The Climate thread

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

Like a boss

 

[Dahobbs 18348]

1 hour ago, zork said:

I did read it.  No need for cataclysmic discussion when the facts can say it for you.  How many entire nations have been wiped off the face of the earth since 1989?

Again, fucking read. It doesn't say nations will be wiped off the face of the earth by 2000. It says they could potentially be wiped out (which they can be) sometime in the future if we don't act before the year 2000. That statement was 100% true at the time and still is. The whole point was that we could have avoided a significant possibility for cataclysmic damage by acting before 2000, not that the damage would occur by 2000.  

[mop 18]

2 hours ago, Dahobbs said:

You said we didnt start affecting the temperature until the 1950s. The truth is that we didnt become the dominant influence on the planet's climate until that time. Other natural mechanisms contribute to both warming and cooling. In the early 20th century natural mechanisms contributed to the warming seem in that period (e.g., less volcanic activity and changes in the suns cycle). Humans also contributed, mainly via co2. Each of them contributed about the same amount, roughly .1 to .15 degrees (celcius), to the observed warming in the early 20th century (which is what your chart is showing). However, since the 1950s, all warming that has occurred has been due to human activity. 

And, again, you cant just look at periods of increase in evaluating our effect on the climate. Even in periods of cooling, human activity caused that cooling to be shallower and shorter than it otherwise would have been.

ok, now we are getting somewhere.  So yes, I agree with much of what you said.  First of all, it is important to point out that the fact that we have warmed the earth is not entirely negative.  For that matter, the fact that we have added massive amounts of CO2 to the earth is not all bad either. Heck, mankind has added just under 900,000 square miles of forest (NET) in the past 4 decades...yet you would think from the environmental hysterical crowd that all the news is bad.  for the record, that means we have added an area the size of Alaska and Texas combined in forests to the earth.  In addition to that, we have seen the greening of the world's deserts by 15% over the past 50 years or so and much of that is sped along and improved because of more CO2 in the atmosphere.  

By reducing cooling, we have also not only done bad things. Mankind is at much greater risk of death and destruction heading towards ice ages than the other way around, but I agree we don't want to just keep warming indefinitely.  After a few degrees it would become largely negative for sure.  

[mop 18]

4 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

Again, fucking read. It doesn't say nations will be wiped off the face of the earth by 2000. It says they could potentially be wiped out (which they can be) sometime in the future if we don't act before the year 2000. That statement was 100% true at the time and still is. The whole point was that we could have avoided a significant possibility for cataclysmic damage by acting before 2000, not that the damage would occur by 2000.  

Do you have any notion at all what it means to "act" to prevent climate change?  We are talking about spending many trillions of dollars to affect the temperature 100 years out by 1 degree. Bjorn Lomborg (liberal, climate change believing Danish economist) estimated it would cost around $427,000,000,000,000 to reduce the temperature of the earth by 1 degree by 2100.  In other words, that sort of mitigation may hardly be worth it.  Instead, by letting the world's poorest countries develop we are much better equipped to face what may be coming as we continue to learn more about climate change.  

We were told that 2005 (when we had several large hurricanes) was the "new normal" then we went into the longest dearth of large hurricanes (3 and above) to make landfall in the US in over 100 years of keeping records.  But have no fear, every time a hurricane hits us now we are told it is somehow related to climate change. What was it during the 4,000 days of no large hurricanes making landfall?  Was that climate change too?  The inconsistency of alarmists on this topic is embarrassing.  Thankfully there are other realities that are taking precedent. I am quite pleased that the Eco-Imperialism of the West isn't doing too much damage to the developing world (though it is certainly doing some).  I want to see us have energy breakthroughs that make this discussion moot.  

[Dahobbs 18348]

4 minutes ago, mop said:

Do you have any notion at all what it means to "act" to prevent climate change?  We are talking about spending many trillions of dollars to affect the temperature 100 years out by 1 degree. Bjorn Lomborg (liberal, climate change believing Danish economist) estimated it would cost around $427,000,000,000,000 to reduce the temperature of the earth by 1 degree by 2100.  In other words, that sort of mitigation may hardly be worth it.  Instead, by letting the world's poorest countries develop we are much better equipped to face what may be coming as we continue to learn more about climate change.  

