What's new

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

#### Orangecat

##### Diamond Member
When that rate of change accelerates faster then we can adapt, we’re at the mercy of those organisms that can adapt more quickly.
Which organisms adapt to the climate better than mankind? How do you think we're "at their mercy"?
Deniers have a real problem with that concept.
Deniers of what? Everyone know the climate has been changing since the climate came into existence. People who use the simpleton term "climate deniers" are useful idiots.

#### Dagosa

##### Gold Member
Which organisms adapt to the climate better than mankind? How do you think we're "at their mercy"?
Deniers have a real problem with that concept.
Deniers of what? Everyone know the climate has been changing since the climate came into existence. People who use the simpleton term "climate deniers" are useful idiots.
Seriously ? If you don’t believe in evolution you would not understand why vaccines need to be changed frequently to adapt to organisms that do adapt faster then we do.

Deniers have the useless idiot response, .“gee, we know it changeS.” I’m sure you’ve been told this but, we’ll try one more time so you can forget it again. It’s the rate of change that’s increasing due to AGW; what took thousands of years, now happened in the last 100 years. enough said. Don’t ask again.

Last edited:

#### ReinyDays

##### Gold Member
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?
Are you dividing acceleration by 2 in your calculations? ... for of upper bounds of 3.4 mm/yr and 0.109 mm/yr/yr ... f(t) = 0.0545 t^2 + 3.4 t ... or f(80) = 0.0545 (80)^2 + 3.4 (80) = 620 mm = 24.5 inches (or if you prefer about 3 millifurlongs) ...

The margin of error for your 6,000 year sea levels greatly exceeds a few meters ... where we're measuring acceleration in microns/yr/yr ...

Melting ice is a small part of sea level in these days ... what we're seeing is due to thermal expansion ... the paper doesn't address why the level is accelerating, just that it is ... we're not all about sea surface temperatures ... it takes a good long while for the energy to conduct down the water column ... we're +1ºC in the air, and +1ºC on the sea surface ... it might be 100 years before that +1ºC gets down 10,000 feet ... 500 years to get to 20,000 feet ... several thousand years before this +1ºC reaches the lowest points of the sea bed ... that might seem a long time, but that's because you're young ...

#### ReinyDays

##### Gold Member
Gee, maybe we should give solar panels to people who actually use electricity! No one would have thought of that.
And throw everyone who isn't using electricity under the bus? ... heartless and cold, like a snowflake ...

#### ReinyDays

##### Gold Member
Deniers have the useless idiot response, .“gee, we know it changeS.” I’m sure you’ve been told this but, we’ll try one more time so you can forget it again. It’s the rate of change that’s increasing due to AGW; what took thousands of years, now happened in the last 100 years. enough said. Don’t ask again.
Perhaps you can dare answer this question: Pick a point anywhere on Earth ... tell me what the climate was 100 years ago, tell me what the climate is now, and tell me what the climate will be in 100 years ... if all three answers are the same, climate isn't changing ... and if this is true for every single point on the Earth's surface, no climate is changing anywhere ... thus: climate change is a hoax, specifically it's New Speak for global warming, because global warming isn't scary sounding ...

#### ding

##### Confront reality
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?
Are you dividing acceleration by 2 in your calculations? ... for of upper bounds of 3.4 mm/yr and 0.109 mm/yr/yr ... f(t) = 0.0545 t^2 + 3.4 t ... or f(80) = 0.0545 (80)^2 + 3.4 (80) = 620 mm = 24.5 inches (or if you prefer about 3 millifurlongs) ...

The margin of error for your 6,000 year sea levels greatly exceeds a few meters ... where we're measuring acceleration in microns/yr/yr ...

Melting ice is a small part of sea level in these days ... what we're seeing is due to thermal expansion ... the paper doesn't address why the level is accelerating, just that it is ... we're not all about sea surface temperatures ... it takes a good long while for the energy to conduct down the water column ... we're +1ºC in the air, and +1ºC on the sea surface ... it might be 100 years before that +1ºC gets down 10,000 feet ... 500 years to get to 20,000 feet ... several thousand years before this +1ºC reaches the lowest points of the sea bed ... that might seem a long time, but that's because you're young ...
I assumed the 0.084 (± 0.025) mm/yr/yr is the year on year increase and built a spreadsheet. So no, I did not divide by 2. I never thought of applying 1/2at^2 + vt to a sea level rise prediction. And yes... I prefer imperial to metric.

I understand that this is complexity on complexity. I struggle with saying here's the one average number for the planet. Like there is such a thing. Winter, spring, summer, fall, night time, daytime all occurring at different parts at the same time... seems impossible to me that we can know that one representative temperature for anything.

