Sea level rise

@metal-brain said
So now you are claiming facts are absurd?

No. I am claiming your fantasies are.
It isn't a 'fact' that sea level rise causes global land area to INcrease! That's just absurd and must be the most STUPIDEST claim I have so far known you make so far! Its OBVIOUS to any normal person that sea level rise generally causes global land area to DEcrease and only an extremely gullible idiot can ever be convinced otherwise. Who are you trying to kid here?

OK, just explain to us all here the PHYSICAL explanation of how sea level rise causes global land area to INcrease, NOT Decrease!... I mean, HOW the hell does that work?
-We all here will know why you won't answer that question.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/08/30/earths-surface-gaining-coastal-land-area-despite-sea-level-rise/

https://www.nature.com/articles/nclimate3111

Have you actually read any of those links? If not, DO SO NOW. Neither link shows any relevant DATA or evidence to support you absurd claim and Both are obviously just the usual hateful climate-denying propaganda that have NOTHING to do with science. They are NOT science sites. Neither even claims to have done peer review let alone passed peer review. OBVIOUSLY, neither could pass any peer review. To pass science peer review, it needs EVIDENCE, not just hearsay.
The graphs in those links do NOT show the land area has increased in the last 30 years because they are irrelevant to that. If you just LOOK at what they show, they only confirm what the science says and don't even show land area change.
So, where is the actual DATA showing land area is increasing? No such data shown there!
If you claim land area is increasing, PROVE IT! It shouldn't be difficult if true. Just show the DATA that shows it....

@humy said
No. I am claiming your fantasies are.
It isn't a 'fact' that sea level rise causes global land area to INcrease! That's just absurd and must be the most STUPIDEST claim I have so far known you make so far! Its OBVIOUS to any normal person that sea level rise generally causes global land area to DEcrease and only an extremely gullible idiot can ever be convinced otherwise. Who a ...[text shortened]... rea is increasing, PROVE IT! It shouldn't be difficult if true. Just show the DATA that shows it....

"It isn't a 'fact' that sea level rise causes global land area to INcrease!"

I never said that. You must be really desperate to fabricate false quotes.

https://www.nature.com/articles/nclimate3111

The link above supports my claim. You are lying again.
You are clearly desperate to make up false quotes and lie again. Give it up before you really embarrass yourself in a bad way.

@metal-brain said
"It isn't a 'fact' that sea level rise causes global land area to INcrease!"

I never said that.

So what is your point you were making about land area and see level if not claiming that? Why even give a link that mentions the two things together?

https://www.nature.com/articles/nclimate3111

The link above supports my claim.

What is your claim you claim the above link supports if not to do with sea level effecting land area change?
Did you read any of the contents of that link?
I have looked at and sampled a few of its many sublinks and so far see nothing there to support any of your claims I am aware of.
Example:
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs12665-016-5614-5
If you actually read it, you see it mentions absolutely NOTHING about sea level change or Land change area.
The same goes for all those I have sampled thus clearly it doesn't support any claim by you or the main link because that are IRRELEVANT to that.

And you still haven't answered any of my questions.
Reminder:

"So, where is the actual DATA showing land area is increasing? No such data shown there!
If you claim land area is increasing, PROVE IT! It shouldn't be difficult if true. Just show the DATA that shows it...."

So far I haven't ever seen a single scrap of data/evidence anywhere to suggest global land area is currently increasing.

And, if you look at this data map:
https://atlas-for-the-end-of-the-world.com/world_maps/world_maps_sea_level_rise.html
The calculations, very unsurprisingly, very clearly indicates sea level rise would result and thus be accompanied by a very definite DEcrease in land area. So your point was...?

@humy said
So what is your point you were making about land area and see level if not claiming that? Why even give a link that mentions the two things together?

https://www.nature.com/articles/nclimate3111

The link above supports my claim.

What is your claim you claim the above link supports if not to do with sea level effecting land area change?
Did you read any of t ...[text shortened]... would result and thus be accompanied by a very definite DEcrease in land area. So your point was...?