We were told that 2005 (when we had several large hurricanes) was the "new normal" then we went into the longest dearth of large hurricanes (3 and above) to make landfall in the US in over 100 years of keeping records.  But have no fear, every time a hurricane hits us now we are told it is somehow related to climate change. What was it during the 4,000 days of no large hurricanes making landfall?  Was that climate change too?  The inconsistency of alarmists on this topic is embarrassing.  Thankfully there are other realities that are taking precedent. I am quite pleased that the Eco-Imperialism of the West isn't doing too much damage to the developing world (though it is certainly doing some).  I want to see us have energy breakthroughs that make this discussion moot.  

This has nothing whatsoever to do with my post, which is merely pointing at the Zork can't fucking read or comprehend what he is reading. Also, I don't consider someone's opinions more valid or persuasive merely because they are described as "liberal." Lomborg is a political scientist with no background in climate science whatsoever. And his varied opinions on climate change are often contradictory and nonsensical. For instance, he appears to believe that any effort to curb carbon emissions is too expensive, and that renewables are inefficient. Yet he also advocates that the best approach to climate change is investing in renewables to make them more economical. Oh, and he thinks we should build thousands of robot ships to reflect the sun's rays. https://web.archive.org/web/20100811100015/http://cphpost.dk/news/international/89-international/46513-lomborg-says-armada-could-halt-global-warming.html

So, yeah. . . 

[hpslugga 4097]

48 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

Again, fucking read. It doesn't say nations will be wiped off the face of the earth by 2000. It says they could potentially be wiped out (which they can be) sometime in the future if we don't act before the year 2000. That statement was 100% true at the time and still is. The whole point was that we could have avoided a significant possibility for cataclysmic damage by acting before 2000, not that the damage would occur by 2000.  

Not only that, when you make a prediction that X will happen by Y year and it turns out that X happened by Z year, it doesn’t invalidate the whole fucking prediction.

Two weeks ago my wife and daughter and I  went to a birthday party. The host was asked to bring a guest a bottle of beer and when he reached into the cooler, he noticed that two of the bottles were conjoined by a chunk of ice. He laughed, pulled out the chunk and let it sit on the part of his deck where the sun was hitting. We then placed a small wager as to when the ice would melt to the point where the bottles would separate. A bunch of people said it would happen sooner than it eventually would. So they were wrong about the when, but they were correct about the what. Nobody said “it’ll never melt and that wet spot on the deck has nothing to do with anything.” They all knew it was going to melt, it was just a question of when.

Similarly, even if the timing of these AGW predictions were as wrong as these idiots claim, it does not invalidate the whole of the prediction. If I predicted 18 months ago that the 2018 Texas-OU game would be played on October 13 and it turns out that they would be scheduled for October 6, that doesn’t mean I was wrong about the two fucking teams playing each other for the whole year (or that they ever did).

[EMAWesome 101]

https://cei.org/blog/wrong-again-50-years-failed-eco-pocalyptic-predictions

[EMAWesome 101]

[EMAWesome 101]

[EMAWesome 101]

 

[EMAWesome 101]

April 9, 1980

Sep. 6, 1990

[EMAWesome 101]

New York Times Jan, 5, 1978

 

NASA data starting from 1979

[EMAWesome 101]

[EMAWesome 101]

[EMAWesome 101]

 

Oct. 23, 2001

[American Swindle 102]

23 hours ago, zork said:

Why are you fuckers negging mop?  He cares about the topic?  He brings discussion on the topic.  You may not agree with everything or anything he says but he is legitimately attempting to discuss the topic.  Let him talk, or at least don't neg him to bolivia and then, like swam, start talking months later about why he or his ilk aren't here talking with you about xyz.  He says he is a UT grad.  He has great fish stories too about his time on the coast.  Let him talk.

He hold's a position that's not on the 3x5 card of allowable opinion.

Mop vs. Mob

 

[EMAWesome 101]

 

 

[Biff Tannen 46190]

I really love this thread.  It just brings out the dumbest of the dumb.  Seriously, no other thread on this site do all of these mouth breathers congregate at once every time it is bumped.  Fascinating.

[EMAWesome 101]

[EMAWesome 101]

[EMAWesome 101]

 

 

[4th&Five 42018]

[hpslugga 4097]

26 minutes ago, 4th&Five said:

Exactly what my view looks like. Have no reason to sift through the bewildering inanities.

Edited September 18, 2019 by hpslugga

[DixonHur 11968]

So are these idiots denying the climate is changing or just that man is part of the reason why it's warming?