Good info on thermal expansion. Thanks.

Last edited:

#### Orangecat

##### Diamond Member
Seriously ? If you don’t believe in evolution you would not understand why vaccines need to be changed frequently to adapt to organisms that do adapt faster then we do.
To climate change? You're all over the map here, kid.

Deniers have the useless idiot response, .“gee, we know it changeS.”
By definition, they aren't denying it, then.
I’m sure you’ve been told this but, we’ll try one more time so you can forget it again. It’s the rate of change that’s increasing due to AGW; what took thousands of years, now happened in the last 100 years. enough said. Don’t ask again.
Hide under your bed if it scares you so much. Adults can see right through your political scam.

#### ReinyDays

##### Gold Member
I assumed the 0.084 (± 0.025) mm/yr/yr is the year on year increase and built a spreadsheet. So no, I did not divide by 2. I never thought of applying 1/2at^2 + vt to a sea level rise prediction. And yes... I prefer imperial to metric.
That should have worked ... [shrugs shoulders] ... maybe Excel is lying to you ...

I understand that this is complexity on complexity. I struggle with saying here's the one average number for the planet. Like there is such a thing. Winter, spring, summer, fall, night time, daytime all occurring at different parts at the same time... seems impossible to me that we can know that one representative temperature for anything.

Good info on thermal expansion. Thanks.
These are just the known complexities ... there's much about our atmosphere we don't know ... research continues ...

We have two representative temperatures for everything ... one for 1880-1949 and another for 1950-2019 ... pick any airport in the USA and divide the temperature data in half ... a hognog of each quibbly will show a rise ... the definition of global warming ... imperial is for losers, US Standard is always best ...

#### Dagosa

##### Gold Member
Seriously ? If you don’t believe in evolution you would not understand why vaccines need to be changed frequently to adapt to organisms that do adapt faster then we do.
To climate change? You're all over the map here, kid.

Deniers have the useless idiot response, .“gee, we know it changeS.”
By definition, they aren't denying it, then.
I’m sure you’ve been told this but, we’ll try one more time so you can forget it again. It’s the rate of change that’s increasing due to AGW; what took thousands of years, now happened in the last 100 years. enough said. Don’t ask again.
Hide under your bed if it scares you so much. Adults can see right through your political scam.
I see you can’t refute anything. Just babble.

#### Dagosa

##### Gold Member
Seriously ? If you don’t believe in evolution you would not understand why vaccines need to be changed frequently to adapt to organisms that do adapt faster then we do.
To climate change? You're all over the map here, kid.

Deniers have the useless idiot response, .“gee, we know it changeS.”
By definition, they aren't denying it, then.
I’m sure you’ve been told this but, we’ll try one more time so you can forget it again. It’s the rate of change that’s increasing due to AGW; what took thousands of years, now happened in the last 100 years. enough said. Don’t ask again.
Hide under your bed if it scares you so much. Adults can see right through your political scam.

#### Orangecat

##### Diamond Member
I see you can’t refute anything. Just babble.
Your babble deserves mockery, not refute. Try smarter next time, dope.

#### Orangecat

##### Diamond Member
Sure thing, dunce. Enjoy the next four years of Trump and try not to wet yourself whenever the wind blows.

#### alang1216

##### Pragmatist
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 ...
Gee, maybe we should give solar panels to people who actually use electricity! No one would have thought of that.
So you believe people who don't use electricity are the ones responsible for a 1 billion ton per year per year increase in carbon emissions?

C'mon man.
Do they burn wood, coal, or gas? How do they cook their food or heat their homes?
Why? Are you offering to pay for their solar?
Sure.

#### alang1216

##### Pragmatist
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.
So I am curious... do you believe you even understand the problem and what should be done about it real terms?

If so, can you tell me how you would solve the problem?
The first thing we need to do is get our heads out of our butts and face facts. I'd guess there is no simple solution since it is a complex problem. We need to find the low-hanging fruit and continue to explore more dramatic solutions.
The first thing people - who are trying to solve a problem that doesn't exist - need to do is to be honest about what the problem is. Something I have yet heard anyone from your "camp" do. The second thing people - who are trying to solve a problem that doesn't exist - need to do is to be honest about the solution. Also something I have yet heard anyone from your "camp" do. Now the only reason that I can think of why they haven't done those things is because if they do those things, people like yourself who support solving a problem that doesn't exist would actually start to question what they have been told.
I always question what I'm told. For instance, you have not provided convincing evidence so I question your statements.
Do you deny that the increases in CO2 emissions is coming from the less developed, poorer regions of the world?

View attachment 406132

View attachment 406133

View attachment 406134
Looks like it.
So... what's the problem?
It's called global warming, not local warming in a foreign country that wouldn't affect me here.

