Rising Sea Level Threatening Coastal Areas

[code1211]

Based off of what?

If they predicted a sea level rise of 5 feet in 100 years, that would be a pretty good base to start from.

 

[code1211]

Because it was sarcasm... pretty obviously.

Sorry.

Missed your meaning.

 

[code1211]

Core samples, tide gauge readings, and, most recently, satellite measurements tell us that over the past century, the Global Mean Sea Level (GMSL) has risen by 4 to 8 inches (10 to 20 centimeters). However, the annual rate of rise over the past 20 years has been 0.13 inches (3.2 millimeters) a year, roughly twice the average speed of the preceding 80 years.

Sea Level Rise -- National Geographic

There is strong evidence that global sea level is now rising at an increased rate and will continue to rise during this century.

While studies show that sea levels changed little from AD 0 until 1900, sea levels began to climb in the 20th century.

The two major causes of global sea-level rise are thermal expansion caused by the warming of the oceans (since water expands as it warms) and the loss of land-based ice (such as glaciers and polar ice caps) due to increased melting.

Records and research show that sea level has been steadily rising at a rate of 1 to 2.5 millimeters (0.04 to 0.1 inches) per year since 1900.

This rate may be increasing. Since 1992, new methods of satellite altimetry (the measurement of elevation or altitude) indicate a rate of rise of 3 millimeters (0.12 inches) per year.

Is sea level rising?

On 24 June, they reported in Nature Climate Change that since 1980, sea-level rise between Cape Hatteras, North Carolina, and Boston, Massachusetts, has accelerated to between 2 and 3.7 millimetres per year. That is three to four times the global average, and it means the coast could see 20–29 centimetres of sea-level rise on top of the metre predicted for the world as a whole by 2100

North Carolina Sea Level Rises Despite State Senators: Scientific American

I find this to be a tad confusing.

The globe warmed by about 0.4 degrees from the year zero to the year 1000. It warmed by about 0.3 degrees from the year 1000 to the year 2000.

The experts attempting to gin up concern say that the warming currently is causing sea levels to rise. The warming previously did not? Is the ice of the world selective in which millennium it chooses to melt? It seems that if ice melts due to increased temperatures in one millennium, it should melt due to increased temperatures in another millennium as well.

Is there a link somewhere detailing the fundamental changes in the free will of glacial ice? It's resolve to stay frozen?

Why did warming not melt ice in the past and yet does so today and will also in the future?

View attachment 67152929View attachment 67152930

 

[longview]

If they predicted a sea level rise of 5 feet in 100 years, that would be a pretty good base to start from.

It is worse than that, they predicted a five foot rise by 2100, 87 years from now.
To get to that level in that time frame, the slope of the increase would have to increase
by 6 times the current rate.

 

[code1211]

It is worse than that, they predicted a five foot rise by 2100, 87 years from now.
To get to that level in that time frame, the slope of the increase would have to increase
by 6 times the current rate.

I am not a scientist and don't pretend to be. That said, at some point, obvious and observable reality has to be brought to bear on this outrageous and preposterous, unfounded and illogical basket of tripe that comprises the notion of AGW.

If something is not happening right now, has never happened in the past and has no chance of happening in the future, why do the Diehards accept it without question and point to their source attribution as if it makes the fantasy into reality?

Peter Pan science. "Clap your hands, kids! We can save Tink!"

 

[Threegoofs]

You are challenging real world actual performance reflected by actual historical data with a delusion and prediction of something that has not happened, will not happen and never did happen.

See the difference? I'm talking about the real world as defined by the data of the real scientists in real studies and you are talking about the AGW Bizzaro World as defined by the whackos who prefer delusion to observation.

Thanks for the great example of the turd in your sandbox.

What was being discussed was a Sci Am article and the sourcing of the quote. Longview pretended that the data was bad. You, and others, pretended that they used the wrong baseline for rise, and someone else came up with numbers from a seperate part of the article when talking about a different part and said that shows it is 'disreputable'.

I merely showed that what the Sci Am article did was faithfully report the conclusions of several scientific papers. Now you are going on about delusion and prediction (which was the entire ****ing point of the article - predicting sea rise in 2100) and pretending that actual scientists live in a bizarroworld where guys like you who deny there is even a consensus in the science (!) are somehow the logical ones.

