A challenge to Climate Change believers

a reply to: network dude

King tides never caused the flooding it does today, like I said 30 years we would still get seasonal king tides but they never caused street flooding until this century.

Do you think they would have built roads where they are now in S. Florida 50 years ago if they knew they would be flooded during king tides?

originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: network dude

I am 100% correct with Beryl being the ONLY June major hurricane to form in the Atlantic...(NOT Gulf of Mexico), I don't think I could have been more clear as I mentioned both Audrey and Alma becoming major storms in the Gulf of Mexico which is NOT the open Atlantic Ocean.

Your ignorance is glaring here as you highlighted several July storms and using an unverified source.
Hurricane Able for example had max winds of 90 mph. It also was likely more of a nor 'easter, not a warm core system fueled by warm water.
en.m.wikipedia.org...(1951)

Hurricane Anna in 1961 had max winds of 105mph was NOT a major hurricane nor a June one either.

Also Beryl is now up to 130mph sustain with higher gusts so it is now the most intense June hurricane in the entire Atlantic (including the Caribbean and Gulf of Mexico)

LOL, sorry about my "unverified source". I should have used wiki like you did. Go have a sammich subway boy.

originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: network dude

King tides never caused the flooding it does today, like I said 30 years we would still get seasonal king tides but they never caused street flooding until this century.

Do you think they would have built road in where they are now in S. Florida 50 years ago if they knew they would be flooded during king tides?

Is Miami sinking, or is it built on rock solid granite?

Beryl is the furthest east a hurricane has formed in June, the only major hurricane to form in the open Atlantic in June(as opposed to the Caribbean or Gulf of Mexico), it is now the strongest ever recorded June hurricane in the Atlantic basin, now a category 4, with sustained winds of 130mph.

a reply to: network dude

I used wiki to verify, got my info from a meteorology forum.

I think wunderground was using estimated highest gusts which is a flawed method for too many reasons to list...the standard is sustained winds.

Pressure is also a good indicator of strength but has it's flaws too.

It's not just S. Florida seeing the increased flooding. This is an issue too in India, Bangladesh, Burma, the Philippines, Fiji, Indonesia where low lying communities are getting flooded out.

It's just funny that at first you deny that increased flooding is happening, then when you can no longer deny that you go on to say "the land must be sinking!"

Sea level rise has been verified, as has the increase in Global temperatures especially ocean temaratures. Polar Ice is in the decline.

All this points to a warming planet.

originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: network dude

I used wiki to verify, got my info from a meteorology forum.

I think wunderground was using estimated highest gusts which is a flawed method for too many reasons to list...the standard is sustained winds.

Pressure is also a good indicator of strength but has it's flaws too.

It's not just S. Florida seeing the increased flooding. This is an issue too in India, Bangladesh, Burma, the Philippines, Fiji, Indonesia where low lying communities are getting flooded out.

It's just funny that at first you deny that increased flooding is happening, then when you can no longer deny that you go on to say "the land must be sinking!"

Sea level rise has been verified, as has the increase in Global temperatures especially ocean temaratures. Polar Ice is in the decline.

All this points to a warming planet.

I think I have been quite consistent with my point. if sea level is rising as you claim, then should it be visible on things connected to the sea?

There are structures that have been in existence for over 100 years. They are in the ocean. The ocean is made of water. Water seeks level as it's nature mandates. It's not optional. It's physics.

Knowing that, why is it not possible to see these structures appearing to be under the amount of water you claim has risen? A lighthouse at low tide has a tide line. that tide line is where the water is at low tide. Now tides change with the moon, and other factors, but overall, they remain tidal. So if there is more water volume to the degree that the level has risen (again, as you emphatically claim) then that level should be visible. I only ask for verifiable proof of that visible change. If you are right, I'll look stupid and be forced to admit I was wrong and now believe the sea is rising. But if you are unable to show a visible (verifiable) indicator of the rise in sea level, then it looks like I'm not the idiot here.

originally posted by: jrod
Beryl is the furthest east a hurricane has formed in June, the only major hurricane to form in the open Atlantic in June(as opposed to the Caribbean or Gulf of Mexico), it is now the strongest ever recorded June hurricane in the Atlantic basin, now a category 4, with sustained winds of 130mph.

and is that proof of climate change?

