Climate Change Puts Buildings, Coastlines, The North At Most Risk: Report Extreme wea

[furrowtickler]

Then show us the science that proves it is not important or that it won't cause coastal flooding.

Jazz just did ..... you ignored it . Sea level is sea level . The same wherever coastal properties are ding bat

[furrowtickler]

So in many places on earth , surface fluctuations happen constantly, especially around the unstable pacific rim ... chuck where you not taught that in school ????

It’s called plate tectonics.... it happens, and has for a millennial
There are many coastal places all around the planet that have risen and fallen long long before fossil fuels, get you head out of your ass

[furrowtickler]

The Hip new about this years ago ...
New Orleans is Sinking Baby ....
hello 👋

[chuckChuck]

A5 glad to see you have accepted that human caused climate change and global warming is accelerating sea level rise. We have made progress!

There is a range of predictions and models but no matter what the predictions or models say there is certainty that sea levels are rising and that coastal flooding and disruption is occurring and will continue to get worse. There will be a significant cost.

The rise is relatively slow and seems inconsequential unless you happen to be living on a vulnerable coast where flooding and storm surges are a threat.

Most people are worried about the next day and can't plan for a future that is far off beyond their
lifetimes.

I am not sure why some posters can't accept the science of climate change and different points of views without personal attacks and threats?

As I have said make your argument and post the science from a credible source to backup your point.
If you can't do that then why are you bothering to post?

Here is a challenge. Name one credible scientific organization that says that the prevailing climate science proving human caused climate change is all wrong. Activist and denial organizations don't count. Good luck.

[AlbertaFarmer5]

Don't have to get rid of the "like" button, just move it away from the "reply to" button. And while you're at it put a dislike button up too but far enough away from other buttons so fat fingers don't make mistakes.

Or you could just trade in the useless touchscreen phone for a real Blackberry phone with a keyboard and touchpad, then you can just move the cursor over the reply button and precisely push the reply arrow instead of randomly guessing where a fat finger on a touchscreen might actually land.

I have yet to accidentally like a post by Chuck or Austranada thanks to the Blackberry Classic phones.

Perfect for one handed operation while operating equipment also.

[AlbertaFarmer5]

There is a range of predictions and models but no matter what the predictions or models say there is certainty that sea levels are rising and that coastal flooding and disruption is occurring and will continue to get worse. There will be a significant cost.

The rise is relatively slow and seems inconsequential unless you happen to be living on a vulnerable coast where flooding and storm surges are a threat.

Most people are worried about the next day and can't plan for a future that is far off beyond their
lifetimes.

Yes, there is absolute certainty that sea levels are rising, that certainty comes from the fact that they started rising long before anthropogenic CO2 was an issue. The range of guesses which according to your earlier sources is between no acceleration and 2000% acceleration per century is not quite so certain. Well actually it was 90% certain as per the source, but I'm not sure how to apply that certain uncertainty to my real world situation.

But back to the Smithsonian numbers, and the rise I calculated in a previous post. According to their numbers, we will get a foot of sea level rise in 200 years no matter what, and thanks to CO2, it may only take 150 years to get the same foot. So now can we figure out where to devote our scarce resources in the fight against relentless SLR? Do you think we should continue to pretend that all SLR is human caused and in order to solve all the problems presented in your report at the beginning of the thread, focus all of our resources to fighting CO2, only to have the very same problems occur a few years later anyways due to natural causes, or should we perhaps accept that adaptation is going to be required either way, and get on with real infrastructure type solutions, and accepting that some areas cannot be saved in the long term(with or without human influence)?

Now do you see why I say that SLR as a poster child for the CAGW cause is such a sacred cow? Even DML was smart enough to abandon ship when he knew the answer wouldn't suit the agenda, but now you have gone and blown the lid wide open. It doesn't sound nearly as scary now does it. And remember, this is all using the grossly inaccurate adjusted numbers, if we instead use undoctored continuous tide gauge numbers the acceleration becomes almost imperceptible.

Do you think that alarmist reports such as the one you started the thread with should have a responsibility to note that all of their predicted disasters are inevitable with or without CAGW, but have a probability (with a range of uncertainty) of occuring a bit sooner with enough added CO2? Or would that not be alarmist enough?

But thanks again for your help.

[jazz]

chuck seriously you have got to have a cold shower and engage your brain. The lab coats are not infallible, they are people just like everyone and they spotted a gravy train 30 yrs ago.

All oceans are connected so sea level rise is going to be the same everywhere. So a place like New Orleans who might see a 10 ft storm surge during a hurricane will now see a 10.1 ft storm surge when sea levels rise. Its not going to mean anything for places we shouldn't be living.

I have explained clearly why climate science should be scrutinized and even ridiculed. There are two reasons, the facts on the ground differ from reality. The first climate alarmists started in 1989 and her we are. That means the models are fd or being manipulated. The earth is not a greenhouse. It is an open system and the geology of the planet has a big impact on our climate and weather. Plus trying to model a dozen non steady state variables is impossible. From someone who used to run simulations, the computer will never converge to a solution unless it is fed concrete data as an start condition. They don't have that, so they fudge it to force the models to converge.

On top of that we have other variables we cant even measure not even included in the models like low level clouds, tectonic events, volcanos, undersea vents, heat loss transfer from the mantle, heat loss into space, solar cycles, sunspots, forest fires, carbon sinks, carbon gradients in the ocean, etc etc.

[AlbertaFarmer5]

Here is a challenge. Name one credible scientific organization that says that the prevailing climate science proving human caused climate change is all wrong. Activist and denial organizations don't count. Good luck.

Now, why would I need to prove human caused climate change is all wrong after we just finished agreeing that SLR is caused by both natural factors, and a highly ( laughably) uncertain human component. We have some common ground now, lets build on that instead.

And it should be noted that when you get to frame the debate by defining anyone who disagrees with the alarmist script as an activist or denier, and therefore not acceptable, would make the challenge impossible, now wouldn't it?

[jazz]

Chucks go to is NOAA or NASA. Here is a former NOAA big wig refuting climate change.

https://www.climatedepot.com/2019/07/30/former-award-winning-noaa-scientist-dr-rex-fleming-declares-his-climate-dissent-converted-from-warmist-to-skeptic-explains-why-climate-change-theory-is-bunk/?fbclid=IwAR0phBlmRV7M0UKELGT3SdG8kiy9QEyIP49nvtZQ 5j6uhK1eIPCcogqn9kU Former Award-Winning NOAA scientist Dr. Rex Fleming declares his climate dissent

[chuckChuck]

Chucks go to is NOAA or NASA. Here is a former NOAA big wig refuting climate change.

https://www.climatedepot.com/2019/07/30/former-award-winning-noaa-scientist-dr-rex-fleming-declares-his-climate-dissent-converted-from-warmist-to-skeptic-explains-why-climate-change-theory-is-bunk/?fbclid=IwAR0phBlmRV7M0UKELGT3SdG8kiy9QEyIP49nvtZQ 5j6uhK1eIPCcogqn9kU Former Award-Winning NOAA scientist Dr. Rex Fleming declares his climate dissent

Science is made up of more than just one researchers work. What scientific organization and collection of climate scientists support his position?

Your post is from a denial activist site. Not a credible source of science sorry.