"Fingerprint" of Greenland ice melt seen in satellite sea level data

[Crick]

I've lived in Florida for 75 years except for seven years when I worked at the Hanford facility in Washington State. I have been in more than a dozen hurricanes in my life. I understand storm surge. You mistake storm surge for ocean level rise caused by that stupid scam of man made global warming. That makes you an idiot.

If sea level is raised 1 foot, what happens to what used to be a 10 foot storm surge? Idiot.

I am also multi generational Floridan. My great great great Grandfather served in the 9th Florida regiment during the Civil War.

Very nice. Then how is it you don't understand what rising sea levels do to storm surges?

My great grandfather bought a 2.9 acre beachfront lot in Pinellas County. He bought it in 1922 for $200. It is in the family now and it is one of three acreage beachfront properties in Pinellas County that have not been developed.

Very nice. Then how is it you don't understand what rising sea levels do to storm surges?

It is 1.5 feet above mean sea level at the low point and four feet at the high point. It floods out in almost every high surge storm in the Gulf. In my life time it has probably flooded ten times. However, the normal sea level at the property is the same as it has been for the four generations that have owned the property.

No, it is not.

In your lifetime, sea levels at St Pete have risen 222.75mm (8.77 inches). If I take your four generations to be 120 years, sea level there has risen 356.4mm (14.03 inches) in that period.


What could have happened last week

If there were real sea level rise due to man made global warming in that property then it would not be the same as it was when my Great Grandfather bought it. It is unchanged. Just like the picture of the Statue of Liberty I posted earlier. It has not even changed due to natural seal level rise.

Sea level rise is bullshit. Just another thing you stupid uneducated Moon Bats get wrong about Climate Science. You are an idiot and you should be embarrassed to post you lies.

There are a number of things concerning sea level rise with which you seem unfamiliar. Your memories of what sea level was 75 years ago, particularly considering what else can change over that period (isostasy, geodetic radius, erosion, sedimentary buildup, etc) are uselessly inaccurate. And the vast majority of sea level rise that we will suffer from the melting of Greenland and Antarctica has yet to take place.

 

[Flash]

If sea level is raised 1 foot, what happens to what used to be a 10 foot storm surge? Idiot.


Then how is it you don't understand what rising sea levels do to storm surges?

Very nice. Then how is it you don't understand what rising sea levels do to storm surges?

No, it is not.
View attachment 708146

In your lifetime, sea levels at St Pete have risen 222.75mm (8.77 inches). If I take your four generations to be 120 years, sea level there has risen 356.4mm (14.03 inches) in that period.


What could have happened last week

View attachment 708147


There are a number of things concerning sea level rise with which you seem unfamiliar. Your memories of what sea level was 75 years ago, particularly considering what else can change over that period (isostasy, geodetic radius, erosion, sedimentary buildup, etc) are uselessly inaccurate. And the vast majority of sea level rise that we will suffer from the melting of Greenland and Antarctica has yet to take place.

You are confused about this Moon Bat.

Florida is way over built on the shore line and and a storm hitting anywhere will cause massive damage. Doesn't have a damn thing to do with this AGW scam.

The worst hurricane to ever hit Tampa Bay was in 1858 by the way. The second worst was in 1921, a year before my great grandfather bought the beachfront property.

You never get anything right when it comes to these discussion about the AGW scam. You have University of Google degree understanding and that is why you always miss the pertinent facts.

If you had earned a Master's Degree in Environmental Engineering from UF like I did you wouldn't be an expert in Climate Science but you would be smart enough to understand bullshit and a scam when you see when it comes to science.

By the way NASA and NOAA satellite data is notoriously unreliable. The calibration on those damn things are way out of range of the data they report.

 

[Crick]

You are confused about this Moon Bat.

Florida is way over built on the shore line and and a storm hitting anywhere will cause massive damage. Doesn't have a damn thing to do with this AGW scam.

The worst hurricane to ever hit Tampa Bay was in 1858 by the way. The second worst was in 1921, a year before my great grandfather bought the beachfront property.

You never get anything right when it comes to these discussion about the AGW scam. You have University of Google degree understanding and that is why you always miss the pertinent facts.

