Shouldn't sea levels have risen by now?
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 20 ก.ย. 2024
- Try Dashlane here: dashlane.com/si...
Get 10% off now with my promo code: simonclark !
In this video I answer the question: 'isn't climate change supposed to have risen sea levels by now?' by looking at one dataset in some detail, and reviewing the scientific literature. Also: Kevin Costner's Waterworld.
My video on stopping climate change: • 3 strategies to beat c...
This video was light on the potential impacts of sea level rise. I wanted to focus specifically on the perception that sea levels have not changed, and spend time on the data. If you’re interested in the potential impacts then www.ipcc.ch/si... is a must read.
Anthropogenic climate change (AGW) is a fickle bit of science, and like much of environmental science sometimes changes on (relatively) long timescales and global extent can hide in plain sight. That seems to be the case with sea level rise. The data is very clear: sea levels have been rising faster and faster over the past century, and this is not caused by natural variability. Humanity's carbon emissions are radiatively forcing the planet, causing net warming and so thermal expansion of the oceans and melting of ice sheets. It appears that this is going to become more and more painfully obvious as this century wears on, and so the sooner we take action the better.
REFERENCES/FOOTNOTES
(1) Church and White (2011) link.springer....
(2) This figure from commons.wikime..., created by Robert Rohde based on data from Fleming et al. 1998, Fleming 2000, and Milne et al. 2005
(3) There are many excellent resources online about Milankovitch cycles. In this instance, the wiki is a good introduction: en.wikipedia.o...
(4) Gross scale annual reconstruction of Greenland temperatures using data from Buizert et al (2018) agupubs.online.... The enormous anomalous warming circa 15kya is the Bølling-Allerød interstadial, likely caused by changes in the AMOC en.wikipedia.o...
(5) This figure taken from www.arcgis.com...
(6) This rate calculated based on the year to year (backward step) finite difference gradient of annual average data from (1), averaged over 30 years.
(7) See lasp.colorado.e.... 100*(~1/1370) is less than 0.1%)
(8) Current data scripps.ucsd.e.... Yes, of course, this rise is caused by humans: scripps.ucsd.e...
(9) www.engineerin...
(10) IPCC AR5 WG1 chapter 13 www.ipcc.ch/si...
(11) Though sometimes the timeframe of long term predictions is unclear, e.g. www.nature.com..., leading to hyperbolic interpretations.
(12) This figure taken from blogs.egu.eu/d..., which is a recommended read.
(13) science2017.gl...
(14) www.theguardia...
--------- II ---------
You can support the channel by donating at / simonoxfphys
Check out my website! www.simonoxfph...
--------- II ---------
My twitter - / simonoxfphys
My facebook - / youtubesimon
My insta - / simonoxfphys
My goodreads - / simonoxfphys
--------- II ---------
Music by Epidemic Sound: epidemicsound.com
Stock footage provided by Bigstock: bit.ly/bigstock...
Huge thanks to my supporters on Patreon: Alastair Fortune, Anne Smith, Ben McMurtry, bitreign33, Caitlin Louise, Charles Bray, Dan Hanvey, David Efird, Ethan Fuller, Filip Kermit Prick, James Bridges, jawad alalasi, Jay Wright, Jia Xin Peng, Jonathan Trimble, Julian Guggenberger, Kendall Hendrix, Kendra Johnson, Kodzo, Lachlan Woods, Leighton Mackenzie, Liam, Louis Gillet, Mark Anthony Magro, Martin Hermes, Mat Allen, Matthias Loos, Michael Phillips, Mike Wooldridge, Omar Miranda, Paul Everitt, Rory Healy, Ryke Allen, Scott Cassidy, Thusto, Tiarna Pepall, Tim Boxall, Wendover Productions
I spent most of my summers as a child on an Island off the coast of Maine. A particular rock marked the High Tide on the beach I use to go to. Today the same rock still marks the high tide 65 years later
Should have never said the as those alarmists will move the rock
its all lies. its always the end of the world for these dip shits
@@admirableawesome2317 ok to be cautious of course but the sky isn’t falling. Overpopulation is a bigger concern imo. The rich aren’t giving up their jets and yachts anytime soon
@@arthurbrumagem3844 Actually, we are more likely to have an undergrowth of population. Most 1st world countries aren’t even reproducing themselves. The US population would be dropping if it weren’t for all of the immigrants. If they’d just pay taxes, we wouldn’t need to be worried about not having enough Social Security.
@@suew4609 the CDC does studies every year and the US gains about 1.5 million people a year over the death rate. So far this term Biden has let in over two million people ( illegals) and refugees. And more to come. We aren’t running out of “ people “, we are running out of resources
Just sell your house to Aquaman.
Underated reference
Obama and Leo Di Caprio just invested in multimillion dollar mansions on the beach.
@@mikejunior211 and?
@@Matt_Fields_29 Just saying...Someone who is alarmist enough to say than in 5 years the sea level will rise 2 meters do not invest in a beachfront property. Yes, Sea levels are increasing and will continue to do so... We perhaps will see some mild effects in a hundred years or so.
@@mikejunior211 so basically you "just said" absolutely nothing.
Darn it... I was told my home would be ocean front property by the time I retired.... Now I find out I'm still gonna have to drive to the beach.
In driving to the beach you will emit more green house gasses therefore accelerating the process so you won't have to drive so far to the beach.
@@robertking3130 wrong it's a HOAX
YOU had that home that long? Suddenly you learn you have to drive there? I'll go with scientific
opinions based on data.
@@franklinrussell4750 .... I pray you are only pretending to be devoid of any semblance of a sense of humor.
Oh sorry! A sense of humor is the most
wonderful sense. Please continue to
use your wit. I am often witless!
Just imagine how much deeper the oceans would be if sponges weren't living in it.
-Mitch Hedberg
That was Stephen Wright that said that
Ha Ha don’t mention this to the Climate Emergency brigade, or they will take it seriously and have everyone throwing sponges into the sea !
@@advent3774 No, climate scientists study sponges and in fact measured the isotope ratios in their 300 year old skeletons. The data matches several other parallel data sets showing that global temperatures are rapidly rising after a long period of stability.
Flashback 2009: Gore says Arctic could be 'completely ice free within the next 5 to 7 years'
th-cam.com/video/lR-d_XNixBY/w-d-xo.html
At the current rate of ocean level rise, I'll have to move my beach towel within my lifetime.
You can come to North Carolina where we just got a new island that popped out of the ocean due to sea levels decreasing! :D www.cbsnews.com/news/new-island-appears-off-coast-of-north-carolinas-outer-banks/
@@raffiliberty5722 Brain dead moron, you don't have the wits to read a short article and you still post it? The Island was caused, not by drops in sea level, but due to erosion of the coast - a function of sea level rise. You cretins ought to just hang out at Trump rallies and not slobber your illiterate drool at normal people.
@@philwilson609 isn't it great to be on the right side of things? You don't need to prove your points, you don't even need to be polite. Man it must be great to be right all the time- clear sailing all the way.
@@walrustrent2001 Have someone read it to you. Here's a quote: "The Outer Banks has some of the most exposed coastlines on the East Coast, Corbett explained, and currents with full streams can move a lot of sand around depending on the time of year." Thus, even a slobbering imbecile should be able to understand that sand structures created by fast currents = EROSION. I can't fix stupid, but I can point it out.
@thecathedor These Trump ass crack sniffing vultures like Walrus Trent are all over these threads, denying climate change and spewing recycled cliches that tickle the funny bones of dullards and nitwits. Is Walrus a simple moron -acting on the impulse of his own unfortunate proximity to the wrong end of the bell curve - or a Russian troll prompted by the fossil fuel propaganda machine? The beauty of the internet is that we will never know.
I live on Oahu, at sea level, on a natural salt water lagoon. There has been no observable sea level rise out of the ordinary tide changes, and erosion, in recent history; at least 60 years, since they built the sea wall. I’ll keep you posted.
I will be very interested in your findings or as democrats call it (lies)
How 'bout you listen to the people that study sea level rise. Not just personal experience. Sea level rise is not uniform. Look at the experience of those that live in the Solomon Islands.
@@biggav7434 how can sea level rise not be uniform... water finds its level
@@canadaizacorp2203 There is more gravity in some places. Effects of the moon. Water currents affect it also
@@biggav7434 nonsense ... fill up your tub and hop in ... the water will find level always... gravity moon influence will not affect level
"If I can't get out of the way of something that's moving one foot per century, I DESERVE to be extinct." - Dennis Miller, comedian, talking about rising sea levels
It's not our problem. It'll be the problem of generations ahead. He really should help them out though right?
@Bob A Bloody hell mate. Look, you need to sell your Pc. Mate, you're going crazy hahhah. Are you telling me to take your word over Nasa? They say Climate change is a problem. And they changed the name because they 'fudged the numbers'? What bad quality video of some unknown low IQ idiot are you going to link me to 'prove your point'. Stop taking someones opinion as fact just because it makes you feel good. They changed the name because the planet is warming over time, not constantly, so it drops back down from time to time. It was getting too confusing for the likes of yourself. The name change was for you special boy.
Dave FX it’s not even a problem
@@michaelschuler7397 According to who? And why do you trust them?
Dave FX according to no proof it’s a problem . They have been saying this since I was 10 and nyc is still here
when banks deny loans for beachfront property, I'll believe in sea level rise.
Agreed. And funny how Leftist, coastal cities are still issuing building permits.
Flashback 2009: Gore says Arctic could be 'completely ice free within the next 5 to 7 years'
th-cam.com/video/lR-d_XNixBY/w-d-xo.html
So I work in a shipyard, mere feet from the sea. We need to go by tide charts for docking boats. The charts come out one year in advanced and are quite accurate. During a king tide, which happen in the winter, the water will come within inches of flooding the gangway. Over the 50 years of operation the owners were concerned of rising sea levels, especially after being told years ago that we would be under 6 feet of water by 2013.