I am with OP, is there change sure anytime you go around bulldozing forests to put up an over priced cheaply built sub-division you are having a negative effect on the climate.

But like this Hurricane season, press is beating the drum that it is going to be the worst ever. My father has lived in Florida since the 1960s, in the house he is in now since 1975. He shrugged and said isnt the first la nina heading into hurricane season, some will be bad most wont lot of expensive homes will get flooded because they were built in dried up creeks and rivers, or on the shore line and my insurance rates will go up despite never have had to make a claim.

We have nitwits up in Alaska screaming climate change because the spring was wet, and now the wild fires have started.

its my 4th summer and I have seen worse than this summer.

Its like people somehow still dont know about el nino, and la nina, or that they vary in area and intensity over the last thousand+ years.

Throw in Global cooling, ozone, global warming, global climate change, thats just in my lifetime. Show me proof and ill get on board, personally I say stop building mega cities it has a bad effect on the climate and people seem to lose their humanity in the big city.

a reply to: network dude
It's happening whether you believe it or not.

It's always the same with this board. Like with sea level rise, 1st is deny it's happening, then when presented with real world proof like flooding in S. Florida you hypothesize that the land must be sinking NOT the sea rising.

The same goes for global warming, 1st you guys deny it's happening, then when evidence that proves it is happening is presented you blame it on solar cycles or whatever the alt right theory of the week happens to be.

The reality is human impact is having significant impact on the world's climate. This is true whether you believe it or not.

Below is a graph showing ocean levels, maybe it will help you see the big picture.

www.climate.gov...

originally posted by: network dude
a reply to: chr0naut

so nothing to say about the dishonest post? I'm shocked.

It wasn't a dishonest post.

Molecular carbon monoxide (a greenhouse gas) is almost exactly the same mass as molecular nitrogen. Water vapour (another cause of greenhouse effect) is much lighter than molecular nitrogen.

originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: network dude
It's happening whether you believe it or not.

It's always the same with this board. Like with sea level rise, 1st is deny it's happening, then when presented with real world proof like flooding in S. Florida you hypothesize that the land must be sinking NOT the sea rising.

The same goes for global warming, 1st you guys deny it's happening, then when evidence that proves it is happening is presented you blame it on solar cycles or whatever the alt right theory of the week happens to be.

The reality is human impact is having significant impact on the world's climate. This is true whether you believe it or not.

Below is a graph showing ocean levels, maybe it will help you see the big picture.

www.climate.gov...

Look dude, I'm asking this as a question, If it's really happening, should we be able to see it? And no, costal erosion, and storm surge aren't the same thing. That has happened, since time began.

Why can't there be a real answer on this? Is there some scientific reason that water reacts differently with regard to costal structures? If so, link to that, and I will consider myself schooled. I just want the truth. And yes, I can handle the truth.

Having been lied to so many times have made me not trust those who do the lying. Do you care to look back at the claims of death and destruction we were supposed to be facing by this time? Seems they were a tad hyperbolic. Now you are trying to ignore the sinking cities, yet use those same cities as proof of sea level rise. Why isn't the sea rising in cities that are built on solid foundations? Shouldn't they be equally inundated with water?

If you don't have answers, that's fine, but say that. If you continue to pretend you know, but obviously don't, that's only making you look silly.

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: network dude
a reply to: chr0naut

so nothing to say about the dishonest post? I'm shocked.

It wasn't a dishonest post.

Molecular carbon monoxide (a greenhouse gas) is almost exactly the same mass as molecular nitrogen. Water vapour (another cause of greenhouse effect) is much lighter than molecular nitrogen.

LOL, you can't even be honest about your lies. I was referring to you using the fort in Sydney Harbor as proof, then posting a picture at mid tide, hoping nobody would look for more pictures. I did. You lied. And your continual posting of science words in hopes that folks will just take you word for it, as you sound smart, doesn't work when someone who actually knows happens by. But that wasn't the post I was referring to, as I am sure such a smart guy would already know.

a reply to: Irishhaf

No one is saying it is going to be the worst ever. What the experts predicted is an extremely active season.

