The Progs will DENY SCIENCE when it comes to record snowfalls, that havent happened like this over 100 years.

ding

Confront reality
Joined
Oct 25, 2016
Messages
75,315
Reaction score
5,634
Points
1,855
Location
Houston
You want to see a slope change? This is what a slope change looks like...

1603557583518.png
 

ReinyDays

Gold Member
Joined
Oct 5, 2019
Messages
4,359
Reaction score
1,512
Points
210
Location
State of Jefferson
No matter how poor you are, you don't rob from yourself. The key is private ownership for things like solar panels.
Horsefeathers ... give a man a car who can't afford gasoline ... that man will sell that car ... give a man a solar panel who doesn't own any electric appliances ... that man will sell that solar panel ...

If someone gave you a Lear Jet ... would you keep it and pay the tie-down rental at the local airport? ... knowing you could never pay for the FAA required annual inspection ... God forbid starting one of the engines ...
 

ding

Confront reality
Joined
Oct 25, 2016
Messages
75,315
Reaction score
5,634
Points
1,855
Location
Houston
It is pretty much common sense that the sea will rise faster at the start of an interglacial cycle than it will at the end of an interglacial cycle.

It's that whole material balancing thingee of there being more ice available to melt at the start of the interglacial cycle than there is at the end of an interglacial cycle.
 

ding

Confront reality
Joined
Oct 25, 2016
Messages
75,315
Reaction score
5,634
Points
1,855
Location
Houston
No. I would provide a mix of high and low technology to assist poor countries in moving away from burning wood or fossil fuels.
Ok, who pays for it?
... and how do you keep desperately poor people from just scrapping out the materials ... a couple hundred feet of overhead wires sells for a year's average wages ... how much does a solar panel fetch in rural Botswana? ...
I give up...

How? :)
 
Last edited:

ding

Confront reality
Joined
Oct 25, 2016
Messages
75,315
Reaction score
5,634
Points
1,855
Location
Houston
The vast majority of glaciers in the world are retreating at a frightening pace.
You're frightened by a glacier retreating quickly? Would you prefer they were advancing towards another ice age?
How bad could it be? The last one only had a 12,000 ft sheet across Canada, North America ,Scandinavia, Russia and South America.
 

ding

Confront reality
Joined
Oct 25, 2016
Messages
75,315
Reaction score
5,634
Points
1,855
Location
Houston
So you would deny the poor regions the same benefit you have?

What are you suggesting we do to meet our so-called responsibility?
No. I would provide a mix of high and low technology to assist poor countries in moving away from burning wood or fossil fuels.
Ok, who pays for it?
I envision it being all US technology. The US would provide credits that foreign countries could use to buy US goods (e.g., solar panels, nuclear reactors, high efficiency appliances, etc.). Win-win-win.
Could you be a little more clear on who pays for it?

I just want to see if you can be honest for once.
 
Last edited:

ReinyDays

Gold Member
Joined
Oct 5, 2019
Messages
4,359
Reaction score
1,512
Points
210
Location
State of Jefferson
Holy shit... another dishonest argument. No, it hasn't dummy. It's been the same rate of rise for the past 6,000 years.
Er ... um ... actually some of that data is correct ... the tidal gauge data is dismissed now, without GPS units attached the information can be shown to be worthless for climate studies ... continents themselves move 10 times faster than sea level is rising ...

The satellite altimeter data is giving a rise of 3.2 (± 0.2) mm/yr with an acceleration of 0.084 (± 0.025) mm/yr/yr {Cite} ... this is where I get my "550 mm rise by year 2100" claim from ... and yes, half that is due to the acceleration ... but as the article points out, this is only 25 years of data, so not climatically significant ...

My point is "so what?" ... a trivial increase in temperature will cause a trivial increase in sea level rise ... and two feet over 80 years is tiny tiny tiny ... compared to 30 feet rise in 15 minutes on March 11th, 2011 ... that only killed 20,000 and melted down a few nukes, if they had 80 years warning, the damage would have been mitigated ... how the hell do you extrapolate billions dead and worldwide collapse? ...
 

ding

Confront reality
Joined
Oct 25, 2016
Messages
75,315
Reaction score
5,634
Points
1,855
Location
Houston
First, I have no idea how you connect sea level rise to firewood. Do you?
You didn't answer my question ... do you agree we should substantially increase our CO2 emissions for the humanitarian purposes that would serve? ...