I'm guessing that the gangway isn't flooded?
@@joemonroe9456 One year( 2014?) The North gangway did flood (King tide + high wind +rain) the drydocks, the peirs, the boats all loomed up to land level. The storm drains backed up and flooded the parking lot. That peak lasted 30 minutes.
@sabredMk2 nice to hear some common sense for a changr
in the video he says "by the end of the year sea level will rise by between 30 and 130 cm." And then the graph shows sea level going up by eight feet, which is 243 cm. If I said your hamburger would cost $1.30, and the bill said $2.43, you'd know I lied.
And yet, the graph of coming out of the last ice-age was included. I took credibility points away for the minor lies, but he did show some of the long term truth. I appreciate that Clark isn't as shrill as some of the climate alarmists, but for sure he isn't a denier (or non-alarmist).
final thought: do the math!
quote: "if you torture numbers, they'll confess to anything!" (who said that?)
@@rosssmith173 So what you're saying is sea levels have been sinking since 2014?
HOLY SHIT THE PLANET IS GOING TO DRY OUT, EVERYBODY, GIVE ME MONEY SO I CAN STOP IT AND SAVE HUMANITY.
Al Gore said the polar caps would melt by 2009. ????
He said they would be melting and they are. He did not say they would be gone year-round by
2009 or by 2014. He did say Arctic sea ice would be imperiled. It is, he said nothing about Antarctica being gone. Nice try with an ExxonMobile lie!
@@franklinrussell4750 Property billionaire Dan Pena has been to the poles, has spoken to the scientists, has seen the core samples. He was told that the samples don't lie & prove the earth was 2 degrees hotter 55,000 years ago. Islands appear & disappear from time to time. We are going through another natural cycle. Gore will say anything his globalist masters tell him to.
@@graemewilliams1308 55,000 years ago there
were woolly rhinoceros and mammoths in
France yah don't need a lot of hair when
it's hot Dan Pena likes oil $$
@@avatansdubey You misuse the words temporary and soon or I am getting a message from God. If it's the latter I better get on my knees and pray! (snark)
@@franklinrussell4750 you do know that ice cover is actually increasing year on year.
Take the excess water and fly it to Mars. They need water there.
😂
Wont it just evaporate under the blistering sun causing global warming
Apparently it might be under the surface there already.
@@canadaizacorp2203 the sun os not causing the warming. In fact the sun is slightly cooler than in the 60s
As a citizen of Mars, I salute you! Tired of being thirsty
There’s an island in Sydney harbour, known as Pinchgut. Photos taken a hundred years ago show no difference in sea level to today’s levels
Where is this research published and could you please release your data and your methods?
Just tidal changes means if you took a pic 1 week apart it should look different
Dredging?
@@amyjohnson4449 When I excavate in the harbour I see a depressed area on the water surface. If and when sea level does rise I suggest the government issue a dredger to each and very adult to keep the water level as it is now.
@@11235but It is true, try it. Well, the author put up a thumbnail of a person looking out to sea using binoculars. No more idiotic than the thumbnail.
it is not global warming it is displacement. There are more ships in the oceans thus displacing more water causing the massive 1mm rise in sea level. /SARCASM
Not only more ships, but bigger ships. And don't forget about all the straws, plastic bottles and other trash we put in the ocean. All displacing water. And have you been to the beaches and seen some of those fat people who go into the water? More displacement! Man-made? Yes! Caused by CO2? Maybe not. Just put all the ships in dry-dock, print up a few thousand "No Swimming" signs, and take another measurement. Maybe it's all good.
You are right. ships do cause the sea level to rise.
Someone needs to point out water doesn't expand like this. That ocean ice and melted ice hold the same volume and that the oceans have not experienced significant warming.
I wonder if I can get a grant to study this. I can spend the rest of my life sailing around the world on different types of ships, studying the effects as I go. I could sail in small ships, large ships, and ships that are somewhere in between. There has to be someone out there willing to give me a grant, what do you think? (sarc)
The earth always seeks equilibrium.
They can't predict the weather from day to day, or the course of a hurricane, but they want me to believe they can predict the next 100 years of climate.....
If you can put a value on the climate you can predict the weather 200yrs ahead. It all depends on how many sheeples you have.
Climate isn’t weather
Predictions about the weather have nothing to do with predicting global warming. I can say with absolute certainty that July temperatures in Maine will be much hotter than the temperature in January. Likewise I can say with certainty that the average temperature in the USA will be hotter in the 2050s than they were in 1950s. It’s the fundamental difference between climate and weather. Care to bet my two predictions are wrong? I’ll give you 3:1 odds on any amount you’d like to lose. Hopefully, you’ve got enough intelligence to turn down the bet.
Even the predictions about the future isn’t what scientists are saying. They are predicting the average world wide temperatures. Some areas may actually be cooler. The predictions are about GLOBAL warming, but local events can add to the predictions. Scientists predicted that Greenland’s ice would melt way back in the 1980s. The ice there had been relatively stable at the time. Now, in 2021 NASA has measured by satellite that Greenland has lost I’ve 10% of its ice in the last 10 years. Proof positive that the oceans are adding water.
@@TheDrjehr yeah you must be correct, just because the US has been experiencing the coldest winters in decades doesn't mean that the climate isn't warming. It's only a bit of cold.weather . Another 3 more months and we'll have global warming again in the US and ditto in Canada. Roll on the dust bowl as in the 30s.
Exactly spot on.
Exactly what measurement technology existed in the late 1800s that could measure global yearly ocean levels within 1 mm of accuracy?
A ruler and a pen
🤦♂️
So why are the Maldives still there? Population rising, much more investment going in..... Maldives should have been abandoned by now if sea level was rising
then same one which we used to measure temperatures and other prehistorical data ...
Oh that would be none Chris, but hey this is climate change science the only branch of science in history that can't be questioned. I know for a fact there simply wasn't enough temperatures being measured in enough places around the globe, to get an accurate average global mean temp back then either, meaning are starting point could well be wrong.
As is clear from the comments here ("I haven't seen anything....") there is a difference between local and global SL rise. Almost all continental crust is moving to some level; uplifting or subsiding depending on local fault movements. If where you are is subsiding, SL will be seen to rise, even if there is no global change. If it is stable, anthropogenic change will be seen. If there is uplift there may be some rise seen (if uplift is slower than SL change), stay the same (if same rate) or SL will appear to fall. There must be a pretty shoddy level of science teaching if people don't get this.
Good point, so land levels are changing too.
It's just classic denialism. 'If it doesn't affect me, it must be false'. People have a tendency to ignore something if they aren't the ones who are negatively impacted by it. As soon as more and more land becomes uninhabitable people will slowly notice that something is wrong. I mean even wealthy nations are slowly running out of fresh drinkable water so this impact might come sooner than most people would like and then they will blame 'them' again.
Would you believe the ice cap on Greenland melted before?
@@joesbanjointerests9281 Would be nice if you were abit more specific with that. What do you mean by 'believe' and 'before'. Earth is roughly 4.5 billion years old. 'Before' is quite the range and 'believe' isn't evidence based.
@@joesbanjointerests9281 There has been continuous ice on Greenland since the Pliocene, or more likely Oligocene. The Pliocene saw dwarf trees (stunted southern beech) in Antarctica and sea levels several tens of metres higher than now. Your point is?
I measured it myself .... the sea rose by 1.5 meters in 6 hours :-)
@Dirt Doctor It must be rising because I heard some people in Alabama were shouting, "ROLL TIDE!"
@@johnperic6860 what are ew on about?
Did you measure at the top of the waves, the bottom, or the middle ?
@@johnperic6860 Skyrocketing? Like NASA's Challenger? Trust in NASA's government science ....The challenger was so safe even a mom with little children to care for could ride it in comfort and safety.
NASA's climate scientists said it was "safe to launch" in sub freezing temperatures. The corporate engineers who designed it promised only that it would blow up on launch.
Sadly the Challenger crew "believed" in NASA climate scientists.
Proper science..keep us all updated
I’ve lived on the beach all my life and somehow the sea levels have risen except for where I live, Sydney Australia. Perhaps where you live is actually sinking
There is more truth to that remark than you realize....
@@beetlebayley5237 Yeah, as humans pump more and more water out of the ground, the ground sinks. Surprise, surprise. And as populations grow, so does the need for water.
Same here, i live in Knokke , Belgium ( a nice little coast town, i live 200m from the beach, my whole life, 32 years now, and never seen the sea higher or lower than usual....
Same here, I've been fishing and surfing the same spots for over 20 years, I know them very well.
Great Comment - Sea Levels seems to be the same here in Perth ! - Sea Levels not moved up or down and been here thirty Years
- A a new young Lady resident here [two years ] from Melbourne was in a panic telling our group recently the levels have gone up 0.5 metre in the past couple of months -- it seems she didn't know we had high low tides that changed over the time during the month . . . .
I am not here for knowlodge, I am here for the comments section...
@@saberiandream316 english is not my first language, so my spelling is not perfect.
One question that comes up a lot(and is genuinely an interesting one) is 'The industrial revolution started in the 1760s, why didn't temperatures and sea levels start rising til the latter half of the 1900s?'
There are 3 main reasons.
1. The Little Ice Age was started in the 1300s and was at it's deepest in the late 1600s. The exact nature of the LIA is disputed(some say it was a fully natural minor temperature down spike that more or less ended on it's own, some say it was a result of the mass death of native americans resulting in a notable decrease in carbon output and a massive rewilding of North America without them cutting down trees, and others say it was the resumption of the real ice age starting and the ending of the interglacial period that humanity unintentionally halted), but no matter which theory you believe this downturn in temperature compared to the prior Medieval Warm Period absorbed some of the initial hit.
2. It takes a decent bit of heat input to change an atmosphere's worth of air, and a lot more than that to heat up an oceans worth of water. And there's a bit of a lag in things between the co2 getting into the air and the extra heat being absorbed. So it did hit us, it just took a few decades.
