anybody got any visible evidence of the sea level rising? i see a lot of images like the attached, but usually they're connected to something or someone claiming it's a hoax, like attached. "the old image was at high tide and the new one was at low tide" is usually the claim, but quite frankly, the only people actually posting these types of images are the people denying rising sea levels. anybody got the opposite? if all these peer reviewed studies are saying the sea is rising, then shouldn't they have SOMETHING that the average everyday moron can look at? something that isn't a projection, that is
Rising sea levels
>Glacier National Park is replacing signs that predicted its glaciers would be gone by 2020
completely fine because we've made great leaps and bounds in stopping climate change
climate change is still totally real and we need to do something about it
idk man. feels suspicious, but i still don't see evidence either way
29 cm in 100 years
uses long-ago debunked fake picture that ignores tides
youtube.com
youtube.com
youtube.com
youtube.com
enjoy the water.
you mean this isn't just due to the storm? is there evidence this hasn't happened in the past?
no offence retard, but the sea level has risen 400 ft since the last ice age. 29 cm in the last 100 yrs is literally nothing
no offence
retard
you're a poet lol
to be quite frank.
theoretically, we can argue forever about how much of this of anything else is climat change.
after all, you can win the lottery two or three times in a row.
you can win it forever.
if you express it in probabilities, it becomes less and less likely that it would have happened without climate change as the extent increases.
of course, the catastrophe in new york also needs wind, but dont be mistaken about the measures that the city has of course also expanded.
*or anything else
where's that image taken at?
Muir Glacier, Alaska
is it considered unnatural for a glacier to retreat this far? 60 years is quite some time
good point.
it could have special issues.
therefore we started looking at average values and therefore we started to make more and more measurements.
that it the same as looking at average temperatures in time.
there are places where temperature went down, same as glaciers (tbh Im not sure if a place exists but I dont want to exclude somewhere a glacier became bigger).
but if you look at all numbers the trend is quite clear.
let me give you some insight.
you know that 1.5°C thing I bet.
but in yurop and also most other countries are above 2°C right now.
how is that possible?
its because the oceans are heating up slower (because increasing temperature of a 1 kg of water takes more energy as for 1 kg of soil).
arctic areas for example are almost 10°C higher than 1850 now.
so it differs a lot.
picrelated is probably the best way to visualize.
you might live in an area where it got colder.
nonetheless, the trend is clear.
how do clouds and atmospheric water factor into this? my understanding (very limited) was that clouds helped balance the model. If water is heating up on a larger scale, clouds will form more frequently, and in turn will block a lot of heat coming from the sun.
very amateur take, but it's been lodged in my mind for a while, and i'm wondering if anyone knows
The sea is flooding subways?
That town in Switzerland that git buried in a landslide today is due to climate change. The permafrost melts in the rising temperatures and it all comes sliding down
as far as I understood clouds are difficult to predict and calculate in the models, which isnt very suprising.
for example while covid lock downs the amount of shipping wares around the globe went down and so the emission particles also went down.
but this caused less clouds to form (than the models predicted since they use measurements from the past which of course where also made and influenced by our ships emissions) because there were less particles in the air.
and the result was that less shipping caused higher temperatures increases, which sounds like a paradox.
what we really should be afraif of in terms of clouds and such is a constantly slow jet stream.
picrelated probably shows our biggest problem.
a slow jet stream means constantly the same weather.
either it endlessly rains/snows or opposite.
this is the real horror scenario, if it remains at a place for even longer.
imagine a year of no rain.
I don't really care as much about climate change as I would've if my country wasn't set to become minority white this century. If my people are slated for extinction, we might as well take the fair weather with us.
Im terrified about the natural dam thing.
I knew about the landslides but every valley has a river.
tbh I didnt think of that so far.
we will see in this case what could happen...
sorry for the thumbnail, google fucked me up
so what exactly are humans doing to cause such a massive change?
Rivers always find the sea. A rockfall isn't a very good dam, and melting glaciers mean more water added to the rivers. The dams will break. What should make you afraid is when there's no water left on land to make rivers. Sucks to be brown, lol.
Being mostly Indian, Chinese, and African
On cruise from Seattle to Glacier Bay in Alaska
When in the bay a nature expert tour guide gave a presentation about the glaciers on the deck of the ship
It was pretty much just a lecture about climate change and had nothing to do with the bay
They handed out pamphlets with a map showing the recorded edge of the glacier over time
"Expert" says the glacier has been shrinking non-stop since they started observing it
When she asks if there are any questions I politely ask her why she said the glaciers have been constantly shrinking when her own map shows a clear period of like 30 years where the glacier grew in the late 1800s and early 1900s
She asks me to stop being disruptive and moves on to the next question
You will not question the narrative!
