I have been telling my kids for years that for retirement I plan to slowly watch Florida sink under the ocean.

dajo9 said:

---

I have been telling my kids for years that for retirement I plan to slowly watch Florida sink under the ocean.

---

Do you plan to retire in the year 3000?

> ..Few other places on the planet have seen similar rates of increase, such as the North Sea near the United Kingdom.

"Climate change" LOL

smh said:

---

> Where seas are rising at alarming speed.. .. ..

> At more than a dozen tide gauges spanning from Texas to North Carolina, sea levels are at least 6 inches higher than they were in 2010, a change similar to what occurred over the previous five decades.

subscriber link (or disable javascript)..
https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/interactive/2024/southern-us-sea-level-rise-risk-cities

> ..The Gulf of Mexico has experienced twice the global average rate of sea level rise since 2010, a Post analysis of satellite data shows..

> ..Few other places on the planet have seen similar rates of increase, such as the North Sea near the United Kingdom.

> `Since 2010, it's very abnormal and unprecedented," said Jianjun Yin, a climate scientist at the University of Arizona who has studied the changes. While it is possible the swift rate of sea level rise could eventually taper [yeah, riiight], the higher water that has already arrived in recent years is here to stay. "It's irreversible," he said.

this fool's long range forecast.. hopeless # buh-bye florida

---

The rate of sea rise in FL and TX has been nearly constant for the past century, rising steadily at a slow pace:






The variations in the rate of sea rise from one site to another depend mostly on the movement of the land itself.

Source: NOAA sea level rise trends (historical tidal gage measurements)
https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/

> The rate of sea rise in FL and TX has been nearly constant for the past century, rising steadily at a slow pace..
> The variations in the rate of sea rise from one site to another depend mostly on the movement of the land itself.

ohhh, nothing to worry about then, i'm so relieved. signed, left-coastal / child-less by choice

Like the old Garrison Keilor joke, where everyone in Lake Wobegon is above average, a claim like this should immediately cause one to be skeptical. Yet we never ever see such skepticism from the climate catastrophists because it's not really about understanding the all the evidence in the end. It's about looking for data points that confirm one's view. Scare stories like this appear every day and they aren't written to inform, they're written to stir up fear, to persuade the public that we must sacrifice to the Gaia to prevent climate change.

As to your claim that water levels can vary from place to place, I'm sure that is true in the short term. But it defies logic that such a phenomenon can persist, where one place is consistently lower relative to others for any length of time. More likely, this is a function of subsidence. There are places in the world above and below the average see level rise because geologically some places are being forced up and others are sinking. Nothing at all to do with climate change. And by the way, sea level has been rising for thousands of years and has risen hundreds of feet even. Almost all of the rise was before man was putting carbon dioxide in the air. I'm pretty sure the rate of the rise is much lower than in earlier times as well. Sorry, no catastrophe.

Zippergate said:

---

Like the old Garrison Keilor joke, where everyone in Lake Wobegon is above average, a claim like this should immediately cause one to be skeptical. Yet we never ever see such skepticism from the climate catastrophists because it's not really about understanding the all the evidence in the end. It's about looking for data points that confirm one's view. Scare stories like this appear every day and they aren't written to inform, they're written to stir up fear, to persuade the public that we must sacrifice to the Gaia to prevent climate change.

As to your claim that water levels can vary from place to place, I'm sure that is true in the short term. But it defies logic that such a phenomenon can persist, where one place is consistently lower relative to others for any length of time. More likely, this is a function of subsidence. There are places in the world above and below the average see level rise because geologically some places are being forced up and others are sinking. Nothing at all to do with climate change. And by the way, sea level has been rising for thousands of years and has risen hundreds of feet even. Almost all of the rise was before man was putting carbon dioxide in the air. I'm pretty sure the rate of the rise is much lower than in earlier times as well. Sorry, no catastrophe.

---

You're ignoring the reason for higher water levels along the gulf coast: Texas and Florida suck.

Thanks for the information, smh. I will add a detailed video with evidence showing that anthropogenic global warming is real. The usual far-right science deniers in this forum need not apply.

Great summary. I would add...
- Temperature leads carbon dioxide, not the other way around. This is well understood by all scientists. Higher temperatures cause degassing by the oceans leading to higher levels of CO2 with a lag of ~700 years. Climate deceivers often flip the x-axis so that the uninformed will be duped into believing carbon dioxide drives temperature.

- Carbon dioxide's ability to affect temperature at current levels is largely saturated. Further increases in carbon dioxide have only a minimum effect on temperature. Again this is widely understood science that climate alarmists don't like to talk about. See Dr. William Happer of Princeton.

