Sea level rise

The ego bruised humy offers nothing after I called him on it. After exposing him as a liar multiple times he is obsessed with doing the same to me and lies in a feeble attempt to convince others I am lying with absolutely no evidence at all.

Humy has made no attempt to find missing data from recent years of sea level rise so he can falsely claim I lied about one single year of future data so he can ignore the recent nine. Sonhouse brought up the very point humy wants to ignore so now humy shows his dishonesty once again. He pretends he didn't read sonhouse's post and my reply. Typical.

Never trust a liar, especially one who falsely accuses others of lying in a pathetic display of psychological projection. The ego bruised humy is desperate to embarrass me in the way he was embarrassed, but he embarrassed himself as he always does. Then he convinces himself it is someone else that embarrassed him.

Humy is a typical narcissist. Everything is about him in his own mind. He never hoists his own petard. It is always my fault. I made him say the ridiculous things he says. Apparently I am a warlock compelling him to be stupid against his will.

@metal-brain said
What evidence? An assertion is not evidence.

How did industry in the 19th century cause warming? Your article didn't explain that. It mentioned no greenhouse gasses that I noticed. That assertion is about as silly as the one claiming the Native American population decline caused global cooling. No evidence for that claim either.

Where is your evidence?

This seems a lot like your argument about "primary" causes, that devolved into an argument about the definition of primary.

You will admit that humans are "a" cause of warming, and you will admit that land use changes can and will affect climate. When 20 million acres of forest turned into homes, firewood and sheep pasture in the early 1800s, one would expect those changes would impact climate. Common sense and evidence (which I presented in link format but you didn't bother to read) both suggest that it does.

It is strange that you continue to assert humans had no ability to modify their environment prior to 1900.

@wildgrass said
This seems a lot like your argument about "primary" causes, that devolved into an argument about the definition of primary.

You will admit that humans are "a" cause of warming, and you will admit that land use changes can and will affect climate. When 20 million acres of forest turned into homes, firewood and sheep pasture in the early 1800s, one would expect those chang ...[text shortened]... strange that you continue to assert humans had no ability to modify their environment prior to 1900.

Are you saying CO2 levels spiked from cutting down trees before 1900? Where is your evidence of that? I keep asking and you never answer. That is an indication you latched onto a bogus theory with nothing to support it.

People cut down trees all the time and they regrow more trees or other plant life. Those areas get green again really fast. I think you are making a mountain out of a mole hill.

Why are you even bringing up firewood. I heat with firewood. I am simply releasing the Carbon in the wood faster. It will end up in the atmosphere sooner or later. Burning it just makes it go back sooner than the fungus, bugs and bacteria do in the forest over time. It is a silly thing to bring up. Firewood is a renewable resource you should be in favor of.

The irony is that you are not using common sense.

@metal-brain said
Are you saying CO2 levels spiked from cutting down trees before 1900? Where is your evidence of that? I keep asking and you never answer. That is an indication you latched onto a bogus theory with nothing to support it.

People cut down trees all the time and they regrow more trees or other plant life. Those areas get green again really fast. I think you are making a mo ...[text shortened]... a renewable resource you should be in favor of.

The irony is that you are not using common sense.

Land use changes affect climate. The land went from 70% forest to 25% forest in less than 100 years. Some of it grew back eventually, but there were enormous human-induced changes to the Earth caused by billions of people cutting down trees and burning fire wood.

I don't know what happened to CO2. You keep bringing it up, so you should be the one addressing that. I am saying that anthropogenic climate change began before 1900, and the article I quoted linked to had evidence to support that. It's in no way a bogus theory.

@wildgrass said
Land use changes affect climate. The land went from 70% forest to 25% forest in less than 100 years. Some of it grew back eventually, but there were enormous human-induced changes to the Earth caused by billions of people cutting down trees and burning fire wood.

I don't know what happened to CO2. You keep bringing it up, so you should be the one addressing that. I am sa ...[text shortened]... 900, and the article I quoted linked to had evidence to support that. It's in no way a bogus theory.

"The land went from 70% forest to 25% forest in less than 100 years"

In the whole world? I find that hard to believe.

Once again, an assertion is not evidence. If it is you are a moron. There you go, evidence you are a moron. Don't argue with your own logic.

@metal-brain said
"The land went from 70% forest to 25% forest in less than 100 years"

In the whole world? I find that hard to believe.

Once again, an assertion is not evidence. If it is you are a moron. There you go, evidence you are a moron. Don't argue with your own logic.

The evidence was presented. You chose not to read it.

@wildgrass said
The evidence was presented. You chose not to read it.

No evidence was presented. You cannot even cite a cause. FAIL!

Global warming is from mostly natural causes. If you do not agree, show me with sea level rise. Talk is cheap. Any moron can repeat falsehoods.

https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/sea-level/

@metal-brain said
Global warming is from mostly natural causes. If you do not agree, show me with sea level rise. Talk is cheap. Any moron can repeat falsehoods.

https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/sea-level/

Define "mostly".

Also, who cares? If a car accident was mostly caused by a distracted driver in the other car, there are still ways in which you, the driver of the other car, can avoid a similar accident in the future. You can't change the behavior of the other driver, only your own. Maybe a little self reflection here would be warranted, unless you want to mostly yourself into the Pliocene a few centuries too soon.

@wildgrass said
Define "mostly".

