The Nonsense of Trudeau's climate change policies

[Right To Left]

 

On 4/25/2021 at 1:42 PM, cougar said:

It is also physically impossible to pay off the national debt, but we are still taxed and payments are made.

But yes, it is impossible for as long as our population is that big and continues to expand.

Reduce people and meeting the goals will become easier and easier.

Are you advocating genocide? How do you plan to reduce "our" population?

Certainly, population numbers all over the world are reducing right now, with a pandemic and an already existing trend of declining birth rates for a whole range of possible reasons(including increasing infertility caused by increasing environmental toxins), all over the world. 

But, the main reason CO2 and other GHG levels are still increasing in the atmosphere is because the drive to industrialize the last 'undeveloped' mostly pastoral nations in the world, starting with China and India, but even extending into Africa now.

Turning the world's population of approx. 7.8 billion people from farmers and herders mostly growing their own food, into urbanized consumers living in industrialized cities means a huge shift towards more and more people producing increasing emissions and other air and water pollution...that rarely gets discussed because of all the focus on carbon emissions. Just sayin, there are other problems, but simple people enjoying the fruits of their own labour isn't one of them.

[myata]

2 hours ago, Argus said:

I'm not questioning the real, observable changes, just the Liberals' plan to deal with them.

OK, that is a legitimate question. But is it Liberal plan, Conservative plan, Canadian plan or humanity plan? We may have several decades to find out. Changing human behavior in such a dramatic way within such a short interval is probably unprecedented, at least nothing jumps to mind.

A short while back there was a documentary about the new thermonuclear project, Iter. Potentially a sun right here on Earth, unlimited cheap and clean energy. So the climate problem solved, a new paradise on Earth? Wait: even if it comes to fruition, where would the energy from all the thousand suns dissipate? We are so good at creating problems we have no idea (scratch that) don't even care how and who would solve.

[Argus]

22 hours ago, myata said:

OK, that is a legitimate question. But is it Liberal plan, Conservative plan, Canadian plan or humanity plan?

It's an impossible plan. If it calls for 50 new gigantic dams there aren't enough rivers to dam and the opposition from natives and environmental groups would keep every project tied up for decades. Same goes for the dozens of nuclear plants we'd need, presuming we had a trillion dollars to build them.

[GrittyLeftist]

In 1987 I was a nerdy 6 year old who really liked astronomy.  I read every book I could find in my local library about our solar system, and because I was way out in the sticks, most of those books were written in the 50s-70s.  I learned that Venus is farther away from the Sun than Mercury is, but Mercury is much less hot - surface temperature of Venus is ~900F while on Mercury is ~800F, even though Venus is about 31 million miles farther from the Sun than Mercury.  The reason, I learned, is because Venus' atmosphere is mostly carbon dioxide and methane, which are "greenhouse gasses" that trap heat.

FWIW, the only scientists who dispute that greenhouse gasses can alter the climate of planets are the ideological heirs of the doctors who were paid by tobacco companies to testify absurdities like, "passive smoking is not harmful."  

If anyone is interested and considers the Scientific American to be a reliable source I could offer them this link: Tobacco and Oil Industries Used Same Researchers to Sway Public - Scientific American

____________

OK, let's pretend I've proven to everyone that climate change is real and we should do something about it - I haven't, but whatchagonnado?  Let's talk about Trudeau's new plan.  Several things can be true at the same time - it doesn't go far enough, it lacks sufficient international buy-in, it is not the most efficient way to rein in the harmful effects of pollution, it allows political expediency to trump real science in some particulars, it is better than Trudeau's old plan.  Good arguments can be made to support these ideas, among others.  However, politics is not a choice between perfection and the prime minister.  It is a choice between multiple competing imperfect people, parties and ideas.

Rather than, "is this the perfect way forward," we perhaps ought to ask, "is this an improvement over the plans put forward by other electable politicians?"

Viewed through this lens, we might be able to arrive at more reasonable and helpful conclusions.