- The sun and various natural cycles related to the earth's orbit, rotation etc. have a much larger effect on temperature than green house gases given current levels. The climate models largely ignore these cycles and have been tuned to respond almost exclusively to changes in carbon dioxide. No wonder their predictions have been so poor. Garbage in, garbage out.

- Climate catastrophism really took off with Michael Mann's hockey stick. That was a total sham as proven by McIntyre and McKitrick (see climatedepot.com) Also debunked here by a Berkeley Prof.

The IPCC perpetuated this totally corrupted science because it was a great marketing tool that greatly increased its funding.

- So many of the claims by the climate scaremongers--increased weathers events, forest fires, etc--are complete nonsense. See Roger Pielke, Jr., IPCC contributor and the most cited expert in this area (https://rogerpielkejr.substack.com/). To be clear, Pielke is a believer in anthropogenic climate change but is disgusted with the way his area of expertise, weather events like hurricanes, has been corrupted and exploited by the climate alarmists. Tony Heller on youtube has some great videos on this as well.

- Even if you take the claims of the IPCC seriously, Dr. Steve Koonin of the Obama administration wrote a great book demonstrating that there is no climate emergency.

- Climate is a huge industry now with hundreds of billions in "revenue" in the form of government grants, subsidies, etc. Scientists who don't go along with the narrative have a very difficult time getting funding. The science has been completely politicized. See Dr. William Happer, Dr. Richard Lindzen, etc.

- As you noted, there are serious problems with the temperature record. If you look at the raw data without all the adjustments as people like Tony Heller have done, the large increases in temperature are mitigated or disappear altogether. For example, the 1930s remain the hottest decade on record and it isn't even close. There was considerable cooling between then and the 1970s when we had the new ice age scare, but that cooling trend has largely been adjusted out of existence because it didn't fit the Narrative.

Much, much more could be said but I'll leave it here for now. It amazes me how many otherwise intelligent people just accept all the crazy claims regarding climate and don't make any attempt to investigate the topic for themselves.

And the far-right science deniers are right on cue. Don't be dazzled by their useless graphs and verbose replies; just watch the video which I embedded in my previous reply. Sabine Hossenfelder is a no-nonsense scientist who follows the data.

chazzed said:

---

And the far-right science deniers are right on cue. Don't be dazzled by their useless graphs and verbose replies; just watch the video which I embedded in my previous reply. Sabine Hossenfelder is a no-nonsense scientist who follows the data.

---

She posts videos about covid and trans athletes, her background is in theoretical physics, she's not an earth science/climate expert.

Cal88 said:

---

chazzed said:

---

And the far-right science deniers are right on cue. Don't be dazzled by their useless graphs and verbose replies; just watch the video which I embedded in my previous reply. Sabine Hossenfelder is a no-nonsense scientist who follows the data.

---

She posts videos about covid and trans athletes, her background is in theoretical physics, she's not an earth science/climate expert.

---

I see. Scientists and armchair climatologists are only believable if they are climate change deniers.

chazzed said:

---

And the far-right science deniers are right on cue. Don't be dazzled by their useless graphs and verbose replies; just watch the video which I embedded in my previous reply. Sabine Hossenfelder is a no-nonsense scientist who follows the data.

---

I applaud your efforts on this subject. I used to do this but gave it up as a waste of my time when it became clear that my years of experience in a related field and that of other scientists had less credibility than some janitor with a website.

This is exactly what cult members say when confronted with the facts about their religion.

Eastern Oregon Bear said:

---

Cal88 said:

---

chazzed said:

---

And the far-right science deniers are right on cue. Don't be dazzled by their useless graphs and verbose replies; just watch the video which I embedded in my previous reply. Sabine Hossenfelder is a no-nonsense scientist who follows the data.

---

She posts videos about covid and trans athletes, her background is in theoretical physics, she's not an earth science/climate expert.

---

I see. Scientists and armchair climatologists are only believable if they are climate change deniers.

---

That person in particular is not an expert on climate, she is a popular science vulgariser who chimes in on subjects like covid and trans athletes.

When you are presented with bona fide climate scientists, like Judith Curry, who was the head of the Earth Sciences dept at Georgia Tech, or other climate scientists from schools like MIT or Princeton, you will summarily dismiss them if their work runs counter the official climate change doctrine.

Cal88 said:

---

Eastern Oregon Bear said:

---

Cal88 said:

---

chazzed said:

---

And the far-right science deniers are right on cue. Don't be dazzled by their useless graphs and verbose replies; just watch the video which I embedded in my previous reply. Sabine Hossenfelder is a no-nonsense scientist who follows the data.

---

She posts videos about covid and trans athletes, her background is in theoretical physics, she's not an earth science/climate expert.

---

I see. Scientists and armchair climatologists are only believable if they are climate change deniers.

---

That person in particular is not an expert on climate, she is a popular science vulgariser who chimes in on subjects like covid and trans athletes.