"Worst" is subjective. We often have extremely active hurricane seasons where we(the United States) does not get any major hurricane impacts and we have had many very bad seasons that were average or below average but had significant impacts (Hugo in 1989 and Andrew in 1992 were average and well below average seasons)

It does seem like the overall number of hurricanes is increasing as well as the number of major storms as well as days with a hurricane spinning. All this suggests there is more ocean heat available which is verified by observation, so far 2024 has record heat content for the main development region(MDR) in the Atlantic.

It is extremely rare for a storm to form east of the windward island in June much less a hurricane, yet currently we have a category 4 spinning east of the windward islands.

It is too early to tell how active the season will be, but there is good reasoning why the are predicting an extremely active one.

My concern in terms of US strikes are with the Bermuda high, a strong high especially when located further west than Bermuda, tends to push storms further west before they recurve resulting in a CONUS landfall.

In recent years the high has not been as strong or far enough east to allow most storms to turn north before a US landfall(exceptions being storms that form in the West Carribean and Gulf of Mexico), unfortunately this year the high is well established and has been extending west of Bermuda(it's not stationary and will.move around and even "break in half" in response to a trough). If this pattern persists into the peak of the Atlantic hurricane season, mid August through September then we will certainly have significantly impacts in the US.

Time will the tell the tale. Despite record setting sea and land temperatures last year in the Florida Keys, we had no significant tropical storms the point being is it takes more than one thing to line up for a hurricane to happen.

originally posted by: network dude
a reply to: Arbitrageur

I'm sorry I'm such a dumb ass, it's just me, I can't change that. But the question I asked is for a visual reference. If you took from my OP that I needed to see entire towns submerged in order to believe in AGW, you may be the one you referenced in your first paragraph.

I admit, I approach this from a non-believer aspect. I'm jaded, mostly because being lied to, over and over again makes me not trust those who lied to me. You may enjoy that, it's not for me to decide what creams your twinkie. But as I approach this, and I've been told the sea is rising due to climate change, and it's been rising for years, that stupid part of me wants to see it. Now if there is a reason the sea is rising, but it's cleverly hidden away from prying eyes, by all means, say that, so I can stop looking this damn dumb. Help a brother out.

But when I look at an island, a light house, a jettie, some structure in the water that everyone can see, I feel like if the rise in sea level is real, then the sea level should cooperate, and rise up just a bit. And since the beach can erode, we can't just look at that. And since buildings on land can sink, we can't just look at that. We need to look at something that is firm in it's location. (at least in my pea brain)

The delusion that you are being "lied to" is where your problem lies.

If you continue to believe that empirical data is untrue, no amount of it will convince you to accept it.

No-one wants to pay good money for nothing, especially if they are wealthy. Your belief that the wealthiest want to pay out money for nothing just to keep us all deceived, is irrational twaddle. The wealthy, the ones producing the pollution, are the ones being taxed hardest in all these attempts at climate change remediation.

But those wealthy polluters don't want to pay for the damages they are causing, because it directly affects their bottom line, and so they do have a motive too lie and to deny their culpability.

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: network dude
a reply to: Arbitrageur

I'm sorry I'm such a dumb ass, it's just me, I can't change that. But the question I asked is for a visual reference. If you took from my OP that I needed to see entire towns submerged in order to believe in AGW, you may be the one you referenced in your first paragraph.

I admit, I approach this from a non-believer aspect. I'm jaded, mostly because being lied to, over and over again makes me not trust those who lied to me. You may enjoy that, it's not for me to decide what creams your twinkie. But as I approach this, and I've been told the sea is rising due to climate change, and it's been rising for years, that stupid part of me wants to see it. Now if there is a reason the sea is rising, but it's cleverly hidden away from prying eyes, by all means, say that, so I can stop looking this damn dumb. Help a brother out.

But when I look at an island, a light house, a jettie, some structure in the water that everyone can see, I feel like if the rise in sea level is real, then the sea level should cooperate, and rise up just a bit. And since the beach can erode, we can't just look at that. And since buildings on land can sink, we can't just look at that. We need to look at something that is firm in it's location. (at least in my pea brain)

The delusion that you are being "lied to" is where your problem lies.

If you continue to believe that empirical data is untrue, no amount of it will convince you to accept it.

No-one wants to pay good money for nothing, especially if they are wealthy. Your belief that the wealthiest want to pay out money for nothing just to keep us all deceived, is irrational twaddle. The wealthy, the ones producing the pollution, are the ones being taxed hardest in all these attempts at climate change remediation.