Just a thought; thanks for reading!

[myata]

17 hours ago, Argus said:

It's an impossible plan.

OK, is there a better one, with even remote possibility of success? Is another party offering it? I'm not very hopeful generally, given that the drive to expand and consume the entire environment is natural and possibly genetically coded in the humanity. And the ability of this country to achieve any real progress in any real problem and by measurable factors rather than endless panel discussions, programs, budget allocations, reports, public inquiries (SARS-1, SARS-2, ....). I just have no comments at this point. Either we'll see something new for a change; or it'll end up as it always did, with a bunch of billions spent (call it "invested" if like) and bunch of useless reports on the shelves.

[PIK]

16 hours ago, GrittyLeftist said:

In 1987 I was a nerdy 6 year old who really liked astronomy.  I read every book I could find in my local library about our solar system, and because I was way out in the sticks, most of those books were written in the 50s-70s.  I learned that Venus is farther away from the Sun than Mercury is, but Mercury is much less hot - surface temperature of Venus is ~900F while on Mercury is ~800F, even though Venus is about 31 million miles farther from the Sun than Mercury.  The reason, I learned, is because Venus' atmosphere is mostly carbon dioxide and methane, which are "greenhouse gasses" that trap heat.

FWIW, the only scientists who dispute that greenhouse gasses can alter the climate of planets are the ideological heirs of the doctors who were paid by tobacco companies to testify absurdities like, "passive smoking is not harmful."  

If anyone is interested and considers the Scientific American to be a reliable source I could offer them this link: Tobacco and Oil Industries Used Same Researchers to Sway Public - Scientific American

____________

OK, let's pretend I've proven to everyone that climate change is real and we should do something about it - I haven't, but whatchagonnado?  Let's talk about Trudeau's new plan.  Several things can be true at the same time - it doesn't go far enough, it lacks sufficient international buy-in, it is not the most efficient way to rein in the harmful effects of pollution, it allows political expediency to trump real science in some particulars, it is better than Trudeau's old plan.  Good arguments can be made to support these ideas, among others.  However, politics is not a choice between perfection and the prime minister.  It is a choice between multiple competing imperfect people, parties and ideas.

Rather than, "is this the perfect way forward," we perhaps ought to ask, "is this an improvement over the plans put forward by other electable politicians?"

Viewed through this lens, we might be able to arrive at more reasonable and helpful conclusions.

Just a thought; thanks for reading!

It us up to the people to change, which we are seeing. Put a Gov in charge, especially this one and all we get is taxed when we all want to be vaxed.

[GrittyLeftist]

1 hour ago, PIK said:

It us up to the people to change, which we are seeing. Put a Gov in charge, especially this one and all we get is taxed when we all want to be vaxed.

Who are "the people?"  Is it a club I can join?  Are there meetings?  Which changes are they making, specifically?  Are they making those changes based on the best available, peer-reviewed science?  Who are they accountable to?  Do they release progress reports?

I'm not trying to be a clever jerk, I get that government will always be imperfect and frustrating, but what is the alternative?  If we weaken our government, it will leave a power vacuum.  Who will fill that vacuum, if not profit-driven multinational corporations?  What legal, nonviolent means does one individual have to oppose a multinational corporation?  

The problem with "personal responsibility" is that it pretends we are not affected by the actions of other people.  Our current plague is a great example - most people did take "personal responsibility" to stop the spread of this virus, but their efforts were wasted by a few extremely selfish individuals, and now we are here. 

[Aristides]

On 4/25/2021 at 2:28 PM, Infidel Dog said:

Yes, the artic ice sheet is currently decreasing as it sometimes does. Mostly due to current and wind is what I heard. 

Meanwhile the Antarctic ice was setting growth records not too long ago.

As to methane...that's the scary word of the day, is it?

Here's a guy looking at a study examining the final effect of the methane feedback loop, which I believe is what you're trying to get at.