PS, here's a counterpoint to EW's lunacy...yep, global warming is a big ole made up nothing burger

 

Edited September 18, 2019 by DixonHur

[hayden_horn 11402]

here's the thing about arguing with the climate deniers: it's actually dogma for them. there is a strong correlation between evangelical and climate science belief. they are not here to take input, they are here for output, to preach the word. i'm 100% serious about this. they will never change their mind.

and here's the thing about he dishonest way that they frame the debate: we are actually in the middle of the catastrophe. it's not like a high speed car wreck, it's a lot more like a slow moving train wreck. we know our climate is changing. some of it may be due to natural climate fluctuation, but there is no denying that throwing a bunch of carbon into the air isn't affecting the larger trends.

and beyond that...what's so bad about a green new deal? we know it will create jobs, we know clean air and water are good things. we should aspire to be a better steward of the planet. i mean, shit, that's in the first book of the bible.

we are polluting our oceans. but the thinking is similar to air pollution: the ocean, like the atmosphere, is so big that certainly we are overstating our role in this, right? wrong. our ecosystem is hardy and flexible, but it is also a fairly delicate balance of things that allow us to eat sushi and farm corn. we should absolutely try to minimize our impact on that, and deal with the planet's changing climate as it happens to the best of our ability, as humans have always done.

there is finally movement on this front, real international movement. and how anyone wants to shout about "but, this article said this in 1978!" misses the goddamn forest for the trees. we are the frog enjoying the hot bath at the moment. if we don't find a way to turn off the fire, we will be that boiled frog. 

[Biff Tannen 46190]

3 minutes ago, hayden_horn said:

and beyond that...what's so bad about a green new deal? we know it will create jobs, we know clean air and water are good things. we should aspire to be a better steward of the planet. i mean, shit, that's in the first book of the bible.

This is something I have never understood.  Not just the Green New Deal, but environmental stewardship in general.  Who could be against that?  How is it possibly a bad thing?

[hayden_horn 11402]

3 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

This is something I have never understood.  Not just the Green New Deal, but environmental stewardship in general.  Who could be against that?  How is it possibly a bad thing?

it is such a weird and interesting disconnect. i mean, conservation and conservative share the same root word.  most people who actually live out in the land are republicans. i would argue that a majority of the hunters in the country are more right leaning folks. hell, probably most people who enjoy fishing are as well. most people who engage in these activities will talk about how they are performing an important environmental role, in being the apex predator for animals that no longer have that balancing force, such as central texas deer.

i don't understand why the idea of "conservative" stops when it comes to "conservation." if anything, republicans should be the more likely to want to conserve our land and waterways. 

 

[DixonHur 11968]

1 minute ago, hayden_horn said:

it is such a weird and interesting disconnect. i mean, conservation and conservative share the same root word.  most people who actually live out in the land are republicans. i would argue that a majority of the hunters in the country are more right leaning folks. hell, probably most people who enjoy fishing are as well. most people who engage in these activities will talk about how they are performing an important environmental role, in being the apex predator for animals that no longer have that balancing force, such as central texas deer.

i don't understand why the idea of "conservative" stops when it comes to "conservation." if anything, republicans should be the more likely to want to conserve our land and waterways. 

 

I saw a report on NBC Nightly News the other day talking about rising seas, and stronger hurricanes because of warming oceans.  They rode around in a boat with the mayor of some small island community in the Chesapeake Bay and he was lamenting how most of his community is now under water and he wants tax dollars to build a sea wall...meanwhile, he's wearing a Trump hat.  

I was literally stunned  

[Dirk X West 772]

20 minutes ago, hayden_horn said:

here's the thing about arguing with the climate deniers: it's actually dogma for them. there is a strong correlation between evangelical and climate science belief. they are not here to take input, they are here for output, to preach the word. i'm 100% serious about this. they will never change their mind.

and here's the thing about he dishonest way that they frame the debate: we are actually in the middle of the catastrophe. it's not like a high speed car wreck, it's a lot more like a slow moving train wreck. we know our climate is changing. some of it may be due to natural climate fluctuation, but there is no denying that throwing a bunch of carbon into the air isn't affecting the larger trends.

and beyond that...what's so bad about a green new deal? we know it will create jobs, we know clean air and water are good things. we should aspire to be a better steward of the planet. i mean, shit, that's in the first book of the bible.

we are polluting our oceans. but the thinking is similar to air pollution: the ocean, like the atmosphere, is so big that certainly we are overstating our role in this, right? wrong. our ecosystem is hardy and flexible, but it is also a fairly delicate balance of things that allow us to eat sushi and farm corn. we should absolutely try to minimize our impact on that, and deal with the planet's changing climate as it happens to the best of our ability, as humans have always done.

there is finally movement on this front, real international movement. and how anyone wants to shout about "but, this article said this in 1978!" misses the goddamn forest for the trees. we are the frog enjoying the hot bath at the moment. if we don't find a way to turn off the fire, we will be that boiled frog. 