When you are presented with bona fide climate scientists, like Judith Curry, who was the head of the Earth Sciences dept at Georgia Tech, or other climate scientists from schools like MIT or Princeton, you will summarily dismiss them if their work runs counter the official climate change doctrine.

---

This is why I stopped getting involved in climate change discussions. You point out that Scientists A,B and C said climate change is bunk. I point out that Scientists D through Z disagree. Then you or people like you go "Yeah, but A, B and C!" You've made up your mind to agree with the minority view and nothing I say or point out will change that, so why bother?

Zippergate said:

---

Great summary. I would add...
- Temperature leads carbon dioxide, not the other way around. This is well understood by all scientists. Higher temperatures cause degassing by the oceans leading to higher levels of CO2 with a lag of ~700 years. Climate deceivers often flip the x-axis so that the uninformed will be duped into believing carbon dioxide drives temperature.

- Carbon dioxide's ability to affect temperature at current levels is largely saturated. Further increases in carbon dioxide have only a minimum effect on temperature. Again this is widely understood science that climate alarmists don't like to talk about. See Dr. William Happer of Princeton.

- The sun and various natural cycles related to the earth's orbit, rotation etc. have a much larger effect on temperature than green house gases given current levels. The climate models largely ignore these cycles and have been tuned to respond almost exclusively to changes in carbon dioxide. No wonder their predictions have been so poor. Garbage in, garbage out.

- Climate catastrophism really took off with Michael Mann's hockey stick. That was a total sham as proven by McIntyre and McKitrick (see climatedepot.com) Also debunked here by a Berkeley Prof.

The IPCC perpetuated this totally corrupted science because it was a great marketing tool that greatly increased its funding.

- So many of the claims by the climate scaremongers--increased weathers events, forest fires, etc--are complete nonsense. See Roger Pielke, Jr., IPCC contributor and the most cited expert in this area (https://rogerpielkejr.substack.com/). To be clear, Pielke is a believer in anthropogenic climate change but is disgusted with the way his area of expertise, weather events like hurricanes, has been corrupted and exploited by the climate alarmists. Tony Heller on youtube has some great videos on this as well.

- Even if you take the claims of the IPCC seriously, Dr. Steve Koonin of the Obama administration wrote a great book demonstrating that there is no climate emergency.

- Climate is a huge industry now with hundreds of billions in "revenue" in the form of government grants, subsidies, etc. Scientists who don't go along with the narrative have a very difficult time getting funding. The science has been completely politicized. See Dr. William Happer, Dr. Richard Lindzen, etc.

- As you noted, there are serious problems with the temperature record. If you look at the raw data without all the adjustments as people like Tony Heller have done, the large increases in temperature are mitigated or disappear altogether. For example, the 1930s remain the hottest decade on record and it isn't even close. There was considerable cooling between then and the 1970s when we had the new ice age scare, but that cooling trend has largely been adjusted out of existence because it didn't fit the Narrative.

Much, much more could be said but I'll leave it here for now. It amazes me how many otherwise intelligent people just accept all the crazy claims regarding climate and don't make any attempt to investigate the topic for themselves.

---

Okay, hadn't seen this when I wrote directly above.

So whereas a couple decades ago your side was claiming global warming was not happening, now you're saying it's happening but has nothing to do with man. Is that right?

Okay then, if it's happening, what does your side predict will be the repercussions for the current civilization setup?

Cal88 said:

---

chazzed said:

---

And the far-right science deniers are right on cue. Don't be dazzled by their useless graphs and verbose replies; just watch the video which I embedded in my previous reply. Sabine Hossenfelder is a no-nonsense scientist who follows the data.

---

She posts videos about covid and trans athletes, her background is in theoretical physics, she's not an earth science/climate expert.

---

Neither are you.

Zippergate said:

---

This is exactly what cult members say when confronted with the facts about their religion.

---

Because we have minds of our own and can evaluate the arguments and the evidence for ourselves. There are knuckleheads on both sides of the debate, but they can be dismissed relatively easy. But even among the those who have great public credibility, If a scientist or scientific organization frequently uses easily refuted arguments, unsound scientific methods or doctors the data, then everything they say is tainted and should be viewed with skepticism.

Most skeptics don't question the existence of climate change. This is not a yes or no question; it's a matter of degree. The real question is whether anthropogenic global warming is an immediate, serious threat that requires us to limit human emissions. Climate zealots like to pretend that the answer to this question is axiomatic. It is not. Spend 10 minutes listening to an actual climate scientist why we should be skeptical and why it matters.



This isn't a meaningless academic discussion. The green lobby has completed a hostile takeover of governments in the western world. The economic consequences are disastrous and will become much worse over time.