The Arctic Methane Scare: Oversold

 

As for what this means for the methane/temperature feedback loop during a warming climate, the authors summarize [references omitted]:

The short- and long-term surface air temperature sensitivity based on the 29 years of observed enhancements of CH4 [methane] in air masses coming from the North Slope provides an important basis for estimating the CH4 emission response to changing air temperatures in Arctic tundra. By 2080, autumn (and winter) temperatures in the Arctic are expected to change by an additional 3 to 6°C. Based on the long-term temperature sensitivity estimate made in this study, increases in the average enhancements on the North Slope will be only between -2 and 17 ppb (3 to 6°C x 1.1 ± 1.8 ppb of CH4/°C). Based on the short-term relationship calculated, the enhancements may be as large as 30 ppb. These two estimates translate to a -3 – 45% change in the mean (~65 ppb) CH4 enhancement observed at [Barrow] from July through December. Applying this enhancement to an Arctic-wide natural emissions rate estimate of 19 Tg/yr estimated during the 1990s and implies that tundra-based emissions might increase to as much as 28 Tg/yr by 2080. This amount represents a small increase (1.5%) relative to the global CH4 emissions of 553 Tg/yr that have been estimated based on atmospheric inversions.

In other words, even if the poorly understood long-term processes aren’t sustained, the short term methane/temperature relationship itself doesn’t lead to climate catastrophe.

The favorite thoroughbreds of the methane scare are proving to be little more than a bunch of claimers.

Sea ice comes and goes but continental ice sheets are in rapid decline. It's that ice melt which effects sea levels, salinity and weather.

Greenland

Antarctic

North American Glaciers

It isn't just fossil fuel consumption.

Bottom trawling of oceans releases as much CO2 as aviation industry.

[Army Guy]

48 minutes ago, GrittyLeftist said:

Who are "the people?"  Is it a club I can join?  Are there meetings?  Which changes are they making, specifically?  Are they making those changes based on the best available, peer-reviewed science?  Who are they accountable to?  Do they release progress reports?

I'm not trying to be a clever jerk, I get that government will always be imperfect and frustrating, but what is the alternative?  If we weaken our government, it will leave a power vacuum.  Who will fill that vacuum, if not profit-driven multinational corporations?  What legal, nonviolent means does one individual have to oppose a multinational corporation?  

The problem with "personal responsibility" is that it pretends we are not affected by the actions of other people.  Our current plague is a great example - most people did take "personal responsibility" to stop the spread of this virus, but their efforts were wasted by a few extremely selfish individuals, and now we are here. 

The solution must be a Canadian one, as not all nations have the same issues as we do, it must incorporate every sector of our economy, and it must be used to create as much wealth as it can, going green is not cheap, and technology has not yet produced the holy grail to have us move off fossil fuels.  And with the covid reeking havoc on our economy it must also include a economic recovery plan that won't drive us into huge debt loads.

There is always going to be "those guys" , they have been part of the problem ever since man came out of the trees, the solution must take them into account.

[Infidel Dog]

1 hour ago, Aristides said:

Sea ice comes and goes but continental ice sheets are in rapid decline. It's that ice melt which effects sea levels, salinity and weather.

Greenland

Antarctic

North American Glaciers

It isn't just fossil fuel consumption.

Bottom trawling of oceans releases as much CO2 as aviation industry.

Like I said, my understanding of ice growth in the Antarctic was more just based on things I heard.

Here's another thing I heard. The Grace satellites on which the alarmist NASA GISS Antarctic measurements are based have questions as to their accuracy.

One of the criticisms I remember was to their being spotty. One or the other of Grace 1 or 2 was intermittently running out of juice. In 2017 they had to terminate the whole project for a year until they could get a replacement satellite up there. 

2017 btw is the year I was talking about that Antarctic ice growth set record growth. Actually you should double-check that. I could be wrong.

Another thing about the Antarctic is most of the ice loss is in the West - an area known for underwater volcanic activity. Also in the northern tip known for south flowing tropical currents.