The only stable belief held by an average joe denier is "I don't want to change," maybe mixed to some degree with "the people who talk about climate change are my enemies politically so what they say has to be wrong".  That's it.

If you read an average climate denier's arguments, they freely shift between "it's not happening", but "if it is happening, it's natural", but "if we are influencing it, we can't stop it", "but if we can stop it, it doesn't matter because China", and anyway "more CO2 is actually good".  To some extent, this reflects a change in approach over time (and as informed by conservative think tanks who have to continually think up new talking points for the drones), as it becomes more and more obvious that the Earth is gradually warming as more CO2 and other greenhouse gases are emitted, just as scientists have been saying would happen for more than a century now.  It's pretty amusing then to hear deniers to try to put forth the notion that climate scientists and those that support them are constantly changing their argument, which they frequently do (for ex., "in the '70s they were trying to scare us with talk of a new ice age!").  

 

Edited September 18, 2019 by Dirk X West

[hpslugga 4097]

44 minutes ago, hayden_horn said:

here's the thing about arguing with the climate deniers: it's actually dogma for them. there is a strong correlation between evangelical and climate science belief. they are not here to take input, they are here for output, to preach the word. i'm 100% serious about this. they will never change their mind.

and here's the thing about he dishonest way that they frame the debate: we are actually in the middle of the catastrophe. it's not like a high speed car wreck, it's a lot more like a slow moving train wreck. we know our climate is changing. some of it may be due to natural climate fluctuation, but there is no denying that throwing a bunch of carbon into the air isn't affecting the larger trends.

and beyond that...what's so bad about a green new deal? we know it will create jobs, we know clean air and water are good things. we should aspire to be a better steward of the planet. i mean, shit, that's in the first book of the bible.

we are polluting our oceans. but the thinking is similar to air pollution: the ocean, like the atmosphere, is so big that certainly we are overstating our role in this, right? wrong. our ecosystem is hardy and flexible, but it is also a fairly delicate balance of things that allow us to eat sushi and farm corn. we should absolutely try to minimize our impact on that, and deal with the planet's changing climate as it happens to the best of our ability, as humans have always done.

there is finally movement on this front, real international movement. and how anyone wants to shout about "but, this article said this in 1978!" misses the goddamn forest for the trees. we are the frog enjoying the hot bath at the moment. if we don't find a way to turn off the fire, we will be that boiled frog. 

There’s no doubt about any of that especially for the bolded portion. They are simply living out the Statements of Faith from a lot of religious organizations like Answers in Genesis. In it, they actually brag (as if this were a virtue) that “By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record.”

Confirmation bias, holla!

[wildcat09 29597]

1 hour ago, hayden_horn said:

here's the thing about arguing with the climate deniers: it's actually dogma for them. there is a strong correlation between evangelical and climate science belief. they are not here to take input, they are here for output, to preach the word. i'm 100% serious about this. they will never change their mind.

and here's the thing about he dishonest way that they frame the debate: we are actually in the middle of the catastrophe. it's not like a high speed car wreck, it's a lot more like a slow moving train wreck. we know our climate is changing. some of it may be due to natural climate fluctuation, but there is no denying that throwing a bunch of carbon into the air isn't affecting the larger trends.

and beyond that...what's so bad about a green new deal? we know it will create jobs, we know clean air and water are good things. we should aspire to be a better steward of the planet. i mean, shit, that's in the first book of the bible.

we are polluting our oceans. but the thinking is similar to air pollution: the ocean, like the atmosphere, is so big that certainly we are overstating our role in this, right? wrong. our ecosystem is hardy and flexible, but it is also a fairly delicate balance of things that allow us to eat sushi and farm corn. we should absolutely try to minimize our impact on that, and deal with the planet's changing climate as it happens to the best of our ability, as humans have always done.

there is finally movement on this front, real international movement. and how anyone wants to shout about "but, this article said this in 1978!" misses the goddamn forest for the trees. we are the frog enjoying the hot bath at the moment. if we don't find a way to turn off the fire, we will be that boiled frog. 

