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

[furrowtickler]

[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]

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 .

[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.

[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?

[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]

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.

[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...

[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]

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.