Remember when peer reviewed articles were the standard? Now you reject peer reviewed articles because they contradict your opinion. Even the best evidence is rejected by you. Man is creating more land than nature is taking away. Let me know when that changes.

https://www.nature.com/articles/nclimate3111

@metal-brain said
Remember when peer reviewed articles were the standard? Now you reject peer reviewed articles because they contradict your opinion. Even the best evidence is rejected by you. Man is creating more land than nature is taking away. Let me know when that changes.

https://www.nature.com/articles/nclimate3111

Peer review is the standard. Peer reviewers read the manuscripts. You paste links without reading them and have no idea what they mean.

@wildgrass said
Peer review is the standard. Peer reviewers read the manuscripts. You paste links without reading them and have no idea what they mean.

That is your psychological projection. How long did it take for you to accept you were not talking about a climate model? You rarely read articles and even when you do you don't understand what you are reading. How pathetic is that?

@metal-brain said
Remember when peer reviewed articles were the standard? Now you reject peer reviewed articles because they contradict your opinion. Even the best evidence is rejected by you. Man is creating more land than nature is taking away. Let me know when that changes.

https://www.nature.com/articles/nclimate3111

If you only bother to actually READ the sublinks there, which have all probably been peer reviewed, they do NOT say/imply "Man is creating more land than nature is taking away" because they are on subject matters IRRELEVANT to that. As for the main link; it makes what appears to be a possibly fraudulent claim and this is obvious to anyone that looks at its sublinks presented as evidence for the possibly fraudulent claim because NONE of its sublinks say/imply the main article's claim.
So, whether the main link article has been peer reviewed or not, it certainly didn't PASS any peer reviewed because it shows NO DATA to support its claims.

I ask yet again; where is the DATA to support this claim?
If there IS DATA to support this claim, it should be a cinch for you to show a wiblink for it. So why don't you just do that and settle the argument now? -because no such data exists?

It also doesn't explicitly CLAIM to be peer reviewed and doesn't even contain the words "peer review" anywhere in it; I do not claim that by itself means much BUT the reason why that's relevant to this conversation is because you earlier implied all the many science articles I presented (that prove you wrong) have NOT been peer reviewed merely because they didn't explicitly CLAIM to be peer reviewed because it didn't contain the words "peer review". Thus, if that claim is true, then according to your OWN 'logic', the article which you referenced ALSO must not have been peer reviewed because it ALSO doesn't contain the words "peer review"! -Your 'logic', not mine.

Now you reject peer reviewed articles because they contradict your opinion.

WOW what a hypocrite you are! Not only is the main article of that link probably not peer reviewed, and not only do I claim that all the sublinked articles are probably all peer peer reviewed, I reject NONE of those sublinked articles! I only reject the claim made by the main link because that link probably not peer reviewed but, more importantly, it shows NO EVIDENCE to its claim!
YOU, on the other hand, "reject peer reviewed articles because they contradict your opinion" ALL THE TIME! HYPOCRITE!

@humy said
If you only bother to actually READ the sublinks there, which have all probably been peer reviewed, they do NOT say don't say/imply "Man is creating more land than nature is taking away" because they are on subject matters IRRELEVANT to that. As for the main link; it makes a fraudulent claim and this is obvious to anyone that looks at its sublinks presented as evidence for the ...[text shortened]... ewed or not, it certainly did PASS any peer reviewed because it shows NO DATA to support its claims.

That is your psychological projection. I did read it and if you read it you would know they explained it. You are getting overly emotional and irrational. You Brits tend to get that way.

YouTube

@metal-brain said
That is your psychological projection. I did read it and if you read it you would know they explained it. You are getting overly emotional and irrational. You Brits tend to get that way.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uz3BkZmE6fI

I ask you for evidence/data supporting your claim and you merely attack my character for being a "Brit", not my claims, and show me someone explaining his personal opinion against brits? So THAT's your 'argument' against my claims? That I am wrong and you are right because I'm a brit? Pathetic. This tells be you know you have lost the argument because you clearly have NO evidence/data supporting your claim.
Am I also wrong and you are right because I'm black?