Second, you have no background in the dynamics of coastlines like those of the US East Coast. Every inch of sea level rise will act to push the barrier islands inland and flood the coastal plains. A rise of a foot may translate to a mile of lost land (I don't know the exact relationship). That is one mile all along the thousand of miles of US coasts. Sea walls will only be a temporary solution.
That's why we replenish the beach sand there on a regular basis ... we have maps of the coastline from the Revolutionary War ... and we've seen 2 feet sea level rise since then ... and it "may" erode a mile of coastline in a few places, so maybe find out the exact relationship if you're such an expert and coastal erosion ... are you seriously suggesting New York City was two miles removed from the ocean when it was founded? ...

Not a problem on The West Coast ... where mountains meet the sea ...
NYC has been extensively reclaimed from the sea so it's coast is now man-made. I do know that it suffered some major flooding when hit by a hurricane a few years ago, the first I recall. They are now spending billions to secure a small part of the city. Not every city can afford to do that.
Storm surges are typically in the 5 to 10 ft range. You are equating a 3 mm/yr rise in sea level - which has been occurring for the last 6,000 years and before that was occurring at a much greater rate - to surge produced by a hurricane?

Have you even looked at a topographical map of New York to visualize what a one foot rise in sea level actually means?
What has been the rise in the last 25 years?

Looks to me 1/2 of Brooklyn and Long Island may disappear.
~75 mm or 2.95 in. Which is exactly ~75 mm or 2.95 in of what it would have been if man never existed.

I think you should look again if you think 1/2 of Brooklyn and Long Island would be submerged by a 1 ft rise in sea level.
As you can see, level changes can be naturally very extreme. Similar changes today would be catastrophic. IT DOESN'T MATTER IF SEA LEVEL RISES DUE TO MAN OR NOT!


I never said 1/2 of Brooklyn would be submerged, I said it would disappear. A subtle but important difference.
Do you realize how many different mechanisms and drivers there were over this period of time? Can you please try to make an honest argument. Start from this curve here...

View attachment 406020
I would be easier if we just used more recent times:

Maybe you can answer a question, why does it matter what the causes are?
No. To see trends you have to look at all of the data. What you are trying to do is ignore the overarching trend because it does not fit your narrative. You are literally making an argument to look at less data. That's dishonest.

Are you seriously asking why the causes matter? Apparently you believe the cause matter, right?
 

ding

Confront reality
Joined
Oct 25, 2016
Messages
75,315
Reaction score
5,634
Points
1,855
Location
Houston
Holy shit... another dishonest argument. No, it hasn't dummy. It's been the same rate of rise for the past 6,000 years.
Er ... um ... actually some of that data is correct ... the tidal gauge data is dismissed now, without GPS units attached the information can be shown to be worthless for climate studies ... continents themselves move 10 times faster than sea level is rising ...

The satellite altimeter data is giving a rise of 3.2 (± 0.2) mm/yr with an acceleration of 0.084 (± 0.025) mm/yr/yr {Cite} ... this is where I get my "550 mm rise by year 2100" claim from ... and yes, half that is due to the acceleration ... but as the article points out, this is only 25 years of data, so not climatically significant ...

My point is "so what?" ... a trivial increase in temperature will cause a trivial increase in sea level rise ... and two feet over 80 years is tiny tiny tiny ... compared to 30 feet rise in 15 minutes on March 11th, 2011 ... that only killed 20,000 and melted down a few nukes, if they had 80 years warning, the damage would have been mitigated ... how the hell do you extrapolate billions dead and worldwide collapse? ...
I hear what you are saying (and we may be saying the same thing) but I would not ignore 6,000 years of data for a limited dataset. So I still think a 240 mm rise by the year 2100 is a realistic answer.
 
OP
andaronjim

andaronjim

Platinum Member
Joined
May 6, 2015
Messages
23,817
Reaction score
9,040
Points
910
Location
Floor E Da
So you would deny the poor regions the same benefit you have?