Fossil fuel has little to do with it.

Meanwhile sea level rise remains consistent at an unscary 7 inches per century.

Edited April 30, 2021 by Infidel Dog

[Argus]

6 hours ago, myata said:

OK, is there a better one, with even remote possibility of success?

This one does NOT have a remote possibility of success.

If we want to move towards eliminating fossil fuels in our energy system we need to go nuclear. However, that will be a slow, painful process as environmental groups and natives will fight every plant every step of the way. And the regulations the Trudeau government has put in place mean years and years and YEARS of reports, hearings, protests and lawsuits before any can be built.

But realistically, there's nothing we can do while the developing world is on a crash building program for hundreds and hundreds of coal fired power plants. So we ought to be considering how a warmer climate will impact Canada and putting in the necessary infrastructure and regulations to allow us to best adapt to it.

 

 

[myata]

33 minutes ago, Argus said:

And the regulations the Trudeau government has put in place mean years and years and YEARS of reports, hearings, protests and lawsuits before any can be built.

But realistically, there's nothing we can do while the developing world is on a crash building program for hundreds and hundreds of coal fired power plants.

So we ought to be considering how a warmer climate will impact Canada and putting in the necessary infrastructure and regulations to allow us to best adapt to it.

Whatever we want to say about Trudeau, it's a fact that he came to power in 2015. Before him there were several governments, both Liberal and Conservative and nothing real was done to address this problem. The facts simply do not support the statement that this is a partisan problem. This is a Canadian problem and a global one as well.

On another send off to the developing world; not that it smacks of hypocrisy, it also does not make much sense logically: if developed countries fail to make real and measurable progress, how likely it would be to happen in poorer countries laced with other problems and challenges? It only means relegation of responsibility and an admission that nothing will be done. And that is a self-fulfilling prophecy.

And on the last point, what makes you think that after decades of running from responsibility and pointing fingers, politically and internationally, we would be able to come up with a sound, effective and working mitigation strategy? Who would create such a strategy? Politicians? The bureaucracy, always sound and effective? And should we keep on burning the environment and oilsands while trying to catch up with mitigation? How can one have effective mitigation without effective management of emissions and pollution? Ok that's way more questions than answers.

 

[Aristides]

1 hour ago, Infidel Dog said:

Like I said, my understanding of ice growth in the Antarctic was more just based on things I heard.

Here's another thing I heard. The Grace satellites on which the alarmist NASA GISS Antarctic measurements are based have questions as to their accuracy.

One of the criticisms I remember was to their being spotty. One or the other of Grace 1 or 2 was intermittently running out of juice. In 2017 they had to terminate the whole project for a year until they could get a replacement satellite up there. 

2017 btw is the year I was talking about that Antarctic ice growth set record growth. Actually you should double-check that. I could be wrong.

Another thing about the Antarctic is most of the ice loss is in the West - an area known for underwater volcanic activity. Also in the northern tip known for south flowing tropical currents.

Fossil fuel has little to do with it.

Meanwhile sea level rise remains consistent at an unscary 7 inches per century.

Sea ice reached a maximum in 2014 but that is frozen ocean and has nothing to do with glacial ice which is what the study covers. People always question the accuracy of things that tell them what they don't want to hear. The interesting thing is that denier organizations like the Global Warming Policy Foundation don't do any research of their own and won't reveal who provides their funding.

[Infidel Dog]

Was the record Antarctic sea ice extant 2014? You looked it up so I'll believe you. I thought it was more recent. Guess not.

It's true melted ocean ice doesn't raise sea level but something alarmists will hastily point out when it favors them but ignore when it doesn't is sea ice melt along the shore allows land ice access to the water.

Whatever...the essential fact remains. Sea level rise is currently at an unscary 7 inches rise per century. We can easily adapt to that. It goes up and down but levels at that. I heard it's about the same currently that it's been since the glaciers that grew during the Little Ice Age began to melt at the end of it, around the last half of the 19th century. 