3. This one is a newer theory, but prior to the mid 1900s and especially the late 1900s, most co2 emmisions were paired with significant quantities of soot, ash, and sulfur dioxide, as we mostly burned low grade coal, wood, and sometimes garbage or surface tar. THESE chemicals have a cooling effect, blocking off sunlight and causing reduced sunlight and thus offsetting much of the greenhouse effect(The fringe theories in the 70s about global cooling were partially down to badly overestimating this effect as well as looking at natural records from the little ice age). Soot and Ash were heavily controlled by pollution laws in the 60s and 70s(mostly to prevent stuff like the London Smog that killed thousands), Sulfur Dioxide was controlled by Anti-Acid Rain laws in the 80s and 90s, and most households switched to natural gas or electric heating so we don't have coal soot pouring out of every chimney. While this is GOOD in that the air is no longer poison, this reflective effect that was mostly keeping the greenhouse effect under control suddenly vanished in just the span of a few decades. And these reflecting agents don't stay in the atmosphere very long, while co2 can stay for millennium. We effectively had something braking the heating effect for centuries and recently we removed it.
So who is measuring the rise and fall of the land...
The Scientists (gov. funded) travel all over the world in an effort to find locations where the land is falling, while simultaneously ignoring the land that's rising. They then use this data to prove that the seas are rising. They pass this information onto the IPCC and MSM who then sensationalize this catastrophic rise in sea levels in order to keep the global warming scam alive. Welcome to 'Propaganda 101'.
This information is then added to the educational curriculum of all school systems to convince children that the world will probably end before they become teenagers or adults (only those that do their own research and survive the suicide epidemic will live to see that it was all a scam). In the mean time the angry children will be paraded through the streets to convince the adults of the world that they should pay CO2 taxes so that they will not have their lives prematurely snuffed out by the spontaneous combustion of our planet.
These children will not be given ANY information that contradicts the globalist agenda. They will not know that the climate has been warming for the last 300 years since the Little Ice Age (except for the current PAUSE 1998-present) and that it's completely normal. For two generations now they have been indoctrinated into believing that CO2 is a poison even though in the past it was called the chemical of LIFE! The world would be a better place with MORE CO2 and a much warmer climate.
Everything you just said is wrong.
You obviously don't know how science works and you don't know wether this is actually happening or not. You are just making shit up on the go. Besides, what purpose would the "global warming scam" have? control? what's the end goal of this "control"?
CO2 (Carbon Dioxide) is not the same thing as Carbon (C) when two elements come together they change their properties, CO2 is a greenhouse gas, CO2 is absorbed by plants and the ocean but right now we are producing more CO2 than is required to keep the balance which will eventually lead to death.
Whenever scientists conduct experiments they take in all the possible factors and make a conclusion, if you think otherwise then you are plain wrong. 300 years ago the industrial revolution started and there is no such "pause" that has occurred since 1998. So, is the earth flat too?
Al Gore said that Florida would be under water by now. Good thing that Obama lowered the sea levels because those people would be in trouble.
Al needed Florida votes
Parts of Florida ARE underwater. Video footage freely available on youtube. Flooded streets etc.
We, in Florida, are in trouble, Miami and other low lying cities and towns are now experiencing flooding at least once a month during the 'king' tides. other parts of the state are experiencing more summer storms which are some of the severest ever experienced, rivers (especially on the west coast) are draining more slowly into the gulf due to the amount of water, I am on the western side of Florida and have never never seen the lake where I live so high, it is about 2 feet higher than normal, though I am 35 miles as the crow flies from the gulf I am only 39 feet above MLLW. In Hampton Virginia there are now 'No Wake' signs posted up to two miles from the waters edge, to slow cars down when they drive through the flooded streets, Norfolk virginia has piers that have been abandoned for they cannot be maintained and have become unsafe, just recently the bullet was dodged when a storm came ashore to the west of NOLA, if it hit New Orleans there would have been another Katrina scenario, Lower Manhattan, Sandy Hook are experiencing higher than normal tides and if you really need any more convincing go onto the NOAA website and look up sea level trends.
@@ronm5363The east coast of the United States is slowly but steadily sinking into the sea. This is the result of a recent study which took a variety of factors into account when determining the continuous sinking of the eastern seaboard.
www.forbes.com/sites/trevornace/2017/09/12/study-finds-the-east-coast-of-america-is-sinking-into-the-atlantic-ocean/#1f7e1d8633fb
@@biggav7434 When you mentioned the "scientific community" that was enough for me to read "fake" into it.
An incredible amount of certainty on a minimum amount of fact.
scaremongering about global warming is a new religion: religions don't need facts
how much facts can you put in a 10 minute video for your short attention span? Even in the video he mentions the hundreds upon hundreds of statistical analyses conducted by people who spent 10+ years studying this stuff; tons of mathematics, data collection and fieldwork; and funding for expensive data collection machines for your ignorant comment to cast away their time and effort.
As Dennis Miller once said if I can't get out of the of something moving one inch per century I deserve to be extinct.
@Wesley Hills climate change hasn't destroyed anyone yet
@Wesley Hills if Americans stop driving pick-up trucks & SUVs - will it save the Maldives?
Love how this tool shows how much sea levels rose thousands of years before SUVs but now a few cm in tide changes are supposed to make me live off of global communism, bugs and green energy.
Earth has gone trough many global changes and natural events always occur, of course, but this artificial warming is unique to this civilization and it's reliance on this agriculture. You are far more subject to tyranny from dependence on OPEC and the oil companies who dominate geo-politics than from a renewable source you own and is powered by free energy. Renewable s liberate the individual from speculators, imports, and bureaucrats.
@@lrvogt1257 ridiculous. if not for the climate hoaxers and globalists, the US would produce more than enough oil for ourselves. Peddle your useless windmills elsewhere.
@@kyucklebeans : You can check for yourself that oil is traded on a global market and OPEC can set the price by how much they choose to produce. US oil companies work with them and are happy to price gouge you to boot.
@@lrvogt1257 In a perfect world which it isn't
Everybody needs to drink as much water as they can(a few gallon's a day) to help control sea level rise.
I guess you are the first one to do it. effects of salt water.
Just remember not to pee in it. Pee in the the toilet at all times, *Only YOU can prevent SEA RISE*
# funny 😀😉
😂😂😂😂😂😊👍
Just make sure you don't pee any of it out again!
1:53 so in one chart we're in the tail end of sea level rise and its actually slowing down. But the next graph shows steady increase in the rise? suposidly correlating the rise with human acctivity? Correlation equals causation is it?
The climate has always been changing and will continue to do so. It did before we were carbon emissions happy and it will co time long after we are all driving fairy dust powered cars.
@VeryEvilPettingZoo Real science is a wonderful thing: th-cam.com/video/BiKfWdXXfIs/w-d-xo.html th-cam.com/video/gGEPgdMo55g/w-d-xo.html
th-cam.com/video/TCy_UOjEir0/w-d-xo.html th-cam.com/video/SyUDGfCNC-k/w-d-xo.html www.naturalnews.com/055151_global_warming_science_hoax_climate_skepticism.html
@VeryEvilPettingZoo BULL SHIT
@@MrFreshbreeze50EnjoyLife none of those men are pulished earth- or climate scientists.Opinion discarded.
@@christianhoffmann8607 Lots and lots of sand in the world. I see you've found your portion.
*10" rise in 170 years ! How can we possibly react in time ?*
It's not going to happen all at once. Even the Navy is commissioning studies to see which ports to shore up, and which to abandon (eventually).
If you don't believe in science, why don't you live without it.
Abcde I would be more alarmed if temperatures were a flat straight line
Abcde mmmmmmm ponderosa
Dan Gleeballs I wonder why the UN group responsible for making most of these claims about massive global warming is imminent... uhh except they came out last year and they said they greatly over estimated the impact of co2 and they scaled their estimated rises of temperature and sea level down considerably!! Weird that wasn’t everywhere
Dan Gleeballs Im betting if you closed your mouth, it would have a massive effect 😉
1880 is an interesting starting point.
It's just 20 years after the glacial maximum resulting from the "Little Ice Age".
Weird that....
You can float malicious inferences, or you can support an assertion with some research and data.
Funny how deniers always shy away from the second option, huh?
@@xcrockery8080 I've given you the data points, and I'm not here to present a dissertation, nor am I asserting that anthropogenic climate change does not exist.
Do you realise that we have the written records from the early medieval period that describe people's horror as mountain passes and farmland fell to the encroaching ice?
@@baldieman64 the "little ice age" officially ended in 1846. We haven't even warmed back to the 1000 year avarage yet. Also, the slight increase in CO2 is a good thing. It is resulting in a "greening" effect. 5% more once barren land covered by plant life every year. More plants, less CO2 and more oxygen. This info from a talk by a PHD climatologist.
@@johnchandler1687 As per my first post, the glacial maximum was around 1860 and yes, we are still warming.
I broadly agree with you about this being a self-regulating system, although there are some legitimate concerns about permafrost melting and releasing CO2 on a massive scale, but that doesn't seem to be happening at the moment. Lots of people have spoken out against the doom mongers, including Dr David Bellamy and Nobel Prize winning physicist Freeman Dyson.
@@baldieman64 Exactly. Recently, remains of 7,000 year old forests were discovered under receding ice in Switzerland. Obviously, it was much warmer at some point. Mindless zombies, like 'X Crockery', are simply useful idiots for 'the cause'. Also, did you ever notice these mindless, ankle-biters like 'X Crockery' never use their actual names? Is it because of their cowardice?
The margin of error is larger then the changes.
more like a margin of doctored stats...
The BEST comment!
Yea, it would get you thrown out of any other discipline for the margin being so HUGE
Denier!
Somebody should really start selling denier hats.
Why restrict my quality of life now for hypothetical lives in the future?
Can you guarantee humans will be around in the future?
How far in the future?