Also, who cares? If a car accident was mostly caused by a distracted driver in the other car, there are still ways in which you, the driver of the other car, can avoid a similar accident in the future. You can't change the behavior of the other driver, only your own. Maybe a little self reflection here would be warranted, unless you want to mostly yourself into the Pliocene a few centuries too soon.

We all know what "mostly" means. More than 50%

The Pliocene had about the same CO2 levels as today, yet it was far warmer back then. There were no glaciers at all back then, yet we still have glaciers today. CO2 theory fail!
A little analysis is warranted.

@metal-brain said
We all know what "mostly" means. More than 50%

The Pliocene had about the same CO2 levels as today, yet it was far warmer back then. There were no glaciers at all back then, yet we still have glaciers today. CO2 theory fail!
A little analysis is warranted.

Glaciers take time to melt and water takes time to warm. No one wants a return to the Pliocene.

If the sun is responsible for more than 50% of climate change then why is the moon so cold?

@wildgrass said
Glaciers take time to melt and water takes time to warm. No one wants a return to the Pliocene.

If the sun is responsible for more than 50% of climate change then why is the moon so cold?

I'm sure there is a lag time between warming and glacier melting. How much do you think that is? A good way to estimate that would be to compare temp data to sea level data. Wouldn't you agree?
You do realize that any lag time you estimate is how many years before 1880 you will have to accept was warming, right? I know you embraced a theory that industrial activity caused warming way back then, but you have failed to confirm a rise in CO2 levels before that. If there is nothing in ice core samples to back it up it is a bunk theory.

Since warming lead to increased CO2 levels in the ice core samples and not the other way around as that moron Al Gore suggested, you are left with a burden of proof of cause and effect. You have not met that burden and it belongs on you because you made the assertion. Either meet that burden or stop endorsing theories without any evidence to support them. Nobody in their right mind is going to accept significant CO2 level rise before 1890 unless it is proven. What happened? Did the authors of the article forget to check the ice cores?

@metal-brain said
I'm sure there is a lag time between warming and glacier melting. How much do you think that is? A good way to estimate that would be to compare temp data to sea level data. Wouldn't you agree?
You do realize that any lag time you estimate is how many years before 1880 you will have to accept was warming, right? I know you embraced a theory that industrial activity cause ...[text shortened]... 90 unless it is proven. What happened? Did the authors of the article forget to check the ice cores?

Your rhetorical questions are not worth answering. The climate truthers always think they are making sense with this argument.

Back in reality, we know the Pliocene was hot and CO2 was up, glaciers were gone and sea levels were high. Currently, CO2 is up, glaciers are melting and seas are rising. Where do you think we are headed here?

That is not to say that CO2 is a primary driver, but it is a physical variable in our climate. CO2 concentration in physical experiments correlates with the retention of heat energy from the sun. Seems kind of obvious to everyone that this variable would be particularly amenable to mitigation by human hands. We can't stop sun flares or volcanoes, but if we can fix the CO2 part of the equation, maybe we can slow down the next Pliocene, a climate pattern which would be largely incompatible with 7 billion humans.

I don't want that. Do you?

@wildgrass said
Your rhetorical questions are not worth answering. The climate truthers always think they are making sense with this argument.

Back in reality, we know the Pliocene was hot and CO2 was up, glaciers were gone and sea levels were high. Currently, CO2 is up, glaciers are melting and seas are rising. Where do you think we are headed here?

That is not to say that CO2 is a ...[text shortened]... te pattern which would be largely incompatible with 7 billion humans.

I don't want that. Do you?

"Back in reality, we know the Pliocene was hot and CO2 was up, glaciers were gone and sea levels were high. Currently, CO2 is up, glaciers are melting and seas are rising. Where do you think we are headed here?"

CO2 was up during the Pliocene because of the same reason CO2 levels were up in the past as shown by ice core samples, they were the result of higher temps.

My questions were good questions. Why don't the ice core samples show higher CO2 levels prior to 1900? You didn't answer my questions because the ice core samples do NOT show that at all. You were duped by a BS article by BS artists claiming to be interested in science. They are trying to do what Samuel George Morton did, prove what they already have a bias for and they do not care what they have to omit to do it.

You need to prove CO2 is causing sea levels to rise faster than what has been happening naturally for over 200 years. This warming trend started naturally. Only the most desperate alarmists foolishly claim otherwise. That is why they shamelessly ignore the ice core evidence. If I did that you would be outraged, but when you do it is seems normal to you for some strange reason. I guess I'll call it Samuel George Morton syndrome.

@metal-brain said
"Back in reality, we know the Pliocene was hot and CO2 was up, glaciers were gone and sea levels were high. Currently, CO2 is up, glaciers are melting and seas are rising. Where do you think we are headed here?"

CO2 was up during the Pliocene because of the same reason CO2 levels were up in the past as shown by ice core samples, they were the result of higher temps.
...[text shortened]... is seems normal to you for some strange reason. I guess I'll call it Samuel George Morton syndrome.

Two hundred years ago whole states were decimated of trees, burned to the ground for the production of steel in the 1700's. That alone added CO2 to the atmosphere, burning wholesale whole forests. I don't think you quite understand the devastation that caused back then. Now our Eastern US forests are all basically new growth and the bio diversity and the entire ecosystem there is different now. Old growth trees are a relic not a usual thing in the East here.