#### alang1216

##### Pragmatist
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.
So I am curious... do you believe you even understand the problem and what should be done about it real terms?

If so, can you tell me how you would solve the problem?
The first thing we need to do is get our heads out of our butts and face facts. I'd guess there is no simple solution since it is a complex problem. We need to find the low-hanging fruit and continue to explore more dramatic solutions.
The first thing people - who are trying to solve a problem that doesn't exist - need to do is to be honest about what the problem is. Something I have yet heard anyone from your "camp" do. The second thing people - who are trying to solve a problem that doesn't exist - need to do is to be honest about the solution. Also something I have yet heard anyone from your "camp" do. Now the only reason that I can think of why they haven't done those things is because if they do those things, people like yourself who support solving a problem that doesn't exist would actually start to question what they have been told.
I always question what I'm told. For instance, you have not provided convincing evidence so I question your statements.
Do you deny that the population growth is occurring in the less developed regions of the world?

View attachment 406129
Cause or correlation? No idea.
Really? You don't understand the simple concept that every person has a carbon footprint?

This is you being dishonest.
We all have carbon footprints but I don't know that it is the number of people that is the problem so much as how they live. If we each cut our individual carbon footprint in 1/2 but doubled our population there would be no additional carbon emitted.

#### alang1216

##### Pragmatist
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.
So I am curious... do you believe you even understand the problem and what should be done about it real terms?

If so, can you tell me how you would solve the problem?
The first thing we need to do is get our heads out of our butts and face facts. I'd guess there is no simple solution since it is a complex problem. We need to find the low-hanging fruit and continue to explore more dramatic solutions.
The first thing people - who are trying to solve a problem that doesn't exist - need to do is to be honest about what the problem is. Something I have yet heard anyone from your "camp" do. The second thing people - who are trying to solve a problem that doesn't exist - need to do is to be honest about the solution. Also something I have yet heard anyone from your "camp" do. Now the only reason that I can think of why they haven't done those things is because if they do those things, people like yourself who support solving a problem that doesn't exist would actually start to question what they have been told.
I always question what I'm told. For instance, you have not provided convincing evidence so I question your statements.
Do you deny that the population growth is occurring in the less developed regions of the world?

View attachment 406129
Cause or correlation? No idea.

.

Still no idea?
It's not that simple. If you look at the per capita carbon emissions of every nation on earth, none are the same:

#### alang1216

##### Pragmatist
Gee, maybe we should give solar panels to people who actually use electricity! No one would have thought of that.
And throw everyone who isn't using electricity under the bus? ... heartless and cold, like a snowflake ...
First you had a problem aiding people who don't use electricity and now you have a problem aiding people who do use electricity. Talk about heartless and cold.

#### ReinyDays

##### Gold Member
First you had a problem aiding people who don't use electricity and now you have a problem aiding people who do use electricity. Talk about heartless and cold.
I'm fine with the carbon missions ... let the free market decide ... nothing in the science says we need to curtail burning fossil fuels ... give everyone all the electricity they can afford ...

It is you who advocate robbing the poor of their future ...

#### alang1216

##### Pragmatist
First you had a problem aiding people who don't use electricity and now you have a problem aiding people who do use electricity. Talk about heartless and cold.
I'm fine with the carbon missions ... let the free market decide ... nothing in the science says we need to curtail burning fossil fuels ... give everyone all the electricity they can afford ...

It is you who advocate robbing the poor of their future ...
No one's future is in fossil fuels. It's kinda in the name.

#### Dagosa

##### Gold Member
Seriously ? If you don’t believe in evolution you would not understand why vaccines need to be changed frequently to adapt to organisms that do adapt faster then we do.
To climate change? You're all over the map here, kid.

Deniers have the useless idiot response, .“gee, we know it changeS.”
By definition, they aren't denying it, then.
I’m sure you’ve been told this but, we’ll try one more time so you can forget it again. It’s the rate of change that’s increasing due to AGW; what took thousands of years, now happened in the last 100 years. enough said. Don’t ask again.
Hide under your bed if it scares you so much. Adults can see right through your political scam.
Yes, climate change is related to evolution. Unfortunately, Trump with his Neanderthal limited cranial capacity hasn’t evolved enough to get it. This is the guy who disses science, then gets free socialized medical care from the science based treatments to recover. Talk about being all over the map. His supporters are delusional at best and a biological threat to every sane person at worse.

Just like after Bush fiasco, just lose the election, move aside,hide in your closet and let the educated people take over and SYA or save your ass again.

Replies
33
Views
120
Replies
7
Views
43
Replies
295
Views
1K
Replies
23
Views
123
Replies
117
Views
823
Replies
73
Views
283