Why should the interpretation of the data of some people regulate the freedoms of everyone else?
Compliance by threat of imprisonment and/or confiscation of property does not mean I’m in agreement.
who's threatening you?
Rather than trying to alter climate on a global scale so that every island and coastline remains the same, I think it makes more sense just to move to higher ground and adapt to whatever Mother Nature gives us. Isn't that what people have been doing for thousands of years?
Sea level has risen 400 feet since the ice caps over the states started melted. I'm pretty sure our ancestors worked under the assumption..... if the water rises move.
@@johnperic6860
what are ur live long and healthy secrets ??
i want to live also 15000 years :)
Donny Hinson Ongoing research has uncovered evidence of fertile land where humans and herds of mammoth lived on the Dogger Bank, currently under 100 feet of salt water in the middle of the North Sea. The gradual inundation that occurred as the mile thick ice of the last Ice Age melted forced them to adapt and move.
There is nothing new under the Sun.👍🏻
Donny Hinson We can plant more trees, too. They're beautiful and they cool the air.
That's what I keep saying to climate huggers. Even of these so called experts using false models were correct (which they are not) people around the world would adapt as they have already. It's most definitely not the end of the world is nigh. And the Chinese and developing countries are taking no notice whatsoever. So why should we.
There was no water when I was a kid and now can barely keep my head above water
wow on that predition ive got 20,000 years to move house before i have a sea property at risk. thanks for the heads up
Yeah, you better hurry ................ or learn to swim ............ or buy a boat.
I live in South Wales, near a lime kiln built in 1760.
Lime barges used to pull up at high tide to load...now 300 years later, sport fishermen load their boats there at high tide....
NOTHING has changed in 300 years!...I will keep you posted.
Yes, what would those pesky marine scientists know. With all their 'data' and 'methodology'. State of the art instruments. Satellites.
@@biggav7434 Same building in use for same function [essentially, that being loading boats] for 300 years means that there has been no sea level rise in 300 years greater than a few inches [if that].
Logic Gav...refute it.
What bro? the building's rising is it?
Also same zip.
'Cold nap beach Barry South Glamorgan Cf62'
Roman villa at top of the beach there. Reprovisioned at high tide. Same sea level 1700 years ago apparently bro?
@@matthewmallan1395 Well yeah, a few inches. Today, sea levels are rising 3.5mm a year which is much faster than the pre-industrial rate. And that rate is increasing exponentially. But that is the least of our worries. It's the ecological disaster unfolding that is the real worry. Not enough food.
@@biggav7434 Loads of food everywhere. Scarcity is a lie.
For instance...
The bee is 'dying off' and yet we have the cheapest honey EVER in the shops right now, $4 a KILO!!! they can't give it away! but listen to the news and we're all moments from extinction.
'Much faster than the pre industrial state'
During the pre industrial state we measured sea levels with bits of string. We have NO accurate data from this period.
We do have thousands of years worth of buildings that were built on coasts that are still there and still operating.
Bristol dock [uk] first built by the Romans...still there...Antwerp, PRE- Roman and still fully functional.
Banks are still lending BILLIONS a day for development ON FLOOD PLAINS! So that's the ENTIRE BANKING SYSTEM not even a bit convinced about sea level rise.
Explain?
Why would investors, invest in the Maldives if they will be lost in a few years? Why has Al Gore bought a beach front property? Believe the hockey stick.
What about the lacrosse stick, do you know about that, it will really blow your mind
@Danny More Dude, you need to understand that we are fkd. Electric cars, renewables and such are like efforts by men on the Titanic to pump out the water filling the hull. You know it won't help, but you wouldn't want them to give up either.
Watch the video you stupid MAGA prick
douglas carpenter it’s a good thing “some guy on youtube” has plenty of scientific sources and studies to back up his claims
@douglas carpenter Sea levels ARE rising. The sea IS becoming more acidic. Crops ARE starting to fail. Fires, floods, hurricanes ARE more extreme. Methane and NO2 is being released from the permafrost. The Arctic sea ice is in free fall. Fresh water IS becoming scarce e.g. Capetown. Open your eyes for God sakes.
I spent around 50 years fishing the Texas Gulf Coast. My preferred way to fish was wading the bay side of barrier islands. In those 50 years I noticed no change in water levels beyond tidal changes.
... Barrier islands constantly drift. Noticing sea level rise on them would mean very dramatic sea level rise.
@@adampope5107 what about the boat ramps. They were built many years ago and they are on the mainland and are still usable.
@@skipperx5116 yeah were you expecting five feet of sea level rise in a decade?
@@adampope5107 How about over the 70 years I've fished galveston bay and see no sea level rise?
Gore bought a mansion on the coast so he can watch the ocean rise.
Obama did too. Having earned $4 million for 8 years service, he paid $12 million for a mansion by the sea. Nothing to see here...
🤣🤣
Ever wonder how much deeper the oceans would be without all those sponges?
Steve Dyches
awesome 🤣😂🤣
Ray... sponges migrate about a foot and a half....
@@edwardmichaels3388 Glad you liked it. Not my own joke though. I think I heard it from comedian Steven Wright many years ago if you know who that is. Sounds like something he would say. Always stuck in my head though as funny, if you don't over think it.
@@stevedyches4635 oh man I LOVE Steven Wright!!
"I wanna get a full body tattoo. Of myself. Only taller." 😂
@@atheistconservative6211 Hello from Scotland... or the monologue he gave where (as his friend he was visiting came out from the shower ) he took the blame for doing a shit in an upstairs flat so the dog wouldn't get into trouble!! Lol. And asking for a decaffeinated coffee table! Yup, Steven Wright. Scottish fan big time.. Brilliant. ☮️ from Ayrshire
I have wondered about this? I fished a place on the coast as a 20 year old. I saw the same place when I was over 60 and it was pretty much the same level. Tides make it hard to judge but nothing much was apparent.
Tell that to the Venetians. King tides are more prevalent. I've been fishing in Sydney for 30+ years. The erosion of rivers have increased dramatically in the last 5-10 years. It seems your problem is poor observation.
This story had no mention of all the floodwaters on this planet that silt up seas and oceans and reclamation work everywhere also ice age rebound on the northern hemisphere some land rises and other land sinks one eg. Scotland is rising southern England is sinking and dust blown out to sea , an Australian red dust storm fallout was observed on snow caps in South Island in New Zealand it all adds up and is relevant .
🚫🤔 But the problem is that global warming alarmists have been dead wrong on almost every significant prediction Example, they were claiming that by 2015, places like areas of NY would be permanently "snow free", and it would warm enough that New Yorkers there would be growing leafy greens in their gardens in winter(February). The same predictions about "permanent snow-free areas" were made about huge swathes of the US by now. But actually the opposite has been true!
👉 But my main issue with the "CO2 is a super dangerous greenhouse gas" is that the allegedly excess amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is actually only a tiny excess, and plants USE CO2 as literal FOOD! So an insignificant increase in CO2 SHOULD be able to be simply absorbed by plants, which is precisely what's happened in the past, when CO2 levels were MUCH higher!
@@HighlanderNorth1So the other extreme happened and you're fine with it? 🤣 what's your explanation to explain away those extreme events. Please explain why highest recorded global temperatures have been recorded in the last decade or so. With extreme weather becoming more common, idiots ignore the predictions that have occurred.
@@HighlanderNorth1 What insults? Are you admitting to be an idiot, is that the 'insult' You're referring to?
How about methane and NO2, those are more potent greenhouse gases than CO2.
Thanks again John. I live on Long Island NY. All my life I have lived 3 ft. average above sea level. It's still the same today. From an airliner it looks like long Island is a paper map on the ocean.
did you not watch the video, or just not understand it?
I did my bit, I collected a cup of seawater and took it home. Now if we can the 7 billion other humans to collect a cup of seawater we can reduce the sea level by 7 billion pints of water.
Which is as to say, nothing.
@@HaydenLau. 2 cups next time?
that's 3.3 million cubic meters or what is melted in the arctic by burning 1375 tonnes of carbon, becoming 4200 tonnes of CO2, which is the world emission from the world population in 5 seconnds. So every human being has to pick up a pint every 5 seconds for their entirety of their life to counter sea level rise!
how can 1375 tonnes turn into 4200 tonnes ? that would be magic, not science , your talking out of your **** !!!
@@rumples2698 maybe because carbon and carbondioxide are two different things.
I seriously don’t understand how your videos are so clean.
Minecraft water blocks are the answer!
Hard work and retakes goes a long way, but you're right this is unusually high quality video.
I'm going to watch more from this channel :-)
Bunch of hewy
@@fastamx069box8 I think that's "hooey". Sorry.
@@_yonas I thought it was bleachbit
Yep. The UN issues reports that the sea levels are rising--but never asks for funds to relocate their headquarters. (The UN complex in New York is about 6 feet above the water...)
Ah we meet again. I will use my moderator powers to block you. Suggesting that the UN is controlled by the devil!
The subways and the area where the WTC was, have had floods. Only you are predicting
a six-foot rise in sea level at this time. They are pumping water out of Miami and we
didn't need to do that 30 years ago. The hottest year on record was last year and
the Arctic is melting. Oil is poisonous and causes wars so why not use better
technology.
Franklin Russell you claim that but do you know exactly how much Erosion has occurred in the greater Miami area over the Last 30 years also because that's one of the biggest factors when dealing with Tidal increases the water may not be rising the land may just be eroding away lowering the land itself I've never personally seen any studies into this for any coastal region here and there there's satellite data on some islands that are eroding away that the Climate alarmists claim to be disappearing from sea level rise when in fact it is due to many factors including weather (monsoon rainfall, hurricanes, Etc.) Tidal erosion, deforestation or vegetation by natives, construction Etc. This does not mean that it is solely due to Climate change or Human effects this entire ideology is based on one thing CONTROL of every aspect of your life and the rest of us except those in power and even most of these Idiot so called scientists who were paid to come to certain conclusions won't be immune from the power players obsession for controlling and their greed for more power and riches.
