US coasts sea level rise 10 to 12 inches by 2050

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by S/V Illusion

I have to sigh every time I read nonsense like this.

Don’t know why but apparently it’s too difficult for some people to differentiate between natural and anthropogenic climate change. No one is denying the former. And no one has yet quantified the latter if in fact it exists at all.

There are ample evidence and data to demonstrate the climate has historically and will continue to change.

What is startling here is that the climate change wackos seem to always conflate the two as though it’s completely human induced. It’s not! Deny that!

Sophistry. Bullsh!t.

Nobody denies that there have been natural changes in climate throughout the lifespan of the planet. Nor is it being claimed that humans are the only influence on the current climate.

What is increasingly clear is that human activity has had such an influence on the climate that it's pushed it into warming, at a time when the expected non-human influences (insolation, etc) should have resulted in a cooling climate.

AGW from fossil-fuel overuse is just one way we're currently fouling the nest. Pollution, disposable plastics, deforestation, unsustainable agriculture, accelerating extinctions, and so on... Climate change is just one symptom of the problem, but it's currently the flagship, so it's the main target of the defenders of the status quo.

[S/V Illusion]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

What is increasingly clear is that human activity has had such an influence on the climate that it's pushed it into warming, at a time when the expected non-human influences (insolation, etc) should have resulted in a cooling climate.
o.

If it was “increasingly clear”, there would be quantitative data to define it, however, there is none. Science doesn’t care what you think (or model).

[newhaul]

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-022-28564-6

sea level rise in its current rate started before the industrial revolution.
So is it us? Me thinks not.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by S/V Illusion

If it was “increasingly clear”, there would be quantitative data to define it, however, there is none. Science doesn’t care what you think (or model).

Denial. There's tons of data. Post some if you're so sure of your position. And the sophistry of your prior claims remain.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Denial. There's tons of data. Post some if you're so sure of your position.

Really then show me 3 MMGWC predictions that actually have happened and are not easily explained by natural causes.

Perhaps you will respond where all others are silent.

[Montanan]

Originally Posted by S/V Illusion

If it was “increasingly clear”, there would be quantitative data to define it, however, there is none. Science doesn’t care what you think (or model).

Illusionist:

Actually, science is about thinking and yes, about observation, accumulation of data and modeling.

There is abundant data to record and evaluate.

Science

NOUN

the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.

[Montanan]

Originally Posted by newhaul

Really then show me 3 MMGWC predictions that actually have happened and are not easily explained by natural causes.

Perhaps you will respond where all others are silent.

All others are silent????? Perhaps someone is deaf.

Shall we start with the mid 1890s, and the Swedish scientist Dr. Svante Arrhenius:

“By the influence of the increasing percentage of carbonic acid in the atmosphere, we may hope to enjoy ages with more equable and better climates, especially as regards the colder regions of the earth, ages when the earth will bring forth much more abundant crops than at present, for the benefit of rapidly propagating mankind.”

[Montanan]

Just saying:

[AKA-None]

Originally Posted by newhaul

Agree 200ppm is extremely low but the officially recognized is actually 150ppm minimum to support life .

Support life or support humans?

[jackdale]

Global Climate Models have successfully forecast:

That the troposphere would warm and the stratosphere would cool.
That nighttime temperatures would increase more than daytime temperatures.
That winter temperatures would increase more than summer temperatures.
Polar amplification (greater temperature increase as you move toward the poles).
That the Arctic would warm faster than the Antarctic.
The magnitude (0.3 K) and duration (two years) of the cooling from the Mt. Pinatubo eruption.
They made a retrodiction for Last Glacial Maximum sea surface temperatures which was inconsistent with the paleo evidence, and better paleo evidence showed the models were right.
They predicted a trend significantly different and differently signed from UAH satellite temperatures, and then a bug was found in the satellite data.
The amount of water vapor feedback due to ENSO.
The response of southern ocean winds to the ozone hole.
The expansion of the Hadley cells.
The poleward movement of storm tracks.
The rising of the tropopause and the effective radiating altitude.
The clear sky super greenhouse effect from increased water vapor in the tropics.
The near constancy of relative humidity on global average.
That coastal upwelling of ocean water would increase.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by S/V Illusion

If it was “increasingly clear”, there would be quantitative data to define it, however, there is none. Science doesn’t care what you think (or model).

In science, correlation + Mechanism = evidence of a causative relationship.