@humy said
I ask you for evidence/data supporting your claim and you merely attack my character for being a "Brit", not my claims, and show me someone explaining his personal opinion against brits? So THAT's your 'argument' against my claims? That I am wrong and you are right because I'm a brit? Pathetic. This tells be you know you have lost the argument because you clearly have NO evidence/data supporting your claim.
Am I also wrong and you are right because I'm black?

If you had watched the video you would understand. You are being overly emotional and irrational much like sonhouse is much of the time.

"The biggest transformation was seen in the Aral Sea in Central Asia. What was once one of the largest lakes in the world has now almost completely dried up after engineers diverted rivers to irrigate agriculture."

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/08/30/earths-surface-gaining-coastal-land-area-despite-sea-level-rise/

“We expected that the coast would start to retreat due to sea level rise, but the most surprising thing is that the coasts are growing all over the world,” said Dr Baart.

“We were able to create more land than sea level rise was taking.”

You need to stop assuming. How many times have I told you that?

@metal-brain said
If you had watched the video you would understand. You are being overly emotional and irrational much like sonhouse is much of the time.

"The biggest transformation was seen in the Aral Sea in Central Asia. What was once one of the largest lakes in the world has now almost completely dried up after engineers diverted rivers to irrigate agriculture."

https://wattsup ...[text shortened]... than sea level rise was taking.”

You need to stop assuming. How many times have I told you that?

If you had watched the video you would understand.

Yes, I watched your video and, yes, I understand there exists emotional hateful prejudice against Brits just fine and you are a fine example of that. Got that. Your point? You cannot effectively attack my assertions you don't like so you attack my character instead with the bases of that attack being I am a Brit. Got that!

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/08/30/earths-surface-gaining-coastal-land-area-despite-sea-level-rise/

Arr so they DID show the data for net global increase in land area AND its source! That wasn't shown in your last link which is why I doubted it even existed! For some moronic reason, you STILL didn't post the only bit of that where they DID explain the source of the data which was:
"...Scientists have used satellite images to study how the water on the Earth’s surface has changed over 30 years.
They found that 115,000 sq km (44,000 sq miles) of land is now covered in water and 173,000 sq km (67,000 sq miles) of water has now become land...."
But instead chose to quote to me only some parts of that link IRRELEVANT for the validity of that particular claim of theirs.

Now the Obvious question: How does the drying up of inland seas mitigate the harm done by coastal land being flooded by sea level rise? Surely the drying up of those inland seas is generally a BAD thing (and the sublinks I read seems to clearly confirm this) and the land so gained is unlikely to be as useful to us as the land lost via sea level rise!
Thus, given that's the case, what is their (and your) point here?
If they are trying to imply sea level rise isn't a problem, they have failed.

And what about FUTURE sea level rise, which is expected to be MUCH MORE than what we have seen recently? Surely that would finally result in a net global LOSS of land area.

“We expected that the coast would start to retreat due to sea level rise, but the most surprising thing is that the coasts are growing all over the world,” said Dr Baart.

And he didn't explain HOW "coasts are growing all over the world" nor showed any data or evidence to support this assertion thus I suspect at least this claim of his may be fraudulent.

But all this is besides the point:
Again; what about FUTURE sea level rise, which is expected to be MUCH MORE (by about ~2 meters or more but ONLY if we moronically do NOTHING about it) than what we have seen recently? Surely that would finally result in a net global LOSS of land area. And the harm done by such a big sea level rise would be generally BAD for us no matter how you look at it!

@humy said

If you had watched the video you would understand.

Yes, I watched your video and, yes, I understand there exists emotional hateful prejudice against Brits just fine and you are a fine example of that. Got that. Your point? You cannot effectively attack my assertions you don't like so you attack my character instead with the bases of that attack being I am a Brit ...[text shortened]... e harm done by such a big sea level rise would be generally BAD for us no matter how you look at it!