@@jeremygenslinger4874 When I was in college in the 1970's, erosion--especially on beaches--was a continuing problem and was recognized as such long before Anthropomorphic Global Warming was spotted as an exploitable opportunity for various political factions.
It turns out that building one's house on sand has never been a good idea. As for people who sell condo units in complexes sitting on unstable land? I guess human nature is constant throughout time...
Of course they don’t need to move. Watch the documentary “The Expanse”, they’ll just build sea walls around Manhattan
They’ve been wrong for the last sixty years, but we still need to listen to them and do exactly what they say, no questions asked.
Taking about the deniers eh
Nope. I’ve been reading the news for the last sixty. The doomsayers have failed more often than I can count, but you keep on believing.
"I'm putting my kid through college, don't kill my grant!"
In other news, Obama just bought a beach house in Martha's Vineyard. He's apparently unconcerned.
He reportedly spent $15 million on that property. Yes, he's not concerned, or he would have bought in the Poconos.
@zomg222 Chicken Little cried ''the sky is falling'' the fox said ''come to my cave and be safe'' So, Chicken Little and Henny Penny went into the fox's cave................and never came out.
If you can afford to move again there isn't that much reason to be concerned anyway, sea levels raising or not. Its not like it will suddenly raise a meter overnight or more. It is a gradual process
@@zakosist Some of the hysteria says Miami will be gone in 10 years. They've been saying 10 years since global warming first hit the press in the late 1990s. Miami is still there, and not dealing with floods. Besides, Obama would have great difficulty trying to list the property if it's flooding. Heck, the state may even ban building permits on the shore.
I don’t trust the Church and White data since uses mixed measurement systems and SLR has multiple causes. The only way to determine if SLR is accelerating is to look at each port individually. So far not an issue.
It moves up quite a bit every day at high tide I believe. Luckily it moves back down again after a few hours
The measurements refer to mean sea level rise over the course of a couple decades. In other words, tide is already accounted for. The fact tide goes up and down within hours is irrelevant when you're averaging them.
@@danielkim3525 th-cam.com/video/e82smfcypUc/w-d-xo.html
unfortunately the climate scientists are on lunchbreak during low tide
Phew.... A narrow escape!
Here in Ventura CA, in 2004-5 a sign on the beach used to say “Global warming will cause the sea level to rise to here by 2015.” (15ft high arrow) 🤦🏻♂️
@ alextheskaterdude07
Did they remove it or did it disappear under water ?? lol.
🤣🤣
I bet they dug a couple of holes to lower the sign into the sand.
There's a famous picture taken 150 yrs ago of a La Jolla seaside landmark at high tide and then there is a photograph of the same landmark taken a couple of years ago at high tide and this shows there has been very little increase at high tide over 150 yrs.
No scientist ever predicted sea level rise of that magnitude by 2015. When Hansen went to Congress in the 80s he predicted we would see effects of warming by the middle of the 21st century, not by 2015. Read the IPCC and see the predictions for 2100, which might be 1-3 feet by then. Loads of people like to dismiss climate change by quoting outlandish predictions that were never said.
My parents bought a new house on Miami Beach in 1950. (My mother had left NY after WWII as a war widow.) I grew up there
Traveling most of the city every day from when I entered middle school until I left for college. I returned for med school at The U and lived there for 4 more years, then moved away. Miami Beach was dry every sunny day where it didn’t rain the day before. In the 60s I saw occasional small puddles on sunny days, but gave them no importance as I thought that someone must have washed their car the day before.
I came back for a visit in 2016, about 50 years later. The city was in the process of spending half a billion dollars, a big expense even for a city filled with ppl with money, installing pumps, and raising streets on the west side of the city because streets have been flooding during high tide. The tiny puddles on the early 60s were now 2-3 feet of water, during extra high tides.
The earth is BIG. I’m sure everyone can agree with that. It takes a lot of heat to warm something that big, and no matter how fast glaciers melt you’re not going to notice the increase year over year. It takes decades.
The cost of protecting one small city is half a billion, and that will last for 20-30 years. Imagine the cost of protecting every city on the east coast. The cost of abandonment is even greater, far more than the cost of switching to solar and wind for electricity.
One more thing. The weather has changed greatly since then. The winters were cold. I remember freezing my bottom off waiting for the school bus every Nov to Feb. I now live several hundred miles north, in an area that used to have orange trees until several winter freezes killed all the trees. Farmers replanted, but a few years later a series of cold snaps killed them off and the farmers gave up. I’ve lived here just outside Orlando for 14 years, and there hasn’t been a freeze since I got here. Although my home has central heat it’s never been turned on.
The climate is getting hotter, the sea is rising. Both are happening slowly enough not to notice year over year, but observing over decades and it’s absolutely happening. Ignore it at your peril.
I grew up in Huntington Beach and the “highest tides” were 6.2’- 6.7’.
Now, high tides regularly are 8’+ over sea level.
If you know anything about sea level rise:
It is going to affect different areas differently.
Ask citizens of Miami how it is driving thru town at high tides now.
“Regularly” 6”+ water
Downtown Miami is 6 inches underwater twice a day, really? Gaslight someone stupid enough to believe you.
Sir this corner of the internet is for small minded humans that just speculate to get attention and feel superior
Did you consider the fact that coast lines also sink?
Or did you not know that US coastlines are and has been sinking for years now?
I've lived my life near the bay for 57 years, it's still the same, no 5 meter rise.😋
You should publish a paper and become a scientist then for your excellent observation skills.
Why would you be expecting a 5 metre sea level rise?
I've checked my local coastal city's measurements (they had 100 years of data). No measurable real change, maybe a slight downward slope.
The changes are to small to be noticeable in a human lifetime, is this what got Al Gore the Nobel Price??
On this video, the logic that since it cannot be A and B, hence it must be C is incorrect.
And finally, why is all the 'scary' change always assumed coming in the future - just look at the funny graphs, going totally wild in the future, but for the last 30 years, nothing has changed.
@Ambesh Pratik - thanks for the link. Page 16 has an image, and it even has uncertainty-bars (pretty uncommon). It doesn't say much on how the chart is arrived at, so hard to verify it.
However, I see no clear evidence of accelerated sea-level rise, it seems pretty darn straight at about 3mm/year on average.
Well, you should know that average is a mathematical concept. Where I live, it is not 3mm/year but about -1mm/year.
Anyways, if you think humans in the year 2019 are not able to adapt to a few mm/year sea level rise, then you underestimate us.
@Ambesh Pratik - lets do one thing at a time. Please prove the exponential growth of sea level rise based on actual measurements (I don't care for predictions or data-models). My local station shows none (could be a local exception). Can you find any individual station showing a clear exponential rise over the last 100 years? (Should be most stations, if your hypothesis is correct)
@Ambesh Pratik - thanks for the document. Page 38 points to a graph citing US measurements (no error-bars or more info), not global. And it does not say anything about exponential increase that you claimed.
You also failed to provide one concrete example of a coastal city experiencing exponential sea level rise.
Feel free to believe whatever you are told and fall back to appeal to authority as evidence for your claims.
I wish you good luck with your studies, please make sure you pay close attention to any courses about the scientific method.
Why don't you look at NASAs home page. All data about global sea level and ice melting on Greenland and Antarctica. sealevel.nasa.gov/
There are a few ways we directly measure sea level. One is tide gauge observations-simply measuring the height of a tide on a fixed marker. As the tide marker is attached to land, this provides a measurement of sea level relative to land. In some areas, the land might be rising (uplift) which would mean the local sea level would be falling faster than if there was no land motion. In other areas, the land might be subsiding, which would result in higher local sea-level rise.Another method is satellite altimetry, where satellites measure the actual height of the ocean surface.By combining these two methods, scientists can put together a picture of average global sea level changes. www.science.org.au/curious/earth-environment/how-we-measure-global-sea-level-changes-0
If we have objects in the ocean or on the coastlines on which sea levels are at almost the same level as they were 50 years ago, either the data is fabricated, incorrect or simply misinterpreted. I would imagine that its an almost impossible task to measure actual sea level rise when land masses are always moving, up or down.
Yeah, it is. Average sea levels have increased by roughly 4.5 inches in the last 50 years. The average wave breaking on the coast is significantly larger, so a casual observer will not notice any difference.
But we don't have objects in the ocean or on the coastlines on which the sea levels are at almost the same level. First off, the word "almost". Well, if it's "almost" then it isn't. Also, as the video starts out by saying, there are physical gauges and they are not at the same level. Land masses are not "always moving up or down." Tectonic plates to move, but those are over huge timescales. Earthquakes will raise and lower local areas but we know when and by how much. You many not quite grasp the scale of geographic surveying done across the globe. When the land masses move, we know by how much. No imagination is necessary. It's measured. And we know that, around the globe, structures have collapsed from the coastline, into the oceans.
Imagine that.!
Sea levels have risen by about a foot in the last 100 years, and the rate is increasing.
@@Tugela60 Plenty of people out there in various parts of the world will disagree with you on that.
@@christophercharles3169 Yeah, plenty of people believe all sorts of stupid things. Plenty of people can't use a map to find their way home.
I hear about islands facing problems with sea level rising. These islands are in the area of the Indian/Pacific region. Everyone should research "sand thrives". Sounds crazy, but look it up. The island problem will be explained.
Then there are coral reefs which actually grow Islands bigger. Coral always grows right up to the surface. Seal level gauges there are for entertainment only.
I say if the choice is a fairly sparse earth with todays sea level or an incredibly rich, green and lush world but with a slightly higher sea level, I will choose the latter.
I'm with you on that.
We will have a less lush earth. Desertification is increasing.
But that isnt the choice. Atleast not currently. The way it is going, we are getting a more barren world with higher sea levels.
@@mvalthegamer2450 My understanding of the latest satellite imagery suggests the Earth is greening at new higher levels.