If you had earned a Master's Degree in Environmental Engineering from UF like I did you wouldn't be an expert in Climate Science but you would be smart enough to understand bullshit and a scam when you see when it comes to science.

By the way NASA and NOAA satellite data is notoriously unreliable. The calibration on those damn things are way out of range of the data they report.

Then, please favor us with your expert explanation as to what actually happens when what used to be a ten foot storm surge comes ashore after Greenland and Antarctica melting have raised sea levels by a foot.

You keep telling me I got it all wrong, but you've yet to tell us what's right.

 

[jc456]

Add two feet to the storm surge that hit the southwest coast of Florida when Ian came ashore. And, as temperatures increase, the energy available to build storms increases. Ian will not be a record holder for long.

See post #116

 

[jc456]

If sea level is raised 1 foot, what happens to what used to be a 10 foot storm surge

A 10 foot surge.

 

[jc456]

Then, please favor us with your expert explanation as to what actually happens when what used to be a ten foot storm surge comes ashore after Greenland and Antarctica melting have raised sea levels by a foot.

You keep telling me I got it all wrong, but you've yet to tell us what's right.

A10 foot storm surge

 

[Crick]

A 10 foot surge.

Even you're not that stupid.

A 10 foot surge on top of an MSL that is now a foot higher. So one more foot of land gets flooded. All that land that got flooded before is now flooded a foot higher.

 

[jc456]

Even you're not that stupid.

A 10 foot surge on top of an MSL that is now a foot higher. So one more foot of land gets flooded. All that land that got flooded before is now flooded a foot higher.

Nope

 

[Stryder50]

Todd, I'm not stupid and you know this. Obviously there are good investments and bad investments, though the actual nature of any investment is not fully knowable in advance. You think the mitigation measures recommended by the IPCC and others are a bad investment. I disagree. I think like almost any problem, the earlier one deals with it, the more economically it can be dealt with. Let's look at your hypothetical. Which would have been cheaper and more effective: insulating every structure in US at the time of their construction or going back afterward and adding it? Obviously, the former. Argue the proper question with me Todd. The cost of dealing with the effects of global warming will be monstrous. The cost of having moved away from fossil fuels when first recommended (say, twenty years ago) would have been a tiny fraction of what we will now end up paying. And the longer we put it off, the more it will cost us. This is a truism and I don't understand an intelligent person such as yourself arguing against it.

There is no proof we have a climate "problem", or "crisis.
There is no proof we will have "monstrous" effects of "global warming".
Considering "fossil fuels" includes material products of non-energy sorts from carbon resources and there are no viable and affordable alternatives to those non-energy forms of material products, and the demand and use have increased it would have been economic folly to have "moved away" "say twenty years ago". It will be more expensive and disastrous to "move away" now.

Get back to us once you have removed all plastic, man-made material and artificial goods and products from your life. Start with tossing out your computer and internet connection.

What a hypocrite!

 

[Stryder50]

But, as you know, the current phase of our glacial cycle is one of cooling. Despite that, global temperatures are increasing because the radiant forcing factor of our increasing GHG levels is overwhelming the glacial cycle drivers. Increasing temperatures will eventually melt Greenland (and Antarctica and all the world's glaciers) no matter their cause.

If you exclude water vapor, those GHGs are one part in 2500 of atmosphere volume. About 0.04%
Please provide the laboratory replication of this near impossible "radiate forcing factor" you claim.

 

[Crick]

If you exclude water vapor, those GHGs are one part in 2500 of atmosphere volume. About 0.04%
Please provide the laboratory replication of this near impossible "radiate forcing factor" you claim.

Really? Do you actually think none exists? Tell you what, I'll let you have a look and then get back to us with what you find. Give you a chance to avoid being embarrassed.

 

[jc456]

Really? Do you actually think none exists? Tell you what, I'll let you have a look and then get back to us with what you find.

So nothing to post. It’s so you! Still waiting on the temperature of 120 PPM of CO2

 

[Cellblock2429]

Todd, I'd like you to read the whole thing of course, but I especially want you to think of things I've said to you about the varying cost of taking care of problems earlier rather than later, as you read the very last sentence.