We were able to create more land than sea level rise was taking. That undercuts your position that sea level rise is a serious problem. The notion that sea level rise is a threat is obviously ridiculous if man is creating more new land than is being lost to GW.

Let me know when sea level takes more land away than man creates. Until that happens it is not a problem. You can now sleep better at night. You do not have to live a life of perpetual panic. There is no problem.

"And he didn't explain HOW "coasts are growing all over the world" nor showed any data or evidence to support this assertion thus I suspect at least this claim of his may be fraudulent."

Ask a Dutch person. Isn't Kazet Dutch? Ask him and I'm sure he can tell you. How much of the Netherlands is below sea level and why?

@metal-brain said
We were able to create more land than sea level rise was taking. That undercuts your position that sea level rise is a serious problem. The notion that sea level rise is a threat is obviously ridiculous if man is creating more new land than is being lost to GW.

Let me know when sea level takes more land away than man creates. Until that happens it is not a problem. You ...[text shortened]... Dutch? Ask him and I'm sure he can tell you. How much of the Netherlands is below sea level and why?

We were able to create more land than sea level rise was taking.

Yes, by creating the local environmental disaster of drying out much of some inland seas. Your point?

That undercuts your position that sea level rise is a serious problem

No it doesn't. More land was only created via causing local environmental disaster of drying out much of some inland seas. How does THAT mean coastal land being lost via see rise would NOT be a problem? Its irrelevant.

The notion that sea level rise is a threat is obviously ridiculous if man is creating more new land than is being lost to GW.

No it isn't. An if the sea level were to keep rising man will eventually not keep up creating more new land via creating the local environmental disaster of drying out much of some inland seas and then there will be a net loss of land.

Let me know when sea level takes more land away than man creates.

Don't have to. It will inevitably happen if we moronically do nothing.

Until that happens it is not a problem.

Sea level rise is ALREADY a problem.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/trevornace/2017/09/09/new-study-finds-8-islands-swallowed-by-rising-sea-level/#44a5782e5283
"...New Study Finds 8 Islands Swallowed By Rising Sea Level ..."

Do you deny the above observed facts?

How much of the Netherlands is below sea level and why?

What has that got to do with the harm future sea level rise could do?
And you haven't answered any of my questions which were:

"...How does the drying up of inland seas mitigate the harm done by coastal land being flooded by sea level rise? Surely the drying up of those inland seas is generally a BAD thing (and the sublinks I read seems to clearly confirm this) and the land so gained is unlikely to be as useful to us as the land lost via sea level rise!
Thus, given that's the case, what is their (and your) point here? .."

And, at least until if or when you do, we all know you have lost the argument here.

@humy said

We were able to create more land than sea level rise was taking.

Yes, by creating the local environmental disaster of drying out much of some inland seas. Your point?

That undercuts your position that sea level rise is a serious problem

No it doesn't. More land was only created via causing local environmental disaster of drying out much of so ...[text shortened]... int here? .."

And, at least until if or when you do, we all know you have lost the argument here.

Tell Kazetnagorra his people are monsters that created a local environmental disaster. I'm sure he will appreciate that.

@metal-brain said
Tell Kazetnagorra his people are monsters that created a local environmental disaster. I'm sure he will appreciate that.

I don't know who is this "Kazetnagorra" and I did NOT call/imply any people "monsters", at least not for drying inland seas.
How does this answer any of my questions or counterargue? Its irrelevant.
Nearly all people, including me and you, are inadvertently partly indirectly and collectively responsible for various environmental problems but don't call or think we are all 'monsters' because of it.

Now, back to what we were talking about;

"...How does the drying up of inland seas mitigate the harm done by coastal land being flooded by sea level rise? Surely the drying up of those inland seas is generally a BAD thing (and the sublinks I read seems to clearly confirm this) and the land so gained is unlikely to be as useful to us as the land lost via sea level rise!
Thus, given that's the case, what is their (and your) point here? .."

And, at least until if or when you do, we all know you have lost the argument here.