@@Seplicar Some areas of the earth are greening, where sustained afforestation efforts are being undertaken. Others, like The Amazon and SEA rainforests, face aridification.
Just went to the beach. The high tide comes to the same place it came to 60 years ago. Same beach, same ocean, SAME, SAME !
@Bob Trenwith lam aware! It's the same!
@Bob Trenwith sorry! Nothing has changed. You need to re-evaluate your research.
@Bob Trenwith - Florida. Listen there is One body of water surrounding our planet, Period. There are.no borders. Just different locations. Water Seeks it's own level ? If you Add or Subtract from, the levels rise or lower Every where! The beaches many have changed for whatever reason. The place im talking about is one of those places where building has changed but the border for the beach looks like it's always been. There is no ice melting and increasing our oceans. You have to know Better!
@Bob Trenwith sorry you're warning is Irrelevant, and you're science is actually Climate Hoax talking points! This Planet of ours is HUGE. We people haven't changed a thing. Mankind hasn't Hurt the Earth. Recycle and do your part and l will do mine.
@Bob Trenwith l guess so. Every prediction made by climate change alarmist, Every one ,so far is 100 percent WRONG! Bless you're heart!
Since 1999 I’ve lived 200 feet away from and at 4 feet above sea level in the Florida keys .
I’m still waiting for the sea to rise ….
I don’t think a 5 centimeters is enough to notice. But 30 more years and 20-Cm will be
It's going up 1/8" per year. You might not see this with your eye, but the storms surges will be worse and worse. Hunker down, fella
Move to Miami
Its depressing that the top comment is a guy with annecdotal evidence of no sea level rise and hundreds of commentators chiming in.
I know right I thought I’d only see them when I switched to newest comments 🫠
... there is countless on the coast or beaches houses all over the world, especially California. Can you point me to a single example where the sea levels have rose and made these homes unlivable? Oh no you cant ? weird,, isnt that weird. The coast lines around cities have stayed the same for decade after decade. WIERD
@@WhatisReal11 Sea level in the coastal region around Ocean Isle Beach, North Carolina, has risen about 7.6 centimeters (3 inches) since the early 1980s. (NASA)
But you refuse to believe tens of thousands of peer reviewed papers written by tens of thousands of scientists over more than a century on this particular subject; what difference does it make to point to a small part of it? You’ll simply refuse to accept that a well. Talk about weird...
I know
Sea level rise caused by humanity ? Temp rise happens before rise in CO2.
No it didn't, you've been had by propaganda and politically motivated shills
M. Fink rise in carbon dioxide *follows* the rise in temperature. There is a lag.
wrong. www2.bc.edu/jeremy-shakun/Shakun%20et%20al.,%202012,%20Nature.pdf
@@christianhoffmann8607 principia-scientific.org/atmospheric-carbon-dioxide-lags-temperature-the-proof/
th-cam.com/video/zQ3PzYU1N7A/w-d-xo.html
This video only shows that there's a correlation between sea level increase and human activity. Correlation does not imply causation. This video shows a correlation then jumps to a conclusion about causation based on your personal biases. That's the problem when climate alarmists cut corners scientifically when it helps push their narrative.
Correlation is not causation, but when you eliminate all other explanations, then we know what is causation. We know climate change happens due to human activity because we know human activity releases carbon into the atmosphere. We know that many scientific models indicate such increased amounts of carbon will result in temperatures rising, and that temperatures have risen at rates previously projected by scientists.
@@randomperson2078 You just proved his point.
I feel like you made this video to tell Rob off, and disguised it as being about climate science.
Rob?
@@shooterrick1 Did you even watch the video?
@@welltypedwitch I'm in the process of watching it.
@@shooterrick1
Done yet?
That story is fake AF
Nobody goes out of their way to show how brave and strong his/her friend is.
But even if we assume that humans have some effect on this, the question I have for the global warming alarmists is, how does a rise of 2.5 mm per year provoke mass migration? You talk like we're going to wake up one morning and WOW, the sea is in our front yard! It makes no sense. This is a very gradual increase and we're very capable of gradually adapting, if it becomes a problem. This is by no means a crisis. A 25 cm rise in 100 years - why is this a problem?
"Lloyd's of London found a large impact on storm surge damage for Hurricane Sandy from sea level rise - as much of 30% of Sandy's storm surge insured damage in New York could be attributed to the 0.8-foot rise in sea level since 1950s"
For one, more storm surge causes salt water incursion but it also adds to increased rainfall. 1 c temperature increase makes air hold 7% more water so it comes down harder and more often. Sea level will continue to rise.
Ground water extraction accounts for a big chunk of that 2.5mm per year.
How does that effect the sea level?
@@M6BrokeMe All water eventually drains into the ocean, so if you drain a rock aquifer of its water then you eventually will redistribute it. Currently, aquifers all over the world are being pumped massively, even collapsing some... It's quite unfortunate.
@@M6BrokeMe Sorry, not "all" water, but most. There is aquifer recharge, but it is very slow on a human scale. Have a nice day.
@@kennys9644 if Sea levels are rising faster it due to Ca. draining their groundwater at unprecedented rates! to keep up with the demand for.....almonds!! crazy people out there. the sooner they drowned the better.
@@fondrees meat takes a lot more water even compared to the most water intense plants per kilogram of food.
At this rate I'll have to move my house 4" by 3099........
Lemme know if you need any help. 😂
@@atheistconservative6211 SURE! We'll both be 1090 years older but I'll call ya!
You gotta bring beer tho........
cryogenics need to be invented first
@@leddan6891 That'll happen first.....
THE ANGRY QUAD I don’t think you understand what this means, this means that whenever there’s a tidal surgeIt’s even slight, it will put tens of thousands of houses on the water compare to what would happen currently or in the past. We have accelerated the rate of sealevel rise it’s a big issue, especially since most of our children might not choose to live inland
The beach I visit every for over 50 years is still there and the buildings constructed 75 years ago are still one half mile from the surf.
reeeeeeeee stop using facts you racist
@@ImAmirus it hasn't risen 20cm lol and its spelled dumb-ass not dumass
Tell that to the people of the pacific islands who’s land is rapidly disappearing.
From 1922.....
The Arctic Ocean is warming up, icebergs are growing scarcer and in some places the seals are finding the water too hot, according to a report to the Commerce Department yesterday from Consulate at Bergen Norway.
Reports from fishermen, seal hunters and explorers all point to a radical change in climate conditions and hitherto unheard-of temperatures in the Arctic zone.
Exploration expeditions report that scarcely any ice has been met as far north as 81 degrees 29 minutes.
Soundings to a depth of 3,100 meters showed the Gulf Stream still very warm.
Great masses of ice have been replaced by moraines of earth and stones, the report continued, while at many points well known glaciers have entirely disappeared.
Very few seals and no white fish are found in the eastern Arctic, while vast shoals of herring and smelt which have never before ventured so far north, are being encountered in the old seal fishing grounds.
Within a few years it is predicted that due to the ice melt the sea will rise and make most coastal cities uninhabitable.
* * *
* * * * * *
I must apologize.
I neglected to mention that this report was from November 2, 1922, as reported by the AP and published in The Washington Post - 94 years ago.
This must have been caused by the Model T Ford's emissions or possibly from horse and cattle flatulence
You didn't neglect, it's at the top.
Fake
Google, when did the industrial revolution begin since you clearly forgot
M N look for it yourself lardass!!
you guys are touchy!
It was great until you extrapolated existing data to show an inexplicable exponentional rise in sea levels in the next 100 years. You also fail to acknowledge that CO2 is at a very low level compared to the rest of the Earth's history, and that man's contribution to that very low level is minute. So your claim that man is contributing to sea level rises by using a false dichotomy of eliminating other possible causes is clearly inaccurate at best, and deliberately misleading at best. Full disclosure: I am not a 'denier', I just lke to see the full facts disclosed on any topic, as opposed to solely facts that support a bias.
". You also fail to acknowledge that CO2 is at a very low level compared to the rest of the Earth's history, and that man's contribution to that very low level is minute"
Thats not true at all. About 30% of the current Co2 level is due to mans burning of fossil fuel.
The IPCC agrees annual human carbon dioxide emissions are 4.5 ppm per year and nature’s carbon dioxide emissions are 98 ppm per year.
You neglect the matching natural sink. About half of our CO2 also gets absorbed, but the rest builds up in the atmosphere.
I'm citing the IPCC.
They don't try to mislead by citing CO2 sources without the CO2 sinks, do they?
I was thinking to go to the Maldives on holiday, but the Travel Agent told me they'd gone and I'd have to go to Hastings instead
darn........... I was planning a trip there this summer.
@@dks13827 I think it's been submerged for several years. Another few years and the climate change huggers will be calling it Atlantis.
You can holiday there, they have actually increased in area by 80 hectares.
@@thewatchman6074 You're so triggered by climate science that you're calling them "climate change huggers" now? That's so insecure 😂
@@Jake-rs9nq "ya don't say Jakey baby?".....I'm not known to be a giver of fcks son
One of my granddaughters (11 years old) was very worried about this sea rise, having heard something at school that the seas would rise 15 metres. (About 50 feet for Americans). So I showed her the latest data from NOAA and NASA, which said the current rise, although its not equal all over the world, is 3 millimeters. (Very small for Americans). I then showed here a ruler with millimeter and centimeter markings (10 mm = 1 centimeter for Americans). So I asked her at a 3 mm rise per year how much would the sea rise in 10 years, she said 3 centimeters (a bit over an inch for Americans). Ok I said so how much would the seas rise in 100 years. She said "30 centimeters Grandad". "What's that in non metric I asked her" "One foot, Grandad" "How Tall is Grandad in the old measure?" I asked her. She laughed "6 Foot Grandad!". "So how long before the water goes over Grandads head" "600 years Grandad!" she laughed. "So I asked her if we lived by the sea and the seas were rising by so many metres per hundred years, do you think the government would build dykes, like Holland and keep the water out" "Of course grandad, they are not silly and there would be plenty of time." "Are you worried about seas rising now" I asked. "Don't be silly Grandad!" she replied.
