A challenge to Climate Change believers

originally posted by: Hakaiju
a reply to: network dude

You won't be able to see any rise in sea level. See, all of the plastic that is floating in the oceans exerts a downward force on the surface of the water and keeps sea levels from rising. Prominent scientists have calculated that the downward pressure cancels out the rise in sea level due to ice melt. So the extinction event level danger is still just a few years away, it's just not visible.

Aha!!! Well then......We just need to throw some more shi# plastic crap in, like mega-tons of plastic garbage, and we'll solve that whole sea level rising problem.

Genius. We're genius.
/sarc

Climate change is obvious, look at receded water lines over history. Or risen water lines over history. It took hundreds, thousands and hundreds of thousands of years. I don't know why people deny climate change. It's real. It was here yesterday, last year, 5,000 years ago, 100,000 years ago, millions of years ago and it WILL be here tomorrow. With or without mankind's help or hinderance.

Samples of soil, trees, trapped air, all can show extreme variations in all aspects of climate changes over the many years.

We owe it to the earth, ourselves and future generations to be good stewards of our planet, especially the waters.

So tired of blaming climate change on basic living practices and cow belches. But if they're going to blame, then focus on stuff like luxuries and conveniences of people today. The excess clothing, electronics, etc. play a big part in pollution and waste. And quit ignoring the past natural cycles of the earth.

What is the environmental impact of smartphones?

The average annual carbon footprint of a single smartphone is 63 kg CO2e. Although estimated equivalents are not an exact comparison, the Carbon Trust equate this to driving a car for 155 miles.

In the past five years, global smartphone usage has almost doubled, # with our craving for the latest devices resulting in 1.5 billion global sales of new devices, every year. The latest statistics published by Exploding Topics in December 2023, state that the average person now uses their smartphone for 3 hours and 15 minutes a day, checking it approximately 58 times.

As a result, carbon emissions linked to smartphone use have risen greatly, now dwarfing the CO2e contributed by PCs or laptops, according to research by McMaster University, Canada.

Back in 2020, researcher and author Mike Berners-Lee stated that the number of mobile phones in use, worldwide, created a global carbon footprint in the region of a whopping 580 million tonnes of CO2e – approximately 1% of all worldwide emissions.

www.tier1.com...

If we take care of our planet it will hopefully be easier to ride the climate changes as they come. Destroying and stripping our planet is a shame. A damn shame.

a reply to: network dude

I don't think you can notice 6 inches of sea level rise in photographs. The tide fluctuates feet. You can just note the frequency of high tide flooding. The evidence you're requiring doesn't exist.

What I can see are places that have existed mostly flood free for hundreds of years suddenly having to give up the fight with the sea. It's across the globe too. It's like all of a sudden after hundreds of years of nothing too concerning its happening everywhere at once. Everywhere can't be experiencing normal surges and beach erosion finally crossing a tipping point simultaneously.

Non sea-level rise related things are individually causing this to all synchronize the last 30 years and flood islanders to the mainland?

Where's Occam's Razor there?

a reply to: Hakaiju

I’m waiting for thee ice age that’s about to happen:

originally posted by: underpass61
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

The fact it also sinking means it's one of most affected by sea level rising.

So no, not necessarily a poor example or indeed 'derp'.

a reply to: pianopraze
There are people that are very reactionary. They respond quite negatively to information presented like this. If you want to use them:
Make them afraid. Promise them relief. You got their vote. And their money.

For those afraid - Al "Listen to the Science" Gore, said there wouldn't be any ice at the North Pole, the polar bears would be dying out, there wouldn't be any snow on Mt. Kilimanjaro, by 2014. You dove under your beds in terror. You can come out now, it's ok, were fine. None of Al Gores predictions came true. You have been manipulated!

originally posted by: BedevereTheWise

originally posted by: underpass61
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

The fact it also sinking means it's one of most affected by sea level rising.

So no, not necessarily a poor example or indeed 'derp'.

Affected by two completely unrelated conditions - "most affected" by sinking which means nothing on a global scale.

Derp on, bro

originally posted by: PorkChop96
a reply to: Hakaiju

I would be very curious to see there studies and calculations, as I feel it would be very hard for even the most knowledgeable scientists to tell us exactly how much debris is floating around, or under for that matter, our oceans.

Feel like sharing those with us?