Discovery of ‘fingerprint’ confirms alarming predictions of Greenland ice sheet melt

The findings, possible with the help of high-resolution satellite observations, detail the unique pattern of sea level change linked to the Greenland ice sheet.

www.nbcnews.com

/----/ Ice melts - libs panic. Quick, send Al Gore more money.

 

[jc456]

/----/ Ice melts - libs panic. Quick, send Al Gore more money.
View attachment 709015

Massageinistic ,

 

[Crick]

Really? Do you actually think none exists? Tell you what, I'll let you have a look and then get back to us with what you find.

Till then:

Here is the latest radiative forcing factors graphic from AR6's Technical Summary. This shows advances over the data presented in AR5

 

[jc456]

Till then:
View attachment 709019
Here is the latest radiative forcing factors graphic from AR6's Technical Summary. This shows advances over the data presented in AR5

so what is the temperature of 120 PPM of CO2?

 

[Stryder50]

Really? Do you actually think none exists? Tell you what, I'll let you have a look and then get back to us with what you find. Give you a chance to avoid being embarrassed.

You confuse questionable "evidence" with proof.

I won't bother with looking because the basic premise: "Human production (anthropogenic) of small amount/percentage of global atmospheric Carbon Dioxide (CO2) above Natural Production~Amounts is the Primary Cause of increased Global Warming="Climate Change"; is an unproven concept and also an illogical one.

The way science works is first you present the hypothesis:
"Anthropogenic (human caused) Climate Change results in Global Warming."

Then you provide evidence and data to support that hypothesis, not "learned opinion".

Then, if enough evidence and data is presented, along with laboratory process replication in support of the hypothesis, to up the probabilities of "Human Caused"~Anthropogenic, you can advance to the "Hypothesis" becomes a "Theory".

Further evidence, data, and replications processes in the laboratory conditions will make possible the advance to Anthropogenic Climate Change, equals Global Warming (beyond Natural Causes) being a "Law"~"Accepted Science".

Burden of "Proof" throughout the procedures fails upon those whom present and endorse the hypothesis.

So far I've not seen any of this done ~ produced. Just a lot of "learned opinion" based upon coincidental circumstances (based upon too short a timeline of measured data to be significant over durational evidence Billions of years) of Earth's climate.

Your turn to avoid being embarrassed.
Along with being a charlatan, huckster and engaged in a scam and con.

 

[jc456]

You confuse questionable "evidence" with proof.

I won't bother with looking because the basic premise: "Human production (anthropogenic) of small amount/percentage of global atmospheric Carbon Dioxide (CO2) above Natural Production~Amounts is the Primary Cause of increased Global Warming="Climate Change"; is an unproven concept and also an illogical one.

The way science works is first you present the hypothesis:
"Anthropogenic (human caused) Climate Change results in Global Warming."

Then you provide evidence and data to support that hypothesis, not "learned opinion".

Then, if enough evidence and data is presented, along with laboratory process replication in support of the hypothesis, to up the probabilities of "Human Caused"~Anthropogenic, you can advance to the "Hypothesis" becomes a "Theory".

Further evidence, data, and replications processes in the laboratory conditions will make possible the advance to Anthropogenic Climate Change, equals Global Warming (beyond Natural Causes) being a "Law"~"Accepted Science".

Burden of "Proof" throughout the procedures fails upon those whom present and endorse the hypothesis.

So far I've not seen any of this done ~ produced. Just a lot of "learned opinion" based upon coincidental circumstances (based upon too short a timeline of measured data to be significant over durational evidence Billions of years) of Earth's climate.

Your turn to avoid being embarrassed.
Along with being a charlatan, huckster and engaged in a scam and con.

it's ok, crick can't even say what the temperature of 120 PPM of CO2, but he's in here sky falling flailing around. He's a loser. he goes stealth if he's ever challenged.

 

[Crick]

You confuse questionable "evidence" with proof.

I haven't presented what you asked for. The forcing factors shown in that graphic for emitted gases were simply calculated by known formula. The confusion here, though, is yours. There are no proofs in the natural sciences. There is only evidence.

I won't bother with looking

Of course you won't bother looking. I never thought you would. That was the point.

because the basic premise: "Human production (anthropogenic) of small amount/percentage of global atmospheric Carbon Dioxide (CO2) above Natural Production~Amounts is the Primary Cause of increased Global Warming="Climate Change"; is an unproven concept and also an illogical one.

