You are confusing local climate to average global climate (see attached picture and study below).
What caused this local warming trend and subsequent cooling? See the following links:
https://virtuallaboratory.colorado.e...20collapse.pdf
https://news.utexas.edu/2010/11/11/m...not-so-random/
The average sea level rise was already discussed below, but if you want to talk about local sea
depth in that area then read the following journal article. That area of the Netherlands is characterized by a very flat and low sea
depth, and like sand dunes changing with wind and altering the landscape of a desert, that area has seen tidal changes and seafloor changes, which are highlighted extensively in the following study:
https://www.cambridge.org/core/journ...B5B650E65D30A#
https://www.ft86club.com/forums/show...&postcount=486
Humans have migrated to find food and water or escape war or tensions or because they were displaced from natural disasters like volcanoes, floods, droughts, etc. They may have migrated over decades, centuries or millennia due to local climate change too or during other periods that were far less globally stable than what we have seen up until recent. You need to try to say and show more than just saying, 'people have migrated in the past due to the climate, thus abrupt climate change happens naturally, and therefore, anthropomorphic climate change doesn't exist.' Scientists are saying we are causing the changes we are seeing now. Scientists are using science to describe the climate of the past, which you are using against them to say, 'they know about the past, but don't understand the present or future.' Doesn't that seem a little odd to you that you trust the climate science of the past, but you don't trust the science talking about the climate of the present?
Or what high schoolers or middle schoolers can put together. A superficial understanding of the science is all that is necessary to explain what scientists are demonstrating related to the misconceptions you are presenting. You clearly haven't reviewed this entire thread because your talking points have been discussed. You aren't offering anything new.
This is false. Climate models that are being used to predict the future are verified by trying to model the past. In case that is confusing, let me explain. Scientists put in data from the present and from recent trends to model the future. They verify the validity of their models by putting in data from the past, and low behold, their models correctly correlate to past measurements. Specifically, if they feed in data on average CO2, solar radiation, volcanic activity, plant profiles, etc. and input all this data into their models, the models predict average global surface temperatures accurately, so then they apply them to current data, and we get future predictions.
Besides this fact, Captain Snooze's article is highlighting the obviousness of the future: there is a train running down a track, and it has a massive amount of inertia, so it is going to be hard to stop or divert without a lot of work, so it is no surprise where it is going to go when very little effort is trying to stop it. There might be a lot of talk about how to stop it and a lot of research about how to stop it, and some people have even started to try to stop it, but a few people aren't going to stop a huge train. The climate models have a clear trend line, and we have seen what impact current changes are doing and where we are headed, and the models are predicting in nine years we will be passing 1.5C. I guess we will see if they are right in nine years.