What are you suggesting we do to meet our so-called responsibility?
No. I would provide a mix of high and low technology to assist poor countries in moving away from burning wood or fossil fuels.
Ok, who pays for it?
I envision it being all US technology. The US would provide credits that foreign countries could use to buy US goods (e.g., solar panels, nuclear reactors, high efficiency appliances, etc.). Win-win-win.
Provide credits....ah yes, steal from the US taxpayer by necessarily skyrocketing energy prices, so credits can be given to poor countries. How about fucking poor countries taking care of themselves, while the US has to deal with our own problems....
 

ding

Confront reality
Joined
Oct 25, 2016
Messages
75,315
Reaction score
5,634
Points
1,855
Location
Houston
The satellite altimeter data is giving a rise of 3.2 (± 0.2) mm/yr with an acceleration of 0.084 (± 0.025) mm/yr/yr {Cite} ... this is where I get my "550 mm rise by year 2100" claim from ... and yes, half that is due to the acceleration ... but as the article points out, this is only 25 years of data, so not climatically significant ...
So when I did the math using your numbers (3.2 mm/yr + 0.084 mm/yr/yr) for the expected case I got 528.16 mm by 2100.

But when I used your +tolerance it blows up. Mainly because of the acceleration component. At first I thought 0.025 was supposed to be 0.0025 but even using 0.0025 I get 1,812.11 mm by 2100.

Using 0.025 mm/yr/yr I get 2,212.72 mm by 2100.

I am not buying the acceleration component and here's why. The rate of change of sea level should be based upon the amount of available ice to melt and temperature. For a given temperature increase I would expect the case with more ice available to melt to produce a greater sea level rise than the case with less ice available to melt for the same given temperature increase. Now I may be looking at this all wrong but that's how my brain is seeing this. So I would be surprised that we would see an accelerating sea level rise at the end of an interglacial cycle without an accelerating temperature rise and as near as I can tell, no one is saying that we have an accelerating temperature component. As that would not make any sense given the logarithmic nature of the radiative forcing equation.

What do you think?
 

ding

Confront reality
Joined
Oct 25, 2016
Messages
75,315
Reaction score
5,634
Points
1,855
Location
Houston
So you would deny the poor regions the same benefit you have?

What are you suggesting we do to meet our so-called responsibility?
No. I would provide a mix of high and low technology to assist poor countries in moving away from burning wood or fossil fuels.
Ok, who pays for it?
I envision it being all US technology. The US would provide credits that foreign countries could use to buy US goods (e.g., solar panels, nuclear reactors, high efficiency appliances, etc.). Win-win-win.
Provide credits....ah yes, steal from the US taxpayer by necessarily skyrocketing energy prices, so credits can be given to poor countries. How about fucking poor countries taking care of themselves, while the US has to deal with our own problems....
And that's the part they don't want to talk about. Who is going to pay for it. Forget about what the actual cost is and if that is even feasible - hint: it's not - they don't even want you to know that they expect the developed nations to pay for the infrastructure of the developing nations because the problem of increasing emissions is coming from the developing nations.

The US could go to zero emissions over night and the developing nations would replace those emissions in 5 short years because their emissions are increasing by 1 billion tons of CO2 per yr/yr.

There is so much dishonesty coming from this crowd it is unbelievable. To summarize... they want us to solve a problem that doesn't exist by paying for the development of developing nations when there is not enough money available to do it anyway. It is lies built upon lies. No wonder they don't want anyone to question them.
 

ding

Confront reality
Joined
Oct 25, 2016
Messages
75,315
Reaction score
5,634
Points
1,855
Location
Houston
Holy shit... another dishonest argument. No, it hasn't dummy. It's been the same rate of rise for the past 6,000 years.
Er ... um ... actually some of that data is correct ... the tidal gauge data is dismissed now, without GPS units attached the information can be shown to be worthless for climate studies ... continents themselves move 10 times faster than sea level is rising ...

The satellite altimeter data is giving a rise of 3.2 (± 0.2) mm/yr with an acceleration of 0.084 (± 0.025) mm/yr/yr {Cite} ... this is where I get my "550 mm rise by year 2100" claim from ... and yes, half that is due to the acceleration ... but as the article points out, this is only 25 years of data, so not climatically significant ...

