Sea level rise

@metal-brain said
50 and 63 are the same?

What impresses me is someone who doesn't cherry pick periods of unequal value. If that is what you claim passes as proper math you are on the wrong forum. This is the science forum. You are not fooling anybody here.

Climate models are a guess. Predictions from them are poor at best. Hindcasts don't count. They are not predictions of the futur ...[text shortened]... ds to be compared to another 50 year period. Don't expect people to take you seriously until you do.

Your broken record is skipping.

You forgot to mention that all the skeptics think the world would be a better place if it was hotter anyways, so we should just be ok with it. Climate science is pointless because of the vikings, I think. Nevermind all the people who like our current climate just fine.

@wildgrass said
Your broken record is skipping.

You forgot to mention that all the skeptics think the world would be a better place if it was hotter anyways, so we should just be ok with it. Climate science is pointless because of the vikings, I think. Nevermind all the people who like our current climate just fine.

Very impressive. Did you stay up all night thinking of that? You really used sea level to prove nothing with a creative ad hominem attack. Nobody has proved nothing so well as you.

Oh wait, the 50 year comparison to 63 years proved nothing better than you. I guess I was wrong. no1 has you beat.

@Metal-Brain
What, you think he is wrong that skeptics think it will be BETTER if it is hotter?

@sonhouse said
@Metal-Brain
What, you think he is wrong that skeptics think it will be BETTER if it is hotter?

Warmer is better than colder. Climate history shows that.

Stop obfuscating. This is about sea level rise. I know you hate this thread because it makes you question everything you thought you knew about AGW, but digressing will not change that.

@Metal-Brain
These forums are full of digression. Hotter is NOT better. Hotter means polar bears die. Hotter means coral reefs die. Hotter means PEOPLE die which already has happened in Europe, remember the French heat wave? Hotter means the end of glaciation. Hotter means eventually the end of the Antarctic and Greenland ice caps and THAT means 20 or 30 or more feet higher sea levels. If you think all that is great you need to move to Venus.

@sonhouse said
@Metal-Brain
These forums are full of digression. Hotter is NOT better. Hotter means polar bears die. Hotter means coral reefs die. Hotter means PEOPLE die which already has happened in Europe, remember the French heat wave? Hotter means the end of glaciation. Hotter means eventually the end of the Antarctic and Greenland ice caps and THAT means 20 or 30 or more feet higher sea levels. If you think all that is great you need to move to Venus.

You are repeating gossip again. Hotter means coral reefs will do better. Polar bears are doing better than they were. We have been over this before.

https://plantsneedco2.org/default.aspx?menuitemid=216

https://theconversation.com/cold-weather-is-a-bigger-killer-than-extreme-heat-heres-why-42252

You are digressing with myths. I know you would like to post a lot so people will not notice that embarrassing stuff recently posted but people will know because I will keep reminding them the more you try to digress.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extreme_weather_events_of_535%E2%80%93536

Colder is worse than warmer.

@metal-brain said
You are repeating gossip again. Hotter means coral reefs will do better. Polar bears are doing better than they were. We have been over this before.

https://plantsneedco2.org/default.aspx?menuitemid=216

https://theconversation.com/cold-weather-is-a-bigger-killer-than-extreme-heat-heres-why-42252

You are digressing with myths. I know you would like to post a lot s ...[text shortened]... ps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extreme_weather_events_of_535%E2%80%93536

Colder is worse than warmer.

your first link (https://plantsneedco2.org/default.aspx?menuitemid=216 ) is just massively biased propaganda crap because it gives only one small part of the whole story by ignoring the science that tells us global warming means more frequent extreme weather events such as droughts and floods etc would more than offset the photosynthetic benefit (to plants) from more CO2. It is also straw man because scientists and the science DOES NOT DENY there IS a photosynthetic benefit (to plants) from more CO2; only that it would be in most places more than offset by the more frequent extreme weather events that come from the warming from more CO2.

Your second link says;
"Of course, the reduction in winter deaths could be wiped out by an increase in heat-related deaths. In every country studied in the Lancet paper, there was an increased risk of death during hot weather. Plus we should also consider the predicted increases in vector, food and water borne diseases, and the potentially catastrophic increase in global conflicts."

In other words, it CLEARLY does NOT say/imply/argue that a warmer world would be a better world in particular.
Apparently there is something wrong with your reading skills.

Hotter means coral reefs will do better.

"Hotter" than exactly what global temperature?
If the current global temperature; FALSE!
ALL the scientific evidence suggests the opposite is generally the case because of coral bleaching.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coral_bleaching
"..Above-average sea water temperatures caused by global warming is the leading cause of coral bleaching...."