The problem in this otherwise charming family tale is that the sea level rise, though slow now, is increasing at an aincreasing pace, in, in a 100 years it won't be 30 cm but probably closer to 40 or 45 which, consequently, implies that your 6 ft of height could be 'covered' in 300 to 400 years, rather than 600.
Kudos grandad 👏
@@apostolosvranas4499blah blah blah blah blah 🙄 sounds like greta 😅 oh what percentage of co2 is in the atmosphere btw? How old is the planet? How many millions of years have co2 levels been higher than now for? And how long is it again that we have been burning fosill fuels for? 😊
@@johnjohnson9182 , yes, there have been periods in the past where the CO2 percentage in the atmosphere was higher - there was n humanity back then (8 billo. people, agricultuire, animal-breeding, pets, ...).
Believe me, no Greta! Just realism!
@@apostolosvranas4499 bro humans have been here for a blip of the earth's history. 4.2 billion years old to somewhere between 100,000 and 200,000 years of humans... industrial revolution what, just over 100 years. Co2 percentage 0.04 less than a half of a tenth of a percent.
Ive surfed the same spot for 33 years and there's no change, high tide is the same as it was in '86. I'm not buying it
3:00 I'd be impressed if you could tell a 50 mm change : )
Just give the government all your money and everything will be fine.
Bingo! But you forgot one thing; let them have total control of your daily live too.
@@everready19373 yeah, what could go wrong?
I like how people denying the dangers of climate change mirrors my own procrastination. I think it is part of human nature to avoid unpleasant action by denial as long as not forced into action. Works great when reacting to lions, works terribly when reacting to long term or abstract threats and even worse with abstract long term threats like climate change seems to many people.
I like how decades of ‘climate change science’ has never once proved a causal relationship between CO2 and global temperature
@@harmlesscreationsofthegree1248 Judging from tons of material I have read and watched that "fact" is just plain wrong. Choose to continue living in your comfortable bubble of confirmation bias or actually read up on the literature I don't care either way. If you can look at the current world and deny that its nature is dying by our actions you are beyond saving anyways or have not taken a good look at it. Co2 is just the icing on top of the man made extinction-cake.
@@sizanogreen9900 It matters where you get your information from.Get it from the IPCC that has a agenda to proof Global Warming instead of the seeking the reality.
Sizano Green please link to proof of causality between CO2 and global temperature.
*crickets
The only problem is if we manage to stem all this, there will be people who say “see! It hasn’t happened. Scare over nothing!” 🤦🏼♂️
Looks like I am late to the party again but I just wanted to mention that one of the problems with tide gauges is that they may also show faulty data. Over simplified it is nothing more than a stick in the ground and we measure how high the water reaches. Due to shifting of the ground, such as rising or sinking land, it may also show a theoretical increase in sea level rise [1]. So it all depends on what you basis is that you measure from, if the base changes so does your data.
The interesting thing about seas level rise is also that it is none uniform [2]. You would think that if sea levels are rising it would be uniform, meaning that they would rise all over the world.
However this is not the case some areas that are very close to each other even report conflicting data, such as two stations in Japan called Aburatsu [3] and Hosojima [4] or two stations in India, one called Tuticorin [5] and other Nagapattinam [6] or two station in Chile, one called Talcahuano [7] and the other Corral [8] etc.
So a better way to measure sea level rise would be a mathematical approach where we measure the distance from the earth code to the surface of the water. Although I think that would be very difficult to acchieve.
Sources:
[1] news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2019/02/study-of-sea-level-rise-finds-land-sinking-along-east-coast/
[2] tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/
[3] www.psmsl.org/data/obtaining/stations/814.php
[4] www.psmsl.org/data/obtaining/stations/133.php
[5] www.psmsl.org/data/obtaining/stations/1072.php
[6] www.psmsl.org/data/obtaining/stations/1308.php
[7] www.psmsl.org/data/obtaining/stations/571.php
[8] www.psmsl.org/data/obtaining/stations/1057.php
Not a single like to this awesome comment...the world is doomed 😅
I added a "like". Seattle sea level is falling BECAUSE the land is rising above a subduction zone. Also there's a "isostatic rebound" effect from the melting of ice in the northern hemisiphere the last glacial period. the land near the edge of the ice (seattle again) is rising because of the lost weight; but as it rises a bit farther to the south the land sinks. The sea is still rising from the end of the last "ice age" but has slowed considerably.
Copypasta
Hallo not to be mean but, I read the Harvard, NOAA, and PSMSL sites and in all there reports they point toward rising or significant change.
In the Harvard paper
It says that because the land is also rising and shifts and so most of our original estimates of sea level change is actually lower then it probably should because we’re not accounting for tectonic plate subduction and induction or simple terms the ground is moving up and down. Then, because of that they also found that our original 20th century facts were saying a lower increase of sea rise which means over the last 20 years sea level rise had accelerated significantly.
In the PSMSL
I read their most current report on their findings over the last 50-75 years and they concluded significant mean sea level rise with calculation in accordance to geocentric measurements as they were smart enough to see that would be a problem to measure with vertical ground motion
In the NOAA
The digital graph literally almost all the arrows point upward trend of sea level rise
For global averages, the shifting of the ground might be an issue. For regional data, if anything you WANT to include shifting in the ground. People live on land, not in the ocean. For all practical intents and purposes, it is the rising of the the water itself + the rising or sinking of the land that matters for planning mitigation. Texas is experiencing particularly high sea level rise because the land is sinking. You absolutely don't want to leave that out, only focus on the water itself, and seriously underestimate the future damage.
Reminds me of an episode of Gilligan's Island where they thought the island was sinking.
Turns out, Gilligan's was using the professor's depth gage to stake lobster traps and was gradually moving to deeper water to get to the lobsters.
Lucky for them they didn't start a war on their energy source...like someone I know...
If you read "A Disgrace to the Profession," you'll realize Michael E Mann is Gilligan.
and the Biden Admin hired him.
U know I dont think I have real ever laughed at GW.... I take it quite seriously and I shoot down some of the nonsense deniers quite easily... Yet in 5yrs I dont think I ever laughed at it or a comment about it until now...
@@Proemed44G Just an observation.
Glad you enjoyed it 😊
In the 60s, we were going to run out of oilin 10 years.
In the 70s. We were going to be in an ice age in 10 years.
In the 80s, acid rain was going to destroy all crops, in 10 years.
In the 90s, global warming was going to destroy the earth, in 10 years.
In the 2000s, sea levels rising was going to flood east, west and golf coast, in 10 years.
2010s, climate change in 10 years.
It never happened, but the governments of the world got more of our money each time to study and come up with a solution to each "catastrophe."
Hmmmmm.🤔🤨
Did Al Gore really say that sea level would rise 5 feet by 2010?
Sounds like a Guy McPherson statement.
NO Al Gore did NOT say sea level would rise 5 feet by 2010
He said 5 meters!
Al bought a beachhouse three years ago, strange isn’t it!
@@bigdickpornsuperstar clever and reasoned argument. someone should ponder on it.
Al Gore has made over 20 million dollars selling "carbon credits." This whole thing is a SCAM.
*As temperature rises so does Evaporation...*
*The atmosphere contains more water now, which affects the behavior of weather...*
Simon, it appears that you are using bad data for "sea level". There is no acceleration in sea level. This invalidates your entire video.
Simon says he uses tide gage data. But obviously the last part of the graph ( from 1995) is the sattelite data. Using two different methods in one graph is inexcusable. Look at the tidesandcurrents page of NOAA. All the gages in the world are presented there. They show no acceleration whatsoever - anywhere.
Jan Hemmer Yeah, but Simon says ...
@@janhemmer8181 Exactly ☺Inexcusable unless you want to create a result which fits your narrative. Then it's called propaganda, not science.
@@janhemmer8181 - The problem is that NOAA tends to correct old data considering it unreliable whenever it doesn’t fit their expectations. They seem to forget that 19th century technicians were generally more skilled and careful than many of the employees of today.
I was at the beach the other day and happened to mention to my wife that since we were last there the sea looks like it had risen 2.5mm.
You have a keen eye!
You mean the tide had come in!
Last time I was at the beach, the sea level rose a few meters in a few hours! Scary! But then it went back down again. So weird.
Damn you have accurate eyes. lol! I could have used your help when I was trying to level a,spot to place an above ground pool.
Good eye.
This is all computer models haha lol. Does not say anyting about we humans rise the sea levels.
Mysterious _"just trust us, they exist, but you can't see them"_ computer-models.
Well, I have a computer model that cures cancer and solves global hunger, but I refuse to share it until AFTER global-warming-whingers share their alleged computer-models.
when climate change deniers / skeptics are asked" what is the business model of peer reviewed scientific journals ? blank looks abound.
Sea levels are rising at 3mm per year.
The thickness of two pennies...
Or, 12 times slower than your fingernails grow...
Calm down.
There’s a gob of photos on line of ocean side structures like light houses and such that are over a hundred years old with new photos taken recently and you can see no obvious changes at all .
The daily record goes back to 1850 in New York Harbor, and it shows NO change in slope. Weird how increasing slope shows up when you add in lots of data to manipulate.
@@geraldfrost4710 sea level is not the same everywhere, you need to combine data from around the planet.
@@Aanthanur The graphs harbormasters produce show 1.2 mm per year, plus or minus subsidence or land rise. Satellite measurement say sea level rise is 3mm per year. Harbormasters haven't seen the change, which amounts to more than two inches over the last 30 years. Weird how the satellite measurement hasn't shown up where other people are also taking data.
@@geraldfrost4710 harbour masters measure the water only at the harbour.
@@Aanthanur Please! Do show me your experiment on how well you can stack water!
If rising sea levels was even remotely possible, banks would not lend on waterfront properties.
