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

[AlbertaFarmer5]

Can't anyone talk about anything real.

But it is so much fun backing Chuck into a corner, and forcing him to reveal the gross ignorance and blind ideology of his cause. Besides, I have nothing better to do while bouncing around cutting and raking hay lately.

[AlbertaFarmer5]

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.

Do you read anything I've written in this entire thread? Where have I denied that there is a human component to warming and therefore SLR? I just keep insisting that the proportion of the human contribution is actually very important, and you steadfastly refuse to acknowledge or quantify that fact.

[AlbertaFarmer5]

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.

Admitting you have a problem is the first step, congratulations.

So you are so passionate about this subject that you are willing to devote a not insubstantial portion of your life lecturing us about the horrors of CAGW and associated sea level rise, you are spending your own money on solar to fight it, you are pushing for our collective tax dollars to be used to fight it on a massive scale, and you propose we all sacrifice our standard of living in the name of the cause, yet you can't be bothered to verify the actual extent of the problem.

So, in your mind, it wouldn't make any difference if the human contribution was causing 95% of sea level rise, or 5%, the draconian solutions wouldn't change? Facts really aren't important when you have emotion on your side, right? Do you think it is important that our political leaders should bother to inform themselves about such details, before committing us all to paying for their green dreams? Perhaps you should ask climate Barbie if she knows the answer, or if she shares your attitude, after all, she is not a climate scientist, how should we expect her to know such minor details.

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.

I'm going to need a citation for that one, do you know what the residence time of CO2 in the atmosphere is, do you think it is 1000's 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 are on a roll this morning. You just finished admitting that you can't be bothered to learn and understand what percentage of SLR is human caused, or are incapable of processing the information, then you denigrate people who are too stupid to understand the science. I couldn't make this up if I tried. I've been trying so hard to help you become a better debater, and then you go and make such massive gaffes, it almost makes me want to give up.

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.

And, once again, I have agreed with you all along that human are causing climate change, I've even provided you a list of the ways in which it is occurring. What is at issue is the magnitude. And that is not a minor unimportant detail.

[jazz]

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.

Sea levels are not rising anything beyond natural occurrences, therefore nothing to prove. The burden of proof is on you. And the data on the ground confirms it.

https://business.financialpost.com/opinion/gwyn-morgan-here-are-a-few-climate-change-head-scratchers-for-canadian-voters-to-ponder

Apocalyptic projections of rapid sea level rises are driving municipal and provincial governments on both our east and west coasts to implement “sea level rise plans” that include sterilizing waterfront from development, building sea barriers and even buying out and destroying homes that are deemed vulnerable. So just how fast are sea levels rising? Here again the NOAA provides the answer. Despite all the calamitous rhetoric, the NOAA states that sea levels “continue to rise at the rate of about one-eighth of an inch (3.2 mm) per year.” At that rate, a house built 10 feet above sea level today would still be 9 feet 7 inches above sea level 40 years from now.

https://iowaclimate.org/2019/02/13/sea-levels-in-and-around-sydney-harbour-1886-to-2018/

[blackpowder]

Can't anyone talk about anything real.

[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.

[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]

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]

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

[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?