TRASH

originally posted by: underpass61

originally posted by: BedevereTheWise

originally posted by: underpass61
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

The fact it also sinking means it's one of most affected by sea level rising.

So no, not necessarily a poor example or indeed 'derp'.

Affected by two completely unrelated conditions - "most affected" by sinking which means nothing on a global scale.

Derp on, bro

The fact they are unrelated doesn't mean they don't have an overlapping impact.

Where I live the land is rising slightly which would, to some degree, offset sea level rises.

Areas where land is getting lower will obviously be impacted far more.

Here are some facts...

1. We are still coming out of the Big Ice Age
2. We came out of the Little Ice Age around 1850 that started back in 1250.
3. There were many warmer periods in our past, so you all tell me what is normal.
4. Volcanos cause cooling, which is part of what caused the Little Ice Age.

5. Man has some effect on the climate, and that there is the rub in how much. Are we 99% or are we .01%

a reply to: Xtrozero


Can I add a 6th one?

6. Interglacial temperature change charts do not look like this without MAJOR causes.

This is NOT how a normal warm period looks without a catalyst.



The MWP and little ice age that followed, are cored to have been within a consistent gradient globally, even if areas of The North Atlantic fluctuated. The global data shows it was an anomalous event during a cooling period.

The Medieval Warm Period (MWP), also known as the Medieval Climate Optimum or the Medieval Climatic Anomaly, was a time of warm climate in the North Atlantic region that lasted from c. 950 to c. 1250.[2] Climate proxy records show peak warmth occurred at different times for different regions, which indicate that the MWP was not a globally uniform event.

Possible causes of the MWP include increased solar activity, decreased volcanic activity, and changes in ocean circulation. Modelling evidence has shown that natural variability is insufficient on its own to explain the MWP and that an external forcing had to be one of the causes.

To do it globally you really do need a more global external forcing.

We have passed Paleocene-Eocene thermal maximum temperature rises.

The Paleocene–Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM) was a period of rapid global warming that occurred around 55.8 million years ago. During this time, the average global temperature rose by 5–8 °C (9–14 °F), or up to 73 °F, which is much warmer than today's average of less than 60 °F. The warming occurred over a relatively short period of 15–20,000 years, which is a little slower than the rate of warming over the past 50 years.

Mammals were still squirrels then and it happened naturally.

Around 56 million years ago, global temperatures rose five degrees Celsius in a few thousand years due to a massive release of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere and oceans. This release may have been caused by burning fossil fuels, releasing methane hydrate deposits, thawing permafrost, or drying, baking, or burning living material.

It can happen naturally, and in as little as 15 years. I just am waiting for a better answer to what's causing this thermal maximum than humans screwing with carbon and sulfur emissions.

Maybe it's Solar? Just prove the cause of the thermal maximum. I'm not latched onto anthropogenic cause anyway. But it needs explaining now.

a reply to: network dude

No, no, no.

See, sea level rise is real but only for the plebs.

They should sell at a firesale price any waterfront properties they have to those that think "correctly" and are part of the Democrat party and/or are "enviromentalists"

Obama, looking at you....

originally posted by: Degradation33
a reply to: Xtrozero


Can I add a 6th one?

6. Interglacial temperature change charts do not look like this without MAJOR causes.

This is NOT how a normal warm period looks without a catalyst.

The MWP and little ice age that followed, are cored to have been within a consistent gradient globally, even if areas of The North Atlantic fluctuated. The global data shows it was an anomalous event during a cooling period.

The Medieval Warm Period (MWP), also known as the Medieval Climate Optimum or the Medieval Climatic Anomaly, was a time of warm climate in the North Atlantic region that lasted from c. 950 to c. 1250.[2] Climate proxy records show peak warmth occurred at different times for different regions, which indicate that the MWP was not a globally uniform event.

Possible causes of the MWP include increased solar activity, decreased volcanic activity, and changes in ocean circulation. Modelling evidence has shown that natural variability is insufficient on its own to explain the MWP and that an external forcing had to be one of the causes.

To do it globally you really do need a more global external forcing.

We have passed Paleocene-Eocene thermal maximum temperature rises.

The Paleocene–Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM) was a period of rapid global warming that occurred around 55.8 million years ago. During this time, the average global temperature rose by 5–8 °C (9–14 °F), or up to 73 °F, which is much warmer than today's average of less than 60 °F. The warming occurred over a relatively short period of 15–20,000 years, which is a little slower than the rate of warming over the past 50 years.