Big turd in sandbox, and you keep burying it again every time we throw it out.

 

[code1211]

Thanks for the great example of the turd in your sandbox.

What was being discussed was a Sci Am article and the sourcing of the quote. Longview pretended that the data was bad. You, and others, pretended that they used the wrong baseline for rise, and someone else came up with numbers from a seperate part of the article when talking about a different part and said that shows it is 'disreputable'.

I merely showed that what the Sci Am article did was faithfully report the conclusions of several scientific papers. Now you are going on about delusion and prediction (which was the entire ****ing point of the article - predicting sea rise in 2100) and pretending that actual scientists live in a bizarroworld where guys like you who deny there is even a consensus in the science (!) are somehow the logical ones.

Big turd in sandbox, and you keep burying it again every time we throw it out.

Again, the only proof for your case exists in things that don't happen in the real world.

That some of this "proof" is presented by those that you can cite and annotate does not reduce the utterly baseless and fanciful qualities of their claims. A sea level rise of 5 feet before the year 2100, 87 years from now, especially noting that the sea level actually decreased for a couple years recently, is ridiculous.

I don't need to understand everything about why a rotting fish rots to know that the thing stinks while it's happening. All you need to do is stand back a little from the alter and take a critical look at what is being said to know it's rubbish.

 

[Threegoofs]

I don't need to understand everything about why a rotting fish rots to know that the thing stinks while it's happening. All you need to do is stand back a little from the alter and take a critical look at what is being said to know it's rubbish.

As you said, you are not a scientist.

But somehow you feel justified in telling the National Academy of Sciences that they are wrong because they don't understand science.

A bizarre position, I'd say.

 

[code1211]

As you said, you are not a scientist.

But somehow you feel justified in telling the National Academy of Sciences that they are wrong because they don't understand science.

A bizarre position, I'd say.

I'm saying nothing of the sort. What I am saying is that those who mindlessly support AGW have a great many inconsistencies to explain.

One might suppose that if the inconsistencies exist, and they do, that an impartial review of the evidence might consider these to be problems. The reason this is not even a scientific hypothesis is that the inconsistencies are so strong in opposition to the stated conclusion that the conclusion is baseless.

To believe this, you must cherry pick the data that supports it, ignore the data that does not, ignore the models that are consistently wrong and ignore the real world that is actually cooling, along with the ocean, and demand that only those bits that are in support be accepted.

This is not the way real science works and that is why the notion of AGW is not able to produce the results that real science produces.

At some point, even the most ardent disciple must start to look at the real world and wonder why the real world is not acting as it should. You should try this.

 

[Threegoofs]

I'm saying nothing of the sort. What I am saying is that those who mindlessly support AGW have a great many inconsistencies to explain.

.

So what about those who support AGW who have a deep understanding of science?

Like most of the worlds major scientific organization and virtually all climate scientists. It's pretty clear that the closer you are to the science, the more you believe AGW is real.

Yet somehow, you think the issue is with people who 'mindlessly' support AGW.

I'm sure you put me in that category, but I can assure you that I used both my scientific training and knowledge as well as my understanding of how science works, to arrive at my conclusion. It wasn't mindless, and it certainly wasn't political. I think your thinking is clouded by both.

 

[code1211]

So what about those who support AGW who have a deep understanding of science?

Like most of the worlds major scientific organization and virtually all climate scientists. It's pretty clear that the closer you are to the science, the more you believe AGW is real.

Yet somehow, you think the issue is with people who 'mindlessly' support AGW.

I'm sure you put me in that category, but I can assure you that I used both my scientific training and knowledge as well as my understanding of how science works, to arrive at my conclusion. It wasn't mindless, and it certainly wasn't political. I think your thinking is clouded by both.

Then present the proof that eliminates the doubt.

I don't have any ulterior motives. I will not profit by the acceptance or rejection of this. I am not running for office and will neither receive not lose any funding with the acceptance or the rejection of this.