Why not? As long as the bank can make money, they will do it. They might you sell a property and some insurance too.
Banks don't give a shit about the long term, dummy. They only care about making as much money in the short term as they can because it looks good on their quarterly or annual reports, which pleases their shareholders.
Do you know anything?
I see the logic but banks just create money for loans so even if you only pay 'back' a tiny portion they still profit
Chris Nelson A bank wouldn't loan on something that can't be insured... fuckwit!
If you honestly believe that sea levels are rising, Google the battle of Tarawa ( Kiribati ) in WW2. There's photos of a tank disabled just off Red Beach. That very tank is still there today, still visible, in just as much water as it was in the day it was disabled. According to Al Gore, Kiribati should be under about 5m of water by now... such an inconvenient truth.
As someone that has lived at the ocean all of my life, I can say that there has been no sea level rise here...
is every country with a volcano having their carbon tax limits increased
ian Jones the UN were not excusing Australia’s massive and naturally occurring bushfires so why shouldn’t volcano owners pay for its carbon
@@brettstevens5397 hello its me a future man and my house has been flooded and im seending this by my phone on my neighboors boat
Fly your private jet to climate change meetings, that'll do it.
the point is: no cataclysm. sea level rise will occur at a rate that is amenable to adaptation (maintenance, construction, rebuild) as it always has. marine archaeology includes ancient ports and cities long since inundated. as with climate the levels here are very small: 250 mm is ten inches over 140 years. in that same time frame carbon dioxide has increased from 0.03% to 0.04% of the atmosphere and the global average temperature has increased about 0.8°C and so once again the climate eschatology department moved the goal posts (previously moved from 'global warming' to 'climate change' for instance) to propaganda about "tipping points" conveniently supplied by a book of that title (but quite different subjects) published in 2000 by Malcolm Gladwell. the damage to social fabric by trying to implement what is essentially an authoritarian regimen based on UN generated hysteria has started to show already in such protests as the Yellow Vest movement - together with distaste for the US president Trump - prompted a renewed propaganda campaign that is likely to turn violent over the next few years very much as the Socialist International shattered the 20th century with authoritarianism and police states except replace eugenics with climate eschatology. witness the present attempts to create a fascist youth movement for instance: consider how someone with very firm convictions and extreme paranoia augmented by mental illness would guide such a movement. you don't have to consider, just read up on Caligula, Commodus, Nero, Stalin, Mao and witch-burning in general. because they scientific argument is simply not for a panic but for a gradual transition (necessitated because current "alternatives" are nothing of the sort) and adaptation with emphasis on efficiency, diversity and practicality - simply not profitable enough for carbon priests attempting to sell carbon indulgences: be assured poverty is the worst environmental policy and police states run by authoritarian regimes have left behind environmental catastrophes that make capitalism seem tame - in fact capitalists under rule of law and democracy have created more parks, cleaned up more messes, invented more solutions and regulated more activity than any police state whose primary goal was regulating the thoughts of its citizens. the problem with the United Nations as the basis for any solution is that ignorant religiosity and brutal disrespect for human rights are given equal time with scientific practicality, democracy and the rule of law. therefore the UN will not be the basis for any working solution but is a fine substrate for panic, graft and avarice.
Are you an Australian living in New Zealand by any chance?
You should look up what "exponential" and "feedback loop" mean.
But no, the ocean rise won't be the most devastating part of climate change. It will be immensely expensive, but money is a man-made concept anyway and we can just redefine costs as needed.
The big problem will be food security. As the temperature rises, we'll have less and less arable land to work with, and fewer and fewer plants and animals to eat as existing species fail to adapt to the changing climate and the resultant changes in their local ecosystem. It won't be enough to wipe humanity out by any means, but it will result in mass starvation for a few generations as we're forcibly adjusted to whatever new sustainable level the remaining farmable land and crops allows for. And of course, humans being humans, we'll have plenty of war to go around on top of everything else as we all fight to try and prevent "our" in-group from being the ones who starve.
The real point is: the scientific community never SAID sea level rise would be a cataclysm. There are much worse potential consequences of climate change than sea level rise in the near future. Also, the concentration of atmospheric CO2 has increased by 40%. While it still constitutes what would be considered by everyday standards a small part of the whole atmosphere, the fact is that it contributes greatly to the amount of heat stored in Earth's system. The AGT has increased by 1C. The goal posts were never moved from "global warming" to "climate change"; the terms "climate change" or "climatic change" can be found in papers dating back at least to the 50's.
I think that's all the falsifiable things you mentioned related to the science or debate, the rest of what you did was ramble on about your personal view of the world.
“Climate chane”,the phrase,was coined by deniers. It’s broader and equally apt but well calculated to move the issue away from “anthropogenic global warming “, I.e. man’s responsibility for pumping CO2 into the atmosphere.
@Gareth .. And? Its true, but its also not super relevant for two reasons:
1) We're pumping CO2 out far, far faster than the new greenery is absorbing it.
2) Just like humans can get oxygen poisoning when the air we breathe has too much O2, plants also have a limit of how much CO2 they can handle before they start dying.
And there's also a pretty bad add-on effect as well: Most of the additional plant mass is in the form of things like algae blooms -- which themselves tend to kill off other sea life, making the extra greenery not as helpful as we'd like.
At the very least, it will be a significant shift in the world's plant demographics, and almost certainly going to be a massive hit to plant diversity.. which could be a real problem if we kill off say, rice or grain that are staple foods for large parts of the world.
Way bigger concern is extinctions due to over population, not global warming. We are losing too many irreplaceable species. In 1969 they predicted an ice age if man didn't change his ways, smh.
so global warming by us is so small....haha 1000 years ,1 inch ( 25 mm ) run ....... haha
That would be 2.5 meters not 25 mm (10 years). That is if the trend is the same. If Antarctica and Greenland melt suddenly there will be steeper rises in sea level with unusual swings in weather associated with fresh water flowing into the oceans.
never happen even if you wish it would ...i know it's boring but find something to do...lol
@@kimepp2216 if water didn't evaporate that could be right.
I am still waiting for the ice age "the experts" said was coming in the 70's.
It was some media scare not scientists
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling
You are incorrect. It was scientists, a large group of them wrote a letter to Nixon on the coming ice age.
On "In Search Of" there was a Colorado professor who was studying Baffin Island in Canada and was very concerned about the encroaching glaciers.
I looked him up a few years ago. It shouldn't surprise you to learn, he's still studying Baffin Island, only now it's the ominous retreat of the glaciers that concerns him.
What I learned from that exercise is that that professor sure knows where the grant money comes from.
@@beauxguss6321 Actually not really. Some scientists did predict cooling but a review of papers from that period showed that there were 6 times as many papers predicting warming than cooling from 1954-1979.
It’s almost as if science gets better with time, just like how your more likely to survive cancer now then you would back in the 70s
That were a very few people in the 1970s. Meinly media jype. Most studies in the 1970s üredicted warming
Any figures of the sea raises from when California falls into the ocean, hopefully soon.
usa will miss its cash its the 5th largest economy in the world how will you service usa 22 trillion debt you wont have enougth money to pay the interest
@@markjones4704 With the Democrats and their free stuff, there will be no money to export out of state. California is a third world nation with the nobles living fenced in armed compounds. I haven't needed a single dollar from a democrat, I dug outhouse holes for a dollar when I was seven and it was honest work done well. I will not miss Mexico inside the US borders. Love what you have done to the streets of San Francisco, democrat classic.
See my comment above. California is NEVER going to fall into the ocean.
Nobody will care!
So, melting polar ice caps mean nothing? This is what is causing sea level rise. This is well known physics. All it takes is a few centimetres rise to cause devastation to coastal cities.
The earth seams to be cooling here in Canada
Not only in Canada. It's a worldwide decrease going on since 1998. But the boneheads at the IPCC deny it, because it doesn't fit to their business plan.
@@oldineamiller9007 Yeah,they just change the past by altering the graphs.
Polar vortex
Yeah! But it's warming in BC!!!
@Joe O'Connor That'll be because Trudeau is sucking all the nice warm fuzzy glow out the country and it's people.
Alarmists have been saying the Maldives will be under water within ten years for decades. Fast forward to 2021 and billions are being invested there in new infrastructure and luxury villas
No waaaay! Simon can't be wrong! 97% of scientists agree...
So, what about the 12 years to stop climate change bs?
Sea level rise is just one effect
Already been 20
That's just it. It's BS, we will start seeing problems in 40-50 years from now but still definitely not the end of humans.
I'd argue that if climate change continues to go the way it's going (for another 100-200 years), human civilisation will not survive, but humans will.
There is no scientific basis for that 12-year claim.
It's cumuöating problem. Maybe we are already fucked.
The mean sea level rise is not seen in California due to tectonic rise of one inch per year. The sea level rise is about 4 inches below the sealevel of 1953 the year USGS established the sealevel in the USA. 122 minus 53 47 plus 22 about 69 inches of land rise in California. The mean sea level rise is about 4.5 feet in 1980.
5:32 He's right, he saved 2 girls
In 1979 I was on Heron Island, a very tiny true coral island in the Great Barrier Reef. Last year I sent them a note saying I was thinking of returning but was afraid it had been ruined as news reports have said this about the reef. They assured me the island and reef were fine and recent pictures compared to pix I have from 1979 show no noticeable change to Heron Island. As the highest point on the island is just a few feet, a small change in sea level would be obvious.
A millimeter per year. No difference in the rate of change.
A storm would also wash away a tiny coral island
I predict in 50 years time my sandcastle on whitley bay beach will still be standing there...
paul bowman are there no kids on your beach?
@@birgittabirgersdatter8082 all gone extinct, due to global warming!
@paul bowman I just got back from a sand castle kicking tournament at Whitley Bay. Best get your bucket and spade out the shed and jump in the car mate.
I see we have the same gaggle of "the sky is falling" adherents as usual.