Mammals were still squirrels then and it happened naturally.

Around 56 million years ago, global temperatures rose five degrees Celsius in a few thousand years due to a massive release of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere and oceans. This release may have been caused by burning fossil fuels, releasing methane hydrate deposits, thawing permafrost, or drying, baking, or burning living material.

It can happen naturally, and in as little as 15 years. I just am waiting for a better answer to what's causing this thermal maximum than humans screwing with carbon and sulfur emissions.

Maybe it's Solar? Just prove the cause of the thermal maximum. I'm not latched onto anthropogenic cause anyway. But it needs explaining now.

Almost certainly the result of "data adjustments", the rest is due to the sun.

Humans are responsible for 3% of the 400 parts of MILLION of C02 in the atmosphere.
Water vapor has more impact - so, ban water ?


Enough with god-damned hysteria.....

originally posted by: network dude
I actually had this conversation with another member, who posted a picture of a fort in Sydney harbor from over 100 years ago, then posted a picture in-between tides, claiming that was proof, until another picture was found showing the identical water line today, as 100 years ago.

I'm not against being shown I'm wrong, but lying to me just isn't as convincing as it used to be.

The marker for sea level rise would be the algal discoloration at high tide line in both photos. Not whatever the tidal level happened to be at the time the photo was taken.

The fact is that tidal levels have been recorded there at Fort Denison in Sydney Harbour since 1915 and they show a clear trend in rising high-water levels over the last 107 years. Please see the data in the following link:

Sydney, Fort Denison 2 - Station Information

originally posted by: Shoshanna
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.

The Earth's atmosphere is mostly Nitrogen. Carbon atoms are lighter than Nitrogen, and Nitrogen atoms are lighter than Oxygen, which is lighter than Fluorine Atoms (You can see the atomic weights of atoms in the Periodic Table of Elements).

Many greenhouse gasses are lighter than air, but even the lighter ones still weigh something, and are drawn to the Earth by gravity, its just that they 'float' on top of the heavier atmosphere.

Gasses also do sublimate into space, but not particularly fast, or otherwise we'd have lost our atmosphere by now.

originally posted by: underpass61

Again, look at the high tide line and look into the more than a century of tidal measurements made there.

... and don't fall for social media BS. Check things out before reposting.

a reply to: network dude

I seem to remember reading a river moves a mile every 1000 years and that is why some ancient ports are now miles inland .

Just nature being nature same reason i can find fossils at the top of a 3000 ft mountain in scotland

It was meant to be a Christian utopia. Now this Nigerian community is helpless against rising seas.

The coastal Nigerian community of Ayetoro was founded decades ago and nicknamed “Happy City,” meant to be a Christian utopia that would be sinless and classless. But now its remaining residents can do little against the rising sea.

Buildings have sunk into the Atlantic Ocean, an increasingly common image along the vulnerable West African coast. Old timber pokes from the waves like rotten teeth. Shattered foundations line the shore. Waves break against abandoned electrical poles.

Just one of many places around the world. The seas aren't rising any faster in Nigeria.

originally posted by: StudioNada
a reply to: network dude

as ice melts, the water weight Sinks the ocean floor ... and the molten rock below gets pushed to the surface as Lava

the dynamic is obvious

How can ice melt when it is sitting below freezing? I will tell you one way VOLCANO's. That makes it a geological event to melt ice at the poles. The simple matters of logic are not lost on some of us. I do have the background to challenge the ones like DeGrasse Tyson speaking from authority and lying to us. Worse he and his ilk of "Science" do not respect those who haven't come to certain conclusions is how I see his class of elite scientist. Challenges to their lack of logic are "whack-a-mole" victims.

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: underpass61

Again, look at the high tide line and look into the more than a century of tidal measurements made there.

... and don't fall for social media BS. Check things out before reposting.

That's exactly it. Anyone who looks at that photo and doesn't see the tide lines has never lived anywhere near an ocean.

The old photo is high tide a hundred years ago. The right photo is low tide now.

That’s Fort Denison in Port Jackson, NSW.

Sydney harbour is in Canada somewhere I believe.

a reply to: underpass61

All that aside, in the 15 years I have floated around, past and loitered near Fort Denison it has always maintained a comfortable height above sea level 👍