We're maybe 5 years at most from EMAW and mop and the rest turning around and acknowledging the crisis and becoming eco-fascists. They'll propose decreasing the global population so that their lifestyle can again become sustainable. It'll start off with a full immigration ban and maybe something like China's one-child policy for Americans, but soon enough they'll get around to proposing killing all of the "leeches."  The one constant is and will always be that their comfort is more important than the lives of minorities and liberals.

[Thetexashammer 1062]

2 hours ago, DixonHur said:

I saw a report on NBC Nightly News the other day talking about rising seas, and stronger hurricanes because of warming oceans.  They rode around in a boat with the mayor of some small island community in the Chesapeake Bay and he was lamenting how most of his community is now under water and he wants tax dollars to build a sea wall...meanwhile, he's wearing a Trump hat.  

I was literally stunned  

The seas have been rising for 1000's of years. To date, there is no eveidence CO2 has cause even the slightest increase in rate of sea level rise.

Whatever is going on the the environment, there has been no connection between increased strength of hurricanes, drought, or other climate related events. https://co2coalition.org/2018/09/19/no-global-warming-isnt-causing-worse-hurricanes/

Quote

The UN Climate Panel found in its latest report that hurricanes (aka tropical cyclones) haven’t increased: “Current datasets indicate no significant observed trends in global tropical cyclone frequency over the past century.”

I'm sorry but your post is simply evidence of how easy it is to manipulate people when the you have an agenda. Get educated on the subject, don't consume news reports and think you know anything.

[Thetexashammer 1062]

6 hours ago, hpslugga said:

Not only that, when you make a prediction that X will happen by Y year and it turns out that X happened by Z year, it doesn’t invalidate the whole fucking prediction.

Two weeks ago my wife and daughter and I  went to a birthday party. The host was asked to bring a guest a bottle of beer and when he reached into the cooler, he noticed that two of the bottles were conjoined by a chunk of ice. He laughed, pulled out the chunk and let it sit on the part of his deck where the sun was hitting. We then placed a small wager as to when the ice would melt to the point where the bottles would separate. A bunch of people said it would happen sooner than it eventually would. So they were wrong about the when, but they were correct about the what. Nobody said “it’ll never melt and that wet spot on the deck has nothing to do with anything.” They all knew it was going to melt, it was just a question of when.

Similarly, even if the timing of these AGW predictions were as wrong as these idiots claim, it does not invalidate the whole of the prediction. If I predicted 18 months ago that the 2018 Texas-OU game would be played on October 13 and it turns out that they would be scheduled for October 6, that doesn’t mean I was wrong about the two fucking teams playing each other for the whole year (or that they ever did).

You're turning science on its head. This is very precisely wrong. You are saying that an hypothesis is not evaluated on its predictions.

To the contrary, science is the study of the natural world. Science is only valuable insofar as it makes valuable predictions. An hypothesis which makes inaccurate prediction is discarded. It is an invalid hypothesis. So, to take one example, when the AGW model predicts that tropospheric temperatures will increase, and they don't, that is an invalid predictions. 

They have made one invalid prediction after another after another ad infinitum. At what point do you stop believing them? How many lies do you have to be told? Most people already gave up.

And that's not on me, that's on the people who started this whole thing. They failed to persuade. They don't have the evidence, and they never had it.

[DixonHur 11968]

14 minutes ago, Thetexashammer said:

The seas have been rising for 1000's of years. To date, there is no eveidence CO2 has cause even the slightest increase in rate of sea level rise.

Really?  No evidence?

[Bookman 4766]

I know what you mean, right? It's like the general theory of relativity. It doesn't explain the motions of galaxies, so therefore gravity doesn't exist.

[Thetexashammer 1062]

6 minutes ago, DixonHur said:

Really?  No evidence?

Indeed, no evidence. Your graph doesn't show great detail of the time period where we have been putting CO2 into the atmosphere, but if you look at the data regarding sea level rise, there is no observed increase. 

Your graph wouldn't show that because it doesn't show the relevant time period in enough detail. Here's one. It shows a mostly straight line.

Here's another straought line with a better time frame for you to ponder. 

 

Do you mean to suggest that the IPCC is wrong? They said there was no evidence of increased hurrican activity.

Do you also suggest the NOAA is also wrong? They show a straight line of sea level increasing, not sea levels increasing at an increasing rate due to runaway global warming.