INB4 pictures of high tide vs low tide
and one more important piece of information.
with every degree of temperature air can hold more water (see antoine equation for water, quite easy to calculate).
so when air hits the wall of the jet stream from warm to cold it can set free more water (any of course energy).
we had places where 800 liter came down per squaremeter.
when something like this happens in a narrow valley this is the end.
16ft was the original height
Researchers at London’s Global University (UCL) and the University of Leeds discovered that the volume of Arctic ice increased 33% between 2013 and 2014 due to an unusually cool summer in 2013.
un-spider.org
The headline originates in an article, opens new tab on the Daily Sceptic website that compares sea ice extent on Jan. 8, 2024, with the same date 20 years earlier.
Experts say while the quoted figures 20 years apart are accurate, “cherry-picking" individual dates does not provide a meaningful picture of what is happening in the Arctic.
reuters.com
WHO CARES IF THE ICE HAS RECOVERED ALL THE LOSS WE WERE FEAR MONGERING ABOUT! JUST SHUT UP!
Remember the Brazil opening ceremony for the Olympics in 2016? They show the ice caps melting at 54:45 in this clip and stop the time lapse at 2012 when the ice caps started growing. This was in 2016 so they knew damn well the caps had grown by a huge amount in the past few years.
so we need to have evidence for:
1. are we really causing big amounts of CO2 and not something else?
gml.noaa.gov
2. is CO2 really the driver for temperatures and not something different?
web.archive.org
so the argument is that co2 increase naturally causes a shift in cycle state, and that humans are producing an unnatural amount of co2 causing an unnatural shift?
and yet Plymouth Rock is in the same location to the ocean as it’s always been.
they are afraid the mix could kill a dam some kilometers await and then the shit floods the entire valley.
right now they are clearing the entire area because of that since the mountain is still to dangerouse to send the military there.
CO2 is necessary for plant growth
in principle.
the earths atmosphere is not a closed system, so everything is shifted dynamically.
with every degree it gets hotter here, heat emission into space also increases.
imagine the co2 (and ch4 and no2, these three are the problem) amount now would remain constant (wavy wihin one year because of summer winter and so on but within that constant).
then temperatures would also remain constant.
if you know a little about math or physics, this would result in a constant balance.
dT/dt = 0
energy in equals energy out
no shit, but if they're cutting down forests like the news says they are, then the whole "narrative" is coming together nicely
and the argument then turns to *not* ripping oil and coal out of the earth in increase energy, right? makes sense i guess. another reason to go nuclear
The earth's crust is floating on a sea of magma. When ocean levels rise the weight on the ocean floor increases and pushes down on the magma. If all the ice melts the oceans will be deeper but the coastline will be relatively unchanged.
or just better muzzle control on emissions. car manufacturers have gone far in keeping emissions down, it's mostly larger corporations causing all the problems
source? not doubting, but this is the first i've heard of this
There is an island over 50,000 square miles of nothing but pure trash and people act like this is OK?
Sorry, forgot pic
not what the post is about but ok
lmao ok never mind u right
doesn't know that india and china exist
lol libtards are unreal
the costs for the kWh here are even higher than gas and oil and that already with only poor measurements for the waste.
also new nuclear power plants are really really expensive.
believe it or not, atm wind and solar are on top when its about costs per kWh.
sure, we need storage capacities and I myself are not a friend of battery tech for as used now.
but there are solutions to this.
denmark shows how to do it.
why? because they said after 70s oil crisis
fuck it, we will do that better
the one big thing everybody should realize is, the hight energy density times of oil and gas are over.
this means energy production will be more visible, more omnipresent.
but I ask you, is that really that bad of a thing?
go out and look how everything is parked with cars.
we can do that.
and you are right.
look at the graph
every years turnover of CO2 is visible.
that is the difference of seasons.
how much more area can you give plants to compensate?
10%?
now you can estimate how much that would be.
its simply not enough.
rising sea levels
what's their argument against the Archimedes' Principle again? i.e. how can icebergs melting displace/raise the water level if their weight is already accounted for?
inb4 saltwater vs freshwater
it's said to approx be 3.5%
Global warming is the biggest scam in human history. There are more trees and ice on the planet than ever before
just some side note:
we are already 50 years in.
the moment this world started to make protests about climate change was in the 70s.
this. plants thrive on CO2. how is that bad?
Wind and solar are great, but they're really only useful when it's windy and sunny. Nuclear should be added because its on whenever we want/need for it to be on while still being green. As for it's expense... yeah nuclear reactors are pretty pricey to build, but too much of that cost is pointless red tape. Just compare the cost to bring a reactor online here vs. France or China.
ice slides from land into ocean.
greenland, antarctis ice shelf etc
GLOBAL WARMING IS A SCAM!
