You see JD, that's your problem. You see everything as black and white (with a heap of green thrown in!!).

All I did was point out that greening is happening and that its a good aspect to the CO2 fertilisation. Nothing more.

But you're so invested in the whole CO2-is-evil mantra that even suggesting it might have some positives is triggering for you.

"Now, after being pressed, you say "I never claimed warming is no problem" "

Now when pressed?? I've been saying that for 30 years. But somehow JD thinks he's finally gotten me to own up. Quite the swelled head.

" reality that some changes - melting ice sheets, disrupted ocean currents, lost biodiversity - are irreversible on human timescales."

That's true... if those changes ever occur. If they don't, we've mortgaged our kids future to a failed hypothesis. (It now occurs that JD's monumental ability to misunderstand will mean he reads that as saying the hypothesis has already failed. It hasn't...yet. But if those things he's terrified of don't occur then it will become a failed hypothesis.)

""future generations will cope" is a serious argument. That’s not logic. That’s faith."

No, its deduction born from the facts. If you believe the IPCC (and all good alarmists are required to) then the generation that lives around 2200AD when the faecal matter is supposed to hit the cooling device, will be four times richer than we are today. Four times better able to afford mitigation. Multiple times better technology. That's neither logic not faith. Its just following the evidence.

Oh no. This isn't go down well.

"Global sea levels have not continued to rise at the rates predicted by many scientists — and there is no evidence that climate change has contributed to any such acceleration, a new first-of-its-kind study has claimed.

The research found that the average sea level rise in 2020 was only around 1.5mm per year, or 6 inches per century, according to the paper’s authors,..."

http://www.mdpi.com/2077-1312/13/9/1641

Somehow I think that the follow-the-science crowd won't be following THIS science.

To much co2 can work against us. carbon is a measured amount and not more is better.
To much water IS A gigantic problem, climate change is causing some varieties to become unviable to grow. A huge change is taking place all over. No one can tell us the final outcome or if there even is one. every year is different from the last making planning a gamble and not being sure which way to go, or give it up altogether. We put our selves at risk every year with several hundred thousand of bank money just to plant a crop let alone buy new equipment or make the old one last another year.
Whatever our decision is to do it or walk away.

Not quite, mhaze.

//All I did was point out that greening is happening and that its a good aspect to the CO2 fertilisation. Nothing more.//

You framed it as if acknowledging greening undermines climate concern - “Oh good. We've gone from greening not happening to its happening and its bad, to its happening therefore all the other things claimed about climate is happening.” That’s not “nothing more” - that’s a rhetorical swing.

//Now when pressed?? I've been saying that for 30 years.//

If so, then why posture as if greening was a trump card? No one here denied CO₂ fertilisation. WTF cited Blackman’s Law. NASA acknowledges it. The issue is scale, limits, and trade-offs - things you left out.

//That's true... if those changes ever occur.//

They are occurring. Ice sheet mass loss? Documented. Ocean current slowdown? Documented. Biodiversity loss? Documented. Pretending these are still “ifs” isn’t deduction - it’s wishful thinking.

//If you believe the IPCC … then the generation that lives around 2200AD … will be four times richer than we are today. Four times better able to afford mitigation. Multiple times better technology.//

That’s not evidence - that’s an economic forecast, layered on top of climate projections. Betting the planet on “they’ll be richer later” is not deduction. It’s gambling with someone else’s stake.

//Global sea levels have not continued to rise at the rates predicted by many scientists - and there is no evidence that climate change has contributed to any such acceleration, a new first-of-its-kind study has claimed.//

One paper in MDPI - a journal notorious for publishing low-quality, lightly reviewed contrarian work - doesn’t overturn decades of satellite and tide gauge data. IPCC AR6 (2021) shows clear acceleration: from 1.3 mm/yr (1901-1971) to 3.7 mm/yr (2006-2018). That’s multiple independent datasets, not a cherry-picked outlier.

If you want to argue nuance, engage with the mainstream data and trade-offs. But stop waving isolated upsides or fringe studies as if they erase the broader evidence.

Now THAT is black and white thinking. You only add nuance when someone calls you out - all while ignoring mine:

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=10656#371964

WTF?

hmaze, the important word here is acceleration.

Your source material adds this: "In both datasets, approximately 95% of the suitable locations show no statistically significant acceleration of the rate of sea level rise".

Now I know that in the past I have schooled you in how statistics work and as you now seem keen to add to your knowledge base I'll remind you of this.

Acceleration is an increase in the rate of change overtime. So this means that sea water levels can continue to rise but not at an increasing rate.

And this is what the study was about - acceleration, specifically in localised areas.

I did find this interesting: "Geological drivers are most frequently the probable cause of high rates of sea level change or of acceleration. Glacial Isostatic Adjustment or GIA is the process where the earth mantle is recovering from the presence of an iceshelf that has since disappeared. The effect is rising land at the former ice sheet location and dropping land in the surroundings".

Part of the conclusion states: "Empirically derived long-term rates of sea level rise in 2020 were in majority found to be in excess of the contemporary projected rates of rise. The current generation of projections can therefore be considered conservative. Lower rates were found only in locations where geological processes were suspected to heavily influence the sea level signal".

Hope this help in your quest,

No JD. You originally poo-poohed the green claim made by tbbc. I just offered some evidence that it was real. Whereupon you and WTF went into whirling dervish mode which culminated in claims that the greening wasn't a net good and that since the science behind greening is true that means all other claims from NASA are true....or something.

"If so, then why posture as if greening was a trump card? "

Well I didn't. that's just your usual misunderstanding of the plain written word.

"They are occurring. Ice sheet mass loss? Documented. Ocean current slowdown? Documented. Biodiversity loss? Documented. Pretending these are still “ifs” isn’t deduction - it’s wishful thinking"

False. False....and false.

"that’s an economic forecast, layered on top of climate projections. "

Oh dear. This is a massive misunderstanding of the process. I taught SR about this way back when, but don't intend to go through it all with you. But the scenarios about future warming are based on projected scenarios about future emissions which are in turn based on projected scenarios of future economic activity. It all flows from the scenarios of future economic activity. The scenarios that project high future emissions also project high future economic activity.

"Somehow I think that the follow-the-science crowd won't be following THIS science."
Right on cue ... "One paper in MDPI - a journal notorious for publishing low-quality, lightly reviewed contrarian work".

Before you get all bitter and twisted over this, I'm not holding this paper up as a game-changer. Its just a bit more of the puzzle.

But people interested in resolving the puzzle wouldn't reject it based on fatuous standards.