Without looking at the data and taking your numbers as given, surely an acceleration of anything above 0mm/year squared would imply that there is in fact an acceleration, thereby voiding NewOldGuy's point? Am I missing something here?

We are going to need a lot more walls/steel slats.

I didn't say zero, and my original comment of "not much at all" meant not much. I then gave you the study that shows we expect the actual rate (not the acceleration) to change from the current 3mm/year to about 11mm/year in 100 years. 11 mm is about the width of your pinky finger or less. Then I said we'll adapt.

But there is also no reason to think this increase is boundless and will go in that direction for hundreds of years. We'll lose some coastline (and probably gain some in other places), but that happened in our parent's lifetimes, and in our grandparent's lifetimes. Coastlines change. Climate changes. Old maps are different than today. Older ones are different from those.

Put this together with the real facts on extreme weather, which are that those events are decreasing in recent years (yeah they are variable too), and you see why I think the problem is overblown. There's been talk about how it's politicized. It is, and being exaggerated to meet policy goals. The former head of the IPCC said they were not a science organization, but were a political organization. A moment of honesty.

Someone made what I thought was an excellent point earlier, which was that even if the variability in climate is not new and has always fluctuated (it has) it could still be a useful goal to try to learn to control it. Perhaps, but I don't think mankind will be capable of it for a long long time. Climate is a chaotic system that we truly don't understand at all. We don't even know for sure if increases in atmospheric C02 are the direct cause of the slight warming we've had. Studies show a very weak correlation or none, depending on who you listen to and what their politics are. Sure that theory makes sense on paper and the science is logical, but we can't even prove it happens. Much of the record shows reverse correlation, so there are other factors at work that we can't comprehend.

So you agree that we are accelerating the demise of the planet and humankind, but because the acceleration doesn’t seem quite fast enough to you, it isn’t a big deal. Roger that.

Would I be going too far out on a limb to assume that the invasion of our country by hordes of Central Americans is an actual problem that isn’t being overblown?

Your hyperbole isn't useful. Nobody, no scientist at least, thinks the rate of sea level rise is a threat to humanity's existence at all. It will cause some hardship if it continues, but it won't be "The Day After Tomorrow". Those posts weren't about projected rises in temperature (which I haven't given an opinion on), they were about sea level.

Hey NOG,

Is there any reason we should discount the consensus opinion of the vast majority of experts who study climate change for a living? Also, is there any other topic where you're like "nah, the scientists are definitely all wrong about this?"

I know you're just trolling, but I haven't discounted anything. I quoted the expert studies on sea level. No disagreement. Go back and read my last 2 or 3 posts.

Do you have a background in science (in any field)?

I'm not trolling; it seems clear that you're trying to downplay the risks of climate change and the need to take urgent action. This isn't anything like the tone you hear from the AAAS when they write about climate change.

Yes. Post graduate.

Only in the case of sea level. On warming I said we don't understand it well enough and that climate is a chaotic. Climate scientists don't disagree with that, they say that we don't understand it well enough. The few who think we do are suffering from hubris. All the models for 40 years have been wrong even with huge error bars. No prediction model has been very accurate yet.

Edit: just wanted to add, those who say "the science is settled" are not scientists. No scientist ever said that. His peers would laugh at that.

For example, here's NASA's reaction to the very PNAS paper you cited:

https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2680/n...-accelerating/

Cool. Mind sharing what field?

I don't disagree with any of that.

Not climate science or any earth science. Computer science, and some focus in data analysis and statistics.

lmao

The article posted clearly states the projections are just an extrapolation of historical data and do not account for potential complications from factors such as ice sheet dynamics, so the acceleration is more of a best case scenario

How much longer are we going to have to endure this punishment from Mason. Having someone in here citing studies that directly contradict their conclusions that they are so sure about is some post-factual bull****.

NewOldGuy isn't here to debate he is here gaslighting and thats all.

Wow, this is why these threads aren't useful. Not my thread anyway.

grunching

It's nobody's job to "change your mind".

Related -- in many areas of life some people live in ignorance (and those not living in ignorance often plot to exploit the ignorant).

Hmm...

11 mm is only a finger width though.

This is an absurd and misleading way to frame what scientists are actually saying. Here:

https://www.aaas.org/resources/aaas-board-directors-releases-statement-climate-change

You're treating these as if they're totally unrelated but warmer oceans lead to higher sea levels.

"We'll adapt" is absurdly vague. Most people don't think climate change will cause human extinction, at least not for at least hundreds of years. "We'll adapt" sounds like you live in Ohio and don't care about the 100000000 people who live in low lying areas and are too poor to build sea walls or move cities.

And of course the cost of adapting to global warming will be a lot greater than the costs of transitioning away from fossil fuels which will save money, address warming, improve air and water quality, human health, and reduce resource conflict.

There seems to be an underlying assumption that the people who are sh*t out of luck on the coasts are on the coast for selfish reasons aka the beach or whatever, and there is some truth to some people who live in risky areas just because of the view, but for the vast majority, they live on the coasts because coastal cities are port cities and port cities exist because it's easier to transport by boat than it is to fly stuff out to the Midwest which means there's a lot of commerce and jobs.

So the idea that the Midwest will be fine while the coastal cities take all the rising sea level damage doesn't take into account that a lot of the Midwest cities exist at the level they do BECAUSE of the coastal cities so when the port cities start having problems people aren't going to flock to the Midwest, the Midwest is going to get poorer.

That's ignoring that changing climate could f*ck over the Midwest by changing the rainfall patterns. The Midwest is already heavily borrowing from the aquifers for the breadbasket and if the rain shifts that could completely gut them