Approximately 13,000 islands around the world have increased land mass over two decades, disproving claims of climate alarmists about rising sea levels

submitted by Questionable from twitter.com

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]Canbot 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (11 children)

Because they have.

It is so because it is so.

Except that the it is so people have been caught lying in the past, and the it's not so people are relentlessly silenced and slandered. The vast majority of sea level rise happened millions of years ago. That kind of sea level rise will never happen again because the vast majority of the ice caps have already melted. Miles deep glaciers used to stretch all the way down to what is now Chicago.

The sea level rise propaganda claims that catastrophic sea level rise will happen in the near future, and that is just not true. But when you call out that propaganda everyone starts shifting the goal posts and claiming they did not say that. But an inch over 100 years is not significant.

[–]Hematomato 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (10 children)

It is so because it is so.

It is so because we can measure it. Sea levels have risen about 8 inches since 1900. That's not an ideology. It's an observation.

The sea level rise propaganda claims that catastrophic sea level rise will happen in the near future, and that is just not true.

It all just depends on how you define "catastrophic" and how you define "near future."

Miami will be suddenly submerged in 2028? No. Ridiculous.

The Maldives won't have any natural land above water by 2150? Yeah, probably.

[–]Canbot 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (9 children)

It all just depends on how you define "catastrophic" and how you define "near future."

That's a funny game called "moving the goal posts". They define it as one thing to demand immediate and drastic action, then redefine it when it is time to show the facts. The fact is that there is nothing alarming about it. So anyone who is alarmed has been greatly misinformed. Bamboozled.

Sea levels have risen about 8 inches since 1900

Oh rly? According to NOAA it is 1 foot in the last 100 and 6 inches of that have been in the last 30 years. They go on to claim another foot in the next 30 years. This will not happen. When it doesn't happen they will move the goal posts and erase all evidence that they made these claims. And people like you will continue claiming that they are the experts and anyone who does not believe them is (enter every slander and insult). The "authorities" are liars. They claimed that New York would already be under water. They claimed that the Arctic ocean would be ice free by now.

"Hur dur global warming exists" is not a valid excuse. It does not excuse their lies. It does not justify continuing to believe them and demand that everyone believe them. It absolutely does not justify drastic and harmful government policies, including those that simply cost a lot of money.

Global warming is not an existential threat, it is an inconvenience at best. The institutions that we used to rely on to give us the facts have been corrupted and turned against us to implement horribly destructive programs that benefit the oligarchs at the expense of everyone else. Controlling CO2 will not slow down global warming in any meaningful way.

[–]Hematomato 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

My understanding of climate change isn't based on "them" or "their motives" or "who is and isn't an expert."

It's based on reading data. A combination of reading both the scientific publications directly and reading sources I trust to summarize papers without partisan editorializing.

Anthropogenic climate change is happening. It's real. The planet is warming and the oceans are rising.

It's also quite slow on the timeline of a single human life. It's not something that "hasn't happened but is going to." It's been happening for centuries and it will continue to happen, so slowly that any given individual person can barely notice it.

It's also global, and therefore our system of national governments is probably profoundly helpless to stop it.

[–]Canbot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

Anthropogenic climate change is happening.

It's been happening for centuries and it will continue to happen

Has it always been anthropogenic? Why centuries, has it not been in constant flux since the planet formed?

[–]Hematomato 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

Studies show that measurable anthropogenic climate change began with the deforestation of Europe in the Middle Ages.

It was nothing anyone would notice without instruments, though. It's accelerated vastly since the widespread use of oil as a power source.

has it not been in constant flux since the planet formed?

It has, but never this quickly without a supervolcano or asteroid in the mix.

[–]Canbot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Studies show that measurable anthropogenic climate change began with the deforestation of Europe in the Middle Ages.

Why should the forests of Europe be so powerful as to change the world's climate? Isn't that just one of those silly "blame everything bad on white people" tropes? 12% of the world's population on 6.8% of the world's land covering 2% of the surface of the planet and it was the slow and primitive manual labor tree felling that started climate change. That sir, is absurd.

It has, but never this quickly without a supervolcano or asteroid in the mix.

Surely you don't claim this is a fact base on science.

What is the actual mechanism by which humans control the climate? Is it number of trees? Are you aware of the fact that there are more trees now then before the Middle Ages?

[–]Hematomato 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Why should the forests of Europe be so powerful as to change the world's climate? Isn't that just one of those silly "blame everything bad on white people" tropes? 12% of the world's population on 6.8% of the world's land covering 2% of the surface of the planet and it was the slow and primitive manual labor tree felling that started climate change. That sir, is absurd.

Like I said, the change due to the deforestation of Europe was tiny and not noticable by human beings without instruments. But it was measurable with modern instruments. Why Europe? Just because it was the first continent to be deforested. And losing 1% of the world's trees does change the ratio of oxygen to carbon dioxide in a measurable way.

What is the actual mechanism by which humans control the climate?

Our activities change the ratio of oxygen to carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

[–]Canbot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Are you aware that before the ice age started the concentration of co2 was 4k ppm and today it is only 400 ppm?

How did we enter into massive global cooling during a time when co2 was 100x higher?

[–]Hematomato 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

During the last ice age, the concentration of atmospheric CO2 was, on average, 180 ppm. Today it's 423ppm.

The last time it was about 4,000 ppm (which is 10x higher, not 100x higher) was during the Ordovician. That was 500 million years ago, and the surface temperature at that point was an average of 120 degrees Fahrenheit, compared to 59 degrees today.

[–]Questionable[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

"My understanding of climate change isn't based on 'them' or 'their motives' or 'who is and isn't an expert.' It's based on reading data. A combination of reading both the scientific publications directly and reading sources I trust to summarize papers without partisan editorializing."