It is simply nonsensical to accept it. Prove that the current changes in climate, both warming and cooling are caused by CO2. You have not done so yet. If you can, I will reverse again and once again become a proponent instead of a doubter.

Because I made the arguments in the past that you present now, I am familiar with most and they simply don't answer the questions.

I am not saying the AGW cannot be happening. I am only saying that the proof that it actually is happening does not exist. The proof that climate has changed in the past and is changing still is plentiful. It is the current causation that is in question.

You are free to proceed in the presentation of proof.

 

[code1211]

As you said, you are not a scientist.

But somehow you feel justified in telling the National Academy of Sciences that they are wrong because they don't understand science.

A bizarre position, I'd say.

By the by, I'm not saying that they are wrong. I am only saying that they have yet to prove their assertion.

They apparently agree or they would have posted a hypothesis or elevated this to a theory by now. They have not because they cannot.

They will hold the girl's hand, but will not propose. They just aren't sure.

 

[Threegoofs]

By the by, I'm not saying that they are wrong. I am only saying that they have yet to prove their assertion.

They apparently agree or they would have posted a hypothesis or elevated this to a theory by now. They have not because they cannot.

They will hold the girl's hand, but will not propose. They just aren't sure.

LOL. You think someone needs to chisel a stone that contains the word 'theory' for it to be real? You clearly dont understand the basic philosphy of science if you think they do not have hypotheses (there are literally thousands in this field) and have proven enough to develop a quite elaborate theory. Its all summarized in the IPCC. Read it sometime. But you might want to take an introductory science course where they cover basic philosphy first.

 

[code1211]

LOL. You think someone needs to chisel a stone that contains the word 'theory' for it to be real? You clearly dont understand the basic philosphy of science if you think they do not have hypotheses (there are literally thousands in this field) and have proven enough to develop a quite elaborate theory. Its all summarized in the IPCC. Read it sometime. But you might want to take an introductory science course where they cover basic philosphy first.

Lots of words and not a fact among them.

And, yes, I do think that a scientist needs to do the work of a scientist according to the principles of science and be judged by the standards of science if he is to have any credibility as a scientist.

A doctor may have performed many surgeries based on a new idea that he has developed, but every patient dies every time he tries out the new idea, he may have reason to reassess his new idea and try to find out where he missed the boat.

In the "Science" of AGW, every idea produces another failed attempt at success and these failed attempts only seem to reinforce the belief of those that are the true believers.

I don't really care what the dreams and fantasies of the promotors of the scam are. I want to see the real proof reflected by the real world examples. There are none. At least, you have presented none.

The lack of evidence from you makes me question why you are such a strong proponent.

 

[Threegoofs]

And you've totally avoided any points I've made on my last post.

I'm sure you'll be repeating your nonsensical 'What organization says its a Theory?' talking point again soon.

 

[Lord of Planar]

And you've totally avoided any points I've made on my last post.

I'm sure you'll be repeating your nonsensical 'What organization says its a Theory?' talking point again soon.

This, from an armchair quarterback playing fantasy science?

How about learning enough of these sciences to present real arguments, instead of stats?

 

[Threegoofs]

This, from an armchair quarterback playing fantasy science?

How about learning enough of these sciences to present real arguments, instead of stats?

Apparently you can't read posts either.

My post was about the definition of theory.

Yours is about some unrelated ad hominem.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Apparently you can't read posts either.

My post was about the definition of theory.

Yours is about some unrelated ad hominem.

And wrong as usual.

 

[Threegoofs]

And wrong as usual.

Chess pieces knocked over. Crap all over the board. When will you fly home?

 

[Lord of Planar]

Chess pieces knocked over. Crap all over the board. When will you fly home?

Yes, we all know that nobody housebroke your avatar. You need not point out the obvious.

 

[code1211]

Apparently you can't read posts either.

My post was about the definition of theory.

Yours is about some unrelated ad hominem.

Your ramble with regard to theory was not a definition from a recognized scientific source. Saying, "It's a theory because I said it's a theory" just isn't all that scientific.

Here's one that is actually from a real live science organization. What you made up does not address any of the salient points of the construction of a Scientific Hypothesis.

http://biology.duke.edu/rausher/HYPOTHES.pdf