Your argument is with them, and their data, not me. 

Edited September 18, 2019 by Thetexashammer

[hpslugga 4097]

15 minutes ago, Bookman said:

I know what you mean, right? It's like the general theory of relativity. It doesn't explain the motions of galaxies, so therefore gravity doesn't exist.

TURNING SCIENCE ON ITS HEAD BECAUSE I DONT LIKE WHAT YOU SAY!!!

[RayDog 682]

15 minutes ago, Bookman said:

I know what you mean, right? It's like the general theory of relativity. It doesn't explain the motions of galaxies, so therefore gravity doesn't exist.

Gravity doesn't exist. It is electromagnetism.

[hpslugga 4097]

Oh and phlogiston theory was wrong, so therefore fire doesn’t exist.

[Dahobbs 18348]

1 minute ago, RayDog said:

Gravity doesn't exist. It is electromagnetism.

The RayDog bat signal was activated. I will say, I do enjoy reading about your theories, even though I'm highly skeptical of them. 

[Thetexashammer 1062]

2 minutes ago, hpslugga said:

TURNING SCIENCE ON ITS HEAD BECAUSE I DONT LIKE WHAT YOU SAY!!!

I am saying that you evaluate a scientific hypothesis based on the accuracy of its predictions. I just said it again. Why are you rejecting this?

[Dahobbs 18348]

16 minutes ago, Thetexashammer said:

Indeed, no evidence. Your graph doesn't show great detail of the time period where we have been putting CO2 into the atmosphere, but if you look at the data regarding sea level rise, there is no observed increase. 

Your graph wouldn't show that because it doesn't show the relevant time period in enough detail. Here's one. It shows a mostly straight line.

Here's another straought line with a better time frame for you to ponder. 

 

Do you mean to suggest that the IPCC is wrong? They said there was no evidence of increased hurrican activity.

Do you also suggest the NOAA is also wrong? They show a straight line of sea level increasing, not sea levels increasing at an increasing rate due to runaway global warming.

Your argument is with them, and their data, not me. 

I have no idea what your point is. Eons of evidence isn't relevant, only the small period of time that also shows rising sea levels with rising CO2 concentrations? 

[Thetexashammer 1062]

Just now, Dahobbs said:

I have no idea what your point is. 

Indeed.

 

[Dahobbs 18348]

Just now, Thetexashammer said:

I am saying that you evaluate a scientific hypothesis based on the accuracy of its predictions. I just said it again. Why are you rejecting this?

The predictions have been accurate? The link that Zork posted from 1988 was a prediction of 1-7 degrees rise by 2019. We've had a ~1 degree Celsius rise. 

[Dahobbs 18348]

1 minute ago, Thetexashammer said:

Indeed.

 

I'm glad you agree that you are unintelligible. 

[Thetexashammer 1062]

1 minute ago, Dahobbs said:

I'm glad you agree that you are unintelligible. 

To you.

Again, the suggestion is the CO2 would cause an increase in the rate of sea level rise. None has been observed according to NOAA.

Edited September 18, 2019 by Thetexashammer

[Dahobbs 18348]

Just now, Thetexashammer said:

To you.

I've never seen a single one of your posts be intelligible to anyone. I doubt I ever will. 

[RayDog 682]

13 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

The RayDog bat signal was activated. I will say, I do enjoy reading about your theories, even though I'm highly skeptical of them. 

Science requires that there is a healthy amount a skepticism about every theory.

[Dirk X West 772]

16 minutes ago, Thetexashammer said:

To you.

Again, the suggestion is the CO2 would cause an increase in the rate of sea level rise. None has been observed according to NOAA.

NOAA seems to disagree:

"Global sea level has been rising over the past century, and the rate has increased in recent decades. In 2014, global sea level was 2.6 inches above the 1993 average—the highest annual average in the satellite record (1993-present). Sea level continues to rise at a rate of about one-eighth of an inch per year."

https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/sealevel.html

[Thetexashammer 1062]

Just now, Dirk X West said:

NOAA seems to disagree:

"Global sea level has been rising over the past century, and the rate has increased in recent decades. In 2014, global sea level was 2.6 inches above the 1993 average—the highest annual average in the satellite record (1993-present). Sea level continues to rise at a rate of about one-eighth of an inch per year."

https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/sealevel.html

See the logo on the top right? Now show me the increase.

'

I will assume your post accurately describes NOAA's position. But their position is not supported by their own data. Hmmmm.