THERES LITERALLY ZERO EVIDENCE OF GLOBAL WARMING
in my eyes it's just a slowburn way to introduce communism to the west
There's literally more ice at the poles then ever before. There are more trees on earth then ever before due to paper companies planting 100 trees for ever tree cut down.
Global warming is a huge scam
Do you suppose the various plants in California that burned up in the wildfires that climate change caused or enhanced are thriving?
see, in the 80s some weird people said the same about replacing refrigerators with CFCs.
and now?
what happens if we dont create regulations?
talk to the munich re about that.
munichre.com
Look up the Jurupa Oak.in california
One of the oldest tree in the planet which needs fire to survive
weren't they extremely flammable from the get go
Climate change is obviously real. It has happened since the beginning of time. It would change by itself anyway over time, but humans have speed up the process even If by 0.8%. Which in the large scheme means we fucked ourselves say "1500" years faster than it would have naturally happened. Which is absolutely catastrophic on the human timescale.
The amount of trees paper companies plant definitely doesn't offset all of the rest of the trees being cut by others.
so it's just a half-truth scare tactic meant to push personal interests. we ultimately agree
CLIMATE CHANGE IS THE BIGGEST SCAM IN HUMAN HISTORY.
THERES ZERO EVIDENCE TO BACK IT UP.
HUUUUGE SCAM
DO NOT FALL FOR IT!
oh look, this one single organism seems alright so I guess massive wildfires are fine
But there are more trees now then ever before! Wake up!!
they will never be built cheap or are you willing to live next to fukushima or pripyat?
and a proper waste treatment is brutal expensive.
its not even a littel green.
sure, I can understand the idea of a backup but its not like we need 1000 nuclear plants for that.
there is simply no gap.
right now german is above 60% on renewables.
and its quite easy so far.
btw the prices here are not the result of generation but trade and taxes, a common misunderstanding.
generation prices are typically around or below 5 ct/kWh.
The wildfires are a natural part of the ecosystem there. By stopping them and not clearing all the brush it just guarantees a bigger and bigger fire later on.
being stupid enough to build/live in a KNOWN FIRE ZONE
Darwinism at its finest.
Not sure "than ever before" is really an accurate statement considering there used to be ice ages.
reference: climate.gov
More than 30 years ago? Sure, maybe, but more than before the agricultural revolution? lolno. Besides, more farmed trees do not support the kind of boidversity a natural forest does. Having the farmed trees is better than nothing, but far from ideal.
Climate change is obviously real.
this creeps me the most.
Im 43 now and grew up on the countryside (god bless).
the difference in insects is unbelievably here.
when I was a small boy and summer solstice came, billions of frogs crossed the roads.
Im talkling about entire sections of the road, literally painted with flattened frogs.
and still so many more came.
I still visit those places. no more frogs, not even one.
the dikes are still there but empty.
when I had my old golf mk2 in 2000, I had to clean my windshield every week.
I worked for europcar for a short term, we had to clean every fucking windshield and lights.
always.
every damn time.
how much loss of reality people must have at the age of 70 that they dont realize this.
Climate Change
Its so fucking retarded because the climate has changed forever so the whole argument is
Well its happening faster this time
Which is fucking stupid because there seems to be a lot of evidence that the last ice age came to a pretty sudden ending when you see the geologic evidence.
Ice ages
What causes them? Why do they end? Why don't climate catastrophy idiots want to talk about it? Because it sure as shit wasn't SUVs or Oil 12k years ago.
The Earth is getting hotter oh no!
And the earth was way hotter in the past - life was thriving... and way colder in the past... guess what - besides Snowball earth (Which why did that happen again?) - Life was fucking fine.
Environmentalists
Its fucking original sin with a veneer of "the science" and its all nonsense and gay. If these people didn't exist we would already be living in a Sci Fi future... Instead we get another decade of the rehashed 90s with worse entertainment and slightly better porn.. with Ai and TikTok. Fuck I hate environmentalists. You are all fucking retarded.
To be fair, the only thing really wrong with Fukushima was where they built it. As for the waste issue, no, it really isn't a problem. It has been solved. Further, the newer types of reactors create much less of it per megawatt anyway. Thorium reactors should be the future, but everyone loves hating on nuclear, shouting shit like but Chernobyl, tho, as if the RBMK reactor design wasn't pants on head hetarded.
no more water at place X
frogs like water
frogs moved elsewhere
no more frogs
this means global warming n shiet
lmao. anon, I...