[Right To Left]

6 minutes ago, Infidel Dog said:

It's true melted ocean ice doesn't raise sea level but something alarmists will hastily point out when it favors them but ignore when it doesn't is sea ice melt along the shore allows land ice access to the water.

 

While deniers grab for the most dubious claims made by disingenuous self-proclaimed experts who take money from energy companies and other sources who figured out quickly that serious efforts to prevent climate change, and even the half-assed measures our governments have been willing to do in recent times, will hurt the profit numbers of big oil and allied industries who want cheap energy while paying no consequences for the environmental impacts.

Quote

Whatever...the essential fact remains. Sea level rise is currently at an unscary 7 inches rise per century. We can easily adapt to that. It goes up and down but levels at that. I heard it's about the same currently that it's been since the glaciers that grew during the Little Ice Age began to melt at the end of it, around the last half of the 19th century. 

Back 15 or so years ago, the so called 'skeptics' like Anthony Watts were claiming that sea levels weren't really rising because of some sea level gauges along the coast of Australia, were found to be slowly sinking over time......or some bullshit! But, there's always a fallback position, and now it's 7 inches per century. Unless sea level rise is accelerating, like CO2 levels and average temperatures. Then, there might be a case to be made that we can expect sea levels to rise faster and higher than the most alarming projections 25 or 30 years ago, when Al Gore was in full swing!

 

And when was the last time sea levels went down? 

Current sea level rise is after all not exaggerated, in fact the opposite case is more plausible. Observational data and changing conditions in such places as Greenland suggest if there's a real problem here it's underestimation of future sea level rise. IPCC synthesis reports offer conservative projections of sea level increase based on assumptions about future behavior of ice sheets and glaciers, leading to estimates of sea level roughly following a linear upward trend mimicking that of recent decades. In point of fact, observed sea level rise is already above IPCC projections and strongly hints at acceleration while at the same time it appears the mass balance of continental ice envisioned by the IPCC is overly optimistic (Rahmstorf 2010 ). 

https://skepticalscience.com/sea-level-rise.htm

[Aristides]

1 hour ago, Infidel Dog said:

Was the record Antarctic sea ice extant 2014? You looked it up so I'll believe you. I thought it was more recent. Guess not.

It's true melted ocean ice doesn't raise sea level but something alarmists will hastily point out when it favors them but ignore when it doesn't is sea ice melt along the shore allows land ice access to the water.

Whatever...the essential fact remains. Sea level rise is currently at an unscary 7 inches rise per century. We can easily adapt to that. It goes up and down but levels at that. I heard it's about the same currently that it's been since the glaciers that grew during the Little Ice Age began to melt at the end of it, around the last half of the 19th century. 

Why would you expect ice melt rate to remain constant when the planet is warming? It isn't just about melting ice that affects sea levels, as the oceans warm they also expand. 

https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/

[Infidel Dog]

38 minutes ago, Right To Left said:

While deniers grab for the most dubious claims made by disingenuous self-proclaimed experts who take money from energy companies and other sources who figured out quickly that serious efforts to prevent climate change, and even the half-assed measures our governments have been willing to do in recent times, will hurt the profit numbers of big oil and allied industries who want cheap energy while paying no consequences for the environmental impacts.

Warmiac nonsense.

You won't let it go, so very well...let's deal with it.

Here's a post from the site you hate based on the lie they are financed by big oil. They aren't so if you're going to lie about them it seems fair to let them have the counter to defend themselves:

" 

Big Oil goes Big Green

Oil companies give billions to climate alarmists, but hardly a dime to climate realists

David Wojick

Climate alarmists often accuse skeptics, like myself and independent groups like the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow and Heartland Institute, of being in the pay of Big Oil. This is completely false – the Big Lie repeated so often that people eventually believe it. We do not receive even a dime from Big Oil. It’s part of the green fairy tale that skepticism exists only because the oil companies are funding it.