Berkeley Earth has established a 250 year correlation between anthropogenic CO2 and global temperatures.
Summary of Findings – Berkeley Earth

The mechanism of CO2 as a GHG has been known for 2 centuries.
https://history.aip.org/climate/index.htm#contents

Carbon isotope analysis of the ratios of C14, C13 and C12 attribute the 50% increase in atmospheric CO2 over the past 2.5 centuries to the the burning of fossil fuel.
https://www.climate.gov/news-feature...-caused-humans


QED

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by S/V Illusion

Don’t know why but apparently it’s too difficult for some people to differentiate between natural and anthropogenic climate change.

What natural forces can explain the current warming.?
It is not the Sun
https://climate.nasa.gov/faq/14/is-t...lobal-warming/

It is not Milankovitch cycles.
https://climate.nasa.gov/ask-nasa-cl...rrent-warming/

https://www.iflscience.com/environme...sed-by-humans/

[AllenRbrts]

I’m amazed by folks on this thread who seem to be skeptical of the science behind climate change. The basic science is not new, the scientific basis has been known for more than 150 years. It is not some global conspiracy of the entire scientific community to get research money. You can find the science in college physics textbooks. Want to see the state of the science in 1955? We knew 65 years ago that doubling of CO2 could raise global temperatures over 3C.
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/...1956.tb01206.x

There are a lot of statements in this thread that past predictions have been wrong in the past and how do we know what will happen in the future. That is peppered with conjectures that maybe a warmer planet with more CO2 will be a good thing and oh well there is nothing we can do about it anyway.

There is overwhelming data about rising temperatures and sea level rise currently occurring at a rate that is not “natural” nor coming from variations in solar energy. The data comes from lots of different sources and different countries. The conjecture that somehow a vast global conspiracy exists to distort climate data defies rational thought. Even one of the chief climate change skeptics, Roy Spencer, who has been collecting satellite temperature data for years in the hope of disproving the basis of climate change, now admits it is real and happening on a trend line consistent with predictions by mainstream science (.13C/decade). Satellites have been measuring sea level for 30 years and there is a clear trend of rising levels. Despite what some might read on wattsupwiththat.com, the science and technology behind accurate sea level measurements is well established. https://sealevel.jpl.nasa.gov/missions/technology/ We also have a very clear record about CO2 levels not only recently but also hundreds of thousands of years from the bubbles captured in glacier ice. Our currently levels of CO2 haven’t been seen 650,000 years and has nearly doubled in 100 years.

To those that think that a warmer and higher CO2 level earth might be a good thing, wow.. that is a gamble. Perhaps to a very small segment of the population, but big changes to coast lines or areas that we grow food could have extreme effects on our ability to feed the planet. Some on this thread seem to argue that relocating all the low lying residents of coastal area is the solution. Really??? Any guesses on the economic cost of relocating 300-500 million residents of the planet to the warming interior sections of the planet? https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-021-23810-9

Finally, the argument we either can’t change the climate or can’t afford to change it. Clearly, we can change climate, we are changing it NOW. As for the cost, consider the economic opportunity for changing our energy sources. Yes, the fossil fuel industry will take a big hit, but new industries will provide new jobs, new opportunities, and new economic growth. Whaling was once a large source for energy and horses used for most transportation, but that changed. We need to develop a new energy infrastructure which doesn’t belch carbon. My guess is it a collection of technologies, not a single bullet. We almost certainly need to develop technology for removing carbon from the atmosphere as well. Otherwise, the planet will have to cope with elevated CO2 levels for the next 1000 years. Further delays on addressing climate change will just make this problem bigger and harder to solve with more negative impact on humanity.

[jackdale]

By 1863 anthropogenic CO2 emissions per annum were 35 times pre-industrial levels.

https://cdiac.ess-dive.lbl.gov/ftp/n....1751_2014.ems

[Bycrick]

"we may hope to enjoy …." Sounds more like dreaming than science, even if a scientist said it.

What bothers me most is the monolithic belief system of the climate change zealots. They not only know all the questions, but they’ve got all the answers. And even better, they’ve got the only answers. If one disagrees with any of their assertions, "scientific studies," or proposed solutions, one is immediately label ignorant of "science," a "denier," or a paid shill, or at least unwitting fellow traveler, of the evil fossil fuel industry, which is forcing all of this nasty stuff down our throats.

One is apparently supposed to accept and agree with everything the say, or be cast out into the abyss.

That leaves reasonable people to simply work hard to prevent them from gaining sufficient power to put their schemes into effect. I do that by voting against them and their "theories" every chance I get. They apparently dislike the idea that they might have trouble getting a majority of the voters to actually vote against their immediate self-interest in favor of some pie-in-the-sky perfect future. That’s why the drum-beating for "intergovernmental" mandated solutions where the "experts" decide what’s best for us poor benighted people for don’t completely agree with them.