I don't have the answer.

Scientists and policy makers around the world are worried about the rapid increase in greenhouse gases that are accelerating human caused climate change which could lead to out of control warming that will last for 1000s of years.

Yes their may be benefits for some regions but the assumption this is going to be good for the planet and all residents is just absolute bullshit coming from flat earthers who are mostly too stupid to understand the science.

You have had ample opportunity to provide evidence that human caused climate change is not occurring and you have provided no credible scientific evidence to back up your claims. End of story.

Lol the credible scientific evidence is flawed ....... watch Ben Davidson.

[chuckChuck]

A5 if you are sure that human caused climate change is not causing sea level rise then show us credible published science that backs up your claim.