For the record, none of us skeptics – climate realists – doubt or deny climate change. We all recognize that Earth’s climate is in nearly constant turmoil and fluctuation, locally, regionally or globally.

What we question is assertions that emissions from fossil fuel use have somehow replaced the sun and other powerful natural forces that have driven beneficial, benign, harmful or even hugely destructive climate changes throughout Earth and human history:

Changes such as at least five glacial periods that buried much of North America, Europe and Asia under mile-high rivers of ice, warm periods in between that melted those massive glaciers, Roman and Medieval Warm Periods, a Little Ice Age, the century-long Anasazi and Mayan droughts, the Dust Bowl, and countless other major and minor climate and weather changes.

The standard refrain is that ExxonMobil gave a cumulative few million dollars to various skeptical groups prior to 2007. But that was many years ago. They got scared off by alarmist pressure groups and haven’t given climate realists a dime since then. In fact, the situation today is completely the opposite.

Big Oil companies now give at least a billion dollars a year to climate alarmists, projects and lobbying, to drive the Manmade Climate Chaos narrative...
 

More at link

 

Edited April 30, 2021 by Infidel Dog

[Right To Left]

4 minutes ago, Infidel Dog said:

Warmiac nonsense.

You won't let it go, so very well...let's deal with it.

Here's a post from the site you hate based on the lie they are financed by big oil. They aren't so if you're going to lie about them it seems fair to let them have the counter to defend themselves:

" 

Big Oil goes Big Green

Oil companies give billions to climate alarmists, but hardly a dime to climate realists

David Wojick

Climate alarmists often accuse skeptics, like myself and independent groups like the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow and Heartland Institute, of being in the pay of Big Oil. This is completely false – the Big Lie repeated so often that people eventually believe it. We do not receive even a dime from Big Oil. It’s part of the green fairy tale that skepticism exists only because the oil companies are funding it.

For the record, none of us skeptics – climate realists – doubt or deny climate change. We all recognize that Earth’s climate is in nearly constant turmoil and fluctuation, locally, regionally or globally.

What we question is assertions that emissions from fossil fuel use have somehow replaced the sun and other powerful natural forces that have driven beneficial, benign, harmful or even hugely destructive climate changes throughout Earth and human history:

Changes such as at least five glacial periods that buried much of North America, Europe and Asia under mile-high rivers of ice, warm periods in between that melted those massive glaciers, Roman and Medieval Warm Periods, a Little Ice Age, the century-long Anasazi and Mayan droughts, the Dust Bowl, and countless other major and minor climate and weather changes.

The standard refrain is that ExxonMobil gave a cumulative few million dollars to various skeptical groups prior to 2007. But that was many years ago. They got scared off by alarmist pressure groups and haven’t given climate realists a dime since then. In fact, the situation today is completely the opposite.

Big Oil companies now give at least a billion dollars a year to climate alarmists, projects and lobbying, to drive the Manmade Climate Chaos narrative...
 

More at link

 

So what does that prove!  Prior to the BP Gulf of Mexico disaster, BP was running an ad campaign calling itself "Beyond Petroleum." And then they doubled down on the crude because major banks and hedge funders were telling them that there wasn't enough money in putting solar panels on the roof.

I've heard Naomi Oreskes (Merchants of Doubt) talk about masters of disaster she wrote about in her book on rightwing scientists, and yes, many of them appear to be more motivated by ideology than money!  The first line of global warming deniers began as deniers for the tobacco industry, helping them with their claims that there was no connection between second hand smoke and lung cancer......until the cig makers decided their position was untenable and started settling the class action lawsuits!

Most of the climate changing believin greens are not alarmists, but I am! And I think the scientists who veer towards the less lucrative alarmist edge have more legitimacy, because their longstanding claims that Co2 levels, global average temperature and sea levels are rising exponentially, keeps gathering more and more supporting evidence every year. The problem is that actually doing something about the crisis can't be accommodated with business as usual capitalism! And even green libs just want a modified constant growth capitalism, not the end of it, like I believe has to be done!

