we are all aware that sea levels are rising Climate change skeptics point out that sea levels have been warming for a long time. And that these historically rising sea levels could not have been caused by co2 And that is true... as far as it goes. But there is another aspect of rising sea levels that is overlooked in the analysis of skeptics: rate of rise. Sea levels are not only rising (as they have risen for 200 years). Sea levels are rising faster and faster. This is a fairly recent change from historical patterns of sea level rise Skeptics may argue that even this increased rate of sea level rise is not sufficient that we need to worry. But it cannot be argued that sea level rises are simply a continuation of pre-existing historical trends
No that wouldn't be the position of any skeptic that's not what skepticism is. The position of a skeptic is it could be. The position of a True believer is that skepticism is idiotic. How can you deny the gospel truth.
The position of a skeptic is that the rate of sea level rise is increasing and that “could” be a problem? Perhaps skeptics also doubt that greenhouse gasses might be responsible, and suspect that this increasing rate of rise is natural because sea levels have been historically rising, but have no alternative suggestion as to why the historical rate of increase would change? It seems to me that the “gospel truth” of true believers is that greenhouse gasses have any significant impact on climate which only changes via non human factors
Not one tide gauge worldwide shows any acceleration in sea level rise. Tack on the satellite data which is a different set altogether with it's own issues and voila, acceleration.
Exactly. first off do you know what the most effective greenhouse gas is? Second I don't care about alternatives it's not the job of the skeptic to present alternatives it's your job to prove your claim. just saying well this is the best explanation we've got doesn't really explain anything. Your opinions don't matter. As what it is to you. again you need to find out what the most abundant and most effective greenhouse gas is. It's not CO2.
water vapor is most abundant, not sure it is most effective. To most climate scientists, the claim is proven As i said, most climate scientist regard the claim as proven. But even if it were “the best explanation we’ve got, the sensible thing to do is risk mitigation in case the only and the best explanation is in fact the real explanation Is that gas changing in a continuous direction?
methane. it's either proven or it's not regardless of who you are. so how do you convince the biggest offenders to mitigate risk? I have no idea all we've been able to know is what we've been able to measure.
Right, because we have to replace all those cities that have been swallowed by the rising sea? What were those cities again?
Here is a good place to start. https://thecityfix.com/blog/5-major-cities-threatened-climate-change-sea-level-rise-emily-cassidy/ Or this: https://www.wired.com/story/how-to-save-a-town-from-rising-waters/
First lnks just more scare monger predictions while second link is about a town that has been effected by sediment build up and levees caused by real degradation to the environment not the global warming hysteria hype and propoganda. "Levees stopped the natural flow of fresh water and sediment that reinforced the fragile marshes. Oil and gas companies dredged through the mud to lay pipelines and build canals, carving paths for saltwater to intrude and kill the freshwater vegetation that held the land together". There you have facts, here you have hysteria and speculation. "The unstoppable, glacial momentum of sea-level rise has only made things worse."
Sea levels have been rising for the last 15,000 years and the last centuries rises have been unremarkable
Sea levels have been rising since the last Ice age ended and many ancient cities went under the ocean long before the internal combustion engine. Since then nary a one but in time yes some will also succumb to rising sea levels until we go into the next ice age.
