A challenge to Climate Change believers

originally posted by: chiefsmom
I can't help you OP, as I'm right there with you.

But I have to laugh at some of the posts here.
1) Sarcasm goes over some peoples heads. At least use this

so people know your not serious.
2) Some of you would be AWESOME at infiltrating the "Climate Changers" You would probably be given high paying jobs for you "inventive" ideas. My god, if you said you were trans?
6 figure incomes people!!!!!!
And a job at the WH!

I could put on a dress. I already have moobs. Bring on the Benjamin's!

a reply to: network dude

Different decade, same grift.

a reply to: network dude

As long as you look like Venus Van Dam from SOA you'd be in business.

a reply to: underpass61

when you put it like that, it looks like we are being played. That can't be what's going on.....can it?

a reply to: PorkChop96

my left moob is about like hers, but the right one is a bit small. But with a wig, I can totally rock that look.

a reply to: network dude

originally posted by: network dude
Most here know, I and many others don't buy into the whole "man made warming" hyperbole that exists. It's warming and has been since the ice age ended. I and many others also fully grasp that we as humans are filthy animals and pollute our world like true professionals. But the most easily provable falsehood told about all this is the sea level rise. If the sea level was truly rising exponentially every year, then it would be easily seen. Any and every coastline would have structures that use to be above water, now submerged, or at the very least, partially submerged.

So the challenge is to show something, some building, some structure that has existed for many years, that used to be above water, and now is not. Or at the very least, verifiable to have changed by visual representation.

I have gone to Bar Harbor Maine many years in the fall. We stay in the same place each year. A set of beautiful islands are visible just out our porch view. Now I don't expect to be able to see the seas rise in my short span of 10-12 years of visiting this place, but when I look back at pictures, it all looks the same. Like remarkably the same. So at least in my mind, if the sea level is rising, then we should be able to see it. And since we all have phones with cameras now, we should be able to prove it. that's what this is about.

Show me.

Humans have been measuring the sea level with automated instruments since about the middle of the 1800s—about the time the Industrial Revolution really cut in. I hope you can appreciate that that technique is much more accurate than eyeballing it.

The records show that between 1900 and 1990 the average rate of sea level rise was about 1.5 millimeters per year. By 2000, the rate had just about doubled. 3.0 mm per year would result in about 12 inches of sea level rise per century. Anyone who wants to can go to the NOAA data base and look at the records.

One place you can see that is in the city of Venice, Italy. Every decade the high tides rise higher and higher and the water in St. Marks square gets deeper and deeper. Too bad I don’t have any good photos, but I’ve witnessed the change in the 45 years or so that I’ve been going there.

Most of the sea level rise so far has been due to the warming of the seas. Sea temperatures have also been measured with instruments since about the same time. Warm water expands, so the volume of the oceans increases.

You shouldn’t expect to see any dramatic sudden easily visible increase in sea level unless and until the major ice sheets of Greenland and Antarctica start rapidly melting and/or sliding into the ocean.

Of course, by then it will be too late to do anything about it.

a reply to: Boomer1947

It's already been established in this thread that Venice is in fact sinking and therefore not a victim of rising sea levels. You should have read the posts before launching into yet another paragraphs-long pile of BS.

does anybody know why the greenhouse gas doesn't rise up through the atmosphere and go into space? Is it heavier than air? I probably sound dumb but I'm trying to understand this.

a reply to: network dude

6-8 inches. The ocean has verifiably risen by that.

What you're asking is impossible. 6 to 8 inches with feet coming by 2100. It is still mostly projections of worst case scenario to get you on board.

But...

Here's a spot about 30 inches above see level. They get f*cked over by acqua alta at least 100 days a year now. Winds + high tide.



The impacts are still low lying

And Miami Beach exists. It's still above Sea Level.

Miami Beach has experienced a more than 400% increase in high tide flooding, also known as "sunny day" flooding, since 2006. This is due to a combination of factors, including rising sea levels, storm surge, torrential rains, and king tides:

Sea level rise

The ocean has risen by about six inches since 2000, and by 2040, sea levels are expected to be 10 to 17 inches higher than 2000 levels.

Sinking

Miami is sinking, with parts of the city sinking up to 1.5 centimeters a decade. The city sits on porous limestone rock, which allows water to seep from underground, and the high groundwater table makes it difficult for the ground to absorb rainwater.

King tides

These natural, periodic, exceptionally high tides have been pushed further inland by sea level rise in recent decades. NOAA says that Miami could experience king tide flooding as often as 50 days a year by 2050.

So while you level a nice fallacy challenge in asking for a photo of 7 inches of sea level rise, you discount where the evidence actually exists for climate change and rising sea levels, in Italy's acqua alta, and Miami's sunny day flooding.

Regardless of driving cause that is climate change. You can go around the world finding acqua altas where the half foot of sea level rise has effects.

Locally, we have a beach that does nothing but take cars every time a winter storm comes at high tide. Locals will tell you it's recent. There were some noted floods. A Coney Island type amusement park was washed away 100 years ago, but the times those low lying areas fllooded was infrequent. Like Miami Beach, since around 2000, there have been way more floods than in the rest of the beaches history.