My point is "so what?" ... a trivial increase in temperature will cause a trivial increase in sea level rise ... and two feet over 80 years is tiny tiny tiny ... compared to 30 feet rise in 15 minutes on March 11th, 2011 ... that only killed 20,000 and melted down a few nukes, if they had 80 years warning, the damage would have been mitigated ... how the hell do you extrapolate billions dead and worldwide collapse? ...
Ok, using your numbers I graphed up the expected case and just want to say that once you put it on paper it's obvious that acceleration should either be proven true or false within 10 to 20 years. One just can't hide something like this if it is true and one can't keep believing it if it is false.

1603565885920.png
 

Dagosa

Gold Member
Joined
Oct 22, 2012
Messages
2,066
Reaction score
729
Points
198
The vast majority of glaciers in the world are retreating at a frightening pace.
You're frightened by a glacier retreating quickly? Would you prefer they were advancing towards another ice age?

We aren‘t frightened at the pace that natural change has occurred including the prospect of an ice age...
When that rate of change accelerates faster then we can adapt, we’re at the mercy of those organisms that can adapt more quickly. Deniers have a real problem with that concept.
 

alang1216

Pragmatist
Joined
Jun 21, 2014
Messages
11,928
Reaction score
1,443
Points
245
Location
Virginia
First, I have no idea how you connect sea level rise to firewood. Do you?
You didn't answer my question ... do you agree we should substantially increase our CO2 emissions for the humanitarian purposes that would serve? ...

Second, you have no background in the dynamics of coastlines like those of the US East Coast. Every inch of sea level rise will act to push the barrier islands inland and flood the coastal plains. A rise of a foot may translate to a mile of lost land (I don't know the exact relationship). That is one mile all along the thousand of miles of US coasts. Sea walls will only be a temporary solution.
That's why we replenish the beach sand there on a regular basis ... we have maps of the coastline from the Revolutionary War ... and we've seen 2 feet sea level rise since then ... and it "may" erode a mile of coastline in a few places, so maybe find out the exact relationship if you're such an expert and coastal erosion ... are you seriously suggesting New York City was two miles removed from the ocean when it was founded? ...

Not a problem on The West Coast ... where mountains meet the sea ...
NYC has been extensively reclaimed from the sea so it's coast is now man-made. I do know that it suffered some major flooding when hit by a hurricane a few years ago, the first I recall. They are now spending billions to secure a small part of the city. Not every city can afford to do that.
Storm surges are typically in the 5 to 10 ft range. You are equating a 3 mm/yr rise in sea level - which has been occurring for the last 6,000 years and before that was occurring at a much greater rate - to surge produced by a hurricane?

Have you even looked at a topographical map of New York to visualize what a one foot rise in sea level actually means?
What has been the rise in the last 25 years?

Looks to me 1/2 of Brooklyn and Long Island may disappear.
~75 mm or 2.95 in. Which is exactly ~75 mm or 2.95 in of what it would have been if man never existed.

I think you should look again if you think 1/2 of Brooklyn and Long Island would be submerged by a 1 ft rise in sea level.
As you can see, level changes can be naturally very extreme. Similar changes today would be catastrophic. IT DOESN'T MATTER IF SEA LEVEL RISES DUE TO MAN OR NOT!


I never said 1/2 of Brooklyn would be submerged, I said it would disappear. A subtle but important difference.
Do you realize how many different mechanisms and drivers there were over this period of time? Can you please try to make an honest argument. Start from this curve here...

View attachment 406020
I would be easier if we just used more recent times:

Maybe you can answer a question, why does it matter what the causes are?
It matters because the rise has accelerated faster due to man’s activity. A slower rate of change over thousands of years, is no big deal. We adjust easily. That same change over decades is very costly and more damaging to adjust to.
Probably all true but it still doesn't matter if the rise has accelerated faster due to man’s activity or if is 100% natural. The effects are the same.
 

ding

Confront reality
Joined
Oct 25, 2016
Messages
75,315
Reaction score
5,634
Points
1,855
Location
Houston
First, I have no idea how you connect sea level rise to firewood. Do you?
You didn't answer my question ... do you agree we should substantially increase our CO2 emissions for the humanitarian purposes that would serve? ...