Eastern Oregon Bear said:

---

chazzed said:

---

And the far-right science deniers are right on cue. Don't be dazzled by their useless graphs and verbose replies; just watch the video which I embedded in my previous reply. Sabine Hossenfelder is a no-nonsense scientist who follows the data.

---

I applaud your efforts on this subject. I used to do this but gave it up as a waste of my time when it became clear that my years of experience in a related field and that of other scientists had less credibility than some janitor with a website.

---

I completely understand. My replies are not for the far-right science deniers here; those posters are clearly gone. My responses are for the handful of genuinely curious people who might stumble upon this thread.

concordtom said:

---

Zippergate said:

---

Like the old Garrison Keilor joke, where everyone in Lake Wobegon is above average, a claim like this should immediately cause one to be skeptical. Yet we never ever see such skepticism from the climate catastrophists because it's not really about understanding the all the evidence in the end. It's about looking for data points that confirm one's view. Scare stories like this appear every day and they aren't written to inform, they're written to stir up fear, to persuade the public that we must sacrifice to the Gaia to prevent climate change.

As to your claim that water levels can vary from place to place, I'm sure that is true in the short term. But it defies logic that such a phenomenon can persist, where one place is consistently lower relative to others for any length of time. More likely, this is a function of subsidence. There are places in the world above and below the average see level rise because geologically some places are being forced up and others are sinking. Nothing at all to do with climate change. And by the way, sea level has been rising for thousands of years and has risen hundreds of feet even. Almost all of the rise was before man was putting carbon dioxide in the air. I'm pretty sure the rate of the rise is much lower than in earlier times as well. Sorry, no catastrophe.

---

Perhaps you'll consider a different possibility.

Imagine a warm earth with no ice (solid).
All water is in oceans.

Then cooling occurs, such that ocean evaporation gets taken up high into the atmosphere and falls as snow, ice, a solid. Where it hits the ocean, it melts and returns, but where it hits land and the cold polar regions not heated by solar rays, it deposits as a solid.

You therefore have a transfer of weight from the equatorial oceans to the poles.

What I was describing above is that this may be happening in reverse. It is affecting land/water levels and the overall geometry of the planet such that the earth spins slower - so they tell us.

You are not doing the measuring, so you cannot claim anything any better than me. And you are subject to the very accusation you toss out, that you pick data to fit your narrative.

I'll also ask, rather than land-sea level comparative measurements where one must be "fixed" to evaluate the other, what might satellites say about both? Have you looked into that??

I'll also point you to…. How do you explain all the melting going on? Polar glaciers and alpine glaciers.

Now, I don't know if indeed all that melt, which is not being replenished, is causing sea levels to rise - but I CAN attest to the disappearance of the ice.
And, I can accept what scientists say is happening.

My question is: WHY CAN'T YOU???
Why do you insist you know better?

---

Various places on the globe have rising or falling sea levels and this is true irrespective of their latitude. How does this fit into your model?
How do I explain melting of polar glaciers and alpine glaciers? The climate warmed from the Little Ice Age and continues to warm. Glaciers have been melting for 200 years. As for the north pole, the sea ice was virtually gone...early in the 20th century when man-made emissions were irrelevant. It came back with a vengeance and peaked in the 1970s when we had the ice age scare. How is it that you are unaware of all of this?

Why do I know better? Where did I say that? I know enough to know that certain arguments are completely without merit and that there are scientific truths that are problematic for the sky-is-falling crowd.

….and if it turns out the Skeptical of Everything Crowd is wrong about this and main stream science was right, at least you can find solace when they look you in the eye and say:

bearister said:

---

….and if it turns out the Skeptical of Everything Crowd is wrong about this and main stream science was right, at least you can find solace when they look you in the eye and say:

---

I was going for something a little different…



"Are you ignoring the help that's trying to reach you?"

Not a single rebuttal, just appeals to authority and ridicule. It's the same on every issue so I'm not surprised.

Zippergate said:

---

Not a single rebuttal, just appeals to authority and ridicule. It's the same on every issue so I'm not surprised.

---

Zippergate said:

---

Not a single rebuttal, just appeals to authority and ridicule. It's the same on every issue so I'm not surprised.

---

You don't listen to rebuttals.
You rebut the rebuttals.

When trump is found guilty or loses, you'll rebut those things, too.

When krakow was raining ashes, you thought they were burning lumber for warmth.

People believe what they want to believe, you're right about that.

I think you are confused about the meaning of the word "you." I never said any of those things. But this is how leftists operate. They take the most absurd one-off take from anyone they can find on the right and pretend that everyone on the right holds those beliefs. Two can play that game and it would not at all be flattering to your side. Not at all.

Again, it's clear you have no response because you probably haven't spent five minutes understanding the arguments of the climate skeptics. Par for the course.