All the leftists who are absolutely certain the seas are rising at a catastrophic rate also insist on living on the coast. They don't believe their own bullshit.
It is all virtue signalling.
It's the insevts that aren't there, dummy. Nobody has to wipe anywhere near as much dead bug matter from their cars as they used to. This is a sign of environmental change.
we have a faggot that thinks he is trolling.
it's a sign of local environmental change which means absolutely nothing on the global scale buddy
I can't do math
That would mean that the last time that sea levels were higher than today would be 130,000 years ago, anon.
That would be unusual wouldn't it? We are ENDING an interglacial period, it should be getting colder.
One reasons bugs don't splatter so much on cars anymore is because they are so aerodynamic compared to old cars. My 2015 Corolla is shaped like a jelly bean and I don't get a single big splatter on the windshield doing 90 mph.
No matter what, as our finite resources become increasingly strained, societies will become increasingly hostile. But if there's any consolation, dying in strife is quicker and less painful than the slow rotting agony of old age.
Compare the windshield slope of the mk2 golf vs the 2015 Corolla.
and for the "hurr durr it's a hoax" types:
en.wikipedia.org
There is a nearly unanimous scientific consensus that the Earth has been consistently warming since the start of the Industrial Revolution, that the rate of recent warming is largely unprecedented,[1]:8[2]:11 and that this warming is mainly the result of a rapid increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) caused by human activities. The human activities causing this warming include fossil fuel combustion, cement production, and land use changes such as deforestation,[3]:10–11 with a significant supporting role from the other greenhouse gases such as methane and nitrous oxide.[1]:7 This human role in climate change is considered "unequivocal" and "incontrovertible".[1]:4[2]:4
Nearly all actively publishing climate scientists say humans are causing climate change.[4][5] Surveys of the scientific literature are another way to measure scientific consensus. A 2019 review of scientific papers found the consensus on the cause of climate change to be at 100%,[6] and a 2021 study concluded that over 99% of scientific papers agree on the human cause of climate change.[7] The small percentage of papers that disagreed with the consensus often contained errors or could not be replicated.[8]
Launched in 1992, TOPEX/Poseidon was a joint venture between CNES and NASA that measured ocean surface topography to an accuracy of 4.2 cm
Accuracy of 4.2 cm
The fucking error bars on the measurement are 50% of the observed change. Probably why they aren't included in your shit graph.
sealevel.jpl.nasa.gov
cool.
now go and ask truck drivers but now and in 2000.
*about
or train, or bus, or sport cars that were flat all the time.
Put together enough local environments and...
news.njit.edu
1992 Sat launched with funding to find sea rising
Finds sea rising with 1992 data in fucking centimeters
The whole climate science thing is starting to look like Covid science - where you are only going to look at data that confirms your bullshit so you can get more funding for more bullshit.
good thing scientist arent retarded.
journals.plos.org
imagine not understanding how you can average over multiple measurements to beat down the errors
The error rate is always 4.2. You are wrong.
That's an improvment. Glaciers be melting for the last 10,000 years though globalist pedo bro.
It's not icebergs melting you fucking spam sandwich. It's glaciers melting, and they are on land. God damn, you're some kind of moron if you thought that was a gotcha argument....
Yep. And thats how most things work. We could all come to proper agreements about things that work in ourself interest if we could agree. But the division shitbthat is pushed on us is fucking us in the ass. Currently happening in the u.s with right and left (the two party thing is retarded as fuck) but has happened in the middle east and all over thru time. "Can't we all just get along" will be some of last thoughts while the world ends and it'll hit us hard
I thought for sure climate change was a bad thing, but if it's drowning jew yorkers I may have to revise my opinion.
If climate change is an issue it is an issue caused by large companies, not by individuals. Anything the combined population can do would be much more effective if companies were the ones to do it instead.
That's why the previous administration in the US (among others) was trying to incentivize companies to move in that direction. All of that has been wiped away now.
None of it matters when all of Asia laughs at the environmental restrictions. China and India are skullfucking the Earth and you only care about what white people do. Driving a Prius isn't going to save the world when you have billions of Chinese and Indians who don't give a flying fuck about the environment.
le china and india
both of these countries also made excellent progress in terms of renewable energy/recycling and reducing pollution. they are just a few decades behind the west. you can meme about poo in the ganges river all you want, but the thames, rhine, Po and Delaware rivers were stinking sludge ponds in the 70s as well.
"non whites are poisoning the world anyways, nothing we do in the west matters" is such a bizarre cope by schizos who don't want to do anything anyways
So we should embrace hopelessness, like you have?
Dec 31, 1930
So you think the government is lying, but you believe a random internet .gif that implies that we had satellite imagery in 1930?