You would have difficulty finding 5 scientists in a 1,000 who agree with you on either contention. That should bother you but I strongly suspect it makes you feel justified.

The way science works is first you present the hypothesis:
"Anthropogenic (human caused) Climate Change results in Global Warming."

No. For one thing, you have those backwards. The hypothesis is that human GHG emissions feeding the greenhouse effect are the primary cause of the warming observed since the Industrial Revolution. That warming is a facet of climate change and, in this case, anthropogenic.

Then you provide evidence and data to support that hypothesis, not "learned opinion".

Correct. And the scientists have done that by the thousands. Unfortunately, what you are choosing to challenge was accepted by essentially all scientists many decades past and no one these days, outside of junior high school general science classes, is bothering to perform such studies. It would be akin to conducting a study to determine if the Earth is round.

Then, if enough evidence and data is presented, along with laboratory process replication in support of the hypothesis, to up the probabilities of "Human Caused"~Anthropogenic, you can advance to the "Hypothesis" becomes a "Theory".

Yes, which is what happened. Surveys of scientists no later than 2004 showed a clear consensus among scientists that they accepted anthropogenic global warming as a valid theory describing the contemporary behavior of our climate.

Further evidence, data, and replications processes in the laboratory conditions will make possible the advance to Anthropogenic Climate Change, equals Global Warming (beyond Natural Causes) being a "Law"~"Accepted Science".

I am curious who you are quoting when you write "Law" ~ "Accepted Science". I would have to completely disagree with your conclusion. Accepted science and scientific laws are not the same thing. Read this from What Is a Law in Science?:

"Many people think that if scientists find evidence that supports a hypothesis, the hypothesis is upgraded to a theory, and if the theory is found to be correct, it is upgraded to a law. That is not how it works, though. Facts, theories and laws — as well as hypotheses — are separate elements of the scientific method. Though they may evolve, they aren't upgraded to something else."

and this

'"Laws are descriptions — often mathematical descriptions — of natural phenomena for example, Newton's Law of Gravity or Mendel's Law of Independent Assortment. These laws simply describe the observation. Not how or why they work," Coppinger said.

Coppinger pointed out that the law of gravity was discovered by Isaac Newton in the 17th century. This law mathematically describes how two different bodies in the universe interact with each other. However, Newton's law doesn't explain what gravity is or how it works. It wasn't until three centuries later, when Albert Einstein developed the theory of Relativity, that scientists began to understand what gravity is and how it works. '

So, though you were under the impression that you knew enough to lecture me on the scientific method, it turns out that you were the one needed the edification.

Burden of "Proof" throughout the procedures fails upon those whom present and endorse the hypothesis.

Unfortunately, as I said, there are no proofs in the natural sciences and there is no burden of proof aside perhaps for the Saganism "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence"; and note that he says "evidence", not "proof". Scientists conduct studies to test hypotheses and publish their results. No one forces other scientists to repeat the experiments, but some usually do, particularly if the hypothesis is about something important or if they think there was something wrong with the first experiment or the data analysis or the fundamental reasoning. But, I assure you, there is no shortage of experiments conducted to measure how CO2 and the greenhouse effect work.

So far I've not seen any of this done ~ produced. Just a lot of "learned opinion" based upon coincidental circumstances (based upon too short a timeline of measured data to be significant over durational evidence Billions of years) of Earth's climate.

You need to be honest if only with yourself. You aren't a scientist and you obviously don't read scientific journals or books. If you've "not seen any of this done" it's because you haven't looked.

Your turn to avoid being embarrassed.
Along with being a charlatan, huckster and engaged in a scam and con.

I have all of this planet's mainstream scientists providing my source material. Yours comes from slightly less reliable sources. If someone is being a charlatan, a huckster, engaged in a scam and a con, I really think you need to look to whatever sources have told you what you seem to believe. Because I think they have an agenda - protecting the fossil fuel industry - and they are perfectly willing to mislead you in order to advance it.

 

[jc456]

You would have difficulty finding 5 scientists in a 1,000 who agree with you on either contention. That should bother you but I strongly suspect it makes you feel justified

You can’t find a thousand that agree with your stupidity nonsense