Your third link is about extreme weather events over just a two year period and was thought to have been caused from a large volcanic eruption throwing up vast amounts of dust and SO2 that relatively suddenly cooled the planet. So what? There is obviously an approximate optimal global temperature ('optimal' for human life) and if it gets colder or warmer than that optimal then than is always worse.
So the global temperatures can be, just like it was on this occation, too cold. -who said it couldn't be?
All that means is that a sudden global cooling from vast amounts of dust and SO2 suddenly discharged into the atmosphere can ALSO cause extreme weather events, just like the slower warming from more CO2.

Colder is worse than warmer.

"colder" or "warmer" from exactly what global temperature?
There is obviously an approximate optimal global temperature ('optimal' for human life) and if it gets much colder or warmer than that optimal then than is always worse (for us). And a temperature greater than the current temperature will still be bad for us because that would put it up above that optimum. Your point?

@Metal-Brain
https://www.sciencenews.org/article/oceans-are-warming-due-climate-change-yield-fewer-fish?tgt=nr

This study shows warmer oceans=fewer fish.
I suppose THAT is a good thing too?

I think in a hundred or two hundred years people like you will be reviled not cast as hero's.

@sonhouse said
@Metal-Brain
https://www.sciencenews.org/article/oceans-are-warming-due-climate-change-yield-fewer-fish?tgt=nr

This study shows warmer oceans=fewer fish.
I suppose THAT is a good thing too?

I think in a hundred or two hundred years people like you will be reviled not cast as hero's.

Some areas? Get real.

Like over fishing has nothing to do with it.

https://www.minderoo.com.au/flourishing-oceans/

@Metal-Brain
You and your ilk are in desperate denial.

@sonhouse said
@Metal-Brain
You and your ilk are in desperate denial.

I posted the data with a long term sea level graph and do not deny it at all. You are in desperate denial. Look at the sea level rise before 1900. That is natural.

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

Do you deny NASA's data is accurate? Didn't you say you used to work for NASA?

@metal-brain said
I posted the data with a long term sea level graph and do not deny it at all. You are in desperate denial. Look at the sea level rise before 1900. That is natural.

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

Do you deny NASA's data is accurate? Didn't you say you used to work for NASA?

It looks like it's going up. Just like temperature and CO2 and narcissism. Any interest from the skeptics in finding solutions to that? Maybe we can build a bunch of floating cities?

Define natural.

1800-1900 saw drastic changes to global land use, which we know is a major driver of climate. In 1900 there were 1.6 billion people on earth and human-emitted CO2 was more than 2 billion tons/year. In the USA alone over 300 million acres of forest were removed by human hands. This all had no impact on climate? Do you have data to support that?

@wildgrass said
It looks like it's going up. Just like temperature and CO2 and narcissism. Any interest from the skeptics in finding solutions to that? Maybe we can build a bunch of floating cities?

Define natural.

1800-1900 saw drastic changes to global land use, which we know is a major driver of climate. In 1900 there were 1.6 billion people on earth and human-emitted CO2 was more ...[text shortened]... st were removed by human hands. This all had no impact on climate? Do you have data to support that?

It has been going up for over 200 years.

What drastic changes to land use? What is your source of info? How much were CO2 levels back then? Sounds like a crackpot theory to me, but I will look at it with an open mind if you give me a credible source.

@metal-brain said
It has been going up for over 200 years.

What drastic changes to land use? What is your source of info? How much were CO2 levels back then? Sounds like a crackpot theory to me, but I will look at it with an open mind if you give me a credible source.

Crackpot are you joking? What do you think a billion plus 600 million people were using for heat back then? Good vibes? We clear cut most of the Eastern seaboard of the United States. It went from 70% to 25% forest in a very short time, and it was all burned and converted to farmland. The human population exploded. Would you consider that a drastic change to land use?

There are lots and lots of sources. History textbooks for one. Here is an internet-y example: https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1995/04/an-explosion-of-green/305864/

It's easy to spot the onset of European settlement in pollen samples. "Literally in a matter of decades," he told me recently, "the forest was cleared. There's no more oak pollen, and all of a sudden lots of grass pollen. That persisted throughout much of the following couple of hundred years," as Europeans turned most of the area into a giant sheep pasture.

@wildgrass said
Crackpot are you joking? What do you think a billion plus 600 million people were using for heat back then? Good vibes? We clear cut most of the Eastern seaboard of the United States. It went from 70% to 25% forest in a very short time, and it was all burned and converted to farmland. The human population exploded. Would you consider that a drastic change to land use?

Th ...[text shortened]... g couple of hundred years," as Europeans turned most of the area into a giant sheep pasture.[/quote]

"What do you think a billion plus 600 million people were using for heat back then?"

Firewood, mostly. Cut down trees and more of them grow. What were the CO2 levels back then? Do you even have a point? Making up crap is not science.