Second, you have no background in the dynamics of coastlines like those of the US East Coast. Every inch of sea level rise will act to push the barrier islands inland and flood the coastal plains. A rise of a foot may translate to a mile of lost land (I don't know the exact relationship). That is one mile all along the thousand of miles of US coasts. Sea walls will only be a temporary solution.
That's why we replenish the beach sand there on a regular basis ... we have maps of the coastline from the Revolutionary War ... and we've seen 2 feet sea level rise since then ... and it "may" erode a mile of coastline in a few places, so maybe find out the exact relationship if you're such an expert and coastal erosion ... are you seriously suggesting New York City was two miles removed from the ocean when it was founded? ...

Not a problem on The West Coast ... where mountains meet the sea ...
NYC has been extensively reclaimed from the sea so it's coast is now man-made. I do know that it suffered some major flooding when hit by a hurricane a few years ago, the first I recall. They are now spending billions to secure a small part of the city. Not every city can afford to do that.
Storm surges are typically in the 5 to 10 ft range. You are equating a 3 mm/yr rise in sea level - which has been occurring for the last 6,000 years and before that was occurring at a much greater rate - to surge produced by a hurricane?

Have you even looked at a topographical map of New York to visualize what a one foot rise in sea level actually means?
What has been the rise in the last 25 years?

Looks to me 1/2 of Brooklyn and Long Island may disappear.
~75 mm or 2.95 in. Which is exactly ~75 mm or 2.95 in of what it would have been if man never existed.

I think you should look again if you think 1/2 of Brooklyn and Long Island would be submerged by a 1 ft rise in sea level.
As you can see, level changes can be naturally very extreme. Similar changes today would be catastrophic. IT DOESN'T MATTER IF SEA LEVEL RISES DUE TO MAN OR NOT!


I never said 1/2 of Brooklyn would be submerged, I said it would disappear. A subtle but important difference.
Do you realize how many different mechanisms and drivers there were over this period of time? Can you please try to make an honest argument. Start from this curve here...

View attachment 406020
I would be easier if we just used more recent times:

Maybe you can answer a question, why does it matter what the causes are?
It matters because the rise has accelerated faster due to man’s activity. A slower rate of change over thousands of years, is no big deal. We adjust easily. That same change over decades is very costly and more damaging to adjust to.
Probably all true but it still doesn't matter if the rise has accelerated faster due to man’s activity or if is 100% natural. The effects are the same.
There is no acceleration. These are minor fluctuations which have always existed because it is a complex relationship between many different variables.
 

ding

Confront reality
Joined
Oct 25, 2016
Messages
75,315
Reaction score
5,634
Points
1,855
Location
Houston
The vast majority of glaciers in the world are retreating at a frightening pace.
You're frightened by a glacier retreating quickly? Would you prefer they were advancing towards another ice age?

We aren‘t frightened at the pace that natural change has occurred including the prospect of an ice age...
When that rate of change accelerates faster then we can adapt, we’re at the mercy of those organisms that can adapt more quickly. Deniers have a real problem with that concept.
The accelerating rate of change is all in your head. There does not exist the resolution to make that comparison.
 

ding

Confront reality
Joined
Oct 25, 2016
Messages
75,315
Reaction score
5,634
Points
1,855
Location
Houston
In 10 years when the sea level rise is still at 3.2 mm/yr you guys are going to feel stupid.
 

alang1216

Pragmatist
Joined
Jun 21, 2014
Messages
11,928
Reaction score
1,443
Points
245
Location
Virginia
I envision it being all US technology. The US would provide credits that foreign countries could use to buy US goods (e.g., solar panels, nuclear reactors, high efficiency appliances, etc.). Win-win-win.
Hello? ... Westinghouse shed it's nuclear reactor division in their recent bankruptcy ... the world will have to seek new reactor vessels from China ...

Walk me through this ... the US gives some foreign country a pile of money so they can buy US goods ... where does this pile of money come from? ... higher taxes so you can run your A/C 24/7? ... building uranium reactors in some of these countries is insane (although I understand thorium reactors can't be weaponized) ...

This is a 1st World solution to a 3rd World problem ... I use $100 bills as scratch paper, to another this is a year's wages ... I know what you see on TV, but TV cameras only work where there's electricity ... there's a fair size chuck of the world where TV cameras won't work ... you seem blissfully unaware of this fact ...
The US still builds nuclear reactors, just not commercial ones.

We already provide lots of foreign aid, this is money that will help US companies establish new markets, employee US workers, and we might save billions if it slows global warning.

There are appropriate technologies even if you don't know about them. Check out Solar Cookers
 

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top