Sea Level Rise From Global Warming

Hint: The only constant in climate is change. There is much debate on the cause but one thing unknown is how much is natural variability and if you don't have that nailed down you have no chance of attributing any percent to man. That is why the IPCC gives such a wide range of future temperatures and because of observed science recently reduced the low end of the range. Mind you that range is based on flawed computer models.

If you were old enough you would notice it has been getting warmer for the last 400+ years and before that it got cooler. If you lived through the 40s to late 70s you would have notice slight cooling. The short timespan you live is irrelevant in climate change time spans.

 

If you used common sense you would begin to put things together. Carbon is taken out of the atmosphere through photosynthesis. Carbon has been stored in the earth for millions of years in the form of coal and oil. When this is burned millions of years of carbon is released. Now let's cut down trees, pave cities, and expose farm land so carbon can escape through the ground. We now have more carbon released than the system can sequester. Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas. This gas lets in long wave infrared radiation but does not allow short wave infrared radiation to escape. This is a fact. This also all you need to know. The rest is just distraction. I don't care what happened in the past. The concern is what is happening now!!!!

 

CO2 has been increasing for years. And we have experienced periods of global temperature increase, decrease, and staying the same. Also the sun has been shining every day for millions of year. What can you conclude about all this ??

 

I conclude that propoganda trumps common sense in some peoples minds. Temperature rises are never going to go up in a straight line. Some years will be cooler than others. But the average is higher. Next year may be a little cooler than last year but the trend is upward.

 

At what rate ?? What part of that rate is caused by human releases of CO2 ?? What is the climate sensitivity to CO2 from real world data and computer models ?? And how is that net detrimental to the globe's economies and the people's standard of living ?? Warming is actually beneficial. Increased CO2 in the atmosphere is beneficial. You know that from the photosynthesis process. The earth was warmer than it is today 1000 years ago.

What does your common sense tell you about the answers to the above ??

 

It has gone up the same rate during past periods. Why wouldn't the trend be upward coming out of the Little Ice Age?

 

My common sense tells me you don't know if it is man made or not. Why not look up your answers for yourself. I don't care to do your homework for you. Google is your friend and NASA is a good place to start.

 

Look it up....the answer is out there. I will not argue what has been argued countless times

 

Carbon dioxide sinks.

Now what?

Haven't you wondered how so much gets into the ocean? It gets there and also is there for plants because it sinks.

 

I know the answers and so should you without having to look it up. My common sense tells me that you have no idea on what the rate is, what part of that is attributable to human activity, and whether global warming is of net benefit or not. You are hanging your hat on big banana trees.

 

I will not waste my time arguing trivial points in circular arguments. The simple truth is the earth is warming and man is the cause. Deniers have nothing of substance. If you did your research you would know global warming is a serious problem and not a benefit to mankind. It will cause starvation and as we have already seen mass migration of people to cooler and wetter climates. The migration is happening now. The movement of tropical diseases is happening now. You can hang your hat on propoganda but climate change is happening and is not good for mankind. Its the ecology.

 

Well yeah, it warms after a cold period.

 

Proof ? Past performance does not guarantee future results.

 

It means nothing. Just because something happens in the past doesn't mean it will happen in the future. I see no cycle here. This chart is a mute argument. When is the earth going to become a hot ball of magma? You are suffering from cyclical thinking. Linear thinking is needed.

 

How to explain the Medieval, Roman, and Minoan warming periods then ?? Temperatures were much higher than they are today with much, much lower human population.

Why do you conclude I'm a denier ?? What is your definition of a denier ??

You are stating that global warming has no benefit to mankind ?? What about lower mortality rates, longer growing seasons, more water for irrigation, more arable land, higher crop growth rates (due to higher CO2 concentrations), ....

What populations are migrating ?? In the US people are migrating to the warmer states.

What movement of tropical diseases is happening ?? It's not.

It is clear who is slinging the propaganda here. And what does "Its the ecology" mean ??

- - - Updated - - -

The chart looks linear (with time) to me. What is cyclical thinking ??

 

More sidestepping BS. You are not even being truthful. Europe is overrun with immigrants... and so is the U.S.

- - - Updated - - -

I do not have to explain anything that happened in the past. The past has passed.

 

Ah, so we don't need to study the past to figure out what may happen in the future in a system with numerous cycles? Best not to know what is happening? What kind of 'experts' were you referring to before? Al Gore?

 

Most know what is happening and we should study the past....but ....the past does not predict the future. All your argument amounts to is "it was warmer in the past". Nothing indicates it will be cooler in the future. Reputable science says it will be much warmer in the future because of the influence of man. NASA is one of the reputable science sources.. before you ask. There are many others too numerous to mention.

 

Actually, solar scientists believe it may be cooler due to the decreasing and lengthening solar cycles.

 

The Syrian refugees are fleeing radical Islamic terrorism and the civil war. That has nothing to do with global warming.

No answers for the other questions ??

 

And their predictions are based on computer models which can't predict the last 100 years given the initial conditions 100 years ago. If the predictive models fail to "predict" the data from initial conditions in the past why would anyone believe that they can be used to accurately predict the future and why would anyone base policy decisions on those predictions ??

 

Since Earth both cools and warms, though in overall degrees, not a large amount, it is much more likely the same cycle will keep repeating.

Imagine you lived when the glaciers melted and left behind the Great Lakes and earlier the area today called New York City.

Nature is very good at cycles.

 

If they actually are basing policy on it, I would expect to see sea walls. I mean, you can't tell people they face disaster then tell them you won't do a thing about it.

I mean, who the heck thinks more regulations on new trucks cools earth?

And i blame science itself for not mentioning that Carbon Dioxide is a heavy gas that sinks.
I feel as if the politicians are lying to us. But not all politicians. Democrats do the most of the lying.

 

Earth is a hot ball of magma. You nailed it. Certainly it has a thin crust. I understand the lava flow at Kilauea is a bit cooler today than when it started erupting. But clearly earth has cycles.