But those wealthy polluters don't want to pay for the damages they are causing, because it directly affects their bottom line, and so they do have a motive too lie and to deny their culpability.

you just don't seem to get it. If the argument was pollution is killing us, just say that. We all know there is way too much pollution. We would all be on board to make changes, and make sure corporations can't destroy our planet. But telling me that because cows fart and I drive an F150, the world is going to end, isn't getting it done. And when you threaten me with (in 10 years it will be too late!!), and 15 years later, things are largely the same, it tends to make it look like you are an idiot and full of sh!t. that's where my problem lies.

Now, can sea level rise be seen by looking at thing that touch the sea? Yes or No?

a reply to: chr0naut

It is also the wealthy, those heavily invested in big oil's multi trillion dollar industry who are not only pushing the "alternative fact" narrative that has infected the ATS board, ie Global warming us a hoax, CO2 levels are a non issue, if the world is warming it is not from human activity, ect., they are also actively repressing other forms of clean energy production even going so far as buying patents only to repress and destroy the invention and ideas.

Unfortunately the issue of our human impact on climate change has become a political one and those who opposed the left* will refuse to accept the facts, the empirical evidence on human activity and global warming because they see it as a "liberal issue" therefore it must be bad.

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: network dude
a reply to: chr0naut

so nothing to say about the dishonest post? I'm shocked.

It wasn't a dishonest post.

Molecular carbon monoxide (a greenhouse gas) is almost exactly the same mass as molecular nitrogen. Water vapour (another cause of greenhouse effect) is much lighter than molecular nitrogen.

LOL, you can't even be honest about your lies. I was referring to you using the fort in Sydney Harbor as proof, then posting a picture at mid tide, hoping nobody would look for more pictures. I did. You lied. And your continual posting of science words in hopes that folks will just take you word for it, as you sound smart, doesn't work when someone who actually knows happens by. But that wasn't the post I was referring to, as I am sure such a smart guy would already know.

I never said anything about mid-tide pictures.

I specifically referred to the high tide line, the discolouration to the stonework caused by algae. This high tide marker does not fluctuate with the tide, but grows on the stonework over successive high tides, and therefore represents an averaged-out high water point.

I was not referring to the water level in the photos because it oscillates all the time with the tide.

a reply to: jrod

I alluded to the problem with using Damage numbers, people build in terrible locations, former swamps, dried up river beds etc. Miami is 6 feet above sea level, its going to flood any time mother nature farts in its general direction.

As for activity level it all depends on how far you go back, and what degree of anecdotal you are willing to accept can adjust what is a really active year.

Also I would expect miami to collapse into a sink hole long before sea level rise takes it.

To many people insisting on having a green lawn (thanks yankees) are destroying the aquifers leaving huge limestone caverns under these mega cities, its only a matter of time before to much weight collapses them. (if sea water doesnt flood them first)

a reply to: chr0naut

Over the last 20 years or so I have learned it is a futile argument.

When you show real world examples of sea level rise, instead of them accepting it, they will make a claim like "how do you know the land is not sinking" or go through some other mental gymnastics.

Unfortunately this debate has become too political and even more now than ever those who support the "right" will reject anything they seem as a liberal or left cause. This is why despite all the empirical evidence they will just come up with alternative facts to fit their narrative because it would be a sin for a "liberal" to be right about anything.

I have seen it countless times on here, with global warming 1st is deny it's happening, when irrefutable evidence is presented then they say it's the sun causing warming not human activity. With CO2 levels it's the same story with them trying to blame natural activity on the rise of levels, I have had folks here say the CO2 observation is wrong because the Mauna Loa observation post is a volcano...the mental gymnastics this board goes through to justify their denial of science is truly astounding.

a reply to: Irishhaf

I am referring to flooding on clear days with no significant weather anywhere close. This happens in frequently in South Florida when we get king tides, that is certain times of the year the high tides are higher than normal and are called King tides.

This is not a new phenomenon and has been well known as long as mariners have been sailing. This was well known when Miami has being built and the roads were built above the king tide water line. Today when we get king tides, low lying streets flood. Key West keeps making their roads higher and many still flood during king tides...

This is evidence of sea level rise.