[Infidel Dog]

The fact remains Big Oil may have donated a few million to organizations disagreeing with the alarmist narrative a decade or so ago. Any evidence that continues to this day or more specifically is comparable to the billions it currently outlays to alarmists comes only out the warmiac butt-hole.

 

[Infidel Dog]

Now RTL, as to your link to the oft-debunked Jim Cook and his mislabeled blog Skeptical Science you seem determined to misrepresent his opposition - WUWT - so again, it's fair to give it the counter:

Quote

NASA says current satellite-measured Sea Level Rise is about 3.3 mm/yr, with a century-long trend of “nearly” 1.78 mm/yr.   There have been multiple attempts to make the latest 25 years of data show dangerous acceleration – but anyone with eyes can see that it just ain’t so.  Note that the starting date of 1993 for the above graph is dictated by the beginning of the satellite Sea Level record – to go back a century, one must use Tide Gauge data and patching the satellite record onto the tide gauge record produces an invalid time series (apples and oranges). 

[Late addition: Note that NASA’s long-term estimate of Global Sea Level Rise over the last 100 years is “nearly” 7 inches.]

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2021/04/30/the-supermoon-and-slr/

Edited April 30, 2021 by Infidel Dog

[Aristides]

25 minutes ago, Infidel Dog said:

Now RTL, as to your link to the oft-debunked Jim Cook and his mislabeled blog Skeptical Science you seem determined to misrepresent his opposition - WUWT - so again, it's fair to give it the counter:

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2021/04/30/the-supermoon-and-slr/

That's the estimate for the last 100 years, not the next 100 years. I'll ask again, why would you expect the melt rate of glaciers and the expansion of oceans remain the same as the world heats up?

[Infidel Dog]

19 minutes ago, Aristides said:

That's the estimate for the last 100 years, not the next 100 years. I'll ask again, why would you expect the melt rate of glaciers and the expansion of oceans remain the same as the world heats up?

I just gave you a graph containing a claim sea level has risen. NASA says about 7 inches a century in the last century. So obviously sea level doesn't remain the same. It has been rising. So far the rise doesn't seem to be that scary.

What you actually seem to asking me is why am I not afraid of some scary, much, much, much greater rise you seem to hope believe might happen in the future.

It's a silly question but it seems important to you so I'll answer you. I'm not afraid of these exaggerated prophecies of 10 to 30 foot sea level rises in the next 5 to a hundred years because I don't see any evidence of them.

Edited May 1, 2021 by Infidel Dog

[Aristides]

1 hour ago, Infidel Dog said:

I just gave you a graph containing a claim sea level has risen. NASA says about 7 inches a century in the last century. So obviously sea level doesn't remain the same. It has been rising. So far the rise doesn't seem to be that scary.

What you actually seem to asking me is why am I not afraid of some scary, much, much, much greater rise you seem to hope believe might happen in the future.

It's a silly question but it seems important to you so I'll answer you. I'm not afraid of these exaggerated prophecies of 10 to 30 foot sea level rises in the next 5 to a hundred years because I don't see any evidence of them.

And I gave you a graph that shows the earth is warming. You do realize that ice melts faster and things expand more when they get warmer?

 

Edited May 1, 2021 by Aristides

[Infidel Dog]

And it was getting warmer and briefly ice did melt faster. Not enough to worry about though.

[Aristides]

1 hour ago, Infidel Dog said:

And it was getting warmer and briefly ice did melt faster. Not enough to worry about though.

It is not getting warner briefly,it is getting warmer period and melting rates will accelerate. What is so difficult to understand about that?

According to your sea level chart, the sea level variation between 1995 and 2000 was about 10 mm. Between 2015 and 2020 it was about 25 mm.

Edited May 1, 2021 by Aristides