More than half of Venices extreme high water events in its 1000+ years of History have happened since 1990.

It's not lack of recording, or selective acknowledgement, these events are more frequent. You really don't even have to bring up the anthropogenic part either.

I'm not sold on the cause. I see an irony only sulfur can bring. I am almost convinced we accelerated it trying to stop it. (Like how China caused Pacific heatwaves after scrubbing their coal plants) I will agree it's largely a capitalist scam, but something is changing the climate.

The albedo change is causing a melt water pulse, which changes ocean currents, salinity, and storm intensity, among other things. We do nothing but screw with atmospheric albedo. Even though It is technically an interglacial period, we're beginning a melt water pulse that has an uncyclical trigger within the last 50 years. (Sulfates?) And it is anomalous because it's projected at a rate rivaled by Meltwater Pulse 1A.

It's not supposed to do that, ocean rise is not supposed to level off and then go though another pulse without any other plausible cause.

a reply to: Degradation33

Yes, the land is slowly sinking in parts of Florida, but the sea is rising much faster and poses a far greater threat of flooding

www.theinvadingsea.com... -threat-of-flooding/

Venice is also sinking. Which is convenient when trying to gaslight, but inconvenient when hampered with those who can google.


www.abovetopsecret.com...
for a picture one poster tried to pass off as sea level rise, then see the follow up post.

This is what I'm trying to find out. If the land isn't sinking, then the structures built on that land should remain static. And given that knowledge, if the sea level is rising, then there should be a noticable difference when looking at said structure. Remember, we have been causing the world to heat up for almost 100 years now, and the point of no return is just over there. So if this is real, it should be an easy one to prove or disprove.

UNDENIABLE PROOF.....

originally posted by: underpass61
a reply to: Boomer1947

It's already been established in this thread that Venice is in fact sinking and therefore not a victim of rising sea levels. You should have read the posts before launching into yet another paragraphs-long pile of BS.

You know they aren't mutually exclusive.

a reply to: network dude

So we'll exclude Venice for subsidence. Fair enough.

Marshall Islands?

phys.org...

The atoll is not subsiding, they're just screwed by rising ocean levels. Many pacific atolls, islands around Panama, everywhere is a battle vs. sea levels. Six inches is negligible in photographs, but measurable in the number of times you flood, which you can take photographs of.

It's not a local thing. And the evidence of relocations from sea level rise is overwhelming now. The counter is arguing its a mass global scam to relocate entire low-lying island and atoll populations of third world countries just to gaslight Americans to drive electric cars. How freaking paranoid and stagnant is that mindset? Like choosing to want to see an evil overlord out to get you.

While I differ from consensus because I think we caused the meltwater pulse trying to fight climate change, we're stuck with it none the less. Well poor atoll fisherman are stuck with it. Florida has the money to copy Rotterdam.

a reply to: network dude

The sea level hasn't risen, its actually gone down maybe a fraction of an inch in the last 100 years. Take Shelly Island off Carolina's Cape Hatteras. A few years changing tide patterns created an island people could walk to during low tide. Then it disappeared. Not under water, the island disappeared because it became connected to the mainland, extending the cape.
Ice is actually increasing at the poles and warmer ocean temps are being influenced in part due to undersea geothermal heating. "Experts" have zero clue about what's going to happen in 40, 50 or 100 years.

They did stupid things by the ocean, people used to avoid building houses close to the sea. Now they are building big houses right along the shore, at levels that are at risk of flooding and damage from storms. It is more that humans have lost the ability to comprehend that nature is nature and you have to take precautions. Same goes for people building houses in areas where the river levels can rise from flooding, it used to be that they stayed away from those areas. Humans are loosing their common sense these days, forest fires are most often caused by humans too. Blame it on climate change...it is nicer outside so people release chinese lanterns or people who have not been properly trained to live in nature are smoking joints out in the woods and building campfires that start fires. Cigarettes also start fires, but now more people are out hiking and smoking a dubee and do not properly butt out their joint.

We are not teaching the young to live in this world properly, it has been going on for generations now. Common sense is no longer common.

a reply to: BedevereTheWise

The FACT that it is sinking would have one presume that it would be a very poor example to use to justify sea level rise, considering that you have an entire global coastline to choose from.

Derp

a reply to: Degradation33

The low-lying Marshall Islands, a Pacific atoll chain that rises barely a metre above sea level, has announced plans for a wall to hold back rising sea levels.

storm surge and beach erosion isn't sea level rise, and when you are basically AT sea level, any storm surge at all will flood. I don't deny a warming trend, and if there was verifiable proof of sea level rise, I'd believe it. So far, there isn't and I don't.

Miami is sinking. That's not to say they aren't getting higher water lines, but if the Atlantic Ocean is rising, someone should notice it on structures that exist. Or is that wrong to think that?

The Earth itself and The Universe and Galaxies are 100 million times stronger than a little extra CO2 Humans can produce. And there's no proof CO2 can cause mass Climate Change. What CAN (and is) causing "Climate Change" is --- $$$ + mass propaganda. 😊